Nerdsplaining Movie Plot Holes

[hayden_horn 11401]

On 8/7/2018 at 11:50 AM, drewcifer said:

Reddit has you covered.

1) that theory actually makes a lot of sense.

2) first comment has their eye on the prize. the internet, encapsulated into one response:

Quote

aerosolgreymachine
35 points
·
5 years ago
if you ejaculate in the matrix, do you ejaculate in the real world?

godspeed, aerosolgreymachine. eyes on the fucking prize.

[Deej 77671]

2 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

The old man was an old fucking man.  Do you really need it explained why old people do stupid shit?

Just maybe the old man was won over by Hoyt Axton's good ol' boy charm. 

[Xminus6 839]

4 hours ago, kopp0e said:

No, I had to see it, but my point is that why was it in the store to where one could assume it for sale..? (actually you make a good point, but)

Why would the grandkid have access to such an unstable creature..? The old man did a bad job of keeping his grandson in check... #Switches&Paddles...

They're Asian. Asians don't use switches and paddles. Wooden cooking spoons and sandals are the weapons of choice.

[Xminus6 839]

Double.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Xminus6

[Nice Guy Eddie 13707]

Rounders did a bad job explaining how Mike went from starting with 10K in the final game to winning over 60K.    KGB obviously must have kept buying back in to stay in the game because Mike had zero additional money.  Mike stated that he finished at >60K  so KGB was responsible for >50K.  Would KGB wouldn't be quite so cocky.    KGB was being destroyed.  

How much did Mike have before the final hand?  It had to have been a minimum of 30K since he looked to fully covered KGB's all-in and Mike says he ended up with over 60K.   going into that hand, he owed KGB 15K, the law professor 10K and 5K to the Chesterfield.  he was a fool to play it.  Pay off the debts, and get a job/money from Knish to start building up the bankroll again.    Otherwise Mike could have easily run into bad luck and had Grama kick his ass or worse.    Mike didn't really learn a thing from the first scene.  Worm was right in that Mike was delusional in thinking his [Mike] moves were noble and smart.

And of course, the most inexplicable part of Rounders is when Mike turns down Petra (Famke Janssen) when she was at the top of her game.  Kicks her out of his apt after his girlfriend had dumped him.  

[kopp0e 1135]

1 hour ago, Xminus6 said:

They're Asian. Asians don't use switches and paddles. Wooden cooking spoons and sandals are the weapons of choice.

I learned something without the need of National Geographic..! 😉

 

[Red Five 41596]

It was established early on that Howard the Duck wasn’t gay. Yet, when he had a scantily clad 1986 Lea Thompson in bed begging for duck dong, he refused. This is the biggest plot hole in movie history.

[hayden_horn 11401]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Rounders did a bad job explaining how Mike went from starting with 10K in the final game to winning over 60K.    KGB obviously must have kept buying back in to stay in the game because Mike had zero additional money.  Mike stated that he finished at >60K  so KGB was responsible for >50K.  Would KGB wouldn't be quite so cocky.    KGB was being destroyed.  

How much did Mike have before the final hand?  It had to have been a minimum of 30K since he looked to fully covered KGB's all-in and Mike says he ended up with over 60K.   going into that hand, he owed KGB 15K, the law professor 10K and 5K to the Chesterfield.  he was a fool to play it.  Pay off the debts, and get a job/money from Knish to start building up the bankroll again.    Otherwise Mike could have easily run into bad luck and had Grama kick his ass or worse.    Mike didn't really learn a thing from the first scene.  Worm was right in that Mike was delusional in thinking his [Mike] moves were noble and smart.

And of course, the most inexplicable part of Rounders is when Mike turns down Petra (Famke Janssen) when she was at the top of her game.  Kicks her out of his apt after his girlfriend had dumped him.  

i swear i read somewhere that petra was a transexual in the original story.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13707]

19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i swear i read somewhere that petra was a transexual in the original story.

I don't recall that but I do remember one of the writers mentioning in an interview that they didn't envision Petra being that attractive when they wrote that scene.  And they didn't realize how odd it seemed until after the movie was shot.  

[PappyVanVinceYoung 85]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't recall that but I do remember one of the writers mentioning in an interview that they didn't envision Petra being that attractive when they wrote that scene.  And they didn't realize how odd it seemed until after the movie was shot.  

Here you go.

http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060420

 

Quote

Question No. 1: After Mike McD's wet blanket girlfriend from hell moved out on him -- and thank God, you guys should have had her get run over by a cab on her way out -- and he was hanging out in his empty apartment watching the old Johnny Chan footage and feeling sorry for himself, the smoking-hot Russian chick (played by Famke Janssen, who should be much more famous than she is) comes over to collect some money, gives him a break on the figure, flirts with him, shoves her tongue down his throat ... and Mike McD basically gives her the Heisman.

 

 

What the hell? Seriously, what the hell?

 

 

First, what guy on the planet would turn down some revenge-against-my-ex sex with Famke Janssen? Second, what guy on the planet would turn down sex with Famke Janssen? (I asked this in a column four years ago, and I'm asking again now: How was Johnny Chan the only man in that room who ended up flopping a nut straight?) And third, the movie was rated "R," anyway ... you guys couldn't have thrown in a gratuitous sex scene for no real reason? Would that have killed you? Or was there some sort of underlying homo-erotic context with the Worm-Mike McD friendship that you were going after that I missed? Please explain yourselves. Part of me will never forgive either of you for this.

 

 

Koppelman and Levien: We plead guilty. Biggest mistake of the film, probably of our entire career (please leave out the requisite "Walking Tall" joke, thank you) if only because we were on set and would've gotten to gawk at it for eight hours. As written, the character was a much more regular-looking girl. When John Dahl ended up casting Famke (the producers Ted Demme and Joel Stillerman knew her well), we were too green to see our opportunity. Now, today, believe us, Mike nails her, then after lots of gratuitous nudity, she casually mentions that Worm rang up the debt and Mike is off. It's not that we're monks, just idiots. If you want to know our logic, our admittedly misguided logic, here it is:

 

 

A. Mike has already slept with her. You're a guy, so you understand what that means. The edge is off of it, just a little bit.

 

 

B. Mike has just found out that he is, after driving the truck, walking the line, staying away from the tables, right back in a giant hole. Worm has put him in serious financial debt to people who know how to collect.

 

 

C. For the plot of the film to work, we figured that the debt of money had to seem so important to Mike, so dangerous, so huge, that Mike had to deal with it right away. In hindsight, we were totally wrong. (By the way, neither Ansen nor Travers picked up [on] that one.)

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

18 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

You don’t really need to wait until BTTF2 to worry about plot holes. How about the whole notion that if George beats Biff’s ass and is now this smooth motherfucking writer who is plugging hot skinny Lorraine, writing best selling novels, buying Marty a 4x4 and accomplishing anything he puts his mind to that Marty probably doesn’t have the kind of upbringing that leads him to spend all his time hanging out with a crazy ass single scientist who used to spend all his time with a bunch of cabbies in New York City.

Better yet...if he is this high paid author, why are they still living in that shitty ass house, and why does he only have the ONE car for himself, his wife, his oldest son, and daughter to all share while the youngest gets a 4x4 all to himself?

 

[Michael Knight 13187]

21 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

You don’t really need to wait until BTTF2 to worry about plot holes. How about the whole notion that if George beats Biff’s ass and is now this smooth motherfucking writer who is plugging hot skinny Lorraine, writing best selling novels, buying Marty a 4x4 and accomplishing anything he puts his mind to that Marty probably doesn’t have the kind of upbringing that leads him to spend all his time hanging out with a crazy ass single scientist who used to spend all his time with a bunch of cabbies in New York City.

The Morty of that timeline had actually died the night before and our Morty then buried him in the backyard

[Michael Knight 13187]

 

[Captain Ron 13097]

8 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Rounders did a bad job explaining how Mike went from starting with 10K in the final game to winning over 60K.    KGB obviously must have kept buying back in to stay in the game because Mike had zero additional money.  Mike stated that he finished at >60K  so KGB was responsible for >50K.  Would KGB wouldn't be quite so cocky.    KGB was being destroyed.  

How much did Mike have before the final hand?  It had to have been a minimum of 30K since he looked to fully covered KGB's all-in and Mike says he ended up with over 60K.   going into that hand, he owed KGB 15K, the law professor 10K and 5K to the Chesterfield.  he was a fool to play it.  Pay off the debts, and get a job/money from Knish to start building up the bankroll again.    Otherwise Mike could have easily run into bad luck and had Grama kick his ass or worse.    Mike didn't really learn a thing from the first scene.  Worm was right in that Mike was delusional in thinking his [Mike] moves were noble and smart.

And of course, the most inexplicable part of Rounders is when Mike turns down Petra (Famke Janssen) when she was at the top of her game.  Kicks her out of his apt after his girlfriend had dumped him.  

Wait, Mike turns down Petra (your last paragraph) and Mike figures out Teddy KGB's tell, and your worried about the entirety of the last game?

 

Was it mentioned that Mike turned down Petra?

 

 

[Xminus6 839]

9 hours ago, PappyVanVinceYoung said:

Here you go.

http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060420

 

 

Yikes. These responses don't hold up so well in the #MeToo era. Still, should have gotten her naked.

[Hamttx 421]

14 hours ago, Xminus6 said:

They're Asian. Asians don't use switches and paddles. Wooden cooking spoons and sandals are the weapons of choice.

A piece of Hot Wheels Track. My mother could snap a piece of that orange track like a bull whip. And when she would “accidentally” slice into your ass she would blame me for not standing still.

[hayden_horn 11401]

also, this is interesting. i've always thought that kgb had AA. but now i bet he was bluffing, because he thinks mike is on a draw. when mike is watching the old world series of poker, chan had the nut hand, but gets his opponent to bluff at the pot. mike even watches it with famke, right? says something like "had the discipline to check it all the way to the end, because he knew he would bluff at it."

[henrygandorf 29219]

not sure it's been mentioned, but the whole raiders of the lost ark argument was a plotline in the big bang theory not long ago.  not a similar one, but literally the same word usage.  whomever brought it up and likely others who responded have definitely seen what i'm talking about.

 

one plothole that has bothered me recently was from "funny people", a movie i really like parts of, but as a whole just doesn't work for a variety of reasons i won't go into right now. 

the whole story of the relationship between george and ira is essentially introduced when george comes by the comedy club out of nowhere.  after an odd and depressing set, he gets off, and ira (seth rogen) does his set.  ira's set is miserably bad.  not bad execution or timing, just bad all around.  he made a couple not very funny jokes about george's weird set, and those were his best jokes.  then he leaves.

later that night or pretty soon after, george tracks down ira's number to call him, compliment him on his joke writing (?), and offer him a job writing jokes for him for some upcoming event, and possibly future appearances.  i find it hard to believe that someone with george's resources and connections (endless) would need to pluck the world's worst comedian from the hermosa comedy and magic c-team after a horrid 4 minute set. 

the entire movie is based on their relationship.  and later on, ira tells some decent jokes.  it wouldn't have hurt the movie to show ira having a decent set, and it would've made way more sense.  oh well.

[Eskimohorn 5675]

not sure it's been mentioned, but the whole raiders of the lost ark argument was a plotline in the big bang theory not long ago.  not a similar one, but literally the same word usage.  whomever brought it up and likely others who responded have definitely seen what i'm talking about.
 
one plothole that has bothered me recently was from "funny people", a movie i really like parts of, but as a whole just doesn't work for a variety of reasons i won't go into right now. 
the whole story of the relationship between george and ira is essentially introduced when george comes by the comedy club out of nowhere.  after an odd and depressing set, he gets off, and ira (seth rogen) does his set.  ira's set is miserably bad.  not bad execution or timing, just bad all around.  he made a couple not very funny jokes about george's weird set, and those were his best jokes.  then he leaves.
later that night or pretty soon after, george tracks down ira's number to call him, compliment him on his joke writing (?), and offer him a job writing jokes for him for some upcoming event, and possibly future appearances.  i find it hard to believe that someone with george's resources and connections (endless) would need to pluck the world's worst comedian from the hermosa comedy and magic c-team after a horrid 4 minute set. 
the entire movie is based on their relationship.  and later on, ira tells some decent jokes.  it wouldn't have hurt the movie to show ira having a decent set, and it would've made way more sense.  oh well.

George appreciated the substance of the joke and also was not threatened by Ira’s talent or lack thereof. Additionally, Ira looks desperate. Had George used an agent or contact, George would not be able to properly articulate what he was looking for without sounding like a jerkoff.

[henrygandorf 29219]

11 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

George appreciated the substance of the joke and also was not threatened by Ira’s talent or lack thereof. Additionally, Ira looks desperate. Had George used an agent or contact, George would not be able to properly articulate what he was looking for without sounding like a jerkoff.

 

the substance of what joke?  are you saying george was trying to help someone without seeming or sounding like a jerkoff?  he's a selfish jerkoff the entire movie.  articulate that he was looking for a "joke writer"?  there are hundreds of great ones hanging around waiting for an opportunity.

plothole stands.

[Eskimohorn 5675]

the substance of what joke?  are you saying george was trying to help someone without seeming or sounding like a jerkoff?  he's a selfish jerkoff the entire movie.  articulate that he was looking for a "joke writer"?  there are hundreds of great ones hanging around waiting for an opportunity.
plothole stands.

First, he wasn’t trying to help anyone. He wasn’t really looking for anyone specifically. His character was impulsive. Not a lot of logic involved.

And how would he ask his agent for a non-threatening, overweight baffoon, who has an interesting perpective and kind of pathetic? Someone with the right amount of desperate.

[henrygandorf 29219]

ok, i have no idea what you're talking about.

he thought the end was near, so he thought it would be fun to get away from the dumb blockbuster comedies and back to his roots - standup (and his ex).  after bombing his set, he realized that he needed help to prevent embarrassing himself at these upcoming, already booked, high-profile, well-paid appearances.  so instead of doing what every person in that situation has done for the past 75 years (hire a funny comedy writer), he sees a shitty comic do a very short, unfunny set, then calls him to tell him his jokes were funny and that he's a good writer (something that might be true, but wasn't seen in the final version of the film).

there was no secret motive, there was no angle.  george was a self-involved prick and needed help writing jokes.  he didn't care if he brought in someone attractive or confident or threatening, he only cared about not embarrassing himself at the appearances (a common occurrence with comedic actors who are not standups) .  in real life, his agent would've brought in a few highly reputable joke writers (who do you think writes the jokes for award shows or roasts?) and he would've chosen one.  or, he could've been blown away at the club by a young, hilarious comic. 

neither happened, and what did happen made no sense, and practically ruins the movie for me (but a bunch of other stuff did instead).  it's almost as if an earlier cut of the movie had ira do well, but they changed that part, without changing the resulting phone call conversation.

again, plothole, and a bad one.

[destroya 396]

1 hour ago, Eskimohorn said:

...And how would he ask his agent for a non-threatening, overweight baffoon, who has an interesting perpective and kind of pathetic? Someone with the right amount of desperate.

 

Probably just like that.

[The University 852]

 

in wargames, wopr tries to crack the code to override the launch sequence. however, joshua cracks it in about 10-15 minutes. some of you math nerds can correct me if i'm wrong, but that means that there are (26^6)*(10^4) or over 3 trillion combinations/codes. even if joshua was guessing 10 combinations every second, it would have taken him about 10,000 years to guess the right launch code. 

i don't know what kind of power the department of defense had in 1983, but my 1 mhz 6502 apple ii could barely run stickybear bop without driving me crazy. 

 

oh, and this is surly, so...

[tx 3 putt 78470]

air force 1 : when attempting to land at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, why not land wheels up to ensure the plane is staying grounded ? 

[Richard Kimball 1517]

This is a thing with a lot of movies, that after the big finale, nobody has to explain all the crazy shit that went down. Best example is the original Fright Night. 

Billy rescues Amy, and kills the vampire and his henchman. Peter Vincent kills Billy's friend, Evil Ed, who's been turned into a vampire. The cops have been watching Billy, cause of his crazy claims that the next door neighbors are vampires, but nobody has a problem with his best friend ending up naked and dead in his living room with a stairwell support stuck through his heart, and the fact that the next door neighbors both go missing. 

[Pato del Muerto 53331]

Hollywood can’t do time travel. 

Biggest offender is the terminator. Skynet sends a t100 back in time to kill Sarah connors before she can have John, so John sends Reese back to protect her. But then Reese ends up being the one that knocks her up. 

So how is John connors alive and leading the resistance in the first place for skynet to decide to kill his mother?

[AUS-97HORN 11991]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Hollywood can’t do time travel. 

Biggest offender is the terminator. Skynet sends a t100 back in time to kill Sarah connors before she can have John, so John sends Reese back to protect her. But then Reese ends up being the one that knocks her up. 

So how is John connors alive and leading the resistance in the first place for skynet to decide to kill his mother?

jesus, this is the EASIEST thing to explain.  Its a locked cycle. 

Without timetravel, no John,

Without John,  no winning resistance

Without winning resistance, no need to send the terminator and Reese back in time to kill John/make John

Thus without timetravel....

No John.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

59 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Hollywood can’t do time travel. 

Biggest offender is the terminator. Skynet sends a t100 back in time to kill Sarah connors before she can have John, so John sends Reese back to protect her. But then Reese ends up being the one that knocks her up. 

So how is John connors alive and leading the resistance in the first place for skynet to decide to kill his mother?

There are multiple John Connors.   The first one, who originally sent back Reese, had a different father and earned his way to lead the resistance without any advance knowledge of what would happen (that is his mom was an innocent version of Sarah Connor who had never learned about the future).  When he sent Reese back the first time, and he knocked up Sarah, it overwrote the original John Connor, who was never born.  Sarah may never have even met the original father now, who in the original timeline was probably some random dude from that disco that the Terminator destroyed or something.   Sarah named the Reese baby John, too, because she now knew she was supposed to have a John Connor, and told him all about what would happen, which gave that John Connor the knowledge needed to reach the exact same leadership position in the resistance despite his different traits/DNA from having a different father.  And the new John knows he has to send Kyle back, so he completes that circle, avoiding any paradox. 

[miguelito 11449]

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

On 8/9/2018 at 2:11 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Rounders did a bad job explaining how Mike went from starting with 10K in the final game to winning over 60K.    KGB obviously must have kept buying back in to stay in the game because Mike had zero additional money.  Mike stated that he finished at >60K  so KGB was responsible for >50K.  Would KGB wouldn't be quite so cocky.    KGB was being destroyed.  

How much did Mike have before the final hand?  It had to have been a minimum of 30K since he looked to fully covered KGB's all-in and Mike says he ended up with over 60K.   going into that hand, he owed KGB 15K, the law professor 10K and 5K to the Chesterfield.  he was a fool to play it.  Pay off the debts, and get a job/money from Knish to start building up the bankroll again.    Otherwise Mike could have easily run into bad luck and had Grama kick his ass or worse.    Mike didn't really learn a thing from the first scene.  Worm was right in that Mike was delusional in thinking his [Mike] moves were noble and smart.

And of course, the most inexplicable part of Rounders is when Mike turns down Petra (Famke Janssen) when she was at the top of her game.  Kicks her out of his apt after his girlfriend had dumped him.  

It’s a cash game. No rules on buy in. He could have tried to big stack him and buy in at $60k to Mike’ $10k. No rule the stacks need to be even at the start. 

#nerdfail

[Nice Guy Eddie 13707]

49 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

It’s a cash game. No rules on buy in. He could have tried to big stack him and buy in at $60k to Mike’ $10k. No rule the stacks need to be even at the start. 

#nerdfail

Except they were even at the start.  

#explainfail

[henrygandorf 29219]

hollywood does time travel just fine, but there are two different types...

type 1 - alternate (new) timelines.  like in bttf, going back and changing stuff will result in a new timeline, so when you go back to the present, shit has changed.

type 2 - shit is the way it is, no matter what.  like in 12 monkeys, it's already happened so there's no way to change it.  somehow, things will 'will' their way back to the same end point.

i'm pretty sure all hollywood time travel falls under one of these two categories.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how time travel works in real life before I can judge whether or not Hollywood gets it wrong. 

[aggie08 21733]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Someone is going to have to explain to me how time travel works in real life before I can judge whether or not Hollywood gets it wrong. 

Thank god we have time travel, alternate realities, and time travel paradoxes all figured out before such a technology ever becomes a reality.

[bschoolprof 6335]

7 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

There are multiple John Connors.   The first one, who originally sent back Reese, had a different father and earned his way to lead the resistance without any advance knowledge of what would happen (that is his mom was an innocent version of Sarah Connor who had never learned about the future).  When he sent Reese back the first time, and he knocked up Sarah, it overwrote the original John Connor, who was never born.  Sarah may never have even met the original father now, who in the original timeline was probably some random dude from that disco that the Terminator destroyed or something.   Sarah named the Reese baby John, too, because she now knew she was supposed to have a John Connor, and told him all about what would happen, which gave that John Connor the knowledge needed to reach the exact same leadership position in the resistance despite his different traits/DNA from having a different father.  And the new John knows he has to send Kyle back, so he completes that circle, avoiding any paradox. 

I'm generally terrible at these things, so sorry in advance.  

If your version is correct, what happens to John Conner #1 (and the whole world he inhabits) in the future once the 1st time travelling Reece blows his load in Sarah back in the 80s?  Does he just vaporize and everyone around him is like "what the fuck?"  and new John appears in his place?  Or does that whole world just cease to exist? Time travel stuff makes my head hurt.  

[Surly Bevo 25655]

15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Someone is going to have to explain to me how time travel works in real life before I can judge whether or not Hollywood gets it wrong. 

Pretty sure that theoretically you can travel forward in time...but not back.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, bschoolprof said:

I'm generally terrible at these things, so sorry in advance.  

If your version is correct, what happens to John Conner #1 (and the whole world he inhabits) in the future once the 1st time travelling Reece blows his load in Sarah back in the 80s?  Does he just vaporize and everyone around him is like "what the fuck?"  and new John appears in his place?  Or does that whole world just cease to exist? Time travel stuff makes my head hurt.  

There are two possibilities.   In the first, he's simply overwritten, along with his version of the years 1984-2029, like re-recording over a cassette tape, and his existence disappears.  That whole timeline disappears, and the lives of everyone around him are different, both because a different John Connor existed, and because the Terminator going back changed a bunch of other shit, like killing a bunch of people, destroying half the town, etc.  They don't know that things changed; they only know the world where The Terminator appeared out of the blue in 1984 and Reese fucked Sarah Connor and half-Reese John Connor lived. 

Alternatively, it could be the case that the time travel machine actually spawns an alternate universe.   In that case, universe 1 has John Connor 1 sending Reese back from 2029 to chase the Terminator, but they land in 1984 in universe 2.     Then, John Connor 1 continues the fight in universe 1 as he did before, never knowing the outcome of sending Reese, and life goes on.  The Terminator going back never really could have harmed him or his resistance; it just created the possibility of a terrible reality in an alternate universe, but John Connor 1 didn't know that.   Meanwhile, in universe 2, Reese knocks up Sarah and they defeat the terminator, and then they raise a different John Connor (half-brother of original John Connor) in universe 2.   He and his mom have advanced knowledge of Judgment Day, so they are ready for it in a way that John Connor 1 wasn't.   By the same token, the terminator's arm in 1984 on universe 2 spawns quicker technological innovation in that timeline, leading to more advanced Terminators in that timeline.  John Connor 2 battles them leading to the time travel that starts T2.   Of course, this new round of time travel would spawn a third universe where the T-1000 goes back in time to 1995 chased by the original model, now-friendly, Schwarzenegger Terminator.   In theory, though, all three universes are ongoing simultaneously.

I'm partial to the first view because it gives greater significance to their actions, but I think either is possible. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[bschoolprof 6335]

10 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

There are two possibilities.   In the first, he's simply overwritten, along with his version of the years 1984-2029, like re-recording over a cassette tape, and his existence disappears.  That whole timeline disappears, and the lives of everyone around him are different, both because a different John Connor existed, and because the Terminator going back changed a bunch of other shit, like killing a bunch of people, destroying half the town, etc.  They don't know that things changed; they only know the world where The Terminator appeared out of the blue in 1984 and Reese fucked Sarah Connor and half-Reese John Connor lived. 

Alternatively, it could be the case that the time travel machine actually spawns an alternate universe.   In that case, universe 1 has John Connor 1 sending Reese back from 2029 to chase the Terminator, but they land in 1984 in universe 2.     Then, John Connor 1 continues the fight in universe 1 as he did before, never knowing the outcome of sending Reese, and life goes on.  The Terminator going back never really could have harmed him or his resistance; it just created the possibility of a terrible reality in an alternate universe, but John Connor 1 didn't know that.   Meanwhile, in universe 2, Reese knocks up Sarah and they defeat the terminator, and then they raise a different John Connor (half-brother of original John Connor) in universe 2.   He and his mom have advanced knowledge of Judgment Day, so they are ready for it in a way that John Connor 1 wasn't.   By the same token, the terminator's arm in 1984 on universe 2 spawns quicker technological innovation in that timeline, leading to more advanced Terminators in that timeline.  John Connor 2 battles them leading to the time travel that starts T2.   Of course, this new round of time travel would spawn a third universe where the T-1000 goes back in time to 1995 chased by the original model, now-friendly, Schwarzenegger Terminator.   In theory, though, all three universes are ongoing simultaneously.

I'm partial to the first view because it gives greater significance to their actions, but I think either is possible. 

Thanks.  That made my head hurt, but I think I got it.  So in alternative 1, the whole world of John Connor #1 basically vaporizes/gets erased the second Reese goes back in time and  a new reality takes it place, the irony being Connor #1 isn't really saved - he never even existed.

Have you seen the spanish movie Timecrimes (here) or the movie Triangle (here)?  You could probably explain/understand them a lot better than me.  

Edited October 1, 2018 by bschoolprof

[Apep 645]

There’s no need to discuss John Connor being erased. The last Terminator movie introduced the idea that these are alternate timelines in a multiverse. This was just about the only good thing it did.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Hoth would have had to have had a ton of life to support a carnivorous species like that. 

[Surly Bevo 25655]

3 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Hoth would have had to have had a ton of life to support a carnivorous species like that. 

Tauntauns yo....

[former alkie 72]

Time travel is bullshit.

In reality, one can study and learn from the past, one can think about and somewhat plan on the future.

The present is just the present, man.

As for movies, I’ll take my kids to see all those stupid action, sci-fi, type shows.......but sometimes I force them to watch more realistic dramas, and documentaries.

[Forty Acres 90]

If time travel ever gets invented in the future then doesn’t it alredy sort of exist now?

[Richard Kimball 1517]

Random neural firing...

J. K. Rowling said that in her wildest fantasies of success, she never envisioned doing interviews where people were asking her what years Harry's grandparents went to Hogwarts. 

Maybe it was Tolkien creating an entire world around characters that started it, or the cult following of Star Trek and Star Wars, but media used to be a lot less concerned with internal consistency. Larry, Moe and Curly were always the same people with the same personalities, but sometimes they were brothers, sometimes friends, or whatever. Their jobs and names changed to fit the plot.You just accepted that the Stooges lived in the 1800s, or were doctors, or private investigators, or whatever the plot demanded. Huey Dewey and Louie were Donald's nephews. There was no back story about how their parents died or ran off and they went to live with Donald. Their parents never existed. They were never written. Disney wanted young ducks to aggravate Donald, but didn't want a parent/child relationship. 

The Luke/Leia kiss happened because in the first movie, they weren't brother and sister, yet. 

The book (and movie) Coraline offers a pretty good example of the writing process. The "other mother" is the author. She creates a world based on the real world, but with variations. One of the characters has a lot of her traits. Some characters get out of hand, and seem to do what they want, regardless of what she has planned. Characters that cease to be useful dissolve. When Coraline tries to walk out of the world the other mother has created, the further away she gets from the house, the less detail. Finally, she's walking through nothing, because it doesn't exist. The other mother hasn't thought about it yet. 

TL;DR: Conference realignment talk not going away. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

On 10/14/2018 at 9:29 AM, Richard Kimball said:

Random neural firing...

J. K. Rowling said that in her wildest fantasies of success, she never envisioned doing interviews where people were asking her what years Harry's grandparents went to Hogwarts. 

Maybe it was Tolkien creating an entire world around characters that started it, or the cult following of Star Trek and Star Wars, but media used to be a lot less concerned with internal consistency. Larry, Moe and Curly were always the same people with the same personalities, but sometimes they were brothers, sometimes friends, or whatever. Their jobs and names changed to fit the plot.You just accepted that the Stooges lived in the 1800s, or were doctors, or private investigators, or whatever the plot demanded. Huey Dewey and Louie were Donald's nephews. There was no back story about how their parents died or ran off and they went to live with Donald. Their parents never existed. They were never written. Disney wanted young ducks to aggravate Donald, but didn't want a parent/child relationship. 

The Luke/Leia kiss happened because in the first movie, they weren't brother and sister, yet. 

The book (and movie) Coraline offers a pretty good example of the writing process. The "other mother" is the author. She creates a world based on the real world, but with variations. One of the characters has a lot of her traits. Some characters get out of hand, and seem to do what they want, regardless of what she has planned. Characters that cease to be useful dissolve. When Coraline tries to walk out of the world the other mother has created, the further away she gets from the house, the less detail. Finally, she's walking through nothing, because it doesn't exist. The other mother hasn't thought about it yet. 

TL;DR: Conference realignment talk not going away. 

People don’t understand how stories are told.  You hear a lot things like people asking for spinoffs of everything featuring minor characters because of it.  But those characters work because they are minor. 

Edited October 15, 2018 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[gyroprotagonist 2597]

4 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

People don’t understand how stories are told.  You hear a lot things like people asking for spinoffs of everything featuring minor characters because of it.  But those characters work because they are minor. 

so are you telling me Max Headroom tv series was doomed from the start?

[HornsOverIthaca 2339]

19 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

so are you telling me Max Headroom tv series was doomed from the start?

[Spankytoes 1748]

On 8/9/2018 at 10:43 AM, kopp0e said:

No, I had to see it, but my point is that why was it in the store to where one could assume it for sale..? (actually you make a good point, but)

Why would the grandkid have access to such an unstable creature..? The old man did a bad job of keeping his grandson in check... #Switches&Paddles...

The part of the story I don't like is that the old man gave up looking for his Magwai after an hour. He didn't put posters up or anything, he just sat on the porch like a goon and waited. That old man's gotta think 'You got a pet. You got a responsibility.' If your Magwai is lost you don't look for an hour then call it quits? You get your ass out there, and you find that fucking Magwai!

[oSuJeff97 3438]

On 10/1/2018 at 7:41 AM, Apep said:

There’s no need to discuss John Connor being erased. The last Terminator movie introduced the idea that these are alternate timelines in a multiverse. This was just about the only good thing it did.

Yeah alternate timelines/multiverse is really the only way to get around the time travel paradox in ANY time travel movie.