Responses to this message:
This series of films (Ahhnold is probably going to have a Terminator 3 out in 2002) has no viable premise. It violates the Grandfather Paradox going in. The Skynet computer (Internet, whatever) that sends the Terminator back to wipe out Sarah Conner is apparently very stupid.
A banana-colored Gameboy knows that if you send something back in time to remove the reason for going back in time, you won't send anything back in time in the first place. No causality = no movie.
However, and here's where it gets dizzy, Skynet CAN get away with sending the Terminator back and wiping out Sarah Conner, but it won't benefit Skynet. It will benefit Skynet B in Alternate Universe B, which will never know a John Conner, but the original Skynet derives no benefit.
This is elementary Back To The Future logic, folks. Changing the past creates an alternate future, in effect throwing the Terminator robot into a different timeline. The original timeline occurs normally, but the Terminator isn't part of that timeline anymore. Why would the original Skynet want to move a Terminator robot into a timeline where there was no John Conner? What good is that for the original Skynet, for whom there will always be a John Conner?
A thin excuse for some hearty SF violence...
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread