On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:34:48 -0500, "KalElFan" <kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>[crossposts from rec.arts.tv altered]
>
>"MikeM" <MichaelMLGPR@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:e8574b71-6c03-4da3-bd18-f0e4fed1a9d3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> ... If Sarah Conner loses, her son is killed by a
>> Terminator and the series -- not to mention the world she and her
>> buddies inhabit -- is gone. But if she succeeds, and somehow manages
>> to stop the construction of the intelligent supercomputer known as
>> Skynet, then...
>>
>> ... the protector won't be assembled
>
>Not necessarily. The two writing constraints that the show now has,
>in terms of the time travel element, can be described as:
>
> (i) the human protector from the first movie (John Connor's father),
> must go back to circa 1982 and conceive John. The Terminator
> must also go back to be the nemesis back then; and
>
> (ii) the subsequent terminator and machine protector from T2,
> and the current terminators and protector (Cameron) depicted in
> this series, must likewise go back (unless the series somehow
> changes its own history by doubling back on itself; let's assume
> they don't do that).
Actually, these aren't required. The show seems to take the position that
changing the future doesn't retroactively change the past, and once a
future person/object travels to the past, it is part of that past. Thus,
if changes made after Reese arrives in the past cause Reese to not travel
to the past in the changed future, the Reese that did travel to the past
was still there in the past. Similarly, if Cameron's intervention leads
to
her not being built in the future, the Cameron in the past still exists.
The change doesn't retroactively make her go poof.
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
|
