Talk:Demon with a Glass Hand

My edit summary should have read: "check all the other outer limits episode articles". For example Tribunal - it is structured as your typical OL episode. Introduction (the first few scenes of the episode setting the stage, followed by the titles), then the opening narration, plot, and closing narration, Same for the others. If you plan to revert this again, I hope you are planning to alter every single article... but I'd suggest further discussion before making such a wide change. - Motor (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Gilgamesh

Shouldnt we explain that Gilgamesh, the mythical King Gilgamesh, did not achieve immortality nor a prolonged lifespan? They may have mixed up a couple of facts in the narration, they might have ment utnapishtim who was given eternal life by the gods, for his service during the great flood. --A941 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Survivors stored in his abdomen?

"Within his abdomen, stored on a gold wire, are the human survivors of the alien invasion of the future, whom he must safeguard until 200 years after the invasion has passed, when the plague will have dissipated." How are the survivors stored on gold wire inside is abdomen? -- Kjkolb 03:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the program is science fiction, so the question of "how" is moot. But I think the description doesn't accurately reflect this plot detail. I'm not certain enough to change it at this time. If you are, then edit the page. Slowmover 18:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen the episode. I am not expecting a plausible explanation, but the current description is somewhat baffling. I just looked it up on Google and I think I can improve it. -- Kjkolb 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I see why it was confusing. I think that's better. Slowmover 19:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire human race, every man, woman, and child, was reduced to a set of electrical impulses and these were encoded on the wire in question - a common way of preserving life a thousand years in the future. Yes, this is science-fiction, not fantasy, and, as such, must follow the rules - what we call the laws of physics and nature. Consider that every major scientific advance we now regard as mundane and commonplace came about in the last 50 years or so. And in 50 more years, who knows? In a thousand? So the writer here is safe is his predictions, so long as he stays within the rules. icemansix 0511 Hrs 16 June.

Copyright issue

The copyright issue regarding Ellison's claim is interesting, because Ellison's story here has no more connection to The Terminator than does the preceding Man Who Was Never Born Outer Limits episode (which Ellison did not write). It is in that story that a man from the future goes back in time to kill the person responsible for armageddon. And once he learns he's gone back too far, he sets about trying to prevent the person from being born. It is also similar in that the future man becomes romantically involved with the female lead. Just an observation. ZincOrbie 19:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My recollection of the claim (which is fading from memory) is that it is the combination of elements drawn from both this episode and Soldier that really makes the case. I vividly recall, after seeing The Terminator for the first time, that it brought back memories of both these episodes (and I even looked for Ellison's name in the credits). I wonder now, given the plot differences and the point you make about The Man Who Was Never Born, whether it is actually the atmosphere of these episodes that marks the greatest similarity to The Terminator. Slowmover 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I forgot all about Soldier, with two futuristic characters battling it out on history's streets. You're right. The Terminator appears to be a montage of all three Outer Limits episodes. The writers of those other episodes could have also made a claim against The Terminator filmmakers. Side note: Have you ever seen It! The Terror From Beyond Space? It is very apparent that this film was the basis for the original screenplay Star Beast from which the movie Alien was derived. And although the original suffers from a low budget and archaic technology, I find the characters to be superior. They are all intelligent, and they deal with their alien stowaway with calm resolve, instead of the histrionics displayed in Alien. Just my quickie review. ZincOrbie 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd read that Alien was based on that movie, but I don't think I ever saw it. Slowmover 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The film "Alien" was adapted from the original screenplay "Star Beast" which was purchased by Scott and then rewritten. The originals of both are available on a number of screenplay websites, as is the script for "It" and you can compare them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.11.112.251 (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess with these statements, and with the extensive "borrowing" Cameron did for Avatar (The Emerald Forest, Princess Mononoke, Dances With Wolves, etc.) we might come to the conclusion that he's not a very original screenwriter, but knows how to make lots of money. - Parsa (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Time paradoxes

This raises a whole bunch of unanswered questions:

• Will he prompt the future humans into starting the project that creates him?
• Does he even have to be built, since he will already exist?
• With his foreknowledge, could the human race defeat the invasion?
• Do I have way too much time on my hands?

OK, that last one does have an answer. Clarityfiend 04:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite the overall quality of the episode - as a tale of a tragic relationship it survives quite nicely - there remain some huge holes in logic in the plot, some of which are alluded to above. The most obvious of these is his being in two places at once. And in his knowledge of the impending invasion. Convincing people would be easy - just show them the wire. Of course, if he manages to somehow stop the invasion, he will never be built. Therefore, he could not stop the invasion - another "chicken or the egg" paradox. That's what happens when writers get their hands on an idea without understanding the science behind it. And science-fiction, unlike horror and fantasy, has to stay firmly grounded in reality and the laws of physics. Obviously Ellison, like Bugs Bunny, never studied law.

But among the new questions... if a "time mirror" is necessary to bring Trent and the Kyben into - and out of - the past, how did the mirror, or mirrors, get here in the first place?

Second, assuming Trent does survive his 1200 year vigil - and the war, which he will now have to live through - he will be there, fully aware and even watching the process, when he is assembled, programmed, and sent back into time, thereby existing in two places at the same time, a classic time paradox.

And, since he would still have the wire with him while his newly-assembled self journeys into the past to escape the Kyben - with another wire - he would now be able to simply wait until the plague fades away and short-cut the system, resurrecting the Human race himself without waiting for his other, "past" self to eventually arrive. The paradox creates the classic "Chicken or the egg" cycle noted above. And a loop in time is also created, since our "second" Trent will now go through the same 1200 year cycle - the war, being on hand to watch himself be built, etc - as the "original Trent did, and then the "third" Trent will arrive. And the next. And the next. Paradox on top of paradox. Trent after Trent after Trent, as the loop keeps repeating...

Ellison could have done away with all of it simply by getting rid of the mirrors and finding a solution that does not depend on dysfunctional science, such as saying that the Human race went into underground hibernation chambers to wait out the plague and Trent was sent back in time to hide until the plague had done its work and he could be recalled by some type of automatic control. He would then awaken the sleepers. Happy ending and no nasty paradoxes. But that's showbiz.

The concepts outlined in the episode "Soldier" differ greatly from such efforts as "Demon With A Glass Hand" or "The Man Who Was Never Born", in that the two warring killers in "Soldier" are here by accident. Their arrival might impact scientific development - the laser might form the basis of new techo research and some of the future insight gained might also influence the direction of events - but "Terminator" and "The Man Who Was Never Born" deal in attempts to alter the past, and that is an impossibility. By changing the past you will set in motion an entire chain of new events not influenced by the thing you changed. Go back and prevent the birth of the man whose discoveries resulted in the destruction of your future world and yes, you might now prevent that destruction, but you will also negate the very reason you went back. So that discovery - and all of the events it sets in motion - has to happen for you to be born and some day go back in time. Paradox. And by being destroyed, and having its parts later discovered by a couple of young researchers in a small tech company called "Cyberdyne", the Terminator guarantees the creation of "Skynet" (and itself) and fulfills its programming and its mission. There is also the 1966 low-budget vehicle for Michael Rennie called Cyborg 2087 with Rennie as a half-human cyborg called Garth who goes back in time to prevent the invention of a thought-control device that will result in the enslavement of humanity - and his own creation. Sound familiar? He succeeds, suddenly ceases to exist, and no one who met him even remembers him. Except that, by succeeding, he does away with the reason he went back in the first place. And his own creation. Which means he never went back. Which means he failed... and so on. The plot, as with other such efforts, is nonsense. Going back in time to set things right or change a terrible event can make for an engaging story, but as science - and science fiction - it's crap. Icemansix 04:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.11.112.251 (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 

But isn't the Paradox in 'The Terminator' that John Connor of the future wouldn't exist if he hadn't sent Reese back in time to sleep with his mother??81.111.127.132 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical bit

"The tragedy is that Trent actually thought he was a man; he and the woman had begun to have feelings for each other. When the secret is revealed, she leaves him, pity mixed with horror in her eyes, to face 1200 years of lonely vigil."

As far as I can see, this should read "he leaves her": otherwise it makes no sense. It is Trent who's going to live for 1200 years, not the woman. I'm changing it. WikiReaderer 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back. She couldn't love a robot, so she left. Clarityfiend 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is correct as it stands. realizing that she has fallen in love with a machine, however sophisticated, she backs away and walks out, leaving him alone. by this time, even trent realizes the impossibility of it, signified by his standing alone at the end, looking up at the stars, with 1200 years of absolute isolation ahead of him.

Pet Grammar Peeve

For heaven's sake, people: learn the definition of "decimate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.91.207 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ellison/Terminator

We really need an additional cite on this out-of-court settlement, since it appears in wildly different versions all over the 'Net — with not one of them, except for the professional entertainment-news website E! Online, giving actual, verifiable specifics. There was surely a statement put out by Ellison, Hemdale, Orion Pictures or even possibly Cameron at some point, or a contemporaneous news account in a magazine or newspaper. --24.215.162.198 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought Ellison sued because of the similarity between Skynet and AM in I Have No Mouth and Must Scream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.8.1 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, you could easily argue that both Elliison's and Cameron's "evil computer threat" bear an uncomfortable resemblance to "Colossus: The Forbin Project" a 1970 film adapted from the 1966 novel "Colossus", by Dennis Feltham Jones. Read the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.11.112.251 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ellison himself stated that he approached Hemdale after Cameron admitted, in an interview with 'Starlog Magazine', that he got the idea from 'The Outer Limits' and some of Ellison's short stories. They settled, out of court, for around $75,000 and an agreement to ackowledge his works in all iterations of the film thereafter. [1]So the piece on plagarism for this article is incorrect.--Muadeeb (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No such "admission" by Cameron has been documented by any reliable source. The settlement and agreement represent no implicit "admission" on Cameron's part, as he has repeatedly insisted. (This is not by way of any general defense of the director; I'm not a Cameron fan, only a fan of three of his movies, and he most certainly directly plagiarized the Terminator II liquid-metal thing from AE van Vogt's "Vault of the Beast", where even the scene of the robot blending with the floor, and then rising up behind his intended victim, was lifted right out of the book. The creature's fashioning stabbing-weapons likewise identical. Similarly its preference for mimicking metals, and its imprinted purpose to subjugate mankind, etc. etc.)

"Most damning, though, was a quote from James Cameron — which was supposed to have appeared in a magazine called Starlog — in which the director gave an interview about The Terminator ahead of its release. When asked where he got the idea from, he said: “I ripped off a few Outer Limits segments.” This sentiment was apparently repeated when a friend of Ellison’s visited the set of the film and Cameron said that he’d “ripped off a few of Ellison’s short stories” to make the script for Terminator. Now, the quote above is NOT in the final interview (I have the physical issue, plus you can read it *here), because purportedly, the editors of Starlog were asked (forced?) by one of James Cameron’s assistants to alter the piece before it went to print." [emph. added] -- https://electricliterature.com/was-1984s-the-terminator-a-harlan-ellison-rip-off-27f52272af11

* "James Cameron - How to direct a 'Terminator'

From: Starlog #89 Date: December, 1984 By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver A fantasy filmmaker unleashes a cyborg killer with the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger, an android assassin from the far-off future come to murder the promise of the present. -- http://www.terminatorfiles.com/media/articles/cameron_001.htm

Now, if you go to that starlog piece, you'll not find the actual Outer Limits episode named, specific to Ellison's claims, nor Ellison's name nor even The Outer Limits itself named.

What you do get, spread all over the internet, is mashups upon mashups of claims, promulgated by fans, such as the following:

"Unfortunately for Cameron, Starlog still had the original article [uh-huh, and what did the original say?]. Ellison presented this evidence [Oh he did, did he?] to Orion Pictures as proof [And granting Ellison did actually present this smoking gun, where's the documentation of what it said?] that Cameron had plagiarised his work." [parenthetical remarks added] -- http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n22i88AaQjIJ:https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/the-sources-the-terminator-1984-borrowed-from.179704/&num=1&client=safari&hl=en&gl=ca&strip=1&vwsrc=0

Finally, this entire section reiterating the claims of Ellison vs Cameron re:Terminator have nothing to do with the OL episode at hand, and should be removed altogether, not excluding this necessarily gratuitous rebuttal. The section is adding nothing to the improvement of the article proper, which such improvements are the mandated scope of article Talk-pages.

We now return control of your television set... JohndanR (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Joke

The first "hand-held" computer? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source for Ellison Quotation on Nonsensical Fisticuffs: “Gimme a break!”

In his IMDb review “Ellison's take,” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667812/reviews, 7 June 2009) author garysheski reports that Ellison “hated the way the writers butchered & disgraced his story,” and quotes Ellison as saying:

"Imagine", he said: "creatures from a far-future century fist-fighting and shooting at each other with pistols! Gimme a break!"

This sounds quite plausible to me; does anyone have a source for a similar quotation which meets Wikipedia guidelines?

—FlashSheridan (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

UK original broadcast.

I recollect watching this around Christmas 1964. Or am I imagining it? Jakescows (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)