# Timeless - Season 2 Thread *spoilers*



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Good start to the season.

So immediately after the events of last season, Rittenhouse blew up Mason Industries and Lucy assumed Wyatt and Rufus were dead so she plans to work with her mother to infiltrate and destroy Rittenhouse.

Meanwhile, we find out Wyatt and Rufus were not killed, but the whole Mason Industries team has been hiding out at an undisclosed location while trying to repair the Lifeboat. Once the Lifeboat is repaired, they can see that the Mothership has gone back to 1918 France in the middle of WWI so Wyatt and Rufus jump in the Lifeboat to hopefully go find Lucy.

Now we've got Rittenhouse sleeper agents seeded throughout history, the mastermind of this Rittenhouse plan brought 100 years into the future, and Garcia Flynn in the custody of Mason Industries and potentially willing to work with them if he can talk to Lucy.

Great setup. Excited to see where things go this season. Ratings for the premiere were not great so I think we can probably assume that S2 will likely be the last.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Thanks for the recap. I didn't remember how it ended last season, and got a little confused. It's funny how they meet someone famous, like Marie Curie and act all starstruck around her.  (not that I wouldn't do the same thing)


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

stellie93 said:


> Thanks for the recap. I didn't remember how it ended last season, and got a little confused. It's funny how they meet someone famous, like Marie Curie and act all starstruck around her.  (not that I wouldn't do the same thing)


Too bad they couldn't convince her that radiation IS bad for you. Of course, by that time, it was probably already too late.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I am impressed with the budget for this show. All those period set pieces, extras in uniform and weapon rentals don’t come cheap.

I’m afraid we’ll end up with a cliffhanger ending and the series won’t get picked up again. They’ll end up lost in time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't remember much about how last season ended up either. I'd suggest reading this recap if you want a good summary of the S1 finale:

'Timeless' Finale Recap: Lucy Faces Off Against Rittenhouse


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Great start to the season. Is this the first time Lucy had to kill an innocent person? I’m pretty sure she’s had to kill before, but as Arnie said in True Lies, “they were all bad.”


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

mlsnyc said:


> Great start to the season. Is this the first time Lucy had to kill an innocent person? I'm pretty sure she's had to kill before, but as Arnie said in True Lies, "they were all bad."


I think this is the first time Lucy had to kill someone. I agree on a great start to the season and lets hope it continues for more than one more season


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

longrider said:


> I think this is the first time Lucy had to kill someone. I agree on a great start to the season and lets hope it continues for more than one more season


I know Rufus has had to kill someone. I guess I just assumed Lucy had to as well.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> . . . .
> So immediately after the events of last season, Rittenhouse blew up Mason Industries
> . . . .


I remember Rittenhouse blowing up Mason Industries but I assumed the lifeboat and key personnel were there and destroyed or killed. Apparently that didn't happen but it almost seems like a "deus ex machina" event!!

Gerry


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Gerryex said:


> I remember Rittenhouse blowing up Mason Industries but I assumed the lifeboat and key personnel were there and destroyed or killed. Apparently that didn't happen but it almost seems like a "deus ex machina" event!!
> 
> Gerry


It certainly raises the question how Agent Christopher could get the damaged Lifeboat and a bunch of injured people out of the blast site and stashed away at a secure facility without anyone from Rittenhouse knowing the Lifeboat and those people survived the blast.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It certainly raises the question how Agent Christopher could get the damaged Lifeboat and a bunch of injured people out of the blast site and stashed away at a secure facility without anyone from Rittenhouse knowing the Lifeboat and those people survived the blast.


EXACTLY!!!


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

DevdogAZ said:


> It certainly raises the question how Agent Christopher could get the damaged Lifeboat and a bunch of injured people out of the blast site and stashed away at a secure facility without anyone from Rittenhouse knowing the Lifeboat and those people survived the blast.


I was thinking the same thing, and as Wyatt was standing in the hatch of the Lifeboat when the bomb went off how did he only have comparatively minor injuries on his back?? Also, the Lifeboat had no apparent interior damage even though the open hatch was facing the bomb


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

longrider said:


> I was thinking the same thing, and as Wyatt was standing in the hatch of the Lifeboat when the bomb went off how did he only have comparatively minor injuries on his back?? Also, the Lifeboat had no apparent interior damage even though the open hatch was facing the bomb


Yeah, at least if he had closed the door, which I was expecting him to do, it would have been more believable.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

Ack. I hate stand-offs with guns. So why the heck didn't Wyatt just shoot Emma before she knew he was even there? Instead, he gives away the upper hand and threatens the soldier? Then lets them go in the time machine to go do whatever they want? Really? Utter stupidity.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

RGM1138 said:


> I am impressed with the budget for this show. All those period set pieces, extras in uniform and weapon rentals don't come cheap.


A thought on that, I wonder how much of it is CGI?? I know I was surprised when I found out that Sanctuary was 98% CGI and even after knowing that there were only a few scenes where it was obvious


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

longrider said:


> A thought on that, I wonder how much of it is CGI?? I know I was surprised when I found out that Sanctuary was 98% CGI and even after knowing that there were only a few scenes where it was obvious


I was just looking at it again and you can spot the CGI sections pretty easily. The aerial dogfights and the shot where Lucy and mom look down in the valley at the war, pretty obvious.

The camp scenes, day and night, with the period costumes, vehicles, horses and extras, that's all live action.

It wasn't quite as impressive as the first viewing. They could have probably shot the location scenes in a couple of days or less. Maybe 50-75 extras, tents, weapons and equipment rental. It would somewhat expensive, but much less so that creating the background atmosphere in a computer.

But still, it was quite a bit of effort for a tv show, considering all the setups and even a full blown fire gag.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

rharmelink said:


> Ack. I hate stand-offs with guns. So why the heck didn't Wyatt just shoot Emma before she knew he was even there? Instead, he gives away the upper hand and threatens the soldier? Then lets them go in the time machine to go do whatever they want? Really? Utter stupidity.


Yeah, but then you've lost that whole storyline about the soldier brought into the future and whatever high jinks he gets into.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

RGM1138 said:


> Yeah, but then you've lost that whole storyline about the soldier brought into the future and whatever high jinks he gets into.


Right. So lazy writing.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

DevdogAZ said:


> It certainly raises the question how Agent Christopher could get the damaged Lifeboat and a bunch of injured people out of the blast site and stashed away at a secure facility without anyone from Rittenhouse knowing the Lifeboat and those people survived the blast.


Watch _Deception_, they made a whole plane disappear!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

In the "previously on", they showed Rufus' GF (Jaya?) go throw a time change or something like that (the world changed because someone/something changed the timeline). I don't remember what that was about. Can someone recap that part?

Is she going through time or something?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

rharmelink said:


> Ack. I hate stand-offs with guns. So why the heck didn't Wyatt just shoot Emma before she knew he was even there? Instead, he gives away the upper hand and threatens the soldier? Then lets them go in the time machine to go do whatever they want? Really? Utter stupidity.


Thank you. I remember thinking that Wyatt could have shot Emma around eight times during that stand off. And what happened to the Curies? They sort of disappeared off set during the stand of.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Lucy shooed them off right when the ruckus started. I had to rewind to catch that.


----------



## TrueEddie (Mar 3, 2009)

Anubys said:


> In the "previously on", they showed Rufus' GF (Jaya?) go throw a time change or something like that (the world changed because someone/something changed the timeline). I don't remember what that was about. Can someone recap that part?
> 
> Is she going through time or something?


I was trying to remember what happened to her also. Found this description at Jiya:

In the season one finale The Red Scare, Jiya time travels with the team to assist Rufus after he had been shot. She ends up losing consciousness in 1954, which Rufus believes may be because the ship was only designed to carry three people. She recovers in the hospital after their return, but then experiences another brief episode of her eyes rolling to the back of her head.​


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> In the "previously on", they showed Rufus' GF (Jaya?) go throw a time change or something like that (the world changed because someone/something changed the timeline). I don't remember what that was about. Can someone recap that part?
> 
> Is she going through time or something?


TrueEddie basically summed it up, but she's been "unwell" since going on that trip in the season finale. She had several seizures in that finale and then had another spell in this episode. Since there was six weeks between the season finale and this episode, presumably she's been having these seizures and fainting spells the whole time.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

But there seemed to be a shot of the world changing around her in the "previously on"...as if someone changed the timeline and the world changed around her...

meh...I may be imagining things...


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

All this talk has made me glad that TiVo has the undelete feature as now I want to go back and watch at least the "previously on" section again


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Anubys said:


> But there seemed to be a shot of the world changing around her in the "previously on"...as if someone changed the timeline and the world changed around her...
> 
> meh...I may be imagining things...


After they got back from their mission in the season finale, Rufus went to visit her in the hospital. Her room just happened to have huge window with a great view of the Golden Gate Bridge. After she told Rufus that she loves him, they kissed. Then, she started twitching and her eyes rolled into the back of her head. Outside, the view of the Golden Gate Bridge briefly flickered and turned into the bridge under construction.

The implication seems to be that she is somehow unstuck in time, but we don't know what that means, yet.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I just tried to watch the "Previously On" segment via my iPhone from my TiVo at home and it's telling me the software doesn't support out-of-home streaming. Which is weird, because it's worked great in the past, as recently as a couple weeks ago. I wonder if TiVo released an update to their iPhone app that removed that functionality.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

I've decided I won't really think of this as a "time travel" show anymore. I will instead think of it as an "Abigail Spencer wears period costumes" show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Anubys said:


> But there seemed to be a shot of the world changing around her in the "previously on"...as if someone changed the timeline and the world changed around her...
> 
> meh...I may be imagining things...


Early last season things DID change around her, after her first trip into time. Her sister no longer existed, she had a fiance and (I think) her mother was still alive. So maybe that's what they are referring to?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Early last season things DID change around her, after her first trip into time. Her sister no longer existed, she had a fiance and (I think) her mother was still alive. So maybe that's what they are referring to?


We're not talking about Lucy. We're talking about Jaia, the engineer girl who works at Mason Industries and had a budding romance with Rufus. Her first trip back in time was in the season finale, and she was an "extra" passenger in the Lifeboat, which is suspected to be the reason why she is now "sick."

Although if the Lifeboat is designed for three and they put a fourth person in there, I'm not sure why only one of them would be feeling the effects. Wouldn't it hit all of them equally? Or if it would only hit one person, why did it only hit her and not one of the others?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Early last season things DID change around her, after her first trip into time. Her sister no longer existed, she had a fiance and (I think) her mother was still alive. So maybe that's what they are referring to?


You're talking about Lucy. Her mother was there both before and after, but in the before she was sick and bedridden and after she was healthy.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

never mind then


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I noticed this season the lifeboat still has a bilge pump.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

getbak said:


> After they got back from their mission in the season finale, Rufus went to visit her in the hospital. Her room just happened to have huge window with a great view of the Golden Gate Bridge. After she told Rufus that she loves him, they kissed. Then, she started twitching and her eyes rolled into the back of her head. Outside, the view of the Golden Gate Bridge briefly flickered and turned into the bridge under construction.
> 
> The implication seems to be that she is somehow unstuck in time, but we don't know what that means, yet.


It was the future (or the present timeline changed) of a post-apocolyptic SF with the bridge half destroyed. Some sort of armageddon vision, as she mentioned in this episode.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> It was the future (or the present timeline changed) of a post-apocolyptic SF with the bridge half destroyed. Some sort of armageddon vision, as she mentioned in this episode.


No, it was under construction.

Note: It's not an accurate depiction of the bridge under construction because the suspension cables were in place before any of the roadway was built.










This is from a post-finale interview with Eric Kripke last year (Timeless EPs Talk Rittenhouse Twist, [Spoiler]'s Condition, Season 2 Plans):


> There's something very mysterious happening to her. She was affected by being the fourth person in the machine, and what she ends up seeing is this flickering between the Golden Gate Bridge present day and then the year when it was being constructed. What does that mean, and what is happening to her, and what is she able to see, and how does that grow and change in Season 2 becomes part of the story. The only mild spoiler that I'll say about it is one of my all-time favorite books is _Slaughterhouse-Five_, [which is] about a man who becomes unstuck in time, and that was part of the inspiration for what is starting to happen to Jiya.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Okay then. My misinterpretation.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Thank you all for the explanation...I wonder if when she went back in time if she was suspended in mid-air where the hospital will eventually be or how they will explain the unchanging viewpoint


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

getbak said:


> No, it was under construction.
> 
> Note: It's not an accurate depiction of the bridge under construction because the suspension cables were in place before any of the roadway was built.
> 
> ...


As if they didn't have enough problems with the main crew going back and messing with time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Enjoyed the second episode since I'm a NASCAR fan, but it's going to be a little ridiculous if every time our trio travels to the past, Emma and other Rittenhouse goons are there and attempt (but fail) to kill the trio. Hopefully the writers will come up with better stories where it's more complicated than simply the bad guys shooting at the good guys every week.

Also, since Wyatt killed the race car driver, how did he and the others get out of that tent without getting arrested?


----------



## TrueEddie (Mar 3, 2009)

I thoroughly enjoyed the second episode also (I'm also a NASCAR fan). If I heard correctly they said that the Rittenhouse driver won the first Daytona 500. Knowing that's not true I like how they are "changing" history by preventing things that didn't actually happen. Makes it easier to understand the consequences. For example, Lee Petty won the race in real life, and they can say that this happened because Wyatt killed the Rittenhouse guy. Quite clever.

I'm also loving the mystery they're creating with Jiya. Apparently she can see the future now?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

TrueEddie said:


> I'm also loving the mystery they're creating with Jiya. Apparently she can see the future now?


Apparently both the future and the past, since we saw her with the view of the Golden Gate Bridge being constructed outside the window.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> Apparently both the future and the past, since we saw her with the view of the Golden Gate Bridge being constructed outside the window.


If one were to search for info from the showrunner they let it be known that


Spoiler



they wanted to give her a bit of Catch-22 and have her be a bit unstuck in time


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

I was surprised by the electric fans with the plastic shrouds on the radiators


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

John Gillespie said:


> I was surprised by the electric fans with the plastic shrouds on the radiators


Surely you aren't expecting historical accuracy on this show?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mrdbdigital said:


> Surely you aren't expecting historical accuracy on this show?


Well, if they're too cheap to actually shoot in the past, the least they could do is a little research...


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, if they're too cheap to actually shoot in the past, the least they could do is a little research...


I don't hold out much hope for a series that thinks a "lifeboat" time travel machine needs a bilge pump, and then shows its "on" with repeated showings of the "control panel" of the time machine, or not doing the simplest historical research. Case in point: I remember last season's prominent IBM Selectric II Correcting typewriter from 1973 when they were in 1950's Las Vegas. I don't tolerate stupid and easily fixed continuity errors like that. That was just plain stupid. IMHO of course.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> Apparently both the future and the past, since we saw her with the view of the Golden Gate Bridge being constructed outside the window.


Or was it being *re*constructed in the future?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Anubys said:


> Or was it being *re*constructed in the future?


I had that thought too. Since we don't know exactly when that time was.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, if they're too cheap to actually shoot in the past, the least they could do is a little research...


The on staff historical consultant got the boot when production shifted from Vancouver to Los Angeles.
Otherwise, they might have caught the error of Chuck Berry's You Can't Catch Me not having been released in September of 1955.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

JYoung said:


> The on staff historical consultant got the boot when production shifted from Vancouver to Los Angeles.
> Otherwise, they might have caught the error of Chuck Berry's You Can't Catch Me not having been released in September of 1955.


OR maybe something they did in the Revolutionary War last season caused Chuck Berry to be a star earlier than he previously had been.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Anubys said:


> Or was it being *re*constructed in the future?


I would think if it was being re-constructed in the future, their construction techniques would be a little more advanced than shown, and I doubt there would be a steam ship passing under.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> OR maybe something they did in the Revolutionary War last season caused Chuck Berry to be a star earlier than he previously had been.


I think that the actions of Marty McFly would be more likely.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mrdbdigital said:


> I would think if it was being re-constructed in the future, their construction techniques would be a little more advanced than shown, and I doubt there would be a steam ship passing under.


Unless it's a post-apocalyptic future that's just starting to come back...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Unless it's a post-apocalyptic future that's just starting to come back...


Which raises an interesting question: In a post-apocalyptic future, would humans have to go through all the stages of the industrial revolution again, or would the fact that certain technology has already been discovered and invented persist? Obviously, the lack of sophisticated factories and even electricity would limit what could be built, but with the knowledge that people in the past had built internal combustion engines, would post-apocalyptic people bother building steam ships/engines, or would they just focus their efforts on what was considered state-of-the-art immediately before the apocalypse?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Which raises an interesting question: In a post-apocalyptic future, would humans have to go through all the stages of the industrial revolution again, or would the fact that certain technology has already been discovered and invented persist? Obviously, the lack of sophisticated factories and even electricity would limit what could be built, but with the knowledge that people in the past had built internal combustion engines, would post-apocalyptic people bother building steam ships/engines, or would they just focus their efforts on what was considered state-of-the-art immediately before the apocalypse?


I guess it would depend what kind of resources and knowledge was available. I'm guessing that survivors would have to use the simplest technology to start, but would advance quicker than the first go round.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I remember reading years ago, that if it weren’t for the loss of the Library of Alexandria and the Dark Ages, man would have colonies on Mars by then.

The Egyptians were pretty advanced for their day. Basically, they stated, that civilization had to start all over again.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Which raises an interesting question: In a post-apocalyptic future, would humans have to go through all the stages of the industrial revolution again, or would the fact that certain technology has already been discovered and invented persist? Obviously, the lack of sophisticated factories and even electricity would limit what could be built, but with the knowledge that people in the past had built internal combustion engines, would post-apocalyptic people bother building steam ships/engines, or would they just focus their efforts on what was considered state-of-the-art immediately before the apocalypse?


Exactly.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, if they're too cheap to actually shoot in the past, the least they could do is a little research...


Well, if they wanted to take over the auto industry, all they needed to do was go to 1928, short the market, then buy the auto stocks in 1929.

They could easily take over the Presidency by raising cash by shorting before the `29 crash - been done already


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

There's a great, recent science fiction novel by Michael McCollum which is along the lines of the surviving people of Earth starting over after a major cataclysm destroyed our modern civilization, "Euclid's Wall". Interesting story line with such things as reverting to sailing ships with the primary character, Captain of one such ship, using old "retasked" cannons and a priceless laser rangefinder.

Eucid's Wall


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Emma needs a handlebar mustache to twirl while she's being cartoonishly evil. Other than her, I'm still liking this show.

The "nod" thing made me chuckle. If I remember correctly, Black-ish had an episode about the "nod".


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I also like the show. 
IMO though, best time travel was the 12 Monkeys movie


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> I also like the show.
> IMO though, best time travel was the 12 Monkeys movie


The main difference being 12 Monkeys took time travel seriously; here it's more like a USA Network-style plot generator.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

The thing about 12 Monkeys is


Spoiler



that I figured out the ending in the first couple of minutes of the movie. (No, I didn't not know there was a "twist" before I saw it.)
So I'm spending the entire movie waiting for what I know will happen to occur.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I really liked this last "Hollywoodland" episode. But the plot was just dumb. How does Citizen Kane not being released really change history that much? It probably wouldn't even change Hollywoodland history that much. Was William Hearst's image really hurt that much by the movie? 

But I enjoyed the trio navigating and lying their way through the episode. Very lighthearted and fun.  And I knew that they'd bring back Wyatt's wife as soon as he and Lucy slept together. But I didn't figure same episode. They seem to be moving it right along this season.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Who didn't say "Hedley!"?

--Carlos "He sued *her!*" V.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I got a chuckle out of the Logan and Preston names.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> I really liked this last "Hollywoodland" episode. But the plot was just dumb. How does Citizen Kane not being released really change history that much? It probably wouldn't even change Hollywoodland history that much. Was William Hearst's image really hurt that much by the movie?


Whether or not Citizen Kane was released probably wouldn't have had a big impact on the world as a whole. As it was, Hearst exerted his influence over the media to limit the film's release and refused to run advertising for it in any of his publications (which covered much of America at the time). It didn't do well at the box office and possibly hurt Welles' career more than it helped (it wasn't really recognized as a masterpiece until many years later, after Hearst was dead).

From the POV of the plot of this show, Rittenhouse knew that Hearst wanted to kill the film and was willing to pay dearly for it. Their price was a free weekly column in every Hearst newspaper, which Hearst would publish fully without question. As Lucy says, Hearst owned so many papers in so many cities, that Rittenhouse would basically be able to write history however they saw fit.

That's the impact that destroying Citizen Kane would have had.

Destroying it and getting nothing in return = Not much changes (probably)
Destroying it in return for a weekly column = Rittenhouse writes its own reality


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

getbak said:


> Destroying it in return for a weekly column = Rittenhouse writes its own reality


I forgot about the column. But even that? I have my doubts one syndicated column could "write reality." Maybe that's why I couldn't buy it.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Loved the Peggy Carter look for Lucy in their '41 entry scene, no way that was coincidence.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> I got a chuckle out of the Logan and Preston names.


Like I said in one of the the Season 1 threads, I was embarrassed a bit when it took me so long to recognize the Bill & Ted reference with the character names. I didn't get it until they mentioned Rufus' last name. (Rufus Carlin).

--Carlos V.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Unbeliever said:


> Like I said in one of the the Season 1 threads, I was embarrassed a bit when it took me so long to recognize the Bill & Ted reference with the character names. I didn't get it until they mentioned Rufus' last name. (Rufus Carlin).
> 
> --Carlos V.


I've seen that movie so many times on cable. And when I was directing news shows in the 80s, we'd often repeat movie quotes over the headsets from all of the popular movies of the time to amuse ourselves.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> I forgot about the column. But even that? I have my doubts one syndicated column could "write reality." Maybe that's why I couldn't buy it.


Never underestimate the power of propaganda.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

RGM1138 said:


> I've seen that movie so many times on cable. And when I was directing news shows in the 80s, we'd often repeat movie quotes over the headsets from all of the popular movies of the time to amuse ourselves.


Shhhhhh! Don't give away our professional secrets!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mrdbdigital said:


> Never underestimate the power of propaganda.


Especially in an age where there's only one mass medium, and Hearst owns most of it.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

mrdbdigital said:


> Shhhhhh! Don't give away our professional secrets!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Lucy and Wyatt's love affair is going to drive me to the fast forward button. I want time travel adventures not romance in every episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Lucy and Wyatt's love affair is going to drive me to the fast forward button. I want time travel adventures not romance in every episode.


Well, the end of this episode should slam the brakes on that...or don't you think the revival of his wife will have an impact?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, the end of this episode should slam the brakes on that...or don't you think the revival of his wife will have an impact?


It'll just be more relationship drama. I figured that she was Wyatt's wife but I really have no recollection of her. My crappy memory always betrays me when long lost characters are reintroduced long after their last appearance.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> It'll just be more relationship drama. I figured that she was Wyatt's wife but I really have no recollection of her. My crappy memory always betrays me when long lost characters are reintroduced long after their last appearance.


I don't think she ever physically appeared, but they made a big deal of how damaged he was when the series began because of her death, and he tried to launch some private missions to bring her back. So his finally hooking up with Lucy was a big step for him.

Writers can be so cruel...


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Maybe Wyatt can have different women in different time zones now.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

A woman in every port century!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

What was it that made Wyatt go to that bar/coffee shop to see if his wife was there? Was there some clue that I missed that caused him to go there? Or do we think maybe he goes there after every mission to check if something they did caused her to be alive in the new reality?


----------



## AlphaDelta (Jan 9, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> What was it that made Wyatt go to that bar/coffee shop to see if his wife was there? Was there some clue that I missed that caused him to go there? Or do we think maybe he goes there after every mission to check if something they did caused her to be alive in the new reality?


They've been sequestered at their new base, so Wyatt apparently knew something had changed that prompted him to "escape". And his expression looked to me like he expected her to be alive.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> What was it that made Wyatt go to that bar/coffee shop to see if his wife was there? Was there some clue that I missed that caused him to go there? Or do we think maybe he goes there after every mission to check if something they did caused her to be alive in the new reality?


I thought he got a note. They didn't say who it was from.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I totally missed whatever explanation there was of him expecting his wife to be there. I assumed she was his wife, but was expecting her to say, "Who are you?"


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

stellie93 said:


> I totally missed whatever explanation there was of him expecting his wife to be there. I assumed she was his wife, but was expecting her to say, "Who are you?"


Wyatt got some sort of message or text on his phone that led him to go look for her.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Especially in an age where there's only one mass medium, and Hearst owns most of it.


In 1941? Two mass mediums. (The Hearst company did own some radio stations, too, although FCC ownership rules kept them from covering much of the country.)

I think Hedy Lamarr making billions off her patent and having a tech company to rival Microsoft would have caused substantial changes in the world -- what would she have done with all that money? How many girls/women would she have inspired into STEM careers? Etc., etc.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

So Langston Hughes didn't write this? The nuns taught me wrong!

_Now this is a story all about how
My life got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-Air_


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I wish Wyatt would just shave. It would make him fit in more in different time periods in general.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

At least Emma wasn't in this episode with her usual "I'm going to kill you" routine where she points a gun at someone for five minutes but doesn't shoot.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> At least Emma wasn't in this episode with her usual "I'm going to kill you" routine where she points a gun at someone for five minutes but doesn't shoot.


While someone tells her "You don't have to do this"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> I forgot about the column. But even that? I have my doubts one syndicated column could "write reality." Maybe that's why I couldn't buy it.


The Hearst publications did have a fair amount of influence in that time period.
Being able to shape public opinion matters.

Also, a weekly column can be used to send messages to Rittenhouse operatives.

I did chuckle at them recreating the Paramount arch on (I think) the Universal backlot.
And at the studio head commenting on RKO and Paramount "sharing a wall".


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

And, how did they figure out the Paramount connection from that pathetic drawing?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> And, how did they figure out the Paramount connection from that pathetic drawing?


Perhaps the Rittenhouse operative was afraid of being sued by Paramount for unauthorized use of their logo.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

trainman said:


> ...
> I think Hedy Lamarr making billions off her patent and having a tech company to rival Microsoft would have caused substantial changes in the world -- what would she have done with all that money? How many girls/women would she have inspired into STEM careers? Etc., etc.


And yet Rittenhouse didn't think of buying the patent from her in the 40's (or APPL in 1990)

Enjoying the show, but even the good guys would use Time Travel to make a few wise investments


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

cheesesteak said:


> Lucy and Wyatt's love affair is going to drive me to the fast forward button. I want time travel adventures not romance in every episode.


I FF'd through Lucy's singing - took 3 presses


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

JYoung said:


> I did chuckle at them recreating the Paramount arch on (I think) the Universal backlot.


Comparing the shot on the show with the Google street view of the Paramount gate, I'd guess that they actually shot the scene at Paramount: Google Maps


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Help me out here. What's the reason or rule preventing Mason from going back in time to prevent Rittenhouse from blowing up Mason Industries?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I FF'd through Lucy's singing - took 3 presses


Yeah, me too. And what's the deal with her wearing that Fidel Castro-like hat when she visits Whatshisname in prison?


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm lazy and forgetful, but how did Whatshisname end up in prison, and why doesn't Wyatt like him? I remember that Whatshisname stole the Time Machine and was changing history in order to stop Rittenhouse (they also killed Whatshisname wife and kid, I think?).
Was it Whatshisname's actions that caused Wyatt's wife's death?
Seems that Whatshisname was right all along.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

getbak said:


> Comparing the shot on the show with the Google street view of the Paramount gate, I'd guess that they actually shot the scene at Paramount: Google Maps


I'm pretty sure that they didn't.
The scene looked like they digitally inserted a photo of the arch into shot footage and didn't do that great a job melding it.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Is it a spoiler to write about something I saw on IMDB that leads me to speculate about a plot point?


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Tony_T said:


> I'm lazy and forgetful, but how did Whatshisname end up in prison, and why doesn't Wyatt like him? I remember that Whatshisname stole the Time Machine and was changing history in order to stop Rittenhouse (they also killed Whatshisname wife and kid, I think?).
> Was it Whatshisname's actions that caused Wyatt's wife's death?
> Seems that Whatshisname was right all along.


Whatshisname is Garcia Flynn  Flynn was arrested in the last episode of the first season but I cant remember how or why. I like the plot twist of how Flynn is no longer a bad guy an they all team up to stop Rittenhouse.

One thing that does bug me this year is that they dont seem to have any problem with playing with history. In the last episode killing the Rittenhouse plant would have no effect but what about the Paramount security guard? He could be the next LA chief of police


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

longrider said:


> Whatshisname is Garcia Flynn  Flynn was arrested in the last episode of the first season but I cant remember how or why. I like the plot twist of how Flynn is no longer a bad guy an they all team up to stop Rittenhouse.
> 
> One thing that does bug me this year is that they dont seem to have any problem with playing with history. In the last episode killing the Rittenhouse plant would have no effect but what about the Paramount security guard? He could be the next LA chief of police


That was out of their control. And they didn't have time to try to save him.

Maybe his son killed Wyatt's wife in the future and now he was never born?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I'm lazy and forgetful, but how did Whatshisname end up in prison, and why doesn't Wyatt like him? I remember that Whatshisname stole the Time Machine and was changing history in order to stop Rittenhouse (they also killed Whatshisname wife and kid, I think?).
> Was it Whatshisname's actions that caused Wyatt's wife's death?
> Seems that Whatshisname was right all along.


Throughout the entire first season, the U.S. Government was trying to chase Garcia Flynn because they viewed him as a terrorist. We came to learn that he was simply trying to chase Rittenhouse, who killed his family and was bent on destroying and taking over the country. Toward the end of the season, Lucy started to believe Flynn and actually worked with him, but when they returned from their mission in the S1 finale, Agent Christopher arrested Flynn even though Lucy didn't want her to. Flynn believed that Lucy betrayed him and sold him out, although after she planted a key in the past to help him escape in the present in this episode, maybe he now believes that she's not working against him.

As for Wyatt's wife, I don't remember if her death had anything to do with Flynn and Rittenhouse, or if that's completely unrelated.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> As for Wyatt's wife, I don't remember if her death had anything to do with Flynn and Rittenhouse, or if that's completely unrelated.


I thought that Wyatt's wife (Jessica?) was killed by a serial killer and Flynn knew from Lucy's journal that she apparently hadn't written yet.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

I guess no one objects to outside info. Is there any significance to IMDB listing the actress playing "Jessica" as "Amanda?"

Maybe something to throw us off? Or maybe she'll say she's not Jessica and doesn't know who Wyatt is.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

How many episodes is this season supposed to have?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Season 2 is ten episodes:

'Timeless' Saved From Cancellation as NBC Reverses Course With Season 2 Renewal


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

JYoung said:


> I'm pretty sure that they didn't.
> The scene looked like they digitally inserted a photo of the arch into shot footage and didn't do that great a job melding it.


I disagree. It matches up too perfectly to be fake. Especially the shot at the end when they drive off the lot.










This is a frame grab, but in the show, the camera is moving through the shot. Everything, from the fountains to the trees to the buildings match up exactly to the street view shot. Also, you can see the planters and bollard that usually block the path moved off to the side (and the dark stains on the concrete where they usually sit).


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Mike20878 said:


> I guess no one objects to outside info. Is there any significance to IMDB listing the actress playing "Jessica" as "Amanda?"
> 
> Maybe something to throw us off? Or maybe she'll say she's not Jessica and doesn't know who Wyatt is.


I'd be very surprised if that wasn't significant.

I can't remember, have we ever seen any photos of Jessica, or any flashbacks of her and Wyatt together?

I'm sure she'll end up being a Rittenhouse plant.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

getbak said:


> I'd be very surprised if that wasn't significant.
> 
> I can't remember, have we ever seen any photos of Jessica, or any flashbacks of her and Wyatt together?
> 
> I'm sure she'll end up being a Rittenhouse plant.


I was wondering that too. I can't remember if we ever saw her before.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

I dont remember ever seeing here before but Wyatt certainly recognized her and she didn't seem too surprised with the hug at the end of the episode. Now a Rittenhouse plant, that could be something...


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

longrider said:


> I dont remember ever seeing here before but Wyatt certainly recognized her and she didn't seem too surprised with the hug at the end of the episode. Now a Rittenhouse plant, that could be something...


It would be interesting if Wyatt remembers "Amanda" while Lucy and Rufus (or just Lucy) remember his wife's name was Jessica. That would automatically make Lucy skeptical of her. Lucy could try to prove that Amanda is working for Rittenhouse, and once she's finally convinced that Amanda is real, that's when Amanda reveals that she's actually working for Rittenhouse.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

getbak said:


> I disagree. It matches up too perfectly to be fake. Especially the shot at the end when they drive off the lot.


I dunno. It was the first shot of the arch in the episode that drove me to distraction, having that "CGI look" with the side buildings having a certain lack of errr... distinctness.
Even in your frame grab, there seems to be something slightly off in the building to the left of the arch, IMO.
(And I have seen the Paramount arch in real life, albeit many years ago.)

This might be previously shot footage that they purchased and digitally inserted the actors ala Forest Gump as well as removing some more modern elements though.

I checked and Timeless is produced by Sony TV productions so in most circumstances, I assume that the bulk of their shooting is done on the Sony lot (formerly MGM) in Culver City.
While in theory, they could have leased access to the Paramount lot for those shots, I don't think it's that common. Plus you have to pay for the cost of pulling in all the vintage props if you're not inserting them digitally in post production not to mention the inconvenience of shutting down the main gate for the time involved.

(Although I am aware that Paramount's Star Trek Voyager used Universal's European Street for "The Killing Game" episodes to simulate WW2 France.)

I mean it's possible the producers thought it worth the expense to shoot on location and they may have digitally changed some things but that's generally the exception to the rule, considering we're only really talking about two shots here.
Time and money would often dictate shooting the actors at Sony and adding the Paramount elements on post.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

getbak said:


> It would be interesting if Wyatt remembers "Amanda" while Lucy and Rufus (or just Lucy) remember his wife's name was Jessica. That would automatically make Lucy skeptical of her. Lucy could try to prove that Amanda is working for Rittenhouse, and once she's finally convinced that Amanda is real, that's when Amanda reveals that she's actually working for Rittenhouse.


Then again, I'm thinking the only person who could've texted Wyatt is Jessica/Amanda. It could've just been her saying hey I'm at work at the bar, where are you? For her, nothing has changed.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Unbeliever said:


> Who didn't say "Hedley!"?
> 
> --Carlos "He sued *her!*" V.


First thing I thought of 

Maybe Hearst is part of Rittenhouse? I can't remember if they mentioned it or not. I liked that Heddy kept her patents on her technology. Might have been fun to told her what was going on and included her in future episodes.

Edit: reading through the thread reminded me of the weekly column ploy by Rittenhouse to stop the film from getting released. That's the connection.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> I wish Wyatt would just shave. It would make him fit in more in different time periods in general.


I was thinking exactly the same thing. He's got the modern stubbly beard look, which I know wasn't really a style until recently. His hair is also pretty modern looking. I think that would make him stand out during certain eras. It's one of the little things that I notice but doesn't bother me enough to stop watching.

I also expected a bit of a film noir vibe, being in 1940s LA, but they didn't go that way. Oh well, that might have been fun.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

One thing about this series....we have a pretty active thread going. There aren't too many of those these days in the forum.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

I totally forgot about this show, until I was flipping through the channels and saw a scene with Lucy in it.
And I was racking my brain trying to figure out where I remembered seeing her.... finally I remembered "the videos" and then "oh yeah, Timeless, I thought that was cancelled".

Fun season so far.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Mike20878 said:


> Then again, I'm thinking the only person who could've texted Wyatt is Jessica/Amanda. It could've just been her saying hey I'm at work at the bar, where are you? For her, nothing has changed.


That's what I thought. i figured it was just a normal text from his wife.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> ...He's got the modern stubbly beard look, which I know wasn't really a style *until recently*...


I'm not sure what your definition of "recently" is, but it's been a "style" for quite some time now...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I'm not sure what your definition of "recently" is, but it's been a "style" for quite some time now...


I mean it wasn't the style in either the 1950s or the 1940s. Personally I think it's a very sloppy look. Always looks to me that the guy just was too lazy to shave.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Do you watch Lucifer?


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

In no way did the scenery look like the race track or the surrounding countryside around Darlington. No mountains around Darlington, either. Wrong garage tools as well. Come to think of it, in the Apollo episode no one was wearing appropriate clothing for Houston in July. Looked more like Vancouver. Oh, wait!
Stuff like that just takes me out of my suspension of belief. And it takes a lot of suspension.


----------



## Jeff_in_Bklyn (Apr 26, 2003)

I just so happen to watch 
Bombshell: The Hedy Lamarr Story
just days before this aired. Worth a watch.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

wtherrell said:


> In no way did the scenery look like the race track or the surrounding countryside around Darlington. No mountains around Darlington, either.


Hills, actually.
And they looked like the hills around Placerita Canyon Road and Nature Center.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

wtherrell said:


> In no way did the scenery look like the race track or the surrounding countryside around Darlington. No mountains around Darlington, either. Wrong garage tools as well. Come to think of it, in the Apollo episode no one was wearing appropriate clothing for Houston in July. Looked more like Vancouver. Oh, wait!
> Stuff like that just takes me out of my suspension of belief. And it takes a lot of suspension.





JYoung said:


> Hills, actually.
> And they looked like the hills around Placerita Canyon Road and Nature Center.


I think you are both right. I read that the first season was filmed in Vancouver (Hollywood North  ) but for the second season production was moved to California.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

longrider said:


> I think you are both right. I read that the first season was filmed in Vancouver (Hollywood North  ) but for the second season production was moved to California.


Yes, I obliquely referred to that earlier in this thread but Timeless shifted production from Vancouver to Los Angeles for this season under the same tax credit that Lucifer got.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Jeff_in_Bklyn said:


> I just so happen to watch
> Bombshell: The Hedy Lamarr Story
> just days before this aired. Worth a watch.


On what service?


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> On what service?


It says it's in theaters.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Steveknj said:


> I mean it wasn't the style in either the 1950s or the 1940s. Personally I think it's a very sloppy look. Always looks to me that the guy just was too lazy to shave.


I hear that the chicks dig it


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Tony_T said:


> I hear that the chicks dig it


Stupid chicks.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I like this show, but good lord it's needlessly preachy. Do we really need to be hit over he head that the Salem Witch trials were wrong? 

I did LOL at the puritan guy getting run over by the horse cart. I doubt that was the reaction I was supposed to have though. And Rufus's reaction to it was weird, that they caused it by knowing his actions ahead of time was weird. I took it as the puritan dude was destined to die, one way or the other.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Peter000 said:


> I like this show, but good lord it's needlessly preachy. Do we really need to be hit over he head that the Salem Witch trials were wrong?
> 
> I did LOL at the puritan guy getting run over by the horse cart. I doubt that was the reaction I was supposed to have though. And Rufus's reaction to it was weird, that they caused it by knowing his actions ahead of time was weird. I took it as the puritan dude was destined to die, one way or the other.


That was America's first hit and run.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> Rufus's reaction to it was weird, that they caused it by knowing his actions ahead of time was weird. I took it as the puritan dude was destined to die, one way or the other.


I don't find his reaction odd at all. From what we've seen of him, he's a man of science. I doubt he would accept the idea of someone being destined to die at a particular time & place.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> I like this show, but good lord it's needlessly preachy. Do we really need to be hit over he head that the Salem Witch trials were wrong?
> 
> I did LOL at the puritan guy getting run over by the horse cart. I doubt that was the reaction I was supposed to have though. And Rufus's reaction to it was weird, that they caused it by knowing his actions ahead of time was weird. I took it as the puritan dude was destined to die, one way or the other.


I also found his reaction strange. Even if he didn't accept that this was the guy's time to die, I don't see how Rufus can claim that his actions caused the guy's death.

It will be interesting to see how bringing Jessica into the mix changes things. And now that Emma is going to take over the job of killing Lucy, that should make things fun as well.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

getbak said:


> I don't find his reaction odd at all. From what we've seen of him, he's a man of science. I doubt he would accept the idea of someone being destined to die at a particular time & place.


How was Rufus's reaction any more "scientific?"


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> How was Rufus's reaction any more "scientific?"


His reaction isn't more scientific. His reaction makes sense for someone who is a scientist. I wouldn't expect someone with his background and education to buy into a superstitious belief that a person is just destined to die at a specific time and there's nothing that could have been done to stop it (especially since they've prevented numerous deaths in their travels so far).

Certainly, there are well-educated people in the world who still cling to superstitious beliefs, but from what we've seen of Rufus, I don't see him being that type.

His thought process seems logical to me: The judge confronted him at the hanging because he recognized Rufus from the attack earlier. The judge is angry because the attack scared his daughter. Garcia only attacked the judge because he thought he was a Rittenhouse sleeper agent. Garcia thought the judge was a sleeper agent because Rufus recognized his facial scar from Jiya's description of her vision.

If Jiya hadn't told him about the vision, he wouldn't have told Garcia and the judge wouldn't have been attacked. If the judge hadn't been attacked earlier, he may not have confronted Rufus at the hanging.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I also found his reaction strange. Even if he didn't accept that this was the guy's time to die, I don't see how Rufus can claim that his actions caused the guy's death.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how bringing Jessica into the mix changes things. And now that Emma is going to take over the job of killing Lucy, that should make things fun as well.


Because his actions did cause his death. If they would have never confronted him in the barn, the guy would have never been there with a pistol to shoot rufus. And then be would not have been run over.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Because his actions did cause his death. If they would have never confronted him in the barn, the guy would have never been there with a pistol to shoot rufus. And then be would not have been run over.


The guy decided on his own to confront Rufus. And he didn't look each way before crossing the road. Not Rufus's fault.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Unfortunately the man portraying Rufus is a very poor actor.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Peter000 said:


> I did LOL at the puritan guy getting run over by the horse cart. I doubt that was the reaction I was supposed to have thougH


I thought it was a joke. A reference to the 'guy hit by bus' scene we've seen numerous times in the movies and TV.

Also found it weird that they perpetuated the myth that Franklin said "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." by attributing it to his mother.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> Also found it weird that they perpetuated the myth that Franklin said "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." by attributing it to his mother.


Well, SOMEBODY had to have said it! 

(Actually, it was Benjamin Franklin...but he was talking about wine, not beer.)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I also found his reaction strange. Even if he didn't accept that this was the guy's time to die, I don't see how Rufus can claim that his actions caused the guy's death.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how bringing Jessica into the mix changes things. And now that Emma is going to take over the job of killing Lucy, that should make things fun as well.


I want to fast forward whenever Emma is on the screen. She's a terrible character. Her blood thirsty-ness is almost comical.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I want to fast forward whenever Emma is on the screen. She's a terrible character. Her blood thirsty-ness is almost comical.


Which is too bad, because she was good in Hell on Wheels.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

My gut says that Jessica is working for Rittenhouse.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> My gut says that Jessica is working for Rittenhouse.


That would certainly make the most sense. They went back in time and saved her from being killed so they could use her as a sleeper agent in the present against Wyatt.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> I've seen that movie so many times on cable. And when I was directing news shows in the 80s, we'd often repeat movie quotes over the headsets from all of the popular movies of the time to amuse ourselves.


I Was a floor director in the 90s. Lot of fun to overcome the boredom of the same old thing every day along with the chance of disaster that live TV presents.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

So if the phrase "witch hunt" doesn't exist anymore, what are Trump's tweets like?


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Because his actions did cause his death. If they would have never confronted him in the barn, the guy would have never been there with a pistol to shoot rufus. And then be would not have been run over.


_People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff._

Actually, in this case I don't think causality is really the main consideration. If she is having visions of the future, causality has already been factored in. If she hadn't told him about it, then maybe it wouldn't have happened, but then she would think her visions are stupid imaginations. If we are to buy that her visions are real, causality aside, they have to come true. She had a vision of the burn on his arm and said nothing, but that one also came true. If the visions are true, they track the future regardless of the causality. She just saw a vision of the future that already factored in the fact that telling him was part of that future. That vision *depended* on her telling him, so the vision comes along with that conversation-- you can't have one without the other. So then did the *vision* itself cause it to happen? But she wouldn't have visions if not for her trip in the lifeboat-- so *that* was the cause... etc.

Also, her telling the story starts with him being covered in blood, then pointing the gun and then they show the gun going off and she says and then you killed him. She *could* have inferred the gunshot and it was not part of her vision. So quite possibly she saw exactly what happened-- not a version of it that was then altered because she told him.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

trainman said:


> So if the phrase "witch hunt" doesn't exist anymore, what are Trump's tweets like?


Trump, the reality star?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cstelter said:


> _People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff._
> 
> Actually, in this case I don't think causality is really the main consideration. If she is having visions of the future, causality has already been factored in. If she hadn't told him about it, then maybe it wouldn't have happened, but then she would think her visions are stupid imaginations. If we are to buy that her visions are real, causality aside, they have to come true. She had a vision of the burn on his arm and said nothing, but that one also came true. If the visions are true, they track the future regardless of the causality. She just saw a vision of the future that already factored in the fact that telling him was part of that future. That vision *depended* on her telling him, so the vision comes along with that conversation-- you can't have one without the other. So then did the *vision* itself cause it to happen? But she wouldn't have visions if not for her trip in the lifeboat-- so *that* was the cause... etc.
> 
> Also, her telling the story starts with him being covered in blood, then pointing the gun and then they show the gun going off and she says and then you killed him. She *could* have inferred the gunshot and it was not part of her vision. So quite possibly she saw exactly what happened-- not a version of it that was then altered because she told him.


You lost me at "actually..."

Sorry just can't take these types of shows that seriously.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> You lost me at "actually..."
> 
> Sorry just can't take these types of shows that seriously.


That's true for pretty much every TV show. And it makes them more enjoyable too if you don't take them seriously. Especially since TV shows have never followed the rules of the real world.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> That's true for pretty much every TV show. And it makes them more enjoyable too if you don't take them seriously. Especially since TV shows have never followed the rules of the real world.


I just think, that with time travel shows especially people get a little caught up on the "rules" of time travel (and considering we really don't have any known rules, since nobody has ever successfully time traveled that we know of). So for me at least, as long as they try and stay consistent in what they are doing, I'm fine with it. and even if they aren't consistent, it still might not matter to me if the show is fun.


----------



## TrueEddie (Mar 3, 2009)

Tony_T said:


> Help me out here. What's the reason or rule preventing Mason from going back in time to prevent Rittenhouse from blowing up Mason Industries?


I think the rule is something like you can't travel back to a time where you were. It was a rule they mentioned in one of the first episodes. That's why they don't just get to try again if it doesn't work out the first time.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> You lost me at "actually..."
> 
> Sorry just can't take these types of shows that seriously.


Not sure what you mean by "that seriously'. I'll presume you meant as serious as I take it? Perhaps I should clarify (OK-- I probably shouldn't, but here I go anyway).

There was this whole discussion going on about whether or not Rufus's character should or shouldn't feel conflicted over the whole future vision causing the death of the pilgrim. Some seemed to promote that it was destined to happen anyway so he should rationalize that regardless of the futuristic information it would not have changed it and he was "destined to die" while others seemed pretty certain that his actions based on future vision did directly lead to his death.

This is just typical causality problems that come about whenever you have a time travel show (or probably more precisely in this case a character who can see or has been to the future). Shows tend to dismiss the problems with "I hate temporal mechanics" (Janeway) or "timey-wimey" (the Doctor Who quote I referenced), but they are all just devices to let the writers create interesting dilemmas that may or may not actually make sense if time travel were in fact proven to be possible.

My thought was "boy these guys are really taking this show too seriously". So I tried to offer a perspective so that the participants may observe that neither side was right, but rather they were just spinning their wheels in a "is too", "is not" type discussion. You can't assign cause in this scenario because the scenario is flawed by a more-than-likely false premise that someone can see the future in the first place and then to be able to potentially change it once seen. At least I'm not aware of any known case of this happening in real life so let's just say "false premise" and be done with it. In this flawed scenario, if they change the vision of the future, then they did not see the future (though often they talk of "possible future" which I suppose implies the concept of "impossible futures", but I digress). If they *did* see the future, then every moment between the vision and the future event went into building that future vision regardless if it did or did not have some self-causal aspects in those moments in between. Writers like to purposely ignore such flawed premises and say "but what if it happened *anyway*".

So timeless writers are saying that she has a vision and Rufus is not liking it. They want you to focus on the causality aspect and ignore the flawed premise. Fine-- that's almost a mandate for science fiction-- ignore the "hard part" like actually inventing a transporter, and just imagine that it already exists. It still makes for good fiction. My favorite instance of this is probably Ted's ability to say "remember Garbage Can" and suddenly a garbage can falls from nowhere to give him the exact help he needs at that moment. We could discuss ad nauseam the problems with that, but it makes the movie no less enjoyable.

I was attempting to get others to reach that conclusion while reading my post, like trying to teach a wopr that tic-tac-toe is unwinnable if the opponent has anything even resembling an understanding of logic. Even the last sentence was intended to step back and realize _that *this is only a tv show* _and there is no particular reason to believe that the fact they showed us a gun firing meant that the character telling the story actually saw it-- only that she believed she saw it. We are all partaking in a work of fiction. If the author doesn't want us to know someone sees dead people-- they aren't obligated to make it obvious.

Sorry if I lost you, but I'm pretty sure it's not because I take the show *that seriously*.
--
Craig


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Yet, guess what would really help either of them? Money. 
Yet they never invest


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cstelter said:


> Not sure what you mean by "that seriously'. I'll presume you meant as serious as I take it? Perhaps I should clarify (OK-- I probably shouldn't, but here I go anyway).
> 
> There was this whole discussion going on about whether or not Rufus's character should or shouldn't feel conflicted over the whole future vision causing the death of the pilgrim. Some seemed to promote that it was destined to happen anyway so he should rationalize that regardless of the futuristic information it would not have changed it and he was "destined to die" while others seemed pretty certain that his actions based on future vision did directly lead to his death.
> 
> ...


I guess we all enjoy shows in our own way, but this is exactly what I mean by TOO SERIOUSLY


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I guess we all enjoy shows in our own way, but this is exactly what I mean by TOO SERIOUSLY


To each his own . I take discussions and sharing of information seriously. But a TV show? no.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

An amusing piece of trivia...the actor who played JFK's "little friend" is Reina Hardesty, who had her 15 minutes a decade ago for something rather different than acting.

Father's horror as daughter, 13, racks up 14,528 text messages in ONE month (that's one every two minutes) | Daily Mail Online


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I really liked the "fish-out-of-water" JFK episode, but didn't like that little bit near the end where the face on the fifty cent piece changed to Nixon. It shouldn't change simply because JFK made a random decision that put him in danger. It should only change if history actually changes (i.e. he gets killed, doesn't ever get back to 1934, etc.).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I really liked the "fish-out-of-water" JFK episode, but didn't like that little bit near the end where the face on the fifty cent piece changed to Nixon. It shouldn't change simply because JFK made a random decision that put him in danger. It should only change if history actually changes (i.e. he gets killed, doesn't ever get back to 1934, etc.).


That's a time-travel show/movie trope that I absolutely loathe (probably most famous from Back to the Future; Loopers used it as a central plot element and not just a stupid way to show that things are changing). The point is clearly not to show what was happening, but to show US what was happening. I guess by now they just use that visual shorthand because everybody else uses it.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> probably most famous from Back to the Future


At least it was used to inform the characters in the movie as well as the viewers in BTTF.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> At least it was used to inform the characters in the movie as well as the viewers in BTTF.


Which makes it even dumber. But there's little doubt in my mind that the reason they did it was so that WE would know what was going on.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Which makes it even dumber.


Why? It totally works within the context of the story.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> Why? It totally works within the context of the story.


It's not dumb within the context of the story...it just makes the story dumb. Pictures changing in your hand? It makes no sense...the only thing it accomplishes is letting the audience know that things are changing.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

I agree that the changing picture is just a tool to show us history is changing. Of course they should have shown it changing back after they saved Kennedy and sent him back to 1938. You also have to remember that only the time travelers even know anything has changed. To anybody else it is the way it has always been. They even brought that point up with Kennedy's assassination. They warned him about Dallas so he avoided it and was instead assassinated in Austin. Only the travelers realized history had changed.

One other thing that bugs me even though I realize it would destroy the story telling is that once they stop a plot that story is done. Rittenhouse has time travel! The killing is stopped in 1938 so go back to 1939 and try again. Stopped again? try again in 1940. Even the sleeper agents could be handled the same way, the first sleeper is killed, go back to 1910 and plant another


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Didn't they say they can only go to a time once? In which case there's the problem of eventually "filling in" the possible landing points...


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Didn't they say they can only go to a time once? In which case there's the problem of eventually "filling in" the possible landing points...


Yeah. But didn't they drop JFK off and pick up the other guy at the same "time"?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

andyw715 said:


> Yeah. But didn't they drop JFK off and pick up the other guy at the same "time"?


That would have been a later trip (while they were gone Flynn was able to accomplish his mission). Probably the "clock" only "runs" while the ship is there.

Which raises the question of what happens when the ship overlaps with another ship? Say ship 1 lands at 0+2 hours, then ship 2 leaves later but arrives at 0. Does ship 2 automatically get bounced back at 0+2? Is ship 1 blocked from landing at 0+2 even though ship one left later? Does the universe simply cease to exist?

So many questions!


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That would have been a later trip (while they were gone Flynn was able to accomplish his mission). Probably the "clock" only "runs" while the ship is there.
> 
> Which raises the question of what happens when the ship overlaps with another ship? Say ship 1 lands at 0+2 hours, then ship 2 leaves later but arrives at 0. Does ship 2 automatically get bounced back at 0+2? Is ship 1 blocked from landing at 0+2 even though ship one left later? Does the universe simply cease to exist?
> 
> So many questions!


The most common "theory" is that the restriction is limited to time AND place. Something rather catastrophic can happen if two versions of yourself come together. As far as the two ships are concerned there is no restriction as they are different.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The short segment where JFK learns about his and his and his siblings' deaths got to me.

Wyatt should know that a bullet to Emma's head beats a knife to Lucy's throat. For all her bloodthirsty talk, has Emma actually killed anybody yet? It bugs the heck out of me when Emma and that Rittenhouse dude discuss murdering Lucy in front of her mother like it's a normal, every day thing.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

longrider said:


> The most common "theory" is that the restriction is limited to time AND place. Something rather catastrophic can happen if two versions of yourself come together. As far as the two ships are concerned there is no restriction as they are different.


Sorry, I meant two iterations of the same ship...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I really liked the "fish-out-of-water" JFK episode, but didn't like that little bit near the end where the face on the fifty cent piece changed to Nixon. It shouldn't change simply because JFK made a random decision that put him in danger. It should only change if history actually changes (i.e. he gets killed, doesn't ever get back to 1934, etc.).


So you know actually what would happen?  No one knows since time travel is not a reality. And of course there are many theories about it, but none are proven.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I'm avoiding any spoilers and not reading anything in this thread. I've been busy and saving the season 2 episodes.

How has season 2 been so far? 

I thought the show only became a time travel show with the last episode of season 1 where the paradoxes and themes of time travel get explored. Has season two started expanding on that?

I love time travel as a theme/plot device in general.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Without getting into spoilers I would say yes they have explored what time travel can cause more


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Which makes it even dumber. But there's little doubt in my mind that the reason they did it was so that WE would know what was going on.


They only did it as shock value for the viewers, because we saw the coin change, and then immediately cut to Emma pointing a gun at JFK, then cut to commercial. So it was meant solely to heighten the tension for the act out. But since we know that once they came back from commercial, Emma didn't actually kill JFK, so why would the coin have changed before she did? That makes zero sense (unless they had been showing us the coin changing multiple times throughout the episode as the decisions they made changed the probability of JFK ever becoming president).

As for the BttF gimmick with the picture, that one didn't bother me as much because it wasn't a binary thing. It was Marty and his siblings fading from the picture (and ultimately Marty's physical body starting to fade) as the events in 1955 made it less and less likely that the version of 1985 that Marty came from would ever happen. It was silly in the purely scientific analysis of the issue, but it was a pretty brilliant way to depict to the viewers and the characters what was happening and create a sense of urgency.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That would have been a later trip (while they were gone Flynn was able to accomplish his mission). Probably the "clock" only "runs" while the ship is there.
> 
> Which raises the question of what happens when the ship overlaps with another ship? Say ship 1 lands at 0+2 hours, then ship 2 leaves later but arrives at 0. Does ship 2 automatically get bounced back at 0+2? Is ship 1 blocked from landing at 0+2 even though ship one left later? Does the universe simply cease to exist?
> 
> So many questions!


Well, remember the words of the renowned time traveler Dr. Jean-Claude Van Damme, "No two objects can occupy the same space at the same time."
Except, he said it with an accent.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

RGM1138 said:


> Well, remember the words of the renowned time traveler Dr. Jean-Claude Van Damme, "No two objects can occupy the same space at the same time."
> Except, he said it with an accent.


Whoa, this is heavy.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

John Gillespie said:


> Whoa, this is heavy.


Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> Wyatt should know that a bullet to Emma's head beats a knife to Lucy's throat. For all her bloodthirsty talk, has Emma actually killed anybody yet? It bugs the heck out of me when Emma and that Rittenhouse dude discuss murdering Lucy in front of her mother like it's a normal, every day thing.


Yeah, I was saying 'shoot her in the head!' But I knew she'd get away. Also in the preceding fight - Wyatt is like a special forces guy, right? In reality that fight would've been over after a couple of punches.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?


Yes. It varies wildly, and causes my putts to lip - out instead of dropping.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?


You beat me to it.


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

Did they ever say anything about not being able to travel to the future?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anybody can travel to the future...I do it every day!


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Anybody can travel to the future...I do it every day!


But when you get there it's not the future anymore, it's the present


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

longrider said:


> But when you get there it's not the future anymore, it's the present


Well, sure...but even if you go to 1066, it'll be the present for you!


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. 

- Criswell


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Again I'm not one of those who obsesses of the hows and whys of time travel, but simply, if JFK knows he's traveled to the past and the girl he met in 2018 knows, how can they keep it a secret especially the young "connected" modern teenage girl. In JFK's case, I get that he'd be jeopardizing his future career (where he now knows he'll be President), by telling people who will think he's a nutcase. But, how would that stop him from warning his brother about flying the mission that killed him? Things like that. It just seems a bit unrealistic. But the girl, I would think she'd be going nuts on the internet in FB or Twitter or wherever. And some of her friends saw him too. Anyway, the show is still fun, but I thought this last episode was a bit far fetched, even for Timeless.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Again I'm not one of those who obsesses of the hows and whys of time travel, but simply...


Methinks thou doth protest too much.... ;-)


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

So Rufus wasn't the least bit curious if Oswald (as well as Jack Ruby) traveled to Austin?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

waynomo said:


> How has season 2 been so far


For me, season 2 so far is noticeably better than season 1. But, it Needs More Flynn. (The deceptively titled "The Capture of Benedict Arnold" from season 1 is still my favorite episode. I hope they bring back the original Mr. Rittenhouse at some point.)



> _I thought the show only became a time travel show with the last episode of season 1 where the paradoxes and themes of time travel get explored. Has season two started expanding on that?_


Yep.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I am really loving this show. More and more each day. Of course there are some almost ridiculous parts to it (stealing clothes each time? I thought they had a closet), but mostly each episode has been really enjoyable. Very glad my TiVo has the "do not delete till I say so" button.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I am really loving this show. More and more each day. Of course there are some almost ridiculous parts to it (stealing clothes each time? I thought they had a closet), but mostly each episode has been really enjoyable. Very glad my TiVo has the "do not delete till I say so" button.


They had a closet when they were officially sanctioned by the US Government and housed at Mason Industries, which had virtually unlimited resources. But now that they're basically off the grid and operating unsanctioned and without any resources, they no longer have access to a "prop/wardrobe closet" to outfit them for whatever time period they may be travelling to.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

On the one hand, I am always happy to see Karen David. On the other hand, it would have been nice had they gotten someone who at least vaguely resembles Sakina Jeffrey to play young Agent Christopher...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't think I had any idea that Agent Christopher is supposed to be of Indian descent.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Yeah, (present day) Agent Christopher had no trace of a Hindi accent until the end of this episode.

But then again, she didn't say anything India related until then, so no opportunity for it to come out.

When I speak English, I don't have a Mexican accent unless I talk about Mexican food or other Spanish things, then *those* words are in a Mexican accent. When I introduce myself to non-Spanish speakers, I say my name in a US accent, (except for pronouncing the 'll' as 'y'). But to other Spanish speakers, I pronounce my name in a Mexican accent.

There was a joke by some stand-up comic in the 80s about how Latino newscasters at the time would literally white-wash their speaking accent while on camera, except when they sign off their segment, then say their name in perfect, almost exaggerated Spanish. "This is Luis Vaerga Varella-Villalobos de los Santos Garcia, for Action News!"

Edit: Interesting. Teh interwebs says that Jaffery can't speak Hindi, but growing up listening to it does help with the accent.

--Carlos V.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I really like this show but it always strike me how unprepared they are for each mission. Their whole plan and strategy for each mission is to wing it. They don't know all of the variables that they're time travelling into but they could at least map pout a couple of scenarios. It's ridiculous that they have to steal time appropriate clothes, which miraculously all fit perfectly, each mission. There was no real reason to even change clothes to go back to the 1980s. Do they leave their 2017 clothes in the past? They sometimes, miraculously again, have time appropriate money. -


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Harriet Tubman was gangsta!

I hate everything about the Wyatt-Lucy-Jessica-Flynn love rhombus but it might actually be getting interesting.

My recording ran out when Rufus was shot. Can somebody summarize what happened next?


----------



## JolDC (Dec 21, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> Harriet Tubman was gangsta!
> 
> I hate everything about the Wyatt-Lucy-Jessica-Flynn love rhombus but it might actually be getting interesting.
> 
> My recording ran out when Rufus was shot. Can somebody summarize what happened next?


Rufus died. Everybody else returned home. Another lifeboat appeared with a more actiony Wyatt and Lucy who asked who wants to go get Rufus back.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Thanks! 

Mine cut out as well - and I'd set it for two hours, in case of overlaps from other Sunday shows.

I sure do hope that the love rhombus (ha!) becomes more interesting now. I prefer Flynn for Lucy anyway. 
What was he saying about her bringing him that book - did they have a bit of a romance back then, as well? I didn't fully follow...


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

cheesesteak said:


> I really like this show but it always strike me how unprepared they are for each mission. Their whole plan and strategy for each mission is to wing it. They don't know all of the variables that they're time travelling into but they could at least map pout a couple of scenarios. It's ridiculous that they have to steal time appropriate clothes, which miraculously all fit perfectly, each mission. There was no real reason to even change clothes to go back to the 1980s. Do they leave their 2017 clothes in the past? They sometimes, miraculously again, have time appropriate money. -


Well, once you accept that the fact that they're time travelers, everything else just falls into place.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

GI Joe with the Kung-Fu grip Wyatt and Lucy Croft showing up alone makes me wonder who else doesn't make it.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

What! What kind of time travel allows you to have a second self and then to come and get your first self to work with????? I see a shark coming here.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Has anyone read the Rewinder series by Brett Battles? There are some interesting times when the main character travels back to a place he's been before and has to deal with his other self.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, it makes a lot more sense to me that you can go back and meet yourself than that you can't...

But since they've said you can't here, it will be interesting to find out how they pulled this one off!


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

wait that was _real_? I thought it was just whats-her-name's vision.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

stellie93 said:


> What! What kind of time travel allows you to have a second self and then to come and get your first self to work with????? I see a shark coming here.


Back to the Future, sorta.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

I have noticed something that I find kinda funny. Even though they are always in a rush to leave and find the mother ship, Lucy always manages to get the right hairstyle for the period. 

I thought I had seen a picture of the heroes in a brand spanking new time ship, like maybe even the mother ship. Maybe that was a dream. I thought maybe they would end up taking the mother ship back.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Also, I was glad to see Grandpa Rittenhouse go. His smug face was getting on my nerves...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mike20878 said:


> Also, I was glad to see Grandpa Rittenhouse go. His smug face was getting on my nerves...


Yeah, it's funny that for a guy who was so "important" he never really amounted to much. It's as if the writers finally decided there was no "there" there, so they casually put a bullet in his head.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, it's funny that for a guy who was so "important" he never really amounted to much. It's as if the writers finally decided there was no "there" there, so they casually put a bullet in his head.


I think I heard it implied during S1 that after he started the group, it pretty much took on a life of its own. So, he was mainly useful for the launch, not so much for the growth of the movement. Is how I understand it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> I think I heard it implied during S1 that after he started the group, it pretty much took on a life of its own. So, he was mainly useful for the launch, not so much for the growth of the movement. Is how I understand it.


Right, but it was a big deal for Rittenhouse (and the show) for him to be pulled into the present. He was supposed to be the new Big Bad. And then...he wasn't.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right, but it was a big deal for Rittenhouse (and the show) for him to be pulled into the present. He was supposed to be the new Big Bad. And then...he wasn't.


Okay. I guess I wasn't paying attention the whole time.

I got caught up in why it took so long to install a blast door in the launch room.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

"But it will take a year to be able to train a new team to go back and save Rufus." Yeah, so? It's a time machine. Whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 years, you can still go back to the same point in time.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I didn't get the thing they said about not being able to go back to the same time twice. Why? And is it the same people, the same ship...can they go back to one day before? Maybe (probably) I missed something.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, it makes a lot more sense to me that you can go back and meet yourself than that you can't...
> 
> But since they've said you can't here, it will be interesting to find out how they pulled this one off!


To be fair, they did lay some groundwork for this rule change when Flynn told Lucy the story of how a Lucy "that was maybe five years older" gave him her journal.



stellie93 said:


> I didn't get the thing they said about not being able to go back to the same time twice. Why? And is it the same people, the same ship...can they go back to one day before? Maybe (probably) I missed something.


It was stated in the first episode that the travelers couldn't go back to a previous point in their own lifetime (hence why Flynn couldn't go with them to the day Reagan was shot).
They've mentioned it a few times since then but as I mentioned above, they've hinted that this may change.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> I didn't get the thing they said about not being able to go back to the same time twice. Why? And is it the same people, the same ship...can they go back to one day before? Maybe (probably) I missed something.


They've always said they can't go back to a time where they already exist. Although something seems to have changed, or at least something will have changed in the future from which Indiana Wyatt and Lucy Croft come from.


JYoung said:


> To be fair, they did lay some groundwork for this rule change when Flynn told Lucy the story of how a Lucy "that was maybe five years older" gave him her journal.


Although he didn't say when they were when she gave him the journal...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although he didn't say when they were when she gave him the journal...


It's been implied that it was in the last few years when future Lucy gave Flynn the journal.
And add in the fact that Lucy said that it would have been impossible for her to that as it was in her lifetime.
Flynn's response was like, "Maybe there was a rule change".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> It's been implied that it was in the last few years when future Lucy gave Flynn the journal.
> And add in the fact that Lucy said that it would have been impossible for her to that as it was in her lifetime.
> Flynn's response was like, "Maybe there was a rule change".


Ah, I missed that...


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

I don't recall Emma being this evil when she was first introduced in S1. But she really played up the mustache-twirling villain this season.

This was a really good season that I thought was better than an already entertaining first season. It doesn't look good for renewal but I'm hopeful we'll get one more season and see how they changed the rules and bring back Rufus.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mlsnyc said:


> I don't recall Emma being this evil when she was first introduced in S1. But she really played up the mustache-twirling villain this season.


Maybe they were setting her up to be the Big Bad in Season 3..?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

That was the season finale?

I guess I shouldn't wonder how the evil mothership crew found the good guys in the Chinese shop. Can they read Klingon too?


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Maybe they were setting her up to be the Big Bad in Season 3..?


That's my thought. Especially since she's the one who took down Rittenhouse.

And Jessica will be her loyal henchperson.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

mlsnyc said:


> And Jessica will be her loyal henchperson.


I also lost the last few minutes due to overruns. Did we see what happened to Jessica? The last we saw her, she was non-fatally shot by Wyatt, and he screamed out to Flynn, "She's carrying my kid."

Did we see Jessica escape with Emma?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> That was the season finale?
> 
> I guess I shouldn't wonder how the evil mothership crew found the good guys in the Chinese shop. Can they read Klingon too?


They wouldn't need to. The Klingon just told where the ship was, and not to come after her. The good guys found her just by looking through old photos; no reason the bad guys couldn't have done the same (presumably they have a lot more resources!).


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

dtle said:


> I also lost the last few minutes due to overruns. Did we see what happened to Jessica? The last we saw her, she was non-fatally shot by Wyatt, and he screamed out to Flynn, "She's carrying my kid."
> 
> Did we see Jessica escape with Emma?


She escaped but we didn't see if she rejoined Emma or not. Flynn shooting Jessica was the last we saw of her.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I'll ask again about what hasn't been answered yet: Was the "Chinatown" episode the Season Finale? The first season had 16 episodes. This was just episode 10.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dunno the titles, but that was the season finalé Sunday.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

They only ordered 10 episodes for the second season.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They wouldn't need to. The Klingon just told where the ship was, and not to come after her. The good guys found her just by looking through old photos; no reason the bad guys couldn't have done the same (presumably they have a lot more resources!).


Not to mention that the picture of Jiya was in a book written by Carol and Lucy Preston. So it's not like it would have been hard for Rittenhouse to find it.

I sure hope this show gets renewed!


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Do we know how the finale did in the ratings?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mike20878 said:


> Do we know how the finale did in the ratings?


Not good. 0.6 in the 18-49 demo, 2.43 million viewers, 3rd place (out of 3) in its timeslot. But that's Live + Same Day. I'm sure it will go up quite a bit with delayed viewing factored in, but probably not enough to matter.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

And do non-Nielsen households matter at all? Are cable companies reporting viewership?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Mike20878 said:


> And do non-Nielsen households matter at all? Are cable companies reporting viewership?


I'm sure the TV networks have other methods of getting viewership numbers, whether from TiVo, cable boxes, etc. But none of those things would affect the Nielsen ratings. So we really have no idea how much weight the networks place on the Nielsen numbers and how much weight they put on other factors, such as ownership of shows, potential for syndication/streaming sales, overseas sales, ad prices, cultural importance, existing contracts, etc.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Not to mention that the picture of Jiya was in a book written by Carol and Lucy Preston. So it's not like it would have been hard for Rittenhouse to find it.


It seems like a far stretch to me but it is a tv show and miraculous coincidences happen all the time iin tv land..


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I really like this show but it always strike me how unprepared they are for each mission. Their whole plan and strategy for each mission is to wing it. They don't know all of the variables that they're time travelling into but they could at least map pout a couple of scenarios. It's ridiculous that they have to steal time appropriate clothes, which miraculously all fit perfectly, each mission. There was no real reason to even change clothes to go back to the 1980s. Do they leave their 2017 clothes in the past? They sometimes, miraculously again, have time appropriate money. -


I take it you weren't around in the early 1980's? People were wearing some weird things back then. Not to mention the hair styles and glasses.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

This article was from 2 days ago. Decision should be coming soon, but it's not looking good.

NBC gives 'Timeless' renewal update; Creator tells fans to 'fight'


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

mlsnyc said:


> This article was from 2 days ago. Decision should be coming soon, but it's not looking good.
> 
> NBC gives 'Timeless' renewal update; Creator tells fans to 'fight'


I'm actually okay either way. I like Timeless, but it's no Masterpiece Theater (which, incidentally, I never watch  ).


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

I hope Lucy/Scottie had a nice time at the wedding. Was her dress something they had stored in the lifeboat?


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

John Gillespie said:


> I hope Lucy/Scottie had a nice time at the wedding. Was her dress something they had stored in the lifeboat?


Well blow me down. There was Abby Spencer at the the Royal wedding! I was so ignorant of Meghan's career that I had to look it all up.
Had no idea. Never watched Suits.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Azlen said:


> "But it will take a year to be able to train a new team to go back and save Rufus." Yeah, so? It's a time machine. Whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 years, you can still go back to the same point in time.


Exactly. Train a new pilot and get him back in 12 months (and stop crying "I'll never see Rufus again").
And why does future Lucy and future Wyatt (one or both who are now trained pilots) need their past selves to get Rufus back?
Anyway, I won't be too disappointed if Timeless is not renewed.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

John Gillespie said:


> I hope Lucy/Scottie had a nice time at the wedding. Was her dress something they had stored in the lifeboat?


Sure looked like a period costume and she wore it well.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

Did she stop the Rittenhouse sleeper agent?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Mike20878 said:


> Has anyone read the Rewinder series by Brett Battles? There are some interesting times when the main character travels back to a place he's been before and has to deal with his other self.


Thanks! I just got it from Amazon. I was looking for a good book to read this weekend.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> I'm actually okay either way. I like Timeless, but it's no Masterpiece Theater (which, incidentally, I never watch  ).


I will be sad.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

John Gillespie said:


> I hope Lucy/Scottie had a nice time at the wedding. Was her dress something they had stored in the lifeboat?





wtherrell said:


> Well blow me down. There was Abby Spencer at the the Royal wedding! I was so ignorant of Meghan's career that I had to look it all up.
> Had no idea. Never watched Suits.


I had no idea that Lucy and Scottie were the same actress until you mentioned it here. I didn't see one second of the Royal Wedding so had no idea who attended except what I saw on the news.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Did they make a decision yet on S3?


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Did they make a decision yet on S3?


Haven't seen either way. I'm hoping that they are just hammering out budget and episode order.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Timeless: NBC Series Writers Find a Way to Reward Fans for Their Support - canceled TV shows - TV Series Finale


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> What! What kind of time travel allows you to have a second self and then to come and get your first self to work with?


Pretty much all of them?


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

wtherrell said:


> Well blow me down. There was Abby Spencer at the the Royal wedding! I was so ignorant of Meghan's career that I had to look it all up.
> Had no idea. Never watched Suits.


I watch Suits too and NEVER recognized her as the same actress that played Scottie (hated her character, so I guess I didn't pay much attention to her). The previous post was my first inking it was her. Duh...


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

speedcouch said:


> I watch Suits too and NEVER recognized her as the same actress that played Scottie (hated her character, so I guess I didn't pay much attention to her). The previous post was my first inking it was her. Duh...


Well, she was also on Grey's Anatomy this past season-took me a few minutes to recognize her-and it was from Timeless, not Suits. 
She's a great actress!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I'm only about 3.5 eps into this season and like it -- started watching because I noticed Hulu is expiring 4 eps in, as of now, 11 days. (weird, there's usually a sliding window)

Though I completely forgot the whole backstory about Visjnic's character.. He's in prison (at least as of where I am now), so I'm not sure if he really WAS the bad guy or if they just THOUGHT he was the bad guy..

He seems to now be fighting with them against (the big bad group)...


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

mattack said:


> I'm only about 3.5 eps into this season and like it -- started watching because I noticed Hulu is expiring 4 eps in, as of now, 11 days. (weird, there's usually a sliding window)
> 
> Though I completely forgot the whole backstory about Visjnic's character.. He's in prison (at least as of where I am now), so I'm not sure if he really WAS the bad guy or if they just THOUGHT he was the bad guy..
> 
> He seems to now be fighting with them against (the big bad group)...


I kinda remember him saying that he and Lucy would be fighting on the same side in the future, or words to that effect somewhere in season 1.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> I kinda remember him saying that he and Lucy would be fighting on the same side in the future, or words to that effect somewhere in season 1.


Yeah, turns out they've always been on the same side, or at least had the same real enemy...he just had radically different ideas of how to achieve their common goal (stop Rittenhouse) and didn't trust them to get the job done.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

mattack said:


> Though I completely forgot the whole backstory about Visjnic's character.. He's in prison (at least as of where I am now), so I'm not sure if he really WAS the bad guy or if they just THOUGHT he was the bad guy..


He was an NSA agent, and his family got killed by Rittenhouse. Lucy apparently came back in time and told him who did it, and how to steal the time machine. (This is according to Flynn; we haven't seen it, and it hasn't happened yet on Lucy's personal timeline.) She gave him her diary as a guide (which we HAVE seen, and it appears authentic). He stole the time machine at the beginning of season one, and went on a rampage through history, attempting to destroy Rittenhouse.

Initially, the Time Patrol (our protagonists; no, they don't call themselves that, that's just me) didn't know why Flynn was doing what he was doing, or who Rittenhouse was. They just knew he was messing things up, so their mission was to stop him and recover the time machine. Over the course of the season, they learned what was going on, and they even teamed up with Flynn for one episode, although he was still a fugitive then. At the end of the season, Flynn is apprehended, but Rittenhouse gets control of his time machine.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Has Timeless been renewed?
Can't find any info.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> Has Timeless been renewed?


No word yet...


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> Has Timeless been renewed?
> Can't find any info.


Only Timeless will tell. Or a network press release.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Peter000 said:


> Only Timeless will tell. Or a network press release.


There really needs to be a "dislike" button for posts like this!


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

'Timeless' officially canceled by NBC (but a movie might happen)


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Of course it was cancelled, I liked it. My apologies to everyone else.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Huge bummer. I wonder why they waited so long. They must have been trying to make it work, but just couldn't find the right deal.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Can't they go back in time and fix this?


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Can't they go back in time and fix this?


They can try, but they'll have to battle the Rittenhouse sleeper agents.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I wonder if anyone will try to pick it up, even for a few final eps.

I don’t even want to watch S2 with the cliffhanger now and no resolution.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> I wonder if anyone will try to pick it up, even for a few final eps.
> 
> I don't even want to watch S2 with the cliffhanger now with no resolution.


Seems like this would be a natural for SyFy channel.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

RGM1138 said:


> I wonder if anyone will try to pick it up, even for a few final eps.
> 
> I don't even want to watch S2 with the cliffhanger now and no resolution.


Netfilx has been picking up a lot of cancelled shows lately. Not expecting them to pick this one up, but wouldn't be surprised.
Wasn't much of a cliffhanger, more of a set-up on how they would have proceeded in S3.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

I'm not falling for this twice. Last year I deleted my scheduled recording of this right after the announcement. I'm waiting at least a month this time.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Were there only 8 episodes in season two?


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

DouglasPHill said:


> Were there only 8 episodes in season two?


10


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

I only have 1 thru 8 on my DVR


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

You can get 9 and 10 on NBC.com (or with a streaming device and the NBC App)


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Tony_T said:


> You can get 9 and 10 on NBC.com (or with a streaming device and the NBC App)


Also, all the eps are available on Hulu too, with 9 & 10 combined into one episode.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

The various parties involved are reportedly looking into the possibility of a wrap-up movie to resolve the cliffhanger.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I don't know why they keep calling it a huge/massive cliffhanger...as season-ending stuff goes, it was pretty tame...

I recall a show called Green Wing that ended a season with a real cliffhanger...am I imagining that?


----------



## JasonLP (Jul 3, 2003)

Ugh, my son and I just finished binge watching this series. I searched online for news about season 3, and was disappointed to hear that it was cancelled. I guess we'll just have to play it out in our minds how they...resolve the cliff hanger.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

JasonLP said:


> .&#8230;I guess we'll just have to play it out in our minds how they...resolve the cliff hanger.


My guess is they save Rufus


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> My guess is they save Rufus


If they do a 2 hour finale movie, I don't see how they have time to resolve all this, so I would suggest an alternate ending. They go back, get Rufus, and as the Pod appears again in the present there is an accident and it explodes, taking all our heroes with it. Pan out to a Rittenhouse agent walking away smiling.

That and 45 minutes of commercials should about do it.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Ending Rittenhouse seems easy, kill Lucy Preston's great grandfather before he writes his manifesto.
Considering our characters when in the time machine seem to be immune to the changes in the timeline, I don't think it would erase Lucy from existence. However she would never get back her sister. Then when they come back to the present Mason Industries never created the time machine. Lucy and (Wyatt or Flynn) could then just take the time machine and explore time like Doctor Who.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Whatever happened to Lucy's sister?
Did she give-up on trying to save her?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> Whatever happened to Lucy's sister?
> Did she give-up on trying to save her?


She talks about her. But what can she do?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She talks about her. But what can she do?


I don't remember all the particulars about the sister. But, I do recall them not being able to go to the same time period twice, or a situation like that.

How close can they come to hitting the same spot - days, weeks? Or, by distance - 5 miles, 25 miles? 1000 miles?

There must be some fuzzy laws around the edges where they can work from to solve their dilemmas and right all the wrongs.

Or else, what's a time machine for?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But how can you crate a set of circumstances that will cause a certain person to be born? Considering they don't know why she was erased in the first place...

It seemed to me she was just hoping irrationally that some day one of their changes would be the magic touch. But it was always a pretty silly notion.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> How close can they come to hitting the same spot - days, weeks? Or, by distance - 5 miles, 25 miles? 1000 miles?


Presumably, they fixed that limitation in the future, which is how the upgraded lifeboat with Future Lucy and Future Wyatt was able to show up in the same time/place as regular Lucy and Wyatt.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She talks about her. But what can she do?


Didn't remember if she even talked about in S2
&#8230;.and its a TV show, if they want her to find her sister, they can think of something (&#8230;well, they _could_ have )


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> I don't remember all the particulars about the sister. But, I do recall them not being able to go to the same time period twice, or a situation like that.


I have 3 eps left, but saw part of a spoiler about the ending..

At least in the ones I've seen so far, they seemed to not be able to go back.. e.g. instead of trying to get the blues musician to play at his sister's house or whatever, why wouldn't they just go back in time AGAIN and make sure they can play at the hotel?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But how can you crate a set of circumstances that will cause a certain person to be born? Considering they don't know why she was erased in the first place...


Never have a time machine?

-smak-


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smak said:


> Never have a time machine?


Which would only work if she had a sister before they ever started traveling in time (we know she had one before SHE started traveling in time, but of course she would not remember if her sister were the result of an "earlier" trip).


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

smak said:


> Never have a time machine?
> 
> -smak-


Does a wristwatch count? 

Am I mis-remembering a detail from one of the last three episodes? I seem to recall Rufus talking with his girlfriend on a cell phone while he was in the past and she was in the present ... ???


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

getreal said:


> Does a wristwatch count?
> 
> Am I mis-remembering a detail from one of the last three episodes? I seem to recall Rufus talking with his girlfriend on a cell phone while he was in the past and she was in the present ... ???


yes. You would be mis-remembering.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

pkscout said:


> If they do a 2 hour finale movie, I don't see how they have time to resolve all this, so I would suggest an alternate ending. They go back, get Rufus, and as the Pod appears again in the present there is an accident and it explodes, taking all our heroes with it. Pan out to a Rittenhouse agent walking away smiling.


If there is a finale movie, the "obvious" ending would be that they end up returning to where they first started, maybe with some nod and a wink to the viewers as if to say, "How do you know this _isn't_ based on a true story?"

Oh, and of course, they have to find a way to get Lucy into a blue-with-white-polka-dots dress.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Seems like this would be a natural for SyFy channel.


This and Librarians, or The CW


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

DouglasPHill said:


> Of course it was cancelled, I liked it. My apologies to everyone else.


yup, me too. It was a super fun take on revisionist history, the Kennedy episode being particularly good. I was hoping they'd figure out Amelia Earhart in season three


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

getreal said:


> Am I mis-remembering a detail from one of the last three episodes? I seem to recall Rufus talking with his girlfriend on a cell phone while he was in the past and she was in the present ... ???


I think you are conflating "Timeless" with either the Spanish "El ministerio del tiempo" or the Portuguese "Ministério do Tempo"; in those shows the time travelers have cell phones that work across time. (That's pretty much the only significant difference between "Timeless" and the other two shows.) "Doctor Who" gave out phone numbers that work cross-time, but he travels in a police call box.

I remember a scene where Rufus, in past costume, was speaking on a cell phone with Jiya, but he had just returned from the past in that scene.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Steveknj said:


> Seems like this would be a natural for SyFy channel.





tvmaster2 said:


> This and Librarians, or The CW


&#8230;and The Expanse


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cancelled Timeless Fails to Find New Home; Major Economic Obstacles Make Wrap-Up Movie an 'Uncertainty'


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

:coldsweat::coldsweat:


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> I think you are conflating "Timeless" with either the Spanish "El ministerio del tiempo" or the Portuguese "Ministério do Tempo"; in those shows the time travelers have cell phones that work across time. (That's pretty much the only significant difference between "Timeless" and the other two shows.) "Doctor Who" gave out phone numbers that work cross-time, but he travels in a police call box.
> 
> I remember a scene where Rufus, in past costume, was speaking on a cell phone with Jiya, but he had just returned from the past in that scene.


Since I had not seen the Spanish or Portuguese shows, and stopped watching Dr. Who when Peter Capaldi entered the scenario, your last recollection jives best with my memory mix-up. Thanks!


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Cancelled Timeless Fails to Find New Home; Major Economic Obstacles Make Wrap-Up Movie an 'Uncertainty'


Good news:
Timeless Revived - NBC Sets 2-Part Series Finale For Cancelled Time-Travel Drama | Renew Cancel TV


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Huzzah! I assume it will mainly involve getting Rufus back to the future.

I think I bought all of this season on Vudu. I guess I should go back and watch it before the wrap up.


ETA: I didn’t buy this show, probably because it cancelled. But, it did pop up on Hulu, so that works too.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Is Timeless on Netflix? I think I missed the last few episodes.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

wprager said:


> Is Timeless on Netflix? I think I missed the last few episodes.


It's on Hulu, last I checked.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

wprager said:


> Is Timeless on Netflix? I think I missed the last few episodes.


Only the first season is on Netflix Canada so far.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

rgr said:


> Good news:
> Timeless Revived - NBC Sets 2-Part Series Finale For Cancelled Time-Travel Drama | Renew Cancel TV


damnit, I _just_ cancelled my sp


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

wmcbrine said:


> It's on Hulu, last I checked.


Last 4 ep


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

This is TWICE they've been "uncancelled" I have to say that's pretty special and I'm so glad since it was such a deserving but underwatched show.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> damnit, I _just_ cancelled my sp


I 100% feel you. I just did the same thing. And since I'm using a homebrew DVR now and not a Tivo, I have to wait until it shows back up in the guide to set something. Or I may be going through my backups to see if I still have the old config file so I can import that show.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

wmcbrine said:


> damnit, I _just_ cancelled my sp


I did too, but when I did a search, Timeless was found, so I was able to create a 1pass.

A wish list for Timeless would also work.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm sure the good folks on this forum will remind us when the new stuff shows up  Then just reset your SP


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

My plan is to create a wishlist and not a 1P - as I'm guessing this won't be picked up as a series as it's a one-off 2 part movie type show. But who really knows how Tivo/Rovi will handle it?


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

NBC just hates time travel shows. Rip Journeyman.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Mike20878 said:


> Rip Journeyman.


Why rub salt in old wounds?


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

I am still bitter about Quantum Leap.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Generic said:


> I am still bitter about Quantum Leap.


 and The Time Tunnel.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

There's been a LOT of TV shows on the subject:
Category:Time travel television series - Wikipedia
and even more when shows that _include_ time travel are considered:
List of television series that include time travel - Wikipedia


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> There's been a LOT of TV shows on the subject:
> Category:Time travel television series - Wikipedia
> and even more when shows that _include_ time travel are considered:
> List of television series that include time travel - Wikipedia


That first list looks suspect. For example, including the Star Trek series? They weren't time travel shows, but did use time travel at times.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Oh! I miss Time Trax.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Generic said:


> I am still bitter about Quantum Leap.


With all the shows getting reboots, Quantum Leap is definitely one I would watch.

I'd gladly take either the continuing adventures of Sam Beckett with Bakula, or a total reboot with a new leaper.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

getbak said:


> With all the shows getting reboots, Quantum Leap is definitely one I would watch.
> 
> I'd gladly take either the continuing adventures of Sam Beckett with Bakula, or a total reboot with a new leaper.


The mid aughts reboot was at one point going to focus on his daughter proceeding in his footsteps, I liked that idea.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

getbak said:


> With all the shows getting reboots, Quantum Leap is definitely one I would watch.
> 
> I'd gladly take either the continuing adventures of Sam Beckett with Bakula, or a total reboot with a new leaper.


Bakula is a bit long in the tooth to head up an action sci-fi show at this point. Besides, he's well ensconced in NCIS: N'awlins now.

Definitely need to go younger. And maybe female.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Bakula is a bit long in the tooth to head up an action sci-fi show at this point. Besides, he's well ensconced in NCIS: N'awlins now.
> 
> Definitely need to go younger. And maybe female.


and of course, Dean Stockwell is 82.. (hmm, I had thought he died.. but at least wikipedia says he hasn't been active, presumably meaning professionally an actor, since 2014).

Strangely, as people get older, most people hate remakes more.. and I get less annoyed by it.. Though sure, having essentially a new version where Bakula's character is the father figure or something (not exactly taking over Stockwell's position) would be entertaining.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

The wrap-up movie will air Thursday, December 20, at 8:00 Eastern.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Will it record under the same season pass (which I can't remember if I deleted yet or not)?


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Will it record under the same season pass (which I can't remember if I deleted yet or not)?


Good question. I will be quite perturbed if it doesn't record and they don't rerun it.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

I just set myself a reminder to check the to do list on Dec 15th. See, there is a reason for checking the ToDo list at least occasionally


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

longrider said:


> I just set myself a reminder to check the to do list on Dec 15th. See, there is a reason for checking the ToDo list at least occasionally


You could just make an auto recording title wishlist and putting it at the top...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I won't do anything and rely on someone here to bump this thread when it's time!


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

trainman said:


> The wrap-up movie will air Thursday, December 20, at 8:00 Eastern.


It's just showed up in my ToDo list. Episode 301 - "The Miracle of Christmas"
I had already deleted the 1P and had a wishlist for Timeless & Abigail Spencer.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Peter000 said:


> Will it record under the same season pass (which I can't remember if I deleted yet or not)?


Yes


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

I had not deleted my 1P and it did find the final episode


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I haven't checked but I haven't deleted my SP and totally forgot about the wrap-up movie. Looking forward to it!


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Thx for the bump and reminder about this, i forgot to put a reminder in my cal for this.


----------



## rdrrepair (Nov 24, 2006)

My SP caught it. Glad they're wrapping it up for the fans.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

I predict a series of posts on the 21st complaining about how they wrap things up .


----------



## stile99 (Feb 27, 2002)

gschrock said:


> I predict a series of posts on the 21st *demanding season three*.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Will Rufus be saved? 
They should just go back to 2000 and buy a ton of AAPL and AMZN and then go Back to the Future


----------



## rdrrepair (Nov 24, 2006)

A two hour wrap up is two hours longer than 99% of all shows canceled. Good for NBC.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I like that they're doing a wrap-up, but for Timeless, I don't expect any surprises and I'm certain of how it will be wrapped-up. Still, I'm looking forward to it


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> I like that they're doing a wrap-up, but for Timeless, I don't expect any surprises and I'm certain of how it will be wrapped-up.


There are only two things that _have_ to happen in the finale: 1. Save Rufus; 2. Lucy gives the diary to Flynn. Maybe they won't even do 2, but that would be annoying. Beyond that, it could be surprising...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

trainman said:


> The wrap-up movie will air Thursday, December 20, at 8:00 Eastern.


Thanks for the heads up! Wasn't the best time-travel show on TV, but I enjoyed it. Looking forward to the series finale (and padding it, just in case)...


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

Guide data showed it as Season 3. Put it here or the thread opened up
For the finale?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I finished watching it today from both Youtube TV and SlingTV. I enjoyed it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Win Joy Jr said:


> Guide data showed it as Season 3. Put it here or the thread opened up
> For the finale?


Timeless 2 hour series finale *spoilers*


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Just watched the S2 finale where they find the lifeboat and then decide to go back to get Jiya. Why did four people go back when the lifeboat only has four seats? They should have only sent 3 people back so they had an extra seat for her...


----------

