Talk:Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (timeline)

From Terminator Wiki

What was with all the spelling and grammar errors? It was like it was translated from Spanish or something.

Anyway, if it is not 100% established in Terminator 3 that the future John Connor on this time line sent a Kyle Reese and a T-800 to fulfill the first two Terminator movies (with Skynet sending it's own T-800 and T-1000 of course), I don't think we should necessarily assume he did. I can understand how different people might have different ideas on how time travel works, but I think if we take the NPOV stance, these items should at least be given their own section and it should be called attention to the fact they may not have happened in this time line. It is entirely possible that a John Connor would get things confused and send them anyway regardless of whether it made any sense to do so, but we could call attention to that as well.

Also, are we using "timeline" or "time line"? (SkyClear 05:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

I see that a version of this was done on the previous two time line pages. I looked at the T3 time line first. However, the first two time line pages suffer from a bit of redundancy and hence confusion. (SkyClear 05:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

I believe it would be correct to use the term "timeline" instead of "time line". I might be missing something here, but why do you say that John Connor didn't sent back Kyle Reese in the Terminator 3 timeline? Ascaaear 10:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a different Kyle in that timeline. Unless you believe there is one "sacred" timeline, it seems obvious the first Kyle Reese was already sent back in time from another less altered timeline and doing it again is redundant. Feel free to disagree, but I think it should be noted as it is on the T2 timeline page. (SkyClear 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Seems right. I have no problem making a note about it one the page. Feel free to do it :) Ascaaear 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this wiki but I've been having some thoughts about T3 and I thought that maybe you experienced guys could look into solving a few issues. Anyway, as people are happy to rearange or move events around to fit the SCC why cant the events of T1 and T2 be moved to fit what is established in T3? As in the opening narration John says he was 13 for T2 but during the film it states that this was 10 years ago. This would move the events of T1 back to occuring in 1981/1982 with a very young teenage Sarah becoming pregnant? T2 would still be in the right place for the T3 timeline to work? So, can this be moved or not? (Ccatkins 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

If I understand you right, you want to change dates of previous (T1 and T2) pages so it fits to what happend in T3 and SCC. My opinion is that we have to have the most accurate information, no matter which page you are looking at. As you might have discovered, there are certain information that doesn match from movie to movie. Rather than changing all dates according to the latest movie (or tv-series), it would be more accurat to make a little note about it. You see, when watching T1 and T2 today, you still have to take the dates as accurate. And another thing, it's ok to have some speculation, but as I wrote above, the information have to be as accurate as possible. Ascaaear 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, what i'm saying is that each individual movie and timeline should be consistant within itself. So for the T3 Timeline to be accurate and consistant with the movie the date for T1 needs to be adjusted so that John is 13(ish) in T2 which was 10 years(ish) before T3 (so the T2 date doesn't need to be altered). I'm only suggesting altering the dates on the T3 timeline page as has been done on the SCC timeline page (Both dates for T1 & T2 have been changed on that page to match what we know from on screen dialogue). The change for John's DOB would also make it more plausable that he was in Mike Kripskys basement smooching the day before T2? (Ccatkins 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)).

I agree with you. The date should be what is known when watching the movie itself. As long as we make a note/reference that explains it when there are differences, it's ok by me. Ascaaear 09:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind making the edit so that this gets stated clearly as I'm a bit nervous about making such a drastic change. Thanks(Ccatkins 13:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)).

Which dates exactly do you have in mind? I tried to look over the dates, and as far as I know the dates are correct according to what is mentioned in T3. I am sorry, but I don't have time to digg deeply into the sources and double check dates at the moment. I do changes to the timeline pages from time to time, but as I am busy with other things its hard to do it right now. If you have suggestion for changes I would really like to hear about them. Just post them here at the "talk" page, and we can discuss it further. On the other hand, don't be afraid of doing changes... as all revisions are saved, it can always be change back. Just remember to make references to sources, and try to add info instead of remove (unless it's completly wrong). Ascaaear 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The dates that I'm talking about are for the events of T1 and John's DOB to acount for him being 13 during T2 and 23 during T3. These would need to be altered on the T3 timeline to make this timeline consistant with itself and T3. I'll have a think about the wording and the edits during the week, as you say it can always be reveresed if people don't agree.(Ccatkins 19:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)).

I agree on that. It should be changed... do you have the correct dates? Ascaaear 06:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the opening narration for T3 John was 13 as of the events of T2 which, as mentioned on screen, was 10 years ago. I would suggest that the easiest way to make this change would be to move the events of T1 and John's birth back by exactly 3 years as no specific dates have been mentioned in ant source, as far as I know? Moving these dates would also mean that logically John's first meeting with Kate Brewster would only have happened in the T3 timeline and not in other the other timelines where he would have been too young to have taken part in the basement activities?(Ccatkins 10:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

The more I look into it, the more complicated it is. It doesn't seem that easy to just change the year without other more hard facts. The problem is that there are still too many combinations... Either John can be born in 1985 and the events of T2 can be set in 1998 and John would then be 22 in T3, or John's DOB can be moved back 3 years to 1982. We don't know. I can't remember if John's age in 2004 (in T3) has been mentioned. Have you any sources that? I believe the events of T1 are more or less "set in the stone", even for T3. I guess thats what I did, to just use the dates from T1 and T2 because thats more canon than T3 itself. Until we find out something more, I expanded the note/reference on these dates where it explains this matter deeply. Ascaaear 12:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok,After reviewing some of T3 I have these 'facts'. On screen evidence says that T3 happens in 2004. The opening naration states that John was 13 in T2. In dialogue with the T850 John says that they destroyed skynet and stopped judgement day over 10 years ago. Sarah Connor died in 1997 after surviving judgement day, I believe this to be the judgement day of August 1997. What do you think? (Ccatkins 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)).

I believe they are referring to the Judgment Day in T3 as July 25, 2004 5:18 pm Eastern Time. Where exactly do you find the events to be 2003?. Jupp, you are correct about the previous Judgment Day to be in August 1997... August 29 to be exactly. Sarah does say that in T2. T3 only states that John were 13 (instead of 10) last time he met a robot, which for many is considered a glitch. But still IMO, it doesn't give us any hard facts which dates that has to be changed. Ascaaear 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in T3 judgement day is July 25, 2004 but John was previously told that judgement day was August 29, 1997. Sarah Connor lived past the original stated date of judgement day so T2 must have happened before this date, and before she was diagnosed with her fatal illness that stayed with her for 3 years and killed her in 1997, after August 29th obviously. 1997 minus 3 years means that she was diagnosed in 1994 ish, I still think that the previous date for T2 can work according to info in T3 as the '10 years ago' references (of which I count at least 2) can be approximate. And yes I know that many people ignore the reference to John being 13 as a mistake but Kate Brewster also says that he disapeared during 8th grade, the day before T2, which would put him at 13/14. This makes it two dialogue references. The dates for the other films cannot be fixed as both have been adjusted to fit info given in the SCC, but only for that timeline. The dates on the T1 and T2 timelines themselves are correct for those timelines.

What if Skynet of one timeline was able to find records of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese being apprehended in 1984 and also that the T800 was a suspect in multiple homisides so decided to send back the T800 to an earlier time to when Sarah would have been potentially more vulnerable, because skynet doesn't believe in pre-destination, and tried to kill her before John's birth but things still turned out as we know they did and John was conceived that much earlier? This would then mean that there would be records of this event for the next timeline skynet to find and then try to change, possibly resulting in the altered date for T1 needed for John's DOB in the SCC timeline?

So I would say that these are the changes that need to be made to fit evidence as given in T3 to make that timeline internally consistant. John needs to have been born early enough to be 13 in T2 (people dont usually round ages) but T2 can still happen in 1995, 9 ish years before T3. John and Kate can only have kissed in the T3 timeline as a whiney 10 year old would not have been smooching with a 15 year old, so this reference needs to be removed from all other timelines?

I haven't mentioned anything to do with 2003, or perhaps I did in an erased timeline?(Ccatkins 22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

As for Sarah's DOB as listed on her grave stone, couldn't this just be misinformation so that Skynet can't track down her actual grave site, via electronic records, for whatever purpose? Otherwise she would be a lot older during T1 unless this too gets moved to an earlier date?(Ccatkins 20:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)).

Sarah would have been born in 1967 as she was supposed to be 17 during the events of The Terminator. Kyle was 22, making his birthdate sometime in 2007. As you can see, the dates are all messed up. When Derek took John to see his father for his birthday, Kyle would have been a baby, not a five year old. sec_1971 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that she was 19 in T1 making her DOB in 1965? (Ccatkins 16:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, T3 actually messed up a lot and Sarah Connor Chronicles did too. When dealing with dates I always trying to stick with the sources which are closest to James Cameron's work. I see T1 and T2 as the most reliable sources. James Cameron never worked on T3, but Arnold still acted in it, so I see that movie a little less canon than the first movies. The tv-series (Sarah Connor Chronicles) has driven even further away from the original cast and crew... I believe there are a few person that works on SCC that also were involved in T3. I dont really remember now. This article has a basic explanation of the different sources.

My opinion is that you have to take into account on how close the source is to James Camerons work, and rather point out the differences as a note. You cant really rely on "what if..."-info. There are too many people with too many opinions, so it would be a total mess on this wiki.Ascaaear 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO I would say that each film and source has its own timeline which is effectively created by the events of the previous film (or source) but this does make things confusing and means that we can never have a precise or consistant timeline of events? But it is fun knocking around these ideas. I guess that we will have to wait to see what T4 throws into the mix, either to clear some of this up or adding to the mix? (Ccatkins 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC))