In article <6119l5F1tit4iU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> "William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:gskmq3dr1mtmaekbib0m3089p4lu5vfbm4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 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.
>
> By definition that would suggest infinite alternate universes as jojo
said
> in another response to you. On the "plus" side it would leave open the
> possibility of following up on the Terminator 3 universe, which would
> still exist and hasn't been skipped over. Also on the "plus" side, the
> Terminator 4 movie universe can be considered the same universe as
> Terminator 3, or yet another different one, leaving more storytelling
> scope.
>
> But on the massive downside, it makes every Terminator incarnation
> at best a Sliders-type world, none of which we have any particular
> reason to care about, including this series or the upcoming movie.
And 99% of the audience wouldn't understand anything.
|
