Sci-Fi Terminator 1, 2, & 3: Review and Discussion Thread

[Kent]

In order for Skynet to think killing John in the past is worthwhile John would have to be irreplaceable... unique among men. Think about that. There's no person who could take his place had he not existed... or Skynet's plan is a bust.

Now, if there was an original John Connor whose father was not Kyle Reese, and he was later successfully replaced by another John Connor whose father was Kyle Reese, then he was in fact not irreplaceable.

I guess Skynet could be wrong. But that would make the first two Terminator flicks pointless. The future of mankind would not necessarily be at stake. Someone else could have easily taken John's place as leader of the resistance.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

You are missing the point.

The time has never been in a consistent flow:

Loop A affects Loop B which affected Loop C, until the Loop "stabilizes" at C as an infinite Loop.

The original time line Reese was never the father, and Connor had a different father. Skynet had an original launch date that had nothing to do with CyberDyne. This is how Terminator 3 can exist - the original launch date. This is Loop A.

In Loop B, a Terminator is sent back, and failed for whatever reasons; he might have killed Sarah for that matter but John Connor was already born. Hence why he was even alive to possibly send Reese, although it is not necessary.

In Loop C, upon knowing what happens in Loop B Connor probably wants to save his mother. So he sends back Reese.

Thus, within Loop C is the official infinite branch off. But it is nothing like the original history. Terminator 2 of course introduces more loops and complex relationships but it works.

No, I got your point and I disagreed with it entirely.

I gave you multiple facts based on what Cameron had established in the first film, to support that Kyle has always been John's father.

Forget trying to explain time travel. There's nothing in either of Cameron's two films, that suggests that John Connor could have originally possibly had another father before Reese.


The first film works on this concept:

A predestination paradox, also called either a causal loop, or a causality loop and (less frequently) either a closed loop or closed time loop, is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" or "predates" them to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time traveling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened must happen. A time traveler attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling their role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. Or that the time-traveler's personal knowledge of history already includes their future travels to their own experience of the past. Effectively, it means this: the time traveller is in the past, which means they were in the past before. Therefore, their presence is vital to the future, and they do something that causes the future to occur the same way that their knowledge of the future has already happened. It is very closely related to the ontological paradox and usually occurs at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

 

[Paradoxium]

Deductive Logic? Sounds like a lot of assumption to me. This essay would assume that John Conner was not only born in this original timeline with a different father.But that he somehow survived the nuclear attack and became leader of the resistance, having never been trained in military/guerrilla tactics.And having no knowledge of the Terminators or Skynet.
Thats a Major assumption.

It also doesn't take into account the events of T3, in which as I said: The Terminatrix uploads the virus that creates Skynet.If its possible for her to be the "Parent" of her own product.How is it not possible For Reese to have always been the Father of John?

Sorry to be more specific, INDUCTIVE LOGIC; a form of deductive logic.

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is reasoning which takes us "beyond the confines of our current evidence or knowledge to conclusions about the unknown."[1] The premises of an inductive argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

The notion you cannot make rational assumptions in place of holes is ludicrous. It is not to say there is a possibility this is not the absolute truth of the matter.

And yes, somehow the original John Connor happened to survive the original nuclear holocaust and become the leader, and he also gained insight on military and guerrilla tactics. More importantly, the time frame which he had to learn is different, since Cyberdyne does not exist.

As for T3, it all explained in that page. Although I would not consider T3 canon, since the original author did create it (in any instances of plotholes). The only thing T3 got right, is that Judgement Day was inevitable.

There is no paradox, you just want there to be a paradox.

 

[Paradoxium]

In order for Skynet to think killing John in the past is worthwhile John would have to be irreplaceable... unique among men. Think about that. There's no person who could take his place had he not existed... or Skynet's plan is a bust.

Now, if there was an original John Connor whose father was not Kyle Reese, and he was later successfully replaced by another John Connor whose father was Kyle Reese, then he was in fact not irreplaceable.

I guess Skynet could be wrong. But that would make the first two Terminator flicks pointless. The future of mankind would not necessarily be at stake. Someone else could have easily taken John's place as leader of the resistance.

That is correct, hence the question of free will and determinism. Skynet is destined to fail no matter what; perhaps to there is some greater being that will always somehow and someway ensure it always reaches point A no matter how different.

 

[Paradoxium]

No, I got your point and I disagreed with it entirely.

I gave you multiple facts based on what Cameron had established in the first film, to support that Kyle has always been John's father.

Forget trying to explain time travel. There's nothing in either of Cameron's two films, that suggests that John Connor could have originally possibly had another father before Reese.


The first film works on this concept:

Hence my explanation of Inductive Logic.

You post a link and excerpt about "Predestination paradox"; this whole topic is about closed loop theory. My explanation was not a closed loop, but an open loop that stabilizes itself after subsequent feedback. Just because you did not see it on the surface level, it does not mean it can not rationally exist.

 

[Adrian89]

The TX was an incompetent villain and the most memorable scene she had was when she was naked in the beginning.

HAHA yes, other than that T-X was such a ridiculous character! The way they made her totally unstopabble was kinda pathethic as well as her abilities.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Hence my explanation of Inductive Logic.

You post a link and excerpt about "Predestination paradox"; this whole topic is about closed loop theory. My explanation was not a closed loop, but an open loop that stabilizes itself after subsequent feedback. Just because you did not see it on the surface level, it does not mean it can not rationally exist.

If that's your take on the material that's fine, I just don't see any of that at all in Cameron's story and it contradicts with what was established in the original flick. I thought Cameron made it pretty clear in T1, that Kyle was always John's father.

In your previous post, you mentioned in the "original timeline", Skynet had nothing to do with Cyberdyne but that's incorrect. Kyle referred to the original Terminator as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.

Not to mention this deleted scene:

[YT]z5XWE6Y10sw[/YT]

Sure the scene was cut but it showed what Cameron's thoughts were on timeline and how Cyberdyne was always responsible for Skynet.

John Connor and Skynet's existence are completely dependent on Kyle Reese and the original Terminator being sent back into the past. Neither could exist without it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

In the original film, Reese tell's Sarah that even in the "original timeline", she prepared and trained John since he was a kid and took him into hiding before Judgment Day. Why would Sarah train her son since he was a child and how could she have known about Judgment Day? She knew because Reese was always there to tell her.

Also, Reese said that he volunteered for the mission to go back and protect Sarah. Way before he was ever sent back, John gave Reese a picture of his mother. Kyle even said, he didn't know why John gave him the picture at the time. Why would John give one of his soldiers a picture of his mother before he voluntereed to go back, unless he always possessed the knowledge that Kyle was his father.

It's all there in the original flick. It's a paradox and Kyle has always been John's father. There is no beginning or end, it's just a series continuing events.

Exactly, the original movie made it clear that Reese was his father all of the time, John gave him the picture (Reese: "I didnt know why at the time.") So Reese would fall in love with Sarah through the picture, which he does, and then would volunteer to go back in time, which he does. Reese had to volunteer because it was his fate to be Connor's father and he could have no prior knowledge of that fact.

Not to mention the other dialogue you mentioned "It was a chance to meet the legend, Sarah Connor, taught her son to fight.....when you were in hiding before the war."

And also, to add to that:

Sarah "I dont suppose you know who the Father is, so I dont tell him to get lost when I see him?"

Reese: "No John never said much about him, I know he dies before the wa........."

John couldnt say anything about him to Reese because it may interfere with Reese's fate of being John's Father. The first movie makes this totally obvious.

You are missing the point.

The time has never been in a consistent flow:

Loop A affects Loop B which affected Loop C, until the Loop "stabilizes" at C as an infinite Loop.

The original time line Reese was never the father, and Connor had a different father. Skynet had an original launch date that had nothing to do with CyberDyne. This is how Terminator 3 can exist - the original launch date. This is Loop A.

In Loop B, a Terminator is sent back, and failed for whatever reasons; he might have killed Sarah for that matter but John Connor was already born. Hence why he was even alive to possibly send Reese, although it is not necessary.

In Loop C, upon knowing what happens in Loop B Connor probably wants to save his mother. So he sends back Reese.

Thus, within Loop C is the official infinite branch off. But it is nothing like the original history. Terminator 2 of course introduces more loops and complex relationships but it works.

See above for the first bolded sentence, but for the second, Reese, again in T1, mentions that Cyberdyne built Skynet for Sat-norad, so Skynet's launch date had EVERYTHING to do with Cyberdyne, the exact quote is "Built for Sat-Norad by Cyberdyne systems!" Plus, in Terminator 3, Judgment Day is a totally different date than originally mentioned.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If that's your take on the material that's fine, I just don't see any of that at all in Cameron's story and it contradicts with what was established in the original flick. I thought Cameron made it pretty clear in T1, that Kyle was always John's father.

In your previous post, you mentioned in the "original timeline", Skynet had nothing to do with Cyberdyne but that's incorrect. Kyle referred to the original Terminator as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.

Not to mention this deleted scene:

[YT]z5XWE6Y10sw[/YT]

Sure the scene was cut but it showed what Cameron's thoughts were on timeline and how Cyberdyne was always responsible for Skynet.

John Connor and Skynet's existence are completely dependent on Kyle Reese and the original Terminator being sent back into the past. Neither could exist without it.

Also see my point above for more evidence of this.

 

[dude stannis]

LOL, there's never been a Terminator thread in the history of the internet that hasn't led to debate over timetravel.

 

[co2]

T1 and 2 are classics. I re-watched them this week to prep for Salvation. Still two of my all time favorite movies.

T1 has the better story. It's a better story and film than the budget actually allowed. Some of the effects don't hold up too well, but you completely forgive it because the movie is so compelling regardless.

T2 is on the list of greatest action movies ever made...a classic of the genre. It took the ide a of T1, put a spin on it and upped the ante enormously. Can't say enough.

T3 is forgettable. In fact that's what I chose to do with it. It's like a fan decided to make a parody of T2. There is nothing new done with the franchise here. I will admt that T3 had some decent action. In fact I'll go so far to say that it was a decent popcorn action flick...It was just a bad Terminator movie. It felt more like Arnold had to do this one last thing before he left the film industry and moved on to politics.

T3 may be canon, but I treat it just as I do Alien 4..doesn't exist. I revere T1 and 2.

Salvation looks like what I had wanted T3 to be about even after T2 came out. I remember dreaming about what I would like to see in T3, and the future war was it. Although I would have wanted it made 10 years ago so Arnold could have been involved. It would have been great to have him be someone in the resistance that fought along side adult John Conner. He just so happens to be the person that Skynet was going to base the T-800 on. That was my fantasy since the early 90's. Kinda late for that whole idea now, but at least we get John in the future.

Has anyone picked up the new T2 Skynet edition Blu-ray. I went to Best Buy tonight and when I asked about it, I was told that they were instructed to ship them back after they received them. The guy at Best Buy said he didn't know why. ????
If anyone has picked it up, is it worth upgrading form the Ultimate Edition DVD? I've always thought that was such a difinitve edition of the DVD, it's hard to think anything could be better. Does the Blu-ray have new content or anything worth the upgrade?

 

[co2]

edit

 

[Darthkush]

Watched T2 earlier today before I went to work. Still awesome(though the John looking at the terminator as some kind of father figure is kind of goofy now). Finishing T3 now and it's not great but not as bad as I remember it. It's a rehash of the second one with a lackluster score but Arnold kicks a$$ in it(i'm watching the scene right now where he switches back and forth. Good acting...for Arnold). I'd even go as far as to say that Arnold's best role is that of playing a terminator. He's just so frakin' good at it.

I'll be watching T4 in about 90 minutes.

 

[victor hugo]

Based on deductive logic.

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html read this page and how it reconciles all the 3 films.

and why should i listen to this guy? he isnt a scientist. he is a christian lawyer. i have read his theories mutliple times and im not buying.

i think kyle was always meant to be john's father. i tend to take jon osterman's stance on time. everything has already happened. the events in the terminator were predestined.

 

[Paradoxium]

and why should i listen to this guy? he isnt a scientist. he is a christian lawyer. i have read his theories mutliple times and im not buying.

i think kyle was always meant to be john's father. i tend to take jon osterman's stance on time. everything has already happened. the events in the terminator were predestined.

I didn't know about his background (failing to mention the fact he is MENSA as well, is a pretty big ****ing deal), I don't see how this makes any difference. Your ad hominem is unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the argument.

If you are not buying it, than say why, is that so hard?

If you want to dwell on science and anything on the level about physics, then these films are flawed as hell. The whole issue lies in internal logic anyways.

 

[victor hugo]

I didn't know about his background (failing to mention the fact he is MENSA as well, is a pretty big ****ing deal), I don't see how this makes any difference. Your ad hominem is unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the argument.

If you are not buying it, than say why, is that so hard?

If you want to dwell on science and anything on the level about physics, then these films are flawed as hell. The whole issue lies in internal logic anyways.

mensa? no ******** i was accepted but didnt want to pay the membership fee. its really not a big deal. im sure you could get in too, you seem pretty bright and the standards are suprising low. 2% of the population is still alot of people.

but what you said about internal logic concerning these films is exactly why i find his argument to have very little merit. he makes far too many assumptions based on little or no evidence and his conclusions dont seem to follow the logic that the (first two at least) films lay out. if i felt his "science" was solid and if he was coming from a place of expertise in the field i would be more likely to pick up what he is putting down. but i dont and he isnt so im not.

furthermore, if questioning his credentials "adds absolutley nothing to the argument" in your opinion, fine. but before i regurgitate nearly verbatim someone else's half baked psuedo science i like to know a little bit about the background of those theories and who is pushing them.

besides i think cameron always meant for kyle to be john's father. the terminator and kyle traveling back to 1984 didnt change the future, it facilitated it. in my opinion of course( not to mention james cameron's).

 

[Paradoxium]

mensa? no ******** i was accepted but didnt want to pay the membership fee. its really not a big deal. im sure you could get in too, you seem pretty bright and the standards are suprising low. 2% of the population is still alot of people.

but what you said about internal logic concerning these films is exactly why i find his argument to have very little merit. he makes far too many assumptions based on little or no evidence and his conclusions dont seem to follow the logic that the (first two at least) films lay out. if i felt his "science" was solid and if he was coming from a place of expertise in the field i would be more likely to pick up what he is putting down. but i dont and he isnt so im not.

furthermore, if questioning his credentials "adds absolutley nothing to the argument" in your opinion, fine. but before i regurgitate nearly verbatim someone else's half baked psuedo science i like to know a little bit about the background of those theories and who is pushing them.

besides i think cameron always meant for kyle to be john's father. the terminator and kyle traveling back to 1984 didnt change the future, it facilitated it. in my opinion of course( not to mention james cameron's).

If his argument sucks it, it simply sucks and proving it wrong would not be hard. It's an Ad hominem fallacy plain and simple. And you have committed this twice in a row.

You are presuming the product we are talking about is scientifically sound and plausible anyways. There is absolutely nothing scientific in this discussion, its all inductive logic and/or educated guesses. What part of this do you not understand?

If that's your take on the material that's fine, I just don't see any of that at all in Cameron's story and it contradicts with what was established in the original flick. I thought Cameron made it pretty clear in T1, that Kyle was always John's father.

In your previous post, you mentioned in the "original timeline", Skynet had nothing to do with Cyberdyne but that's incorrect. Kyle referred to the original Terminator as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.

Not to mention this deleted scene:

[YT]z5XWE6Y10sw[/YT]

Sure the scene was cut but it showed what Cameron's thoughts were on timeline and how Cyberdyne was always responsible for Skynet.

John Connor and Skynet's existence are completely dependent on Kyle Reese and the original Terminator being sent back into the past. Neither could exist without it.

Exactly, the original movie made it clear that Reese was his father all of the time, John gave him the picture (Reese: "I didnt know why at the time.") So Reese would fall in love with Sarah through the picture, which he does, and then would volunteer to go back in time, which he does. Reese had to volunteer because it was his fate to be Connor's father and he could have no prior knowledge of that fact.

Not to mention the other dialogue you mentioned "It was a chance to meet the legend, Sarah Connor, taught her son to fight.....when you were in hiding before the war."

And also, to add to that:

Sarah "I dont suppose you know who the Father is, so I dont tell him to get lost when I see him?"

Reese: "No John never said much about him, I know he dies before the wa........."

John couldnt say anything about him to Reese because it may interfere with Reese's fate of being John's Father. The first movie makes this totally obvious.



See above for the first bolded sentence, but for the second, Reese, again in T1, mentions that Cyberdyne built Skynet for Sat-norad, so Skynet's launch date had EVERYTHING to do with Cyberdyne, the exact quote is "Built for Sat-Norad by Cyberdyne systems!" Plus, in Terminator 3, Judgment Day is a totally different date than originally mentioned.

If you try to debunk the open loop theory it means:

1. Reese is the father in a close loop paradox, therefore violating the law of causality. But since by self evidence it is not violated, time is a non-linear construct. Have fun defending this and getting into the science of it.

2. Occam's razor: Sarah was pregnant all along to another man, that is done offscreen and for whatever reason mistakenly attributes John to Reese. This works with Novikov's self-consistency principle.

3. Cameron ****ed up or ****ing around with people, who cares

If you consider Terminator 3 as cannon, than the second paradox of Cyberdyne created Skynet which created itself (dropped hand) is not a paradox at all. If this is true, than it supports the open feedback loop theory, including a Connor Prime (unknown father,or Stan Morski), and Connor-2 (Kyle Reese).

The T1 deleted scenes means nothing, because, it was deleted, and even if it wasn't, all it suggests is there is an acceleration of the original time line and skynet was inevitable, which again supports the open loop theory.

In essence Terminator 3 and T1 delete scene supports the open feedback theory and violates a non-inclusive closed loop theory.

 

[DarkKnight88]

If you consider Terminator 3 as cannon, than the second paradox of Cyberdyne created Skynet which created itself (dropped hand) is not a paradox at all. If this is true, than it supports the open feedback loop theory, including a Connor Prime (unknown father,or Stan Morski), and Connor-2 (Kyle Reese).

There's no IF. It IS.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

If his argument sucks it, it simply sucks and proving it wrong would not be hard. It's an Ad hominem fallacy plain and simple. And you have committed this twice in a row.

You are presuming the product we are talking about is scientifically sound and plausible anyways. There is absolutely nothing scientific in this discussion, its all inductive logic and/or educated guesses. What part of this do you not understand?

If you try to debunk the open loop theory it means:

1. Reese is the father in a close loop paradox, therefore violating the law of causality. But since by self evidence it is not violated, time is a non-linear construct. Have fun defending this and getting into the science of it.

2. Occam's razor: Sarah was pregnant all along to another man, that is done offscreen and for whatever reason mistakenly attributes John to Reese. This works with Novikov's self-consistency principle.

3. Cameron ****ed up or ****ing around with people, who cares

If you consider Terminator 3 as cannon, than the second paradox of Cyberdyne created Skynet which created itself (dropped hand) is not a paradox at all. If this is true, than it supports the open feedback loop theory, including a Connor Prime (unknown father,or Stan Morski), and Connor-2 (Kyle Reese).

The T1 deleted scenes means nothing, because, it was deleted, and even if it wasn't, all it suggests is there is an acceleration of the original time line and skynet was inevitable, which again supports the open loop theory.

In essence Terminator 3 and T1 delete scene supports the open feedback theory and violates a non-inclusive closed loop theory.

Like I said, I mentioned the deleted scene because you stated that Cyberdyne had nothing to do originally with launching Skynet but as Aveitwithjamon said, even in the film, when Kyle is being interrogated by the police and Silberman, he says that Skynet was a computer defense system build for SAC-NORAD by Cyberdyne systems.

If you believe that John could have possibly had a different father, then in your opinion, why did John give Kyle a picture of Sarah in the future? Or why did Sarah train John since he was child or have the knowledge of Judgment Day and took her son into hiding to protect him?

Hell, the movie even ends with Sarah leaving a message for John and she tells him that if he doesn't send Kyle back, he could never be. If he had a different father, that contradicts all of that and then some.

 

[Paradoxium]

Like I said, I mentioned the deleted scene because you stated that Cyberdyne had nothing to do originally with launching Skynet but as Aveitwithjamon said, even in the film, when Kyle is being interrogated by the police and Silberman, he says that Skynet was a computer defense system build for SAC-NORAD by Cyberdyne systems.

If you believe that John could have possibly had a different father, then in your opinion, why did John give Kyle a picture of Sarah in the future? Or why did Sarah train John since he was child or have the knowledge of Judgment Day and took her son into hiding to protect him?

Hell, the movie even ends with Sarah leaving a message for John and she tells him that if he doesn't send Kyle back, he could never be. If he had a different father, that contradicts all of that and then some.

There are two John Connors, each with different fathers.

Connor Prime (unknown father + Sarah) = Original Connor in Loop A
Connor Reese (Kyle + Sarah) = Current Connor in Loop C

Connor Prime unintentionally created Connor Reese, simultaneously erasing himself by sending Kyle. Thus, creating Connor Reese who goes on to continuously create himself by sending Kyle. All additional knowledge is meant to accelerate or increase the odds of winning the war sooner perhaps; although it is unnecessary given the predestination factor. What's so difficult about that

edit:
On the Photo:

Photo A - Different than movie photo

Connor Prime gives Photo A to Reese to make sure he knows who Sarah is. Where this came from is irrelevant.

Photo B - post-Kyle/Sarah copulation

Sarah gives Photo B to Connor Reese. This is the one that looped infinitely

My point of the original time line not having Cyberdyne is moot, the main concern is the two different skynet launch date. So even if it caused by Cyberdyne in both different launch dates, it doesn't matter, because it is the two separate launch date that matters.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

There are two John Connors, each with different fathers.

Connor Prime (unknown father + Sarah) = Original Connor in Loop A
Connor Reese (Kyle + Sarah) = Current Connor in Loop C

Nothing in either of Cameron's two film's establishes or even implies any of this.

Connor Prime unintentionally created Connor Reese, simultaneously erasing himself by sending Kyle. Thus, creating Connor Reese who goes on to continuously create himself by sending Kyle. The photo is irrelevant, at most, it is an attempt to guarantee he fall for Sarah (during the loop stabilization process Loop B -> Loop C), but does not mean it was necessary - probably Connor Reese's own way of "ensuring it just incase". All additional knowledge is meant to accelerate or increase the odds of winning the war sooner perhaps; although it is unnecessary given the predestination factor. What's so difficult about that

The photo of Sarah was given to Kyle by John in the "original timeline". If I may use your terminology, It was Connor Prime from Loop A that gave the picture of his mother to Kyle. That was clearly established in T1 and cannot be disputed.

Your right about John's intention for giving the photo to Kyle. It was so Kyle could fall in love with her and ensure John's existence. Which also proves that Kyle was always John's father. If Connor Prime had a different father, he would have had no reason to give that photo to Kyle, but he did.

 

[victor hugo]

What part of this do you not understand?

there is no part of it i dont understand. what you dont seem to understand is i think his theories are half baked and assume too much. its all conjecture as we are talking about fictional scenerios so no one is proving anything around here. not the original author, not you, and certainly not i.

and im not assuming anything is scientifically sound. i'm basing my opinion on the logic that cameron (the creator) himself put forth. i will admit its all very interesting but i have no desire to get in some kind of intellectual debate over something that cant be proven.

fUrthermore i dont need to debunk anything to you in order to disagree with a bunch of theoretical psuedo science.

and finally if you cant respectfully disagree without condescension thats on your character.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Photo A - Different than movie photo

Connor Prime gives Photo A to Reese to make sure he knows who Sarah is. Where this came from is irrelevant.

Photo B - post-Kyle/Sarah copulation

Sarah gives Photo B to Connor Reese. This is the one that looped infinitely

Kyle was given the photo before he voluntereed to go back in time and protect Sarah. The flashback in T1 even shows Kyle in a bunker looking at the photo, during the war. Kyle even tells Sarah, that he didn't know why John gave him her picture at the time.

 

[souvlaki]

Based on deductive logic.

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html read this page and how it reconciles all the 3 films.

I was reading this page and this part jumped out at me:

In this scenario, John, from a point in the future beyond all of the time travelers to date, devises a way to build a weakness into Skynet. In order to win the war, he must return to the past and penetrate the systems of the company which ultimately develops Skynet. At this point he must create the flaw, a weakness which will be undetected by the developers, and which will not prevent the war or any of the temporal transits previously made, but which the rebels can use after he leaves for the past to end the war. While he is in the past, he must give to his younger self the secret, but in a form which the young John cannot fully comprehend until he reaches the same point in the future. Thus, John will understand that a weakness exists in Skynet because he went back in time and put it there, and that that weakness must not be accessed until after he goes back in time, or time is lost. This creates a simple N-Jump, at the end of which the rebels will be able to stop Skynet by accessing that weakness.

It reminded me A LOT of what McG said when talking about his plans for Terminator 5. When I first heard the idea it sounded incredibly lame, but if it were done like this it might be pretty cool. Of course the only problem with this idea is in order for it to work it would have to occur after Kyle Reese and Uncle Bob are sent back which might be too soon for the next film.

 

[hippie_hunter]

If you consider Terminator 3 as cannon, than the second paradox of Cyberdyne created Skynet which created itself (dropped hand) is not a paradox at all. If this is true, than it supports the open feedback loop theory, including a Connor Prime (unknown father,or Stan Morski), and Connor-2 (Kyle Reese).

According to Salvation, the United States Air Force bought Cyberdyne. So therefore a paradox is not created because Cyberdyne essentially still created Skynet as a subsidiary of the United States government. And the nuclear power source is also in Salvation along with Katherine Brewster. So therefore Terminator 3 is indeed cannon.