| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
time travel question - terminator
|
Mon, 21 July 2003 03:37
|
 |
i ahvent had a chance to see it yet but after watching 1 and 2 again it got me to thinking
if the commando dude had to be sent back in time to protect sarah conner (i think thats her name:S) wouldnt that mean that the 'future john conner' already existed seeing as the resistance movement in the future had to be in place for kyle reese (commando dude) was sent back in time...
also, seeing as kyle reese explains to sarah that they were 'just about to destroy the skynet mainframe' wouldnt that mean that after he went through the time portal that the mainframe would be destroyed and the whole point of him travvelling back in time to save the 'past john conner' pointless because skynet was no more...
also... if someone was sent back in time to kill you how would this exactly change the history of the future? as it has already happened (according to T2)
from that i can conclude that time happens (in the physics of hollywood) on many paralells, each containing a different moment in time travelling fowards, thus when i travel back to a different time, i am actually entering a different 'paralell universe' and changing its universe, BUT, if i was to travel back to the universe from which i came, i would've indeed changed nothing, as john conner would still be alive and still have started with the resistance movement...
which also begs the question, if these are indeed 'paralell universes' they would become split if one were to have change, bringing in a whole 'back to the future' concpet... which is bad
can anyone who's seen T3 please clear this up for me 
|
|
|
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Mon, 21 July 2003 07:25
|
|
They aren't parallels but more seperate timelines as viewed by the director of T3.
Think about it though, if what we believe is true, the T800 should dissapear off the face of the planet whe they destroy the arm and the chip <cheesy arnie> i now know why you cry, but it is something i can never do </cheesy arnie>.
But he doesnt because he now exists in that timeline, same reason why T1000 and T800 also didnt die when they nuked skynet. They just dont dissapear ala back to the future when they alter the future.
T3 somewhat explains it but its hard not to spoil the movie in explaining.
The whole series is a paradox, kyle comes back from the future and becomes the father of john connor, who wouldnt have been born had he not come back. So technically john is older than his dad in the future timeline.
The other thing that is really stupid is, why wouldn't skynet send back the <cheesy arnie> far more effective killing machine</cheesy arnie> TX in the first movie instead of the T800?
But remember, for the terminators to come back, skynet needs to be in operation 
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Mon, 21 July 2003 10:44
|
|
|
I think the whole point of terminator movies is that you have to turn off the 'plot-analysing' part of your brain when you watch them, cause the plotholes in the movie are large enough to drive a truck through.
|
|
|
Location:
GoldCoast/Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Mon, 21 July 2003 14:07
|
|
|
Black supra: they only sent back a T800 because they where able to capture it and reprogram it!
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Mon, 21 July 2003 14:18
|
|
| gtman wrote on Mon, 21 July 2003 20:44 |
I think the whole point of terminator movies is that you have to turn off the 'plot-analysing' part of your brain when you watch them, cause the plotholes in the movie are large enough to drive a truck through.
|
Agreed  Sit back & relax... next we'll hear of the timeline flaws in Back To The Future (another favourite of mine).
|
|
|
Location:
Hobart, Tas
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Mon, 21 July 2003 14:25
|
|
It is hard to evealuate counterfactuals on most time travel movies as they are inconsistent and entail contradiction. Terminator I is an example of a perfectly consistent time travel movie; 12 monkeys i belive is another. T2 (and thus T3) are not. The Back to the Future series are not.
In a consistent time travel story, if you travel to the past you are not 'visiting that time a second time around' or 'changing events'... it has already happened that you travel back in time, and that a later temporal part of you existed in the 1950s (or whatever). If, in the future, you travel back to the 1950s, it is true NOW that you do (did) and records etc would show it. Etc.
I am writing my honours thesis on determinism & free will, and time travel. If you are interested in this stuff, look up David Lewis' paper: The Paradoxes of Time Travel. It debunks many so called time travel 'paradoxes' and shows how you can have consistent TT stories - even accounts for freewill. Well, sort of. That's the bit I'm having trouble writing about, so if anyone feels like reading it and giving me their opinions go ahead!
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Mon, 21 July 2003 15:01
|
|
An easy way to think of it is like this, each successive movie alters the future.
Also, in t2, arnies arm got ripped off in a giant cog, but it wasn't destroyed. Skynet was seperate from the technology derived from the terminators. The terminator technology just spead the process up a bit.
|
|
|
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Tue, 22 July 2003 00:38
|
|
True about T800 being captured, but in T1, TX could have been sent back to finish off sarah conor right at the start
Skynet was originally (T2) developed based off terminator technology, but as the guy in charge said, took them in new directions and gave new ideas that they hadn't thought of yet.
In T3 we find out that we cant alter the future, we can merely delay the onset of certain things and infact skynet and the war is enevitable. Skynet is just developed by the secret projects wing of US defense instead.
For terminators to exist in the future, someone had to develop skynet and the fact that they came back reveals this fact.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Tue, 22 July 2003 01:18
|
|
they couldnt send TX back to kill sarah in T1 because the movie was made in 1984.
simple as that.
although im sure james cameron spent a lot of time thinking about time travel, the simple fact is it doesnt exist yet (well not that we know about) and time travel is just an idea invented to tell stories.
but if you want to beleive then the reason i think arnie and whateva time-traveller didnt disappear is because their matter is now in that time, regardless if their future doesnt exist anymore.
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Tue, 22 July 2003 10:28
|
|
with the T movies I reckon that if we analyse them they loose the stuff that makes them cool - that is all the crazy wacked theories about machines, skynet, time travel etc...
they are just a cool tickle for the brain, I know I sat there with a big grin on my face during the whole movie thinking 'how cool', and especially cool about Skynet and how we all find out about it and think 'that is just like the internet'
movie rocked and heck, it is a lot of fun. I like just letting my brain go sometimes and like just going, "I don't care what the problems are, I will just accept that it all makes sense and I am just not capable of understanding it."
hehe - or is that just me
|
|
|
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Tue, 22 July 2003 12:45
|
|
I enjoyed it and laughed at every possible oppurtunity, god i love arnie!
anyways, analysing it after the movie doesnt hurt and provides for intellectual stimulation to get my bain in gear for uni startup 
|
|
|
Location:
Hobart, Tas
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Wed, 23 July 2003 09:13
|
|
No one seems to have paid any attention to me
BTW TT into the future IS possible and accepted by physicists - theory of relativity, it even happens in tiny amounts in planes circling the earth - and I belive wormholes are widely accepted also. Regardless it IS (Lewis and I would argue) not nessesarily logically impossible, nor does a story involving time travel nessesarilly entail contradiction.
|
|
|
Location:
1st street on the right
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Fri, 25 July 2003 00:24
|
|
|
Just work on the basis that every moment in time occurs simultaneously. Therefore we just go through "life" skipping from one moment to another. So if something happens that affects the traveller to prevent them from actually existing at the time they have travelled to or the time they came from it shouldn't be a problem as every moment in time occurs at the same time.
|
|
|
Location:
1st street on the right
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Fri, 25 July 2003 00:25
|
|
|
Just work on the basis that every moment in time occurs simultaneously. Therefore we just go through "life" skipping from one moment to another. So if something happens that affects the traveller to prevent them from actually existing at the time they have travelled to or the time they came from it shouldn't be a problem as every moment in time occurs at the same time.
|
|
|
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Fri, 25 July 2003 05:15
|
|
|
Did anyone notice the DELL computer boxes in the untouched 1950's bunker?
|
|
|
Location:
1st street on the right
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: time travel question - terminator
|
Fri, 25 July 2003 09:50
|
|
With my warranty claim experience with dell that's where they belong! 
|
|
|
