.

All writers will?eventually develop their?own definitions and labels, most noticeable in writing teams by the way, and as?noted previously definitions are not 'hard and fast' they are malleable. However, if you do wish to work with other professionals - producers, executives or directors, you will?need to be able to make clear references and use the same terminology as they do. In this instance I believe that the?terminology proposed in the original post will conflict with that used by most other people, and what ever logic is?employed to explain it will not serve a purpose in the long run.

The character definitions that we're discussing fall under the umbrella of archetypes in the hero's journey. These are widely recognised and heavily documented conventions, and would benefit most writers as analysis tools, yet in the original post there is a blunt rejection of these conventions.?Therefore, aside from not being able to communicate clearly with other professionals, you miss out on the benefit of using a tested tool set.

Again, use what ever definition you want, but bear in mind that it may not necessarily work when used with other people.?As story telling in general and film making in particular are collaborative efforts, ask your self - is this serving a purpose?

1]Just because some one else says the Terminator is the protagonist doesn't make it so. ?

2] Just because Sarah doesn't (initially) fill the bill for however one defines the protagonist does not mean that, ergo, the Terminator must be the protagonist.

Yes, the Terminator is pursuing an objective goal. ?As all antagonists should.?

And so is Reese. ?His objective goal -- the mission given to him by the future John Connor-- ?is to save Sarah ?from the Terminator so that John Connor can have his future. ?In your schema, why couldn't he be the protagonist --a heroic one? ?After all, he makes the ultimate sacrifice a hero can make.

3] Stories have points of view (pov). ?If "Terminator" were told from the sympathetic pov of Skynet, ?then, yes, the Terminator could be the protagonist.?But that's not the pov ?the story takes. ?James Cameron wrote from the sympathetic pov of humans, not cyborgs.

I appreciate the time and thought you've taken to explain your ideas, and I sympathize with your frustration with my answers. ?But our points of view just don't align, don't converge on this film. ?That happens. So it goes.

regards

1]Just because some one else says the Terminator is the protagonist doesn't make it so. ?

2] Just because Sarah doesn't (initially) fill the bill for however one defines the protagonist does not mean that, ergo, the Terminator must be the protagonist.

Yes, the Terminator is pursuing an objective goal. ?As all antagonists should.?

And so is Reese. ?His objective goal -- the mission given to him by the future John Connor-- ?is to save Sarah ?from the Terminator so that John Connor can have his future. ?In your schema, why couldn't he be the protagonist --a heroic one? ?After all, he makes the ultimate sacrifice a hero can make.

3] Stories have points of view (pov). ?If "Terminator" were told from the sympathetic pov of Skynet, ?then, yes, the Terminator could be the protagonist.?But that's not the pov ?the story takes. ?James Cameron wrote from the sympathetic pov of humans, not cyborgs.

I appreciate the time and thought you've taken to explain your ideas, and I sympathize with your frustration with my answers. ?But our points of view just don't align, don't converge on this film. ?That happens. So it goes.

regards