k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on May 10, 2008 19:06:30 GMT -5
Rather than unhinged, I'd just really like to see Sarah go postal on someone's behind (Sarkissian, perhaps? If anyone's taking suggestions, that is ;D), just beat the snot out of someone who really deserves it.
And more nightmares because Sarah's psychic pain entertains me.
I have to produce 15,000 words of prose this week and I'm feeling blood-thirsty.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on May 19, 2008 18:33:54 GMT -5
Reviving an earlier discussion, I've come to the conclusion that Sarah has never actually killed anyone before. We know she tried to kill Miles and failed, but there was always the possibility that she might have killed people during the years between T1 and T2.
I was rewatching The Turk (for about the 50th time) and her voiceover when she's in the bathtub is as much about her contemplating having to kill Andy as it is about Moe Berg possibly having to kill Heisenberg. So when she says "he'd never killed anyone before" (cue dramatic music as head tilts back against tub in moral dilemma), she also means herself.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on May 20, 2008 1:08:53 GMT -5
Sarah couldn't have killed anyone between T1 and T2, otherwise they wouldn't have put her in Pescadero.
However, Sarah has been indirectly responsible for the deaths of pretty much everyone killed by Terminators. She's like Typhoid Mary, it's not really her fault that she puts the people around her in danger but that's just the way it is.
It's funny how they're always worried about who Skynet's creator will be. In the end, the reason behind the creation of Skynet is much more important than who creates it. Sarah herself compares Skynet to the A bomb but the Manhattan project wasn't the only nuclear weapons program around. Even if all the physicists who worked on the bomb were killed, the government would just hire new ones.
|
|
|
Post by Derek Reese on May 20, 2008 4:00:01 GMT -5
But the main goal is to find the trigger of Judgement Day. Potentially the creators bely that particular error, but who those creators are is left open to intrepretation at this point.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on May 20, 2008 15:57:41 GMT -5
Well in my T5 script coming very damn soon...I allude to the fact that Skynet was not just a military computer but it was bought online to track and capture wanted global terrorists.
In other words Skynet made itself an indispensable entity by changing its main reason for being made in the first place.
It's a computer based system that controls the military. But its key reason for exsisting before going nuts and nuking everyone is that it's a global system designed to stop terrorists.
Who in their right mind would stop that.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on May 20, 2008 17:26:47 GMT -5
I was rewatching The Turk (for about the 50th time) and her voiceover when she's in the bathtub is as much about her contemplating having to kill Andy as it is about Moe Berg possibly having to kill Heisenberg. So when she says "he'd never killed anyone before" (cue dramatic music as head tilts back against tub in moral dilemma), she also means herself. I remain unconvinced. At the moment it remains an unresolved plot point and I think at this point, it's to the advantage of the storyteller to be able to play that either way. But the life they want Sarah to have led and the inherent violence involved makes it unlikely in the extreme that she'd never killed anyone before or, at the least, used a weapon on someone with the intention of killing them - does a soldier in a fire fight know if she kills the person she aims at? I think the more interesting and important question is whether or not Sarah is a murderer.
|
|
|
Post by Derek Reese on May 20, 2008 22:35:41 GMT -5
I was rewatching The Turk (for about the 50th time) and her voiceover when she's in the bathtub is as much about her contemplating having to kill Andy as it is about Moe Berg possibly having to kill Heisenberg. So when she says "he'd never killed anyone before" (cue dramatic music as head tilts back against tub in moral dilemma), she also means herself. I remain unconvinced. At the moment it remains an unresolved plot point and I think at this point, it's to the advantage of the storyteller to be able to play that either way. But the life they want Sarah to have led and the inherent violence involved makes it unlikely in the extreme that she'd never killed anyone before or, at the least, used a weapon on someone with the intention of killing them - does a soldier in a fire fight know if she kills the person she aims at? I think the more interesting and important question is whether or not Sarah is a murderer. Valid point by all means.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on May 20, 2008 22:55:30 GMT -5
I was rewatching The Turk (for about the 50th time) and her voiceover when she's in the bathtub is as much about her contemplating having to kill Andy as it is about Moe Berg possibly having to kill Heisenberg. So when she says "he'd never killed anyone before" (cue dramatic music as head tilts back against tub in moral dilemma), she also means herself. I remain unconvinced. At the moment it remains an unresolved plot point and I think at this point, it's to the advantage of the storyteller to be able to play that either way. But the life they want Sarah to have led and the inherent violence involved makes it unlikely in the extreme that she'd never killed anyone before or, at the least, used a weapon on someone with the intention of killing them - does a soldier in a fire fight know if she kills the person she aims at? I think the more interesting and important question is whether or not Sarah is a murderer. Pretty good hustle, kid, but I'm sticking to my pulse pistol on this one. I've got dialog from the show on my side and you've got speculation of unseen events. I'll also cite the Pescadero breakout as evidence. Silberman knew her very well and didn't believe she was a killer. She had to convince him, in the heat of the moment with a needle of drain cleaner in his neck, that she might actually do it. I think you're right, though, that they'll keep it vague enough to go either way when the story requires it. Otherwise John would have answered Derek about whether or not his mom had killed anyone before. We know she used a weapon with the intention of killing someone before, she just happened to have failed at the attempt. And yes, I'd call that attempted murder. So again, Sarah gets no props for a pure heart. But I don't think that Miles Dyson almost moment would have been as significant if she'd already killed before, whether intentional or while hanging, perhaps, with rebel fighters in Nicaragua.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on May 21, 2008 1:09:43 GMT -5
Well in my T5 script coming very damn soon...I allude to the fact that Skynet was not just a military computer but it was bought online to track and capture wanted global terrorists. In other words Skynet made itself an indispensable entity by changing its main reason for being made in the first place. It's a computer based system that controls the military. But its key reason for exsisting before going nuts and nuking everyone is that it's a global system designed to stop terrorists. Who in their right mind would stop that. I hope that Skynet isn't designed to stop terrorists. I know the military is incompetent but designing a super computer to control the nuclear arsenal and conventional military forces just to stop terrorists is an extremely stupid idea. That's like using a flame thrower to kill flies while ignoring the stagnant pond where the flies are breeding.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on May 21, 2008 1:50:56 GMT -5
Which is exactly what they used Skynet to Do in T3.
Bought it online to take car of a virus they didn't relalize it had created.
"Like going after a fly with a bazooka."
As for my Skynet though it is designed primarily as a war computer it was used during it's online tests to hunt and track down terrorists. It proved so good at this that alot of its testing was declared classified and not even the Freedom of Information act could get you those materials.
It also makes one of the main characters V.O. rants in my script all the more ironic.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on May 21, 2008 2:38:35 GMT -5
Actually, it would make far more sense to bring Skynet online in order to prevent mistakes involving military hardware. Just look at the history of military accidents, we've come to nuclear annihilation just because of simple human error many many times. There were 563 "incidents" involving nukes between 1950 and 1968. Between 1984 and 1987, there were over 1,200 "incidents" at NORAD, dozens of which could have lead to a nuclear war.
Also, if Skynet were to be used to fight terrorists. It would operate far more effectively only on an intelligence basis. It would not be effective in destroying terrorists on the field unless it actually has access to field equipment and control over military forces.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on May 21, 2008 3:12:27 GMT -5
But it does/did have said control.
Just like it's 1997 variant it had direct control over Jets, Bombers and other military assets including Predator Drones.
I reveal a lot about the Testing of T3's Skynet in my T6 script.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on May 21, 2008 4:11:59 GMT -5
The problem is that there is no military solution to terrorism. The military may help but terrorists are too deeply entrenched in civilian activities to be elminiated completely with military forces alone. Just look at Al Qaeda, it had extensive ties to the Taliban government and yet destruction of the Taliban regime did little to weaken Al Qaeda's capabilities. The problem is that terrorism has its roots in average people, it doesn't depend on a military or government. Terrorist organizations are able to gain recruits wherever there is discontent, social unrest, poverty, and unemployment. In fact, terrorist organizations operate far more like the mafia than an actual army, the only difference is that they commit their crimes on a much grander scale.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on May 21, 2008 12:31:16 GMT -5
And I agree Vicheron yet a mention of the Global War on Terror and the fact that War in the Terminator Universe is being taken over and controlled by a massive Supercomputer though seemingly illogical I think must be addressed.
Is it the best weapon to use against terrorism ...nope. BUt is it what would happen if control of the military was handed over to a Computer in control of everything.
By default. Yes.
Not to mention that Skynet wouldn't think of Civilian casualties at all.
Oh the Terrorists are within the civilian population. Well since humans cannot be trusted and terrorists are within humans...then i kill two birds with one stone.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on May 21, 2008 16:27:18 GMT -5
Even though we have an unnaturally high tolerance for civilian casualties, I don't think we would tolerate the kind of destruction an unfeeling machine would bring. If Skynet were to prove its effectiveness in fighting terrorism then it would actually have to inflict far fewer civilian deaths than human commanders.
|
|