What I do suggest is that a main character be given the character development a main character deserves; that this also would open up a wealth of storyline potential that simply is not available if she is an unfeeling machine simply reinforces my opinion on the matter.
I disagree. I think that Cameron as a main character can have quite a bit of character development and in fact has done so.
Cameron is not "just a machine" - she's not a truck. She's a highly developed AI with a capacity for learning and a degree of independence from her programming that no other machine except Skynet - and conceivably Catherine Weaver, although that isn't clear - has ever had. If she has the ability to self-initiate her own agenda - even if it's merely a reasoned conclusion that she cannot survive in either a human-dominated future world or a Skynet-dominated future world - then she has all the prerequisites for "character development" that any intelligent entity would have.
That allows for a massive amount of "character development".
"Character development" is not a synonym for "emotion". Neither is it limited to whatever you think might be considered "character development". A character who takes nothing but rational decisions and rational actions in the pursuit of rational goals can have just as much "character development" as one who goes off the emotional deep end every five minutes, like Sarah Connor or John Connor.
Especially given Cameron's massive challenges in learning to live safely among humans in the current time period, which ought to provide for no end of interesting situations and resolutions.
And it's precisely the perfect way to explore the aspects and defects of humanity - having an intelligent machine deal with things in a completely different way than the majority of emotionally damaged, weak, imperfect humans one sees in every single TV show.
In a way, the last really great character that could embody this dynamic was Mr. Spock from "Star Trek". Ninety five percent of the time he was completely unemotional and coldly logical. The other five percent of the time he was operating from his own logic, which seemed "renegade" to his companions - as when he penetrated V-Ger in the first movie or when he took over the Enterprise in ""The Menagerie". And once in a while, his human side would take over and he'd have to deal with emotions directly.
And nobody thinks Spock never underwent "character development".
As for Josh's two versions, I'd say version two was filmed. There's no doubt that Cameron was "affected" by the events. You wouldn't expect a rational being not to be affected unless she completely forgot them. That's not nearly the same as saying that she either has emotions or that she experienced emotions.
In some sense you could say she DID "experience emotions" in that incident in the sense that her identify was "cross-linked" with her emotional simulation abilities. In some sense that was like the way humans experience emotion - an uncontrollable reaction. She experienced emotions the way humans do - only because she was glitched. Clearly that would have an affect on her reasoning.
But that's STILL FAR from saying that Cameron NORMALLY "experiences emotion". It's quite clear that she does not.
And there's no advantage to her in doing so if you want to use her nature as a counterpoint to human nature - which is precisely what the franchise is about.
An unemotional, coldly logical AI is exactly what the franchise needs.
And there was never any evidence that "Uncle Bob" ever learned to experience emotions in "T-2". Understand them, perhaps, but not experience them, regardless of what James Cameron might have said. Again, Cameron is not an AI expert - he might very well have felt that "Uncle Bob" experienced emotions in some "magical" sense, but he provides no reasons for that change in the movie and little evidence that he did change.
Sarah's remark about a Terminator learning to value a human life - I didn't see any evidence of that either. It was just another statement made in the script with little evidence to back it up in the movie. It might have been something she believed - without any real reason to.
It's about as accurate as the current Sarah's remark in "D&D" that if the machines can do art, they won't have to destroy humanity, they will be humanity - as Cameron performs ballet. Try reading Ayn Rand's analysis of art appreciation in her works. She argues that emotions play little part but that rational understanding is primary. I can't agree or disagree but it shows how even humans can disagree about what constitutes an ability to appreciate art.
So does this mean whatever Sarah says has to be taken as reality? I don't think so. It may have to be taken as what the writers want to be taken as their viewpoint - but that's not necessarily reality even in the internal universe of the show they're writing. It's quite possible for the writers to get the meaning of their own creations wrong - or for others to interpret them differently.
Update after last night's episode:
We now know that Cameron is under direct threat from Jesse and probably Derek. We also know that Riley is part of this plot to destroy her. The alleged justification is that she is causing future John to lose the war.
There are two possibilities here. One is that Cameron was somehow programmed by Skynet to fake an infiltration into the Connor camp, get captured, then become Connor's alleged ally, while all the time being used to subtly manipulate him into losing the war by taking, as Jesse put it, "questionable decisions".
The other is that Cameron really is on John's side, as a result of his programming or her own self-initiated reasons, and Jesse is part of a group who hate and fear Terminators so much that they want to do away with Connor's running of the Resistance - and possibly Connor himself.
I go for door number two! I think Cameron came back on her own agenda - and that agenda is to insure her surival in the past and the future by wrapping John around her finger, stopping Skynet from ever existing, and thus eliminating Judgment Day and the future war - and thus insuring her own survival. And if Skynet and Judgment Day can't be stopped, then to insure that she has an in with whoever wins in the future - and John Connor is the best bet in that regard, since working for Skynet clearly won't gain her any benefits more than any other Terminator.
We know that Cameron knows that this situation with Jesse and Derek is a threat. She explicitly said in episode two this season that people in the future would not like the fact that John risked his life to save her - or have her around in the future. Jesse has now proven that to be a major issue and a major plot point.
The question now is: how will John react to Derek and Jesse attempting to get rid of Cameron? How will Cameron react to the attempt?
Jesse has made a serious blunder here - she has used Riley to get next to John. John is going to find that out. And when he does, he's going to be REALLY upset with Riley, Jesse and Derek.
And Cameron may well kill all three of them - and John may allow it, once he realizes he's been used by all three of them.
And if they actually do manage to off Cameron, John will be enraged and likely to kill at least Jesse, if not Derek and Riley.
Alternatively, if Cameron is proven to somehow be a "trojan horse" by Skynet, designed to cause John to lose the war, then John will have no compunctions about terminating her.
Which of course will sink the show like a stone - so that isn't going to happen.
That bodes a lot of ill for Riley, Jesse and Derek.