I agree.
The Terminator's 'nature' (such as it is) is to go straight to the target and terminate with extreme prejudice (if it can be said to have such). It is a merciless, emotionless killing machine.
Now, the explanations are pretty good, BUT.. which compromises his mission to terminate Sarah Connor more:
a) Going STRAIGHT to Sarah and terminating her immediately, regardless of whether there are police in the area, shooting it afterwards (they probably wouldn't have shoot it before it could've killed Sarah).
Wouldn't matter even if they DISMANTLE it afterwards, it would've completed its mission.
b) 'Disappearing' without at least 5 or more pairs of eyes that are staring right at it noticing, and then going to some (pre-arranged? How?) motel (that has all appropriate instruments) for a surgery, and taking a risk that he might not find the target again, or that they will possibly be able to protect her. It will also not know if they will move the target to an unknown location or another police station or a hard-to-break-in jail or whatnot. Perhaps the police might RELEASE the target, which would mean it would take a HUGE risk of not finding it again, especially now that it has been alerted to its presence.
It's cover is blown, and the target will now know to expect it. The target is very likely to get away, and the terminator will have hard time finding the target again, if it can even be expected to find it at all.
I don't know, I would think B) would be compromising the mission in a _WAY_ bigger way.
It's just a stupid horror movie cliché and trope, and thus bad writing. The only really awful flaw in the movie, besides wondering where Kyle Reese learned to curse like that (would there really be a word like 'motherf-er' in such a desperate, apocalyptic scenario?)
reply
share