Terminator 2: The Terminator Becomes the Protector

The transition is uneven and there are hints that James Cameron was subtly mocking his 1984 film

Last time, we saw that a Terminator entered a bar, and we discussed how the menace of the first Terminator movie (1984) was being mocked by the writers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). This was an odd decision, one that I’ve had a hard time making sense of.

Given what the movie is trying to do, it would’ve made sense to portray Terminator as a terrifying threat and then switch up the image once the plot twist is revealed. This would keep the tension high during the first act.

But something very different happens instead

It’s as if the writers want the audience to know right away that this Terminator isn’t a threat. The women in the bar leer at the robot, which is a strange reaction for every last woman there to have. It reduces the Terminator to something of a joke just when the audience should be filled with anticipation.

Once the Terminator is done beating up the patrons of the bar and taking the clothing he needs, the song Bad to the Bone plays in the background. This song was all the rage at the time, but once again it adds a comical element to the scene that clashes with the atmosphere of the first film.

Then something even more bizarre occurs. A man, presumably the owner of the bar (although we are not told this directly), comes out and holds the Terminator at gunpoint. The Terminator slowly approaches the man and simply takes the shotgun from his frozen hands. Honestly, it made no sense for the man to not just shoot the robot on the spot, given the chaos he’s already caused inside of the bar.

Now take this scene and compare it to a similar scene in the first movie:

A gun store owner gives the Terminator several weapons. The Terminator quickly murders the owner once he has what he needs, which tells the viewer that the machine is a cold, calculating killer. But in the sequel, the Terminator lets the man go.

Spoiler alert, the Terminator has been reprogrammed by future John Connor to protect his past self. Given this turn of events, it could be argued that future John Connor ordered the robot not to kill civilians. But this isn’t the case because the present John Connor orders the robot not to kill anybody only later in the film. So why did the Terminator let the bar owner go?

A ratings issue?

I think the reason for this plot development is that there was an extensive marketing campaign geared towards kids around the time the sequel came out. Even though the movie itself is rated R, the writers must’ve been trying to soften up the Terminator so the kids would be more likely to buy the merchandise. The decision, not necessarily bad in itself, to move away from the sci-fi horror genre to an action flick feels jarring. I believe there was more going on than just marketing.

From a narrative standpoint, this decision to make the Terminator less violent created a giant inconsistency in the robot’s character. The Terminator terminates. That’s what it does. It doesn’t spare random bar owners. This issue might have been addressed simply by allowing the audience to know early on that future John reprogrammed the robot. But the writers seem to have wanted present John to change the robot’s nature instead.

That worked on one level because it created a futuristic gentle-giant dynamic between the John and the robot. but it failed from a plot standpoint because it created inconsistencies in the Terminator’s actions.

More cynical motives?

As to what was going on besides the marketing, I suspect there were more cynical motives pushing the writers to soften the murderous machine. First of all, they wanted to add a bit of social commentary about violence that I find pretentious and distracting. I believe this was the more backhanded reason they had present John alter the robot’s nature rather than having future John reprogram it from the beginning.

It seems that the writers were trying to mix Batman’s no-kill rule with antigun messaging while sprinkling complaints about the doomed nature of humanity on top of that. It’s hard to know for sure whether they were reacting to the politics of the time because one of science fiction’s main tropes is the threat of mankind wiping itself out with its own technology thanks to its fallen nature. It could be argued that the writers were simply playing into this theme. That would make sense considering the fact Skynet brings humanity to the brink of extinction.

But there is one scene in particular where two kids are playing with handguns… for some reason. John—a fourteen-year-old boy who’s been raised to believe he’s going to become a military leader and has spent most of his brief existence around the more violent members of society—looks somberly at these children and says sadly, “We’re not gonna make it, are we?”

This line feels completely out of character. Furthermore, ordering the robot not to kill anyone no matter the circumstances is out of character. Because of John’s inconsistent behavior and his reaction to the gun-toting children, I believe the writers felt motivated to add their own social commentary, even if it weakened the script.

The other cynical motive I suspect the writers had was that they were rejecting the first film. On some level, I think James Cameron was mocking his own creation. For one thing, the bar scene is just so cartoonish. Some people might consider this an odd detail to harp on, but it demonstrates my point.

When the Terminator takes the gun from the bar owner, he also takes the man’s sunglasses, even though it’s the middle of the night and there’s no real reason the robot would need them. In the first film, the Terminator used the glasses to hide its mechanical eye, which had been exposed. The writers were clearly trying to give the Terminator the classic look as fast as possible, but the question is why? Were they simply playing into the perceived demands of the crowd, or was there something else going on?

To be blunt, I’m not sure, but I think the decision to give the Terminator his classic look in such a sloppy manner coupled with the anti-violence messaging scattered throughout the film—something I’ll discuss in more detail later—creates the faintest hint of contempt for the Terminator as a character.

I believe one of two things was going on. Either the writers were rejecting the extravagant violence of the Eighties’ films, or James Cameron was angry about the Terminator stealing the spotlight from Sarah Connor. Remember, even though the first film is called The Terminator, the story is about Sarah. However, nobody is going to watch a movie sold as a lone waitress standing up to a random cyborg from the future, so the bad guy had to become the focus of the marketing.

If this was something that annoyed Cameron, it would explain why there is such a concerted effort to soften the Terminator and harden Sarah in the sequel. But the focus could not be removed from the Terminator if they wanted to sell tickets. So, the writers had to settle for mocking Cameron’s creation in subtle ways.

It’s not unlike Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gradually coming to hate Sherlock Holmes. Granted, the character established him as a timeless author, but Holmes overshadowed everything else he was trying to do. So, he ended up killing the character only to bring him back because he was forced to accept the truth behind an old saying: “The customer is always right.”

An omen for the future of the franchise

I’ll admit, I could be totally off the mark here. But that bar scene is so bizarre. It clashes with the rest of the film, and I’ve been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what the writers were thinking. And I believe understanding this scene is important because it’s an omen for what happens to this franchise.

In future films, the Terminator becomes more and more of a joke, or rather an outdated model constantly outclassed by more updated killers. This story arc becomes redundant after a while, and in the 1991 sequel itself, the bar scene ruins the tension the audience is supposed to be feeling during the first act.

After the Terminator leaves the bar, the audience sees the newest Terminator model, the T-1000.

It disguises itself as a cop, which was a smart choice, both from a narrative perspective and as a way to throw off the audience because everyone assumes that the authority figure is supposed to help. This should’ve led the audience to believe that the T-1000 was the good guy and the original Terminator was the villain. Then, when the roles were reversed, the audience would’ve been genuinely surprised. But the bar scene completely ruins that twist and removes the tension, leaving the audience to simply wait for John Conner to meet both the predator and the protector.

Fortunately, it all happens rather quickly. The film wastes no time getting to the first conflict between the two robots, so the bar scene doesn’t ruin the movie. But the entire setup was a huge missed opportunity. We’ll cover what happens when John encounters the two Terminators in the next review.