sarah connor chronicles

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
First time I heard about it. I have to say, as big as I am a fan of the Terminator movies, I am rather sceptical about this series. But maybe the idea needs to grow on me.
Anyway, I'll watch when I get the chance.
 

Pedro

Admiral
Not seen it, but I'm rather dissapointed with the fact they chose to ignore Terminator 3. I rather enjoyed the third, unlike in the second I didn't cheer on the terminator as it tried to kill John Conner.

Seems like an odd thing to do, especially given how well the third ended, setting up a more interesting series after Judgement day very nicely.
 

BradMick

Vice Admiral
I'm fairly interested in the new series. Personally, I wasn't a big fan of T3, the idea that 'You can't stop this horrible, horrible thing from happening no matter what you do' is just...eh, not a big fan of it. T3 just felt like, yeah, we can make another movie...and we did, and now we're going to set it up for ANOTHER movie. Would have been great if they had just resolved the series with T3 instead of leave it wide open. Felt to much like Alien Ressurection to me, just no real reason for it being made other than 'hey, this would be really neat if we...'. But, again, that's just me, so the series definately appeals to me.
 

Pedro

Admiral
I thought it was a wonderful ending, rather than re-itterating the well established concept. I could never decide if it was a plot device or a reflection of the post 9/11 era. In any case it was a heck of a note to end on, even if you saw it coming a mile off.
 

Nomad Terror

Rear Admiral
Terminator 3 was not made by James Cameron, so some consider it to not have really happened at all, or to have happened in an alternate timeline.

That's the logic there. They're sticking to just the Cameron timeline.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
As much as it pains me to do, I completely agree with Pedro - T3 was a fun action movie with an excellent ending. It didn't have anything to do with setting up another movie (any moreso than the various glimpses at the future war in the others did, anyway), it was about subverting expectations and making the film unique.

I did see the first episode of the TV show, and I enjoyed it. I'm not sure if it ignores T3 or not, from the show alone (I can't really explain why without spoiling it, I suppose)... but it does have a heck of a lot more continuity with T2 than I would have expected.
 

ser lev

Swabbie
Banned
As much as it pains me to do, I completely agree with Pedro - T3 was a fun action movie with an excellent ending. It didn't have anything to do with setting up another movie (any moreso than the various glimpses at the future war in the others did, anyway), it was about subverting expectations and making the film unique.

I did see the first episode of the TV show, and I enjoyed it. I'm not sure if it ignores T3 or not, from the show alone (I can't really explain why without spoiling it, I suppose)... but it does have a heck of a lot more continuity with T2 than I would have expected.

and it has summer glau, glue, glip, oh whatever her last name is:p
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Terminator 3 was not made by James Cameron, so some consider it to not have really happened at all, or to have happened in an alternate timeline.
Thats pretty damn stupid.

That's the logic there. They're sticking to just the Cameron timeline.
Sarah Conner Chronicles takes place between T2 and T3, so it doesn't "interrupt" the third installment. (Don't forget that Sarah dies between the two movies - its her grave that they find the cache of weapons). The lack of Cameron doesn't mean anything - its an offically sanctioned movie, and its an established part of the Terminator series. There is no "alternate universe" but there is plenty of "ignorant internet" to go around.

(Not to mention - Cameron *likes* the third movie.)

I haven't seen the pilot yet but am weary, simply because of Summer Glau. She's not a good actress (see: Firefly) and the "Come With Me If You Want To Live" line has lost all meaning at this point (It made sense and actually had levity when it was said in T2 but by now its just turned into a damn catchphrase that everyone in every movie says.)
 

Tooner623

Spaceman
See, I have to throw in with the "dissatisfied with T3" crowd. While it admittedly was a fun action movie, and I'm *always* one for fun action movies, it felt unnecessary, and ultimately damaged Terminator 2 heavily.

Where the point of T2 was that we can determine the future through our actions in the present, T3 then seems to come along and say that the future is set in stone and there is no action that we can take in the present to alter its path. It's frustrating.

There is of course, the little manner of film canon, as well. T3 is disastrous to two important items of canon. The first Terminator film has Kyle Reese clearly stating that SkyNET was in a set location- hardware, that was being destroyed, and the Terminator being sent back in time was a last-ditch effort on the part of the machines to keep themselves alive.

Meanwhile, the video game, "Terminator: Dawn of Fate," which *was* written as part of the Terminator canon, also features SkyNET being hardware. The ending, featuring SkyNET as software is simply contradictory to everything that we had learned about SkyNET to that point.

All that said, I haven't seen the pilot. Where can I?
 

ser lev

Swabbie
Banned
Have you ever been on the kiddie rollercoaster with your kids? it has bumps and turns and a touch of speed, but ultimatly it's rollercoasterlite. That's pretty much how i felt watching t3 after the spectical that where 1 & 2
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Doesn't mean a thing to me.
Yeah, *theres* a response people can respect.

Where the point of T2 was that we can determine the future through our actions in the present, T3 then seems to come along and say that the future is set in stone and there is no action that we can take in the present to alter its path. It's frustrating.
The moral of T3 is the exact same as the moral of the first Terminator movie - that we're going to have to face our destiny (hence Sarah's blind determination in the sequel)

T3 is disastrous to two important items of canon. The first Terminator film has Kyle Reese clearly stating that SkyNET was in a set location- hardware, that was being destroyed, and the Terminator being sent back in time was a last-ditch effort on the part of the machines to keep themselves alive.
This is explained in T3 as that while the details change, everything is inevitable. Equally, you can say that James Cameron screwed everything up just as much with the end of Terminator 2 - while they destroyed the processsor and the arm found at Dyson Labs - there was another Terminator arm and chip left behind by the end of the second movie anyway.

Meanwhile, the video game, "Terminator: Dawn of Fate," which *was* written as part of the Terminator canon
While I cannot speak for Terminator continuity as a whole - I've never, ever heard of any respectable franchise allowing a video game to be any part of "offical canon". Even Star Wars, which is known for having the worst canon system, puts video games at the botom most tier.

This aside - if the Terminator franchise is anything like Star Wars, Star Trek or the like - the movies trump all other tie-ins. Even if the game was written for canon, the movies are the "bible" to which everything else must adjust to. A similar example is that Zahn's title for the leader of the Republic was suddenly unoffical when we had the character of Chancellor Valorum in The Phantom Menace.

Everything has to fit the movies, not the other way around.
 

ser lev

Swabbie
Banned
While I cannot speak for Terminator continuity as a whole - I've never, ever heard of any respectable franchise allowing a video game to be any part of "offical canon". Even Star Wars, which is known for having the worst canon system, puts video games at the botom most tier.
.
erm.....the matrix?.......oh hang on you said respectable....sorry
 

Tooner623

Spaceman
The moral of T3 is the exact same as the moral of the first Terminator movie - that we're going to have to face our destiny (hence Sarah's blind determination in the sequel)
A fair response. Though I would argue that having to "face" one's destiny does not necessarily imply that one cannot *alter* their destiny. Most of the first film's "message" is delivered through a man who has, arguably, been quite jaded by war. I don't think he *can* see it any other way. Sarah, by the end of the second movie, however, does see it another way. Her, and our, expectations have changed. In fact, one alternate ending of the film was set years later with John and his kids on a playground and Sarah musing about how the war never came. The filmmakers opted to go with the ending that kept the past uncertain, alterable.

It may be personal preference, but I prefer the message of Terminator 2, and I think that was the ultimate message of the series until T3 came along.


This is explained in T3 as that while the details change, everything is inevitable. Equally, you can say that James Cameron screwed everything up just as much with the end of Terminator 2 - while they destroyed the processsor and the arm found at Dyson Labs - there was another Terminator arm and chip left behind by the end of the second movie anyway.
I'll admit it has been a while, but where is the other arm and chip leftover? The T1000 is melted, the original arm and chip are melted, and finally, that movie's T-800 is melted. I'm not sure of any other arms or chips.

The problem here is, those *specific* details changing seriously rearrange the entirety of the films. Unfortunately, we're dealing with time travel here, so everything gets sticky and annoying, but T3 essentially invalidates not only itself, but the first two movies as well. Like I noted, Kyle Reese specifically says that the terminators are sent back in time as a response to its core being threatened (and ultimately, destroyed).

I'll bite, there can be ANOTHER reason why terminators would be sent back, but ultimately, as I said above, I think it contradicts the point of it's most direct prequel.

While I cannot speak for Terminator continuity as a whole - I've never, ever heard of any respectable franchise allowing a video game to be any part of "offical canon". Even Star Wars, which is known for having the worst canon system, puts video games at the botom most tier.
Beaten to it- The Matrix *did* do it. That (unfortunately) said, this was back in the very small time window where things like that were considered "cool." I'm struggling now to dig up the original interview (I'm fairly sure its in an old issue of Gamepro somewhere), but the game did indeed have the official stamp, and was, interestingly enough, being designed at roughly the same time as the writing for the film was taking place, giving me pause as to why there are such contradictions.

Nonetheless, you are right. Game canon is indeed below film canon, and thus is subordinate, but as I said before, SkyNET was already described as hardware in the film.

I think the *reason* that the hardware/software thing bothers me so much is that it was a completely unnecessary change. They could have said "SkyNET has multiple cores" or this T-800 didn't think you could destroy it, so he dropped you in a bunker. Anything would have been acceptable, really. They didn't *have* to alter established movie-level canon, but they did. That's my problem.

As for the pilot: my mistake, I understood that it might have been released early intentionally.

Edit: forgot that last bit.
 

Tooner623

Spaceman
Sorry for the double post, but this should add to the discussion...

While looking up some information on the series, since I haven't heard much of it until now, I found this quote from an article about the panel at Comic-Con.

"Producer James Middleton noted he’d worked on Terminator 3, and when that project was over, he thought about how intrigued he was by the character Sarah, and wanted to do something more with her, since she wasn’t in T3. He said they picked up the Terminator 2 saying “no fate but what we make” and ran with it, plotting this alternate take on Sarah’s life after T2, that would not be in continuity with Terminator 3, which the audience applauded. Actor Thomas Dekker (”John Connor”) praised the director of the pilot, David Nutter, noting that the first time they met Nutter “he talked about Comic-Con” and wanting to please that audience of big fans."

It would seem that they do *indeed* intend to forget T3 happened, and it isn't some "crazed, stupid internet fan," but someone who actually worked on the film in question, though IMDB shows nothing on him except Basic Instinct 2 (shudder).
 

Vasator

Spaceman
How else could T3 end? If john had defeated skynet then the terminator would never had existed in the first place to go back in time and try and kill him. That future is inevitable because the future has already happened. It's like in the time machine. He goes back to save her over and over again and she dies. He built the time machine to save her but if he does manage to save her then there is something we like to call a "Paradox". why would he have built the time machine?

I will try and simplify this for you. Lets say you go back in time and accidentally kill your father before you were born, lets say he is 8 years old and something you do contributes to his death. How could you have been born to build the machine? Paradox.

The terminator franchise is just that. a paradox. you cannot change the future because events from that future helped mold and change what you did.

it can be confusing
 

ser lev

Swabbie
Banned
Also it's a movie....scifi....they often have plot holes some tiny some big...the good ones allow you to forget them unless some guy over analyses what is simply a movie about robots from the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top