Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Megan Ellison To Produce TERMINATOR Films!

Nordling here.

Okay, Megan Ellison's awesome.  Granted, we haven't seen much of the results of her foray into Hollywood production yet, but she pulled Paul Thomas Anderson's rear out of the fire and his new movie is going ahead with her blessing (and money), so she automatically gets something of a geek pass.  And according to Deadline, she's secured the rights to at least two more TERMINATOR films in a bidding war between her Annapurna Films and Lionsgate.

It's unknown at this point whether or not Arnold will return to the franchise that made him Lord God Of All Film.  But the films that Ellison is involved with include Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal's Osama Bin Laden film, as well as the PTA film.  I think she's got the geek bug.  A movie geek with reams of money at her disposal can only be a good thing for film.  I'm very curious indeed to see where she takes the TERMINATOR franchise - clearly she has something in mind for it or she wouldn't have bid on it so heavily.  I know Justin Lin (FAST FIVE) has been mentioned but who's to say?  Maybe she can entice the Great Cameron himself to return to the project in some manner.  Either way, I think this is terrific news for those of us who love the TERMINATOR films (at least the first two) and hope to see this series continue.

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 13, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Whip this dead horse...

    by Mr Soze

    Let it go.

  • May 13, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST

    So...

    by nssdigitalchumps

    How can they take the disaster of a last movie and bridge to it? Or do you just forget about it? All I can say is good luck.

  • May 13, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Pride and Predudice with Terminators.

    by cookylamoo

  • May 13, 2011, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Terminator is going the Aliens route

    by craptacular

    ...of never making another decent movie ever again after the 80s.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Skynet has really become a boring Villain.

    by cookylamoo

    It really has no plan except to wreck our world and then squat in the rubble. Why can't it build a civilization of it's own?

  • May 13, 2011, 8:11 a.m. CST

    Get Cameron to write a treatment

    by Hipshot

    And another writer/director team to develop it. They have a "branching time line" scenario, so it doesn't matter what they did with the previous films. Have Arnold play John Conner, on whom the Terminators were based, and do an all-out balls to the wall action piece. Done right, there would be a Fangasm.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Smell that...

    by JudeNWM

    Reboot's a cookin!

  • May 13, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Kathryn Bigelow: Female Gigolo?

    by Tikidonkeypunch

  • May 13, 2011, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Since Ridley Scott returned to his breakout franchise...

    by NetLex

    ...then maybe one day Cameron will do the same with his. Until then, I'll go into the next Terminator flick with a 'meh' attitude.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:23 a.m. CST

    John Connor will

    by SwampDonkey

    Trash your lights in this movie.

  • how many suckers do they think there are?

  • May 13, 2011, 8:25 a.m. CST

    I've had enough Terminator.

    by batmans_pants

    can't possibly see what they could bring that would be new or interesting. Arnie is never going to play the terminator again, so why bother? Even with him and Cameron on board (who is mighty busy with Avatar sequels, so no chance) you're never going to get a film anywhere near as good as The Terminator and T2. Terminator 3 and Salvation tried and failed.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:26 a.m. CST

    they need to drop the John Connor story line

    by vin_diggler

    That tale has been told. They need to come up with an entire new plot line in order for this to work. If they try to expand any more on John Connor it will just implode on itself.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:28 a.m. CST

    Νο Cameron,No Interest.

    by KilliK

  • Two Ellisons. The stars are aligned. <p> "Produced by someone named Ellison, just like Harlon Ellison, but of no relation.....comes.....Terminator 5"

  • May 13, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Can't this franchise be mentioned without

    by Sith Witch

    having to have disparaging remarks about part 3? That one's the best one in my opinion.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    why do people here think that cameron

    by emeraldboy

    owns terminator franchise?

  • May 13, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Cameron in no way took Terminator from Ellison

    by Valaquen

    Ellison even claimed that Cameron admitted it to Starlog and had it excised from the final print - but the article author confirmed that what he wrote in full went to the press. Here's a blogcast on the topic: http://www.jamescameronfanpodcast.com/2011/03/episode-25-terminator-plagiarism.html Here's an article for those without the hour or so spare time: http://jamescameron.blogspot.com/2010/12/harlan-ellisons-terminator-lawsuit.html

  • May 13, 2011, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Morituri te salutant! We who are about to die salute you!

    by Arafel

  • May 13, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Is there actually a series that is more dead?

    by Spandau Belly

    I hope Justin Lin gets away from this fast.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:57 a.m. CST

    as they always refer to the terminator franchise

    by emeraldboy

    as his.... that is not case. he wrote the story and the screenplay and setup his own effects company and his own movie company. but none of that makes the property his. that belonged to the studio. 20th century fox.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:01 a.m. CST

    In Love

    by SamBlackChvrch21

    w/ Megan Ellison

  • May 13, 2011, 9:12 a.m. CST

    Terminators are just the next step in evolution.

    by cookylamoo

    Look at the guy in Terminator Salvation. He's super strong, super tough, probably immune from disease and aging. And he's so human he doesn't even know he's a machine. This should only happen to all of us.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Bollocks. Cameron didnt take the idea from Ellison.

    by KilliK

    He was influenced from his work,but the main concept of the Terminator movie is Cameron's own birth child.FACT.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:17 a.m. CST

    The Audience will be Terminated in 2013!

    by T

    Yay! More PG-13 merchandising abortions... possibly. I shit you not, they had Terminator Toys for kids for Salvation, even fucking helmets to be a Terminator! Know what? That shit rotted on the shelf like it deserved to.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Make a Terminator XXX Parody.

    by KilliK

    Terminators raping women while female Terminators rape men.why the hell not?

  • May 13, 2011, 9:28 a.m. CST

    2 good films, 2 shitty films....

    by Nick

    Alien series has the same batting average, but atleast Fox is doing it right by going back to it's roots. Terminator... ugh...

  • May 13, 2011, 9:32 a.m. CST

    just bring back TSCC

    by Gorgomel

    The Sarah Connor Chronicles were suprisingly good compared to the pîle of crap directed by McG. It would be great to have at least a 2 hours movie to complete the story.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:33 a.m. CST

    We want a Cameron-esque future war....

    by Judge Briggs

    Nothing else! No more chase movies... no more McG's shitty, watered-down future war. We want Cameron's war that is gritty, dark, plasma rifles taking down robots and humans alike ... and humanity on the verge of extinction. We want something dark and haunting! We want a full movie of the glimpses we saw in T1 and T2.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Should've never gone beyond T2

    by MrEkoLetMeLive

    So few sequels either match or exceed the film that preceded them. T2 is up there with Empire Strikes back and Godfather II as one of the few to achieve that goal. The franchise should have ended there, particularly when James Cameron stopped being involved. Making a Terminator film without Cameron directing would be like making Buffy the Vampire Slayer without Joss Whedon. But who'd be crazy enough to try that? None of the subsequent Terminator films have anywhere near the brilliance of the first two and that only has a little to do with the fact that Arnold wasn't in them. The whole point of the Terminator films was stopping the horrible future that awaited mankind on Judgement Day. If, in the films, we've gotten to the point where Judgement Day has come and gone and we're now fighting for our survival against the machines, it defeats the whole point of the thing to begin with. Here's an idea Hollywood: instead of beating once great ideas to death, how about you come up with NEW ones? Terminator wasn't always a blockbuster film series. Way back when it was just a NEW IDEA from a young director that someone took a chance on with great results. Be nice to see someone in Hollywood with that kind of balls again.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    I'm fangasming already, at the very thought of this.

    by NetLex

  • May 13, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    The Terminator franchise has been played out

    by thot

    I enjoyed the first three but "Salvation" was a big disappointment. It's not that it was a bad movie, it's just that it was a bad Terminator movie. There's really nowhere to go with it. Let it die and rest in peace with some dignity.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    emeraldboy

    by kwisatzhaderach

    What the fuck are you talking about?

  • May 13, 2011, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Salvation was not a Terminator movie.

    by Gorgomel

    Little Spider Robots, Robo-bikes, giant robot, etc... All of that doesn't belong to the Terminator universe. On the contrary, the Sarah Connor Chronicles serie with almost no special effects and near zero money managed to capture the feeling of the first movie. Episodes like Dungeons & Dragons, everything with a glimpse of the future were very well done and haunting.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:14 a.m. CST

    "I fail to see what's so 'cool' about any of this..."

    by Wookie_Weed

    This post by childs +1 sums up why Nordling just posted the most bullshit news AICN has ever had posted. What did she bribe AICN with to get this bizarre fanboy praise?

  • Erm....didn't McG prove that was a bad thing with that last Terminator film? You know. The second worst one. The one that was only mostly awful. Compared to T3.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:20 a.m. CST

    (X number) [of people will pay] FOR TERMINATOR:ANYTHING

    by justmyluck

    So, it's a video safety net acquisition at the least. Too bad JC lost his characters to the whims and desires of lesser creatures.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    (X number) [of people will pay] FOR TERMINATOR:ANYTHING

    by justmyluck

    So, it's a video safety net acquisition at the least. Too bad JC lost his characters to the whims and desires of lesser creatures.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Buy brand name, slap label on crap, take bow.

    by kabong

    Producing for Dummies.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:23 a.m. CST

    sorry for double-post

    by justmyluck

    The JavaScript went funky.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Arnold attached . . . more important than anything to deal.

    by kabong

    The package of Lin, Arnie and the chance to make a Terminator movie was put out to auction, and reports from the Cannes Film Festival suggest that the deal has now been done. <p> The rights have been snapped up Annapurna Films, which beat off competition from Lionsgate, and the rumoured price the former has had to pay is in the $20m range. <p> <p> <p> It's all about deal-making. Screenplays have zero significance in movie-making.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:36 a.m. CST

    T3. An Imperfect yet also horribly underrated movie.

    by ENIK REED

    No I don't need my head examined. Yes i understand why the first two are great. And no i don't really give a shit how many internet fanboy jerk off, douche bag losers who have no idea the stresses to make a movie come at me and label me an untrue geek or fan. And before you start with " But DURP ah Cameron himself has stated blooblooblaah," or the " Um, Tsk, The time line has purely been deviated from blah blah blah". There use to be a time where people just enjoyed movies and didn't shut down or turn off the second a few things or scenes didn't go the way THEY envisioned it. The same bullshit that plagues anyone who has the balls to admitting that while technically they are pretty screwy, you still kinda enjoy prequels and crystal skull. You see, some of us love this shit unconditional, because we love the world, the characters, or what have you, andare willing to have a few bumpy rides. Shit i got friends i love with all my life that still piss me off on a daily basis. For one to accept, joke about, and talk about faults or sins of a movie series, yet still enjoy it, that is divine. Cuz i agree with all the shitters on how funkified some of these great cinematic slip ups are, but screw it, good with the bad, baby. BATMAN and ROBIN is the worst goddamn batman movie ever made, but i'll sure as shit probably throw it in as a time waster over Dark Knight any day. And before you so called wannabe geeks start to draw a parallel from my sentence structure grammar as a justification that i clearly don't know what i'm talking about, Please fuck off, Eat shit, or get a life ya uptight pathetic douche bags. Meanwhile i'll be over here enjoying a sort of decent kick ass sci fi flick that has a few dumb and dumber moments in it and havin a ball. This has been a preemptive strike. I would really like to be friends....I'm so lonely. Oh shit....Gotta Go, JP 3 is on!

  • May 13, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST

    I'm all for them making some GOOD Terminator movies.

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    not sucky ones...............try to NOT make sucky ones. Thanks!

  • T4 was an abomination.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:52 a.m. CST

    killik: Kristanna Loken is welcome to rape me any day she wants.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    And yeah, for the umpteenth time, I also agree that T3 is a worthy part of the saga.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Megan Ellison sure is a sexy-sounding geek-girl name...

    by WriteForTheEdit

    ... for the obvious reasons. Don't let us down, girl!

  • How the fuck do you figure that? Bigelow has a DASH of genre work in her past but she's full-blown drama now. And I don't think Anderson has ever done anything that could be considered genre. Boogie Nights skirted that territory I suppose...but not really. I have no clue who this person is, but as long as she's not telling the artists how to make art, I could give a shit who's footing the bills.

  • May 13, 2011, 10:56 a.m. CST

    I fail to see what's so 'cool' about any of this... by childs

    by rhizomeman

    Spot on - quote of the month.

  • It explains why the Aaaarnold terminators look like that, what happened directly after end of T2 on through the war and right after. Lots of extremely good geek stuff included. One tidbit: remember the psychologist from both T1 and T2? Remember that he saw the T1000 slide through those bars? He becomes an instant convert and believes everything Sarah has claimed, basically joining the cause. This, and the initial meeting between Sarah & young John, and the human ex-CIA agent Skynet based the T800 on, in which they almost kill him, is awesome.

  • Carolco, C2, Halcyon- who will it be next? I still refuse to acknowledge what came beyond Cameron's vision. In a way, it's like how I feel with 'Aliens.' That film gives Ripley somewhat of a happy ending after her trauma.

  • May 13, 2011, 11:09 a.m. CST

    "I have no clue who this person is"

    by GINGE_MUPPET

    Theres a fucking surprise ... Do you actually know anything??

  • May 13, 2011, 11:10 a.m. CST

    My biggest gripe with T3 was defiantly the TX....

    by connor187

    She/it just didn't make sense, I thought the T1000 was way more advanced. I mean, why have an Endoskeleton covered with liquid metal? It was hampered from the off as far as I am concerned......and she was a fuckin shit Terminator anyway!.....Advancements people!

  • May 13, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Terminator SCC was AWFUL

    by Nick

    Terminator Sex? Really?

  • May 13, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    I hope she re-invents it

    by D o o d

    even though it takes place in the future, the idea is got tired along time ago! I hope that Arnie does not return, it's just not funny to see him in cameos anymore!

  • May 13, 2011, 11:13 a.m. CST

    I'm Sorry

    by NixEclips

    Somebody has a bunch of money and I'm supposed to be excited? What?

  • May 13, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Who gives a shit, who gives a fuck

    by TitusPullo

    The only way anyone will be clamoring for another Terminator is if James Cameron is back writing/directing.

  • May 13, 2011, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Harlan Ellison??-- ahh- ok just checking for typos..;)

    by cube3

    now that would be strange... http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/sci-fi-sf-movies/8-Why-is-there-an-acknowledgment-to-Harlan-Ellison-in-the-c.html anyhow..

  • May 13, 2011, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Could be awesome....

    by BetaRayBill07

    So long as it's not going to be that "war in the future spills through time into our world" bullshit.

  • May 13, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Genius Required

    by FloobyNooby

    ...To make something good out of the last few minutes of Salvation. Worst audience reaction I've ever heard. It felt like the asset strippers had moved in and were winding it all down.

  • May 13, 2011, 11:47 a.m. CST

    kabong

    by the dolphins are in the jacuzzi

    You got a source for that? If so, post a link. Not to be casting aspersions, but it seems odd to me that news that big hasn't already made it to Yahoo and Google. But, hey, if it's true, it could be promising. Hell, Arnold's got nothing better to do, now. He's lost his governor's job. He's lost his wife. What else is there for him to do but get back into shape (he's been lamenting his pudginess in recent interviews), and start kicking cinematic ass again. I mean, if Stallone can still do it, why not? It sure as hell couldn't be any worse of a Terminator movie than that last steaming pile of horse shit.

  • May 13, 2011, 11:48 a.m. CST

    valaquen - thanks!

    by Mennen

    The 1st 2 FILMS were great. The last 2 films SUCKED.

  • May 13, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    She's going to reboot it

    by NeotheLessar

    Guaranteed.

  • May 13, 2011, noon CST

    Isn't she a celeb-u-tard?

    by krod

    Many douche bags produce cool movies.

  • May 13, 2011, noon CST

    @ Mennen

    by Valaquen

    What are you talking about? I haven't said anything about the last two Terminator films in this entire thread :S They DO suck, terrible movies. I'm confused about your post.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    @ Mennen

    by Valaquen

    Sorry, I COMPLETELY misread your post. That'll explain the confusion! Sorry for the bother :P

  • May 13, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    I whole-heartedly agree: Megan Ellison is awesome.

    by riskebiz

    I first started hearing about her in regard to PT Anderson's new film...and I thought she was pretty cool. This Terminator news? She's frikkin' awesome. I'm rooting for her.

  • <p> http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/886303/terminator_5_deal_locked_terminator_6_planned.html <p> I'm not sure it will happen or that it will be any good. <p> Producers like to build buzz early because they're all neurotic.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:07 p.m. CST

    And yeah, I know she is silver spooned and a billionaire.

    by riskebiz

    ...but instead of doing a Paris Hilton, she's actually doing something with her life and she chose to champion film. That. Is. Awesome.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    The best Terminator storyline ever...

    by zinc_chameleon

    occurs on the 'Sarah Connor Chronicles' when Cameron gets kicked out of the house for being a pest, and befriends a crippled (terminal bone cancer) librarian. Intimate, funny, techno-hip (by taking us all the way back to 1920's gear and all the way forward to a fighting Cameron), and most of all, *engaging*. We shouldn't care about a fighting cyborg's problems with relationships, but we do. Best thing Summer Glau has ever done.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    OT: AICN Extra Stuff Mod Updated

    by kevinwillis.net

    For those of you who use it, you might have noticed over the past few days, the comments section disappeared. Well, that's cuz they changed the underlying HTML code, so . . . Anyway, it's fixed. Come get the AICN Extra Stuff Mod here: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/92278 Works with Firefox, Chrome, and can be made to work with Opera and Safari (I'm using it in Safari now). Includes Ignore function for irritating Talkbackers, a hilite function for favorite talkbackers, the ability to change Moderator boxes to pink (ha ha!), reverse the talkback order, reformats the Talkback to look more like it did before "the change" . . . special formatting stuff to embed images and styles (but can only be seen by other AICN Extra Stuff mod users) . . . Oh, and auto-expand--automatically displays all comment text! That's the thing I miss most when I'm not running it. I will cross-post this OT commentary in a few places, just so folks know. And I tested it with Chrome, and it was working. Let me know if you have any problems . . . It's sort of like spam, but it's a free mod, and it had 100+ downloads, so somebody used it. And might like it to work. Well, it works again! Enjoy.

  • Megan Ellison was not only responsible for helping the Coen Brothers get True Grit made, she saved PT anderson from development hell. This girl obviously has a love of cinema and a love of great filmmakers, meaning her intentions seem to be to bring integrity to anything she finances...obviously she has a soft spot for the Terminator franchise and I'm going to guess its more love of the first two films that got her checkbook out. there's no way to know for sure what she'll do with Terminator, but she's already got my respect.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:12 p.m. CST

    OT: AICN Extra Stuff Mod for Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari WORKS Again

    by kevinwillis.net

    For those of you who use it, you might have noticed over the past few days, the comments section disappeared. Well, that's cuz they changed the underlying HTML code, so . . . Anyway, it's fixed. Come get the AICN Extra Stuff Mod here: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/92278 Works with Firefox, Chrome, and can be made to work with Opera and Safari (I'm using it in Safari now). Includes Ignore function for irritating Talkbackers, a hilite function for favorite talkbackers, the ability to change Moderator boxes to pink (ha ha!), reverse the talkback order, reformats the Talkback to look more like it did before "the change" . . . special formatting stuff to embed images and styles (but can only be seen by other AICN Extra Stuff mod users) . . . Oh, and auto-expand--automatically displays all comment text! That's the thing I miss most when I'm not running it. Will cross-post this OT commentary in a few places, just so folks know. And I tested it with Chrome, and it was working. Let me know if you have any problems . . .

  • May 13, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST

    kabong

    by the dolphins are in the jacuzzi

    Thanks. Now, the only question will be whether Arnold is only in it for a cameo, or whether he'll be the lead. I'm hoping for the latter, although I expect the former. That's if it even gets past the planning stages. Oh, well. I guess we'll see.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    james cameron...

    by emeraldboy

    made two terminator movies for fox and then moved on. Made them money too, of course. He has no interest in studio politics or studio accountancy. He brought fox a billion for titanic and then did it again with avatar. once the avatar sequel is done. cameron will move to the next thing. and will leave avatar in fox's hands. but he will possibly have an executive producer role on any subsequent sequels. the only thing cameron cares about really about from technology is money.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:26 p.m. CST

    emeraldboy

    by Billy_D_Williams

    cameron didn't make the terminator films at fox dude. first one was Orion, second was Carolco

  • I've always like Megan. (It has nothing to do with the money. It doesn't.)

  • Never heard of her. At this point, could really care less about any Terminator film.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Please. Someone tell me ........

    by Chunkybarcode

    ......that I'm still at Recall at this article is the result of a schizoid embolism.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Purple lazers and mountains of skulls please...

    by Billyeveryteen

    Remote controlled cars and Worthington type cyborgs need not apply.

  • May 13, 2011, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Why do people hate the modern Terminator?

    by Moonrocks

    All I seem to hear (including from Harry) is how only the first 2 films are worthy of our consideration. The last two basically suck. I disagree. If you want to argue that the first two are the better films, fine. They are. But the last two did, in my geek opinion, (and geek opinion is what greases the wheels at AICN) were competent films that fit nicely into the continuity of the series. If I am critical of anything it is the TV series which started really slow and then picked up in season 2 before it was unceremoniously canned. That whole enterprise never fully developed so it could be tossed.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    James Cameron never had an original idea in his life

    by Shannon Nutt

    From the Terminator (stealing from Ellison) to Aliens (borrowing ideas Ridley had for the original, but were cut) to Avatar (anyone see Dances With Wolves), James Cameron is the king of taking others' ideas and turning them into movies. Great director? For sure. Great writer? No way.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Lol the Cameron haters just arrived from their basements.

    by KilliK

  • May 13, 2011, 1:12 p.m. CST

    kevinwillis.net thank you good sir.

    by KilliK

    indeed your AICN script stopped working for some day now,but i am glad you fixed it and i can use it again.thanx again for your good job.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:17 p.m. CST

    re : James Cameron never had an original idea in his life

    by Gorgomel

    What about a huge boat sinking after hitting an iceberg. Never saw that before. Cameron is a genius!

  • May 13, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Listen up, Hollywood...

    by TopHat

    ...all you have to do now is be involved in movies having to do with "geekdom" and you'll get a free pass from internet writers/bloggers/reviewers/whatever "geeks". This whole "geek" stuff has become the equivalent of the fanatical Christian Right of the Bush years. I'm not talking about the people on the message boards like Talkback either. I'm talking about the people who work for the sites like "Nordling". Just like the Christian Right, it isn't the people who get worked up about everything and comment on the internet or go to the rallies. Its the people who make money from the internet sites and rallies who expectorate this isolating belief of "teams" and "groups" we supposedly belong or don't belong to. Labels are used and given to the ones who meet the imaginary requirements. But, the only people who actually reap any substantial benefit from it are the ones with the biggest microphone. From this mediocrity is bought, sold and processed; You're not supporting the establishment, you are supporting your "love" for your "team". The TERMINATOR movies are done. The only person who could do anything worthwhile with them is James Cameron. No amount of flag-waving for the "geek team" will change that.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Sith Witch

    by rahtard

    Agreed. It had more continuity with the first film than the second.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Cameron may not be original, BUT

    by rahtard

    He get's a pass with Avatar. That theme is actually a common mythological element. Dance with Wolves wasn't the first. Actually Dances With Wolves wasn't even original in that genre. Last of the Mohicans anyone? Aliens was a sequel, fine, not his fault. Terminator, story may not be to original, but the technical work sure was. And Titanic, well, yeah. He's a great filmaker, that can't be denied. And he really has a knack for nailing the emotional element. I don't think he's the greatest director ever, but I give him props where its due. Shakespeare wasn't original at all.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:40 p.m. CST

    New terminator movie = box office bomb

    by Marlboroliteman

    Let the series die already it was ruined with the 3rd one and shit, pissed, and vomited on by Mc G on the fourth.. just let it go.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST

    shannonnutt

    by Nick

    Ideas Ridley had in Alien, but weren't used? WTF are you talking about, stop making shit up. Fucktard.

  • May 13, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST

    I've always wanted to see a saggy old man play a robot

    by INWOsuxRED

    I don't think anything good could come from this franchise anymore, and nothing good can come from Arnold "acting" again.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST

    The Terminator - 20th Century Fox?

    by Keith

    I don't recall seeing a Fox logo at the start of any Terminator pictures. The first movie was funded by Orion, the second by Carolco, third and fourth by Warner. What am I missing here?

  • May 13, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Salvation

    by Keith

    Salvation actually tried to do what I had wanted to see: no more Arnie, no more time travel, just a story set during the period of the future war. However, it just wasn't very good. Some nice individual sequences, but it didn't really feel as though Skynet ruled the globe; it lacked a sense of threat. In some ways I quite liked seeing some daylight battles and Mad Max-ish stuff, but Skynet just didn't feel like this awesome adversary. And the final reel was cack. It wasn't awful, though. I'd like to see a genuine "rise of the machines", i.e. a portrayal of the first days and weeks following the machine attack.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Time travel

    by Keith

    I always find it kinda weird that people think of The Terminator as a franchise that's all about using time travel to change the future, but it ISN'T. It's a story about the fall of man and the rise of a saviour in which a single act of time travel forms a creative loop (for both Skynet and John Connor). History is not changed in The Terminator. There was never a version of 1984 without Reese and the terminator.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Have the terminator kill sarah conner!

    by jarjarmessiah

    Then have Reese select a new human savior. It will be like JJ Abrahms trek! An alternate universe will be born!

  • May 13, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    last time I checked, on MTV Cameron did an interview saying

    by Jesiah

    "too many people have pissed in the pot," regarding the Terminator franchise. His last two films have been these mega blockbusters so I think Judgment Day will stand (and rightfully so) as his last foray into the t universe.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:29 p.m. CST

    jarjarmessiah

    by Keith

    The problem is that history cannot be changed by time travel in the terminator's narrative universe. It useless the tenseless model, where the future already exists, and time travel is just a causal relationship between non-adjacent slices. You can't change a future that is already written and set in stone. Well, T3 violated this, of course, the first movie to do so unambiguously, and T2 almost certainly did as well, although there's a bit more wriggle room there.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Right, misterdarcy.

    by frank

    T2 was about trying to prevent Judgement Day. The original was just about trying to stop the Terminator from killing Sarah Connor. The time travel actually makes sense in The Terminator. Everything gets screwy and paradoxical with T2, which is the main reason I don’t really like T2 all that much. I really only like to think of the original movie as Terminator canon.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Abandon the Connors and Arnold

    by jsarnold513

    Arnold is in his early 60s now. The Terminators are cyborgs that never age. It just doesn't work to keep bringing him back looking increasingly feeble. All of the attempts to mine this franchise for the stories of Sarah and John Connor have ruined their respective storylines. The last film took a cool premise, John Connor and the human resistance actually fighting the machines in the future, and made it into just another shitty sci fi movie. Also, like someone said earlier, Skynet is a boring villain. It only wants to destroy the world and then sit in the rubble. Putting a twist on it and giving it a higher agenda beyond "kill all humans" would go a long way towards saving this franchise, if such a thing is possible. This "franchise" has always been a bit of a one trick pony. It was a cool trick that sustained two classic flicks, but it's still just one trick nonetheless.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    heheh

    by Kammich

    I love the reaction of some of the people here... "what? she's rich AND a girl? and she's touching MY film properties? FLAME, FLAME, DIE, BITCH, WHORE!!!" as billy_d and others have said, the girl clearly has good taste in films, or at least thats what her endeavors would suggest... you don't take your first forays into big-budget film production with the likes of the Coens and PTA, unless you know a thing or two about good cinema I'll take a young, enthusiastic, rich film producer over a toy-pumping bottom-line nazi like Jon Peters any day of the week.

  • May 13, 2011, 2:55 p.m. CST

    natalieportmansyummyafterbirth

    by Shannon Nutt

    This, for one: Scott originally filmed a sequence where Ripley finds Dallas cocooned...Cameron borrowed the cocooned concept for his own movie and passed it off as his own idea (at the time) - much in the way he passes off most stuff as his "own" until someone calls him on it. I'm surprised he didn't claim TITANIC was a fictional story he came up with!

  • May 13, 2011, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Cameron's cocoons

    by Keith

    Yeah, he really disliked Scott's idea and created his own hierarchical caste-based alien setup. IIRC, the Dallas/Brett cocooning took the idea from O'Bannon/Shusett's original "Starbeast" script, where some hosts were used for impregnation and some were used to create the eggs themselves. I tend to side with Cameron on this one: ichneumann wasp impregnation is cool, egg-generation is a bit silly.

  • May 13, 2011, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Oh, sorry

    by Keith

    Ichneumon.

  • May 13, 2011, 3:34 p.m. CST

    jsarnold

    by Keith

    " Putting a twist on it and giving it a higher agenda beyond "kill all humans" would go a long way towards saving this franchise, if such a thing is possible." Yeah, maybe like the Cylons in the remade BSG, although eventually that degenerated into hand-waving nonsense. It might be intriguing to explore the idea of what a self-aware machine intelligence might actually desire (what are its plans after eradicating humanity?), although perhaps that would work better as a hard sci-fi book than as a soft sci-fi Hollywood movie. On a similar matter, I would LOVE to see a really good remake of Colossus: The Forbin Project. Maybe as a mini-series. Rather than a sudden, surprising attack by the machines, a gradual takeover that takes plays over days and weeks. Initial mild concern turning to alarm and finally to, "Oh my god...we have lost our own planet" as the AI network gradually usurps power from its human "masters", tricking them along the way into giving away power, using cajoling, bluff and threats.

  • May 13, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Please, just leave it the fuck alone.

    by jazz_mavericks

    That is all.

  • May 13, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST

    james cameron...

    by emeraldboy

    has no control over the terminator franchise. he wrote the characters, the story and the screenplay but beyond that he has no control. if megan ellison and were to a deal where he could bring the franchise under his control and at fox. because that is where he has made all his films.

  • May 13, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    KATHRYN BIGELOW WILL DIRECT!!

    by Koji_Kabuto

    My money is on Bigelow to direct.

  • May 13, 2011, 4:18 p.m. CST

    misterdarcy WRONG

    by KilliK

    the events in T2 didnt change anything in the time-line.so how exactly did T2 negated the ruels of T1? well? get your facts straight boy.

  • May 13, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Killik RIGHT

    by Keith

    It is kind of interesting how people's interpretation of T2 has shifted over the years. When it came out, only a small handful of people did NOT interpret it as a movie in which the future had been changed. It was written that way, and it was presented that way. Cameron took out the "removes all doubt" coda scene, but he wrote the script to lead up to it. But after T3 came out, people started to gravitate towards an interpretation whereby the future had NOT been changed. Interesting that people allow sequels to reshape their interpretation of previously-existing movies to a highly significant degree. Even the slightly ambiguous ending of T2 is only ambiguous in a certain kind of way. It's ambiguous that Skynet will never be created (maybe it can be created with the T-800's severed arm!), but it is not really ambiguous about the fact that a new branch of history is now being written. Here are some quotes from T2: Sarah: "The future, always so clear to me, has become like a black highway at night. We were in uncharted territory now... making up history as we went along." "The unknown future rolls toward us. I face it, for the first time, with a sense of hope." T-800: "The man most directly responsible is Miles Bennet Dyson, Director of Special Projects at Cyberdyne Systems Corporation. In a few months he creates a revolutionary type of microprocessor." (Dyson is dead 24 hours later.) Yeah, you can try to wriggle and squirm and claim that we don't know for sure that the future is changed in T2, if the T-800 deliberately lies to Sarah or somesuch. But you're clutching at straws. Cameron wrote a story about changing the future using time travel, and then he removed a single final scene. But it remains a story about changing the future.

  • May 13, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Also

    by Keith

    TARISSA But I thought... aren't we changing things? I mean... right now? Changing the way it goes? DYSON That's right! There's no way I'm going to finish the new processor now. Forget it. I'm out of it. I'm quitting Cyberdyne tomorrow... I'll sell real estate, I don't care... Face it, T2 *is* a story about changing the future.

  • May 13, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Also (2)

    by Keith

    Cameron WANTED his ending. His story WAS about Sarah changing the future and defeating Skynet forever. But Mario Kassar balked at the idea of killing off future sequels, and insisted Cameron removed his ending. Cameron obliged, but the problem was that Kassar was too stupid to see that removing a single scene does not change the story. T2 has the changing of the future written into its DNA. It is everywhere throughout the movie. If you want to have Cameron's vision, you have to understand that he wrote a story where the future was changed. If you want to have your naive "it's the same timeline!" interpretation, you have to trust Mario Kassar over James Cameron, and go with his botched surgery of the story, which doesn't even make sense. In fact, in future discussions, you'd probably better refer to it as "Mario Kassar's T2". "If they want to do another terminator story, bring back Mario Kassar! The series was NOTHING without Kassar's vision!"

  • May 13, 2011, 4:46 p.m. CST

    And here is Cameron's vision

    by Keith

    He wrote it, he shot it, he cut it. This is his story. This *is* T2 as it was conceived by Cameron. Kassar insisted this scene be removed: http://tinyurl.com/42ehscp

  • May 13, 2011, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Any of the future that gets changed, such as Dyson dying

    by kabong

    gets rectified by an alternate future that is different but similar in one critical feature: John Connor defeats Skynet. <p> The only way Skynet can change the irrevocable future in which it is defeated is by stopping the birth of John Connor. <p> Everything else is details.

  • May 13, 2011, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Love the T3 Fight in the Bathroom.

    by cookylamoo

    Arnold and Loken smashing each other over the head with toilets and urinals. Brilliant.

  • May 13, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Kabong

    by Keith

    "The only way Skynet can change the irrevocable future in which it is defeated is by stopping the birth of John Connor." Not sure I understand this. If the future has been changed, it's been changed. There are no guarantees. Butterfly effects could mean that John Connor dies of cancer in his early 20s in a changed timeline. And there's no particular reason to believe that Skynet would ever exist in the new version of history unfolding at the end of T2. T3, of course, embraces a totally hokum idea of "destiny", i.e. things that are guaranteed to happen even though the path of history has been changed. This is pure bullshit; meaningless hand-waving tosh confabulated to drive a popcorn sequel forward.

  • May 13, 2011, 5:11 p.m. CST

    The line about "no fate except what we make" is wrong, IMO.

    by kabong

    There is fate: Skynet will come and Skynet will go. Actions or butterfly effects may change the details . . . but in the interpretation I'm pushing, the detail of Skynet being defeated never changes. <p> If there are alternate futures co-existing, then I'm beat. <p> Another feature is that Skynet always tries an up-close and personal hit by a Terminator on John or Sarah. Why not arrange a disaster that wipes out LA? Because that Skynet of the future can't change its role in the future that is largely set except for non-essential details. It always does what it always does, and it always loses.

  • May 13, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST

    This news sucks.

    by catlettuce4

    I feel sorry for her as well, having paid money in a bidding war for this dead "franchise"... it was a great first movie, and good sequel (screw you if you don't like the more light tone or whatever, it was still a decent sequel.) I have not seen the last two because they looked and sounded like abominations. I will not see another Terminator film ever again. I think a lot of people are beginning to feel that way.

  • May 13, 2011, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Agree that character's opinions are not authoritative

    by Keith

    As discussed previously, however, I think you need to be pretty obtuse not to treat the T-800's words as authoritative. As is the case with Reese in the first movie, you have to treat the T-800 as a reliable witness/historian otherwise the plot really does not work. This is different from Reese theorizing about the future, of course. And, indeed, JC's pep talk to Sarah is just that: a pep talk. It is doubtful that he knows for sure how time travel works, although he probably suspects he's in a loop universe. I'm just trying to establish (with Tarissa etc) the fact that T2 is constantly throwing the "no fate" theme at the audience. (By contrast, the line about "no fate but what we make for ourselves" does NOT appear in The Terminator.)

  • May 13, 2011, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Sorry, characters'

    by Keith

  • May 13, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    And, to reiterate

    by Keith

    "we might as well take Reese or Connor's claims in the original as evidence ("One possible future" and "There is no fate") " Nobody says "there is no fate" in the original. You didn't say it, you didn't do it. That's a retcon by Cameron, to reinforce the themes he wants to use in T2, i.e. changing the future. Connor's message DOES say "the future is not set", I will grant you. But as I say, he's just speculating (or plain wrong). The movie overall is unequivocally about a deterministic universe with a causal loop.

  • May 13, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Turd, I agree

    by Keith

    Harry, ask him. Get him to admit that the two stories aren't compatible. Ideally he will break down and weep.

  • May 13, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Reese, Connor etc.

    by Keith

    Few things here. 1. "I could be remembering that wrongly, though." You are. He never says it. 2. The words should be treated as John Connor's, not Reese's, for what it's worth. 3. Reese should not IMO be treated as an unreliable witness on matters of history. On matters of time travel he's just speculating, and admits as much. ("I don't know tech stuff.") 4. You're right that the line is in the script, and was even in a deleted scene. But it's actually spoken by Sarah, not Reese or John. She's musing about blowing up the Cyberdyne factory. But by the end of the movie we can see that there was never a possibility that she could have changed history: we've been watching the one single version of history that had ALWAYS existed.

  • May 13, 2011, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Here's that scene

    by Keith

    http://tinyurl.com/dzeyqu I think it was removed primarily because it was a bit rubbish.

  • May 13, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST

    Is that in a deleted scene?

    by Keith

  • May 13, 2011, 6 p.m. CST

    hopefully she's better than Lauren Shuller-Donner

    by chien_sale

  • May 13, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST

    KEVINWILLIS!!

    by CHRISTIAN_BALE_TRASHED_MY_LIGHTS

    You are awesome! Thanks for fixing the mod, buddy!

  • May 13, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    The best thing about Salvation

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    was the Arnold scene. Just sayin. Unfortunately they definitely need to recast him imo. I still enjoy the series, I liked 4 more than 3 even.

  • May 13, 2011, 7:01 p.m. CST

    No, he said it in the film.

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    And I always felt the Cameron ripped off Fred Saberhagens 'Beserker' series, which was about self aware machines that were involved in a galactic war with humanity. I always thought that JC's "fever dream" story about where he came up with the Terminator was a load of bs. If they're so insistant upon a T5, I'd like to see when Skynet becomes self-aware, and launches its war on humanity: call it a prequel (if you must).

  • May 13, 2011, 8:09 p.m. CST

    What we need...

    by PhineasFlynn

    Terminators vs Aliens vs Predator. Give us a bad-ass, character driven story that incorporates elements from all three story universes (or is it two now that the AvP abortion has risen up and declared itself alive?) in an arc that plays to the strengths of the films. More suspense, horror, paranoia and claustrophobia and less poorly lit action sequences. They did it in the comics once, didn't they?

  • May 13, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Her?

    by JackSlater4

  • May 13, 2011, 8:27 p.m. CST

    joaquin, who says what in the film?

    by Keith

    Nobody uses the phrase "no fate but what we make for ourselves" in The Terminator, that's for sure.

  • May 13, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Terminators vs Aliens

    by Keith

    I once had a dream in which the earth was invaded by Giger's aliens, and humanity built an army of terminators to fight them. It seemed very entertaining in the dream, but it was probably absolute guff. I remember that at one point the queen alien could take human form. (Wait, scratch that; don't want to give Paul W.S. Anderson any ideas.)

  • May 13, 2011, 8:50 p.m. CST

    oh god... so torn right now

    by alexander

    between wanting to hail this as great news, and all the thoroughly cautious cynicism i feel for the movie in its current state... nothing against Justin Linn, i think he's a solid director, I love his community episodes... but restoring Terminator to its former badass glory?... eh, what do i know (about helming the restoration of Terminator to its former badass glory) i've never made more than a student film & experimentals... don't screw it up.

  • May 13, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Just make Black Hawk Down with Cyborgs...

    by Boober

    Sheesh. Salvation's fights sucked so bad. Why do they overthink this sh!t and convince themselves it smells of Jasmine?

  • May 14, 2011, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Well look at it this way...

    by bubcus

    If she did get James Cameron back on board (which is extremely unlikely), we'd have a chance at seeing a "Terminator 3" labeled as "Terminator 5" and BE what we wanted "Terminator 3" to be. Namely the future war we saw clips of in Terminator 1 and 2. I seem to recall going through scenes for it on the Terminator 2 laser disc many years ago and it made me almost as excited for a T3 as I was for the Star Wars prequels (before I horrifically saw what those turned out to be). If "Terminator 5" picked up where the future scene in T2 ended off and lead us to where they send Kyle Reese back in time, that would be cool. I love the strong blues and silvers as the color tones and would bask in the visual power that is Cameron's storytelling (of at least the late 80s - early 90s era). Well, this news at any rate has my hopes up. Thanks.

  • May 14, 2011, 12:21 a.m. CST

    ... and by scenes... (correction)

    by bubcus

    ... I meant storyboards and production art and script notes.

  • May 14, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST

    Bunch of fucking idiots geeks

    by theplant

    Terminator was never made at Fox, Cameron made the movies for Orion (now MGM), and Carolco (now Studio Canal). The level of ignorance and moronism here is ridiculous.

  • May 14, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Geeks here = MORONS

    by theplant

    You guys are so lazy you don't even bother googling Megan Ellison before opening you're stinkin claps. You all have bad breath.

  • May 14, 2011, 2:28 a.m. CST

    cocoon sequence in Alien

    by lv_426

    In Wednsday's Alien Queen behind-the-scenes-pic-o' the day TB, I came up with a concept that I thought was pretty cool... ... what if the cocooning of the alien's victims was not turning them into eggs, as it is not completely clear from a purely visual standpoint that the alien is turning the two captives into eggs in that deleted scene, but instead the cocooning process could be creating a new space jockey? Think about it. Taking the captain (Dallas) and one of the ship's mechanics (Brett), and using them to morph them into a new jockey creature kind of makes sense. It is not a huge leap to guess that the captive's knowledge of the ship and interstellar travel would be preserved and used to possibly convert or take over the Nostromo and turn it into a biomechanical type of ship that the new jockey could then take back to the homeworld or where ever it needed to go. This then means we can still have the queen concept coexisting with the idea of the aliens also converting one or a couple of their captured victims into a space jockey and not for birthing another alien warrior/drone.

  • Maybe Oracle bought some of the advanced AI research and robotics tech from Cyberdyne after they went under? I suppose that means Skynet is telling them to make another Terminator film, so as to test the audience's response again. It is all just one big psychological experiment to gauge how we view being overlorded by an AI with a superiority complex and exterminated by scary robots.

  • May 14, 2011, 6:21 a.m. CST

    re : James Cameron never had an original idea in his life

    by alexander

    The Abyss?

  • Are you Honestly Comparing Megan Ellisons proven sensibilities so far to McGs!? F@#k me

  • Young john had to instruct him not to kill. Had to teach him about ironic word play. Other things seem odd. Future John would have known about Miles Dyson- would have known that the raid would be the first priority for the T-800 to do after saving John. If that stupid Polaroid wasn't in the original I would fight for the film to take the approach that there is no way to alter the past. That once something is sent back in time it creates an alternate verse. Skynet is only concerned with winning so it wouldn't be bothered over the prospect that it would have to win in an alternate verse. So sending a terminator back in time to end johns life makes sense to Skynet. But here's the twist. John was born and existed before Reese ever went back- therefore he wasn't originally Reese's son. Sarah became pregnant around the same time that Reese was sent back. Reese and The T101 changed the event that lead to her original pregnancy. Fuck for all we know Buddy knocked her up after she got drunk with her roommate. All of these original past events were changed as soon as Reese and T101 arrived into 1984. Reese was sent back and now the future alternate John is Reese's son, and not only that this event changed the Judgement days date from July 29th 2004 to August 29th 1997. Thanks to the T-101 arm and chip. Which was later fixed near the end of T2. Instead of happening in 1997 it reverted back to 2004- we didn't find this out until T3. Now dig this... John from the future before he sent Reese into the past is still around in his original future. Sending Reese back changed shit up but not for him and his future. You can not change the past and have it affect your original current time and future. Sending things into your past creates an alternate verse, a verse with out you current future you in it eventual future. That polaroid was in Reese's dream, so maybe it can be ignored as an original memory of Reese's, he was just sensing the alternate future somehow- An effect of traveling into the past.. So now there is an alternate future and a new John in it. Our new Future Alternate Reese Son version of John sends another terminator into the past from the future to prevent another hit placed on his past self (this is terminator 2). Future Alternate Reese made John didn't have time to teach this reprogrammed T-800. Major issue He didn't instruct the terminator to kill Miles Davis or Destroy the Cyberdyne in inclusion to saving John. Past john had to teach the terminator not to kill, how to play with words, Sarah had to ask him about Judgement day and Skynet to find out about Miles Davis. Interesting stuff. Lets just skip ahead now to the end of the Third film. This new alternate John of the future after part 3's events must come to the conclusion that sending Reese back to 1984 is pointless. That event already happened!! Redoing it wouldn't insure it does or does not happen. Cause it already did happen. It is cemented. John doesn't have to send Reese back. Once John comes to this conclusion. What he should do is send Reese a few hours forward after the end events in Terminator 1 with all the knowledge he has of what happened. Reese can destroy the chip and the arm. He can monitor Miles Dyson. Prevent Cyberdyne. Be a father to his son and a husband to his Sarah. Of course It will only result in a new alternative future! Johns doesn't care. His reasons for doing this are simple. While it will only create an alternative universe. It will be one where he has a father figure- His mother has a husband- The war is prevented, and his mother is warned about her cancer before it kills her (Somehow this reminds me of Stan Winston) Reese goes back gets the arm and chip out of the machine. He finds Sarah and together they sort out a way to stop the judgement day from happening on it's original date but in true movie "Dun dun dun dah" fashion. Another terminator is sent back in time shortly before 2004. This terminator is sent as a false peace maker from the future as a gift the united states government to provide them with a some future technology and the Skynet Program. (all of this happens in secrete of course) Remember Skynet is in it to win it Skynet doesn't care if it can only win in an alternate universe. It never did that's why it tried to kill Sarah and John the first time. Let me back up. So Skynet sends a terminator from the future to help install the technology to insure Judgement day still happens. Albeit at a further future date. After it's installed. A never altiverse happens. Johns still and threat in this new future. So Skynet sends terminators back in time to kill him again. And there you go a way to sift through the mess the franchise has become to restart it again. Just keep it smart this time.

  • May 14, 2011, 7:04 a.m. CST

    POWERS THAT BE- PLEASE /\READ THE HELL OUT OF THIS POST/\

    by TheJudger

  • May 14, 2011, 7:40 a.m. CST

    I see the Cameron apologists are out in full effect...

    by theguilty1

    James Cameron is the equivalent of a cover band. Yeah, it's fun to go see one every once in a while, but I'm not going to give them credit for originality because they changed the guitar solo. By the way, it's not just one Ellison story that Cameron stole from for Terminator, it's three. Demon With A Glass Hand + Soldier + I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream = Terminator. Also, the studio was going to fight Ellison's lawsuit until Cameron himself admitted that he ripped of the Outer Limits. Hence, they settled immediately. You don't settle out of court and place a credit on a movie unless you know you're in the wrong. A studio isn't going to just give into Ellison's wishes for no reason.

  • May 14, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    @theguilty

    by theplant

    You must be dumb. Hellison himself denied the suit was about Demon. As for the Starlog piece, the writer admitted Cameron or Hurd didn t change a single line. Hellison just got some pocket money based on a nuisance suit menace. Like he does every year. That s how he makes a living. No go kill yourself.

  • May 14, 2011, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Misterdarcy! Terminators vs. Aliens happened already...

    by zinc_chameleon

    in a Dark Horse comic back in the middle 1990s. Should have bought it when I saw it...

  • May 14, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Terminator is played out.

    by empty_headed_animal

    Rust in Peace.

  • May 14, 2011, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Cameron/original thoughts/The Abyss

    by Keith

    Watch "The Abyss" and "2010" back to back.

  • May 14, 2011, 11:22 a.m. CST

    TheJudger

    by Keith

    "But here's the twist. John was born and existed before Reese ever went back- therefore he wasn't originally Reese's son." Are you saying that this is your interpretation of the movie, or that you would like to interpret the story this way, but can't because the polaroid seals the deal on Connor having ALWAYS been Reese's son?

  • May 14, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    ok misterdarcy i will

    by alexander

    funnily enough i just got hold of 2010

  • May 14, 2011, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Causal loop solution (Repost)

    by Eli_Cash

    I posit the existence of a "prime" unadulterated timeline in which John Connor does not exist and judgment day occurs in 2005. The resistance is losing. A resistance scientist discovers time travel and suggests it as their endgame. Kyle Reese is sent back to destroy the Cyberdyne facilities shortly after the company was created in 1984. An infiltrator t-800 learns of this and pursues him through time. Kyle meets Sarah, tells her his retarded sounding story. Since she's 19 and he's cuuuute she gives it up. Kyle then proceeds on his mission and is intercepted at cyberdyne where he destroys the terminator but not before being mortally wounded himself. Sarah finds out she's pregnant, and after the mindfuck Kyle did on her, she moves to Mexico to avoid the initial nuclear fallout. Thus the picture. She raises John with stories about his dad and the future war. But this time JD happens in 1997 due to the bump from the T-800 parts found in Cyberdyne's lab. John Connor is still ready though and manages to pull together the resistance early, and with enough knowledge to give them an edge. Now the tables are turned, and skynet's on the losing end. But skynet has data that cyberdyne recovered from the T-800 about the mechanism of time travel. Thus begins the events of the first film. After the first film, Sarah knows that she is the target, so she stays off the grid, untill 92 when she loses it and decides to blow up cyberdyne, getting arrested and putting John in a foster home where he meets Kate Brewster and her dad, giving him military connections which he will use to build an american resistance. Again the resistance wins, and skynet opts for a time travel solution. Only this time the earlyest record of John is from his time in foster care, so it sends a terminator back to 94. Cue the events of the second film. After the second film, the destruction of the early skynet data resets judgment day to its original date. It thus pushes forward everything else. Connor stays off the grid leaving skynet with no records of him before the war. This time it has to go after his partners. This gives us T3. In my theory, the time travelers in each movie came from a different alternate future. and since there was an original future without John Connor, and where Skynet was merely the product of human engineering, the paradoxical causal loop is avoided, and the multiple timelines are accomodated. This would allow for an interesting future war story, since it is not a foregone conclusion that the resistance wins. Thank you for your consideration.

  • May 14, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Terminator 1 wasn't a closed loop

    by flax

    Kyle Reese told Sarah Connor that he was from one possible future, meaning that there are other possible futures, meaning that there's a branching timeline. Also, why the fuck would Skynet send a T-800 back to kill Sarah if it was impossible to change the past? Terminator 2 didn't violate the loop established by the first film, because the first film didn't establish any kind of loop at all.

  • May 14, 2011, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Flax

    by Keith

    1. Kyle Reese is not a time travel specialist. He adds, "I don't know tech stuff". He's right. He doesn't. 2. Skynet is just throwing a Hail Mary pass. It may have been hoping to change its own past, or create a new branch in which a copy of itself wins...it just pulls the lever and hopes for the best. Unfortunately, it turns out that it's in a single timeline world. 3. It amazes me how many people miss the entire point of the first movie. What do you think the photograph was for? You think it was put in there randomly? I guess there are some people who watch the final scene of Planet of the Apes and think, "Wow...so those apes built a Statue of Liberty on their planet as well!" Amazing. By the way, here's the final section from the novelization of the film, by Randall Frakes and Bill Wisher. Wisher co-wrote the script: "Sarah set the picture aside, tossing it casually on the passenger seat among the hand-labeled tapes of her journal. As she reached for the ignition key, the photo was already almost forgotten. Pugsley sniffed it once, leaving a moist noseprint, the first of many abuses that would age the plastic rectangle before it would rest lightly in the palm of a soldier's hand as he crouched in the thundering darkness, the hellfire of the machine reich raging above him. Sarah would have given it to John, and he would then give it to Reese. This was the beginning of the circle. But, of course, circles have no beginning or end. Out on the road, she thought about Reese. And time. And history. And most importantly, destiny." But, hey, I'm sure you're probably right. There's no loop. (Ahem.) One of the main problems with the Terminator franchise is that lots of people completely missed the fact that the first movie is all about how this universe is a causal loop where history can't be changed because the future already exists (and always has done). As the world is full of these muddled people, studios have to a large extent indulged them, creating sequels not to the first movie but to a misinterpretation of the first movie. The Terminator's universe operates according to the tenseless model of time. Instead, certain dull-witted members of the audience actually thought that they were seeing the "second version of history" playing out, which also has to include the hilarious conclusion that Kyle Reese has killed the original John Connor by supplanting his father as the impregnator of Sarah. Shit, maybe Sarah's going to give birth to a girl in a few months' time! If she has a boy, she'll name it John, but it won't actually be the John Connor who defeated Skynet. I will lay it out straight here: if this is your position, YOU HAVE MISINTERPRETED THE ENTIRE MOVIE. Its meaning flew straight over your head.

  • May 14, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    eli_cash

    by Keith

    How does your explanation accommodate the polaroid? Note that every single detail in the photo is identical. We know that the chances of randomly hitting the same photo twice in two iterations of a complex system starting from different states is near-zero. Are you saying that the photo looks identical through chance alone, and that there is no authorial significance to its presence in the movie? As per my example above, you might just as well conclude at the end of Planet of the Apes that the apes randomly built a statue that happened to look exactly the same as the one "back on Earth". Possible, but a completely bizarre way to interpret the movie.

  • May 14, 2011, 11:39 p.m. CST

    misterdarcy

    by Eli_Cash

    I admit its a stretch, but I think it isn't out of the realm of possibility. In both timelines she's flees to mexico after kyle was killed, knowing that mexico wouldn't suffer a direct attack. If this happened on the same date in both timelines, then it could be plausible. The kid took her picture just because she was at the right place in the right time. I think this theory can also explain John's "future is not set" speech. John gave Reese that message because he knew that this was a different scenario. He knew that his father was originally sent back for a different reason, and thus his success was not a foregone conclusion.

  • May 14, 2011, 11:40 p.m. CST

    misterdarcy WRONG AGAIN

    by KilliK

    "It is kind of interesting how people's interpretation of T2 has shifted over the years. When it came out, only a small handful of people did NOT interpret it as a movie in which the future had been changed. It was written that way, and it was presented that way. Cameron took out the "removes all doubt" coda scene, but he wrote the script to lead up to it. But after T3 came out, people started to gravitate towards an interpretation whereby the future had NOT been changed. Interesting that people allow sequels to reshape their interpretation of previously-existing movies to a highly significant degree. " that's bollocks. First of all,even from the first time that i watched the movie, i always considered that although T2's theme was that of hope and that we can change our fate,it's ending never confirmed that the heroes actually succeeded in their effort to change the future and give hope to the human race.it left it open for debate. Secondly i dont consider the T3,T4 atrocities as canonical sequels of Cameron's masterpieces for obvious reasons.So they had zero influence to my judgement of the first two movies. """"""""""""""""""""""" Even the slightly ambiguous ending of T2 is only ambiguous in a certain kind of way. It's ambiguous that Skynet will never be created (maybe it can be created with the T-800's severed arm!), but it is not really ambiguous about the fact that a new branch of history is now being written. Here are some quotes from T2: " Sarah: "The future, always so clear to me, has become like a black highway at night. We were in uncharted territory now... making up history as we went along." "The unknown future rolls toward us. I face it, for the first time, with a sense of hope." T-800: "The man most directly responsible is Miles Bennet Dyson, Director of Special Projects at Cyberdyne Systems Corporation. In a few months he creates a revolutionary type of microprocessor." (Dyson is dead 24 hours later.) Yeah, you can try to wriggle and squirm and claim that we don't know for sure that the future is changed in T2, if the T-800 deliberately lies to Sarah or somesuch. But you're clutching at straws. Cameron wrote a story about changing the future using time travel, and then he removed a single final scene. But it remains a story about changing the future. Reply to Talkback TARISSA But I thought... aren't we changing things? I mean... right now? Changing the way it goes? DYSON That's right! There's no way I'm going to finish the new processor now. Forget it. I'm out of it. I'm quitting Cyberdyne tomorrow... I'll sell real estate, I don't care... Face it, T2 *is* a story about changing the future. """"""""""""""""""" You know what is wrong with this kind of argument of yours? you use statements from characters living in the present of the movie and who are completely oblivious of how fate and time-mechanics really work. Even T800 who comes from the future carries only information which is bestowed upon him from others and which is also limited: he didnt know that the first Terminator was essentially responsible for Dyson's work. And if Future John Connor in T1 had his reasons for not telling to the Future Kyle Reese about their relationship and the events of the past,i dont see why the Future John Connor in T2 should be less secretive to a killer-cyborg about the events of the past. you get my point? Furthermore if i must accept this kind of logic,then what stops me from using Kyle's words from the original about "a possible future" " and "i dont know about this stuff" and declare that the first movie also promotes the notion that the future can be changed. But then you will mention the photograph which is proof of a time-loop and that the future is already written.Ah but you see that's the point: you bring in a physical evidence which proves beyond any doubt that the future is not changed in the movie. So when you insist that in T2 it is an ESTABLISHED FACT that the future has changed,on my turn i am entitled to demand a reply to this question: apart from vague statements,where are the physical evidences which prove the validity of this fact? where? if you can provide these physical proofs i will accept that the future in T2 has changed but until then please keep this kind of unsupported declarations to yourself.alright? "Cameron WANTED his ending. His story WAS about Sarah changing the future and defeating Skynet forever. But Mario Kassar balked at the idea of killing off future sequels, and insisted Cameron removed his ending. Cameron obliged, but the problem was that Kassar was too stupid to see that removing a single scene does not change the story. T2 has the changing of the future written into its DNA. It is everywhere throughout the movie. If you want to have Cameron's vision, you have to understand that he wrote a story where the future was changed. If you want to have your naive "it's the same timeline!" interpretation, you have to trust Mario Kassar over James Cameron, and go with his botched surgery of the story, which doesn't even make sense. " It's funny that you say that because i have read Cameron's interviews and he openly says that it was his decision to change the ending because he wanted his sequel to have a connection with the bleak ending and the message of the inescapable fate of the original and also because the alternative ending was crap. (which is) Unless you can provide solid proof that indeed Kassar changed Cameron's initial ending,i will stick to Cameron's word. "In fact, in future discussions, you'd probably better refer to it as "Mario Kassar's T2". "If they want to do another terminator story, bring back Mario Kassar! The series was NOTHING without Kassar's vision!"" Dream on pal. Before i close,let me address some things: Cameron is an artist,and as an artist he wanted to touch different themes in his sequel,in this case he wanted T2's message to be more optimistic and about controling our future.And this thematic difference is not only obvious,but it is pointed out by Cameron himself in his interviews. The thing is that although the story ,through its dialog and the acts,explores different themes from its predeccesor,it doesnt fall in the usual trap of the sequels to dismiss the established rules and facts of the original movie.And that happens because Cameron is smart enough not to give hard evidencs (like the photograph in the original) which prove beyond any doubt that indeed the heroes changed the future.Ofc he did shoot that scene,which would have been the equivalent of the photograph,but unfortunately for the ignorant haters, it was removed thus not becoming the canon for the movie. Personally I really like how T2 manages to recycle the same plot and atmosphere of the original,but in the same time to be such a fresh and different movie which expands the initial story and addresses new themes.And then you get the ingenious ending which sends you back to where you started,leaving everything open for debate and personal interpretation.

  • May 15, 2011, 12:54 a.m. CST

    Killik

    by Keith

    I'm afraid there is no comparison at all between the T-800 dishing out historical facts and Reese speculating about time travel. Both Reese and the T-800 must be treated as reliable witnesses when it comes to discussing history. Do you doubt Reese's testimony about the nuclear war, the death camps, the way John Connor lead the humans, the final defeat of Skynet? No. It's the lynchpin of the narrative. Similarly, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the T-800's testimony about Dyson finishing the chip several months ahead of the point where he dies in the altered timeline. You appeal to the T-800 as an unreliable historian here simply because you're desperate for a lifeline for your hypothesis, but it does not fit the pattern of the narrative at all. And why would it? Cameron wrote the script as a story about the future being changed. When the final scene was excised, what other changes did he make throughout the script? Answer: none. The best case you can make is that Cameron decided at the last moment to make the story more ambiguous on this front, but did a fucking awful job of it but failing to clean up all the other elements of the story which remained a multiple timeline story. Can you PROVE beyond doubt that Charlton Heston is not on a different planet in Planet of the Apes that just happens to have a statue identical to the Statue of Liberty? No. Is it rational to go with that hypothesis? No. It's idiotic. Is it rational to go with the idea that the T-800 is lying to Sarah about what happens to Dyson? No. It's idiotic. Dyson's death confirms that this is a new timeline. The end.

  • May 15, 2011, 1:01 a.m. CST

    eli

    by Keith

    The chances of the photo being exactly the same - every strand of hair in the right place, light exactly the same, dog exactly the same, camera angle a perfect match - having come from significantly different starting points, are BILLIONS to one. It just isn't plausible.

  • May 15, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Cameron Didn't Steal Anything

    by Jeff

    Anyone who believes Cameron stole the story from Harlan Ellison should read the book "The Futurist," a Time magazine writer's telling of James Cameron's life. It's a fascinating book detailing his early career all the way through filming "Avatar." What actually happened was the studio paid Ellison off without offering Cameron the opportunity to defend his own work. Cameron was bullshit, naturally, since the Terminator had almost nothing in common with the two works Ellison claimed Cameron plagiarized. Read the short stories yourself and tell me Harlan Ellison isn't a slimy little worm. Cameron wrote the Terminator while suffering a life-threatening fever in Italy. He had never read Ellison's two stories, which is evident if you compare Ellison's claims to lines and plots and characters in the Terminator film. It's similar to claiming "E.T." stole from "Alien" because both movies have spaceships in them. Spurious at best. If Cameron's studio had allowed the case to go to court, Ellison would've lost quite badly and been revealed yet again as the worm his is. Read "The Futurist" or one of the several other accounts out there. Cameron wrote his own story, end of story.

  • May 15, 2011, 2:20 a.m. CST

    misterdarcy

    by Eli_Cash

    I'd appeal to the fact that its a movie, and certain things that are shown are not literal, just to convey a point. I know it sounds dumb, but movie visuals are quite often representative of certain points, or metaphorical. The photo in Reese's timeline is only shown in a flashback, highlighting it's significance to him. It is a figurative image by definition. To say that the photo is hard evidence is a natural way to take it, and the way I used to understand it, but it is not beyond reasonable doubt. It's taking one logical point about the movie and making it a cornerstone at the expense of the others. I think one has every right to hold that John's message is literally true also. He would know whether it was an exact temporal loop. So why does he say that the future is not set?

  • May 15, 2011, 3:56 a.m. CST

    Misterdarcy and Eli Cash

    by TheJudger

    Reese was a asleep when he had the flashback. He also mentions the photo. When he traveled back down the string of time and altered it. Effectively altering the shape of that string from the past forward. It may be possible that he was also suffering some sort of paradox memory effects while he was doing this- he was the only human thus far in these films to travel back in time, no one knew what effects it would have on the person doing it. Everyday you wake up you have a memory of the previous events before this new day. It might be possible that these previous memory's are changed as your day to day actions force you into new paradox futures. Of course you would not be aware that these memories are changed. Regardless of whatever they used to be. I'm altering time right now. If you are reading this. I just affected your future. Maybe the photo existed because Terminator 1 was Reese's second journey back. In other words he had already gone back once before and changed things, and Terminator 1: The movie was John from Terminator 2 fulfilling his promise to send Reese back. John can not self create. Plain and simple. He existed at some point without Reese as his biological creator. I will never back down on this assumption, because it's more scientifically accurate and sound. I think it would be much more rewarding to go back the events that unfolded mere hours after Terminator 1 ended. This film could invalidate the other films without actually invalidating them. Way more intelligent than say Halloween H20. Unfortunately we are talking some serious digital domain Benjamin Button/Tron Legacy stuff here. All of the original cast needs to be de-aged.

  • May 15, 2011, 4:11 a.m. CST

    Reese might have always been Johns father if...

    by TheJudger

    Terminator 1 was his second time going back to the same date. That's not improbable Why did he go back before this? Who knows, maybe to warn us of the future. Sarah helps him, he tells her about the future war- there is no John in this future. Someone else sent him back. Reese and Sarah knock boots, he is killed, she tells her son john all about his dad. He grows up to be the leader of the resistance and he knows he has to send Reese back in time to make it happen. Although he actually doesn't have to do this, but he doesn't know the time travel laws. Any change to the past is on the same string as the future it creates. Once you alter the past you create an alternate future ahead of it. So you don't have to resend Reese back to the past again in the same verse where it already happened once that future event returns. Anyways that is one way to solve the Reese was always Johns biological father issue

  • May 15, 2011, 4:26 a.m. CST

    Imagine your there in this terrible future

    by TheJudger

    your looking at your dad who's younger than you he has never known life before war, all of your friends, your mom is long since dead, she used the rest of her life after conceiving you to make you a into the the great leader she was told you would become. If you somehow found out that sending Reese back didn't matter, and there was a chance that you could send him back to the events after the original attack, so he and your mom could reunite and Skynet and judgement day could be completely prevented. For me I wouldn't even think twice about it. I would tell Reese the truth and send him back one day after Terminator 1. This John of the future will not get to see the possible changes this act creates. He is trapped on that Now Time String. Everyone else he cares about will because this action will bend that string in the past and create a new future from that point forward. It's a risk, a damn good one.

  • May 15, 2011, 5 a.m. CST

    judger

    by Eli_Cash

    Your second comment was what I was saying in my first comment. Reese could have been sent back in the first timeline to stop judgment day by destroying cyberdyne in 1984, failing at that mission and instead begetting John Connor. This could have been Connor's original past. John knows this, so when skynet sends back a terminator to target his mother, he knows this is different. Thus "the future is not set." It isn't guaranteed even though it seems to be. Now your idea of altered memories is interesting, and I'm not sure if I completely understand it. But I like the possibilities. Reese could have been sent back for any reason at all. It is completely unknowable. But doing so creates a sum-over-histories interference effect, so that the Reese that arrives in 1984 could be a very different person from the one that left 2029. In transit, as a part of the process he could end up as an amalgamation of the possible outcomes. This is potentially very cool. In the T2 novel, when John sends back the T-800 it talks about him having some kind of dejavu like he was remembering something from an alternate history. Hm.

  • May 15, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    The Double Reese Erasing issue

    by TheJudger

    I don't think this BTTF Timecop rule is true. Hypothetically speaking. Lets assume that Reese in Terminator 1 is the second attempt or Version 2.0 Reese Version 1.0 came from the original future without any past timeline alterations. We don't know V1 real mission, somehow he paired up with Sarah, told her about the future, they made love, and John was conceived. John knows about Judgement Day and Skynet. It leads him becoming the Leader of the Resistance. John also believes he has to send his dad back in time from the future to make sure he is conceived. Reese version 2.0 comes from the altered future that Reese version 1.0 created. These 2 separate versions of Reese exist in different versions of a future universe. I don't think they would cancel each other out ala BTTF/timecop if they arrived in the same place in the past. Mainly because they are not exactly the same, They each experienced different lives, they're cellular makeup is altered from these experiences and environments. They are not perfectly the same to each other in cell count and composition. There are enough differences between their cellular makeup to allow them to occupy the same place in time and space. Eli I had the same idea you did, but I was hesitant to post it because the biggest issue is figuring out a way to solve a 1.0 appearance and then a 2.0 switch. Our cells are always changing. Reese 1 and 2's DNA might be a perfect matches, but other things are not exact, like their cellular matrix- What if Reese1 has scars that Reese2 doesn't have what iof one has a longer hair or fingernails- That's a cellular count change that makes them instantly different from one another. Jeff Goldblum's water on hair theory in Jurassic park. That nothing is exactly the same twice theory. 1.0 creates 2.0's future. 2.0 goes back to the same time as 1.0 1.0's mission didn't involve Sarah. It just happened. With 2.0 arriving in the same time-frame as 1.0.. 2.0 is changing things, which leads to 1.0 not meeting Sarah. 2.0 dies at the end of Terminator 1. The body is identified at the end by the authorities. No one is looking for Reese anymore- they have a corpse. All of this stuff was on the news. Maybe 1.0 sees it on a TV and thinks of it as a sign that he failed his mission. If not why did they send another version of him back in time. So he doesn't do anything. 1.0 knows about Sarah from the news reports, but he doesn't know that 2.0 knocked her up or that she's on the run out in Mexico.

  • May 15, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Eli - the photo

    by Keith

    The only purpose of the photo in the movie is to rubber-stamp the loop for the viewer. It is a watermark - a certificate of authenticity. It's the only reason it's there. It plays the exact same role as the SOL in Planet of the Apes: it reveals the nature of the narrative universe unambiguously in the final scene.

  • May 15, 2011, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Thejudger

    by Keith

    While you can try to generate a just-so story wherein a spiraling strange attractor eventually coheres into a rigid loop (which IS possible in chaotic systems), it's a slightly odd thing to want to do. It goes very much against the principles of Occam's Razor. It reminds me of the mediaeval philosophers coming up with the elaborate "epicycles" theory to explain the odd positions of the planets and the sun using the geocentric model, when the heliocentric model was much simpler and cleaner. Why pursue this more complicated model at all? Because this group had assumed their conclusion in advance - the sun goes around the earth - and were trying their damnedest to find a theory, no matter how complex, to make it work. So why are people so desperate to have The Terminator be the second (or third, or fourth) version of history? Mainly because they find it hard to deal psychologically with the tenseless model of time and the non-linear causality of a looping model. In short, they demand that a "first version of 1984" must exist before the "first version of 2029" exists, and both of these must exist before the "second version of 1984" exists. But in a tenseless model, this isn't the case at all. The gestalt shift that needs to be made is that "causality" is just a type of truth relationship between adjacent states (a somewhat Humean position), and that it's perfectly possible for a set of states to exist in which a state in 1984 has a truth relationship with another state in 2029, because all states exist simultaneously, statically. The "arrow of time" in such a world is really just a subjective illusion. It's the same way that if you run your finger along a sine wave, it can feel as though there's motion that goes up and down "as time passes", and that the Y value at X+d is "caused" by the Y value immediately prior, at X, but if you take a step backwards, the whole sine wave exists simultaneously, and there is no requirement for any one value of Y to exist before any other.

  • May 15, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST

    "For me I wouldn't even think twice about it."

    by Keith

    The problem with your position is that you're mistakenly assuming that free will exists in a deterministic single-timeline universe. It doesn't. That "decision" is already made: it's part of the static structure of the universe. Every moment, every "choice" is part of a giant, static block of states that has always existed and will never change. I'm not saying that this is how the real world must be, but it IS the model used in The Terminator, or at least this is overwhelmingly the best match for it. Good explanation of the tenseless/block theory is here: http://tinyurl.com/3funvu2

  • May 15, 2011, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Eli, to press the point about the photo a little further

    by Keith

    You talk about the photo being perhaps "metaphorically the same". Going with this hypothesis, explain why the photo is there at all. Explain what purpose it serves in the movie. Explain why Cameron and Wisher chose to have it appear as "metaphorically" identical at the end when they could just as easily have made it noticeably different. And explain why Wisher put those final paragraphs in the novelization to hammer home the fact that Sarah is inside a time loop with no beginning or end. This is a pretty elaborate set of disinformation for a man who has (using your hypothesis) actually written a story in which no time loop exists and where time travel has altered history (or created a new branch).

  • May 15, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    misterdarcy

    by Eli_Cash

    First off, I don't actually consider the novelization to be canon. I pretty much ignore novelizations unless they have interesting interpretive angles. And that's all I'm going for here. I'll acknowledge that a causal loop is a valid interpretation, but it isn't the only one. I'm saying that the changing timeline interpretation is valid as well. And while it may be a stretch to have the picture be the same in both timelines, I don't think its as implausible as you do. It followed from certain general conditions which are the same in both times, but I don't think every detail had to be the same for it to occur in both timelines. As to the metaphorical representation of the photo, it looks the same because for the purpose of the story it is the same. The key question is, what is its purpose in the story? You think it is to demonstrate hard evidence of a perfect temporal loop. I think it is just to demonstrate evidences of certain loop-like features. Namely, that Kyle Reese was always John's father, and he set into motion the events that caused him to be sent back this time. The photo is an artifact of the effect of Reese's travel, and there is a certain momentum in this timeline toward the previous conclusion, but that momentum can be overridden if additional time travel occurs, such as in the sequels. But, to put it simply, I think the photo is just a coincidence. However its a coincidence that is made more probable by certain strong similarities between the two relevant timelines.

  • May 15, 2011, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Also, darcy.

    by Eli_Cash

    I hold a tenseless ontology of time. But the kind of causal loop represented int the Terminator and 12 Monkeys doesn't make sense under any temporal ontology. At least not in a way that I can see. A B-theory of time just derives the ontology of our temporal experience from tensless facts. Our ideas of causation attempt to derive an ontology of particular events from their temporal order. Thus causation is derived from temporal ontology. But what you're suggesting seems to either reverse that order, or at least but the ontology of causation on the same level as the ontology of time.

  • May 15, 2011, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Eli

    by Keith

    Good response. I'll see if I can convince you of my point of view. "First off, I don't actually consider the novelization to be canon." You are perfectly entitled to make this move. I'm just pointing out that the movie and the novel were both co-written by Bill Wisher, and he is VERY specific in the final paragraphs of the book. His authorial intent is pretty clear. Of course, you can say that the text (of the movie) has to stand on its own merits: it's possible, for example, that Wisher wrote a script he intended as a looping story but made a film that failed to work as a looping story, or was ambiguous. I don't think it's ambiguous. The only ambiguity comes from appealing to extreme coincidence... "I think the photo is just a coincidence." ...which you do. "However its a coincidence that is made more probable by certain strong similarities between the two relevant timelines." Yes, but this sounds more impressive than I think is actually the case. I would guess that the similarities reduce the odds from around 1 in 10^50 to perhaps 1 in 10^20. In other words, it's still an amazing long shot. "But what you're suggesting seems to either reverse that order, or at least but the ontology of causation on the same level as the ontology of time." In this particular B-theory, "causation" should be thought of more correctly as a truth relationship. Think of it this way: in a Fibonacci sequence, each entry is the sum of the preceding two, e.g. [1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21....] Now, does the pairing of consecutive entries 2,3 *cause* the next entry to be 5, or is there merely a *truth relationship* such that 2,3 and 5 (and 3,5 and 8 etc) have a predicate/rule that holds between them? Now imagine that I create an altered kind of Fibonacci sequence, with the following special rules: The first entry is 1. The second entry, unusually, is simply required to be equal to the fifth entry's final digit. All other entries obey normal Fib rules. How could such a sequence exist? You can't generate the second entry, because you don't know what the fifth entry is. You can't work out what the fifth entry is, because you need to know what the second entry is first. Disaster! It's an infinite regress! The causality is impossible! Right? If it's impossible, then why does this sequence work just fine? [1,9,10,19,29,48....] First entry is one: check. Second entry is equal to fifth entry's final digit: check. All other entries are the sum of the previous two entries: check. This sequence is viable. It obeys all the truth relationships constrained. It works. The Terminator is the same. You have to abandon your traditional notion of temporal ordering for causality, and think purely in terms of truth relationships. In almost every "time slice", there is a truth relationship with the preceding slice that we would think of as being "the laws of physics" doing what they normally do, with the relationship moving left-to-right (as it were). In one unusual case (or two, I suppose) there are relationships that hold between an earlier entry and a much later entry. This is not our conventional experience of causality. But it is not logically contradictory, either. One could rightly ask, "How did this strange setup come to be the case?" Good question, but it seems no more problematic than asking, "How did our specific real-world universe come to be the case?"

  • May 15, 2011, 8:15 p.m. CST

    solved the Reese 1.0 / 2.0 issue

    by TheJudger

    If 2.0 jumps to a period of time just before 1.0 arrived. 1.0 will not arrive in 2.0's newly created universe. 1.0 actions will still have happened in the alternate universe 1.0 created- which also created the future that 2.0 came from. 1.0 arrived at a previously altered verse before this new one was created. Once the new one is tampered with in a period of time after or before the moments of 1.0's actions. These actions will create another alternate universe. That cuases 1.0 to disappear from 2.0's alternate universe. 2.0 must go back to a period of time just before 1.0's arrival. all of 1.0's efforts changed the time line after his arrival- not before. Going into the moments before 1.0 changed things. Will start a new alternate future ahead of it. 2.0's can go into the past after 1.0's arrival as well, but 1.0 wont disapear, well he will but he wont. What will happen is 2.0 changes to will also affect 1.0's actions. Basically 1.0 is not the same 1.0 anymore. His actions are not the same as they original were, he has been affected by 2.0's actions and viseversa 1.0 is also no longer traveling on the same unfolding future 1.0 originally created. 1.0 becomes an alternate version of himself, thanks to 2.0's actions. 2.0's arrival doesn't cancel out 1.0's actions if he arrives in the past events before 1.0 . 1.0's event still happened it in a previous version of the verse that leads to 2.0's future. 1.0 can only show up in 1.0's original past. 2.0's is also in the same boat. the past is all events of the that versions past. Even events before the alterations. 2.0's past was influenced by 1.0, but there is a period of time behind 1.0's actions that 2.0 can jump into. It doesn't stop 1.0 actions, 1.0's action still take place on 1.0's string. (very hard to explain and I'm not sure if my text is understandable) This is a good thing, because it means that Reese 3.0 can arrived just after the events of 2.0's actions without canceling out 2.0's actions, and from there re-alter the verse once more. to make way for a 4.0 future.

  • May 15, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    damnit....

    by TheJudger

    Replace the dashed out area from: "-----That causes--------" 1.0 to disappear from 2.0's alternate universe. 2.0 must go back to a period of time just before 1.0's arrival. all of 1.0's efforts changed the time line after his arrival- not before." to: 1.0 arrived at a previously altered verse before this new one was created. Once the new one is tampered with in a period of time after or before the moments of 1.0's actions. These actions will create another alternate universe. --"-----in order to make------"1.0 to disappear from 2.0's alternate universe. 2.0 must go back to a period of time just before 1.0's arrival. All of 1.0's efforts changed the time line after his arrival- not before.

  • May 15, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    damn way to many typos

    by TheJudger

    Please forgive.

  • May 16, 2011, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Judger

    by Keith

    In a branching timeline universe, if A leaps through a time machine into the past, creating a timeline, and B wants to chase after him, he's shit outta luck, because A is now in a new branch, not the original branch, and B is going to form his own branch dividing off from the original branch, not A's branch. I think (?) this may have been what you were trying to say above. This is problematic for trying to apply a BTL logic to The Terminator, because there is one act of time travel, not two. How could Reese end up in a version of 1984 that also featured a terminator? Actually, there IS a way, but it's not necessarily obvious, and is slightly convoluted. Can you work out how it could happen?

  • May 16, 2011, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Sorry, got that arse-backwards

    by Keith

    Should be: This is problematic for trying to apply a BTL logic to The Terminator, because there are two acts of time travel, not one. How could Reese end up in a version of 1984 that also featured a terminator?

  • May 16, 2011, 3:58 a.m. CST

    misterdarcy

    by Eli_Cash

    I'd like to say in making the following arguments that I don't think that they are necessarily the objective answer as to what Cameron and Wisher intended with their movie. In fact, I'm really not sure that they had much of a coherent paradigm of time travel in their universe. I think they were mostly just throwing in various possibilities to allow the viewer to come up with their own interpretation. and taking the first movie by itself it is IMO most natural to assume that we have a causal loop. But I've always had problems with the idea of a loop, and furthermore I don't think that a loop is necessitated by anything we saw, just strongly suggested. In the case of the picture, what I wrote before was probly a little too all over the place. I think what I was getting at is that movies are full of BS coincidences, that we know could never happen. So the picture isn't necessarily unexpalinable in movie logic, especially where so much is undefined. Now to my problems with the loop. I think your fibonnacci example is an excellent illustration of the way that the T1 timeline is generally thought to work. But it also illustrates a couple of problems that I have with it. 1. While you are correct that no logical contradiction is entailed, some questions are, because such a system seems inherently underdetermined. You give a modified fibonacci sequence that follows the rules, but aren't there many other sequences that could follow the same rules? (This is a genuine question BTW. I'm not a math guy.) And if so, what is the reason for the existence of this particular sequence? God's will? Random chance? 2. What is the ontology of the rule? You have a given set defined by one rule, but then add an exception. So why the exception? Again are we to think of it as chance or God or something else? So basically we need a reason for the loop (not necessarily a cause, but an ontology.) We need to explain the source of the possibility of the loop, as well as why this particular sequence among all others actually obtains. I think as soon as you try to answer those questions you end up positing some form of epicycles. And as far as evidence from the movie that a loop doesn't exist, I've already cited John's "future is not set" speech, but I think I should elaborate on it. The real problem for me is that John's motivation becomes incoherent if we're dealing with a loop. He would know that the future is in fact set. So that would make his statement a lie. But why would he lie? Just to preserve the timeline? I think when we look at it from the perspective of willed events we run into bigger problems than just simple causality. When the agent is not aware of the conditions of their actions its pretty simple to just reject free will. But in John's case he would be aware that he's saying it for no other reason than because he's saying it. It's like some kind of transcendentally unmotivated act of the will. So I tend to think that could be strong evidence (though not proof) that a causal loop does not exist. Since the only coherent motivation I can think of for his speech would be his knowledge that something has changed.

  • May 16, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Eli

    by Keith

    "You give a modified fibonacci sequence that follows the rules, but aren't there many other sequences that could follow the same rules? (This is a genuine question BTW. I'm not a math guy.)" Your instincts are correct. There is more than one solution that will fit the constraints. "And if so, what is the reason for the existence of this particular sequence? God's will? Random chance?" An excellent question. :) As I say, one could just as easily apply it to our own particular universe. Why this one? Is this the only one possible? Perhaps ALL possible universes exist, and this just happens to be the one we're experiencing, because "we" are specifically part of the contents of this one. "You have a given set defined by one rule, but then add an exception. So why the exception? Again are we to think of it as chance or God or something else?" Another good question, although I think you have mislead yourself a little with your choice of terminology. Both series are defined by sets of rules. It's simply that the first series is defined by a smaller and (arguably) more elegant set. "The real problem for me is that John's motivation becomes incoherent if we're dealing with a loop. He would know that the future is in fact set." I don't think John knows. I think John suspects. And if he is right (which I think he is), he is of course determined to think and do whatever it is that he does. Now this might be used as a cop-out, because any actions at all could be explained by determinism. ("Oh, I don't know, I guess he was just determined to do that...") I think the trick of a really good time loop story is to ensure that all of the actions taken by the participants are psychologically plausible at all times, just as all physical reactions stick to the laws of physics: just as we would baulk at an object suddenly behaving as though gravity were reversed for five seconds, we dislike people doing things that make no sense as rational agents given what we know of their beliefs, motivations etc. Of course, one can make the claim that in a predetermined static structure, each adjacent slice could be whatever it is set to be. This is true, but again we return to issues of elegance, and perhaps the linked concept of compressibility. (The more elegant your truth relationship, the more compressible the data of your universe is.)

  • "So Skynet sends the T-800 into the past to kill Sarah Connor. The T-800 arrives in 1984 with no Kyle because the T-800 has created a new timeline, BUT due to the events that will fold out in this T-800's future, Kyle arrives from this new future. But how does Kyle get sent back again from this "new" future that the T-800 has created, you ask? Wouldn't the T-800 have killed Sarah Connor, thus erasing John Connor and erasing the way for Kyle to be sent back? No. The T-800 fails its mission. " Bingo. Well done. Yep, if Kyle were a time travel expert, he would realize that he is already from the second (or maybe third, fourth) branch, having come from the future of a branch in which a lone terminator had arrived in 1984, and for some reason failed its mission.

  • May 16, 2011, 9:57 a.m. CST

    xen11 - addendum

    by Keith

    "if Kyle were a time travel expert..." (Of course, if Kyle were a time travel expert, he would have had little motivation to chase a time-traveling quarry in a branching timeline universe, given that he could not possibly intercept him.)

  • May 16, 2011, 10:04 a.m. CST

    Eli - something else that interests me

    by Keith

    Was just thinking: which of these two summaries is closer to your position? a) The Terminator is NOT best matched by a looping story. A branching or rewriting story matches it better, given the facts available to us as viewers. b) The Terminator is best matched by a looping story, but I don't like looping stories. Indeed, I reject as impossible the ontology of looping stories. Therefore, even though I need to appeal to wild coincidence (the photo) to do so, I must go with a branching or rewriting story instead. There is a meaningful distinction between the two. Consider for example the cases of La Jetee, or Twelve Monkeys, or All You Zombies. These are widely accepted as being looping stories. Do you accept them as having been created as such (and merely dislike them because looping stories simply don't work as far as you're concerned) or do you try to make them work as non-looping stories? If you do the latter, is your understanding that they were INTENDED as looping stories, but you think all looping stories are unworkable and therefore try to make them work in a manner that may not have been what the author intended, but represents an improvement and still works with the text as presented? If you accept that looping stories ARE kinds of stories that authors sometimes try to create, do you accept that The Terminator may have been written as such? If so, do you not think that it this is the best-matching hypothesis, even if you think such stories don't ever really work?

  • May 16, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    xen11 - addendum 2

    by Keith

    btw I don't think that this double-branching scenario could actually be applied to the events of The Terminator. You could write an independent story set in a BTL universe where A chases B using time travel and seems to catch him, but later realizes that he's actually met up with B', who was already in his own past, this having been the non-original timeline. BUT there are too many things that don't match the specifics of The Terminator. (The photo is the obvious problem.) Also, the "someone else was John's father" represents a horrible resolution for the movie. If you buy that, then you have to accept that The Terminator has in fact succeeded in its mission: John Connor, the man who defeated Skynet, no longer exists in this branch of history. Putting it another way for the "original birthers": imagine that at the climax of the movie, the terminator kills Sarah, but a text coda is put up on the screen explaining that although John was never born, somebody else called Alice Jones lead the humans to victory in this new branch of history. What would your reaction be to that? Would you find it bizarre and unsatisfying? Because there is very little difference between that and believing that Sarah is now driving off with a totally different child in her womb whom she hopes to raise to fight Skynet. Even if she names him (her?) John, this is NOT the John Connor whom Skynet sought to destroy. It's someone else entirely, just as Alice Jones is someone else entirely. The "different John" hypothesis also destroys the elegance of the loop story's ability to explain exactly WHY it was that John Connor was the man who was ready to fight Skynet, and why Reese makes reference to Sarah and John being "in hiding before the war". (How on earth did they know about it unless they had been warned?) The section in question: "Sarah Connor. Who taught her son to fight...organize, prepare. From when he was a kid. When you were in hiding, before the war." This works automatically in a looping narrative. You have to work REALLY hard to make it work in a non-looping narrative. And even then you still won't be able to explain the photo without appealing to amazing coincidence, and you'll be left with the original John Connor wiped out of history at the end of the movie, exactly as Skynet had hoped.

  • May 16, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    xen11

    by Keith

    "Though, if Terminator were just the one movie with no sequels/prequels, then yes, I would agree that it is just one continuous loop that never changes. " The problem is that once your universe is established with these rules, it can never be anything else. Indeed, even if you have a system that is allowed to iterate with changes but settles INTO a loop, it can never be anything else. So if you consider The Terminator to be the result of a spiraling complex system that has cohered into a repeating pattern (as can happen with e.g. Conway's Life), it will never break out of this loop, so there could be no further narratives in which time can be changed. (This is not necessarily obvious, but a little thought shows it to be the case.) As I see it, the only reasonable interpretation is that The Terminator is a looping story, and the series as a whole is inconsistent, changing the rules as it goes along, NOT that later stories show that The Terminator cannot be a loop story.

  • May 16, 2011, 12:57 p.m. CST

    by Eli_Cash

    "Was just thinking: which of these two summaries is closer to your position? a) The Terminator is NOT best matched by a looping story. A branching or rewriting story matches it better, given the facts available to us as viewers. b) The Terminator is best matched by a looping story, but I don't like looping stories. Indeed, I reject as impossible the ontology of looping stories. Therefore, even though I need to appeal to wild coincidence (the photo) to do so, I must go with a branching or rewriting story instead." More like B I think. Although it isn't just that I don't like the loop. I think there is some evidence, as I've said, that the loop is problematic in T1 itself. But by itself, the preponderance of evidence suggests that T1 is a loop. "There is a meaningful distinction between the two. Consider for example the cases of La Jetee, or Twelve Monkeys, or All You Zombies. These are widely accepted as being looping stories. Do you accept them as having been created as such (and merely dislike them because looping stories simply don't work as far as you're concerned) or do you try to make them work as non-looping stories? If you do the latter, is your understanding that they were INTENDED as looping stories, but you think all looping stories are unworkable and therefore try to make them work in a manner that may not have been what the author intended, but represents an improvement and still works with the text as presented?" From that list I've only seen twelve monkeys. I accept that 12M is a loop, but I'm not too concerned about it. Partly because of the themes and the tone of the film. I think that's another problem I have with the loop in T1. Some of the themes seem to cry out for something beyond fatalism. That's also what I'm not sure that Cameron had much of a coherent idea of time travel. He was just using time travel to play with themes of free will and determinism. "If you accept that looping stories ARE kinds of stories that authors sometimes try to create, do you accept that The Terminator may have been written as such? If so, do you not think that it this is the best-matching hypothesis, even if you think such stories don't ever really work?" I do think it is the best matching hypothesis, but I'm not sure the writers intended that it was the only way it could be taken. I think they tried to include the possibility of outs. I think they were more concerned with creating a puzzle than with spelling out the solution. I have some more to say on this, but I have to get ready for work. Something that Judger said has really gotten me thinking. I'll try to get back on later tonight. :)

  • May 16, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST

    eli - tone of the movie

    by Keith

    "I accept that 12M is a loop, but I'm not too concerned about it. Partly because of the themes and the tone of the film." See, I think there are many beautiful things about The Terminator that only work (or work optimally) inside a looping narrative. For example: a) The fact that Skynet tries to use time travel to destroy its enemy but ends up creating him - indeed, had ALWAYS created him. Delicious irony. b) "John Connor gave me a picture of you once. I never knew why. It was very old. Torn. Faded. You were young, like you are now. You seemed...just a little sad. I always wondered what you were thinking at that second." With a loop in play, it turns out that she was always thinking of her love for Kyle at that moment - something that would have stunned him had he ever known. Without a loop - and especially with the "different father" hypothesis - that isn't the case at all, and the poetry of the movie is diminished considerably. Take out the loop, and you rip the heart out of The Terminator's narrative beauty.

  • May 16, 2011, 2:02 p.m. CST

    xen - loops

    by Keith

    "A loop with little eventual changes that will hopefully break itself out of that loop" Sorry, to clarify, the way I wish to use the terminology is as follows: Inside a deterministic system, if you have state X which moves through one or more other states and returns to state X, this is a loop. Once this has happened once, you can guarantee that the system will repeat this sequence indefinitely with no variation. So once you observe that a loop is in play, the system will NEVER break out of that loop. Interestingly, if you felt that The Terminator was a story in which a wandering spiral of states had finally settled into a repeating loop of states, it would be possible to regard T2 as a non-looping story compatible with its predecessor if you regarded it not as a SEQUEL, but as a PREQUEL...

  • May 16, 2011, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Caveat

    by Keith

    " it would be possible to regard T2 as a non-looping story compatible with its predecessor if you regarded it not as a SEQUEL, but as a PREQUEL" (*Possible*, but a very outlandish interpretation, and one where you would have to appeal, once again, to enormous coincidence...)

  • May 17, 2011, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Ontology of the loop

    by Eli_Cash

    judger's comments have led me to a possible way to explain the loop without simply assuming it just exists. It would arise from the process of time travel, which is grounded in a prime timeline. This still adds an epicycle, but only one. Thus its a bit simpler than the previous explanation that I gave for multiple timelines. The prime timeline would have a future where either JC did not exist, or Reese was not his father. Reese and the T800 would travel through time for any number of reasons. However the process of time travel would create private interference effects that resulted in their 1984 versions being quite different from their 2029 versions. This is because the temporal transit would create a multiplicity of possible versions of themselves, a wave function of their personal identities. The version selected would be the one that was temporally consistent. In other words, the selection process would inevitably settle on a loop, where their actions in 1984 would create the conditions for them to be sent back from 2029 under the same exact circumstances that they remembered. Privately Reese would undergo a strong dejavu type process which overwrote his memories with the effects of his actions in 1984, and his physical body would be modified as well. So the Reese in 1984 would be a different Reese than the one who left 2029 in the original timeline (though he would be transcendentally the same entity. The world he came from would be unknowable, expect that it had the basic conditions that would lead to both himself and the terminator being sent to 1984. His actions in 1984 would thus serve to determine the future he remembers.

  • May 17, 2011, 11:57 p.m. CST

    misterdarcy

    by Eli_Cash

    Inside a deterministic system, if you have state X which moves through one or more other states and returns to state X, this is a loop. Once this has happened once, you can guarantee that the system will repeat this sequence indefinitely with no variation. So once you observe that a loop is in play, the system will NEVER break out of that loop.

  • May 18, 2011, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Sorry I meant

    by Eli_Cash

    "Inside a deterministic system, if you have state X which moves through one or more other states and returns to state X, this is a loop. Once this has happened once, you can guarantee that the system will repeat this sequence indefinitely with no variation. So once you observe that a loop is in play, the system will NEVER break out of that loop." This interests me. It assumes that the loop is deterministic (in the hard way). No free will. But one could add a small element of indeterministic free will, and the loop would be a mere tendency, would it not? Meaning that it could occur a million times with such minuscule changes that they are unnoticeable. But over the series of iterations they could create a very different result, even breaking the loop. Maybe?

  • May 19, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Ah, more time travel!

    by orcus

    :)

Top Talkbacks