Is anyone watching the Sarah Connor Chronicles on TV

@dyslexia,

In oh, my rep is on the line Smile

I hope you like it.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

In oh, my rep is on the line I hope you like it.

well yeah.

0 Replies

I suppose I should note that spoilers may follow, but I think we've been leaking spoilers for a while now.... anyway

I think this last episode revealed a lot. Before the opening credits even rolled we saw that a terminator was dispatched to terminate Savannah (Catherine's daughter). Since I don't believe the future John Connor would do that, we know the terminator didn't come from John. And since Catherine wouldn't need to send a terminator to terminate her own child (who she has full access to), the terminator didn't come at Catherine's bidding either. While it's still possible that Catherine could be part of future John's plans, she has done things which I don't think John would have ordered, so I am now sure that there are at least three factions in conflict who are attempting to alter the timeline: Future John, Skynet and Catherine.

That means that the terminator was acting on instructions from Skynet. And Skynet would only terminate Savannah if she was a threat to it. In the final scene we see Savannah teaching John Henry to sing a song and Catherine is watching from a distance. I believe that Savannah's interaction with John Henry is the catalyst which causes John Henry to evolve into a different machine intelligence in parallel to Skynet. And that is why Skynet tried to terminate the girl.

Earlier in the show Catherine tells John Henry that his survival is necessary for Savannah to survive, but that the reverse is not true. But I think Catherine is incorrect in that assessment. Savannah is critical to John Henry's future and Skynet knows it (which is why it tried to terminate her), but Catherine does not know this. How can that be?

There are still things which don't make sense.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I watched yesterday's show and would agree with your assessment of it. It was another good one.

0 Replies

Explain to me again why Shirley Manson as Catherine weaver is a bad actor? She's playing a terminatrix -- not a role you can give a lot of depth to. How is she not playing it adequately?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
The Sarah Connor Chronicles is a FOX TV spinoff series from the Terminator franchise.
I'm finding it to be one of the better Sci-Fi shows on TV lately.
Battlestar Galactica held the title of "Best" (in my opinion) for years, but it ended recently.

I tried it; I enjoyed the Terminator movies.
I bought the first one and maybe the second one on tape,
but what I saw on TV with SCC was very dirty.

Unlike the Battlestar Galactica that starred Lorne Greene,
this last one was also too dirty -- annoying.

I like to look at BEAUTY.
SCC and the last Battlestar G. took out a lot of the BEAUTY that inhered in the original.
That 's hard to take; ugly to my mind.

Watching a TV show shoud not be labor n difficult toleration. No sale.

David

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Explain to me again why Shirley Manson as Catherine weaver is a bad actor? She's playing a terminatrix -- not a role you can give a lot of depth to. How is she not playing it adequately?

As I think I noted in my previous post, I'm not sure if she's a bad actress or not, simply because she is playing the role of a robot, so it's possible that she is simply good at being unemotional. I consider Arnold a very weak actor, even though I really like him a lot, and I thought his casting as the original terminator was simply perfect, a role tailor made for him.

But I would point out that I don't find Summer Glau's performance as a terminator as un-intriguing as Shirley Manson's. It's possible that the difference is in the roles themselves and reflect something about the writers, but it's also possible that there are small nuances that the actresses are adding (or not adding) to their behavior. I find Catherine to be less subliminally threatening that I think she should be. She is after all, the ultimate (as far as we know) terminator. Her very presence on screen should be much more ominous even when she isn't being overtly threatening. Especially since she's playing the "villain" role. This could be a weakness in the writing, or it could be a weakness in the acting. Somehow I think that if Meryl Streep were playing Catherine Weaver I would be squirming in my seat whenever she entered the room (not that Shirley can match Meryl, but maybe she could get half way).

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Unlike the Battlestar Galactica that starred Lorne Greene,
this last one was also too dirty -- annoying.

I like to look at BEAUTY.
SCC and the last Battlestar G. took out a lot of the BEAUTY that inhered in the original.
That 's hard to take; ugly to my mind.

Interesting. What you call "dirty", I call gritty and realistic. The things you don't like about the series are exactly the things I do like about it.

That's probably why I didn't like Kyle XY and you did.

To each his own.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

She was, in the beginning, overdoing the robotics to the point of a laughable caricature. In the last two episodes, she seems to have gotten on track -- the writers have gone beyond the scripts for the film and created cyborgs who can pass as humans to most unwary eyes and ears, which is what the Skynet and John Conner builders would strive for. I've heard this criticism before -- Kim Novak in "Vertigo" was "too cold," when, in fact, she was playing perfectly, a cold, calculating accessory to murder, sociopathic even in her love for Jimmy Stewart. Of course, we're not suggesting the various directors of SCC are anything close to Alfred Hitchcock. That's always going to be a problem with multiple directors who get inexperienced actors to work with.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

OmSig has a way with words. Not. The first Terminator was beautiful? It was darker and "dirtier" than any of the SCC. It was relentless horror. The second, not so much, more like Cameron's "Titanic" in a brighter, less depressing action flick. The third -- trash with nearly the worst Ahnold performance ever. His "good Terminator" was comical. No wonder he decided on politics.

The first "Battlestar Gallactica" was the worst of comic book space opera aimed at sixteen-year old geeks. Lorne Greene was one of the worst actors on television.

0 Replies

Monologues from the Episode called Heavy Metal (Season 1):

Opening
"When John was little, before bed I used to read him fairy tales. One night I read him a folk tale called, 'The Golem of Prague' the story of a clay monster made by a Rabbi to protect the Jews of the city. What I failed to remember was that the end of the story the Golem turns on its maker and kills him as well as the rest of the town. He didn’t sleep for months. I went to him and tried to tell him it wasn’t real, that I’d made it all up. Somehow, that made it all worse."

Closing
"Not every version of the Golem story ends badly. In one, the monster is a hero, destroying all those that seek to harm his maker. In another, the Golem's maker destroys his creature before it can destroy the world. The pride of man, of parents as well, makes us believe that anything we create we can control. Whether from clay or from metal, it is in the nature of us to make our own monsters. Our children are alloys all, built from our own imperfect flesh. We animate them with magic and never truly know what they will do."

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Unlike the Battlestar Galactica that starred Lorne Greene,
this last one was also too dirty -- annoying.

I like to look at BEAUTY.
SCC and the last Battlestar G. took out a lot of the BEAUTY that inhered in the original.
That 's hard to take; ugly to my mind.

Interesting. What you call "dirty", I call gritty and realistic.
The things you don't like about the series are exactly the things I do like about it.

That's probably why I didn't like Kyle XY and you did.

To each his own.

AGREED.
IF I had a grit filter on my TV,
then maybe I 'd have been able to enjoy SCC and the last Battlestar G.

Its bad enuf that I am confronted with grit in the real world.
I don 't wanna look at grit when I watch entertainment.
By your criterion,
I can t get away from it no matter WHERE I go.

I wanna have a joyful life looking at BEAUTY, not grit.

If there is grit around, then we need to CLEAN.

David

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

comes on here in 15 mins, I plan to watch it (first time) speaking honestly I will watch only because rosborne says I should.

What did you think Dys? Did you like it? I'm not sure the episodes would be as good if you haven't seen the preceding ones.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

comes on here in 15 mins, I plan to watch it (first time) speaking honestly I will watch only because rosborne says I should.

What did you think Dys? Did you like it? I'm not sure the episodes would be as good if you haven't seen the preceding ones.

frankly, I found the characters pretty flat (non-dimensional)

2 Replies

In the last episode there was some discussion about the Eel in Catherine's fish tank in the office. A point was made that some Eels eat other Eels, and I think this was an analogy for machines being built to kill other machines.

I now suspect that the T-1000's in the future have gone rogue from Skynet and represent a new faction of machines. I think Catherine is part of that rogue faction and she was sent back to 2008 to build a counterpart to Skynet (and she just stumbled upon Cromartie's body and added it to The Turk to resulting in John Henry).

Back in the future on the Submarine (the Jimmy Carter), when that T-1000 from the box answered "No" to the question, "would you join us", I though John had posed that question to Skynet in attempt to make peace and end the war. But now I think that the question was posed to the rogue faction of T-1000's.

If this is the case, then the factory which Catherine destroyed was probably a Skynet factory, and that HunterKiller which escaped belongs to (and was built) by Skynet.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

frankly, I found the characters pretty flat (non-dimensional)

Sorry to hear it. Maybe the backstory is important.

I remember when I saw the first episode I felt the same way. It was only after a few episodes that I started to get into it. I assumed that the first episode just wasn't written as well because they didn't have much practice yet, but maybe it was just because the characters were new to me.

0 Replies

I like Back to The Future.

The Future is not as bad as in The Terminator, and not as much grit.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I like Back to The Future.

I'm not surprised.

I like The Wizard of Oz too, but I don't consider it science fiction.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I like Back to The Future.

I'm not surprised.

I like The Wizard of Oz too, but I don't consider it science fiction.

There 's not much science in Oz;
not much grit, either; it looked clean.

Did u like Back to The Future ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Did u like Back to The Future ?

Yes, I liked Back To the Future. That's why I said, "I like The Wizard of Oz too, but I don't consider it science fiction". My point was that Back to the Future was an enjoyable movie, but it isn't science fiction (to me).

Perhaps there are a lot of subtleties in the Sarah Connor Chronicles and other more serious sci-fi shows which you are missing (just as you missed the reference above). That would explain why you aren't enjoying them (if you're missing much of the sub plot).

1 Reply

Is anyone watching the Sarah Connor Chronicles on TV

Quick Links

My Account

able2know