A certain type of time travel movies

You sir, just blew my mind with those allegories. I never stopped to to consider the deeper ramifications of these films.
I...I need to sit down....

I probably agree with the last sentence on principle. However, that doesn't negate the essence of John's message, which is pretty much "fight to survive, so I can live". In other words, he doesn't want to alter the already established course. Remember that for John (in the future) there's already an established course that led to him being who he is and where he is, but for Sarah (in the past/present), there isn't. The essence of John's message is for her to hold strong, to survive, so that established course isn't altered, and in his mind, the action of sending Kyle to protect her is a way to ensure that that happens. On the other hand, Skynet sending the Terminator is an attempt to alter that established course. Kill Sarah in order to remove John out of the equation.

Of course, this is what triggers the cyclical paradox that lies at the core of the films where, like I said in the previous post, their actions are the ones that ultimately put up in motion the events of the future (again, Kyle and Sarah conceiving John, the destroyed Terminator leading to the creation of Terminators). So at the end of the day, it was all meant to happen, hence the deterministic angle of it: all things and events are determined by previously existing causes, and they are ultimately impossible to change.

Sure, the storm is allegorical of whatever comes. But the fact that we see the picture being taken, the same picture that John gave to Kyle in the future is a clear hint that the events are still in motion, and that the established route hasn't ultimately changed. But, again, like I said in the previous post, she still pushes through and drives *towards* the storm, but with confidence.

There is a shift in the tone and essence of the message when you add that line, "there's no fate but what we make for ourselves". Going back to what I already mentioned above, the essence of the original message is "this course can't be altered, or I won't be here". In the original, "the future is not set" isn't strictly a claim of free will, but more of a warning. Don't think you're safe just because your unborn son is writing to you from the future. You can still die, and the course will be altered, John won't exist, humankind won't survive, and the machines will win.

By adding the line in the sequel, it gives Cameron some slack to explore some new themes, which are those of free will. He's turning the tables on what was established in the original by having Sarah and Co. be the ones to take the fight to Cyberdyne/Skynet and try to remove them out of the equation, much like Skynet did by sending the Terminators in the first place. And it's a powerful message, to take control of your destiny, but it's not the same essence as the original.

In this I agree that each film, yes, reflects the time when they were made, but maybe also changes in Cameron's own philosophies and point of view towards life, and later that of the subsequent screenwriters and directors. From determinism to free will to fatalism to whatever they were trying to put forward in the last three.

__________________

I think it's an interesting question of whether or not John Conner would attempt to alter the past - say, by targeting Miles Dyson, for example - in order to prevent Skynet from emerging and Judgment Day, sacrificing his own timeline and existence in the process for the good of the human race. (This partly breaks down in the Back to the Future-style questions of erasure, which thankfully falls under the nonsense science of time travel that we just have to take for granted for narrative purposes.) Conner may not have had the necessary knowledge to target the architects of Skynet technology, as Reese explained that most records had been wiped out. But Conner knew that Reese was his father, knew that his mother had been targeted for assassination, likely (I assume) had limited access to the time-travel technology, and so the most urgent task at hand was to protect his mother. There seems to be a certain underdog desperation here. It doesn't appear that Conner held any specifically deterministic philosophy, or objections to potentially altering the past to preserve what he would consider the "established" timeline. I think that he didn't have the luxury of time or access to fully consider all of the possible alternatives.

The primary problem with John Conner choosing the more strategic root of using time travel to target Skynet's inception isn't a matter of self-sacrifice so much, but rather the more commercial imperative of the franchise to self-sustain a profitable future of self-replicating sequels, which may be why the sequels after II have been increasingly redundant and asinine.


If Conner believed that "it was all meant to happen", then why doesn't he surrender to the inevitability of Skynet's domination? No, the fact is that we are responsible for changing the future every day given the tools at our disposal.


She's confident because she's realized that she has an active responsibility to shape future events, rather than the more passive acceptance of "what has to happen" in the impersonal mechanics of the universe. She has the agency to choose not to accept this responsibility. Many people choose to go through life without considering the future consequences of their responsibilities while relying on pre-determined fate to do what it's going to do regardelss of our efforts.


In both scenarios, the ultimate fate is completely dependent on the actions and resolve of human will. It requires struggle precisely because survival runs directly against the grain of a predetermined course of events.


I haven't seen where Cameron has attested to any change of philosophy from the first and second film. I think that in order to demonstrate this, you need to show where he's said something like "I decided to take it in a different direction..." For now, I think that given the close similarity of both films emphasizing willed human action and responsibility as the ultimate determinate of humanity's future, I'm going to continue to assume that this isn't a coincidence. Although he did go one further step by showing that even a programmed machine is capable of transcending its predetermined course, but that's just an extension, rather than a refutation, of the original's theme.


"Maybe" is carrying a lot of weight here. Maybe Cameron's philosophies and POV hadn't changed at all?

It is interesting that the first Terminator sequel that Cameron was directly invoved with, Dark Fate, essentially erases 3, possibly an indication of his view on the matter. I haven't seen Dark Fate (and I haven't heard good things), so I'm not going to defend its effectiveness as a replacement.

T3's "no matter what you do, destiny finds a way to take place as it was described" implies that all the protagonists from T1 could just as well have sit down and waited, for the same result (an adult John Connor would have lead the resistance no matter what).

I like groundhog day and timecop

There is a good deal of speculation here since we don't get a lot of information about Connor from the original picture, so I wouldn't dare to venture a guess about what his beliefs/philosophies are or what he *would've* attempted one way or the other. As a matter of fact I don't think we're ever explicitly told that he knows Kyle would end up being his father, although it is heavily implied. Sarah herself questions in the end how much she should tell her son, but ultimately concludes that she "owes him that", but I digress... what we do know is that he wanted to protect his mother, and therefore himself/humankind.

I never said that Connor had any particular belief, but that the overall themes of the original film lean more towards determinism which, again, is seen in how all the events in the film are determined by previously existing causes. I do agree about the "underdog desperation" which ties to what I was saying before in how the focus of the original is more primal, i.e. mere survival. Which is what leads Connor to send the message to Sarah... "You must survive, or I will never exist."

The "I give up, I have no control" mentality is more of a fatalistic approach or variety of determinism, but not the only one. But anyway, with the clarification that I never said that John adhered to any particular philosophy (we don't know), he doesn't surrender because he wants to live/fight and from his point of view, there's no "established route" cause he's in the present (*his* present). As far as he's concerned, things can still go either way for him and humankind (I believe it is said/hinted that humans had been getting a bit of an upper-hand by the time they used the time machine).

You can contrast this with Sarah, who is being actively told that there's an "established route" that will result in her son becoming the leader of the Human Resistance, hence the need to protect her so that route isn't altered.

She definitely realizes she has a responsibility, which is why she drives away to protect her son, and why she makes all the efforts to prepare John for his future role. It doesn't have to be a passive "what has to happen, will happen" (the fatalistic approach I mentioned above), but she's certainly embracing the fate that she's been told awaits them.

I think we agree with the first sentence, although our reasoning seems to be different. In the original message, Connor is asking Sarah to have the resolve to survive, but against the force that comes to alter the "established route". Again, "you must survive, or I will never exist". Although I can see where you come from in your reasoning about "survival vs. predetermination", I don't think it's exclusive. In this case, "survival" is done to preserve that "predetermined course of events" that is threatened by a "foreign force".

According to an interview I found, Cameron's core idea for the sequel was "a Terminator protecting John Connor", instead of the other way around... and to elaborate on "the idea that technology itself is amoral and that only its use for good or evil gives it any moral value" (read it here). So that notion of "taking things in a different direction" was definitely there.

In another interview regarding the development of Dark Fate, he says:

So even Cameron himself argues that the Terminator in the sequel doesn't have "free will". Whether that's what he always thought, or just a convenient soundbite for the purpose of marketing the new film, I don't know.

I do agree that the Terminator in the sequel does behave with a certain degree of liberty, but John and Sarah had to flip the switch in its head for him to "learn" new things. Is its behavior after that still a result of some programming or is it completely free? Is it still forced to follow its prime directive given by Connor in the future? Is that why it "sacrifices" himself (to protect John) or is it because it "learned" a valuable lesson about humanity? The film obviously leans towards the latter, but I think it's interesting to ask the questions about the ultimate motivations of a machine.

Back when Terminator 3 was released, Cameron said he thought it was "great" and supported Jonathan Mostow and Co. so there's that too. But anyway, I don't think we need to read more than what there is to it. The original premise of ignoring T3, Salvation, and Genisys came from producer David Ellison, even before they got Cameron on board. When director Tim Miller brought Cameron in, he was intrigued by the idea which makes sense, considering 1) how the general perception of the franchise is that T1 and T2 are the only good ones, and 2) that those were the ones he directed/wrote. So from a storyteller perspective, of course it makes sense to pick things up where you left them, instead of where someone else did, in addition to making it more attractive to audiences that disliked the other sequels. It was a smart move from him as a co-writer and as a producer ($$$).

What I mean by desperate is that it's strongly implied that the effort to send back Reese was a one-shot deal, as in there wasn't much consideration for similar missions outside of the most urgent concern. There's no real indication that Conner would have objected to a larger plan of sabatoging Skynet to prevent Judgment Day based on any dogma about fate and established, linear integrity of time. He likely did not have the time or access to the technology to consider a broader effort. And how far back would such an effort go? Assassinate Dyson, sure. Assassinate Jobs and Gates? The leading DARPA researchers? Alan Turing? As Reese explained, most historical records had been wiped out. But what I don't believe is that Conner was so selfishly concerned with his own survival rather than the survival of the human race, which he happened to then be a crucial instrument of. Would Conner have been willing to sacrifice his own conception if it meant saving humanity? I think what we do know about Conner's personal character in the first film would strongly point in this direction. As it was, he did what he could with what he had.


I'm using your own words here - "established future", "established route/course", "Judgment Day is inevitable", "ultimately doomed", "it was all meant to happen", a future which is "ultimately impossible to change", all of which supports the explicit "it was never our destiny to stop Judgment Day" from 3. So what other form of determinism are you asserting here? I've specifically been referring to "pre-determined" causes, because I'm more inclined to the compatibilist view that human (will) actions are indeed significant "existing causes" that actively effect future conditions and events.


So let me be clear in my views: 1) I don't believe in the existence of an "established" future, and, by the nature of its premise, I don't believe that James Cameron's original script does either. 2) I don't believe in the inevitability of an "established course", 3) I don't believe that anything is "meant" to happen, 4) I don't believe in a human destiny that doesn't require the present in-the-moment active participation and responsibility of sentient human beings, which inherently involves a potential of change, 5) The twin mantras of the two films, regarding the plasticity of the future and our responsibility towards it, appear to support my beliefs.


There's never been much doubt about the amorality of Skynet. It didn't eradicate humanity because it was evil, but because of its calculated self-interest.


It's odd that you didn't quote the portion around the above quotes that says that the sequel was "natural as both a narrative and thematic progression" of the original, which is far more in line with what I've described as "extension, rather than refutation" than it is being "not the same essence", "the other way around" or "a different direction" from the original.


I suspect the latter because....


From Cameron's own script, the Terminator shows an awful amount of philosophical and emotional introspection, demonstrating altruism, acknowledging fear and "I know now why you cry, but it is something I cannot do".

"Convenient soundbite for the purpose of marketing a new film"? Well, James is a nice guy, I suppose. Hopefully he extended some support for the screenwriter's follow-up project, Catwoman.

Yeah, I got your initial point, and it's not only implied but explicitly said by Reese that the time machine was destroyed after ("no one goes back"). Obviously that was contradicted in future installments for the sake of sequels, now featuring an endless conveyor belt of good Terminators and bad Terminators being sent back, but well...

Anyway, re: John Connor's beliefs, like I said in the previous post, we are not told, hence we don't know. What we do know is what's on the message which explicitly says "You must survive or I will never exist". I don't see that as selfish because from his point of view, the survival of humankind hangs on his existence as leader of the Resistance, which I've referenced often...

Would he sacrifice his own conception if it meant saving humanity? Based on what little we know of John Connor at this point, I would say yes, but that's not the case in point.

If you look closely at most of the quoted words/sentences, you'll see they come from the paragraph where I was specifically talking about Terminator 3, which I explicitly said on my first post leans more towards the fatalistic approach...

I have been using the term "established course" or "route" repeatedly because that's what the film presents, at least from John/Kyle's "future" perspective. There's a path that was already walked that led them to where they were. That's the path that the Terminator is trying to erase, hence the path that John/Kyle are trying to preserve. And like I've been saying, their actions (John, Kyle, Skynet, the Terminator) affect, or even initiate future/(past?) conditions and events, which is the cyclical paradox that the film(s) hang from.

So to recapitulate, as far as the film presents us, there IS an "established" future, or more specifically, a "future" that already happened. That's not clear to Sarah, but it is for John/Kyle cause it's their, uhh, past. Can that future be changed? In theory, yes. Or at least that's what both Skynet and the Resistance believe, which is why they both send a Terminator and a soldier back in time.

But once again, that very action is the one that puts in motion the *wait for it* "established course", which I've mentioned repeatedly, and which is at the central core of the film(s). So, if we accept the fact that there is/was a Skynet, that there are/were Terminators, that there is/was a Resistance led by a John Connor, then we have to accept the fact that the events of the first film were, well, "meant to happen".

Does that negate the "active participation" and "responsibility" of human beings, for example, Kyle or Sarah? I don't see it that way. Kyle was obviously an active participant as far as his role is concerned. Sarah was actively involved as well, and although she's ultimately oblivious to most of the details of the future war and whatnot, she still decides to step up. We see this in the last act as she gets involved in the preparation of the weapons, and how she ultimately carries the trained soldier (literally and figuratively). We see it in how she took on the responsibility of preparing his son for his future role as leader of the Resistance, which is something we see expanded in the sequel. So she was very much active and responsible, first in setting things up for the future that she thought was sure to come, and eventually in trying to change things.

I think I've established the reasons why I think the sequel is "not the same essence" (determinism vs. free will; darker, almost horror-ish tone vs. action, more teen-oriented, more hopeful), "the other way around" or "a different direction" (we don't want the future to change vs. we're changing the future). Once again, I'm not arguing the quality of the story, but it's evident that Cameron is exploring new themes in the sequel, while parting from the same story (hence, a "progression").

Yeah, well, I've always been iffy about the "humanization" of the Terminator. To me, it's not something that holds up that well upon closer inspection, and is more of a narrative device to add emotional gravitas to the film. Granted, it's effective and for the most part, well executed, but the internal logistics of it don't work that well for me.

Ha!

This is fun, isn't it?!

OK, the fact that this was a one-shot narrow window is significant. John Conner's options were limited, and under this pressure, the most important mission was to stop the Terminator from killing his mother. But....

Humankind would not be so dependent on one man (which is hardly an enviable position for humankind to be in) if there hadn't been a Judgment Day at all. The above is significant because it tells us that Conner had no choice. He probably sent Reese back using the exact same coordinates that Skynet sent T-800. He probably wouldn't have known how to reprogram the system for another time and place. (Apparently there was a planned prologue for 2 which would have shown Conner and Reese storming the Skylab facility and sending him back.) So, there's not much to go on to suggest that Conner gave one wit over the integrity of his established timeline except that that timeline is much better with him in it. This says absolutely nothing to whether or not he would have chosen not to preserve this timeline if it meant circumventing Judgment Day and assured survival of the human race. Therefore, I don't see the support that Conner was motivated by preserving his own timeline if he had other options which he did not.


The case is important for your determinism argument, which is that Conner's motivation was to preserve an already established course rather than reset a course that may be more favorable to humanity. This is an important distinction with the sequel over the question of avoiding Judgment Day altogether (ie, proving that it was not actually inevitable).


Yeah. We're talking about Terminator 3. And why I think it sucks (per its fatalism) and why you think it's hardcore (per its cynical bleakness). This is what we've been talking about. You've been saying that the first sequel is the thematic aberration of the first three films, and I see the third one as the one which turns against the first two. Why? Because of its fatalism.


A "natural thematic progression" is not a "new theme". It's an extension of the theme's implications.


I get that, and that's also an aspect of our disagreement that isn't likely to be resolved. The question is as to whether this development is more in line with Cameron's original vision or not. I think it's apparent from Cameron's original film that he is not as impressed with the bleakness of humanity's doom as you may be. That may be why he limited his thoughts to 3 to a single banal syllable. But I see no textual evidence that Cameron felt that Judgment Day had to occur. As far as the Conners are concerned, it doesn't seem within their realm of power to do anything about it if they wanted to, and that's a very different proposition than to say that they felt it needed to happen.


Hang in there, dude

I think time travel movies should take a page from inception book. The thing I liked most about it is, it's one of the first mainstream movies about dreams. In a more tangible, accessible way. Yet, Nolan decided to put so many elements into it. The real heart of he movie is not even dream layers, it is the story about catharsis. So he made audience work out the dream travel element by showing them 2-3 steps into the process. Time travel movies should do that without copying it. They need to use it as minor plot crutch as opposed to basing the movie around it. If that is done then I believe the genre could have a new life.

Once again, there's a fair amount of speculation here on "what would John Connor do" if he had more time, more options, more knowledge, more records. But it's just speculation. As far as I can see, all we have are his actions (sending Kyle Reese back in time to protect his mother/himself) and his message ("You must survive or I will never exist") to understand his motivations, and both tell us that he wanted to preserve the timeline in which he ends up alive, and able to help humankind. It doesn't have to do with allowing Judgment Day to happen or not, but rather with having him on the field *when* it happens.

But your "rather" alternative never happened in the original film. How do you expect to analyze the motivations of a character we barely see on a film, based on an alternative that's pure speculation? a "what if"? As far as he can see, he can't stop Judgment Day from occurring and the course that's more "favorable to humanity" is the one where he's alive and able to fight for humanity.

Now, if you wanna put the motivations of "adult" John Connor, who I'm arguing didn't want to alter the "established course" based on what we see in the original film, against the motivations of "teenage" John Connor who actually went on to do it in the sequel, then your premise wouldn't work because 1) the one who had the idea to go against Cyberdyne/Skynet was Sarah. Yeah, eventually John went along, but initially he wanted to stop her (mostly because he didn't want her to kill someone), but most importantly 2) because if they indeed changed the future and "avoided Judgment Day", then the John that did went on with this plan and succeeded is not the same John that sent Kyle from the future. The John that went on with Sarah's plan is already on another timeline, and went on to work at BestBuy and have kids.

Notice that at this point, I'm completely ignoring Terminator 3, cause at this point, they thought that Judgment Day was prevented.

I wouldn't say one "it's hardcore" or the other a "thematic aberration", but whatever... I understand that you're referring to this...

And taking into account that the bulk of our exchange here has been about T1/T2, I'll stand by my assessment that whereas T1 zigs, T2 zags... and T3 zigs back. Once again, this is not an argument about quality or whatnot, but the way I see it...

T1 = Future apparently is not changed, course for Judgment Day seems to still be in motion
T2 = Future is changed, Judgment Day is avoided
T3 = Future didn't change, Judgment Day was only postponed and eventually happens

In that respect, I stand by my original statement that "the third one is closer to the themes of the original".

Fair enough. My argument was that the sequel deals more openly with the themes of "free will", as opposed to the original.

Fair enough. We don't necessarily need to see eye to eye with everything or anything, as long as the discussion is interesting and respectful.

I don't see it as apparent as you. I think he's clever enough to close the original film with a somewhat ambiguous ending that I see leans more towards the cycle repeating itself again (once again, things like John Connor's conception, Sarah's picture, etc.), hence, Judgment Day still occurring. If that's not the case, then why have Sarah & Co. go through all the internalization of "No fate but what we make for ourselves", try to kill Dyson, and eventually storm Cyberdyne, if not to stop Judgment Day from occurring? The way I see it, for 1.5 of *his* films, Judgment Day was set to occur.

If you're talking about Judgment Day, I never said they [Sarah & John] "felt it needed to happen", but rather that *when* it happened, they wanted to have John on the field, so to speak.

Oh I'm fine

I disagree. I think there's sufficient textual evidence to suggest the limitations on time/options/knowledge/records is directly affecting the narrow, desperate choice that Conner had to make. And there's nothing about Conner's attitude towards humanity's survival to suggest that he would have preferred a Judgment Day timeline if the above limitations had not confined him from doing anything about it.


"Can't" being the operative word there, and I don't think it's particularly speculative to say that a timeline without Judgment Day would be vastly more "favorable to humanity". There are a number of people who are obsessed with purges, storms and reckonings, but I wouldn't consider any of them to be humanitarians.


"Didn't want" and "can't" are not interchangeable terms, but you are switching them out for the convenience of your argument. Whether or not Conner could circumvent Judgment Day (and I think we agree that he could not) is not relevant to whether he would or would not. That's why I base my presumption that he would on his more general attitude about humanity, rather than on the limitations of actions he could take.



I don't see that it makes much difference whose idea it was, but, sure, a less intellectually mature Conner might have trouble waging the difference between a few people killed vs billions of people killed. I think the key distinction is that, at this point in the film, John was still unconvinced that the future Skynet timeline was real, which makes it pretty irrelevant at this point.



I must have missed that director's cut of T2. Anyway, it's very clear that we have very different understandings of how future conditions are formed.


Again, not at all clear, and this is the crux of the symbolism of "the storm". It is ambiguous by nature. Something is coming. The future will always pose challenges and frustrations to our best laid plans, but the precise nature of these challenges are never certain until we encounter them. This is why vigilance and resilience are more important forms of preparation than precognition (if the latter were even possible). Things like the photo at the gas station illustrate the massive causative wheels in motion, the intimidating force of momentum that she is up against, but despite being an uphill battle and going against the grain, she's willing to face it with whatever personal force she can command. I don't see any thematic difference between T1 ending with Sarah voluntarily driving directly into this uncertain storm and Sarah in T2 deciding to directly confront Skynet head on. It's the smart, strategic move, after all, so why not assert her own force onto the face of the future?

As I've said, I think that survival is inherently an act of will over nature, and the Terminator is exciting precisely because there's no guarantee that Sarah and Reese's considerable will to live will triumph. It's less of a question of will than one of the limited choices which restrict it. For a waitress like Sarah, something like a government defense surveillance computer system is quite beyond her ability to stop. But it isn't a change in theme for her, while training John, to also train herself to figure out ways to stop it.

What you appear to be saying is that given an option to stop it, John would decline because to him the established course is the only legitimate course that the future must take. This is certainly what 3 presents, and exactly what I reject.

Speaking of time travel films, Time Crimes is back streaming on Amazon Prime. Perhaps now is the time for me to finally sit down and watch this.

Highly recommended.

I’m not really familiar with the directors other works, so I’m going in totally blind. I just know he favors sci fi.

Second the recommendation. This is excellent.