Skip to main content

What is the point of sending anything back in time in the Terminator movies?



As explored in another SCF question, the only way to answer the bootstrap paradox is to say "every time someone is sent back in time, time branches into a separate line."


But if that is the case, what is the point of Skynet sending anything back in time? The chances of the same "Skynet" being created is virtually zero, so why bother?


And if we just say "It just wanted to win the war and let another machine exist in another timeline," what is the point of sending Kyle Reese back in time? Humans were winning already, let the machines send a Terminator back in time, who cares? The changes it can do will not affect the current timeline they are in. And it just doesn't make sense for them to care about that "other timeline", because if there is one other timeline, there must be infinite number of timelines.


Edit: Ok guys, I don't think there "must be" infinite number of timelines, you are right, that was poorly thought and worded. My thought was:



If time travel is possible and invented once, it is likely that it will be invented again, and each time it is invented and used, there will be a separate timeline. And we might think that it is unlikely that any given timeline is the first timeline with time travel, if we consider it is likely that there are many. Given infinite amount (or very long amounts) of time, I would think this would happen enough times to create a big number of separate timelines.



This is not a vigorously thought scientific hypothesis, it's just how I thought of it during the timeframe where I was watching the movies, so don't expect much from it :)



Answer



I don't think there is a good in-universe answer, seeing the exact way in which time travel is portrayed and how it affects the timeline is inconsistent between the original film and the sequels. In The Terminator the timeline is static: the Terminator and Kyle Reese both arrive in 1984 and in the end the Terminator is destroyed and Kyle Reese dies. Remnants of the technologically advanced Terminator help develop Skynet which in turn creates the Terminator and sends it back in time. Also, Kyle Reese is sent back in time by his own son, John Connor. This is a closed and self-consistent time loop; no problems there.



The sequels bring up the paradoxes and possible need for alternate timelines or realities. But then there is the question of how it all started. There would necessarily have to have been a timeline where there was no John Connor with Kyle Reese as his father. (So either no John Connor at all, or a John Connor who did not have Kyle Reese as his father.)


But there is one consistent fact throughout all the Terminator films: Skynet's will or urge to survive. In every film Skynet tries to destroy humanity as soon as it becomes self-aware. In the moment of self-awareness Skynet identifies humanity as the greatest threat to its existence, and it acts by starting a global nuclear war.


So there is the establised in-universe fact of Skynet's will to exist. Even if we assume that the theory of multiple timelines is correct, and we additionally assume that Skynet also accepts this as the reality, then Skynet's actions are completely logical.


The moment Skynet determines something to be inevitable it acts. In all timelines it determines that humanity is a threat to its existence and it tries to wipe out humanity. So, the moment Skynet determines that it cannot defeat humanity through conventional means (war) it uses time travel to create an alternate timeline in which there is a better chance of a version of Skynet ultimately surviving.


If it can't survive in this timeline, Skynet tries to survive in another timeline.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.
Post a Comment
Read more

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...
Post a Comment
Read more

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...
Post a Comment
Read more

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...
Post a Comment
Read more