S01.E13: Karma Chameleon

[Goldmoon]

Seatbelts became required by law in 1987 or 88 here in Illinois.  I remember my mother moaning about it, claiming that if she had an accident, she would be prefer to be thrown out of the car, no doubt having seen that stunt safely done on tv.  I asked her, do you want to go through the windshield or the side window? 

I don't think it was romantic for Wyatt to talk to Lucy.  he could have left a note for the Homeland lady and still mimed that he was forcing Rufus.  He endangered Lucy, Rufus did not endanger the other woman.

[legaleagle53]

14 hours ago, Netfoot said:

Not really innocent, seeing as he did kill two other women.  Not giving Wyatt my approval.  Just saying... 

And why did the cop draw on Wyatt?  Because he noticed Wyatt was carrying?  You know how many people have carry permits?  

1.  And not really killed.  He simply never existed in the first place.  Now, Joel WAS innocent, but as I said earlier, Wyatt at the most would have been guilty of involuntary manslaughter, not murder.

2.  The concealed-weapons laws were very different in 1983 from what they are now.  And Wyatt didn't have his permit or any contemporary ID on him.  Moreover, even if he HAD had his permit on him, do you really think a cop in 1983 is going to believe that a weapons permit dated sometime in the 2010s is real?

21 hours ago, green said:

Again, people CAN go back to a time they were alive in.  They just can't meet themselves there without pretty bad things happening to them.  Rufus said that twice and some people posted his quotes in the last episode's thread.  And it has already been down twice by the late, lamented Anthony who dies in the current time but not in the two times he was in but his double was elsewhere.  To wit, 1969 (moon landing) and 1972 or 1973 (Watergate).

On second thought, that horse has already been beaten to death.

Edited February 1, 2017 by legaleagle53

[legaleagle53]

11 hours ago, Latverian Diplomat said:

Or you know, since he has a time machine, just go back half an hour and try again?

Nope.  That would be going back to a time in which he already exists.  It's why they couldn't just go back to five minutes before Flynn stole the mothership in the first place, remember?

[legaleagle53]

11 hours ago, kariyaki said:

If someone dies while you're committing a felony (i.e. kidnapping), legally it's still murder. Either way, it's a moot point, but I wonder what part of causing the guy's death will weigh on Wyatt more: that, or that it didn't undo Jessica's death. (My guess is the latter.)

No, it's not murder, not from a legal standpoint.  It's involuntary manslaughter at most because there was no intent to cause the victim's death.

[Latverian Diplomat]

6 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

Nope.  That would be going back to a time in which he already exists.  It's why they couldn't just go back to five minutes before Flynn stole the mothership in the first place, remember?

1983 before they showed up, is not a time where they existed. Flynn stole the timeship in 2016, while they were still just living their lives.

However, they might have to leave before their first arrival? Not even sure how the "laws of time travel" even enforce that? But they can jump any time that's even slightly different than a previous jump, at least.

I did think of something however. It's not clear whether they have the power to make multiple jumps. Flynn's nuclear powered time ship clearly could. It's not clear (and I don't think they've said) whether the lifeboat is good for only one trip and return. Or whether they can do multiple hops before heading back.

[methodwriter85]

Wyatt actually being the father of the serial killer because he decided to sleep with the stew instead of letting Drew Roy get to her would been an awesome, edgy twist that this show would never do because the writers seem absolutely loathe to do anything that irrevocably change their characters. It also wouldn't do for Wyatt to sleep with the stew, even though he had way more chemistry with her than he does with Lucy, because the show seems to have predetermined Wucy as a thing despite the fact that they barely show any kind of chemistry with each other. It's so forced.

Edited February 1, 2017 by methodwriter85

[Shanna Marie]

2 hours ago, kariyaki said:

Except that the best way to protect Lucy would've been to not tell her anything and steal the Lifeboat the way they did. They didn't need her to report anything, the alarms went off the second they initiated the launch. 

I think the rationale was that they were worried that the Powers that Be wouldn't believe Lucy didn't know anything, even if she really didn't, so it would look better for her to report that Wyatt was going to do something. They just didn't count on the team being under surveillance, even at home, so they knew about the delay in her reporting him. But I do think there was also an element of him feeling he owed her, since what he was doing was going to affect her. There was no way the team would remain the same in the aftermath. I still don't think it tracks well with comparing their situation to Jiya and Rufus. Wyatt was busting up the team and owed it to his team member to tell her. Rufus was hoping to be able to keep the status quo, and the chances of doing so were better if he kept Jiya out of it. I don't think it had anything to do with the feelings of the respective pairs. I'm not even sure we were supposed to think so. It was just a bit awkward for Lucy, having been told by Wyatt, who wasn't her boyfriend, when Jiya hadn't been told by her boyfriend.

[KaveDweller]

2 hours ago, kariyaki said:

They had established west coast in the Vegas episode, because when Flynn got back (his base is in the same city somewhere), he and his goons drove to Vegas to pick up that nuclear device they stole and buried out there. I figured California, but hadn't really ascertained where until this episode.

True, but Flynn being in Vegas doesn't have to mean the rest of the team is there. The time machine can move in time and space.

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

That said, I'm not as worked up over the two other women. As others have pointed out, Rufus did grab the tablet and was the one to reveal that they were still alive. Someone with a better memory than me will know, did anyone else beside Rufus know about the two other women? If not, then my ramblings in the previous paragraph don't apply. ;)

No one else commented on the other women and they didn't even show anyone else's reaction to Rufus's line about them. I don't have a better memory, I rewatched the scene.

[bros402]

13 hours ago, iMonrey said:

This show is so frustrating. I really thought this episode was a step in the right direction, right up until the end. And then this happened: Lucy says Wyatt's wife is "still dead" but that the other two women killed by the same man were now alive.

Wait . . . what??? There is no way for Lucy to know that the timeline has changed because she didn't go on the trip this time. She cannot perceive both timelines. The way that should have gone down is Lucy saying "What other two women? There were never any other women associated with Jessica's death."

Remember . . . any time the time travelers "change" history, the people in present day perceive the new timeline as having always been that way. Otherwise, Lucy's mother would be all "Where's Amy? and Christopher et. al. would have been all "Wait, the history books changed and now it says someone other than John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln!" But that's not how it works. Lucy's mother is not aware of any other time in which she had a daughter named Amy, and when Lucy & Co. returned from 1865, everyone at Mason Industries remembered Lincoln being shot by some rando. They'd never heard of Wilkes Booth.

I think maybe Wyatt mentioned it on a journey - so Lucy remembers it?

[Randomosity]

6 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

Wyatt was busting up the team and owed it to his team member to tell her. Rufus was hoping to be able to keep the status quo, and the chances of doing so were better if he kept Jiya out of it. I don't think it had anything to do with the feelings of the respective pairs. I'm not even sure we were supposed to think so. It was just a bit awkward for Lucy, having been told by Wyatt, who wasn't her boyfriend, when Jiya hadn't been told by her boyfriend.

I agree it was along these lines. Even if Wyatt had begun developing feelings for Lucy (which is not necessarily established anyway), you know they're buried and that he's way in denial about it, and Jessica is still obviously who he's solely focused on*. But he's not immune to the fact that Lucy is a trusted colleague, and he likely knew, as she mentioned, that it was goodbye. So he was saying goodbye. (Until whatever legal/logical gymnastics the show may do to ignore these actions and get him back on the team.) Rufus had no reason to say such a goodbye to Jiya, and yeah, probably figured she'd come out of the situation looking best if she knew nothing in advance.

Even if you assume Jiya was getting all 'nudge-nudge-wink-wink' upon Lucy's revelation that Wyatt had told her, that was Jiya projecting her thoughts on the situation. Lucy was likely thinking the same thing everyone here is: "Uh, hi, he just went to rescue his wife. He's hardly interested in me." (That sentiment doesn't necessarily exclude Lucy from having feelings for Wyatt, but again, not something that's been established.)

 

*ETA re: Jessica/Wyatt - didn't it say at some point that it had been five years since Jessica had died? I just wonder what kind of reality/relationship Wyatt figured they'd have if suddenly she was alive in 2017 - I don't think they'd be able to pick up right where they'd left off, right? Wouldn't Jessica then have had five years of relationship memories he didn't? What if they were miserable years? Maybe she'd pop back up, only to have divorced Wyatt three years ago and already have married someone else. Or whatever. I don't doubt that someone could still miss their wife that deeply after 5 years, but he desire to have her back reminds me of that nostalgic feeling I (and probably others) get around the holidays - you miss the house, the feel, the ambiance, the magic, etc. of being a kid at Christmas, with grandma and grandpa and Santa and cookies, and all that, and you'd love to recapture that feeling, but oh, it's thirty years later, no one in the family lives in that house anymore and the grandparents are long gone and gift cards are easier to give than fancy presents from Santa. You just can't recapture the exact same thing. It would have been another interesting way this episode could have gone - bring her back, but basically be nothing like the Jessica that Wyatt wants from 5 years ago.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Randomosity
Additional pondering...

[Driad]

Wyatt should leave the way he was in this episode -- fired with enthusiasm.

[Clanstarling]

17 hours ago, Goldmoon said:

Seatbelts became required by law in 1987 or 88 here in Illinois.  I remember my mother moaning about it, claiming that if she had an accident, she would be prefer to be thrown out of the car, no doubt having seen that stunt safely done on tv.  I asked her, do you want to go through the windshield or the side window? 

I don't think it was romantic for Wyatt to talk to Lucy.  he could have left a note for the Homeland lady and still mimed that he was forcing Rufus.  He endangered Lucy, Rufus did not endanger the other woman.

I don't know about law, but when I was learning to drive in my father's car in 1973, we had seatbelts. Not the shoulder straps yet, but seatbelts. My father didn't use his, for the same reasons as your mother.

I bought my first car in 1980 - it had the shoulder restraints.  I do remember vaguely asking cop about his use of seatbelts and him saying something along the lines of they didn't wear them (usually) because if they were in pursuit and needed to get out of the car quickly, the seatbelts would hinder them.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Clanstarling
remembered stuff and left out a key word

[withanaich]

Yeah, when I was a kid (in the 80s), seat belts were still not a big deal, even for nine-year-olds. I grew up riding around in the backseat unrestrained, and sometimes sitting on another kid's lap if space was tight. That was the joke: of course seat belts existed (even automatic ones), but if it wasn’t automatic a lot of people didn’t even think about putting one on. I don’t know if the cops in Ohio back then were required to buckle up (and even if they were, people don’t always do what their bosses tell them).

Quote

If the phones were out, wouldn't it be as likely that the power would be out, seeing as how the same poles carry both wires?

Not necessarily. Power/phone service could be out in one area and not in another (I don't remember if we learned how far away the bartender's sister lived).

Quote

I enjoyed this episode, and I guess Wyatt has grown on me, because I really felt bad for him.  In the early episode when he tried Western Unioning a telegram to Jessica from 100 years or so in the past, I just laughed at him.  But I felt bad for him here.

Nah, maybe I’m a bad person or whatever, but I still laughed. At least the Western Union attempt was a spur-of-the moment bad idea that didn’t risk anyone’s life (in the moment). The second attempt was careless, sloppy, inconsiderate, dangerous … and the first attempt should have taught Wyatt that maybe you can’t “fix” the present from the past. But it didn't, because he's a rockhead. And quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about his insistence on resurrecting his wife (as well as Lucy's selfish "yeah, yeah, we'll save the world ... lemme just magically somehow get my sister back first"). So yeah, I laughed. 

Quote

I couldn't care less about Anthony.  I don't believe for an instant that he blew up the ship.  Maybe something detonated, but it was just the bomb after Flynn discovered him and killed him.

We're not supposed to believe he blew up the ship. That's what he was planning, and they probably thought he succeeded when they first learned about the explosion, but they made a point of saying they didn’t find any of the materials from the Mothership in the wreckage.

Quote

I think they just kept mentioning the sister and nephew to try and make the bartender a sympathetic character, and not just some random dude who has one night stands and fathers serial killers. And so we'd know someone was going to miss him after Wyatt killed him.

I believe you’re right. I guess “guy with single mom sister and little kid nephew” is supposed to be more sympathetic than “single white male hooking up with women in bars" in the same way that "tragic military dude with dead blank-slate wife" is supposed to be more sympathetic than "average veteran who is competent, not distracted by personal shit, and an asset to the team." *Shrug*

[CooperTV]

4 hours ago, Randomosity said:

Wouldn't Jessica then have had five years of relationship memories he didn't?

I don't think he only wants Jessica back for their relationship. Or at least, I'm not seeing the evidence of the idea Jessica is only important to him as long as she's his wife. Wyatt of course wants Jessica back because she was a person he loved, and I'm sure he would be grateful she's alive in any case. But I do think Wyatt refused to process his loss all these years because he feels enormous guilt for how they part before she had died. He blames himself for leaving her there, so he wants to set it right. Poor dude is in complete denial about everything St. Jessica because of this guilt.

[dubbel zout]

Now I really want Jessica and Amy to come back and not have the faintest idea who Wyatt and Lucy are. Heh.

[CooperTV]

3 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Now I really want Jessica and Amy to come back and not have the faintest idea who Wyatt and Lucy are. Heh.

Because Lucy's mom have her up for adoption?

[blackwing]

On 1/31/2017 at 11:01 AM, kariyaki said:

If someone dies while you're committing a felony (i.e. kidnapping), legally it's still murder. Either way, it's a moot point, but I wonder what part of causing the guy's death will weigh on Wyatt more: that, or that it didn't undo Jessica's death. (My guess is the latter.)

 

13 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

No, it's not murder, not from a legal standpoint.  It's involuntary manslaughter at most because there was no intent to cause the victim's death.

I agree with the first response and disagree with the second.  What Wyatt did is considered the classic example of the felony murder rule.  Felony murder is a common law doctrine that holds that if a death occurs during the commission of a felony, then it is considered murder.  This is because of the concept of transferred intent.  The perpetrator had the intention to commit a felony, therefore if there is any death (accidental or otherwise), the intent transfers to the death.  Wyatt had the intention to kidnap the bartender.  He was going to force him at gunpoint into a car and drive him far away somewhere against his will.  That's kidnapping, which I am pretty sure is a felony.  The bartender struggled during the commission of the kidnapping, and as a result, he hits his head and dies.  It doesn't matter that it was an accident or that Wyatt didn't intend for him to hit his head.  Under felony murder rule, Wyatt is guilty of first degree murder.

I think it ultimately depends on the jurisdiction.  Some countries don't recognise this rule as law anymore.  In the United States, I believe that the felony murder rule still exists in many states.  Whether it was the law in Ohio in 1983, I am not sure.  But it's quite possible.  

Like many here, I would like to hear more about the consequences of these seemingly small interactions with history.  I recall an earlier episode where Lucy read from some history book about how so-and-so was saved by the actions of an unknown woman, who was never located.  And then during the Jesse James episode, she was captured in a photograph, and the picture is clear and it is clearly her.  That photograph appeared to be of some importance, it was a photograph of the dead body of Jesse James and I imagine that photograph would have had to have made its way into history books or the internet somewhere.  Wouldn't someone recognise Lucy eventually?  Or would she just give an excuse about an uncanny resemblance?

Similarly, what would happen if Wyatt were to return to Toledo today in 2017?  Obviously the bartender's body would have been discovered in 1983, the police would have interviewed all the witnesses and the likely suspects would be the two guys that were unaccounted for.  I'm sure many of the patrons would remember a white guy in his early 30s claiming to be in the military and his friend was a black guy in his early 30s.  There would be sketches of the suspects.  If this show gets to a second season, it'd be interesting if Wyatt feels the guilt about the bartender's death, and he returns to Toledo in 2017 to find out what happened to the man's sister and nephew.  He could encounter the stewardess, now a flight attendant in her 50s, and might even be recognised as a man who looks exactly like the 1983 suspect.  There is no statute of limitations on murder, so he would still be a suspect, and maybe they just think he has aged extremely well.

[orza]

I doubt anything at all would happen to Wyatt if he returned to Toledo in 2017. It is an easily verified fact that he was not even born in 1983. Any resemblance to the unknown suspect of a very old cold case would get written off as Wyatt just looks like someone else. That happens all the time.

[Shanna Marie]

4 minutes ago, orza said:

I doubt anything at all would happen to Wyatt if he returned to Toledo in 2017. It is an easily verified fact that he was not even born in 1983. Any resemblance to the unknown suspect of a very old cold case would get written off as Wyatt just looks like someone else.

And, let's face it, Wyatt is pretty generic looking. He's an average height, average build, brown-haired, blue-eyed white man. In the real world, he'd probably be more attractive than average, but in the TV world where everyone's more attractive than average, he's rather run-of-the-mill.

Plus, if they were comparing him against any kind of police sketch, they wouldn't be looking for him as he looked in 1983. They'd have done that aging projection thing, so they'd be looking for the 34 years older version. Enough time has gone by that memories will have blurred, so I'd imagine that even if he ran into that stewardess now, she might not recognize him as the same guy she saw in 1983, mostly because it would be considered impossible and would not compute. Her mind wouldn't let her think it's the same guy.

[jcin617]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 0:17 AM, benteen said:

Flynn's plan is literally worse all the time and Rittenhouse ain't much better with it. 

All Wyatt needed to do was knock that guy out and kick him in the balls.  But he can't even do that right.

He didn't even need to do that.   All Wyatt needed to do was delay them from having sex for a minute, or 10 minutes, or any length of time.  The only way the killer is conceived as the same person is if the exact same sperm fertilizes the egg.   The odds that it's the same one if you change the time or circumstances is pretty remote.

[Dowel Jones]

1 hour ago, jcin617 said:

The odds that it's the same one if you change the time or circumstances is pretty remote.

Except on this show.

[iMonrey]

Quote

While I didn't love Stephen King's book 11/22/63, I did like the concept he offered of the past pushing back on people who tried to alter things, (i.e. the closer the main character got to altering the past in substantial ways, the more "the past" would place things in his way to try and stop him).  I feel like Timeless has shown some of the bad outcomes that occur when you mess with the past, but isn't really willing to take things all the way on that.     

I'm fine with the concept that history has a way of correcting itself and it's really hard to change it. I just want the show to address the issue rather than avoiding it every episode.

Quote

There has to be a line where one minute, you know Lincoln's killer was John Wilkes Booth, and the next, you know that Lincoln's killer was never caught. But how often in your daily life do you think about who shot Lincoln? 

They'd be thinking about him a lot if they'd just sent a group of time travelers back to April 15th, 1865 knowing full well they're likely to encounter him. You're right: at some point, the memories of those still in "present day" change from "Booth shot Lincoln" to "someone else shot Lincoln." We just don't know when that happens because - again - the show has no interest in exploring those issues.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, orza said:

I doubt anything at all would happen to Wyatt if he returned to Toledo in 2017. It is an easily verified fact that he was not even born in 1983. Any resemblance to the unknown suspect of a very old cold case would get written off as Wyatt just looks like someone else. That happens all the time.

While the State of Ohio could do nothing the officers in the secret Courts Martial would presumably know the general facts of a felony murder before the Master Sergeant was stripped to Private on his way to life at Fort Leavenworth 

[BooBear]

16 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Wyatt actually being the father of the serial killer because he decided to sleep with the stew instead of letting Drew Roy get to her would been an awesome, edgy twist that this show would never do because the writers seem absolutely loathe to do anything that irrevocably change their characters. It also wouldn't do for Wyatt to sleep with the stew, even though he had way more chemistry with her than he does with Lucy, because the show seems to have predetermined Wucy as a thing despite the fact that they barely show any kind of chemistry with each other. It's so forced.

Yup. In fact I was thinking -- hoping -- that Wyatt would sleep with her and find out her fathered his wife's killer.  But I figured the writers would never go for that. That lead me to disappointment about how we could really dissect this show if it was on HBO... and realizing on NBC it will be nothing more than a fun 'popcorn' show.  

Since I am not getting any chemistry from Lucy and Wyatt I have to believe they are not going to go with Wucy, but want the audience to be confused. I also have problems with him falling for her when he is so obsessed with his wife he could steal the pod to get her back. Either you love someone with a crazy passion or your over it. 

[misstwpherecool]

This episode-Eh, No.

They did some good things and stupid things. They split the characters up and put in different situations. Good. The plot/this weeks time travel-NO.

It was almost like all the stupid things people do in a horror movie. Oh I'm not going to hurt him but I will forcibly and physically detain him, uh huh-What possibly could go wrong. After breaking into a hotel room, interrupting relations(Which Jason always seemed to do in the Friday The 13th movies in the 80s).

Liking the use of the new time traveler from last week. Figured either the scientist or her would be red shirted this week. When they showed her casually hanging out with a beer  you could tell she WILL be hanging around. But it's a time travel show.

Then Lucy and Homeland Security lady. Um, Homeland or who ever did her background check didn't know who her father was? The 24 minutes waiting to report could be written off as I didn't think he was serious but I'd better let them know.

Also the 80s are close enough that somebody from epi could come back to haunt Wyatt in the present. If he left fingerprints or DNA maybe a cold case detective might run them and being from the military it would be on file but be written off as a mistake since he wasn't born yet.

Rufus, what were you thinking. It was the 80s.

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

That photograph appeared to be of some importance, it was a photograph of the dead body of Jesse James and I imagine that photograph would have had to have made its way into history books or the internet somewhere.  Wouldn't someone recognise Lucy eventually?  Or would she just give an excuse about an uncanny resemblance?

Celebrities who look like old pictures shows some pretty amazing doppleganger pictures from the past and celebrities. Not all of them here are perfect, but the Justin Timberlake one is pretty dead on. Of course, they may all be fakes - but with this sort of stuff on the internet - not too hard to shrug off, since looking like someone in the past is more likely than traveling to the past (at least, outside those she's working for and against).

As for Wyatt being recognized - there's aging extremely well, and there's aging vampire well. No one's going to believe a guy who was 30something 34 years ago still looks 30something. Unless time travel is openly acknowledged in the court systems.

[withanaich]

24 minutes ago, misstwpherecool said:

Then Lucy and Homeland Security lady. Um, Homeland or who ever did her background check didn't know who her father was? 

But his name isn't listed on her birth certificate or in any other official records, so it wouldn't come up in a background check. No one knew his name but her mother and her biological father (because he knew he'd slept with this woman and, being in Rittenhouse, I guess he secretly kept tabs on the fact that she'd given birth to a baby nine months later?), so how could Agent Christopher possibly know? I don't think even Flynn knows who her father is, does he? (I was thinking it might've been in the journal and he would reveal it, but her mother was the one to tell her.) The rest of Rittenhouse (and whatever moles they have inside Homeland and Mason Industries) might know, but only for the same creepy reason her father does.

[dubbel zout]

Rittenhouse is sekrit enough that I buy no one official knowing who Lucy's birth father is. That's one of the few things that's credible about all of this, IMO.

[ketose]

4 hours ago, jcin617 said:

He didn't even need to do that.   All Wyatt needed to do was delay them from having sex for a minute, or 10 minutes, or any length of time.  The only way the killer is conceived as the same person is if the exact same sperm fertilizes the egg.   The odds that it's the same one if you change the time or circumstances is pretty remote.

Only if nature is way more powerful than nurture. The kid would have the same upbringing and probably at least 3/4 of the same genetic material.

[LoneHaranguer]

On 1/31/2017 at 4:40 PM, Clanstarling said:

Wyatt specifically said he was the bartender when discussing his research, to my recollection - basing this not only because I think I remember it, but because I looked for the bartender when they walked into the bar (and I hadn't paid attention to the photo).

Then what was up with Wyatt's "Oh my God, that's him", like he didn't expect that?

20 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

I also thought Wyatt was going to wind up sleeping with the stewardess to prevent her from sleeping with the bartender. (Though I didn't consider him fathering the killer - that would have been an interesting twist!)

I think Wyatt was too hung up on his wife to go that far, but he could have done something to keep the stewardess tied up (including literally doing that). A shame when you consider how entertaining his confession might have been to a wife who wouldn't have remembered she was dead.

On 1/31/2017 at 3:22 PM, Netfoot said:

Because 30 minutes later, they would encounter themselves arriving late for the party!

So, go back further and get the stewardess to miss the flight.

On 1/31/2017 at 2:14 PM, kariyaki said:

Emma, the beer-loving former pilot that Flynn retrieved last episode.

And she had missed beer why? The big-name brewers were already around when she was hiding (even Coors in CO), and the country was covered with local producers.

[misstwpherecool]

2 hours ago, withanaich said:

But his name isn't listed on her birth certificate or in any other official records, so it wouldn't come up in a background check. No one knew his name but her mother and her biological father (because he knew he'd slept with this woman and, being in Rittenhouse, I guess he secretly kept tabs on the fact that she'd given birth to a baby nine months later?), so how could Agent Christopher possibly know? I don't think even Flynn knows who her father is, does he? (I was thinking it might've been in the journal and he would reveal it, but her mother was the one to tell her.) The rest of Rittenhouse (and whatever moles they have inside Homeland and Mason Industries) might know, but only for the same creepy reason her father does.

I get that but to get a security clearance or be cleared of not being a spy basically information like that usually has to be accounted for. They might even interview the mother especially if she's still alive. Vetting is supposed to account for stuff that could come back on you including a parent that might have undue influence over the child. The father could be a convicted criminal, that's not an issue per say but if one's father was a spy that's another story.

[Bort]

25 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

And she had missed beer why? The big-name brewers were already around when she was hiding (even Coors in CO), and the country was covered with local producers.

Emma was hiding in the middle of hostile Indian territory (don't ask me how she managed to settle there), it probably wasn't very convenient for her to pop into town for a beer. 

[KaveDweller]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

They'd be thinking about him a lot if they'd just sent a group of time travelers back to April 15th, 1865 knowing full well they're likely to encounter him. You're right: at some point, the memories of those still in "present day" change from "Booth shot Lincoln" to "someone else shot Lincoln." We just don't know when that happens because - again - the show has no interest in exploring those issues.

I think it would be fun to focus on small issues. Like how a high school was named after Lucy's alias from when she tried to save Lincoln. And in some senses it doesn't matter to history who shot Lincoln, but there are lots of pop culture references I can think of about, and I wonder what impact that would have. In the movie Conspiracy Theory Mel Gibson's character talks about how famous serial killers have three names (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). How would the scene have been different if he didn't have Booth to reference.

29 minutes ago, ketose said:

Only if nature is way more powerful than nurture. The kid would have the same upbringing and probably at least 3/4 of the same genetic material.

That would actually be a really interesting thing to explore.  Especially if they could go to the same place twice. First, go back and kidnap the kid as a baby and see if he becomes a killer if raised by someone else. Then go back and delay them from having sex to see if a different combination of DNA results in a killer. Then try having someone else get her pregnant. It would be a fascinating (but total inhumane) psychological experiment.

27 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Then what was up with Wyatt's "Oh my God, that's him", like he didn't expect that?

I think he was just upset that he had missed stopping the meeting.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Since I am not getting any chemistry from Lucy and Wyatt I have to believe they are not going to go with Wucy, but want the audience to be confused. 

Oh, I don't know - I think the anvils were falling pretty hard while Lucy and Jiya were discussing "people who care about you tell you the truth" blah blah blah - clearly the writers are signaling a Lucy/Wyatt endgame. Just because you don't see any chemistry between the actors (nor do I, for what it's worth) doesn't mean the writers won't go there. See: Grimm.
 

Quote

I get that but to get a security clearance or be cleared of not being a spy basically information like that usually has to be accounted for. They might even interview the mother especially if she's still alive. Vetting is supposed to account for stuff that could come back on you including a parent that might have undue influence over the child. The father could be a convicted criminal, that's not an issue per say but if one's father was a spy that's another story.? 

The fact that Lucy is part of the mission at all is a pretty big stretch, unless Rittenhouse somehow managed to get her on the team. I don't care how much of a historical "expert" she is - surely the NSA or the CIA has trained agents who are equally fluent in history and have specialized training for going on covert missions. It doesn't make any sense for the government to pull in some civilian for the job.

Edited February 2, 2017 by iMonrey

[ChromaKelly]

I really want there to be more messed up history than just Lucy's sister. I mean, they've killed a bunch of people and altered events. Something needs to be different.
I have to not think about the logistics or I can't enjoy the show. As it is, it's a show I don't pay 100% attention to anyway. I don't care about Wyatt's dead wife and I don't know why they are pushing it so hard. I feel bad for the guy that got killed. The best part was Rufus. I generally like him the most anyway. 

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Timeless Gobbles Up The 1980s Like It's Got Pac Man Fever

But let's take some time to rank those that always get left behind.

[Miles]

On 31.1.2017 at 7:45 AM, green said:

Again, people CAN go back to a time they were alive in.  They just can't meet themselves there without pretty bad things happening to them.  Rufus said that twice and some people posted his quotes in the last episode's thread.  And it has already been down twice by the late, lamented Anthony who dies in the current time but not in the two times he was in but his double was elsewhere.  To wit, 1969 (moon landing) and 1972 or 1973 (Watergate).

What? Where did you get that from? That is exactly the opposite of what was said every time. They clearly say that you can't go back to a time where you already exist. That's also why Wyatt had to go after the parents of the serial killer instead of the serial killer himself.

[Dowel Jones]

But, but, but....what if they take the time machine out to sea, and they land on a boat, and they find out that Rufus's parents are on the boat with infant Rufus who was born on the boat, but the boat crosses the International Date Line and now they're a day behind, but the captain overhears Wyatt mentioning that the lifeboat is damaged, so he stops the ship to investigate, and it starts drifting back toward the Date Line.  What will they do then?  (Tips hat to George Carlin)

[ketose]

8 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

But, but, but....what if they take the time machine out to sea, and they land on a boat, and they find out that Rufus's parents are on the boat with infant Rufus who was born on the boat, but the boat crosses the International Date Line and now they're a day behind, but the captain overhears Wyatt mentioning that the lifeboat is damaged, so he stops the ship to investigate, and it starts drifting back toward the Date Line.  What will they do then?  (Tips hat to George Carlin)

It reminds me of the "Don't feed them after midnight" argument about Gremlins.

[iMonrey]

Let's agree that the show simply has not clarified whether going back to a time you already exist is too dangerous because you might run into yourself, or because you simply can't, even if you don't run into yourself, because you risk implosion or something. Even though Anthony has gone back to a time where, clearly, he had already been born, thrice, the characters have stated the "no going back to a time you already existed rule" enough times to make the whole thing contradictory. There's never any caveat "unless you avoid running into yourself." Even Rufus said it was "cutting it close" because he'd be born later in that year. 

Obviously there's little chance Rufus is going to run into the baby version of himself in Toledo, Ohio (unless that's where he was born) so the issue doesn't seem to be "too dangerous because you might run into yourself."

I'm reasonably confident the writers simply came up with this rule to eliminate the possibility of do-overs in all these failed missions, and simply forgot how old Anthony is and/or ignored that rule when they wrote Atomic City, The Watergate Tape and Space Race. 

[dubbel zout]

To me it would make more sense if no one was exactly sure how time travel worked; that would give the writers wiggle room where necessary. It would also give them the opportunity to make up their own rules. I think consistency is more important than absolute logic, but we're not getting either at the moment. 

[JackONeill]

1 minute ago, dubbel zout said:

To me it would make more sense if no one was exactly sure how time travel worked; that would give the writers wiggle room where necessary. It would also give them the opportunity to make up their own rules. I think consistency is more important than absolute logic, but we're not getting either at the moment. 

I don't watch that much sci fi, but I like what you say. For instance, I had absolutely no idea how the thingy-giggy on Stargate SG 1 worked, but that didn't stop me from liking the show. In fact, the knowledge-- or lack thereof -- of how it worked became a running gag on the show as witnessed whenever someone tried to explain the science to Col. O'Neill, and he'd just start rolling his eyeballs. The key to making sci fi easy to watch is to not take yourself too seriously. Just have fun with it. Oh -- time travel!?! Cool. Just step into this weird-looking machine with all these pretty lights and we'll go meet Davy Crockett.

[ketose]

4 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

To me it would make more sense if no one was exactly sure how time travel worked; that would give the writers wiggle room where necessary. It would also give them the opportunity to make up their own rules. I think consistency is more important than absolute logic, but we're not getting either at the moment. 

In reality, they don't. Rufus knows that they sent someone back twice to the same time / place and it went really badly. So, to be on the safe side, they're not going to do the same thing. They have no idea if it has to do with proximity or lifespan, but they're not going to get a lot of people killed testing it.

[legaleagle53]

9 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Let's agree that the show simply has not clarified whether going back to a time you already exist is too dangerous because you might run into yourself, or because you simply can't, even if you don't run into yourself, because you risk implosion or something. Even though Anthony has gone back to a time where, clearly, he had already been born, thrice, the characters have stated the "no going back to a time you already existed rule" enough times to make the whole thing contradictory. There's never any caveat "unless you avoid running into yourself." Even Rufus said it was "cutting it close" because he'd be born later in that year. 

Obviously there's little chance Rufus is going to run into the baby version of himself in Toledo, Ohio (unless that's where he was born) so the issue doesn't seem to be "too dangerous because you might run into yourself."

I'm reasonably confident the writers simply came up with this rule to eliminate the possibility of do-overs in all these failed missions, and simply forgot how old Anthony is and/or ignored that rule when they wrote Atomic City, The Watergate Tape and Space Race. 

Malcolm Barrett said on Twitter yesterday that there's more to Anthony's backstory that hasn't been revealed yet that explains why he was able to go back to those eras in seeming violation of the first rule of time travel as Rufus laid it down in the pilot and as Flynn has repeatedly restated it since then. In other words, the writers haven't forgotten the rule; they've just forgotten to explain to the rest of us why Anthony was an apparent exception to it.

Edited February 3, 2017 by legaleagle53

[KaveDweller]

10 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Let's agree that the show simply has not clarified whether going back to a time you already exist is too dangerous because you might run into yourself, or because you simply can't, even if you don't run into yourself, because you risk implosion or something. Even though Anthony has gone back to a time where, clearly, he had already been born, thrice, the characters have stated the "no going back to a time you already existed rule" enough times to make the whole thing contradictory. There's never any caveat "unless you avoid running into yourself." Even Rufus said it was "cutting it close" because he'd be born later in that year. 

Obviously there's little chance Rufus is going to run into the baby version of himself in Toledo, Ohio (unless that's where he was born) so the issue doesn't seem to be "too dangerous because you might run into yourself."

I'm reasonably confident the writers simply came up with this rule to eliminate the possibility of do-overs in all these failed missions, and simply forgot how old Anthony is and/or ignored that rule when they wrote Atomic City, The Watergate Tape and Space Race. 

There has been a caveat though. In the pilot, they added a caveat both times they mentioned the rule. In later episodes they didn't include it.  I think they may have changed their minds after the pilot to make it harder for people to change things (mainly Flynn and Wyatt saving their wives). I get why it happens, but it's annoying when shows change things after the pilot and expect us not to notice.

I agree with you that they just needed to eliminate the possibility of do-overs. And to answer the question of why not go back five minutes to stop Flynn.

[methodwriter85]

2 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

Malcolm Barrett said on Twitter yesterday that there's more to Anthony's backstory that hasn't been revealed yet that explains why he was able to go back to those eras in seeming violation of the first rule of time travel as Rufus laid it down in the pilot and as Flynn has repeatedly restated it since then. In other words, the writers haven't forgotten the rule; they've just forgotten to explain to the rest of us why Anthony was an apparent exception to it.

In other words, the writers realized that Anthony shouldn't have been able to travel to 1972 or 1969 when the audiences commented on it, and they're going to come up with some rush job explanation for it in the series/season finale.

[green]

19 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

In other words, the writers realized that Anthony shouldn't have been able to travel to 1972 or 1969 when the audiences commented on it, and they're going to come up with some rush job explanation for it in the series/season finale.

And also hope we forget Rufus' original explanation too.  Way too late for that now.  It's out there as well as Rufus' quote.  Changing things up after the fact to fit the NEW explanation they are rushing out will just mess up their show even worse.  Again, no backsies allowed even in cornball time travel shows.  Once it is broadcast it exists forever on the internet.

They have enough plot holes you can drive semi trucks through as it is as in history not really changing much after Flynn sledgehammers it every other episode.  They screwed up.  Live with it at this point and get on with the Rittenhouse stuff before the show gets cancelled. 

Or just re-set the show entirely wherein Rufus, Jiya, Mason, Flynn, and Homeland Security lady jump into Flynn's bigger time machine and escape the ravaged hulk of current earth that came about thanks to Wyatt having killed an innocent bartender.  They go hide out in the past with no real plans other then basic survival.  I'd probably enjoy that more then this current screwed-up mess.  The atomic battery or whatever it is they installed on Flynn's time machine via the Vegas episode will allow them to flit about all over history without worrying about re-charging while the crew argues and bonds with one another.  Sounds both more interesting and more fun then what we got now.

Edited February 4, 2017 by green

[ketose]

5 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

In other words, the writers realized that Anthony shouldn't have been able to travel to 1972 or 1969 when the audiences commented on it, and they're going to come up with some rush job explanation for it in the series/season finale.

That seems to be what Timeless does. Every time something is mentioned online (where are they getting clothes?, why don't they use paperweights?) it's addressed a few episodes later.

[dubbel zout]

I don't really mind them tweaking things as the show goes along—that's not unusual, and you can't anticipate everything—but the basic rule(s) of time travel should be set in stone on a show that's about, you know, time travel.

Edited February 3, 2017 by dubbel zout

[Clanstarling]

36 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I don't really mind them tweaking things as the show goes along—that's not unusual, and you can't anticipate everything—but the basic rule(s) of time travel should be set in stone on a show that's about, you know, time travel.

I agree. I watch and read a lot of time travel, and generally speaking, the rules are defined - clearly - pretty much the first time (or just before) the first time travel (unless, of course, the story is about figuring out the time travel rules). I'm currently reading two time travel books, - one about a set of historians (and their rules are are a combination of organizational and physics/history pushes back rules) - the other is where their attempt to time travel to the future has destroyed the future, and they don't know why and are trying to fix it. Two different takes, but it's all part of the set-up from the get-go.

IMO, establishing your rules is the first thing any writer/show runner needs to do for a time travel story. I think it's pretty unforgivable that this late in the season the audience still isn't clear about exactly what the rules are. Each of the two basic beliefs we've gone back and forth with here on the forum are supportable by various bits of dialogue, but they haven't given us anything definitive yet. I know where I stand, but I continue to be uncertain about whether that is indeed where the showrunners stand.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Clanstarling