I realize this is a result of unintentionally retconning, and its not the movie's fault... but now it kind of bothers me a bit when Reese hits T800 with the shotgun in the club. Here, it knocks him down and incapacitates him for a short bit. Arnie seems stunned before he gets back up as if he needs a second to recover.
I feel like the T800 we've come to know after this film, he would have probably just stood his ground while a shotgun round blasts his skin.
The shot from a shotgun does not contain enough mass to knock a human backward, much less a Terminator.
It also wouldn't cause enough trauma to incapacitate the terminator for any length of time, based on other events we see. I see how it was necessary for the dramatic effect, but it does not hold up to any critical scrutiny at all.
Interesting point... If it could, I suppose it would also knock down the shooter when he shoots (reaction force)?
Probably just like this https://youtu.be/-hQt3Wcywhw?t=75 or this https://youtu.be/HB3qdnHeIJQ?t=112 is only possible if the guy wielding the weapon also has the strength to bend it.
A good observation. The force would more likely pull the gun out of the shooter's hand, or even just lift the shooter into the air if they held tight enough, before the barrel would bend.
shareThe moviechatterer is, of course, right... in the Last Action Hero/ stupid-movie-physics sense... But. And leaving aside the ridiculous knockback... It is always possible to imagine that one or more pellets just happened to pass through a momentary gap in the Terminator armor - which may have some weak spots where flexing plates overlap. Anyway, I am happy to conceive some momentary problem *Primary Bus Interruption - Rerouting to Secondary - Bleep* which was rectified, at least temporarily.
shareYeah. I like both movies equally but the Arnold Terminator got superior guns against the T-1000 in the sequel.
shareI agree.
But I have to say, as a kid in the 80s, pump shotguns were shown everywhere as THE most powerful weapon, as a new, portable cannon that would blast and push back anything.
Like an uzi, a few years later, was portrayed as something that could cut stuff sideways. Or handguns can shoot locks open, etc. There is a movie version of many iconic weapons that gets accepted as real.
Pump gunshots in the 80s were super powered, enough to push down a T800.
What is retconning ?
share"Retcon" is a term that stands for retroactive continuity.
It's when a new piece of information or story makes a new interpretation of the original piece. It happens a lot in sequels or later seasons of TV series.
Off the top if my head "midichlorians" would be an example. Clearly not a part if the original story, but made up after the fact as part of the universe. Technically a prequel so maybe a bad example, but you get the idea.
You are right in your explanation of what the term means, but I'm confused by your use of the term in your OP.
I mean the scene you are talking about is the very first instance of the T-800 taking shotgun blast into the chest, so how could it be a retcon? Retcon is something that is included in new works, such as sequels or even prequels taking place in the same universe (I think your midichlorian example stands) that contradicts something established earlier.
So for example if we had a scene in T2, T3, T4, etc. where a T-800 was shot point blank in the chest with a shotgun and did not get knocked down... your statement still would not make sense, as in that case that scene - the later released one - would be the retcon.
About the scene: as others have explained, the knockback is there for drama, tension, etc, but I can give you one other reason, and that reason is depicting the difference between energy weapons and kinetic weapoins.
In the future war scenes, both fractions use energy weapons, so that indirectly makes the viewer curious what happens if a kinetic weapon is used on one of the Terminators. And that is exactly the viewer expectation Cameron is satisfying there. He shows that kinetic weapons are still viable, not for damaging the Terminator's frame or systems, but for knockback effect. I think the same reason (knockback) is why he opted for kinetic weapons in Aliens for the marines as well. At least, this is how I see it :-)
What I mean is, the idea of how invincible or impervious to things like a shotgun blast a T800 is, is a retcon itself.
Obviously they didn't have the events of the sequels in mind when they made that, so it's not their fault.
But in subsequent chapters, we have a better idea of what a terminator can withstand so it carries over back into the original. Only without this one inconsistency.
But yeah, agree probably stretched the idea of the definition, but it's a similar concept.
what I'm not keen on is the T-something's are made up to be virtually indestructible
but in Genisys they magically get hold of a weapon that can destroy them with one hit
and if you think about it, in T2, he gets (almost) destroyed by losing half an arm, and a pole
"but in Genisys they magically get hold of a weapon that can destroy them with one hit"
There was nothing magical about it. It was a .50 BMG, presumably with armor-piercing bullets, and it was precisely aimed at a known vulnerability. In The Terminator, the most powerful guns it was shot with were a 12 gauge shotgun and a .223 rifle. Both of those are pea shooters compared to a .50 BMG. This video can give you an idea of what a .50 BMG armor-piercing bullet can do:
https://youtu.be/xq_9pI70nU4
They magically get hold of it - not that they get hold of a magical weapon
But I suppose if you're the 5th film in the franchise, you need to up the weapons game. if the bad guy is the robot, obviously 'just being able to kill it' is no good. if the good guy is the robot, you want some sort of danger
"They magically get hold of it - not that they get hold of a magical weapon"
There was nothing magical about them getting ahold of it either. It was a Barrett M82, which has been produced since 1982. Sarah and her Terminator guardian that she called "Pops" had been planning for that night for 9 years, and the Barrett M82 could be purchased at a gun shop just as easily as, say, a Remington model 742 Woodsmaster or any other non-NFA firearm. It's just a semiautomatic rifle and it doesn't exceed the .50 caliber limit that would place it in the NFA "destructive device" category. They only needed to find a gun shop that stocked them and to bring enough money.
Firearms chambered for .50 BMG are "illegal" now in the PꓱФPLꓱ'S ЯꓱPUê“LIꓘ ФF ꓘдLIFФЯиIд, because they disregard the US Constitution when you're behind the iron curtain, but that's only as of 2005. There was no law against them there in 1984.
It was the fifth film in the franchise. It's to be expected that the writers find a way of turning an "invincible robot" into something slightly less invincible.
shareIt was never portrayed as invincible, but it might as well be if all you have is a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot, which won't even make it through soft body armor, let alone the armor on a "hyperalloy combat chassis."
In the first movie it got structurally damaged to the point that it had a pronounced limp after it got hit and run over by a semi, and then it got blown to pieces by a homemade pipe bomb, rendering it pretty much harmless at that point to anyone who has normal freedom of movement. Finally, it got crushed in a hydraulic press.
For someone who knows exactly how it's constructed (like a fellow Terminator obviously would), and knows exactly where it's going to be at a particular date and time, neutralizing it would be very easy, because you can simply ambush it from a distance with a weapon that you know will defeat its armor and destroy its power supply (like a .50 BMG with AP bullets).
"invincible robot"
Throughout most of T1, it was impossible to stop it. I don't have the exact dialogue to hand. Or to be more precise, portrayed as being impossible to stop.
How can you say it was portrayed as being impossible to stop when the movie literally showed it being destroyed, i.e., permanently stopped?
And Reese never said it was impossible to stop; he said he didn't know if he could stop it with the weapons he had at his disposal:
Sarah Connor: "Can you stop it?"
Kyle Reese: "I don't know. With these weapons, I don't know."
In the majority of the first Terminator film, the robot was portrayed as being impossible to stop with the resources they had at hand.
shareAnd what does that have to do with Terminator Genisys, in which their resources included a .50 BMG rifle with AP bullets, years of planning, exhaustive knowledge about how Terminators are constructed, and foreknowledge pertaining to exactly where and when to snipe at it from a distance?
There was nothing about that event in TG that was at odds with the events of T1. It certainly isn't an instance of the writers making the Terminator "less invincible," nor is there anything magical about acquiring a Barrett M82, especially when you have 9 years' worth of advance notice.
There are countless things which are effectively impossible if you don't have the right tools and/or knowledge for the job. Try to change a flat tire with your bare hands sometime, for example. Good luck loosening those lug nuts with just your fingers, and lifting the car high enough to get the tire off the ground without a jack. Also, good luck trying to stop anything that's armored with just a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot.
yeah. I'm struggling to find out what the argument is here. I'm saying T1 portrayed the robot as being near-invincible, you're saying it wasn't. I'm saying in T5, out came a gun that could easily kill it, and you're saying "it's just a gun". Ok.
shareWell it's not out of line though. Hitting it head on with the semi truck was enough to give it a limp and a point blank pipe bomb blew off it's legs. So not completely unstoppable with non-military resources, which means an anti-tank rifle should be effective.
share20 minutes from the end of almost 2 hours, the truck hit it at speed "point blank", and the damage to the T-800 was a slight limp (if you watch at 1:27:05, there is no limp, the limp appears to have started at about 1:27:10). That's reasonably indestructible from a cinematic point of view. During the length of the film, the damage to the T-800 was a gashed arm and one eye taken out, during a car chase with "small arms" or whatever you want to call them. During T1, the T-800 was portrayed for the length of the film as being fairly unstoppable, although having some vulnerabilities. In T5, they got hold of some upgraded weaponry.
share"yeah. I'm struggling to find out what the argument is here. I'm saying T1 portrayed the robot as being near-invincible"
Invincible to low-powered firearms, but it took structural damage from other things. When it crashed the car it was driving into a wall it damaged the mechanism in its forearm; it had to cut open the flesh and repair it. When it got hit by a semi it damaged its leg. And no, it wasn't just a "slight limp," it was dragging one foot along the ground. Also, it started having trouble with its HUD at that point; you can see it repeatedly glitching when it examined the truck's shifter mechanism. Then it got blown to pieces with a homemade pipe bomb, and crushed in a hydraulic press.
In any case, nothing shown in T1 even remotely suggested that it could stand up to .50 BMG AP bullets. The pea shooters it was shot with in T1 aren't even in the same league as a .50 BMG. Reese didn't have a .50 BMG; he had a 12-gauge shotgun that he stole from a police car. And a 30-pound, 4' long M82 wouldn't have even been practical for him to be lugging around while on the run with Sarah, or when he went into Tech Noir before he'd ID'd the Terminator (can't exactly hide one of those under a trench coat).
"I'm saying in T5, out came a gun that could easily kill it"
This is what you actually said:
"but in Genisys they magically get hold of a weapon that can destroy them with one hit"
And as I said, there's nothing remotely "magical" about it, i.e., nothing unbelievable about it. Quite the opposite in fact; it was very believable within the context of the movie.
And you also said:
"It's to be expected that the writers find a way of turning an "invincible robot" into something slightly less invincible."
Except they didn't make it less invincible, since it was never established, suggested, nor even hinted at in T1 that a Terminator could withstand an anti-materiel rifle with AP bullets fired precisely at its power supply. It was actually good writing. Had they consulted me before making TG and asked for a believable method of quickly dispatching a Terminator, I would have said, "A .50 BMG with AP bullets would cut through it like a hot knife through butter."
"and you're saying "it's just a gun"."
The Barrett M82 existed in 1984, there were no special restrictions on them, and Sarah and "Pops" had 9 years to plan for that night. So what's the problem?
k.
shareTh realistic version of this movie would have been 15 minutes max. Resse and Connor would have been killed in the club. The End. Is that the movie you would want to see?
shareYou're really going to tell me you don't think Cameron (or really anyone) is capable of writing Reese and Sarah out of that situation?? Really?
shareHe didn't, though, did he? The film is filled with many unrealistic tropes (not including time travel). Why does one of the most used film tropes in various film genres intrigue you? That is all I am trying to understand.
shareSeriously , I am not trying to be obtuse though may seem that way. Film tropes fascinate me. I just accept them and move on. When people get intrigued by them I like to know why.
My favorite is a trope of the western and western-styled plots. Usually around the 15 minute mark, the hero and the villain (usually rancher) meet and realize one of them will kill the other; sometimes they actually discuss their upcoming deaths. Appaloosa would be the text book version of this trope.
OTH, a show or movie comprised of nothing but tropes (like Reacher S2) make me tune out quickly/
I'm not talking about unrealistic tropes.
I'm talking about the inconsistencies between films regarding the durability of a T800 a normal firearm.
And I even acknowledge in my OP that it's not really T1s fault, seeing as they didn't have the foresight of how T2 was going to be written