MovieChat Forums > The Terminator (1984) Discussion > The Terminator was inept

The Terminator was inept

posted 8 years ago by MaximRecoil (4598)
32 replies | jump to latest

When he went to the nightclub he was carrying his pistol with an empty chamber ("condition three"). The time he spent racking the slide is what gave Reese enough time to shoot him before he could shoot Connor.

Note that he didn't make that blunder when he shot the wrong Sarah Connor. He simply drew his pistol and pulled the trigger, meaning a cartridge was already chambered, the hammer was cocked, and the thumb safety was off ("condition zero"), which is exactly how you would expect a Terminator to carry a 1911, because that's the readiest possible state to fire and he wouldn't have to worry about an accidental discharge anyway.

"You know your weapons, buddy."

Not well enough to know that condition three offers him two disadvantages (maximum cartridge capacity reduced by one, and lowest state of readiness) and zero advantages. That single blunder is what caused him to fail his entire mission.

[–] MikeCable (1842) 8 years ago

Interesting, I didn't consider that before. You'd think an artificially-intelligent killer android to keep its weapon at the ready at all times and not have a problem with accidental discharge.

I guess they had that scene for dramatic effect during the scene.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 8 years ago

You'd think an artificially-intelligent killer android to keep its weapon at the ready at all times and not have a problem with accidental discharge.

Exactly. Mechanically speaking, a 1911 isn't going to go off by itself even in condition 0. Humans don't typically carry 1911s in condition 0 because we want a hedge against human error (i.e., the muscles not doing exactly what the brain tells them to do; high-stress situations make human error even more likely). Human error, sometimes accompanied by negligence, is the cause of nearly all accidental discharges.

However, people do typically carry a 1911 in condition 1 (chamber loaded, hammer cocked, thumb safety on; also known as "cocked & locked"), which is still a far higher state of readiness than condition 3. For this type of gun, it's long been considered the best compromise between safety and readiness. To fire the gun you only have to swipe the safety off with your thumb before pulling the trigger, which can easily and ~instantly be done while drawing, so it doesn't necessarily add any extra time.

Carrying his pistol in either condition 1 or condition 0 would have allowed him to complete his mission at the nightclub, though condition 0 makes more sense for a Terminator, who isn't susceptible to human error or stress, which can cause humans to pull the trigger accidentally.

[–] MikeCable (1842) 8 years ago

I feel this is more of a technical detail which just doesn't matter to a general film-going audience. I see the same kind of technical error in almost every film featuring a helicopter scene where they dub in the sound of a two-bladed Huey over another type of helicopter. Frustrates me to no end but I came to live with it long ago.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

Even someone who knows nothing about the technical details of guns would be able to notice that he only had to pull the trigger to shoot the wrong Sarah Connor, yet, using the same pistol (which is very recognizable to anyone, due to its big laser sight), he had to pull the slide back first before attempting to shoot the right Sarah Connor. They may not know what would lead to such a discrepancy in real life, but they would still be able to spot the discrepancy.

The problem with it is that it undermines the character. The Terminator is presented as an elite, unstoppable killing machine, but this scene makes him look foolish, inept, unprepared; it is completely out of character.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

You know what else? He'd have had to unchamber a round after the earlier shooting to get it back to that state!

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

It could have been done in this way for one of these two reasons.

1.) It is just a movie and I highly doubt they actually had a professional gun shooter analyzer on set to make sure every detail was right.

2.) If the actress was killed in the beginning of the movie, the film would be over.

Even in other Terminator films, there are these close encounters and at the last minute, the protagonist always manages to get away. You had to become familiar with the fact that this is how it was intended in the script.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

1.) It is just a movie and I highly doubt they actually had a professional gun shooter analyzer on set to make sure every detail was right.

Except, they did get it right, when he shot the wrong Sarah Connor using the same pistol (also, his Uzi was fully ready to fire as well). That results in an inconsistency. Did the Terminator forget to make his pistol ready before going into the nightclub? It's out of character for a computer-controlled machine to forget something, especially something crucial to its mission.

"2.) If the actress was killed in the beginning of the movie, the film would be over."

That's not the point. What you do is have the Terminator do things correctly but have Kyle Reese still manage to shoot him first. Then you don't have a situation in your movie where the Terminator failed due to its own ineptness, but instead, failed due to the competence of the hero.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

You're not James Cameron. The point is moot.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

You're not James Cameron.

Your non sequitur is dismissed.

"The point is moot."

Your mere assertion dismissed. Also, given that you presented no actual argument, nor anything else of any validity, your tacit concession on the matter is noted.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

Yawn...

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

Your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Great, another troll. Well at least it is not a retarded on I guess...

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Thank you. Even though I'm impressed with OP's knowledge about guns, this was totally irrelevant for that movie.

Like you say, if he would have killed Sarah in the beginning, what movie would we have?

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

True. You gotta admin those Terminators aren't too good at terminating their actual target. They mow down family, friends, cops, and bystanders with no problem.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

It's the same thing with movies like Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre... They seem to have no problem with killing everyone around their target but somehow always manage to fail when it comes to them.

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

Lol yep. But as you said, there's no movie if they were really good at their job.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

Like you say, if he would have killed Sarah in the beginning, what movie would we have?

I've already replied to this absurd "argument". Once again:

"That's not the point. What you do is have the Terminator do things correctly but have Kyle Reese still manage to shoot him first. Then you don't have a situation in your movie where the Terminator failed due to its own ineptness, but instead, failed due to the competence of the hero."

I've never suggested that the Terminator should have killed Sarah at the beginning of the movie. That idea comes from your own failure to read properly.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Okay let's say that they would have corrected the movie considering your technical details. How many people would have noticed? No even simpler, how many people would have given a flying fuck? You and maybe a few others obsessed with firearms. Honestly, it is really not a big deal and make it one is really nitpicking.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

Your questions and assertions are utterly irrelevant, and are therefore dismissed.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

So basically, you want people to either agree with you or have their arguments dismissed... Okay.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

That's another non sequitur from you. You've already agreed with me, and then you tried to make excuses for the issue. Making excuses is irrelevant to this thread.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

I didn't agree with you according to the movie, I only saluted your set of knowledge about the subject. This been said, the general audience doesn't know so mucb about the matter therefore, it isn't an important detail in the context.

If you want me to be more specific, take a movie like Back to the Future. If really I should stop to find every little inaccuracies or plot holes, I would sound like someone who hated the movie. But in the context where it is a movie about time travel, I can overcome the details and enjoy it for what it is.

Same thing here, it isn't a major plot hole and really you have to be picky to be triggered by it. So yes, you sure are informed, but it isn't important for the movie.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

You're attempting to make more excuses, which is irrelevant. The error exists regardless who notices it, and regardless of how important you think it is. Also, are you a teenager? Typically only teenagers jump on bandwagons by using trendy (and ridiculous) terms like "triggered". Of course, it's also typically teenagers who use the ridiculous trendy words wrong, like you did.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Oh sorry Mr. Perfect English is not my first language and I don't live in an English speaking place so I don't hear people speaking between them on a daily basis. My knowledge of the language and how I use is mosrtly based on how people interact with me on the Internet.

This been said, I didn't try to make excuses. I tried to give arguments but it looks like your heas is too deep in your ass.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

>This been said, I didn't try to make excuses.

Yes, you did. Saying that an error doesn't matter / isn't important because such and such, is trying to make an excuse.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

You don't seem to understand that it is not an "error" in the general meaning. It was part of the plot, this is the way the director wanted it. An error is made when there is something wrong with the continuity of the movie (like the famous bullets which already did holes in the wall before they were fired in Pulp Fiction). It is when a goof accidentally happens and wasn't planned by the maker.

Would it be an error in real life? Yes. In the movie when it was probably scripted that way? No.

[–] MaximRecoil (4598) 7 years ago

>You don't seem to understand that it is not an "error" in the general meaning.

Yes, it is an error, i.e., the Terminator is blatantly out of character in that scene. It had already been established that it knows how to carry that particular pistol in a state of maximum readiness, because we see it when it shoots the "wrong" Sarah Connor with it. Are we supposed to believe that the Terminator "forgot" to ready his pistol before going into the club specifically to kill Sarah Connor? Like I said, that's blatantly out of character, because it's a machine controlled by a computer, a futuristic computer no less.

>An error is made when there is something wrong with the continuity of the movie (like the famous bullets which already did holes in the wall before they were fired in Pulp Fiction). It is when a goof accidentally happens and wasn't planned by the maker.

Continuity errors are only one of many types of errors which can occur in a work of fiction. This error is an internal logic error. A futuristic computer-controlled cyborg doesn't "forget" how to do its job properly unless there is something in the story which establishes a reason for such forgetfulness, such as its computer being damaged or otherwise malfunctioning. The result of this error is that the Terminator is presented as inept in that scene, which is the opposite of how an author should be presenting the antagonist, unless it's a comedy/parody/spoof.

>Would it be an error in real life? Yes. In the movie when it was probably scripted that way? No.

See above.

[–] fishrock (53) 7 years ago

One of the deleted scenes on the deluxe metal boxed Blu Ray show him shooting, nothing happening, him looking at the gun in irritation, and then following the proper safe protocol for a misfire. So he set the gun on the table pointed at Sarah, the target, and the scene switched to his vision display as he counted down the 30 seconds you are supposed to wait in case of a delayed firing. While he waited, he checked the UZI to make sure he had chambered a round, and said to Sarah "You are Sarah Connor, right?"

She said, "Yeah, who are you?" He said "I'm a friend of Ginger and Matt. They told me you would be here, and I thought maybe we could hang out....," and then the 30 seconds you wait in case of a delayed misfire expired, and then he went to back to trying to kill her.

They cut the scene completely, I don't know why. I thought it added to the movie, personally. Probably just ran out of time and something had to be cut.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

haha :)

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

You are either lying, delusional, or trying to write a funny story. That never happened.

[–] fishrock (53) 6 years ago

You got me. Just like the guy above you who figured it out a year ago. Albeit with considerably less hostility than you.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I hate it when people say "chill its just a movie" or " because its in the script" its a cop-out.

But with guns - very very few movies will pay attention to its "condition" as you put it - often a gun will be cocked several times a one guy threatens another , to indicate getting closer to condition 0 .
Also anytime anyone touches a gun in a film it will make a mechanical clicking noise regardless of if the user has cocked / un/safetyed it. no film can avoid that.

...except the earlier incident ypu mention lol