On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:20:38 -0500, KalElFan wrote:
> "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.
Yeah it did. The proof is the movies themselves. T1: The fact that its a
closed loop means the future and the past can't be changed. T2: the
future and past can be changed. Under T2 rules Reese couldn't be John
Connor's original father.
> 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."
Characters can be wrong you know. Skynet is wrong after all as well.
[snip]
--
"To say that these men paid their ****llings to watch twenty-two hirelings
kick a ball is merely to say that a violin is wood and catgut, that
Hamlet is so much paper and ink. For a ****lling the Bruddersford United
AFC offered you conflict and art." - J.B. Priestley
|
