MovieChat Forums > Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) Discussion > Trolly problem

Trolly problem

posted 2 years ago by blindfolded (1621)
33 replies | jump to latest

Isn't killing/not killing Dyson the Trolly Problem, but on a much grander scale?

Over the years, as a kid/young man, I've always thought of myself as noble as John in this situation: Killing Dyson is wrong, no matter the consequences. I may have fooled myself.

Given the potential outcome of killing Dyson.... Now as a grown man, I have to admit I probably pull the trigger. I don't even think I'd hesitate. The morality is definitely still up for debate....

But I take Dyson out, no question.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

A bit late considering Dyson dies and Skynet still gets built. You would have to take him out before he started working with the arm and chip.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

But Skynet DOESN'T get built, it was stopped at the source.

The first TWO Terminator movies are the COMPLETE story, and nothing subsequent matters, AT ALL. You get me, Wearsalan?

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Judgement Day is inevitable. T3 says so.

[–] blindfolded (1621) 2 years ago

T3 is a fever dream of fanfiction. Lost its credibility once the star glasses were put on. They never explained the inevitability. They just stated it because "reasons!"

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

You could say that about T2

[–] blindfolded (1621) 2 years ago

This entire point is moot anyway lol

We're coming at it from Sarah's perspective in that moment of going there to assisnate Dyson. She doesn't know the outcome of fanfiction T3. In her mind this was the most direct way to prevent the war. She almost pulls the trigger but has a last-minute attack of conscience and humanity.

My point is in that moment with that mindset... I think I follow through

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Tbh, I think I would too under those circumstances.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7704) 2 years ago

Except unlike Terminator 3 Terminator 2 is written and directed by the same guy who wrote and directed the first one.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

For reals. lol T2 irrevocably changed the story being told and tone being established in T1; a lot of ppl gloss over this because T2 is so damn awesome.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9187) 2 years ago

I have to agree, T and T2 are it. The rest of the movies are exploitative, derivative hogwash. It's like they took different parts and pieces and chunks of the plots of both these movies and put them in a blender and poured them out into different bowls and tried to make movies out of them. They were all awful - like all the Star Trek movies. Maybe parts of them were kind of exciting or impressive special effects-wise, but they didn't make any sense and they did not fit together. The subsequent movies were like very bad fan-fiction.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Hey, I love The Terminator. I love T2. I like T3. The rest is crap.
But let's be honest here: T2 is ALREADY retconning The Terminator.

Reese is crystal clear, and what he says makes sense: ONLY 1 TERMINATOR AND HIM were sent in time.
The T800 with the assassination mission, him to stop the T800.
That's it. Nobody else comes.

And it makes sense as a plan and plot.
Otherwise, T3 makes more sense than just T2: why would Skynet limit its own chances to 2, if he could open this portal more than once?

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7704) 2 years ago

Except Reese can't know for sure John did that cause he gets sent back before it happens. Also what use would there be in telling Reese about the T-1000 getting sent to a different time? It'd distract him too much from his mission in 1984.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Ok, it could be a lie they told Reese to galvanize him, but that's a bit a silly way to see it. Why not send 3 soldiers vs this T800 instead of just him?
The whole future scenario is described through his eyes and words, so I would take it all as CORRECT. Otherwise anything is possible.

In sci fi you set some rules and stick to them, otherwise it's called retconning (or plain bad writing). This is a clear and easy and important rule. They broke it for obvious reason$ .

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7704) 2 years ago

Ugh. Why do you waste time on boards of movies you don't even like?

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Ugh. Why do you waste time lying about what others like or don't like?

Also, great reply to my argument, you totally won the internet.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Reese is a lil crazy, but there's no reason to believe that he was misguided in part 1:

-only two things were sent through
-the time portal was immediately destroyed thereafter
-skynet's defense grid was smashed
-the war is over
-the fight for the future is in the past (now)

[–] scannerdarkly (1380) 2 years ago

You have a point there. But thats what they discuss in the movie. Dyson says he wont work on it anymore but it wont be enough, you have to blow up that building he works in because they have an arm and a chip. So letting Dyson live is still a valid option as long as they blew up the building destroying all their physical work and evidence of Skynet.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Don't forget that for all Dyson knows Cyberdine have back up files on his progress so far that are kept elsewhere.

[–] scannerdarkly (1380) 2 years ago

Its a huge office building with armed security guards, pre- 9/11, so that kind of redundancy might not feel warranted by them. But its still possible.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

This was the 1990s, decades before Cloud storage, was it SOP to have backups offsite? I thought most companies just used their onsite mainframes, with backups on floppy disks.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Even today companies have huge amounts of paper work (files) stored off site.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

But do they put copies of the most secret and sensitive documents into storage?

Dyson seemed to think that everything was at his home or his office, but then he might not know or care about document storage.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

But do they put copies of the most secret and sensitive documents into storage?

Yes

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blindfolded (1621) 2 years ago

No idea what youre going on about or where all the bible talk came from.

Wtf is this comment? Lol

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Oh, John Connor!

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

its not quite "The trolley problem" as, in that, death is guaranteed and exclusive to one party or the other.

Here we see them trying to have best of both worlds (and failing) , and I'm not convinced Dyson dying depite their best efforts combined with wiping research etc actually worked .

[–] Zinger (2337) 2 years ago

As all the terrible sequels demonstrate.

Killing Dyson, killing John, simply leads to others taking their place.

[–] blindfolded (1621) 2 years ago

I'm taking it from Sarah's perspective in that time, in that moment. Sarah doesn't know that Hollywood will make up excuses to cash-cow her franchise lol.

In that moment, in that mindset, killing Dyson prevents the war, and even T-800 surmised that. So we have to come at it from that angle. In that sense, if I'm Sarah, I pull the trigger.

[–] MikeCable (1853) 2 years ago

This is all very interesting.

I heard a quote in a movie my son was watching recently (maybe an Iron Man or Transformers), can't remember which one. A bad guy said something like, "If we don't develop the technology then someone else will."

It made me instantly think of Dyson and the whole Skynet thing.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7704) 2 years ago

I think it was in Avengers Age of Ultron.

[–] Puvwall (1384) 2 years ago

Dyson makes next level vacuums too

[–] blindfolded (1621) 2 years ago

I stand corrected. That alone would be cause to spare him.