S01.E10: The Capture of Benedict Arnold

[pumpkin]

3 hours ago, Camera One said:

The ending with Flynn kidnapping Lucy was lame.  The cliffhanger of showing what changed would have been much more impactful.

I don't know, I think the cliffhanger of waiting to find out how the show will deal w the changes is pretty impactful for me. Especially because, as a lot of people have mentioned, the show hasn't really been dealing with the timeline shifts that should be happening because of the actions of our heroes or addressed what time travel theory we're working with here since the Lucy's sister business. (Don't think that was by design but I guess its possible they've been limiting the timeline shift impact to make this shift seem even more huge) 

Also I think the Lucy kidnapping thing is interesting mostly from a 'how will she interact with Flynn during this time'/'how will this effect the future of the character development' standpoint more so then from a 'omg when will we get her back we're so worried' standpoint, especially since interviews with production team seem to indicate she's gonna be rescued pretty quick. I will agree though that they could've done more visually with that moment to make it more exciting. Like she barely put up resistance and he didn't even have his gun on her or anything- I kept thinking GO DEAD BONES GIRL! COME ON!  

[iMonrey]

Quote

The ending with Flynn kidnapping Lucy was lame.  The cliffhanger of showing what changed would have been much more impactful.

I agree. I'm not sure why Flynn would even want to force Lucy to come with him. She's just dead weight in his quest to destroy Rittenhouse. He needs willing partners and/or goons, not unwilling hostages. Does he think he can ransom her - demand that Wyatt and Rufus not follow him next time on threat of killing her? We know she's not going to get killed off and we know her friends will rescue her, so the suspense isn't too great.

On the other hand, if they'd returned to 2016 at the end and found some radical kind of change awaiting them, that would have been huge. Like if they got back and there's no more Mason, there's no more Rittenhouse, and there's not even a USA.

[EyewatchTV211]

20 hours ago, green said:

Nope.  Same head writer the whole time.

About the American accents on Washington et al.  Well the British accents would have to be changed as well then.  The British at that period didn't sound remotely like they do today. 

I remember a show on the English language and they used King George as an example and they were saying his accent then, the upper class one in England in the late 1700's which British officers who were always "gentlemen" would also have, was most akin to a North Carolina Piedmont area one of today as in think Billy Graham. 

So I never have problems with the accents myself since I know all of them are bogus.  I just don't bother with them because I'd rather understand the actors than the linguistics and not see King George and think Billy Graham in a powered wig either, heh.

I was going to post something similar regarding the accents. I think it was just off-putting because the actors had such modern-sounding American accents. Like many complained about regarding Betsy Ross in Sleepy Hollow. Sorry to refer to Turn again, but those actors generally all use American accents as well (for the American characters), but they each put a little bit of a twist on it. I believe I also read that parts of it were intentional since "Americans" were made up of people from many areas with varying accents. So it sounds a bit more "foreign" or "old" than it did here. Not sure it was worth the time or effort for them to work out that sort of thing for characters in one episode.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, VMepicgrl said:

I think it was just off-putting because the actors had such modern-sounding American accents. Like many complained about regarding Betsy Ross in Sleepy Hollow. 

For me, it was Betsy's dialogue, and her manner of speaking (cadence, not accent per se) that seemed anachronistic to me. Though certainly, others had a different take on it. I'm willing to suspend disbelief about accents in early America, just because we haven't actually heard the original accents (which would make true time travel very interesting).

[legaleagle53]

5 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

For me, it was Betsy's dialogue, and her manner of speaking (cadence, not accent per se) that seemed anachronistic to me. Though certainly, others had a different take on it. I'm willing to suspend disbelief about accents in early America, just because we haven't actually heard the original accents (which would make true time travel very interesting).

That's true.  It's like the controversy that's raged for many years over what Latin really sounded like.  The neo-Classical pronunciation (which is what I was taught when I first studied Latin some 40 years ago and still prefer to use to this day) has now been supplanted by something that sounds more like Church Latin or Italian as far as many modern teachers of Latin are concerned.  Of course, even they aren't consistent about it -- there's one "modern" Latin professor on YouTube who routinely butchers even his preferred pronunciation of Latin by using English vowel sounds where those vowel sounds simply don't belong, not even by the pronunciation standard he prefers to use.

So since nobody has yet traveled back to ancient Rome and learned how the native speakers actually pronounced their language, we pretty much have to guess.  It's the same deal with the accents on this show.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, legaleagle53 said:

That's true.  It's like the controversy that's raged for many years over what Latin really sounded like.  The neo-Classical pronunciation (which is what I was taught when I first studied Latin some 40 years ago and still prefer to use to this day) has now been supplanted by something that sounds more like Church Latin or Italian as far as many modern teachers of Latin are concerned.  Of course, even they aren't consistent about it -- there's one "modern" Latin professor on YouTube who routinely butchers even his preferred pronunciation of Latin by using English vowel sounds where those vowel sounds simply don't belong, not even by the pronunciation standard he prefers to use.

So since nobody has yet traveled back to ancient Rome and learned how the native speakers actually pronounced their language, we pretty much have to guess.  It's the same deal with the accents on this show.

I keep hoping someone will figure out how to capture, record, and translate the remains of sound and/or light waves from the past.

[Netfoot]

11 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

So since nobody has yet traveled back to ancient Rome and learned how the native speakers actually pronounced their language, we pretty much have to guess.

Kickero my arse!  That ain't what Ronnie Hall taught me!

[Lugal]

14 hours ago, VMepicgrl said:

I was going to post something similar regarding the accents. I think it was just off-putting because the actors had such modern-sounding American accents. Like many complained about regarding Betsy Ross in Sleepy Hollow. Sorry to refer to Turn again, but those actors generally all use American accents as well (for the American characters), but they each put a little bit of a twist on it. I believe I also read that parts of it were intentional since "Americans" were made up of people from many areas with varying accents. So it sounds a bit more "foreign" or "old" than it did here. Not sure it was worth the time or effort for them to work out that sort of thing for characters in one episode.

I wasn't bothered by the fact that they were using American accents, since there were distinctive American accents even then, but they did sound very modern.  They could have gone with a North Atlantic accent since the speech of London was the standard that everyone aspired to, which is why all the East Coast accents, except Philadelphia, today tend to drop /r/ sounds.

[Camera One]

Accents bother me less than dialogue where modern expressions are thrown in.  At least this is generally with the time travel team and not the characters who supposedly lived in the past, for the most part.

[legaleagle53]

On 12/15/2016 at 10:45 AM, withanaich said:

Well, of course they literally/legally can, and I imagine there was at least one writer who floated the idea, but the higher-ups are still not wont to let that sort of thing happen. Because some 12-year-old might be watching and get the vapors or something, I guess. Yeah, even on a 10 pm show; this is still NBC.

And I'd argue that the plot doesn't really demand that Rittenhouse be around for the first season. Rittenhouse the organization, maybe, but the organization already exists. Actually, that's another good argument that Lucy could have made: killing the founder and his underage son would have just given the group something else to rally around. "They killed our leader and his innocent boy, these peasants must be crushed!"

I'm bumping this quote up to bring the thread back on topic, now that I've finally had a chance to watch the episode, and I agree wholeheartedly with @withanaich.

As David himself pointed out (and so did Lucy), Rittenhouse the organization still exists, and there are many more besides him and John who subscribe to Rittenhouse's principles.   Killing David -- and even John -- wouldn't be nearly enough to wipe Rittenhouse out of history.  David, John, and Benedict Arnold have simply become martyrs "for the cause" around whom the other members of Rittenhouse and their descendants will rally.  In order to really kill Rittenhouse in the crib, Flynn would have to hunt down every single member of Rittenhouse who exists in 1780 and kill every last one of them as well as any offspring.  That's a tall undertaking even for him.

Edited December 18, 2016 by legaleagle53

[ketose]

On 12/16/2016 at 3:17 PM, iMonrey said:

I agree. I'm not sure why Flynn would even want to force Lucy to come with him. She's just dead weight in his quest to destroy Rittenhouse. He needs willing partners and/or goons, not unwilling hostages. Does he think he can ransom her - demand that Wyatt and Rufus not follow him next time on threat of killing her? We know she's not going to get killed off and we know her friends will rescue her, so the suspense isn't too great.

On the other hand, if they'd returned to 2016 at the end and found some radical kind of change awaiting them, that would have been huge. Like if they got back and there's no more Mason, there's no more Rittenhouse, and there's not even a USA.

That was one of the cool things about the show Continuum. I think there was a time jump maybe once a season and every time it messed something up. At one point, they tried to fix an authoritarian future and it led to a post-apocalyptic disaster instead. 

 

On 12/16/2016 at 11:00 PM, legaleagle53 said:

That's true.  It's like the controversy that's raged for many years over what Latin really sounded like.  The neo-Classical pronunciation (which is what I was taught when I first studied Latin some 40 years ago and still prefer to use to this day) has now been supplanted by something that sounds more like Church Latin or Italian as far as many modern teachers of Latin are concerned.  Of course, even they aren't consistent about it -- there's one "modern" Latin professor on YouTube who routinely butchers even his preferred pronunciation of Latin by using English vowel sounds where those vowel sounds simply don't belong, not even by the pronunciation standard he prefers to use.

So since nobody has yet traveled back to ancient Rome and learned how the native speakers actually pronounced their language, we pretty much have to guess.  It's the same deal with the accents on this show.

If it's anything like Italian, the accents and certain phrases and words would be regional. In fact, since it was centuries ago and people didn't migrate as much, the regionalism would be more pronounced, pardon the pun.

[Clanstarling]

10 hours ago, ketose said:

If it's anything like Italian, the accents and certain phrases and words would be regional. In fact, since it was centuries ago and people didn't migrate as much, the regionalism would be more pronounced, pardon the pun.

This was true in German as well. I was doing pretty well with my German in the middle of Germany, even understood the train depot announcements, but when I got to my family in Salzburg, I couldn't understand a word that came out of my cousin's mouth. It took me a few hours to adjust, but by the end of my visit I was speaking like a Salzburger.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Clanstarling

[shapeshifter]

10 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

This was true in German as well. I was doing pretty well with my German in the middle of Germany, even understood the train depot announcements, but when I got to my family in Salzburg, I couldn't understand a word that came out of my cousin's mouth. It took me a few hours to adjust, but by the end of my visit I was speaking like a Salzburger.

A fun change due to screwing with history would be if everyone was calling a "hamburger" a "salzburger," heh.

[iMonrey]

Quote

As David himself pointed out (and so did Lucy), Rittenhouse the organization still exists, and there are many more besides him and John who subscribe to Rittenhouse's principles.   Killing David -- and even John -- wouldn't be nearly enough to wipe Rittenhouse out of history.  David, John, and Benedict Arnold have simply become martyrs "for the cause" around whom the other members of Rittenhouse and their descendants will rally.  In order to really kill Rittenhouse in the crib, Flynn would have to hunt down every single member of Rittenhouse who exists in 1780 and kill every last one of them as well as any offspring

Not necessarily. It really depends on how much the organization was set up and functioned under the guidance of David Rittenhouse, then by his son. If both are killed off before the organization really develops into anything that has any kind of power or influence, it might just die off. Without a leader to run it and then appoint a successor it could all fall apart. We don't know how many people were really devoted to "the cause" or if anyone would be powerful enough or smart enough to take up the mantle in the absence of the Rittenhouses. Of course, something else could come along and take its place, but that something else might or might not have affected Flynn's life the way Rittenhouse did.

[kassygreene]

Not killing the kid after a) killing his father in front of him, and b) hunting him down, ignoring his pleas, and fully intending to kill the kid, only to be stopped by Lucy, her skirt, and her cape, all three of which worked well together to allow the kid to *pouf*.

Anyway at this point, and probably from before the pilot, Flynn is bonkers.  He's persuaded himself that he can, by force of will and ever increasing body count, undo everything and his family will magically reappear, giving him the opportunity for the joyous reunion followed by the noble self-sacrificing exit of the heroic anti-hero.

I'm hoping Show will address how "fixing" things doesn't.  At some point they are going to come back to a world that doesn't know one or more of them, or to a world with no mason industries, or to some actual dystopia that they will have to scramble to escape.  It pains me to type this, but I think Sliders was a better example of how getting back to The One True Timeline ain't really possible (infinity precludes it), and The Flash's recent Flashpoint made a very good argument about that too.

But the "science" of this show seems to be hand-waving and plot convenience, so who knows?  Done properly Wyatt gets his wife back, or Lucy gets her sister, and neither one of them is exactly correct.  Will an American Broadcast Network have the guts to do that?

[iMonrey]

The winter hiatus is making me more anxious to find out what changes they made to the timeline in killing Arnold and Rittenhouse Sr. than finding out how Lucy gets away from Flynn, frankly. If the show comes back and we find no appreciable difference in 2016 after the way they royally screwed with history this last time, the show will have delivered a major fail as far as I'm concerned.

[LoneHaranguer]

43 minutes ago, kassygreene said:

It pains me to type this, but I think Sliders was a better example of how getting back to The One True Timeline ain't really possible (infinity precludes it), and The Flash's recent Flashpoint made a very good argument about that too.

Actually, the group on Sliders did get back to the right timeline with the help of folks in a timeline that actually knew what they were doing, but things had changed too much while they were gone, so they didn't recognize it and left. Flynn could manage to save his family from Rittenhouse, only to find that his wife divorced him and his kid is in juvie, so he still doesn't have the ideal he's been picturing.

[ketose]

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Actually, the group on Sliders did get back to the right timeline with the help of folks in a timeline that actually knew what they were doing, but things had changed too much while they were gone, so they didn't recognize it and left. Flynn could manage to save his family from Rittenhouse, only to find that his wife divorced him and his kid is in juvie, so he still doesn't have the ideal he's been picturing.

I remember that in Sliders they didn't think they were home because the gate didn't squeak and OJ Simpson was on trial for murder. Worse yet, when they returned home again, it was basically overrun by ape-men. On Timeless, they could end up in Lower Canada or some huge stretch of land annexed by Native tribes. 

[shapeshifter]

51 minutes ago, ketose said:

...On Timeless, they could end up in Lower Canada or some huge stretch of land annexed by Native tribes. 

I would love to watch that!

[Dowel Jones]

5 hours ago, kassygreene said:

Anyway at this point, and probably from before the pilot, Flynn is bonkers.  He's persuaded himself that he can, by force of will and ever increasing body count, undo everything and his family will magically reappear, giving him the opportunity for the joyous reunion followed by the noble self-sacrificing exit of the heroic anti-hero.

With Flynn's luck, he will return to find out his wife is in charge of Rittenhouse, Inc.

[Eneya]

I am kind of hoping that after the break, the next episode not only addresses all of the issues but shows Lucy being lost in the future or... working with Flynn, for real. :)
I also want to have Rittenhouse gone and to turn out that even though they were bad... they inadvertently stopped something worse.
Ah.. hopes... 2016 has almost finished and yet, I still have hopes... :)

[withanaich]

On 12/16/2016 at 2:09 PM, Chaos Theory said:

I think gray is gray for a reason and I like my villians with nuance anyway.  There is nothing worse then mustache twirling villians who villian for villiany sake.  If you're gonna be a bad guy have a good reason dammit!

Oh, I totally agree that villains should have nuance, I just think that this was a bad way to try to get there. They really need to show (not tell) us about all the bad things Rittenhouse has done, rather than clumsily trying to make Flynn seem Not As Bad in comparison. That way we end up thinking that even if Flynn has killed some people, maybe the ends justify the means. And they've already given Flynn a "reason" for his villainy, even if not everyone can agree it's a good one. The whole "they killed my family and now they must pay" thing is a bit of a trope, but as it's something most people can relate to on some level, it still works. They could have shown Flynn reminiscing over the loss of his family or happier times he spent with them (do we know anything about them other than "they died"?), rather than devoting MORE air time to Wyatt's manpain (I so do not care). There are ways to make Flynn more three-dimensional that don't involve some ridiculous plan to WALK AWAY from the wife and child he literally DESTROYED HISTORY to get back. Also, that plan kind of erases his wife's agency. I don't know that I'd want my husband to go on a killing spree across time to bring me back to life, but if he did, I'd really like to at least enjoy the fruits of his labor. 

Quote

I agree. I'm not sure why Flynn would even want to force Lucy to come with him. She's just dead weight in his quest to destroy Rittenhouse. He needs willing partners and/or goons, not unwilling hostages.

Now that I think about it, I think I remember him saying something about bringing her with him to show her how bad Rittenhouse actually is. Did I imagine that? If not, I am all here for it, obviously. I don't think he actively wants to harm Lucy, because he has it in his head (from her journal) that they end up working together. So this isn't him taking her as a hostage (as much as it looks that way), it's him showing her what he thinks she needs to see to finally come over to his side. I really hope that she starts at least thinking about it before Wyatt and Rufus manage to find and free her. Even if she's not a full-blown convert by that point, maybe some seeds of doubt will have been planted, and she'll start trying to sway the others.

Edited December 20, 2016 by withanaich

[CooperTV]

1 hour ago, withanaich said:

The whole "they killed my family and now they must pay" thing is a bit of a trope, but as it's something most people can relate to on some level, it still works.

Spoiler

They only could relate to that if that person is Frank Castle, in my opinion. That sort of "manpain" at least has logical explanation and Daredevil season 2 was exploring many nuances of Frank becoming the Punisher, like him having PTSD from his army days, him being re-traumatized after his family was brutally killed in front of him, him having a bullet wound in the head, etc. But again, Frank is ruthless and canning but he only kills bad guys, in many, many horrific ways.

Flynn doesn't have any of that because he's written as a cartoon villain that the show wants us think is a tragic anti-hero. He's a murderer. He has no gray at all, whatever the show's creators think.

[LoneHaranguer]

2 hours ago, Eneya said:

I also want to have Rittenhouse gone and to turn out that even though they were bad... they inadvertently stopped something worse.

I'm sure there were all sorts of worse things that they intentionally stopped too, because sometimes their best interests would have been the same as everyone else's (e.g. they might have stopped World War 3 from happening because who wants to rule over a radioactive wasteland?).

[Spaceman Spiff]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 4:06 PM, kassygreene said:

I'm hoping Show will address how "fixing" things doesn't.  At some point they are going to come back to a world that doesn't know one or more of them, or to a world with no mason industries, or to some actual dystopia that they will have to scramble to escape.  It pains me to type this, but I think Sliders was a better example of how getting back to The One True Timeline ain't really possible (infinity precludes it), and The Flash's recent Flashpoint made a very good argument about that too.

Sliders was not about time travel. They traveled to parallel earths within the same time and were always trying to get back to their earth.

[ketose]

On 12/19/2016 at 5:06 PM, kassygreene said:

I'm hoping Show will address how "fixing" things doesn't.  At some point they are going to come back to a world that doesn't know one or more of them, or to a world with no mason industries, or to some actual dystopia that they will have to scramble to escape.  It pains me to type this, but I think Sliders was a better example of how getting back to The One True Timeline ain't really possible (infinity precludes it), and The Flash's recent Flashpoint made a very good argument about that too.

 

On 12/22/2016 at 5:21 AM, Spaceman Spiff said:

Sliders was not about time travel. They traveled to parallel earths within the same time and were always trying to get back to their earth.

There was a world on Sliders that was in "the past" because the rotation of that Earth was different. Sliders and quantum realities are kind of a cousin of time travel triggering different histories. On Sliders, they hoped the "timer" would eventually going back to square one. That's why they had to leave the moment the timer said in the first few seasons. In Timeless, they made up a rule that they couldn't go back to the same time to fix things. In other shows, they propose that you can't go back because of a butterfly effect that would make it impossible to recreate the original conditions.

[Free]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 9:36 AM, CooperTV said:

  Reveal hidden contents

They only could relate to that if that person is Frank Castle, in my opinion. That sort of "manpain" at least has logical explanation and Daredevil season 2 was exploring many nuances of Frank becoming the Punisher, like him having PTSD from his army days, him being re-traumatized after his family was brutally killed in front of him, him having a bullet wound in the head, etc. But again, Frank is ruthless and canning but he only kills bad guys, in many, many horrific ways.

Flynn doesn't have any of that because he's written as a cartoon villain that the show wants us think is a tragic anti-hero. He's a murderer. He has no gray at all, whatever the show's creators think.

Because he is and the show kinda plays out like a Saturday morning cartoon as a live action show: dastardly villain plots scheme, the heroes foil it, the villain escape, etc.

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 2:02 PM, pumpkin said:

I don't know, I think the cliffhanger of waiting to find out how the show will deal w the changes is pretty impactful for me. Especially because, as a lot of people have mentioned, the show hasn't really been dealing with the timeline shifts that should be happening because of the actions of our heroes or addressed what time travel theory we're working with here since the Lucy's sister business. (Don't think that was by design but I guess its possible they've been limiting the timeline shift impact to make this shift seem even more huge) 

Also I think the Lucy kidnapping thing is interesting mostly from a 'how will she interact with Flynn during this time'/'how will this effect the future of the character development' standpoint more so then from a 'omg when will we get her back we're so worried' standpoint, especially since interviews with production team seem to indicate she's gonna be rescued pretty quick. I will agree though that they could've done more visually with that moment to make it more exciting. Like she barely put up resistance and he didn't even have his gun on her or anything- I kept thinking GO DEAD BONES GIRL! COME ON!  

Other than her sister in the first few episodes, it's mostly been adventure of the week and vague shadowy organization stuff.

Quote

The ending with Flynn kidnapping Lucy was lame.  The cliffhanger of showing what changed would have been much more impactful.

Definitely, especially when you pretty much know the outcome and know that both characters are safe no matter what in order for the show to continue.

[B. Falk]

Given Flynn a real part! Develop his character and give Goren a chance to show his acting chops! So far he is wasted. I'm hoping the show will find its center in Season 2, because I only saw hints of potential in Season 1, though I agree the back end of that season was what hooked me.

[B. Falk]

Also, I could watch Abigail Spencer just read the phone book. :)