Talk:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

T-800 = Arnold Terminator

Will people stop changing Cromartie's description to "Arnold Terminator". That specific model is the T-800, calling it an "Arnold Terminator" is not only redundant, but incorrect, as he was but one of many models of the series. So please, leave it as T-800.

While I absolutely agree that the "Arnold Terminator" description should be removed, it has not yet been revealed what model number Cromartie is. So assuming it is a T-800 is incorrect. (For Eg: Arnold in T3 is a T-850 as he has modifications from the T-800 Units. In SCC we are dealing with essentially a different Skynet, which goes online in 2011, so Cromartie could clearly be a further modified version. Until it is revealed what model Cromartie is, the description should just detail the abilities we know he has.Tullyano7

Of course, Cromartie really can't be a T-800, as he (in all likeliness) comes from a future, where the T-800 never came into existence, or at least, not as we would know it. However, it's still true that Cromartie's model has a lot in common with the T-800/850.

I thought the first movie referred to Arnold as Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. --Neilrieck (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In Terminator and Terminator 2, Schwarzenegger played a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101. Series 800 is the endo-skeleton, and Model 101 is the Arnold-looking outer body. Meaning that a Model 102 would look like someone else. In Terminator 3 Schwarzenegger played a Cyberdyne Systems Series 850 Model 101.
The older fake/rubber looking Terminators were Series 600. See Terminator (character) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As the Terminator (character) article states, in the first two movies he is only called "The Terminator" and a "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101". T3 calls him a T-101. Anything with an '8' in it, is not in the movies. So, yes, Neilrieck, you are correct. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Series 800 Model 101 Version 2.4 is shown on-screen in the director's cut of Terminator 2. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Reese says he's a T-800 Model 101, in the "very tough" line, with the specs for the titanium battle skeleton. 70.55.84.253 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. He doesn't. He just says Model 101. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the conclusion that Arnold's Terminator was T-800 in the fan community seems to come from Kyle Reese's reference to the 600 series having rubber skin and being easy to spot, combined with the fact that the advanced prototype in T2 was a T-1000. Logically Arnold's model is somewhere in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.111.115.81 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode 4 of season 1 - "Heavy Metal" - shows a short sequence in which Cameron displays a video for the Connors. She zooms the video in to show Cromartie's head lying behind Sarah on the film. The on-screen 'head-up display' identifies the head as a component of a 'T-888' model. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But we already knew this, didn't we? :o) - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What model would the infiltrating terminator played by Franco Columbu in T1 be then? Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be heresy to suggest that it probably doesn't matter all that much? That's a brief clip of Kyle's dream or a flashback; it doesn't really go into detail except that a terminator got into the resistance compound. It fooled the humans but not the dogs - but it was fairly dark, so we can't even rule out a 600. In the end, though, the movie doesn't give any indication, and it's not really all that important. - Shrivenzale (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Not important. Especially not important to this article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The snack chip

I feel stupid even mentioning this, but this is the kinda thing that people tend to obsess about, so: I removed the comment about Cameron (Glau's terminator) eating the snack chip being "never seen before". There's actually a deleted scene from the first film where the original terminator eats a candy bar. It's on the 2003 "Special Edition" DVD if you want to verify it. I played around with the text for a bit, trying to come up with wording that could allow for this, but everything I came up with was really cumbersome. I eventually just gave up, as it really doesn't add anything special to the article. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see someone else caught this. I, however, think the entire mention of Cameron being the first terminator to consume food should be removed entirely, as it's clearly not fact. Regardless of weither it was in the final product in the first film or not, it was James Cameron's concept that the T-800 could consume food to extend the life of the biological components (the skin began to necrotize almost instantly, at a very slow pace, however) and it is as a whole, accepted by critics, fans, and viewers in general as a fact. Victis Kato (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's worth noting, but if you have a citation for Cameron's concept (to satisfy WP:V), I think it could be worth changing the sentence to say that it was the first time "onscreen" for a Terminator, possibly with a parenthetical comment about James Cameron's original concept. (Or possibly, leave "onscreen" in here, or just expand the main article on Cameron Phillips.) --Umrguy42 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a Continuity Error that no one can argue with

I started a topic a while back regarding a Continuity Error, but no one seems to believe me because it required actual research and people were using this as an excuse not to break the continuity of the series with the first 2 movies. I decided to let it fly because I knew that the series would screw something else that would be even more obvious.

Now the wait is over, the series blew it. In the episode that just played tonight (EP7), Sarah talked about the date on the tape that John saw when she signed the papers that would remove her parental rights, the year of that date was 1997. Now Terminator 2 takes place in 1995, so unless any of you are willing to say that the events in that movie took place in the cycle of 2 years (from when the T-1000 arrive until they break Sarah out of the metal institute), then the writers $#%&-up.

I appreciate the T1 and T2 references in that series, but they really didn't do their homework, putting aside T3 is one thing, but screwing dates from the previous movies and trying to state the the series is a sequel, then that's just wrong.

Anyone wishes to argue with me before I add this Continuity Error to the article?

Duhman0009 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for adding this to the article. But for me personally, they already broke continuity back in episode 4 when Cromartie's metal head went through the time dilation device, breaking the major conceit in T1 that Terminators cannot travel through time without an organic covering. Annie D (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ya, I forgot about that. Kyle did say that this was the only way the Terminators could travel through time. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Terminator head had enough "flesh" on it to pass through the time portal. But the flesh burned off immediately after it entered 2007. And I noticed that 1997 error too. But it's already been established in the series that T2 happened in 1994 (they say so in the first episode). It's just a minor mistake that's not worth whining about. -- 134.154.122.221 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

True about the head, I just watched in slow motion, he was already in the time portal when Sarah shot him with the big electric gun. His body was repelled but his head remained in the portal, de-fleshed. As for the date issue, I'll continue below. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd still need to find some source to make this observation, or otherwise validate it. The problem is in avoiding original research and forming our own conclusions about material. You might be better off developing the text here, rather than in the article, and then adding it to the article when consensus is reached. Just a thought... -Ckatz^chat_spy —Preceding comment was added at 04:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You sing an old song, but it's not going to work this time. All I need to find is a reliable source that states that T2 takes place in 1995 and that will be the end of it. It's probably somewhere in the movie, so I'll just pop this bad boy in my DVD this week and check it out for myself. Duhman0009 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; see in particular WP:SYN. You should find a third party reliable source noting the continuity error. Even if you find a source claiming T2 takes place in 1995, your inference, however true, amounts to OR. This may seem too strict, but think about it: if it's allowed then anyone can use Wikipedia to publish their personal opinions, and Wikipedia becomes a battle between people who disagree with each other's inferences, or disagree with the significance of each other's conclusions. WP:OR forces you to find some other, independent source that thinks your criticism is important, which increases the likelihood that it actually is important. I, for one, do not think continuity errors are important; a more consise answer to you woud be: "A Wizard Did It". Just enjoy the action and the beautiful actresses. Who cares about continuity errors.Fritter (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Who cares about minor continuity errors like this? You could always say that Sarah was just mistaken - anyone could make that mistake (today I accidentally put down on a piece of paper that date was the year 1998). They've already established in the first episode that T2 happened in 1994 (the 1999 Agent Elison said something on the lines of: "Your fiance killed a man five years ago"). So, there's no need to get all excited and start shouting "Ooohhh! Error! Error!" -- 134.154.122.221 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about when James Ellison told Charley Dixon about Sarah after she and John left him, then that's wrong. I just watched EP1, he said she blew up Skynet 2 years earlier, making this 1997, not 1994 (series takes place 1999). Also, since you kind of broke the ice with the mockery here, I might as well do the same by accusing you of fanboyisim, I mean after all, you're entire posting history as to do with this TV series, so perhaps your opinion is in regards of preventing negative aspects to the article. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't really recall that part. I thought she meant "two years before the original Judgement Day (which takes place in 1997)." What was the exact line? -- 134.154.122.221 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

From the opening credit, 9 minutes and 30 seconds, James Ellison tells Charley Dixon this after he tells him that Miles Dyson is dead: Your fiancée firstly escaped from the Pescadaro mental hospital, blew him apart 2 years ago Duhman0009 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys.... I think we should all just calm down and treat this issue like Star Trek's infamous "How did Kahn and Checkov recognize each other?" issue. Or for that matter, in the Horatio Hornblower miniseries - the characters talk about King George II, when at that time it was actually King George III who was around. Or like that timeline error made in BSG's "Downloaded" - which was subsequently fixed in the DVDs. Just let it go for now. Maybe it'll be dealt with in the DVDs - or they'll correct it in future (hopefully) episodes. -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What? Dude, can you use examples that most people can refer to cause I have no idea what they hell you were talking about there :P. Getting back to the main subject, part of Wikipedia's existence is to give out facts about things, people and events, both good and bad. A large portion of people still consider Wikipedia to be a joke, let's not give them some more fuel for the fire by trying to leave out the negative aspects of things and make everyone here look like fanboys. Duhman0009 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about sources from a reliable website, we're talking about the media themselves, the T2 movie and the TV series. Like I said, I'll watch the movie this week and if I see anything indicating that it takes place in 1995, I'm putting it in the article. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is my take on this, and as always, you must all nod in unison. Continuity errors in general are trivia. They are not important, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, the series is internally consistent. They have always referred to the events of T2 as happening in 1997. Who's to contradict them? No matter how much anybody watches T2, they will not find a direct reference to the date. On a computer screen, it says John is 10. After some extrapolating with is birthday that is seen on the screen, it could be late 1995 or early 1996. Now, 1996 is suspiciously close to 1997.

The characters never actually say 1997. They say 2 years before 1999. However, has anyone ever heard of rounding error? If it was 1 day before John's 11th birthday in T2, and it was 2 years 5 months and 29 days after T2 in the 1999 segments of the show, it's possible that they could actually get within a few days of each other. I haven't done the actual calculations. But the "two years ago" remark can be attributed to them rounding down from 2 years and some change. So see, I can rebut OR with my own. That's why we need a definite source not only for 1995, but also for 1997. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally a hawk for continuity, but I generally agree with the last poster. There are so many differences in the dates and what can be inferred from them between the movies and the series, why quibble. Perhaps we should just look at the movies in their entirety as another continuity. We can use T1 and T2 to give us general back stories, but shouldn't look at them as set in stone either. In T3 John states he was 13 during T2, while the computer screen in T2 says he's 10. Our first thought might be to blame T3, but he sure looked older than 10 in T2. A 1995 date for T2 doesn't even really work given Arnie's description of the three years time frame to the creation of Skynet and the 1997 Judgement day either. I don't point these things out to argue about them, just to say that the timeline was already dubious before we start considering the series. If the show's consistent within itself we should be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.111.115.81 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Futon Critic

Hi -

It appears that parahraph that quotes the futon critic should be removed. According to the attributed piece,

Please note: As a courtesy, please do not reproduce these comments to newsgroups, forums or other online places. Links only please.

I think that we qualify as "other online place" but I'm not sure if technically he can request that we not attribute his critique. It does mention as a courtesy so I was thinking we ought not to go against he explicit wishes. Perhaps if we removed the direct quotes to the piece and just describe what he has to say without quoting from his article directly, that would be better? JPotter (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. I saw the text you're referring to, but I don't know if it it applies to Wikipedia in this context; Futon Critic gets quoted and referenced fairly often, and I've never heard of any requests from the site to remove material. However, I will do a search and see if the subject has come up previously. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Characters

Somebody stop undoing the character info on Cater, getting locked in a bomb shelter. Mg.mikael (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 March 2008

That was removed for a reason; please read through the edit history to see why. Further to this, please stop removing referenced material - you have repeatedly deleted properly referenced criticisms. We have to present a balanced view, not just positive spin. (Feel free to ask if you have questions about this, rather than reverting. Thanks.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the history and I see no reason why info on Carter was removed.

Petitions

I've removed the recently added text regarding a petition for a second season. First off, there's been non announcement from FOX regarding cancellation or renewal. Secondly, as with other series such as Jericho, we don't write about fan campaigns until they become noteworthy. At this point, a forum posting trying to raise support for a petition is just not notable. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

continuity error in the intro

For any continuity error section... In the intro voiceover, they say that Skynet sent one Terminator to protect John Connor. Ofcourse this could be something other than an error, but a hint for the future... 70.55.84.253 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any continuity error section -- it's trivia and original research unless it cites independent sources commenting. But I agree the intro narration is silly. It also says Skynet was "programmed" to destroy the world, but the whole idea of the show is that Skynet came up with that idea on it's own. Whatever. Fritter (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, it reprogrammed itself to destroy the world. -- MisterRandom2 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Futon Critic (again)

Any news on including this as per author's wishes? An editor is removing the entire paragraph about bad reviews, I think it should remain. Any comments? RaseaC (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely bad reviews should be included, as long as they're from reliable sources. The article should be a balanced look at the show, not a promotion of it. If it's the latter FOX should be paying us.Fritter (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just checked my mail, no cheque from Fox. I'll go ahead and re-add the paragraph, the other editor can raise his concerns here if necessary. You already did that! RaseaC (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph, but not because of the author's wishes; "Futon Critic" is really not a relevant source of criticism recognized beyond, well, the Futon Critic. --66.129.135.114 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Caution regarding cancellation/renewal rumors

I got it in the neck for saying this over at Bionic Woman (2007 TV series) but I don't care; I'll say it here, too. Until an official press release from Fox is issued or a major news source like Variety, AP, CNN, etc. reports it, any reports regarding cancellation OR renewal of this series needs to be taken as rumor. Among the rumors circulating is that the show is going to be back in 2009, and there's also a rumor (relating to the finale) that Summer Glau may or may not be back ... all of this stuff is unacceptable in the article per Wikipedia rules on verification unless and until we hear it from an official source. The reason I mention this is not that because it's been a problem with this article (unlike the Bionic Woman article where rumor is being considered verified fact by some) but I do expect it could become an issue if Fox takes its time making a decision. Technically they don't have to say a thing until May as to whether the show will come back or if it'll end with episode 9. That's plenty of time for rumor mills to start churning, especially if we start hearing news about the cast taking on other roles. 23skidoo (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If Fox doesn't announce that the series is coming back will fans flood the network with nuts (the metal kind that attach to bolts) until they do?

Sorry, couldn't resist, though I imagine I'm not the first to think of that idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.112 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Judgment Day

Can we finalize the year? Constant editing and changing is getting old. Tool2Die4 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's annoying, but ShadowHawk doesn't know what he's talking about. See [1]. But if you have a DVR of the last episode, it says so right in the show that it's April 21, 2011. 2029 makes no sense, as Cameron was supposed to have been sent back in 2027. Fritter (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

2011 is the correct year that needs to be listed for the sake of this article. Other dates listed for other Terminator media are different, I understand, but I concur 2011 is the year for this article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles).

unless this one's stopped, i fear we may soon lose all episode articles... 89.248.165.10 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

I think someone really needs to write a continuity section, or perhaps we can write an article about the continuity problems throughout the seriesDeftalC3AU (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you, like, read this talk page? Fritter (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)