Timeless - Season 2 Thread *spoilers*

Advertisements

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.

 

Unfortunately the man portraying Rufus is a very poor actor.

 

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.

 

Advertisements

Well, SOMEBODY had to have said it!

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

 

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.

 

My gut says that Jessica is working for Rittenhouse.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Trump, the reality star?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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