furie said:
c) The future is set in stone. No matter what you do to the past, the future is unaltered. Malky sends me back in time, I kill his Grandmother. Time doesn't care and Malky still exists to send me back anyway. I cannot change my own past. This is the poorest way of avoiding paradox, as you are just shoving paradox under the carpet and ignoring it.
But if the future is set in stone, then isn't this the so called grandfather paradox, which basically says that if backwards time-travel were possible, you couldn't do anything that would knowingly affect time. Thus, you couldn't kill your own grandfather. If you tried to shoot him, the gun would jam, or the bullet would miss or he'd already have had your father, or your grandfather was actually the milkman etc etc etc.
Anyway, the other point worth mentioning is the alternate timeline scenario, whereby backwards time travel actually makes you travel to another universe where the future can unfold differently and not affect any time travel that might have occured.
If you accept this (and considering that using real-life physics, backwards time travel is effectively impossible, thus about as likely as multiverses existing) then T1 still makes sense, and all of T2 makes sense, as judgement day has been stopped in a different future than the one in which John Connor sent Kyle Reece back.
Of course, by the time the third film arrives, nothing makes sense, as we're still in the future that has no judgement day, and yet judgement day is already on top of us when the third time travel event occurs.
Anyway, moving on, both 9 and nine look terrible. I've seen Shane Acker's original short, which 9 is based on, and I don't think the film will be all that great. As for Nine, not only is it a musical, but it's based on a Fellini film, and he's possibly the most over-rated director of all time (although there is Burton too I suppose
)
Saw the Hangover last night, very good, full of laughs and well worth seeing once, but it has limited repeat value.