View Full Version : The Terminator (possible spoilers)
Pike Bishop
19-02-2002, 15:40
Ok, I watched The original Terminator the other night. The first time in a long while. Apart from being slightly dissapointing - I think it has aged rather badly, it is soooooo 80's, the plot line just didn't make sense. I'm sure this has been discussed before but please can someone explain to me the logic to it all.
Kyle comes back from the future to save Sarah Conner - pretty obvious so far.
But as we find out Kyle is actually the father of John Conner.
In the future John gives Kyle a photo of Sarah.
This photo we find out was taken after Kyle died, its taken at the end of the movie by the little mexican kid.
Question - how does Kyle obtain the picture in the future when he is already dead in the past?
The only explanation for this being possible is that the present and future are two parallel worlds where the consequences of something happening in one do not result in any change in the other - hence Kyle dying in the present didn't mean he was dead in the future. However if this is the case there is absolutely no reason for Arnie to come back in time to kill Sarah because even if he does, John Conner will still live in the future. So what is going on?
:confused:
Originally posted by Pike Bishop
Question - how does Kyle obtain the picture in the future when he is already dead in the past?
Because Kyle was born after he died! :p
Yonathan Gal
19-02-2002, 15:56
sampath: exactly. As fas as I can see, therer are no flaws at all in the plot, which I don't think has dated. Still an ace movie :)
Pike Bishop
19-02-2002, 15:59
Originally posted by sampath
Because Kyle was born after he died! :p
Everything has got to start somewhere.
So if we start from the point at which Kyle is born (the point in time where the shenanigans with Sarah et al has not yet occured)). Then Armageddon occurs leaving the human resistance against the machines. So how is John Connor alive at this point? Kyle has not gone back in time yet to impregnate Sarah and because John isn't alive, then Kyle wouldn't have gotten the orders to go back in time to protect Sarah in the first place hence none of it would have happened and John Conner would NEVER have existed.
This can only happen there is some sort of a continuous loop if you see what I mean and this is just not possible (assuming time travel was a reality).
This is starting to hurt my brain.
Originally posted by Pike Bishop
Kyle comes back from the future
Says all you need to know to understand this really. :)
edit - Arrgh ! You changed your original post after I had put mine on ! ;)
Yonathan Gal
19-02-2002, 16:10
It's prety simple. Let's say that the future is actually present day and we'r ein the past (like 12 monkeys)... ok, someone is born in the future and is under the control of john connor who sends him back into the past to protect his mum from arnie... that guy actually gets sarah pregant with john but is killed.... john is still raised and of course in the future kyle is born as normmal, its just that his fate was dieng whilst on an operation in the past, which, by the way, there was no way back from anyway.... right, hope i've explained it ok... :)
oh, u've editied ya post now :)
Originally posted by Yonathan Gal
As fas as I can see, therer are no flaws at all in the plot, which I don't think has dated. Still an ace movie :)
Actually while that's the way the film 'explains' it, doesn't necessarily mean it's 'correct' of course. The whole time travel thing is itself could well be a huge plot-hole - if anyone's feeling energetic have a look at this article: Temporal anomalies in the Terminator series (http://www.geocities.com/area51/rampart/6040/terminat.html). :D
Even without all the time-travel / relativistic mumbo-jumbo there still are one or two quite substantial holes - for example there's nothing stopping our time-travelling duo from bringing "ray guns" back, so long as they're covered in "living tissue" - which is essentially what the Terminator is.
But yes, it's a great film regardless.
Almost as good as T2. ;)
Originally posted by Pike Bishop
This can only happen if it is a continuous loop if you see what I mean and is not possible (assuming time travel was a reality).
This is starting to hurt my brain.
If you can think of it in this way :
- Kyle's life timeline is linear, it just happens that it does not have consecutive dates in the conventional calendar following each other.
ie :
1 June 2001, 2 June 2001, 10 January 1984, 11 January 1984.
For him it's just four days that are consecutive, for someone who has not 'time travelled', it appears that the last two days actually occur 'before' the first two.
Dan Druff
19-02-2002, 16:22
I thinks its better than T2 especially viewed on my 72" screen. It comes to life and is a complete classic.
From the point of view of the future (When Kyle has been born), the past has already happened and cannot be changed. Kyle dies before he is born and most of what happens in the film has already happened before Kyle comes back in time.
It's the same as back to the future, Marty has already caused his parents to meet before he is born.
Dan Druff
19-02-2002, 16:43
...and Twelve Monkeys. The key difference in The Terminator is that unlike BTTF and 12 Monkeys is that the future seems to be not a possible alternative reality but an inexorable probability. We'll see when T3 is released.
Sarah Connor has sex with a guy from the future (Reece), consequently having a child.
Guy from future dies.
Photo taken of Sarah.
Apocalyptic Event.
Sarah gives photo to John Connor.
Reece gets photo from John.
Skynet send terminator back in time to kill mother of John Connor.
Reece sent back in time to prevent this.
Go back to step one.
On a different note, what was the storm arriving at the end of T1 suppose to signify?
Surly not the beginning of the war? As john is not even born yet.
MarcusUK
19-02-2002, 20:04
Ok I've gone cross eyed :nuts:
Bapapapa
19-02-2002, 20:06
Originally posted by ShyBoy
On a different note, what was the storm arriving at the end of T1 suppose to signify?That it was about to rain...
Yonathan Gal
19-02-2002, 20:13
Originally posted by Bapapapa
That it was about to rain... - LOL!! :D :D
davey1970
19-02-2002, 21:10
the time line issues etc... as far as i'm aware will be present in all time travel films, its just done better in some than others, and terminator does it as near to perfect as possible.
someone mentioned above something along the lines of "and this just isn't possible" - let's face it, if you assume, or suspend disbelief as you must do to believe in the time travel in the first place in order to enjoy the film, it seems odd to me to then say that a further aspect of that time travel "isn't possible".
i spose what i'm saying is with time travel we may as well just assume we dont understand it, because we dont!
All the films that discuss the issue, as far as i can recall, simply try to hide the inconsistensies as much as possible, as these will always be there.
ps - do prefer t2 but they r both fantastic.
d
SqueakyG
19-02-2002, 22:45
Pike Bishop:
It all makes sense. I think you have the misconception that Reese's older age in the past will affect his younger age in the future. Why would it? His lifetime is linear... he is born, grows to the age of 30 or so, and dies. It just so happens that he takes a "journey" at a certain point in his life, and dies in his new "location". It goes like this:
Kyle Reese is born, a few years after Judgment Day.
Reese grows up.
Reese becomes a soldier in the human resistance.
Reese meets John Connor.
John Connor gives Reese a photo of Sarah Connor.
Reese goes back in time to 1984.
Reese dies, at his oldest age, in the year 1984.
There is no loop to it. His death in 1984 has no relation to his birth after Judgment Day.
He is still born in the future. Then when he grows to a certain age, he goes to 1984, and dies there.
There are tons of time-travel errors in the Terminator movies, but this is not one of them. If you want real things to think about:
After they prevent Judgment Day at the end of T2, it means none of it happened, which means none of the events occured that would have stopped Judgement Day happening. Which means it happened. Which means they prevented it. Your basic paradox.
Why did Skynet choose those particular times to send a Terminator? Why not kill Sarah Connor's grandparents? Why not kill Sarah as a baby?
If the human resistance destroyed Skynet's only time machine when reese went through, how did they send the T-1000 later?
The fact that more Terminators got sent back in time means that Skynet either built another time machine, or used their first time machine extensively before it was destroyed. So why not send LOTS of Terminators after Sarah? Why not send a Terminator every week? Or 10 Terminators at a time?
Originally posted by SqueakyG
After they prevent Judgment Day at the end of T2, it means none of it happened, which means none of the events occured that would have stopped Judgement Day happening. Which means it happened. Which means they prevented it. Your basic paradox.
The answer to this would be to say the destruction of Cyberdyne at the end of T2 didn't stop Judgement Day. Quite possibly another company manages to develop the 'neural net' processor (probably at a later time than Cyberdyne would have) - Judgement Day would still occur, albeit probably delayed.
Why did Skynet choose those particular times to send a Terminator? Why not kill Sarah Connor's grandparents? Why not kill Sarah as a baby?
I guess it's not terribly easy to trace family trees etc back that far or to locate people (not listed in phone book etc), especially if records were destroyed during the war.
If the human resistance destroyed Skynet's only time machine when reese went through, how did they send the T-1000 later?
The instant Reese was sent back the 'past' was changed, so it's possible that in the resulting 'new' timeline Skynet had access to time-travel equipment. This could also explain how the humans managed to acquire a T-800.
The fact that more Terminators got sent back in time means that Skynet either built another time machine, or used their first time machine extensively before it was destroyed. So why not send LOTS of Terminators after Sarah? Why not send a Terminator every week? Or 10 Terminators at a time?
Presumably time tarvel is resource intensive, and at any rate Skynet was about to lose when it sent the first Terminator back as a last ditch attempt.
Check out the link I posted above - despite having one or two 'scary' words I think it does a pretty good job of explaining how T1 & T2 could work. :)
Originally posted by SqueakyG
He is still born in the future. Then when he grows to a certain age, he goes to 1984, and dies there.
No no no. If Kyle is still born, he won't grow at all.
AČ
Nick dVl
20-02-2002, 13:41
Well, my take on the whole thing is similar to BTTF: Kyle is sent by John to find Sarah and (ahem) "do his thing", otherwise John would never exist, and Skynet wins etc.
John Connor probably gave Kyle the photo knowing that he would need it to identify Sarah in the past, and would have to commit her image to memory because nothing inorganic on the surface could travel through time.
The whole "no fate but what we make" thing is a little contradictory with what occurs on the other hand.
Now my head hurts :(
CraigKORE
20-02-2002, 13:57
Every since I first seen this film, I was quite happy that I knew what was going on, and followed the plot easily enough.
A good few years later, I'm now here reading this thread, and have never been more confused about a film! :brickwall :nuts:
bazkeane82
20-02-2002, 18:01
i watched this on itv and was confused untill the end when i realised reese will be born again ,but i was still unsure about something
did john conner in the future secretly know that reese was his father, why did he give him the photo of sarah, trusted him and send him back in time?, when sarah is driving at the end she records her voice to the not born john and talks about reese who is his father
thomasc1982
20-02-2002, 18:28
Going back to why Skynet didnt try to kill Sarahs grandparents... In the film doesnt Reese say that Skynet knew virtually nothing about Sarah (just her name and loaction). This also explains why The Terminator went killing all the different Sarah Conners as opposed to just the right one.
thomasc1982
20-02-2002, 18:29
Going back to why Skynet didnt try to kill Sarahs grandparents... In the film doesnt Reese say that Skynet knew virtually nothing about Sarah (just her name and loaction). This also explains why The Terminator went killing all the different Sarah Conners as opposed to just the right one.
Also... I think that John does/did/whatever know that Reese was his father... One thing though.. Anyone know if Michael Biehn will be back for T3 or T4? That would be good.
Sarah must have made sure that someone in the future knew that Reese was the father, she needed to make sure that Reese got sent back at some point otherwise she would never have become pregnant.
Skynet knew virtually nothing about Sarah, they just sent a Terminator back to the right town at the right time and let him find her through the phone book. If that's all they knew they coukdn't have gone after her parents etc. It would have made more sense just to kill Reese before he went back in time then you would avoid the whole thing without needing a time machine but never mind.
Pike Bishop
21-02-2002, 09:21
Originally posted by pjn
Sarah Connor has sex with a guy from the future (Reece), consequently having a child.
Guy from future dies.
Photo taken of Sarah.
Apocalyptic Event.
Sarah gives photo to John Connor.
Reece gets photo from John.
Skynet send terminator back in time to kill mother of John Connor.
Reece sent back in time to prevent this.
Go back to step one.
So I was right, the whole thing is a continual trapped loop. Time and space as we know it would only exist between the first and last of these events, otherwise if there was a beginning and we assume that Reece's birth was the beginning then John Conner simply would not exist in Reece's lifetime because Reece needs to go back to Sarah's time to impregnate her in order that John Conner exists in the first place, because John wouldn't exist in Reece's lifetime Reece can't get the orders to impregnatre Sarah.
Anyway, I'm much too confused to get going on this again, nice to see it raised some interesting discussions though.
In terms of time elapsing there is no loop. Sarah is born, everything happens in chronological order and then you get to the future, Reese gets sent back and then everything carries on into the further future.
I think what you are getting at when you describe a loop is the chain of events that cause everything to happen. There isn't a start and end to these chain of events as John sends Reese back to ensure that he gets born, but Reese tells Sarah what John needs to know so he can send Reese back.
The flow of time and the flow of these chain of events are completely different. Time flows linearly from the start to the stop, whatever you define those as, the chain of events make up a closed cause-effet loops which happen between Reese being sent back, and Reese being sent back
Pike Bishop
21-02-2002, 11:48
Originally posted by sampath
The whole time travel thing is itself could well be a huge plot-hole - if anyone's feeling energetic have a look at this article: Temporal anomalies in the Terminator series (http://www.geocities.com/area51/rampart/6040/terminat.html). :D
I thought I was confused until I started to read the stuff in the above link, now my brain has just melted!
I'm feeling dizzy. My head is spinning.
no, not like a whirlpool
I still can't amke any sense of this terminator malarky.
Originally posted by stephen
I think what you are getting at when you describe a loop is the chain of events that cause everything to happen. There isn't a start and end to these chain of events as John sends Reese back to ensure that he gets born, but Reese tells Sarah what John needs to know so he can send Reese back.
Aha - but suppose Sarah (for whatever reason), despite her encounter with the 1st Terminator & Reese, doesn't tell John the true identity of who his father is. What then? Will the past change in front of Sarah's eyes (so to speak) - i.e. will John simply cease to exist? Does the mere fact that Reese turns up in 1984 mean Sarah will tell John who his father was no matter what?
Put another way - suppose I'm confronted (in the present) by my future self who has travelled back in time. Does that mean I'm bound to travel back in time at some point in future? What if I decide, after my 'encounter', that this whole physics thing bores me and become some sort of hippy instead? :D
Originally posted by Pike Bishop
I thought I was confused until I started to read the stuff in the above link, now my brain has just melted!
Sorry - maybe you should go back in time and persuade yourself not to read that article - after all a melted brain must be slightly inconvenient, yes? :D
I think the easiest thing to say is travelling back through time just ain't possible - either that or we're in to the territory of multiple timelines/ parallel universes/ "N-Jumps"/ "Sawtooth-snaps" blah blah etc etc....:confused:
Pike Bishop
21-02-2002, 15:57
I thought an N Jump was something out of the Winter Olympics Snowboarding HalfPipe event. How wrong I was!
Originally posted by sampath
Aha - but suppose Sarah (for whatever reason), despite her encounter with the 1st Terminator & Reese, doesn't tell John the true identity of who his father is. What then? Will the past change in front of Sarah's eyes (so to speak) - i.e. will John simply cease to exist? Does the mere fact that Reese turns up in 1984 mean Sarah will tell John who his father was no matter what?
Put another way - suppose I'm confronted (in the present) by my future self who has travelled back in time. Does that mean I'm bound to travel back in time at some point in future? What if I decide, after my 'encounter', that this whole physics thing bores me and become some sort of hippy instead?
The past cannot be changed, so whatever happens Reese will come back at some point with his brain containing exactly the same information as it did when he appeared in 1985. The fact that he has come back means that he will be sent back at some point in the future. If he's not he wouldn't have appeared in 1985.
Everything has to tie up so if you do come back from the future to visit your present self, then that means at some point in the future you decide to come back and visit your past self even though you have already met your future self in the past. If you did get bored with physics and become a hippy then you won't have met your future self.
Originally posted by stephen
The past cannot be changed
Travelling back through time changes the past by definition.... This is what leads to the most obvious 'paradox' - Skynet could've inferred the result of sending Terminators back through time even before the actual time travelling, because if the Terminator had succeeded in its mission then Skynet would already know this. Otherwise, from Skynet's POV, the 'past' - along with the 'present' - would change instantaneously.
Look at it another way - there's no point in Reese 'trying' to save Sarah Connor, because he <u>knows</u> that John Connor becomes the rebel leader, therefore the Terminator cannot possibly have succeeded in killing John's mother.
Or something like that anyway... :nuts:
Now if you bring in T2...:rolleyes:
...you can think about the fact that:
Skynet will never exist because Sarah, John, Dyson and the T-800 blew up Cyberdyne systems...
How will John be born if there is no war?:nuts:
Originally posted by sampath
Travelling back through time changes the past by definition....
I disagree, the past has already happened and is set in stone, what you would be doing is changing the future of the time you went back to, the past of the time you came from is fixed. If I decide to go back in time in 20 years time to 1985 and fiddle with something somewhere, then I will be affecting the future relative to 1985. However with regards to now then I have already done that and the effect of what I did exists today.
It's the same in Terminator. They wouldn't be sending Reese back unless he had already existed in the time he meets Sarah in the film, and everything that happened between then and the time he was sent back is set in history. However everything he does in Terminator is affecting the future from that point onwards.
It's also wrong to think Skynet would experience instantaneous changes due to everything Reese does in Terminator. If that was true then everyone alive today would be experiencing instantaneous changes caused by things everyone did in our past, but that doesn't happen.
Squirtle
21-02-2002, 19:51
Originally posted by stephen
If that was true then everyone alive today would be experiencing instantaneous changes caused by things everyone did in our past, but that doesn't happen.
Erm well may be if time travel actually existed. Doh!! :nuts:
Theoretically this isnt true anyway - time would simply diverge meaning there would be multiple futures.
The time travel in Terminator is simply explained by the fact that Sarah Connor shagged somebody else to make John Connor originally who then sent Reese back (who wasnt his father as otherwise Reese would have known this when he first went back). He then got in first and shagged Sarah and their baby became John Connor. Essentially there are two John Connors dependant on whether or not Reese had been sent back yet or not. Simple! :D
"Doctor Who" never had these problems. He'd just put it down to the Blinovich Limitation Effect but the Daleks would burst in before he could explain it.
Originally posted by Squirtle
Erm well may be if time travel actually existed. Doh!! :nuts:
Theoretically this isnt true anyway - time would simply diverge meaning there would be multiple futures.
The time travel in Terminator is simply explained by the fact that Sarah Connor shagged somebody else to make John Connor originally who then sent Reese back (who wasnt his father as otherwise Reese would have known this when he first went back). He then got in first and shagged Sarah and their baby became John Connor. Essentially there are two John Connors dependant on whether or not Reese had been sent back yet or not. Simple! :D
Time travel does exist, we are doing it at the moment. The trouble is we can only do it at +1 second per second.
That logic doesn't add up. If Sarah shagged somebody else to create John Connor then why would he said send someone back to ensure he would be born? Plus, if there were two John Connors then wouldn't the second send Reese back to save Sarah thereby producing a third who would do the same etc. etc.? It seems pretty straightforward to me, both events (Reese being sent back, and John being created), are each dependent on each other happening. They both occur because the other has occured, neither could have happened without the other so talikg about the past being affected due to the decision to send Reese back is incorrect, it was already affected before and because of ?Reese being sent back.
Originally posted by stephen
It's also wrong to think Skynet would experience instantaneous changes due to everything Reese does in Terminator. If that was true then everyone alive today would be experiencing instantaneous changes caused by things everyone did in our past, but that doesn't happen.
So, seen from the point of view of someone at Skynet, what happens after the time machine switch is thrown to send the Terminator back, provided it actually succeeds in killing Sarah? Would John Connor simply cease to exist? Or is it always doomed to fail, given the established 'history'?
If the timeline splits into two from the point in which the Terminator arrives in 1984 (which is what I guess you're implying when you say the past has already happened and is set in stone, what you would be doing is changing the future of the time you went back to, the past of the time you came from is fixed) , then I guess someone at Skynet would simply observe they've just lost one Terminator. And when Reese goes back presumably the 'new' timeline splits yet again. So does that mean there are 3 (one with no one from future, one with just the Terminator, and one with the Terminator and Reese) timelines 'coexisting' in some way? (3 parallel universes perhaps??) :confused:
Why can't films just stick to travelling to the future - it much less problematic that way. :rolleyes:
And isn't it high time we had an "Abstact theoretical physicsy-type stuff" forum for just this sort of thread - Mods?? :p
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 09:31
Time travel does exist, we are doing it at the moment. The trouble is we can only do it at +1 second per second.
By definition that aint time travel.
That logic doesn't add up. If Sarah shagged somebody else to create John Connor then why would he said send someone back to ensure he would be born?
He sends someone back to protect her - theres nothing to suggest that Reece is his dad.
Plus, if there were two John Connors then wouldn't the second send Reese back to save Sarah thereby producing a third who would do the same etc. etc.?
No - in T2 they destroy everything so that Skynet would never exist hence no terminators hence no reason to go back in time.
It seems pretty straightforward to me, both events (Reese being sent back, and John being created), are each dependent on each other happening. They both occur because the other has occured, neither could have happened without the other so talikg about the past being affected due to the decision to send Reese back is incorrect, it was already affected before and because of ?Reese being sent back.
That doesnt make any sense at all especially if you include the events in T2 into the equation. After T2 there would be no reason to send anyone back in time so the existence of John Connor relying on Reece going back in time doesnt work.
What I was getting at is that if Skynet experiences instantaneous changes as a result of Reese being sent back, and and a result of Reese actions at the time, then wouldn't they also experence instantaneous changes as a result of other people doing things? For example if John Connor suddenly disappeared when Reese was about to fail his mission, but then reappeared when Reese made a decision which made him succeed, then wouldn't they also be experiencing similar changes due to a bus being 2 minutes alte which meant Sarahs parents never met etc? If you look at it this way then wouldn't there be trillions of parallel timelines created by every minor event that ever happened?
The only way that I can explain it is to say that from the point of view of Skynet, their past has already happened and is set in stone, and the events of Terminator have already happened with the results already affecting their present. They only decide to send Reese back because Reese has already been sent in their past. If he hadn't appeared in 1985 then they wouldn't be sending him back in the future as there would be no John Connor. Of course, there could be trillions of parallel timelines in existence when Skynet sends Reese back, each with different things happening in their past, but the past of each would already be set in stone and be having an effect on their present day.
I saw a talk on something like this once and the Physicist explained things like this by saying that events would always happen to prevent a paradox occuring. For example, if you sent yourself back from the future to shoot yourself, then when it came to shooting yourself your hand might twitch and cause you to miss grazing your wrist. However it would be this graze on your wrist that caused you to miss when you came back in time.
"Oh no, I've gone cross eyed"
I wonder how many people are still actually reading this thread? :)
By definition that aint time travel.
It is, if you weren't time travelling you would be stuck at a single point in time. Although I suppose we could be frozen in time every so often without realising it. If you did stop travelling through time, then the point when you were time travelling would be zero seconds ago as no time is passing, then when it starts again you wouldn't remember stopping as it would last for zero time.
No - in T2 they destroy everything so that Skynet would never exist hence no terminators hence no reason to go back in time.
The fact that thay have been sent back in time means that Skynet does exist in the future, if it didn't then they wouldn't be destroying everything. Skynet is created by some other means
That doesnt make any sense at all especially if you include the events in T2 into the equation. After T2 there would be no reason to send anyone back in time so the existence of John Connor relying on Reece going back in time doesnt work.
After T2 there is obviously a reason to send people back in time otherwise they wouldn't be there in T2. Reese does have some influence on the existence of John Connor, because he is invloved in protecting his mother in T1. The fact that Reese was in T1 means that there is a reason to send him back to look after Sarah.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 10:06
It is, if you weren't time travelling you would be stuck at a single point in time. Although I suppose we could be frozen in time every so often without realising it. If you did stop travelling through time, then the point when you were time travelling would be zero seconds ago as no time is passing, then when it starts again you wouldn't remember stopping as it would last for zero time.
??? Time is constant and we are stuck in a single ongoing point - you cant go back a second and you cant go forward a second.
The fact that thay have been sent back in time means that Skynet does exist in the future, if it didn't then they wouldn't be destroying everything. Skynet is created by some other means
No it doesnt - that means theres no point in sending anyone back in the first place. There is no evidence to suggest Skynet is not created as described in the film. This also means if Sarah Connor was killed it would make absolutely no difference to the future so why send anyone back??
After T2 there is obviously a reason to send people back in time otherwise they wouldn't be there in T2. Reese does have some influence on the existence of John Connor, because he is invloved in protecting his mother in T1. The fact that Reese was in T1 means that there is a reason to send him back to look after Sarah.
Why? If you change the past the future changes thats the whole point of the film. I think you are looking at it being completely linear but the whole point of time travel is that time becomes non-linear.
??? Time is constant and we are stuck in a single ongoing point - you cant go back a second and you cant go forward a second.
If you can't go forward a second how do you get any older?
No it doesnt - that means theres no point in sending anyone back in the first place. There is no evidence to suggest Skynet is not created as described in the film. This also means if Sarah Connor was killed it would make absolutely no difference to the future so why send anyone back??
For whatever reason Reese is sent back from the future, and his presence and actions in T1 and T2 have some effect on the future decision to send him back. Everything that happens in the Terminator films is the past to the time that Reese is sent back from, and the effects of this history mean that he is still sent back.
Why? If you change the past the future changes thats the whole point of the film. I think you are looking at it being completely linear but the whole point of time travel is that time becomes non-linear.
You can't change that past, only the future. The effect of Reeses actions in the films affects Sarahs future, but Sarahs future is also Reeses past before he is sent back which is fixed. The easiest way to understand it is to look back on everything from a point way in the future, when everything that happened is fixed. Reese appears in Sarahs time, does something which has some effect and results in the world that Reese is sent back from. When Reese is sent back from the future he is carrying the effect of everything that he has already done in the Terminator films.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 11:02
If you can't go forward a second how do you get any older?
Like I said time is constant and you are stuck at a single point moving forward...
e.g. if you consider the present time as being 0 - to time travel you would have to reach 0 + 1 quicker than the second it would take everybody else otherwise when you get there time is set to 0 again.
For whatever reason Reese is sent back from the future, and his presence and actions in T1 and T2 have some effect on the future decision to send him back. Everything that happens in the Terminator films is the past to the time that Reese is sent back from, and the effects of this history mean that he is still sent back.
Nope - him going back changes the future thats the whole point. Why try to stop judgement day if its envitable. Also why would Skynet send the terminator back it already knew it would fail?
You can't change that past, only the future. The effect of Reeses actions in the films affects Sarahs future, but Sarahs future is also Reeses past before he is sent back which is fixed. The easiest way to understand it is to look back on everything from a point way in the future, when everything that happened is fixed. Reese appears in Sarahs time, does something which has some effect and results in the world that Reese is sent back from. When Reese is sent back from the future he is carrying the effect of everything that he has already done in the Terminator films.
So how does Skynet exist in the first place to be able to send anything back. Its existence depends on a terminator going back to get destroyed and bits recovered by Cyberdyne? Basically its a chicken and egg situation.
Also why not just send someone back to stop the first terminator ever going back which would mean Skynet could never has existed in the first place - then what would happen?
Dan Druff
22-02-2002, 11:09
:D
davey1970
22-02-2002, 11:14
looking at the link given right near the start of this thread (a highly amusing thread as well) I seem to recall it suggests that there is no point in stopping the holocaust, etc.... - and suggests this should be the basis for t3.
d
I agree that the events happening in Terminator affect the future, which is the whole point of doing them, but this future is Skynets past which is fixed and lead to it's existence.
If you look back at all the events from a point a long way in the future, you see a series of events which are all interelated. Reese appearing in Sarahs time is one event, this somehow leads to the creation of Skynet and Reese being sent back. Reese has already been sent back when he is sent back, so has the Terminator. Skynet exists because the Terminator has been sent back, and Skynet sends the Terminator back beacuase Skynet exists. When Skynet sends the Terminator back,the events of the Terminator films have already happened, which is why they are sending it back.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 11:32
Originally posted by stephen
If you look back at all the events from a point a long way in the future, you see a series of events which are all interelated. Reese appearing in Sarahs time is one event, this somehow leads to the creation of Skynet and Reese being sent back. Reese has already been sent back when he is sent back, so has the Terminator. Skynet exists because the Terminator has been sent back, and Skynet sends the Terminator back beacuase Skynet exists. When Skynet sends the Terminator back,the events of the Terminator films have already happened, which is why they are sending it back.
What your basically saying is that the future happens before the past! :nuts:
Basically there has to be an original time line where nobody goes back in time. Then when somebody does go back in time the original timeline is altered.
I just had a quick read of that link above.
What I'm talking about is what you would experience if you lived through the whole thing. i.e. Presumably John Connor wouldn't expereince the changes in time lines, and he would know about everything that happened in the two films before he sent Reese back. :)
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 12:05
Originally posted by stephen
I just had a quick read of that link above.
What I'm talking about is what you would experience if you lived through the whole thing. i.e. Presumably John Connor wouldn't expereince the changes in time lines, and he would know about everything that happened in the two films before he sent Reese back. :)
Erm me thinks your changing you story slightly but anyway...
So you agree that the simple fact of sending the terminator back does change the future - essentially there would be two timelines the original one where nothing happens to Sarah Connor in 1985 and the new one with the terminator?
If you look at BTTF their idea of time travelling is utter BS - specifically the photo wouldnt change likle it does.
Wouldn't the Terminator have knowledge about what happened in tha past? So the first time he goes he would know that Sarah lived normally as he hadn't been sent back, and acts accordingly. Now that he's been sent back he will know this in the future and this will affect him when he comes back and he will act differently, causing another change to him in the future, which will affect what he does when he comes back etc? Won't this create loads of different timelines? Surely this can only tie up if what the Terminator does in the films will cause his future to be as he remembers it?
Originally posted by stephen
I just had a quick read of that link above.
Presumably John Connor wouldn't expereince the changes in time lines, and he would know about everything that happened in the two films before he sent Reese back. :)
So you're saying there's no way to change the fact that Reese comes back (I'm sure I've posed this question before... )? In other words the future is set, contrary to John Connor's words to Reese before his departure (The future is not set - there's no fate but that which we make for ourselves).
Originally posted by stephen
The fact that thay have been sent back in time means that Skynet does exist in the future, if it didn't then they wouldn't be destroying everything. Skynet is created by some other means.
Hmm.. in that case, why does the second Terminator (which gets sent back after the events of T2) still claim that "the man most directly responsible" for Skynet in Dyson? He ain't going to be responsible for anything if he's dead now is he? :p Now you may say Dyson still could be directly responsible for Skynet in a sense, perhaps because he failed to destroy all his work before his death; but then Arnie in T2, who claims to have "detailed files" on Dyson should also know the precise circumstances of Dyson's death, and of the circumstances of Skynet's creation following Dyson's death. Unless of course Arnie was programmed with incorrect information or something, which seems unlikely....
:brickwall :argue: :confused: :nuts: :D
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 12:55
Originally posted by stephen
Wouldn't the Terminator have knowledge about what happened in tha past? So the first time he goes he would know that Sarah lived normally as he hadn't been sent back, and acts accordingly. Now that he's been sent back he will know this in the future and this will affect him when he comes back and he will act differently, causing another change to him in the future, which will affect what he does when he comes back etc? Won't this create loads of different timelines? Surely this can only tie up if what the Terminator does in the films will cause his future to be as he remembers it?
No - the terminator would only have knowledge of its own time line. So when it was sent back the events in the film hadnt happened yet (ie. nothing had happened to Sarah in 1985). Technically after the events of T2 the Terminator wouldnt not be sent back again as Skynet wouldnt exist so only one Terminator ever goes back to 1985.
In the original timeline (A-B) the terminators past is that nothing happened to Sarah. Since he has now affected the past by going back this means that he knows this when he goes back, causing an N jump to alternate timeline C-D. Now when he goes back again he knows that he has been previously, and that when he went previously he knew about going the time before that. This causes a further N jump to time E-F. This sawtooth snap keeps repeating until everything settles down, and at this point the new timeline replaces A-B At this point The Terminators history is that of the new time line that he is creating by being there.
Looking back on it, history happens as normal up to point A, the new timeline happens here and then time carries on afterwards. The effects of the Terminator and Reese being in the new timeline lead to the sitation where they are both sent back in the future.
bazkeane82
22-02-2002, 13:43
after reading most posts, some questions are still not clear to me
before the war and everything, was there an original father of john conner, reese hadn't been born yet so couldn't possibly be johns dad, did sarah have a relationship with someone else to produce john?
i think reese was sent back to protect sarah, but made a huge mistake by sleeping with her making the future john conner to not exsist, i could be wrong about this
because
what still confuses me is at the the end of the film, a kid takes a picture of her, sarah has the same facial expressions as the photo reese had in the future which makes me think the whole film could be a loop, after the events that happened before you would've of thought different situations would of changed with sarah but it seemed it didn't , so reese and sarah would always be in a time loop
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 13:47
Originally posted by stephen
In the original timeline (A-B) the terminators past is that nothing happened to Sarah. Since he has now affected the past by going back this means that he knows this when he goes back, causing an N jump to alternate timeline C-D. Now when he goes back again he knows that he has been previously, and that when he went previously he knew about going the time before that. This causes a further N jump to time E-F. This sawtooth snap keeps repeating until everything settles down, and at this point the new timeline replaces A-B At this point The Terminators history is that of the new time line that he is creating by being there.
Nope your wrong again :D The events in T2 will stop another terminator going back to the past as Skynet will no longer exist. There are only two new timelines the first happens in T1 and the second happens in T2.
Basically only one Terminator will ever go back to 1985. There are no loops just different timelines each with a begining and potentially an end.
It will be interesting to see how the story in T3 evolves - as it can only be set in the time before before the first Terminator is sent back unless there are massive plot holes (which wouldnt suprise me!).
That link above explains most of that quite well.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 13:53
after reading most posts, some questions are still not clear to me
before the war and everything, was there an original father of john conner, reese hadn't been born yet so couldn't possibly be johns dad, did sarah have a relationship with someone else to produce john?
i think reese was sent back to protect sarah, but made a huge mistake by sleeping with her making the future john conner to not exsist, i could be wrong about this
Yep - thats correct based on the available evidence in the film.
what still confuses me is at the the end of the film, a kid takes a picture of her, sarah has the same facial expressions as the photo reese had in the future which makes me think the whole film could be a loop, after the events that happened before you would've of thought different situations would of changed with sarah but it seemed it didn't , so reese and sarah would always be in a time loop
Technically theres no way that photo should exist - I think that was just put in to provide a link to the future but they didnt think it through properly.
The photo is taken at the end of the film, Sarah keeps it and gives it to John, who gives it to Reese who brings it back with him, which is why he has it at the beginning of the film. Her expression is the same because it is the same photo.
mmm who cares
its a classic
and better than T2, IMO
I own this one on dvd not T2
Nope your wrong again :D The events in T2 will stop another terminator going back to the past as Skynet will no longer exist. There are only two new timelines the first happens in T1 and the second happens in T2.
Basically only one Terminator will ever go back to 1985. There are no loops just different timelines each with a begining and potentially an end.
It will be interesting to see how the story in T3 evolves - as it can only be set in the time before before the first Terminator is sent back unless there are massive plot holes (which wouldnt suprise me!). [/QUOTE]
Whatever happens in the two films Skynet will still exist as it sent the Terminators back, if it doesn't exist in the future then no Terminators would be in either of the films as it wouldn't have sent them back.
The third film can be set at any time as Skynet is still created somhow, the events of the two exisiting films mean it must be.
The idea of different timelines is just a theroetical tool to determine which timelines are possible and which are not, the history of what happened leading up to the creation of skynet invloves what happened in the films, and carries on afterwards.
Does anyone else agree with me?
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 14:19
Originally posted by stephen
Whatever happens in the two films Skynet will still exist as it sent the Terminators back, if it doesn't exist in the future then no Terminators would be in either of the films as it wouldn't have sent them back.
The third film can be set at any time as Skynet is still created somhow, the events of the two exisiting films mean it must be.
The idea of different timelines is just a theroetical tool to determine which timelines are possible and which are not, the history of what happened leading up to the creation of skynet invloves what happened in the films, and carries on afterwards.
Does anyone else agree with me?
:brickwall :brickwall :brickwall
You are looking at if from the future into the past whereas it should be the past into the future.
The end of T2 means that Skynet wont exist and the future is changed. The Terminators were sent back from the original future but this timeline ceases to exist at the end of T2. In the new future timeline there is no Skynet so no Terminators - thats the whole point of the ending to the film and why arnie kills himself.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 14:20
Originally posted by stephen
The photo is taken at the end of the film, Sarah keeps it and gives it to John, who gives it to Reese who brings it back with him, which is why he has it at the beginning of the film. Her expression is the same because it is the same photo.
It cant be the same photo as the Reece that comes back is from a diffrent timeline than the one Sarah is in by the end of T1.
Originally posted by Squirtle
It cant be the same photo as the Reece that comes back is from a diffrent timeline than the one Sarah is in by the end of T1.
There is only one timeline that actually happens which is made up of a number of possible timelines.
SqueakyG
22-02-2002, 14:25
Originally posted by sampath
So, seen from the point of view of someone at Skynet, what happens after the time machine switch is thrown to send the Terminator back, provided it actually succeeds in killing Sarah? Would John Connor simply cease to exist? Or is it always doomed to fail, given the established 'history'?
This is one of the bigger faults in the time travel theory.
Skynet simply cannot succeed in their plan.
If Skynet send a Terminator to kill Sarah or John Connor, and the Terminator succeeds, and John Connor never gets born... then Sknet will never be in a situation where it needs to send back a Terminator to kill Sarah or John Connor. If they succeed in eliminating John Connor from the war, then they will never need to take action against John Connor in the war. Which means they won't try to eliminate John Connor. Which means John Connor will exist. Which means they will need to eliminate him. And so you get a loop.
The very fact that Skynet is in a situation where John Connor is leading the human resistance, means that THAT IS HOW THINGS ARE. Skynet must assume that any attempts to go back in time and change events has caused THIS TIMELINE.
So the fundamental flaw is this:
You cannot go back in time and change things. Nothing you can do in the past will ever alter the present, because WHATEVER the events of the past were, they caused the present. And if you went back in time and changed the past in order to create an alternate present... you would exist WITHIN that alternate present, so it would be the standard present to you, and you wouldn't understand that anything needed to be altered in the past to create it.
The film is quite intelligent, however. It understands this, and PLAYS with it. The future cannot be altered -- John Connor WILL exist, no matter what happens (otherwise, if John Connor never existed, Skynet would have no reason to ever cause his non-existence, and they would let him exist... so he will DEFINITELY always exist, he cannot be killed! Time theory saves him!) So the film cleverly makes it so that Reese creates John Connor.
Do you all have a headache now? :D
Originally posted by Squirtle
:brickwall :brickwall :brickwall
You are looking at if from the future into the past whereas it should be the past into the future.
The end of T2 means that Skynet wont exist and the future is changed. The Terminators were sent back from the original future but this timeline ceases to exist at the end of T2. In the new future timeline there is no Skynet so no Terminators - thats the whole point of the ending to the film and why arnie kills himself.
The only way to make any sense of it is to look back at everything that has happened from a point in the future, and everything must be consistent when you do that.
If there is no skynet and no Terminators, then means everything will be back to the original timeline with Sarah living in 1985, and the whole process starts over again with Skynet being created etc. The Terminators and Reese exist in the films because they are sent back from the time of Skynet, but their presence in the films must lead to their creation and being sent back in the future.
You can't have a past with Termiantors sent from the future only for them not be sent back when the future comes, everything has to add up.
If we assume travelling back in time is possible, evidently we are forced to make some pretty bizarre conclusions. The simplest explanation for this is to say our original assumption - that travelling back through time is possible - is incorrect.
So there. :D
Originally posted by SqueakyG
So the fundamental flaw is this:
You cannot go back in time and change things. Nothing you can do in the past will ever alter the present, because WHATEVER the events of the past were, they caused the present. And if you went back in time and changed the past in order to create an alternate present... you would exist WITHIN that alternate present, so it would be the standard present to you, and you wouldn't understand that anything needed to be altered in the past to create it.
The film is quite intelligent, however. It understands this, and PLAYS with it. The future cannot be altered -- John Connor WILL exist, no matter what happens (otherwise, if John Connor never existed, Skynet would have no reason to ever cause his non-existence, and they would let him exist... so he will DEFINITELY always exist, he cannot be killed! Time theory saves him!) So the film cleverly makes it so that Reese creates John Connor.
Do you all have a headache now? :D
My point exactly
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 14:41
Originally posted by stephen
There is only one timeline that actually happens which is made up of a number of possible timelines.
Nope you wrong yet again!! :D
There is only one timeline as far as the person that is in it is concerned hence things wouldnt just suddently disappear if the past was changed (as in BTTF).
Reece basically jumps from one time line to another. Judgement day will always happen but by going back in time he stops Sarah and John Connor from expericing that future as he creates a new future.
Originally posted by Squirtle
Nope you wrong yet again!! :D
There is only one timeline as far as the person that is in it is concerned hence things wouldnt just suddently disappear if the past was changed (as in BTTF).
Reece basically jumps from one time line to another. Judgement day will always happen but by going back in time he stops Sarah and John Connor from expericing that future as he creates a new future.
His actions create a new future which Sarah and John live in to, however this new future is the one that he is sent back from.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 14:49
Originally posted by stephen
My point exactly
Your both wrong!! :D
If you time travel into the past and kill someone (bapapapa perhaps) they stay dead and a new timeline is created. There are now two futures one where bapapa isnt dead and one where bapapapa is dead. Basically two timelines. Simple. Nobody on either timeline would be aware of the other timeline unless they had a time machine and could travel between the two.
Simple!
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 14:50
Originally posted by stephen
His actions create a new future which Sarah and John live in to, however this new future is the one that he is sent back from.
No :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall - he creates a new future where there is no need to send him back.
Originally posted by Squirtle
No :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall - he creates a new future where there is no need to send him back.
If there is no need to send him back then Sarah will live as normal and the whole thing will start again.
bazkeane82
22-02-2002, 14:53
Originally posted by stephen
The photo is taken at the end of the film, Sarah keeps it and gives it to John, who gives it to Reese who brings it back with him, which is why he has it at the beginning of the film. Her expression is the same because it is the same photo.
so it has to be a kind of loop then
Originally posted by Squirtle
Your both wrong!! :D
If you time travel into the past and kill someone (bapapapa perhaps) they stay dead and a new timeline is created. There are now two futures one where bapapa isnt dead and one where bapapapa is dead. Basically two timelines. Simple. Nobody on either timeline would be aware of the other timeline unless they had a time machine and could travel between the two.
Simple!
No, Bapapapa would be dead from the point you killed him and also dead at the point in time where you go back in time to kill him as you have already killed him.
I don't think we are going to agree here :)
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 15:00
Originally posted by stephen
If there is no need to send him back then Sarah will live as normal and the whole thing will start again.
In future A Skynet exists
In future B Skynet does not exist.
When they send Reece back it will not change future A because that has already happened. It will create future B. As far as Sarah Connor from 1985 is concerned future B then becomes her future and in that future theres no Skynet so no need for time travel.
________1985______________A - Skynet exists
\
\____________ B - Skynet does not exist.
Originally posted by bazkeane82
so it has to be a kind of loop then
It is in terms of chains of events but not in terms of time flow.
The photo is taken, Sarah gives it to John, who gives in to Reese, who brings it back with him to find Sarah, resulting in the photo being taken etc.
In terms of time flow, Reese appears with the photo, finds Sarah, the photo is taken, which eventually gets taken back with Reese, and time carries on after that.
I'm sure squirtle thinks differently though!
Does Reese actually take the photo back with him or just memorise it?
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 15:05
Originally posted by stephen
It is in terms of chains of events but not in terms of time flow.
The photo is taken, Sarah gives it to John, who gives in to Reese, who brings it back with him to find Sarah, resulting in the photo being taken etc.
In terms of time flow, Reese appears with the photo, finds Sarah, the photo is taken, which eventually gets taken back with Reese, and time carries on after that.
I'm sure squirtle thinks differently though!
Does Reese actually take the photo back with him or just memorise it?
How does he get the photo to take it back in the first place then? He cant have the photo before hes gone back because those events wouldnt have happened yet.
Originally posted by Squirtle
In future A Skynet exists
In future B Skynet does not exist.
When they send Reece back it will not change future A because that has already happened. It will create future B. As far as Sarah Connor from 1985 is concerned future B then becomes her future and in that future theres no Skynet so no need for time travel.
________1985______________A - Skynet exists
\
\____________ B - Skynet does not exist.
In that case in which timeline does Skynet get created? And how does Reese get hold of the photo to find out what Sarah looks like? In your timeline A Reese would not be there so there would be no Reason for the photo to be taken where it was.
Originally posted by Squirtle
How does he get the photo to take it back in the first place then? He cant have the photo before hes gone back because those events wouldnt have happened yet.
He has already gone back before he goes back, those events would have already happened which is why he is going back.
the whole point is that the events of 1985 happen before Reese is sent back, as well as afterwards.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 15:15
Originally posted by stephen
In that case in which timeline does Skynet get created? And how does Reese get hold of the photo to find out what Sarah looks like? In your timeline A Reese would not be there so there would be no Reason for the photo to be taken where it was.
I think the photo is simply a plot hole because theres no way it can exist in both timelines. It doesnt exist in future A as it is created as a consequence of future B.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 15:18
Originally posted by stephen
He has already gone back before he goes back, those events would have already happened which is why he is going back.
the whole point is that the events of 1985 happen before Reese is sent back, as well as afterwards.
That means that they are stuck in a loop - but the loop still has to have a start point which your theory does not allow for so you are wrong!! :brickwall
Chicken and egg again!!! :brickwall
Originally posted by Squirtle
That means that they are stuck in a loop - but the loop still has to have a start point which your theory does not allow for so you are wrong!! :brickwall
Chicken and egg again!!! :brickwall
As I explained before, its only a loop in terms of chains of events, not time.
Before 1985 there is no photo or Reese, Reese appears with a photo (or a memory of it) in 1985, all the events of the film happen. the photo is taken which ends up with Reese in the future. Time then carries on after Reese has been sent back.
The only way it can work logically is if the events of 1985 lead to Reese being sent back, and if Reese being sent back leads to the events of 1985.
Squirtle
22-02-2002, 15:30
Originally posted by stephen
As I explained before, its only a loop in terms of chains of events, not time.
Before 1985 there is no photo or Reese, Reese appears with a photo (or a memory of it) in 1985, all the events of the film happen. the photo is taken which ends up with Reese in the future. Time then carries on after Reese has been sent back.
The only way it can work logically is if the events of 1985 lead to Reese being sent back, and if Reese being sent back leads to the events of 1985.
But for that to work theres has to a continous loop with no beginning or end - like the chicken and egg thing. There has to be a start point but with the above there isnt.
Also why does it have to be logical - given than the idea of time travel is inherently illogical?
But for that to work theres has to a continous loop with no beginning or end - like the chicken and egg thing. There has to be a start point but with the above there isnt.
The chain of events does form a continuous loop, each event precedes every other event (in terms of cause and effect, not time). Why does there have to be a start point?
Also why does it have to be logical - given than the idea of time travel is inherently illogical?
If you assume it doesnt work logically how can you propose any sort of argument realting to it?
SqueakyG
22-02-2002, 18:05
Originally posted by Squirtle
If you time travel into the past and kill someone (bapapapa perhaps) they stay dead and a new timeline is created. There are now two futures one where bapapa isnt dead and one where bapapapa is dead. Basically two timelines. Simple. Nobody on either timeline would be aware of the other timeline unless they had a time machine and could travel between the two.
Simple!
No.
If you go back in time and cause Baps to have never existed, then you create a present in which Baps doesn't exist. But if Baps never existed, you can never get the idea to go back in time and cause his non-existence. Which means he never got killed, and does exist. Which means you decide to go back and kill him. Which means he doesn't exist. Which means you can't. Which means you do.
A loop. A paradox. A chicken and an egg.
You seem unsatisfied that time travel conundrums end in "chicken and egg" paradoxes... you keep trying to argue your way out of the paradox. You can't. The paradox happens, accept it. And the paradox is the SIMPLEST answer.... simpler than the "parallel dimension" theory. Die to Occam's Razor, the simplest theory is the most likely.
Killing Bapapapa needn't be a paradox. It could be possible for you to remember him being murdered by someone in the past, and because of that you decide to go back and kill the person who murdered him. However your confrontation with his murderer could result in the murderer killing bapapapa during the struggle. If all that happened then there wouldn't be a paradox and everything would tie up as both events led to each other and there are no inconsistencies.
If instead, bapapapa raped your mother, and the resulting baby was you, and you decided to go back and kill him before he did it then you would have a paradox and that situation couldn't exist.
psst anyone after some analgesics? going cheap :)
The truth of time-travel in movies is that the moment it happens you will inevitably end up with a paradox - it's unavoidable and probably the best example of why time-travel is probably impossible (except if you are a really freaky sub-atomic quantum particle!).
In movie plots there are two differing views of time-travel expounded:
a) As in Star Trek: First Contact. The borg travel back in time and assimilate earth, Picard and Crew (protected from the changes by the hole in the time-space fabric made by the borg) witness changes in their current time. ie any changes made in your past will affect your current reality.
b) As in Back to the Future (II): Biff travels back with a sports almanac and changes history by betting on races and winning. Anyone who attempts to return to their future (ie Marty and the Doc) will end up in the NEW, alternate future created by Biff's time-travel.
The Terminator clearly subscribes to the first theory; otherwise Skynet would not send back a Terminator if the changes made to the past would only create an alternate future - it has to change Skynet's present reality to be of any value to it.
Mind you, having Reece shag Sarah was just mischief making by the scriptwriter!
PS Why does everyone want to wipe out poor Baps? Plenty of other more deserving candidates on the forums!
The Terminator clearly subscribes to the first theory; otherwise Skynet would not send back a Terminator if the changes made to the past would only create an alternate future - it has to change Skynet's present reality to be of any value to it.
Before Skynet send the Terminator back, the Terminator has already existed and had an effect in their past, which is why they are sending him back. Theres nothing paradoxical about it.
Squirtle
23-02-2002, 15:11
Originally posted by stephen
The Terminator clearly subscribes to the first theory; otherwise Skynet would not send back a Terminator if the changes made to the past would only create an alternate future - it has to change Skynet's present reality to be of any value to it.
Before Skynet send the Terminator back, the Terminator has already existed and had an effect in their past, which is why they are sending him back. Theres nothing paradoxical about it.
So basically what you are saying is that Skynet created itself by sending a terminator back in time? So how did Skynet exist in the first place? Also John Connor in the future would have known this so why not send the 'good' terminator back to 1985 instead of Reece?
davey1970
23-02-2002, 15:30
might as well put my 2 cents worth in.
as far as i can get it, there is no contradictions, etc... if you are just looking at the first film. everything is like a self fulfilling prophecy, sort of, and nothing contradicts anything else. similar to 12 monkeys.
this doesn't hold true for t2, the only way i can make sense of it really is with parallel universes, but then in 1 universe everything stays the same and in the other everything is changed, but i'm not even sure that holds up.
i think people on here are thinking about it far more than the people who did the films thought of it (and that is quite enjoyable). they thought it out quite well but in the end they were gonna make the film whether it had contradictions or not.
we can try and actually say it all makes sense, and come up with theories on how it could, but i very much doubt the makers of the film had the same theories.
the main point is that it is done well enough to be believable in the films, unlike some other films and tv progs like Quantum Leap (I hate to even mention it in the same breath as Terminator).
d
Originally posted by Squirtle
So basically what you are saying is that Skynet created itself by sending a terminator back in time? So how did Skynet exist in the first place? Also John Connor in the future would have known this so why not send the 'good' terminator back to 1985 instead of Reece?
Yes, that's basically what I am saying. The way I am understanding it is that as we arrive in 1985 Reese and the Terminator appear. Whatever they do ends up with Skynet being created, and they have both already existed in history when Skynet decides to send Terminator back, and everything satisfies itself in a loop. As far as I can tell T1 doesn't provide reasons that mean this wouldn't work.
Skynet exists in the first place because it sends a Terminator back which enables itself to be created, and as it's been created it can send the Terminator. It's difficult to understand what lead to the creation of Skynet as it is. Why does appear in 1985 and not earlier or later? I get a bit stumped at this point but the link above offers quite a interesting explanation of this. Basically they say that there is original timeline with no terminator in it. When Terminator is sent back the first timeline gets erased and replaced with the new timeline with a terminator going after sarah in it. However Terminator being in this timeline and will affect the future hence Terminator will be different when he is sent back, this then creates another timeline which erases and replaces the previous one, and this carries on until the events of 1985 and the future tie up with each other. When time progrsses it goes through this final timeline and that's what we see in the film. I've only thought about it simply but it seems to tie up. The only problem is that if skynet is created using the chip from the Terminator, then it wouldn't exist in the original timeline as no Terminator was present in 1985, and so wouldn't send a Terminator back. I suppose that the answer must be that Skynet was created by some other means in this original timeline.
John would already be experiencing the effect of sending the good terminator and Reese back before he sent them back.
The idea of having parallel universes is an interesting idea, but if sending someone back to 1985 from universe A would create a parallel univesre B, then surely it would be possible to send someone back from universe B to 1984 and make a change which would change universe A? if you did this wouldn't you be changing the universe that created your own universe and hence changing your own universe? Or would this create two parallel universes from 1984 onwards, and then in 1985 two more parallel univerese would be created in each parallel universe?
bazkeane82
23-02-2002, 21:35
away from the time travel bit
did anyone else notice that arnold's hair got shorter and spikier as the film went on?
davey1970
23-02-2002, 22:20
hahaha :-)))))))))))))) to the last post.
re the other enquiry - the timelines would exist independent of each other, in their own "world" there would be no other timeline and hence a terminator would not go back from timeline 2 and change timeline 1 because he would have no way of knowing timeline 1 existed. in his timeline there would be no other timeline and hence the way you can avoid contradictions.
the idea of the 1 timeline changing the other is novel, but according to all modern theories of physics that is not the way it happens - they all exist independently, in multitude. mind you, i do understand the irony of even people like stephen hawking saying this, i mean, after all, its only theory.
but as i've said before, how the hell do we know how far the knowledge of time travel has developed by the time they perform time travel????????
what seems contradictory to us now could be "quite easily" explained in the future, but that doesnt excuse crap films/progs not even giving the contradictions a second thought.
d
Originally posted by stephen
The Terminator clearly subscribes to the first theory; otherwise Skynet would not send back a Terminator if the changes made to the past would only create an alternate future - it has to change Skynet's present reality to be of any value to it.
Before Skynet send the Terminator back, the Terminator has already existed and had an effect in their past, which is why they are sending him back. Theres nothing paradoxical about it. [/B]
That's cheating - you don't know this until Terminator 2!
Besides, if the Terminator (which Skynet built) existed before Skynet (in order for Skynet to exist) - isn't this the perfect example of a paradox! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Gizmo
That's cheating - you don't know this until Terminator 2!
Besides, if the Terminator (which Skynet built) existed before Skynet (in order for Skynet to exist) - isn't this the perfect example of a paradox! :rolleyes:
The fact that the Terminator is in the first films means that he existed before skynet was created (assuming skynet didn't exist before the Terminator appeared in 1985)
That's a perfect example of something that is not a paradox as it all adds up and is consistent. The existence of Terminator in 1985 leads to the creation of Skynet, and the existence of skynet means that Terminator will appear in 1985. It all adds up and each event causes the other and therefore isn't a paradox.
If instead, Terminator was sent back by Skynet to destroy skynet and succeeded in doing this then this would be a paradox. If he succeeded then skynet wouldn't exist, and he woukldn't have been sent back, but if that was true then skynet would exist as he wouldn't have destoyed it, which means he would be sent back, which means he wouldn't etc.
Squirtle
24-02-2002, 14:27
Originally posted by stephen
Yes, that's basically what I am saying. The way I am understanding it is that as we arrive in 1985 Reese and the Terminator appear. Whatever they do ends up with Skynet being created, and they have both already existed in history when Skynet decides to send Terminator back, and everything satisfies itself in a loop. As far as I can tell T1 doesn't provide reasons that mean this wouldn't work.
So in that case John Connor would have known exactly what would happen when he sent Reece back - yet Reece doesnt seem to have any knowledge of future 1985 events. Also if he knows that these events lead to the creation of Skynet in advance wouldnt it have made more sense to send someone else back to collect the bits that Cyberdyne find thus stopping the creation of Skynet in the first place?
Also you said changing the past wont change the future so why did Skynet send a terminator back to kill Sarah Connor as there would be no point.
SqueakyG
24-02-2002, 14:36
Originally posted by Squirtle
So in that case John Connor would have known exactly what would happen when he sent Reece back - yet Reece doesnt seem to have any knowledge of future 1985 events. Also if he knows that these events lead to the creation of Skynet in advance wouldnt it have made more sense to send someone else back to collect the bits that Cyberdyne find thus stopping the creation of Skynet in the first place?
Also you said changing the past wont change the future so why did Skynet send a terminator back to kill Sarah Connor as there would be no point.
Squirtle, all the points you list here are flaws with the FILM, rather than flaws with time theory.
No time-travel story can EVER be accurate or realistic, because the very concept of time travel is implausible, and will by its very nature cause flaws and impossibilities in any science-fiction story.
Squirtle
24-02-2002, 15:48
Originally posted by SqueakyG
Squirtle, all the points you list here are flaws with the FILM, rather than flaws with time theory.
Not if you accept my theory further up the thread. :D
So in that case John Connor would have known exactly what would happen when he sent Reece back - yet Reece doesnt seem to have any knowledge of future 1985 events.
Not necessarily. The effects of what Reese did in 1985 would have had an effect and carried through to the future, and would also have carried through into Reese in 1985 before he did them. There's no reason why Reese should know exactly what happened in 1985 as we don't know what happened between these events and when Reese was sent back. The only thing that is certain is that everything that happens from Reese appearing in 1985 until the point when he is sent back in the future forms Reeses history when he appears in 1985. How much of this history Reese knows about is a different question.
Also if he knows that these events lead to the creation of Skynet in advance wouldnt it have made more sense to send someone else back to collect the bits that Cyberdyne find thus stopping the creation of Skynet in the first place?
That's just really an alternative plot line for the film, and is down to the scriptwriters, I'm just explaining the implications and logic of the time travel element. If they has sent someone back to try and collect the pieces in Terminator, then whatever the outcome of this was, the people in the future would still need a reason to send someone back to the past to collect the pieces. If they succeeded and prevented the creation of skynet then noone would have realised the need to prevent it happening so you would have a paradox and this particular situation would'nt exist.
Also you said changing the past wont change the future so why did Skynet send a terminator back to kill Sarah Connor as there would be no point.
Changing the present does and will change the future, however you can't change the past to affect your current future as the past has already happened, you can't go back and prevent yourself existing by killing your mother as if you killed your mother then you wouldn't exist to be able to do it.
You are looking at it from the point of view of the future, and looking at people making decisions based on what has happened in their own pasts and what they want to change about them. This is a valid viewpoint, but don't forget that all the events of 1985 have an effect on the future, and the decisions made by people in 1985 will affect the decisions of people in the future. You could also say why did Reese try and protect Johns mother? The fact that he is there in 1985 means that John must have survived to send him back, so theres no point protecting Sarah as she must have lived ok. You get a causality loop and all the events in it must satisfy all the others, if not you just end up with a paradox.
I don't think Terminator contains any plot elements that don't fit in with what I am saying. The only quibbles (such as the ones you pointed out) are down to the logic and sense of the characters, not really because of any flaw with time travel theory.
Squirtle
24-02-2002, 16:04
You basically seem to be agreeing with what I've said all along but you have put it in such a confusing way that I think you've confused yourself! :D
I don't think I do agree with you. From your posts above you seem to be saying that there is a future A created in which Skynet is formed. Skynet then sends Terminator back and changes 1985, which results in a different future with no Skynet. Are you saying that the second of these timelines then replaces the first, and that the future with no Terminator becomes the timeline, or are you saying that these two timelines exist in parallel?
What I am saying is that there is only one timeline, in which Reese appears in 1985, complete with history of Skynet etc, and doers what he does resulting in skynet being created which then means he is sent back. I'm saying that there are no parallel timelines and that everything happened/happens only once.
I think we are using the same reasoning but interpreting this to support two different theories.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.