# Terminator: Sarah Connors Chronicles "Pilot" OAD:1-13-2008 *spoilers*



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Bring it on and please don't let it suck like the re-made Bionic Woman.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Why do people on the run in TV shows always keep the same first name while changing their last names? Sarah and John kept their first names.

Like the old Incredible Hulk TV show where David Banner had a different last name every week.


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

I hope that this is enough of a success, that the budget for the next season sees Summer Glau's T-800? model 'terminated' and is replaced by a T-X version *in the same form*.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> Why do people on the run in TV shows always keep the same first name while changing their last names? Sarah and John kept their first names.


That's what River err!! Cameron told her!!


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Surprisingly good pilot episode (or part 1 of the pilot episode if it's actually a complete 2 parter)...

But, as usual, the FOX promotions department needs to be fired as the teaser commercials for the show kept using the 'I'll make pancakes' line back to back with another clip that made it seem completely stupid and out of place. In context it wasn't bad at all.

I liked how the show is now in modern time so we don't have to keep watching past events. Nicely tied into the history of the Terminator movies.

Hopefully the show can keep up the pace and remain interesting throughout. :up:


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I think Modern Times was a budget decision so they didn't have to use old cars and old fashions, and to fight off the continuity nerds.

Still, it should be good. . . 


If they don't mess it up.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

flyers088 said:


> That's what River err!! Cameron told her!!


Actually, what she was complaining about was their keeping their LAST name (Reese). Which really was pretty incredibly stupid...


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> I think Modern Times was a budget decision so they didn't have to use old cars and old fashions, and to fight off the continuity nerds.
> 
> Still, it should be good. . .
> 
> If they don't mess it up.


I'm confused about the "modern times" thought. It's taking place 10 years ago (or 8 years ago based on the '99 timeline). When else would it have taken place?

I was very impressed, although they're really going to have to explain some of the continuity issues (as someone already said, why they're using the T-800 instead of the T-1000 or T-X).

Any reason why the guy that Sarah broke up with at the beginning of the episode (in '99) found her familiar when watching the streaking story in '97? Were they foreshadowing something?


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Pretty good pilot!


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

serumgard said:


> I'm confused about the "modern times" thought. It's taking place 10 years ago (or 8 years ago based on the '99 timeline). When else would it have taken place?
> 
> I was very impressed, although they're really going to have to explain some of the continuity issues (as someone already said, why they're using the T-800 instead of the T-1000 or T-X).
> 
> Any reason why the guy that Sarah broke up with at the beginning of the episode (in '99) found her familiar when watching the streaking story in '97? Were they foreshadowing something?


They went from 99 to 2007. Not to 97. They didn't go 2 years backwards in time, they went form 99 till now. He's seeing the woman who broke his heart.

They took a story that was in 99 and moved it to 2007-2008, so they don't have to worry about old cars, old clothes, old technology, etc.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> They went from 99 to 2007. Not to 97. They didn't go 2 years backwards in time, they went form 99 till now. He's seeing the woman who broke his heart.
> 
> They took a story that was in 99 and moved it to 2007-2008, so they don't have to worry about old cars, old clothes, old technology, etc.




Wow, that was a complete botch job on my part. No clue why I thought it was '97. For that matter, why someone would have a camera phone in '97.

OK, another continuity question. In Terminator 3, Sarah Connor died in, I believe, 1997 (just after the original "Judgment Day"). Why is she alive in 1999? And why, if the machines launched the attack in '02, how is '07 not an apocalyptic wasteland?

Aw crap, I might just talk myself into disliking this show.


----------



## brnscofrnld (Mar 30, 2005)

"get in the car if you want to live"

At least that is how i think the line went. Nice little touch going back to Arnold saying the same line.

My guess about Sarah connor being alive in 1999 is that they did this show based on only the first two films maybe?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I assume this show is going to follow the same formula as The Fugitive, the Incredible Hulk, the A-Team, X-files etc., in which some episodes will push the ongoing story forward (finding out about skynet, the future, the Terminators, etc), and some shows will be Sarah, John, and Cameron helping out the victim of the week from the evil bullies trying to close down the roller ring.


----------



## Justin526 (Feb 11, 2001)

serumgard said:


> Wow, that was a complete botch job on my part. No clue why I thought it was '97. For that matter, why someone would have a camera phone in '97.
> 
> OK, another continuity question. In Terminator 3, Sarah Connor died in, I believe, 1997 (just after the original "Judgment Day"). Why is she alive in 1999? And why, if the machines launched the attack in '02, how is '07 not an apocalyptic wasteland?
> 
> Aw crap, I might just talk myself into disliking this show.


I think it's as simple as this:

this show takes place in a wonderful alternate reality in which the pile of crap that is T3 and the events that took place in it and that are referenced in it do not exist


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Some minor changes between the pre-air version and this:
1) The "dream sequence" scene with Sarah getting John at the beginning originally featured John getting pulled out of class; in the air version she got him from the library. (Oddly enough, the school buses parked all around the "library" still made it look like it was a school library, unless you looked very closely at the building, which now read "R. Hadley Public Library" in the edited version.
2) The scene at the gas station was completely added.
3) Everything following the final commercial break, John jumping out and going to the food store and Cameron sewing up Sarah's bullet wound, was added. The original version picked up with Sarah waking up the next morning.

Otherwise, there might have been minor editing changes, but substantially the episodes were virtually identical.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

brnscofrnld said:


> "get in the car if you want to live"
> 
> At least that is how i think the line went. Nice little touch going back to Arnold saying the same line.
> 
> My guess about Sarah connor being alive in 1999 is that they did this show based on only the first two films maybe?


They actually said the exact same thing Arnold said: "Come with me if you want to live."


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I think it does take place in a world where T3 hadn't (or doesn't) happen.

I didnt' see it though, so I don't know, and with time travel, anything is possible or can be ret-conned.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Justin526 said:


> I think it's as simple as this:
> 
> this show takes place in a wonderful alternate reality in which the pile of crap that is T3 and the events that took place in it and that are referenced in it do not exist


That is precisely it. The creators of this show have said that in their version of the Terminator time line, the events of T3 do not and will not exist. They say that this is their version of a Terminator 3.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

serumgard said:


> They actually said the exact same thing Arnold said: "Come with me if you want to live."


And what the guy sent back in the original said to Sarah Connor when he first sees her. That's how Arnold knew to say it in the second one, and why she knew to trust him.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> That is precisely it. The creators of this show have said that in their version of the Terminator time line, the events of T3 do not and will not exist. They say that this is their version of a Terminator 3.


Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think T3 was all that terrible, but it's good to know I won't have to be paying attention to that timeline.



Turtleboy said:


> And what the guy sent back in the original said to Sarah Connor when he first sees her. That's how Arnold knew to say it in the second one, and why she knew to trust him.


Well, sure, that goes without saying.   Just like why their use of "Reese" was important.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

That was pretty good. Summer Glau is being typecast! That was definately River.


----------



## robpickles (May 19, 2005)

BeanMeScot said:


> That was pretty good. Summer Glau is being typecast! That was definately River.


Wasn't she also Tess in 4400?

Rob


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

I thought it was a great pilot so I'm sure Fox will dump it.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

I liked it! Here is hoping that with the strike and not much else to watch the ratings will be good enough for fox to keep it around. Does anyone know how many episodes have been made?


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> That was pretty good. Summer Glau is being typecast! That was definately River.


We were wondering when River was going to show up... 

Did we miss anything in the last 2 minutes (except for previews for tomorrow night's episode)? The recording was cut off just as Sarah's 1999 fiance sees her picture on the TV and is about ready to say something to his girlfriend/fiance/wife.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

I really liked it. I'm hoping that the writers strike and the lack of much of anything else on will help it survive.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Good stuff.. I was a big fan of the Terminator movies (1 and 2. never saw 3). Good to know for sure now that as far as this show is concerned, 3 didn't happen.

I will say that Cameron is the best Terminator model ever.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Who is River?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Philosofy said:


> Who is River?


http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003810/


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> Who is River?


Summer Glau, the good Terminator, played River Tam in Firefly and the movie Serenity. She was a really bad a$$ in Serenity.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Thanks! Haven't seen Firefly yet. (I know, I know...) Somebody let me know if its repeated.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

firerose818 said:


> We were wondering when River was going to show up...
> 
> Did we miss anything in the last 2 minutes (except for previews for tomorrow night's episode)? The recording was cut off just as Sarah's 1999 fiance sees her picture on the TV and is about ready to say something to his girlfriend/fiance/wife.


Nope. He just says "yeah, yeah, going to be late, I know" or something like that... they cut to a scene of Cameron, Sarah, and John in the front yard of a more urban-looking house, then they enter the house one by one. That's pretty much it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> Thanks! Haven't seen Firefly yet. (I know, I know...) Somebody let me know if its repeated.


Firefly continuously replays on Universal HD, if you get that channel. Otherwise, I haven't seen anyone carrying the show.

The easiest way to watch it is to get it on DVD. Your local library might have a copy; there was a campaign where browncoats were buying copies to make available for checkout at public libraries. Otherwise, someone might have an extra copy they'll send you for you to watch.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

Philosofy said:


> Thanks! Haven't seen Firefly yet. (I know, I know...) Somebody let me know if its repeated.


You should just buy it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Can anyone come up with any rational explanation as to why they made the change from a school to a public library for the initial sequence (between the pre-air and the broadcast versions of the episode)? It was obviously a "quick and dirty" change, and didn't affect anything as far as the plot was concerned. 

I had heard something about people complaining that the show portrayed violence/gunfire at a school... but the other scene, later in the episode, that had significantly more violence and gunfire at a school was left intact, so I'm confused.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Stupid stupid DVR didn't record it. It faked me out and gave the "I'm about to record" signal, but I didn't notice it was stuck on the "I'm _about_ to record" mode and didn't actually record. Now I'll have to wait for it on DVD or something...

It's like the machine developed a mind of its own.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

alpacaboy said:


> Stupid stupid DVR didn't record it. It faked me out and gave the "I'm about to record" signal, but I didn't notice it was stuck on the "I'm _about_ to record" mode and didn't actually record. Now I'll have to wait for it on DVD or something...
> 
> It's like the machine developed a mind of its own.


Skynet took control of your device


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Can anyone come up with any rational explanation as to why they made the change from a school to a public library for the initial sequence (between the pre-air and the broadcast versions of the episode)? It was obviously a "quick and dirty" change, and didn't affect anything as far as the plot was concerned.
> 
> I had heard something about people complaining that the show portrayed violence/gunfire at a school... but the other scene, later in the episode, that had significantly more violence and gunfire at a school was left intact, so I'm confused.


Maybe they thought that too much of the episode took place in a school.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I was unaware that police car doors and cushioned chair backs were bullet proof. This is good to know.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> I was unaware that police car doors and cushioned chair backs were bullet proof. This is good to know.


My husband and I were laughing at that too. The chair though had Kevlar in it, it was a quick line easy to miss. I can't speak on the police doors I haven't been inside a car while it was being shot.


----------



## Justin526 (Feb 11, 2001)

JETarpon said:


> I was unaware that police car doors and cushioned chair backs were bullet proof. This is good to know.


A law enforcement officer on the scene at the house mentions that the chair had Kevlar in it. I'm not saying it's not a cop out, I'm just saying that they try to explain it.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Okay I like this show and really hopes it succeeds but seriously how long until we are all saying BIH Fox?


----------



## bnbhoha (Nov 2, 2002)

I like it. What bothers me is that they left the terminator guy and the time machine back in the in the safe in 1999. Maybe Skynet gets their hands on that stuff.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

emandbri said:


> My husband and I were laughing at that too. The chair though had Kevlar in it, it was a quick line easy to miss. I can't speak on the police doors I haven't been inside a car while it was being shot.


I believe the Mythbusters busted that one.



Justin526 said:


> A law enforcement officer on the scene at the house mentions that the chair had Kevlar in it. I'm not saying it's not a cop out, I'm just saying that they try to explain it.


They hung a lantern on it.

This was certainly better than Terminator 3 and an interesting move to skip them ahead in time.
I'll continue to watch.


----------



## bpurcell (Mar 16, 2005)

Does anyone know how many episodes were made before the strike? Does Fox say there will be a proper finale to season one if the strike doesn't finish soon?

I hadn't read much of the rumors before watching this, so I was confused at first about the timeline. It was really confusing me how they jumped time right over T3. I see now that the writers are assuming T3 is in a different multiverse.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Wasn't the police door thing in Sarah's dream sequence? As such, anything could go, including the door blocking bullets, as long as your brain believes it can happen.


----------



## brnscofrnld (Mar 30, 2005)

serumgard said:


> They actually said the exact same thing Arnold said: "Come with me if you want to live."


Thats the line.

I had not seen T1 in a long time. I have T2 on DVD and watch it on a regular basis. Especially the office scene with the mini gun. Great scene for a good surround sound system.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

near the end, sarah says we are never safe but river then said no one knows we are here. But if they jumped to the future, wouldnt that change river's future and the people in that future know historically about that jump to 07 so someone in the future does know where they are?


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

bpurcell said:


> Does anyone know how many episodes were made before the strike? Does Fox say there will be a proper finale to season one if the strike doesn't finish soon?
> 
> I hadn't read much of the rumors before watching this, so I was confused at first about the timeline. It was really confusing me how they jumped time right over T3. I see now that the writers are assuming T3 is in a different multiverse.


I believe there are 9 episodes in the can.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

I thought that was an interesting idea to send someone back in time to create that super-secure bank vault/time displacement chamber but how in the world did no one notice in the time since 1963 that something was a bit odd with the safety deposit vault? 

I've always wondered why, if Skynet really thought that John was a threat and it had the resources to send one terminator to 1984, one to 1992, and one to 1999, why couldn't it send a bunch to each of those years? 

I'm a bit fuzzy on how long it will be before Cameron's inner-Terminator shines through and she needs some plastic surgery or something to cover it up. We know it will heal (based on conversations in T-2) but that takes a long time and it's not likely that Skynet will continue to send obsolete terminators after them. The T-1000 does exist after all... 

Will the FBI guy be a thorn or will he be brought into the loop? I think, for the series to work he needs to be brought into the loop. Having terminators after you is tough enough.

I'm going to completely ignore the fact that if they are successful in defeating Skynet for good, John will cease to exist. That has always been the case and it isn't worth mentioning. Maybe that is how the series will end?


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

This episode felt like a low-budget remake of T2 to me... I guess it was an efficient way to get the viewers involved, but I hope the following episodes move on quickly from it. Ignoring T3 was a wise decision, though. I can't even remember what happened in that film other than the crane chase. 

Summer Glau should sue the makers of the 4400 for making her always look so frumpy in that show.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Philosofy said:


> Thanks! Haven't seen Firefly yet. (I know, I know...) Somebody let me know if its repeated.


Every so often SciFi does a day long marathon.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see my mom naked.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Loved the show, expected it to be his mother running over the terminator. Everyone in my house was stunned it was the babe with the bullet holes. Great job.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

What were the police doing when the bad Terminator was destroying the vault? Eating donuts?


----------



## mrpope (Jan 13, 2006)

I suppose the "pager king of NY" is going to find Sara again and lead the terminators to them.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I went in with low expectations and found myself pleasantly surprised. I liked the little nods to the movies that were peppered throughout the episode. There was the "come with me if you want to live" line that others have already mentioned, the fact that their last name was Reese, as mentioned, and also that Cameron's name is "Cameron" - no doubt a nod to James Cameron. Here's a more obscure one: The FBI agent is named James Ellison. Sci-Fi author Harlan Ellison wrote a story called "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream," about a computer that brings about Armageddon. Harlan Ellison thought Terminator was similar enough to his story that he threatened a lawsuit, causing James Cameron to acknowledge the influence.



emandbri said:


> My husband and I were laughing at that too. The chair though had Kevlar in it, it was a quick line easy to miss. I can't speak on the police doors I haven't been inside a car while it was being shot.


This was actually one of the things that won me over and made me decide that I think I like the show. As she was getting shot and using the chair for cover I was groaning inwardly. A few scenes later, when it was mentioned that the chair contained Kevlar, I grinned: it'd be just like Sarah Conner to have a Kevlar-lined chair in her house, just in case it is needed for cover at some point in the future. That, and the shotgun in the wall, were nice touches.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

danterner said:


> This was actually one of the things that won me over and made me decide that I think I like the show. As she was getting shot and using the chair for cover I was groaning inwardly. A few scenes later, when it was mentioned that the chair contained Kevlar, I grinned: it'd be just like Sarah Conner to have a Kevlar-lined chair in her house, just in case it is needed for cover at some point in the future. That, and the shotgun in the wall, were nice touches.


When Sara was painting the wall as John got home, I told my friend, "I really don't see Sara Connor as the kind to move in and paint teh walls. That's what you do when you set down roots."

It was nice to see that explained, even if you'd miss it if you werem't paying attention to teh show.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> What were the police doing when the bad Terminator was destroying the vault? Eating donuts?


lined up outside with guns pointing....heck we dont even know if the people left the bank or not..they didnt show it. maybe they were overcome with fear and stayed inside hoping to start 'the nine' up again


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I really liked it. And whoa......the bass information in the Dolby Digital audio was really impressive.

I really liked the ties to the old movies.

Even my wife, who is not a big sci-fi fan, enjoyed it. Though every now and then I had to pause and unconfuse her or clarify things that she wojld not have known given that she has never seen T1 or T2.

Kudos Fox for a great show so far. now please.......keep you dirty little fingers off the cancel button.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

serumgard said:


> I was very impressed, although they're really going to have to explain some of the continuity issues (as someone already said, why they're using the T-800 instead of the T-1000 or T-X).


I've really enjoyed what they've done so far, and it would be nice if they can come up with something clever to explain why no T1000s. I think the reason they're not in the show is purely economical. A significant portion of the budget would have been eaten up if they went with the CGI Terminators.

Hmmm interesting, I just looked up the terminator model numbers. I never knew they had updated the 101 model to 800 and 850...

Anyway, I don't presume to know what the budget of a show like this would look like but I assume that makeup is an order of magnitude cheaper than using CGI for the terminators.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

I'm on the fence on this one. They seem to have taken some care with the writing (at least for the pilot), but Summer's acting fell a little short for me.

The time jump was to September '07, which would have been more 'now' if the show had started with the fall season.

All John's computer prowess is now 10 years out of date.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Just in case anyone else was being driven crazy by "where do I know the FBI guy from?" = Bruce from Judging Amy...

GREAT PILOT!


----------



## ihatecable (Apr 16, 2003)

BeanMeScot said:


> Summer Glau, the good Terminator, played River Tam in Firefly and the movie Serenity. She was a really bad a$$ in Serenity.


Lets just hope no one shows her any cartoons


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

serumgard said:


> I was very impressed, although they're really going to have to explain some of the continuity issues (as someone already said, why they're using the T-800 instead of the T-1000 or T-X).


The T-X were introduced in T3, were they not? They don't necessarily exist in this version of the Terminator universe.

As for the T-1000, with the destruction of Cyberdyne Systems and the death of Myles Dyson, that clearly altered the future (but not enough to avert Judgment Day, just delay it)... perhaps one of the changes to the future was that there were no T-1000s developed.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Is the John Connor Claire's gay friend from Heroes?

The Term's name is Cameron Phillips. Camerson is obviously in honor of James Cameron. 

Who is PHillips?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

So what's different about Cameron, she has blue eyes instead of red. She doesn't have that Red Tint in what she sees either, she seeis in full color. 

Also she seemed more "normal", at least until we found out she was a terminator, she seemed to actually have a personality. What happened to that? Or was that just to trick us viewers into thinking she wasn't a terminator. 

So what else is different?


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

vertigo235 said:


> So what else is different?


She was able to eat.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

vertigo235 said:


> So what else is different?


I would assume that she has the ability to heal, or else she'll be pretty beat up by the end of the season...


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Wasn't the T-1000 a prototype? Maybe it was really expensive to build, and given that it failed on its first real mission they decided not to try it again.


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Is the John Connor Claire's gay friend from Heroes?


He played Zach in the 1st season of Heroes.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Justin526 said:


> A law enforcement officer on the scene at the house mentions that the chair had Kevlar in it. I'm not saying it's not a cop out, I'm just saying that they try to explain it.


I bet the writers were cackling to themselves about how everyone would groan about the chair blocking all those bullets and how they'd have the last laugh with the kevlar line. After all, there's no real reason to write the scene with her hiding behind a stuffed chair _except_ to play that joke on us: they could have just as easily had her hiding behind something more solid and avoided the whole situation, so it must have been an intentional good-natured joke at those of us who can't help pick nits.



Amnesia said:


> I would assume that she has the ability to heal, or else she'll be pretty beat up by the end of the season...


My guess is the little half-smile she's done a few times, and other hints, suggest that she's going to turn out to have more empathy or emotion than the others. Which is handy for the writers; making an emotionless robot sympathetic for two hours is a lot easier than doing it for an entire season.

My DVR cut off the last couple of minutes; last thing I saw was the FBI detective not quite noticing the newscast about the streakers. Can anyone summarize what I missed?

Point of little interest: Sarah apparently broke out of the "Prescadero" asylum, not Pescadero, according to one of the computer screens.

I enjoyed the plot and the nods to the movies. Starting on the final scene of T2 was great. At times, the production values seemed a little thin, but I'm sure they were saving their budget to make other effects good. I'm still not sold on our new Sarah, but the others, including the bad robot, all seemed to have pretty good continuity with the movies. I don't just mean appearance; I'm thinking more of things like how they talk and move. The bad robot's movements, for instance, really echoed Arnie and Robert Patrick's movements, but I never really felt this Sarah talked or moved or acted like the old Sarah. Maybe she will feel more comfortable with time.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Mars Rocket said:


> Wasn't the T-1000 a prototype? Maybe it was really expensive to build, and given that it failed on its first real mission they decided not to try it again.


I think I said almost the exact same thing in another thread.

Also remember, the timeline has changed, maybe the technology to make a T-1000 hasn't materialized yet, or never will. Everything is different.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

firerose818 said:


> She was able to eat.


I havn't seen the movies in a long time, but I don't think it was ever established that a terminator "couldn't" eat. I think it's pretty clear that they don't have to though


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Hunter Green said:


> My DVR cut off the last couple of minutes; last thing I saw was the FBI detective not quite noticing the newscast about the streakers. Can anyone summarize what I missed?


OK so they are driving in the car and the voice over says that the death of a child is no less than a holocaust for the parent. That seems to be the 60 minute mark where you all cut off.

Cut to TV news report of LA Freeway Prank where the 3 of them are reported to have streaked across the Freeway (caught on the cell phone video camera) with a close up of Sarah's face.

FBI guy doesn't see the report.

Cut to Dean Winters (from Oz) who played the fiance that they left who DOES see the news report at home with a close-up of Sarah's face (3 streakers caused chaos) with a female who is unidentified but calls him Honey (so either a girlfriend or wife).

Cut back to the Sarah, John and Cameron in the back yard of a house as they go inside.
Sarah voice over: 
"And even though we have traveled through time, bent the rules of nature. They will keep coming for him. Keep trying to kill him. But until that day... It's going to be one hell of a dogfight."

Final image: 
Sarah looking off into the distance from the back porch as Cameron goes into the house.

The end.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Is it going to be the same bad robot chasing them, like Lt. Gerard or Mr. McGee, or is it going to be a bad robot of the week, like x-files.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

serumgard said:


> OK, another continuity question. In Terminator 3, Sarah Connor died in, I believe, 1997 (just after the original "Judgment Day"). Why is she alive in 1999? And why, if the machines launched the attack in '02, how is '07 not an apocalyptic wasteland?
> 
> Aw crap, I might just talk myself into disliking this show.


I never saw T3 so are you referring to SkyNet launching the attack in '02 as described in that movie? In this show, Cameron clearly said that the machines become aware in 2011 and launch the attack two days later. That's why they went to '07 so they would have time to find it in development.


Sirius Black said:


> I thought that was an interesting idea to send someone back in time to create that super-secure bank vault/time displacement chamber but how in the world did no one notice in the time since 1963 that something was a bit odd with the safety deposit vault?


I don't think there was anything different about the vault from an appearance standpoint. All the stuff that was different was inside the safe deposit boxes, which nobody at the bank would ever have any reason to open if the owner never came in. I guess the ceiling was a little elaborate for a safe-deposit room, but that's not a big deal.



Sirius Black said:


> Will the FBI guy be a thorn or will he be brought into the loop? I think, for the series to work he needs to be brought into the loop. Having terminators after you is tough enough.


I think he'll come around. In the first scene with him, where he was explaining who Sarah was to the fiance, it was clear that he was mocking her when he said something like, "Don't you know, it's the robots?" But then when we see him again after the school shooting, he makes a point to say that out of 22 witnesses, 19 of them say that they saw the robotic leg. If I'm him, I'd think that would start to be a little convincing.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> I bet the writers were cackling to themselves about how everyone would groan about the chair blocking all those bullets and how they'd have the last laugh with the kevlar line. After all, there's no real reason to write the scene with her hiding behind a stuffed chair _except_ to play that joke on us: they could have just as easily had her hiding behind something more solid and avoided the whole situation, so it must have been an intentional good-natured joke at those of us who can't help pick nits.


Sure there is. They're showing us that Sara is always, ALWAYS preparing. It's the same reason they had her pulling the shotgun out of a papered-over hole in the wall. She hordes weapons, puts defenses in place, plans to defend herself from an assault. I actually liked that little tidbit.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

If the time jumping device in the vault let them in the "same where, different when", how'd they end up in the middle of a road? They demolished the bank and build a road in its place in eight or nine years?


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> If the time jumping device in the vault let them in the "same where, different when", how'd they end up in the middle of a road? They demolished the bank and build a road in its place in eight or nine years?


It IS the LA area....


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

SeanC said:


> I've really enjoyed what they've done so far, and it would be nice if they can come up with something clever to explain why no T1000s.


maybe because it was a terrible car? yes we had one (didnt link so you dont have to see the pain)
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/9/web/825000-825999/825689_1.jpg


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> All the stuff that was different was inside the safe deposit boxes, which nobody at the bank would ever have any reason to open if the owner never came in. .


they must have prepaid a LOT of years ahead because if you dont pay, they drill your box and send off the contents to the state's unclaimed property office


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

Enjoyable and fast paced hour.


----------



## johnmoorejohn (Sep 13, 2001)

So you can't bring a gun through the time machine, but you can bring an entire robot?

And also, there was a hint that Cameron was 'different' than other robots...better human emations? Half human, like a bionic woman rebuild of a real human?


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

So looking forward to ep 2 (or ep 1 part 2) tonight and Prison Break. Should be a nice HD evening!!!!!!


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

johnmoorejohn said:


> So you can't bring a gun through the time machine, but you can bring an entire robot?


That was explained in the movies, and was the point for the original terminators being covered with living tissue. At least, I think it was.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Did anyone notice the school bus the terminator kicked over at the beginning of the show didn't have a drive shaft?

Also, just how many bullets does his gun contain?


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

johnmoorejohn said:


> So you can't bring a gun through the time machine, but you can bring an entire robot?
> 
> And also, there was a hint that Cameron was 'different' than other robots...better human emations? Half human, like a bionic woman rebuild of a real human?


Umm, that's why the biological covering. Did you not watch Terminator or T2?


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Strong first night in the overnight ratings. Let's see if people come back tonight.



> leading into the debut of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles at a hefty 12.1/18 from 8-9 p.m.


Did so well even Fox can't cancel it yet.


----------



## packerfan (Jan 8, 2002)

Maybe I missed it, but why weren't they concerned with the fact that they were leaving the remains of the terminator behind at the bank. Wasn't that the whole premise of the second terminator movie....the body parts from the first terminator were left behind and that is how skynet was devolped.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

SnakeEyes said:


> Strong first night in the overnight ratings. Let's see if people come back tonight.


I didn't even know there was another episode tonight until I happened to pay attention to one of the in-episode advertisements for it that appeared at one point. Glad I noticed since when I checked the TiVo, it wasn't going to record due to a conflict.
Hope everybody else paid attention, too.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

packerfan said:


> Maybe I missed it, but why weren't they concerned with the fact that they were leaving the remains of the terminator behind at the bank. Wasn't that the whole premise of the second terminator movie....the body parts from the first terminator were left behind and that is how skynet was devolped.


Yes


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

packerfan said:


> Maybe I missed it, but why weren't they concerned with the fact that they were leaving the remains of the terminator behind at the bank. Wasn't that the whole premise of the second terminator movie....the body parts from the first terminator were left behind and that is how skynet was devolped.


That is a good point but I think that weapon they constructed was something along the lines of a phased plasma rifle in the 60 watt range. We're likely supposed to believe that it was completely destroyed.

Cameron's ability to fit in is likely the result of a software upgrade. I don't know how they explain her ability to eat.

The only other robot (Data) I've seen eat had a viable explanation of why he would eat and even a technical purpose for it as well. Data had a completely different internal structure than the T-800 series. Ok, I'm getting way to geeky. Back to work.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

I really enjoyed this. Hopefully it will continue to be as strong as it started.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Cameron also had 73 days of observing humans before she found John. The previous terminators we've seen arrived and almost immediately started killing/protecting.


----------



## MrGreg (May 2, 2003)

packerfan said:


> Maybe I missed it, but why weren't they concerned with the fact that they were leaving the remains of the terminator behind at the bank. Wasn't that the whole premise of the second terminator movie....the body parts from the first terminator were left behind and that is how skynet was devolped.


Maybe they will discover that's what the developments in 2007 are based off of. (Just a guess, not a spoiler)


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

JETarpon said:


> I was unaware that police car doors and cushioned chair backs were bullet proof. This is good to know.


I don't know about police car doors, but my car door has stopped a bullet (singular). Probably hit the steel safety beam in the door though, which would have really stopped it, and it was only something like a .22. That said, I wouldn't want to test the theory of it stopping multiple shots while standing behind it.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

gschrock said:


> I don't know about police car doors, but my car door has stopped a bullet (singular). Probably hit the steel safety beam in the door though, which would have really stopped it, and it was only something like a .22. That said, I wouldn't want to test the theory of it stopping multiple shots while standing behind it.


As Loadstar said earlier, the "car doors blocking bullets" occurred in Sarah's dream sequence, so it gets a free pass. Anything can happen in a dream.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

DreadPirateRob said:


> As Loadstar said earlier, the "car doors blocking bullets" occurred in Sarah's dream sequence, so it gets a free pass. Anything can happen in a dream.


Aww really?

My next question was going to be

How did john come back to life and how did Sarah survive a nuclear blast?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> Aww really?
> 
> My next question was going to be
> 
> How did john come back to life and how did Sarah survive a nuclear blast?


Obvious to you and me and Loadstar, maybe, but apparently not everyone.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

So if the point is to keep John alive to become the leader of the resistance, couldn't they just jump ahead in time to right after the machines take over? Then he's definitely alive when needed (although apparently not ready mentally to take over, based on his comments in the pilot).


----------



## IDSmoker (Apr 11, 2004)

packerfan said:


> Maybe I missed it, but why weren't they concerned with the fact that they were leaving the remains of the terminator behind at the bank. Wasn't that the whole premise of the second terminator movie....the body parts from the first terminator were left behind and that is how skynet was devolped.


When they made a point of showing the bad terminator's head popping off as the body was destroyed, I immediately thought, "We are going to be seeing that metallic skull in a later episode!"


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I never saw T3 so are you referring to SkyNet launching the attack in '02 as described in that movie? In this show, Cameron clearly said that the machines become aware in 2011 and launch the attack two days later. That's why they went to '07 so they would have time to find it in development.


In T3 (which several have indicated didn't really happen), two major events occurred that were directly refuted by last night's episode. The first was that Sarah Connor died of leukemia shortly after the first "judgment day" in 1997. The second was that a new judgment day took place just after the machines become aware (which was actually shown in the movie) in 2004 (my earlier 2002 date was wrong, according to IMDB).

What's interesting is that the producers of T3 have already started moving ahead with T4 with Christian Bale playing John Connor. It's going to get really confusing if we have separate Terminator timelines taking place at the same time.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Turtleboy said:


> Why do people on the run in TV shows always keep the same first name while changing their last names? Sarah and John kept their first names.
> 
> Like the old Incredible Hulk TV show where David Banner had a different last name every week.


Probably so it is easier to remember who you are supposed to be. I mean if you keep changing your first name and someone calls out one of your previous 1st names in a crowd situation you might be tempted to respond or react unconsciously.

By keeping the same 1st name it is easier and more natural. After all how many Johns, Davids and Sarahs are there in a typical American city?


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

serumgard said:


> I'm confused about the "modern times" thought. It's taking place 10 years ago (or 8 years ago based on the '99 timeline). When else would it have taken place?
> 
> I was very impressed, although they're really going to have to explain some of the continuity issues (as someone already said, why they're using the T-800 instead of the T-1000 or T-X).
> 
> Any reason why the guy that Sarah broke up with at the beginning of the episode (in '99) found her familiar when watching the streaking story in '97? Were they foreshadowing something?


You didn't watch very closely did you?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

serumgard said:


> In T3 (which several have indicated didn't really happen), two major events occurred that were directly refuted by last night's episode. The first was that Sarah Connor died of leukemia shortly after the first "judgment day" in 1997. The second was that a new judgment day took place just after the machines become aware (which was actually shown in the movie) in 2004 (my earlier 2002 date was wrong, according to IMDB).
> 
> What's interesting is that the producers of T3 have already started moving ahead with T4 with Christian Bale playing John Connor. It's going to get really confusing if we have separate Terminator timelines taking place at the same time.


What's this 1997 date you keep referring to? T2: Judgment Day came out in 1991.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> What's this 1997 date you keep referring to? T2: Judgment Day came out in 1991.


Everything prior to Cameron deploying the Time Bubble occurred in 1997. Did you miss all of the time/date stamps on transition screens?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

serumgard said:


> What's interesting is that the producers of T3 have already started moving ahead with T4 with Christian Bale playing John Connor. It's going to get really confusing if we have separate Terminator timelines taking place at the same time.


Yeah, I've been totally unable to reconcile everything that happened in Smallville with what happened in Superman Returns.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fleegle said:


> Everything prior to Cameron deploying the Time Bubble occurred in 1997. Did you miss all of the time/date stamps on transition screens?


No, those were all in 1999. Serumgard keeps mentioning 1997 in conjunction with "judgment day" in reference to the movies.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> What's this 1997 date you keep referring to? T2: Judgment Day came out in 1991.


In that movie, SkyNet went online in 1997, and shortly after initiated the attack on humanity; the day was known as Judgment Day. Because of the actions of the T-800, Sarah, and John in that movie, Judgment Day was averted temporarily, but now we discover that "someone else" builds SkyNet and Judgment Day was only delayed.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I just watched it, I liked it. Glad my memory sucks, and I don't have to pick it apart from T1 or T2.

I liked the new Sarah, but she didn't even look strong enough to pick up that weapon Cameron made in the vault.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Fahtrim said:


> You didn't watch very closely did you?


You didn't read much beyond this post, did you?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, those were all in 1999. Serumgard keeps mentioning 1997 in conjunction with "judgment day" in reference to the movies.


As LoadStar said, the "judgment day" in Terminator 2: Judgment Day takes place on August 29, 1997. In fact, the opening line of the movie was, "3 billions human lives ended on August 29, 1997." So the 1997 timeline is well established in the Terminator universe.

I'll stop talking about T3 though.


----------



## thefutoncritic (Jul 31, 2002)

> Maybe I missed it, but why weren't they concerned with the fact that they were leaving the remains of the terminator behind at the bank. Wasn't that the whole premise of the second terminator movie....the body parts from the first terminator were left behind and that is how skynet was devolped.


All I can say is watch episode two.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

I thought the "substitute teacher" was going to call out John Connor when he got down to John Reese. That would've been cool.


----------



## TiVoStephen (Jun 27, 2000)

DougF said:


> Cameron also had 73 days of observing humans before she found John. The previous terminators we've seen arrived and almost immediately started killing/protecting.


73 days was just how long she said it took her to find them, right? She arrived in 1963. I don't think she jumped from '63 to '99 -- I think she's been observing humans for 36 *years*.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

TiVoStephen said:


> 73 days was how long to find them, right? She arrived in 1963. I don't think she jumped from '63 to '95 -- I think she's been observing humans for 32 *years*.


I may not have watched closely enough but I didn't think she arrived in '63. I thought they sent an engineer back to '63 to work on the vault.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I thought they sent back an engineer in '63, not her. I had the impression she was sent back 73 days ago.

ETA

/me shakes his fist at Doug


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Either way, she's had a lot longer to observe humans and learn how to fit in than any of the previous terminators seen in the movies.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

newsposter said:


> they must have prepaid a LOT of years ahead because if you dont pay, they drill your box and send off the contents to the state's unclaimed property office


Open a savings account and have the box rentals paid for out of that (mostly from the earned interest).


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

vman41 said:


> Open a savings account and have the box rentals paid for out of that (mostly from the earned interest).


Exactly, and for all we know that branch was part of a national branch that existed for 100 or more years. So make a deposit just after the banks creation and you'd be all set.


----------



## Tivortex (Feb 29, 2004)

Drives me up a wall every time some yokel says, "safety deposit box". It's actually and correctly "safe deposit box".


----------



## TiVoStephen (Jun 27, 2000)

Maybe I misheard, but didn't she get asked when she opened the account and she said 1963? Then they panned to the bank's cornerstone to show it had been built in 1963.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> In that movie, SkyNet went online in 1997, and shortly after initiated the attack on humanity; the day was known as Judgment Day. Because of the actions of the T-800, Sarah, and John in that movie, Judgment Day was averted temporarily, but now we discover that "someone else" builds SkyNet and Judgment Day was only delayed.





serumgard said:


> As LoadStar said, the "judgment day" in Terminator 2: Judgment Day takes place on August 29, 1997. In fact, the opening line of the movie was, "3 billions human lives ended on August 29, 1997." So the 1997 timeline is well established in the Terminator universe.
> 
> I'll stop talking about T3 though.


Thanks for the info. It's been 15+ years since I saw T2, so I didn't remember the timeline.


TiVoStephen said:


> Maybe I misheard, but didn't she get asked when she opened the account and she said 1963? Then they panned to the bank's cornerstone to show it had been built in 1963.


Yes, she said she'd had an account there since then, but I think that was merely to show us that she (the robots) had an account there since it opened, not that she had actually been the one that had opened it.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

vman41 said:


> I'm on the fence on this one. They seem to have taken some care with the writing (at least for the pilot), but Summer's acting fell a little short for me.


Hm. She's a terminator... how exactly SHOULD she act so that you'd think she was doing a good job??


----------



## TiVoStephen (Jun 27, 2000)

One other thought that crossed my mind: Since every other Terminator movie started with the Terminator phasing in naked from the future, and they didn't show that here, I was a little disappointed because I wanted to see how they would handle the nudity aspect for Summer's character.

Then since they skipped it, I was already thinking that one reason they might have not shown us Summer arriving is because it happened a looong time ago. (The other reason is so that it would be a surprise when she drove up to rescue John -- at least, a surprise for anyone who didn't know who Summer was and had avoided the pre-publicity.)

I was a bit surprised that they did end up showing a naked time travel scene with not one, not two, but three naked actors. I was also surprised in this post-Janet era how much they "showed."

Ahem. Purely non-prurient interest, of course. The nudity is an absolutely essential element to the story, after all.

Anyway, in the first episode, there's no real evidence one way or the other about how long Cameron has been in the past -- 36 years, 1 year, 3 months, who knows. Time may tell.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Actually, it IS an important element. They can only transport flesh back in time. That's why the Terminators have to have flesh over their exoskeletons.

Speaking of their flesh, I likes the line about Cameron "Holstering those". ROFL!


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

vman41 said:


> Open a savings account and have the box rentals paid for out of that (mostly from the earned interest).


must have been a lot of money for it not to be eaten up by service fees  and even so, would have had to written specific instructions or been in contact every X years for customer generated activity  Just moving money isnt activity


----------



## SuperZippy (Feb 12, 2002)

uh, why must folks think a television show is supposed to follow all the rules of reality...


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Did anyone notice that the new, dead "Miles Dyson" was played by Jackie Chiles from Seinfeld? (They only showed the newspaper clippings of him.) If it is the same actor, (and I really think it is), I'd expect Dyson to show up again in the series, though possibly just in flashbacks.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

jradford said:


> Did anyone notice that the new, dead "Miles Dyson" was played by Jackie Chiles from Seinfeld? (They only showed the newspaper clippings of him.) If it is the same actor, (and I really think it is), I'd expect Dyson to show up again in the series, though possibly just in flashbacks.


It really looked to me like it was pictures of the same guy that played him in the movie (Joe Morton). Then again, I have been horribly wrong already in this thread.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

serumgard said:


> It really looked to me like it was pictures of the same guy that played him in the movie (Joe Morton). Then again, I have been horribly wrong already in this thread.


I have no evidence supporting my claim other than it really looked like him to my wife and I. The Dyson character doesn't show up on the Sarah Conner Chron. IMDB page.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TiVoStephen said:


> I wanted to see how they would handle the nudity aspect for Summer's character.


This is the second series where she's a main character and the second series where she appeared nude in the pilot...


----------



## Bulldog7 (Oct 6, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> Did anyone notice the school bus the terminator kicked over at the beginning of the show didn't have a drive shaft?
> 
> Also, just how many bullets does his gun contain?


I was wondering that myself....I thought only the good guys never ran out of bullets! But don't worry, he'll be back....LOL!!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see my mom naked.


I don't recall him staring....at least at his "mom"....


Hunter Green said:


> ...last thing I saw was the FBI detective not quite noticing the newscast about the streakers....


I thought he DID notice them?....


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Jeeters said:


> I didn't even know there was another episode tonight...


Monday is the regularly scheduled night for the series.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> I don't recall him staring....at least at his "mom"....
> I thought he DID notice them?....


No, the TV was facing "us". He was facing the back of the TV


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

BeanMeScot said:


> No, the TV was facing "us". He was facing the back of the TV


...ah...OK.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

jradford said:


> I have no evidence supporting my claim other than it really looked like him to my wife and I. The Dyson character doesn't show up on the Sarah Conner Chron. IMDB page.


It was Phil Morris, IMO.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

TiVoStephen said:


> Ahem. Purely non-prurient interest, of course. The nudity is an absolutely essential element to the story, after all.


Did anybody else think it might have been a little awkward for John when he was crouching naked, closely behind his mother, with naked Summer walking around? He *is* a teenage boy, after all.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> Also she seemed more "normal", at least until we found out she was a terminator, she seemed to actually have a personality. What happened to that? Or was that just to trick us viewers into thinking she wasn't a terminator.


Not a trick. She was sent back to the 1960s and is a learning computer. I'm guessing in the intervening 40+ years she picked up a few things about emulating human behavior.


----------



## smallwonder (Jun 13, 2001)

I like the ep. The only thing that made me laugh out loud was when the FBI guy was looking at the computer screen showing Sara's data. According to the screen, Sara is 33. And if John is 15, wouldn't that have made her 18 in T1?


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Not a trick. She was sent back to the 1960 and is a learning computer. I'm guessing in the intervening 40+ years she picked up a few things about emulating human behavior.


Nothing said that *she* had been around since 1960. Someone other than her built the vault in 1963 and the account was opened at that time. Nothing indicated that *she* opened the account.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

DougF said:


> It was Phil Morris, IMO.


Definitely.

Joe Morton in the movie, Phil Morris in the pilot. So, apparently, we'll be seeing more of Dyson.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Yeah, I don't think Cameron has been around since 1963. She pretty clearly said that she had been looking for John/Sarah for 73 days, right? And she also said in the bank that "we" had someone in place to design/build the vault. If she had been the one, why not say so?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

JETarpon said:


> Nothing said that *she* had been around since 1960. Someone other than her built the vault in 1963 and the account was opened at that time. Nothing indicated that *she* opened the account.


I thought she said she opened the account in 1963.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I thought she said she opened the account in 1963.


1963 was the year on the cornerstone. The year the bank was built.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Well dammit, I wish I hadn't deleted it now. I thought Sarah asked her when she opened the account and River replied "1963."


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Well dammit, I wish I hadn't deleted it now. I thought Sarah asked her when she opened the account and River replied "1963."


I just checked and that's exactly what happened.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

DougF said:


> I just checked and that's exactly what happened.


I still think that was poetic license that the account was opened in 1963, but I don't think she herself has been around since 1963.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

JETarpon said:


> I still think that was poetic license that the account was opened in 1963, but I don't think she herself has been around since 1963.


Scriptwriting 101: everything on the screen is important.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Definitely.
> 
> Joe Morton in the movie, Phil Morris in the pilot. So, apparently, we'll be seeing more of Dyson.


Good, two posts in agreement. Even if I'm wrong, at least I don't feel crazy.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Scriptwriting 101: everything on the screen is important.


Yes, but I thought it was pretty clear that she had been around for 73 days. I thought the "opened in 1963" was explained by her telling them that the person who designed the vault was sent back by the resistance to 1963 to design it, i.e. "The resistance opened it in 1963 by building it."


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

As someone previously posted, she said she had been * searching* for them for 73 days.


----------



## Philly Bill (Oct 6, 2004)

I enjoyed Sundays show (which I watched tonight). I didn't know tonights was on... but I caught it before 30 minutes were gone. The first part of tonights was in the buffer so I got it all. I'll watch it before next Monday.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

jradford said:


> Yes, but I thought it was pretty clear that she had been around for 73 days. I thought the "opened in 1963" was explained by her telling them that the person who designed the vault was sent back by the resistance to 1963 to design it, i.e. "The resistance opened it in 1963 by building it."


That's how I thought it went as well.



packerfan said:


> Maybe I missed it, but why weren't they concerned with the fact that they were leaving the remains of the terminator behind at the bank. Wasn't that the whole premise of the second terminator movie....the body parts from the first terminator were left behind and that is how skynet was devolped.


The expanding time travel bubble obliterates everything in the vicinity not covered in flesh,
since Sarah used the "plasma" rifle on the bad terminator, he was no longer coated with flesh, and thus destroyed along with the time travel apperatus which was also "non fleshy"

phox


----------



## skinnyjm (Feb 10, 2005)

I'm guessing the _Terminator_ series will sell many more DVD copies due to this TV series. I have T2 on DVD (the one that was packaged with a metal case) and now want to watch it again. I haven't seen T1 in a while, will probably buy it soon. As for T3, I've seen it, but apparently it doesn't count?  Why is T3 the stepchild of the series, I though it was OK.
Anyway, the TV series is great so far.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

skinnyjm said:


> I'm guessing the _Terminator_ series will sell many more DVD copies due to this TV series. I have T2 on DVD (the one that was packaged with a metal case) and now want to watch it again. I haven't seen T1 in a while, will probably buy it soon. As for T3, I've seen it, but apparently it doesn't count?  Why is T3 the stepchild of the series, I though it was OK.
> Anyway, the TV series is great so far.


T3 was by far the weakest in the series but I might eventually buy it.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Yeah, I don't think Cameron has been around since 1963. She pretty clearly said that she had been looking for John/Sarah for 73 days, right? And she also said in the bank that "we" had someone in place to design/build the vault. If she had been the one, why not say so?


Yeah, and why not just open the first box with a key? Given her explanation about the engineer that got the job building the place and the fact that she didn't have any keys, I doubt she had anything to do with its construction.

I think Cameron's earlier reponse about when she opened the account was done much in the same way a store employee might say, "Yes, I have those DVDs in stock." Technically the store is what has the DVDs in stock, not the individual, just as technically the resistance fighters from the future set up the account, not specifically Cameron.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

newsposter said:


> they must have prepaid a LOT of years ahead because if you dont pay, they drill your box and send off the contents to the state's unclaimed property office


In California they just might drill your box and sell the contents even if you do pay. I've read several stories about the CA unclaimed property division ordering banks to give them property in boxes whose owners haven't shown up recently, even if the box was paid for.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> In California they just might drill your box and sell the contents even if you do pay. I've read several stories about the CA unclaimed property division ordering banks to give them property in boxes whose owners haven't shown up recently, even if the box was paid for.


different states mandate customer contact different ways and if there is no other contact, that may be 'legit'

I keep thinking where do these future people get money to buy things in the past as well? And do they account for fee increases


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> As someone previously posted, she said she had been * searching* for them for 73 days.


Exactly. Perhaps she was sent back to 1963 to set up all sorts of safety caches. But John programmed her to start looking for him in 1999. Which she had been doing for 73 days.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

smallwonder said:


> I like the ep. The only thing that made me laugh out loud was when the FBI guy was looking at the computer screen showing Sara's data. According to the screen, Sara is 33. And if John is 15, wouldn't that have made her 18 in T1?


That wouldn't surprise me. I thought I read somewhere that Sarah had John young, so 18 wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

According to the movies, Sarah was supposed to be 20 when she had John (IIRC). And he's supposed to be 14&#189; in this show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> Yeah, and why not just open the first box with a key? Given her explanation about the engineer that got the job building the place and the fact that she didn't have any keys, I doubt she had anything to do with its construction.


Why carry around a key that might get lost or stolen? Not to mention that she might not ultimately be the Terminator model that has to use the safe. It was an excellent plan to put all the necessary parts inside the vault, with keys to all the correct boxes inside one box. That way, the Terminator models simply need to be programmed with the location of the "safe" house and the box number that has the keys. Any member of the resistance could go there and use it, not just the one holding the key.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> OK so they are driving in the car and the voice over says that the death of a child is no less than a holocaust for the parent. That seems to be the 60 minute mark where you all cut off.


Thanks!



Fleegle said:


> Sure there is. They're showing us that Sara is always, ALWAYS preparing.


There's nothing in establishing that which requires that particular joke. In fact I think it'd telegraph that more strongly if the chair had been reinforced with something obvious _during_ the shootout, instead of not revealed until later.



DougF said:


> Cameron also had 73 days of observing humans before she found John. The previous terminators we've seen arrived and almost immediately started killing/protecting.


Good point. (Surprised how many people thought she was there since '63 personally, after her whole speech about sending someone back earlier to build and install all of it in the bank.)



vman said:


> So if the point is to keep John alive to become the leader of the resistance, couldn't they just jump ahead in time to right after the machines take over?


Shhhhhhhh!



JETarpon said:


> Did anybody else think it might have been a little awkward for John when he was crouching naked, closely behind his mother, with naked Summer walking around? He *is* a teenage boy, after all.


True enough, but I think that the tension of being attacked by an unstoppable homicidal robot might be just the anti-Viagra the doctor ordered. If there's one human instinct that can trump sex, it's fight-or-flight.


----------



## JerryLBell (May 3, 2002)

BeanMeScot said:


> That was pretty good. Summer Glau is being typecast! That was definately River.


I didn't find Summer to be performing a clone of River in "Firefly" or of Tess in "4400". If she has any dange of being typecast, it's of being typecast as people with borderline personalities: a mentally damanged psychic in "Firefly", a schizophrenic with psyhic powers in "4400" and now a powerful android with a not-quite-100% grasp of passing for a human.

Good-gawd-almighty, she sure is a cutie though! If I was in high school and somebody that hot hit on me, I'd have thought I'd died and gone to heaven. The actress playing the mother is smoking hot as well. The actor playing John is one lucky boy!


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Why carry around a key that might get lost or stolen? Not to mention that she might not ultimately be the Terminator model that has to use the safe. It was an excellent plan to put all the necessary parts inside the vault, with keys to all the correct boxes inside one box. That way, the Terminator models simply need to be programmed with the location of the "safe" house and the box number that has the keys. Any member of the resistance could go there and use it, not just the one holding the key.


I agree with all of this except that I think she was one of the any members of the resistance that could go there and use it, and had nothing to do with the setup. That's why she was searching for the box when she first entered the safe instead of walking straight toward it.


----------



## JerryLBell (May 3, 2002)

serumgard said:


> It really looked to me like it was pictures of the same guy that played him in the movie (Joe Morton). Then again, I have been horribly wrong already in this thread.


I did a freeze-frame on it and it definitely wasn't the original actor. To me, it looked like the actor son of Greg Morris (from the original "Mission Impossible") who himself was in the remake of "Mission Impossible". Did he also play in the lawyer in Seinfeld?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> I agree with all of this except that I think she was one of the any members of the resistance that could go there and use it, and had nothing to do with the setup. That's why she was searching for the box when she first entered the safe instead of walking straight toward it.


I think she was probably programmed to know the box number the keys were in. However, I doubt she was programmed to know the exact location of that box within the vault. It makes sense that she'd have to look for a second.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> (Surprised how many people thought she was there since '63 personally, after her whole speech about sending someone back earlier to build and install all of it in the bank.)


Did you not hear her tell Sarah she opened the bank account in 1963?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Did you not hear her tell Sarah she opened the bank account in 1963?


But isn't that clarified by the quick pan to the "Established 1963" sign and her later statement that "we" had someone build the vault? I took what she said as a joke.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> But isn't that clarified by the quick pan to the "Established 1963" sign and her later statement that "we" had someone build the vault? I took what she said as a joke.


I would imagine that they would have had to have had an engineer build it prior to its opening in 1963.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Did you not hear her tell Sarah she opened the bank account in 1963?


Again, I think she meant "[We, the resistance, set up the account in] 1963", not "[I personally set up the account in] 1963". When they were walking toward the bank and talking about the account, for a moment you were supposed to think that she personally had an account there. But as soon as she answered "1963" and the "built in 1963" sign was shown, I think that was supposed to indicate that she wasn't talking about an account she had personally set up.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I would imagine that they would have had to have had an engineer build it prior to its opening in 1963.


Yes, but 1963 is when the account would have been established, because that is when it opened.

Whatever - we each have our own interpretations, and I don't see it getting clarified any time soon.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I realize they can play it either way. It's just bad scriptwriting to create such confusion in the first place.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Surprisingly good pilot. At some point in the past week the schedule got changed so that it wasn't airing at 1am, but instead the normal time. Wahoo.

I liked some of the ideas about additional people being sent back at random points in time, but it might be opening a can of worms by acknowledging that it is possible. Specifically, I'm imagining that at least once an episode I will think, "Why didn't they just sent xxx back in time?".

Someone explain to me how a giant metal robot's body and TIME MACHINE don't significantly accelerate the timeline for skynet / why they weren't found by police immediately and thus altered the timeline from 1999 to 2007? Did I miss a part where the time machine got destroyed by the bubble or something? I find it to be a rather large plot hole.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I would imagine that they would have had to have had an engineer build it prior to its opening in 1963.


But if the engineer is already back there, why send her just to open the account and then wait 40 years for her next assignment? I suppose she could have been doing other things, but if so that would have put her at risk of being destroyed before surviving long enough to be able to protect John.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> But if the engineer is already back there, why send her just to open the account and then wait 40 years for her next assignment? I suppose she could have been doing other things, but if so that would have put her at risk of being destroyed before surviving long enough to be able to protect John.


I guess not to arouse any suspicion. In fact, perhaps multiple Terminators have been sent back over time, each opening a seperate safe deposit box. Who knows. The writers have left it confusing enough to be wide open.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I would imagine that they would have had to have had an engineer build it prior to its opening in 1963.


Which is exactly what she said they did as she was pulling all the computer terminals out of the various boxes. Couple that with the fact that the bank was built in 1963, and I think it clarifies very nicely that Cameron wasn't the one who personally opened the account in 1963, but that it is simply a "Resistance" account opened when the bank was built.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

did i miss the explanation why 1963 was chosen? I did remember they said they had people on the inside working on the bank.

And you havent seen river out of character until you see her in The Unit as a love crazed girl


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

The problem with having an engineer build it is industrial base. The technological and industrial base to build that weapon doesn't exist in 1963. It's much like having the plans for a modern microprocessor and traveling back in time to 1970. You can't build that microprocessor no matter how smart you are or how detailed your specifications.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> The problem with having an engineer build it is industrial base. The technological and industrial base to build that weapon doesn't exist in 1963. It's much like having the plans for a modern microprocessor and traveling back in time to 1970. You can't build that microprocessor no matter how smart you are or how detailed your specifications.


Or so you think. Perhaps in 2027, or whenever the engineer was sent back from, they've figured out how to Macguyver a plasma gun out of commonly available materials.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Or so you think. Perhaps in 2027, or whenever the engineer was sent back from, they've figured out how to Macguyver a plasma gun out of commonly available materials.


Or, as the bad guy did, have parts sewn into his flesh.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

newsposter said:


> ....And you havent seen river out of character until you see her in The Unit as a love crazed girl


Hmm....I thought she was in character....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I realize they can play it either way. It's just bad scriptwriting to create such confusion in the first place.


Or good scriptwriting...


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

FWIW (um, nothing), I never had any confusion about the 1963 issue. Cameron's been here for 73 days observing humans and looking for Sarah and John. Someone in the resistance (not Cameron) was sent back from the future to 1963 to assist in building the bank and put the machinery in the safe.

Now, why I'm able to figure that out and I can't tell the difference between "97" and "07" is beyond me.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

In case anyone missed the pilot episode, you can download it via Amazon Unbox for free right now. 

I apologize if this has already been mentioned but i just dont have time to go through 6 pages trying to find out. I did do a quick search on the thread for "unbox" but nothing came up.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

It's too bad that the advertising people have to get involved, because just like in T2, the whole "come with me if you want to live" was setup as a surprise and a big reveal, yet was ruined in the advertising.

I guess there's no way around it, but still...

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smak said:


> It's too bad that the advertising people have to get involved, because just like in T2, the whole "come with me if you want to live" was setup as a surprise and a big reveal, yet was ruined in the advertising.
> 
> I guess there's no way around it, but still...
> 
> -smak-


Agreed. I wish I hadn't seen that prior to watching the pilot. Although, if they couldn't show any scenes of Summer Glau where she's obviously the Terminator, I guess there wouldn't be much to show.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Justin526 said:


> I think it's as simple as this:
> 
> this show takes place in a wonderful alternate reality in which the pile of crap that is T3 and the events that took place in it and that are referenced in it do not exist


did you *see* T3? I think it's a very underrated movie. It's no T1 nor T2, but it was very entertaining and advanced the plot.


----------



## flaminio (May 21, 2004)

mattack said:


> did you *see* T3? I think it's a very underrated movie. It's no T1 nor T2, but it was very entertaining and advanced the plot.


I agree -- T3 is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. In a world of travesties like Transformers and Fantastic Four sequels, T3 comes across as high art.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

T3 wasn't bad, but I couldn't get over the fact that another great James Cameron created heroine gets killed off with no thought in a sequel he's not involved with.

-smak-


----------



## DrZoidberg42 (Oct 6, 2005)

The way Cameron acts, I wonder if she is an 'aware' robot who 'chose' to join Jon in the fight in the future? Just a thought.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smak said:


> T3 wasn't bad, but I couldn't get over the fact that another great James Cameron created heroine gets killed off with no thought in a sequel he's not involved with.
> 
> -smak-


Another?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Watched it last night, much better than I expected. 

BTW, if anyone missed this and wants it it is a free download on iTunes.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Another?


Rose in Titanic Out West.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Another?


Maybe "Newt" in Aliens 3?


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Or good scriptwriting...


No. A good scriptwriter would have had Sarah say "when was it opened" and not "when did you open it?"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> No. A good scriptwriter would have had Sarah say "when was it opened" and not "when did you open it?"


Unless the ambiguity is deliberate. Good writing does not necessarily equal being spoon-fed all the answers up-front...


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Unless the ambiguity is deliberate. Good writing does not necessarily equal being spoon-fed all the answers up-front...


With something like Lost, I agree. Not so much with this show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> With something like Lost, I agree. Not so much with this show.


It's entirely possible that the question of how long she has been here is meant to be open. In that case, it's a matter of very good writing, since it can be interpreted either way without doing damage to what was actually said.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

JerryLBell said:


> I didn't find Summer to be performing a clone of River in "Firefly" or of Tess in "4400". If she has any dange of being typecast, it's of being typecast as people with borderline personalities: a mentally damanged psychic in "Firefly", a schizophrenic with psyhic powers in "4400" and now a powerful android with a not-quite-100% grasp of passing for a human.


I was speaking more of the bad ass River from Serenity than the unbalanced girl from Firefly.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It's entirely possible that the question of how long she has been here is meant to be open. In that case, it's a matter of very good writing, since it can be interpreted either way without doing damage to what was actually said.


In other words, they don't have a clue about what they're writing, so leave everything vague? Sounds like a great idea.

I actually thought having Cameron appear in 1963 opened up a lot of interesting possibilities.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

IndyJones1023 said:


> In other words, they don't have a clue about what they're writing, so leave everything vague? Sounds like a great idea.
> 
> I actually thought having Cameron appear in 1963 opened up a lot of interesting possibilities.


I think they spoon fed us exactly what happened, but when dissected you can form it to look "vague." I think it's a bit of an overreaction to use this scene as an example for the writers having "no clue."


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Personally, I think the "ambiguity" is precisely of the same kind as whether those people on Lost really slept together. But if you guys really think there's some chance she's been sitting around since 1963 while someone else was _also_ sent back to build that stuff into the vault, or that she _is_ the engineer, more power to you. 

As to the suspension of disbelief necessary to imagine that a really skilled engineer from the future could figure out how to build something like that gun using only what'd be available in the 1960s, I rank it just slightly below "being able to travel through time" and "artificially intelligent robots with slow reaction times" on the incredulity scale.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> No. A good scriptwriter would have had Sarah say "when was it opened" and not "when did you open it?"


I think at that point Sarah actually thought Cameron had a personal safety deposit box. Even we were supposed to think that at that point. But when Cameron said, "1963", and the camera panned over to the "Established in 1963" sign, that was a message to us viewers that there was something special about this bank.

Since none of the characters looked at the sign, they could very well have not realized that the bank was special until they got into the vault and Cameron explained everything.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> Personally, I think the "ambiguity" is precisely of the same kind as whether those people on Lost really slept together.


If anything, I think this show introduces more ambiguity to the Lost situation. Two people lying naked in bed together. Maybe they weren't having an affair, but had, in fact, traveled through time!


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

brettatk said:


> In case anyone missed the pilot episode, you can download it via Amazon Unbox for free right now.


It's also free on iTunes right now as well FWIW.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I realize they can play it either way. It's just bad scriptwriting to create such confusion in the first place.


It's not bad scriptwriting, or at the very least not exclusively. It's just a fault of the English language that we don't have a plural form of the word "you" like most other languages do... so when someone says "you" they could be referring to a single person or many people. (Ok, besides "y'all," but that only works if you've got a southern accent. )

As for me, I interpreted "you" to refer to "the resistance" in this sentence, not "you" as in Cameron alone.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Ambiguity doesn't always mean that the writers/creators have no idea!

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> As for me, I interpreted "you" to refer to "the resistance" in this sentence, not "you" as in Cameron alone.


Yes, especially when there could be 50 Cameron's out there someplace, I'm thinking you probably means you as in the resistance/good terminator's.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

smak said:


> Yes, especially when there could be 50 Cameron's out there someplace


We could only wish...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> As to the suspension of disbelief necessary to imagine that a really skilled engineer from the future could figure out how to build something like that gun using only what'd be available in the 1960s, I rank it just slightly below "being able to travel through time" and "artificially intelligent robots with slow reaction times" on the incredulity scale.


I admittedly don't even remember what they built in this ep..

but in Star Trek, in the 1940s, they built stuff from that era's technology to talk to the Enterprise!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> We could only wish...


When I went to sleep last night, there were at least 3 

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> As to the suspension of disbelief necessary to imagine that a really skilled engineer from the future could figure out how to build something like that gun using only what'd be available in the 1960s, I rank it just slightly below "being able to travel through time" and "artificially intelligent robots with slow reaction times" on the incredulity scale.


Dr Emmitt Brown says pffffft to that.

-smak-


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> (Ok, besides "y'all," but that only works if you've got a southern accent. )


Or "youze guyz" in Brooklyn!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

rkester said:


> It's also free on iTunes right now as well FWIW.


It's also being re-broadcast Jan. 28 at 8 p.m. (EST).


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

Why a bank built in 1963? Why not a bank built in 1994 to put the gun parts in the vault? You can certainly find more technology to find the materials to build the gun versus in 1963. I'm hoping they chose 1963 for a reason, because it seems like a very random year.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Cindy1230 said:


> Why a bank built in 1963? Why not a bank built in 1994 to put the gun parts in the vault? You can certainly find more technology to find the materials to build the gun versus in 1963. I'm hoping they chose 1963 for a reason, because it seems like a very random year.


My guess is that it's nothing more complicated than the fact that the bank they chose for the location shoot had the 1963 cornerstone in it, and they wanted to show that the account was opened when the bank was built.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

The cornerstone looked CGI. No matter what year they picked, you could ask "why that year?"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> The cornerstone looked CGI. No matter what year they picked, you could ask "why that year?"


My guess: to make it old enough so it would be somewhat plausible tha they'd put a highway through it.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

If the future time machines can send somebody back to 1963 then why don't they try to kill Sarah Connor back when she was a baby and couldn't fight back as well? Or why not kill her parents in 1963? I imagine the machines sitting around their time machine in the future sending back terminators, and then looking out the window and saying "Well, the resistance is still there so that didn't work - let's try something else." They can't know *why* it didn't work, so they may not try the same past-time again, but they could certainly try again at a different time.

Arguing about time travel is a pointless exercise. Unless there are severe and numerous limitations it becomes too much of a "anything is possible" device in a story.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

That might have been explained in T1. Wasn't there a reason they didn't know what Sarah Connor looked like, and where she lived. What was the reason that the Terminator in T1 went to the phone book to find all the Sarah Connor's, and didn't just go right to her house and kill her?

Didn't the resistance destroy some computers in the future, losing a ton of information. I think Reese tells this to Sarah, when she asks why the other woman were killed.

The above was from memory (good memory smak!). I have the script, and it goes like this. Pretty close to the movie. It was the Dr who asked Reese why the other Sarah Connor's were killed.

Reese: Most official records were lost in the war. The computer knew almost nothing about Connor's mother. Her name, where she lived, the city. No pictures. It was being systematic.

-smak-


----------



## TreborPugly (May 2, 2002)

On the 1963 business: When they first entered the bank, her response made me think that she herself somehow was in 1963 - her answer was abrupt and non informative.

But then in the vault, she explained to them that "we" had to send someone back to build things. This made me realize that it was some other operative sent back to 1963 to build the thing. The operative could have left a message somewhere else, but well defined, so the 1997 operative could find out what bank vault the stuff was in.

(It was pretty convenient that they happened to be near that bank though, huh? Maybe the earlier operative created such bank vaults in dozens of cities over a few decades....)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Another thing about 1963: Clearly, the Resistance intended to have a very large network in place to support efforts to protect John and attack Skynet, which they built up over time. Perhaps setting up the bank was only one task that a particular team had to do, and other tasks required them to be there that early.


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

DrZoidberg42 said:


> The way Cameron acts, I wonder if she is an 'aware' robot who 'chose' to join Jon in the fight in the future? Just a thought.


I know I'm late to the party, but I'm thinking that he made her personally to send back to protect himself. He made her in the image of his love. Or, she is his love from the future and he sacrificed his immediate feelings in order to make sure he made it to that point in the present.

Time-shifting/travel is pretty difficult to explain...

I think it's safe to assume that there is more to her than meets the eye (please forgive the pun)...


----------



## Mikkel_Knight (Aug 6, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> No. A good scriptwriter would have had Sarah say "when was it opened" and not "when did you open it?"


but was it a "you" as in individually specific singular "you", or was it the collective "you" in general since the previous topic of discussion was the overall resistance movement.

I think the "you" was meant as a resistance movement posessive since she has identified herself as being part of a collective "we" (being the resistance).


----------

