Sarah Conner Intro Spiel Falsehood?

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2008 21:53
VIEWED: 6560
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

ZEEK

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by KayleeBird:
It's really weird, this show. It falls into Paradoxs'.

SkyNet was created, and it got up to the point were SkyNet made the decision to send a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor. So John Connor sent back Reese, who was infact his father to protect his mother, who then had John... It's a paradox.

HOW did John get there in the first place when Reese, who was John's biological father get to the period of time where Sarah was, and impregnate her so there was John Connor.

How did it get to John Connor when John Connor ordered his own father to go back in time? Reese would have had to have been there BEFORE, to impregnate her, but then, we would have seen Reese in the movie.

Did you ever see the movie The Terminator?
Everything you are asking is explained in the first movie. Kyle Reece was in the movie, having been sent back in time by John Connor. John Connor had given Reece a picture of his mom Sarah previously, and that helped motivate Kyle to agree to go back in time...he wanted to meet her, meet the Legend. Reece explained that SKy net was almost defeated...the resistance had won and "smashed its' grid"..then Connor found the time travel equipment & learned Skynet ( in it's last desperate attempt to survive) had sent a Terminator back to kill Sarah...only later did John Connor & his wife Kate (nee Brewster) learn that Skynet had sent other Terminators back to different points on the past...to stop Sarah, John, General Brewster, and Connor's lieutenants of the future. So they followed suit, and sent protectors back to each point in time that Skynet had. I don't see any paradoxes that are too problematic for the 3 Terminator movies....this TV show has added many new elements and timeline changes, but overall its' still within the framework of everything as it was laid out in T-1.

You don't see the paradox of a child sending his father back through time to creat him? If the child wasn't there to send him back then how was he ever born in the first place? If he wasn't born the first time around then who sent his father back in time the first go round?

The way I like to think it through is that the John we know is not the real John Conner. That the real John Conner had a totally different father and once Kyle went back through time he destroyed that timeline. The John he fathered is not the same person. Sarah gave him the name John because that's what Kyle said her son was named. Therefore we're no in uncharted territory and the new John may or may not live up to the legend of the first John.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by KayleeBird:
It's really weird, this show. It falls into Paradoxs'.

SkyNet was created, and it got up to the point were SkyNet made the decision to send a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor. So John Connor sent back Reese, who was infact his father to protect his mother, who then had John... It's a paradox.

HOW did John get there in the first place when Reese, who was John's biological father get to the period of time where Sarah was, and impregnate her so there was John Connor.

How did it get to John Connor when John Connor ordered his own father to go back in time? Reese would have had to have been there BEFORE, to impregnate her, but then, we would have seen Reese in the movie.

Did you ever see the movie The Terminator?
Everything you are asking is explained in the first movie. Kyle Reece was in the movie, having been sent back in time by John Connor. John Connor had given Reece a picture of his mom Sarah previously, and that helped motivate Kyle to agree to go back in time...he wanted to meet her, meet the Legend. Reece explained that SKy net was almost defeated...the resistance had won and "smashed its' grid"..then Connor found the time travel equipment & learned Skynet ( in it's last desperate attempt to survive) had sent a Terminator back to kill Sarah...only later did John Connor & his wife Kate (nee Brewster) learn that Skynet had sent other Terminators back to different points on the past...to stop Sarah, John, General Brewster, and Connor's lieutenants of the future. So they followed suit, and sent protectors back to each point in time that Skynet had. I don't see any paradoxes that are too problematic for the 3 Terminator movies....this TV show has added many new elements and timeline changes, but overall its' still within the framework of everything as it was laid out in T-1.

You don't see the paradox of a child sending his father back through time to creat him? If the child wasn't there to send him back then how was he ever born in the first place? If he wasn't born the first time around then who sent his father back in time the first go round?

The way I like to think it through is that the John we know is not the real John Conner. That the real John Conner had a totally different father and once Kyle went back through time he destroyed that timeline. The John he fathered is not the same person. Sarah gave him the name John because that's what Kyle said her son was named. Therefore we're no in uncharted territory and the new John may or may not live up to the legend of the first John.

A potential paradox maybe..but if you look at it in terms of John Connor's perspective, it all kind of makes sense. It's Kyle Reece who is ultimately manipulated in his present to do what he did in another "future" present.. Connor is controlling the whole thing from the future. He is sending Reece back with no knowledge of his destiny. To accept any of this rationally, you have to believe that our "present" today is actually the "past" from the future's perspective....or accept that time itself is a big mobius loop with no beginning and no end.

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:38 AM

Or you can just ignore it all and say why let logic ruin good movies?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Or you can just ignore it all and say why let logic ruin good movies?

Or you can take the position I take: That strong logical contexts in "good" TV/Film will make something "great".

For an example I'd hand you Firefly (TV series only).

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

IMNOTHERE

Friday, March 14, 2008 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
You don't see the paradox of a child sending his father back through time to creat him? If the child wasn't there to send him back then how was he ever born in the first place? If he wasn't born the first time around then who sent his father back in time the first go round?

You're not thinking 5-dimensionally there. There's no such thing as "the first time around" unless there's some sort of 5th dimension separating time lines/universes which itself behaves like time in having a fixed direction of progress and a concept of "before" and "after".

(since this is a SF site, lets ignore the null hypothesis, i.e: what these paradoxes tell us - plus more mundane things like conservation of mass/energy - is that time travel is simply impossible. But that's boring).

OK, so, if you travel into the past and change something, you risk negating the very reason that you travelled for. This is even worse for Skynet than Rees - if the T1000 succeeds in killing Sarah then Skynet would have no reason to send T1000 back, but then John would be born so

(15 second brain reboot)

So, solution 1: Parallel universes - when you travel into the past and change something, you immediately split the universe into two parallel ones - in the new one, you appear out of nowhere, and are free to stamp on bugs, kill your grandparents, and knock up any feisty waitresses you manage to save from killer robots, safe in the knowledge that, somewhere off in the 5th dimension, your "home" universe is carrying on exactly as before (although getting back there might be an issue).

Solution 2 is the pre-determined wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey version. There is only one, fixed, "time line" conveniently arranged by the non-existant God of emergent behaviour to ensure that real paradoxes just never happened. However, this doesn't prevent the "closed causal loop" in which someone goes back in time to father the child that they went back to save because it has "always" been that way. Rees has a perfectly logical life: he gets born, grows up, steps into a time machine, boffs Sarah Connor, gets killed. There was never any "original" time line.

This fits nicely with the Pratchett "narrative causality" principle (an obvious conclusion of which is that any attempt to travel in to the past to prevent an event will actually turn out to have been the cause of said event all along: see, well, just about any time-travel story in history).

PREV PAGE 1 2 3