Talk:Sarah Connor (Terminator)

Lana Headly's body

Is is really necessary to quote the article in calling her emaciated? She's about as emaciated as any woman with a figure like that. Furthermore, the article is only available to Los Angeles Times subscribers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.177.220 (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the controversy about this is relevant. It looks to have been covered by multiple major media outlets now: the LA Times, the Boston Herald, and The Guardian as well as by online blogs and communities. I'm putting it back in, with multiple sources. I also advise the people who are removing it without edit summaries to discuss it here first before doing that again. Oh, and I don't have a membership with the LA Times and the link comes up fine for me. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited a bit of bad text..Quote....

" 19 during The Terminator. (Hamilton was 34 during filming of T2.)"

It now reads..

"r 19 during The Terminator. (Hamilton was 34 during filming of Terminator 2.)"

Edited by Daniel Danger Molineux (danALLMIGHT@hotmail.com)

Name of article

Shouldn't this article be moved to "Sarah Connor_(character)"? As far as I know, whenever a character in a film/TV show/book shares a name with another person, they are always specified like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.65.6 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The fictional character Callisto has the article title Callisto (Xena). However, for Sarah Connor, maybe Sarah Connor (Terminator franchise) may be useful to indicate that she's in the Terminator franchise, rather than a fictional terminator herself. Andjam (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

T1 picture

A picture of Hamilton from the first movie would be nice, if there's something available.
—WWoods (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

In the first film, her middle initial is shown on screen as "J.", but Skynet does not know her middle name (hence killing all Sarah Connors). The screenplays and the novelizations for T1 and T2 share writers, and the novelizations give her full name as Jeanette. No other licensed source (to my knowledge) has given any other middle name. Based on all of the above the inclusion of Jeanette is completely valid by Wikipedia standards.
If another licensed source gave/gives a different middle name, than the introduction should just use J. with an explanation later. However, unless such an inconsistency arises, and the reference is valid.
As for the article on Faith (cited by another editor), if Joss Whedon specified her surname, and there is no alternate surname in the licensed works, than it should be in the intro, with a citation. Neither when we find something out, nor how commonly it is used, effect its validity if it is not disputed by contradictory information.
—MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: See James T. Kirk for a good example where the article is at the most common name, but the intro line uses the full name. And later in the article an alternate name is discussed in context. We do not even have such an alternate name issue here. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, the name Jeanette is not objectively the character's middle name in all media. Rather, the article (which needs a complete rewrite, of the Jason Voorhees write-up style) should include how the novelizations expanded the character, offering the surname as a development which has not been specifically contradicted by the films.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While a writeup on how the novelizations expands on the material shown in the films might be interesting, it does not change that there is no other middle name used in the franchise, and that it is properly cited (allowing a reader to come to their own conclusion as to its validity). Note that issues where there is some confusion (such as birth date) are covered later with the type of discussion you suggest, but that just isn't warranted for the middle name. It is well known that her middle initial is J., while it is more obscure that the J. stands for Jeanette, so while the footnote is necessary, exposition beyond giving the source is not. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 00:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The character is fictional, not real, which means that you do not "backtrack" information as if it was always there. This whole idea of "well, they never told us so that doesn't mean it isn't true" is irrelevant. It wasn't there to begin with, and no one knows about this middle name to begin with. You're forcing all versions of a character (whether canon or not) into one single entity, and that isn't how things are done. That is the entire purpose of not writing articles in an in-universe tone. We've been over this. You cannot treat them as if they are real, and YES, you are treating them that way if your argument is "well, it wasn't given before and the original creator is now doing it for this particular medium". It's something that was used to develop the character, it is not something that (A) was originally given to the character (B) is something that has become a staple of the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A character is a piece of intellectual property, and its name can be changed by the property holders as they see fit. If that happens than the "correct" name is the current one, (the "common" name would still be whatever most people call the character, but the correct name is what its owners say it is). The other names are part of the IP's history, but they are not more correct just because they came first.

Even if your argument was correct, then Jeanette would still stand in this case since the novel was available before the film was in theaters. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates on television show

According to other articles, it is said the pilot episode begins in 1998, but here it says 1999. Which is right?

Also, this article says the characters jump forward in time to 2007, but in the show, the construction sign they look at clearly indicates that it is 2006. Most references I have seen refer to 2006. It appears this contradiction needs fixed...

Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The dates are given on screen in the pilot, which starts on "August 24th, 1999" (on screen title), John is 15, and it's two years after the events of Terminator 2 (dialogue). The time jump is also shown on screen as from shortly after "09:03:19 09/10/1999" (on screen graphic) to "Target Date: 2007" (on screen graphic), and after dusk between "09-03-07 to 09-24-07" (construction sign).

Interestingly, another on screen graphic shows that the time jump is "T + 78892.31163". If that is in hours, then they would have arrived at around 13:30 on 2008-10-08. This suggests that at one point the script did specify a nine-year jump (either 1998→2007, or 1999→2008), but that it was changed to an eight-year jump (1999→2007) during production.

The second episode adds that Sarah spent "three years in a mental hospital" (voice over), and originally died on "December 4th, 2005" (dialogue). Also "John Baum" (John's alias) was born 07-22-1992 (birth certificate), and "Sarah Baum" was born on 02-06 (driver's license).

Before you ask, yes this means the show changed when T1 & T2 happened, when John was born, and when Sarah dies from cancer from the various dates established in the respective films.

Thanks for the clarification. Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Way too much plot detail

Like I said on the Derek Reese discussion page, there is far too much plot detail here. The movie sections are fine, but the TtSCC is far too long. Look at the John Connor page. That is what we are shooting for. Concise, to the point, and only covering what is important (role on the show, personality, etc.) At the rate these pages are filling up with plot info, we're gonna have to make a separate page for their TV personas, and I know that that is never going to happen. kingdom2 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I second this notion. While the anachronisms of this series may be noted as being many, if they are not relevant to the article, they can be truncated or removed entirely. The biography section should be truncated to be more concise.71.55.213.78 (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Connor and reese.jpg

The image File:Connor and reese.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not true

if they did not regard T3 as canon in T4 then how come they have kate brewster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.135 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the films, and the TV series are canon, but they are also on different time lines. The original film was based on a closed (and fixed) loop model, The second film made the timeline changeable, and the the TV series posits multiple versions of the future, with time travelers from more than version of the future interacting. Is not time travel fun :-) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed text

In a deleted scene of the episode "The Demon Hand", the first details of Sarah's childhood are revealed during a session with Dr. Peter Silberman. When she was seven, her father—a chronically depressed war veteran—loses his mattress factory job to a machine, which leads to dysfunction within her family and her father's subsequent abandonment of them. Her mother finds a job as a waitress. Even as a child, Sarah has an intense technophobia. After her father leaves, Sarah stops spending her afternoons with her childhood friend whose father is an engineer with IBM. Instead, she takes to visiting the factory where her own father had worked to watch the gears and belts of the machines, knowing something is wrong with what she sees.

The "Pilot" episode of The Sarah Connor Chronicles picks up Sarah and John on the run in 1999. Her FBI file lists her age as 33 on August 24, 1999, placing her birth date between August 25, 1965, and August 23, 1966, and making her age 17 or 18 when John was conceived in The Terminator. She claims in "Strange Things Happen at the One Two Point", whether truthfully or not, to have been 19 when John was born (around nine months later). Due to the forward time-travel jump in "Pilot", Sarah and John are now eight years younger than their birth-dates would otherwise indicate.

In the "Gnothi Seauton" episode, Cameron Phillips mentions that Sarah would have died from cancer on December 4, 2005, if they had not jumped forward in time. Cameron also mentions that John Connor sent Cameron back in time to help leap over Sarah's death. At the end of the episode, Sarah is at a doctor's office, where her forged drivers license shows her alias' birthday as February 4, 1974.

References

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible source for tv vs. film continuity

The CN tag in the beginning of the section about the tv series. Just dropping it here real quick in case someone wants to beat me to it; no time or focus at the moment. As worded in the interview, we'd need a bit of a rewrite on that sentence. It's not as definitive as implied by our current phrasing.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/06/20/guiding-the-sarah-connor-chronicles

Cheers. Millahnna (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Last Appearance: Fortnite

The last appearance of Sarah Connor is listed as Fortnite, a video game. Fortnite is irrelevant to Sarah Connor and the Terminator franchise and the last appearance should be part of the franchise canon (i do not know what that is, just flagging the issue). Wiki mwuk (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)