rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on May 21, 2008 18:35:31 GMT -5
Please note this will hopefully be the last post for this discussion about Skynet in this thread.
My point is Vicheron simply that Skynet would show that capability and then when it is bought fully online in T3...show its true colors.
Perhaps it would be taking out one of the leaders of a large group, wiping out training camps. Whatever it would be...it would be done in a real life real time scenario to prove that it could be done.
I don't go into this much detail in T6 because that would waste too much Future War time...but it is logical from an intermingling of reality with fantasy. And those are the balls that Terminator has always juggled.
On Point
I agree that whether or not Sarah has killed anyone will hopefully be drawn out as much as possible.
BUT I still stand by the feeling that Sarah doesn't need to kill anyone to be a BADASS!
Edited to say: I have at the least copy and pasted the Skynet Posts and moved them to the Skynet thread.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on May 21, 2008 19:08:44 GMT -5
I made a Skynet thread, so feel free to pick up the discussion there.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Jun 3, 2008 23:58:20 GMT -5
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, ;D It really could play either way - in the same context you could get a lot of mileage out of a hardened killer realizing that they'd almost offed an innocent man, so I'm not entirely convinced. I think I'm fighting against the implication that not having killed anyone makes Sarah a weaker character than Derek as much as anything, which is a rather sorry reflection on the current state of the hero in western culture if true (see Batman and the Lone Ranger for alternative views). That said, I also think you can't play both sides of the board and stay true to the character - the life that T2 and TSCC implies Sarah Connor lead pre-Pescadero increases rather than decreases the likelihood of Sarah encountering a situation where she had to, at least, fire her weapon with intent. To me, it's like making the character a Vietnam vet - did they all kill people? Who knows - maybe they don't know. Probably they don't. Do they know they shot at people and they fell down? I think that's more likely. Most people probably don't talk about it (at least that's what I've always heard about my cousin and I've never asked). Most vets, be it Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Normandy, would probably be horrified to be asked to put a bullet in the brain of a person standing across the room from them. Human beings are not, thankfully, hardwired to kill people in cold blood. This is why I think the more interesting story is about two killers who choose two different paths based on the exact same evidence. If Sarah's never killed before, then it's too easy for the story to become about that rather than whether or not assassination is ever justified. It's too easy to criticize what we've never done - it's far more difficult and far more meaningful when the criticism comes from those who know exactly what they're talking about because they've been in that position.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Jun 4, 2008 2:13:21 GMT -5
There is a difference between shooting someone with a sniper rifle and shooting someone when you're only twenty feet away from them. That was clearly shown in Terminator 2. Sarah had no problem unloading her entire clip when she was far away but once she gets up close and actually see fear in Dyson's eyes, it was quite a different story.
The farther you are from someone, the easier it is to kill them. The soldier who presses a button to launch a cruise missile that kills 100 people is actually going to suffer less psychological trauma than a soldier who gets into hand to hand combat with an enemy soldier and stabs him in the heart even the the one who pressed the button killed far more people. Sarah may have in fact, laid a mine that killed someone or shot someone in the head from a mile away but that's not the same as standing a dozen feet away from someone, looking in their eyes, and then putting a bullet in their head.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Jun 5, 2008 1:16:02 GMT -5
It really could play either way - in the same context you could get a lot of mileage out of a hardened killer realizing that they'd almost offed an innocent man, so I'm not entirely convinced. I think I'm fighting against the implication that not having killed anyone makes Sarah a weaker character than Derek as much as anything, which is a rather sorry reflection on the current state of the hero in western culture if true (see Batman and the Lone Ranger for alternative views). Hey I'm all for guns-a-blazin' just because it's hella-cool. But in the Terminator world, it doesn't work very well unless those guns are aimed at machines. People killing people just doesn't make sense. Unless they've got a gun to your son's head or something like that. Just because she was in Nicaragua ("and places like that") in, I guess the late 80s/early 90s doesn't mean she was actually taking up arms in battle. All we know is that she trained — riding around in helicopters, learning how to blow shit up, running guns with some crazy ex-green beret guy, shacking up with anyone she could learn from, doing paramilitary training with Enrique in Oaxaca. You can still have that story without her having actually killed before, though, because she tried to kill. She had intent and she acted on it. She just got lucky. There is a difference between shooting someone with a sniper rifle and shooting someone when you're only twenty feet away from them. That was clearly shown in Terminator 2. Sarah had no problem unloading her entire clip when she was far away but once she gets up close and actually see fear in Dyson's eyes, it was quite a different story. The farther you are from someone, the easier it is to kill them. This is actually the only thing would make me think she might have killed before — because it was was so easy for her to aim at his head with the sniper rifle and pull the trigger, then unload 2 clips on him. But I really think it was sheer determination to change the future and her training kicking in that got her that far, not experience at killing another human.
|
|
|
Post by Derek Reese on Jun 5, 2008 1:23:52 GMT -5
It really could play either way - in the same context you could get a lot of mileage out of a hardened killer realizing that they'd almost offed an innocent man, so I'm not entirely convinced. I think I'm fighting against the implication that not having killed anyone makes Sarah a weaker character than Derek as much as anything, which is a rather sorry reflection on the current state of the hero in western culture if true (see Batman and the Lone Ranger for alternative views). Hey I'm all for guns-a-blazin' just because it's hella-cool. But in the Terminator world, it doesn't work very well unless those guns are aimed at machines. People killing people just doesn't make sense. Unless they've got a gun to your son's head or something like that. Just because she was in Nicaragua ("and places like that") in, I guess the late 80s/early 90s doesn't mean she was actually taking up arms in battle. All we know is that she trained — riding around in helicopters, learning how to blow shit up, running guns with some crazy ex-green beret guy, shacking up with anyone she could learn from, doing paramilitary training with Enrique in Oaxaca. You can still have that story without her having actually killed before, though, because she tried to kill. She had intent and she acted on it. She just got lucky. There is a difference between shooting someone with a sniper rifle and shooting someone when you're only twenty feet away from them. That was clearly shown in Terminator 2. Sarah had no problem unloading her entire clip when she was far away but once she gets up close and actually see fear in Dyson's eyes, it was quite a different story. The farther you are from someone, the easier it is to kill them. This is actually the only thing would make me think she might have killed before — because it was was so easy for her to aim at his head with the sniper rifle and pull the trigger, then unload 2 clips on him. But I really think it was sheer determination to change the future and her training kicking in that got her that far, not experience at killing another human. That last statement that you make. That's the way I've always read that scene in T2. To be entirely blunt, Sarah doesn't come off as a war run soldier or a cold blooded killer at all. I'm total agreement with you, A.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Jun 5, 2008 11:50:44 GMT -5
This is actually the only thing would make me think she might have killed before — because it was was so easy for her to aim at his head with the sniper rifle and pull the trigger, then unload 2 clips on him. But I really think it was sheer determination to change the future and her training kicking in that got her that far, not experience at killing another human. Ah, well, I don't mind playing tail-end Charlie in this argument. Time will tell if who's right. I suppose the writers already know at this point (I would assume that if Derek is going to drop that line of dialogue, there's a discussion that's already happened and the information is tucked into Sarah's character bible somewhere in the Warner Brothers lot). I will say that the more you show a character carrying a weapon in a war zone, the more unnecessary strain it puts on a viewer's credulity (specifically *mine*) for that character to have come out of that experience without having been involved in combat. Suspension of disbelief, in my opinion, is about selling your audience on the big lie - a sentient machine who takes over the planet and sends its robot minions back in time to kill the mother of its nemesis; werewolves and vampires; a super-powered alien who can fly - not the little ones. I know people who can't watch the Matrix because the Wachowski's couldn't be bothered to double check the laws of entropy; the X-Files collapsed into a big heap of stupid because Chris Carter couldn't be bothered to keep track of his own plot; I'm willing to accept a time-travelling robot from the future looks like Summer Glau but where did Sarah get the money to finance Camp Connor in North Hollywood without, apparently, credit or id in "Gnothi Seaton"? These are the things that niggle at viewers and undermine the foundation of the big lie at the heart of the story. Like Eudora Welty says, "Fiction is a lie. Never in its inside thoughts, always in it's outside dress." That is why attention to details like character, place and plot, and consistency in how these elements are used, make or break any story. For me, the backstory that T2 and TSCC lays out for Sarah is inconsistent with the idea of her never having killed someone or at least fired her weapon at them a lot before T2. At the very least, it's a point that the show will need to address carefully to avoid puncturing its own story logic or undermine the character's credibility because based on what I've read (and remember) about Central America and Mexico in the 1980s and early 90s, it was not a nice place. If Sarah were badass enough to hook up with Enrique at "paramilitary training in Oaxaca" (which sounds like code for the School of the Americas, which did operate paramilitary training in Oaxaca around that time), she would have had to make her bones somehow.
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Jun 5, 2008 16:34:54 GMT -5
I don't see why it's unrealistic for Sarah not to have killed anyone. Her war is with Skynet. The way she got paramilitary training was explained in T2. Just because she was there doesn't mean she killed anyone or participated in any of their wars.
They mugged those guys in the beginning, wallets, car, and everything. This was even mentioned by someone from the show, I think. Then of course the rebel hideout had a stack of cash and a bag full of diamonds.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Jun 5, 2008 17:26:57 GMT -5
Sarah was put into Pescadero because she got shot when she tried to bomb Cyberdyne's factory. That suggests there were people at the factory and that Sarah was willing to kill people to destroy Cyberdyne's factory.
|
|
|
Post by Derek Reese on Jun 5, 2008 21:19:11 GMT -5
Not necessarily. Generally, if she was just got caught with a bomb, she would be considered a threat and a risk, which is grounds to be arrested alone.
We know she told her story in regards to matters and she was planted there, but there has never been any stated facts as to who or if anybody was in the building at the time. Security could have caught her in the middle of the night and stopped her from taking action.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Jun 6, 2008 11:37:09 GMT -5
Sarah was put into Pescadero because she got shot when she tried to bomb Cyberdyne's factory. That suggests there were people at the factory and that Sarah was willing to kill people to destroy Cyberdyne's factory. So you think workers at a computer factory were armed? Heh. No, I'm quite sure it was the police that shot and arrested her. I would imagine that attempt to blow up Cyberdyne was done at night, when no one was there and she probably tripped an alarm by accident, which caused the police to show up. Why she got shot, who knows, but I think TwighlightPro is right that if she was caught with a bomb or some exlosives, she'd be considered dangerous. And she was probably armed, so if she did anything other than give up, it could explain getting shot.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Jun 6, 2008 13:08:40 GMT -5
Could explain?!
That woulda put a huge target on her period.
Now if- BIG if this factory had anything to o with Skynet...and it's newer military incarnation- then yes the security might have toted around guns.
If not it was trigger happy cops...and we know those are prominent in L.A. and the surrounds.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Jun 6, 2008 13:32:49 GMT -5
Could explain?! That woulda put a huge target on her period. Now if- BIG if this factory had anything to o with Skynet...and it's newer military incarnation- then yes the security might have toted around guns. If not it was trigger happy cops...and we know those are prominent in L.A. and the surrounds. I think it's safe to assume that the level of security at Cyberdyne when she tried to blow it the first time would have been less than it was T2 (certainly no grater than that). So it's very unlikely she was shot by a security guard.
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Jun 6, 2008 13:44:27 GMT -5
That's once again assuming that it was even Cyberdyne.
I always felt it was a random computer factory according to the mythos.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Jun 6, 2008 14:21:57 GMT -5
That's once again assuming that it was even Cyberdyne. I always felt it was a random computer factory according to the mythos. I was always under the impression that it was Cyberdyne. I don't think it's ever stated which factory Sarah tried to blow up but Sarah knew that Cyberdyne built terminators for Skynet, and since we have no reason to believe Sarah was randomly tracking computer technology at the time, that it was Cyberdyne she tried to blow up is a logical conclusion. T101 said: Actually, I find the idea that three frat boys had enough money and or credit between them to finance renting a house in LA even less believable than imaging Sarah must have had an emergency cache somewhere in the LA area to tap into. Except in Gnothi Seaton Sarah explicitly says that she did paramilitary training with Enrique and in The Queen's Gambit, we see her coming back from an armed jungle patrol - I'd call that participating.
|
|