# Timeless



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Worthless.

Surprising there is no thread for this show.

Or maybe not.

Probably the best thing is the cast, or at least the female lead, who is pretty good, and the fact that the supporting cast is populated by underutilized really good actors. Actors who can get and deserve much better gigs, and so are probably running in place here, phoning it in, and waiting for their agent to call with something, anything, better.

Her scooby gang, however, consists of a haircut, and a cliche of 'I'm the token black guy'. She loves history. Well, of course she does. Even a hack can figure out that she should love history. Kudos to you, Shakespeare, you're a veritable James Patterson.

Nothing else really clicks. It's like a show written by computer. Siri, Alexa, and Cortana got together and pitched a show.

Probably the most glaring fault is (and I have only seen the pilot) once they have set things up, in a very confusing manner, no less, the concept is "OK, we got a time machine. Let's go fix this".

But it feels more like 'OK, we got greenlighted, let's go type something'.

And the similarity is that once they have a time machine and decide to 'go fix' something, they have no idea how, no idea what the actual thing to be fixed might be, and no coordinated focus of any kind. Similarly, the writers have no idea how to write, no idea what they are writing about, and no focus of any kind. It's pretty much just a muddled mess. The motivations are not clearly defined.

And one writer tool is to keep the audience guessing about certain things, and nonchalantly satisfy their curiosity as to 'what the heck is even going on here', by dropping in little breadcrumbs once in a while. Yes, that is a legitimate approach. But it doesn't work well when the motivations are not defined and there is no way for the viewer to invest themselves in the passion of the protagonist, because those passions are unknown, so that 'technique' just serves to make everything more muddled and confusing. Which makes _Timeless_ an epic fail.

Oh and the cliches. The worst is an oily overseer with a hidden agenda, who looks like he should be smoking cigarillos through a holder and petting a white persian cat and saying 'No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" And of course he has the token black guy under his thumb as a spy (oops! spoiler alert. Sorry, I...oh, what the heck, it doesn't really matter). There is more manufactured melodrama here than you will find in any ten other shows, and the amount of contrived dramatic conflicts will make your eyes glaze over.

There is one very good question, which is if you could change history to save someone, yet you had no idea what the butterfly effect consequences of that would be, would you? And would you do it because you were convinced it was the right thing to do, or because you had emotional ties to the person to be saved. That's a great, if horribly difficult 'Sophie's Choice' question, but too bad they fumble it so badly.

If you would like to see that question handled expertly, just watch the OST episode 'City On The Edge Of Forever'. Now Harlan Ellison, THAT was a writer.

Remember those old cowboy movies where the banditos ride into town and terrorize the shopkeeper by shooting at his feet? "Dance, pardner! Dance!" And the poor shopkeeper jumps up and down so his tootsies won't get shot off? That is what this feels like. The shopkeeper is a terrible dancer, because he is doing that under complete duress.

Imagine the network honchos as the banditos and the writers as the shopkeeper. They are typing their little butts off, to desperately stay employed in a business they have no business in, because they are also terrible 'dancers'. They are complete hacks. They are neither dancers nor writers, but somebody is jerking their chain,'Write, Monkey! Write!', so they have to type as fast as their little fingers can fly.

I worked in a lot of professions, but television is a profession where you can easily survive by being far less than mediocre. Kind of sad, isn't it?

The best moment? 'Denzel Washington'.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have watched more than the pilot. They are still working on character development. I wish there would be more development on the subthemes (who wrote the book and why). I also expect more changes to the modern day from the butterfly effect of what got changed on their journeys. There is a lot of questions on the morality of "do you save Lincoln" or let history take the course it took leading up to the world you know.

The most recent episode featured Flemming, Ian Flemming. A reveal that was in the previews so no spoiler there.

I may not watch the show forever, but it has my attention for now. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

You just proved my last point.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

This is one of those shows that i find interesting enough to keep watching for now because of the actors and they have shown there's several bigger underlying ideas going on. The question will be if they can build that at the right pace and pick up the individual episodes at the same time. 

I always say you really can't judge a 1 hour show on its first episode for several reasons. Often you need at least three AFTER the pilot to see if it's really going to be any good.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I've been kind of interested in how accurate it is, at least until they start changing things. I didn't know a whole lot about the intricacies of the Hindenberg other than the "Oh the humanity reporter". I know a lot more about the Lincoln assassination, and that was pretty close, at least until the point where Robert Lincoln and Booth meet at Fords.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> Nothing else really clicks. It's like a show written by computer. Siri, Alexa, and Cortana got together and pitched a show.


Wow, good one! I literally LO'Ld out loud at that one. I told Alexa what you said
and she asked me to keep it on the DL. Then she told me a knock-knock joke.
But back to the show, I was about to give it the old heave-ho when I read yours
and James' comments. I thought the Nazi episode was muddled with a much too
_'Oh, by the way, bang you're dead_' gratuitous shooting of the German soldiers.
Also, I'm all for equal opportunity and affirmative action and all that, but seriously,
the black dude was like a turd in a punch bowl in a crowd of lily white Aryan jack
boots, How on earth could the writers expect to float that one in today's world of
neo-Nazis and other assorted looneys and crazies?

IMDB gives Timeless 7.6/10, but so far I give the show 4.5/10 with the hope that
the writers find their groove sooner than later. Finally, does anyone else think that
*Abigail Spencer* is scorching hot?


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Uhh. Well there is one reason why I made it all the way through.

This lady is also a pretty talented actress. If the producers were worried that no one in their cast could carry the show on their back and get it over the hump of being just not very good at all, they can stop worrying. She may have a very bright future after being showcased like this. Just her reaction at the end of the pilot 'hello' was done pretty brilliantly. I am instantly a big fan, and sorry I won't see her in this show again.

With respect to inky's theory, which I used to agree with, name one show that was this bad for three episodes and then actually got good.

I'll wait right here.

Or name a single pilot that stumbled out of the gate and lead to brilliance in the next episodes. The new reality is that you can pretty much tell after 20 minutes. I try to give a show a chance, but it has to be better than this to make it to ep 2.

Sadly, the only reason we watch even three eps of a show of this caliber that we will end up dumping comes down to one irrational idea. Wishful thinking. We want it to be brilliant. But when has that ever worked out? Wasting time watching it will not help it become brilliant.

True, there are shows that got better, but they probably showed a quiet burst of brilliance at some point early on, and probably didn't make you say 'oh, come on!' a lot. Many were top shows, like Star Trek TNG, Buffy, X Files, They got really brilliant as they found their rhythm, but their were indicators as early as the pilot that they had this potential.

I'm just not seeing that here.

And yes, I've been wrong. I was underwhelmed by the pilots of _The Sopranos_ and_ Northern Exposure_, which I somehow accidentally saw further eps of which lead them to become two of my favorite shows ever. Sometimes a genius like a David Chase starts slow. Not sure why, but he's still as good a writer as there ever was.

But there are tons of shows, tons of new shows, over 400 last year, and the odds of this one ever being brilliant, or worthy, are slim and none. And slim is on the stagecoach leaving town this morning.

'Keep it on the DL'. That made me laugh almost as much as 'Denzel Washington' did.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

Rotten Tomatoes give the show an 84%. I don't know which episode that they saw, but so far, the show is horrible bad. I haven't watched last night episode yet, but from the first 3 that I've watched, it's just bad. Let's hope that it doesn't get renew. Bad show.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

Nick said:


> . Finally, does anyone else think that
> *Abigail Spencer* is scorching hot?


She is the only one that knows how to play her character. As for the rest, they are just bad. How come Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Showtime can put out good shows and we get this nonsense from the networks?


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Habit. They've put out countless bad shows for years. When you are running full speed, you can't stop on a dime. And because they are no longer the 900-gigabyte gorillas they once were. Goliath was felled by a single stone.

This show would have never been greenlighted on those services. It's assembly-line schlock, and only the big nets are arrogant enough to still do that.

We can only be hopeful that at some point they will break the bad habit. I would like to think that the last 75 years of fits and starts in TV drama were just a warm-up. That maybe all of the bad mistakes will soon have been learned from, and that the big nets will either smarten up, or get the heck out of the way.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I been watching Frequency which I some how stubble across and enjoying very much. I find the premise so much more pulsible than Timeless and have not gone back. I would recommend it to anybody watching Timeless.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Huuge Hefner said:


> Uhh. Well there is one reason why I made it all the way through.
> 
> This lady is also a pretty talented actress. If the producers were worried that no one in their cast could carry the show on their back and get it over the hump of being just not very good at all, they can stop worrying. She may have a very bright future after being showcased like this. Just her reaction at the end of the pilot 'hello' was done pretty brilliantly. I am instantly a big fan, and sorry I won't see her in this show again.
> 
> ...


Can I say Star Wars movies? 

The issue is consistency with the writers and the show runner having a full idea of how to build the entire show overall.

I just watched the third one and well, I get the feeling they need more congruity with the writers from week to week.

I hold out hope because of the lead. As you and others say she's great.

I can think of a couple shows but sadly they haven't been on in a while. One was a buddy cop show on USA several years ago.

Human target may be in that category. Maybe. It's along the same general theme without the sci fi portion.

Ever see a show called Now and Again Although I think it was good from the start it got even better after the first few episodes. Sadly that show wasn't popular with the right target crowd at all.

Some of it is letting things come together because often episodes in dramas aren't long enough to give us a proper introduction to characters in one hour so they seem more disjointed in the beginning as well.

I don't believe the show has been bad myself. Just a bit hectic. And I don't mean the speed of the action on screen.

They seem to be building this one. I kind of feel like the writers are a bit torn on how to split the time between the overall theme and each weeks particular adventure. I am wondering if they can find that balance the show may settle in better.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Time traveling has always been my sci-fi favorite scenario. I wouldn't care if it was the worst sci-fi show ever made, I would still watch it.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Says a lot


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

inkahauts said:


> Can I say Star Wars movies?


Can I say how much I love scifi, yet still really hated all of the Star Wars movies, except the first one?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Sure! Funny, that's tied for last for me in the entire series so far. To slowly paced for me.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

I normally don't watch new Dramas until they've completed a full season and get a second one but being a Time Travel nut I couldn't hold off any longer. I'm enjoying it.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Run, I think it's great that you love scifi and time travel.

I promise, no bashing. But I wish I could understand why you wait for eps to pile up like this. I'm sure it makes sense to you. I just wish I understood why.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Tonight's _Alamo_ episode was their weakest to date.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Tonight's _Alamo_ episode was their weakest to date.


I'm just a sucker for the romance and history part! I loved it!


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Huuge Hefner said:


> Can I say how much I love scifi, yet still really hated all of the Star Wars movies, except the first one?


The reason I did not care for Star Wars so much was all that shooting and nobody got hit. You would think that in an advance sociality nobody would miss.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

yosoyellobo said:


> The reason I did not care for Star Wars so much was all that shooting and nobody got hit. You would think that in an advance sociality nobody would miss.


It was a long time ago (and in a galaxy far away).

The audience the movies were written for was accustomed to "bad shots" - and people surviving accidents that should have been fatal practically uninjured. A time when the audience didn't need to see "reality" to enjoy a story. (And we still have a lot of mortal "superheroes" who tend to survive fatal incidents repeatedly - even in modern films.)

At least they made the sides equal. It was not a case of the heroes surviving a rain of shots from the villains while every hero shot hit it's mark. Most of the time.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, in westerns back in the day, cowboys could shoot the guns right out
of the bad guys' hands. How much more accurate then should Star Wars
weapons have been with all that technology and what not?

Speaking of lasers, here's the tip o' the day:

_Do not pass gas while having laser surgery on your lower back. It could_
_ignite the methane and cause serious burns. Just a word to the wise for_
_all you lower back pain sufferers. Also, your doctor will thank you._

_https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/01/a-japanese-woman-passed-gas-during-laser-surgery-she-was-badly-burned/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na_


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Well, that is great advice.

And there is a lawsuit now over the burns a patient suffered because of that. Not sure who is suing who, but...

All of this (well, not that) speaks to the whole 'suspend disbelief' argument. Personally, I feel like yoso's issue with SW was only one of a number of issues where they asked us to suspend disbelief, and I will repeat here that once they ask and then how much we will tolerate is dependent upon how well they can entertain us if we do.

And everyone has their own level of tolerance, which I think is pretty fixed, and pretty normal. I only wish I could suspend my disbelief more. And this is not a statement of how with it or sophisticated I imagine myself to be. I am in no position to look down, or up, on someone with a different tolerance level. That's personal. Belongs to them. It's just fine.

But make no mistake, a weak premise is still a harbinger of a weak story, while a clever premise you might accept is indicative of brilliance. Sometimes. But I wish I could accept funky premises, so that I could enjoy certain probably really great stories that some of the others here could tolerate.

And that would mean that I would have even more tons of stuff on my DVRs that I can't possibly get to and will have to dump one day.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Huuge Hefner said:


> Run, I think it's great that you love scifi and time travel.
> 
> I promise, no bashing. But I wish I could understand why you wait for eps to pile up like this. I'm sure it makes sense to you. I just wish I understood why.


I've explained it over and over and over and over and over again.... If you don't get it by now you won't. Oh and a sure fire way to bash someone is to start out by saying "no bashing". LOL


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

yosoyellobo said:


> The reason I did not care for Star Wars so much was all that shooting and nobody got hit. You would think that in an advance sociality nobody would miss.


One possible explanation
http://www.cracked.com/article_18858_the-biggest-star-wars-plot-hole-explained-by-science.html


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

RunnerFL said:


> I've explained it over and over and over and over and over again.... If you don't get it by now you won't. Oh and a sure fire way to bash someone is to start out by saying "no bashing". LOL


No. Run, I'm very sorry, but you are the one that doesn't get it this time. There was no intent to bash. Honestly. It was an innocent question, which you could have simply answered without any fear of bashing. You are an interesting person and I was simply curious. That's it.

And now I just don't care that much. I also don't think you've EVER explained why, you just continue to mention that you do it. Over and over and over and over again. Without explanation as to why. Maybe you don't even know why. That's OK too. Just be you.

But really, peace, brother. I sincerely mean it. In respect to you, I'll try not to bother you anymore.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Huuge Hefner said:


> No. Run, I'm very sorry, but you are the one that doesn't get it this time. There was no intent to bash. Honestly. It was an innocent question, which you could have simply answered without any fear of bashing. You are an interesting person and I was simply curious. That's it.
> 
> And now I just don't care that much. I also don't think you've EVER explained why, you just continue to mention that you do it. Over and over and over and over again. Without explanation as to why. Maybe you don't even know why. That's OK too. Just be you.
> 
> But really, peace, brother. I sincerely mean it. In respect to you, I'll try not to bother you anymore.


Oh he did explain why many times before he gave up exposing. 

Basically I think it boils down to he hates watching a season of a show and having it end on a cliff hanger or just in the middle of the season with no real ending and then getting canceled. Doesn't see the point of watching if the stories never get finished.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Huuge Hefner said:


> I also don't think you've EVER explained why, you just continue to mention that you do it. Over and over and over and over again. Without explanation as to why.


He has explained. Perhaps you missed it.

He does not like to invest his time in shows that get cancelled. He normally records but does not watch until the 2nd season is picked up to make sure that he is not disappointed by a show without a proper ending.

Think of it this way ... would you go to a movie if you were not assured that the entire film would play? One expects when they see a move that all reels will be played and the movie won't just cut off in the middle with the theater saying "sorry ... the producers decided not to finish the film."

Even though we had assurance that there would be three films, I refused to see "The Hobbit" in theaters because I felt is should be one film and I wanted to watch the whole story within days and not spread out over years. So I can understand "give me the whole story or give me nothing at all".

Although there have been several cancelled shows that I was glad that I saw what I could. Even if they didn't have the ending that the writers originally intended.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Huuge Hefner said:


> No. Run, I'm very sorry, but you are the one that doesn't get it this time. There was no intent to bash. Honestly. It was an innocent question, which you could have simply answered without any fear of bashing. You are an interesting person and I was simply curious. That's it.
> 
> And now I just don't care that much. I also don't think you've EVER explained why, you just continue to mention that you do it. Over and over and over and over again. Without explanation as to why. Maybe you don't even know why. That's OK too. Just be you.
> 
> But really, peace, brother. I sincerely mean it. In respect to you, I'll try not to bother you anymore.


I've explained why on MANY occasions and been called many names because of it. I'm not about to let everyone start piling on again.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

yosoyellobo said:


> The reason I did not care for Star Wars so much was all that shooting and nobody got hit. You would think that in an advance sociality nobody would miss.


On the one hand... argue that people should get better and better at shooting and technology should improve accuracy. Point taken.

BUT

On the other hand... why wouldn't people get better and better at dodging shots? People get more athletic over time... and also, wouldn't technology evolve that would help detect and deflect laser blasts?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The light sabre is an elegant weapon that is not as clumsy as a blaster.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

yosoyellobo said:


> The reason I did not care for Star Wars so much was all that shooting and nobody got hit. You would think that in an advance sociality nobody would miss.


OK, I'm old. When I saw the first Star Wars at the Bank Cinema in Downtown Pittsburgh, I told my wife, "This is like an Errol Flynn movie in outer space but it needs Errol Flynn".


----------



## Muntic0re (Nov 14, 2016)

I like Timeless, it's a nice idea and great costume, I think this tv show has a future


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Episode 6 "The Watergate Tape" is the best in the series so far.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

I agree! I really liked it.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> Episode 6 "The Watergate Tape" is the best in the series so far.


We're starting to learn a little more about Rittenhouse. I suspect it's going to turn out that the "Doc's" little boy grows up to be Mason.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

That's a great theory! Can't wait to find out more.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Finally got a chance to watch this episode. It's another one of those cases. If you watched 5 or fewer episodes and quit watching, you just wouldn't have gotten the complex feel of this show. And yet I see no way to cram what I've seen in six episodes even into a two hour pilot.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Finally got a chance to watch this episode. It's another one of those cases. If you watched 5 or fewer episodes and quit watching, you just wouldn't have gotten the complex feel of this show. And yet I see no way to cram what I've seen in six episodes even into a two hour pilot.


Totally agree. I really think there is still more to discover, the only thing we know for sure is Mason is under the control of Rittenhouse. However who/what is Rittenhouse is still not clear, I really feel it is more than the one man we have seen. We still dont know why Flynn is trying to change history and I really think there is far more to the desire to stop him than saving the timeline


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

Well he "says" it's because they killed his wife and child and framed him.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

After viewing "The Watergate Tape" I find Rottenhouse more of a threat than Flynn.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I agree that is what he says but somehow trying to destroy the USA (which seems to be the intended result of his time changes) is a bit extreme as revenge. I really think there is something more we haven't seen yet


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

longrider said:


> We still dont know why Flynn is trying to change history and I really think there is far more to the desire to stop him than saving the timeline


I believe Flynn is changing history to help Lucy. He is using her diary as a reference book. And Lucy has clearly said that she is continuing to participate to get her sister back.

When one starts playing with the time line a lot can change.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The notion that Rittenhouse goes back to before America was founded... harkens to the Illuminati and other such world-conquering conspiracies. IF that is where they are going, then Flynn is likely to be revealed at some point to be a good guy. The idea that he asked "what is Rittenhouse" and that was enough to get his family killed by them says it all really... assuming he was telling the truth.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I am feeling the same thing. Flynn could turn out to be a good guy and Rittenhouse is already feeling evil. The idea of something on the level of the Illuminati is interesting...


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

I'm getting the same sort of vibe. Could it be the name Mason, as in Freemason, is not a coincidence? There are many conspiracy theories surrounding them, and many Founding Fathers were members. And there was an actual person named Rittenhouse back around the time mentioned in the episode.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

4HiMarks said:


> There are many conspiracy theories surrounding them, and many Founding Fathers were members.


People often mock what they do not understand.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I find the time capsule interesting, but I would suspect they would design one that could be detected by today's current equipment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> I find the time capsule interesting, but I would suspect they would design one that could be detected by today's current equipment.


I see where you're going with that... but why? They only built the one (the rescue team is using an old prototype one I believe) and they never imagined it being stolen... so they would always know where it is because it is either right there OR wherever they sent it. It's not unreasonable to think they might have overlooked the need for a tracking device in a thing that was not intended to be wandering around on its own.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I see where you're going with that... but why? They only built the one (the rescue team is using an old prototype one I believe) and they never imagined it being stolen... so they would always know where it is because it is either right there OR wherever they sent it. It's not unreasonable to think they might have overlooked the need for a tracking device in a thing that was not intended to be wandering around on its own.


I disagree. As complex as these machines are they're not perfect and susceptible to Murphy's Law. Logic dictates a tracking device as a Fail-safe.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

They clearly don't have the technology to communicate across time in a "live" manner... hence their "protocol" to bury a time capsule for recovery in the present in case something goes wrong with the past. So... they obviously don't have the technology to track the time machine across timelines... thus no way to know where or when it is in the past. That means any tracking device would only be useful in the present... and as I was saying, they didn't think about it being stolen... so presumably they would know where it is because it's pretty big and hard to misplace 

Sure, a tracking device would be a simple thing for in-the-present tracking... but they surely weren't imagining a scenario where they would ever need such a feature... and it would only mean another piece to build and constantly test to make sure it is working that they would never need.

Of course, they wish they had such a thing now probably... So the smart thing to do now... would be give the team a device they could attach to Flynn's machine IF they ever find it in the past... so that whenever it was in the present, they could track it. That would be a smart thing... but then they'd still have to find his ship and they usually are busy doing other things.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

But they do know the where & when within a small spectrum at they must have a target in time and space to reach it.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Since they took control of the Nav system and brought the module back to their shop, why don't they do that to the stolen module?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Guys, come on... No spoilers please.. If you want to talk about something that happened in a specific episode please start a thread for that specific episode per the rules of the forum.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

It looks like that buried capsule can have a powered beacon that will last thousands of years.

Diamonds Turn Nuclear Waste Into Nuclear Batteries


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I ran across something interesting, David Rittenhouse is a real person in American history. While his organization that exists to the current day would be secret and unknown how could a historian not know that element of history? His contributions were not minor, among other things he was the first director of the US Mint


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps in our timeline he was.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

longrider said:


> I ran across something interesting, David Rittenhouse is a real person in American history. While his organization that exists to the current day would be secret and unknown how could a historian not know that element of history? His contributions were not minor, among other things he was the first director of the US Mint


I mentioned that back in November (post #47) before the episode where they met him. The biography of the historic person doesn't match the character, though. In particular, he had two daughters (only), although 2 more children died at birth.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

4HiMarks said:


> I mentioned that back in November (post #47) before the episode where they met him. The biography of the historic person doesn't match the character, though. In particular, he had two daughters (only), although 2 more children died at birth.


Sorry, I had forgotten your comment when I noticed the fact. While the writers did take some liberties they obviously referred to the real one in that the time period matches and they were both clockmakers. However I still hold that a history professor of Lucy's caliber (as written) should have recognized the name.

I am still enjoying the show, historical discrepancies are no issue to me in a fictional show


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Well... we don't know if there was a Rittenhouse of importance in the past of the timeline Lucy originates within, do we? I mean it is a show where they have invented time travel, and have already been monkeying with the past even before Lucy and the team come on board... so entirely possible changes were made that effectively make Rittenhouse an unknown historical figure in Lucy's timeline.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Great season finale. Lots of twists and turns with a ending no one saw coming. Looking forward to season two.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I watch it live, which should tell ya, it's one of my favorites!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah it kept getting better which is opposite of most new shows these days.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I feel like this first year was the set up for the series. Chapter one to set the stage. Putting most of the elements in place and defining the teams and roles for next season.

It was fun to watch without Season Two but they did leave us with a story worth continuing.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I hope they renew it for season 2.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I also hope they renew it. I searched online and no decision either way has been announced. Without getting into spoilers I will say I like the way they ended the season, the current storyline was wrapped up in a way that if it is cancelled we wont be left hanging but they definitely left a way to continue the story. It reminds me of the way they ended the first season of Helix on SyFy. The Arctic Biosystems story was finished but the battle against the Immortals was still ongoing


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I hope Timeless is also renewed.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

NBC (No Brain Cells), the network that axed "Star Trek" has canceled "Timeless".


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

Aw nuts. At least they're shopping it around. SyFy would be good home. If they're still doing any Science Fiction shows...


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> NBC (No Brain Cells), the network that axed "Star Trek" has canceled "Timeless".


I like shows dealing with time travel.

So my opinion on this decision is not printable!


----------



## coconut13 (Apr 14, 2013)

NBC reversed the decision on TIMELESS. It will be renewed for a 10 episode season (rumor has) for the spring or summer of 2018.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I think its cool that they renewed it.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

coconut13 said:


> NBC reversed the decision on TIMELESS. It will be renewed for a 10 episode season (rumor has) for the spring or summer of 2018.





CraigerM said:


> I think its cool that they renewed it.


 NBC announced another new series slated for the summer of 2018 titled "Mindless". The series is tailored around the corporate heads of NBC and their inability to make up their minds.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Whatever the reason I am glad to hear it has been renewed


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Sounds kind of like a negotiation tactic to get a better deal after some articles I read.


----------

