Journeyman Finale SPOILERS (was Re: Don't forget Journeyman's final show tonight.)
KalElFan
"Ar Q" <Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote in the "Don't forget
Journeyman's final show tonight" thread on rec.arts.tv:
> 10PM Eastern/ 9 Central.
>
> I certainly will miss this season's most enjoyable drama...
Me too.
The episode aired at 7 eastern on the Global Maritime channel,
which is available elsewhere in Canada on digital timeshifting
tiers. So I've seen it and it's a great, great ending to what
amounts to a 13-episode miniseries if indeed no other network
picks it up. It leaves all the biggest picture questions open and
sets it up perfectly for a continuation, yet it provides enough
answers and closure to make for a great wrap up. SPOILERS
here on the key elements...
Langley has basically been an observer of the phenomenon of
time travelers, but is unaware of what (or who) is causing it. He
says he'll always disavow any knowledge of time travelers for
their own protection. He also believes the phenomenon is winding
down and that Dan is now the last traveler. Dan tells him he's
wrong but declines to name Livia.
The A-plot is basically about Dan's predecessor, who died the
same day that Dan started traveling. The last Journeyman lost
his wife of 15+ years, she being killed by someone he'd pissed
off in one of his journeys. So it parallels Dan's experience in the
two-parter a few weeks ago, where Katie was almost killed. The
previous Journeyman went back and prevented himself from ever
meeting his wife, just to save her. He succeeded, but in the new
reality was tortured by her never even remembering him or their
life together.
There's a nice scene in stage 3 of Dan's mission, where Dan and
Livia set it up for Dan's predecessor to make significant headway
with his wife in a replay of sorts of their first encounter. But the
previous Journeyman still dies, for no apparent reason and a
news story later mentions his wife is breaking up with the new
guy (a politician) that she'd married. Maybe there's a Journeyman
Retirement Program where he beamed out to, and they'll both be
resuming their marriage there. :-)
Back to Dan and Katie, and Katie suggesting the drugs that this
other traveler had taken (he was in an asylum) could be used by
Dan to suppress his travels. Dan declines, telling Katie he believes
what he's doing is important. He says he'd understand if she wants
out, but Katie doesn't and they agree to stay together.
Earlier, Katie asked to see Dan disappear (as Zach had), but Katie's
sister was there so she couldn't. Later though, in perhaps the very
last scene of the series, Dan wakes up and realizes he's about to
travel. Sitting in a chair a sleeping Katie is facing, he calls to wake
her up. He beams out and then the very last shot is of Katie having
seen it, with a zoom into the reflection of that in her eye.
Very, very nice send-off to the series if that's all there is, but really
there should be more and Fox or Sci-Fi (or maybe a combination
of the two) should pick this up. Reruns of these 13 eps, and the
DVD when it's available, would help build a bigger following and
in that sense the strike-shortened season could be a blessing for
the show. Maybe it does another 13 after the strike gets settled,
to better numbers and then maybe on to several more seasons.
But again if this was it, it was a great 13-ep series that leaves
viewers wanting more. Kudos to all involved.
Dano
"KalElFan" <kalelfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5su2rnF...@mid.individual.net...
fan of McKidd after his work on "Rome"...but I do hope the show gets a
second life. Maybe if Dan Vasser can travel back to the birth of the show
and...
Pelerin Galimatias
janea...@yahoo.com says...
The last episode was so damn good that if this is the end I'll hate
NBC for denying me more. I'm not watching what fills its space.
jbrad...@netzero.net
On Dec 19, 11:30 pm, pgalimat...@hotmail.com (Pelerin Galimatias)
wrote:
> In article <IpOdncwYQuzlcPTanZ2dnUVZ_tSkn...@comcast.com>,
> janeandd...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> >"KalElFan" <kalelfanNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:5su2rnF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> SPOILER warning in the thread title and note crossposts...
>
> >> "Ar Q" <ArthurQ...@hottmail.com> wrote in the "Don't forget
> >>Journeyman'sfinal show tonight" thread on rec.arts.tv:
>
> >>> 10PM Eastern/ 9 Central.
>
> >>> I certainly will miss this season's most enjoyable drama...
>
> >> Me too.
>
> >> The episode aired at 7 eastern on the Global Maritime channel,
> >> which is available elsewhere in Canada on digital timeshifting
> >> tiers. So I've seen it and it's a great, great ending to what
> >> amounts to a 13-episode miniseries if indeed no other network
> >> picks it up. It leaves all the biggest picture questions open and
> >> sets it up perfectly for a continuation, yet it provides enough
> >> answers and closure to make for a great wrap up. SPOILERS
> >> here on the key elements...
>
> >> Langley has basically been an observer of the phenomenon of
> >> time travelers, but is unaware of what (or who) is causing it. He
> >> says he'll always disavow any knowledge of time travelers for
> >> their own protection. He also believes the phenomenon is winding
> >> down and that Dan is now the last traveler. Dan tells him he's
> >> wrong but declines to name Livia.
>
> >> The A-plot is basically about Dan's predecessor, who died the
> >> same day that Dan started traveling. The lastJourneymanlost
> >> his wife of 15+ years, she being killed by someone he'd pissed
> >> off in one of his journeys. So it parallels Dan's experience in the
> >> two-parter a few weeks ago, where Katie was almost killed. The
> >> previousJourneymanwent back and prevented himself from ever
> >> meeting his wife, just to save her. He succeeded, but in the new
> >> reality was tortured by her never even remembering him or their
> >> life together.
>
> >> There's a nice scene in stage 3 of Dan's mission, where Dan and
> >> Livia set it up for Dan's predecessor to make significant headway
> >> with his wife in a replay of sorts of their first encounter. But the
> >> previousJourneymanstill dies, for no apparent reason and a
> I just watched the lastJourneyman. Damn the writers and producers.
David Chesler
> The last episode was so damn good that if this is the end I'll hate
> NBC for denying me more. I'm not watching what fills its space.
Me too.
There were rough spots squeezing a lot of stuff in, but the writers
really thought through a lot of it. (And I like Big Band.)
If it does not get picked up somewhere, which would be a shame, I hope
the authors give an interview and explain their world view.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Free Cory Maye
Robin Miller
"David Chesler" <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:e876e24b-dde8-4594...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Me three. It's a shame so many genre shows have started slowly the last
couple of years. Some ended up being good enough to warrant a second season,
but they didn't get it because their numbers never recovered. I've really
enjoyed seeing Lisa Sheridan again after Invasion traveled that path.
--Robin
Robin Miller
"Robin Miller" <Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote in message
news:5Amaj.572$Tt5...@newsfe07.lga...
Sorry to follow myself up, but I've just read some of the other threads. We
lose The 4400, The Dead Zone, and Journeyman all on the same day? Wow.
--Robin
jayembee
> I just watched the last Journeyman. Damn the writers and producers.
> The last episode was so damn good that if this is the end I'll hate
> NBC for denying me more.
As an episode of the show, I thought it was above-average, but not
extraordinary, but I have to agree with KalElFan that it did a
terrific job of wrapping up the first chapter in Dan's life as a
time-traveler, while leaving a great deal still to be said about
what's behind it all.
At the end, I felt I had reached the end of the first book of a
series: one that had its own resolution, but left more story to
be told.
> I'm not watching what fills its space.
Don't be an idiot. Not watching what replaces it isn't going to
bring JOURNEYMAN back.
I'll be watching what replaces it, because I *like* what's
replacing it: the next season of MEDIUM.
-- jayembee
spam@starband.net Deke
(snip)
> >
> I just watched the last Journeyman. Damn the writers and producers.
> The last episode was so damn good that if this is the end I'll hate
> NBC for denying me more. I'm not watching what fills its space.
>
me.
Victor Velazquez
news:e876e24b-dde8-4594...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> wrote:
>> I just watched the last Journeyman. Damn the writers and producers.
>> The last episode was so damn good that if this is the end I'll hate
>> NBC for denying me more. I'm not watching what fills its space.
>
> Me too.
> There were rough spots squeezing a lot of stuff in, but the writers
> really thought through a lot of it.
I didn't dislike it but, like the psychic crap in the previous episode, this
one had...problems.
If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could Dan
travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to die in that
one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
Dan's boss won't remember that Dan said he was doing a story about CT's
death becasue that timeline never happened but...what was Dan working on in
the timeline that did happen? Will there be a pile of mysterious work on
his desk that he did but has no memory of? Forget about losing a day or two
becasue of the travelling itself, Dan is losing months of work every time he
changes the timeline!
Still, minor quibbles and probably easily explained and/or fanwanked. I
sure appreciated a show that gave me the opportunity to pick such nits!
Crowfoot
pgali...@hotmail.com (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote:
Well, I dunno; it sounded to me as if they were about to launch into
one of those interminable "plot arcs" that writers use to avoid actually
exploring interesting ideas. Instead of doing some serious tweaking
of the past -- and not just a few decades back, going back a bit further
-- and then working out some interesting consequences both personal
and on the larger cultural canvas, lo, they wheeled in (by way of
"Langley") the dangerous bad guys who want to *control* the time
travelers in order to change things their way. What that leads to, as
inevitably as night follows day, is ep after ep jacked up to a fever
pitch by kidnappings and disappearances of those "in the know" --
Jack, wife and kid, etc. etc. -- by BG's trying to manipulate Dan. Lots
of angst and running around: no thinking, no real imagining of what
changes committed fairly blindly and without that kind of coercion,
might mean for the world.
For a very different treatment of this idea, not on screen but in print,
check out a series by Kage Baker, which is about time travelers from
all over history who are sent back to rescue persons and significant
artifacts. Their food/drink of choice, by the way, is "theobroma" --
chocolate . . . she has a very convincing and evolved approach to the
whole going-back-to-do-X idea.
C
Ian Galbraith
> "David Chesler" <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:e876e24b-dde8-4594...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> Me too.
>> There were rough spots squeezing a lot of stuff in, but the writers
>> really thought through a lot of it. (And I like Big Band.)
>> If it does not get picked up somewhere, which would be a shame, I hope
>> the authors give an interview and explain their world view.
> Me three. It's a shame so many genre shows have started slowly the last
> couple of years.
Journeyman didn't start slow IMHO. I was hooked after 1 episode.
[snip]
--
"Intellect without humanity is not good enough...what the world is
suffering from at the present time is not so much an overabundance of
intellect as an insufficiency of humanity." - Ashley Montagu
M. Halbrook
@newsfe07.lga:
>
> Me three. It's a shame so many genre shows have started slowly the last
> couple of years.
In the past, they'd have had a chance. Cheers took a few years to catch
on. Now, there isn't any time given to work.
M. Halbrook
$.u9j53on4...@40tude.net:
> Journeyman didn't start slow IMHO. I was hooked after 1 episode.
First 30 mins were slow for me, but I watched the last half, after walking
away and enjoyed it, and when I was able to watch it since then, it was
good. I actually missed the last 15 tonight cuz I didn't look at the clock
and when they went in to the last comercial break, right as Dan did his
first "leap" I figured that was the end, fitting end if it had been to my
mind.
M. Halbrook
news:_tGdnRdqNqXgm_fa...@comcast.com:
> If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could
> Dan travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to die
> in that one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
Dan needed him to die to be able to travel, How he died changed 3 times
tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
WQ
> pgalimat...@hotmail.com (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote:
> > I just watched the last Journeyman. Damn the writers and producers.
> > The last episode was so damn good that if this is the end I'll hate
> > NBC for denying me more.
>
> As an episode of the show, I thought it was above-average, but not
> extraordinary, but I have to agree with KalElFan that it did a
> terrific job of wrapping up the first chapter in Dan's life as a
> time-traveler, while leaving a great deal still to be said about
> what's behind it all.
>
> At the end, I felt I had reached the end of the first book of a
> series: one that had its own resolution, but left more story to
> be told.
>
--- Journeyman was one of those shows that really didn't hook me but I
could see in it a potential for it to have been a much more
interesting show than it was. Still, it did have some nice touches to
it, largely thanks to Kevin McKidd, someone who just grabs hold of you
with his almost brutal looks and fairly convincing charcterization and
refuses to let go. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets another series
in the near future, one that might better caoitalize on his looks and
characterization [maybe a tough p.i. or spy role (he does have a
certain vague resemblance to Daniel Craig)].
Anyway, I felt this finale to be more like what should've actually
have been the pilot for the series, with some tweaking and editing of
course to make it so. The problem I had with Journeyman all along, as
did apparently the tons of viewers who deliberately avoided the
series, was the whole mystery slant to why he time traveled - it was a
hook without any real bait. The explanation in the finale was all
that was needed to more easily make alienated viewers of this series
lock onto it. The explanation also set up what obviously would've
been the next arc in the series which could've been used as the actual
first arc instead of all that had preceded the finale, which I found
was more of an unnecessary 12-episode prologue. More than the show
itself, I'd really be interested to see what else McKidd ends up in.
Tim Bruening
KalElFan wrote:
> SPOILER warning in the thread title and note crossposts...
>
> "Ar Q" <Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote in the "Don't forget
> Journeyman's final show tonight" thread on rec.arts.tv:
>
> > 10PM Eastern/ 9 Central.
> >
> > I certainly will miss this season's most enjoyable drama...
>
> Me too.
>
> The episode aired at 7 eastern on the Global Maritime channel,
> which is available elsewhere in Canada on digital timeshifting
> tiers. So I've seen it and it's a great, great ending to what
> amounts to a 13-episode miniseries if indeed no other network
> picks it up. It leaves all the biggest picture questions open and
> sets it up perfectly for a continuation, yet it provides enough
> answers and closure to make for a great wrap up. SPOILERS
> here on the key elements...
>
> The A-plot is basically about Dan's predecessor, who died the
> same day that Dan started traveling. The last Journeyman lost
> his wife of 15+ years, she being killed by someone he'd pissed
> off in one of his journeys. So it parallels Dan's experience in the
> two-parter a few weeks ago, where Katie was almost killed. The
> previous Journeyman went back and prevented himself from ever
> meeting his wife, just to save her. He succeeded, but in the new
> reality was tortured by her never even remembering him or their
> life together.
I have a better idea for Evans: Go back to assassinate the person who had
murdered his wife!
> There's a nice scene in stage 3 of Dan's mission, where Dan and
> Livia set it up for Dan's predecessor to make significant headway
> with his wife in a replay of sorts of their first encounter. But the
> previous Journeyman still dies, for no apparent reason and a
> news story later mentions his wife is breaking up with the new
> guy (a politician) that she'd married. Maybe there's a Journeyman
> Retirement Program where he beamed out to, and they'll both be
> resuming their marriage there. :-)
I bet that Evans was so exicted at dancing with his retroactive ex-wife that
he had a heart attack! He did look somewhat fat.
> Back to Dan and Katie, and Katie suggesting the drugs that this
> other traveler had taken (he was in an asylum) could be used by
> Dan to suppress his travels. Dan declines, telling Katie he believes
> what he's doing is important. He says he'd understand if she wants
> out, but Katie doesn't and they agree to stay together.
I suggest that Dan obtain those anti-time travel drugs and use them when he
wants a vacation.
> Earlier, Katie asked to see Dan disappear (as Zach had), but Katie's
> sister was there so she couldn't. Later though, in perhaps the very
> last scene of the series, Dan wakes up and realizes he's about to
> travel. Sitting in a chair a sleeping Katie is facing, he calls to wake
> her up. He beams out and then the very last shot is of Katie having
> seen it, with a zoom into the reflection of that in her eye.
I suggest that Dan let Jack see him disappear too!
Evans had been keeping a time travel journal. Why hasn't Dan been keeping
such a journal?
Tim Bruening
Victor Velazquez wrote:
> "David Chesler" <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:e876e24b-dde8-4594...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 19, 11:30 pm, pgalimat...@hotmail.com (Pelerin Galimatias)
> > wrote:
> >> I just watched the last Journeyman. Damn the writers and producers.
> >> The last episode was so damn good that if this is the end I'll hate
> >> NBC for denying me more. I'm not watching what fills its space.
> >
> > Me too.
> > There were rough spots squeezing a lot of stuff in, but the writers
> > really thought through a lot of it.
>
> I didn't dislike it but, like the psychic crap in the previous episode, this
> one had...problems.
>
> If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could Dan
> travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to die in that
> one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
>
> Dan's boss won't remember that Dan said he was doing a story about CT's
> death becasue that timeline never happened but...what was Dan working on in
> the timeline that did happen? Will there be a pile of mysterious work on
> his desk that he did but has no memory of? Forget about losing a day or two
> becasue of the travelling itself, Dan is losing months of work every time he
> changes the timeline!
Couldn't Dan just look up his stuff on his computer?
Tim Bruening
"M. Halbrook" wrote:
Why would one time traveler need to die to allow another one to start?
David Chesler
> > SPOILER warning in the thread title and note crossposts...
>
> I have a better idea for Evans: Go back to assassinate the person who had
> murdered his wife!
He said he tried to fix things but it kept getting worse. This
follows what we learned from Livia in the 2-parter.
> Maybe there's a Journeyman
> > Retirement Program where he beamed out to, and they'll both be
> > resuming their marriage there. :-)
>
> I bet that Evans was so exicted at dancing with his retroactive ex-wife that
> he had a heart attack! He did look somewhat fat.
Both the psychic's detection of Zach and Lauren's deja vu suggest
that there is some "right" timeline.
> Evans had been keeping a time travel journal. Why hasn't Dan been keeping
> such a journal?
1. Evans had been doing it 15 years. We don't know when he started
the journal. (And when and why did he collect those those artifiacts,
the ring and the video? BTW, what format was that video?)
2. Maybe Dan figures he can just buy the DVD
Victor Velazquez
news:Xns9A0BEECD24564m...@140.99.99.130...
Then what was Dan going back in time (twice!) to fix?
Adam H. Kerman
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
>SPOILER warning in the thread title and note crossposts...
>Langley has basically been an observer of the phenomenon of
>time travelers, but is unaware of what (or who) is causing it. He
>says he'll always disavow any knowledge of time travelers for
>their own protection. He also believes the phenomenon is winding
>down and that Dan is now the last traveler. Dan tells him he's
>wrong but declines to name Livia.
I'm pleased they finally explained Langley. He was definitely in fear of
his life. The only disappointing bit in the script was that Jack didn't
realize the obvious. He could have gotten the guy killed.
It was very interesting that Langley just didn't want to know too much,
realizing exactly how much danger he was in from "the low men" and from
the Vengeful Phenomenon too. I wonder if a colleague working on the
project was killed.
>The A-plot is basically about Dan's predecessor, who died the
>same day that Dan started traveling. The last Journeyman lost
>his wife of 15+ years, she being killed by someone he'd pissed
>off in one of his journeys. So it parallels Dan's experience in the
>two-parter a few weeks ago, where Katie was almost killed. The
>previous Journeyman went back and prevented himself from ever
>meeting his wife, just to save her. He succeeded, but in the new
>reality was tortured by her never even remembering him or their
>life together.
>There's a nice scene in stage 3 of Dan's mission, where Dan and
>Livia set it up for Dan's predecessor to make significant headway
>with his wife in a replay of sorts of their first encounter. But the
>previous Journeyman still dies, for no apparent reason and a
>news story later mentions his wife is breaking up with the new
>guy (a politician) that she'd married. Maybe there's a Journeyman
>Retirement Program where he beamed out to, and they'll both be
>resuming their marriage there. :-)
It was very sweet ending for him, but disgusting too. Why did his wife
die? It's certainly predictable that a Journeyman would be highly
motivated to save a loved one. He told Dan he tried to intervene several
times, making things worse, till he finally took a selfless act, making
sure she never met him.
Ever vengeful, the Timeline Manipulator decreed that he shall be
institutionalized and that he'd die at the appointed time, whether by
someone else's hand or by natural causes.
He got to have one romantic dance with his wife, then died. That's one
tough retirement program, not even a gold watch.
>Back to Dan and Katie, and Katie suggesting the drugs that this
>other traveler had taken (he was in an asylum) could be used by
>Dan to suppress his travels. Dan declines, telling Katie he believes
>what he's doing is important. He says he'd understand if she wants
>out, but Katie doesn't and they agree to stay together.
That's why the show was so good. Katie loves him, but it's really hard
on her and even if she thinks Dan is Doing Good, she selfishly wants him
all to herself. She's human. It's believable. Still she asked him to
always come back to her.
I stuck with the show SPECIFICALLY because the characters were drawn so
well and their marriage was believable. I did not like the "A" plots of
the early episodes, which I found boring. By the series end, they mostly
made the plots more interesting, although I agree with others who
criticized the introduction of metaphysics on the penultimate episode.
>Earlier, Katie asked to see Dan disappear (as Zach had), but Katie's
>sister was there so she couldn't. Later though, in perhaps the very
>last scene of the series, Dan wakes up and realizes he's about to
>travel. Sitting in a chair a sleeping Katie is facing, he calls to wake
>her up. He beams out and then the very last shot is of Katie having
>seen it, with a zoom into the reflection of that in her eye.
>Very, very nice send-off to the series if that's all there is,
It really was. I'm particularly greatful to the producers that, while
the long-term mystery remained, short-term plot threads were wrapped up
nicely. Unlike too many other shows, they didn't try to temporarily
break up Dan and Katie. It ended on a bit of magic.
I know the sister-in-law was supposed to be obnoxious, but that was weak
writing. If the producers had to have some character always trying to
break up Dan and Katie (as if they didn't have enough problems), why not
just leave Jack in the dark? He was more fun. The sister-in-law was on
for several episodes! Took way too long for Katie to tell her to stop
interferring.
>But again if this was it, it was a great 13-ep series that leaves
>viewers wanting more. Kudos to all involved.
Yes, indeed. Ahem, cough hack cough "Dead Zone" hack cough ahem ahem
Anim8rFSK
jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
:)
--
R.I.P. Bionic Woman:
The latest reason the WGA should revoke Laeta Kalogridis's union card,
or shut their doors in shame.
Adam H. Kerman
>Sorry to follow myself up, but I've just read some of the other threads. We
>lose The 4400, The Dead Zone, and Journeyman all on the same day? Wow.
We lost "The Dead Zone" when they wrote that awful sixth season. I
watched each episode, but perhaps two were tolerable. The show went
entirely off track.
"The 4400" had a decent season, a vast improvement over the third
season, so perhaps they would have wrapped up the story arc with a
decent explanation for what was going on.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Robin Miller" <Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote:
>>Me three. It's a shame so many genre shows have started slowly the last
>>couple of years.
>In the past, they'd have had a chance. Cheers took a few years to catch
>on. Now, there isn't any time given to work.
Cheers would have been cancelled, but it was championed by a top network
executive who liked it.
Arthur Lipscomb
> On Dec 20, 5:03 am, Tim Bruening <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>> > SPOILER warning in the thread title and note crossposts...
>>
>
>
>
> 1. Evans had been doing it 15 years. We don't know when he started
> the journal. (And when and why did he collect those those artifiacts,
> the ring and the video? BTW, what format was that video?)
>
I think it was video8
http://www.mediacollege.com/video/format/8mm/video8.html
Robin Miller
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:476a7d4d$0$47152$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Robin Miller <Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote:
>
>>Sorry to follow myself up, but I've just read some of the other threads.
>>We
>>lose The 4400, The Dead Zone, and Journeyman all on the same day? Wow.
>
> We lost "The Dead Zone" when they wrote that awful sixth season. I
> watched each episode, but perhaps two were tolerable. The show went
> entirely off track.
Oh, I agree, it was horrible. They ditched all the characters in order to
save money and it just left a shell of a show. And then to see Rev. Purdy
show up as the head replicator...
> "The 4400" had a decent season, a vast improvement over the third
> season, so perhaps they would have wrapped up the story arc with a
> decent explanation for what was going on.
Joel Gretsch loses two gigs in the same say...
As was mentioned in one of the original threads on the announcement, the
problems with Billy Campbell and Laura Allen really handicapped the show,
perhaps forcing the writers to go in different directions than they would
have otherwise.
--Robin
suzee
> For a very different treatment of this idea, not on screen but in print,
> check out a series by Kage Baker, which is about time travelers from
> all over history who are sent back to rescue persons and significant
> artifacts. Their food/drink of choice, by the way, is "theobroma" --
> chocolate . . . she has a very convincing and evolved approach to the
> whole going-back-to-do-X idea.
Theobroma is their crack.... I love Kage Baker's company books!
David Chesler
> Robin Miller <Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote:
> >Sorry to follow myself up, but I've just read some of the other threads. We
> >lose The 4400, The Dead Zone, and Journeyman all on the same day? Wow.
>
> We lost "The Dead Zone" when they wrote that awful sixth season. I
> watched each episode, but perhaps two were tolerable. The show went
> entirely off track.
IIRC, they had just re-introduced Armageddon, and we were cliff-
hanging to find out why it was still going to happen and all that. I
was looking forward to it this summer. I also thought USA had a good
schedule thing going, owning the summers. So I'm surprised as well as
disappointed.
> "The 4400" had a decent season, a vast improvement over the third
> season, so perhaps they would have wrapped up the story arc with a
> decent explanation for what was going on.
IIRC we were seeing a lot more of the future towards the end of last
season, and I was looking for that wrap-up as well.
Oh well, I've got a mess of DVDs I haven't gotten around to watching,
and a bunch more that I haven't even bought/rented; if I've got the
time to watch TV I'll have material.
And if we're still under the cone of spoilage for Journeyman,
didjanotice that Senator Craig was resigning on the air when they
revisited September? I'd have to check but I don't think that was in
the background in the original episode. (I was a late start, so I
didn't actually see those incidents, if they were shown, in the first
episodes. I hope I get a chance to watch them on DVD or USA or
something sometime.)
Dano
"Deke" <no sp...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:bb7a9$476a0270$943f4036$16...@STARBAND.NET...
Earl...I like more. Then there are even a few others I won't stop watching
because of my disappointment.
I just think these networks ALL quit to quickly on shows for their own good.
There have been many far better shows (IMO of course) to be cancelled after
one season...as well as quite a few of late that didn't even air all the
episodes produced. That's what really astounds me...to spend all that money
on a production...then leave some in the can. While showing reruns!
David Johnston
Dan was going back in time to break up the Councilman's marriage and
very possibly keep him from ascending to higher political office.
David Johnston
Conservation of energy.
Victor Velazquez
news:26flm3hipamreacq9...@4ax.com...
Oh, so all the stuff with the other traveler was something of a red herring,
right?
Adam H. Kerman
>As was mentioned in one of the original threads on the announcement, the
>problems with Billy Campbell and Laura Allen really handicapped the show,
>perhaps forcing the writers to go in different directions than they would
>have otherwise.
I suppose. It doesn't explain a completely different direction with the
beings from the future, or why they got rid of the son and then brought
him back, why they gave Tom an instant fantasy wife then got rid of her,
any justification for any of Isabelle's plots, etc. When they brought
back Isabelle's father in the fourth season, for a moment it looked like
they were going to de-grow Isabelle and have the father raise her right,
which would have been an interesting development.
And we saw too little of Maia, in my opinion, the creepiest of all the 4400s.
They set her up so that she'd be the most important of the 4400s to
"preserving the future", then marginalized her.
Billy Campbell's loss hurt the show, but Laura Allen ain't responsible
for the Isabelle fiasco. Hell, they had a decent actor to replace
Campbell in Garret Dillahunt, but instead they used him to introduce
those other representatives of the future, then killed him off, then
changed his side's direction into a Founders-style conspiracy.
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Victor Velazquez" <k-ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
: "M. Halbrook" <mdhal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:Xns9A0BEECD24564m...@140.99.99.130...
:: Dan needed him to die to be able to travel, How he died changed 3
:: times tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
:
: Then what was Dan going back in time (twice!) to fix?
Given what ended up happening, I thought that the controller was giving
Crazy Traveler one last dance so that he could die happy. Also so that
his once-wife would be steered off the path that she was on with the
politician, whom she didn't seem to like much. From what he had said,
he went off mission in order to save her life before. Maybe one last
dance for both of them was the best that the controller could do given
the situation that Crazy Traveler had left him with.
It suggests that the only thing that the controller cannot foresee with
almost omniscient accuracy is the individual decisions of travelers when
they're on missions.
They seemed to be suggesting that only people born during the appearance
of Time Travelers' Comet (I forget the name of it) would end up becoming
travelers. But if only Dan and Livia were born at those times in the
20th century, then how did Crazy Traveler become a traveler? Or is the
comet just a propitious sign? Maybe those not born under the sign of
the comet are the ones that go crazy from the stress of traveling?
-Micky
David Johnston
Of course personally I thought it would have been a better world
without Cheers.
George W Harris
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
:They seemed to be suggesting that only people born during the appearance
:of Time Travelers' Comet (I forget the name of it) would end up becoming
:travelers. But if only Dan and Livia were born at those times in the
:20th century, then how did Crazy Traveler become a traveler?
It's never been said that only Dan and Livia were
born at those times (well, not on the show).
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Geoff Warren
news:fkehjk$euo$1...@pcls6.std.com:
> Spoilers for "Perfidia," 12/19/07.
>
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
> Given what ended up happening, I thought that the controller was
> giving Crazy Traveler one last dance so that he could die happy. Also
> so that his once-wife would be steered off the path that she was on
> with the politician, whom she didn't seem to like much. From what he
> had said, he went off mission in order to save her life before. Maybe
> one last dance for both of them was the best that the controller could
> do given the situation that Crazy Traveler had left him with.
>
> It suggests that the only thing that the controller cannot foresee
> with almost omniscient accuracy is the individual decisions of
> travelers when they're on missions.
>
> They seemed to be suggesting that only people born during the
> appearance of Time Travelers' Comet (I forget the name of it) would
> end up becoming travelers. But if only Dan and Livia were born at
> those times in the 20th century, then how did Crazy Traveler become a
> traveler? Or is the comet just a propitious sign? Maybe those not
> born under the sign of the comet are the ones that go crazy from the
> stress of traveling?
I think Dan went back this time so that he could get a better idea what
was happening to him. In addition, he got Evan's notebook, and he might
learn something from reading it. Giving Evan a last dance with his wife
might have been a side effect.
They never did ask Evan what his birthday was. He might have the same
birthday as Dan. With all the travelling, maybe he just hasn't aged
well.
--
Geoff
David Johnston
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>They seemed to be suggesting that only people born during the appearance
>of Time Travelers' Comet (I forget the name of it) would end up becoming
>travelers. But if only Dan and Livia were born at those times in the
>20th century, then how did Crazy Traveler become a traveler?
Who said only Dan and Livia were the only ones born at those times?
David Johnston
<k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>news:26flm3hipamreacq9...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:54:15 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
>> <k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"M. Halbrook" <mdhal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns9A0BEECD24564m...@140.99.99.130...
>>>> "Victor Velazquez" <k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:_tGdnRdqNqXgm_fa...@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could
>>>>> Dan travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to die
>>>>> in that one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
>>>>
>>>> Dan needed him to die to be able to travel, How he died changed 3 times
>>>> tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
>>>
>>>Then what was Dan going back in time (twice!) to fix?
>>>
>>
>> Dan was going back in time to break up the Councilman's marriage and
>> very possibly keep him from ascending to higher political office.
>
>Oh, so all the stuff with the other traveler was something of a red herring,
>right?
>
I think so, yeah although meeting the other traveler helped Dan and
encouraged him to avoid going off the rails. But quite often the
person whose life Dan interfered with is not in the end the person Dan
was supposed to help.
M. Halbrook
>> Dan needed him to die to be able to travel, How he died changed 3 times
>> tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
>
> Then what was Dan going back in time (twice!) to fix?
The former wife's life.
M. Halbrook
news:E8KdnfBXSqxwNvfa...@comcast.com:
> That's what really astounds me...to spend all that money
> on a production...then leave some in the can. While showing reruns!
>
If they did that, then the killed show may actually get an audience, and
then they'd have to admit they were wrong and try to bring it back.
M. Halbrook
@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us:
>> Dan needed him to die to be able to travel, How he died changed 3 times
>> tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
>
> Why would one time traveler need to die to allow another one to start?
>
Only two there are, no more no less, a master and an apprentice :D
Adam H. Kerman
>Spoilers for "Perfidia," 12/19/07.
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>They seemed to be suggesting that only people born during the appearance
>of Time Travelers' Comet (I forget the name of it) would end up becoming
>travelers. But if only Dan and Livia were born at those times in the
>20th century, then how did Crazy Traveler become a traveler? Or is the
>comet just a propitious sign? Maybe those not born under the sign of
>the comet are the ones that go crazy from the stress of traveling?
I'm going to give the producers credit and believe that if the show had
survived they would have dropped the metaphysical back story for being
insulting to the audience.
Anim8rFSK
Other than that they were pretty much on track though.
mike...@gmail.com
> "Victor Velazquez" <k-can...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:_tGdnRdqNqXgm_fa...@comcast.com:
>
> > If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could
> > Dan travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to die
> > in that one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
>
> tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
No, we never saw him die, just because he had no pulse when they were
taking him in the ambulance means nothing. They could have revived him
and maybe he is travelling again. Maybe his heart attack was just his
body clearing out the last of the sedatives that were preventing him
from traveling. We don't know that he had to die in order for Dan to
begin travelling. If the show went on, I'm sure we'd see him again in
Season 2.
Dano
Well that would be a real tragedy now wouldn't it? To have a successful
show.
jayembee
> jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll be watching what replaces it, because I *like* what's
>> replacing it: the next season of MEDIUM.
>
> I'm not watching what fills its space.
>
>:)
Yeah, but we already know about your blinders.
-- jayembee
Stan Brown
<kalelfa...@yahoo.com>:
> But again if this was it, it was a great 13-ep series that leaves
> viewers wanting more. Kudos to all involved.
Hear, hear! Monday's episode was one of the best things I've seen on
TV this season, and yesterday's was nearly as good. The series
floundered a bit around episodes 6-10, but it came back strong and I
wish NBC had had more faith in it.
I just hate network execs' short attention spans! And it's not like
they've got great stuff to run as replacements -- instead we get more
dreck like 1 versus 100.
Many all-time great series, like Barney Miller and IIRC All in the
Family, took at least half a season to settle in, show their true
worth, and get viewers. I don't know that Journeyman was in that
class, but it certainly showed potential to grow into a solid
performer. If today's execs had been in charge back then we never
would have had great series because they are unwilling to give a show
time to build.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"You may be the Universe's butt puppet, but I'm its right-
hand fist of fate." -- /Wonderfalls/
jayembee
> They seemed to be suggesting that only people born during the
> appearance of Time Travelers' Comet (I forget the name of it)
> would end up becoming travelers.
Weeeellllll...no. All we know is that the appearances of that comet
correspond to the births of two travelers. It could be a coincidence,
it could be significant only in how Dan and Livia seem linked.
> But if only Dan and Livia were born at those times in the 20th
> century, then how did Crazy Traveler become a traveler?
We don't know that Dan and Livia are the only two born during the
comet's appearances. Given that we've only met three travelers,
know the birthdates for two of them, and have no idea whether any
of the other travelers have corresponding birthdates, you seem
to be assuming facts not in evidence.
-- jayembee
peachy ashie passion
> On Dec 20, 5:03 am, Tim Bruening <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>>SPOILER warning in the thread title and note crossposts...
>>
>
>
>
>>I have a better idea for Evans: Go back to assassinate the person who had
>>murdered his wife!
>
>
> He said he tried to fix things but it kept getting worse. This
> follows what we learned from Livia in the 2-parter.
My daughter said "His wife's dead. How is it getting worse?"
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Robin Miller <Not_My@Real_Adddress.com> wrote:
>>>As was mentioned in one of the original threads on the announcement, the
>>>problems with Billy Campbell and Laura Allen really handicapped the show,
>>>perhaps forcing the writers to go in different directions than they would
>>>have otherwise.
>>I suppose. It doesn't explain a completely different direction with the
>>beings from the future, or why they got rid of the son and then brought
>>him back, why they gave Tom an instant fantasy wife then got rid of her,
>>any justification for any of Isabelle's plots, etc. When they brought
>>back Isabelle's father in the fourth season, for a moment it looked like
>>they were going to de-grow Isabelle and have the father raise her right,
>>which would have been an interesting development.
>>And we saw too little of Maia, in my opinion, the creepiest of all the 4400s.
>>They set her up so that she'd be the most important of the 4400s to
>>"preserving the future", then marginalized her.
>>Billy Campbell's loss hurt the show, but Laura Allen ain't responsible
>>for the Isabelle fiasco. Hell, they had a decent actor to replace
>>Campbell in Garret Dillahunt, but instead they used him to introduce
>>those other representatives of the future, then killed him off, then
>>changed his side's direction into a Founders-style conspiracy.
>Other than that they were pretty much on track though.
Hardly. They changed directions in Season 3, changed again in Season 4,
and apparently intended to go elsewhere should there have been a Season 5.
While it would have been impossible to unmish the mosh, perhaps they
could have wrapped things up with some coherence within a single season.
Adam H. Kerman
>Many all-time great series, like Barney Miller and IIRC All in the
>Family, took at least half a season to settle in, show their true
>worth, and get viewers.
Don't agree with you there. Both Barney Miller and All in the Family
showed fine writing throughout the first season. About the only thing
Barney Miller changed was Harris's character, initially a jive-talking
stereotype, toned way down almost immediately.
I'm sure it took the audience a while to find both shows.
David Johnston
Not only did his wife stay dead, but a lot of other people joined her.
James Gassaway
>>
>>> If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could
>>> Dan travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to
>>> die in that one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
>>
>> Dan needed him to die to be able to travel, How he died changed 3
>> times tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
>
To give him one last dance with the love of his life.
--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.
James Gassaway
It used to be fairly common knowledge that the first season of a show was
almost always going to be less than it could have been simply because it
takes time for the crew (writers, actors, regular directors, etc.) to work
the kinks out and get the show's "feel" right. The cable networks seem to
(usually) remember that and give shows a chance to find their feet but the
broadcast networks seem to be in too much of a panic from the increased
competition to remember such basics as that. They're still working with a
pre-cable mentality and seem to not be able to comprehend that the industry
has and still is changing.
Barry Margolin
"Victor Velazquez" <k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It was related. The marriage broke up as a result of the other traveler
being able to interact with the wife. Dan was there to help him
accomplish that. In the non-Dan timelines, the guy tried to meet her
himself, but because he acted like a crazy stalker, he always got
himself killed instead. Dan and Livia calmed him down and dressed him
up nice. Also, Dan used his city hall contact and press pass to get
them into the dance.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Dan Lanciani
Given the nasty things GTF has done to Dan (who was pretty much cooperating
with GTF to the best of his ability) we probably can't imagine the tortures
it dreamed up for someone who was activley trying to use time travel to
salvage his own life against GTF's wishes. Based on what we have seen,
an obvious approach would be to keep setting up situations where the
wife could be saved, but only at the expense of many other lives. As
long as the leaper hasn't reached GTF's level of immorality that is
always going ot be a great hammer.
The scary thing is that even with what Dan now knows he still thinks he is
working for the good guys.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
David Chesler
> Given the nasty things GTF has done to Dan (who was pretty much cooperating
> with GTF to the best of his ability) we probably can't imagine the tortures
> it dreamed up for someone who was activley trying to use time travel to
> salvage his own life against GTF's wishes. Based on what we have seen,
> an obvious approach would be to keep setting up situations where the
> wife could be saved, but only at the expense of many other lives. As
> long as the leaper hasn't reached GTF's level of immorality that is
> always going ot be a great hammer.
>
> The scary thing is that even with what Dan now knows he still thinks he is
> working for the good guys.
Someone's .sig used to say "Nature doesn't have good and evil, it
only has consequences." You see the bad things that happen from going
off-mission as punishment; it could also be that the leaps are only to
times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
would make things worse.
But even as I'm typing I don't believe it -- most of our decisions,
and everybody's decisions, over the years don't have late, bad,
unavoidable consequences. For the "only bad consequences possible"
scenario, we have to believe that this is the second-best of all
possible worlds (where the best of all possible worlds is the timeline
altered as the mission dictates.,)
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Free Cory Maye
David Johnston
<che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 10:31 pm, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
>> Given the nasty things GTF has done to Dan (who was pretty much cooperating
>> with GTF to the best of his ability) we probably can't imagine the tortures
>> it dreamed up for someone who was activley trying to use time travel to
>> salvage his own life against GTF's wishes. Based on what we have seen,
>> an obvious approach would be to keep setting up situations where the
>> wife could be saved, but only at the expense of many other lives. As
>> long as the leaper hasn't reached GTF's level of immorality that is
>> always going ot be a great hammer.
>>
>> The scary thing is that even with what Dan now knows he still thinks he is
>> working for the good guys.
>
> Someone's .sig used to say "Nature doesn't have good and evil, it
>only has consequences." You see the bad things that happen from going
>off-mission as punishment; it could also be that the leaps are only to
>times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
>right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
>would make things worse.
>
> But even as I'm typing I don't believe it -- most of our decisions,
>and everybody's decisions, over the years don't have late, bad,
>unavoidable consequences.
But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
Dan's son is now his daughter. It's just something Dan can't cope
with because it's too big a change.
Anim8rFSK
Sarcasm
>
> While it would have been impossible to unmish the mosh, perhaps they
> could have wrapped things up with some coherence within a single season.
--
Dan Lanciani
| On Dec 20, 10:31=A0pm, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
| > Given the nasty things GTF has done to Dan (who was pretty much cooperatin=
| g
| > with GTF to the best of his ability) we probably can't imagine the torture=
| s
| > it dreamed up for someone who was activley trying to use time travel to
| > an obvious approach would be to keep setting up situations where the
| > long as the leaper hasn't reached GTF's level of immorality that is
| > always going ot be a great hammer.
| >
|
| > working for the good guys.
|
| Someone's .sig used to say "Nature doesn't have good and evil, it
| only has consequences."
I find it inconceivable that there is not a sentient entity controlling
the leaps, so this seems inapplicable.
| You see the bad things that happen from going
| off-mission as punishment;
I see the bad things that had nothing to do with going off-mission as
"advance punishment" (aka conditioning). Wrecking Dan's car, setting
him up for a hit-and-run-charge, getting him banned from flying, etc.
were intentional (and presumably purposeful) abuse.
| it could also be that the leaps are only to
| times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
| right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
| would make things worse.
This would also require that there was no time/place where the wife's
death was the thing that could be set right at reasonable cost. If
there were such a time/place, a benevolent GTF would have sent the
leaper there. That the leaper did find a solution (reminiscent of
the solution in the movie The Butterfly Effect) at all strongly suggests
that the wife's death was not in and of itself "necessary".
| But even as I'm typing I don't believe it -- most of our decisions,
| and everybody's decisions, over the years don't have late, bad,
| unavoidable consequences. For the "only bad consequences possible"
| scenario, we have to believe that this is the second-best of all
| possible worlds (where the best of all possible worlds is the timeline
| altered as the mission dictates.,)
Well, it's second-best only shortly after the earliest thing that needs
to be fixed, and it presumably remains best only between that fix and
the need for the next fix. Our present may be many fixes removed from
best. With a model like that you probably want to make your fixes in
chronological order unless you are really, really clever.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Arthur Lipscomb
You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of existence.
Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from his
perspective to no longer exist.
David Johnston
>| it could also be that the leaps are only to
>| times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
>| right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
>| would make things worse.
>
>This would also require that there was no time/place where the wife's
>death was the thing that could be set right at reasonable cost. If
>there were such a time/place, a benevolent GTF would have sent the
>leaper there. That the leaper did find a solution (reminiscent of
>the solution in the movie The Butterfly Effect) at all strongly suggests
>that the wife's death was not in and of itself "necessary".
The leaper found a solution that ruined his own life and his utility
as a bopper, and may have had worse consequences because she ended up
with a bad man and helped his political career.
Dan Lanciani
Sure, GTF is willing to go to extremes to punish disobedience, even
if it puts one of its own pawns out of commission in the process and
creates potential problems that another leaper has to fix. But since
Dan wasn't required to kill the wife her death itself was apparently
not critical to (GTF's view of) the time line.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
David Johnston
>In article <clomm31mr80edoh6v...@4ax.com>, da...@block.net (David Johnston) writes:
>| On 21 Dec 2007 05:07:41 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
>|
>|
>| >| it could also be that the leaps are only to
>| >| times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
>| >| right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
>| >| would make things worse.
>| >
>| >This would also require that there was no time/place where the wife's
>| >death was the thing that could be set right at reasonable cost. If
>| >there were such a time/place, a benevolent GTF would have sent the
>| >leaper there. That the leaper did find a solution (reminiscent of
>| >the solution in the movie The Butterfly Effect) at all strongly suggests
>| >that the wife's death was not in and of itself "necessary".
>|
>| The leaper found a solution that ruined his own life and his utility
>| as a bopper, and may have had worse consequences because she ended up
>| with a bad man and helped his political career.
>
>Sure, GTF is willing to go to extremes to punish disobedience,
What do you mean extremes? He did it to himself. He wiped out his
marriage. He told people that he was a time traveller and got himself
locked up in the bin. Just because things happen when these guys
don't follow the mission profile doesn't mean they are being
"punished". It just means that actions have consequences.
Stan Brown
can...@hotmail.com>:
> If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could
> Dan travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to
> die in that one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
Two alternative explanations.
EITHER,
Dan *didn't* need Evan to die. For all we know, it's just a
coincidence that Dan started traveling the same day Evan died. We do
know there used to be more travelers (unless Langley's lying about
that); that argues against there being a fixed number of traveler
"slots".
OR,
Even if Evan's death *was* a prerequisite to Dan's traveling, the
story indicates that it did not have to be a death in that particular
way. Dan traveled within the universe where Evan was shot to death,
within the universe where he was struck by a vehicle, and within the
universe where he died on the dance floor.
Stan Brown
> becasue of the travelling itself, Dan is losing months of work every time he
> changes the timeline!
But he gets it back in the timeline he switches into, because his
self in that timeline will have been doing that work. (It's hard to
express this in tenses that are clear.)
At least, that's assuming that he keeps good notes, and keeps them in
his desk or computer and not in his person. If he keeps his notes in
his head, he's screwed.
Stan Brown
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >Many all-time great series, like Barney Miller and IIRC All in the
> >Family, took at least half a season to settle in, show their true
> >worth, and get viewers.
>
> Don't agree with you there. Both Barney Miller and All in the Family
> showed fine writing throughout the first season. About the only thing
> Barney Miller changed was Harris's character, initially a jive-talking
> stereotype, toned way down almost immediately.
I've got the first season on Barney Miller on DVD, and while there
was a lot that was good, there was a lot that was weak too. I'm
thinking particularly of the first episode here, but I remember being
disappointed with several episodes and feeling that they were
definitely inferior to later ones.
Not that the show was bad, just that it took some time to get as good
as the show I remembered.
> I'm sure it took the audience a while to find both shows.
And that's the point, really. Back then the execs would give shows
time to find an audience; now they don't.
Fox is the worst. At least NBC actually put all 13 episodes of
Journeyman on the air without making us buy the DVDs like Fox with
Wonderfalls, Firefly, Tru Caling, ....
Stan Brown
<bar...@alum.mit.edu>:
> The marriage broke up as a result of the other traveler
> being able to interact with the wife. Dan was there to help him
> accomplish that.
That to me was the least credible part of the episode. It made no
sense that she should begin to recall, even dimly, her life from
other timelines, since for *this* Lauren those other timelines had
never existed.
Alane
> Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:15:25 -0500 from Barry Margolin
> <bar...@alum.mit.edu>:
>
>>The marriage broke up as a result of the other traveler
>>being able to interact with the wife. Dan was there to help him
>>accomplish that.
>
>
> That to me was the least credible part of the episode. It made no
> sense that she should begin to recall, even dimly, her life from
> other timelines, since for *this* Lauren those other timelines had
> never existed.
>
I don't think she remembered him at all. But she did feel attracted
to him. She said she sort of, may have vaguely remembered him from
college because she didn't have any other way of explaining why
she did feel that attraction.
Alane
peachy ashie passion
> Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:15:25 -0500 from Barry Margolin
> <bar...@alum.mit.edu>:
>
>>The marriage broke up as a result of the other traveler
>>being able to interact with the wife. Dan was there to help him
>>accomplish that.
>
>
> That to me was the least credible part of the episode. It made no
> sense that she should begin to recall, even dimly, her life from
> other timelines, since for *this* Lauren those other timelines had
> never existed.
>
Why did you think she remembered anything?
David Chesler
wrote:
> > just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
> > what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
> > Dan's son is now his daughter.
>
> You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of existence.
> Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from his
> perspective to no longer exist
And you say that because you're not Caroline. Time travel requires
more tenses: Zach wouldn't no longer exist, he would never have
existed. For the rest of the world, including Kate, it's a wash.
Only Dan, with those deep memories of what might as well have been a
dream, feels the loss. (Of course if your leapers are going to be
concerned that their actions will cause them to lose the loved ones
they have, even for equally good substitutes, it might have the effect
of making them careful not to go off script or to drop their camera,
but it also might have the effect of making them freeze up or take
sedatives to try to avoid leaping.)
Compare the other cancelled shows: Tom Baldwin remembers experiencing
many happy years with Alana, and he takes away from it not mourning
for what won't be, but a strength and bond to allow him to get through
the difficult times to come. Johnny had a vivid vision of how good
his life would be with Sarah but he made the decision to sacrifice
that to avoid a devastating tragedy.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
David Chesler
> That to me was the least credible part of the episode. It made no
> sense that she should begin to recall, even dimly, her life from
> other timelines, since for *this* Lauren those other timelines had
> never existed.
That was weak, but I connected the dots and figured those few
moments, when Lauren saw that with the right man she could dance, and
feel that way in heart, she realized how much better things could be
than with her politician, and she decided to go find it. That does
sometimes happen in real life. (Of course we know that it wasn't
infatuation, but the real thing with Evan, that they were capable of a
long happy marriage, and he was The One. Will she find someone else
closer to Evan than to the politician?)
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Free Cory Maye
Victor Velazquez
news:5t1mkqF...@mid.individual.net...
He did still have the same pheromones, though. Maybe that's all it takes?
Victor Velazquez
news:MPG.21d55c53b...@news.individual.net...
> Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:06:50 -0600 from Victor Velazquez <k-
> can...@hotmail.com>:
>> If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could
>> Dan travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to
>> die in that one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
>
> Two alternative explanations.
>
> EITHER,
>
> Dan *didn't* need Evan to die. For all we know, it's just a
> coincidence that Dan started traveling the same day Evan died. We do
> know there used to be more travelers (unless Langley's lying about
> that); that argues against there being a fixed number of traveler
> "slots".
>
> OR,
>
> Even if Evan's death *was* a prerequisite to Dan's traveling, the
> story indicates that it did not have to be a death in that particular
> way. Dan traveled within the universe where Evan was shot to death,
> within the universe where he was struck by a vehicle, and within the
> universe where he died on the dance floor.
Those are both excellent fanwanks! And I don't use that term pejoratively.
Victor Velazquez
> Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:06:50 -0600 from Victor Velazquez <k-
> can...@hotmail.com>:
>> Forget about losing a day or two
>> becasue of the travelling itself, Dan is losing months of work every time
>> he
>> changes the timeline!
>
> But he gets it back in the timeline he switches into, because his
> self in that timeline will have been doing that work. (It's hard to
> express this in tenses that are clear.)
>
> At least, that's assuming that he keeps good notes, and keeps them in
> his desk or computer and not in his person. If he keeps his notes in
> his head, he's screwed.
Exactly! No wonder his micromanaging boss is always riding his ass. If I'd
ever had a boss like that, I'd have smacked him upside the head long ago.
David Chesler
wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > That to me was the least credible part of the episode. It made no
> > sense that she should begin to recall, even dimly, her life from
> > other timelines, since for *this* Lauren those other timelines had
> > never existed.
>
> Why did you think she remembered anything?
She remembered how to dance, and...
It seems we stood and talked like this before
We looked at each other the same way then
But I can't remember where or when
The clothes you're wearing are the clothes you wore
The smile you are smiling you were smiling then
But I can't remember where or when
Some things that happen for the first time
Seem to be happening again
And so it seems that we have met before
And laughed before and loved before
But who knows where or when?
(and while I'm quoting old songs...)
Some enchanted evening
When you find your true love,
When you feel her call you
Across a crowded room,
Then fly to her side,
And make her your own
Or all through your life you
May dream all alone.
Once you have found her,
Never let her go.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Just another romantic who refuses to believe that what we call
reality is all there is
Arthur Lipscomb
"David Chesler" <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:1046424f-c255-4011...@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 1:38 am, "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
> wrote:
>> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>> > But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>> > just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>> > what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>> > Dan's son is now his daughter.
>>
>> You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of
>> existence.
>> Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from
>> his
>> perspective to no longer exist
>
> And you say that because you're not Caroline.
From my perspective, and I think Dan's, Caroline is *not* equal to Zach.
For all intents and purposes Zach was killed. Zach was not a dream or
hypothetical, he *existed*. That he existed, even though he no longer
existed at that moment, but that at one point he did exist, is a fact. That
no one else remembers his existence is irrelevant. And giving the parent of
a deceased child some other child as a replacement is by no means a wash.
Think of it this way, if you go to someone who has lost a child or loved one
and tell them you can change history so that child never existed and no one
will remember them (other than the loved one) would they think well as long
as they never existed in the first place it's all good? I don't think so.
What if instead of erasing Zach from history all life on Earth was erased
from history but replaced with an equal number of alternative life. The new
beings would never know we existed and we will have never existed so we
can't mind. But if you ask someone (non suicidal) do you want to have
existed; would it matter to you, if you never existed the answer would be
yes. I think whether it's 1 person or billions of people, people consider
their life to be valuable and not replaceble by some random other entity.
Arthur Lipscomb
"David Chesler" <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:1046424f-c255-4011...@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> wrote:
>> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>> > But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>> > just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>> > what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>> > Dan's son is now his daughter.
>>
>> You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of
>> existence.
>> Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from
>> his
>> perspective to no longer exist
>
> And you say that because you're not Caroline. Time travel requires
> more tenses: Zach wouldn't no longer exist, he would never have
> existed. For the rest of the world, including Kate, it's a wash.
From my perspective, and I think Dan's, Caroline is *not* equal to Zach.
For all intents and purposes Zach was killed. Zach was not a dream or
hypothetical, he *existed*. That he existed, even though he no longer
existed at that moment, but that at one point he did exist, is a fact. That
no one else remembers his existence is irrelevant. And giving the parent of
a deceased child some other child as a replacement is by no means a wash.
Think of it this way, if you go to someone who has lost a child or loved one
and tell them you can change history so that child never existed and no one
will remember them (other than the loved one) would they think well as long
as they never existed in the first place it's all good? I don't think so.
What if instead of erasing Zach from history all life on Earth was erased
from history but replaced with an equal number of alternative life. The new
beings would never know we existed and we will have never existed so we
can't mind. But if you ask someone (non suicidal) do you want to have
existed; would it matter to you, if you never existed the answer would be
yes. I think whether it's 1 person or billions of people, people consider
their life to be valuable and not replaceble by some random other entity.
Adam H. Kerman
Ken Arromdee
>>only has consequences." You see the bad things that happen from going
>>off-mission as punishment; it could also be that the leaps are only to
>>times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
>>right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
>>would make things worse.
That's why it can't be nature. Nature doesn't have good and evil. So why
are all the changes he's "supposed" to make changes which help someone?
Obviously someone--some entity who can judge that some changes are good and
some aren't--is sending him to make only the good ones.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic
story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction is
writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of buildings."
Adam H. Kerman
>21 Dec 2007 02:22:40 GMT from Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:
>>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>Many all-time great series, like Barney Miller and IIRC All in the
>>>Family, took at least half a season to settle in, show their true
>>>worth, and get viewers.
>>Don't agree with you there. Both Barney Miller and All in the Family
>>showed fine writing throughout the first season. About the only thing
>>Barney Miller changed was Harris's character, initially a jive-talking
>>stereotype, toned way down almost immediately.
>I've got the first season on Barney Miller on DVD, and while there
>was a lot that was good, there was a lot that was weak too. I'm
>thinking particularly of the first episode here, but I remember being
>disappointed with several episodes and feeling that they were
>definitely inferior to later ones.
>Not that the show was bad, just that it took some time to get as good
>as the show I remembered.
You'll have to refresh my memory with specific plots, 'cuz that's not
the way I recall it. I've never seen the pilot (from the Love, American
Style anthology) but the first episode of the series was a bit
different. The kids were meant to be regular characters. If they ever
showed up again, they were recast. Barbara Barrie, listed in the main
cast, showed up only occassionally during the first season. It was too
bad they wrote her out, since she's a favorite character actress.
What I didn't like was Fish and the constant bathroom jokes, attributed
specifically to writer Reinhold Weege. After Weege left the show, the
bathroom jokes ended. Lots of 'em on Night Court, too.
The early seasons were interesting in which they had cops show up for a
few episodes in a row, something they stopped doing after they decided
to use a fixed cast. It was more interesting, probably a bit more like a
real world mix of detectives.
Ken Arromdee
Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>> just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>> what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>> Dan's son is now his daughter.
>You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of existence.
>Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from his
>perspective to no longer exist.
By that reasoning, changing the timeline back causes the daughter not to
exist, and that's equally bad. It balances out, since there's one person who
doesn't exist either way, so it isn't really a factor. The only part of the
change that's a factor is that Dan *remembers* the timeline with the son.
And that assumes that the son and the daughter aren't in some sense the
"same person", which if they're both drawing butterflies, they could very well
be.
Adam H. Kerman
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
>"Victor Velazquez" <k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>"Victor Velazquez" <k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"M. Halbrook" <mdhal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Victor Velazquez" <k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>If Crazy Traveler got hit by a bus or shot by the guards, how could
>>>>>>Dan travel back to keep that from happening when Dan needed CT to die
>>>>>>in that one particular way for Dan to be able to travel at all?
>>>>>Dan needed him to die to be able to travel, How he died changed 3 times
>>>>>tho, but he died, how didn't matter.
>>>>Then what was Dan going back in time (twice!) to fix?
>>>Dan was going back in time to break up the Councilman's marriage and
>>>very possibly keep him from ascending to higher political office.
>>Oh, so all the stuff with the other traveler was something of a red herring,
>>right?
>It was related. The marriage broke up as a result of the other traveler
>being able to interact with the wife. Dan was there to help him
>accomplish that. In the non-Dan timelines, the guy tried to meet her
>himself, but because he acted like a crazy stalker, he always got
>himself killed instead. Dan and Livia calmed him down and dressed him
>up nice. Also, Dan used his city hall contact and press pass to get
>them into the dance.
Not so. That was a Dan-altered time line. Remember, Dan created the
distraction that allowed him to escape the mental institution.
It's never said explicitly, but without Dan and Livia interferring, he
simply died that day institutionalized as it was his appointed day of death.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>>>just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>>>what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>>>Dan's son is now his daughter.
>>You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of existence.
>>Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from his
>>perspective to no longer exist.
>By that reasoning, changing the timeline back causes the daughter not to
>exist, and that's equally bad. It balances out, since there's one person who
>doesn't exist either way, so it isn't really a factor. The only part of the
>change that's a factor is that Dan *remembers* the timeline with the son.
I liked someone's theory about a parent mourning a dead child. Katie, in
the re-revised timeline, won't remember Caroline, so no harm done. It
would be interesting if the writers gave her a sense of loss or
meloncholy that she simply couldn't explain.
>And that assumes that the son and the daughter aren't in some sense the
>"same person", which if they're both drawing butterflies, they could very well
>be.
Don't you think that was just the writers doing an in-joke about the
butterfly effect?
Richard Evans
>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>Many all-time great series, like Barney Miller and IIRC All in the
>>Family, took at least half a season to settle in, show their true
>>worth, and get viewers.
>
>Don't agree with you there. Both Barney Miller and All in the Family
>showed fine writing throughout the first season. About the only thing
>Barney Miller changed was Harris's character, initially a jive-talking
>stereotype, toned way down almost immediately.
>
Anyone remember the first episode of Bonanza? Each son had a markedly
different personality reflecting that of his mother. Little Joe, whose
mother was French, was prancing around with a dueling sword.
jayembee
> No wonder his micromanaging boss is always riding his ass.
What's "micromanaging" about an editor who expects you keep deadlines?
-- jayembee
Dano
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A0D8788D242...@140.99.99.130...
> "Victor Velazquez" <k-ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No wonder his micromanaging boss is always riding his ass.
>
> What's "micromanaging" about an editor who expects you keep deadlines?
>
If anything he's been helping Dan out by covering for him and letting him
slide all the time...perhaps at risk of his own job at this cost cutting
paper. Maybe someone missed the part where they are old pals too.
Victor Velazquez
>
>> No wonder his micromanaging boss is always riding his ass.
>
> What's "micromanaging" about an editor who expects you keep deadlines?
Well, it's mostly his tone when he asks (oh so casually!), "whatcha workin'
on?" And then there's the way he's always trying to see what's on Dan's
screen, like he expects to catch him at something.
I have no problem with a boss that expects his employees to honor their
commitments, I do have a problem with one always trying to see how they're
doing it. To me, that's micromanaging.
Victor Velazquez
news:476bffdc$0$47112$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>>And that assumes that the son and the daughter aren't in some sense the
>>"same person", which if they're both drawing butterflies, they could very
>>well
>>be.
>
> Don't you think that was just the writers doing an in-joke about the
> butterfly effect?
Good call!
Adam H. Kerman
>>>No wonder his micromanaging boss is always riding his ass.
>>What's "micromanaging" about an editor who expects you keep deadlines?
>Well, it's mostly his tone when he asks (oh so casually!), "whatcha workin'
>on?" And then there's the way he's always trying to see what's on Dan's
>screen, like he expects to catch him at something.
>I have no problem with a boss that expects his employees to honor their
>commitments, I do have a problem with one always trying to see how they're
>doing it. To me, that's micromanaging.
Uh, huh. Dan's boss basically expects him to turn in no work, which he
hasn't been. What an asshole!
David Johnston
>>> That to me was the least credible part of the episode. It made no sense
>>> that she should begin to recall, even dimly, her life from other
>>> timelines, since for *this* Lauren those other timelines had never
>>> existed.
They'd already established that there was leakage in the previous
episode when Dan's wife suddenly started to feel the desire for a son
at the time after the timeline changed to eliminate her son and both
son and daughter chose the same theme for their school art project.
Arthur Lipscomb
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:fkgpse$ji7$2...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <DoqdnWAaYJ_wwvba...@comcast.com>,
> Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>> But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>>> just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>>> what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>>> Dan's son is now his daughter.
>>You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of existence.
>>Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from
>>his
>>perspective to no longer exist.
>
> By that reasoning, changing the timeline back causes the daughter not to
> exist, and that's equally bad.
If we agree that it's *bad* then it's a matter of *how* bad. I don't agree
that it's equally bad but as long as we agree that it is in fact bad, *how*
bad may not matter that much. The original point I was responding to was
dismissing Zach being wiped out of existance as not *that* bad and a wash.
But if someone *has* to be wiped out of existence the kid who was there
first or the kid who's there becasue of an unintentional change to the
timeline, I vote for the kid who's there due to an unintentional change of
the timeline.
Of course it time travel is ever proven to be a reality and *my* existence
is because of an unintentional change of the timeline, I'll have to rethink
my position on the subject. Like I said originally, it's easy to be
dismissive when it doesn't effect you personally. Remember the old saying,
"If I slip on a banana peel and fall, it's tragedy. If you slip on a banana
peel and fall, it's comedy."
Adam H. Kerman
>"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>>Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>>>>just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>>>>what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>>>>Dan's son is now his daughter.
>>>You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of existence.
>>>Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from
>>>his perspective to no longer exist.
>>By that reasoning, changing the timeline back causes the daughter not to
>>exist, and that's equally bad.
>If we agree that it's *bad* then it's a matter of *how* bad. I don't agree
>that it's equally bad but as long as we agree that it is in fact bad, *how*
>bad may not matter that much.
Any change made to the time line will alter the set of individuals in
existence or who will be born potentially. This one affected Dan, so he
knew what happened.
>Of course it time travel is ever proven to be a reality and *my* existence
>is because of an unintentional change of the timeline, I'll have to rethink
>my position on the subject.
I think the perpetrator will be liability proof.
David Johnston
<art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>"David Chesler" <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
>news:1046424f-c255-4011...@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 21, 1:38 am, "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
>> wrote:
>>> "David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>>> > But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>>> > just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>>> > what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>>> > Dan's son is now his daughter.
>>>
>>> You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of
>>> existence.
>>> Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a tragedy it is from
>>> his
>>> perspective to no longer exist
>>
>> And you say that because you're not Caroline.
>
>From my perspective, and I think Dan's, Caroline is *not* equal to Zach.
>For all intents and purposes Zach was killed.
So was Caroline. (Although there's a hint that Caroline isn't
entirely separate from Zach in that they both chose the same art
project.)
Adam H. Kerman
>>>On Dec 21, 1:38 am, "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>But the changes that Dan experienced weren't all that bad. They were
>>>>>just inconvenient because of the missmatch between his memories and
>>>>>what "really" happened. It is not some kind of huge tragedy that
>>>>>Dan's son is now his daughter.
>>>>You say that only because you're not the one who's wiped out of
>>>>existence. Ask the boy if he minds being replaced or how huge a
>>>>tragedy it is from his perspective to no longer exist
>>>And you say that because you're not Caroline.
>>From my perspective, and I think Dan's, Caroline is *not* equal to Zach.
>>For all intents and purposes Zach was killed.
>So was Caroline. (Although there's a hint that Caroline isn't
>entirely separate from Zach in that they both chose the same art
>project.)
So Dan's mission was...
... to save that magnificent work of refridgerator art!
I think it's interesting that the child was wiped out but the
sister-in-law was every bit as nasty.
David Barnett
news:fkehjk$euo$1...@pcls6.std.com...
> Spoilers for "Perfidia," 12/19/07.
<snip>
No-one has yet commented on the song Perfidia, one of my favourites.
--
David Barnett
Dan Lanciani
| On 21 Dec 2007 07:14:04 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
| >In article <clomm31mr80edoh6v...@4ax.com>, da...@block.net (David Johnston) writes:
| >| On 21 Dec 2007 05:07:41 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
| >|
| >|
| >| >| it could also be that the leaps are only to
| >| >| times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
| >| >| right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
| >| >| would make things worse.
| >| >
| >| >death was the thing that could be set right at reasonable cost. If
| >| >there were such a time/place, a benevolent GTF would have sent the
| >| >leaper there. That the leaper did find a solution (reminiscent of
| >| >the solution in the movie The Butterfly Effect) at all strongly suggests
| >| >that the wife's death was not in and of itself "necessary".
| >|
| >| The leaper found a solution that ruined his own life and his utility
| >| as a bopper, and may have had worse consequences because she ended up
| >| with a bad man and helped his political career.
| >
| >Sure, GTF is willing to go to extremes to punish disobedience,
|
| What do you mean extremes?
GTF continued to leap its victim into situations where he could try
to save his wife, only to "make things worse." It apparently did not
care if this made things worse for the world as well as the leaper.
| He did it to himself.
No, some sentient entity is controlling the leaps. With great power
comes great responsibility. The leaper's problems are a direct result
of GTF's using him as a pawn.
| He wiped out his
| marriage.
Presumably that was the only scenario permitted by GTF that allowed
his wife to survive without unacceptable (to the leaper) collateral
damage. Is GTF so arrogant (or so ignorant) that it can't countenance
the idea that the leaper might value his wife's life as much as the
lives of the random people that GTF forces him to save?
| He told people that he was a time traveller and got himself
| locked up in the bin. Just because things happen when these guys
| don't follow the mission profile doesn't mean they are being
| "punished". It just means that actions have consequences.
No. GTF creates the circumstances (by the timing of the leaps) and
has the ability to foresee the outcomes (else the exercise is pointless).
GTF can't play the game at that level and then disclaim responsibility
by saying that "things happen." Ok, I guess it _can_ but that just
puts GTF on the level of a villain in a Saw movie who claims its victims
die because they don't play its game by the rules and/or well enough.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
David Johnston
>In article <4utmm3tds6pfl9pln...@4ax.com>, da...@block.net (David Johnston) writes:
>| On 21 Dec 2007 07:14:04 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
>|
>| >In article <clomm31mr80edoh6v...@4ax.com>, da...@block.net (David Johnston) writes:
>| >| On 21 Dec 2007 05:07:41 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
>| >|
>| >|
>| >| >| it could also be that the leaps are only to
>| >| >| times and places where something that once went wrong can be set
>| >| >| right; almost every other change that could be enacted there and then
>| >| >| would make things worse.
>| >| >
>| >| >This would also require that there was no time/place where the wife's
>| >| >death was the thing that could be set right at reasonable cost. If
>| >| >there were such a time/place, a benevolent GTF would have sent the
>| >| >leaper there. That the leaper did find a solution (reminiscent of
>| >| >the solution in the movie The Butterfly Effect) at all strongly suggests
>| >| >that the wife's death was not in and of itself "necessary".
>| >|
>| >| The leaper found a solution that ruined his own life and his utility
>| >| as a bopper, and may have had worse consequences because she ended up
>| >| with a bad man and helped his political career.
>| >
>| >Sure, GTF is willing to go to extremes to punish disobedience,
>|
>| What do you mean extremes?
>
>GTF continued to leap its victim into situations where he could try
>to save his wife, only to "make things worse."
Or he just kept ignoring his assignment in favour of running off to
try to interfere with his wife's life.
>
>| He wiped out his
>| marriage.
>
>Presumably that was the only scenario permitted by GTF that allowed
>his wife to survive without unacceptable (to the leaper) collateral
>damage. Is GTF so arrogant (or so ignorant) that it can't countenance
>the idea that the leaper might value his wife's life as much as the
>lives of the random people that GTF forces him to save?
Are you assuming there was a harmless way to save his wife in the
first place?