Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles "Gnothi Seauton" 01/14/2008 *spoilers*

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Kamakzie, Jan 15, 2008.

  1. Mikkel_Knight

    Mikkel_Knight New Member

    5,106
    0
    Aug 6, 2002
    Rochester, MN

    Advertisements

    and I would argue that it could have been done in a more clinical way. There's something there that has yet to be revealed... ;)
     
  2. Mars Rocket

    Mars Rocket Loosely wound

    10,402
    5
    Mar 24, 2000
    Sinnoh region
    I'd be willing to believe it did happen, but when Cameron took them into the future it wiped out the T3 timeline and started a new one that branched off at 1999.

    I have another question: the combination to the safe was "judgment day". But why would the humans who set the combination know when judgment day was (or why would they know the same date as present-day John), since that future was changed in T1 and T2? John's birthday would have been a better choice. For that matter, you'd think Cameron could detect an electrical field and wouldn't just grab it.
     
  3. MickeS

    MickeS Well-Known Member

    25,983
    25
    Dec 26, 2002
    Exactly. The fact that they mentioned that Sarah would have died from cancer if they hadn't jumped to 2007, something that DID happen in the T3 movie timeline, is a clear indicator that this whole show is essentially taking place in a different timeline, and that T3 branched off to another one.

    A rather elegant and convenient solution.
     
  4. Amnesia

    Amnesia The Question

    11,531
    588
    Jan 30, 2005
    Boston, MA
    Not at all. She could still die from cancer and they could always jump back in time.
     
  5. Jeeters

    Jeeters Registered Snoozer

    7,730
    134
    Feb 25, 2003
    PA

    Advertisements

    It has to be a different timeline... In T3, Sarah was supposed to have died from Cancer in '97. That's two hears before Cameron even found them.
     
  6. Amnesia

    Amnesia The Question

    11,531
    588
    Jan 30, 2005
    Boston, MA
    They could always jump back to 1997.
     
  7. atrac

    atrac New Member

    1,928
    0
    Feb 27, 2002
    Los Angeles
    I was thinking about the cancer death in relation to T3 and was thinking the same thing, "Oh good, that's how they took care of dealing with that movie!"

    Alas, now that you say it happened in 1997, they are kind of ruining the idea that that movie could have happened. :(

    Well, at LEAST they used the same "idea" of cancer that the movie had (vs. having her die in two years another way, like car crash or hangnail, etc.).
     
  8. Jeeters

    Jeeters Registered Snoozer

    7,730
    134
    Feb 25, 2003
    PA
    :confused:
     
  9. Amnesia

    Amnesia The Question

    11,531
    588
    Jan 30, 2005
    Boston, MA
    My point is that she supposedly died in 1997, right?

    Well in the TV show's chronology, she passed through 1997 without dying. Let's say Sarah was born in '62 and was 35 years old in 1997.

    Then in 1999, she would be 37. Now they jumped to 2007 and she is still (physically) 37. Let's say they spend three years "here" until 2010 when she would be physically 40.

    The 40-year-old Sarah could then jump back in time to 1995 and live for 2 more years before dying of cancer at 42.
     
  10. DavidTigerFan

    DavidTigerFan No, not Detroit. TCF Club

    13,641
    548
    Aug 18, 2001
    Charleston, SC
    *head explodes*
     
  11. Turtleboy

    Turtleboy Well-Known Member TCF Club

    56,893
    3,328
    Mar 24, 2001
    Ft. Lauderdale
    I'll stick with T3 didn't happen.
     
  12. smak

    smak TV MA SLV

    26,969
    2,735
    Feb 11, 2000
    NoHo, CA USA
    Wow, that's not even close.

    What about jumping 10 years in time would cure you of cancer?

    If your body is going to die of cancer in 2 years, then you'd die of cancer in 2 years, no matter if you jumped back 100 years, forward 1000 years or whenever. The year she's in doesn't have anything to do with her dying of cancer.

    If she was hit by a train in 1997, then yes jumping in time would stop it.

    The reason she died of cancer is she has been on the run constantly, and never went to the doctor.

    What happens when she's told she died of cancer in the original timeline? She goes to the doctor. Cancer caught early, end of cancer.

    -smak-
     
  13. Amnesia

    Amnesia The Question

    11,531
    588
    Jan 30, 2005
    Boston, MA
    You missed the point. Let's say she was always going to die of cancer at age 42. Always.

    There's only one timeline---in that one and only timeline, she passes 1997 at age 35, jumps around in time and ends up back in in 1997 at age 42 and dies. If she didn't jump around in time, she would have died in 2004.

    In T3, John says that his mother died in 1997 of cancer. She did. He never said she died at age 35---perhaps she died in 1997 at age 42.
     
  14. kmcorbett

    kmcorbett Member

    173
    0
    Dec 7, 2002
    Newton MA
    Yes, that's just what I thought when I saw her name flash by in the credits. Walger is a very talented actress, and the resemblance is striking.
     
  15. atrac

    atrac New Member

    1,928
    0
    Feb 27, 2002
    Los Angeles
    I have to agree, there is a very strong similarity to Linda Hamilton. If she had been chosen, I would not have been disappointed in the least. And she's another Brit too!

    But, I have to say, Lena Headey...man, you can't go wrong with her either. I can't take my eyes off of the screen when she's on. I still seem to be alone in this too! :(
     
  16. smak

    smak TV MA SLV

    26,969
    2,735
    Feb 11, 2000
    NoHo, CA USA
    There is no T3 in this story. And there's no reason to think she'll ever go back to 1997 now.

    -smak-
     
  17. Amnesia

    Amnesia The Question

    11,531
    588
    Jan 30, 2005
    Boston, MA
    Obviously you haven't been following this thread very closely.
    I am stating that the fact that they jumped forward from '97 to '2007 does not preclude the possibility of still being in the T3 timeline. (And jumping back in time to let [an older] Sarah die in 1997.)

    Are we still on track to T3 or not? There's no way of telling---either could be possible.
     
  18. smak

    smak TV MA SLV

    26,969
    2,735
    Feb 11, 2000
    NoHo, CA USA
    Why? There is no evidence of T3 in this storyline, and there's no reason to believe she's going back to 1997.

    Talking about anything in T3, when everything in this series takes place before T3 is just a waste of time.

    What, the last scene of this series will be Sarah & John time traveling back to the 90's? With their memories erased?

    Not only have the producer's said that this replaces T3, but they said that her cancer was addressed in episode 2, and it was.

    -smak-
     
  19. Rob Helmerichs

    Rob Helmerichs I am Groot! TCF Club

    57,739
    14,336
    Oct 17, 2000
    Minneapolis
    I think the T3 thing is turning into the "Did Sun sleep with her tutor" argument--where some people ignore the clear answer in favor of their own convoluted explanations of how their answer could still be possible, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. In this case, not only do we have the plain-sense interpretation of the show itself that T3 no longer happens, but we have the explicit statements of the show's creators!

    Sometimes, Sun really does just sleep with the tutor...
     
  20. Amnesia

    Amnesia The Question

    11,531
    588
    Jan 30, 2005
    Boston, MA
    There is no evidence to the contrary. Time travel makes many things possible...
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements