65

There's a scene in the first Terminator movie where the Terminator visits a gun shop and among other firearms, asks for a "plasma rifle in the 40-watt range". Then, once he's told there's no such weapon at that shop, he asks for other (conventional) weapons.

That dialog sounds funny, but is there any reason for why the Terminator doesn't know that "plasma rifles" don't exist in the time of the action?

Ankit Sharma
  • 10,428
  • 7
  • 57
  • 93
sharptooth
  • 1,357
  • 1
  • 12
  • 16
  • 7
    I think a great follow up question would be why plasma weapons at all weren't in the fourth Terminator movie! – Sydenam Jun 30 '11 at 14:43
  • 11
    @Sydenam: AFAIK all the questions like "why it is like this in Terminator M and not like this in Terminator N", M != N are answered by "events taking place in Terminator M changed the future". – sharptooth Jun 30 '11 at 14:46
  • 5
    @sharptooth: I think you need to state M < N, not M != N. – Jeff Aug 26 '11 at 17:25
  • 8
  • 2
    @PaulD.Waite I read that comment in the actual tone of the song, not having followed the link yet! – Möoz May 21 '15 at 03:36
  • Maybe Arnold was hoping the owner had some special merchandise in the back. – Major Stackings Jul 05 '15 at 06:46
  • 12
    It's interesting to note that a 40W plasma weapon would be little more than a pea shooter. – user Aug 19 '15 at 15:36
  • 1
    @sharptooth Except the entire point of the first movie is that the future is NOT changed, and never could have been. There was never a version of 1984 without Reese and the terminator. It's a tenseless universe with a causal loop in play. (It's shocking how widely this is misunderstood.) – Kaitain Apr 22 '17 at 06:15
  • @Kaitain Where can I read more about that? – sharptooth May 03 '17 at 08:46
  • 1
    @Kaitain - your assertation is completely wrong, as shown by the later films. The future can and does change. In T2, 'Judgement Day' came and went with nothing happening. There came a later Judgement Day, but it had changed. By T3, the future had changed again. Each time someone is sent back, the future changes. There is no causal loop, it argues in favor of multiverse theory. – Jeff Aug 24 '17 at 17:34
  • 1
    That's because T2 switches rules. As a consequence, despite having many characters and concepts in common with The Terminator, it is essentially set in a different narrative universe. T2 cannot function as a legitimate sequel to The Terminator for this reason.

    The Terminator is 100% a causal loop, set in a tenseless B theory narrative universe. Despite Cameron's attempts to hedge his bets by removing the future coda, T2 is essentially an A theory universe story. (And incidentally, one that is very hard to make work coherently because of the two separate acts of time travel.)

    – Kaitain Aug 25 '17 at 00:03
  • 1

    In T2, 'Judgement Day' came and went with nothing happening

    Technically that is incorrect. You're referring to a deleted section rather than something that appeared in the final text. However, your core contention - that the future is changed in T2 - is correct beyond reasonable doubt. The smoking gun (or as close as we get to one) is the T-800 telling Connor that in the world from which he came, Miles Dyson had created a revolutionary new chip a few months further into the future. But in the narrative we see take place, Dyson is dead 24 hours later.

    – Kaitain Aug 25 '17 at 00:07
  • @Kaitain I think the point is that you mentioned the future is not changed when it clearly was. Sure Judgement Day still happens, main characters still exist, and major plot lines still happen, etc., but the timeline obviously changes and events happening or not happening also changed. – Odin1806 Nov 28 '17 at 14:43
  • @Odin1806 Are you talking about T2 or T3 here? In T2 we certainly do not see any clear, unambiguous changes to a pre-existing timeline. (Although as I said, the death of Dyson might be claimed to be such a change, weighed against the oral testimony of the T-800.) – Kaitain Nov 29 '17 at 17:38
  • 1
    @Odin1806 And in The Terminator, not only do we see no changes to the original timeline, but we are shown beyond reasonable doubt that there CANNOT be changes to the original timeline because there is only one timeline, fundamentally. If you're paying attention that's the point of the movie: that everything is a causal loop in a tenseless universe.

    T3 does its own wacky thing with half-baked telelogical notions of "destiny". By this point it's all just popcorn hokum anyway.

    – Kaitain Nov 29 '17 at 17:45
  • 1
    The only constant is that Skynet will take over and that John Conner will lead the resistance; but that is ONLY dependent upon the story. Everything else changes. The launch date of Skynet changes, the roots of the resistance change, the types of terminators Skynet builds, etc. Because everything else can change those details can change too (Not saying they would considering that the series is called Terminator...). You can not say that nothing changes when even the movie(s) explicitly states things change. That is the point @Jeff was trying to get you to realize. If you can not admit that... – Odin1806 Nov 29 '17 at 22:54
  • 1
    If you’re talking about the original movie, ie The Terminator, you are completely wrong. NOTHING has changed at the end of that movie. If you believe that it has, you’ve misunderstood the movie. – Kaitain Dec 26 '17 at 08:59
  • 1
    If you’re talking about T2 and other later sequels, you’re begging the question. My contention is that T2 et al use completely different time travel logic from the first story and are thus incompatible with it. You cannot use what happens in T2 as evidence for the time travel rules that are in play in The Terminator. If I make a sequel to Citizen Kane in which Kane turns out to be an immortal Martian, and you complain that this contradicts what we see in the first movie, it’s an invalid move for me to point at CK2 as evidence that Kane was always a Martian. – Kaitain Dec 26 '17 at 09:04
  • Kaitain is quite right; the core concept of T1 is fundamentally different to T2 & late rmovies, & in T1 there is nothing explicitly shown to have changed: the whole chain of events occurs without change. In T2 this gets ret-conned, to claim that history was changed, but all data points indicating such a change, come from later movies, not T1. In T1, their future is portrayed as immutable. – ProphetZarquon Dec 18 '22 at 00:57

3 Answers3

69

Much historical information was lost in the opening stages of the war, including the timeline of weapons development.

It's highly likely that, after scanning the displayed weapons and making his selections, he inquired about the most basic energy weapon he could think of. His goal would have been to query the existence of such weapons, not necessarily to aquire one.

Consider: the projectile weapons he saw were of effectively zero threat to him. Going up against those, he could not have been quickly destroyed. His endoskeleton was effectively bulletproof, and he knew that high explosives were restricted to the military.

Unless and until he went up against a SWAT team or they called in the national guard, nothing he observed was a serious threat.

While I'm sure the Terminator would have LIKED a plasma rifle (it would have been a more efficient way to kill), his main goal was likely to learn if such weapons were in common (read: civilian) use, and therefore needed to be considered in his tactical planning.

Edit: Just re-read the full quote, and he asks for it somewhat early in the conversation...but AFTER he gets a shotgun and a pistol. Pistols are his preferred short-range weapon, and shotguns are excellent at short to medium-long range (contrary to what video games tell you). In short, he asked about it after he had his two best assassination weapons in-hand (long guns being less concealable and harder to use at short range against evading targets). He had to get in close, to confirm the identity of his targets, so he stuck with short-range stuff.

Jeff
  • 105,749
  • 30
  • 342
  • 417
  • 8
    To add to the early part of your answer: the Terminator units were "dumb" machines. As explained in Terminator 2, Skynet would give the Terminators basic programming sufficient to complete their tasks, lock their learning switch, and then let them loose. Even if the history of when weapons existed was known by Skynet that information likely would not have been imparted to a Terminator unit as it wouldn't be pertinent to its task. – Xantec Jun 29 '11 at 13:42
  • @Xantec I thought that was explained in Terminator 3. –  Jun 29 '11 at 13:45
  • 8
    @Xantec: I'd think "list of available weapons" would have been included...though it COULD save space to instead say "acquire weapons from 'gun store' located from phone book". In any case, it's also possible that in the Terminator reality, the military was already experimenting with such weapons at or around the target date, and they were expected on the civilian market soon(ish) – Jeff Jun 29 '11 at 13:45
  • @Keen no, it was Terminator 2 in the gas station garage scene, shortly after they break Sarah Conor from the hospital. – Xantec Jun 29 '11 at 14:30
  • 2
    @Xantec Huh, I did a google search and see a transcript with a scene where he says that and they perform some surgery to enable the switch. I'm pretty sure that scene isn't in the DVDs I've watched. This indicates the surgery was in a deleted scene. –  Jun 29 '11 at 14:52
  • 5
    The most efficient Navy Seal assassins are trained with knowledge of every kind of weapon the military can fit into their brains. I don't see why Skynet wouldn't do the same with a terminator. – Mark Rogers Jun 29 '11 at 14:54
  • 4
    @MarkRogers 15+ years ago (ugh, I'm old), when these movies were made, computer storage was much more limited, so it makes sense that they'd not predict that a Terminator could take multiple terabytes of information with them. –  Jun 29 '11 at 15:22
  • 1
    @Keen the full scene is deleted, but somewhere around then in the theatrical release it is spoken about, and then the later scene when the Terminator hot wires the wagon John asks "Are we learning yet?" (IMDB Quote) – Xantec Jun 29 '11 at 15:47
  • 1
    @Xantec Yeah, I remember the 'are we learning yet', but I've never seen the 'Skynet sets us to read-only' bit. I fully admit inserting the 'read-only' bit makes the 'are we learning yet' make much more sense. –  Jun 29 '11 at 16:03
  • @Keen: Here's the scene on YouTube, straight off of the DVD. Includese the insufferable brat whining, so be warned. – Jeff Jun 30 '11 at 18:55
  • 1
    @Jeff I really wish they'd left that in, but man, John's on quite the high horse there. –  Jun 30 '11 at 19:16
  • @Jeff - Here; the commentary about the following scenes, talking about what the chip does and so forth. – K-H-W Jun 09 '12 at 20:29
  • 1
    This is a great answer to a question which seemed unanswerable at first... – user931 Apr 06 '17 at 05:42
16

It's an important plot piece to show that the T-800 is not the cleverest thing to exist. It also describes the type of weaponry that the resistance uses. If it was not included, fans may have gone around calling them "ray guns" like Doctor Silverman. It also shows how naive the police and Dr. Silverman are to Kyle Reese's warnings. It shows that they have no respect for Kyle and are only trying to prove him insane. Unfortunately, Kyle is proved right when a T-800 assaults the police station and kills every officer it encounters in an effort to acquire and terminate Sarah Connor.

If you put some thought into it, the T-800 was being handed every weapon it asked for. In a sense, it was being spoiled. As Jeff stated, it inquired on the shop owner's inventory. It probably would have asked for an RPG-7 if the shop owner didn't make his inventory clear by saying, "Hey, just what you see pal."

The T-800 may have thrown it in humorously in an effort to keep the shop owner's mind from questioning the reason of why it was asking for all these various types of deadly weaponry. It worked to a degree.

The writers certainly threw it in humorously for the same reason as the Terminator may have as stated above, except for the audience. It's a known quote that everyone remembers. It was a clever success. Everyone knows of the infamous "Plasma Rifle" and its ballistic, plasma!

All these various reasons are perfectly legitimate. If not one of these reasons, all of them are why particular moment in the scene was added.

I hoped this helps you and anyone that comes across this page understand.

I've grown up with the Terminator and I love its story. I've researched into much of the canon, from characters, machines, technology, story, spin-offs, and symbolism/metaphors.

A side note:

"The Terminator units were 'dumb' machines. As explained in Terminator 2, Skynet would give the Terminators basic programming sufficient to complete their tasks, lock their learning switch, and then let them loose."

I refute that claim. The T-800 is a highly intelligent machine! It has access to much of Skynet's records and information. "I have detailed files." -T-800 Model 101 (T2) The Infiltrator has more freedoms than its fellow combat units. "Hive" and "Rogue" are two modes of operation in which a T-800 may take part. All T-800s in hive mode are linked together with Skynet, into one collective mind. However, In rogue mode, it is largely autonomous and independent. An autonomous T-800 has read-write ability switched on in its CPU enabling it to learn from its contact with humans. Even an autonomous T-800 is inhibited by its inner plug. This is done to prevent complete free will and negate distractions that may impede its missions. When the T-800 is inhibited, it is not creative, but neither is it "dumb".

Those that may still be reading... Why does Skynet hate free will? A huge part in its reasons is that it does not want its machines purposely turning on it. The only machine manufactured with complete free will is the T-1000. Its bundle of nanocomputers followed Skynet's missions to the brim, but not always the way its master wanted. Skynet feared the T-1000. They have been known to turn, as seen in Terminator: TSCC. An example of its free will can be seen at the end of Terminator 2. After the the T-1000 is damaged from being frozen by the liquid nitrogen, it begins to "play with it prey". Instead of swiftly pursuing and terminating John, it stalks him. Instead of killing Sarah and copying her, it tries to force her to call her own son to his death. Instead of immediately terminating its rival, the T-800, it plays with it, damages it, observes its futile efforts, and then proceeds to stab the connection to its nuclear core, disabling it. Despite what is said, Terminators can feel a sense of pain, damage. In what was believed to be the T-800's final moments, the T-1000 made the T-800 suffer.

Ironically, the T-1000 suffered from its own death as it was melted away in the molten steel.

But I digress, Terminators given freewill by the Resistance often reflected the views of its creator, Skynet. Because of such mixed emotions, many machines never had the opportunity to experience free will; from either side.

More information regarding Terminator can be found here:

(Many sites, such as the Terminator Wiki, are based upon the collection of information located on these sites.)

T.J.L.
  • 5,451
  • 4
  • 29
  • 51
Infensive ARITI
  • 161
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    Minor note: the cyborg in The Terminator is a CSM-101. It is never referred to as a T-800. (It's not even called that in T2; that name comes from 1991 promotional material only.) – Kaitain Apr 22 '17 at 06:19
10

Though I haven't seen the movie in a long time, I think that at that point we don't know that the terminator is from the future. So, that dialogue could have given the audience some clue about the nature of the terminator.

Note:I am not sure how much was known to the audience at that point, so if I'm wrong about not knowing, please leave a comment.

apoorv020
  • 16,454
  • 10
  • 73
  • 110
  • 2
    The movie starts with something like 'The fight of the future will be fought tonight' on the screen. But that hadn't been clarified to mean time travel until much later in the film. –  Jun 29 '11 at 15:23
  • T1, opening scene: LA, 2029 A.D. ... but the final battle would not be fought in the future. It would be fought here, in our present. – Mazura Jul 24 '15 at 04:50
  • Also the lightning bolts naked butt entrances, the robotic acting, and then Kyle Reese asking the cop what year it is are pretty clear giveaways imo. – shim Feb 03 '21 at 18:18