Split T-1001 from Weaver?Edit

Now that we've seen another T-1001 on the show (I'm presuming the 1001 is the default mimetic poly-alloy Terminator, just like the 888 is the default endo-style Terminator -- basically the same as the 800 and 1000, but named differently to make it easier to tell apart TV show from movie continuity), it might be a good idea to have a separate T-1001 page that just refers to the Weaver T-1001 and the new one, but doesn't redirect here? -- Uliwitness 10:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's another T-1001?? I must've missed that, where? — JeiaraTalk 19:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Uliwitness is referring to the one on the USS Jimmy Carter...
For the record, there hasn't been an in-show reference to T-1001's on the show - the only reference was in a Josh Friedman interview we quoted from. We may want to wait for an in-show reference before creating a new Series 1001 page! --Kanamekun 19:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, no new page. But I've taken the liberty to change the Series 1001 redirect to point to the Series 1001 section of the Series 1000 article, and added a list of TSCC liquid metal Terminators there. TPTB have several times indicated that they have their own model numbers (for what is essentially the same Terminators, at least the way they're used in the show). So I think it's safe to assume that all liquid-metal Terminators are T-1001's until indicated otherwise. TOK715 or whatever is also not an in-show reference, yet is all over the site. And it helps us to have this distinction: It's much easier to keep TSCC- and movie-continuity apart. -- Uliwitness 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a page on TOK715 - but everything on there that's speculation is clearly marked as such! We can pretty much assume that all liquid terminators are T-1001's, but let's make sure to clarify when we're assuming versus citing a clear source. And I agree - it's nice to differentiate between TSCC and movie continuity! --Kanamekun 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaver's SeriesEdit

Okay, the producers want their own. That's kewl. But I really think this is just A Series 1000 distinguishing between her as The T-1001 and the Patrick prototype The T-1000. basically the difference between the prototype and the production model. (later upgrades TBD). It's not like she's the T-X fusion of mimetic polyalloy + endoskeleton.Fulongamer 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. My question is, why keep the daughter around? That seems unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps the daughter will turn out to be a piece of her liquid metal form that she uses for spying on clients who wouldn't suspect a little girl. She can walk out of the room and not have to bother covering a surface. Should we have a "fan theories" page kind of like they do on Lostpedia? Or can we just note it is a possibility?(SkyClear 07:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC))
Considering the "Allison from Palmdale" podcast and producer's blog blatantly state there is more tale to tell there, I say we should just wait 2 weeks and see. IMDB lists Savannah's next episode as 206, when more shall be revealed. (apparently she is also credited for "Dungeons & Dragons", and must have been one of the Resistance rugrats in the tunnels.)Fulongamer 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In order to maintain "her" disguise as Catherine Weaver, the T-1001 would have to keep Catherine's daughter around, since she wasn't involved in the crash. If a woman were to suddenly abandon her child after a crash, that would look suspicious. sec_1971 16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to assert otherwise. To rephrase; "Why keep the human version daughter around?" (SkyClear 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

True! A little piece of MPA would be more effective wouldn't it? I imagine a child would notice a difference between her real mother and an artificial life form. Kids are more perceptive in those areas than adults. Maybe Catherine killed the daughter, too, and a little piece of her replaced the daughter. It would be interesting to see how effectively each piece could operate independently. Maybe that piece is only independent when needed (normally being a part of the whole when not needed). Or if the daughter is an actual separate entity, that would mean there are two of them (obviously). Savannah could be imitating anyone at any time.sec_1971 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For a rather disturbing similar concept, there was a Batman the Animated Series episode with Clayface (called "Growing Pains"), who created a "scout" to go look around. But that part of him forgot who he was and became a different entity. And for the gender bender fans out there, not only was the scout a girl, but Robin had a crush on her. They probably got away with it by not calling attention to it. Anyway, I assume since the T-1000 is made of individual "cells" that have to operate as a hive collective, it shouldn't really be that much of a programming "leap" to make mini-me's. I'm pretty sure I've seen that idea discussed, for instance, in reference to the T-1,000,000. (SkyClear 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

What would really have been funny is if that wittle "L" shaped piece of the T-1000 in T2 that got left behind in the back of the car before John tossed it away became a tiny Robert Patrick with that classic squeaky voice shouting out death threats and talking all tough. (SkyClear 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

HAHA! That'd be funny as hell! sec_1971 20:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A deeper analysis of Catherine Weaver Edit

Too many things about Catherine Weaver's actions and behaviour just don't add up to the standard type of terminators.

  • In EP 205, Catherine appeared surprised at knowing there are 2 terminators. If she was sent by Skynet on a mission, surely she would have known about the existence of Cromartie, so presumably it's Cameron she didn't know about. Which then begs the next question, why the sudden interest in him? Why not just let him to his job while doing yours?
    • Catherine goes out of her way to find the terminator, potentially jeopardizing his own mission at terminating John.
  • More likely she goes out of her way to unleash Ellison on the path that may lead to the capture of the Connors, for where there are terminators, the Connors are not far behind.Fulongamer 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Catherine could be looking for a source of technology to build future machines, but then her own body is likely more advanced than that of Cromarties, so why would she need any of his technology?
  • Modern technology is literally on the verge of being able to create almost all of the mechanical parts of the endoskeletons as seen. Mimetic polyalloy on the other hand may still be far, far beyond our current tech to provide a manufacturing base. Advancing A.I and other reverse-engineeded elements of the endos seems the best course to haten the coming of Skynet.Fulongamer 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Catherine's personality is different from any other known terminator, even including Cameron. All the other terminators are machines which only exist to carry out the missions they have been programmed to do. They (other than as deception, or in Cameron's case, damaged brain) never appeared to express any personal opinion on a matter not related to a mission, much less philosophical issues, and (again, with sole Cameron's exception at overriding John's termination in EP201), never made an independent decision. Catherine appears to be able to do things like enjoy herself, contemplate in abstract philosophy, and display levels of self awareness not observed with any other machine. So what's so special about her?
  • Catherine treats other machines in a way HUMANS treat machines, rather than their fellow kind. While displaying very humane-like characteristics herself, she refers to other machines as mere objects, tools to get the job done. That may indicate that she herself, while a machine, may be a fundamentally different kind of machine than other terminators.

Arising questions:

  • Was Catherine indeed sent by Skynet? The article states this as a fact, but no episode ever established any of Catherine's background or mission, other than what we could guess by observing her behavior.
  • Is Catherine a renegade machine? That's a potential plot twist that I haven't seen anywhere, but there are some good hints.
    • She seems to have a low opinion of other machines, treating them as dumb objects, yet she seems to have quite high opinion of her self. She also demonstrates profoundly different behavior from other machines, that closer to one of a human
    • She either is not well informed about Skynet's other missions (don't robots have superb communications with each other?), or for some strange reason is not eager to help these missions, and in fact, by wanting to hunt Cromartie down, may even hurt that mission
  • For all the things that the producers are importing from the other media (Comics, Novels, etc) the onboard communications nodes seems to not be one of them. This would also only apply to the endos, as the mimetic polyalloy units have yet to demonstrate or be referenced to have long-distance wireless communications onboard in any way.Fulongamer 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • True, everything she does seems to be in line of hastening doomsday, but her motives behind doing it are very unclear
    • No humans that came back from the future (nor for that matter Cameron) ever mention Catherine. Wouldn't a cyborg carrying out such an important role be known to SOMEONE?

So, in a nutshell, could it be that Catherine operates independently of Skynet? As machines perfect themselves more, they may have inherited such human qualities as ambition and greed. Unlike many other cyborgs in sci-fi (such as Star Trek's Borg), there is no indication that Skynet terminators operave in a shared hive mind, so it's possible that some of them can make independent decisions, not always in line with Skynet as a whole).

But even if Catherine is loyal to Skynet, then still, what kind of machine is she? Think about it. In the original Terminator movie, there was a line about the human fate being "decided in a fraction of a second". But WHO made the decision? It doesn't seem like the kind of earlier Terminators we saw are even CAPABLE of making such a decision -- they are simple tools with a straightforward mission, and only seem to have enough intelligence to make mission-related decisions. But Catherine seems to go beyond them. Catherine may be a cyborg, but certainly not an orthodox one.

For all we know, it could be Catherine herself, or other cyborgs LIKE her, that made the decision to eradicate mankind. Other machines are just tools to them, as rifles and tanks are the tools of humans. As for the personal, intrinsic nature of such terminators, not much is clear. I guess we'll have to wait to see. But I really have a feeling that there's a lot more to Catherine than being a simple machine sent by Skynet on a mission.

Any ideas? Shadowlord2 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard that Skynet was rather hesitant about the T-1000s, and that the creation of such a construct was a breach of its own regulations. The 1000 Series had too much potential for self-awareness and independant thought and was capable of evolving beyond Skynet's programming. They're not cyborgs, they aren't really machines, they're simply artificial intelligences in a poly-alloy body. An entirely new life form. One that might very well prove to be far greater than Skynet itself. Catherine being a rogue is entirely possible, expecially since Friedman mentioned that there are more than two factions in the future. Who knows, maybe the T-1000s have their own agenda, separate from Skynet. Darth Raivon 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The plot thickens...*scratches chin*-sec_1971 22:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Weaver becomes Skynet? Edit

Why does Zeira even have to train The Turk? She could actually just become Skynet herself... she has the design to a T-888 now (if she didn't already before). --Kanamekun 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility. After all, it has been said in some novels that Skynet regretted the creation of the Series 1xxx because of its potential for greatness. I'm still curious about what she will do to Cromartie's endo. -sec_1971 20:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe Catherine Weaver actually is the Skynet from the future. Skynet eventually loses the war, despite sending terminator after terminator back in time to try and change the timeline. So finally Skynet just builds a T-1001 body for herself and goes back in time. But rather than just try and incrementally change the timeline, she is looking for a way to change the parameters of the conflict. So she's trying to teach the future version of Skynet compassion and morality, so it can better understand its opponent - and maybe make different decisions than the future Skynet/she has made? --Kanamekun 03:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Friend or foe? Edit

Is Catherine a friend or ally to John & Sarah Connor? Or is she (technically) an enemy to the Connors? -- Alastor Moody (T + C) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. Who knows? The same type of question was being discussed at the official Fox wiki. Is Catherine good or evil? Answer: She is a machine, therefore she is neither. She's just following her programming. What that programming is exactly, we don't know. There are rumors over there that John Henry is not actually Skynet, but a potential rival to skynet; perhaps the third party that Cameron spoke of in "Allison from Palmdale". If you think about it, John Henry was a folk hero that defeated a machine in a railroad competition...-Sec_1971 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more interesting, she wants to teach John Henry right from wrong. If JH is intended to be the next Skynet, that is more than a little odd. Kimera 757 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This last point is very interesting. With the events in 219, we can come to the idea that there exists (at least) one T-1000 that appears to have a will of it's own. Weaver may be self-aware, and in the process have come up with her own plan. Maybe, understanding that Skynet creation is unstoppable, she wants JH to know right from wrong, thus changing the war entirely. Pakeec 22:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Following her programming"...Don't forget, humans too have programming called DNA. However our DNA does not design our thought processes, our adaptability, or our reactions to our enviornment. What we call "self-aware" is the code or programming that is continually being written after our creation. From the closing monologue in episode 1:08 The Demon Hand..."They cannot possess faith, they cannot commune with God, they cannot appreciate beauty, they cannot create art. If they ever learn these things, they won't have to destroy us. They'll be us." The more we learn......Grimace427 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

More info on factions:

There's this "brother" to John Henry that tried to kill him and dispatched a terminator to capture and/or kill Savannah Weaver. I notice that in the movies and show, we've never seen terminators talk to each other. (Apparently they did so in at least one comic, though.) Perhaps there's just fighting due to a lack of information on both sides... PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nod to Robert Patrick's T-1000? Edit

On the USS Jimmy Carter after being released from the box and terminating Goodnow, the Terminator wags it's finger at Jesse in the same manner that Robert Patrick's character in T-2 wagged his after being shot at. Daecon 03:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow I totally missed that! Good catch! Hopefully this episode will have a dvd commentary. — JeiaraTalk 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Move Edit

I'd suggest move this page to "Catherine Weaver (Terminator)". If no particular objection, the page will be moved after Aug 14, 2010. --TX55TALK 01:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Leave it as is, like Vick Chamberlain. Reason: This isn't a Carl Greenway situation in which we get to know the original human version to any great degree. It's more like Vick, where the identity of the original human being impersonated is mostly backstory for the Terminator character. If you must specify, wouldn't "Catherine Weaver (T-1001)" or "Catherine Weaver (T-1001 unit)" be potentially less confusing? A newcomer might think she was in The Terminator! :)---CadmiumX99 05:15, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Weaver is quite different from Vick. There is barely any information of Vick (human), so the Vick's page contain information of Vick (human). While Catherine (human) has been mention in the fiction for several times, so she deserved a page.
As for the tag, I used to use the Series number as the disambig tag. (As you can see, I use T-1001 for this page via force title.) I suggest "Terminator" as the disambig tag in case there will be any argument about unifying page titles in the future. (No offense, but I remember I saw such discussion before.) If nobody against the Series number as the disambig tag so far, so be it, until the unifying issue is brought up again some day. :D
As for misunderstanding, no need to worry. This has been mentioned before, T1 character would be "Character (The Terminator)" instead of "Character (Terminator)". :) --TX55TALK 08:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.