# Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles - "Born to Run" 04/10/2009 SPOILERS



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Pretty awesome.

My first thought after it was over was "I WISH they hadn't cancelled this."

Then I thought, "But it's a pretty good series ender."

It would have been fun to see where they went with the series.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

What's great is that I think it works both as a season ending cliffhanger or as a series ending (with some unanswered questions). I thought it was great!


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

These last few episodes have been rockin'. I really wanted to see more terminator vs. terminator stuff, but that's just nitpicking, not a complaint. 

Tonight's episode was pretty good. I wish this wasn't going away, but we all knew what the move to Friday nights meant. 

Edit: there was definitely one scene I wished was in an R rated movie...lol


----------



## Thaed (Nov 25, 2003)

I'm so sad. God that was awesome. So much better than BSG.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

So, how cold was it?


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

Great episode. Sucks that it most likely is canceled.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> My first thought after it was over was "I WISH they hadn't cancelled this."


Is that confirmed?

I can't find a legitimate article that verifies that it is cancelled (or no more episodes ordered or whatever they call it now.) And no I don't consider legitimate the blogger that claims a studio guide told him the sets were gone because it was cancelled.

It probably will be cancelled given the ratings, but I'm trying to hold onto a shred of hope.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

It would have been better if Sarah had gone with them. 

They have left it open for a few made for TV movies.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

appleye1 said:


> Is that confirmed?
> 
> I can't find a legitimate article that verifies that it is cancelled (or no more episodes ordered or whatever they call it now.) And no I don't consider legitimate the blogger that claims a studio guide told him the sets were gone because it was cancelled.
> 
> It probably will be cancelled given the ratings, but I'm trying to hold onto a shred of hope.


There has been no official word, and that blogger was pretty clearly full of it. But I see almost no hope.

As for this episode...

DANG dang DANG DANG dang!


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

So John Connor gets to put the moves on Allison Young aka the human 'Cameron' 

Pretty cool seeing Weaver in protective wing mode.

The fact that John and Sarah are in separate timelines now lends credence that this is the end of this series.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ment said:


> The fact that John and Sarah are in separate timelines now lends credence that this is the end of this series.


Except they didn't know when they wrote/filmed this that the show wasn't coming back for sure.

Supposedly, they still don't know...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm confused about something...the thing that drove the plane was trying to kill them...but then it slithered out and joined with Weaver...so what's going on there?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Anubys said:


> I'm confused about something...the thing that drove the plane was trying to kill them...but then it slithered out and joined with Weaver...so what's going on there?


I thought that part "broke off" Weaver when she was blocking the explosion.

And the "plane" was a drone. (I assumed that it actually was one of those things they saw come up out of the pond in an earlier episodethe "Killer-hunter" prototypes).


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Anubys said:


> I'm confused about something...the thing that drove the plane was trying to kill them...but then it slithered out and joined with Weaver...so what's going on there?


That was the eel from the previous episode. For some reason Weaver left a part of herself in a tank so when the aircraft burst the tank the 'eel' rejoined Weaver. I don't think t-1000 parts are sentient of themselves so no idea what purpose that serves.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

BIH Fox for canceling this!


----------



## bigray327 (Apr 14, 2000)

Wow, that was a fantastic episode. I'll be super disappointed if this show doesn't come back. 

I'm also a little disappointed that the future timeline had never heard of John Connor. How does this mesh with the upcoming movie? Is it even supposed to? Ugh, too many timelines.

It was awesome to see Derek back. I threw a fist in the air when I saw that! And Kyle. And Allison. What an amazing scene!!!!!!!!!


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

bigray327 said:


> I'm also a little disappointed that the future timeline had never heard of John Connor. How does this mesh with the upcoming movie? Is it even supposed to? Ugh, too many timelines.


Why would they? He was not there for Judgment Day.


----------



## ebf (Mar 21, 2005)

bigray327 said:


> ... I'm also a little disappointed that the future timeline had never heard of John Connor....


I think they jumped to a time before John was born/conceived. Derk said John was wearing Derek's brother's coat-- that is John's father.


----------



## bigray327 (Apr 14, 2000)

Gotcha, that all makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Anybody think about the final scene with the lightning bolt. Was that supposed to represent John Henry or Sarah coming through as well.

I am feeling this whole back to the future part 3 where the separated heroes come back together.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I have liked this show from the beginning, through it's many ups and downs. The last few episodes have been great.

I still feel OK with this as a series finale. It was a fun ride, but ratings are what they are and I worry that we'd end up with another half season of budget saver episodes and then a cancellation halfway through next season. I'd much rather they go out like this. Unless Fox gets behind it and really ponies up the moolah for more action episodes maybe.



ebf said:


> I think they jumped to a time before John was born/conceived. Derk said John was wearing Derek's brother's coat-- that is John's father.


John sent Kyle back in time - in the T1 & T2 timeline, which this show has followed, there WAS no "time before John was born" (yeah, it makes no sense logically, but that's time travel for you ).

So, John had to have ended up in a different timeline here. And remember, in one of the episodes, they strongly hinted that Derek and Jessie actually came from different timelines too, although they never expanded on that.

I LOVED the scene with John examining Cameron, one of the weirdest "sex scenes" I've seen on network TV.


----------



## johnny99 (Nov 10, 2008)

This show really picked up the pace in the last few episodes. If it had this pace at the beginning of the season, or even last season, it would have a lot more viewers and never been canceled. Now it is probably to late.


----------



## needo (Jul 9, 2003)

johnny99 said:


> This show really picked up the pace in the last few episodes. If it had this pace at the beginning of the season, or even last season, it would have a lot more viewers and never been canceled. Now it is probably to late.


I definitely agree with you regarding the second season. But I really liked the first season and thought the pace was fine.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

MickeS said:


> John sent Kyle back in time - in the T1 & T2 timeline, which this show has followed, there WAS no "time before John was born" (yeah, it makes no sense logically, but that's time travel for you ).
> 
> So, John had to have ended up in a different timeline here. And remember, in one of the episodes, they strongly hinted that Derek and Jessie actually came from different timelines too, although they never expanded on that.


Actually John hopped forward in time to a place before the Reese Bros. met him. So really, he could just be fulfilling his destiny without living through the apocalypse.

Basically hop to that point, somehow become their leader, send Kyle back to father himself, send the T1, Cameron et al back to protect himself, and try to befriend the non-hostile machine faction led by the Weaver1000.

In the past there's Sarah, the Cameron/John Henry hybrid and Ellison trying to stop the apocalypse from happening in the first place.

But all most likely moot now. I don't know if the upcoming movie will take anything from the series to be canon at all. Doubtful.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Actually John hopped forward in time to a place before the Reese Bros. met him. So really, he could just be fulfilling his destiny without living through the apocalypse.
> 
> Basically hop to that point, somehow become their leader, send Kyle back to father himself, send the T1, Cameron et al back to protect himself, and try to befriend the non-hostile machine faction led by the Weaver1000.


OK, I see what you mean. I have always envisioned John as being a mythical and well known person right from the start of the apocalypse, essentially... because of how he came to be. Which led me to interpret this as him ending up in a different timeline than the "original" (if there is such a thing), where he did indeed not exist, and then became the leader etc.

But your explanation makes sense too. And it's a pretty cool way to tie up the whole T1, T2 and SCC mythology.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Kamakzie said:


> BIH Fox for canceling this!


Maybe we could get really lucky and they won't.

"20!"
- John Henry


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

I've read that the movie in no way is connected to the events from the series. The movie picks up sometime after the events of T3.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Barmat said:


> I've read that the movie in no way is connected to the events from the series. The movie picks up sometime after the events of T3.


T3? Never heard of it.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

zalusky said:


> Anybody think about the final scene with the lightning bolt. Was that supposed to represent John Henry or Sarah coming through as well.


That was unnecessary cheesiness with the voice of Sarah coming through saying "I love you too"

Except for that:
*Wow! that was good TV.*


----------



## Thaed (Nov 25, 2003)

What about the scene with the terminator in the gun shop? Clearly an homage to T1. I was waiting for him to ask for a phase plasma rifle in the 40 watt range. Awesome.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Well, it's probably no accident that John Connor's initials are JC. And that his mother was impregnated by a father who didn't even exist in her timeline.

I didn't care for the last scene. I'm still wrapping my head around it. But I loved the episode up until that point.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

An awesome ep, an ending that can work in many ways.

I didn't know they could jump into the future, maybe that's new from the Turk?

And what was with the Springsteen references? Once, coincidence, twice?


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

Gregor said:


> I didn't know they could jump into the future, maybe that's new from the Turk?


That's what they did in the first or second episode of the series. They jumped ahead 8 or 10 years.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

WOW!

I hope it isn't canceled, but if it is, fantastic ending.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I liked Cameron saying "Hasta Luego" a la Ahnold saying "Hasta la Vista".


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I missed most of the season but watched the finale .So was that final day in the present Judgment Day?


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

I had almost given up on this show earlier in the season. Glad I stuck with it. Awesome episode.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

bigray327 said:


> It was awesome to see Derek back. I threw a fist in the air when I saw that! And Kyle. And Allison. What an amazing scene!!!!!!!!!


I'm having a problem remembering names. Who's Kyle? Who's Allison?


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

jamesbobo said:


> I'm having a problem remembering names. Who's Kyle? Who's Allison?


Kyle Reese (John's father), Allison (Pre-robot Cameron)


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

EMoMoney said:


> That's what they did in the first or second episode of the series. They jumped ahead 8 or 10 years.


Doh! <smacks head>


----------



## harlenm (Jan 2, 2004)

MickeS said:


> OK, I see what you mean. I have always envisioned John as being a mythical and well known person right from the start of the apocalypse, essentially... because of how he came to be. Which led me to interpret this as him ending up in a different timeline than the "original" (if there is such a thing), where he did indeed not exist, and then became the leader etc.
> 
> But your explanation makes sense too. And it's a pretty cool way to tie up the whole T1, T2 and SCC mythology.


I took it as since he jumped forward in time, he didn't grow up to be an adult and be the leader of the resistance in his previous time line. Now that he is a kid in the future, the adult him isn't around anymore. If the show continues, he'll need to jump back to the past in order to become the person we know him to be.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Random thought........................

If T: SCC is cancelled and Dollhouse is renewed, that would free up Summer to show up on Dollhouse. That would very much be the ticket. Joss, listen up.....If Fox keeps DH around but not Terminator, please, please, please bring Summer on board, at least as a guest shot.


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

jlb said:


> Random thought........................
> 
> If T: SCC is cancelled and Dollhouse is renewed, that would free up Summer to show up on Dollhouse.


Yes, sorry SCC, I've been rooting for your downfall for that reason 

Sucks that this is most likely the end, this would have been a series changing season finale and I would have loved to see what they'd do with it next season. The past episodes have been nice, but I was getting bored with them in the present. I found the most interesting stuff to be the flash forwards.


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

harlenm said:


> I took it as since he jumped forward in time, he didn't grow up to be an adult and be the leader of the resistance in his previous time line. Now that he is a kid in the future, the adult him isn't around anymore. If the show continues, he'll need to jump back to the past in order to become the person we know him to be.


+1 on that. I also wondered if Cameron was human or had survived and was the metal version. Showing her with the dog suggests human, but if the series continued I think they could go either way.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Last night ratings:



> Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles ended its season (and almost certainly, series) on a flat note with 3.6 million viewers and a 1.3 adults 18-49 rating.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

harlenm said:


> I took it as since he jumped forward in time, he didn't grow up to be an adult and be the leader of the resistance in his previous time line. Now that he is a kid in the future, the adult him isn't around anymore. If the show continues, he'll need to jump back to the past in order to become the person we know him to be.


I disagree. He jumps forward. Uses his knowledge to become the leader. Becomes buddies with the Reeces. Doesn't tell Kyle that he's his father. Sends Kyle back to protect his mother, sends Arnold back to protect him, etc.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Alfer said:


> Last night ratings:


"In the adults 18-49 demographic, CBS (2.2 rating) was the only network to break the 2.0 mark. ABC, 1.7, grabbed second, followed by FOX, 1.3, and NBC, 1.2. The CW scored a 0.6."

The ratings for SCC were bad, no doubt about it, especially in relation to how much the show must cost to produce. But Friday nights suck in general, so I don't understand what Fox is thinking.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

I feel sorry for John. He's been spending his entire life to this point trying to prevent Judgment day, and then he gets thrown into the future and into the middle of it anyway. Sucks to be him. At least his mother prepared him more than most would be.


----------



## harlenm (Jan 2, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> I disagree. He jumps forward. Uses his knowledge to become the leader. Becomes buddies with the Reeces. Doesn't tell Kyle that he's his father. Sends Kyle back to protect his mother, sends Arnold back to protect him, etc.


That's the problem with shows based on time travel. Right now, the future we see him in, there is no adult version, just the kid. There is no way, in his current time and date, for him to be an adult.


----------



## harlenm (Jan 2, 2004)

Alfer said:


> Last night ratings:


As usual, this doesn't count DVR usage. That's the problem, no one watches these shows live anymore, and the networks really need to understand that.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

harlenm said:


> As usual, this doesn't count DVR usage. That's the problem, no one watches these shows live anymore, and the networks really need to understand that.


Those are overnight ratings (using the top 36 markets, unless I'm mistaken) so, yes, they are not the end-all story of who's actually watching. DVR viewership is added, I think, 5 days later. But considering that'll add usually no more than 40% to the audience, it's still much lower than Fox would like.

Regardless, Fox sent this to Friday nights to die (especially after the show hemorraged viewers since season 1) so we shouldn't expect much. It was good - great even - while it lasted.

Loved the finale and the continuity to season 1 (latino chick), earlier this season (the padre) and even the films (Hasta luego, as mentioned). Not entirely sure how I feel about 16-year-old John bouncing to the future (or the fact that there are 'factions' within the machines but I'll definitely be on the lookout for Josh Friedman's next project.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Wow weeeee. Great show. I kinda teared up a bit when John saw his Dad for the first time. I've really hated John's character until the last few eps. I hope the show comes back....


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

So (going back to the original movie), how could John give Kyle the photograph of his mother? He doesn't have it anymore.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Peter000 said:


> Actually John hopped forward in time to a place before the Reese Bros. met him. So really, he could just be fulfilling his destiny without living through the apocalypse.
> 
> Basically hop to that point, somehow become their leader, send Kyle back to father himself, send the T1, Cameron et al back to protect himself, and try to befriend the non-hostile machine faction led by the Weaver1000.
> 
> In the past there's Sarah, the Cameron/John Henry hybrid and Ellison trying to stop the apocalypse from happening in the first place.


Wow, that really makes sense. Sad that he would have to send his Dad back when he's just found him. 

I didn't get the part where Weaver asked Cameron to join them--or was she asking John? Is she from the future? I assume Cameron lied when she said she didn't know what she was talking about. Did she then go to join John Henry? Where does the liquid on the sub fit in? (you people all seem to understand this way better than me.)

Also I wondered if the line about John needing Weaver's son (I assume that's John Henry) fit in with the machine we saw in the previews of the movie. Don't have to spoiler the fact that there was a machine in the preview of the Terminator movie, do I?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

The "Terminator 3" and "Terminator Salvation" movies have nothing to do with the TV show, as far as I know.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> So (going back to the original movie), how could John give Kyle the photograph of his mother? He doesn't have it anymore.


What happened to it in the series? Did he carry it around with him or did he stow it someplace? Or did Sarah end up with it? If he carried around with him, it's probably toast. But in almost any other scenario there's probably a way to find it somehow.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> What happened to it in the series? Did he carry it around with him or did he stow it someplace? Or did Sarah end up with it? If he carried around with him, it's probably toast. But in almost any other scenario there's probably a way to find it somehow.


In the first Terminator movie, John had given it to Kyle.
He carried it around for a while but lost it in a firefight.
(It fell out of his pocket and got burned.)

Very interesting episode.
(I see why the sets were torn down.)

A number of different ways that they could run with it.
Would the next season split it's time between John in the future and Sarah and Ellison in present day.
Or would John come back in a few episodes (with or without Allison Young)?

And what does the Mansonator do now in the future?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Could they still the series the _Sarah_ Connor Chronicles? Does it matter what Sarah's doing anymore?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

stellie93 said:


> Where does the liquid on the sub fit in? (you people all seem to understand this way better than me.)


The liquid on the sub would most likely be Weaver.

Why would Weaver be naked after the time leap? She doesn't actually wear clothes.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> I didn't get the part where Weaver asked Cameron to join them--or was she asking John? Is she from the future? I assume Cameron lied when she said she didn't know what she was talking about. Did she then go to join John Henry? Where does the liquid on the sub fit in? (you people all seem to understand this way better than me.)


Weaver asked Cameron to "join them" presumably to key her in on the fact that Weaver was the liquid from the sub in the future. Cameron most likely pretended to not understand so she could switch places with John Henry without getting John involved.

What I don't understand is how exactly John Henry and Cameron switched places. It's pretty obvious that Cameron's chip ended up in J.H's body and that somehow Cameron's consciousness on the chip and J.H.'s consciousness on the Turk swapped.

The later part is what's confusing me though since it was stated that J.H.'s being was made up of his hardware and software. Changing the hardware would change J.H.

Overall though it was a great season ender. Too bad it ended up a cliff-hanger though. I don't consider it to be a good series ended because of that. It reminds me of the Farscape series finale which also ended in a cliff-hanger, but that was later answered in a TV movie.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Just thought I'd mention it was cool seeing Joshua Malina on TV again.
Think he (as the FBI agent) believed Sarah?


----------



## shady (May 31, 2002)

They should have saved the song from last week (Donald where's your troosers) for the the final scene


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> Just thought I'd mention it was cool seeing Joshua Malina on TV again.
> Think he (as the FBI agent) believed Sarah?


No. He thinks she's insane. He was just trying to get her to talk.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I don't get why Cameron gave JH her chip.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> Just thought I'd mention it was cool seeing Joshua Malina on TV again.
> Think he (as the FBI agent) believed Sarah?


I don't think so - but I was impressed by how close they came to making me think that he did.

And what's the theory on the Dyson boy's disappearance? Obviously a thread meant to be picked up on for Season 3, probably for Sarah and Ellison. But does anyone think he would have continued his father's work?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

busyba said:


> I don't get why Cameron gave JH her chip.


Will JH now act like a hot high school girl?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Thom said:


> No. He thinks she's insane. He was just trying to get her to talk.


I bet he believes her after the eyewitness accounts of the jail break.

I hope the show comes back next year but they can drop Sarah completely as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

busyba said:


> I don't get why Cameron gave JH her chip.


I figured she was beyond able to repair herself and it was her only chance of survival. She decided John Henry was closer to an ally than an enemy and knew he was going to time travel, so there was a chance she could get a new body.

But the question remains, why did John Henry's trip through time not destroy the lab like the second one?


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

scandia101 said:


> Why would Weaver be naked after the time leap? She doesn't actually wear clothes.


I've forgotten the logic from T2 - how do the liquid metal terminators time travel at all? I thought the 800 series was coated with some fleshy layer, but the 1000 series is just metal...

BTW, for the 1000s that morph on their clothes rather than wear real clothes, I've always been impressed with the speed and accuracy of their real-time cloth simulations...


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

harlenm said:


> As usual, this doesn't count DVR usage. That's the problem, no one watches these shows live anymore, and the networks really need to understand that.


It's not the networks that need convincing, it's the advertisers.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

what annoyed me was how slow Cameron was during her assault...why stand there and take 40 bullets before turning around and shooting at the guards?


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Anubys said:


> what annoyed me was how slow Cameron was during her assault...why stand there and take 40 bullets before turning around and shooting at the guards?


That came across to me as an homage to the films.

About that sequence: I liked how Cameron wasn't killing anyone.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

jschuur said:


> But the question remains, why did John Henry's trip through time not destroy the lab like the second one?


When did John Henry travel through time?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

JH, a machine with Cromartie's body and Cameron's chip, goes to the future. If JH had Cameron's chip, wasn't that Cameron now? With Cameron's mission? If so, why did Weaver care so much to follow it? Wasn't the giant stack of machines in the room, which was still there, the "real" JH that's so important?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

why the assumption that JH implanted Cameron's chip? is it because he can't function without a chip once he's removed from the hardware?


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

aindik said:


> Wasn't the giant stack of machines in the room, which was still there, the "real" JH that's so important?


I got the impression that JH and Cameron had a "V'Ger moment" where they merged (downloaded?) their consciousness' (software?).

Evidence: the JH hardware signaling "Sorry John".

Such a strong episode to cap off a string of strong episodes. I'll be despondent if it doesn't return. (Yeah, I'm preparing myself.)


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

My guess is the network is waiting to see how well the movie does before making a decision about the series. If it's a big hit you bet the series will be back.


----------



## dagojr (Jan 9, 2004)

seriously if this is canceled... ill never tune into fox again. they can not leave me hanging like this.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Cameron's chip is presumably advanced enough to take the place of all that hardware, and still leave room for her original personality too. Or not. Find out in season three! Or not.

John Henry went through time shortly before the others arrived in the basement. Weaver could apparently detect that the time machine had been used, and (I guess?) the destination time. She went forward with JC to retrieve JH/C, and bring him/her back. We don't know why JH/C went forward.

JC skipped over the intervening years, so he's unknown in the new timeline, unless/until he goes back. The "this is his destiny" interpretation is interesting, but clearly not intended.

Why didn't the time machine destroy the lab? Well, I don't think it did that at the bank, either, did it? Rather, they intentionally blew up the bank to conceal the time machine.

T1000's can presumably time travel by giving their outermost layers whatever characteristics of "living flesh" are required for the process. This is why Weaver appeared naked.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Ment said:


> That was the eel from the previous episode. For some reason Weaver left a part of herself in a tank so when the aircraft burst the tank the 'eel' rejoined Weaver. I don't think t-1000 parts are sentient of themselves so no idea what purpose that serves.


Yes! I had to watch the scene two more times to figure that out. Very nice scene too...I'll probably even watch it a few more times!

Shirley Manson vs. Terminator -- another nice scene. I didn't really have any feelings about her performance and character at first but she quickly grew on me as the series moved on.

This show has always been good in my eyes, but I have to say that last several episodes *really* were fantastic.

I look forward to the day when DVR's are taken into better consideration when it comes to the ratings system. It just isn't working right now and the possibly cancellation of this show proves it.


----------



## bpurcell (Mar 16, 2005)

I have a T:Salvation question. When I watched the trailer during the show, John Conner acts like he's never heard of Terminators, when he definitely knew them in his youth (T2). Does anyone know if the new movie follows the timeline of T1 and T2 and that John has full knowledge about what happened?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

harlenm said:


> That's the problem with shows based on time travel. Right now, the future we see him in, there is no adult version, just the kid. There is no way, in his current time and date, for him to be an adult.


He's near enough to adult to be able to become, from here, the leader. There's no reason he has to be a particular age -- we've never even seen him, we don't know what age he always was.

I think this is definitely ambiguous, and I'd go so far as to say the writers haven't even decided yet how it'll go from here, whether John just stays in that time and becomes the John that the future always knew, or eventually has to come back so he ends up older. It could go either way.



Thaed said:


> What about the scene with the terminator in the gun shop? Clearly an homage to T1. I was waiting for him to ask for a phase plasma rifle in the 40 watt range. Awesome.


There were a lot of those. Cameron shooting up the police station and ending up with the same damage to her face that Aaaahnold had (they should put extra armor around the left eye!).



Turtleboy said:


> Could they still the series the _Sarah_ Connor Chronicles? Does it matter what Sarah's doing anymore?


It's been just Connor Chronicles on my box for a few months now, actually.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> He's near enough to adult to be able to become, from here, the leader. There's no reason he has to be a particular age -- we've never even seen him, we don't know what age he always was.


They showed the future John Connor in "Terminator 2", and he was definitely a grown man.

I don't have a problem with it, time travel messes up continuity in every story it's used.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

alpacaboy said:


> I've forgotten the logic from T2 - how do the liquid metal terminators time travel at all? I thought the 800 series was coated with some fleshy layer, but the 1000 series is just metal...


It has never been explained, just conveniently ignored.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Hunter Green said:


> I think this is definitely ambiguous, and I'd go so far as to say the writers haven't even decided yet how it'll go from here, whether John just stays in that time and becomes the John that the future always knew, or eventually has to come back so he ends up older. It could go either way.


I'm sorry, but you guys are nuts. There's no way that's the intended reading, nor is it meant to be ambiguous.

As if that scenario weren't implausible enough on its face, there's an additional detail in the future scene that I think you're overlooking: Derek tells John he's going to be famous, because he's wearing Kyle's coat. The point of which is that in this timeline, _Kyle Reese is the leader of the resistance_. Now you could argue that's something he always had in him, but he was nothing like that at the time John sent him back in the "original" timeline, and never had been.

Even if John does stay in the future, the timeline is already radically different from the "original".


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

wmcbrine said:


> I'm sorry, but you guys are nuts. There's no way that's the intended reading, nor is it meant to be ambiguous.


I agree. John was originally the leader because he united people after the initial attack. In this timeline, the Resistance was already well established before some of its members met a John Connor.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Here's a really good analysis, with quite a few questions....

http://io9.com/5208340/summer-glau-plays-with-knives-a-lot


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Anubys said:


> why the assumption that JH implanted Cameron's chip? is it because he can't function without a chip once he's removed from the hardware?


We know that the Cromartie body can't function without a chip which is why JH needed to be physically connected to the body. With Cameron's chip, the body wouldn't need to be connected to JH's hardware.

My only confusion is that somehow Cameron ended up in JH's hardware (as seen from the "I'm Sorry John" text scrolling up the screen) and JH ended up in Cameron's chip which was then impanted into the Cromartie body so JH could go to the future.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

bpurcell said:


> I have a T:Salvation question. When I watched the trailer during the show, John Conner acts like he's never heard of Terminators, when he definitely knew them in his youth (T2). Does anyone know if the new movie follows the timeline of T1 and T2 and that John has full knowledge about what happened?


In the original timeline JC just lived through JD and didn't know anything about Terminators. Then he met some, sent them back in time, and everything that we now know began. If the movie is a franchise reset they could be showing the origin of everything. Maybe the movie ends with him sending a T800 back to protect his mother.


----------



## bluntspoon (Aug 29, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> Just thought I'd mention it was cool seeing Joshua Malina on TV again.
> Think he (as the FBI agent) believed Sarah?


I had assumed that when the FBI agent went to the cell with Sarah and told her he believed her that it was actually Weaver. Am I wrong in this? It seemed clear to me at the time....


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

bluntspoon said:


> I had assumed that when the FBI agent went to the cell with Sarah and told her he believed her that it was actually Weaver. Am I wrong in this? It seemed clear to me at the time....


If it was Weaver they would have shown him changing into her. They would never do something like that without making it explicit; that's just not how TV shows work.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Mars Rocket said:


> In the original timeline JC ... didn't know anything about Terminators [until after Judgment Day].


I would argue with that, but unfortunately the metaphysics of the first movie is incompatible with that of T2 and T:SCC, so there's no way to really account for the "original" timeline in the T2/T:SCC multiverse. In the original movie, it turned out to be a closed loop, but in the expanded canon it's just a paradox.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bootedbear said:


> I got the impression that JH and Cameron had a "V'Ger moment" where they merged (downloaded?) their consciousness' (software?).
> 
> Evidence: the JH hardware signaling "Sorry John".
> 
> Such a strong episode to cap off a string of strong episodes. I'll be despondent if it doesn't return. (Yeah, I'm preparing myself.)


The chip in the average terminator is sophisticated enough to hold everything JH knows, when JH is supposed to be a machine powerful enough to rival Skynet?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

JH is supposed to _become_ powerful enough to rival Skynet. He isn't yet.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I really like how they have been developing John. He's gone from someone who needed his mommy to protect him to a more self sufficient individual. Sarah and Derek (and Cameron) don't realize how far he's come. He figured out what happened to Riley all on his own. He can make hard decisions. He's ready to lead. I'll miss this show if its gone.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> I would argue with that, but unfortunately the metaphysics of the first movie is incompatible with that of T2 and T:SCC, so there's no way to really account for the "original" timeline in the T2/T:SCC multiverse. In the original movie, it turned out to be a closed loop, but in the expanded canon it's just a paradox.


Hell, it *starts off* as a paradox if you assume only one timeline, but I figure there had to be at least one point when all the time travel began for the first time (so to speak). In the first movie's future JC couldn't have known about the terminators all along because they didn't impact his past until he had already lived it and become a threat to Skynet. One could argue that the John Connor who sent back Kyle Reese had to win in the end because he was about to anyway, and his timeline couldn't be affected by things in the past - the moment the T888 and Kyle showed up in 1984 the timeline would have to split.

It kind of makes you wonder what Skynet's goal was - it must have known things wouldn't turn out just the same (but with no John Connor) if they managed to kill his mother before he was born, but they went with that plan anyway. Those are some really angry machines.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> JH is supposed to _become_ powerful enough to rival Skynet. He isn't yet.


How is he supposed to do that now, with only as much processing power as your average Terminator?


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

What a cool episode! I hope they do renew it. I can't remember where I heard this, it might have been slice of sci fi but the person said they they needed to separate John from Sarah because John is supposed to end up being this fantastic leader and right now he can't because Sarah is just so Strong. It seems the makers came up with the same conclusions! 

I've been watching too much Go Diego Go at the hospital this week, when they were all going down the stairs I was thinking Weaver should change into a sled and carry them all down the stairs!


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> It's been just Connor Chronicles on my box for a few months now, actually.


It should have been the John Conner Chronicles all along. The Sarah character adds nothing to the series in my opinion.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

appleye1 said:


> It should have been the John Conner Chronicles all along. The Sarah character adds nothing to the series in my opinion.


Just 60 minutes of *****-face every episode.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

aindik said:


> How is he supposed to do that now, with only as much processing power as your average Terminator?


Well, obviously he can't _now_. This wasn't the original plan. But perhaps he can be restored to his old configuration if/when he returns from the future. Or perhaps he'll find other ways to expand.



Mars Rocket said:


> Hell, it *starts off* as a paradox if you assume only one timeline


No, a closed loop isn't paradoxical. It may look that way from a linear perspective, but it isn't really.



> _In the first movie's future JC couldn't have known about the terminators all along because they didn't impact his past until he had already lived it and become a threat to Skynet._


But follow that logic to its conclusion: If Kyle Reese had not been sent back, John Connor would not exist at all. That's your initial timeline. Now _that's_ a paradox.



> _It kind of makes you wonder what Skynet's goal was - it must have known_


Skynet is smart, but not omniscient. I don't think it can foresee the consequences of its own temporal meddling with complete accuracy. In fact, in the original movie (where it turns out there's only one timeline), it becomes apparent that Skynet was mistaken about the basic nature of time. Arguably, even in the new cosmology (where there are multiple timelines after all), Skynet is still mistaken about the nature of time -- it acts as though there's a single future, but an alterable one; what we're observing is multiple futures.

Skynet's goal was/is/will be/would've been to win the war. Originally, sending back the first Terminator was a last-ditch effort. But now, with multiple time machines in the possession of both sides, launching from multiple times and timelines, the war has become primarily a time war. IMHO.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I always thought the role of Sarah was miscast. First, she's dark haired. I would have preferred Sonya Walger. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0907427/


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> But follow that logic to its conclusion: If Kyle Reese had not been sent back, John Connor would not exist at all. That's your initial timeline. Now _that's_ a paradox.


That's what I meant (I think). The original timeline in the first movie couldn't happen until it already happened. There was no way to initiate the sequence of events that happen in the movie. It happens because it happened. Yes, once it's in play it makes sense in a loop, but it can't get to that point on its own.

I guess it's not a traditional paradox in the sense of one event contradicting the other in a real physical sense, though.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> I always thought the role of Sarah was miscast. First, she's dark haired. I would have preferred Sonya Walger. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0907427/


While the IMDB link is always a good idea - you do recall that she actually appeared on T:TSCC right? She was Charley Dixon's wife, Michelle.

From a physical standpoint, sure, Sonya's more like Linda Hamilton but I think Lena Heady did a pretty good job of channeling that psycho-like intensity. I can understand why many viewers don't like the character but I think the actress did an awesome job.

Besides, if Sonya had gotten the role of Sarah, what would have happened to Penny? _Lost_ would be so much worse off...


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Well, obviously he can't _now_. This wasn't the original plan. But perhaps he can be restored to his old configuration if/when he returns from the future. Or perhaps he'll find other ways to expand.


John Henry is not in the future. Only Weaver went with John Connor.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> John Henry is not in the future. Only Weaver went with John Connor.


Interesting read on it, but that's not the impression I got.

I read the scene as John Connor and Weaver using the time jumpin' machine with the same settings to follow John Henry (now powered by Cameron's chip) to the future.


----------



## jebbbz (Sep 7, 2007)

Yeah, I just checked that scene. Weaver turns to Ellison and asks:

"Coming, James?"

"Coming?"

"After John Henry... our boy."

"He's not my boy. And you..."

"Would you mind picking up Savannah, then?"

...

Weaver presses some buttons and the sparks begin to fly. Sarah shakes her head and says:

"John, we can't."

"He's got her chip. He's got her."

Sarah backs out of the developing time travel sphere. John says:

"Mom?"

"I'll stop it."

and poof.


----------



## jebbbz (Sep 7, 2007)

hanumang said:


> From a physical standpoint, sure, Sonya's more like Linda Hamilton but I think Lena Heady did a pretty good job of channeling that psycho-like intensity. I can understand why many viewers don't like the character but I think the actress did an awesome job.


Sonya Walger's facial features are quite similar to Linda Hamilton's circa 1995-2000 but her physique is nothing like that of Hamilton in T1 and even less like that of Hamilton in T2. Ms. Walger is far, far curvier than Sarah Connor if Connor is to be, what, commando-ready for action and without surgery Ms. Walger never could be.

I'm in the Lena Headey camp. She captures a lot of the T2 Sarah Connor (lean, albeit not quite as much, driven but not so obviously a candidate for Pescadero) and I don't know but any flaws in her characterization may be those of the writer's, not the actress.


----------



## slocko (Mar 5, 2004)

daybreak cancelled. journeyman cancelled. chronicles cancelled?

these guys are killing me.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> John Henry is not in the future. Only Weaver went with John Connor.


John Henry went first. They were following him. It was the only reason they went.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

no way could BAG still be alive, cuz he already died... whatever happened, happened, right? 


i hope this show goes on, and i hope it doesn't turn into a big bag of suck when/if it does....


----------



## kjnorman (Jun 21, 2002)

I liked this episode! It will be a shame is T:TSCC is canceled but may they could drop the Sarah part and restart the show as Terminator: The John Connor Chronicles. That would be okay with me.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

slocko said:


> daybreak cancelled. journeyman cancelled. chronicles cancelled?
> 
> these guys are killing me.


I can't for the life of me figure out why the major networks keep making sci-fi shows. I appreciate the fact that they keep trying but obviously there is very little interest among the typical broadcast network viewer. There's the occasional exception (Lost for instance, which many debate may or may not be sci-fi), but in general any sci-fi show these days is doomed to one season or less. If one does make it beyond one season it's almost always because of a pity campaign or some other form of life support.

Cops, reality, and comedy are really the only thing that make it on the broadcast networks these days. Evidently (and sadly), they should probably just stick to that.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

appleye1 said:


> I can't for the life of me figure out why the major networks keep making sci-fi shows. I appreciate the fact that they keep trying but obviously there is very little interest among the typical broadcast network viewer. There's the occasional exception (Lost for instance, which many debate may or may not be sci-fi), but in general any sci-fi show these days is doomed to one season or less. If one does make it beyond one season it's almost always because of a pity campaign or some other form of life support.
> 
> Cops, reality, and comedy are really the only thing that make it on the broadcast networks these days. Evidently (and sadly), they should probably just stick to that.


Well, I agree with you, but I for one appreciate that they keep trying. 

The only shows I watch are a couple of comedies, sci-fi and American Idol. I'd hate to only have to watch comedies and AI.


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

MickeS said:


> Well, I agree with you, but I for one appreciate that they keep trying.
> 
> The only shows I watch are a couple of comedies, sci-fi and American Idol. I'd hate to only have to watch comedies and AI.


Yeh, they must be looking at certain scifi movies box office and going, ok, lets do the same for tv. I can only think they were sold on this series as a way to get public interest renewed in the Terminator universe, which will be watched by some people who weren't even born when T2 came out. Now that the new movie is here....why keep the show unless the ratings justify?

However, like someone else said, maybe a good box office will help keep the show. On some blog I read a guy wanted to tour the tv terminator sets, and was told they no longer exist... lets hope that's not a show stopper. But - its been documented that many of the actors are working on other projects, ones that they might not be able to do if they had a contract to remain with this one.

After this finale, I hope they keep it on. If they cancel it, I'm sure they're waiting for the movie to come out to announce.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

net114 said:


> Yeh, they must be looking at certain scifi movies box office and going, ok, lets do the same for tv. I can only think they were sold on this series as a way to get public interest renewed in the Terminator universe, which will be watched by some people who weren't even born when T2 came out. Now that the new movie is here....why keep the show unless the ratings justify?
> 
> However, like someone else said, maybe a good box office will help keep the show. On some blog I read a guy wanted to tour the tv terminator sets, and was told they no longer exist... lets hope that's not a show stopper. But - its been documented that many of the actors are working on other projects, ones that they might not be able to do if they had a contract to remain with this one.
> 
> After this finale, I hope they keep it on. If they cancel it, I'm sure they're waiting for the movie to come out to announce.


The sets being dismantled is not a big deal. First there are no too many sets for the show (Basement and Weaver's Office would be the only ones really left maybe some of the future, but those have to be changed around to look like a different place form last time). Also depending on the location they may be using it to film other things. HHN has easily gone from having people in the park to setting up some of their sets and houses in just a few hours so I say so what to that.

Now as far as other projects goes I mean it all depends on filming schedules.

I personally don't see why Fox would not come out and say the show has been canceled if it has. It is not like you are going to alienate people from seeing the movie, some people might "in protest" avoid the movie, but IIRC the show and the movie don't go together in anyway in storyline (besides the basic premise). True fans of the franchise will see the movie regardless is the show is renewed or not. Personally I think the show might be back based on how the movie performs.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Einselen said:


> I personally don't see why Fox would not come out and say the show has been canceled if it has.


It has nothing to do with the movie. Networks almost never announce they are not going to renew a show (when they actually cancel it, it tends to be an instant decision). It would be bad business for them to do it. They have everybody under contract until a certain time (I think the drop-dead date is usually around June or July), and if they canceled a show (instead of just not renewing it), those contracts are instantly void. By officially making no decision (even if the decision not to be renewed has really been made), they leave their options open for the longest possible time at no cost whatsoever to them.

That's why "cancellation" (actually, non-renewal) is usually a three-step process. First, the rumors, which start when the decision is made not to renew (or course, these rumors are indistinguishable from the ones that happen even if no decision has been made). Second, the up-fronts, when a particular show does not show up on the fall schedule. At that point, it's pretty much a done deal, but still not official. Usually, that's the point where everybody's looking for new work (or at least, looking harder). But the show is officially not yet dead, and contracted cast and crew are still tied to it. Sometimes, at this point you'll still hear producers and/or actors whimpering in hope of renewal; it's still a theoretical possibility at this point (Javier Grillo-Marxuach was in this mode for a while after ABC Family failed to renew The Middleman). And finally, there's the contractual drop-dead date, when everybody is released from their contracts and can start signing new ones for other shows. At this point, they really couldn't bring the show back if they wanted to.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Think back a few episodes. Some guy in a factory uses an unsecured phone to notify someone about the break in at the factory. John Henry plays the phone call to Weaver who then goes and kills everyone in the factory. At the time, I thought the factory was linked to Weaver and she was killing everyone because of the security breach. Now am I to believe that the factory was a skynet thing and Weaver was killing everyone because of that? Was there anything in that episode that would make me believe it was or wasn't a Weaver factory? Thanks for the help.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

DouglasPHill said:


> Was there anything in that episode that would make me believe it was or wasn't a Weaver factory?


I don't think we knew anything from that particular episode. But from other episodes, we learned that the security guard that worked there was the one that implanted Sarah with the chip, which led to the attack on them that we know was from John Henry's "brother".


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They have everybody under contract until a certain time (I think the drop-dead date is usually around June or July), and if they canceled a show (instead of just not renewing it), those contracts are instantly void.


What is the point of having a contract until midsummer? Filming as been completed so everyone is gone off doing their own things now (vaca, family, etc.). Also if they do renew the show then they have to write new contracts and people could not sign on for the next season then correct? I am confused on the purpose of this contract.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> I don't think we knew anything from that particular episode. But from other episodes, we learned that the security guard that worked there was the one that implanted Sarah with the chip, which led to the attack on them that we know was from John Henry's "brother".


Weren't they the ones who made the drone that attacked Weaver's building at the end of the finale?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Einselen said:


> What is the point of having a contract until midsummer? Filming as been completed so everyone is gone off doing their own things now (vaca, family, etc.). Also if they do renew the show then they have to write new contracts and people could not sign on for the next season then correct? I am confused on the purpose of this contract.


The contract keeps the cast locked in (usually for seven years). The drop-dead date on the contract is the latest a show COULD be renewed and still be ready for the Fall season. Filming usually starts around July.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the contract is for the benefit of the actors.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

stevieleej said:


> Can someone explain to me the reason for the Cameron/John bedroom scene?


I took it as Cameron wanting to cement in John's mind that Cameron is a machine so he doesn't take it hard when something bad happens to her, and Cameron failing spectacularly at that particular mission.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The contract keeps the cast locked in (usually for seven years). The drop-dead date on the contract is the latest a show COULD be renewed and still be ready for the Fall season. Filming usually starts around July.
> 
> You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the contract is for the benefit of the actors.


No I just thought that if a contract has an end date of June/July that it doesn't make sense that the actors would come back after. Now the contract doesn't expire June/July, the studio just has an option. The contract is [typically] good for multiple years but with the option to the studio to end it prior. I got it now. :up:


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

stevieleej said:


> Can someone explain to me the reason for the Cameron/John bedroom scene?


They could have left this completely out.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Einselen said:


> No I just thought that if a contract has an end date of June/July that it doesn't make sense that the actors would come back after. Now the contract doesn't expire June/July, the studio just has an option. The contract is [typically] good for multiple years but with the option to the studio to end it prior. I got it now. :up:


It's a (usually) seven-year contract, but if the studio doesn't call you back to work by the drop-dead date each year, the contract is null and void. And of course the studio can fire you pretty much at will, and actors can usually renegotiate pretty much at will (although a couple of CSI actors once got caught between a "pretty much" and a hard place!). But the way the contract is structured, if the show isn't renewed by the drop-dead date, then it's game over. And that's why networks almost never actually cancel shows...they want to keep the contract active as long as possible to keep their options open just in case something game-changing happens.

(I wonder if that's why Ted Danson had such a small and tacked-on-feeling role in Damages this year--they wanted to keep him on the hook so he could play a bigger part next year.)


----------



## mitchb2 (Sep 30, 2000)

stevieleej said:


> Can someone explain to me the reason for the Cameron/John bedroom scene?


To give teen boys a woody?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

EMoMoney said:


> It's not the networks that need convincing, it's the advertisers.


The advertisers know the majority of DVR users FF through most of the commercials. The advertisers know a DVR user that watches a time sensitive commercial (weekend movie opening or a sale) 5 or 6 days after the show originally aired have little value.

Advertisers have no reason to pay for DVR viewers.


----------



## harlenm (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> The advertisers know the majority of DVR users FF through most of the commercials. The advertisers know a DVR user that watches a time sensitive commercial (weekend movie opening or a sale) 5 or 6 days after the show originally aired have little value.
> 
> Advertisers have no reason to pay for DVR viewers.


Which is why there are so many product placements in shows now. They drive a Ram because Dodge paid them to drive it. Remember they were giving away a Ram each week for 5 weeks?


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

stevieleej said:


> Can someone explain to me the reason for the Cameron/John bedroom scene?





DouglasPHill said:


> They could have left this completely out.





mitchb2 said:


> To give teen boys a woody?


Hey, even adult boys can chuckle at a scene where John's hand is inside Cameron's body.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

stevieleej said:


> Can someone explain to me the reason for the Cameron/John bedroom scene?


Ostensibly, John was inspecting Cameron for damage that could've resulted in radiation leakage. (None was found.) This was in the context of John wondering if that could've caused cancer in Sarah. (Of course we know that Cameron already had a record of Sarah dying of cancer in the timeline Cameron came from, which she told Sarah back at the beginning of the series, but I don't think John was ever told about that.)

But really, I think (contrary to aindik) that it was another little bit of seduction by Cameron, which she's engaged in repeatedly. Not usually as blatantly as when she was malfunctioning at the start of season two, but she's been manipulating John to some extent since she arrived.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

aindik said:


> Weren't they the ones who made the drone that attacked Weaver's building at the end of the finale?


I think so, unless there is yet one more group involved, which I doubt.


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

I was hoping at some point newspaper photos of California's governor would get their attention....

Oh well...


----------



## slocko (Mar 5, 2004)

how come these networks don't arrange deals to hand these series over to one of the lesser networks if it doesn't do well?

i'm sure the sci-fi channel would love to pick up the series. 

i've been watching sliders on netflix and it's a pretty campy series about time travel and yet it lasted 5 seasons from what i can tell.


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

In T1, Kyle shows Sarah a singed picture of Sarah that John had given him in the future. At the end of the film, a boy takes takes a polaroid picture of Sarah at a Mexican gas station and you realize that is the picture.

The picture and a flashback to the Mexican gas station were reshot with Lena Headey for TSCC. But if you can't take inanimate objects through the time machine, then how did John carry the picture through the time machine to give to Kyle?

Come to think of it, how did Kyle carry the photo back in time with him? (More than 20 years after seeing the movie, this just occurred to me.) Only one answer comes to mind. John/Kyle must have rolled it up the photo and carried it in a body orifice. Those were not burn marks on the picture.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Dancar said:


> Only one answer comes to mind. John/Kyle must have rolled it up the photo and carried it in a body orifice. Those were not burn marks on the picture.





> This watch I got here was first purchased by your great-granddaddy. It was bought during the First World War in a little general store in Knoxville, Tennessee. . . .


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

I thought of Pulp Fiction too, but I thought no one would get the reference.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Dancar said:


> I was hoping at some point newspaper photos of California's governor would get their attention....


Cameron already rescued the new California governor earlier this season!

To those who insist that John's arrival has to be contradictory to the premise of T1, and unambiguously a change in the timeline, I note this line from an article in SciFiSyFy Wire, which also features an interview with the show creator. (No spoilers in it.)



> And the big shocker ... none of them have ever heard of John Connor. Is this the way the future was always supposed to be and John has yet to become the savior of humanity-or has John skipped over his part in saving mankind and we never needed him to save us in the first place?


Those of you are certain it's unambiguous might wonder why the writer who's interviewing Josh Friedman seems convinced there's precisely the ambiguity some of us see clearly.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I thought anything with skin can time travel. Why didn't Cameron's body go? What was different about it this time versus last time in 1999? I wouldn't think the absence of a chip would have anything to do with it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

aindik said:


> I thought anything with skin can time travel. Why didn't Cameron's body go? What was different about it this time versus last time in 1999? I wouldn't think the absence of a chip would have anything to do with it.


My guess was that it was the gaping hole in her face.

The way I see it, the "skin casing that allows time travel" concept is much like the Faraday Cage concept. If there's a big enough hole in the casing, it will fail.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Didn't they always say it needed to be "living tissue". Maybe her state made it non-living tissue.

I watched the last 2 episodes back to back. Man they rocked the ending of this show.

No way did I think the show would be this good when they announced it.

I did notice they kept on saying "season" ending, so who knows I guess.

-smak-


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

busyba said:


> My guess was that it was the gaping hole in her face.
> 
> The way I see it, the "skin casing that allows time travel" concept is much like the Faraday Cage concept. If there's a big enough hole in the casing, it will fail.


I completely forget the circumstances of Cromartie following them from 1999 to 2007, but I'm fairly certain it disproves the above theory.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

aindik said:


> I completely forget the circumstances of Cromartie following them from 1999 to 2007, but I'm fairly certain it disproves the above theory.


I think they completely threw out the inanimate object rule. It wouldn't make sense with a liquid metal terminator any way. Now it just removes clothes, especially during sweeps periods.


----------



## Dancar (Oct 8, 2001)

What can and cannot pass through the time jump are determined by what best serves the dramatic needs of the story at that moment.


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

> In T1, Kyle shows Sarah a singed picture of Sarah that John had given him in the future


Eh? I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. We only see the picture in the "flashback" (flashforward?) scenes of Kyle in the future, and see it burned up in the future, I think in the scene where a terminator infiltrates the survivor compound. He never takes it back & shows it to Sarah, the image was just etched into his mind.

Photos only go back with you if you have a silver DeLorean .


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

aindik said:


> I completely forget the circumstances of Cromartie following them from 1999 to 2007, but I'm fairly certain it disproves the above theory.


It was just his head that went through the portal (the rest of the body was buried in the rubble of the bank explosion and "woke up" and went looking for the head once the calendar caught up to the time that the head jumped to), and it was still encased in skin as it went through, although the skin was in the process of disintegrating as a result of whatever that weapon was that Cameron used.

The prevailing theory is that the timing was such that disintegration happened a fraction of a second too late for it to prevent the time leap.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Dancar said:


> In T1, Kyle shows Sarah a singed picture of Sarah that John had given him in the future.


I believe you're misremembering. We only see the picture in the future (and at the end). Kyle describes it to Sarah; he doesn't show it to her.



> _But if you can't take inanimate objects through the time machine, then how did John carry the picture through the time machine to give to Kyle?_


He didn't, of course, because _this is not the T1 timeline_. If you needed more evidence.



Hunter Green said:


> Those of you are certain it's unambiguous might wonder why the writer who's interviewing Josh Friedman seems convinced there's precisely the ambiguity some of us see clearly.


That comment doesn't come from anything either party said in an interview. It carries no more weight than a comment here.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Well, we still aren't sure if Sun really slept with that guy, either. Whatever.


----------



## Ladd Morse (Feb 21, 2002)

Re: why do networks keep trying SciFi shows but then not supporting them?

Remember how Cable was supposed to provide 500 channels so everyone could find a channel that supported their niche interests? 

If only there was a SciFi channel where all the SciFic TV shows could be broadcast and be loved by people who like that genre. And no wrestling allowed.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Step 1) Go back in time, kidnap Dr. Bruce Banner.
Step 2) Bring him back to the future, and wake up the Hulk, and point him at the robots.
Step 3) Win?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

classicX said:


> Step 1) Go back in time, kidnap Dr. Bruce Banner.
> Step 2) Bring him back to the future, and wake up the Hulk, and point him at the robots.
> Step 3) Win?


No way.

Hulk smash Terminator? Sure.

Hulk smash room full of Terminators? Well, OK.

Hulk smash planet full of Terminators? Nu uh. Even if he can smash Terminators as long as he can stay awake, sooner or later he's going to fall asleep.

And then, it's Terminators smash puny Banner.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No way.
> 
> Hulk smash Terminator? Sure.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Sheldon.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No way.
> 
> Hulk smash Terminator? Sure.
> 
> ...


LOL!!!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No way.
> 
> Hulk smash Terminator? Sure.
> 
> ...


I must have died...ah...nerd Nirvana...I am home...


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Ladd Morse said:


> If only there was a SciFi channel where all the SciFic TV shows could be broadcast and be loved by people who like that genre. And no wrestling allowed.


 +1


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Fox set to cancel Sarah Conner:

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/04/scoop-fox-set-t.html?cnn=yes


----------



## slocko (Mar 5, 2004)

figures.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Alfer said:


> Fox set to cancel Sarah Conner:
> 
> http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/04/scoop-fox-set-t.html?cnn=yes


At least Ausiello got the terminology right (he didn't say "cancel," he said "will not be renewing").

But is anybody really surprised, knowing the ratings and the loss of the Warner subsidy?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> At least Ausiello got the terminology right (he didn't say "cancel," he said "will not be renewing").


On the other hand, he also said (emphasis mine), "Last Friday's finale was an action-packed, *closure-filled* triumph."

Closure?!? That word does not mean what he thinks it means.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> Closure?!? That word does not mean what he thinks it means.


There are some (strange, bizarre, odd) people who seem to think that the season finale can be interpreted as closing the circle on the first two movies...John Connor is now in the future ready to take over as leader of the resistance, from which point he will send Kyle back, blah blah blah.

Not a completely insane interpretation, I guess. But definitely strange, bizarre, odd...


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There are some (strange, bizarre, odd) people who seem to think that the season finale can be interpreted as closing the circle on the first two movies...John Connor is now in the future ready to take over as leader of the resistance, from which point he will send Kyle back, blah blah blah


At least we saw the destination of his jump. Imagine if the finale ended with a cliffhanger such that we saw John Connor and Weaver make the jump, but never saw where they went to; supposedly to be revealed in the next season's opener.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> I disagree. He jumps forward. Uses his knowledge to become the leader. Becomes buddies with the Reeces. Doesn't tell Kyle that he's his father. Sends Kyle back to protect his mother, sends Arnold back to protect him, etc.





harlenm said:


> That's the problem with shows based on time travel. Right now, the future we see him in, there is no adult version, just the kid. There is no way, in his current time and date, for him to be an adult.


while only reading 1/2 the thread and just watched it.

I took it that John jumped forward and grew up to be the leader in the future resistance. 
Sarah will die from cancer in the next few years
Past Cameron is gone
Future Skynet is going to be a little different now that John Henry "fought" it at some point and some how

But I agree, time travel is tricky.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There are some (strange, bizarre, odd) people who seem to think that the season finale can be interpreted as closing the circle on the first two movies...John Connor is now in the future ready to take over as leader of the resistance, from which point he will send Kyle back, blah blah blah.


Now, that's playing strawman games. No one in this thread at least has argued that after "Born To Run" we have a conclusion to the story; that there's no missing chapters between this and the beginning of T1. All that's been argued is that those chapters don't necessarily have to include a trip back in time.

What do we know at the end of "Born To Run"? John is now at a time when the resistance has been formed and is armed. There are infiltrators, and they've discovered the use of dogs to sniff them out. And that's about it.

Now consider what we know of the timeline from Kyle's story in T1. First, there was Judgment Day. Then there was a resistance, but it was in dire straits. We know at some point there were infiltrators, though the first ones were crude, rubber skins, and easily spotted. Dogs were employed to pick out infiltrators at some point. We also know that John Connor rose up and somehow, miraculously, turned things around. The outnumbered, outgunned remnants of the human race turned the tables somehow because of one man.

Kyle thought it was just because John was really cool. And clearly, he had something going for him. By the end of T1, we are led to believe that maybe it's just that he was trained to this role his whole life, and could march through the Resistance speaking with absolute confidence, knowing that what he said _would_ work. And that kind of charisma can make a big difference. But maybe Kyle overestimates it. If it turns out he has a Weaver-manufactured, John-Henry-shaped ace up his sleeve, plus more than a little knowledge of the future he's in, that could also help a lot.

We do not know how long the Resistance existed as a bunch of isolated pockets of fighters before John Connor arose. We do not know whether his appearance predated any particular development, such as HKs or infiltrators, apart from that we know it preceded time travel. We do not know what age he was! Or what he looks like. (Maybe because he looks like we know him already...)

Given all that, one possible story is: John skips Judgment Day, discovers that something's screwed up the timeline, but eventually something rights it and he goes back to live through Judgment Day after all.

Another one, though, that's compatible with everything we know, and which would also make for a fascinating season or two, goes like this. John finds himself in the middle of a disorganized resistance fighting a holding action, a losing one. He's no one, no one even knows him. But he has a few aces up his sleeve. He knows he has a destiny and can speak with confidence about what will happen and how it can be fixed. He has had a life of preparation, fighting models of terminator no one has even seen yet. He knows some of the future, things that will happen before they happen. He has a mother in the past franctically trying to change things, possibly in ways that change the world around him. And (and this is the *huge* wildcard) he has John Henry and Weaver on his side, and who knows what they can do?

How does he get from there to being John Connor, Savior of Humankind(tm)? I don't know, but I think it's a possible storyline, a fascinating one, that would make a season or two of sterling television. It's compatible with everything we know. It even casts into interesting new light why they never let us see future John (if he looks like past John).

I'm not saying this is _definitely_ what the writers intended. (Though if it were me, that's the way I'd go, it's more interesting than more-of-the-same.) I suspect they haven't even decided, actually. All I'm arguing is that, given what we know, it is _possible_, it's _compatible with what we know_, and it's _a story that would be interesting to watch_. Therefore, it's a possible direction that Season 3, if we had one, could have gone. So's the other possibility. That's all I am saying, and I think the others who see the ambiguity, too.

Does that help?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> Now, that's playing strawman games. No one in this thread at least has argued that after "Born To Run" we have a conclusion to the story; that there's no missing chapters between this and the beginning of T1. All that's been argued is that those chapters don't necessarily have to include a trip back in time.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I was talking about people out there in the world who seem to believe that the Season 2 finale was a final conclusion to the series.

Certainly there is ambiguity as to what is going on at the end. It could be a derailment of the classic future, it could be an alternate route to it, or it could be the way it always happened.

My complaint is with people (not here) who seem to think that it is the definitive conclusion, and the final closing of the circle. That's just crazy talk, and that's what Ausiello seemed to be thinking when he wrote "Last Friday's finale was an action-packed, closure-filled triumph," which is what I was responding to.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No way.
> 
> Hulk smash Terminator? Sure.
> 
> ...


You're forgetting, the Hulk is rage incarnate. He has access to nearly limitless strength and stamina. He beat the crap of out Thor, for crying out loud.

He doesn't get tired unless he stops fighting. And he regenerates faster than Wolverine. Terminators lose.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> Now consider what we know of the timeline from Kyle's story in T1.


But at this point, Kyle's timeline from T1 has already been changed. Judgment Day didn't happen on the day that it did in T1. We also know that Derek's timeline was different from Jesse's. And we also know Derek and Jesse's timelines were different from Kyle's because they were sent back in time to what would have been after Judgment Day in Kyle from T1's timeline. So timelines have changed multiple times.

I do agree that it's possible that the story could go with John becoming a leader without going back in time, but I think in that case it is a new timeline, not fulfilling the one from T1.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> My complaint is with people (not here) who seem to think that it is the definitive conclusion, and the final closing of the circle. That's just crazy talk, and that's what Ausiello seemed to be thinking when he wrote "Last Friday's finale was an action-packed, closure-filled triumph," which is what I was responding to.


I didn't read it as him saying it had closed all open threads. It did, however, close quite a few of them, and the ones it left opened were ones we didn't know much about anyway, so it won't hurt as much not to have those resolved. I think it had about as much closure as it could have while still keeping a teaser for the slim chance of a new season.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

So Weaver/John Henry built a time machine in the basement and Mr. Murch and Ellison didn't notice?

I guess that's been my main hang-up in this series all along. To me, the Terminator mythos has been about cyborgs and humans from the future traveling back in time to change the present, thus changing the future. 

Having time machines in the present and sending them forward just messes it up for me.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

classicX said:


> You're forgetting, the Hulk is rage incarnate. He has access to nearly limitless strength and stamina. He beat the crap of out Thor, for crying out loud.
> 
> He doesn't get tired unless he stops fighting. And he regenerates faster than Wolverine. Terminators lose.


So if the Terminators stop fighting and are really nice to Hulk, will his rage vanish and Terminators crush Banner?


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

oh my god if you guys are going to sideline this thread with a Hulk vs. Terminator discussion, you might as well bring in:

Alien vs. Terminator
Predator vs. Terminator
Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator
Superman vs. Terminator (done in comics by the way)
Matrix vs. Terminator
Star Trek vs. Terminator
Star Wars vs. Terminator 
Arnold's T-800 vs. John Henry with Cameron chip
Galactica vs. Terminator

anymore???


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

MacThor said:


> So Weaver/John Henry built a time machine in the basement and Mr. Murch and Ellison didn't notice?


I don't know how Ellison would know the difference between a piece of a time machine and a piece of John Henry. Murch, I'll grant you. But from the premiere, we know that a time machine will fit into a safe deposit box or two.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

net114 said:


> oh my god if you guys are going to sideline this thread with a Hulk vs. Terminator discussion, you might as well bring in:
> 
> Alien vs. Terminator
> Predator vs. Terminator
> ...


What does "Star Trek vs. Terminator" even mean? Is that like when Homer Simpson wrote a letter to "Die Hard"? 

I would add Wolverine vs Terminator.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

net114 said:


> anymore???


Metallo vs. Terminator


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

River vs. Cameron?


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

net114 said:


> oh my god if you guys are going to sideline this thread with a Hulk vs. Terminator discussion, you might as well bring in:
> 
> Alien vs. Terminator
> Predator vs. Terminator
> ...


Astronaut vs. Caveman vs. Terminator


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Sheldon vs. Mr. Murch. ("I rolled a twenty!")


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

harlenm said:


> As usual, this doesn't count DVR usage. That's the problem, no one watches these shows live anymore,....


ESPECIALLY on Friday nights...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

stevieleej said:


> Can someone explain to me the reason for the Cameron/John bedroom scene?


Gratuitous titillation?


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

stevieleej said:


> Can someone explain to me the reason for the Cameron/John bedroom scene?


He had to feel (up) her nuclear power source and make sure it was (firm) cold. That way he knows his mother didn't get cancer from Cameron.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

bengalfreak said:


> He had to feel (up) her nuclear power source and make sure it was (firm) cold. That way he knows his mother didn't get cancer from Cameron.


Aside from the fact that her having a cold flux capacitor has nothing to do with the fact that she might be leaking radiation, couldn't she have done it herself with more accuracy?

I think the process was more of a psychological tweak of John's attitude than anything else. She proved she had a cold heart, so to speak, and made sure he didn't forget she was a machine. I'm not sure why that mattered, but there it is. Maybe if the show continued they could explore what that scene really meant.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Mars Rocket said:


> Aside from the fact that her having a cold flux capacitor has nothing to do with the fact that she might be leaking radiation, couldn't she have done it herself with more accuracy?


I thought she did do her own analysis, but John wasn't certain even that was working properly.



Mars Rocket said:


> I think the process was more of a psychological tweak of John's attitude than anything else. She proved she had a cold heart, so to speak, and made sure he didn't forget she was a machine. I'm not sure why that mattered, but there it is. Maybe if the show continued they could explore what that scene really meant.


I think after the "Will you join us?" question, she knew what she had to do, and that it would involve leaving John. Thus, she was trying to lessen the emtional impact of her leaving him.

In fact, I wonder if that was part of her mission from the beginning. Perhaps it was her job to protect John Connor until the anti-Skynet was developed enough, and then pass on her chip to accelerate its development.


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

DouglasPHill said:


> Think back a few episodes. Some guy in a factory uses an unsecured phone to notify someone about the break in at the factory. John Henry plays the phone call to Weaver who then goes and kills everyone in the factory. At the time, I thought the factory was linked to Weaver and she was killing everyone because of the security breach. Now am I to believe that the factory was a skynet thing and Weaver was killing everyone because of that? Was there anything in that episode that would make me believe it was or wasn't a Weaver factory? Thanks for the help.


This bothered me as well. I always interpreted that previous episode as Weaver tied up liabilities at HER plant.

Now it makes more sense that she wasn't building the drones, but that it was the beginning of Skynet she was trying to wipe out.


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

BitbyBlit said:


> I don't think we knew anything from that particular episode. But from other episodes, we learned that the security guard that worked there was the one that implanted Sarah with the chip, which led to the attack on them that we know was from John Henry's "brother".


You're right we didn't know, it was ambiguous but I think implied that it was Weaver's plant, or at least that is how I, my wife, and at least one other person interpreted it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

brianp6621 said:


> You're right we didn't know, it was ambiguous but I think implied that it was Weaver's plant, or at least that is how I, my wife, and at least one other person interpreted it.


So what you're saying isn't that it was implied (which would have been bad writing), but that it was inferred (which was good writing).


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I never thought it was Weaver's place, but I'd already guessed that she was a "good guy" by then.* I think they kept it carefully ambiguous.

* From her first appearance, in fact. Why? Because SkyNet didn't need to engineer its own creation -- that had already happened, from its perspective, so it only had to prevent interference. Weaver was doing something much more active. Later I realized that she was trying to build an AI with a conscience... clearly not SkyNet.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Reilly: It Wasn't A Decision Between 'Dollhouse,' 'Sarah Connor' 
The Terminator program died based on its own numbers 



> It might be easy to say that Fox chose "Dollhouse" over "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" on which should would get renewed and which would die.


BIH Fox!


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So what you're saying isn't that it was implied (which would have been bad writing), but that it was inferred (which was good writing).


Not necessarily. They could have been implying it in order to mislead us.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Mike20878 said:


> Reilly: It Wasn't A Decision Between 'Dollhouse,' 'Sarah Connor'
> The Terminator program died based on its own numbers
> 
> BIH Fox!


Dollhouse had scantily clad hot women who can be put in sexual situations and/or kick ass...there's no mystery to me as to why one got picked up and one got canceled...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

brianp6621 said:


> Not necessarily. They could have been implying it in order to mislead us.


Ah, but then they wouldn't have been implying it, they just would have been encouraging you to infer it.

In this case, I don't think there was actually anything there that implied she was involved, although that's certainly the conclusion I jumped to. That's why it's good writing--they tricked us into thinking they were implying what they wanted us to think, without actually implying anything. If they really had implied that it was her operation, that would have been cheating.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ah, but then they wouldn't have been implying it, they just would have been encouraging you to infer it.
> 
> In this case, I don't think there was actually anything there that implied she was involved, although that's certainly the conclusion I jumped to. That's why it's good writing--they tricked us into thinking they were implying what they wanted us to think, without actually implying anything.


 So clearly I can not choose the wine in front of me?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> Dollhouse had scantily clad hot women who can be put in sexual situations and/or kick ass...there's no mystery to me as to why one got picked up and one got canceled...


Well, so did Terminator: SSC. But Dollhouse also had lower expenses (its big set was already paid for), and was made by another division of the network's parent company, making possible the kind of sweetheart deal that Warner's apparently wasn't interested in (they're not even bothering trying to shop it to other networks; I think as far as they're concerned it served its purpose by keeping the franchise in the public eye before the movie launch). And as we saw in the middle of Season 2, Terminator doesn't do well at all with its fans when it abandons FX and fight scenes for character-driven storylines, whereas I think Dollhouse could really lend itself to that kind of approach, since a lot of what is intriguing about it is idea-based. I bet they could do half their 13 episodes without ever leaving the paid-for Dollhouse set.


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ah, but then they wouldn't have been implying it, they just would have been encouraging you to infer it.
> 
> In this case, I don't think there was actually anything there that implied she was involved, although that's certainly the conclusion I jumped to. That's why it's good writing--they tricked us into thinking they were implying what they wanted us to think, without actually implying anything. If they really had implied that it was her operation, that would have been cheating.


I guess. I've never been great at distinguishing between the 2.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Ah, but then they wouldn't have been implying it, they just would have been encouraging you to infer it.
> 
> In this case, I don't think there was actually anything there that implied she was involved, although that's certainly the conclusion I jumped to. That's why it's good writing--they tricked us into thinking they were implying what they wanted us to think, without actually implying anything. If they really had implied that it was her operation, that would have been cheating.





busyba said:


> So clearly I can not choose the wine in front of me?


It doesn't matter. Over the last few years, I have become immune to FOX BIH poison. It's in the wine in both glasses.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

To plagiarize a FARK headline:

20th Century Fox TV, which produces "Dollhouse", is owned by NewsCorp, which also owns Fox. NewsCorp. expects strong DVD and overseas sales and, the show did well on Hulu, which, by amazing coincidence, is also owned by NewsCorp

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2009/05/fox_execs_keep_playing_with_do.html

Since T:SCC production isn't owned by NewsCorp, it's harder to do Hollywood accounting I guess.

--Carlos V.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Unbeliever said:


> To plagiarize a FARK headline:
> 
> 20th Century Fox TV, which produces "Dollhouse", is owned by NewsCorp, which also owns Fox. NewsCorp. expects strong DVD and overseas sales and, the show did well on Hulu, which, by amazing coincidence, is also owned by NewsCorp
> 
> ...


Yup. FOX really got a great deal on this program from Fox, and if it gets to syndication F/X will get a great deal to show it from Fox.

FOX network and F/X are great negotiators.

Hollywood Accounting at it's finest. Only if they try to screw a producer out of their fair share of profits will anybody ever care.

-smak-


----------

