"George W Harris" <gharrus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:lmmpq35rbgr9sqmr9t81degqq7ip91it20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:40:30 -0500, "KalElFan" <kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> : ... there's no fundamental paradox in moving [John's birthdate] back,
> :just as Judgment Day and when and how Skynet happens and so on
> :can be altered. Not so with the constraints I listed...
>
> Yes there is; if you assume you can change the past by changing
> the future, then you'll get a paradox.
You might or might not, depending on the specifics and context and
semantics and yada yada. For example the grandfather paradox isn't
a paradox if alternate timelines exist, or if contrived propagation rules
are imagined. Likewise, to flip around your point above, I believe it
was WGF who asserted that this series "seems" to take the position
that you can't change the past by changing the future. I asked for
evidence and got none, but let's say it were true. That would mean
the series had attempted to ban paradoxes by maxim or decree.
Viewers will ask "Why... ?" and/or "How... ?" What's the mechanism
at work that permits the otherwise very obvious paradox? None of
the answers are good for the show. Accepting the constraints -- i.e,
avoiding the fundamental paradoxes -- is better. On the other hand,
the show needs to establish that the constraints still leave all kinds of
room for change in the way events play out.
> If they successfully prevent Skynet from coming into
> existence, by your reasoning that would prevent Kyle
> Reese and all the terminators from coming into the past,
> so they'd never be there, so John Connor wouldn't exist
> and Sarah Connor would have no motivation to keep
> Skynet from existing.
Yes, that's a fundamental paradox and it's a rewording of sorts of the two
constraint descriptions I mentioned. But it doesn't prevent all kinds of
other things being changed by Future John Connor, that don't create a
fundamental paradox. You can't disprove what Future John Connor
and his machine adversaries might be doing, unless you can prove that
Future John Connor or his adversaries don't exist, or offer some other
proof about any specific thing you contend can't happen.
Even the first movie setting John's birth as February 28, 1985 is not
impossible to alter, in a manner similar to their T3 fix in this series.
In
a prelude mission that took place in offscreenland right at the end of
the first movie, Future John Connor seeded a memory-altering time
machine in Sarah's vehicle. She was sent back two or three years
to a quiet villa in Italy where John was born and spent his first three
years. Watch for the animated John Connor: The Very Early Years
on Saturday morning Nickelodeon someday, to fill in all the blanks. :-)
All kinds of other scenarios work as well, and there are fixes for any
nitpicks. Mainly, though, small details just aren't im****tant. Again,
it's the fundamental paradox that the story needs to avoid for the
various incarnations including this TV series to not run into trouble.
Considering the careful way they handled getting around T3, and
their plans for T4, one assumes they're very aware of this.
> If you can change any thing in the past, then
> there's no reason that you can't change *anything* in
> the past.
Somebody should have told Hiro that back in the Save Charlie the
Waitress arc. :-)
Maxims aren't the issue here. As other posters have noted any rules
can be created that might work and be internally consistent. If this
series wants to introduce infinite meaningless timelines, or paradoxes
that it then has to resort to ridiculously contrived rules of propagation
or the like to explain, then fine they don't need to abide by any
constraints. We can tune in next week to some Mickey Mouse vs.
Bugs Bunny crossover duel, because the Evil Machines went back
and succeeded in preventing John Connor from being born, moved
back their takeover date to January 1981, and replaced all of
humanity with animated replicants just before Reagan would have
taken office. Buh-da buh-da buh-da that's all folks.
> I guess the context here is 'not understanding what a paradox is'.
As far as I can tell, the context is that some parts of fandom seem to
have come to unsup****table conclusions about the Terminator
story or franchise, and/or think it's broken and/or that anything goes.
They may also think that unsup****ted assertions constitute an
argument.
|
