Re: Is "Terminator" stuck in a "Gilligan's Island"-style dilemma?

"David Johnston" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:0jipq3p2kgs60ri1hqmrbnr60cqk070tsu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:40:27 -0500, "KalElFan"
> <kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>But a time travel story only a couple of decades old, where the first
>>TV series is asking you to ignore the iconic 1st and the massively
>>successful 2nd movie,
>
> You mean the same way the 2nd movie ignored the first? 

Hardly.  The 2nd movie got huge mileage out of the switch -- the
second Arnie version being a protector rather than a Terminator.
It did nothing to fundamentally alter the first movie's premise.
John Connor was still fathered by the protector from the first
movie.  Sarah Connor suspected the Arnie protector was
evil at first.  There was lots of continuity there and it was all
about a subsequent attempt and counter.

Same with this TV series, to again clarify the context.  I like
what it's doing.  I don't like the suggestion that it may or intends
to ignore the iconic 1st and massively successful 2nd movie in
any fundamental way.  I think it has to work under those two
constraints I mentioned, but that still leaves all kinds of creative
room for the writers.  The same ingenuity Future John Connor
showed in saving his mother through the 8 year skip forward,
the writers can have him use in avoiding any fundamental
paradoxes.  Watching that ingenuity pop up from time to time,
with Cameron helping to convey it, can be a strength of the
show and get it a rep for being smart and well thought out.