given that arnold’s now officially our gov, i thought i should look into his projected policies for the state. of course, there’s his inaugural address, but i figured i should instead analyze his latest body of work, terminator 3.
man, all that crap about being smarter from all that studying, just forget it: i just lost 20 iq points from watching this sucker. it’s just dumb. not that exciting, not that impressive to watch, and not that captivating, despite an obvious amount of money spent on special effects and action sequences. but they all look done (or overdone), and there’s nothing new.
really, the big flaw in this film is the incredibly weak script. could it be a bad sign that it took 12 years to come up with a script for the sequel? nothing really makes sense, the premise is sort of weak, and then they try to get vaguely philosophical and existential around the whole thing, but it’s really half-assed and just irritating. and even if their premise did hold up, why do the machines keep sending terminators back in time later and later during john connor’s life? why didn’t they just send the t-1000 and then the t-x again right after the original terminator failed? whatever. and of course, according to current scientific theory, it’s impossible to send people back in time before the instant the first time machine is invented…
i really enjoyed t2, but t3 is a waste of time. even the t-x isn’t that interesting or even scary, compared to the t-1000 of t2. it even manages to make a hot naked chick dull. it’s just a big set up to try and make t4.
to be honest, i’m not really sure what this bodes for our state. i think i’ll watch that victoria’s secret fashion show next and see if there are any answers in that.
Posted at November 20, 2003 12:25 AMIs Scientific American always such a rag?! The following quote is like slumber party talk in 6th grade
“Consider, for example, the time traveler who visits the past and murders his mother when she was a young girl. How do we make sense of this? If the girl dies, she cannot become the time traveler’s mother. But if the time traveler was never born, he could not go back and murder his mother.
Paradoxes of this kind arise when the time traveler tries to change the past, which is obviously impossible. But that does not prevent someone from being a part of the past. Suppose the time traveler goes back and rescues a young girl from murder, and this girl grows up to become his mother. The causal loop is now self-consistent and no longer paradoxical. Causal consistency might impose restrictions on what a time traveler is able to do, but it does not rule out time travel per se. “
Sheesh! And gotta love the ad for the War on Germs. With the photomicrographs that try to make them look scary. But honey don’t these kind of look like the pictures from the Hubble telescope.
Snark, snark,
C-
Posted by: cheryl at November 26, 2003 9:58 PMComments are now closed for this entry. Thank you for playing.