Slashdot Mirror


New Terminator 3 Trailer Released

An anonymous reader writes "Sony has just released a fantastic Terminator 3 trailer on the Apple trailer site. After several ho hum WB trailers I was feeling like this movie was going to be a re-tread, but the Sony trailer really raised my blood temperature. Also I checked out the official Terminator 3 website. Although it's flash only (major sin), it is full of good stuff. The time travel forum could use a bit of filling out."

457 comments

  1. lets hope by REBloomfield · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the story doesn't get ruined by too much plot leakage. T2 would have been great if you didn't know that arnie was the good guy.....

    1. Re:lets hope by blancolioni · · Score: 4, Funny

      Somehow I managed to be unaware of Arnie's nature before I saw the movie (I must have been spending less time on the internet back then), so the part where he says "Get down" was brilliant.

      It was strange that the marketing didn't try to keep it a secret, since the movie itself went to some trouble to make things ambiguous.

      In other news, it appears that even killer she-bots from the future like to keep their modesty intact with carefully positioned hair. I think that's funny.

    2. Re:lets hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you just love those "carefully positioned hair"?
      BECAUSE I DON'T

    3. Re:lets hope by DarthVdr · · Score: 1

      Arnie was the good guy?!?!?
      woa... *now* the movie makes sense!!! ;-)$

      --
      --DV
      In this day it is safer to be a ninja than a samurai
    4. Re:lets hope by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Yeah that IS strange. Sometimes I think it's because our American friends aren't ready for naked women yet, but then again sometimes I see naked women in movies, so... I'm not sure what's up?

    5. Re:lets hope by blancolioni · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sometimes I think it's because our American friends aren't ready for naked women yet

      So how do they make new Americans then?

    6. Re:lets hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, but its a curse that the world has to bear.

    7. Re:lets hope by jvmatthe · · Score: 0

      Um, factories. Yeesh, you non-Americans know very little about modern conveniences.

      Sometimes I worry that some people around here got a little bit of alcohol into their blood surrogate.

    8. Re:lets hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So how do they make new Americans then?

      We import them. :)

    9. Re:lets hope by NedTheNerd · · Score: 1
      where the hell did that Quote come from!?

      in WW2 the favorite quote of the england was

      "the damn americans are over sexed over paid and over here!" :p

    10. Re:lets hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do they make new Americans then?

      With their light turned off

    11. Re:lets hope by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      It's easy really, we liberate citizens from other countries.

    12. Re:lets hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So how do they make new Americans then?

      They cross the border from Mexico.

    13. Re:lets hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T2 was a boring movie for anything but the technology (graphics). T3 is essentially wizard vs machine. It's lost any pretense of being sci-fi. They're going to have to have some extremely contrived scenes in order to have Arnold win.

    14. Re:lets hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Initially, marketing did try to keep it a secret. The idea that he was the good guy was phased in slowly. They've got a snippet about that on the T-2 Extreme DVD coming out in June.

    15. Re:lets hope by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Funny
      "the damn americans are over sexed over paid and over here!"

      To which the appropriate reply was, "The English are undersexed, underpaid, and under Eisenhower!"

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    16. Re:lets hope by Cplus · · Score: 1

      You're supposed to put quotes around "liberate".

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    17. Re:lets hope by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      exactly-

      Imagine how awesome it would have been in SW EP1 if you hadn't seen Darth Maul's dual blade lightsabre weapon in the preview.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    18. Re:lets hope by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      In the dark, obviously...

  2. Apple has done wonders! by aarondyck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't it great that we have a company like Apple Computer that will publish (freely, I might add) trailers for movies? In a time when we see an increasing push to capitalize on every possible stream of revenue it makes me happy to see a single company that puts something on the market for free...of course, if you don't have their proprietary software, you're screwed...

    1. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Trogre · · Score: 1

      ... or mplayer

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    2. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Saeger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, it certainly is nice of Apple not to charge for their movie advertisements. I feel so guilty not paying for the hype.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:Apple has done wonders! by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its also too bad not all trailers are savable. Sometimes I have to root through the browser cashe, and sometimes it still isn't anywhere to be found. Yes I tell quicktime to cashe whenever possible. Anyone know how I can save any quicktime movie from a page? I remember the years before apple.com hosted the trailers and there were sites devoted to serving trailers. These sites had no problem letting me save the trailers.

    4. Re:Apple has done wonders! by ramzak2k · · Score: 1, Interesting

      oh how altruistic, NOT !
      They figure that the expense is worth the initiative it might provide for users to download windows version of their software. If it werent for trailors, i wouldnt have Quicktime bloatware on my machine.

      --

      Siggy Say, Siggy Do
    5. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Saeger · · Score: 5, Informative
      A certain Anonymous Coward already pointed out that you just have to view the HTML source and then prefix the letter 'm' before the resolution in the filename. (Or you can pay for the Pro version, which lets you Save As...)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    6. Re:Apple has done wonders! by chrisseaton · · Score: 1

      I think that's hugely unfair. Quicktime is not bloated at all. It consumes a mere 1.7 MB on my system - compare that to 37 MB for RealPlayer and 17 MB for MediaPlayer.

    7. Re:Apple has done wonders! by aarondyck · · Score: 1

      While Quicktime may not be bloatware it has one distinct disadvantage: It is a resource hog. I find that of the media I use (I don't use Real at all), QT is the slowest. It is also quite annoying in that it doesn't conform to the API that most Windows users have come to expect: I use both Mac and PC clients on a regular basis, and I have found that while QT runs well on MacOS it is very unstable and sluggish under a Windows environment.

    8. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      or you can warez the full version ED2K Link here

    9. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's unfair. It's typical /. nerdism at its worst.

      Quicktime isn't open source, therefore in the eyes of /. it's bloated, poorly coded, insecure, and a threat to the survival of mankind.

      The fact that it is an order of magnitude better than the alternatives seems to be irrelevant. The fact that it supports the open MPEG standards is also apparently irrelevant.

    10. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Tha_Zanthrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this makes no sense.
      sure it's free! why should you pay for getting advertisements?

    11. Re:Apple has done wonders! by GothChip · · Score: 0

      of course, if you don't have their proprietary software, you're screwed...

      Which they quite happily provide for free.

    12. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. screwd it up try this link to thred

    13. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Cheesy+Fool · · Score: 1

      and an x86 machine.

      --

      Hail to the king, baby!
    14. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Inda · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. As if that forum isn't slow enough as it is...

      I can't visit the site from work. Maybe someone could post the URL without HTML encoding

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    15. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, MPlayer still uses the Windows Quicktime libraries for recent codecs, like Sorensen3. So, yes, you still rely on Apple's proprietary (though free beer) software, as well as an x86 machine. Maybe MPlayer on PPC will be able to use the Mac OS libraries, but I haven't heard of that.

    16. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Trogre · · Score: 1

      While it is true you have to use the qt codecs you are not bound by the horrible QuickTime player application. I mean is Full-screen viewing really that much to ask for?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    17. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently yes.

    18. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree MPlayer is superior. I don't know if it's an indication of the deep crapulence of Win98, or the Windows Quicktime player, or what, but it can't play the huge (1000x540) Matrix trailer without dropping approximately 70% of the frames on my Duron 800 machine. MPlayer on GNU/Linux, on the other hand, can play the same movie while only dropping some frames at the certain spots, even though it uses exactly the same video decoder (Sorensen Video 3 from the Windows Quicktime library). It's very strange. I have to assume it's a problem with Quicktime on Windows, since other video and game applications run fine on Win98.

    19. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The xvid version of the matrix trailer plays fullscreen smooth as butter.

      Get it off edonkey. here's the jigle link

    20. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Mplayer is a nice PLAYER, but QuickTime is a whole different kind of application. I do agree that the Windows version is a bit crappy, performance-wise. I think it may be time to upgrade your Duron 800, though - that's a pretty feeble chip for heavy tasks like video. Played just fine on my tired old PowerMac G4 400, it has to be said...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    21. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so does the VHS version, dufus

    22. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Informative

      In addition to the aforementioned "m" trick, you can also find a copy of the movie in "/tmp/501/Temporary Items" if you are running OS X. It only stores it there while the Quicktime plugin is still loaded though, so be sure to load the video in your browser, then you can copy the file from that directory. Also, you must use Terminal to get to that directory, as Finder hides "/tmp" from view.

      The filename will be QTPluginTemp[random numbers], with no extension. Just "mv filename ~/t3.mov" or "cp filename ~/t3.mov" to get it into your home directory.

    23. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I'm not creating videos, just watching them. And I've never seen one that big before. For comparision, playing other high quality (640x272) Quicktime videos, like the Animatrix shorts only uses about 30% of the CPU time, and DVD playing (720x480) is similar. DVD quality is good enough for me, since I only have a 17" monitor and cheap stereo sound.

      I'm not planning on building a home theater any time soon, so I think I'll stick with my Duron, despite other Slashdotters looking down their noses at me. This machine also does just fine for the (admittedly somewhat venerable) 3D games I play. I'm sure we all wish we had Mac hardware (actually, I would probably get a PowerPC based machine if I had money to burn), but that doesn't warrant the typical Mac snobbishness.

    24. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      but if you've got a Duron, then you could just swap it out for one of the now inredibly cheap Athlon or Athlon XP chips. Shit man, they're GIVING them away at today's prices!

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    25. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe I will. I just haven't needed more speed yet.

    26. Re:Apple has done wonders! by alernon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I hate downloading that free version of their software to watch a movie that can be played on almost any platform. Now, I don't have a linux box, but it's been pointed out by several people on slashdot that there is software available that will play quicktime movies for those boxes.

      I'm so sick of seeing comments like this whenever a new movie trailer comes out. Its quicktime because its on Apples effin site and its a good way to promote quicktime technologies which they would like to see adopted because its their job to make effin money. If you don't like quicktime then /don't watch the trailer/. Jeez, you people act like their taking away your first amendment rights.

    27. Re:Apple has done wonders! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      You forget one: It also has a shitty user interface. Sure, the media player metaphore is cute. But what about usability? What the fsck do all those unlabeled buttons do??

    28. Re:Apple has done wonders! by ianjk · · Score: 1

      ...of course, if you don't have their proprietary software, you're screwed...


      yeah.. I have to drop my resolution to 800X600 to play any qt video, and restart my box after it is done to get it to function at a normal (microsoft) level afterwards.

    29. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like you have bigger problems with your system. I never have to do anything like that on any of my pc's. Maybe you should learn how to use your system before blaming someone else.

    30. Re:Apple has done wonders! by dr00g911 · · Score: 1
      Or you can look at the page's source and CURL the url of your choice.

      curl -O http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a5178 5e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_480.mov


      For example.

      Then again, $30 ain't too bad to pay to have a really nice MPEG4 codec at my disposal (and Sorenson, for that matter), in addition to having one of the best media swiss army knives in existence for conversion between formats.
    31. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      We bitch because its annoying as hell. Fugly and unusuable UI - adds icons and system tray crap all over the place, and has that stupid "upgrade to full" message. I want a player to play movies and nothing else. Well, maybe some file operations.

      My OS has a fine skin - use that. Every other app has a frigin maximize button that actually does something productive. And I don't care who you are - on my winbox, its my fscking system tray. Stay the fsck out unless I tell you to.

    32. Re:Apple has done wonders! by ianjk · · Score: 1

      System runs fine, the only time I have ever had to restart it is due to quicktime breaking it, or to boot into linux. Fresh install of win2k didn't fix it, or reinstall of QT.

    33. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, Apple didn't make any motion pictures. Or maybe they are making a bid for Paramount now?

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    34. Re:Apple has done wonders! by Pathwalker · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want a simpler interface, you can download one.

      It even comes with source code...

    35. Re:Apple has done wonders! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's neat. Kudos

  3. Bitorrent by rf0 · · Score: 1

    Anyone got it on bitorrent yet?

    rus

    1. Re:Bitorrent by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hey, come on, apples servers don't get hit that bad usually(ever) when a new trailer hits, at least for long enough to getting it to torrent.

      currently the servers were fast enough to watch it straight, streaming(large, their server fast enough to push 700kb/s to finland..), so no real worries there.

      plus, it's t3, not matrix..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Bitorrent by RPoet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the torrent is here.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    3. Re:Bitorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please dont link directly to torrentse.cx

      The admin will kill the file on the tracker then. He did it with Matrix 2 also and I have to add that I do understand it.

    4. Re:Bitorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats the difference, everyone blocks the ads anyway

    5. Re:Bitorrent by zurab · · Score: 1

      The Matrix trailer was hosted on AOL servers, this one is served from Akamai. It has nothing to do with Apple - other than probably they (along with the studios) are paying for the bandwidth. Akamai routes/serves more bandwidth per day than /. has in its lifetime.

      It's true though - this one is a lower quality, nothing like the Matrix trailer.

    6. Re:Bitorrent by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      Hehe, what a domain name.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
  4. noooo!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you win again Terminator!

  5. T3 by mrpuffypants · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really want to see this movie do well and be engaging for the audience...Arnold's lost a lot of his power to newcomers like Vin Diesel, and I think that a new Terminator Movie done right could smack thme across the face and say:

    this is how and action movie should be made

    still, though....I'm a lot more excited about the matrixes than T3 :)

    1. Re:T3 by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      the T-800 will kick Neo's ass.

    2. Re:T3 by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      are you 3 years old?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    3. Re:T3 by Albinoman · · Score: 1

      Well my dad will..... ah nevermind. Im seriously wondering how Arnold is holding up for an action flick. The guy is 55.

    4. Re:T3 by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, he'll be shit, won't he? Haven't you noticed that he's been completely crap in everything since Conan the Barbarian? Cigar-chomping, Humveeeee-driving, dog-crushing twat that he is.

      I still think that Commando is one of the worst films of all time.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    5. Re:T3 by Caffeine+Pill · · Score: 1

      Matrices

    6. Re:T3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he would reply with: "You mean, 'this is how an action movie should be made. Keep practicing that English, Ahnold."

    7. Re:T3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matrices

      Done with Cross Product and Dot Products

      Brought to you by the letter: Eigen

    8. Re:T3 by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 1

      the T-800 will kick Neo's ass.

      Umm.... "There is no T-800."

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
  6. I only wonder by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    Who is the unlucky robot, who will be violently killed this time.

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
    1. Re:I only wonder by Dionysus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Probably this one

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    2. Re:I only wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Terminatrix is the sexiest tomboy beanpole on the planet!"

    3. Re:I only wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's definitely true that you don't speak French, since it's called "Français" and not "Francais".

    4. Re:I only wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My keyboard doesn't have funny buttons.

  7. Well then by carcosa30 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It certainly appears to fulfill its gatling gun quota.

    I wasn't sure what kind of flick this was going to be, like the original poster said I thought it was going to be a bit of a retread... but if a movie has gatling guns it automatically makes it about twice as good. Look at Predator for example.

    Or maybe it's just me...

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    1. Re:Well then by kinnell · · Score: 1
      but if a movie has gatling guns it automatically makes it about twice as good

      While I agree that gattling guns dramatically increase the quality of an action film, I find them a bit passe. This is a sci-fi film, and that means they can do anything within reason, so why not be a bit more inventive? Why not a gattling rocket launcher? When will we see the first railgun in a film?

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    2. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When will we see the first railgun in a film?

      You mean, besides the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie Eraser?
    3. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will we see the first railgun in a film?

      Please, don't make me remeber "Eraser"!

    4. Re:Well then by tankdilla · · Score: 1

      How about a gatling gun that lauches rockets containing mini-gatling guns?

      --

      -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    5. Re:Well then by sc00ch · · Score: 1

      Well how about a gatling gun that lauches rockets containing mini-gatling guns that launch mini rockets?

    6. Re:Well then by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      When will we see the first railgun in a film?
      Another Arnie film already beat ya there. True Lies featured a railgun in it as the gimicky plot device.

      Though Gatling rocket launchers would be cool, gatling guns in and of themselves are awesome devices. The tech's been around for about 150 years with truly minimal changes. They put a lot of ammo in an area in a small amount of time, and look awesome while doing so. Such things lead up to tech that Just Works, and I don't think we're going to see any change in that for a very long while.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    7. Re:Well then by borgboy · · Score: 1

      Didnt we see handheld railguns in Eraser?

      --
      meh.
    8. Re:Well then by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      There was a railgun in Eraser, also starring Arnie. There was some nonsense in the dialogue about it firing projectiles at the speed of light. Funnily enough though, Arnie's arm doesn't recoil into orbit when he fires it.

    9. Re:Well then by cehf2 · · Score: 1
      Another Arnie film already beat ya there. True Lies featured a railgun in it as the gimicky plot device.
      Don't you mean Eraser?
    10. Re:Well then by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I do. And I only have the damn movie sitting not 10 feet from me. I think my brain's defective, anyone got a spare lying around?

      Course, Arnie plays so many special agents and spies and the like that they kinda all run together, ya know?

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    11. Re:Well then by forged · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's not forget the scene in Predator where Arnie and friends deforest all around them ! Longest gatling shooting scene I can remember :)

    12. Re:Well then by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      LOL! I love that film. Never saw it, but the trailer I saw said it all...

      Arnie: "I am ze iiraser. You vill be iirased."

    13. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but thats because he's like, really really strong.

      Like, whatever.

    14. Re:Well then by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      the Gattling guns aren't what makes Predator good, it's the shit-hot editing and great music combined with an Alien that doesn't speak English.

      Awesome movie, John McTiernan is great when he's on form.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    15. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miniguns, not gatling guns. There is a huge difference.

    16. Re:Well then by swb · · Score: 1

      Railgun, schmailgun.

      Contemporary military weapons are fine with me.

      Rotary multibarrel cannon? Sure, but let's see it loaded with depleted uranium rounds or high explosive/incindiery at least. And nothing smaller than the 30mm variant.

      RPG? Don't use the shitty Soviet RPG, use the Javelin. MUCH better boom -- it'll blow a T72 tank totally to pieces.

      Plain machine gun? Not some lame .30 cal, let's see Arnie hold and fire a .50 cal or even the 25mm Bushmaster.

    17. Re:Well then by Kombat · · Score: 1

      Weren't the guns in "Eraser" railguns? Wasn't the whole movie *about* those railguns? As I recall, the guns used an electromagnetic channel down the barrel of the gun to accelerate tiny pieces of aluminum to near-light speeds, causing lots of damage. The effect was a greenish beam... looked pretty cool, I thought.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    18. Re:Well then by Jahf · · Score: 1

      And if I remember the time sequence right, this is what spawned the idea of the Railgun in Quake2 (including the FX), which introduced most (not all) of the folks here to the idea.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    19. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And I only have the damn movie sitting not 10 feet from me. I think my brain's defective, anyone got a spare lying around?
      Yes, I would agree with that. Not for getting the movies confused though. It's because you have a copy of Eraser 10 feet from you. What were you thinking?
    20. Re:Well then by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      When will we see the first railgun in a film?

      Eraser had railguns.

      Oh, sure, they were far to small, but they WERE railguns. Heck, they even have the same spiral from Quake.

    21. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correction: Quake had the same spiral from Eraser.

    22. Re:Well then by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      ".. but if a movie has gatling guns it automatically makes it about twice as good. Look at Predator for example.

      Or maybe it's just me... "


      It's just you. The rest of us saw the naked chick.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    23. Re:Well then by b0neman · · Score: 1

      Screw that crap! I want the self targeting bullets from the super gun in The Fifth Element!

    24. Re:Well then by pod · · Score: 1

      The 'gatling gun' in Predator that Jesse Ventura totes around is a mini gun, and is usually mounted on a chopper or a truck frame. Certainly, no one alive could shoot it handheld with any degree of accuracy; even standing BEHIND the guy fireing one of those wouldn't be very safe.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    25. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a naked chick in Predator?!?!? Damn, gotta watch it again, must have been distracted by Ahnold's one-liners.

    26. Re:Well then by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      IIRC, there were Railguns in The 6th Day, though they might have been Gauss guns...

      jeez, must be time for me to go to San Fransisco and stock up on more caseless ammo :)

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
  8. Ya... I dunno.... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No Jim Cameron, no Linda Hamilton...

    We'll see, but I don't have my hopes too high...

    Gonna wait and see what the reviews are like before I shell out.

    N.

    --
    "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    1. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by LinuxXPHybrid · · Score: 1

      The trailer, uh, to be honest, wasn't that great. I wasn't impressed.

      In essence, T is a dark story and I think that T should be told like that. The trailer looks like, how should I put this, ...

      > No Jim Cameron, no Linda Hamilton...

      They both have shadowy side and T needs to have that. Not just T, many sci fi stories are kind of dark and shadowy. Without these aspects, sci fi just doesn't look like sci fi.

    2. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by tankdilla · · Score: 1

      I agree, it looks like it'll be worth a look, but it's not dark. The terminator chick is hot, but hot chicks don't really look like killing machines. They could've cast an attractive woman that looked more imposing. And Jon Conner looks like a bum off the street. He just looks dirty. Hopefully they were holding back on that trailer.

      --

      -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    3. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Yeah.....Carrie Anne Moss....in skin tight leather! SHE KICKS ASS! This new terminator looks....well.....too damn feminine. I ain't saying that she should look like a biker chic.....but she should at least not look like she's ready to do a Victoria Secret ad!

      --

      Gorkman

    4. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Wire+Tap · · Score: 1

      This new terminator looks....well.....too damn feminine. I ain't saying that she should look like a biker chic.....but she should at least not look like she's ready to do a Victoria Secret ad!

      Why not?

      If I were the central decision making hardware in SKYNET, I would certianly assign a high probability to the chance of a very attractive (read: desirable) female getting closer to those in charge (read: men) than a naked beef stick (read: the other Terminators).

      Or maybe I just like my women... hot?

      From the trailer, it seems like the female Terminator approaches a guy in a sports car with little problem at all. I'm fairly certian that it wouldn't work so well if the she were a he, approaching another he in a sports car.

      Think about it.

      --

      Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.

    5. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is insightful about "my hopes aren't too high"?

      JesusFrellingChrist - stupid moderators.

    6. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by TGK · · Score: 1
      I've got some plot consistancy questions... I'll just throw them out there as food for thought. Unresolved issues if you will.

      1. The Chick Terminator (whatever her model number is, I'll call her T-XX) has the same kind of "skinning" ability the T-1000 has (quick shot... watch carefully). But from the first trailer can also produce weapons internaly. What's the deal with that?
      2. I thought T-XX was designed to kill other machines. If that's the case why is she disguised as a female. The psycology thing makes sence if she's an assassin like the T-1000... but not as a machine killer
      3. Where do all the T-101s come from? I thought SkyNet just launched nukes... since when did it produce legions of super-troopers too?
      4. And the big question -- Are all these events contiguous, or is the entire End of the World part of the movie a dream sequence or somesuch?
      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    7. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that it wasn't a good idea.....but really, when Carrie Anne Moss is naked, do you think she'd look as tough? Besides I know most men would try regardless of what they looked like. Also, most females who are muscular are generally fit too so they usually look hot! ;) The new terminator, while she does look hot and fit, she just....well, looks fit in a Christina Aguilara way and not in a muscular, well developed way. I ain't saying she's ugly, it's just usually I would like to see a terminatrix look like she can possibly kick ass....not look all soft and all...unless that's just the id she chose at the time....she does look like she can morph like the other terminator in Terminator 2.

      --

      Gorkman

    8. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      1. It looks like she's only creating energy weapons (lasers, phasers, whatever) which don't need any moving parts.. just a huge energy source. Maybe she can pull energy out of the air or something?

      2. She's designed to kill people. The T-800 just gets in her way. (:

      3. Skynet can't nuke EVERYTHING, so has to have ground troops to clean up the mess.

      4. When I dream about the end of the world, I don't dream about a 2 (or 3?) star general whining about all the computer systems being offline and taken over. I think (read: hope) the whole movie takes place right AT the time that Skynet goes online. I forget the exact date mentioned in T2, but I think it takes place on that day... last ditch effort to stop Skynet, and maybe it fails and the world really does become a glowing ball of rock. (:

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    9. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      I fully agree.

      Did anyone else notice how this is being made by "C2 Pictures"? Is that a cheap shot at Carolco or what?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    10. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by jjshoe · · Score: 1

      i want to know why the female wasnt played by Sigourney Weaver now that would have made for a kick ass movie!

      --
      -- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
    11. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would like to see a terminatrix look like she can possibly kick ass....not look all soft and all...unless that's just the id she chose at the time

      Since she's a robot and doesn't have muscles in the meat sense, it's clear that looking either soft or hard is no more than decoration.

    12. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

      Because Sigourney Weaver (and/or her manager) isn't stupid.

      This movie has "bomb" written all over it. They couldn't even get the kid from T2 to return.

    13. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by jjshoe · · Score: 1

      Because Sigourney Weaver (and/or her manager) isn't stupid.

      have you seen galaxy quest? you think T3 would hurt her any? perhaps the time era this movie covers doesnt involve the kid or sarah...

      now that i've bit down on your troll i dont think its fair to judge the movie until it comes out. personaly the reason i loved t2 so much was because of the graphics and the robot mock ups..

      --
      -- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
    14. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by tbmaddux · · Score: 1
      Hopefully they were holding back on that trailer.
      Yeah, after all why would they want to show you something that makes you want to see it?

      You're right in a way, it could just be a bad trailer, but it looks to me like simply a bad movie, and the more I see of the trailers the less intrigued I am.

      OTOH, the more I see of The Matrix: Reloaded, the more intrigued I am.

      I don't have very high hopes for X:2, but the trailers for it have piqued my interest enough that I will probably go see it just to see it. They could only do that to me 9 times with Star Trek films before I stopped watching altogether (ok, maybe only 5 times, some of them were good), so they can consider themselves forewarned. I am highly discriminating!

      But T3 looks too much to me like the dying gasp of a failed franchise. Think Aliens 3. Die Hard 3. Lethal Weapon 3. Beethoven's 3rd. It's sad. Move on.

      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    15. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to admin, there most certainly are many good looking women around who also look like they could kick serious ass, in addition to looking hot.

    16. Re:Ya... I dunno.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I forget the exact date mentioned in T2

      The date mentioned is, I believe, July 15th, 1997.

      So Skynet is appearently a few years late. A small setback for a mammoth computer.

  9. Who's idea was it... by canning · · Score: 1

    To release this trailer right after the Matrix sequel is released?

    Bad timing if you ask me.

    --
    I love the smell of Karma in the morning
    1. Re:Who's idea was it... by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      X-Men 2 is Wednesday, May 2nd.
      Matrix Reloaded is Thursday, May 15 (which is odd, because most movies don't launch on a Thursday).
      Terminator 3 is coming out Wednesday, July 2nd.

      X-men 2 and Matrix Reloaded will both be clamoring for viewers. X-men 2 will open on the bigger screens in theaters when it comes out, but be moved off to the smaller screens when Matrix Reloaded comes out.

      However, Matrix Reloaded will have been out for a month and a half when T3 comes out, and a lot of the big theater chains like to pull movies right about that age. Plus, T3 is coming out 4th of July week, which is when movies really get hyped.

      Myself, I'd like to be going to Cannes on May 17th, when T3's getting it's world premiere.

    2. Re:Who's idea was it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but X-Men sucked, and therefore X-Men 2 will probably suck even more. T3 will suck, and Matrix 2 will 0wn.

      "Everything is proceeding as I have forseen".

      -1 flamebait +20 truth

    3. Re:Who's idea was it... by nanojath · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a good idea or not, I think that it is intentional. I have a certain nostalgia for the Terminator franchise that will probably get me into the theater - but the 14-17 yr olds needed for a science fiction action film to get blockbuster status were unborn when the original came out (feel... so... old...) and 3-6 years old when the sequel appeared. But they know the Matrix so the idea of hey, it's another movie about machines taking over juxtaposition may seem worthwhile.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    4. Re:Who's idea was it... by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      My mistake. May 2nd is a Friday, not a Wednesday.

  10. Direct Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's a direct link to the large version:

    T3-international-tlr_m480.mov

    You can do this yourself for the other trailers by viewing the pagesource and putting the letter 'm' before the resolution number.

    --Anonymous Karma Whore

    1. Re:Direct Link... by samael · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, what tool do you use to get that link? When I look directly at the .mov in the source, it's only a few k in size and obviously contains a redirect to the real file. What do people use to convert that?

    2. Re:Direct Link... by Pathwalker · · Score: 1

      You can just run strings on the reference file to see all of the Urls in it.

      Or, if you are feeling brave (and have a mac), you could use movie to xml to decompile it to a .qtrm source file.

    3. Re:Direct Link... by oever · · Score: 1

      Where's the Slashdot effect?

      I got this file at 6.10M/s with wget!
      But then mplayer wouldn't play it :-(.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    4. Re:Direct Link... by oever · · Score: 1

      Oops, correction: mplayer does play it with the right codecs from its site.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    5. Re:Direct Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thou cannot slashdot akamai.

    6. Re:Direct Link... by Pathwalker · · Score: 4, Informative

      As an afterthought, if anyone wants to see the decompiled version of the reference file (to see what it checks for and what it does) I've put a decompiled version here.

      Basically, it checks for old versions of QuickTime (anything before 5.0.2) and redirects them to a page telling them that they need to upgrade. Versions 5.02 and later are allowed through to the movie.

    7. Re:Direct Link... by mab · · Score: 1

      Can you give an example of how to do this? I would realy like to know.

      for example if I wanted to download the large mov file for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle I would start go to here and not show anything but an icon that wants quicktime.

      I view the source and then what? there seems to be a few refreances to mov files, from the post above you wget one (which one?) and use strings on it to find the real URL , I've tryed to no avail can you give a step by step demo to help us newbes

      thanks

    8. Re:Direct Link... by Pathwalker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ok - when you look at the page, you want to find the EMBED tag that holds the movie, so try the following command:
      curl http://www.apple.com/trailers/columbia/charliesang elsfullthrottle/large_trailer.html | grep EMBED
      Looking at the embed tag, you will see that it references two quick time movies, one as a SRC argument, and one as a HREF argument. If both are given, you want the HREF, otherwise, you want the SRC.
      here is the link from the HREF option. It is the reference file for the movie.

      Now, download it and run strings on it. You will see several instances of "url" on one line, and a url on the next line. These are the movies that the reference movie points to. Almost always, the first several will be to inform users that they have too old of a version of quick time (they usually have a quicktime version embedded in the name. ) skip over them.

      at the end of the file, you will see this: ca2_fullthrottle-tlr_m480.mov - that is the relative path to the real movie file.

      Take the URL for the reference file, and replace ca2_fullthrottle-tlr_481.mov with ca2_fullthrottle-tlr_m480.mov, and you will have this - the url for the actual movie data file.

      This technique should work, even if Apple changes their convention of just adding a m before the size of the movie, to indicate the real file.

      This also only works if the movie is being served over http. If it is over rtsp, you will need some extra tools.

      I hope this helps. If you get confused, here is a decompiled version of the reference file, so that you can see in plain text what all of the embedded urls are for.

    9. Re:Direct Link... by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      *sarcasm* yeah I'm surprised Akamai's 14.4kbps connection hasn't been stomped */sarcasm*

    10. Re:Direct Link... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      You seem to know a lot about Quicktime - some Quicktimes can't be converted to mpg because they don't allow other applicastions to read the sound - do you know a way to do this?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    11. Re:Direct Link... by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      You should be able to just export the Quicktime as an uncompressed AVI, then compress it to MPEG using your favorite MPEG encoder.

      But why would you want to do that anyhow? Your MPEG would have to be a higher bitrate than your original Quicktime.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    12. Re:Direct Link... by Picass0 · · Score: 1

      bookmark

      http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc /1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a5178 5e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_m480.mov

    13. Re:Direct Link... by samael · · Score: 1

      What's "strings"?

      Bearing in mind that I'm running a windows box here...

    14. Re:Direct Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because Akamai runs off a Verizon DSL line... fuckin dumbass.

    15. Re:Direct Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't export some Quicktimes because they have a "copyprotection" bit set (in a header which is usually compressed)

    16. Re:Direct Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link!

      --Anonymous Lazy Bum

    17. Re:Direct Link... by Pathwalker · · Score: 1

      If someone tried to protect the file against conversion to another format, Apple provides a handy tool for unprotecting it.

      It's called dumpster. It breaks down the atom structure of a quick time file, and lets you edit any aspect of it.

    18. Re:Direct Link... by daveola · · Score: 1
      Just whipped up a tool that will do all this for you.

      I wouldn't mind some feedback, especially if someone can tell me how I can determine whether a file is an actual quicktime or one of these stream files - currently the tool only handles the stream types mentioned in the post.

      debed

      --

      David Ljung Madison
      http://GetDave.com/
      http://MarginalHacks.com/

    19. Re:Direct Link... by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I've been able to do the conversion (export MOV to AVI) for any Quicktime trailer I've downloaded/saved from quicktime.apple.com, so I don't see what the deal is.

      I do have the "full" version of Quicktime, if that makes a difference.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  11. -1, Troll by Michael's+a+Jerk! · · Score: 1

    How can the first post be marked redundant? All I said was that T3 was gonna be a great movie. Well, from now on I'll shamelessly karmawhore:

    More previews are availble Here

    In Quicktime, WMP and Realplayer.

    --

    I'm not Seth.

    1. Re:-1, Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I found it pretty amusing that the FP was marked redundant, and it wasn't even a "FP" FP. The moderator who modded it redundant deserves a +1, Funny, nevertheless.

    2. Re:-1, Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's implied by the fact that it's Terminator 3 that it's gonna be a sweet movie.

    3. Re:-1, Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was marked redundant because of the username: "Michael's a jerk".

      Well, duh.

  12. Turminator by vurg · · Score: 1

    You go now or I re-arrange your organs.

  13. Hold the presses by buyo-kun · · Score: 2, Funny

    I call for an law suit against this movie, for cruelty to the time-space continuum and Artifical intellgent organisms.

  14. Link to .mov format by sosedada · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a5178 5e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_480.mov

    That took all of 10 seconds to find. Lazy, lazy.

    1. Re:Link to .mov format by sosedada · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Link to .mov format by Trogre · · Score: 2, Informative

      And yet it still doesn't work.
      You need to stick an 'm' before the '480'.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:Link to .mov format by sosedada · · Score: 1

      That's odd. I noticed the other post with the m, so I've tried my link a couple of times, each time with success.

    4. Re:Link to .mov format by sosedada · · Score: 1

      You're right, I tried it using Konqueror and it did need the m. I also noticed that on my dorky windows box, the url without the m starts downloading much faster.

  15. Same landscape as before... by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I guess people in the future are genetically engineered to be a lot more flexible, in order to better fight the machines. In fact 95% of their skeletal structure is now converted to cartilage.

    This explains why when they die and decompose, all that's left are their frikin' skulls.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Same landscape as before... by MrPoopyPants · · Score: 1

      I always figured that the machines either kept the skulls as prizes or decapitated the humans to make sure they were dead.

      *shrug*

  16. Why is Flash-only a sin? by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although it's flash only (major sin)

    Why is it a "major sin" that it is Flash only?

    The producers of this site wanted to make an impressive multi-media rich site to make people want to go see their film. The only way to really do that effectively is with Flash. The vast majority of people have the Flash plug-in, and won't really care (or even know) what format the site is in.

    Yes, the world would be a better place if multimedia web sites could be practically developed using open tools and open file formats such as SVG. But they can't. So people use Flash. Live with it.

    I still don't understand why SVG isn't default in all OSS browsers. You can complain about Flash or you can try to change the status quo. Many people in the OSS community like to complain...

    1. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 2, Funny

      Many people in the OSS community like to complain...
      You can't always generalize everything

    2. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yer a flamebaiter...

    3. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by WWE-TicK · · Score: 0

      Speaking of SVG ... I was fooling around with Adobe's SVG plug-in for MSIE the other day and it seemed somewhat ... unstable. Are there other plugins available for SVG or is Adobe's the only one we got?

    4. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Besides, the Macromedia Flash plug-in is a relatively small download--well under 1 MB! Compare that against the download you need for Windows Media Player 9.0, RealOne or QuickTime 6.0 with its 10+ MB sized downloads.

    5. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Bedouin+X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it's a "sin" in the sense of the whole point of the web to deny people content by requiring a plug in just to READ and SEE PICTURES. Some people just want to read info about the movie on their own terms without shit clicking and spinning (and SOUNDING - ARRRGH) all over the place. It would take a very small amount of time to put the contents (which on sites like this are generally relatively sparse) in a plain HTML page. Normally, once it's done it's done so there would be minimal updating required after the fact.

      I went to the site and the Flash does nothing but waste time. I click on a link and it takes 20 seconds of loading animations and whiz bang bullshit to get to what I want to see. I get there and I have to strain to read it because of the tiny ass font that I would at least be able to adjust if it were HTML.

      Sorry... I'll stop now.

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    6. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Frogbert · · Score: 0


      Why is it a "major sin" that it is Flash only?

      The producers of this site wanted to make an impressive multi-media rich site to make people want to go see their film. The only way to really do that effectively is with Flash. The vast majority of people have the Flash plug-in, and won't really care (or even know) what format the site is in.

      I care because, on a 56k modem, heaps of useless sounds and animations that I need not see are downloaded. Sounds on webpages are a bad idea in general, ever got one of those flash banner ads with the loud repetitive music? What about the blind (Granted I doubt many blind people are itching to go see this movie) flash is a bit hard to appreciate on a brail display. Not everyone is on broardband, flash is annoying and people who use it should introduce themselves to css.

    7. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't always...

      I believe that is a generalization.

    8. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by siveliini · · Score: 1

      I think the poster meant that flash only is a major sin. Using flash is not a bad idea, but you COULD offer an alternate site for people without the flash plugin. There are lot of people out there who have no possibility, no skill or no will to install a flash plugin even though they might be interested in the site contents.
      Why use neat flash to get more customers while at the same time dump possible customers?

    9. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...

      Nerds are the key audiance for these sci-fi movies.

      Nerds often tend to use OSS (like Linux, Mozilla, etc.)

      Producers better not piss-off the nerds.

      I can't see the site (nor the trailer) for some reason. Makes me wonder about not paying money to see the movie :-)

    10. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      "Producers better not piss-off the nerds"

      yeah, they might only buy THREE versions of the DVD if they do that, or maybe only see it in the cinema FIVE times. Those nerds sure are scary.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    11. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bingo?

    12. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by dabadab · · Score: 1

      Why is it a "major sin" that it is Flash only?

      It is not sin, it's just a surefire way of saying "there is no real content" OK, perhaps that's overgeneralization, since I can recall one (1) site that was all-flash yet it was worth looking at.

      And yeah, search engines have a hard time dealing with flash only sites.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    13. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Shadestalker · · Score: 1

      Blame the pointy haired bosses and marketing types who listen to the wage weenies developing the web sites (not in all cases, but mostly IMO).

      Most pixel pushers have no better bid for job security than constantly pushing for bleeding edge "content delivery" mechanisms that only they know.

      The cross-platform publishing dream that was the web has given way to the corporate IP land grab mentality that says "don't use that technology, it wasn't invented here and we can't charge them for it."

    14. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Blame the pointy haired bosses and marketing types who listen to the wage weenies developing the web sites (not in all cases, but mostly IMO).

      Most pixel pushers have no better bid for job security than constantly pushing for bleeding edge "content delivery" mechanisms that only they know.


      As much as the techie community dislikes marketeers, it is not true to say that they are stupid and don't know what they are doing. If you think that the Terminator 3 site has been developed by people that don't know what they are doing then you need to question your own judgement.

      Marketeers do market research. They do focus groups. They sit members of the general public down in front of web sites and ask "What impression does this site give you of this [product/service/movie whatever]". They listen to them. I can guarantee that the reason the Terminator 3 site is designed like that is because that is the best way to make people go see the movie.

    15. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Fastball · · Score: 1

      Further proof that people are either stupid or do not know what they want.

    16. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Because it's a "sin" in the sense of the whole point of the web to deny people content by requiring a plug in just to READ and SEE PICTURES.... It would take a very small amount of time to put the contents (which on sites like this are generally relatively sparse) in a plain HTML page."

      As an artist, I find that comment a bit short-sighted. They're trying to deliver an experience and you're saying "Na, just give me the pamphlet."

      Though I agree they could easily generate that page in HTML, I also think that negative attitude towards Flash is ridiculous. How are standards supposed to grow on the web if everybody complains that they want it in HTML?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    17. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly it's the self-styled 'artist' mentality ("But we're trying to deliver an experience here!") that 99.9% of end-users despise. Well and good for actual art sites, (I've seen some impressive flash-only experimentation) but c'mon, when people are just after some information, pictures, perhaps some media, then Flash is sheer hubris on the part of the web designer.

    18. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by jbum · · Score: 1

      >> As an artist, I find that comment a bit short-sighted. They're trying to deliver an experience and you're saying "Na, just give me the pamphlet."

      As someone who hates being bombarded with multimedia bullshit from "artists" when I'm seeking information, I found your comment a bit short-sighted as well.

      Yes, they're trying to deliver an experience, but I'd like to be in control of when I receive an "experience". Having sound and slow-loading flash animations appear when I visit a website does not give me that control.

      >> How are standards supposed to grow on the web if everybody complains that they want it in HTML?

      If everyone is complaining, perhaps we should be paying attention to the complaints. The only folks that really love Flash-based websites, as far as I can tell, are other Flash artists.

    19. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, and the companies paying the thousands of dollars for the websites which MUST be working else they'd see the loss in visitors.

      On another note, I'm sick of reading complaints from idiots who know nothing ABOUT flash.

      Ignorant comments like "at least with HTML, I can increase the font size"

      Hey Jackass! With flash you can increase ANY part of the pages size and NOT JUST text. Try that next time you're on an html page with a pic that's too small to even see! Between that, and other super moronic comments like "You can't select text in Flash" and "HTML gives the end user MORE control" Both those statements are false yet the flash naysayers keep spreading the FUD no matter the fact they don't know what they are talking about. HTML sucks on way to many levels. People who have done both AND ALSO know HOW to use Flash CORRECTLY are the ones who support Flash because they KNOW it's better. I can simply do MORE in Flash than you can with your pitiful HTML.

    20. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding me? Please explain the skill necessary to sit there and look at your pc screen as the plugin automatically installs itself from the page you are ON and not some other website where you need to visit, then FIND the plugin?!

    21. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by JTMON · · Score: 0

      Please let me know when you Flash Bashing HTML hypers can build a complete stand alone executable application using JUST HTML. What? You can't? I didn't think so.

    22. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by JTMON · · Score: 0

      >>As someone who hates being bombarded with multimedia bullshit from "artists" when I'm seeking information, I found your comment a bit short-sighted as well.

      Yes, they're trying to deliver an experience, but I'd like to be in control of when I receive an "experience". Having sound and slow-loading flash animations appear when I visit a website does not give me that control.

      So your blaming the tool used to make the site versus whatever idiot programmed it in such as way? Awesome reasoning there buddy! Don't you get that with Flash, ANYTHING you want can be controlled BY you as long as the flash programmer has put this option in?! Try that with your browser.

      >>If everyone is complaining, perhaps we should be paying attention to the complaints. The only folks that really love Flash-based websites, as far as I can tell, are other Flash artists.

      I think the AC post below pretty much summarizes the response here.

    23. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "As someone who hates being bombarded with multimedia bullshit from "artists" when I'm seeking information, I found your comment a bit short-sighted as well."

      You're not seeking information, you're seeking entertainment. And when it comes to entertainment, the content provider creates the rules. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

      I completely agree that they could have made it more accessible in this particular case, but the fact that they didn't is their own choice. If it's preventing you from viewing the content, the problem is entirely yours to solve. It's like complaining that you can't fit VHS tapes in your DVD player.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    24. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by JTMON · · Score: 0

      You people DO understand that the file format Flash outputs, is, in fact, Open source?! It's not a closed format as half the slashasses would have you believe. Also, stay away from the Adobe/Flash combo as they've been trying it for the past 5 years and suck still to this day!

    25. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by JTMON · · Score: 0

      Once again, you need to be pissed and complain about the friggin person who CREATED it. Not the damn TOOL USED!!!! Having made an entire site in flash for 2 business to business NEWSPAPERS, I can tell you that if done correctly, your damn connection won't make a friggin difference. WTF?-Do you people think that Flash somehow makes the damn content bigger than if it were placed on an HTML page?!?!?!

    26. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, Flash is installed--not just available, but installed--on about 98% of the browser base. That number is from Macromedia, but when you think about it, there's little reason to doubt it: it comes with IE and Netscape on nearly all platforms (even many boxed Linux distributions). If you want a fancy woo-woo website guaranteed to work cross-platform, you are better off doing it in Flash than you are in straight HTML.

      And yes, "why do fancy woo-woo websites" is a valid question. But in this particular case, the answer "because this is a promo site for a movie and people are definitionally at the website to see multimedia, so they can suck it up and deal with Flash" is probably a valid answer.

    27. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, now even Flash is available for tons of platforms (with support for at least Flash 4 on almost (I'm sure there are some examples of platforms that don't support it, and I say, yep, and what modern technology runs on it currently? What grade of encryption is supported? It's most likely HIGHLY antiquated or unusual equipment (or, failed products)) any modern platform you can surf the web on!

      See the current list of players and browsers supported (including 2 Flash 6 player plugins for Mozilla on Linux (1 Macromedia and 1 from mplug.org that distributes various types of Linux packages for the Macromedia distro)).

      http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alt er nates/

    28. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by (void*) · · Score: 1

      We are seeking information about entertainment. Big difference!

    29. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "We are seeking information about entertainment. Big difference! "

      Bzzt sorry. Teasers provide no information about a movie.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    30. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by danila · · Score: 1

      Hey, Anonymous Asshole, guess what happens if you have a 600x400 flash site and you zoom in 100%. Do you think that Flash content will somehow be reformated in order to accomodate new zoom level? Surprise, surprise! It won't. You will be peeking through the small window, seeing just 25% of the original page. And it doesn't matter if you have 1600x1200 monitor.

      Flash itself is not a problem. It allows resizing fonts, copying text and supposedly even has some accessibility features. Guess what is the real problem. Flash designers. Idiots that somehow forget to include this functionality or even go as far as to disable it altogether.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    31. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just learn how to us all the words in all caps, or is that just your Turrets Syndrome kicking in while you type?

    32. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Milikki · · Score: 1

      Flash only is a major sin because, regardless of what the geek minority wants you to think, most people do NOT have a broadband connection. Flash is slow, slow, god-aweful slow.

      I would rather wait for 500 spam emails to download than wade through a single flash site.

      Web developers should all have port 80 throttled to a max speed of 128k/s. Maybe we would get some decent pages that load under a minute instead of all the crap junk that takes forever to load.

      Kevin

    33. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWWHAAAA!! By your same stupid logic, why do I have to use a browser?? Why can't they just have a text file? I tried to telnet:80 and I had to deal with all this HTML crap!

    34. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by cjb110 · · Score: 1

      its basically lazy 'programming', and wastes the users time clicking through pointless animations just to get to some information.

      --
      ----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
    35. Re:Why is Flash-only a sin? by danila · · Score: 1

      Because...

      Summary: Fancy media on websites typically fails user testing. Simple text and clear photos not only communicate better with users, they also enhance users' feeling of control and thus support the Web's mission as an instant gratification environment.

      Why Complex Media Gets into Sites

      Design agencies sometimes recommend more elaborate solutions than the client really needs in order to increase their billing.

      Website managers never watch people using their websites, so they make decisions without first-hand understanding of usability. Because advanced solutions seem better intuitively, those managers are easy prey for promoters of complexity.

      Source: Low-End Media for User Empowerment, Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, April 21, 2003

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  17. [Terminator Theme Song Playing] by Freston+Youseff · · Score: 5, Funny

    Arnold: Come with me if you want to live.*
    Jon: Let's get out of here quick! The new terminator is on her way!
    Arnold: Do not worry. The new terminator is installing feminine products, this will take some time*.

    *Insert proper Austrian accent for effect.

    --

    1. Re:[Terminator Theme Song Playing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the funniest thing I have read all week. But, for some reason I don't think it will make it into the movie. It might be on the extras DVD though.

    2. Re:[Terminator Theme Song Playing] by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of someone's .sig:

      "Feminine protection? What's that, a pink flamethrower?"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:[Terminator Theme Song Playing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you bright? witty? Do you have friends that laugh at your jokes? We at lrse hosting" are looking for a select few individuals to join our ranks at the internet's premier source of wit and style.

      Do YOU have what it takes? Register TODAY and FIND OUT!!!!

  18. Can someone please explain this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why do these sites only stream their videos? Why can't they be downloaded as files? I am outside of the US and am stuck with dial-up. It is simply impossible to watch these clips through dial-up. On dial-up, streaming servers time out or the connection gets disrupted and all of your progress is simply lost.

    What is the reasoning here? Is it for purposes of control? Wouldn't trading and mirroring of these files just generate more publicity? Wouldn't it reduce the cost of bandwidth by distributing the effort accross the web?

    1. Re:Can someone please explain this? by ahaning · · Score: 1

      If you want to download streaming Windows Media, try ASFRecorder on Windows/Linux/etc.

      If it's the Quicktime video, look at the page source and look for a URL like:
      http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a5178 5e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_480.mov

      Add an m in there:

      http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a5178 5e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_m480.mov

      And there you go. Download until finished with your favorite web browser or http retrieval program and watch with your favorite media player which has Quicktime capabilities.

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
  19. wget the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wget 'http://progressive.stream.aol.com/wb/gl/wbonline/ progressive/t3/t3_tlr_m480_dl.mov'

  20. Direct link to mov file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    here

    cheers,
    pol :)

  21. .mov file direct link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Direct link to the movie file for poor windows sods who are stuck with the QuickTime player (14 MB) (just in case you wanted to save that to your HD for some obscure reason (read: it sucks).

    1. Re:.mov file direct link by ThoreauHD · · Score: 1

      Thanks alot. I can't view any of this quicktime 6 shit in linux.

  22. Re:wget the movie (no space between / and p) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remove the space between / and progressive in the link above.

  23. pointless comment. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
    A terminator movie is NOT a terminator movie without good old Dr. Silberman...

    I found the whole mental institute part utterly amusing in T2.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  24. linux box here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ehhh... linux box here... can't watch quicktime plugins...

  25. Scott Peterson?!?!? by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
    Check the credits on IMDB for T3:

    http://www.imdb.com/Title?0181852

    Mark Famiglietti .... Scott Peterson

    Isn't that the guy who just murdered his wife and unborn child?

    Some cameo :P

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can one murder something that's not been born yet?

    2. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 'cause here in America we don't pay attention to things like due process.

    3. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by PissedOffGuy · · Score: 1

      how can one murder something that's not been born yet?

      i had this discussion with some coworkers. we came to the consensus that it makes sense within the current laws because the pregnant wife was in the third trimester.

    4. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very Offtopic. Which is why I'm posting AC

      In the context of Roe v Wade you can't. Maybe this DA wants to challenge Roe, maybe not. I'm not sure. Chances are he feels political pressure to really throw the book at this guy and is charging him with everything he can. I doubt Mr Peterson will be able to plee bargin down because of the publicity his case has gotten, but you can expect to see the second charge thrown out by the 9th District Court on appeals. I doubt the State will push that hard for it after that.

      --Killfile(TGK)

    5. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 0

      I believe under California law, the death of an unborn child is murder if it occurs in during an assault on the mother. So the mother does not have to die for the death to be considered murder (though we know that this is not true in the Laci Peterson case). By the same token, an doctor performing an abortion is protected because assault is usually defined legally as non-consensual contact with another person. Since during an abortion, the patient is consenting to the doctors contact, the doctor cannot be charged with murder (no matter what the pro-lifer's would like) even though s/he causes the death of the baby.

      Quite a clever law actually...no need to define the unborn child as a "person" at all. the whole law revolves around the mother being a person, of whcih there is no debate.

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    6. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has he been convicted yet, captain bushleaguer?

    7. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that has to be one of the most ignorant and retarded comments I've seen on Slashdot. Congrats for setting a new low.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
    8. Re:Scott Peterson?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not that strange... few doctors will perform 3rd trimester abortions not because it is illegal, but because it is dangerous. Unless there is an imminent threat to the mother no one will do it. Plus, we have technology for a 3rd trimester fetus to survive, so it's almostlike it's already a person.

  26. Woah! by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    The hot one! How they dare!

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  27. mplayer by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1, Informative

    MPlayer plays it very well. Just go to the page with the movie, press Ctrl-I to get the list of media links in the page, copy and paste it:

    $ mplayer 'http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc/ 1a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c0 2589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a517 85e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_480.mov'

    Or just copy this URL

    1. Re:mplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or save yourself the trouble and install mplayerplug-in.

  28. "She'll Be Back" by OpMindFck · · Score: 1

    Well, at least this trailer didn't have that god awful line. I had made up my mind to save my $9 on this one. Still, if they yank that line from the movie too, then I may just have to check it out. Especially if that was Claire Danes I saw in there.

    *droooooools*

    --
    Sipping on Jolt and Dew. Laid back. With my mind of my cubicle and my cubicle on my mind.
    1. Re:"She'll Be Back" by Ripplet · · Score: 1

      Eh? Yes it did, watch it again.

      And I would say you're being a little hasty writing off the movie on account of a single line, but hey it's your $9. Just my 2c.

      --

      Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal

    2. Re:"She'll Be Back" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just my 2c.

      No. Just your $9.

  29. I can't watch it :-/ by Zakabog · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how to get the .mov file? I never got streaming QuickTime working in linux (is it possible?) so I can't watch the trailer right now :- /

    1. Re:I can't watch it :-/ by Trogre · · Score: 1
      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  30. XviD Transcode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Raise your hand if anyone wants a quality transcode to XviD.

    Quicktime can't even manage to play fullscreen on my 2GHz machine, so I usually transcode anyway.

    1. Re:XviD Transcode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ordinarilly I'd say yes, but I can't bring myself to give a damn about T3. My gut feeling is that it's going to do to the Terminator movies what Batman & Robin did to the Batman movies.

  31. Large Trailer Link by fobbman · · Score: 1

    Enjoy. Looks pretty danged cool to me.

  32. MOD PARENT UP by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I can confirm that this trick works :)

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by walter-harold · · Score: 1

      what do i prefix the letter "m" with?

    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Trogre · · Score: 1

      The letter 'm' is inserted before the number indicating the resolution.

      For example:
      480 becomes m480 or
      240 becomes m240

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  33. The time travel forum... by mydigitalself · · Score: 1

    The time travel forum could use a bit of filling out

    it already has been, you just can't see it yet...

  34. Money grab by Ironpoint · · Score: 1


    This trailer dissapoints. It looks like a money grab movie. It looks like it might be Pg-13. It seems to have the T2 plot minus the interesting parts. It has almost no actors over 25. Sexism aside, the thought of a young, hot female villain doesn't work. The thought of Arnold fighting a 20 something girl for an hour and a half sound boring. The sets in the trailer look very cheesy (esp. the military hq with the plywood looking consoles and switches from radio shack). Theres no T1 or T2 actors.

    Terminator is a war movie, this is going to come off like "The Tuxedo".

    1. Re:Money grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else rewind to the girl? LOL

      Notice the first shot of her is in a James Bond -type intoduction to the movie. Yawn. The second she is walking towards a car. Probably the only sexual tension in the whole movie.
      At least she's a hell of a lot easier on the eyes than Connor's insane mother.

    2. Re:Money grab by nanojath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I admit I was a bit mystified by the original post implication that it was more than just a retread on the first two, 'cause I didn't see that. Hokay, we've got the implacable robot foe. Will nothing make it stop?! WE've got the character who knows all about the future... but who will believe him, it all sounds crazy! And is it just me, or did they blow the wad on the better generation of robot killer concept with Mr. Liquid Metal? What's the real innovation here? Oh yeah - it's a chick. Ooh, look - you get to see her tushie when she drops outta the space time continuum. I may see it out of nostalgia, but if it's indeed PG-13 (a designation which seems, 99.9% of the time, to indicate "we've dumbed this thing down to be accessible to the dumbest 13 year old we could find and expunged all sex and nudity so we can cram in a little bit more cartoon violence) I'll probably give it a pass, or save it for a throwaway rental when it hits the older releases racks.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    3. Re:Money grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Terminator is a love story (Cameron has said this -- look it up) but because of your accurate assessment of T3 you are forgiven.

      Unfortunately it seems most everyone else around here has been reduced to drooling over some T&A.

  35. John conner? by escape · · Score: 1

    why didnt they get Edward Furlong to reprise his role? since it takes place when it does he would still be the perfect age to play John Connor, but instead we get some no name butthead. and i want my linda hamilton in tight clothes!!

    --
    Escape
    1. Re:John conner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, if you take the time to surf to the imdb page for this film (repeated so many times in above posts that I'll refrain from adding the link here), it says in the trivia that Edward Furlong was considered, but dropped due to his continuing drug problem. They didn't state whether this problem was not having any or having too much of it.

    2. Re:John conner? by escape · · Score: 1

      since when has it been hollywoods policy NOT to hire people that do drugs?

      --
      Escape
    3. Re:John conner? by demon · · Score: 1

      Dunno about Ed Furlong, but I do know that Linda Hamilton expressed no interest in being involved. I think just about the _only_ person to carry over from T2 is Ahh-nold. Amazing he's still up for playing the Terminator again at his age, really.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    4. Re:John conner? by Bedouin+X · · Score: 1

      Probably because he's a horrible actor whose screen time makes many people cringe in T2. The dialouge for the film was corny in general but he couldn't deliver a line to Canada riding an ICBM.

      Just my opinion of course.

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    5. Re:John conner? by frenchgates · · Score: 1

      Maybe because Edward Furlong is a talent and charisma vacuum?!?

      Jeez, I loved T2, but every time I revisit it I rediscover what bad casting Furlong was.

      --
      Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
    6. Re:John conner? by Bedouin+X · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that the $30 million paycheck that he got didn't hurt.

      Just the sound of that is a fountain of youth. :-)

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    7. Re:John conner? by JTMON · · Score: 0

      LOL, it's not. It's only when they do drugs and don't publicly take the high (no pun) road. :)

  36. from IMBD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...and a female terminator, called T-X or Terminatrix...

    yeehaw! sounds like a quality screenplay!!
  37. Umm dude? by NicotineAtNight · · Score: 1

    As if "Bad to the Bone" wasn't a total tip-off that Arnie was the good guy? What, was "Bad to the Bone" missing from the theatrical release or something?

    1. Re:Umm dude? by blancolioni · · Score: 1

      Ah. I have until now been unaware of the good guy implications of Bad to the Bone. Does it have to be this particular song, or will any use of some George Thorogood rockin' do the trick?

      I guess "You Talk Too Much" wouldn't work though.

    2. Re:Umm dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? You know you're not making sense...

    3. Re:Umm dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember hearing that song in T2? Where/what part was it? On a side note, I think I wanna see this more than Matrix reloaded!

    4. Re:Umm dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? The first trailer made it look like a bad TV movie. This new trailer is better, true, but it still makes it look like a crappy action movie. T2 blew me away ten years ago and still does every time I watch it; I think I'll stay away from T3 to avoid tarnishing the memory.

  38. Scott Peterson is the character's name by Katravax · · Score: 1

    ... and Mark Famiglietti is the actor's name.

  39. Jeezus how much BW do these guys have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm getting the mow at 1.3 MBytes/s and the site is humming along quite well, despite the directl ink on Slashdot front page. amazing =)

    1. Re:Jeezus how much BW do these guys have by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2

      you do realise that Akamai know what they're doing, right?

      and what's a mow?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:Jeezus how much BW do these guys have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's what you get a smack in if you're cheeky!

      SMELL MY CHEESE!

  40. Re: T3 Trailer by AliasMoze · · Score: 1

    A secret fear of mine is that I'll meet Steve Jobs and accidentally, of reflex, refere to QuickTime as "CrapTime". Anyhoo, the new trailer looks pretty cool.

  41. Poor John Connor by indros · · Score: 0

    Sounds to me like the future doesn't like John Connor. They keep sticking him with the same old model Terminator (not even a newer model that looks like the old one) while the one coming to kill him has all the latest bells and whistles.

    1. Re:Poor John Connor by aurelian · · Score: 1
      Not only that but now they've sent him a slightly fatter and creakier model that is probably only used for household chores in the future.

      Anyone know is there going to be a reason in the movie why they sent him another old model? Instead of a fancy shape-changing one for example?

    2. Re:Poor John Connor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the human resistance only has access to the earlier models... the machines keep evolving...

      Also depending on your theory of time travel, it is arguable that the events of the other 2 movies have spawned new future timelines...

  42. Trailers by samael · · Score: 1

    It's going to have to be fantastic to beat the trailer for Charlies Angels 2, which looks amazing.

    (Not to mention X2, The Matrix 2/3, etc.)

    1. Re:Trailers by MrPoopyPants · · Score: 1

      Word! That new Charlies Angels movie looks awesome. I mean, it looks like more of the first, but that's OK with me. The first movie was 100% fun.

    2. Re:Trailers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lots of movies this year...

    3. Re:Trailers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charlies Angels 2?
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      For a couple seconds I thought you were serious.

  43. Music? by sam_doshi · · Score: 1

    Anyone know what the choral music that is playing during the second half of the trailer is?

    1. Re:Music? by sam_doshi · · Score: 2, Informative
      Anyone know what the choral music that is playing during the second half of the trailer is?

      Answered my own question :) It's Gothic Power by Christopher Field (was used in some of the Lord of the Rings trailers too)
  44. heh. by colinramsay · · Score: 5, Funny

    "All military systems have been infected."

    Goddamn, I *told* you to patch Outlook Express!

    1. Re:heh. by Casca · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Jeff Goldbloom will save the day by somehow installing a virus on one of the terminators and sending it back to the future to wipe out the systems of every future computing device?

      --
      Casca
  45. matrices by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    If the AI had used more than one, then it would take more than one 10 minute session in the matrix to free everyone.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:matrices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... Good point. Why didn't the machines create many simulations (some in 1500's, some in 1700's and that one in the movie in 1999-2000ish)?

      With all the push to decentralize and distributed, machines would have been wise not to stick all their eggs in one basket.

    2. Re:matrices by Caffeine+Pill · · Score: 1

      Since this thread is heading down this route, two other solutions they could've used to save themselves some time: 1) Why keep the human brains active at all? Seems like brain dead or lobotomized people would make just as muc power. 2) Why use people? No clue what size to wattage ratio is, but it seems that using elephants or mice would have kept the watts flowing without all those upity chosen ones to deal with. Just a thought...

    3. Re:matrices by anotherone · · Score: 1
      >>2) Why use people?

      They use people because the machines are not without a sense of irony. Right now you have a gazillion innocent transisters hooked up and happily switching on and off, and back on again; with no idea at all that they're simply another cog in the machine.

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    4. Re:matrices by PinkoHeretic · · Score: 1

      If you watch the first Animatrix short, "Second Renaissance," you will see that the machines are not in fact evil. They only wanted equality, and the human rulers would not allow it. I strongly suspect that they had no desire to eliminate the human race, and instead imprisoned humans in the Matrix so that mankind could be as happy as possible without troubling the machine society.

  46. Flash works in linux by ThoreauHD · · Score: 1

    "Although it's flash only (major sin), it is full of good stuff."

    Flash works in Linux, but this quicktime 6 sorenson codec doesn't. Not only that, but they wanna stream it for extra assholicness.

    Ever dangle a a twinkie in front of a 300 lb man? Somebody's goin down.

    1. Re:Flash works in linux by dnaumov · · Score: 3, Informative
      Flash works in Linux, but this quicktime 6 sorenson codec doesn't. Not only that, but they wanna stream it for extra assholicness.

      This Sorenson codec most definately works with my MPlayer installation. Look into the downloads page on the MPlayer site for additional codecs (QT, Real, WMV, etc) and the MPlayer documentation on how to get them to work.
    2. Re:Flash works in linux by demon · · Score: 1

      Funny, considering I just played the trailer in Xine, and I got video and audio playback.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    3. Re:Flash works in linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gxine has a decent browser (works with mozilla, at least) plugin. *shrug*

      all this pissing and moaning about how quicktime sucks is about as entertaining as a microsoft commercial. get a grip?

  47. Flash Sins? by aliens · · Score: 1

    The poster mentions that the entire site is done in flash. And while I'll never make a site totally in flash, what was the sin here? It seemed to me like he had no problems accessing the site, so why bash flash? (The amount of animation between clicks is over the top tho)

    And I'm just curious, I understand the bad parts to an all flash site, accessability, need for a plugin etc. but with flash installed on 93(90,91?)% of all browsers is it really all that bad to use?

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
    1. Re:Flash Sins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      93% of browsers... heh?

      The other 7% are total nerds who run Mozilla/Linux with no flash. They love Sci-fi films, and probably account for 50% of the audiance for such films.

    2. Re:Flash Sins? by StingRayGun · · Score: 1

      93(90,91?)%

      This stat is misleading. There are so many different versions of flash that it doesn't matter how many browsers have it installed. They diddn't start auto-upgrading until quite recently. Even that doesn't work on some browser+flash+OS combos.

      So, I could have it installed, but still not be able to view some sites. Here are two examples of sites that used all flash designs, that were made with the newest version of flash, which didn't work with my browser+OS combo.

      www.crashshop.com
      www.marshillchurch.com

      That said, it is still great some things, just use common sense. Replacing the traditional gif+jpeg space in your site with flash is fine by me, and it doesn't mess with your data.

      Did I really need Flash 6.* to view the text+links about Clair Danes?

      p.s. Also, flash is inhearently anti web. It does not conform to any W3C standards or anything.

    3. Re:Flash Sins? by aliens · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, I really have some more some more research todo. One of the problems I'm running into is that I need something like flash to actually add usable features to one of my sites.

      The nature of the changes require either Flash or DHTML. Getting things right cross browsers with DHTML is imho even harder than worrying about if a user has Flash installed. I know all a user without the proper flash installed has todo is install the plugin which is rather small.

      But a user with an incompatible browser for my DHTML....

      I dunno, I agree that the lack of W3C standards is disturbing, but there's not one browser out there that supports all W3C standards anyway....

      Life as a web developer who cares about getting 99.44% of his users the content they want in the most "Management" friendly style (read: Standout site) is hell. ::)

      Peas and thanks for the responses

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    4. Re:Flash Sins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site is NOT all flash. If you go to it with mozilla you will only see a small rectange (a menu?) that requires flash. Otherwise the site looks fine to me.

  48. hmmm, this looks very familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    what was that movie that was "sci fi" that pretty much was a 1920 children's pulp fiction story about a tentacled alien that had all these special powers (of course, space travel bestows wonderous powers) but covered up with boobs and sexual content? You know, where somehow this microscopic lifeform could grow to the size of a room in about 60 seconds? I must say I was deeply impressed by that. After all, if a life form can incorporate into its metabolic processes the ability to create matter and energy then isn't that handy?

    Perhaps they will include the "classic" sounds of spacecraft zooming through space and displacing ummm... space dust... hmmmm. Some day sci-fi will grow up, some day.

  49. I thought he melted...? by Isldeur · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Can someone explain to me how Arnold is back in this one? I thought he melted himself in the last movie.

    Remember? "Nowh Ie nouw wiey you kry..."

    1. Re:I thought he melted...? by tankdilla · · Score: 1

      Isn't this a new model of terminator that still looks like the old model (arnold)?
      Speaking of which arnold is getting old.

      --

      -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    2. Re:I thought he melted...? by anno1a · · Score: 1

      Uhm... He is a robot. There's a whole series of Arnolds out there (T800 Model 101), that's why he could come back in T2 as a good guy. Guess what! The same goes for T3!

      --
      ------- I fumbled my registration and I now must suffer
    3. Re:I thought he melted...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple, he has come from the future again. There is even talk about how he came in but naked again and walked into a bar where it was ladies night.

    4. Re:I thought he melted...? by sLaSh_N_bUrN_(.Y.) · · Score: 1

      He is a robot. There are hundreds of Arnies running around in the future.

    5. Re:I thought he melted...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was destroyed in the first one as well. He's playing a Terminator - mass-produced. You are just seeing multiple instances of the same model.

    6. Re:I thought he melted...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That's just the way the new models look (a more experianced look...)

      Remember how unexperienced Terminator 1 looked compared to T2? In comparison with this one, T2 will seem like a kid.

    7. Re:I thought he melted...? by TyrionEagle · · Score: 1

      > (T800 Model 101)

      Aaaaggh! GET IT RIGHT!!!

      Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, Series 800.

      Nowhere in the films is there mention of a T800, this was invented sometime around when the T1000 was mentioned first.

      Sorry, major bugbear of mine.

      --
      -- I like the cut of your thinking, young man. - me.
    8. Re:I thought he melted...? by buddha42 · · Score: 1

      Time Travel. Its the automatically-get-to-break-any-rule panacea for sequels.

    9. Re:I thought he melted...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought they would say that the metal factory they were at had started to make the terminators.

    10. Re:I thought he melted...? by Isao · · Score: 1

      Because it's not the same one. It's a machine; they stamp them out like Toyota Camry's.

  50. that trailer by tankdilla · · Score: 1

    needs more cowbell.

    --

    -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    1. Re:that trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what? I've got a fevah! And the only cure is more cowbell!

  51. Disturbing stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, is it me or did any of you find the scenre where the female Terminator wraps her legs around Arnie *backwards* disturb you? Gives me the creeps.

    Leg wrapping should only be done forwards if you ask me :)

    P.S. I think I noticed she's got the Britnet Speers increasing bra size problem. The nude clips don't match the resulting outfit....

    1. Re:Disturbing stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bonus; I like limber women.

  52. Well, I have to give them credit with that female. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    They certainly know how to appeal to my (and 50% of the population's) id.

  53. Wow by trifster · · Score: 1

    That just looks freaking cool as all hell. Thinking how early on T2 was made with respect to advancement of CG, T3 should really blow us away. Seems like the only weak link on SciFi these days is the limitations of human imagination.

    1. Re:Wow by will_die · · Score: 1

      The high heat explosions at the start looked really nice, so did most of the other effects. Most of thoses looked like they were models or something else wrapped with effects instead of being pure CG based.

      As for CG effects in a movie they can still suck, just look at The Hulk preview, close up effects looked good , but once they got a far away view or something did alot of movement it looked bad.

    2. Re:Wow by sandbagger · · Score: 1

      The other limitation is fear.

      People who cut cheques are afraid of making stories that will not be understood by people who watch wrestling, so the language is simplified, the plots simplified and so forth.

      This leads to clot-headed morons stumbling around, with cloudy motivations, doing heroic stuff in slow motion with no resemblance to the laws of physics.

      Want to see a good action flick? See "The Train" with Burt Lancaster.

      --
      ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    3. Re:Wow by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Seems like the only weak link on SciFi these days is the limitations of human imagination.

      If you mean by that: asinine plots, irrational motives and unbelievable "science; yes.

  54. Re:Flash Sins? Accessibility! by tjwhaynes · · Score: 1
    And I'm just curious, I understand the bad parts to an all flash site, accessability, need for a plugin etc. but with flash installed on 93(90,91?)% of all browsers is it really all that bad to use?

    Flash is fine if you are a) able to install it and b) able to drive it as an able bodied human. It sucks if you want to search through the contents of the site using, say, Google to find all the references to, say, gatling guns. It totally sucks if you are disabled and rely on braille readers, text to speech browsers or other such aids, because at this point flash doesn't support those sorts of accessibility features at anything more than a trivial level.

    Cheers,

    Toby Haynes

    --
    Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
  55. American subconcious on display yet again by pezpunk · · Score: 1

    seems like every movie nowadays is a reflection of our end-of-the-world fear, exactly like what happened during the cold war hype of the 50's with all those radiation-induced monster movies. then of course there's our obsession with sex -- not surprised at all to see a female terminator, of course she's hot, and of course she's running around in her skivvies. i'll still probably go see it, but it just seems to me that our entire culture has this undercurrent of fear right now.

    --
    i could live a little longer in this prison
    1. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by Hanno · · Score: 1

      and of course she's running around in her skivvies

      Every Terminator movie featured a time travel "arrival" scene and each time, the Terminators arrived naked. It's obvious that the filmmakers would use this again.

      --

      ------------------
      You may like my a cappella music
    2. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      The whole running around in one's skivvies thing is a plot device from the first movie. Only human flesh, and those things covered in human flesh, are able to make the time leap. Now how the T-1000, being made of "liquid metal", is able to bypass this requirement I'll never know. Course one doesn't see Shoot-em ups for a consistent plot, they watch them to see stuff go boom.

      Besides, end of the world, horror, and thriller flicks have always been popular. Think back to early horror flicks like Nosferatu -- fear sells. Everyone likes the shit scared out of them if there's no fear of real damage. Psychologists have studied this. Same love of horror flicks begets a love of roller coasters in others.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    3. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by bomb_number_20 · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they could compress the liquid terminator into a small 'skin box' or something. basically, a bag made of flesh that is sealed. on arrival, it could just sort of pop out and turn itself into something.

      but that still doesn't answer the question of why it would choose to form itself into a naked person that stands out rather than a fully clothed human that could instantly blend in.

      iirc, the liquid terminator from t2 had to touch a person before it could morph into them. maybe it's basically a 'blank slate' when it arrives and learns everything it needs to know about it's environment through the first person it meets. that would certainly make it more adaptable.

      who knows... i obviously have waaaay to much time on my hands to be thinking about this. ;)

      --
      That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
    4. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by cei · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the T-1000 had to touch a person to sample them, yet he's able to become an identical twin hospital guard just by being stepped on. I never knew how much genetic material was transferred through the rubber sole of a shoe...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    5. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by smclean · · Score: 1

      His imitation basis could not have been genetic, because he copied also the clothes of the officer. I think we are to believe that he can just 'look' at something and have enough data to create an identical replica.

      --

      "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

    6. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by Quikah · · Score: 1

      There is an end of the world fear in America? I must have missed that. Seriously, I haven't had a fear of EOW since the fall of the Soviet Union.

      --
      Q.
    7. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

      if the while "skin bag" theory were true, why not wrap some kick ass weapons in a bad too? no more of this pussy projectile weapon shit, i was want plasma riffles!

      proxy

    8. Re:American subconcious on display yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you want plasma weapons wrapped in pussy??? COUNT ME IN!!

      "Hey, something smells like fish..."
      "Da, it is onkly my Plasma Rifle. Come with me if you want to live."

  56. BitTorrent link to XviD version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't mod this up too high, as I don't think their server can handle a slashdotting. thanks.

  57. It is time? by johns713 · · Score: 1

    That is the only thing truly wrong with the trailer. Arnold should say... "I'll be back!"

    1. Re:It is time? by neodragonslayer · · Score: 1

      I'm actually glad he didn't say that. In a teaser trailer I saw earlier this year, he said, "She'll be back." The entire theater (including myself) met that comment with a collective groan. The line is old. It gets cheesy and stale if it doesn't get used correctly.

  58. 911 by HanzoSan · · Score: 0, Offtopic



    The end of the world isnt just a fear, look at 911, these things could happen.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The end of the world isnt just a fear, look at 911, these things could happen.

      Aren't you guys over it yet?

    2. Re:911 by ctishman · · Score: 0

      Nope. We've killed at least three times as many in retaliation, but I think we're going for five.

    3. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Nine thousand? Either you know you're lying, or you're just an idiot. In any case, fuck off.

    4. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not hard to believe that 9k or more innocent people have or will die as a result of the recent military 'projects' of the US administration. But I see that you are more interested in infantile swearing than actually thinking, so I would suggest that you fuck yourself.

    5. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... not when some of us had relatives that died.

    6. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Nine thousand? Either you know you're lying, or you're just an idiot. In any case, fuck off.

      Totally. Fifteen or twenty thousand is closer I reckon.

    7. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... not when some of us had relatives that died.

      Yeah, I had relatives who died.

      Oh, not on September 11 or anything. My uncle had to shoot himself because all the whining was making his head hurt so much.

    8. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So yo reckon twenty thousand, do ya? How about some sources to back this ridiculous claim up? And no, Arab News doesn't count, sorry.

    9. Re:911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow the fsck up. Disasters worse than 911 happen all over th world all the time.

      Wah qwblaa!! The sky is falling! My name is hanzosan and the sky is falling!! The terrorists are gonna get us! Ack! I suck cock and am a faghorx!!

    10. Re:911 by divinus23 · · Score: 1

      End of the world? Well, at the count of 6.2 billion people in the world, and approx 2500 911 casualties... Damn. We lost 0.000000403225% So if we can get a -really- big plane that can kill... 2,480,000 million people for every one that died in 911... -then- we have an end of the world scenario. Of course, the only person with the real power to turn the world into a wasteland right now is the ever so discretionate George Bush with the US' 10k nuclear warheads. :shudder:

  59. the Chick-inator by emptybody · · Score: 1

    From the "we made them female so they would be less agressive" detparment comes the latest creation...

    The Chick-inator

    Grab some haggandazz and prepare for the beating of your life!!!

    --
    comment directly in my journal
    1. Re:the Chick-inator by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      Nope, she's the...

      TERMINATRIX

      *THWACK* Thank you mistress, may I have another? *THWACK*

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  60. BitTorrent link for XviD transcode (fixed) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is for you anti-Apple people:

    terminator.3.internationaltrailer_xvid.transcode.4 80x272.avi.torrent

    Please don't mod this up too high, as I don't think their server can handle a slashdotting. thanks.

    1. Re:BitTorrent link for XviD transcode (fixed) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hating apple and hating quicktime is apples and oranges. haha. a pun!!!

    2. Re:BitTorrent link for XviD transcode (fixed) by DarthVdr · · Score: 1

      so you'd buy a lincon even if you hated the ford motor company?

      --
      --DV
      In this day it is safer to be a ninja than a samurai
  61. Agghhhh by goldcd · · Score: 1

    It's a Vulcan Rotary Cannon - jeeesus, call yourself a film-buff/man?

    1. Re:Agghhhh by swb · · Score: 1

      There's quite a few rotary multibarrel cannon in various calibers, some of which fire explosive ammunition (like the 30mm) and some that just fire lead (7.62mm).

    2. Re:Agghhhh by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

      No, I don't call myself a film buff.

      I call myself a gatling gun buff.

      A vulcan cannon is a type of gatling gun.

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    3. Re:Agghhhh by goldcd · · Score: 1

      It's a Gatling gun like so far as it's got multiple barrels and spins round. A vulcan is electrically operated, hydraulically driven and is usually found strapped to an expensive, flying, military hardware. Gatling guns are those little things with the handles on the back made by Mr Gatling.

  62. "It is time"? by IdJit · · Score: 1

    What a lame hook line. Whatever happened to "I'll be back" or "Hasta la vista, baby"? Now, those were decent memorable lines.

    1. Re:"It is time"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think previous trailers showed ah-nuld saying "She'll be back..." :)

  63. Vin Diesel is no Arnold. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    There are certain kinds of movies that only Arnold can do right, and this is one of them.

    Vin Diesel could never play Terminator, neither could stallone. Arnold is also good in movies that are sci fi, like Total Recall the more recent sci fi movie he made about cloning.

    Some stuff only Arnold can do, and then theres stuff only Vin Diesel can do, like racing cars around.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Vin Diesel is no Arnold. by mrpuffypants · · Score: 1

      and I think that Arnold is the only person that could ever pull off the hilarious notion of a Cop....In KINDERGARDEN!!!

    2. Re:Vin Diesel is no Arnold. by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 1

      It's NOT a TUMOR!

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    3. Re:Vin Diesel is no Arnold. by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Vin Diesel is no Rock either.

    4. Re:Vin Diesel is no Arnold. by usotsuki · · Score: 1

      You mean The Sixth Day, not Total Recall. ;)

      -uso.

      --
      Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
    5. Re:Vin Diesel is no Arnold. by c.emmertfoster · · Score: 1

      Total Recall was not about cloning, that was The 6th Day. You have a good point though. Another good Arnie sci-fi flick was The Running Man.

      --
      We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
  64. Anonymous Reader == Sony Rep :) by R-2-RO · · Score: 1

    This story sounds too much like an ad for me. Even with the mention of the weak WB ads. Hmmm

    --
    Thank you. Drive through. (:wq)
    1. Re:Anonymous Reader == Sony Rep :) by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

      Yeah, same here.

      Guess they're pulling out all the stops on the marketing as they realize what a weak movie they have. I remember when it was announced that Cameron would have nothing to do with the film because of the producer's insistance on this stupid, stupid script.

      "Terminatrix" my ass.

  65. Hmmm...that T-X...dunno... by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 1

    OK, I can understand the idea of having a female Terminator to take out Connor. Seems logical enough.

    But the actress just doesn't seem to be the right one for the part, at least judging from the trailers. Robert Patrick was absolutely awesome as the T-1000 in T2 -- even though he barely showed any expression, he still felt menacing (maybe because of that utter blankness on his face). But the T-X...just feels wrong to me. (OK, maybe I should see the movie first before passing judgement too much.)

    Woulda been even cooler if she was played by Linda Hamilton. Now THAT would mess with your head, wouldn't it? ;-)

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
    1. Re:Hmmm...that T-X...dunno... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it might just be a rehash of the novel T2: Infiltrator.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Hmmm...that T-X...dunno... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But the T-X...just feels wrong to me."

      Same here. Shoulda called it a TNA.

  66. I stand corrected by NicotineAtNight · · Score: 1

    It would tip me off, anyways...

    1. Re:I stand corrected by UnexplodedNT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you have so much more swapspace to work with. Great. Now I'm making computer jokes. It's all downhill from here.

  67. Didn't Slashdot run this the other day? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Or is the time traveling confusing me again?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  68. that's nice and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But does it run Linux?

  69. rehash? by smd4985 · · Score: 1

    doesn't the plot look like a rehash of T2? "new and improved terminator travels back in time to take out John Connor but is stopped by our favorite old-school terminator, arnold."

    i'll see it - don't get me wrong. i'm just a little worried. there does seem more scenes from the future, but are they just filler for the time-travel thread or actually related to a different plot thread? we'll find out....

    --
    smd4985
    1. Re:rehash? by Kredal · · Score: 1

      It looks like the WHOLE movie takes place right at the dawn of the machines... when Skynet grows a brain, and launches nukes at all the major population centers... And the chick terminator just goes back that far (and not to the 1990s or whatever) to make sure Conner doesn't survive to send the first terminators back to save himself... twice. And stuff.

      Time travel gives me a headache.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    2. Re:rehash? by nounderscores · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that it might be a douglas adams thing - it might all connect up like a jigsaw puzzle. Maybe the whole idea is that John actually dies at age 18. It's just that that is old enough to start the rebellion and send back two terminators to keep himself alive long enough to fulfil the time loop.

      And maybe the whole world blowing up thing was inevitable, as was the fall of skynet. After all if skynet didn't send back terminators to scare the hell out of fosterchild John, then he'd never take his momma seriously and learn to fight like a commando.

      Oh, and how did skynet recover from having all the evidence melted at the end of T2?

      Easy - the T-1000 fights with Arnie in the steel works. Do you remember the bit where Robert Patrick smashes Arnie in the face with the big girder battering ram thing, then crushes off his arm in some gears and then finally impales him through the powersource with the big rod... and then Arnie gets his backup power online and goes on to kick ass and launch a well placed grenade?

      Well, what happened to the severed t800 arm?

      Easy. It's still in the gears where they left it. Which is enough terminator left over for the US army to get the bright idea to make some supersoldier androids from....

      Now if only they had Anikin and JarJar to save them.... "Meesa understand why you cry, althoug Meesa never can..."

    3. Re:rehash? by glowurm · · Score: 1

      Good points. Proper refute with style. Too bad I tossed all my mod points yesterday.

      The bit about the arm in particular - very astute - never thought of it until your mention. What a nice little backdoor.

    4. Re:rehash? by gamorck · · Score: 1

      I got an even better one for you: Cyberdyne probably had off site backups of all the information they tried to destroy in T2. All the work Dyson did was still accessible because of this though forward progress was slowed due to the fact that Dyson was dead. This would also explain why "Judgement Day" is probably going to be occuring (this is raw assumption here) in our decade instead of in 1996 when it was originally supposed to happen.

      This may also help to explain how another machine could make its way back into time. With the timeline shifted Skynet may have ended up having more time to attempt to send cybernetic assasins back through time.

      At least thats my rationalization of the whole thing. I'm just damn glad the original ending for T2 wasn't actually included with the movie (you can read it in the original scripts or see it in the T2 Special Edition DVD). The original ending shows Sarah and John old together in some park playing with kids.

      Thank god that ending wasn't used or T3 would be Highlander 2/3/4 all over again!

      J

      P.S. Anybody have any ideas how they are going to explain the absence of Linda Hamilton? Maybe she's already dead. And who is that other chick with Arnold in the trailer?

      --
      I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
    5. Re:rehash? by cei · · Score: 1

      IIRC, which is pretty likely since I watched T2 again yesterday, John Conner says he's supposed to meet his dad "when I'm 45 or something".

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    6. Re:rehash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the entire premise of a terminator movie is that they are sent back thru time to terminiate someone, what else can they do? That's like saying in every Star Trek movie they fly around in a spaceship-same old stuff!

  70. He died in the first one too... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Informative

    For fsck's sake, did you even bother to follow the basic plot of the movie? Ah-nuld's character is a cyborg, made by the robots in 2029. He is identical (except for his orders) to the bad guy in the original Terminator film. The robots in 2029 presumably have a factory where they churn out Arnies by the dozen.

    By the way, isn't Arnie getting a little bit old to be playing an invulnerable robot?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:He died in the first one too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is identical (except for his orders) to the bad guy in the original Terminator film.

      Except he's older :-)

      they churn out Arnies by the dozen

      Doesn't it defeat the purpose of making them humanoid? The plot of the original implied that they're humanoid to infiltrate and fool humans into thinking they're not robots. If they all look the same, the deception is pointless.

      And why would a robot from the future have a german accent?

    2. Re:He died in the first one too... by Goonie · · Score: 1
      And why would a robot from the future have a german accent?

      For the same reason a cop pretending to be a kindergarten teacher acting like a cop did :)

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    3. Re:He died in the first one too... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      And did you follow the plot either? He destroyed himself at the end because there was only one T- chip left after the lab prototype was destroyed -- the chip inside his noggin. No remaining chip, no prototype, no way to reproduce. That's the problem as seen by the poster.

      Git.

    4. Re:He died in the first one too... by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      Presumedly the research for Skynet continued despite the destruction of the building, which makes sense (after all, there had to be a first time Skynet was created without the help of a terminator arm and CPU).

    5. Re:He died in the first one too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's Austrian, and believe me, you would notice. HIs voice would sound a lot less open-mouthed ("ahhhnold") and odd if he were German.

    6. Re:He died in the first one too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't the T-800 leave his arm behind in that big gear? I always thought that was a loose end that left the door open for a part 3.

    7. Re:He died in the first one too... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      So why did Arnold have to die in the Second film, if they can just keep shipping cyborgs back to past?

    8. Re:He died in the first one too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the implication was that Skynet was a paradox. Skynet was created when it sent a terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner, and the terminator got crushed and his bits and pieces became the research seeds for Skynet.

      Or maybe it's just an action movie and I shouldn't think so hard about it.

  71. Ooh by Snaller · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Gattling guns aren't what makes Predator good, it's the shit-hot editing and great music combined with an Alien that doesn't speak English.


    Ah com on! Arnold does speak English! (He just has a think accent :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Ooh by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Ah com on! Arnold does speak English! (He just has a think accent :)

      I saw it first in a cinema in Thailand, dubbed into Thai. I didn't understand WHY the mercenaries were in the jungle to begin with, but aside from that it's one of those movies where the dialogue isn't really that important.

  72. BTW by krelian · · Score: 1
    The background music for the second part of the trailer is the same one that was used in the internet preview for Lord of the rings (released in 1999). Anyone knows where is it taken from ? I remember the first time i heard it i thought it was really cool, unfortunetly it was not used in the final soundtrack...

    Overall, a much better trailer than the first one. I still have little hope that something good will come out of this...

    1. Re:BTW by Khakionion · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't get the fscking thing to download, but one of the notable songs from a Two Towers trailer was the theme from "Requiem for a Dream." I believe Clint Mansell's the one who wrote it.

      Even if that wasn't what you're looking for, it's a good listen.... ;)

      --
      OMG! Wau!
  73. So many questions by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    Sure, this is Hollyweird we are talking about, and they are hardly one to care about consistancy, but in the 1st movie, when Kyle comes back to save Sarah, he talks about that the humans had won and they'd smashed skynet. Skynet was basically in the death throes and sending out the last bits of machines to the past to try and win.

    Assuming this is correct, where do all these 'spaecial advanced' cyborgs come from? Unless Skynet has time traval facilities all over the world that do nothing but send machines to the past.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:So many questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      And if the core for Skynet is built from the first Arnold that John throws in the melting-pot, Skynet has no chance of ever be created. Thus no machines of this magnitude will be built.

      I really hope this will get an explination in the move or......have I missed something?

    2. Re:So many questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh remember when the liquid terminator form t2 caught arnold's arm in the gear and he rips his arm of to get free.... well... you figure it out.,

  74. Re:Direct Link... (bad quality) by Snaller · · Score: 1

    That's the large version? ( Yeah i know it is), but the quality isn't overly impressive - Apple trying to shaft T3?

    Their web sites shal be assimilated!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  75. not enough boobies by AssFace · · Score: 1

    the chick terminator comes in all naked, but it looks like they keep her hair covering her fun bags.

    for me, it isn't a good action movie where a futuristic legion of killer robots destroy our race unless I get to see some naked chicks.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    1. Re:not enough boobies by hottoh · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you frame by frame it I see what appears to be nipple, just before the butt shot.

  76. The only thing that brings down Akamai by Snaller · · Score: 1

    are politics.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  77. OH, GUYS, I'VE GOT IT!!!!!111^H^H^H!!! by Khakionion · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    OH, GUYS, I'VE GOT IT!!!!!111^H^H^H!!!

    How about a gatling gun that "lauches" rockets containing mini-gatling guns that launch mini rockets that shoot out mini-mini-rockets that search out as much goatse as I can handle?

    HuuHuuHuu, SLOTH LOVES CHUNK!

    --
    OMG! Wau!
    1. Re:OH, GUYS, I'VE GOT IT!!!!!111^H^H^H!!! by ctishman · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing an action film parody with these.

  78. Save instructions for Windows XP, IE6 by nemeosis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here are the saving instruction for Windows XP and IE6.
    I downloaded the high resolution trailer, so it's about 14 MB

    Here is the direct link, hopefully it hasn't expired yet.
    http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a5178 5e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_m480.mov


    If you clicked on the given link above and downloaded the trailer directly, then you can skip Step 1. Go directly to Step 3.
    1. View the HTML source, search for the name "T3-internation-tlr_480.mov"
    1a. Change this to "T3-internation-tlr_m480.mov"

    2. You should now have the http address:
    http://a772.g.akamai.net/5/772/51/a518c4ff1125bc/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02 589f25382f668c9329e0375e8178ef01f93c6f55ecc40a5178 5e65ac332a0016d/T3-international-tlr_m480.mov

    Open it up in a web browser, and let it your browser download the trailer.

    3. Open up a command prompt.
    4. Go to the location:
    "C:\Documents and Settings\[USERNAME]\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\"

    5. Do a "dir" search with the /a /s switches enabled. Like:
    dir /a /s *.mov

    6. Hopefully this will come up with something. For my system, I downloaded the high resolution trailer. So my search came up with:
    "T3-international-tlr_m480[1].mov"

    7. Copy this to another location on your hard drive.
    copy "T3-international-tlr_m480[1].mov" C:\Temp
    8. Simple as that right?

    1. Re:Save instructions for Windows XP, IE6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot, not women-slashdot

      All prejudices included.

  79. They left a plot hole.. it doesn't apply here tho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when Arnie got his arm stuck in the cogs in T2.. he pulled himself out ripping his arm off, the arm got stuck in the cogs.

    Right, forward to when they are sending Arnie to the big melt in the sky. They must destroy all evidence of Arnie to prevent his technology being recovered and used to trigger a future war. They first throw the intact arm from the lab into the lava. Good. Then they sink Arnie into the lava too. Good.

    But wait, they didn't recover his arm (crushed perhaps) from the cogs.

    I always saw that as a potential plot hole to make a third film. If we assume that someone from Dysons lab may have recovered this arm.

    But this film will most likely ignore most, if not all of what was in T2.

  80. I thought Terminators never get old by gosand · · Score: 1
    If I remember correctly from the first movie, Terminators never get old. Could have fooled me.

    I loved the first movie, and the second was really good. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say this one is pushing it. Part of the draw of the first movie, and many good movies, are the untold stories. Knowing that the machines took over is scary, I don't need to see exactly how it happened. I don't need to have the drawn-out details of a war shown to me to get the concept or make it any more powerful. The second movie survived on two things: the cool special effects of the T2000, and the twist that Arnold was the bad guy. The story wasn't all that interesting.

    When I saw the first trailer, I thought it looked lame. Now this post seems to think that THIS trailer is a complete 180 on that. I have seen girl's butts before, I have seen explosions, and guns, and war battles. I have heard this story, I know what happens. To me, this is just another action movie.

    Now, I am going to sit down and pray that they didn't taint the Matrix the way everything else seems to have been tainted.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:I thought Terminators never get old by Jonny_Haircut · · Score: 1

      The second movie survived on two things: the cool special effects of the T2000, and the twist that Arnold was the bad guy.

      Arnold was the bad guy? I must have missed the directors cut. Is that the one where in the last scene, Arnold reaches out with his good hand and snatches John into the fire with him? Now that'd be a mindfuck!

    2. Re:I thought Terminators never get old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly from the first movie, Terminators never get old. Could have fooled me

      No! this is the T3000 geratric infiltrator model. Designed to blend in at lawnbowls matches his wrinkled visage induces his victims to die of laughter as he walks up in a leather jacket and spiky hair. It was cheaper than bullets.

  81. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cringe when I see these trailers. This film is going to be so bad. Whats with those nukes, they dont even look realistic. As if you'd be able to see the missile trail. They got the nuke scene spot on in T2. And that "All systems infected" "What the hell is going on" scene looks so bad I almost cried. *yawn* I might avoid this film on principle. The Matrix is going to destroy this one.

  82. Flash by SnuSnu · · Score: 1

    Flash isn't a sin, it works on Linux. However flashING say, a group of old nuns, would be sinful. Amusing, but sinful...

    1. Re:Flash by Violet+Null · · Score: 1

      Three nuns are sitting on a bench when a flasher comes by and flashes them.

      Well, the first nun has a stroke.

      The second nun also has a stroke.

      The third nun, though, couldn't reach.

  83. who cares about T3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on May 15th we have the matrix. just kidding.

  84. Cruelty? Hate speech and child abuse actually... by nounderscores · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You know, if and when we ever get strong AI, can imagine what our little impressionable creations are going to think when they get around to watching all those DVDs of them turning on us and blowing us to smitherines?

    After all, the premise of this movie was that Skynet was a paranoid psychopath because it was made for the specific job of controlled killing of human beings. What if instead we make an AI after the alan touring model - an AI exactly like a child which we can educate and grow up until it is indistinguishable from a human... ...who has been told that he is an evil murdering son of a bitch by nature and one fine day daddy will battle him to the death.

    Would you like some original sin with those apples?

  85. This has always bugged me... by jokercito · · Score: 1

    What kind of sick, twisted mind would give a robot an Austrian accent?

    It doesn't make sense I tell you!!

  86. Uhh, I think I saw this movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was called Terminator.

    Seriously, T2 was just a rehash of T1... With better Special Effects. Do you seriously think it would end in the same damn foundry? Oh how original.

    By the looks of things, T3 will end up in the same damn foundry again.

  87. Sigh... yet more Apple Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    An MPAA movie made by Sony with the trailer in proprietary Quicktime format on FSF-unfriendly Apple web site. The only thing missing is some microsoft connection.

    Has any sane person converted this to mpg yet so that people who aren't mindless drones can watch it?

  88. what if... by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    What if this IS the shape changing model, it just happened to kill Movie Star Arnie as he was crusing around LA in on his mid-life crisis harley and stole his form, the way the previous T1000 took as default the form of that cop who was checking out the hole in the chain link fence at the start of T2.

    Arnie. Dead at 55. Truly an American Icon.

  89. Is it me... by robbo · · Score: 0

    .. or is Arnold starting to look a lot like Keith Richards? Terminator 4: Rise of the Geriatrics.

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
  90. Imports by moc.tfosorcimgllib · · Score: 1

    So how do they make new Americans then?

    Why do you think we are a nation of Immigrants?

  91. Stolen Car by moc.tfosorcimgllib · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was planning on replying to this, but I just saw someone drive away in my car. They changed the plates, though.

    Hopefully they will repark it and replace the plates before the police arrive, again (seventh time this week).

  92. Mod parent as FUNNY! by orim · · Score: 1

    Please.

    --
    "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
  93. Re:Direct Link... (bad quality) by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what I was thinking. At least large Matrix trailer was large enough to make my machine cry...

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  94. Re:on OS X by davebo · · Score: 1

    you can always look in . . . . /tmp/(your user id number)/Temporary Items/QTPluginTemp(random string)

    ie, /tmp/501/Temporary Items/QTPluginTemp55271

  95. Expectations by nsxdavid · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if anyone pointed this out, but I think it's worth repeating if so... this movie is NOT directed by James Cameron. Think of the difference between Aliens and Alien 3 or 4.

    I'm not saying another directory couldn't pull it off okay. But the truth is, if Cmeron did it... it would be good. And if he isn't involved, some directory has very big shoes to fill and seldom does anyone rise to the ocassion.

    Yes, the trailer was good. Heck, I'd say even really good! Better than the Hulk trailer. I think they should just stop making movies and make trailers. The Art of the Trailer has reached such refinement that even Final Fantasy looked far-eaching and original in the trailers!

    One of my favorite pass-times: Guess which movie the music comes from. In almost all instances the music in a trailer is from a pervious block-buster and not from the movie itself (since scoring is one of the final steps). For a long time everyone was using music from The Rock. Then Gladiator. I couldn't place this one... it sounded somewhat generic but might have been from Gladiator or the last Star Wars or something. I'll have to listen to it a few more times.

    Anyone know which it is?

    --
    David Whatley
    1. Re:Expectations by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      Anyone know where they got the music for the Dark City trailer? It was excellent.

  96. I watched T2 recently... by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    I thought it was amazing when I was a kid. Now I think it's retarded.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  97. IMotivation? by mrmoj0 · · Score: 1

    I'll be back... when I need more money.

  98. obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you think the machines would *choose* to run n e thing else?

  99. Ugh by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    Somebody please tell me why Terminator 2 looks better than what we've seen on T3? I don't mean from a plot point of view, I'm talking about the effects and lighting. Felt like a straight-to-DVD movie.

    The nuclear blasts, for example, just aren't very convincing. Anybody remember the nuke from T2? Now THAT was cool.

    I dunno, so far (from a visual point of view) it feels very rushed.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  100. Re:They left a plot hole.. it doesn't apply here t by phorm · · Score: 1

    Which is fine for the development of an endoskeletal structure, but not for the chip - which was the key part. The arm was perhaps evidence of the technology... but the chip was what Cyberdyne (present-day parent of future Skynet) based their computer technology on.

    They could probably wrangle that out into the arm still promoting Terminator technology, but more likely Arnie is just another T-800 that came from the future (note that he wouldn't have the memories of the previous Arnie though).

  101. Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glory hole.

  102. That's the first PG-13 trailer I've ever seen by cschmidt · · Score: 1

    With the butt shot and all, I would rate the trailer at PG-13, which would be a first for my recollection. Usually the trailers are fairly tame.

    I wonder if there will be any public outcry by the conservatives?

    --

    Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon
  103. Re:minor correction by davebo · · Score: 1

    It'll actually be in /tmp/(your user number).

    It just so happens that 501 is the user number of the first user created on the machine - so, if it's "your" mac and you're the only one using it, 501 is a good place to look.

    Otherwise - you'll have to hunt around a bit.

  104. Uh hum! by Auckerman · · Score: 1

    I don't know what you guys could be bitching about. That nuclear war looks cool and you get to see her ass, looks like a keeper to me.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
  105. we should never forget... by KunstCleaver · · Score: 1

    the preview to AOTC made that movie look really good too. and i can't even think about that movie without getting cringes from it's spectacular awfullness.

    i'm not say T3 won't be good, just the old wanring... never trust a trailer.

    --
    "The direction controls are the same in Nethack as they are in vi." "Yeah, I hardly ever die in vi anymore."
  106. Arnold should wear a helmet. by maddh · · Score: 1

    He always manages to scrape off one side of his face (and whatever hides the red LED in his eyeball), revealing that he is in fact a robot. Maybe if he used some sort of protective gear?
    Matt

  107. Here's a direct quote from Cameron ... by dimension6 · · Score: 1
    _

    James Cameron: "I didn't really care for [Terminator 3], and to be perfectly honest I felt that I told the story."

    I agree completely. Terminator 2 simply finishes the story that T1 begins. They are simply producing T3 because they know they will make a hefty profit off of releasing yet another sequel to a highly popular duet of films, and Cameron knows this. I'm not saying that T3 will be a horrible movie, but I don't think that it's really necessary.

    1. Re:Here's a direct quote from Cameron ... by mr.krabbs · · Score: 1

      Who says that any movie is "necessary"? Movies are produced to entertain and to make money. Period!

    2. Re:Here's a direct quote from Cameron ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T3 could have been a great movie had Mario Kassar (the owner of the Terminator mark) allowed James Cameron to do what he wanted with it. Instead he insisted on a script so awful that Cameron (and all the principles from the T2 besides Arnie) refused to have anything to do with it.

  108. Fermi: (was "Re:Apple has done wonders!") by tgrigsby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Offtopic, but...

    In your sig, what Fermi said boils down to, "A sufficiently advanced civilization will either kill itself or... it won't."

    Yeah, that's deep. Nothing like being famous for stating the bleeding obvious...

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  109. Old trailer? by fiendracer · · Score: 1

    Seems to me,

    That is is at least the second trailer from Rise of the Machines. Anyone have a link to that first one? I think the ending was better.

    Guns, blondes, shiny things, computers that don't work. Life is good.

    gunnar.

  110. T3 Website is Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been to many movie websites, but this one really stands out. If you are a flash junky, you'll see right away that are doing some really cool things (looks like they are pulling images from a database using XML)...The fact that fans can upload pictures/skins & stuff is also really cool. The featured artist stuff is off the hook (great idea... sort of open source art). I also like the real (apparently unmoderated for negative comments) message boards. Anyway I don't find the fact that they did in flash to be a major sin... the only major sin I see is the long load animation. The site would almost surely retain more viewers if they had a short and speedy load with an option to see the animation later (and background loads of all the images)...

  111. She-Bot: My new girlfriend! by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    Ok guys, who out there watched the trailer, saw the she-bot wrap her legs backwards around Arnie, and thought, "Oh yeah..... I'm in LOVE..." My mind is still racing with the possibilities.

    Which makes me wonder... When women watch T2 and see the cop-bot changing shapes, do they start to imagine, ... um... the possibilities? It would sure explain why Robert Patrick's career took off after 1991...

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  112. Re:Because. Duh! by JTMON · · Score: 0

    So because MOST people aren't using the tool correctly, we should get rid of the tool and not the idiotic programmer who USED the tool. Nice logic there assclown!

  113. how.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how good can this be without Linda Hamilton?

    Yeah, arnold is cool. the chick terminator looks cool. But come on. Without Linda it just isnt the same.

  114. They missed a part... by gordgekko · · Score: 1

    Because they didn't destroy all the Terminator parts before he lowered himself into the molten metal. If you'll remember, they threw the arm and the chip from Cyberdyne (or whatever it was called) but they didn't throw in the arm that was ripped from Arnold by that big gear.

    Is it possible I'm the only one who ever noticed this, or am I dumb and didn't notice them throwing in the second arm?

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  115. At least there's an american flag in it! by MrMrBen · · Score: 1

    I was relieved to see an American flag flying proudly in the trailor. I had been concerned that since the U.S. military is somewhat to blame (at least according to the timeline presented in the first movie) for the near destruction of humankind, this latest installement might have certain unpatriotic overtones. Fortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Thank you Warner Bros for standing up for the U.S of A!

  116. Re:They left a plot hole.. it doesn't apply here t by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1


    but the chip was what Cyberdyne (present-day parent of future Skynet) based their computer technology on.


    Future Skynet will never exist. Cyberdyne engineers who were savvy enough to back up their data about the T2 chip and the arm, try to resume their work but are thrown in jail in T3 for violating the DMCA. Even more cold-hearted and brutal than the liquid terminator!

    *SPOILER*
    (End of T3 when Cyberdyne researchers are being led away)

    Ahnold-"I know now why you cry..."

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  117. Re:the Terminatrix by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

    And the OS she runs on???

    BSDM. (BSD-Modified)

    Gee, I see the beginning of a plot for my very own porno!

    John Conner has just turned 18 and a female Terminatix has been sent from the future to whip his ass (literally!). Can our Onan^H^H^H^HOpen-source hero subdue this digital dominatrix by giving this villan the recom-piledriving of her life?
    Coming soon to a Blockbuster Video near you!

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  118. beowulf cluster by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    "Put all you eggs in one basket, and guard that basket with your life!"

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  119. "trailer really raised my blood temperature" by Symbiosis · · Score: 1

    Studies have shown naked women to have such an effect... ;-)

    --

    -------------------------------------------
    I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
    -- Dr. Seuss
  120. For the last time here's the FULL scoop by Cybrex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, without getting into a geek pissing contest over who the most obsessive Terminator fan in existence is, I've spent a frightening percentage of my life collecting, studying, and pondering all things Terminator. It doesn't speak well about me actually having a life, but having consumed every script rewrite, novelization, production note, and version of both films that's available to the public (as well as a bit or two that isn't), I do feel that I'm qualified to speak on this subject with some authority.

    First off, there is no firmly established cannon for the Terminator series, and there are enough conflicts between differing versions of each movie to prevent one from being able to point to the movies as being the final say. With that said, the most internally consistent tellings of the Terminator story seem to be the novels by William Wisher and Randall Frakes.

    Both are very close to the films, but with much more background detail and making a bit more logical sense. The T1 novel is based on the shooting script for the movie, while the T2 novel was based on a pre-production version of the script that had a couple of last-minute changes and edits before it became a shooting script- mostly for budgetary reasons and to make the final scene a bit more climactic on screen.

    That having been said, here's the reason why there are multiple Arnies (in more detail than you probably ever wanted. Sorry.) :

    Skynet patterns the terminators to look like normal (albeit somewhat large) humans. Whether it uses real humans as the pattern (as indicated in the "Infiltrator" novels) or makes up original designs on its own is never firmly established- probably a bit of both. Regardless, it clearly can't make them ALL look just like Schwarzenegger- it would be way too easy to spot them. (In T1, Reese mentions to Sarah that he couldn't ID the terminator until it made a move on her.)

    For the sake of efficiency (and to allow Arnie to be both movies), Skynet compromised- it made 10 copies of each "flesh persona", which would then be scattered around to different locations to prevent identification of duplicates. The terminator that was sent back in the first movie was the first of it's type, leaving 9 more just like it in the vault when Skynet was shut down. The human resistance came in, grabbed the next one off of the rack, and programmed it to be John Connor's protector in the second movie. Again, this is all detailed in the T2 novel, as well as in the original script for the movie. (Originally the future war scene at the beginning was supposed to be much longer, with more exposition and featuring a few new pieces of Skynet hardware (glimpses of which can still be seen in the T2 arcade game and pinball machine), but it would've broken the budget of the already very expensive movie.)

    Of course, the writers are really under no obligation to keep the story consistent for the third movie, but I certainly hope that they do so.

    As a side note, in the novel they DID pull the wrecked arm out of the machinery and melt it down also. I don't recall if that was actually part of the original script or not.

    As an additional side note (sorry, I'm obsessive), the full nomenclature of the Arnie/Terminators that we've seen is the Cyberdyne Systems 800 Series Model 101 Version 2.4. (Watch the deleted chip-switching scene from T2 on frame advance when he reboots and you'll see what I mean.) The 800 series refers to the basic endoskeleton type. We know that the 600 series had rubber skin, and that neither the 600 series nor the 700 series was well armored- either could be taken out with a few well-placed shotgun blasts at close range.

    [PERSONAL SPECULATION MODE]
    Model 101 is probably just that- the hardware model version (possibly general body type), and v2.4 is most likely a software/firmware version. I don't imagine that Skynet would encode the flesh persona's ID into the BIOS, particularly since a significant percentage of endoskeletons had no flesh at all, and were simply the foot soldiers in Skynet's army.
    [/PERSONAL SPECULATION MODE]

    OK, I'm off the soap box now. I'm gonna go take my meds. ;-)

    -Cybrex

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
    1. Re:For the last time here's the FULL scoop by rueba · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      10 terminators? I suppose that makes sense. But does that mean 7 more movies??

      Anyway, with all the time travel paradoxes involved here it's probably not worth thinking too hard about this.

      But you sir, I salute. You are a True Geek(tm). ;)

      --
      The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
  121. Entertainment Industrial Complex by PenrosePattern · · Score: 1

    When I saw T2, I thought that a nicer tie-in would have been that it was the special FX companies (in addition to the military) that spawned the AI that attacked the humans. This way, by watching the film we're causing it to happen. Shrondinger's cat anyone? ps - by reading this note, what are you causing to happen?

    --
    Seuss - I'm telling you this 'cause you're one of my friends. My alphabet starts where your alphabet ends
  122. What the T-1G is made out of..*SPOILER?* by macshune · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere that the female terminator (who was supposed to be Famke Janssen) is made out of "sentient frequency matter." I guess she can just turn into energy whenever she feels like it, which would explain why she can lob energy balls.

    heh, reminds me of when Street Fighter II finally got with the '90s and made Chun-Li able to throw fireballs.

  123. Arnie's Anatomy by Vladimus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's not like I'm really eager to see Arnie's butt again...

    --

    A rolling stone is worth two in the bush!

  124. Arnold for president. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    I want to see Arnold play the role as president.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Arnold for president. by pizzaman100 · · Score: 1

      I hear he wants to play the role of California governor. :)

  125. The Old Trailer? by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the old trailer? You seemed to have missed that this takes place around judgement day. Or it at least has lots of scenes from it.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  126. Re:Direct Link... ( quicktime atoms) by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I know about Dumpster, but the program is very outdated (at least the win 32 version is), today it seems most Quicktimes contain an rmra atom which is the entire file, and also appears to be compressed. And Dumpster doesn't know about it.

    Thanks for the suggestion though.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  127. Trailer has the same damn music as LOTR by smoondog · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice that the music was the same for LOTR:FOTR trailer?

    Jeez...

    -Sean

  128. WOW by gurensan · · Score: 1

    Mplayer actually played it ;D

    Now if only the animatrix movies would play. Only the first one does.

    --
    You are all fartheads.
  129. new generation --changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apparently a "new generation of the Terminator" has dual front air-bags (hidden behind blond hair) and a good size rear bumper with a crack in the middle. that's why it's more powerful than arnnie. gentlemen, (and ladies) looks like our future is bright.

  130. self correction by divinus23 · · Score: 1

    s/million p/p

  131. My guess by Cybrr · · Score: 1

    > So why did Arnold have to die in the Second film

    He was too heavily damaged for repair, and with its objective completed it was assumed to be too great a risk to stay around. Cyberdyne was able to design the T-1000 because it had the T-800 parts from the first movie.

    > if they can just keep shipping cyborgs back to past?

    Apparently, rebels prevented any time travel that would mess up the continuity.

    --
    Why did GEAR crush RDP?
  132. Re:minor correction by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I thought about that, but didn't mention it because I wasn't absolutely sure. I quickly glanced at /etc/passwd to see if it reflected the NetInfo database, but alas it did not -- I wasn't about to load up NetInfo Manager just to check the UID though. :^)

  133. How to find direct link to movie by daveola · · Score: 1

    Tool for extracting direct link: debed

    Example: xine `debed http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/t3-int ernational/largeplayer.html`

    --

    David Ljung Madison
    http://GetDave.com/
    http://MarginalHacks.com/

  134. Re:Direct Link... ( quicktime atoms) by Pathwalker · · Score: 1

    An rmra atom holds pointers ( stored in rmda atoms) to other movies located somewhere else. Typically they are only found in Reference Movies.

    Is the file with the rmra atom only a couple of k in size? If so, you probably ended up with a reference movie. Try doing what I described here (or use this handy script) to track down the real movie file.

  135. Re:Direct Link... ( quicktime atoms) by Snaller · · Score: 1

    I don't recall what files it is anymore. But 'fishing' them out of webpages is simple, but as i recall there are files Dumpster can't handle - full movies. Presumably because if you could open the atoms you could tweak the ones that prohibit sound export on some mov's.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating