Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless
-
Karl Aksel — 4 years ago(March 06, 2022 11:26 PM)
Unless the only reason it didn't succeed is because they sent him back.
You mean the only reason Skynet didn't succeed is because they sent the T-800 back? Yes, I dealt with that in my second paragraph.
Why not? I'd say good on them if that's how they felt.
Except they won't
actually
be saving any timelines - they'd just be creating new ones. -
preachcaleb — 4 years ago(March 07, 2022 02:31 PM)
No, no. The humans succeeded because they sent Kyle back.
Except they won't actually be saving any timelines - they'd just be creating new ones.
Except they will. The varying timelines could've already existed regardless of time travel. The novel Timeline actually covers that quite well. It's less time travel, and more timeline hopping.
As I said, Trunks was able to save a different timeline from his own. It's quite a noble task.
So many stories, so little time. -
Karl Aksel — 4 years ago(March 08, 2022 09:37 AM)
No, no. The humans succeeded because they sent Kyle back.
Impossible. Because being in a position to send Kyle back could only mean one thing: the terminator had failed. Skynet's mission would have succeeded or failed the instant they sent the terminator back in time, giving humanity no time at all to react.
Except they will. The varying timelines could've already existed regardless of time travel. The novel Timeline actually covers that quite well. It's less time travel, and more timeline hopping.
That means there's an infinite amount of timelines already existing, and attempting to alter other timelines is therefore futile. -
preachcaleb — 4 years ago(March 08, 2022 02:25 PM)
Impossible. Because being in a position to send Kyle back could only mean one thing: the terminator had failed. Skynet's mission would have succeeded or failed the instant they sent the terminator back in time, giving humanity no time at all to react.
It failed because they sent Reese back. Remember: the only reason John Conner even exists is because Reese was sent back to the past. Without Reese going back in time, there'd be no reason to send a terminator back in time in the first place. It was always destined to happen as it happened.
That means there's an infinite amount of timelines already existing, and attempting to alter other timelines is therefore futile.
Not at all. As I said, it's still a noble gesture to save other people's timeline. Saving lives is not futile at all. It's a beautiful and selfless gesture.
So many stories, so little time. -
Karl Aksel — 3 years ago(October 06, 2022 08:16 AM)
It failed because they sent Reese back.
That's what the movie intends, yes, but it's a logical flaw with the plot. Had Kyle been necessary to prevent the terminator from succeeding, they would not have been able to send Kyle back in the first place. Skynet sent the Terminator back in time first. Anything the Terminator would have succeeded in doing, would have already happened at that point. Meaning the instant it was sent back in time, Connor would have vanished - as would everyone's memory of Connor. In other words, if Connor was still around to send Kyle back in time, it could only be because it wasn't necessary to do so - the terminator had already failed.
Not at all. As I said, it's still a noble gesture to save other people's timeline. Saving lives is not futile at all. It's a beautiful and selfless gesture.
What's noble about it? You wouldn't be saving anyone in
existing
timelines, you would be creating new ones - only to
maybe
save them. Maybe doom them. And you can never know if your contribution helped or hindered. Meanwhile, your
own
timeline suffers for it, because you are wasting precious resources. -
preachcaleb — 3 years ago(October 06, 2022 01:10 PM)
Anything the Terminator would have succeeded in doing, would have already happened at that point. Meaning the instant it was sent back in time, Connor would have vanished - as would everyone's memory of Connor. In other words, if Connor was still around to send Kyle back in time, it could only be because it wasn't necessary to do so - the terminator had already failed.
That's assuming the movie's time travel works on that logic. It could be based on the logic of The Sound of Thunder, where changes come in waves, and there's time to undo things. Or on Days of Future Past where past and present can be running congruently.
But it is a good point. The Terminator was fated to fail regardless. Kyle's fate was to father John Connor.
What's noble about it? You wouldn't be saving anyone in existing timelines, you would be creating new ones - only to maybe save them. Maybe doom them. And you can never know if your contribution helped or hindered. Meanwhile, your own timeline suffers for it, because you are wasting precious resources.
Not at all. As yourself agreed, these infinite timelines already exist. So they're not creating new ones. They're saving existing ones. Nothing's gone to waste is some people are saved. It's even more noble to help others when you'll receive nothing in return. That's true nobility.
So many stories, so little time. -
Karl Aksel — 3 years ago(October 07, 2022 06:07 AM)
That's assuming the movie's time travel works on that logic.
Of course it doesn't follow that logic. It's a logic flaw I'm describing.
Not at all. As yourself agreed, these infinite timelines already exist. So they're not creating new ones. They're saving existing ones. Nothing's gone to waste is some people are saved. It's even more noble to help others when you'll receive nothing in return. That's true nobility.
But you have no control over what you are doing. You can never check to see the results your actions had on a different timeline; you are acting blind. So for all you know, you might be making things worse. Meanwhile, you are betraying your own people, to whom you owe loyalty. You
could
have helped them, but chose to help their alter egos instead - and you don't even know if you've helped
them
. It is noble to help strangers, sure, but only if you have the resources to do so. If your family is trapped inside a burning building, and my family is trapped inside a burning building, you save your own first. No one would expect you to do otherwise, and even I would not place an ounce of blame on you. -
preachcaleb — 3 years ago(October 07, 2022 01:08 PM)
Of course it doesn't follow that logic. It's a logic flaw I'm describing.
Which doesn't exist in the movie.
But you have no control over what you are doing. You can never check to see the results your actions had on a different timeline; you are acting blind. So for all you know, you might be making things worse. Meanwhile, you are betraying your own people, to whom you owe loyalty. You could have helped them, but chose to help their alter egos instead - and you don't even know if you've helped them. It is noble to help strangers, sure, but only if you have the resources to do so. If your family is trapped inside a burning building, and my family is trapped inside a burning building, you save your own first. No one would expect you to do otherwise, and even I would not place an ounce of blame on you.
And all of that is fine. It's still noble intentions. There's nothing wrong with trying to do the right thing for no reward. I've helped strangers many times with no way of checking the results. There's nothing wrong with that.
And there is no betrayal. As you say, the the time machine moves you to another timeline. There's no control over that. So it's ok to try and help others. They did have the resources: they had a time machine. Might as well do some good with it. I don't believe in us versus them. So I don't focus on helping only one group of people over another. I like to help everyone.
I save my own family only if I can. If I can't for whatever reason, I'm not going to just stand by and watch yours burn. I'll help them instead.
No one would expect you to do otherwise, and even I would not place an ounce of blame on you.
And that's why it's noble. There's no obligation.
So many stories, so little time. -
degree7 — 4 years ago(March 20, 2022 06:49 PM)
Not really, there’s no guarantee any changes to the past would be instantaneous. It’s entirely possible that the past is occurring concurrently with the present, so say the Terminator arrives in the past and it takes two days for it to find and kill Sarah Connor. That would mean that the moment the terminator stepped through the TDE that John Connor had two days to live. Simple as that.
Anyway, as it turns out the entire thing was a causal loop. The Terminator going back in time was the cause of Skynet’s own existence and the nuclear war, and Kyle going back begat John Connor. The entire thing is a paradox. Kyle Reese is doomed for all eternity to be sent back into the past to die. No one in this story has any free will, everything was predestined to occur. -
Donnatella — 4 years ago(March 20, 2022 09:27 PM)
Also, whatever boy child Sarah gave birth to, would become the savior of humanity. It just so happened that Reese was that guy. Although it could have been any dude to get Sarah knocked up. Otherwise, The Machines would have sought out Reese as well. Instead, it focused on assassinating Sarah.
In Genysis, something very different happens. I think Sarah goes back into time to save Reese. Is that right? -
TaraDeS — 3 years ago(December 03, 2022 10:39 AM)
by Movie_Knut December 03, 2022 11:29 AM
Member since May 14, 2020
While Sarah saves Reese in Genysis, she doesn't travel across time. Sarah knew where Reese would be because Guardian told her.
Oh, my
favourite
"Karl Aksel" is still/again here.
Thanks for bumping that, Knuti.
Have a chicken to eat with him…but then IMDb locked down. -
Karl Aksel — 3 years ago(October 06, 2022 08:23 AM)
Not really, there’s no guarantee any changes to the past would be instantaneous. It’s entirely possible that the past is occurring concurrently with the present, so say the Terminator arrives in the past and it takes two days for it to find and kill Sarah Connor.
Of course it's instantaneous. Let's say you send someone back in time to do something. You send him back to 1964, Jan. 5th. He doesn't finish his job until Jan. 18th. Meanwhile, you are sitting comfortably in 2022. Both Jan. 5th and Jan. 18th 1964, and all dates in between, have already happened. No matter how much time passes in the past, it's all in the past - time passing in the past has already happened. -
AnthonySocksss — 3 years ago(October 08, 2022 03:38 AM)
It obviously doesn’t have to happen in an instant, because time isn’t linear like that. What is happening in the past is still actually happening. There is no “past, present, future” in reality, but that’s dealing with real world physics.
Going by the logic of the film, it’s clear that the past is its own separate stage that is occurring parallel to the present, and affecting it every step of the way. Once the Terminator stepped through the Time Displacement Equipment, everything it did in the past that affected the future was occurring at a similar pace. So let’s say the Terminator kills Sarah/John Connor about 48 hours after it traveled back in time. That means in the future that John Connor would have exploded into goo 48 hours later after the Terminator went through the TDE. Obviously the scientists knew that they still had “time” to fight this time travel, so to speak.
Anyway, sending Kyle Reece back into the past was necessary anyway because without it then John Connor wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
Karl Aksel — 11 months ago(May 03, 2025 10:05 PM)
<blockquote>It obviously doesn’t have to happen in an instant, because time isn’t linear like that. What is happening in the past is still actually happening. There is no “past, present, future” in reality, but that’s dealing with real world physics.</blockquote>
Doesn't matter, it would still be perceived as happening instantaneously. For example:
Today, May 5th 2025 at precisely 21:00, we send someone back in time to paint the White House green. We send them back to January 20th 1981. Now, whether they spend one day on the job, ten days, ten weeks, ten months, ten years, hell, 40 years, what colour is the White House on May 5th at 21:00? It's green - and has been for some time. At no point in the present will anyone have cause to say, "they're still working on it". Either they succeeded, or they failed. And this would be known the very instant the painters were sent back in time. -
Wu Ming — 11 months ago(May 04, 2025 03:32 AM)
AnthonySocksssss May 04, 2025 12:26 PM
Member since January 31, 2025
No, you’d see the White House turn from white to green before your very eyes…
Sock soliloquies with Socksssss & Karl Aksel. 🧦🧦🧦
Guten Morgen!
