Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles

Where's the contradiction? Sure the actors are older then their characters are supposed to be, but was a date or age mentioned in the last episode? If so, I missed it.
 
jpeck said:
Where's the contradiction? Sure the actors are older then their characters are supposed to be, but was a date or age mentioned in the last episode? If so, I missed it.
Click to expand...

Reese said he grew up after the nuclear war; he had to be 30. In any case, specifically, in the show, they said they were going back 20 years to our present; it would be 22 years according to the first film, but in any case, Derek is obviously older than 20 and the war isn't supposed to happen for another 3-4 years anyway. A teenager he ain't.
 
Which nuclear war are you talking about?

The original judgement day was supposed to be in 1997, but due to the events of the second film, that was changed/postponed.

Terminator 3 had the nuclear war happening in 2004.

The TV show has one and while we don't know when it is, we know it is after 2007. However, if the show actually makes John go back to his present, then it is entirely possible for T3 to have happened.

I can't remember what was said in the first film, but I don't think any dates were mentioned.

We know the future changes in the franchise, so I really don't see the contradiction, but if there is one, I would love to see it.
 
The first shot of the first film had the caption "Los Angeles 2029 A.D." Reese also said that the war was over when he was sent back.

And what I said was that it contradicted the first film, which it does. You can explain it by an altered timeline, but it still contradicts the first film.

Which is significant vis-a-vis the episode because there were many direct references to the first film throughout it, down to the photo of Sarah being burned up in a Terminator raid.
 
Altering the timeline covers a multitude of sins, David. Just ask Rick Berman... :p

Seriously, though, you're right. Michael Biehn was 28 in 1984, so assuming Reese was the same age, that would put his birth in 2001. Now, the phrase "grew up after the war" leaves a little bit of wiggle room, but if Judgement Day in the TV show is 2011 as I've seen somewhere, I'm not sure "a little bit" is enough. Then again, as I may have mentioned before, Lena Headey isn't old enough to be Sarah Connor, so we seem to be dealing with a major alteration of the timeline...

BTW, was it just me, or were there T600's, rubber skin and all, in the last episode? That was a nice touch... :)
 
Lena Heady is older than Sarah, actually, who's 33. According to the pilot, she was 33 in 1999, which means she was born in 1966, which makes her 18 in 1984, which is about right for the original story, especially considering John is 15.
 
Captain Pierce said:
BTW, was it just me, or were there T600's, rubber skin and all, in the last episode? That was a nice touch... :)
Click to expand...


I loved that! I was surprised how much they take from the movies. From the little details, of Reese talking about the first having rubber skin, easy to tell, but then living tissue now makes it harder to tell. Dogs bark at Terminators. Kyle having a picture of Sarah. All the little details.

This episode had a lot more depth than the last ones. The flashbacks (flash forwards) are a nice touch. Then there's the secret weapon that Connor kept speaking off, and Kyle going into the facility.

As for the strange jet turbine, maybe it's part of the time machine that the machines ended up using?
 
Kyle was supposed to be around 21 in the first film. Either way, he grew up after the 'nuclear war' if it is based on the lore set up by the first three films.
 
David Jimerson said:
What's not at all clear -- when Connor and Kyle Reese attacked the science lab, it was presented in the first film as the end of the war and the destruction of Skynet -- but that didn't seem to be the case in the episode.
Click to expand...

All we really know is that Kyle Reese thought it was the end of the war and the destruction of Skynet. It's totally possible he was just wrong. He did jump through time right after, so it's not like he got to see the results of his actions.

As for his age in the first film, I think that 21 came up in the audio commentary, not in the actual film.

Let's face it, though -- none of the actors look their ages that they're supposed to be, they all look much older. John's supposed to be 15 in this series, but he's played by an 18 year old actor...
 
Hmmm. I don't remember much from the commentary. The script says 26.

T2 shed a little more light on the end of the war -- seemed like Kyle was right.

But -- you start messing with timelines, and anything's fair game. Like I said, I only bring it up because they made so many references to the first film.
 
Got a paradoxical question.

If, say, Kyle Reese was given birth sooner, or later, by his parents, would he still theoretically be the same Kyle Reese? the same DNA, the same personality, etc? Because he's supposed to be born after Judgment day from the first film, but who knows what the story is with his parents? Maybe he could have been conceived just before judgement day, or perhaps a while after. But aside from being conceived before, clearly Judgement day would effect when Kyle Reese is born.

Therefore, if he's born before, or after the time when he's supposed to, basically conceived at a different day and time, would he even be Kyle Reese? Same personality, same DNA, same everything? Then if not, it would screw up the entire time line because of a few different choices.

Gah! Brain melt! Did any of that make any sense?
 
Yeah it made sense.

It all depends on what time travel theory they follow. As of now, it seems like they follow a few different ones. This causes the most questions about the franchise. I am happy if they never officially say which one they follow because it will just lead to logical errors. Bah... who knows?!?!!?!?!

As for Kyle's age, there are a bunch of them that have been suggested. Most say around 21 or 22 when he was sent back, there are others that also say the same age as Sarah, which I think would be 19. Regardless what it is, I am sure it is younger than the actors.
 
Jon Starr said:
Got a paradoxical question.

If, say, Kyle Reese was given birth sooner, or later, by his parents, would he still theoretically be the same Kyle Reese? the same DNA, the same personality, etc? Because he's supposed to be born after Judgment day from the first film, but who knows what the story is with his parents? Maybe he could have been conceived just before judgement day, or perhaps a while after. But aside from being conceived before, clearly Judgement day would effect when Kyle Reese is born.

Therefore, if he's born before, or after the time when he's supposed to, basically conceived at a different day and time, would he even be Kyle Reese? Same personality, same DNA, same everything? Then if not, it would screw up the entire time line because of a few different choices.

Gah! Brain melt! Did any of that make any sense?
Click to expand...

Moving Judgment Day would change the entire sequence of events so radically that there's no way things could happen so closely to the way they did originally . . . which is why T3 and the series don't really fit into the story logically.

But, like the Highlander series, it's best just to view it as its own thing, probably.
 
David Jimerson said:
Moving Judgment Day would change the entire sequence of events so radically that there's no way things could happen so closely to the way they did originally . . . which is why T3 and the series don't really fit into the story logically.

But, like the Highlander series, it's best just to view it as its own thing, probably.
Click to expand...

But then it makes you wonder about the whole "fate" thing. It's a line they always use in the terminator series.

Technically, there's the butterfly effect. Heck, moving a tiny blade of grass can alter the future of mankind. A bug crawls a different way, then crawls up a guys pant leg, the guy goes crazy trying to get the bug out and falls into a vat of liquid, and turns into two face and becomes a second hitler... okay a bit off the wall, but you know what I mean.

But they throw around the timeline like crazy, yet things still happen. They're inevitable. Kyle still gets born, judgement day still happens, they still go after them in the past, so if that's the case then there's only fate, and no choice. So then there's no point to the show.

But then they just made another paradox. What about Andy having been shot? Reese (the brother) goes back in time and shoots Andy because he met him in the future and told him he built skynet, yet if he's dead, he can't do that. Gah! Stupid time travel!

I guess I should just accept it as is.
 
The time travel problem here is that they seem to be going with a branching view of time, where changes in the past create a new future unconnected to the old future. But if this is the case, then why time travel at all? If any changes in the past don't affect the future you are in, then what would be the point of sending someone back in time to change things when you wouldn't get the benefit? Does not compute.
 
I love this show. Cameron looked weird in the beginning but then I got use to her and now I think shes smokin...hot. i just had to say that... yay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top