Jimbo, with the very basic understanding of temporal mechanics that I have it just seems illogical for there to be a 3rd Terminator. Especially considering how the 2nd ended. Miles was killed, and the chip was destroyed (all of them). I'm not looking at the philosophical or moral aspect of the story. I looking at it from a purely storytelling viewpoint. The overall arc of the story. Does that make any sense? If, according to the way the 2nd movie ended, they did change the future then how is it possible for another Terminator to travel back in time for the third time? They changed the future. They prevented the invention of Skynet that in turn invented the Terminators. So, given all of that, how then did they explain that the future wasn't changed? I understand that Skynet and John are connected, but there has to be a logical reason as to how (especially given all of the evidence to the contrary), that a third movie is possible. I'm just talking storyline here. It strikes me, knowing how most movies these days are so dumbed down, that the makers of this film would just throw the whole thing out the window and produce a thrid one just for the sake of producing it. Since the end of the story was supposed to be the 2nd film, how is the story carried on? I just want to hear what explanation they gave for how the a Terminator from a future that was prevented by the end of the 2nd film is able to show up again? If that future was prevented this Terminator shouldn't exist. See what I mean? This is what I want to know before I watch the third film. If the explanation isn't plausible, then I'm not going to bother with it.

Damn. I think I've given myself a headache.