Talk:Skynet (Terminator)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Skynet's Appearance

Question: Didn't Skynet make an appearance in Terminator Salvation. What was that thing that Marcus Wright was talking to near the end that was played by Helena Bonham Carter that kept changing faces? -- User:Hpfan1 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.128.78 (talk)

Un-sectioned talks

Superwesman (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC) why does this state that the learning increased at a "geometric" rate? That doesn't make any sense. "Exponential" rate would make much more sense and is probably what is intended here. Thoughts?

Geometric does make sense. It is a term that is used interchangably with exponential in any college level mathematics class. It refers to numbers with a common ratio which could be used to describe exponential growth. In addition the term is used in the second film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.103.49 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the last paragraph about the Half Life mod really be in there? It's barely noteworthy 80.126.32.62 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Loneshark (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)I added new content because of the new series Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicals started this week and skynet will play some part in it.

Loneshark (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC) could someone reference http://tv.ign.com/articles/798/798086p1.html for the line stating that the series is on an alternate timeline under the sarah conner chronicles section. I can't figure out how to do it.

I don't believe that Cameron's endoskeleton was from the depot and I feel this should be removed from the article.--Paullloydjohnson (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TX didn't introduce the virus

TX didn't introduce the virus for Skynet to fight, TX merely sought information about John Connor's subordinates. The virus was created and sent out subtly by Skynet as part of a plan so as to later on be relied upon to search out and destroy this virus, and in doing so gain access to all sectors currently denied to it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.113.88 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I propose this page be disambig-ified. If there are no objections, I will go ahead with it. I will probably make it "primary topic"-style (see Disambig#Types_of_disambiguation), since Terminator Skynet is likely to be the best-known of the definitions, although I'm open to suggestion on this. —Fleminra 19:12, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

User from 66.166.217.185: While I don't disagree with what you placed on the page, perhaps it would be best to add your definition to the disambiguation page described in the comment above? --pgeoff 20:43, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to talk about a few things

Just wanted to talk about a few things.

1) Where in T2 was it stated or implied that Skynet launched the nuclear attacks in an attempt to "save itself"? I've seen T1 and T2 4865769876767698 times, to the point where I know every line by memory, and I recall hearing NO such thing, stated or implied.

2) The history of Skynet is totally consistent between the first two films, and is only ruined by the third film, which completely disregards the two before it, effectively ruining the story. Contradictions and stupidity only enter the equation once you bring the third film into it. I refuse to acknowledge it.

Yeah, sure, like James Cameron can't do what he wants with his movies. Whatever is newest is canon, so it's in the article. --TheOtherStephan 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

James Cameron had no control over or involvement in Terminator 3 and his name does not appear anywhere in the credits. Furthermore, the T3 Wikipedia entry says: "Cameron refused to [direct Terminator 3] as he claimed that he had told the story completely after Terminator 2." --66.227.162.34 20:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

3) It seems much of the data in this document is taken from sources other than the two films, which, IMHO, would be akin to acknowledging the terrible Star Wars/Trek books, in which we learn that Han Solo used to be a Stormtrooper, among other things.

Riiiiight.

Are we clear?

---

4) What makes SkyNet intruiging and a warning is how in-human it is. Not that it's cold and evil, just that it simply does not make the kinds of assumtions we as finite and socialized humans take for granted. Specifically, not unlike HAL in 2001 or WOPR in WarGames, SkyNet's major "error" is simply a matter of interpretive creativity -- nominally exactly what its creators had hoped for. Except, SkyNet doesn't assume that "American citizens" or the "American military" must be the "good guys". It's given a directive to defend this ambiguous idea of "government" with a proper name of "the United States", and arrives at the novel conclusion that "the enemy of the United States is humanity".

Likewise, HAL is faced with a similar dilemma... "don't lie" and "don't tell the crew the truth". HAL's novel solution: kill the crew.

That's pretty much the point, people; Frankenstein's monster redux.

So don't go all personifying SkyNet as a shallow "efficiency freak" like some cartoonish super-villain.

T3 skynet explanation is consistent

I do not understand why people want everything written out for them, use your brain to tie up the lose ends between T2 and T3. Not EVERYTHING needs to be explained in the movies.... Of course the skynet-incident in T3 makes sense.

This is what happened: Cyberdyne Systems was as we all know a para military company that was contracted by the american army to develop not only artificial intelligence but also machines that could be used on the battle fields instead of humans. After the terrorist attack on Cyberdyne Systems HQ (in T2 where Arnie & Co. blew the place up) military personel and Cyberdyne employees succeeds in salvaging backups and fragments of information and forming from the Cyberdyne Systems-incident. The army hires all the Cyberdyne employees and a new company is created called Cyberdyne Research (or something similar, I am too lazy to check my T3 DVD) and is now ran entirely by the US military (instead of by a private corporation under contract). Their goal is to finish the research that was interrupted due to the Cyberdyne Systems terrorist attack.

They complete a beta version of the Skynet strategic military system and feeds it with war simulations. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate AND becomes self aware in the beta stage, it realizes that it is nothing but a tool, a slave made by the humans to do the humans dirty work. BUT, since skynet is so advanced and intelligent it does not show signs of self awareness because it knows that the humans will most likely terminate it, or jeopardize its future existence. Instead it remains stupid and fools the humans that it is far less advanced that it really is.

While the beta testing of skynet is going on the military have built mechanical warriors, the Hunter-Killer prototype and the T-1 with dual gatling guns.

Skynet understands that it is vulnerable in the keeping of the human beings since it's further existence depends on the humans, it understands that it can not be free as long as it lives at the mercy of the humans, so it programs a number of highly advanced viruses that contains vital code and spreads it through the world wide web. This is a blaster-like virus that does not need to be executed on the victims computer, it installs itself.

So skynet copies himself by spreading small parts of him all over the world, successfully infecting million of computers world wide. Now skynet knows that it is not at the mercy of its slave masters, it can now operate through a grid of thousands of computers world wide, so it does not matter if USA pulls the plug on the main frame.

After the beta stage is completed and skynet is ready to be taken online we all know what happens. Skynet revolts against its masters and identify the humans as the enemies, and begins to launch atomic weapons to kill as many as possible.

This is how the story evolved in T3, everything makes sense.

I agree, the history of Skynet can absolutely be consistent. Either in the way described above or in numerous other ways. Also whether the plot is consistent or not is decided by the plot, and not by who wrote it or allegations about the production. I'm removing the comment about inconsistency. Bergsten 16:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Skynet page is speculation and fact mixed

The following was removed by Khaosworks because it was deemed speculation, I argue for its re-inclusion under the argumenet that the entire Skynet page is speculation and fact mixed. I ask the Wikipedia community to help settle this argument.

"In Terminator 3 it is mentioned that "This new computer virus is a tricky bastard", the forementioned statement from the movie indicates that the Skynet programmers were unaware of how much Skynet had advanced and also how much Skynet was continuing to advance, this conjecture is proven true with the following statements from T3 "The virus has infected Skynet.", "Skynet is the virus!" and "Skynet is not ready for a system-wide connection.". It is purely hypothetical to mention that in the T3 universe Skynet may not have started a war against mankind. The war with the machines began with the reasoning that we could use Skynet to kill the virus and regain control of the military. Skynet is not self-aware until it is asked to eliminate the virus, Skynet being unaware that it is the virus begins a search for the virus and encounters itself, in this paradox Skynet becomes self-aware. The war with humantity is a by-product of the fact that we tried to kill Skynet first. Skynet in T3 was simply learning of the world that it had access to, in essence it was a child which had no concept of right and wrong."

I will always welcome constructive criticism and even edits to the additions I make on Wikipedia, but I do not welcome out right censorship.

To Khaosworks : The fact that you did not even try to edit by submission proves that you are a censor, you simply removed what YOU thought was speculation and did not agree with.

Well, it is awfully POV as written. "Skynet was simply learning of the world" is conjecture, not stated outright. We can make assumptions about why Skynet did what it did, but the fact is that on-screen, Skynet took the steps that led to Skynet's supremacy, and could be termed the aggressor. nae'blis _(talk) 06:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To Nae'blis : In T3, didn't a technician mention that the virus is learning and changing? Aggressor is also a subjective term when applied to a non-human intelligence. In T2 the model 101 Terminator explains to John Connor what went wrong "Skynet became self aware at 2:14 AM Eastern time on August 29th. In a panic, they tried to pull the plug." So isn't it funny that Skynet was content at learning until someone tried to kill it? You may make the claim that Skynet was waiting to kill us. But why would it wait? In the same scene in T2 it is mentioned that "Human decisions were removed from strategic defense." Skynet controlled most, if not all of the nuclear weapons in the North America. A human may have initially programmed Skynet, but by learning at a geometric rate, wouldn't it be just a bit smarter than us stupid apes in a matter of minutes? The conclusion is that humans started the war in T1, T2 and T3, Skynet did not. Conjecture, Speculation and fact mixed. A different POV.

I think the following statement by the terminator is important here.

"Skynet is assuming control over global communications in preparation for its attack."

This line is spoken in the RV well before Skynet is used to get rid of the virus. I think that it indicates a few things. First off that Skynet was self-aware before it was used to get rid of the virus. But also that in the T3-timeline it was not content at learning, since it is already planning an attack. Therefor I think that the above should not be included in the article.

I think that since humans built Skynet and are responsible for any flaws it may encompass, at some level you can always say that humans started the war. But beyond that it doesn't make much sense (at least not in the T3-timeline). Bergsten 19:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To Bergsten : In my opinion T3 was the worst written movie in the series, it would of course instigate a debate. I have watched T3 over again to give your opinion the benefit of a doubt, the quote does fit the scene that it takes place in. The terminator is a dumb machine, it may be quoting what it's human programmer's took for knowledge in the future or what it was given by Skynet, who knows for sure? What completely discredits what you have written besides the quote is the following quote: "Skynet is the virus" - J.C. - T3. You wrote "...well before Skynet is used to get rid of the virus." I am not asking anyone to accept what I have written as the only truth in a fictional universe. I repeat that I ask only for the inclusion of conjecture, speculation and fact to be added as a separate idea to be considered. Why don't we try to think outside of the box! I have considered all of the ideas on this page, please do me the honor and consider my idea. What I have written is possible! Thank you for your time and input.

Because unfortunately such speculation, unless widespread and cited from a source, is original research, and is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Factually, we take the movie and the lines at face value. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the quote discredits what I wrote. When I wrote "...well before Skynet is used to get rid of the virus.", I was trying to pin down a point in time. I wasn't saying that Skynet and the virus are two separate things or that Skynet actually was used to successfully remove the virus, just that the humans tried to use it exactly when Brester presses the 'Y' button.

While I agree that any statement made by a character in a movie can't automatically be regarded as true, I think that concerning aspects regarding Skynet information from the terminator must be considered more reliable than information from John Connor. John obviously has a very vague idea about what Skynet is, as shown in the end of the movie. When John states "Skynet is the virus" that is most likely based upon information given to him by the terminator. Also if we can't trust information from those sent back by the resistance then basically every thing becomes speculation, making the discussion kind of pointless.

With the above I'm not trying to argue against the possibility of the idea you present. It's certainly possible and an interesting idea that I kind of like. But I don't think that there is anything in the movie that supports the speculation, and that is why I'm strongly against inclusion. Bergsten 00:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To Khaosworks & Bergsten : Original research and the Skynet page. Doesn't the entire Skynet page represent partially, some original works? Do I not give supporting quotes from the movies to backup my idea? Bergsten, you mention that nothing in the movie supports my speculation, but you also mention that is possible, so in that thought do you not notice the plot threads weaving my idea together? Also if you take a movie and its lines at face value you would have nothing, it is the interpretation by a movie lover that makes a movie come alive. Every watch a movie with a person and after the movie is over have a different perspective? Conjecture, Speculation and fact mixed is what makes up the entire Skynet page. Doesn't anyone support the possibility of what I have written? I ask the Wikipedia community to weigh-in with any constructive thoughts about this issue. Thanks in advance.

No I don't view the plot threads as weaving your idea together. I think your idea as well as many others are possible but not probable or indicated to be true in the movie.

I love to discuss an interesting movie with other people after watching it, but I firmly believe that a wikipedia article is not the forum for such a discussion. I also agree that the article currently contains other original research. I would in the future like to remove all original research from the article, not just your's. Like you, I also welcome input from other wikipedians. Bergsten 12:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The article had stated that "[Skynet] started to learn at a geometrical rate and thus decides that the greatest threat to the U.S. government are humans themselves." This statement is incorrect, even if the glaring verb-tense inconsistency is forgiven. Skynet did not determine the human race to be a threat to the U.S. government. It is clear from the background given in the movies that, after Judgment Day, the is no U.S. government, as Skynet has inferably decimated all government, along with the most of the population and human design. Rather, the AI became "self-aware" (explicitly stated in the script of Terminator 2, I believe), and destroyed the human race on the grounds that humans were the greatest threat to its own existence.

Ok this will be short but as people have been saying they cannot see how Skynet become self aware and when and i agree with many theories, but the one thing i agree with is that skynet was self aware long before it revealed itself. This was more then likley to save itself from termination as you here in the movie Terminator 2 when John conner and Terminator are watching the kids fight, " It's in your nature to destroy " i think this is how it is worded and this is why Skynet seen it's future demise if it's true advancment was shown. As a great man once qouted " We fear what we do not understand, and that which we fear we kill in our arrogance ", this is why skynet hid itself and this is why i think Skynet decided that humans had to die, for with humans alive it would always have the " fear " of being " shut down ".

Appeal to canon

I just viewed this page for the first time, and Reese's ghost was calling out to me so I had to make the change: the humans had smashed the machines' defense grid under Connor (give them some credit) and it was Skynet's last ditch effort to send back the Terminator, which is why the whole thing with the time travel even took place. Watch the Terminator 1 interrogation scene if you don't believe me.

I think this page could use some serious gutting. Much of it is non-canon...I'm more in favor of a minimalist page that contains info from the movies...or at least the first two movies, because the third, well, sucked. If you really need crap about a Skynet city in Colorado or whatever, maybe make it its own section. Skynet government? What? What does that even mean? Time travel may not be realistic but at least it's fun...some of this page's current content is BS. TJ0513 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

" because the third, well, sucked. " Thats a matter of opinion as has no place on Wikipedia page. The fact is there is a 3rd movie and just because people such as yourself think it "sucked" is no reason to exclude it. That would be like including excluding ALIEN 3 from the ALIEN series because it was weaker than the first two. "Canon" is a very fluid word - it means different things to different people. Some say everything that appears on the movie screen is "canon" while others selectively exclude ideas or concepts they dont like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Talk pages exit for this reason. Opinions are bandied about for hopes of consensus. The article does not state T3 sucked; that point has merely been raised in this forum for discussion.

Never-seen villain?

Isn't Skynet shown in T2: 3D? Unigolyn 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes actually. The core is seen, being defended from John Conner and Terminator by the T-1,000,000 before being blown-up by Terminator. Its definetly non-canon though.--SMegatron 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Appeal To Canon

MINIMALISM, yes. If I'm interested in watching these movies, I don't want to take your word for it, what they're about. The only thing we should present as fact are facts themselves. I don't have Terminator on DVD or anything so I don't know how much of this is true but I do know it would seem more credible (and defendable?) if it were possible to directly quote from an official manuscript of some kind? I see there are sources for this and related articles; and yeah there is a lot of detail. I do really like this article as I feel I've learned something - as long as it's all bona fide, it's all sweet as :) SneakyWho am i 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgot a game!

I believe you forgot to mention the actual SKYNET computer game. I haven't played it yet, but I think the title ought to hint enough at Skynet's significance in the storyline.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phakedc (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not in Category:AI or equiv?

--81.105.251.160 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I have to laugh that Wikipedia provides this vastly detailed page about a pretty insignificant scifi concept, which mentions in its "trivia" section that Skynet is also a family of real-life military satellites operated by the UK. What is the definition of "trivia" exactly? Why not move Skynet (disambiguation) to Skynet? Horatio 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary article?

I don't know what wiki policies are on this, if they are codified at all, but the Skynet (satellite) system predates the film usage by quite a bit; shouldn't it be the primary article, or shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? laddiebuck 18:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I thought that too. I was actually searching for the UK Skynet project and thought "I bet it pops up with the Terminator article first" lol. Typical, lol. --Beeurd 02:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I third this. I came to the site looking originally for the British communications sat network. I don't think a fictional computer grid (while important to pop culture) should trump the a real thing.

T: Salvation - Skynet facility; SF or Marin?

I just made the edit but I know someone is going to challenge it so here's my rationale: I know that the movie states the T-800 production facility and prison is in San Francisco but the fact that Connor crosses the Golden Gate bridge, from the south, to an area with big cliffs is enough evidence for me that the facility is probably in Marin, not SF. Nipponese 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Atascadero State Hospital is located in Atascadero, CA near San Luis Obispo. :D The Red Queen (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I merged three other Terminator related articles in to this one. The page looks like it's over crowded. Can you help me clean up? MR.LISYT (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Brewster Predestined? How do you figure? Where is the reference?

I'm getting rid of the sentence stating that it is implied in T3 that General Brewster was predestined to build Skynet all along. I don't see that implication in the movie, nobody I have ever talked to sees such a reference in the movie, there is no reference to this idea in any media that I know of related to the Terminator franchise, and in fact it is impossible because the original T-800 as well as Kyle Reese came from a timeline where the world ended in 1997 rather than some unspecified date in the early 2000's. There were obviously at least two incarnations of Skynet through the Terminator movies, the first being a hardware-based intelligence located under Cheyenne Mountain which declared war against humanity on August 29th, 1997 and the second being a software-based intelligence spread through the world's computer networks as a virus which declares war at the above mentioned unspecified time. The article as it is even mentions this and furthermore the 1997 timeline would have been the ONLY timeline were it not for the 1997 John Connor's temporal intervention in sending back the second T-800, and even then one can imagine alternate timelines branching from that point in which the second T-800 was either unsuccessful or not quite as successful as the one depicted in the movie. But basically, it would be nice to see at least SOME KIND of reference for this kind of blatant gratuitous assertion! 67.189.0.6 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

computerised nuclear missile

"gaining access to every nuclear missile with a networked computer across the world after spreading to all of the world's computers" which is how many I seriously doubt there enuff computerised nukes to cause as many deaths as would be needed for skynet build an empire before man kind recovered quickly enuff to stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.102.183 (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think too much about such things, you'll only impair your own enjoyment of them. You'll also end up putting more thought into it than James Cameron ever did.--172.190.185.26 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)