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