Terminator Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Terminator Wiki

Episode Chronology[]

Maybe an episode chronology box might be useful for navigating the episode pages (with links to the next and previous episodes). Kinda like they do in the episode chronology section of the episode data template at Battlestar Wiki. --Steelviper 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me, seeing as we've got an easy-to-navigate episode template at the bottom of the page already. — Joe (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Screencaps[]

Hey! Does any have some screencaps to liven this page up? I'm not that good at taking screenshots, but if someone uploads some... I can help organize them and add thumbnail captions. Let me know! --Kanamekun 09:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Jfedor 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode Naming Conventions[]

Anyone object to my renaming the article just "Pilot"? Otherwise crosslinking between episodes could be pretty painful... you'd have to remember the episode number, in addition to just the episode name. --Kanamekun 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The episodes have been named as such to better facilitate the category ordering and help keep a chronological feel to the episodes as you browse. For example, if you happen upon an episode page for 207, you know that it was the seventh episode of the 2nd season without having to navigate through the article. For ease of remembering what to link to, templates and redirects have been set up so that you can easily pink to Pilot without any problems. —Scott (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, feel free to just link to the episode names -- that's all set up. -- Danny (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't the category sorting be accomplished via pipes? It seems like the production number (which sometimes doesn't match up with episode airing), episode airing number, and season are all attributes that could live in the episode data template at the top. --Steelviper 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yah, I was thinking we could do that with templates and pipes? I see the redirects for the episodes, but I like to link to the original name of the episode! (I think it also helps the wiki come up higher in Google search results).
On the flip side, using episode numbers in the article names does make the sort order on the episodes categories auto-sort... but we can do that by numbering the episodes in the Episode Categories? Oh actually, I see someone already did that here - Episode 101: Pilot! If it would help at all, I could add production numbers, episode numbers, and series codes to the Episode template? --Kanamekun 03:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this? Maybe it's the purist in me, but I really prefer to link to the original article name (not a redirect)... but every time I want to do that, I have to look up the article name (e.g. Episode 102: Gnothi Seauton). Using redirects also lowers our Google ranking and search traffic, which could slow the growth of our wiki.
I think we can achieve the goals of category ordering and keeping a chrono feel to the episodes to browsers through other mechanisms (like a more fleshed out episode template). It would be a significant change to the episode naming conventions though, so I'd love to get to a consensus around this. But on the other hand - the longer this is unresolved, the more work will be needed to change links throughout the site... so want to make sure that inertia doesn't lock us into a certain path! Would love to hear everyone's thoughts! --Kanamekun 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and start this process soon... let me know if there are any objections! --Kanamekun 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
What's your plan? :) Also out of curiosity how do redirects lower google ranking? — Jeiara 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The plan is just to move the episode articles from (say) "Episode 101: Pilot" to "Pilot", etc.
In terms of redirects... Google gives articles a higher ranking if they have more inbound links. Redirects tend to split those links into two (one set of links for the main article, one for the redirect). On another wiki, I got rid of redirects... and the wiki pages moved up to the #2-4 slots on Google for the relevant keywords! Since then, I've tried to minimize use of redirects where possible... --Kanamekun 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in the past redirects had the potential to lower google ranking by creating potentially duplicated content. However, we're in the process of rolling out a change which would eliminate this. There will be an announcement once the feature is released. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. -- JSharp (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info JSharp! Do you know when Wikia will implement this feature? I don't object to the episode re-naming, though I think it seems to be fine. Kanamekun, should this discussion be moved to like the main wiki talk page? or maybe the silence means no one really cares about how we name the episodes lol! — Jeiara 08:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Nitpick[]

"Cameron states that no technology can travel through the time bubble (unless it's covered by living tissue), yet Cromartie's head flashes forward in time with the group to 2007."

No, it doesn't. Cromartie's head was still in the bank vault in the original time line. It never flashed forward in time to 2007, it simply stayed, lying in the bank vault in 1999, eventually finding its way to the side of the road in 2007 (or perhaps the bank was demolished, then paved over with the highway? Who knows...). --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that should have been on the page for the second episode. The story begins showing the head thrust out from the time bubble having travelled with the trio forward to 2007. —Scott (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, just looked at the beginning of the second episode again. You are correct, Cromartie's head flew out of the time bubble. That's definitely a glaring goof, especially considering they could have just left it alone and had the head lying around since 1999 like with the rest of his body. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Or they could have left some flesh on the head... I know only living flesh can come through, but maybe the flesh would still be alive enough to make it through!
Speaking of nitpicks, where the heck did all that energy come from for the time machine?! I read on the Time Displacement Equipment article that chronoportation takes up huge amounts of energy... maybe they also built a portable generator in the past?! --Kanamekun 01:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This may still be explained somehow. Surely Mario Kassar wouldn't forget one of the fundamentals of the movies. Perhaps his head still had flesh on it when it went through. Still doesn't explain how his body ended up in the junkyard. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess Cromartie's head is really a gaffe. When Sarah shoots him in Ep. 1, you can clearly see how the skull gets blown off, and since it spins as it gets blown off, it's pretty obvious that there's no skin left, nor does it seem bloodied. So it's unlikely there's enough organic tissue around to make it transport.

My guess is there's a real-world explanation: They probably aren't allowed to show torn-off heads, so they just went with a robot skull to maintain the age rating. Also, note how you don't see Cromartie's skull in Ep. 1, it's only in the recap in Ep. 2. So my guess would be that they hadn't planned to bring back Cromartie originally (when the Pilot was made), then retconned Cromartie's death out in Ep. 2.

If one wanted to retcon the retcon and claim that Cromartie's skull just lay there with its body a couple feet over, that'd be a tad odd: Why didn't the body immediately seek out the skull and reconstitute itself? If the head travels through time, it effectively 'does not exist' for the eight years it jumped, so that's a good reason. But if it doesn't, one would need another explanation (dunno ... maybe the head needed to recharge in the sun for so long to reactivate?). Then again, a recap is just a recap, while the episode is the actual meat of the story. Nobody would expect these events to have happened in the short time a recap takes, they're inter-cut bits and pieces. One could argue that Cromartie's head flying out on the road was simply a stylized shorthand for saying: Here's the head, it's still there, and it's still following them.

There's always the tech-bla explanation, of course: Sarah fired the gun with the isotope solution at the very moment they traveled through time. Maybe the head was small enough and enveloped by the lightning-bolt just at the right time to somehow interact with the time travel field and pull the head along through time. Uliwitness 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The first scene where this nightmare Terminator was featured in was obviously staged to make us hate him and I found such a technique pathetic. What a lazy way to develop him! Why didn't they decide to leave it to the audience? An other issue was the Terminator itself. You should really miss Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert Patrick! The actor's primal appearance was ridiculous and his only line just plain dumb. Let's also not forget his brainless attitude towards the authorities! The visual effects were alright but the action wasn't well choreographed and it was nothing like in Terminator 2 where the T-1000 was just mind blowing and scary. So don't expect to jaw drop before it. However it wasn't a complete disaster because our three heroes saved the day and helped to forget about these annoying and silly decisions. Seriously what were they thinking? Some scenes are as different as night and day. Shadowhawk27 13:08, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cromartie's Gun in Leg[]

It's possible he did this to hide it from the school's security guards?

It's possible... but at the same time, he's a terminator. Does he need a gun to take out a 15 year old kid? --Kanamekun 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A gun is far more effective than using their bare hands. He is a robot, and are able to get close, but not very close. Ascaaear 06:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there are some fairly significant plot holes around including the gun in the leg, which I tried to include in a Note. But it's definitely true that a gun would be helpful, and that he may have hidden it in his leg to sneak it through school security! My sense though, is that they hid it in his leg for dramatic effect when he took it out... and so the witnesses could spot the robotic stuff in his leg, and tell Agent Ellison about it (beginning the process of convincing him to believe in Sarah and John). --Kanamekun 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Some of the things are cheap story telling. Things happen without a reason. Like the "terminator" head going through the time machine right after Cameron told it's not able to send through dead things. I wouldn't mind if the tv-series was without this terminator for a while. Ascaaear 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I doubt he needed to hide it from the guards. Why would they check a teacher for weapons? And if he'd been checked, wouldn't the metal detector have detected the gun? Not to mention he'd probably have set off the detector just like Cameron did, even without the gun. I have two theories: 1) He brought the gun from the future, and had to hide it in his leg to get it transported. Why he went for a contemporary gun? Don't know, maybe future guns blow up when transported through the time machine, or maybe Skynet wanted to avoid some uncontrolled change of the timeline that introducing a future gun would cause? 2) He wanted to ensure John didn't have any chance of seeing the gun. John is used to watching people pull guns from bags, so hiding it in the leg might have had a better chance of success. -- Uliwitness 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusion[]

What kind of damage did Sarah do to the terminator with the gun? The terminator seems to be in good shape later. Why did his head get blown off and through the teleporter? In salvation film, if the head gets dislocated, that terminator is dead due to the CPU cut from the body and power cut from head, etc.

Advertisement