The Terminator : Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Since we know Sarah's life was saved by Reese, then we also know that the instant Skynet sent the T-800 back in time, they would have succeeded. Any change in the past would be instantaneous in the present. So humanity would be lost, and the resistance would not be in a position to send Kyle Reese back in time to begin with.

Since they were able to send Reese back in time, that can only mean one thing: the T-800 only affected an alternate timeline, not the one Reese was originally from. Since in the original timeline Connor could send Reese back in time, that is proof positive that the original timeline was unaffected by Skynet's time-travelling schemes. So why bother sending Kyle back in time? From the resistance's perspective, either the T-800 failed, or it possibly succeeded in a different timeline. Either way, we are in a timeline when Connor is still very much alive, thank you very much. And why should we worry about any timelines other than our own?

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

It wasn't pointless because the point was destroying the threat and saving Sarah.

Reese saved Sarah and taught her how to be strong enough to kill a fucking Terminator all by herself. So mission accomplished.

Donna is the only member of filmboards that nimda punished for wanting to leave.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

It wasn't pointless because the point was destroying the threat and saving Sarah.
Which clearly wasn't necessary seeing as Connor was still alive after the T-800 had been sent back in time.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

That’s not how a time loop works.

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

"It wasn't pointless because the point was destroying the threat and saving Sarah."

—————————–


Agreed!

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Reese saved Sarah and taught her how to be strong enough to kill a fucking Terminator all by herself. So mission accomplished.

Donna's second paragraph pretty much sums it up. Actually, you're right too, the whole thing seems stuck in a time loop.

But not really a time loop. Reese is fighting to keep his present intact. If he fails, he and humanity lost.
He can't save humanity, he can only not let humanity down.

I wanna take the butt of a shotgun
and beat your face in.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

But not really a time loop. Reese is fighting to keep his present intact. If he fails, he and humanity lost.
He can't save humanity, he can only not let humanity down.
But Reese going back in time doesn't change anything for his own timeline. If the timeline would have changed for the worse by the T-800, then it would have changed the instant it was sent back in time. There would not have been an opportunity for humanity to react after the fact. Consider:

1) Skynet sends the T-800 back in time to kill Connor's mother before he could be born.

1a) If the T-800 succeeds, and this timeline is affected, then the very instant the T-800 is sent back in time the past will have changed and Connor cannot send Reese back in time because Connor doesn't exist. The only way for humanity to prevent this would be to know ahead of time that Skynet was going to send someone back in time - and humanity would have to send Reese back in time before Skynet sent the T-800. It would be too late after. But then they couldn't know about it ahead of time, either.

1b) If the present has not changed the very instant the T-800 has been sent back in time, then either 1b$) the T-800 has failed, without Reese having been sent back in time, or 1b£) the T-800 succeeded, but created a new timeline and this timeline is unaffected.

1b$) This could be remedied by Skynet sending more terminators back in time to aid the first T-800 at the same time. They could keep sending terminators back in time until the present suddenly changed, and the change would also have gone unnoticed by everyone. Because the past is the past, after all: whatever the past is, everyone in the present would be used to that past.

1b£) This would be far more likely, and sending additional terminators back in time would be pointless. Sending Reese back in time would be equally pointless for humanity, as the timeline doesn't need saving - it is unaffected by time-travel. If Connor is alive, Connor was born - that means his mother wasn't killed. So there's nothing to fix. If Skynet sent a terminator back in time, then whatever changes it would have made would already have been made. It's not like "Oh no, in two hours from now, 45 years ago, Sarah is going to be killed! We must do something!" Two hours from now 45 years ago still happened 45 years ago.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

You're right, the whole thing was pointless. Additionally, Reese could've easily altered the timeline negatively by impregnating Sarah, since he's not the original father. A different father could've easily prevented mankind from having the savior that it did.

I wanna take the butt of a shotgun
and beat your face in.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

That's also true! And something Reese should have been mindful of. But no one has poorer judgement than a man who is horny.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

☝️

I wanna take the butt of a shotgun
and beat your face in.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

" Reese could've easily altered the timeline negatively by impregnating Sarah, since he's not the original father."

Oh dear…

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

You're right, the whole thing was pointless. Additionally, Reese could've easily altered the timeline negatively by impregnating Sarah, since he's not the original father. A different father could've easily prevented mankind from having the savior that it did.

You're making the plot more complicated than it was.

Donna is the only member of filmboards that nimda punished for wanting to leave.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

The bottom line is that the Term. is a real meanie.

I wanna take the butt of a shotgun
and beat your face in.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

He wasn't supposed to be nice. He's a machine that hates humanity.

Donna is the only member of filmboards that nimda punished for wanting to leave.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

All I know is the Term. is a real meanie.

Cursing out a janitor just doing his job was not nice at all!

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

I suppose you're right. He could have just let the janitor inside to see that he was a Terminator and then he would have had to kill him afterwards.

Donna is the only member of filmboards that nimda punished for wanting to leave.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Almost every time travel movie has some logic flaw like this. You just have to ignore it.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

So humanity would be lost, and the resistance would not be in a position to send Kyle Reese back in time to begin with.

Unless the only reason it didn't succeed is because they sent him back.

And why should we worry about any timelines other than our own?

Why not? I'd say good on them if that's how they felt. Kinda like Trunks in Dragonball Z. He couldn't affect his own timeline, but he still worked to save others'.

So many stories, so little time.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Unless the only reason it didn't succeed is because they sent him back.
You mean the only reason Skynet didn't succeed is because they sent the T-800 back? Yes, I dealt with that in my second paragraph.


Why not? I'd say good on them if that's how they felt.
Except they won't actually be saving any timelines - they'd just be creating new ones.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

No, no. The humans succeeded because they sent Kyle back.

Except they won't actually be saving any timelines - they'd just be creating new ones.

Except they will. The varying timelines could've already existed regardless of time travel. The novel Timeline actually covers that quite well. It's less time travel, and more timeline hopping.

As I said, Trunks was able to save a different timeline from his own. It's quite a noble task.

So many stories, so little time.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

No, no. The humans succeeded because they sent Kyle back.
Impossible. Because being in a position to send Kyle back could only mean one thing: the terminator had failed. Skynet's mission would have succeeded or failed the instant they sent the terminator back in time, giving humanity no time at all to react.


Except they will. The varying timelines could've already existed regardless of time travel. The novel Timeline actually covers that quite well. It's less time travel, and more timeline hopping.
That means there's an infinite amount of timelines already existing, and attempting to alter other timelines is therefore futile.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Impossible. Because being in a position to send Kyle back could only mean one thing: the terminator had failed. Skynet's mission would have succeeded or failed the instant they sent the terminator back in time, giving humanity no time at all to react.

It failed because they sent Reese back. Remember: the only reason John Conner even exists is because Reese was sent back to the past. Without Reese going back in time, there'd be no reason to send a terminator back in time in the first place. It was always destined to happen as it happened.

That means there's an infinite amount of timelines already existing, and attempting to alter other timelines is therefore futile.

Not at all. As I said, it's still a noble gesture to save other people's timeline. Saving lives is not futile at all. It's a beautiful and selfless gesture.

So many stories, so little time.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

It failed because they sent Reese back.
That's what the movie intends, yes, but it's a logical flaw with the plot. Had Kyle been necessary to prevent the terminator from succeeding, they would not have been able to send Kyle back in the first place. Skynet sent the Terminator back in time first. Anything the Terminator would have succeeded in doing, would have already happened at that point. Meaning the instant it was sent back in time, Connor would have vanished - as would everyone's memory of Connor. In other words, if Connor was still around to send Kyle back in time, it could only be because it wasn't necessary to do so - the terminator had already failed.

Not at all. As I said, it's still a noble gesture to save other people's timeline. Saving lives is not futile at all. It's a beautiful and selfless gesture.
What's noble about it? You wouldn't be saving anyone in existing timelines, you would be creating new ones - only to maybe save them. Maybe doom them. And you can never know if your contribution helped or hindered. Meanwhile, your own timeline suffers for it, because you are wasting precious resources.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Anything the Terminator would have succeeded in doing, would have already happened at that point. Meaning the instant it was sent back in time, Connor would have vanished - as would everyone's memory of Connor. In other words, if Connor was still around to send Kyle back in time, it could only be because it wasn't necessary to do so - the terminator had already failed.

That's assuming the movie's time travel works on that logic. It could be based on the logic of The Sound of Thunder, where changes come in waves, and there's time to undo things. Or on Days of Future Past where past and present can be running congruently.

But it is a good point. The Terminator was fated to fail regardless. Kyle's fate was to father John Connor.

What's noble about it? You wouldn't be saving anyone in existing timelines, you would be creating new ones - only to maybe save them. Maybe doom them. And you can never know if your contribution helped or hindered. Meanwhile, your own timeline suffers for it, because you are wasting precious resources.

Not at all. As yourself agreed, these infinite timelines already exist. So they're not creating new ones. They're saving existing ones. Nothing's gone to waste is some people are saved. It's even more noble to help others when you'll receive nothing in return. That's true nobility.

So many stories, so little time.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

That's assuming the movie's time travel works on that logic.
Of course it doesn't follow that logic. It's a logic flaw I'm describing.

Not at all. As yourself agreed, these infinite timelines already exist. So they're not creating new ones. They're saving existing ones. Nothing's gone to waste is some people are saved. It's even more noble to help others when you'll receive nothing in return. That's true nobility.
But you have no control over what you are doing. You can never check to see the results your actions had on a different timeline; you are acting blind. So for all you know, you might be making things worse. Meanwhile, you are betraying your own people, to whom you owe loyalty. You could have helped them, but chose to help their alter egos instead - and you don't even know if you've helped them. It is noble to help strangers, sure, but only if you have the resources to do so. If your family is trapped inside a burning building, and my family is trapped inside a burning building, you save your own first. No one would expect you to do otherwise, and even I would not place an ounce of blame on you.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Of course it doesn't follow that logic. It's a logic flaw I'm describing.

Which doesn't exist in the movie.

But you have no control over what you are doing. You can never check to see the results your actions had on a different timeline; you are acting blind. So for all you know, you might be making things worse. Meanwhile, you are betraying your own people, to whom you owe loyalty. You could have helped them, but chose to help their alter egos instead - and you don't even know if you've helped them. It is noble to help strangers, sure, but only if you have the resources to do so. If your family is trapped inside a burning building, and my family is trapped inside a burning building, you save your own first. No one would expect you to do otherwise, and even I would not place an ounce of blame on you.

And all of that is fine. It's still noble intentions. There's nothing wrong with trying to do the right thing for no reward. I've helped strangers many times with no way of checking the results. There's nothing wrong with that.

And there is no betrayal. As you say, the the time machine moves you to another timeline. There's no control over that. So it's ok to try and help others. They did have the resources: they had a time machine. Might as well do some good with it. I don't believe in us versus them. So I don't focus on helping only one group of people over another. I like to help everyone.

I save my own family only if I can. If I can't for whatever reason, I'm not going to just stand by and watch yours burn. I'll help them instead.

No one would expect you to do otherwise, and even I would not place an ounce of blame on you.

And that's why it's noble. There's no obligation.

So many stories, so little time.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Not really, there’s no guarantee any changes to the past would be instantaneous. It’s entirely possible that the past is occurring concurrently with the present, so say the Terminator arrives in the past and it takes two days for it to find and kill Sarah Connor. That would mean that the moment the terminator stepped through the TDE that John Connor had two days to live. Simple as that.

Anyway, as it turns out the entire thing was a causal loop. The Terminator going back in time was the cause of Skynet’s own existence and the nuclear war, and Kyle going back begat John Connor. The entire thing is a paradox. Kyle Reese is doomed for all eternity to be sent back into the past to die. No one in this story has any free will, everything was predestined to occur.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Also, whatever boy child Sarah gave birth to, would become the savior of humanity. It just so happened that Reese was that guy. Although it could have been any dude to get Sarah knocked up. Otherwise, The Machines would have sought out Reese as well. Instead, it focused on assassinating Sarah.


In Genysis, something very different happens. I think Sarah goes back into time to save Reese. Is that right?

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

While Sarah saves Reese in Genysis, she doesn't travel across time. Sarah knew where Reese would be because Guardian told her.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

by Movie_Knut December 03, 2022 11:29 AM
Member since May 14, 2020

While Sarah saves Reese in Genysis, she doesn't travel across time. Sarah knew where Reese would be because Guardian told her.

Oh, my favourite "Karl Aksel" is still/again here.
Thanks for bumping that, Knuti. ☺
Have a chicken to eat with him…but then IMDb locked down.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Not really, there’s no guarantee any changes to the past would be instantaneous. It’s entirely possible that the past is occurring concurrently with the present, so say the Terminator arrives in the past and it takes two days for it to find and kill Sarah Connor.
Of course it's instantaneous. Let's say you send someone back in time to do something. You send him back to 1964, Jan. 5th. He doesn't finish his job until Jan. 18th. Meanwhile, you are sitting comfortably in 2022. Both Jan. 5th and Jan. 18th 1964, and all dates in between, have already happened. No matter how much time passes in the past, it's all in the past - time passing in the past has already happened.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

It obviously doesn’t have to happen in an instant, because time isn’t linear like that. What is happening in the past is still actually happening. There is no “past, present, future” in reality, but that’s dealing with real world physics.

Going by the logic of the film, it’s clear that the past is its own separate stage that is occurring parallel to the present, and affecting it every step of the way. Once the Terminator stepped through the Time Displacement Equipment, everything it did in the past that affected the future was occurring at a similar pace. So let’s say the Terminator kills Sarah/John Connor about 48 hours after it traveled back in time. That means in the future that John Connor would have exploded into goo 48 hours later after the Terminator went through the TDE. Obviously the scientists knew that they still had “time” to fight this time travel, so to speak.

Anyway, sending Kyle Reece back into the past was necessary anyway because without it then John Connor wouldn’t exist in the first place.

Re: Sending Reese back in time to save Sarah was pointless

Just as long as Marty gets his parents to meet after almost banging his own mom, hopefully it should all work out.

"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall
Top