This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 20 December 2014




Tweet







July 24 2007

Summer talks about her role in "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" during Fox's TCA event. There is more information about the panel here.

And the pilot leaked online today.

Is curious.
Gossi, I think it leaked a few days ago. I watched it over the weekend.
Me too... :)

It's worth noting that the version that's online is the original, with the to-be-reshot shooting scenes.

And Summer was perfect.
What did you think of it? I absolutely loved Summer Glau kicking ass while being cute, but other than that... I'm not sure it can sustain itself on a weekly basis. The Terminator universe wasn't created to sustain such an expansion; the time-travel thing was there only as an excuse for a super-robot hunting down another super-robot while beating up cops. :-)

I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Gossi, I think it leaked a few days ago. I watched it over the weekend.

Ditto. Anyway, we're at the pilot leaking time of the year, after all. Intersting that most leaked shows up to now, are from shows I'm interested on checking out.

I posted some non-spoilery impressions over our Other Shows forum at .org.
I loved Summer, thought the other actors were well-suited, and the ending actually surprised me, so I'm more than ready to give it a shot. Especially if it means Summer Glau action figures down the line.
Caroline, guess who hasn't been paying attention to his internets.

The time travel thing was a great way to set it up as a series, I thought. Don't box yourself into the mythology of the 3rd film.
I really enjoyed the pilot. There were some great action scenes!
Don't box yourself into the mythology of the 3rd film.

Yeah, it came up in one of the early discussions about the show on here that of all film series the Terminator series is probably least bound by continuity. It's already hugely inconsistent, paradoxes are built into that universe.

Also saw it today and thought Summer was pretty good given that they're going for a more empathetic Terminator model, otherwise she'd be a bit too human (there's a nice little bit where Cameron seems to backtrack when she realises Sarah reacts angrily because she feels guilty which was quite subtly played by Summer). Great to see her kick ass too and i'm pretty sure there were some 'River' moves in there during the second fight, especially her back kicky thing (whoa, easy with the martial arts technical lingo - Ed. ;).

Everybody was good though (Lena Headey being all haunted and driven) and they opened enough threads for it to go somewhere. Whether it will of course is down to the creative team (and the network).

(and i'm already preparing for the grief of losing 'Pushing Daisies', it's kind of a crazy mix of 'Toys', 'Dead Like Me' and 'Big Fish' in style - so more or less as you'd expect given who made it ;). Dunno about its legs but I thought it opened pretty strong)
Ok what scenes are being reshot and why?

what pardoxes, don't recall any? (Paradoxes require a single timeline, perhaps its not such a universe)

Generally I'm not that big on girlpower, but there is a strange fascination about watching Summer Glau kick everybody through walls, and she slightly weird psycho vibe about her doing that - they must have caught her doing Summer before casting *g*
what pardoxes, don't recall any? (Paradoxes require a single timeline, perhaps its not such a universe)

If it isn't a single timeline then how will the Terminator killing young John Connor (or the pregnant Sarah Connor) have any effect on the war's outcome ? So why send it back in the first place ?

The whole premise depends on the young John being causally linked to the future John that saves humanity. And then we have paradoxes (e.g. Reese being his father).
"If it isn't a single timeline then how will the Terminator killing young John Connor (or the pregnant Sarah Connor) have any effect on the war's outcome ? So why send it back in the first place ?"

Are you suggesting skynet is all knowing? Would that make it god? If not, it may only think it can prevent it. Infact what you call paradoxes might be taken as proof that there are multiple timelines :)
Heh, I see the producer considers this series:

"I almost think of this as T3. To me it takes the place of T3. But also I think that sort of in the spirit of Terminator, it's an alternate timeline."

http://tv.ign.com/articles/798/798086p1.html
Yeah, the producer, that proves your argument. (didn't we used to have a sarcasm font?)

This has been nagging at me all day, and now I think there can't be any paradoxes unless you think of the various stories as a single timeline changing back and forth. If Reese's mission succeeds, then he's just a man with no discernible past but a life in what he considers the past, but is really now just the only present. His origin in the future is gone. He won't be born there. That's a paradox.

Alternate or multiple timelines don't incur paradoxes. They just branch off endlessly, and no one in them is ever aware of any changes, and needn't be because there never are any. But that doesn't mean it fits the stories. Whatever continuity mistakes there may have been, that's clearly not The Terminator universe.
I thought the whole point of the first movie was to be a paradox...
Nope, clearly without a single timeline you can't have time based paradoxes. The future Reese travels back from isn't John Connor's future (or Sarah's) so there's no problem. Of course that also means (as I mention) that the future the Terminator travels back from isn't theirs either, so it's absolutely impossible for Skynet to affect its own past i.e. to win the war by killing young John.

Are you suggesting skynet is all knowing? Would that make it god?

Ah, I see, you're saying everyone within the Terminator universe might think it's a single timeline and the narrative and emotional core of the story depend intrinsically on that BUT it might not be. OK. True.

In that case I also think any apparent paradoxes could actually just be glitches in the Matrix. What ? Why not, since we're just making stuff up anyway (along with the producer apparently) ? ;-)

Physics requires there to be multiple timelines, story requires there to be a single one. It's fiction so story trumps physics. QED. ;).
But the future that Reese travels back from was John and Sarah's future in the first movie. Adult John was apparently just doing what he already knew was necessary to make his timeline happen. The second one seemed to be less definite about that. The third one, who cares?

Physics? How did physics get involved? ;-)
Heh, always lowering the tone aren't I ;-).

But the future that Reese travels back from was John and Sarah's future in the first movie.

Well, exactly. Which 'proves' the universe is being presented as a single timeline (i.e. the story is either inconsistent from a physics perspective - single timeline - or inconsistent from a narrative perspective - multiple timelines - so it's kind of a lose-lose situation). The second film seems to realise that this creates paradoxes and/or requires predestination, doesn't like that idea and so "No fate but what we make" is played up.

The third film, while sort of enjoyable IMO, just goes bat-shit crazy with the plots from the first two and shoots off at a nonsensical tangent (and also seems to re-embrace predestination. Helplessness in the face of the future ? Post 9/11 ? There's probably a thesis in there somewhere ;).

(the paradoxes don't bother me, BTW, the first two at least are great films with or without sensible physics)
So.... Ben is Glory.

But if Skynet cannot send a Terminator back through time to affect it's own timeline, how can old John use the same technology to send Reese back to the "correct" timeline?

Either John sends back multiple Reeses in the hope that one of them "get's lucky" or he just sends Reese off into some random past believing "Oh well, I'll exist in some form in some timeline".

Bang goes the dramatic tension that one person can alter the (correct) future.

For me, Sarah misses a fundamental point. She never seems to realise that she is fighting to destroy the same machine technology which invents time travel. She never realises that her actions against Dyson and Cyberdyne in T2 threaten to destroy Reese's only means of reaching her. So much for John being "really important".

Call me picky, but there should have been an extra scene outside the steel mill at the end of T2, where John and Sarah realise that if John is still here then the timeline hasn't been changed significantly enough by their actions. Someone, somewhere is still capable of following Dyson's work - and if Sarah continues to hunt them down, she will eventually "terminate" John along with future Skynet.

Oh, and T3 should have been set in the Future War, where Reese gets killed in the first reel, and John has to use time travel to put things right before he can send Reese back to 1955 where he invents Rock and Roll by playing Jonnie B Goo...... no, wait.
I prefer the Star Trek rules to travelling through time. Use whatever rules make sense for the story you are telling even if those rules make the outcome of a previous Trek episode not make any sense. That way the fans just give up worrying about timelines and paradoxes and assume that anything goes.

Although I defy anyone to come up with a sensible way to explain how they ended Tomorrow is Yesterday. Go on. I dare ya! ;)
Although I defy anyone to come up with a sensible way to explain how they ended Tomorrow is Yesterday. Go on. I dare ya! ;)
Kurse | July 25, 10:55 CET


Sense? Sense? Star Trek don't need no stinkin' sense! Actually, any time travel don't need no stinkin' sense. It is just another way of making an alternate universe story.

But if Skynet cannot send a Terminator back through time to affect it's own timeline, how can old John use the same technology to send Reese back to the "correct" timeline?

But he is not correcting anything, he is doing what the adult John Conner does in that timeline. He sends his father back in time to save his mother and conceive him. Hence the paradox. Everyone is playing their parts, and John Connor is the only one who knows what those parts are.

I agree that if they actually succeed at keeping the machines from rising, John Conner should cease to exist. (I doubt that he would slowly fade away though. ;-) ) Although it could be looked at as a small price to pay to save the world, I'm not sure Sarah is in any state of mind to put that together or consciously make that choice. The fact that he does not disappear, seems to confirm that everything they have done is part of the timeline anyway and that there is no choice. John is still important though because he is instrumental in keeping humanity fighting in the future that Sarah is trying to change.

I also really enjoyed the first two movies. As far as the third movie, I did not hate it, it just seemed almost like a parody of the first two with AS winking at the audience through the whole thing. I don't really remember the plot at all...and it is the one I saw most recently.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home