As most people know, during a helicopter sequence during Terminator 2, the T-1000 has three hands, two working the shotgun and one flying the machine. I’ve heard it claimed that it was intentional, but they had no cites to back it up. So which is it? If it was intentional, it seems odd to introduce a concept not touched upon elsewhere in the movie. What do YOU think?
No, it was unintentional. James Cameron accidentally got a prop third arm made up and mistakenly put in a third sleeve on Robert Patrick’s police uniform costume. He then forgot to take them out of shot when you see the T-1000 reloading his gun.
OMG U R 2 fuNy!!!7t18719!!haha!!77!GLORK!
seriously though, those details are invisable while watching the movie, I thought it was unclear where the 3rd arm was coming from.
I can’t recall if the third hand is visible in the matted widescreen version. Does anyone know?
The third hand is VERY visible. Doesn’t exactly have a lot of attention called to it, but it’s not like you have to squint and look in the exact spot for two frames, either.
Personally, I liked it. We’ve already seen that this T-1000 could do impressive stuff… why bother hitting the audience over the head with it? It’s a movie, not a grocery list of “Amazing Things Liquid Metal Killing Machines Can Do”.
I seem to recall that in the commentary track for one or another of the various DVD releases of T2, Cameron points out the four arms the T-1000 uses to fly and reload at the same time.
Stick and collective, gun and clip, all at once. Anyone with a copy of the flick (with the Cameron commentary) that can verify/refute?
I have the Extreme Edition of T2 with the actual commentary (not the ones made by editing interviews to match scenes) and he totally neglects to mention the hand scene. He also didn’t point out many bloopers, hence my original question.
Silentgoldfish has a good point. How could it possibly be unintentional? Robert Patrick doesn’t actually have 3 arms you know.
We don’t know what the circumstances of the shooting were, thus it’s not logical to draw conclusions from self-produced theories.
Copious “blooper” books have also listed it as a mistake, furthering the potential of it being unintentional.
In the Ultimate Edition of T2 it says it’s intentional. Meant to be a subtle thing, and not a mistake. It’s clearly a third hand projecting from the T-1000, as it has a police shirt sleeve attached to it too.
What else could it be? It’s not like it’s in a real flying helicopter; it’s a set-bound effect, so there’s no need to have a real pilot secretly driving the chopper from behind Robert Patrick or whatever.
The blooper is when you can see Arnold’s black-wrapped arm being held sort of behind his back as he rolls away from the machine in which he’s just torn off his arm.
I’d seen the movie probably three times before I noticed, though. You’re usually looking at his face.
“self-produced theories”???
I think the theory that Robert Patrick is, in fact, a member of humanity with no obvious mutations is a rather solid one.
I wasn’t referencing that point specifically, Mr. Aspiring Comedian.
Anyways, assuming it was intentional, it certainly wasn’t consistent. Perhaps if they had shown him growing an extra arm, or something to tie-it together. Instead, the scene changed and BAN, there’s a god damn extra hand. It just looks so out of place and is more distracting than not, and I know I’m not the only one who feels that way.
I suppose it’s a matter of personal perception, but I think it was a rather clever little detail.
First time I saw the movie, I wondered how T1000 could fly a chopper two feet off the ground, with one hand occupied by his gun, without crashing. I considered this a blooper.
Then, upon noticing the hand during a later viewing, my first thought was “Oh, he just forms extra hands as needed… smart! I wish I could do that!”
Incidentally, it wasn’t a shotgun. It was a Heckler-Koch MP5 submachine gun.
“Inconsistent” is a slightly stronger argument than “unintentional”, but they’re both pretty weak. We know the T-1000 can change it’s shape, and we know it can change pretty fast, usually in just a few seconds. I went and watched the scene again, and it’s clearly intentional. There are actually two extra arms, although it’s hard to see both at once. The first shot of the extra arms shows both, but the 2nd left arm is mostly obscured by the metal parts of the cockpit. A later shot in the same chase scene shows the left side of the chopper, and you can clearly see 2 left arms. Whether the effect was done digitally, with prosthetics, or with a second person sticking his arms in front of Patrick, if you freeze the picture on either shot you can see that the extra pair of arms blends neatly into the T-1000’s body.
Thank you sturmhauke. I knew I didn’t hallucinate that.
[sub]Well, I may have imagined the commentary, but I knew I’d seen four arms in one of those shots.[/sub]
The commentary was there too, actually. It went something like, “A lot of people tell me they can see the stuntman’s arms in this scene. But the truth is, the T-1000 knew it couldn’t fly and reload with only 2 arms, so it adapted.”
Cameron was being subtle?!?!?
Maybe that explains the OP! I have a hard time believeing that he could be subtle too! What next, An Oliver stone film without overt symbolism smashing the viewer on the head?