Poll: Place your bets... LOTR cave troll versus T-800 Terminator

[Killer Angel]

• when in doubt, go with Arnie!

If we're talking about arnie's T800, then it's a no brainer!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

If we're talking about arnie's T800, then it's a no brainer!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Next up... Cave Troll vs. T-1000! lol (I suspect that even our staunchest cave troll loyalists would switch sides)

 

[Scalenex]

Next up... Cave Troll vs. T-1000! lol (I suspect that even our staunchest cave troll loyalists would switch sides)

Basically, the only thing in Middle Earth that can kill the T-1000 is Mount Doom. Maybe Smaug could breath him to death.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Maybe Smaug could breath him to death.

That's what I was thinking as well. It would all depend on if his breath attack is of a high enough temperature or not.

Plus he can safely fly and attack while out of reach.

Basically, the only thing in Middle Earth that can kill the T-1000 is Mount Doom.

But no one could get him there.

 

[Scalenex]

Basically, the only thing in Middle Earth that can kill the T-1000 is Mount Doom.

But no one could get him there.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think what you are saying is...

You'd have to really bend LOTR metaphysics, but Mordor does attract evil beings to it. That's how they caught Gollum.

Tolkien made it clear in his letters and interviews that he disliked the rapid and often ugly industrialization of the beautiful countryside he grew up in.

Tolkien famously disliked allegory but I think one could argue that Sauron represented an allegory for the evils of industrialization. Terminators also represent the evils of industrialization. I don't know if Sauron would be able to seize control of a Terminator robot or not. My guess is he could command a Terminator if he had the One Ring, but only able to nudge it without the One Ring. He might be able to persuade it to go leave his lands alone and kill a bunch of random humans instead of kill a bunch of random orcs.

Sauron wanted domination but he didn't want to destroy everything. Sauron's old boss Melkor/Morgoth wanted destruction. He would loved a Terminator running around killing random humanoids.

I don't know if any of the good guys would be able to stop a T-1000. The three rings the elves might be able do it commanding the elemental powers of Fire, Earth, and Water might be able to destroy a creature of molten metal. Maybe the dwarves would have some magic McGuffin that could command the power of metal.

It would help John and Sarah Conner, but in a world without advanced technology you MIGHT be able to rope-a-dope a T-1000 until it's battery runs out. (They never explain what the T-1000 ran on). But that would require a lot of dead people.

 

[Just A Skink]

From what I've heard about Rings of Power... maybe Sauron IS a T-1000. Or Venom.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I don't know if Sauron would be able to seize control of a Terminator robot or not. My guess is he could command a Terminator if he had the One Ring, but only able to nudge it without the One Ring.

I disagree. A Terminator simply runs on code, so Sauron (with or without the ring), would have no effect on it at all. A Terminator is completely foreign to anything Sauron would have ever encountered. There is nothing in LOTR that would suggest that his powers could reprogram computer code.

You'd have to really bend LOTR metaphysics, but Mordor does attract evil beings to it. That's how they caught Gollum.

A Terminator is not evil per se, any more than a gun or a knife is. It simply does as it is programmed to do. In the original Terminator the T-800 is the bad guy, but in the very next film, it's the central hero. If it has been programmed to do something evil, it has no choice in the matter, and thus is not evil. Without choice, can something be evil?

I don't know if any of the good guys would be able to stop a T-1000. The three rings the elves might be able do it commanding the elemental powers of Fire, Earth, and Water might be able to destroy a creature of molten metal. Maybe the dwarves would have some magic McGuffin that could command the power of metal.

I got my money on the T-1000.

Maybe Smaug could breath him to death.

That's what I was thinking as well. It would all depend on if his breath attack is of a high enough temperature or not.
Plus he can safely fly and attack while out of reach.

I should have mentioned that this does not account for the massive stealth advantage possessed by the T-1000. Throwing that into the mix would very likely change everything.

From what I've heard about Rings of Power

 

[Scalenex]

I disagree. A Terminator simply runs on code, so Sauron (with or without the ring), would have no effect on it at all. A Terminator is completely foreign to anything Sauron would have ever encountered. There is nothing in LOTR that would suggest that his powers could reprogram computer code.

If you are going to cross over two things not meant to be crossed over. You are going to have to write some new meta-rules for the gestalt universe in order to let the disparate elements interact.

They did that for Batman met the Ninja Turtles. And when Marvel characters entered the Conan the Barbarian universe, they shoehorned in some Doctor Strange "wizard did it" explanation. They did it when Mortal Combat crossed with the DC Universe. You get the idea.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

If you are going to cross over two things not meant to be crossed over. You are going to have to write some new meta-rules for the gestalt universe in order to let the disparate elements interact.

They did that for Batman met the Ninja Turtles. And when Marvel characters entered the Conan the Barbarian universe, they shoehorned in some Doctor Strange "wizard did it" explanation. They did it when Mortal Combat crossed with the DC Universe. You get the idea.

I agree that if you are the author/scriptwriter of a crossover you have to establish some new rules for the new piece of fiction you are crafting in order for it to work. However, in a debate/analysis, you can't decide the outcome based purely on your personal assumptions without an extremely strong chain of logic (with supporting evidence) that is difficult to contest by the other party.

For instance:
Magneto has demonstrated that his powers of magnetism allow him to control all sorts of metals and metal alloys. He has on numerous occasions shown the ability to manipulate machines and robots. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that he could manipulate the metals that make up a terminator.

A lightsaber has demonstrated the ability to cut through nearly all materials. The terminator, while constructed of a futuristic alloy, is still susceptible to damage and has been shown to be vulnerable to extreme heat (i.e. being destroyed in the iron smelting plant). The lightsaber has been shown to cut and melt advanced metal alloys. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that a lightsaber could cut through a terminator.

Sauron has never been shown to have the ability to control machines (because they don't exist in middle earth) or have any understanding of computer code. A terminator does not have the same emotions and ambitions as that of a mortal flesh and blood creature, and thus cannot be manipulated in the same way. Its physical makeup is also completely different than that of an organic being. And so on. The logical progression to assert that Sauron could control a terminator is nonexistent.

 

[Scalenex]

The lightsaber has been shown to cut and melt advanced metal alloys. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that a lightsaber could cut through a terminator.

If Magneto was in Middle Earth he'd be able to control a lot of metal, but would he be able to control a magic sword? Or mithral? That is less obvious.

Yes, some things are obvious. A lightsaber should be able to damage a Terminator fairly severely, but it's questionable whether one slice is adequate or a couple hits are needed.

For a more complex issue. Star Wars fans cannot agree on whether a Jedi can use a lightsaber or Force telekinesis to stop a lead bullet.

Whether Sauron could influence a Terminator depends on if Terminators have souls. Sarah Conner wondered if Arnold has a soul, that was the big question at the end of Terminator 2. Maybe he was a unique case, or maybe all Terminators have souls, but they are just usually dark souls. Like orc souls.

If Terminators have orc-like souls, Sauron can influence them. If Terminators don't have souls, Sauron cannot do much.

Another question is does "I am no man" apply to a Terminator or would Arnold or even the T-1000 fit the loose definition of "man".

Hypothetically the Nazgul would be able to fight the T-1000 because like the T-1000, they are selectively solid...except to magic blades. So the T-1000 wouldn't be able to hurt a Nazul, or at least not the Witch King of Angmar. Whether the Witch King can hurt a T-1000 is debateable. Depending on what a barrow blade can do to liquid metal.

You might be right NB, but my point is it's not obvious.

 

[Killer Angel]

A Terminator is not evil per se, any more than a gun or a knife is. It simply does as it is programmed to do.

Now, this is an interesting point.
While i 100% agree with you on a basic level, the Terminator doesn't kill indiscriminately. In the world dominated by skynet, every human is a prey to be terminated. In the '80 world he chooses its killings.
Of course, those choices are done within the boundaries of its program, but he chooses, nonetheless.
And once a terminator is put in a fictional universe where good and evil are actual forces that drive its inhabitants... well, it's not a stretch do presume that a thinking machine that chooses to kill, would be influenced by evil. Thus giving a grip to the influence of Mordor.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

If Magneto was in Middle Earth he'd be able to control a lot of metal, but would he be able to control a magic sword? Or mithral? That is less obvious.

Agreed, that is much less obvious. I'd guess it wouldn't be a very definitive (or consistent across time) answer. Here is a rough analogue, could Magneto wield/lift Mjolnir...


https://www.cbr.com/magneto-lift-thor-hammer-mjolnir-not-worthy/

Yes, some things are obvious. A lightsaber should be able to damage a Terminator fairly severely, but it's questionable whether one slice is adequate or a couple hits are needed.

Depends on the Terminator and the location of the strike. Against a T-800 the strike would have to destroy the powercell or central cpu. Cutting off an arm, leg or even bisecting it across the waist, would still leave the unit functional, although far from optimally.

The T-1000 is a bit tricker. Where is the cpu located? What about the power cell? Are they fully decentralized (i.e. each “cell” of the machine is the same as any other)? When a small piece of the T-1000 was blown off, that piece was inert until it got near the rest of the T-1000 and wasn’t under full control until it actually rejoined the main unit. Was that because the “consciousness” and power was located with the bulk of the unit? Or are there a specific group of “cells” that control executive functions? If it is the later, then a fortunately placed strike could bring the whole thing down. If it is in fact decentralized (which is what I would assume), then the T-1000 could likely survive a few strikes. Each strike of the lightsaber destroying the “cells” in the direct path of the cut. I'm not sure what percentage of the T-1000 would have to be destroyed before the whole unit ceases to function.

For a more complex issue. Star Wars fans cannot agree on whether a Jedi can use a lightsaber or Force telekinesis to stop a lead bullet.

I've never understood this "debate" and I always provide the same definitive answer:

***edit*** stupid gif (above) doesn't work on the forum, or more accurately, it only works on the edit screen but not when posted. This will have to do...

This is Genndy Tartakovsky created and George Lucas approved show. So pretty much the highest level of canon outside of the 6 main movies themselves. Also it makes intuitive sense. Why wouldn't the Jedi be able to stop a bullet with the force? Their reflexes are fast enough and they have manipulated objects that are much larger and with greater momentum.

Whether Sauron could influence a Terminator depends on if Terminators have souls. Sarah Conner wondered if Arnold has a soul, that was the big question at the end of Terminator 2. Maybe he was a unique case, or maybe all Terminators have souls, but they are just usually dark souls. Like orc souls.

If Terminators have orc-like souls, Sauron can influence them. If Terminators don't have souls, Sauron cannot do much.

That's just the musings of a singular character. It is just a reflection of her personal thoughts and feelings; a way to process and digest the events they had just been through. She doesn't actually know and nor could she ever know within the context of the film.

Terminators are machines... they don't have souls. You can argue consciousness, but not a soul. A soul is not a scientific principle as there is no physical evidence for it in the universe (our universe or the Terminator universe). If you consider a religious angle, then the Terminator is not of god. They are not children of god, and thus have no souls. Either does my computer or toaster.

Also, if Terminators did have a soul, it wouldn't be a dark soul. They do what they are programmed to do. If you programmed them to care for the homeless, that is what they would do. They would have a grey soul.

Also, if Sauron has such great power over corruptible souls, why didn't he prevent Isildur from lopping his fingers off? Isildur was shown to be corruptible, but Sauron still went down like a chump. A Terminator is much more singularly driven than Isildur; it cannot be bargained or reasoned with. And why not force Golem to bring the ring to him?

In the end though, a Terminator does as it is programmed. It can be reprogrammed, but that is done via computer code not some sort of soul bending. That was never a part of the Terminator franchise and it would be unfair to graft that idea onto the franchise.

Another question is does "I am no man" apply to a Terminator or would Arnold or even the T-1000 fit the loose definition of "man".

Hypothetically the Nazgul would be able to fight the T-1000 because like the T-1000, they are selectively solid...except to magic blades. So the T-1000 wouldn't be able to hurt a Nazul, or at least not the Witch King of Angmar. Whether the Witch King can hurt a T-1000 is debateable. Depending on what a barrow blade can do to liquid metal.

Man do I hate that "I am no man" line from LOTR. It always felt so out of place.

If we are to be technical, the Terminator is not a man. It may look like a man (but could just as easily be made to look like a woman, like the T-X) but it doesn't meet the definition of a man (adult human male). Besides, in modern day Hollywood, the Terminator could simply identify as a woman and by-pass the Nazgul's protection anyways .

In terms of a magic sword, what would prevent a Terminator from swinging a magic sword? They wield other weapons with ruthless efficiency, and it's not like the magic weapons depicted in LOTR have some sort of Mjolnir enchantment on them.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

While i 100% agree with you on a basic level, the Terminator doesn't kill indiscriminately. In the world dominated by skynet, every human is a prey to be terminated. In the '80 world he chooses its killings.

The Terminators do have the ability to make decisions, but always in the pursuit of the primary mission for which they have been programmed for. They kill or don't kill people based on whether or not the action would increase or decrease the chances of fulfilling their programmed mission.

Case in point:

The T-800 was going to kill the guy when the guy demonstrated himself to be a threat. However once John orders him not to kill any people (and obeying John is one of the T-800's mission parameters), the T-800 goes out of his way to avoid killing any humans for the rest of the movie. His decision making abilities only go as far as they fulfill his mission parameters. He can make lower level choices, but the programmed mission always takes priority and that programmed mission was decided by someone else. In fact, the Terminator demonstrates that he doesn't even understand why killing people is wrong; repeatedly asking John why it is wrong. At the end of the scene he still has not obtained an understanding of it, but refrains from killing people because he is programmed to obey John, and John told him not to. If John had instead ordered him to kill every person wearing a red baseball cap or Nike shoes, the Terminator would have attempted to do so. As such, in the end, he doesn't make and consequential choices outside of that which was programmed into him (of which he has no control over). Thus it is ultimately not responsible for those actions, it is the person that programmed him that is responsible.

And once a terminator is put in a fictional universe where good and evil are actual forces that drive its inhabitants... well, it's not a stretch do presume that a thinking machine that chooses to kill, would be influenced by evil. Thus giving a grip to the influence of Mordor.

Remember, the Terminator is not driven by good or evil, but in pursuit of its programmed mission. A lion isn't viewed as evil for killing a zebra, it needs to eat. A terminator must do what gives it the best chance to fulfill its preprogrammed mission while staying within its mission parameters.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, the LOTR universe never makes mention of the influence of Mordor being applicable to a machine. There are no machines (or even the concept of a machines) in LOTR, consequently, any attributed level of Morder influence over a machine is authored by you and @Scalenex , and not by Tolkien or James Cameron. It would be less of a stretch to argue that the T-5000 could take control of Sauron, and even still, I wouldn't hold that to be true!

 

[Killer Angel]

Remember, the Terminator is not driven by good or evil, but in pursuit of its programmed mission. A lion isn't viewed as evil for killing a zebra, it needs to eat. A terminator must do what gives it the best chance to fulfill its preprogrammed mission while staying within its mission parameters.

Again, i agree with you, i just want to develope a philosophical debate.
A lion in our earth is not evil, but a lion in middle earth?
Well, a lion not, but not all animals in middle earth are equals.
Bats were part of Middle Earth's ecosystem, however, bats sided with the Orcs and the wargs in the Battle of the Five Armies.
Warg is a variant of wolves which is inherently evil.
Tolkien was a catholic with a clear conception of good and evil. If your intentions are not evil but your actions are... in a magical world, your actions through time could define your being. A terminator could start as a neutral being with no alignment, but in Middle earth its program could be corrupted by evil, because its actions (in Tolkien's world) are evil.


EDIT:

Also, and I can't stress this enough, the LOTR universe never makes mention of the influence of Mordor being applicable to a machine. There are no machines (or even the concept of a machines) in LOTR, consequently, any attributed level of Morder influence over a machine is authored by you and @Scalenex

Sorry but this makes no sense. In a "what if" scenario you discuss exactly what could happen if you face a "not canon" occurrence.
There is no federation starfleet in Star Wars universe, and yet we discuss if a Starship deflector shield would stop a Star Destroyer's turbolaser.
Once we start talking about a terminator in Middle Earth, it's up to conjectures.

 

[Scalenex]

I like friendly arguments, and I could (out of love) bring up that LOTR does have magic weapons that are picky about the moral character of who picks them up.

It's fuzzy to mix fantasy and sci-fi but there is a bigger issue.

This is an apples and oranges. I'm not going to pretend that James Cameron is on Tolkien's level but Cameron is a good storyteller. Cameron's stories are elegant in their simplicity, like a fairy tale. They are not complex but there are moving. Avatar is basically "Military bad, trees good". And Titanic is a pretty by-the-numbers romance novel plot. He keeps the world building simple. Tolkien is all about depth and elaborate world building.

Generally any attempt to mix Cameron and Tolkien (or Cameron and Peter Jackson if you want to put them on equal footing) is a square peg/round hole situation.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Tolkien was a catholic with a clear conception of good and evil. If your intentions are not evil but your actions are... in a magical world, your actions through time could define your being. A terminator could start as a neutral being with no alignment, but in Middle earth its program could be corrupted by evil, because its actions (in Tolkien's world) are evil.

Analyzing actions without the proper context surrounding and driving them is a futile and pointless endeavor.

If you see a squirrel on the road and you intentional swerve to hit it and succeed, that is evil. If you are driving your car and a squirrel jumps out of the bushes and you swerve to avoid it but end up hitting and killing it, that is not evil. In both cases you swerved your vehicle, hit the squirrel and killed it. The same action, but with opposite intentions and morality. If you kill someone are you evil? It depends. If you do so because they cut you off on the road, then yes. If you do so because they were about to kill a classroom full of grade 1 children and you save the kids by taking out the would be assailant, then you are a hero. We have self defense laws for a reason. Soldiers are honored as heroes (and seen as villains by opposing forces). It's not black and white, but a very muddy grey. Morality is not an absolute, it is a human construct.

If I obtain mind control powers and force you to take out Kathleen Kennedy, are you evil? The action of killing her is undoubtedly evil. However, you had no choice in the matter. You are not evil... but in that scenario, I would be. I would have made the decisions, it would be my intentions that were being acted out. Not only would you not be evil (legally, morally or otherwise) you'd actually be another victim in that scenario. In the exact same way, the Terminator is controlled by it's programming, it does not have a choice in the matter.

Sorry but this makes no sense. In a "what if" scenario you discuss exactly what could happen if you face a "not canon" occurrence.
There is no federation starfleet in Star Wars universe, and yet we discuss if a Starship deflector shield would stop a Star Destroyer's turbolaser.
Once we start talking about a terminator in Middle Earth, it's up to conjectures.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that assumptions and conjecture are not part of the process of discussing a hypothetical "what if" scenario. I'm saying that the assumptions you are making are both logically flawed and suffer from a very heavy bias in favor of LOTR. You have to try to honor both Tolkien's canon and Cameron's canon. You keep saying in Tolkien's world this, in Tolkien's world that, while ignoring the rules that govern the Terminator universe.

So we are left with:

• what is known from Tolkien's canon
• the assumptions, conjecture and logic you use to bridge the canon above (Tolkien) to the canon below (Cameron)
• what is known from Cameron's canon

Dismantling even one of those things, breaks your argument. I will cut down all three.

Tolkien's Canon
The argument being presented to me is that Sauron can control evil things. Just how effective is that control? How universal is it? What are its limitations?

Some of the arguments to demonstrate Sauron's ability to control "evil things" are as follows:

1. Sauron commands the Orcs/Goblins of middle earth (is this control absolute? does he command every one of them in middle earth? could individuals break away from him and pursue their own ends?)
2. Sauron corrupted Saruman (is Saruman a slave to him, or did Sauron make him some offer that convinced him?)
3. Sauron corrupted the human ringbearers via their rings and his one ring to rule them all
4. Some animals align themselves to the cause of Mordor

And now the limitations:

1. He could not corrupt the Dwarf ringbearers
2. Not every evil thing in middle earth bows to his command. There are no doubt many evil humans in middle earth that do not fall under his command. Why wouldn't he take control of a couple of humans with questionable morality in the opposing army, or defending a castle? Wouldn't that be immensely useful?
3. He could not prevent Isildur from lopping his fingers off (and Isildur was proven to be highly corruptible)
4. He could get Gollum to bring him the ring (and Gollum is evil... after all he did kill is friend to get the ring originally). Is it because Sauron's body is destroyed by this point, but if so, then why does Saruman fall to him, why do the Orcs not rebel?

Sauron's control does not appear to be absolute (like Charles Xavier taking control of someone's mind). I question whether some of his minions are aligned with him while acting on their own behalf.

Sauron's control is FAR from universal. There are too many exceptions (detailed above). If there are so many exceptions to his in-universe control, is it wise to extend that control to foreign entities from a completely different universe?


Logical flaws in bridging the two canons

• the T-1000 is has no choice but to follow its core programming. Hence it is not evil (as demonstrated earlier). If it is not evil, then Sauron has no chance of controlling it
• even if the T-1000 was evil (like Skynet can be argued to be), it is not logical to assume that the ability to corrupt an organic being would apply to an artificial intelligence (for example Charles Xavier can control humans and mutants with his mind control, but not sentinels). These are two absolutely radically different "lifeforms". They think differently. Their physical makeup is completely different. Their motivations are different. The terminator is utterly unlike anything that Sauron has ever controlled before. As an example, in the real world, the skills/techniques to manipulate a person to obey you is completely different than getting a computer to do so. Being good at one, does not does not mean you are good at the other.

Cameron's canon
Can a Terminator be manipulated, reasoned with, convinced or controlled outside of being reprogrammed (which we can safely assume Sauron has zero experience doing)?:

Seems pretty definitive. If that Terminator (in this case the T-1000, which still follows the same rules as described in the video above) is programmed to killed Sauron it will stop at nothing until it does. It either kills Sauron or it is destroyed before it can. Seeing as Sauron got punked by some humie with a broken sword, I don't fancy his chances against a T-1000.





In short:

1. Tolkien's work does not demonstrate Sauron's ability to control to be absolute or universal.
2. It does not make logical sense that Sauron's ability to control an orc or bat would be in anyway be indicative that it would apply to a T-1000. Commonsense and logic dictates otherwise.
3. Cameron's work explicitly shows that a Terminator will not deviate from its pursuit of its programmed prime objective(s) unless it is reprogrammed. The problem here is that the T-1000 has not been shown to be reprogrammable in the core movies (not sure about the extended universe) but regardless, Sauron has no demonstrated mastery or even basic knowledge of robotics and computer code.

 

[Killer Angel]

Wow, @NIGHTBRINGER, long and articulated post, i've really appreciated it.

Alas, with long posts it's difficult to me to deal with all the contents, so i'll try to keep it short

In short:

1. Tolkien's work does not demonstrate Sauron's ability to control to be absolute or universal.
2. It does not make logical sense that Sauron's ability to control an orc or bat would be in anyway be indicative that it would apply to a T-1000. Commonsense and logic dictates otherwise.
3. Cameron's work explicitly shows that a Terminator will not deviate from its pursuit of its programmed prime objective(s) unless it is reprogrammed. The problem here is that the T-1000 has not been shown to be reprogrammable in the core movies (not sure about the extended universe) but regardless, Sauron has no demonstrated mastery or even basic knowledge of robotics and computer code.

1-2)
please note that i never talked about Sauron, nor that the T800 is given Sauron as target. That wasn't me, i was making the hypothesis of a T800 moving across Middle Earth and ultimately falling under Mordor's influence.
As stated by Gandalf, "Mordor draws all wicked things". Mordor it's the principle of evil made land.
Sauron needs an active effort, what I'm talking of is a magical place with a passive ability.
Of course, for a terminator to be attracted by Mordor, we needs for the terminator to fall under the "evil" cathegory, as perceived in Tolkien's world.
Which brings us to:

3)
Cameron shows that a Terminator will not deviate from its pursuit of its programmed prime objective.
But Cameron also shows us that a terminator can develope a more varied behavior and understanding of emotions.
Arnie fought to protect young Connor. Once completed its mission, its suicide was a previous order? it doesn't seems so, it seemed a self made idea, to personally extend its primary objective also to the future of John. And, even if arnies says that he couldn't never cry, he admits that now he understands why people cry. And he salutes both John and Sarah before dying. Arnies starts being a full-auto machine, and ends being a machine that shows real empathy and knowledge of human suffering.
All of this with just a mere few days being in contact with humans.
As shown in Cameron's work, a terminator can understand the knowledge of human sensibility and develope empathy, and once you understand a thing, the whole "it's just executing its program" is questionable.

In the end, given that we know that a terminator can understand the concept of sympathy, it's not impossible to assume that a Terminator that lives for years in middle earth, would end being good or evil.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

please note that i never talked about Sauron, nor that the T800 is given Sauron as target. That wasn't me, i was making the hypothesis of a T800 moving across Middle Earth and ultimately falling under Mordor's influence.

Fair enough, that was an assumption on my part given that the theme of this thread is a versus battle; starting with T-800 versus the cave troll and eventually evolving into the T-1000 versus the most potent adversary that Middle Earth has to offer.

As stated by Gandalf, "Mordor draws all wicked things". Mordor it's the principle of evil made land.
Sauron needs an active effort, what I'm talking of is a magical place with a passive ability.

That is a much more nebulous thing and I would argue far, far, far less influential; if influential at all.

Consider the Gandalf phrase you quoted, "Mordor draws all wicked things". Let's dissect that quickly:

• it's made by a singular character. It is his opinion; his interpretation to the best of his knowledge. While Gandalf is admittedly wise, he is very far from all knowing.
• the phrase itself is very open ended and does not necessarily imply dominion or control. The PS5 draws the NIGHTBRINGER. Paris draws tourists. These statements are true, but neither the PS5 or Paris exhibit direct control over their respective parties. It's a choice on behalf of myself and tourists; a choice that is not binding. It is far more plausible that the Orcs are drawn to Mordor because it is the seat of Sauron's power, it is a highly defensible position and they are safe from the men that would otherwise fight to drive them off their land. While Mordor is an evil place, it has not demonstrated the ability to actually gain control over wicked beings.
• most importantly, we have evidence that the statement is not true. It does not draw all wicked things. Where are all the wicked humans of middle earth? Or the Dwarfs? Or even the Elves, who must have some wicked members (King Thranduil from the Hobbit movie seems like an asshole). Why hasn't Mordor drawn them? What about Gollum? Gollum is wicked, but he just wants the ring and would otherwise stay clear of Mordor and ignore its call.

But Cameron also shows us that a terminator can develope a more varied behavior and understanding of emotions.

Undoubtedly, a Terminator is a learning machine. It has potential to acquire new knowledge, skills and understanding. It is an intelligent piece of tech.

Arnie fought to protect young Connor. Once completed its mission, its suicide was a previous order? it doesn't seems so, it seemed a self made idea, to personally extend its primary objective also to the future of John.

If its suicide was an extension of its primary objective to protect John (extended to John's future) as you suggest, then the suicide does stem from a previous order, its programmed primary objective to protect John. There is a component of interpretation in extending the primary objective beyond protecting John from the T-1000, but it is still acting in a way to fulfill it's programmed function (protect John). Without knowing the exact programming instructions it was given, its tough to say how much of an evolution this is.

It is an interesting one. Once its mission is completed the Terminator does have a lot more freewill than it previously had (not to a human extent though). It's tough to confidently define its motivations. The plan to stop Judgement Day was initiated by Sarah when she attempted to kill Dyson. When she couldn't go through with it, ultimately their new plan is designed and enacted. At one point John says "We still have to stop this from happening". The T-800 plays a part in the construction of the plan, but it is not the one that is deciding to pursue it (it's priorities are to protect John from the T-1000). Destroying itself at the end of the movie, is the final step in completing that plan.

Did it decide to destroy itself as a way to protect John's future? Maybe. Did it decide to destroy itself as the final step to complete the plan that John/Sarah initiated? Maybe. How much of it was freewill and how much of it was linked (and to what degree) to its programmed mission parameters is impossible to say. I don't really know, and I'm not sure if we are meant to know.

One thing though, even after deciding that it too must be destroyed, the T-800 hands the controls to Sarah and instructs her that she must lower him into the vat of liquid iron. "I cannot self-terminate". Even after all the growth and after completing its mission, its still bound by the parameters of its programming.

To play devil's advocate (against myself), at the end the T-800 does ignore John's command not to suicide itself. So there exists some degree of freewill that was not present while its primary objective was incomplete (protect John from the T-1000). We can speculate on the reasons for its refusal.

And he salutes both John and Sarah before dying.

Because even though the Terminator does not experience emotions, James Cameron knows perfectly well that the audience does!

Arnies starts being a full-auto machine, and ends being a machine that shows real empathy and knowledge of human suffering.

I would agree with 50% of that statement.




He definitely learns to understand it, but he doesn't have emotions like a human has, so he can't share it. "I know now why you cry but it is something that I could never do." Sharing (so feeling the emotion yourself) is the most crucial part of experiencing empathy, without feeling you cannot experience empathy.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Wow, @NIGHTBRINGER, long and articulated post, i've really appreciated it.

It has been an intriguing back and forth discussion. The thread and its evolution have pleasantly exceeded my expectations.