|
Post by allergygal on Mar 24, 2009 12:44:45 GMT -5
Sarah was wrong about Cameron killing Riley (Sarah had no reason to trust Cameron's word but it doesn't make her assumption correct) and John was snotty about it. Oh, gee. He's 16. I'm shocked that he would behave like a passive-agressive twerp when faced with the monolithic wall of Sarah's pervassive loathing of all things Skynet. Welcome to teenagers. They suck.... Your perspective on how harsh John's comment to Sarah was is more forgiving than mine, but you've reinforced my point. John still has a lot of maturing to do.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 24, 2009 13:09:43 GMT -5
Your perspective on how harsh John's comment to Sarah was is more forgiving than mine, but you've reinforced my point. John still has a lot of maturing to do. Surely that's part of the point of the show - the story of John's coming-of-age and Sarah's (last?) battle with the robots are complimentary narratives.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Mar 24, 2009 13:43:26 GMT -5
Surely that's part of the point of the show - the story of John's coming-of-age and Sarah's (last?) battle with the robots are complimentary narratives. Of course. But the reason I brought it up was because littleb thought Derek didn't kill Jesse because he was following orders and I disagree. Since John has been pissing me off so much for so long, I ran straight to the maturity issue first, but really, I think that whole thing was about Derek's moral choice. If John, being the target of her plot, could let her walk away, then Derek felt he should too. Yet his gut told him otherwise. It wasn't about whether or not he was going to start taking orders from John.
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Mar 24, 2009 13:46:37 GMT -5
John wasn't entirely fair to Sarah because he knew Riley was mixed up in something dangerous other than annoying Cameron. I don't think this is the reason why he gave Cameron the benefit of the doubt, but nevertheless he attacked Sarah's judgment when he didn't bother to tell her the extra information.
On the other hand I think Sarah is (don't hit me) a bit like Jesse in that a part of her wasn't too interested in the truth, she distrusts Cameron and would be happy enough to pin Riley on the robot to get John to turn on her. I think John senses this aspect of Sarah and it's why he attacks her at that point.
|
|
|
Post by nordwest on Mar 24, 2009 14:58:49 GMT -5
I have a question regarding the future Jesse Cameron scene:
While Cameron is mildly interrogating Jesse we see outside someone like a guard standing. He(?) seemed to have a gun in his hands. After Cameron is gone, we see no longer the guard.
Was Jesse arrested and the arrest ended after Cameron got what she wanted?
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 24, 2009 15:17:10 GMT -5
I brought it up was because littleb thought Derek didn't kill Jesse because he was following orders and I disagree. Oh, yeah, totally - Derek wouldn't unbutton his jacket because John ordered him to. He does what he does based on his own best judgement - inherently flawed though we know it to be. Derek's turning into the stepfather from heck, the one you really never want to understand what about them attractsyour mom, and is always trying to get you to grow the hell up and thinks the solution to not having had a father around is discipline and chores.
|
|
|
Post by littleb on Mar 24, 2009 16:54:03 GMT -5
I brought it up was because littleb thought Derek didn't kill Jesse because he was following orders and I disagree. I didn't read it that way at all. In that motel scene between them both, why would he make that statement about John Connor (don't have the episode to hand so I'm paraphrasing) telling him not to, when John asked him if he killed Jesse? Why not just say "I let her go" or "sorry dude, I shot her anyways" if he's so indifferent to this John's opinion? It was just a strange, stand-out line for me. I think he was giving this John a nod that he does have a bit of respect for him, or if not for him then for John Connor as an entity. Derek's followed his John through hell, I don't see it as too much of a leap that he would be more inclined to give even 16 year old petulant John a little respect - however grudging. Especially at this point where Derek's been an idiot and John's managed to suss it all out. Y'know there's so much more to do with these characters, how the hell can we not get a third season?!
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 24, 2009 17:01:16 GMT -5
Jesse dies?! ;D Will there be explosions? Please let there be explosions. I'd like to point out that not only do we not know for certain that Jesse is dead, there were no explosions. That's it. I'm filing a grievance with the management. He's not indifferent to John's opinion - Derek cares very much that John, Kyle's son, think well of him. That's why he lies to John just as he lied to Sarah Connor when she accused him of murdering Andy in The Queen's Gambit. But Derek is torn between thinking John's a soft kid that isn't up to making the tough decisions and thinking that he, himself, is so tainted by his experiences, stained by the things he's done that he might as well do the unspeakable. But Derek can't quite handle John or Sarah - the Legendary Connors - thinking badly of him, so he lies about it. Or the writers are torn, which amounts to the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by ga5speed02 on Mar 24, 2009 21:32:08 GMT -5
wow an amazing episode. the dialog between ellison, henry and weaver was great. john *redacted by mods* and standing up to jesse was fantastic. that scene was great. derek confronting jesse was supurb. the andy goode story and all. simply amazing.
Keep it clean, please ~ the Mods
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Mar 25, 2009 0:17:33 GMT -5
I don't think that John's order had that much effect on Derek's decision. John told Jesse that they were the only two people Derek had left. John let Jesse live because he cared about Derek. I don't think that John really intended it to be an order. John purposely left the decision to Derek because he's the one who cares for Jesse and he's the one who will be affected the most by her death.
|
|
|
Post by littleb on Mar 25, 2009 10:41:04 GMT -5
Jesse dies?! ;D Will there be explosions? Please let there be explosions. <LOL> Writing an angry letter are ya? I wanted a Sarah/Jesse smack-down and we didn't get one of those either. Who do we address our correspondence to...? I just think we were supposed to see more to their exchanges at the end of the ep. The episode was centered on distinguishing John Connor from John Baum - and yeah, a large part of that depends on how well the retcon of John and the slightly sudden moral development of Derek, sits with the viewer. Derek telling Jesse about Andy Goode allowed for a direct comparison between the Derek who initially jumped through and murdered his best mate off his own back, and the Derek who now hesitates and possibly fails to kill Jesse. There seemed to be a lot of effort taken to give Derek enough reasons to kill Jesse - his disgust about the death of Riley in the previous ep, the sense that whoever/whatever killed Riley would meet with an unforgiving end, his probable disgust towards himself for being taken for an idiot, him distinguishing this Jesse from his own Jesse, and yet still he paused. He then goes on to make the verbal distinction to include himself as one of John Connor's followers; " we follow," and ends by stating that "John Connor let her go." I know it's big leap of faith with the John retcon and what we know of Derek's lone-gunman, rogue mission, not too big on morality, kind of status. It's also a lot to shoe-horn into one two-part story but - whether it was wholly successful or not - I still see it as a turning point for both characters. Derek's never really been sure who he's been dealing with in terms of John, he's questioned before whether he's been addressing John Baum or John Connor - he's had to be reminded that "John Baum is just a name". At the end of this ep, he doesn't seem to have this issue anymore - he recognises and acknowledges this John as John Connor. I'm not completely convinced by all the character beats myself, but I do think the show was pointing in this direction.
|
|
|
Post by hzhp800 on Mar 26, 2009 18:40:31 GMT -5
I'm surprised that no one has really brought out the "Terminator's are people" too implications of this episode. While they've been providing little hints here and there, they have always been rather subtle, so subtle in fact that only those predisposed to believing such a thing would see it. But this episode took it to a more overt level, drawing parallels between the blind and irrational hatred of the machines to racism. Two key dialogue choices drive the point home: 1) Dietze's "they've got us hauling a$$ through the worst of "INDIAN country." Needlessly, and jarringly equating a Skynet (Read: Pure Evil) hot zone with a pejorative historical reference to Native Americans. Needless, that is unless the show is using it to make a point. A point which is reinforced later in the post-box opening encounter where not only does Dietze start turning on other crew members but nearly incites a riot which potentially and likely killed Jesse's baby (based on Queeg's "you look ill"). 2) Which brings me to the second dialogue choice, before Dietz can get to the baby killing he pointedly refers to Jesse as a "metal-lover" and nearly everyone I've talked to about this seems to think it was a deliberate reference (by the writers) to the pejorative phrase used against abolitionists and later whites who were supportive of African-American civil rights. Furthermore, it's interesting that they chose to have the resident triple eight (Queeg) played by an African-American. One might say they were due since other then the brief stint by the short lived "Ellison" terminator to the best of my memory none of the other terminators have ever been played by African-Americans (or any other racial minority for that matter). Maybe, but regardless it seems likely that the show runners were aware of the effect of the choices they were making. It's perhaps telling that in this episode when the T-1000 is set loose we see one defensive kill and then that's it. We didn't get a version of "Alien" on a submarine. Instead, it's implied that the T-1000 largely left them alone until they decided to abandon ship and leave it for dead. At this point, if it so desired, it could have easily sneaked on board the smaller vessel and easily killed them all (for fun? to fulfill its soulless demonic terminator purpose?) But it did none of those things; (much to the chagrin of some fans) instead it opted to non-lethally deliver an answer to John Connor via the last person exiting the sub. But we know if it really wanted to it could have easily at least attempted to deliver that message itself undoubtedly leaving behind a trial of blood and bodies along the way. Apparently, it had little interest in doing so (heck by showing itself to Jesse it also did her a favor, which was to make the trip back home far less terrifying, since otherwise, as far as anyone knew there would always be the chance that someone on board was really the T-1000). This reading is consistent, I think, with what the writers have claimed they've had planned for Cameron, all along, which is that they were interested in exploring Cameron's understanding and appreciation for what it was to be a robot and NOT what it is to be human. That is, the life of a robot can and is (in this fictional universe anyway) a worthwhile way of being incommensurable with the value of human life. It is neither more valuable nor less valuable it's just different. This is also consistent with Josh Friedman's piece in Wired magazine recounting the effect his bout with cancer had on the show's writing. While this influence is overt and obvious with how the show handles death, Sarah and John and the other family drama aspects, I think it also clearly influenced the way the show handles the Terminators. As he said, he was feeling guilty writing a show about freaking "killer robots" that he was pushed to make the show deeper. While that means family drama and meditations on death, I think it also meant that the Terminators are not easily reducible to "killer robots." If Josh had written them as simplistic evil monsters it would have meant that at least half the show, the non-family drama components would be mindless and trivial. By making the terminators interesting and fully realized characters in themselves the show can make ambitious and serious statements regardless of whether or not the focus is on Sarah one week or on Weaver and the Terminators another. (We could even add the show’s implication that the Terminator’s had to be taught cruelty by humans). We've seen this with even the most quintessential paradigmatic terminator of the show "Cromartie." Not only were we allowed to see how he picks his targets (make a move for a weapon and you're toast... echoing the T-1000's Jack in the box knife reaction) but most inspiring was his rejection of Sarah's attempt at labeling him a “killer." Remember: Cromartie: You should've killed him. Just like you should've killed yourself Sarah: I'm not a murderer. (Implied: like you.). Cromartie: "Who is?" To keep it simple we can just notice it's similarity to the infamous reaction of Scooby Doo whenever someone called him a dog. "Rog? Rhere?" Obviously, the talking dog doesn't see himself as a dog even if everyone else does. The fact of the matter is in the world of Scooby Doo, Scooby isn't a "dog." It would be wrong to condemn him to live the life of a conventional dog since he can clearly speak and is clearly more human-like in his capabilities than most dogs (even though he is clearly NOT human). It doesn't matter that in the real world there are no dogs like Scooby Doo or that it's likely impossible for there to ever be any dogs like Scooby. Within the narrative Scooby has capabilities that go beyond those of typical dogs and we cannot suggest that Scooby is only merely a dog and should be treated as such because in the real world dogs like him are impossible. Real life AI like that of the Terminators, Skynet and John Henry may not be possible. In fact it may never be possible. But the fact is within the narrative we are presented there are "alien" beings that happen to be comprised of metal and microprocessors. However, given their capabilities and characterizations, like Scooby Doo we cannot see them as mere machines in the same way we would see machines in our world (or dogs for that matter). By joining the writers in making this leap we can perhaps see the relationship between the terminators and humanity as a kind of macro-level extension of the family drama. On the micro-level we have Sarah, John, and Cameron (and Derek?). But on the macro-level we see the family drama unfold between humanity and the machines, but instead of typical misunderstandings, disagreements, and unintended disappointments we have HKs, Krakens, Plasma Rifles and lots of bodies. The machines as dramatized with John Henry are the children of man. Like all children they have inherited some of our good qualities, and unfortunately some of our bad qualities, while leaving still other qualities behind altogether. It’s not a conflict that can easily be reduced to good and evil, or humans vs. the killer robots. The robots are “people” too. They are certainly adept at killing and as some have pointed out earlier there is plenty of blame to go around. As Zack wrote on the blog there were no “villains” in this episode. The machines throughout stayed ever calm and rational (Queeg and the T-1000; Cameron was a little unsettled but a lot of that was Sarah’s doing among other things). Remember they are NOT human; it’s probably easiest to think of them as alien life forms who, though similar, are also very different from us. While the episode condemned the blanket hatred of terminators qua terminators as irrational prejudice (with parallels to racism) and showed the T-1000 representing (at least a faction) of Terminator who are clearly capable of moral agency, capable of making and honoring agreements etc, the episode balanced this against a portrayal of humanity as both flawed and loving. Basically, the machines are calm and hyper rational, while Dietz’s paranoid rants and attack show that humans are emotional. The episode, of course, closes with Cameron almost completely unawares, likely being calm and hyper rational, completely oblivious to John’s sorrow and anguish while Sarah reaches out to him. For better or for worse, humans are emotional, it’s what makes us crappy (Dietz) and what makes us great (Sarah). For better or for worse, the machines are calm and hyper rational, it’s what makes them great and what makes them crappy. But neither way of being is necessarily better than the other. (Heck, many human philosophers, too many perhaps, have hoped to make humans hyper rational and have seen rationality as that which separates us from the other animals.) Jesse had it right, when upon killing Queeg, she respectfully closed his eye and apologized for having to do it. A life was ended and the respect was appropriate. Call Queeg or Cromartie a killer, and they might just respond “Killer? Where?” Because as this show is perhaps challenging us to believe, terminators are people too.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Mar 26, 2009 21:18:58 GMT -5
I don't think that there is a "Terminator are people" message here. People get emotionally attached to a lot of different things, pets, cars, places, etc. It's just our nature. A lot of people feel sadness when they move away from the house they grew up in. People give names to ships, planes, and cars. Captains are supposed to go down with the ship. The Navy has big ceremonies to respectfully retire battleships and carriers. Jesse closing Queeg's eyes is similar to that kind of gesture. She respected Queeg in the same way captains respect their ship but that does not mean she sees Queeg as being human.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Mar 26, 2009 21:45:18 GMT -5
The lines from Mr. Ferguson go:
Cromartie: You should've killed him.
Sarah: I'm not a muderer.
Cromartie: "Who is?"
That's a significant difference between those two words.
And no, the show is not asking up to believe that "terminators are people, too".
|
|
|
Post by hzhp800 on Mar 26, 2009 21:46:26 GMT -5
Queeg isn't human, so of course Jesse doesn't see him as human. My Terminator as people refrain isn't meant to be read as saying Terminators are human. Humans are Persons. Terminators are Persons. Snails are not persons. Dogs are not persons (some would disagree, but we'll leave it at that.) Ships are not persons. Jesse's particular motivations for closing Queeg's eyes are not really relevant to the issue I was raising. I threw it in as an example of what I thought was appropriate (and perhaps as more evidence of the writers providing support or pressure toward the view that terminators are persons with moral worth. Entities who's passing ought to be mourned.) Whether Jesse was thinking that is not really crucial to my point. After all, if you read my points about the allusions and parallels to racism the writers threw in, that doesn't apply to ships or objects. People may not like enemy battleships and yet be willing to go down with their battleship or conduct a ceremony for its decommissioning but I've yet to see anyone start a fight or incite a bunch of sailors to attack said Captain on the grounds of being a "Ship-lover." Why? Because battleships aren't agents and they definitely aren't persons. My point was simply that the show is trying to push us to expand our category of persons to include inorganic life. Battleships, tractors, toasters, etc... are all machines but they aren't agents. Bacteria, roaches, snails, and dogs are all alive but they aren't agents either. Furthermore, it would be obviously silly for terminators to go around calling human beings walking water sacs or overgrown bacteria sacs. Although, effectively that is what the humans do when they call terminators: Tin cans. But notice how the show already had an effective slang phrase for terminators (Tin Cans), a phrase which realistically captures the kind of thing the resistance fighters would actually do without drawing any (or less obvious) parallels to human racism. However, in this episode they took it up several notches with "Indian Country" and Metal-lover. They didn't have to go there, but they did and with the growing body of evidence I'm saying they probably went there deliberately to try and argue that Terminators might be persons. (Not humans, persons.) Person = A living, self-conscious or rational being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent. @ k8ie Thank you. We actually both got it wrong. I went back and checked after your remark. His original line to Sarah was longer. And it was murderer not killer as you said. (I was going completely off memory and having only seen the episode once, so I don't think I did too bad. But fortunately I have them all archived in Media center so it was simple to check). Which actually helps my argument rather than hurts it. (I was actually willing to make the argument after Mr. Ferguson is Ill today" but didn't have time. The two words (Killer and Murderer) are different but murderer serves our purposes better. It's also still important that Cromartie is dispelling the notion that he is a murderer. Especially, considering how many people he and many of the other terminators allow to live relatively unharmed (such as Jodi... I think that was her name. Cameron/Allison's friend). And with regard to your dismissal of my argument. Please, don't get caught up on the "Terminators are people too" line. That's really me playing off a cliche to be cute. The argument itself is more precisely about moral agency. I'm saying the show is suggesting that Terminators are moral agents. Besides, let's not forget that for much of history it was thought (and probably still is) that language is a large part of what seperates the rational animals from the so-called beasts. No animal other than humans and perhaps a few apes uses language with the sophistication and comprehension that the Terminators display. They are definitely rational. Yet as we know there are many many people such as vegans who would prefer not to harm animals and other organisms that don't have anywhere near the cognitive or rational capacity that Terminators display. You can forge treaties with terminators, you can have a meaningful conversation with a terminator, etc.. you can't do that with chickens or lizards. Maybe you think it's that those organisms experience pain.. and despite Uncle Bob's insistence that he experiences a kind of pain it's phenomenologically different from that pain which dogs, cats, mice etc... experience. But that probably doesn't work since not all of those organisms necessarily experience pain since not even all humans experience pain, as there are a few of us who have the misfortune of not being able to experience such sensations. Yet, many would balk at the idea of treating humans who can't physically experience pain as you speak of terminators. While I'm sure others would insist that even if we could ensure that cows, chickens, and others would not experience any pain (due to either a genetic modification or a drug that would inhibit it) even if we could guarantee that the animal would not suffer at all... I'm sure many would insist that killing it is wrong. All I'm saying is that the Terminators as portrayed on the show seem to have just as great (if not a greater) claim to respect for their lives than most of these organisms. The prerequisites for inclusion into personhood or at least into the category of morally significant beings has been a moving target throughout history. Depending on who we are trying to exclude for whatever purpose we are more than willing to revise the requirements as we see fit. "If you don't have language you are merely a beast." "What? the beast can speak? Well, perhaps I misspoke it's not language. It's... ohhh do I even need a reason?" To me it's rather reminiscent of both child playground behavior as well as scenes from films dealing with discrimination. You have a posted public policy, person not wanted fulfills all requirements, only to be denied on the grounds of newly defined requirements presented just for them. If we want to exclude Terminators we're going to need reasons that withstand scrutiny especially considering that from the get-go Skynet at least was said to be self-aware. (Something we thought was so important, that we subjected apes and dolphins to smudges of paint just to see if they would react in front of a mirror).
|
|