Nor do they program Terminators not to take up arms against Skynet, as Carl does, immediately after his job is done
-
-
Replying to @BootlegGirl
but that's the thing, the T2 timeline extends through T3 and T4 (unless we accept the alternate ending to T2) therefor we know the version of Skynet that Carl was programmed by was taken from the brain patterns of Helena Bonham Carter, so it makes sense
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @saintwalker98
T3 and T4 are like the Thrawn trilogy in Star Wars. Officially did not happen in any timeline
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
idk I think they're more like Prometheus? their existence is contradicted by other movies but they themselves represent a tangent canon, see also the Sarah Connor Chronicles, it can't co-exist with 3 & 4 or with Dark Fate or Genisys
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @saintwalker98
The point is that Dark Fate doesn't rely on any content from those movies to extrapolate the Skynet future
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @saintwalker98
If they did, John would have been killed before T3 by Carl. That alone proves the timelines aren't related
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
not exactly, there has to be an altered timeline to reach the Skynet future where John wasn't assassinated, otherwise he'd never be a target in the future and you collapse under paradox, the events where John became a resistance leader still happened and that's Carl's timeline
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @saintwalker98 @BootlegGirl
that's what i mean by Terminator time travel isn't adaptive, if it were Carl would be wiped from existence as soon as SKynet was prevented, each alteration to the timeline builds on itself
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @saintwalker98 @BootlegGirl
I guess we're operating under something similar to the Endgame method of time travel? Where it doesn't alter events, just splits off new timelines? Which, come to think of it, was also how things worked in Genysis. Sort of. I think? Man, that movie was weird.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @TheBrianMcNatt @saintwalker98
I think it's more that time travelers exist outside of time. One timeline, but those who travel through time avoid the normal chain of causality
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
"One timeline, that changes" is inherently a logical paradox and time travel geeks have brought this up over and over again -- the only two coherent options are "one timeline, period" or "multiple timelines, period" A timeline can't "change" because change *requires time*
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl and
For something to change, there's a version of it that exists "before" and one that exists "after", that's two timelines And the whole point of time travel is to confront the "normal" version of this (to be able to travel to 1984 from 2029 means 1984 "still exists")
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl and
The idea of a "changing timeline" requires "meta-time", which is, itself, just another way to say "multiple timelines", and creates all these paradoxes if you try to imagine it from the POV of anyone but the time traveler
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.