Ok so another Terminator Salvation thread but along different lines.
Im a big fan of the idea of time travel and like thinking about the paradox’s that come with it.SO in T:S Connor saves Kyle Reese so he can go back in time and do his duty like in T1
(please correct me if I get off track).
In T:S connor kills the T800 (arnold) and the whole factory, So would Reese still need to go back in time and if so wouldnt that whole senario just keep repeating itself over and over.
Im T1 John sends Reese back to save Sarah so she can have John so he can lead the resistance and save humanity.Well wouldnt that senario of John saving Reese just repeat itself or would it be different each time.
Or am i just reading into this to much and Reese wouldnt need to go back in time again because he did originally and succeeded, but where would that put him with Sarah in order to make John and have her train John to fullfill his destiny.
SKYNET invents time machine which can only send living matter. Immediately sends several hundred kilograms of non-living matter.
SKYNET, apparently unaware that they have a time machine, send an unfinished prototype through their time machine. SKYNET is really good at unawareness.
SKYNET realizes that when infiltrating human cells, maybe disguising robots as giant, equally terrifying Austrians may not be the best way to go.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
In the second one, when they destroy the prototype Skynet chip, shouldn’t the terminator, and the kid vanish ala “back to the future”?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
In the second one, when they destroy the prototype Skynet chip, shouldn’t the terminator, and the kid vanish ala “back to the future”?
That’s what I always thought.[/quote]
Please elaborate.[/quote]
I get what he is saying, but he is wrong. Destroying that doesn’t prevent terminators from being made just like killing ONE scientist doesn’t stop the creation of Skynet.
There is the idea that no matter what changes are made in a time line, significant events will still happen one way or another. For example, you may go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby. That won’t necessarily stop “Hootler” from growing up down the street and doing the same thing.
As far as the OP, he hasn’t sent Reese back yet, so yeah, there still could be significant changes to the history we currently know as far as these movies. As long as Reese bones Sara Conner though, everything should still fall into place…except maybe John will suddenly turn into a woman.
I always thought the movie 12 Monkeys had the best idea about time travel - which basically goes along with what X just said above (and toward the end of T3 the T-800 also gives a similiar explanation).
I had a similar discussion on a movie forum. It was quite a drawn-out debate, so I’m not going to post it all up here, but the fact that T1 is a causal loop indicates that everything from T2 onwards won’t lead to back around to exactly what we saw in the first movie (T2 breaks the parodox established in T1, and people would only start vanishing if the paradox remains intact. It is definitely broken because events start unfolding differently to the way they were originally predicted to).
This is supported by the idea that the Judgement Day we see in T3 is not the same one predicted in T1, and also when T:S John Connor says “this is not the future my mother warned me about”. Events have definitely started to move down a different path.
It’s very unlikely that things will end as they began (there are so many variables that need to take place in the right place, at the right time in order to lead back to the events of T1 as we saw them - I won’t go into too much detail, but the photo of Sarah Connor is key to it all).
Of course, you could also argue that the causal loop of T1 is unbreakable, and that the timeline of the original movie had to keep replaying itself, but that usually ends with a lot of headaches and frayed tempers ;). Best not to worry about how plausible the theory of time travel is. The movies are more about narrative structure than science, IMO.
This is an interesting article about time travel rules:
My main issue with the Terminator timeline is the Kyle Reese is John Conner’s father paradox. For Kyle to be sent back John has to be born which requires Kyle to be sent back. In T:S Skynet seems to know that Kyle is John’s dad so couldn’t Skynet stop the loop by never creating a time machine? If what Professor X says is true then the answer is that John Conner would just have a different dad. Then the loop starts which replaces his dad with Kyle. This is starting to make my head hurt. Basically I just suspend my disbelief and try to enjoy the movie.
This is starting to make my head hurt. bpeck[/quote]
I tried to warn you. Trying to break down the paradox is usually the point where the headaches begin
You’ll never be able to find when or how the loop begins, because your not supposed to be able to. It’s a paradox: you’ll have more luck determining whether the chicken or the egg came first. If you think about it, all the events of the first movie feed into each other: present day influences the future, and the future influences the present. Everything has already been preceded by everything that follows…
That’s why I said that the photograph of Sarah Connor is so important. You can’t explain the loop by saying that John Connor must’ve had a different father at some point, because then JC would have no reason to give Kyle Reese the photo of Sarah in the first place. JC specifically gives Reese the photo because he knows he will father him in the past. Having a different father alters that.
I’ve probably given you an even bigger headache by now, but my point is that there is no logical explanation to how the loop came into being. It’s a riddle with no answer.
I don’t think Cameron wanted people to analyze the science behind it. He probably just thought it made for an interesting story.
it’s a movie dude. what theoretical physicists these days suggest is that if you could travel backwards through time you would need to have a multi-verse to do so and therefore would not be able to change the outcome of your own dimension’s future anyway so the whole point of going back in time to prevent an event in your origin universe would be removed. i,e the ‘grandfather paradox’.
My mind is racing, So is Terminator Salvation a prequel of sorts.
I cant help thinking about the ground hawgs day effect, lets say TS is a prequel (I know it isnt but it almost seems like it could be viewed that way).
JC knew technically before T1 that he needed to send reese back to save his mother, he does that and all works out and we see T1 T2 and T3 then salvation explains what came before T1 or, was it after.Hence the Ground hawgs day effect.
So if it isnt a prequel JC wouldnt then need to send Reese back in time (in Salvation) to save Sarah because he allready did that and it worked.
Otherwise it would just keep going on and on, also the T-800 (arnold) was at skynet which is what makes me think Salvation was a prequel.
Another thing, in T1 they show JC in the future when Reese is telling Sarah about him and he has that big scar onhis face, well at the end of Salvation he has bandages on his face where the scar will develop.So many years would have to pass before Reese would even get sent back since he was much older in T1 and so was Connor.
And I hope this doesnt hijack this thread but roybot the egg had to have come first, some reptile millions of years ago layed a bunch of eggs and one had feathers, then over time that first step forward towards chickens kept evolving untill it was a chicken as we know them today.Hence the egg came first.
And I hope this doesnt hijack this thread but roybot the egg had to have come first, some reptile millions of years ago layed a bunch of eggs and one had feathers, then over time that first step forward towards chickens kept evolving untill it was a chicken as we know them today.Hence the egg came first.[/quote]
Which leaves you with two questions:
At which point can the reptile with feathers be considered a chicken?
At which point did the reptile egg become a chicken egg?
Not trying to prove you wrong. Just some food for thought.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
In the second one, when they destroy the prototype Skynet chip, shouldn’t the terminator, and the kid vanish ala “back to the future”?
And I hope this doesnt hijack this thread but roybot the egg had to have come first, some reptile millions of years ago layed a bunch of eggs and one had feathers, then over time that first step forward towards chickens kept evolving untill it was a chicken as we know them today.Hence the egg came first.[/quote]
Which leaves you with two questions:
At which point can the reptile with feathers be considered a chicken?
At which point did the reptile egg become a chicken egg?
Not trying to prove you wrong. Just some food for thought.[/quote]
I totally agree, i just feel the first chicken was still hatched from an egg, meaning the egg came first.
And I hope this doesnt hijack this thread but roybot the egg had to have come first, some reptile millions of years ago layed a bunch of eggs and one had feathers, then over time that first step forward towards chickens kept evolving untill it was a chicken as we know them today.Hence the egg came first.[/quote]
Which leaves you with two questions:
At which point can the reptile with feathers be considered a chicken?
At which point did the reptile egg become a chicken egg?
Not trying to prove you wrong. Just some food for thought.[/quote]
I totally agree, i just feel the first chicken was still hatched from an egg, meaning the egg came first.[/quote]
I understand your thinking (that evolutionary speaking, the egg came first - even though it is a different species), but chickens can only hatch from chicken eggs, which was sort of the point I was trying to make. Let me put it another way: you are about as likely to get a chicken from a reptile egg as you are to get a lizard from a chicken egg.
It follows that you need both a chicken egg and a chicken to make your explanation stand.
If you are going to refer to evolution as an explanation, you also need to answer the two questions I posted above. Again, I’m not trying to catch you out - just some things to think about.
And I hope this doesnt hijack this thread but roybot the egg had to have come first, some reptile millions of years ago layed a bunch of eggs and one had feathers, then over time that first step forward towards chickens kept evolving untill it was a chicken as we know them today.Hence the egg came first.[/quote]
Which leaves you with two questions:
At which point can the reptile with feathers be considered a chicken?
At which point did the reptile egg become a chicken egg?
Not trying to prove you wrong. Just some food for thought.[/quote]
its a logical paradox, there’s no right answer - that’s how logical paradoxes work.
So if it isnt a prequel JC wouldnt then need to send Reese back in time (in Salvation) to save Sarah because he allready did that and it worked.
Otherwise it would just keep going on and on, also the T-800 (arnold) was at skynet which is what makes me think Salvation was a prequel.[/quote]
If John wants his current DNA, he will send his father back in time no matter what. John’s DNA does not exist without sending Reese back.
OR
You could argue that since Reese was already sent back, as a result, an entirely branch in the time stream was created which requires no “editing” of past events.
Most sci-fi seems to go with the first scenario though unless specifically talking about parallel universes…Like Star Trek.
In Star Trek, Spock going back in time destroyed the original time line (or created a new one)…and that’s that.
