S01.E12: The Murder of Jesse James

[KaveDweller]

47 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

"Time where," not "place where."  There's the difference.  "Time" and "place," as you noted, are two entirely separate and distinct concepts.   Rufus chose his words very carefully.  If he had meant "time where" to mean "time and place where," he would have said so expressly.

I think you are mixing my post up with another poster, I wasn't the one who brought up the difference between time and place, I was focusing on the "meet a double of yourself" qualifier. Since Rufus made a point of saying that twice in the pilot, it seems like it should mean something. It's totally unnecessary to mention if being in the same time and not meeting yourself is a problem. So the line was added for a reason. And there is no difference between saying "time where you might meet a double of yourself" and  "place where you might meet a double of yourself."  By definition, to meet a double of yourself, you have to be in the same time and place. Both are an imprecise way of speaking about it, so both are ambiguous.

But just to make things more fun, here is the exact dialogue from when they talked about it after getting back to the present in that same episode:

Wyatt: And so we can't go back to '37 and give it another shot?

Rufus: No. Remember we can't double-back to any place where we meet ourselves.

So I'm thinking the writers/Rufus were not choosing their words carefully. If they thought it was important, they would have picked the same word in both conversations.

Edited January 29, 2017 by KaveDweller

[Randomosity]

2 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

I think you are mixing my post up with another poster, I wasn't the one who brought up the difference between time and place, I was focusing on the "meet a double of yourself" qualifier. Since Rufus made a point of saying that twice in the pilot, it seems like it should mean something. It's totally unnecessary to mention if being in the same time and not meeting yourself is a problem. So the line was added for a reason. And there is no difference between saying "time where you might meet a double of yourself" and  "place where you might meet a double of yourself."  By definition, to meet a double of yourself, you have to be in the same time and place. Both are an imprecise way of speaking about it, so both are ambiguous.

But just to make things more fun, here is the exact dialogue from when they talked about it after getting back to the present in that same episode:

Wyatt: And so we can't go back to '37 and give it another shot?

Rufus: No. Remember we can't double-back to any place where we meet ourselves.

So I'm thinking the writers/Rufus were not choosing their words carefully. If they thought it was important, they would have picked the same word in both conversation.

Yeah, the other one was me. But thank you for making these further points about ambiguity that I had not remembered. I completely agree with you, especially given that later quote.

[Netfoot]

57 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

What made it ambiguous was Rufus saying you can't go back to a time where you might meet a double of yourself. Because they all exist in the year 2000, but if they know they weren't in Canada that year (for example), going back to Canada in the year 2000 wouldn't risk them meeting a double of themselves.

I think the rule is indeed ambiguous.  You can't meet yourself, because bad things happen.  OK.  But suppose you carefully avoid meeting yourself, by exiting the building at the rear as your other self enters at the front?  

So, does it mean that you has best avoid returning to a time in which you exist, in case you meet yourself and a disaster occurs?  Or does it mean that a disaster will occur if you return to a time in which you exist, whether you meet yourself or not?

Either of these meanings would explain the behaviour of the crew, but the latter explanation opens the door for a nail-biting episode or two wherein they risk the danger, and play a dodging game with their alternate selves.

[Randomosity]

17 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

...opens the door for a nail-biting episode or two wherein they risk the danger, and play a dodging game with their alternate selves.

That would be fun :) Probably both for them to film (in multiple roles) and for us to watch.

[Cranberry]

We should probably continue the discussion of time travel rules in the paradoxes thread -- I compiled a bunch of mentions from the show over there!

[piperkat]

10 hours ago, Driad said:

The sheriff compared it to a Gatling gun. They were used during the U.S. Civil War, so Jesse James might at least have heard about them.

A Gatling gun is a totally different beast, though. It doesn't look anything like a rifle--it doesn't even have a trigger. There's no way Jesse would have made the leap from "thing that looks more or less like a rifle" to "mini Gatling gun". He would have pulled the trigger, expecting one round to come out, and promptly sprayed all his ammo into the trees as it just kept kicking. 

Also, I'm not sure what sound effect file they used, but that was NOT an M16/M4. The M16 has a pretty distinctive crack, and fires a lost faster than that. What they showed sounded more like a 50 caliber sound effect.

It sounds pedantic, but things like that really take me out of the show. Like seeing a dirt bike on the screen but hearing a muscle car sound effect.

[bros402]

9 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

For some reason I thought it took place in Washington DC. I don't remember if that's from something they said/showed, or I just totally made it up.

What made it ambiguous was Rufus saying you can't go back to a time where you might meet a double of yourself. Because they all exist in the year 2000, but if they know they weren't in Canada that year (for example), going back to Canada in the year 2000 wouldn't risk them meeting a double of themselves. It's weird/confusing to reference meeting a double of yourself if meeting a double isn't part of the problem.

But in more recent episodes, they have been leaving off that part of the explanation, which suggests to me that the writers weren't sure what they wanted the rule to be early on, and then settled it later and started clarifying how they stated the rule.

I was thinking the Virginia area.

[Mrs. DuRona]

Many thanks to those who pointed out the pilot in question from the first episode was, indeed, a man.  I couldn't remember, and honestly, was too lazy to look it up, haha.  

[basiltherat]

If the first pilot was a man, he could have been Anthony, and the reference to not all of him came back was that HIS MIND was fried and he didn't come back "himself"

[henripootel]

19 hours ago, piperkat said:

It sounds pedantic, but things like that really take me out of the show.

The danger of knowing things.  I have to close an eye whenever people fight with swords on screen, and I know a couple of birders who're driven to distraction whenever they show a bird close up because they don't even try to get the call right.  One imagines how actual ER guys roll their eyes when somebody shouts 'We're losing him!'.   Be interesting to hear a historian weigh in on how accurate these guys recreate the past although I think I can speak for them about how accurately they depict the knowledge base of a working historian (mmm, not so much).  

Edited January 31, 2017 by henripootel

[cherenkov]

On 1/30/2017 at 0:28 AM, piperkat said:

It sounds pedantic, but things like that really take me out of the show. Like seeing a dirt bike on the screen but hearing a muscle car sound effect.

They never get anything firearms related right. Drives me nuts.

Same with anything to do with computers or hacking. These are things I know about, and it kills me to see how wrongly they're portrayed on television and in movies.

[green]

22 hours ago, cherenkov said:

They never get anything firearms related right. Drives me nuts.

Same with anything to do with computers or hacking. These are things I know about, and it kills me to see how wrongly they're portrayed on television and in movies.

Well hacking is hard to do as an "action" on TV though a lot of people say Mr Robot has done a damn fine job given the limitations of the media and the rules of drama.  Also it is a great show period so that helps.

[Dowel Jones]

I just wish I could type in my password as rapidly as tv hackers do.

[Netfoot]

27 minutes ago, Dowel Jones said:

I just wish I could type in my password as rapidly as tv hackers do.

I wish I could type my password as fast as they can type 3000 lines of bug/typo-free C++!

[Moose135]

15 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

I just wish I could type in my password as rapidly as tv hackers do.

I think I need to hire a hacker to help me remember some of my passwords...does it have one upper case letter, a number, a "special" character, 6 characters or 8...

[Clanstarling]

16 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

I just wish I could type in my password as rapidly as tv hackers do.

I can do it - but then I have to go back and do it again, because fast fingers = fat fingers.

[cherenkov]

On 2/19/2017 at 5:17 PM, green said:

Well hacking is hard to do as an "action" on TV though a lot of people say Mr Robot has done a damn fine job given the limitations of the media and the rules of drama.  Also it is a great show period so that helps.

Mr. Robot is actually pretty good about getting things right, technically, with an accelerated timeframe. Most of what they do and say is based in fact.