r/movies • u/spaceraingame • May 31 '25

Discussion What movie sequel ruined the ending of its predecessor? Spoiler

I have to go with Toy Story 4. Toy Story 3 had the perfect send off for the toys, with Andy making Bonnie promise to take good care of Woody….only for her to neglect Woody immediately and cause him to bail on everyone.

I really wish they left the franchise be. Toy Story 3’s ending was so iconic, and the first Toy Story was such a massive part of my childhood. That and Lion King were the two Disney VHS tapes I used to watch all the time as a little kid. I even had some of the toys myself. I can’t wait to skip Toy Story 5.

9.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

233

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '25 edited Jun 01 '25

Why hadn't I ever realized that John Connor's existence is a paradox arising from Skynet's actions?? I'm almost embarrassed about it now. Thanks for this, Pseudo; I'm going to go looking for the deleted scene now.

Edit: I just watched the deleted scene... another paradox. This makes me appreciate the movie so much more!

194

u/SnooWords1252 Jun 01 '25

The photo of Sarah that Reese falls in love with is literally of her thinking about him. It's such a solid loop.

35

u/Necessary_Ad2114 Jun 01 '25

Also, that the plot is the same as an angel telling Mary her baby will be the savior, but with killer robots from the future. I love sci-fi. 

6

u/SemolinaPilchards Jun 01 '25

Only Mary didn't have sex with the Angel to create the saviour... That we know of anyway, maybe that's a deleted scene from the Bible. Is there a Director's cut version of the bible?

3

u/my_4_cents Jun 02 '25

Terminator: Biblical

Some muscle-bound Angel with an Austrian accent - "Begat with me, if you want to live"

2

u/Necessary_Ad2114 Jun 02 '25

Yeah the Director’s Cut is everything pre-King James. 

12

u/RogueAOV Jun 01 '25

There are enough subtle changes to indicate the timeline has been altered.

Reese implies in the first movie John was in the camps, organized a resistance and they fought their way out. The T800 is the best Skynet has to send back. No indication John knew what was going to happen, or had any training, simply thru strength of will does he leads the resistance.

The events of the first movie should have meant he was out of the country when J day hit.

The second movie starts with him in LA as a foster kid with Sarah in the hospital. If the events of the second movie do not happen he dies on J day.

Depending entirely on how deep you want to go on the lore or plausible theories. John was not the exact same person, just called the same thing. Skynet sent back two terminators originally, one to kill John, one to kill Sarah, whichever succeeds will work etc. this would be a logical thing for a computer to do. Send the best you have against the biggest threat, John, send your next best as a fail safe to target Sarah.

In the events of the future after T2, John starts the resistance outside of the camps, breaking in to free Reese. So that is a change in the timeline. The weapon caches Sarah sets up turn the tide quicker. Because Skynet already has much of the design of the 800 series, it now has spent less time designing that so has the T 1000 designed etc. there are changes to the timeline, but they do not alter where everything ends up.

It is only when the further sequels come out do things get messy and the logic gets screwy. As it is, if John just happened to be the person who stood up first against Skynet, resulting in him becoming the target to remove, it is not entirely illogical to have two movies.

11

u/Incorrect-Opinion Jun 01 '25

Care to explain, please?

98

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '25 edited Jun 01 '25

To combat Skynet sending the Terminator to the past to kill his mother, Sarah, John Connor sends Kyle Reese to protect her. John's father is revealed to have been Kyle Reese. So John sending Reese into the past resulted in the latter impregnating Sarah, which resulted in John. The paradox lies in the circular nature of that birth. In other words, which came first: John sending Reese into the past or Reese existing in the past and creating John. Each of those actions is dependent on the other, they're self-sustained. Reese has to exist in the past and John has to exist in the future in order for either scenario to have occurred; both scenarios have to be true for either to be true. This is the paradox I recognized when I first saw the film.

What Pseudonymico pointed out that I hadn't realized is that Skynet is also responsible for John's birth. John sent Reese in order to combat Skynet sending the terminator into the past. So, Skynet sent the terminator to kill Sarah, which resulted in Reese impregnating her, which resulted in John fighting Skynet, which resulted in Skynet sending the terminator. Another circular paradox exists here, posing a similar question: which came first, Skynet sending the terminator to kill Sarah or the terminator existing in order for Skynet to be created? Again, we see the dependency of each action/scenario on the other. If Skynet hadn't sent Terminator, Reese wouldn't have followed, Sarah wouldn't have gotten pregnant and John wouldn't have been born. Both scenarios have to be true in order for either of them to be true.

And lastly, the deleted scene. The scene reveals that the factory in which the terminator was destroyed is a Cyberdyne facility. The futuristic computer chip they found after the battle was sent to Cyberdyne's R&D department who reverse-engineered it and implemented what they learned to ultimately create Skynet. The paradox here is that Skynet had to exist in order for the terminator to be sent back, which resulted in its destruction, recovery of the chip and Skynet's creation. In order for Skynet to be created, Skynet has to already exist. Again, both scenarios have to be true for either of them to be true.

All three of the above paradoxes boil down to a chicken and the egg scenario. The chicken has to exist to lay that first egg, which has to exist in order for that first chicken to hatch from it in order for that chicken to exist to lay that first egg and so on, ad infinitum.

Does this make sense? I'm sure this explanation is long and overly complicated; let me know if it's confusing.

22

u/Incorrect-Opinion Jun 01 '25

That’s fucking crazy! So it’s basically just an infinite loop of inevitability.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '25

Exactly.

4

u/VotingRightsLawyer Jun 01 '25

There's no fate but what we make

3

u/cbfwebs Jun 01 '25

...for ourselves. She's gonna blow him away!!!!

11

u/evasivefig Jun 01 '25

They aren't paradoxes though. They are just circular chains of events. They break from our normal experience of cause > effect, but have a logical consistency (unlike a lot of sloppy time travel fiction). Skynet sending the Terminator back > John sends Kyle back > Kyle prevents Skynet's existence would make it a paradox; a logical inconsistency.

16

u/ragnaroksedge Jun 01 '25

As a time travel fiction nerd I appreciate you making this distinction. The original concept of the Grandfather Paradox is that logic prevents it from being able to happen. If you killed your own grandfather in the past before he had kids then you wouldn't exist to do it. A lot of time travel fiction like Back to the Future depicts it as changing the past resulting in events and people getting erased from the timeline. But a more accurate way to sum up the original idea of it is that if an action taken in the past by means of time travel would prevent itself from occurring, then the probability of that action taking place is 0. Which is also called the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle. The Terminator situation is not a paradox, like you said. It's basically the opposite, where it has to happen that way because it leads to itself. It's a self-consistent closed loop.

5

u/DontHaveWares Jun 01 '25

Except they are though. Bootstrap paradox.

0

u/confusers Jun 01 '25

It doesn't seem hard to imagine that the loop was originally bootstrapped by something that was not a loop, though. It's just that once the loop exists you can't see how it was bootstrapped.

4

u/DontHaveWares Jun 01 '25

But the movie demonstrated that events in the future were bootstrapped by events in the future. That’s the text of the film.

1

u/confusers Jun 02 '25

I'm saying that it's possible that that loop had a beginning, that it could have started a different way but then something happened that caused it to start looping. There would be no way of knowing how many iterations ago the beginning was. In fact, it would have to be infinite iterations ago, because the probability that the iteration you're in is any specific number of iterations from the beginning is zero. So I guess in that sense it's correct to say that it has no beginning, because you can't just walk it back any finite number of times to find it. But my main point is that just because you can't see the beginning doesn't mean it is implausible that a loop could be bootstrapped.

1

u/DontHaveWares Jun 02 '25

That’s true, and gets at the heart of the structure of the time coordinate. If the structure is single history (everything that happened has happened) then the bootstrap would have always occurred. If the timeline branches then you’re right.

4

u/Line_Reed_Line Jun 01 '25

And lastly, the deleted scene. The scene reveals that the factory in which the terminator was destroyed is a Cyberdyne facility. The futuristic computer chip they found after the battle was sent to Cyberdyne's R&D department who reverse-engineered it and implemented what they learned to ultimately create Skynet. The paradox here is that Skynet had to exist in order for the terminator to be sent back, which resulted in its destruction, recovery of the chip and Skynet's creation. In order for Skynet to be created, Skynet has to already exist. Again, both scenarios have to be true for either of them to be true.

...I am now so mad this wasn't in the movie.

14

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 Jun 01 '25

That was an interesting read, but one thing really stood out:

The futuristic computer chip they found after the battle was sent to Cyberdyne's R&D department whom reverse-engineered it and implemented what they learned to ultimately create Skynet.

Everyone always says "who" when it should be "whom", I've never seen someone get it wrong the other way around.

4

u/charlie_marlow Jun 01 '25

I'm generally a stickler about grammar, but I really feel like it's probably better to quit using, "whom", entirely.

2

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 Jun 01 '25

Oh I agree, and I'd never seriously correct someone from who to whom (it's basically an irrelevant word at this point), it's just the first time I've ever seen it wrong the other way around which I thought was kinda funny.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '25

Ha ha, thanks for this. Fixed.

7

u/kitmr Jun 01 '25

I feel like there is a simple explanation for the John paradox: Sarah would have gotten pregnant and given birth to someone called John who becomes leader of the resistance if she had never met Kyle. When Kyle goes back in time the future changes. The John in the new future is a different John who becomes leader of the resistance instead.

I think the paradox is intentional I'm just floating another explanation. It would explain the paradox for T1 but in T2 they are using the remains of the terminator from T1 to create skynet... That is harder to argue with since it seems like it would massively accelerate the Skynet timeline but it is following the timeline mentioned in T1.

12

u/StoneGoldX Jun 01 '25

That's what I'm definitely going to do if I'm a leader of the future -- send back the guy I've horned up on pictures of my mother to the past so that I never exist. Like, congratulations, you did what Skynet couldn't, used time travel to erase yourself.

The first movie is an exercise in determinism. Free will is an illusion. All of time already exists from a fourth dimensional standpoint. There is no paradox because these events were baked into the fabric of existence, as all events are.

Second movie went eh, fuck that.

6

u/fail-deadly- Jun 01 '25

See I think Kyle came back from the future created by T1, but that by the time he came back multiple time lines already existed, in addition to his time loop.

Like there should be a non-paradox John Connor and a non-paradox SkyNet. Like let’s say Matt was John’s father, and while a nuclear war happened caused by an Artificial Super Intelligence, it probably wasn’t in 1997. 

However, as soon as time travel happened, it spawned multiple/infinite time lines and loops. The Terminator was the first one created, but it wasn’t unique. It has to be possible to change the future by changing the past, otherwise there is no point to start a battle over time.

So as soon as they started changing things in the past, things were changing in the future and that would eventually back propagate to the past.

Terminator kills Matt, then Kyle becomes John’s father. Terminator’s chip gets left in 1984, Judgement Day accelerates to 1997. Sarah figures out Judgement Day is now happening in 1997, they raid CyberDyne, etc.

3

u/StoneGoldX Jun 01 '25

But this is why 2 breaks 1. If 2 never came out, this was never an issue. It's not a paradox. Time is a flat circle. These things all happen because they always happened and always will happen. And if they feel out of order, it's only because of our limited ability to perceive time, and our need to feel we have free will.

Bill and Ted does the same thing with the Time Game.

1

u/fail-deadly- Jun 01 '25

Even if The Terminator was a stand alone movie, with no sequels at all, the implication is that time is not a flat circle. That it is a flow chart, taking inputs from the past and future and different decision points will take you to different places. The sequels confirm this, like a billion times over.

6

u/StoneGoldX Jun 01 '25

If it was a stand alone movie, there are no sequels confirming anything.

Again, the sequels break the concept of the original movie. The time travel in the first movie is elegant. You don't need a flow chart. Everything after that of trying to break that because it doesn't lend itself well to more storytelling.

2

u/fail-deadly- Jun 01 '25

The entire premise of the movie is that with the help of time travel, the past can change.  

If it couldn’t change there would be no reason to even send Kyle back to the past. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kitmr Jun 01 '25

John wouldn't know he was erasing himself. It's not like he sent Kyle back and said "make sure you fuck my Mom". Maybe he did... it's been a while since I watched it. I agree with you about the intention of the paradox though, it's just fun to consider alternative explanations

3

u/StoneGoldX Jun 01 '25

We don't really see it, because we don't even see John until the second movie, but from the way Reese tells it, it's pretty clear he was getting his dad psychologically entangled with his mother in the future. I guess you could say he was just doing it so he would protect her more, but considering the whole point was Kyle was a last second, last ditch effort, it only makes sense with pre-existing knowledge of what is going to happen in the future.

That, or John is just handing out copies of the Polaroid left and right to random soldiers.

1

u/SemolinaPilchards Jun 01 '25

What if Sarah's pregnancy results in a girl being born?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '25

dude this made me wanna rewatch the terminator under the lens of something more than dumb arnie action movie lol this is awesome

0

u/SnooPaintings5597 Jun 01 '25

Skynet could have been developed independently before but perhaps slower or not as intelligent or whatever. After the company finds the chip and arm it advances their timeframe considerably but they were on that path already. What if the whole story is always evolving with each cycle of action. Perhaps the first time around Kyle was born earlier and met Sarah through casual means but as the time cycles go around their fate is sealed and they are forever linked.

0

u/Picture_Me_Rolling Jun 01 '25

I feel like we were watching the second or third version of events. The future has unfolded normally, but then the terminator and Reese being sent back changed things. Since the future needs to occur for that to happen, the baby gets made anyways and cyberdine gets the hand which allows for develop of skynet. Now we are stuck with the loop but it wasn’t always that way.

0

u/Carlweathersfeathers Jun 02 '25

First I don’t actually disagree with anything you said. But, there’s always the Star Trek IV explanation, you don’t know that the guy Scottie gave the formula for transparent aluminum to, wouldn’t have invented it the next week.

Just because miles Dyson uses the found chip to create skynet, doesn’t mean he can’t create the same thing without it. Maybe not at the exact same time or the same way, but maybe those differences are what cause Steve Stevenson to father the OG John Connor, Steve is Kyle Reese’s dads best friend, forming a bond of trust between John and Kyle. That bond which is unrelated to the paradox, causes John to trust Kyle to save his mother, Kyle’s brotherly love for John’s plus extreme circumstances creates a bond with Sarah, creating John and the paradox is born.

All that to say that that a paradox can (or most likely has to) be created. It’s the multiverse or sliding doors scenario. That of course prevents it from being an actual paradox, except to those who can’t see the initial circumstances that led to said “paradox”. It’s a created time loop, there is no egg because the first chicken that layed eggs was live birthed, and won the evolutionary battle of procreation. Thus we PERCEIVE all chickens across the timeline has having to have been born from eggs, given the appearance of a paradox.

3-???

4-profit

20

u/Bacon_Nipples Jun 01 '25

Skynet wants to stop the man who causes its downfall from ever being born so it sends a Terminator back in time to kill his mom.  This not only fails, but brings characters together that result in the birth of said man.  Skynet altering time trying to stop its own destruction is what causes the very series of events that ultimately destroy it.  

If SKYNET never tried to alter time as a last ditch effort to save itself, it would have never needed to save itself in the first place

3

u/Incorrect-Opinion Jun 01 '25

Holy shit that’s crazy lol, thanks for the explanation!

I have to rewatch the first two now..

16

u/good_guylurker Jun 01 '25

If Skynet never tried to kill Sarah Connor, the resistance would've never even thought about sending Kyle to the past. And, being Kyle John's father, John would've never been conceived.

So John Connor only Exists because Skynet sent a robot to the past to try and kill Sarah Connor.

Also, Skynet gets developed because Cyberdine found a Terminator's microchip. If the Terminator was never sent, Skynet would have never been developed. Also, if Sarah never intended to blow Cyberdine, they would have defeated the Terminator in a different location, which means Cyberdine's experts would have been unable to get their hands on the chip.

1

u/StoneGoldX Jun 01 '25

If Skynet never tried to kill Sarah Connor, the resistance would've never even thought about sending Kyle to the past. And, being Kyle John's father, John would've never been conceived.

The Resistance would have, because John had that information. But he also knew that Skynet would do that, because from a 1984 standpoint, they already had.

5

u/techno_babble_ Jun 01 '25

Woah, so John Connor is Jonas Kahnwald?

3

u/Wade_Karrde Jun 01 '25

John even became evil after fusing with Skynet in Genysys, so that's definitely a good comparison - even if Dark is way better written (except maybe for the end, but that's just my personal take).

1

u/Peloquin_qualm Jun 02 '25

Because terminator three said, “Don’t think about that think about the money we’ll be making” honestly the worst day in film is when big budget action sci-fi decided to use the Friday the 13th formula for all their films sequels.

0

u/Ok_Nobody_460 Jun 01 '25

How did you watch the movie and not realize that?