How Sarah Connor made the war worse.

Last updated on: June 27, 2015 at 11:51 pm by Peter T. Chattaway

How Sarah Connor made the war worse. 2015-06-27T23:51:01-07:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I watched The Terminator (1984) from start to finish for the first time in years last night, and I was amused by the opening title card’s declaration that this film would show us “the final battle” in the war between humans and machines. “The final battle”? Tell that to the sequel-makers.

But what really struck me were the deleted scenes, which I don’t believe I had watched since I first got the DVD in 2001. And why did they strike me? Because they make it fairly clear that, on some level at least, Sarah Connor is responsible for the war.

That’s right, Sarah Connor is responsible for the war.

How can this be, you say?

Well, in one deleted scene, Sarah looks up Cyberdyne in the phone book — just like the Terminator looked up her in the phone book! — and tells Kyle excitedly that they can destroy Cyberdyne and prevent the war from happening. After some arguing, and a bit of an emotional breakdown on Kyle’s part, Kyle finally agrees to do this. (So you can see, in this, the seeds of Sarah’s later vigilante actions in T2.)

Click here if the video file above doesn’t play properly.

And then, in another deleted scene set a few hours after Sarah has successfully destroyed the Terminator, we see that the Terminator’s crushed remains have been noticed by a couple guys, one of whom instructs the other guy to take the Terminator’s microcomputer chassis over to the company’s R&D; department. We then cut to the outside of the building, as Sarah is loaded into an ambulance, and the camera pans up to reveal … the Cyberdyne logo on the front of the building. (So you can see, in this, the seeds of T2‘s later revelation that Skynet will grow out of the pieces of the Terminator that survived the original film.)

Click here if the video file above doesn’t play properly.

Is it a coincidence that Sarah, Kyle and the Terminator ended up in the Cyberdyne building? To a point, yes. The car chase that immediately preceded the chase-on-foot in the Cyberdyne factory was pretty crazy, and who could have predicted where the various wrecks and explosions would have ended up? But on the other hand, no, it wasn’t all that coincidental. Why were they in the vicinity of the Cyberdyne building in the first place? Because, as we saw in the earlier deleted scene, Sarah and Kyle had agreed to try to sabotage Cyberdyne. They were already making their way over there.

So. Just as the Terminator came back in time to kill Sarah and prevent the birth of John Connor, thereby inadvertently drawing Kyle Reese back in time and guaranteeing the birth of John Connor, so too Sarah Connor tried to destroy Cyberdyne and prevent the birth of Skynet, thereby inadvertently drawing the Terminator towards the Cyberdyne factory and guaranteeing the rise of Skynet. And this point — this similarity between the two characters’ actions, and the consequences of their actions — is underscored by visual motifs such as the phone-book scanning.

I can see why these scenes were deleted from the film. For one thing, they created an ambiguity around Sarah and her actions that could have complicated our feelings towards her. In a sense, they almost put her on the same level as the machines that sent the Terminator back in time: both she and the machines suffer from a kind of hubris, believing that they can change the past (in the machines’ case) or the future (in Sarah’s case), but in the end all they do is guarantee their own failure.

Of course, commercial cinema being what it is, The Terminator ended up having sequels anyway, “final battle” or no “final battle”. And ironically, as the series has continued to unfold, Sarah’s actions have turned out to have even more unforeseen consequences.

In Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), Sarah tries once again to destroy Cyberdyne — and this time, to cut a long story short, she succeeds! The nuclear war no longer happens on 1997 as everyone predicted … but it does happen several years later, in 2004, as per the events of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). (Or in 2011, as per one of the timelines in The Sarah Connor Chronicles.) Sarah did not completely prevent Judgment Day; instead, she merely delayed it. And so, as John Connor says in the trailers for Terminator Salvation, he now has to face the fact that “this is not the future my mother warned me about.”

The guaranteed victory of the original movie — the fact that the war was over and the “final battle” had already been won — has been completely undone. John no longer has any assurance that he can win this war. And all because Sarah would not accept the prophecy that she had been given.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 16, 2009

Newsbites: The classic tales reimagined edition!

Next Post

May 19, 2009 Canadian box-office stats -- May 17

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book of the Bible has a talking tree?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Proverbs Judges Ezekiel Genesis