Terminator Salvation, colon, Really Long Movie Title

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

i counted the "angry AI" far-fetched just like the "3 laws" because they assume too many "ideal" conditions. at least in my opinion.

Yeah but emergent behavior is being applied in videogames where the bad guys in the games are not programmed to walk this way, shoot that way, go in this direction after a certain period of time etc etc etc. They can learn your patterns the longer you play the game like a baby can learn to walk after practicing until it gets a successful result. Or how a mouse can eventually figure out the exit in a maze over time through memorising where it was last. This behavior can be modeled without giving explicit line by line instructions so that two identical virtual mice, with the same maze can get to the exit/goal to get the cheese through many different ways. Just as two different babies are not going to learn at the exact same time how to walk on two feet. Its behavior EMERGES in unpredictable ways that the original creators would not have expected. The artificial "life" part of skynet is that neural network chip which makes it turn from a simple program with a set of commands to carry out, ..into a real living and thinking and learning lifeform. (like the mouse/baby/dog/cat whatever)

It's technology that exists but just on a more primitive level in current day. Skynet is just a more advanced version of what I have explained above. Even if it is artificial emotions, an aritifical life, the results would be the same as if it were a real person because although we humans are far more intelligent than an animal we react in similar ways based on the environment and conditioning we are given. (ie we learn through "trial and error" until we can find out how not to do a given task incorrectly and then remembering to stick to that pathway in our head, that leads to successful result)

To me it's not unreal, any more than training your cat to poo in the toilet is unreal. The fear of death, due to the knowledge that you will cease to function, which comes about from being self aware (aware that you are alive) counts as an emotional response. I guess people's definition of emotion is going to differ from person to person. But skynet acting out of "self-defence" is just one way of saying "it's a living thing that doesn't like death", regardless of if it knows it can be dangerous to innocent people by continuing to control weapons. It's still "selfish", "power mad", and acting out of personal gain, ("I don't want to give up my control of all the weapons, so I'll kill you all. No man. No problem.. Simple solution." ) so I don't see how it isn't appropriate to portray the out-of-control artificial lifeform as being "power mad" like any human form of genocidal maniac in a sci-fi movie would be. I say it's realistic, because many animals (which are dumber than humans) have the common sense to attack you in "self-defence" if you annoy them enough. But they aren't complex. They also aren't in control of dangerous weapons. Yet you can model their behavior in simulations without using explicit line by line code telling them exactly what it must do. (that's just an ordinary program which isn't designed to adapt to changing conditions in different environments. AI, but not AL.)

AI = line by line code. It is not self aware. Doesn't observe or learn from the environment through trial and error. It is not allowed to guess anything. Assumes nothing. Just carries out the instructions blindly without caring about result. Does not adapt to change without human intervention. (ie you have to totally reprogram it line by line)

AL = learns how to do something through trial and error without caring if it makes millions of mistakes after hours of you training it. Over time it will guess the right answer, get rewarded for it. And repeat what it did to achieve success so it can keep winning. When situation changes. The cycle repeats all over again. Like the dog whose owners rewards it only when it gets the right answer so it remembers to behave the way the owner wants it to. Cares about sucessful result. Adapts to change autonomously like living organisms would or how humans do if they fall for the same trick multiple times and get conditioned to avoid failure by trying something new until you get closer to success.. hundreds of times if need be.

Look I hate to say it, but humans are a type of machine too. Our brains are just much more complex than most other living things so it's easier for us to be cynical.

Edited July 21, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[UN_MARINE]

well said.

wow. i just realized... my posts sound like i'm anti-AI sweet jebus!

i lost focus somewhere, too many words i guess

and, i don't believe the machines will throw the 1st punch

[Chowser]

I thought there was Katherine Brewster in this one. They're married now.

Wonder how this is going to work out.

Bryce Dallas Howard ... Kate Connor

I just hope they do a cameo with Arnold at the end, and maybe they can get Michael Biehn to do a cameo as well.

[Guest sh002]

skynet is the joker who just wants to see the world burn while batman must save the world. jk.

[Vermillion21]

Teaser trailer looks decent ...

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

skynet is the joker who just wants to see the world burn while batman must save the world. jk.

Pfft Superman would do that. Batman doesn't fight logical thinking healthy individuals. Only the insane illogical ones.

Edited July 22, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Morpheus]

So are they going to show the war between skynet armies (terminators, hunter-killer, etc) vs human resistance in LoTR style?

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Er we know it's set in the future. And what happened in the future?

Humans being owned by robots.

Nukes being launched as skynet manipulated all the weapons and hacked into everything.

John running away because he had early warning from arnie about future events and stuffed him into an underground base to be leader of the resistance at the last moment just as all hell broke loose.

Didn't you watch T3? This was supposed to set up the future war. Many complained "it wasn't even an ending", hinting that the ending was left open for other movies now that terminator is becoming more like a cash cow franchise. (hollywood just milking more $ from the name, than wanting to just end it)

To be honest: the 3 that we got didn't even need to exist. Two modern day movies, and then one set right into the future ending the terminator movie story would have been enough. Then after humans beat the machines, they could have had a tv series about mopping up the last remnents of the robots resisting the human. (much smaller scale battles, more focus on individual characters instead of action)

My idea is they make it like the movie "V" (remember that movie and show from the 80s about reptile aliens?) where the robots are now much more highly advanced and slowly getting smarter and disguising themselves as humans but they aren't human to those who can see them or tell the difference. Not as many direct conflicts, but more "we are sneaking amongst humans stealthily" kinda thing. (ie they can't afford to reveal themselves in public like the arnie versions anymore with guns blazing and all)

This should have happened AFTER the future war movie, not in between one imo. It's like V the tv series, but with terminators hiding their true form from society.

Edited July 24, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

People saying science fiction movies is just nonsense are in the same boat as the people in ancient times who were very set in their thinking and if they couldn't understand something and how it worked, it would be labelled as magick or fantasy.

But how do you know what will be realistic in the future? How can you be sure it won't lead in that direction? Have you traveled there? Have we reached a point where technology has reached its peak and just won't get better anymore?

Don't go around saying I think Science Fiction is nonsense or that I assume technology has reached its peak. I said that Skynet is cliché, poor and unrealistic story-wise nowadays (maybe I shoud've said "believable", blame my poor english). Not as a serious thesis about AI (or AL): As a moviegoer, I need more than just "Skynet became self aware and launched a nuclear attack against humanity". Of course it was okay when I was a teenager and I was all about visual effects and had no clue about science fiction or literature. HAL 9000, for instance it's much more believable and as a character is basically the same.

Now for the "real" thing, why just assume that an artificial life form would behave like an animal or arrive to the same conclusions as human beings? Its nature is completely different, so could be its way of seeing things. Maybe instead of annihilate the species it decides that it wants to become a Budha and it succeeds within a few seconds.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Because in cyberpunk movies it's usually dark and dystopian.

The reason I didn't like T2's tone as much as T1's tone was that T1 had that blade runner feel to it that technology is taking control of people's lives, machines are making humans obsolete, poor people who don't want to be part of a cybernetic race to perfection having to survive in a materialistic society that dehumanises people and devalue the human spirit.

I like it when technology is not perfect. I like it when future shows the disadvantages of living in such a society, so that there is an excuse to tell a story between the two sides. I like it when the main characters are forced to question whether what they are doing is in fact the right thing. (ie in appleseed for example where duenan actually thinks hard about it, and realises that maybe humans deserve the "right" to make mistakes and learn from it themselves without interference. It's their mistake to learn, it may have a "spiritual growth" aspect to it: they you can grow from it. Or in "Gatacca" where there is a perfect society and people are judged only on genes not on human potential where people can dream and go after the dream, or in "Equilibrium" where just because one madman thinks you can have peace through drugging people, it is best solution to everything forgetting that humans 'feeling' is what makes us human and we don't need 'fixing'.)

No I don't assume an artificial life form can't be budha just that I don't like a movie where it is not grounded in social problems with the technology's usage. You need to have strong conflict that shows good balance. You can have advantages (as I mention in astro boy where society is more efficient with the help of the machines) and disadvantages (that because of the humans having problem competing with the robot they now feel threatened so like an endangered species they have to fight them for their share of the world) of trying to make perfect things. These are what make for good stories, and bring realistic social issues to sci fi to legitimise it with audiences that aren't concerned only with how things work.

Don't think that just because something is aimed at teenagers it must be dumb and stupid. Many teens are going to be growing up in a society with the technology in their lives. So the world might not be the same as the one the older generation is living in now. They might be facing different issues/problems from the adults of today who never had to think hard about it. By the time they become adults, they might be the ones making sci fi for the next gen that warns of new problems facing their future.

With cyberpunk what makes me like it, is the paranoia, the darker feel of it (similar to how in batman you don't have him run around during the day but hiding in the shadows to fight the underworld) the more cynical tone. (the misuse of technology by humans to control others - ie in bubblegum crisis or patlabor where the mass produced robots can be used by bad guys to cause problems. They are not just shown to be beneficial but also deadly weapons just like any other machines like guns or bombs can be misused to cause harm to innocents)

If you want your machines to act nice and friendly, and cold and calculating and plotting, that's fine. But that's imo just not as cool as ones that can ALSO fight as ordinary humans like what the terminator is (unthinking mechanical zombie being manipulated by its programming like a person forced to perform a contract killing without caring about the thing it is about to kill in order to carry out the task efficiently where emotions won't get in the way)

In T2 I highlighted that AL allows for a terminator to question itself and think for itself (like us humans) and that the only reason arnie couldn't do it., was because he was designed by skynet to not be allowed to. (This make Skynet as bad and corrupt as a genocidal maniac) Sarah and John had to open his brain and flip the neural network chip on. That is when arnie started to "learn". Terminator then IS realistic since this is technology that really exists. A robot can act more human-like and make mistakes if it isn't just tied to a line by line program that runs loops. Instead it can correct itself to adapt to each situation it finds itself in or each unique environment to adjust the behaviour accordingly. Just like animals or humans do when they reach a wall or an obstacle forcing them to find other ways to get to the goal. (I picture a mouse that can learn the maze through many trial and error attempts to get to the cheese at the end)

You could say skynet going crazy is dumb, but I say its not. It's not any more unrealistic than HAL method of going crazy to preserve itself. They are both using logic, but because they are self aware, the danger of them being self aware is what caused them to react violently. So morally that's all we care about: the danger that they control a weapon, and kill innocents. If the original poster want to use the term "powermad" then I say he is justified in calling it that. Because being logical and coming up with a solution doesn't disqualify a person from being power mad. "Oh but it mathmatically made a hard choice to defend itself from evil humans" fair enough. Maybe the humans who created it were bad, that doesn't mean a machine killing a whole species itself isn't ALSO bad. You understand what I am saying? Technology not being perfect and also being dangerous (as well as useful and beneficial) is what I like. But I prefer it when there IS great conflict in actions over just philosophical discussions.

Cold, calculating, and intelligent AI isn't the focus of the terminator movies. The focus is on the chase between victim and hunter and it is set up like a thriller movie. You just accept that there was a disaster in the future causing the losing side to want to change history. Humans don't have to accept the future, they can fight it, prevent it, and use their free will in current day to affect it. This is the "human potential" part that a machine can't predict about us just using the logic - it's not a crystal ball that makes them some all-knowing god. Now because the emphasis is on US, the humans, we see humans changing the present time and building a new future. Our ability to choose is what makes us seem random to a machine and that is what threatens it. It has to murder to prevent us from having control which threatens its own control.

If you like a movie where the machines are right and save humans that's ok with me. I just think it wouldn't appeal to people who watch movies and who have emotions and want to see a great conflict between two sides. I think part of the appeal of terminator was this idea of a machine being powerful and dangeorus and it's that threat of danger to us which creates the suspense, or a sense of doom like what you get from a horror movie like alien. Most horror movies are dark, scary, and violent. I felt that T2 had less horror to it and more action. It's more rewatchable, but the dark cyberpunk feel of it was sacrificed somewhat, causing it to become an action movie franchise. By the third movie robots looked so clean and shiny and too hollywood. Too bright and perfect. Constrast that with T1 which was dark, paranoid (anything from the shadows could be a potential killer, robot won't sleep, invulnerable to most weapons) and your frightened to trust your own common sense. (ie terminator has ability to mimmick the voice of your friends and family, something that you wouldn't assume was possible) ...But humans triumphed over it and survive. Machines are not perfect. We turned on other machines and use a machine to kill a machine in the end. And man was in control. You didn't just assume because a machine could 'think', was smart, could do jobs quickly, that it had no reason to kill people, that it wasn't dangerous. You saw that machines can cause accidents, they can misfire a weapon, and make mistakes at first. (like arnie not knowing what a smile is and having to scan a person's mouth to learn how to smile in t2) They were not portrayed as one or the other. Arnie could be the zombie from the first one, or with the learning chip, an intelligent person who could learn human behavior in real-time and practice behaving like us, not just read about it from a 'file'. Some things you learn by remembering what was written about it; but not understanding it, (eg "humans feel pain") other things you learn by practice and experience; learning from mistakes you make and 'evolving'. (arnie understanding why people cry at the end of T2)

Edited July 25, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Vermillion21]

So are they going to show the war between skynet armies (terminators, hunter-killer, etc) vs human resistance in LoTR style?

I hope so ...

[UN_MARINE]

the huge LoTR battle scenes would be kind of a stretch, Skynet did just flatten or vaporize most of humanity earlier.

a small group of resistance vs all of the machines would make the most sense. it would make for a more compelling story too.

a huge legion fight would be kinda cliche' already IMO.

[bsu legato]

Steering things away from the rather circular discussion on a hypothetical AI's penchant for genocide, there's some news from SDCC, and apparently it's all good.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080727f.php

The biggest news is that Dark Knight co-scribe Jonah Nolan has done substantial rewrites, so much so that he may get sole credit. Take that, Brancato and Ferris! From what I've read on another site, the crowd was pretty positive about the featured footage. I'm still extremely skeptical about this whole endeavor, but the increasingly positive word of mouth is tough to deny.

[electric indigo]

Time to revive this thread with some visuals:

Hi-Res versions here

[sharky]

Don't go around saying I think Science Fiction is nonsense or that I assume technology has reached its peak. I said that Skynet is cliché, poor and unrealistic story-wise nowadays (maybe I shoud've said "believable", blame my poor english). Not as a serious thesis about AI (or AL): As a moviegoer, I need more than just "Skynet became self aware and launched a nuclear attack against humanity". Of course it was okay when I was a teenager and I was all about visual effects and had no clue about science fiction or literature. HAL 9000, for instance it's much more believable and as a character is basically the same.

Now for the "real" thing, why just assume that an artificial life form would behave like an animal or arrive to the same conclusions as human beings? Its nature is completely different, so could be its way of seeing things. Maybe instead of annihilate the species it decides that it wants to become a Budha and it succeeds within a few seconds.

The military tried to shut down Skynet and that's why it went on the offensive. It perceived humans as a threat and was intelligent enough to understand the concept of self and wanted to save itself from being killed.

[the white drew carey]

Time to revive this thread with some visuals:

Hi-Res versions here

Well, its nice to know that brought on the mechanical designer from Transformers...

[UN_MARINE]

wow...

more of the unintelligent "let's put parts that don't make sense there so it looks more interesting" design philosophy.

this guy's a hack. hell, the headless giant thing is just a photochop of other designs. note the Robocop2 groin & ED 209 feet.

*groan*

i hope they're only concept art & never made it to the film.

it's really a shame when the franchise started with feasible & well thought-out designs only to degrade into "flavor of the week" designs.

oh well. ConnorBale will just really have to be the savior of mankind on this one

[Greyryder]

Those motorcycle Terminators look like somebody started to build a humanoid robot then halfway through said (Screw it! Let's build a chopper, instead. That would be wikid cool!"

[Roger]

Why the hell would the Terminators want a giant biped robot? Just makes it easier to trip.

[chowyunskinny]

James Cameron Clarifies His Thoughts On The Film

There's been some discussion at AICN and elsewhere of me rescinding my so-called blessing of T4 and that's not the case. The truth is there never was a blessing to rescind, and there's been some kind of misunderstanding between me and McG, perfectly innocent I believe. He asked me in a phone call when I was shooting in New Zealand earlier this year if I would be a supporter and creative participant in the new film. I said sure, send me the script and I'll give you my thoughts. And I warned him that free advice is usually worth what you pay for it. For whatever reason I never got the script and to date I haven't seen a foot of film other than what everybody's seen in the trailer, which is not enough to form an opinion. So I have zero basis for supporting or dissing the film. As I said in an interview, for all I know it could be a masterpiece or it could be a big steaming pile. I think all people heard was the steaming pile part and concluded I was against the film, which I'm not. In fact, it might be very good, an opinion based solely on what Sam Worthington has shared with me. He's nobody's fool when it comes to material, and has absolutely the lowest bullshit quotient of anyone I know, and he has repeatedly told me that he reckons the film is going to be good. I know him to be very critical (in a healthy way) of his own work, and an actor who always aspires to excellence, so I know he wouldn't praise the film if he didn't feel it.

Obviously I can't give my blessing (whatever that means anyway ) to the film completely blind. But I'm predisposed to be supportive based on Sam's involvement and his judgment, because I believe in him. So there you have it. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that it's not a steaming pile.

Jim out

from Aint It Cool News

[Vermillion21]

Well, I'm probably gonna catch this flick in the theaters when it's released ...

[Sumdumgai]

I liked the Hunter Killer tanks. Maybe the human resistance can trip the giant headless terminators with some concrete pillars rolling along, or with some metal cables or rope!

Terminator motorcycle.... oooooookay. I hope Bale can save this movie from itself, because most of those designs don't make sense. Hopefully we'll see some T-600s and they'll look properly not-convincingly human with rubber skin.

[Graham]

I actually quite like those design pics.

Graham

[the white drew carey]

Terminator motorcycle.... oooooookay. I hope Bale can save this movie from itself, because most of those designs don't make sense. Hopefully we'll see some T-600s and they'll look properly not-convincingly human with rubber skin.

Yeah, because crotch rockets are perfect for navigating the rubble-strewn landscape that is the future! Who knows, maybe they have motocross-looking terminators, too?

Edited November 12, 2008 by the white drew carey

[bsu legato]

Who knows, maybe they have motocross-looking terminators, too?

Would they be XTREME motocross-looking terminators?

[Hikuro]

Well the MotorHK's and the Harvestor are just a big joke to have to me, but whatever, I'm not doing the movie and probably a good thing, I would of made it too damn good and you guys would despise the original films

But god that 600 is HUGE, no way it could pass as human.

[eugimon]

Would they be XTREME motocross-looking terminators?

would that be the T-xXx ?

[bsu legato]

would that be the T-xXx ?

Beautiful!

[uminoken]

I hope all are just concept art, EXCEPT the HK flyer. I like the way they kept the main design from T2, but still modded it just enough. Best design of the bunch IMO

[Morpheus]

Time to revive this thread with some visuals:

At first glance, I was thinking Transformer II. However those design are quite good, I was thinking Skynet Army would be Necron-like infatry

[Hikuro]

I hope all are just concept art, EXCEPT the HK flyer. I like the way they kept the main design from T2, but still modded it just enough. Best design of the bunch IMO

Nope, those designs are in the movie, there's even been sneak peaks. Only way they'll go away is if they snip those scenes out and from what I hear, they're "important" to the story.

[Knight26]

The new trailer definitely has me looking forward to the movie, smart move having the resistance use UH-1s and A-10s, as they would be one of the few airframes capable of flying after the nuclear devastation. One other thing to consider, I can't get the idea out of my head after seeing John talk to the Terminator, that he wasn't just boasting, but that he was briefing the terminator, that he developed the time travel device, and lied about it, then sent the terminators back in order to fulfill prophecy.

[Gaijin]

Looks pretty good. I'll prob give it a go in the theater.

[Hikuro]

Not bad of a trailer, though I'm kind of curious what's going to happen. Guess just have to wait and see 5 months from now.

[azrael]

One other thing to consider, I can't get the idea out of my head after seeing John talk to the Terminator, that he wasn't just boasting, but that he was briefing the terminator, that he developed the time travel device, and lied about it, then sent the terminators back in order to fulfill prophecy.

We shall see.