"Now Showing"
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Blaze said:
Okay, simple one for you.
In T2, the chip that creates Skynet is destroyed - so Skynet is not created. So how did Skynet send a Terminator back in either T1 or T2?
Paradox.
Some people say "that's an easy one Furie. You're looking at linear time expansion and propositioning. You need to look at a multiversal view of time. Each time you time travel backwards, you create a brand new time line which runs concurrently with the time line where the time travel incident occurred.*
Okay - I can live with that. So you now have (at T1) two futures. The one where Skynet is being crippled by John Conner and has to send a Terminator back to finish him off.
Unfortunately, in T1, the soldier sent back in time is John Conner's dad. So, if it's a different time line, who was John Conner's dad in the initial time line? Sarah Conner is a right trollop!
Anyway, the T1 arm is what creates Skynet, but Skynet is in a different time line to the T1 time line and could never have been created in a self-fulfilling paradox.
T1 actually works. It's a self contained paradox which works out logically. T2 pounces up and down on that and the plot makes no sense. T2 is an excellent action film, but the plot is complete garbage. It's full of holes and paradox and just doesn't work.
T3 wasn't even a good action film and the plot continued the completely dross T2 plot and pummels all sense in submission. T3 is one of the worst films I've ever seen. Plot is complete crap and the film is hugely clichéd, on rails, by the book, dull dull dull!
This doesn't make me want to see TS, especially when the only people who think it's good are those who think that anything after T1 has a good, solid plot/story - this is not a good outlook.
Anyhows! Watched Iron Man again the other day. It's a one shot film. Simple, bland action hero film. Great effects, some good acting actually - but overall very shallow and not something I'd really want to ever put myself through again. 5/10 (I think I rated it a 7 or 8 before).
*Yes, I'm making stuff up! :lol:
Watch the Sarah Conner series and you might understand it, things sort of get explained there.
T2 does sort of make sense as remember they never stopped the war in the 1st film, they only found out about it. But the chip that then got found just speed up the development of the computer.
T3 is the one that makes no sence as the Terminators should not exists, but as they say in the 3rd film Judgement Day will happen in time even if its not the same day.
From what I gather the new film is on a different time line, after T2 but T3 just has nothing at all to do with it. I heard the time line the new film follows is the one from ther series. In the series they were building the computers, one to help and one to fight. But at the end they went forward in time, well John did anyway and met his father and no one knew who John was as he had not been born yet.
I have not seen the film yet, can not afford it
I will have to wait for the dvd.
They tbh have not dealt with the time travel thing well at all. It should have ended at T2.
T2 does sort of make sense as remember they never stopped the war in the 1st film, they only found out about it. But the chip that then got found just speed up the development of the computer.
T3 is the one that makes no sence as the Terminators should not exists, but as they say in the 3rd film Judgement Day will happen in time even if its not the same day.
From what I gather the new film is on a different time line, after T2 but T3 just has nothing at all to do with it. I heard the time line the new film follows is the one from ther series. In the series they were building the computers, one to help and one to fight. But at the end they went forward in time, well John did anyway and met his father and no one knew who John was as he had not been born yet.
I have not seen the film yet, can not afford it
I will have to wait for the dvd.They tbh have not dealt with the time travel thing well at all. It should have ended at T2.
southend_marc said:
I'm all good thanks, I doubt it will really
southend_marc said:
So it sets the thing back what? Five year? Ten Years?
In either case, John's father will be older. The war will be different as John will be older when the fight against the machines happen. A butterfly flaps its wings in Japan and there's a tornado in New York - chaos theory, micro changes, etc, etc, etc.
ANY change in the past will drastically alter the future, so the thing that changed the past won't happen. John's dad is older (the way he fights to get to the time machine etc will all have changed too, so there's a chance he won't make it through anyway) - so his sperm may not be as active, he may be too old for Sarah Conner, his reactions slowed so he can't fight as effectively against Arnie, etc, etc, etc.
John's Dad may have ven been in a different place when Skynet went live, and him and his family could have become victims in the war. Seconds can make a huge difference to the future - imagine the changes years can make?
So the paradox is still there, and T2 just doesn't work at all logically - no matter how much bull is ploughed into the plot
^But... the movies make it perfectly clear that you can't change the future, only the chain of events that lead up to it.
Which makes the entire point in sending Terminators back in time quite... obsolete.
Which makes the entire point in sending Terminators back in time quite... obsolete.
Pokemaniac said:
Not T2... It was quite explicit in T2 that they could change the future. Why else go chasing after the arm and chip?
In fact, in T3, Judgement day didn't happen in 1997 and the third Terminator was sent back in 2004. Already the time line has irrevocably altered to not allow the first film to happen, so no second film and no third film and no Sarah Conner Chronicles if it features knowledge of Terminators and Skynet before Judgement day.
I'm going to break up this Terminator conversation with a film review
Watched Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian on blu-ray.
I think it's an ok film, Ben Barnes is annoying, why couldn't they just let him speak in his normal English accent? The special effects are stunning and the locations are beautiful but in the end it feels like that's all the movie is about. I suppose the story is ok but it is easy to get sidetracked by those long shots of the locations. Oh and Eddie Izzard = win.
Rating: 3/5
Watched Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian on blu-ray.
I think it's an ok film, Ben Barnes is annoying, why couldn't they just let him speak in his normal English accent? The special effects are stunning and the locations are beautiful but in the end it feels like that's all the movie is about. I suppose the story is ok but it is easy to get sidetracked by those long shots of the locations. Oh and Eddie Izzard = win.
Rating: 3/5
Sorry Peep lol.
Furie the thing is for T2 John is already born as his dad has come back in time, so at that point them delaying the war is not relevent that part is done.
T2 I feels does follow on well, simple due to the fact they did not change anything other than make John Conner.
Peep I still need to see that film I borrowed it on dvd, but the 1st one bored me and I feel asleep in it
Furie the thing is for T2 John is already born as his dad has come back in time, so at that point them delaying the war is not relevent that part is done.
T2 I feels does follow on well, simple due to the fact they did not change anything other than make John Conner.
Peep I still need to see that film I borrowed it on dvd, but the 1st one bored me and I feel asleep in it
I'm gonig to keep on pushing peep!
It does matter. John's dad cam from the future. If the future is altered, he can't come back and make John. So then John doesn't exist and Skynet has no reason to send back Terminators.
For T1 and until the end of T2, it worked fine, but as soon as they changed the future, you hit paradox.
1984 until the point the Terminator arrives is the only fixed point in the time line. Everything from that point onwards either has to be the reason things are, or a paradox.
So T1 is good, John is conceived and the Terminator arm and chip create Skynet. It's a self fulfilling paradox, but it works logically, even though essentially (this is the paradox) Skynet is created from nothing.
Until the arm and work on Skynet is destroyed in T2, everything is still fine. The effect of the terminators returns are what drives the Conners and create the resistance. Without that, again, John Conner would not be a problem. However, if by destroying the arm they alter the future, then time has to relapse to its last fixed position, which is 1984 before the first Terminator arrived. The Terminator will not now arrive, as John has never been born, because due to the fact he hasn't been born, Skynet will not send a Terminator back to kill Sarah Conner.
As John doesn't exist, he can't send back his Dad to conceive him.
This is where you end up with dual time lines, but that doesn't work as I explained earlier, as the computer would know that it cannot change its own past, only to create a parallel universe where it may of may not succeed, but it will never know.
It just falls over big time because time was changed. Only do it if it feeds directly into the action which resulted in the alteration of the time line in the first place.
southend_marc said:
It does matter. John's dad cam from the future. If the future is altered, he can't come back and make John. So then John doesn't exist and Skynet has no reason to send back Terminators.
For T1 and until the end of T2, it worked fine, but as soon as they changed the future, you hit paradox.
1984 until the point the Terminator arrives is the only fixed point in the time line. Everything from that point onwards either has to be the reason things are, or a paradox.
So T1 is good, John is conceived and the Terminator arm and chip create Skynet. It's a self fulfilling paradox, but it works logically, even though essentially (this is the paradox) Skynet is created from nothing.
Until the arm and work on Skynet is destroyed in T2, everything is still fine. The effect of the terminators returns are what drives the Conners and create the resistance. Without that, again, John Conner would not be a problem. However, if by destroying the arm they alter the future, then time has to relapse to its last fixed position, which is 1984 before the first Terminator arrived. The Terminator will not now arrive, as John has never been born, because due to the fact he hasn't been born, Skynet will not send a Terminator back to kill Sarah Conner.
As John doesn't exist, he can't send back his Dad to conceive him.
This is where you end up with dual time lines, but that doesn't work as I explained earlier, as the computer would know that it cannot change its own past, only to create a parallel universe where it may of may not succeed, but it will never know.
It just falls over big time because time was changed. Only do it if it feeds directly into the action which resulted in the alteration of the time line in the first place.
But John has already been born from the future that was not changed if you get me.
They changed it in T2, but before it was changed John's dad has already been sent back and John has been born. So they change the future but it does not matter as John is already born.
But the question is how was he ever born in the 1st place to send his dad back the 1st time Who was the original John Conners dad.
They changed it in T2, but before it was changed John's dad has already been sent back and John has been born. So they change the future but it does not matter as John is already born.
But the question is how was he ever born in the 1st place to send his dad back the 1st time
Who was the original John Conners dad.
Just read your post again Marc, and I see what you're saying. The problem is that by changing the future in T2, then T1 doesn't happen, so John is never born so T2 can't happen either.
The original John Conner's dad was the guy sent back in T1. If it wasn't, then John Conner would have been different. Different Genes, different birth day, it immediately changes the person he would be. You would not be the same person you are today if you had a different father - your life would have changed. Maybe a weaker bladder means to get killed in a lavatory explosion that you wouldn't have been near before. Maybe being taller and stronger due to different genes, you play Rugby and get a badly broken leg which leaves you unable to fight the machines properly.
The only "true" point in time is 1984 before the Terminator appears - anything after that is flux and sunject to paradox. John is not conceived at that point, his past is Sarah Conner's future, so is subject to change due to time travel.
I don't think you're quite getting the difference between solid past and flux future. John's past become irrelevant the moment the Terminators go back in time. They have to allow the future to unfold as is set out (even if they are entwined in that future), or their future will cease to exist - no matter what their past. That's the problem with Paradox and writers have to handle it very carefully - James Cameron didn't unfortunately and it's beyond being fixed
The original John Conner's dad was the guy sent back in T1. If it wasn't, then John Conner would have been different. Different Genes, different birth day, it immediately changes the person he would be. You would not be the same person you are today if you had a different father - your life would have changed. Maybe a weaker bladder means to get killed in a lavatory explosion that you wouldn't have been near before. Maybe being taller and stronger due to different genes, you play Rugby and get a badly broken leg which leaves you unable to fight the machines properly.
The only "true" point in time is 1984 before the Terminator appears - anything after that is flux and sunject to paradox. John is not conceived at that point, his past is Sarah Conner's future, so is subject to change due to time travel.
I don't think you're quite getting the difference between solid past and flux future. John's past become irrelevant the moment the Terminators go back in time. They have to allow the future to unfold as is set out (even if they are entwined in that future), or their future will cease to exist - no matter what their past. That's the problem with Paradox and writers have to handle it very carefully - James Cameron didn't unfortunately and it's beyond being fixed
We could go on like this for years and then I would simply have to terminate you
I see what you are saying, and I know what see what I am saying as well. Thats the thing with time travel things get messed up no matter how they try to not let them. Loads of people who see the films would even question it.
The only problem I have is the one I said about and that is how did John exist to send his dad back in the 1st place when his dad can not remember Sarah and had never been back in time before.
If they never changed the future it would be like gound hog day, they would also get to a certain date go back in time and do the same thing again and again and again.
I see what you are saying, and I know what see what I am saying as well. Thats the thing with time travel things get messed up no matter how they try to not let them. Loads of people who see the films would even question it.
The only problem I have is the one I said about and that is how did John exist to send his dad back in the 1st place when his dad can not remember Sarah and had never been back in time before.
If they never changed the future it would be like gound hog day, they would also get to a certain date go back in time and do the same thing again and again and again.
southend_marc said:
Not sure what you mean? You've never met JFK or shot him. Yet you could go back in time to Dallas, stand on the grassy knoll and shoot him dead.
We know JFK is killed, it's in our past, it's just you don't remember killing him, because you haven't done it yet.
Things in the past may contain things in your future you don't yet know about. If it's in your future then it's not set in stone, as you've not experienced it yet
JFK is still dead, you did it (will do it) and the world is still right. The mystery of the shooting is a mystery because you appeared, killed and then disappeared
Everything is still fine and dandy, no paradox because your present (while shooting JFK) makes your past come true. If you shot the real gunman and JFK lived, then your present (while in the past) would alter your true past, and then you have paradox.John's dad isn't born when John is conceived, so of course he has no memory of him. John does of course know he's sending his father back in time - he has to do it in T1, otherwise he knows he'd not exist. His knowledge of his past and how the future altered it makes a self-fulfilling paradox. He can't save his friend and father, because to do so would mean he doesn't exist...
mrclam
Giga Poster
Can we just agree that jim cameron made 2 really good sci fi action thrillers... Then some people cam along and made sequels to his films and the sequels were awful?
T2 had major plot holes, but overall the film was enjoyable romp. And my teenage self actually had nightmares about ww3 after watching it in the cinema.
T3 was quite possibly the worst film i've ever seen.. Even worse than the new star trek.. It should've been straight ot video - it was that bad.
Now TS - people are telling me "it's great - but not as good as T3 - T3 was a much better film".. Which doesnt bode well for me, so i wont watch it in the cinema. I dont personally understand how a film can be "not as good" as the dross which was T3 - but still be great.
Oh. And i hear christian bale is doing his gravly batman voice for the whole movie - which is another thing which puts me off. That's (kinda) okay in short doses (actually - even in short doses it annoys me!).. but the Whole film?
T2 had major plot holes, but overall the film was enjoyable romp. And my teenage self actually had nightmares about ww3 after watching it in the cinema.
T3 was quite possibly the worst film i've ever seen.. Even worse than the new star trek.. It should've been straight ot video - it was that bad.
Now TS - people are telling me "it's great - but not as good as T3 - T3 was a much better film".. Which doesnt bode well for me, so i wont watch it in the cinema. I dont personally understand how a film can be "not as good" as the dross which was T3 - but still be great.
Oh. And i hear christian bale is doing his gravly batman voice for the whole movie - which is another thing which puts me off. That's (kinda) okay in short doses (actually - even in short doses it annoys me!).. but the Whole film?