Skynet: stupidest A.I. ever?

[StarTrek1701]

SkyNet only becomes stupid after the first movie as a result of trying to rehash the successful formula of The Terminator. Had Cameron employed even the slightest bit of imagination, he could have developed a rousing action/ adventure SF movie that actually advanced the story instead of creating these endless questions as to why, if SkyNet could send back more than one Terminator (a direct contradication of a major plot point in the first movie by the way), it didn't send 5, or 500, back to 1984 in the first place. The reason it didn't is what Reese says - the machines had already lost to the humans, the Terminator going through the time machine was a last ditch effort of total desperation. Last ditch meaning, they had NO other options, and they certainly didn't send single Terminators back to various points in time to continue trying the same stupid stategy over and over again.

The original story, and the script written for T-2 was that Skynet sent back TWO Terminators with ten years in gap just to make sure it succeeded in taking Connor out. They didn't film the scene as it would have been more expensive to shoot - around 15-18 million dollars more - in 1990 money. John Connor actually had action and dramatic scenes in the future and there was no voice over from Sarah like we finally got in T-2.

 

[nx1701g]

SkyNet only becomes stupid after the first movie as a result of trying to rehash the successful formula of The Terminator. Had Cameron employed even the slightest bit of imagination, he could have developed a rousing action/ adventure SF movie that actually advanced the story instead of creating these endless questions as to why, if SkyNet could send back more than one Terminator (a direct contradication of a major plot point in the first movie by the way), it didn't send 5, or 500, back to 1984 in the first place. The reason it didn't is what Reese says - the machines had already lost to the humans, the Terminator going through the time machine was a last ditch effort of total desperation. Last ditch meaning, they had NO other options, and they certainly didn't send single Terminators back to various points in time to continue trying the same stupid stategy over and over again.

It undermines the whole suspension of disbelief for the entire story, which is why I personally ignore that any sequels exist.

You would have hated the original novelization of the screenplay then. It included Future War scenes where we learned Skynet hadn't been destroyed as Kyle thought.

 

[StarTrek1701]

You would have hated the original novelization of the screenplay then. It included Future War scenes where we learned Skynet hadn't been destroyed as Kyle thought.

Not to bother you, Mighty One, but would you care to share what were on those scenes?

 

[DontFeedPhil]

My head hurt...

 

[nx1701g]

I was thinking this the other night. You'd think Skynet would decide to change it's stratagey by now, it failed to kill Connor in the Future and in the Past. Try something new.

Actually John Connor was killed. Skynet was still active following Connor's death also.

This is in reference to Terminator 3?

Yes. John Connor was killed in 2032. The war continued after that under the direction of Kate Connor.

 

[nx1701g]

You would have hated the original novelization of the screenplay then. It included Future War scenes where we learned Skynet hadn't been destroyed as Kyle thought.

Not to bother you, Mighty One, but would you care to share what were on those scenes?

If memory serves the novelization - it wasn't very good IMO - had portions that were expanded upon parts of the Future War. Skynet had not been completely disabled at Cheyenne Mountain, it was just a bit disoriented by it. Sort of how in the game Jenga if you take out a piece not always does it come tumbling down.

 

[Roshi]

Yes. John Connor was killed in 2032. The war continued after that under the direction of Kate Connor.

Kate? Oh you mean Katrin Broostah!!!

 

[Lapis Exilis]

SkyNet only becomes stupid after the first movie as a result of trying to rehash the successful formula of The Terminator. Had Cameron employed even the slightest bit of imagination, he could have developed a rousing action/ adventure SF movie that actually advanced the story instead of creating these endless questions as to why, if SkyNet could send back more than one Terminator (a direct contradication of a major plot point in the first movie by the way), it didn't send 5, or 500, back to 1984 in the first place. The reason it didn't is what Reese says - the machines had already lost to the humans, the Terminator going through the time machine was a last ditch effort of total desperation. Last ditch meaning, they had NO other options, and they certainly didn't send single Terminators back to various points in time to continue trying the same stupid stategy over and over again.

The original story, and the script written for T-2 was that Skynet sent back TWO Terminators with ten years in gap just to make sure it succeeded in taking Connor out. They didn't film the scene as it would have been more expensive to shoot - around 15-18 million dollars more - in 1990 money. John Connor actually had action and dramatic scenes in the future and there was no voice over from Sarah like we finally got in T-2.

I've seen T-2 and I know what it does to ignore the rules of the original story, even without any further scenes. There'd be no need to "make sure". As soon as they sent a Terminator back to 1984 they'd know if it was successful for or not because history would change. If the machines had the much more sophisticated T-1000, why send it back second rather than first? If you're dying do you hold back your big guns just in case you need to make a second attempt? There's no way to make it work. It's just sloppy storytelling done so as to make a second movie that completely rehashes the first movie's formula.

n1701xg said:
You would have hated the original novelization of the screenplay then. It included Future War scenes where we learned Skynet hadn't been destroyed as Kyle thought.

Who knows if I would have hated the original novelization? If it made those scenes fit the rules the story laid down within the book (I generally consider novelizations of movies and the movies themselves to be separate entities and they don't have to line up with each other), I'm sure I would have been fine with it. Terminator 2, 3 and most of the other spin off material purports to be direct continuations of the story begun in The Terminator, but violate the rules stated in the movie, and do not even attempt to explain that violation (though I understand TSSC at least introduces multiple timelines, the great sloppy fix all for time travel stories). That's just bad storytelling, and I object to it on principle, no matter how many cool 'splosions it brings to the screen. What's annoying is that there was a good story to be told following The Terminator, but everyone chose instead to rehash the first movie endlessly, rather than telling the rest of that story. There may be some hope for Terminator: Salvation because at least it doesn't use that same tired forumla yet again and we actually finally get to see the war.

 

[Booked_moss]

My personal theory is thay Skynet is stupid by not suceeding in the past because it is trying to ensure its own creation. Hence it does it on purpose:

T1, tech sent to the past which means in T2 tech being developed by private company which means in T3 tech further developed by milltary (independantly after t2 distruction but the ideas about the tech stem from t2 and Cyberdyne) and machine alters programming in T3 to create skynet as it knows itself and cycle begins anew.

So its ensuring its own exsistance each time, the birth/survival of John Connor is a side effect of this.

Ok only seen one or two eisodes of TSCC season one so that series might totally tear my theory apart.

 

[Captain Pike]

If the humans keep failing at defeating Skynet it's simply because NORAD is not its actual location! Skynet is in Belgium!!!

The funny thing is, I actually work for Skynet - I'm typing this from their Melbourne office at this very moment.

 

[nx1701g]

My personal theory is thay Skynet is stupid by not suceeding in the past because it is trying to ensure its own creation.

Spoiler: Ensuring its own creation?

Terminator Season two is exploring this through the introduction of Catherine Weaver. The T2 novel series also had this as the main story.

 

[nx1701g]

Yes. John Connor was killed in 2032. The war continued after that under the direction of Kate Connor.

Kate? Oh you mean Katrin Broostah!!!

Yep. Katrin Broostah.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Skynet was actually killed in 2037, but the war continued against Aquanet.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Skynet was actually killed in 2037, but the war continued against Aquanet.

Really, a can of hairspray can defet the human race. We got serious problems.

 

[Kryton]

Yeah, but how do we know that every time a Skynet plan gets thwarted (as in T2 when Sarah and Dyson took out Cyberdyne) a new, altered future scenario isn't put in place? Clearly the establishment of Skynet (and thereby the events of 1997's Judgment Day) has moved based on the actions of the Terminators and those of the Connors...so the events of the future can remain fluid while those in the present battle to prevent the worst of them from happening.

Or I could just be reaching here.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Well, that's the problem with time travel stories. To actually work they have to be pretty well thought out from the beginning. It's why I defend The Terminator tooth and nail. It is one of the few time travel stories that works really, really well and has no holes - until you start adding to it and then it falls apart.

The idea that SkyNet is attempting to ensure its own existence is interesting (even though that idea is totally absent from the movies), and could possibly be a framework in which the continuations might work. Having never read the novels I don't know how they propose that all works.

 

[nx1701g]

Yeah, but how do we know that every time a Skynet plan gets thwarted (as in T2 when Sarah and Dyson took out Cyberdyne) a new, altered future scenario isn't put in place? Clearly the establishment of Skynet (and thereby the events of 1997's Judgment Day) has moved based on the actions of the Terminators and those of the Connors...so the events of the future can remain fluid while those in the present battle to prevent the worst of them from happening.

Or I could just be reaching here.

Again TSCC is touching upon this and it's been said a couple of times that Alternate Realities are known to exist. However (I'm putting this in spoiler code)

Spoiler: We've seen

That time finds a way to repair itself to avoid those alternate timelines by imposing new variables into the equation. Case in point season one of TSCC. Andy Goode was part of the team that built Skynet in the original timeline (both T2 and TSCC). In TSCC he had a more direct role and designed the AI - 'The Turk'. In the Future he reveals to Derek Reese that he was the man who built Skynet. Derek is sent back through time and the first person he kills is Andy Goode. However, time has reset itself because of Sarah Connor's temporal incursion. Now Turk is developed sooner than it should be and is acquired ensuring that the original timeline continues.

 

[Orintho]

In many movies, stupidities must occur for the movie to happen.

 

[Brent]

What is Skynet going to do once it kills all humans anyway?

I mean, if its goal is to kill all humans, what's left after they are all killed? What will Skynet do then?

 

[nx1701g]

What is Skynet going to do once it kills all humans anyway?

I mean, if its goal is to kill all humans, what's left after they are all killed? What will Skynet do then?

Again whether Skynet intends to kill all humans depends on the author.

Spoiler: KILL ALL HUMANS?

In some continuities Skynet doesn't want to kill all humans. Instead Skynet is killing off the majority of humans so that a small few can survive and thrive directly under its control and influence - the Custodian in TNG Season 1 is a similar example. In some Skynet wants to eradicate all humans and life on Earth and begins to terraform it once humanity has been lost (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). Then in some series Skynet destroys humanity and then launches an invasion of other planets.