"Ian Galbraith" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:jn97zvz0zunv$.1b0vnu1fg63$.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:40:00 -0500, KalElFan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> And David's only response was that the machines thought they had no
>> choice but to try. Obviously even they didn't buy into the "premise"
>> David offered up as no substitute for proof.
>
> The machines didn't know, they were faced with destruction so of course
> they tried. David is 100% correct, the 1 st movie was a closed loop, all
> actions predestined, the past being unchanging. The second changed this
as
> it had to to make a second movie possible.
None of what you're saying addresses David's failure to provide the proof
I challenged him to upthread, nor what I said about his "premise" and it
being no substitute for proof. My original challenge was to this apparent
myth in some parts of fandom that T2 is incompatible with T1, as in T1
somehow established inviolable rules that T2 broke. It did not. The fact
that T1 is a closed time loop did not and does not and never would have
precluded subsequent movies from revealing more about how time travel
can work in the Terminatorverse.
So David Johnston runs from the proof challenge and instead throws up
this "premise". I point out that's what he's done. Arthur Lipscomb
actually then provides two specific pieces of dialogue evidence from the
first movie, both from Reese, that blow *even_the_premise* out of the
water. Here's what he quoted:
>>Sarah: "Are you saying it's from the future?"
>>Reese: "One possible future."
>>
>>Later in the film when quoting a message from John to Sarah he says, "I
>>can't help you with what you must soon face, except to say that the
future
>>is not set."
That's a big honking clue that the story is NOT operating under the
premise David and perhaps you want to cling to. I wouldn't be
surprised if the writer(s) specifically put that dialogue in to say
"Clue to the folks who might think we're saying everything is
forever predestined and the past is unchanging and nothing but
closed time loops are possible. You're wrong!"
So even the premise is crap, but in any case the point's made, and it's
held, that there is no fundamental contradiction or incompatibility in
later movies or this TV series, arising from how the first movie dealt
with time travel. Not only did the closed loop story not preclude
what we later saw, they even foreshadowed that it might not in the
dialogue of the first movie.
None of which precludes anyone sticking to a belief that free will
does not exist in the Terminatorverse. But not only is there no proof
of that, there's zero evidence of it and lots of evidence to the contrary.
It's impossible to prove a God or Device of any sort isn't pulling
every string even in a myriad of alternate universes or timelines that
pop in and out of existence. But that's clearly not what the writers
intend. Perhaps it's a few people's own beliefs getting in the way
of recognizing how the franchise sees this issue, and has from the
very first movie.
|
