Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv
^^^ True enough. There's definately enough plot holes surrounding the story to squeeze out some plausible explanation for Skynet's continued existence. I was just disappointed by the fact that nothing was officially offered in T3 to explain it. All we get is the Terminator telling John Conner "the future is unavoidable, so buckle down and get ready for the crap to hit the fan." Philosophically, this is a complete 180 degree turn from the first two films which were based on the philosophy that nothing is fixed or certain - we can change the outcome of future events by changing what happens today. In a nutshell - Terminator 1&2 are all about determinism, then Terminator 3 flips it on its head with a bunch of fatalism. Bad continuity.  |
Remember that the future did change, the original judgement day had passed by. They could have done a better job of explaining that Skynet had multiple contigencies in place to ensure that its existance happened no matter what.
I even think that the second movie without the delete scene was still to an extent about fatalism. Frankly even though they had thought to have destroyed skynet. We still see in the third movie that Sarah Conners continued to avoid society and stock pile weapons and train her son to be a leader. John Conners stayed off of the grid and moved around constantly. I also think that there was a hint to that fatalism at the second movie since the last scene was them driving down a single lane road with a line down the middle, and we didn't see an exits or road signs.
So they didn't even believe that the future could be entirely changed.