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

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 07:28:48 -0800, "Arthur Lipscomb"
<arthur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:


>>>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.
>
>Wasn't the "no fate" line introduced in the first movie?  

No, it wasn't.  It was introduced in the second move.  

If history could 
>not be changed there would be no point in sending back the first
terminator 
>or Reese to stop it. 

Pfeh.  Like they had a choice.  In a fixed timeline it doesn't matter
whether your actions have a point because you have no alternative
courses of action.  You will do what you are predestined to do. You'll
just think it's because there's a reason for you to do it. Skynet is
sending back the Terminator because it doesn't know whether changing
history is possible or not and at this point it has nothing to lose by
trying.  John Connor on the other hand is sending back Reese because
he knows that's what he's predestined to do and he has no alternative
if he wants to exist.