On Mar 7, 7:00 am, Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> In article <13t1hffmf3te...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> A Watcher <stocks...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Some stories lend themselves to any number of additional episodes or
> > movies while others seem to naturally demand a conclusion. I put BSG
> > and Lost in the latter category and most adventure movies and TV shows
> > in the former. Which would be most appropriate for the Terminator
> > franchise?
>
> There is no appropriate end; the timeline is too messed up. The
> difficulty is that they followed a very specific story target of
> preventing SkyNet/Judgement Day. If that happens, Arnie never gets sent
> back in time, leading to a paradox that is best handled by a wacky
> sitcom spin-off. If that doesn't happen, time travel keeps happening
> with little/no effect on the future. That ends, and the timeline
> stabilizes, only when the resistance (via the death of John Connor or
> otherwise) is crushed by the machines, or there are no resources left
> for either side to time travel. So what's "appropriate" is a
> non-Hollywood ending of the machines winning, with a possible
> counterpoint being that the machines have nothing to do without their
> human nemesis. So it's a good bet that it will keep going on and on
> until it is no longer profitable.
>
> --
> My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com,
googlegroups.com,
> heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com,
x-privat.org
The good guys don't always win out in Hollywood anymore. Did you see
the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
Possibly they could invent some time travel rule that is you travel
back in time it doesn't matter if you prevent your own existence. The
future will change, but you remain the same.
|
