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

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:10:18 -0500, "KalElFan"
<kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:2hcqq39estl376spjhh6mngbok0nv9pq8q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 22:21:52 -0500, "KalElFan"
>> <kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>> But the future that produced that protector?  Not there. 
>
>It's not necessary that the exact future that produced that protector
>be there. 

The premise of the first move was that history can't be changed and
all events are predestined.  The premise of the second movie was that
things aren't predestined and history can be changed.  The premise of
the third move is that history can be changed but it don't matter a
lick.