The Terminator, Poll

[i'vegotwinners]

hypothetical,

The Terminator goes back in time and kills all the Sarah Conners in the phone book, including John's otherwise future mother, before Reese can stop it, and before Sarah and Reese ever meet.

and in the poll question, by "killing", i mean in the broader sense of "effectively" or "eliminating", rather than the narrower purely legal sense..

 

[i'vegotwinners]

not one vote?

is the question too tough or vague?

 

[IUCrazy2]

not one vote?

is the question too tough or vague?

Technically, yes because of time travel.

 

[SqueakyClean]

No, because she was not pregnant at the time of her death.

 

[larsIU]

But in an added twist, the Empaths from Minority Report are able to see the absence of John Conner in the future and spit out a wooden ball for the Terminator.

Would Minority Report Tom Cruise arrest the T-800

 

[IUCrazy2]

No, because she was not pregnant at the time of her death.

That would be my answer if not for the time travel aspect. If you are coming from the future and you know how Sarah Connor's life is going to play out, it muddies the waters a bit. The whole point of the Terminator was to basically kill a person in the future by killing his mother. That would be murder of everyone you know to come from her in a certain sense.

Without the knowledge of foresight, no, I don't think you could make that argument unless she was already pregnant as you say. I think I know where ivegotwinners was trying to go with this post but the sci-fi nature of the movie and question doesn't make it a really good match with reality. The people sending back the terminator had the ability to know Sarah's future and send something back in time to change their present. It is the "would you kill Hitler as a baby if you could go back in time" question with a twist.

 

[IUCrazy2]

But in an added twist, the Empaths from Minority Report are able to see the absence of John Conner in the future and spit out a wooden ball for the Terminator.

Would Minority Report Tom Cruise arrest the T-800

He would try to, but it would lead to a massive action sequence where a bunch of things would get shot and blown up. Minority Report Tom Cruise would probably do some high flying stunts and there would be at least one scene where the terminator appeared to be deactivated...but it isn't.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

But in an added twist, the Empaths from Minority Report are able to see the absence of John Conner in the future and spit out a wooden ball for the Terminator.

Would Minority Report Tom Cruise arrest the T-800

WWMMD?

 

[larsIU]

WWMMD?

Marilyn Monroe? Probably pills.




Too soon?

 

[SqueakyClean]

That would be my answer if not for the time travel aspect. If you are coming from the future and you know how Sarah Connor's life is going to play out, it muddies the waters a bit. The whole point of the Terminator was to basically kill a person in the future by killing his mother. That would be murder of everyone you know to come from her in a certain sense.

Without the knowledge of foresight, no, I don't think you could make that argument unless she was already pregnant as you say. I think I know where ivegotwinners was trying to go with this post but the sci-fi nature of the movie and question doesn't make it a really good match with reality. The people sending back the terminator had the ability to know Sarah's future and send something back in time to change their present. It is the "would you kill Hitler as a baby if you could go back in time" question with a twist.

The future is an open road of multiverse possibilities. Once you introduce the concept of time travel, the whole "what-if" scenario becomes neverending. A time traveler comes in after the terminator kills Sarah and tweaks something so that a different version of John comes along...The future is a jumbled mess of infinite paths, so the concept of murder can only apply to the timestream at THAT PARTICUALR TIME.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Marilyn Monroe? Probably pills.




Too soon?

 

[larsIU]

Hahaha. I literally went through every MM I could think of.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Technically, yes because of time travel.

But the whole scenario is flawed anyway. If John is never born there is no reason for Reese to go back. But unless Reese goes back, John can't be born in the first place.

 

[IUCrazy2]

But the whole scenario is flawed anyway. If John is never born there is no reason for Reese to go back. But unless Reese goes back, John can't be born in the first place.

My brain hurts.

 

[UncleMark]

But the whole scenario is flawed anyway. If John is never born there is no reason for Reese to go back. But unless Reese goes back, John can't be born in the first place.

That's why I have a hard time with time travel shows. I can only suspend my disbelief so much. But I give the Terminator movies a pass; my wife loves 'em and they blow up a lot of shit.

 

[VanPastorMan]

But the whole scenario is flawed anyway. If John is never born there is no reason for Reese to go back. But unless Reese goes back, John can't be born in the first place.

There are a lot of paradox scenarios with time travel. In the 2009 Star Trek movie they fixed it by saying that another universe was created, another time line that moves along the original. So Spock was able to tell a young Kirk who lost his father before he was born that in his timeline Kirk's father actually lived to see him become Captain of the Enterprise and he was proud of him.

 

[SqueakyClean]

So you're saying Back to the Future was Bullspit?

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Thanks to speed, omnipotence and omnipresence are relatively possible, if you have the energy for it. All times and things at once are hard to handle.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

yes, the whole time travel thing does bring up all kind of interesting quandaries.


that said, back to the original issue at hand, assuming time travel is real in this "hypothetical", is The Terminator "EFFECTIVELY", rather than in the much narrower purely "LEGAL" sense, RESPONSIBLE for killing, or the elimination or non existence of, John?