Terminator - the entire franchise.

[Stoppy2000]

33 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

Indeed. You can infer from the existence of the sequels that either they didn't blow the place, or they found another time displacement lab. Given they send a reprogrammed Terminator to 1995, it's quite likely some time has passed since they sent Reese.

Why? If they invent a time machine at any point in the future they could still send a terminator back to any point in the past? Unless I'm missing something about the Terminator time travel rules. 

[Fry Crayola]

The resistance didn't invent time travel (as in your quote, they found the time displacement stuff in a Skynet lab) and don't appear to be particularly technologically sufficient in the flash forwards we see. I don't expect that they're going to construct their own time machine, so they either kept the one they had, or found another.

 

When I say some time has likely passed, I don't mean they had to wait around for 11 years of Future Time so that they could go back to '95. Only that they can't have had access to the reprogrammed T-800 at the time they sent Reese, because it'd be stupid to have a hardened killing machine equal to that of the enemy, and think it's better to send the spongy human instead.

[Stoppy2000]

Why not send the T-800 back to help Reese out? I realise this is going to end up in the time travel paradox questions that make all time travel theories eventually fall apart. 

I suppose Reese has to die to ensure Sarah turns out the way she does to make John the leader he becomes. Or something.

[PK]

1 hour ago, Fry Crayola said:

The resistance didn't invent time travel (as in your quote, they found the time displacement stuff in a Skynet lab) and don't appear to be particularly technologically sufficient in the flash forwards we see. I don't expect that they're going to construct their own time machine, so they either kept the one they had, or found another.

 

When I say some time has likely passed, I don't mean they had to wait around for 11 years of Future Time so that they could go back to '95. Only that they can't have had access to the reprogrammed T-800 at the time they sent Reese, because it'd be stupid to have a hardened killing machine equal to that of the enemy, and think it's better to send the spongy human instead.

 

I suppose you could argue that Skynet(a) that sends the T-800 back in the first film is not the same as Skynet(b) that sends the T-1000 back in T2. Skynet(b) was created from reverse engineering the remnants of the T-800 sent back by Skynet(a), whereas Skynet(a) was invented. And it's safe to assume Skynet(b) knew its origins, and so could have reasoned that it must be able to create time travel & did so earlier in its lifespan than Skynet(a).

 

And if it's a different Skynet, then potentially the events of the war against the machines plays out differently and it's a subtly (or completely) different resistance(b) who send back the reprogrammed T-800 to the resistance (a) who sent back Reese.

[Fry Crayola]

17 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Why not send the T-800 back to help Reese out? I realise this is going to end up in the time travel paradox questions that make all time travel theories eventually fall apart. 

I suppose Reese has to die to ensure Sarah turns out the way she does to make John the leader he becomes. Or something.

 

They probably didn't send the T-800 back because Reese was ultimately successful in his mission, and as the events of the first film were a stable time loop, Connor knew this. And with a T-1000 about to go and fuck up dudes eyeballs in 1995 LA, there was a more pressing use for Good Arnie.

 

I agree with you that it's where most time travel stories fall apart, particularly when they start adding sequels that weren't originally plotted out before the first story. Inevitably, you're going to tie yourself in knots. As Sarah said herself, a person could go crazy just thinking about all this.

[Stoppy2000]

Would they be better off sending another human back to kill Reese before he even meets Sarah? That way the chip from the T-800 isn't found by skynet and then judgement day never happens? Look what happens when you start to think about time travel...

 

[Pob]

22 hours ago, Anne Summers said:

I just watched Salvation again, for I think the second time. First was when it was released. And actually I think it's grown on me. It's probably my third favourite film in the series. It's got some cool concepts and ideas even if the actual story isn't anything amazing. 

 

Anyway it made me think about time travel in this series, and how it kind of glosses over everything about how it works and how it was invented (maybe Regenisis covers it? Not sure as I've only seen that one once, too, when it was first released, and all I really remember is that the second half was a complete mess). 

 

So the machines (or Skynet) invented time travel and then the resistance stole the tech from them, right? I asked ChatGPT if that's what happened and whether this is actually shown in the series at any point. 

 

 

Thanks, ChatGPT.

 

Anyway, anyone know if it is actually shown in any of the movies,or even the TV series (never seen it) or the games or comics?

 

 

 

Seems like ChatGPT is learning at an astronomical rate.

 

I love that we now live in 2020s and we're asking an AI to tell us about fictional AI from a film made in 1984 but set in in the 2020s.

[Fry Crayola]

Geometric rate. 

 

Stop getting Terminator wrong!

[Anne Summers]

I did ask Chat GPT if it was going to turn into Skynet, too, just because I thought I'd better check, and it said no (thankfully). 

[Pob]

40 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

Geometric rate. 

 

Stop getting Terminator wrong!

Yeah I realised that after I sent it. What does that even mean?

[Fry Crayola]

Multiplication, like interest rates. So Skynet might have learned x amount in minute one, 10x in minute two, 100x in minute three, etc.

[Anne Summers]

2 hours ago, Fry Crayola said:

Multiplication, like interest rates. So Skynet might have learned x amount in minute one, 10x in minute two, 100x in minute three, etc.

Isn't that an exponential rate?

[hmm]

Same thing (essentially).

[Fry Crayola]

Very similar, aye. In a geometric sequence, I believe you always add 1 to the exponent, making it a subset of exponential growth. I think. 

 

This is less fun than reminiscing about the time the Terminator said "fuck you, asshole", and I apologise for this.

[Stoppy2000]

If I ever I invent a time machine I'm going to come back and remove that post about the 'astronomical rate'. Then I'll go and warn the world about Hitler. 

[Pob]

16 hours ago, PK said:

 

I suppose you could argue that Skynet(a) that sends the T-800 back in the first film is not the same as Skynet(b) that sends the T-1000 back in T2. Skynet(b) was created from reverse engineering the remnants of the T-800 sent back by Skynet(a), whereas Skynet(a) was invented. And it's safe to assume Skynet(b) knew its origins, and so could have reasoned that it must be able to create time travel & did so earlier in its lifespan than Skynet(a).

 

And if it's a different Skynet, then potentially the events of the war against the machines plays out differently and it's a subtly (or completely) different resistance(b) who send back the reprogrammed T-800 to the resistance (a) who sent back Reese.

 

Yeah, this is it in my head. Each baddie Terminator is from a different version of the future - a future affected by the time-travel event of the previous film.

[Fry Crayola]

Aye, that works. Except for the first film, which is a future affected by the time-travel event of the same film.

[Pob]

2 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

Except for the first film, which is a future affected by the time-travel event of the same film.

 

That's the clear intention given Sarah's message at the end but does it have to be read that way? There could be an OG John Connor with a different dad who we never meet. Granted it's a stretch that they both end up becoming leaders of the resistance.

[Fry Crayola]

Kyle's explicitly shown in the future to be holding the photo the young boy takes of Sarah at the end of the film. You could make a load of arguments to the effect that it's a dream sequence etc, but I think that'd be unnecessary wrestling to try and make some sort of case for continuity that wasn't present in the original film. 

 

Which I guess is normally how sequels pan out, it's just always made more difficult by time travel.

[Pob]

5 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

Kyle's explicitly shown in the future to be holding the photo the young boy takes of Sarah at the end of the film. You could make a load of arguments to the effect that it's a dream sequence etc, but I think that'd be unnecessary wrestling to try and make some sort of case for continuity that wasn't present in the original film. 

Oh yeah, that photo would blatantly only have been taken due to the presence of the T-800 is 1984.

[Stoppy2000]

There's no difficult to explain timeline that makes your brain ache but what we make. 

[Uncle Mike]

11 hours ago, Fry Crayola said:

Very similar, aye. In a geometric sequence, I believe you always add 1 to the exponent, making it a subset of exponential growth. I think. 

 

Pretty sure geometric and exponential sequences are just the same thing written in different ways. There's nothing in geometric sequences that necessarily implies an increase in the multiplier.

[PK]

1 hour ago, Fry Crayola said:

Kyle's explicitly shown in the future to be holding the photo the young boy takes of Sarah at the end of the film. You could make a load of arguments to the effect that it's a dream sequence etc, but I think that'd be unnecessary wrestling to try and make some sort of case for continuity that wasn't present in the original film. 

 

Which I guess is normally how sequels pan out, it's just always made more difficult by time travel.

 

Oh bollocks, I forgot about that photo.

 

Fuck's sake Kyle

[Fry Crayola]

1 hour ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

Pretty sure geometric and exponential sequences are just the same thing written in different ways. There's nothing in geometric sequences that necessarily implies an increase in the multiplier.

 

Could be the case!

 

This is me also learning at a geometric rate.

 

 

[monkeydog]

I'd have to buy a more up to date copy of the first book.

 

 

[Fry Crayola]

Good luck with that, as there isn't one.