Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other.

A general discussion forum, plus hauls and silly games.
User avatar
Onslaught Six
Supreme-Class
Posts: 7023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am
Location: In front of my computer.
Contact:

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Onslaught Six »

Dominic wrote:
Was that in the film? I don't remember that scene at all. That movie was a mess.
It was a background thing during the Chicago attack sequence.
Yeah, a couple shots, really. But he is an important plot element! Almost! You see this long shot of Prime about to fight Megs and Sentinel, and then Bumblebee and the other Autobots go running to join the fight, when this big fucker pops out and is all "RYAAAAGGGH" and you're like "oh man a cool fight scene is about to happen!"

And then it doesn't, because we cut to Megs killing Megs and Sentinel, and then at the end the Autobots just walk over and cheer.
BWprowl wrote:The internet having this many different words to describe nerdy folks is akin to the whole eskimos/ice situation, I would presume.
People spend so much time worrying about whether a figure is "mint" or not that they never stop to consider other flavours.
Image
User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3851
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by JediTricks »

Sparky Prime wrote:I'm just going to skip to this point because it's become obvious the rest of this argument is just going to keep going around and around circles and I'm tried of being misquoted in one way or another, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on it. Also, I need to point out wiki is not a reliable source. But for this point, it sounds to me that you're making up your own fiction by ignoring those other films. Whether or not you personally like them or they have different creators, it's still a part of the fiction.
What wiki isn't a reliable source, and not a reliable source for what?

It's certainly debatable whether T3 and TS deserve to be part of them, it's not like the rights were intended to be sold at auction. They're clearly not what Cameron had in mind.

Dominic wrote:I am recalling something in the movie, (but it might have been in an early draft script), about Megatron and Sentinal intending to meet on the moon, hence the buried army. (This still does not explain why Megatron just left them their during the first two movies. But, is incompentent story telling really that much of a suprise from Bay and Co? Honestly, I am suprised that TF3 was as well edited as it was....which is still a low standard.)
Sentinel says he intended to meet Megatron on Earth, but I don't remember anything in the film being about meeting on the moon. Burying an army there still makes NO SENSE though, nor does Megatron's reason for coming to Earth getting retconned into meeting Sentinel. No, incompetent storytelling isn't that much a surprise.
It was a background thing during the Chicago attack sequence.
I meant the part about that character being shown as a protoform coming to Earth and scanning its new altmode. The picture makes clear it was rendered for the movie, although I don't remember it because, as you said, it was a background thing.
I would argue that yes, killing the only member of a species would be a type of genocide.
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, ethnic, political, or cultural group.
Species: a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Under those definitions, Skynet is not a "species" since it is not a biological entity nor is it capable of interbreeding or producing fertile offspring. Also, "genocide" is not the right term because it's not a national, religious, or ethnic group, and the initial attempt to take Skynet offline was not a deliberate, systematic attempt to exterminate anything.
Why does the fact that a given life was not "natural" or "spontaneously created" diminish its right to exist?
Because we recognize natural creation and evolution as the authority of a higher power - whether that's God, gods, or nature it's deemed to be a right to exist based on the gift of its creator. However, with a machine lifeform, we are its creator in every way so it's a different set of rules, it ultimately answers to us, it is our mechanical offspring.
Remember, I am arguing that it is possible for 2 or more parties to have conflicting rights. One group, (in the case of "Terminator", us), is rationally going to put its right above the rights of the other(s). And, we do like to assign ourselves some degree of moral status to justify what we do for basic (practical) survival. But,

Remember, I said that I would not be against pulling Skynet's plug. But, I would not pretend that it was not genocide. But, I would not say that there is an obligation for the "other" (Skynet in this case) to simply die.

Rights can conflict.
This doesn't actually seem like a philosophical argument, it seems like the opposite, trying to have it both ways.

Onslaught Six wrote:Yeah, a couple shots, really. But he is an important plot element! Almost! You see this long shot of Prime about to fight Megs and Sentinel, and then Bumblebee and the other Autobots go running to join the fight, when this big fucker pops out and is all "RYAAAAGGGH" and you're like "oh man a cool fight scene is about to happen!"

And then it doesn't, because we cut to Megs killing Megs and Sentinel, and then at the end the Autobots just walk over and cheer.
How is that almost an important plot point? And what stops this thing once Sentinel dies, just the director calling "cut"? There's no story excuse for it just ceasing hostilities?
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?
User avatar
Onslaught Six
Supreme-Class
Posts: 7023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am
Location: In front of my computer.
Contact:

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Onslaught Six »

How is that almost an important plot point? And what stops this thing once Sentinel dies, just the director calling "cut"? There's no story excuse for it just ceasing hostilities?
It's stopping the Autobots from helping Prime fight Sentinel and Megatron. It's gone because, presumably, the Autobots kill it offscreen. That's how it's almost a plot point. But they cut away from it and don't really acknowledge it, so it's like, a shitty plot hole.
BWprowl wrote:The internet having this many different words to describe nerdy folks is akin to the whole eskimos/ice situation, I would presume.
People spend so much time worrying about whether a figure is "mint" or not that they never stop to consider other flavours.
Image
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
Posts: 9331
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Dominic »

This doesn't actually seem like a philosophical argument, it seems like the opposite, trying to have it both ways.
Please explain how I am not arguing for a consistent philosophy here. If you want a formal name, call it "egoism".

Again, my philosophy is that living things have a right to live. However, the right of one may well conflict with the right of another. (The classic example being the right of the food animal not to be eaten conflicting with an obligatory predator's right to not starve. There is an inevitable conflict that scenario.)

Because we recognize natural creation and evolution as the authority of a higher power - whether that's God, gods, or nature it's deemed to be a right to exist based on the gift of its creator. However, with a machine lifeform, we are its creator in every way so it's a different set of rules, it ultimately answers to us, it is our mechanical offspring.
By this logic. how much dominion over a child (of any age) should a parent have?

Under those definitions, Skynet is not a "species" since it is not a biological entity nor is it capable of interbreeding or producing fertile offspring. Also, "genocide" is not the right term because it's not a national, religious, or ethnic group, and the initial attempt to take Skynet offline was not a deliberate, systematic attempt to exterminate anything.
So you are saying "Because a dictionary says_________, xyz-thing is not alive in the traditional sense, and is therefor not worthy of moral consideration despite being self-aware". That is a lazy arguement. The "meat v/s metal" question is fast becoming practical rather than theoretical. Computers are getting more and more advanced, and closer to what we would consider to be true AI. Saying that an artificial intelligence is less worthy than a natural intelligence is arbitrary. Hiding behind a dictionary, rather than acknowledging that definitions change over time is a poor arguement.

(The "obligation to creator" arguement you made holds more weight so long as it is honestly framed as a kind of Authoritarianism.

If you do not want to call it "genocide" in this case, call it "intentionally killing a self-aware thing that is the only of its kind". Similarly, even if taking SkyNet offline would not destroy it, it would still be an extreme form of tyranny (utterly depriving it of any autonomous rights). The point in the movie is vague. T2 was written in the early 90s, when popular understanding of computers (and the language we used to discuss them) was limited. Did the movie mean "turning SkyNet off with chance of being turned on again with little difficulty" or "depowering and losing/destroying SkyNet's data"? (And, if it was the former, would they have? The movie offers no answer on this question.)

And, SkyNet could reproduce, albeit not biologically. SkyNet built factories that produced.....more machines.


Dom
-understand the practical incentive for putting meat over metal and human over other, but would rather see it framed more honestly.
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 5338
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Sparky Prime »

JediTricks wrote:What wiki isn't a reliable source, and not a reliable source for what?
ANY wiki isn't a reliable source to cite information from. Anyone can edit a wiki page to say whatever they want it to, so it isn't a reputable source to cite information from.
It's certainly debatable whether T3 and TS deserve to be part of them, it's not like the rights were intended to be sold at auction. They're clearly not what Cameron had in mind.
I don't see it as debatable. Whether or not Cameron had it in mind when they made the first two films isn't relevant. They make sequels to films all the time that were not originally in mind, sometimes even with the original creators involvement. Point is the movies were still made and they still count as part of that fictions canon. Discounting those other films based on your own views is making up your own fiction.
User avatar
Onslaught Six
Supreme-Class
Posts: 7023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am
Location: In front of my computer.
Contact:

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Onslaught Six »

Sparky Prime wrote:
JediTricks wrote:What wiki isn't a reliable source, and not a reliable source for what?
ANY wiki isn't a reliable source to cite information from. Anyone can edit a wiki page to say whatever they want it to, so it isn't a reputable source to cite information from.
It's reliable enough to get a fucking dictionary definition from. We are not citing sources for a thesis paper; we are arguing the mechanics of the goddamn Terminator franchise on a Transformers message board.

(Also, I'm tired of people saying Wiki isn't "reliable" because anyone can edit it. Sure, anyone can edit it, but if you edit it with bullshit, it's going to get edited right fucking back.)
I don't see it as debatable. Whether or not Cameron had it in mind when they made the first two films isn't relevant. They make sequels to films all the time that were not originally in mind, sometimes even with the original creators involvement. Point is the movies were still made and they still count as part of that fictions canon. Discounting those other films based on your own views is making up your own fiction.
Except there's elements of the Terminator franchise that specifically exclude other things in the franchise from happening--Sarah Connor Chronicles, for example, doesn't take place in the same canon as Salivation. So Skynet's motivations (and actions) could very well be different in different timelines.
BWprowl wrote:The internet having this many different words to describe nerdy folks is akin to the whole eskimos/ice situation, I would presume.
People spend so much time worrying about whether a figure is "mint" or not that they never stop to consider other flavours.
Image
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 5338
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Sparky Prime »

Onslaught Six wrote:It's reliable enough to get a fucking dictionary definition from. We are not citing sources for a thesis paper; we are arguing the mechanics of the goddamn Terminator franchise on a Transformers message board.

(Also, I'm tired of people saying Wiki isn't "reliable" because anyone can edit it. Sure, anyone can edit it, but if you edit it with bullshit, it's going to get edited right fucking back.)
Wiki might be a good place to start when looking for information but it really doesn't matter what format you're citing the information for. If it isn't a reliable source you shouldn't be citing it. Period. You wouldn't be citing some personal website when citing even something like a dictionary definition. It makes a difference. And saying you're tired of people saying you shouldn't cite wiki because it isn't reliable isn't a reason to cite it.
Except there's elements of the Terminator franchise that specifically exclude other things in the franchise from happening--Sarah Connor Chronicles, for example, doesn't take place in the same canon as Salivation. So Skynet's motivations (and actions) could very well be different in different timelines.

Except the Sarah Connor Chronicles is a television series rather than a film. Often things in a different media format like television shows and comics are treated as seperate canons. The films on the other hand are supposed to take place in the same continuity as each other. The films establish this.
User avatar
Tigermegatron
Supreme-Class
Posts: 2106
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:28 am

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Tigermegatron »

Wiki is not a reliable source as it's written by fans for fans. With Wiki,It all boils down to which fans have more times on their hands than others,Those with more time on their hands often dominate stuff like on-line polls/wiki,whether their right or wrong with the info they post/edit.

I only trust info coming from companies who create the stuff.
User avatar
Gomess
Supreme-Class
Posts: 2767
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:10 am
Location: Eng-er-land

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Gomess »

Tigermegatron wrote:Wiki is not a reliable source as it's written by fans for fans. With Wiki,It all boils down to which fans have more times on their hands than others,Those with more time on their hands often dominate stuff like on-line polls/wiki,whether their right or wrong with the info they post/edit. I only trust info coming from companies who create the stuff.
You're presumably gonna stop quoting Wikipedia every other post from now on, then...? =p

Saying Wikis are inherently unreliable is like saying *people* are inherently unreliable, and that's just kinda sad. If you disagree with something on a Wiki, change it. That's the point of them.
COME TO TFVIEWS oh you already did
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 5338
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other

Post by Sparky Prime »

Gomess wrote:If you disagree with something on a Wiki, change it. That's the point of them.
Hence, that's exactly what makes it an unreliable source to cite information from. It can say something one minute, and say something completely different the next.
Saying Wikis are inherently unreliable is like saying *people* are inherently unreliable, and that's just kinda sad.
I might not go so far as to say it's inherent, but sadly that can be true sometimes...
Post Reply