SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

I was reading an article on cracked about 6 iconic movie leaders (who aren't fit to lead a parade) and the number one was John Connor.

Now the content of the article aside it got me thinking..

We all know that John Connor in the future sent Kyle Reese back in time to impregant his mother Sarah Connor for him to be born.

Taking into consideration that it is a movie after all and your meant to suspend your disbelief i think there is a problem with this.

For John Connor to be alive in the future he would have to be born by Sarah Connor. Now the problem with this is that for him to be alive in the future to send Kyle Reese back there has to have been a point originally where John Connor was born by Sarah Connor without being impregnated by Kyle Reese.

If this didn't happen there would be no cycle. John Connor would have to grow up to send Kyle Reese back but this isn't possible since John Connor wouldn't be born.

In a nutshell to save the confusion (hopefully):

There has to be a John Connor in the future to send Kyle Reese back so he can be born but there is no possible scenario that can exist originally that John Connor could exist in the future to send himself back without being born in the first place.

I.e. John Connor does not exist.

I hope this is clear sort of, it's a bit of a mind fuck and hard to describe in words... maybe i am not right at all, what do you think?

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Alowishus wrote:

I hope this is clear sort of, it's a bit of a mind fuck and hard to describe in words... maybe i am not right at all, what do you think?

It's a movie.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

joshwoodzy wrote:

Alowishus wrote:

I hope this is clear sort of, it's a bit of a mind fuck and hard to describe in words... maybe i am not right at all, what do you think?

It's a movie.

Alowishus wrote:

Taking into consideration that it is a movie after all and your meant to suspend your disbelief i think there is a problem with this.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Based on our concept of time, he can't exist, but based on the movie's concept of time, and the possibility that time may not work exactly how we think it does, why not?

Posted: Jul 11 2010 01:48 pm

Also: Terminator is fucking awesome. It doesn't need to obey any concepts of time.

Posted: Jul 11 2010 03:06 pm

Kind of how Phillip j fry is his own grandfather

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jul 11 2010 03:31 pm

There's a list of the Time Loops in the first 2 movies here: http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html

It's a bit out of date, since it doesn't cover the third movie, but that's good, since the third movie also doesn't exist.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

UsaSatsui wrote:

It's a bit out of date, since it doesn't cover the third movie, but that's good, since the third movie also doesn't exist.

If only.

Posted: Jul 11 2010 05:15 pm

How bout the scenario that Sarah Connor THINKS Kyle Reese is the father when really it was just one of the many men she had slept with prior to meeting Kyle. She was a waitress after all and in the 80's she appeared to be a fairly hot one by the standards back then. All guys like women who are trained to bring things to us without us lifting a finger after all.

Posted: Jul 11 2010 05:37 pm

Or, when Reese went back and planted his seed that just started a new time line where skynet took over.

Joined: Mar 13 2009 Location: Arlington Posts: 467

There could be two John Connors. The first and original JC didn't know who his father was. He was just raised by his mother and used what he learned to fight the machines. When he found out that the machines were sending a terminator back to kill his mother, he sent his best man available to save his mother. Reese and Sara got it on and the original John Connor was destroyed and replaced with an new one. Maybe the original JC knew this was a possibility, but with his mother's training and a soldier as a father, he knew that any future John Connor would be more than prepared to lead the fight against the machines.

Posted: Jul 11 2010 06:46 pm

joshwoodzy wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

It's a bit out of date, since it doesn't cover the third movie, but that's good, since the third movie also doesn't exist.

If only.

The third movie is fantastic! It's a return to the the B-movie roots of the original movie, and it's a blast. And it came out the same summer as Matrix Reloaded. Whereas Reloaded was dull, pretentious, and filled with simplistic stoner musings presented as brilliant philosophical questions, T3 was an unapologetic return to the action movies of old. No slow motion, no stylized shots. No subtlety. Just one long, exciting chase. Name a better American action movie that came out that year.

Whatever you said, you're wrong. Kill yourself.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

"Johnny English". Mr. Bean could defeat Arnold any day.

EDIT - I just remembered that he talks too much in that movie. Talking kills the Magic of Mr. Bean.

But seriously, since I could almost honestly say that Terminator 2 is one of my favorite movies, I was expecting equal awesomeness and that is just an unreachable goal.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jul 11 2010 07:25 pm

...Okay, that's it. Someone get over to Syd's house and adjust his sarcasm modulator, the thing's way out of whack.

Posted: Jul 11 2010 07:46 pm

T3 was not as good as T2. Not even close.That I will agree. But somewhere in the late 90s, the bar for good action movies was lowered significantly. The Matrix, the original one, despite being good, was a huge part of the problem.

Seriously though. I defy you to find a better American action movie from 2003 than T3.

Bad Boys 2? No.
Bulletproof Monk? No.
Cradle 2 The Grace? No.
X2? Had its moments.
Daredevil? Wishes it had its moments.
Hollywood Homicide? No.
The Italian Job? No.
The Rundown? No.
SWAT? No.
Shanghai Knights? UGH.
Timeline? No.
Underworld? No.
League of Extraordinary Gentleman? No.
Kill Bill? Overrated.
Tomb Raider 2? NO.
A Man Apart? NO.
Matrix Reloaded? Terrible.
Matrix Revolutions? Shamefully terrible.
Hulk? LOL.
2 Fast 2 Furious? ROFL.
Paycheck? ROFLMAO.
Return of the King? WRONG GENRE.
Pirate of the Carribean? No, and arguably wrong genre.
Once Upon A Time In Mexico? Well, maybe.

Also, I will argue that Terminator 3 is at least as good as the original.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Yeah, I have seen maybe half of that list, and none of them come even close to being as good as T3, that I will agree.

Also, what the fuck was "Paycheck"?

Posted: Jul 11 2010 11:49 pm

I think Ben affleck and Sam Jackson are in it iirc. I never saw it cuz I don't care much for affleck, even if I do love me some Sam Jack

Posted: Jul 11 2010 11:51 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

There's a list of the Time Loops in the first 2 movies here: http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html

It's a bit out of date, since it doesn't cover the third movie, but that's good, since the third movie also doesn't exist.

They spelled ConnOr wrong, too.

Posted: Jul 12 2010 12:05 am

Come on,T3 had some very badass moments. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in the theater for it.

This is one of my favorite scenes, just classic badass campiness.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jul 12 2010 01:20 am

I liked Paycheck.

And fine, OK, it was an good movie if you just consider it in a vacuum as a movie and ignore silly things like "plot" and "backstory" and "overall theme of the series".

However, it's Part 3 of the Terminator series, a series that was pretty neatly wrapped up in Part 2. If you're gonna open up a completed story, you better do it very well. It didn't.

It was just an excuse to blow some shit up, which is fine. But can you find another franchise to ruin, please?

Posted: Jul 12 2010 06:17 am

Hey! I like Daredevil!

T3 didn't ruin the franchise. It's just more Terminator fun that doesn't have to be tied to T2.

And Alowishus, what you described in the OP is called a Paradox and paradoxes are why many scientists think time travel (at least time travel into the past) is impossible.

Posted: Jul 12 2010 08:59 am

It's no wonder that while people tend to ignore/deny T3's existence, I hear next to nothing about the reboot (which I've never seen) by that director who only goes by his last name.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Pandajuice wrote:

And Alowishus, what you described in the OP is called a Paradox and paradoxes are why many scientists think time travel (at least time travel into the past) is impossible.

Oh i know, i thought i would just like to ruin or attempt to ruin it for everyone, haha. If it was true then it would be a signficant plothole in such a renowned series.

Posted: Jul 12 2010 11:30 am

lordsathien wrote:

It's no wonder that while people tend to ignore/deny T3's existence, I hear next to nothing about the reboot (which I've never seen) by that director who only goes by his last name.

Haha, I still haven't sen T4 yet. Who knows if/when I will.

Posted: Jul 12 2010 12:39 pm

lordsathien wrote:

It's no wonder that while people tend to ignore/deny T3's existence, I hear next to nothing about the reboot (which I've never seen) by that director who only goes by his last name.

I saw it. If you want to turn off your brain and watch explosions for 2 hours it's a great movie. I enjoy shutting off my brain quite a bit so I was entertained. Was it a fantastic movie? Not really. Was it a good action flick? Yes. It's along the lines of T3, which I also liked.

Terminator 2 is one of the best action movies of all time so it's no surprise T3 and Terminator: Salvation aren't as good. But that doesn't mean they're useless. They're well-produced, quality action flicks. Take them for what they are.