MovieChat Forums > The Terminator (1984) Discussion > He can not be his father!

He can not be his father!

posted 10 years ago by nedeljkodjukic88
73 replies | jump to latest

(Spoilers ahead)

There are two reasonable possibilities but none of them fits the actual plot of this movie:

1. Kyle Reese is an adult man (over 30), living in 2029 and born after nuclear catastrophe. There's no John Connor at that time. Reese goes back to past (1984), has sex with Sarah Connor and eventually dies. Their son grows to be John Connor - leader of resistance movement in 2029,

or

2. Kyle Reese is an adult man, living in 2029 alongside John Connor, leader of resistance movement, who is probably a couple of years older than him, because he was conceived before nuclear catastrophe. Reese goes back to past (1984), has sex with Sarah Connor and eventually dies. By doing so, he messes up big time - John Connor the leader of resistance movement is never born and doesn't exist in 2029. Kyle and Sarah have another baby, but that can't be the John Connor from where Reese started off.

[–] luzser1800 9 years ago

Does it occur to anyone here that the father doesn't matter? That a woman named Sarah Conner lived in 1984 and gave birth to a son named John Conner. Reese coming back only ensured that John would be his son. John Conner was going to be born anyway to Sarah Conner. And Sarah Conner was always going to be the one to teach her son to be a great fighter. Kyle Reese showing up early only puts it in action sooner rather than later.

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

"John Conner was going to be born anyway to Sarah Conner. And Sarah Conner was always going to be the one to teach her son to be a great fighter."

But then you have to try and imagine how Sarah could have gained an enthusiasm for guns, pipe bombs and military convention, with a desire to teach her son to be a great fighter, if Reese hadn't been there to influence her. Sarah was a student at college working part-time as a waitress. We don't know what she was studying, but I don't think it would have been anything relevant to armed combat.

At the motel Reese leaves Sarah a gun while he goes out to get supplies. She clearly doesn't take the weapon with any kind of gusto. She looks a bit... vulnerable. Like she wishes she wasn't in this situation. That she could be living her normal life as a student, working as a waitress to pay her way through college. Not worrying about cyborg assassins or wondering who she'll have to meet to become pregnant with John.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

"But if Reese wasn't the father then when he slept with Sarah, the future would have changed. If it was off even by a millisecond then it will produce a different child all together. It could be a girl or a son who is mentally challenged."

This was a possibility the writers of Back To the Future chose to ignore. After Marty McFly interferes with history in 1955, making sure his parents will fall in love and get married, he returns to an altered 1985 where George McFly is a writer. Yet somehow, George and Lorraine still ended up having the SAME THREE CHILDREN. If it's an altered timeline, that could not have happened. They would have had children, but they would have been conceived at different times, in different circumstances, with a different combination of sperm and eggs.

So, if John Connor supposedly had a different father, this means Skynet achieved its objective. The "original John Connor" won't exist (which is kind of ironic when John's message to Sarah was "you must survive, or I will never exist") and we end up with a substitute John Connor who will make different decisions, come up with different strategies, and possibly make some serious blunders that the "original John Connor" never made.

[–] nelstar (359) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Danzence 8 years ago

He can not be his father!

Well he is.. so deal with it - it's called a predestination paradox. Travelling to the past just fulfilled what already is/was and led to creating the same future that skynet wanted to change.

[–] Verdugo85 8 years ago

Its a paradox.

Reese was born after Judgement day.

John Connor sent Reese to 1984 to protect his mother.

Reese dies but he's still born after Judgement Day.

Technically Reese is indeed John's real father.

[–] igetitfaster 8 years ago

there is a thing called a 'paradox'

like everything else, it is defined

if something fits a defitnition of a thing, then it is that thing.

something can not be a thing if it does not fit the definition of said thing.

the story of The Terminator as it has been told over the course of many movies does not fit the definition of a paradox

it is not that thing

this does not preclude it from being some other thing that is just as compelling and entertaining

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail

[–] MayoGalway 8 years ago

Read the trivia pg. it'll explain the ages of the Kyle, Sarah, and John. T2 supplies age answers. READ the trivia pg.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

People have such difficulty thinking forth-dimensionally.

Of course he can be, and IS his father. The story doesn't start in 2029, it starts in 1984.

From 1984's perspective, it doesn't matter where Kyle came from - Texas, a spaceship, another dimension, or the future. Kyle comes to - and in - Sarah, and then dies. John Connor then grows up, and after befriending Kyle, John gives Kyle the photo and then sends him back.

The end.

I don't see why this is so difficult. There was never an 'original timeline', nothing is changed. It's a perfect 'predestination paradox', where this is how things ALWAYS happened, there is no timeline, where things didn't happen this way.

Therefore, there IS no time where 'where Reese started off' - Sarah and Kyle have already had sex before Kyle is born. That's just how time travel works, you just can't wrap your head around it for some reason.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I quote myself:

"PREDESTINATION PARADOX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

that this movie's time-travel-wise solid (although otherwise slightly faulty) plot is based on.

It's like every time I come here, someone who gets things veeery slowly, or who does not get things at all (which makes the irony of her nick choice all the more amazing), has posted the same crap again.

IMDb may delete a lot of posts, but stupidity and not understanding predestination paradox seems constant here.

Even I have tried to explain it, and yet, after a few months, it's like no one ever had - the same exact claim about a "plot hole", and the same exact stupidity about "This is how _I_ (falsely) think time travel SHOULD work in real world, so it can't work differently in a movie" just goes on.

But because I am bored and have nothing better to do, let the world hear it once more:

It is not a plot hole.

Think about it from as a straight line that has been simply curved. First Kyle comes from the future (it doesn't matter WHERE he comes from, he could be coming from Arkansas for all the difference it makes at this point), and before being killed by his own bomb, gives the seed of life to Sarah, who proceeds to let her automated stomach functions (yes, I know it's a 'womb', but that doesn't really matter, either, for the point) mold and eventually manufacture it into John, who pops out when his body is ripe.

John then grows into a kid. Sarah, knowing about the future, trains John and prepares him for the most gigantic war mankind has ever faced, and goes with him into hiding before the war begins, and then John emerges with all the knowledge on how to change the war into victory for mankind, and starts winning the war.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

ohn gives Kyle the photograph of his mom, knowing that it would trigger an emotional and sexual lust-reaction combination in an isolated, lonely, young man - to have some fap material during a time when porn is bound to be very scarce indeed (though reproduction is probably encouraged for obvious reasons, so sex must be quite free). I mean, Sarah is ugly, but beggars can't be choosers, and in such a situation, a horny young man would probably hump a panda.

The machines invent a time machine, which they use for one last effort to win the war - trying to eradicate the mother of such a knowledgeable and skilled leader, before he is even born.

Unfortunetaly for them, this attempt causes John to actually be born. So the machines actually made sure they would be defeated..

John's troops storm the machines' laboratories and find the time machine, that has already been used to send The Terminator back in time.

John gives Kyle the message to memorise and orders, and they send him through. The humanity is saved, the rest of the future will consist of rebuilding and rejoicing, machines will be modified to serve humans, like they should, and finally, there will be peace.

Then feminism will rise again, and all is lost. But that's probably not completely covered in the movie.

So anyone can see from this explanation how the events happen. Nothing repeats, there are no flaws, there is absolutely NO problem in Kyle being John's father. He simply appears to 1984 from the future instead of some other place, that's all. He also disappears from 2029 or whatever the year is. Everyone's time goes forward. From John's perspective, it's like sending someone to visit a country where you have come from, but they have never seen before - without you ever being able to return.

There really is no problem with any of this.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

For the record, _ANYTHING_ that happens in some other movies, has nothing to do with this movie. They are other movies, this is this movie. They have their own IMDb forums, and even if some of those other movies are called 'Terminator' this or 'Terminator' that, or whether they have similar plotlines or references to the characters, events or behaviours in this movie, is irrelevant - they are separate experiences, to be reviewed separately.

Cameron made sure of that when he destroyed a perfectly functional, airtight predestination paradox in the other movies, and made them plastic, superficial no-brainer crap-fun for the masses, also twisting their plots into impossibility.

THIS movie has an airtight time travel plot. The other movies do not, so they are to be considered completely separate movies, no matter whether they have used the same actors or directed by the same guy or whatnot.

"The Terminator (1984)"'s plot has no time-travel-related plot holes.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

John's troops storm the machines' laboratories and find the time machine, that has already been used to send The Terminator back in time.

So the Terminator arrives in 1984. From the Terminators perspective, in 45 years time the resistance will send somebody back to stop him completing his mission unless he kills Sarah Connor and stops John Connor being born.
I mean, tbf he must have failed in his mission without Kyle being sent back according to the general understanding of how time works. So for it to work, our understanding of how time works must be wrong as far as this movie is concerned, hence the paradox.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7954) 5 years ago

Quit shoving your opinion down mine and everyone else's throats, avortac2! You're being a nit picky jerk!

[–] GotWood84 (384) 5 years ago

Sarah is beautiful.