Terminator 3 - SPOILER filled discussion

[Kai Lord]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terminator 3 - SPOILER filled discussion

The thing is, that was already after Reese had existed and died in 1984.

Not originally. Originally someone other than Reese conceived John with Sarah. This led up to the creation of the TD device with NO Reese in Sarah's past. Of course, once Reese actually went through he then created a loop that would forever erase those original events, even though the new overlapping events arrived at the same destination in the future as the original timeline.

Do you understand that Reese OVERLAPPED the original timeline, according to my theory? Overlapped. Meaning that just because he traveled to the past doesn't mean he was ALWAYS in the past, his travel just overlapped the past to make it appear that way.

Don't think I'm speaking for James Cameron on this one, he probably wrote it with the notion that you subscribe to; that Reese was always the father and had to go back or John wouldn't be born (as Sarah, mistakenly IMO, says into the tape at the end of T1). But then you've got a paradox, and my way, which the films themselves don't disallow, doesn't create one.

It's consistent with itself, but its not consistent with the other two movies in that regard.

Why should it be consistent with a timeline that was erased?

Most people can tell you offhand that Arnold is a T-800 Terminator. This just confuses the issue.

Well, before T3 most people could tell you that John and Sarah prevented the war. T3 shows us they didn't. It also shows us that the war was postponed, a different group designed the prototypes, and so on. I'm glad they didn't dumb down the story and have every little detail the same across overlapping timelines.

 

[Alzrius]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terminator 3 - SPOILER filled discussion

Not originally. Originally someone other than Reese conceived John with Sarah.

No, that's not true. Nothing says that. The whole point of the temporal paradox is that it could ONLY have been Reese to begin with...which means the TD device was built...which means Reese had gone back before that...its an infinite paradox.

Do you understand that Reese OVERLAPPED the original timeline, according to my theory? Overlapped. Meaning that just because he traveled to the past doesn't mean he was ALWAYS in the past, his travel just overlapped the past to make it appear that way.

Linear thinking says that there must have been a pre-existing paradox-free timeline to begin with, but the temporal mechanics of it show that that isnt true. Even if you trace it backwards, its always going to be an infinite loop that Kyle Reese had always gone back in time to begin with. Reese was ALWAYS John Conner's father, there is no other timeline where anyone else was.

Don't think I'm speaking for James Cameron on this one, he probably wrote it with the notion that you subscribe to; that Reese was always the father and had to go back or John wouldn't be born (as Sarah, mistakenly IMO, says into the tape at the end of T1). But then you've got a paradox, and my way, which the films themselves don't disallow, doesn't create one.

Nothing disallows what you postulated, but nothing actively says its correct either, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...that is, just saying that there is no reason something can't be true doesn't mean that means it is true. Temporal paradoxes move both directions in time...meaning that the "timeline 1" you posted never actually existed except as an abstraction because timeline 2 became infinite in both past and future.

Why should it be consistent with a timeline that was erased?

Because that's an unnecessary complication - if they're going to keep the rest of the timeline self-correcting, it makes little sense to make another change like that.

Well, before T3 most people could tell you that John and Sarah prevented the war. T3 shows us they didn't. It also shows us that the war was postponed, a different group designed the prototypes, and so on. I'm glad they didn't dumb down the story and have every little detail the same across overlapping timelines.

That's different though - the crux of T3 was about how they didn't prevent the war...that issue was addressed. The rather useless re-classification of the Terminator series numbers wasn't addressed, and doesn't add anything to the mythology. It just makes it slightly more complicated.

Nothing says that keeping that number the same would have dumbed down the story either. It would, in fact, have enhanced it, since the whole point of T3 was indeed that every little detail does stay the same across the timelines.

 

[DM_Matt]

Here is another unrelated issue: So SkyNet is software only, no core. Fine. But that still means that it needs enough computers to run itself, along with the electrical and network infrastructures to keep them running and part of it. How did Skynet manage to nuke civilization away without destroying itself. It would probably reuire leaving a good deal intact, more if the people in the surviving cities would think to simply shut down the electrical grid.

 

[Alzrius]

Here is another unrelated issue: So SkyNet is software only, no core. Fine. But that still means that it needs enough computers to run itself, along with the electrical and network infrastructures to keep them running and part of it. How did Skynet manage to nuke civilization away without destroying itself. It would probably reuire leaving a good deal intact, more if the people in the surviving cities would think to simply shut down the electrical grid.

It didn't nuke the entire planet, since people are left...obviously, those computers that were in that same area are all still connected. "Only" 3 billion people died, which means that at least enough of the globe for 3 billion others to survive is intact enough...meaning computers can run there.

Likewise, the fact that humanity wins in the future means that SkyNet probably thought ahead that they'd just start shutting down computers everywhere, and it almost certainly set up a sort of "base" for itself...a central supercomputer that humanity could never get to, so it wouldnt be shut down. The way it probably happened was that most of computers besides that were disabled by humanity, and they finally got to SkyNet in the end.

It's worth noting that the unofficial Terminator d20 game, which draws upon not only the movies, but everything else, says that this base of SkyNet does exist, at the SAC-NORAD facility in Colorado.

 

[Frostmarrow]

On the Reese-issue just bear with me here:

What if Sarah's conception of John is immaculate? She just slept with Reese but he isn't the father. There could be any number of far-fetched resons Sarah became pregnant with someone else eventhough she only slept with Reese. (Only it isn't shown in T1).

 

[Kai Lord]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terminator 3 - SPOILER filled discussion

Nothing disallows what you postulated,

Exactly, which makes your dispute utterly pointless and unprovable, and your claim that "its not true" total malarkey. We're talking about geeked out fan wanking to fill in the blanks of a fictional story. For time travel stories this can be kind of fun, and my way is not only possible under the "rules" of the story, but its also free of paradoxes, something that T3 makes quite clear Fate doesn't like.

Because that's an unnecessary complication - if they're going to keep the rest of the timeline self-correcting, it makes little sense to make another change like that.

They didn't make the "rest of the timeline self-correcting". All the deaths and collateral damage caused by the Terminators when they went to the past didn't get undone, nor did the deaths of the future Lieutenants caused by the T-X. That certainly would have had an impact on future events, but "Fate" allows elements of time to be changed, such as minutiae like who ends up serving under John and Terminator model numbers.

That's different though - the crux of T3 was about how they didn't prevent the war...that issue was addressed. The rather useless re-classification of the Terminator series numbers wasn't addressed, and doesn't add anything to the mythology.

Of course it was addressed. Did you catch the bit about the US MILITARY creating the robots instead of Cyberdine? Boom you got your explanation right there. If your complaint is that Jonathan Mostow didn't do an outtake to the camera and bust out some pie charts and crayons and help the slow people in the audience connect the dots, well then this just wasn't your type of film.

Only film geeks like myself care about such minor issues, and we can figure it out without the hand holding. To the casual action movie goer, the numbers on the back of a Terminator robot are beyond irrelevant, and to waste time explaining it in greater detail would have detracted from the story itself.

Nothing says that keeping that number the same would have dumbed down the story either. It would, in fact, have enhanced it, since the whole point of T3 was indeed that every little detail does stay the same across the timelines.

Nope. That wasn't the point at ALL. Just the major developments, Skynet, the war, John leading mankind to victory, had to occur. The "little details" were meaningless to Fate and COMPLETELY changeable. Fate didn't care whether John met Kate Brewster's father when he was 10 or 20, just as long as he met him. Fate didn't care who died in the past, just as long as it wasn't John Connor. And it also didn't care who built the first robots, Cyberdine or the US Military. All those things were subject to change, and did get changed.

There are definitely holes in the story, like the T-1000 and the T-X not being made of living tissue, as well as John's age as referenced in T3, but all in all one hell of a kick-ass story arc, from T1 to T3.

 

[Alzrius]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terminator 3 - SPOILER filled discussion

Exactly, which makes your dispute utterly pointless and unprovable, and your claim that "its not true" total malarkey.

Wrong. Next time take the entire quote - not just the part that makes you look right.

It's not enough to say "nothing says X isn't allowed". Something actually has to say you're right, and nothing here does.

For time travel stories this can be kind of fun, and my way is not only possible under the "rules" of the story, but its also free of paradoxes, something that T3 makes quite clear Fate doesn't like.

Your system isn't free of paradoxes; it completely flies in the face of the paradox system for how John Conner was born that was set up in T1. Just because something was always a paradox does not mean, or indicate, that there was a paradox-free timeline to begin with.

They didn't make the "rest of the timeline self-correcting". All the deaths and collateral damage caused by the Terminators when they went to the past didn't get undone, nor did the deaths of the future Lieutenants caused by the T-X.

Because those are inconsequential. The events that were supposed to happen still happened. The people who were supposed to meet still met. The timeline self-corrected so that the averted future eventually came about anyway.

That certainly would have had an impact on future events, but "Fate" allows elements of time to be changed, such as minutiae like who ends up serving under John and Terminator model numbers.

Fate only allows minutae to be changed. Everything else still eventually happens. That's what T3 was all about.

Of course it was addressed. Did you catch the bit about the US MILITARY creating the robots instead of Cyberdine?

Not "the" robots. The military made a few basic designs, but the future line, the Terminator series, was still made by Skynet.

Boom you got your explanation right there. If your complaint is that Jonathan Mostow didn't do an outtake to the camera and bust out some pie charts and crayons and help the slow people in the audience connect the dots, well then this just wasn't your type of film.

lol, you have a real problem with not being able to separate debating from arguing. But hey, if you would have preferred pie charts to make sense of it, more power to you.

Only film geeks like myself care about such minor issues, and we can figure it out without the hand holding.

No one is doing hand-holding, so stop throwing around the snide remarks. You can't figure it out, you just make up rationales that don't hold true.

To the casual action movie goer, the numbers on the back of a Terminator robot are beyond irrelevant, and to waste time explaining it in greater detail would have detracted from the story itself.

Yeah, so? Why are you bothering to mention this at all? I noticed them, but they aren't at all related to the later numeric indicators of the Terminator series since Skynet alone didn't design those robots - they're irrelevant to the point at hand, so don't act like you picked up on something no one else noticed.

Nope. That wasn't the point at ALL.

Wrong. That was exactly the point. It addressed the idea that fate cannot be averted. Little bits that are of no real importance can be changed, but the basics of fate can't be changed.

Just the major developments, Skynet, the war, John leading mankind to victory, had to occur. The "little details" were meaningless to Fate and COMPLETELY changeable. Fate didn't care whether John met Kate Brewster's father when he was 10 or 20, just as long as he met him.

Given how little we heard of that person in the previous movies, that can safely be said to be a little detail.

Fate didn't care who died in the past, just as long as it wasn't John Connor.

Not so - Kate Brewster had to live also.

There are definitely holes in the story, like the T-1000 and the T-X not being made of living tissue, as well as John's age as referenced in T3, but all in all one hell of a kick-ass story arc, from T1 to T3.

Yes. It was a kick-ass story arc. No one is disagreeing with that.

 

[Kai Lord]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terminator 3 - SPOILER filled discussion

EDIT: Response to Alzrius unnecessary as my original points all stand, and anyone with whom I'd want to continue the discussion already knows that. Deleted.

 

[Mistwell]

I've gotta side with Kai Lord on this one. Yes, his theory is more complicated. Yes, his theory relies on a hell of a lot more analysis to see whether it is internally consistent. However, requiring more complexity and analysis doesn't make it wrong, or cast any doubt on his theory.

Alzrius, you're theory is both less complex and easier to understand. While the simplest theory is often the correct, one, that isn't a truism.

Here, I believe we should favor the theory that results in no paradoxes. That was the theme of T-3, that the timeline, like nature, tends to adapt to challenges rather than crumble. It's also internally more consistent. Endless time loops are not internally consistent, by definition.

So I've got to side with the consistent theory posed by Kai, complex though it may be.

 

[Methinkus]

my 2 cents

So I am going to try and take some attention away from the argument here to tell everyone what i Really Really liked about T3.

The TX is just as good at impersonating humans as the T-1000, which is clear when she turns into Kate Brewster's Fiance and by the fact that despite all the explosions and car crashes she walks away from her clothes are never damaged - because her clothes are an illusion. It is also proven in the scene where she enlarges her breasts to distract the police officer. My point is, her clothes are as fake as her breasts, so there was no reason for her to come through the time portal naked. The Men in Charge just decided she should be nude because they knew I Would Appreciate It. And i did appreciate the chance to see her naked. I really really did, even more so because i realize there was no reason for it.

She kind of reminds me of Shakira.

These are great men and women, and they have made a very entertaining film.