Post by richardstevenhack on Oct 1, 2008 6:16:12 GMT -5
Another point I'd like to make. In this series, we have seen very few situations where the time travel paradox has been used as part of the plot. Josh and others have said it's just too damn difficult to do that.
The only time we've seen this used is 1) Derek killing Andy Good because of what Andy told him in the future; and 2) Derek showing John his own and Kyle's past selves - and that latter had no particular effect one way or the other.
So explaining anything going on in either the past OR the future as being the result of actions taken in the past or the future is probably not a valid theory. While it's possible the writers might go down that path - since it's obviously a big temptation - it is subject to so many pitfalls that I think they deliberately avoid that.
So I don't think any of that can be used to explain who or what Allison was in the future, or how Cameron came to be in the future or what either of their relationships to John were in the future. In other words, nothing that happens today is going to change that aspect of the future. What we saw in episode 4 that happened in the future happened and will always happen, and will never be changed.
We need to assume that whatever actions are taken in the past by the characters are based on their assumptions about the future, and not necessarily reality, in the case of those characters who have come from the future. And the rest of the characters are acting based solely on their desire to avoid that entire future and can never know if their actions actually have any effect at all on the future.
In other words, Derek killed Andy Good because he thought that might stop or help stop the creation of Skynet. Clearly it didn't. We don't even know, based on some valid theory of time, if naybody had actually had one, whether that changed anything at all in the future - even the existence of Andy Good in the future. Derek acted out of faith alone. His whole belief system that "we can fix all the mistakes" is not necessarily true.
All that is based on that one line John Connor had his mother memorize - "There is no fate but what we make." Which in the end might not even mean that the future can be changed. We just assume so.
The same applies to the destruction of the ARTIE system, the recovery of the coltan shipment, etc., etc. Virtually nothing the characters have done so far have evinced any effect on the future, and it's unlikely we ever will see such an effect because that would immediately bring in the paradox. If you change the future so radically, you also change the past - and so on. It's completely unsolvable.
James Middleton has said that sometimes what the Connors do will push Judgment Day FORWARD, instead of back. Basically, we can view this as some sort of abstract "score card". When the Connors "win", i.e., defeat some specific Skynet plot., it's a move on a chess board. The game isn't over, Skynet remains in existence in the future, the war goes on. It's not even clear that any other outcome is even possible. The Connors and Reese are going on faith, and future John's remembrance of at least some events that occurred in the Terminator movies. But that's it.
In reality, it's a war with no end to it because no one in the present will ever know if the future was avoided - except by growing old and dying in the present with no Judgment Day occurring in their lifetime. But they can never know for sure that the war was won at all. Maybe it all happens after they drop dead.
The one thing we can assume is that either Judgment Day happens before John Connor dies or there is no Judgment Day and the war is won. Any other assumption is basically speculative and irrelevant to the basic concept of the franchise.
This is one reason why I believe Cameron came back to the past for her own survival agenda. It's the one place where she can in fact survive (assuming she can avoid or destroy all of Skynet's past Terminators) and she, too, has a belief that her mission will result in a changed future where she will be able to survive, either because Skynet is never created or she has become a protectorate of John Connor.
There is a third possibility for Cameron. Perhaps she thinks she can stop Skynet by assisting John Connor in the past, and THEN terminate John Connor and insure her own survival both in the past and the future. I've discussed this before. I don't think the latter action is required in that situation - unless, of course, after Skynet is stopped - or they believe it to be stopped - Connor turns on her for some reason.
The essence of the Terminator franchise is this notion that time travel is a viable story. It really isn't. What is a viable story is all the stuff going on AROUND the time travel and fixed-vs-flexible future notion. Once you start actually thinking about whether any of it really makes sense in some objective way, you're gonna lose it - because it doesn't.
Well, that was long-winded, wasn't it? ;D ;D
The only time we've seen this used is 1) Derek killing Andy Good because of what Andy told him in the future; and 2) Derek showing John his own and Kyle's past selves - and that latter had no particular effect one way or the other.
So explaining anything going on in either the past OR the future as being the result of actions taken in the past or the future is probably not a valid theory. While it's possible the writers might go down that path - since it's obviously a big temptation - it is subject to so many pitfalls that I think they deliberately avoid that.
So I don't think any of that can be used to explain who or what Allison was in the future, or how Cameron came to be in the future or what either of their relationships to John were in the future. In other words, nothing that happens today is going to change that aspect of the future. What we saw in episode 4 that happened in the future happened and will always happen, and will never be changed.
We need to assume that whatever actions are taken in the past by the characters are based on their assumptions about the future, and not necessarily reality, in the case of those characters who have come from the future. And the rest of the characters are acting based solely on their desire to avoid that entire future and can never know if their actions actually have any effect at all on the future.
In other words, Derek killed Andy Good because he thought that might stop or help stop the creation of Skynet. Clearly it didn't. We don't even know, based on some valid theory of time, if naybody had actually had one, whether that changed anything at all in the future - even the existence of Andy Good in the future. Derek acted out of faith alone. His whole belief system that "we can fix all the mistakes" is not necessarily true.
All that is based on that one line John Connor had his mother memorize - "There is no fate but what we make." Which in the end might not even mean that the future can be changed. We just assume so.
The same applies to the destruction of the ARTIE system, the recovery of the coltan shipment, etc., etc. Virtually nothing the characters have done so far have evinced any effect on the future, and it's unlikely we ever will see such an effect because that would immediately bring in the paradox. If you change the future so radically, you also change the past - and so on. It's completely unsolvable.
James Middleton has said that sometimes what the Connors do will push Judgment Day FORWARD, instead of back. Basically, we can view this as some sort of abstract "score card". When the Connors "win", i.e., defeat some specific Skynet plot., it's a move on a chess board. The game isn't over, Skynet remains in existence in the future, the war goes on. It's not even clear that any other outcome is even possible. The Connors and Reese are going on faith, and future John's remembrance of at least some events that occurred in the Terminator movies. But that's it.
In reality, it's a war with no end to it because no one in the present will ever know if the future was avoided - except by growing old and dying in the present with no Judgment Day occurring in their lifetime. But they can never know for sure that the war was won at all. Maybe it all happens after they drop dead.
The one thing we can assume is that either Judgment Day happens before John Connor dies or there is no Judgment Day and the war is won. Any other assumption is basically speculative and irrelevant to the basic concept of the franchise.
This is one reason why I believe Cameron came back to the past for her own survival agenda. It's the one place where she can in fact survive (assuming she can avoid or destroy all of Skynet's past Terminators) and she, too, has a belief that her mission will result in a changed future where she will be able to survive, either because Skynet is never created or she has become a protectorate of John Connor.
There is a third possibility for Cameron. Perhaps she thinks she can stop Skynet by assisting John Connor in the past, and THEN terminate John Connor and insure her own survival both in the past and the future. I've discussed this before. I don't think the latter action is required in that situation - unless, of course, after Skynet is stopped - or they believe it to be stopped - Connor turns on her for some reason.
The essence of the Terminator franchise is this notion that time travel is a viable story. It really isn't. What is a viable story is all the stuff going on AROUND the time travel and fixed-vs-flexible future notion. Once you start actually thinking about whether any of it really makes sense in some objective way, you're gonna lose it - because it doesn't.
Well, that was long-winded, wasn't it? ;D ;D