# Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles Episode #1



## Steel_Wind (Jan 14, 2008)

Well - I wasn't sure what to expect from this. I was hoping it would be good - but I was entirely prepared for it to suck.

And after the first episode, I'm still not sure; I think the jury's out. 

The series departs from T3 and obviously treats that movie as if it never happened. Sarah Conner does NOT die of leukemia in 1997. 

While ditching the script and events described in T3, happily, the show otherwise embraces the mythos developed in T1 and T2. I think that's a good thing, writing wise.

Without giving anything away, the acting from the core trio seems quite decent and there are no complaints there.

Beyond that, we have an Arnie style Model Terminator who is wooden and  kinda iffy.  Then again - so was Arnie, so that's not a serous knock.

The recurring FBI character I'm not so sure about - and there are elements of "1 hour Drama" to his character and his apparent role in the plot - so I think the jury is still out.  If the whole thing is going to spin off into Cheese World - the main attack will be from his character I think (setting aside the alternative cheese-o-rama of the budding romance with John and "Cameron" - as I'm prepared to see where that goes).

For all that, it was good enough that i would say that I enjoyed it and will tune in for the next episode. It's not yet "appointment TV" - but I'm hopeful that it might become that.

Worth a watch to see if it's your thing.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jan 14, 2008)

I more or less checked out after the opener, myself. It screamed "forced dramatic tension" and just generally gave me the vibe that that was going to be the M.O. of the series.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 14, 2008)

Honestly, I expected it to be absolutely terrible.

It wasn't.

Now, it wasn't amazing or anything...but I think I'll keep watching. If anything, it at least has a good Terminator vibe.

The one thing I didn't like was something I knew was coming, the ignoring of T3. I actually LIKED T3. But oh well, that's all good. It would be basically impossible to do the series while having it and T3 both in the same continuity.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 14, 2008)

I am still not sure of Summer Glau as an actress. I so wanted to see her at Gen Con to see if she really acts or just plays herself. So far I have just seen her in Firefly, Mammoth, and now Sarah Connor Chronicals. In all of these she comes of as stiff and depressed. Now for both Firefly and Sarah Connor chronicals this seems to work for the character and in Mammoth, well it was a Sci-Fi Saturday night movie so I never expect good acting even from good actors.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 14, 2008)

Not bad....I'm still unsure...I'm a little confused though.  They went to 2007...but what year were they in when they started?

I'm going to give the next episode a try tomorrow.  It's not like there are many shows I'm interested in at the moment.

Just getting into Prison Break, but I'm on like episode 9 of Season One, so I won't be able to get into this season any time soon.

Banshee


----------



## hero4hire (Jan 14, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Not bad....I'm still unsure...I'm a little confused though.  They went to 2007...but what year were they in when they started?




It stated that it was 1999 about 3 times.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 14, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Not bad....I'm still unsure...I'm a little confused though.  They went to 2007...but what year were they in when they started?




One of the subtitles on the location thing had it as 1999.

Also, I believe it was mentioned that it was five years since the last Terminator attack. Was 1995 the setting for T2? Its been a long time and I'm too lazy to look things up.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jan 14, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I am still not sure of Summer Glau as an actress. I so wanted to see her at Gen Con to see if she really acts or just plays herself. So far I have just seen her in Firefly, Mammoth, and now Sarah Connor Chronicals. In all of these she comes of as stiff and depressed. Now for both Firefly and Sarah Connor chronicals this seems to work for the character and in Mammoth, well it was a Sci-Fi Saturday night movie so I never expect good acting even from good actors.




She was pretty good in _The Unit_.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jan 14, 2008)

I thought it was alright. I'm already watching too many shows, so I doubt I'll be keeping an eye on it, but if I see it while surfing I'll switch it over as background while I'm on the computer. It didn't suck, certainly, but as much as I loved T1 and T2, the time paradoxes that they introduced are tough to swallow at times. Unfortunately this show doesn't seem to have a way to avoid them, either. 

Meh, not bad. Not great.


----------



## BadMojo (Jan 14, 2008)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> She was pretty good in _The Unit_.




Yeah, Summer Glau was very good in "The Unit" and not at all like her characters in Terminator or Firefly.

I thought it was pretty good, considering it was a first episode of the series.  I'll certainly watch it, especially since there's hardly anything else worth watching on TV right now.  Lena Headey certainly has enough intensity and general bad-assness, which goes a long way for a show called the "Sarah Connor Chronicles".


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jan 14, 2008)

I really enjoyed it.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 14, 2008)

So in the TV Show universe, T3 never happens? I didn't want to watch this, because with T3, I figured, what's the point?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 14, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> So in the TV Show universe, T3 never happens?




Correct.

In the alternative, if it does happen, it happens differently.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 14, 2008)

It was alright, something I thought that was interesting was the sending back in time of "engineers".  But my fear, this could turn into a temporal war and that never works out.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 14, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> So in the TV Show universe, T3 never happens? I didn't want to watch this, because with T3, I figured, what's the point?



T3 won't happen this time around since it is an alternate timeline. The point [in world] is someone in the future decided the victory John would obtain following T3 was NOT enough. The fact the Resistance is now in a position of strength to aid the Conners _much _more than previously is solid evidence there of. They had the surplus resources to send one of their best scientists _to the 60's_ and to send the conner's backup in 2007, so the Resistance is not stretched anywhere near as thin as in the movies.

A shame really, T3 had a wonderful ending, reaffirming 



Spoiler



Fate / Time


 as self correcting along with a nice view of earth being 



Spoiler



nuked


.

The show is entertaining so far, but I fear it will slide into drama as many other sci fi shows do. Also not too keen on injecting superfluous sexuality as done with the T3 terminatrix or the New Buffy-nator.

The attempts to add dramatic delays to the Hunter killer's actions are _really, *really dumb*_. It is like the show is trying to milk every second possible. Then to make the unit seem even more malfunctional, His accuracy has been set to "stormtrooper". They could have at least put a few handgun rounds into Johns arms and legs during the parking lot scene to make the threat of this terminator credible. 

I


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 14, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> T3 won't happen this time around since it is an alternate timeline. The point [in world] is someone in the future decided the victory John would obtain following T3 was NOT enough. The fact the Resistance is now in a position of strength to aid the Conners _much _more than previously is solid evidence there of. They had the surplus resources to send one of their best scientists _to the 60's_ and to send the conner's backup in 2007, so the Resistance is not stretched anywhere near as thin as in the movies.
> 
> A shame really, T3 had a wonderful ending, reaffirming
> 
> ...




I don't think this Terminator is any less accurate than his predecessors - they're _always_ mysteriously incapable of hitting the main characters despite being able to slaughter the supporting cast at will, and they always - even in T1 - go about their job in stupid and impractical ways. Which isn't a bad thing, since it makes for better action movies than if they quietly stalked John Connor with a sniper rifle or got within 30 feet of him while carrying 100lbs of plastic explosive. The Terminator has been all about dramatic tension over common sense from the very beginning.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 14, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Then to make the unit seem even more malfunctional, His accuracy has been set to "stormtrooper". They could have at least put a few handgun rounds into Johns arms and legs during the parking lot scene to make the threat of this terminator credible.




I kinda have to agree with this. I was thinking the same thing as I watched. Even one bullet and another graze would have been worth it.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 14, 2008)

I really hated it.  I'm a fan of the Terminator movies but this felt like so much was changed.  I'm not sure if this was intended or not (I didn't follow much of the hype) but it really bothered me.  Aside from the 3 main characters, I thought the acting and dialogue were pretty poor.  

I won't be watching again.

Edit:  I will say that it was pretty clever of himself to send back a hottie Terminator (around his same ago and that displayed a surprising amount of "emotion") to protect him.  If they ever develop the storyline of the kid becoming "romantic" with the hottie Terminator, I'll definitely tune in again.  My guess is that's the secret weapon if ratings go south.  Hehe.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 14, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Honestly, I expected it to be absolutely terrible.
> 
> It wasn't.
> 
> ...



I did too and I thought it wrapped up the series very well considering that it was a finale in a trilogy. I remember writing a review on my blog at the time that it was the best ending to a series we had seen in a long time.  

I started off really not liking the idea of the series and i still don't. I just hate how they treat fans these days. This never happened, this never happened, forget about that story.  Story's are only there to entertain you, not actually take themselves seriously.  

The only terminator i wanted to see after 3 was a 4 where the war has begun. Oh well. 

In anycase, after realizign that i'd have to forget about 3, my opinion of the series rose slightly, though its still in muh catagory. From the previous i thought that they were going the route of the terminator always in school with john conners and terminator of the week shows up.  As the show progressed it looks like they may be using time travel a lot to avoid the terminators.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 14, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I really hated it.  I'm a fan of the Terminator movies but this felt like so much was changed.  I'm not sure if this was intended or not (I didn't follow much of the hype) but it really bothered me.  Aside from the 3 main characters, I thought the acting and dialogue were pretty poor.
> 
> I won't be watching again.
> 
> Edit:  I will say that it was pretty clever of himself to send back a hottie Terminator (around his same ago and that displayed a surprising amount of "emotion") to protect him.  If they ever develop the storyline of the kid becoming "romantic" with the hottie Terminator, I'll definitely tune in again.  My guess is that's the secret weapon if ratings go south.  Hehe.



Yep, the Cylon as a romantic plot hook has been done to death.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 14, 2008)

I thought it was perfectly awesome. My wife loved it even more than me. It's nice to see the real sequel to the (also awesome) T2, and how they kept it very consistent with the Terminator storyline, as well as the feel (everything from the music, to the dark highway with Sarah's narration). Also, Summer Glau was great in this as 



Spoiler



a new Terminator model


. Very cool.

The storyline was also intriguing, and better than I thought it would be. I thought it would just be a "get chased around season after season" kind of show - but seeing that they have a clear goal (what changed from T2 with regards to the creation of SkyNet) was a pleasant surprise.

P.S. Of course, I'm being silly when I say "real sequel", since I don't know what all the nonsensical talk about this mythical "T3" is... as we all know, there are only _two_ Terminator movies.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 14, 2008)

Not a bad show, I'll be watching it for now.

The only big issue I have is the casting of Lena Headey as Sara Conner. Linda Hamilton left a big pair of shoes to fill and while Lena is a good actor, she falls short of the mark, IMO. 

The rest of the cast is great.  Thomas Dekker makes a good John Conner and Summer Glau is, well hot. (And she makes a good Terminator, even it she's abit on the small side for the part. Again, IMO.)

I'm unsure about the FBI agent. I think he may unnesiccarilly weigh down the plot. I mean, he has dozens of witnesses now, who have seen this 'robotic dude'. If he doesn't start to see the 'truth' fairly quickly it will put a huge hole in the believability of the show.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jan 14, 2008)

It wasn't amazing, but I liked it enough to try again.  I thought the whole thing with the bank was pretty creative, if a bit unrealistic with the whole 



Spoiler



go back in time and build futuristic shtuff.  I'm sure the guy was smart enough to build these things in 1964, but I find it hard to believe that even a fraction of the technology would be available.  In 1964 a computer that generates a portal through time would probably be... as big as the moon.


.  But otherwise, pretty good overall.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 14, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> P.S. Of course, I'm being silly when I say "real sequel", since I don't know what all the nonsensical talk about this mythical "T3" is... as we all know, there are only _two_ Terminator movies.




Yeah, count me as another vote for the "It's a good thing they decided to write things as if T3 never happened". 

T3 was not the finale of a trilogy - the whole point of T1 and T2 was that you _can_ change the future, then T3 comes along with the big reveal that no, you actually can't, rendering the first two movies completely irrelevant - the ending is just one huge nihilistic cliche. Any series that followed T3 would have to go down that path as well, and make things even worse. I'm glad they decided to undo the mistake instead.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 14, 2008)

Actually, uh...T4 is in the works and its set in the future with Christian Bale as John Connor leading the resistance.

So this series is kind of existing off in its own place rather than wiping T3 off the map.

Though I liked T3, I can understand the hate for it. Me, however...I LIKE the idea that the future really was set in stone. There are even hints of it through the movies, like John's parentage...if the future had changed, how could anyone go back to be his father? Or even with having T2 exist. Though T3 was definitely a much more drastic view of things, it wasn't completely out of left field.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 14, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Yeah, count me as another vote for the "It's a good thing they decided to write things as if T3 never happened".
> 
> T3 was not the finale of a trilogy - the whole point of T1 and T2 was that you _can_ change the future, then T3 comes along with the big reveal that no, you actually can't, rendering the first two movies completely irrelevant - the ending is just one huge nihilistic cliche. Any series that followed T3 would have to go down that path as well, and make things even worse. I'm glad they decided to undo the mistake instead.



We disagree, it completed the mythology. The ending proved that the robots would lose no matter waht needed to be done.  It was great.  It made sense as to why no more terminators would be sent, why more than one could not be sent. Because regardless, the future is set in stone.  It wrapped up the whole series in a neat bow so all we need to worr yabout now is the war. The whole point of the movies was that the future can not be changed and here's how.  

 Right now its back in silly mode. Whenever you deal with time travel in scifi you got to be careful and a series is scary territory. Outside of Dr. Who, i have yet to see time travel done right in a tv show. Most of the time it is a writer's favorite crutch 

Without rules to time travel  this can't work. If the future can be changed, why not send a terminator back to early 1960s or to before the modern era of guns and kill off the lineage. Why not send more than one terminator. Why not send an army.  Why be chronological with it, why not spread them out.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 14, 2008)

This much, though, I'm with DonTadow.

Time travel sucks, period. Hmmm... that probably doesn't have enough emphasis. I'll try again: *Time travel sucks. Period.*. Better, but not much.

Sadly, though, we're saddled with it as it's part and parcel of Terminator. And believe me, the Terminators were good _despite_ the time travel, not because of it.


----------



## Rykion (Jan 14, 2008)

*Spoiler Warning*



I wasn't watching too closely.  Was there any explanation saying that all that future technology in the bank vault was destroyed beyond recovery?  Leaving terminator parts and a time machine in 1999 is a real good way to insure Skynet gets built.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 14, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> We disagree, it completed the mythology. The ending proved that the robots would lose no matter waht needed to be done.  It was great.  It made sense as to why no more terminators would be sent, why more than one could not be sent. Because regardless, the future is set in stone.  It wrapped up the whole series in a neat bow so all we need to worr yabout now is the war. The whole point of the movies was that the future can not be changed and here's how.
> 
> Right now its back in silly mode. Whenever you deal with time travel in scifi you got to be careful and a series is scary territory. Outside of Dr. Who, i have yet to see time travel done right in a tv show. Most of the time it is a writer's favorite crutch
> 
> Without rules to time travel  this can't work. If the future can be changed, why not send a terminator back to early 1960s or to before the modern era of guns and kill off the lineage. Why not send more than one terminator. Why not send an army.  Why be chronological with it, why not spread them out.




All T3 showed was that Skynet and the war were (supposedly) going to happen no matter what. 

It didn't really show that the future can't be changed - there are still two different dates for Judgement Day, for example (and we know the first one was real, since Reese and the first Terminator were both products of it), which means that years' worth of history _was_ changed for six billion people.

Though really, arguing it along those lines is just a way to get tangled up in endless rhetoric. The truth of it is that T1 and T2 never really made sense either - they were just a mess of paradoxes that just about looked ok if you squinted just right, and T3 suceeded in screwing things up beyond all hope...


----------



## Goodsport (Jan 14, 2008)

The first episode was pretty good (I have yet to watch _Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines_, so I've had no problem so far with the series as T2's continuation).  I can't wait for the second episode tonight. 

Another interesting aspect that could flesh the series out, though I'm not sure how much time could/would be devoted to this (considering that our trio will be busy running from the Terminators and the FBI while hunting the origin of the new SkyNet), is the eventual culture shock for Sarah and John having jumped from 1999 to 2007.

_Lots_ of things have changed during that time, the biggest obviously being the influence left by 9/11, but lots of other things as well.  Though admittedly, that could also be said of _any_ jump ahead of eight years, such as (for example) anyone who would jump from 1985 to 1993, only to see the Soviet Union having collapsed, hair bands fallen out of favor and a myriad of other differences.


-G


----------



## David Howery (Jan 14, 2008)

I enjoyed it.  I admit to being one of those who didn't really like T3... except the last 5 minutes when they actually blew up the world, and set the stage for T4, which I'm really looking forward to.  The series, if it survives, looks like it's going to be set between the time of T2 and the inevitable war (I don't think anything they do is going to stop it, although they'll certainly try to).

But... why only the two basic models of Terminators?  No more T-1000's and whatever the model that Kristanna Lokken was in T3?  I suspect the tighter TV budgets are to blame for this...


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 14, 2008)

My key opinion is that T3 was really badly directed and filmed. So it should be ignored because it was not good.

Also, that ending negates the possibility of a TV series which explores similar themes. It's sort of like how the Highlander TV series ignores the end of the Highlander movie.

So the Terminator TV series takes place in a related alternate universe.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 14, 2008)

David Howery said:
			
		

> But... why only the two basic models of Terminators?  No more T-1000's and whatever the model that Kristanna Lokken was in T3?  I suspect the tighter TV budgets are to blame for this...



I think that's probably the case.

My wife and I are, in our geek heads, explaining it to ourselves by saying that since Judgement Day was postponed due to Miles Dyson's death and the delay of building SkyNet, it seriously hurt the resources of the machines in the future, and thus they are slow in building any more T-1000s. The machines are stuck with T-900 models, that have the T-1000s 'interactive' AI (look at how well the substitute teacher fit in - he was just like a T-1000). [With all that said, I do hope to have the show actually explain it...]

Geek out!


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 14, 2008)

Maybe someday we'll see an Ellen Ripley Chronicles, set shortly after the events of Aliens (and ignoring Alien 3 and whatnot)


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 14, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Maybe someday we'll see an Ellen Ripley Chronicles, set shortly after the events of Aliens (and ignoring Alien 3 and whatnot)



That would be awesome. (Although, I have to admit; there is a part of me that really enjoyed the Ripley of Alien Resurection.   )


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 14, 2008)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> _Lots_ of things have changed during that time, the biggest obviously being the influence left by 9/11, but lots of other things as well.




I dunno, day to day life hasn't changed much. Cell phones are more common, the internet is faster for some people. Probably the biggest change would be confusion on why kids and young adults are dressing like its the 1970s (not the over the top stuff, but the average fashion from back then)


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 14, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Maybe someday we'll see an Ellen Ripley Chronicles, set shortly after the events of Aliens (and ignoring Alien 3 and whatnot)



If you like the idea of alien 3 being ignored, might I suggest the Dark horse Aliens comics or thier Novelizations?



			
				Wiki entry for Earth Hive said:
			
		

> The book is a novelization of the first series of the Aliens spin-off comic book (called Book One in the original trade paperback) written by Mark Verheiden which was released in 1989. At the time the comics formed a natural extension of the story as it was left at the end of the film Aliens.
> 
> However, the novel was released as a tie-in with Alien³ (1992) which took the story off in another direction. To avoid any confusion that might arise, the characters' names were changed, so Hicks and Newt became Wilkes and Billie, respectively. Other minor characters were also renamed.
> 
> When Book One was 'remastered' in 1996 and re-released as Outbreak the panels were colored and, to bring it in line with the revised story as presented in Earth Hive, the characters were renamed and references to LV-426 were changed to the colony world of Rim.


----------



## Felon (Jan 14, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> We disagree, it completed the mythology. The ending proved that the robots would lose no matter waht needed to be done.  It was great.  It made sense as to why no more terminators would be sent, why more than one could not be sent. Because regardless, the future is set in stone.  It wrapped up the whole series in a neat bow so all we need to worr yabout now is the war. The whole point of the movies was that the future can not be changed and here's how.
> 
> Right now its back in silly mode. Whenever you deal with time travel in scifi you got to be careful and a series is scary territory. Outside of Dr. Who, i have yet to see time travel done right in a tv show. Most of the time it is a writer's favorite crutch
> 
> Without rules to time travel  this can't work. If the future can be changed, why not send a terminator back to early 1960s or to before the modern era of guns and kill off the lineage. Why not send more than one terminator. Why not send an army.  Why be chronological with it, why not spread them out.



I'm not sure how you figure that Doctor Who does time travel right--it blithely ignores the advantages of time travel that are at The Doctor's fingertips. But otherwise I agree. If you can just keep going back over and over until you get it right, then how can you ever lose? And if some scientist in the sixties has the resources to build a time machine, then the earth-dominating machines in the future should be able to cobble together plenty of time machines.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 14, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> T3 was not the finale of a trilogy - the whole point of T1 and T2 was that you _can_ change the future, then T3 comes along with the big reveal that no, you actually can't, rendering the first two movies completely irrelevant - the ending is just one huge nihilistic cliche. Any series that followed T3 would have to go down that path as well, and make things even worse. I'm glad they decided to undo the mistake instead.




Just to be a nag, T1 wasn't about changing the future. The whole point of it was that he had to come back and such for the future to happen. It was a nice, clean little time loop.

T2 ripped that apart with Paradox. Who changes the future if there's no longer a future to change? It was a totally different paradigm, but it was your "the future CAN be changed".

T3 comes along and says the future is some stream that polishes out paradox over time, preserving the time stream.


T1 left me with the impression that it was a one time, last ditch effort to send them back in time. T2 & T3 opened the fact that more can go back in time and such, leaving the "why not go back BEFORE T1" when they're unaware...


----------



## Felon (Jan 14, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Yeah, count me as another vote for the "It's a good thing they decided to write things as if T3 never happened".
> 
> T3 was not the finale of a trilogy - the whole point of T1 and T2 was that you _can_ change the future, then T3 comes along with the big reveal that no, you actually can't, rendering the first two movies completely irrelevant - the ending is just one huge nihilistic cliche. Any series that followed T3 would have to go down that path as well, and make things even worse. I'm glad they decided to undo the mistake instead.



Sarah and Kyle hooked up and produced John at the end of T1, which reinforces the notion of inevitably.

And that's not really nihilism, but rather fatalism. Nihilists see existence as a senseless crap-shoot, which is what you get when terminators can come at you willy-nilly ad infinitum.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 14, 2008)

hero4hire said:
			
		

> It stated that it was 1999 about 3 times.




I probably missed it, as I was explaining things to my wife at the beginning....if they were stating it at the beginning....if it was later, then I apparently wasn't paying enough attention.

Banshee


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 14, 2008)

I enjoyed it, and my wife liked it even more than I did.

I don't know if it necessarily veers away from the T3 timeline.  They time travel in the episode.  No reason they cannot time travel yet again later.  Just because Sarah Connor dies in 97 doesn't mean she didn't live past that date, travel to 2007, then eventually travel back to 97.

And besides, with another Terminator movie coming out set in the future, it's going to be nearly impossible to do a TV show without veering away from the movie plots in some fashion.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 14, 2008)

It could have worked just as well without actually using the Conners, I think. Like T3's plot to gack others important to the Cause, they could have created another freedom fighter of some importance and gone from there. Perhaps even the original guy that was the father...

Anyway, the show was okay, so I imagine giving it some time to develop can work. Not like there's much else on anyway.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 15, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I don't know if it necessarily veers away from the T3 timeline.  They time travel in the episode.  No reason they cannot time travel yet again later.  Just because Sarah Connor dies in 97 doesn't mean she didn't live past that date, travel to 2007, then eventually travel back to 97.




It doesn't have to veer from the T3 timeline if you believe that John would somehow forget or neglect to mention the fact he used to travel through time with a hot robot chick while being chased by terminators... Or think it makes sense that in the T3 timeline, he'd be completely surprised and caught unprepared by Skynet's continuing existence after the events we just saw in the pilot.

And while Sarah Connor could have traveled back to die in 1997, John specifically talks about her holding out just long enough to make sure Judgement Day didn't happen... which makes absolutely no sense for someone who time-traveled to 2007. I'm not saying she would have to believe that everything was hunky-dory just because the world was still there in 2007 - she'd simply know that the old date she learned about from Reese no longer meant anything.

Or, for that matter, don't you think that at the end of T3 John would go "Ok, WTF is this? How the hell is the world getting blown up in 2004, when I've been to 2007 and everything was ok? How could this happen?"


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 15, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> It doesn't have to veer from the T3 timeline if you believe that John would somehow forget or neglect to mention the fact he used to travel through time with a hot robot chick while being chased by terminators... Or think it makes sense that in the T3 timeline, he'd be completely surprised and caught unprepared by Skynet's continuing existence after the events we just saw in the pilot.
> 
> And while Sarah Connor could have traveled back to die in 1997, John specifically talks about her holding out just long enough to make sure Judgement Day didn't happen... which makes absolutely no sense for someone who time-traveled to 2007. I'm not saying she would have to believe that everything was hunky-dory just because the world was still there in 2007 - she'd simply know that the old date she learned about from Reese no longer meant anything.



 Yeah.

I think its probably just best to look at it like this: We have two different stories of what could have happened after T2, the movies after, and the new series. Neither is more 'right' than the other, its just different interpretations of where things would have gone.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 15, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Yeah.
> 
> I think its probably just best to look at it like this: We have two different stories of what could have happened after T2, the movies after, and the new series. Neither is more 'right' than the other, its just different interpretations of where things would have gone.



I'll buy that but I still hate it.  It's a trend that I"m not enjoying.  If they are going that route they'd have to find another way to seperate themselves from the movies the same way highlander did.  

The good thing about this series though is that i bet they move it to mondays to make the heroes sci/fi hour stronger.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 15, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> The good thing about this series though is that i bet they move it to mondays to make the heroes sci/fi hour stronger.




Err... this series is on Fox. Why would they want to make NBC's sci-fi block (Chuck, Heroes, and Journeyman) stronger? I'd bet this gets off of Mondays within a week of the writer's strike ending (assuming the show catches on enough to stick around).


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 15, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'll buy that but I still hate it.  It's a trend that I"m not enjoying.  If they are going that route they'd have to find another way to seperate themselves from the movies the same way highlander did.
> 
> The good thing about this series though is that i bet they move it to mondays to make the heroes sci/fi hour stronger.




Umm, its actually up against heroes timeslot.  This is on Fox, Heroes is on NBC.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 15, 2008)

Terminator + 24. I'm good with that. I never did 'get' Prisonbreak.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 15, 2008)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> Umm, its actually up against heroes timeslot.  This is on Fox, Heroes is on NBC.




Well. I can't imagine they would run it in that time slot when new Heroes episodes are actually running.

If they do, well, might as well just go put the money in garbage bags and leave it on the street corner.  Chasing the same genre crowd is foolishness.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 15, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Well. I can't imagine they would run it in that time slot when new Heroes episodes are actually running.
> 
> If they do, well, might as well just go put the money in garbage bags and leave it on the street corner.  Chasing the same genre crowd is foolishness.



 ...this is FOX...


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 15, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Shalimar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...this is FOX...



They can't flush cash fast enough and they love killing their own shows. I can't be the only person around here with fond memories of WEREWOLF


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 15, 2008)

I don't think this really fits the sci-fi demographic, though.  It has sci-fi elements, but it's more of an action movie (or series), which is why Fox wanted to team it up with 24 originally, and now has it with Prison Break.


----------



## Jamdin (Jan 15, 2008)

I enjoyed the two-part series premiere but I hope that cyborg girl does not get hit by a car in every episode. My biggest concern is how long will FOX keep the series around since I also enjoyed other series that were pulled (Werewolf, Dark Angel and Firefly).


----------



## David Howery (Jan 15, 2008)

hmmm... interestingly, tonight's episode seemed to address the T3 timeline, but the series seems to have destroyed it.  Sarah died in 2004, according to tonight's episode, so when they skipped from '99 to '07, they apparently timewarped away all the events of T3... now, that's certainly better than just 'ignoring' it...


----------



## Goodsport (Jan 15, 2008)

David Howery said:
			
		

> Sarah died in 2004, according to tonight's episode




Actually, on December 4, 2005. 


-G


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jan 15, 2008)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Well. I can't imagine they would run it in that time slot when new Heroes episodes are actually running.
> 
> If they do, well, might as well just go put the money in garbage bags and leave it on the street corner.  Chasing the same genre crowd is foolishness.




Not necessarily. 


Not all Sc-Fi fans watch Heroes
The advent of the TIVO or DVR allows people to record two different programs.
Subsection to second point: TIVO/DVR allows people to watch one while recording the other for later.

I don't watch Heroes. Never did due to football and have no interest in watching it now. And I can record it while watching something else, then viewing it later. Sci-Fi fans have diverse tastes in what they watch. So, I don't see a problem with going after "the same genre crowd"....


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 15, 2008)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> Umm, its actually up against heroes timeslot.  This is on Fox, Heroes is on NBC.



LOL I found that out 5 minutes into 9 oclock.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 15, 2008)

David Howery said:
			
		

> hmmm... interestingly, tonight's episode seemed to address the T3 timeline, but the series seems to have destroyed it.  Sarah died in 2004, according to tonight's episode, so when they skipped from '99 to '07, they apparently timewarped away all the events of T3... now, that's certainly better than just 'ignoring' it...



I thought something similiar, that the t3 timeline isn't neccesarily ignored it just completely didn't happen because of the time warp (resist rocky horror pun).  

In my quest to enjoy the show, i imagine that there are tons of timelines that didn't happen and this may just be one of many.  Though considering this theory and the fact that they are making a t4 does that make the series meaningless because still , just like at the end of 3, the war happens.  

As for this episode i liked it less than last nights though its still in muh category.  I found John's actions kinda silly, particularly him going out by himself and instead of going to a library goes to a computer store and uses the internet.  Internet use for newspapers and research was not as public back in 1997 and seemed a bit forward thinking.  

Budget wise i know why, but it makes no sense why they aren't sending more shapechanging terminators back.  And if the terminator's send a guard for john connors, why don't the other terminators send a guard for the scientist of skynet.  

Unfortunately now,  it seems its going to get more formulaic and may resemble the claire seens from heroes.  

BTW, I hated that bratak had to die.  I thought it would have been cooler if he was not a snitch on them.  This was bad writing.  What the heck was his plan.  I am going to send you to my nephew to do some super illegal stuff and then I am going to call the cops and tell of this plan.  This way my nephew and you will go to jail and I will probably be killed by his gang friends.  When instead all he had o do was call his informant and set sarah up.  Far simpler and without all the hood references.


----------



## David Howery (Jan 15, 2008)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> Actually, on December 4, 2005.
> 
> 
> -G



I knew there was a 4 in there somewhere....


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 15, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I thought something similiar, that the t3 timeline isn't neccesarily ignored it just completely didn't happen because of the time warp (resist rocky horror pun).




That'd only work if they traveled forward prior to the date (sometime in 1997) when Sarah was supposed to die of cancer in the T3 timeline. 

Of course, it's not _impossible_ for them to reconcile the series timeline with the T3 one - they'd just need to travel back in time far enough for Sarah to die of cancer in 1997, have their memories erased so they would still think the 1997 Judgement Day deadline mattered and wouldn't realize Skynet was definitely making a comback, and never wonder why John suddenly needs to shave at 13.


----------



## sydbar (Jan 15, 2008)

From what i read, this has taken over the time slot 24 was going to be in.  I've found it to be entertaining, so far.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 15, 2008)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Just to be a nag, T1 wasn't about changing the future. The whole point of it was that he had to come back and such for the future to happen. It was a nice, clean little time loop.
> 
> T2 ripped that apart with Paradox. Who changes the future if there's no longer a future to change? It was a totally different paradigm, but it was your "the future CAN be changed".
> 
> ...



 Ahh, the fun of time travel. 

T1: Skynet sends back a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor.  At this point the future John Connor is aware that Reese is his father and a Terminator sent back kills Reese.  As you said, future John sends Reese back to complete history.  What we do not know at that point is what Skynet knows.  If John is aware of history, then by implication Skynet should also be aware that it sent back a T-100 that failed in its mission, but its destruction provided material that allowed Dyson to create Skynet, therefore it did not send back the T-100 to kill Sarah Connor, but instead to fail and provide the technology needed to be created and preserve history.

T2 & T3: As you said, these movies opens up a whole new mess as they apparently actually change the future, rather than just preserving it.  If that is the case, then the future rebels after T2 should be the ones to send someone back in time to before 1984 to kill Sarah Connor.  If they succeed in doing so, then there will be no need for Skynet to send a Terminator back in time to 1984 thereby providing material for Dyson to create Skynet.


----------



## Rykion (Jan 15, 2008)

The second episode was a big let down.  Evidently 4 people disappearing in an apparent bank robbery warrants no investigation.  The time machine tech should have been there to find, and somehow the headless body of a super robot is just chucked into a dump.  The story also broke the rules of terminator universe time travel by having a terminator head travel through time without its organic component.:\  I'm definitely not expecting much from this show.


----------



## Belen (Jan 15, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The second episode was a big let down.  Evidently 4 people disappearing in an apparent bank robbery warrants no investigation.  The time machine tech should have been there to find, and somehow the headless body of a super robot is just chucked into a dump.  The story also broke the rules of terminator universe time travel by having a terminator head travel through time without its organic component.:\  I'm definitely not expecting much from this show.




The head thing was confusing.  It could have been thrown there during the explosion.  The explosion seems to have vaped everything in the area.  When they appeared on the street, it was in the same location that they left.  The bank was gone.  It was a street.


----------



## Belen (Jan 15, 2008)

I think that people are missing something important.  In the TV show, the events of T2 happened in 1997.  The movie was 1994.  They had already played with the dates.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 15, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I thought something similiar, that the t3 timeline isn't neccesarily ignored it just completely didn't happen because of the time warp (resist rocky horror pun).
> 
> In my quest to enjoy the show, i imagine that there are tons of timelines that didn't happen and this may just be one of many.  Though considering this theory and the fact that they are making a t4 does that make the series meaningless because still , just like at the end of 3, the war happens.
> 
> As for this episode i liked it less than last nights though its still in muh category.  I found John's actions kinda silly, particularly him going out by himself and instead of going to a library goes to a computer store and uses the internet.  Internet use for newspapers and research was not as public back in 1997 and seemed a bit forward thinking.




I dunno, a lot of people were on the internet back in '97, and remember, at least based on him in T2 (not so much T3), he's something of a hacker.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Budget wise i know why, but it makes no sense why they aren't sending more shapechanging terminators back.  And if the terminator's send a guard for john connors, why don't the other terminators send a guard for the scientist of skynet.




True, but at a certain point, just how many people are going to be from the future? It's going to be like that episode of South Park.

Still, IIRC, in the original movie, Skynet only had a short time to dispatch the terminators after it lost.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> BTW, I hated that bratak had to die.  I thought it would have been cooler if he was not a snitch on them.  This was bad writing.  What the heck was his plan.  I am going to send you to my nephew to do some super illegal stuff and then I am going to call the cops and tell of this plan.  This way my nephew and you will go to jail and I will probably be killed by his gang friends.  When instead all he had o do was call his informant and set sarah up.  Far simpler and without all the hood references.




Well, he probably would get a kickback for sending them to his nephew (I think the fake documents cost what, 20k? So he would probably get a couple grand from him).  And I doubt the police would even think to ask where they got the fake dcouments, much less track them down.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 15, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The second episode was a big let down.  Evidently 4 people disappearing in an apparent bank robbery warrants no investigation.  The time machine tech should have been there to find, and somehow the headless body of a super robot is just chucked into a dump.  The story also broke the rules of terminator universe time travel by having a terminator head travel through time without its organic component.:\  I'm definitely not expecting much from this show.




Bank robberies are actually incredibly common. And only about half of them are every solved.

I think people get the wrong idea from all the crime shows on TV.

And generally weird stuff simply just does get ignored. Like UFOs.  Rather than investigate, the media/government just make jokes.

The head does seem to be a mistake, though, unless there was an explosion (and the bank blew up) and the head just rolled off someplace, then sat lying there for 7 years.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 15, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Evidently 4 people disappearing in an apparent bank robbery warrants no investigation.  The time machine tech should have been there to find, and somehow the headless body of a super robot is just chucked into a dump.



 I'm pretty sure that what we didn't see was a military team and Cigarette Smoking Man show up to remove all evidence from the scene (it ended up in a dump after the secure government facility where they kept it was closed due to budget cuts).  Yes, that's right.  This show is really a lead-in to the new upcoming X-Files movie when Agent Scully is impregnated with a Terminator/human hybrid.


----------



## TanisFrey (Jan 15, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> It was alright, something I thought that was interesting was the sending back in time of "engineers".  But my fear, this could turn into a temporal war and that never works out.



The last time a TV program had a temporal war, Star C#$%:Enterprise; the different side, unknown number of them, were never made clear to the viewers.  And it was completely ignored for large number of episode.
This program the only 2 sides have clear cut positions and goals.  And it promises be an undercurrent in every episode.  

This gives it a good reason for this to work out unlike the crap Berman put out.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 16, 2008)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Ahh, the fun of time travel.
> 
> T1: Skynet sends back a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor.  At this point the future John Connor is aware that Reese is his father and a Terminator sent back kills Reese.  As you said, future John sends Reese back to complete history.  What we do not know at that point is what Skynet knows.  If John is aware of history, then by implication Skynet should also be aware that it sent back a T-100 that failed in its mission, but its destruction provided material that allowed Dyson to create Skynet, therefore it did not send back the T-100 to kill Sarah Connor, but instead to fail and provide the technology needed to be created and preserve history.





Well, SkyNet was built with the tech, but may not have known it had to do it, it's hard to say. I don't have the original and haven't watched in a long time, but from what I recall it was a last ditch effort to decapitate the resistance.

Now it seems to be a revolving door portal.


----------



## Rykion (Jan 16, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Bank robberies are actually incredibly common. And only about half of them are every solved.
> 
> I think people get the wrong idea from all the crime shows on TV.
> 
> And generally weird stuff simply just does get ignored. Like UFOs.  Rather than investigate, the media/government just make jokes.



I doubt bank robberies involving murderers wanted by the FBI, people disappearing into explosions, and advanced robotics left at the scene are considered common.  The majority of the terminator was physically still there.  I can't imagine it being ignored like a UFO sighting.



			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> The head does seem to be a mistake, though, unless there was an explosion (and the bank blew up) and the head just rolled off someplace, then sat lying there for 7 years.



The bank camera footage still existed in 2007, so at least part of the bank survived.  The head itself was shown coming out of a time bubble at the same place as the main characters.


			
				Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that what we didn't see was a military team and Cigarette Smoking Man show up to remove all evidence from the scene (it ended up in a dump after the secure government facility where they kept it was closed due to budget cuts).



The thing is that T2 showed that a single terminator hand could lead to Skynet.  T2 Arnie chose to die to prevent technology being captured.  Even in the TV series they go back to Dyson's home to make sure the littlest bit isn't still around.  Not long later they leave a mostly intact terminator at a crime scene and don't seem at all concerned.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 16, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The story also broke the rules of terminator universe time travel by having a terminator head travel through time without its organic component.:\  I'm definitely not expecting much from this show.




That rule got shattered in T2 and T3 already. T-1000 and T-X were completely inorganic, but somehow managed to travel through time anyway.

Besides, it was a stupid concept to begin with - the idea of being able to fool the laws of physics governing time travel by covering a machine in living tissue makes about as much sense as being able to fool gravity by dressing like a bird and flapping your arms.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 16, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The thing is that T2 showed that a single terminator hand could lead to Skynet.  T2 Arnie chose to die to prevent technology being captured.  Even in the TV series they go back to Dyson's home to make sure the littlest bit isn't still around.  Not long later they leave a mostly intact terminator at a crime scene and don't seem at all concerned.




For the sake of being picky, it wasn't just a hand, it was a hand and a damaged CPU that led to Skynet...

I'm not saying that the TV series won't crash and burn - the Terminator stories don't have a great record in that respect, with every new piece of fiction put out adding to the list of paradoxes and things that don't make sense (which really is a great argument for the value of Knowing When to Leave Well Enough Alone), but this particular issue you bring up is one thing I don't really have a problem with. 

They know by now that there are actually multiple terminators running around in the past, which means they'll never be able to find and destroy them all, so it makes sense for them to think of the big picture, and just concentrate on finding out who's trying to build Skynet and stopping them. It might not work, but trying to hunt terminators is virtually guaranteed to fail because it'll just get them all killed.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jan 16, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I found John's actions kinda silly, particularly him going out by himself and instead of going to a library goes to a computer store and uses the internet.  Internet use for newspapers and research was not as public back in 1997 and seemed a bit forward thinking.



I'm pretty sure they come forward from 1999, though, when such searches on the net were significantly more popular.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 16, 2008)

Belen said:
			
		

> I think that people are missing something important.  In the TV show, the events of T2 happened in 1997.  The movie was 1994.  They had already played with the dates.




Yeah, I guess they made John Connor a 13 year old when the events of T2 occured. He seemed more like 13 than 10 in the movie, really (probably because Edward Furlong was 13-14 at the time).


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 16, 2008)

Didn't anyone notice that when John asked 'tinman' what model she is, she didn't answer? that creates some interesting possibilities for the future, she might not actually be a Terminator (Human cyborg with Terminator parts for example)...

Timetravel:
Often time is represented by a string, time travel is a loop in that string. In my opinion the Terminator franchise is a couple of miles of string wound around a finger, which is a good thing imho. I see the Saraha Conner Chronicles happening after T3, or even after T4. Just enough has changed for another loop to happen.

Terminator:
He's like Arnies illegimate child, I expect him to say "I'll be back!" at any moment ;-)
Movement is very T1 like, even some of the earlier fight scenes (shooting up a bunch of police and their cars), very nostalgic. The fights between the Terminator and 'tinman' are, to much the same imho, how long can throwing each other through walls and floors stay interesting (once).

Sarah:
Is still going to die, just because you time travelled doesn't mean cancer isn't going to happen. The actress playing Sarah is good enough imho for the role. The series depicts her as a bit more human and less certain, but at the same time a bit more insane ("I don't even know what i'll do!")

John:
A teenager with the luck of the devil, I like how he's depicted, I think the actor is good for the role. I like the way how he's innocently accepting the 'tinman' as a friend, just like in T2. Although I like the looks he sometimes has "What was I thinking sending _her_ back...".

'Tinman':
Excellent choice for a female 'Terminator', loved her in Firefly/Serenity, I'm going to love her in this role as well (she does the inhuman part so well, would love to see her as an archvillain). Liked how she imitated the female ganger, found her ruthlessness refreshing (I just hated that they had to show she was right, would have been so much better if this wasn't revealed).

Overall:
I very much like the series, I hope they don't cancel this! It motivates me to watch the movies again.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 16, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The thing is that T2 showed that a single terminator hand could lead to Skynet.  T2 Arnie chose to die to prevent technology being captured.  Even in the TV series they go back to Dyson's home to make sure the littlest bit isn't still around.  Not long later they leave a mostly intact terminator at a crime scene and don't seem at all concerned.



 Apparently I failed my Sarcasm skill check in my post.  I thought for sure the pregnant Scully reference would give it away.

Overall I'm finding the show to be fun.  As long as I don't delve into thinking about things too much I suspect I will continue to enjoy it - at least until they run out of scripts.  

It has been a frustrating year for a writer's strike.  Normally I find only one or two new shows that interest me.  This year I am up to seven, but most have already run out of new stories and who knows if they will survive to see the return of the writers.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 16, 2008)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure they come forward from 1999, though, when such searches on the net were significantly more popular.



Ah, that would make a bit more sense, ...dangit someone jot down a timeline because I'm real confused now.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 16, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> That rule got shattered in T2 and T3 already. T-1000 and T-X were completely inorganic, but somehow managed to travel through time anyway.
> 
> Besides, it was a stupid concept to begin with - the idea of being able to fool the laws of physics governing time travel by covering a machine in living tissue makes about as much sense as being able to fool gravity by dressing like a bird and flapping your arms.



I thought they explained ... at leaast i remember they did in 2, that the t-1000 had enough organic matererial to time travel and that his mechanics for shapeshanging had organic components.  

Still you're right, time travel's laws say only life can travel back... hope you don't have fillings.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 16, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> That rule got shattered in T2 and T3 already. T-1000 and T-X were completely inorganic, but somehow managed to travel through time anyway.
> 
> Besides, it was a stupid concept to begin with - the idea of being able to fool the laws of physics governing time travel by covering a machine in living tissue makes about as much sense as being able to fool gravity by dressing like a bird and flapping your arms.




The easiest way for them to resolve it was for the rebels to simply say that they're trying to minimize their impact on the past by not bringing future technology into the past.....which is kind of why Skynet happened in the first place.

If they just said that they *can* bring inorganic material back, but they just want to avoid doing so, for fear of accidentally making a bad situation worse.  Skynet and the Terminators just wouldn't care.

Banshee


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 16, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I thought they explained ... at leaast i remember they did in 2, that the t-1000 had enough organic matererial to time travel and that his mechanics for shapeshanging had organic components.
> 
> Still you're right, time travel's laws say only life can travel back... hope you don't have fillings.




Depending on where the line gets drawn, you could also arrive missing hair, nails, the very outer layer of skin, tooth enamel, the dead bacteria which make up a large part of the contents of your large intestine... 

The only hand-wave I can see (short of them saying it's not a matter of physical law, but that Fate or God or Gaia or The Universal Consciousness made it so) that'd even begin to make sense is if they said that living tissue generates some sort of field, or energy signature, that makes time travel possible, and that's why something mechanical surrounded by enough organic material can travel through time - but I think that's pretty weak... Even if the image of a T-1000 materializing inside a ball of organic slush, then slipping in the resulting puddle and falling on his ass sort sort of cracks me up.

Here's another random thought: If there's a "scientific" reason why the time-travelers always arrive kneeling or curled up fetally it'd probably be that whoever operates the time machine wants to a) Keep the volume of the sphere as low as possible (less energy used, less temporal disruption, or some other likely bit of technobabble) and b) Make sure they don't accidentally cut something off as the targets dematerialize. However, rather than arrive as a metal sphere (which inherently takes up the least possible space for a given volume of material), the T-1000 shows up the same way as everyone else, because it's more dramatic that way.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 16, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The easiest way for them to resolve it was for the rebels to simply say that they're trying to minimize their impact on the past by not bringing future technology into the past.....which is kind of why Skynet happened in the first place.
> 
> If they just said that they *can* bring inorganic material back, but they just want to avoid doing so, for fear of accidentally making a bad situation worse.  Skynet and the Terminators just wouldn't care.
> 
> Banshee




Sure, but if that's the case, why would the terminator arrive butt-naked, whining about his "phased-plasma rifle in the 40-watt range".


----------



## Rykion (Jan 17, 2008)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Apparently I failed my Sarcasm skill check in my post.  I thought for sure the pregnant Scully reference would give it away.



Nope, I knew you weren't being serious.  I was just using your response as a chance to re-emphasize what I felt was an important idea from the movies being ignored in the TV series.


----------



## kinem (Jan 17, 2008)

The naked arrival in the original movies could make sense based on 1) saving energy by minimizing the amount of material sent is important, 2) in the future, clothing is very different, and someone arriving with that might attract the enemy's attention.

Sadly the series blew this one.  It seemed like they just were trying to closely imitate certain events that happened in the movies, rather than bothering to think.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 17, 2008)

I really enjoyed the two part pilot (caught it last night on tape). I hope the show continues beyond Season 1, for the 12 episodes that are planned. In case it isn't, I'm recording it to VHS for archival purposes.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 17, 2008)

I liked it so far, and I think I will try to avoid thinking too much on the Time Travel thing and the Technology behind it. Let's face it, this stuff rarely makes sense. The show isn't really trying to technobabble everything (so far), so I don't think we should worry too much about it. 

IIRC, Sarah's last scene in the second part was her going to the hospital (oncology department). I guess she wants to find out whether she has cancer already.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 17, 2008)

I enjoyed it.  Not being intimately familiar with the movie timeline, I assumed the timejump "went around" T3 and split off into its own potentiality.

I have no idea why time travel requires nakedness.  The bio-organic field concept is good, except it's gotta be a pretty tight field, since it doesn't even bring your tighty-whities along.

I think something's up with the T-Summer model of tinman.  I'm wondering if she's Sarah Conner, post-death (and with some obvious memory issues).


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 17, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Also not too keen on injecting superfluous sexuality as done with the T3 terminatrix or the New Buffy-nator.



Heresy!  I love me some superfluous sexuality!


----------



## Baumi (Jan 17, 2008)

The Series is awesome ... 45 Minutes of River Tam kicking some Asses with Supernatural Strenght   

... Wait you mean there is a story and other charakters in it too?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 18, 2008)

Baumi said:
			
		

> The Series is awesome ... 45 Minutes of River Tam kicking some Asses with Supernatural Strenght
> 
> ... Wait you mean there is a story and other charakters in it too?








http://xkcd.com/311/ 
A dream has finally come true?

If Jack Baur and River Tam had a secret love child, could it beat Chuck Norris?


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jan 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If Jack Baur and River Tam had a secret love child, could it beat Chuck Norris?



  Heresy!


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 19, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I actually LIKED T3. But oh well, that's all good. It would be basically impossible to do the series while having it and T3 both in the same continuity.




I did as well.  I liked the very end.

I am chalking TSCC up to that fact that there are things they can do to possibly change the future.  So T3 to me was basically one resolution.  Of course, now we get into all the different theories of time travel...  Are they on an alternate time line (like in Back to the Future)?  Did T3 never happen and a new history is being written?  Guess we'll have to see...


----------

