At the end of the 2nd episode, Lucy finds out her 'dad' didn't marry her mom - therefore her sister never gets born. Her 'dad' ends up marrying someone who was supposed to have died when the Hindenburg crashed. Her mom never got cancer because it was the 2nd hand smoking from 'dad'. No one else seems to have been affected since no one seems to have had a family line tied to people involved with the Hindenburg.
Spoilers Timeless: Season 1 on NBC
- Thread starter Aragorn
- Start date
I'm still having a huge problem with this one. I agree genetically if you swapped out my great-grant-grandmother with another woman, and could still force all the same people to meet and conceive at the exact same moment otherwise, that the resulting person would likely be very genetically similar to me, but I don't see that as the problem at all.
Kill my 2x Great Grandmother. Does my Grandfather just meet and marry someone else on the exact same schedule? Maybe he gets married a year earlier, or later, or maybe never even does. Could be that he moves, joins the army, whatever. Now my great-grandfather (or mother, depending on which tree we're chasing) is older, or younger, or in another town, or whatever. Does he still meet the same woman at the same time? Or is his high school sweetheart in another grade (or school) and he ends up with someone else? etcetera, etcetera, but the two people that get together to make ME are unlikely to do so. Even best case, and you force there to be no other changes other than the 2x Great grandmother swap, I'm probably not ME, even if genetically very similar. My brothers have all the same relatives I have, but just changing the conception date led to different people; there aren't 3 of me running around. Genetically similar, but different look, attributes, personality, aptitudes, etc.
If you're concerned about the human genome, you're right that go back far enough, and it probably doesn't matter much. If you need someone to be somewhere or do something at a specific time, the further back you changed something, the more divergent the timeline over, uh, time.
Don't even have to kill anyone; timing is everything. Say you're made to be an hour late to a baseball game, maybe you were going to meet the love of your life on an earlier train (and your future great grandkid's grandmother). So easy to make changes that affect the timeline in big ways eventually. Buy Hitler's mother a couple drinks at the bar, is she too hung over to conceive Adolph that night, and instead of WWII, you get to see Adolph Hitler's crappy watercolors instead? Genetically very similar guy, and maybe only conceived a couple days off schedule, but it's a different roll of the dice. The team killed a few Nazis last week, were they going to die that day anyway, or would they last the war and kill other people (more changes)? Or did they cause a screwup in a major battle and now the Nazis win the war because they weren't there to screw up X battle, so it went better, momentum, etc.
So yes to genetics if the result is to just take random tissue samples at the end, but no in that there's a massive butterfly effect being ignored, and the further back you go, the bigger the hurricane in the present...
Depending on the ancestor that gets removed, the "resulting person" could be genetically identical to you. You don't get genes from every single ancestor you ever had. There's only a finite number of packets of information that get shuffled in reproduction, and eventually you get to the point where the number of ancestors you have in a given generation is larger than the number of packets, so there are some ancestors that you get zero genetic information from. And the further back the generations go, the larger the number of genealogical ancestors that are not your biological ancestors, because none of their genes survived the reshuffling process through enough generations to reach you.
Look at it from the other direction -- you pass on 1/2 of your genes to your offspring, who pass on maybe 1/4 of your genes to their offspring (possibly more or less depending on how their own genes get shuffled), then the next generation gets 1/8 of your genes, the next 1/16, etc. So less and less of your genome is passed on to each successive generation, and eventually the fraction of your genes that survives is small enough that it could end up getting shuffled out of the lineup altogether, outcompeted for the finite number of slots in the chromosomes. And once you get to 15 or 16 generations after your own, that becomes virtually inevitable. Genetic inheritance is finite.
Or at least direct inheritance is. If you go back far enough, everyone's a descendant of everyone. The genes get reshuffled back and forth so widely through the population that we're all far more closely genetically related to each other than we are genealogically related to each other. So even if a given genetic ancestor is removed from your past, it's possible that whoever took their place in your ancestry (whoever their spouse married instead) would have a lot of the same genes, and would've passed the same fragments on to you. So there are at least some cases where even swapping out a genetic ancestor could make no difference in your genome, or an inconsequential difference (since a lot of DNA is non-coding, not all genes are expressed, and a given trait is determined by the interaction of multiple genes, not just one).
Well, that's only 4 generations back. As I said, a given set of genes would typically take twice as many generations before there's a good chance that it would drop out of the lineage altogether. At 4 generations back, you only have 16 direct ancestors. At 8 generations, you have 256, and at 12 generations you have 4096. So the odds that any single one of them would be indispensable to your ancestry get smaller and smaller the further back you go. All the changes you mention could occur, but eventually they'd be outweighed by the hundreds or thousands of other ancestors whose lives played out without change.
Sure, there could be cases where one ancestor makes all the difference. Go back to 1634 to the Hercules of Sandwich en route from Kent to New England, toss Nathaniel Tilden's servant James Bennett into the Atlantic, and it would mean my paternal family never came to the New World. That could've had a radical impact on my family history from then on. At the very least, I might have a different surname now. But other ancestors might not have made such a critical difference to the overall family history.
Hitler was not the only person responsible for WWII. He was just an effective catalyst for the forces that already existed in his culture. There were countless others in that place and time who were raised in the same cultural context -- a culture that encouraged childrearing techniques we now recognize as abusive and likely to produce sociopathy, a long-standing anti-Semitism in the society, a generation of economic hardship and resentment due to the harsh punitive measures imposed on Germany after WWI. A genetically alternate Hitler conceived a few days later would still have been raised in the same context, and might well have been born with whatever genetic predisposition toward psychopathy the "real" Hitler had. Even if you killed baby Hitler altogether, someone else might well have taken his place and done much the same things. The details would've been different, but the war and the genocide might well have happened anyway.
And of course it was a world war, not just about Germany. Japan's war of conquest in Asia began a decade before Pearl Harbor, and Mussolini invaded Ethiopia four years before the Nazis invaded Poland.
Sometimes, but not always. The butterfly effect is not an absolute guarantee. Yes, depending on the specific conditions, the atmospheric effect of the flap of a butterfly's wings in the Pacific could be amplified enough to cause a hurricane in the Atlantic a month later -- but in different conditions, that flap would be damped out by other factors instead of amplified. It depends on the specific context. The butterfly effect is an illustration of chaos theory, after all, and the point of chaos theory is that the interacting factors are so complex that the result is not deterministically predictable. At best, you can determine a range of possibilities that could result from the starting conditions, and say that some are more likely than others.
Still feel like you're stuck on the genetic aspect, and not so much the existence of the person in the first place. I'm not worried that if my 8x great grandfather was killed I'm suddenly going to be Asian or something because my genetics changed, I'm worried about the chain of events that led to me existing in the first place. Again, moment of conception surely makes a difference, as that's all that separates me from my brothers that share the same genetic info. Along those lines, it would certainly change things if gender is somewhat of a coin flip as well, because if your father was born as a female instead, he (now she) is unlikely to procreate with your mother, so you're kinda screwed there.
Maybe big events tend to want to happen (your WWII commentary is an easy example), but the exact people those events happen to will be drastically different if you rewind it enough generations. Same complaint I keep making about extending the Mirror Universe thing into TNG timeframe. If the divergence was close enough to TOS, you could see how maybe many of the same people would have wound up in the same place (plus having different planets helps minimize some things), but after 100 years of alternate history happening, odds of many recognizable faces is pretty slim.
Maybe big events tend to want to happen (your WWII commentary is an easy example), but the exact people those events happen to will be drastically different if you rewind it enough generations. Same complaint I keep making about extending the Mirror Universe thing into TNG timeframe. If the divergence was close enough to TOS, you could see how maybe many of the same people would have wound up in the same place (plus having different planets helps minimize some things), but after 100 years of alternate history happening, odds of many recognizable faces is pretty slim.
No, it's merely the part that needs more explaining, because it's a less familiar idea to the layperson. I was surprised by it myself when I first read about it sometime within the past year or so. It's rather counterintuitive. Here are a couple of articles that address the idea:
http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/blog/2009/11/how-many-ancestors-share-our-dna/
https://gcbias.org/2013/11/04/how-much-of-your-genome-do-you-inherit-from-a-particular-ancestor/
From that first link:
And I did specifically address that. I said that, depending on the role that specific ancestor played, they might be pivotal enough that their absence would ripple through the generations and be amplified enough to prevent your existence, but they also might be easily enough replaced in the chain of causality that their absence would make an insignificant difference, depending on the specific conditions. The mistake would be to assume that it always has to happen the same way. Everyone is aware of the possibility that the change could amplify, but everyone ignores the possibility that it could be damped out instead. Either outcome could happen.
But this isn't about your brothers. This is about your great-to-the-sixth or great-to-the-tenth grandchildren. A change that's significant within a few generations can end up being damped out to insignificance after ten or more generations, because it's just one of hundreds or thousands of different ancestral chains that lead to a given individual. Ten generations back, you had 1024 direct ancestors. Maybe several of those might be pivotal enough that their erasure would lead to your erasure or major alteration, but it's improbable that every single one of them would be equally pivotal. Some would be effectively inconsequential. And the more generations you go back, the more the ancestors multiply exponentially, and the smaller the odds get that any particular one of them is crucial.
But as I'm saying, it's actually kinda the other way around, because you have more ancestors the further back you go, so the contribution that any one ancestor makes to your existence gets smaller with each generation. That's the counterintuitive part that struck me so much when I learned about this, because it's not what we're used to assuming or expecting. But the statistical argument is sound.
This was my least favorite episode so far. The Alamo was an interesting setting for me since I don't really know much about it, but the actual plot with Flynn, Lucy, Rufus, and Wyatt wasn't that interesting.
I did like that Wyatt got so much attention.
The cliffhanger definitely makes me think Flynn is Lucy's father, it would be the most dramatic reveal, and it would explain why he's so interested in her.
I did like that Wyatt got so much attention.
The cliffhanger definitely makes me think Flynn is Lucy's father, it would be the most dramatic reveal, and it would explain why he's so interested in her.
It's funny how the time line keeps changing but timeline to timeline they keeping continuing on the same specific intimate conversations.
Sixteen episodes seems short for a full season on a broadcast network. What was the initial order?
That was a pretty good episode, but I would have respected it a whole lot more if they had stuck with Wyatt saying at the Alamo and then this new guy being our pilot but given the mostly episodic nature of this show and how it doesn't seem to be aiming for high-drama or impactful events that disrupt the "status quo" we went the route that resets us at the end and puts the team back together, whole, by the end.
These people seem head slappingly ignorant to the tools and resources available to them. First it was the first episode with them in a jail with no way to pick open the lock and it taking forever for them to decide to use the undewire in her bra to pick it with, then in this episode it takes Rufus, a genius, forever to decide to use the grenades Wyatt brought with him to get through the floor to the aqueduct. Really?! He needs to make a giant hole in the floor of this room and takes a random spark of inspiration for him to decide to use explosives to expedite the demolition process and he's in a area surrounded by armed forces so he needs this spark of inspiration to remember there's a large set of explosive resources available to him namely in the form of the grenades specifically mentioned in his presence just a day or so earlier?
I guess at least some repercussions for them apparently not achieving their goals very well, but they seem to go with "you've got our hands tied" pretty quickly with the "mutiny" threatened by everyone. Rufus is trapped, this Whittenhaus group or whatever is going to keep him there and Lucy (?) likely would be held there by similar means and they'd just tell them to nut-up and deal with the fact they want someone more useful there. Hell, the guy in the locker room seemed immensely more likable and personable than Wyatt has been so far, though he was good in this episode.
Cannot speak much as to the historical and timely aspects of this episode, knowing little about The Alamo and the events around it. I did like the portrayal of Davey Crockett and the legends surrounding him being myths used to make him seem larger than life. Given the area and era people seemed a bit too accepting of Rufus no matter how "progressive" the area may have been when it came to minorities.
But, good-enough episode. I'm still weary of the Lucy present-day drama nonsense.
EDIT
Good to see the series is doing well and got a larger episode order.
To answer, Christopher's question, usually with new series when it starts to air it's supposed to have a handful of episodes "in the can" and ready to air as well as another large handful or so written and ready to be produced, then giving the studio/network a chance to order more episodes should they be more interested in continuing the series. This usually gets us to a number around 12 or 13. Then there's the notion of "the back 9" where should the series do really well it'll get a full-season order and those last 9 episodes to make a full network TV season.
This is, more or less, how it goes though there's variations from time to time, it's not too uncommon for a TV show's first season to only be a dozen or more episodes due to production limitations and costs and how much the creators have written when the pitched the series (again, usually you want to pitch a TV series with a good handful of episodes written and finalized and at least treatments or ideas for future episodes.)
With the series doing well it getting a 16-episode order shows some level of confidence the studio has in the series. I suspect it'll get the back-9 order which usually is a show to take an opportunity to tweak elements of the series that aren't working or have gotten criticism. You can't easily change the episodes already filmed or written, but when writing new episodes you can make these adjustments. So when the show comes back from its winter hiatus, I'd suspect to see some tonal and plot elements to be tweaked so the show can appeal better to a larger audience and fix any criticisms or narrative problems that've come up in the already written episodes. Chiefly, ways to extend the show's story past the first season. (Something TV series like "Prison Break" and even "Lost" ran into when the show gained popularity so the show's writers and producers had to start finding ways to extend the story.
These people seem head slappingly ignorant to the tools and resources available to them. First it was the first episode with them in a jail with no way to pick open the lock and it taking forever for them to decide to use the undewire in her bra to pick it with, then in this episode it takes Rufus, a genius, forever to decide to use the grenades Wyatt brought with him to get through the floor to the aqueduct. Really?! He needs to make a giant hole in the floor of this room and takes a random spark of inspiration for him to decide to use explosives to expedite the demolition process and he's in a area surrounded by armed forces so he needs this spark of inspiration to remember there's a large set of explosive resources available to him namely in the form of the grenades specifically mentioned in his presence just a day or so earlier?
I guess at least some repercussions for them apparently not achieving their goals very well, but they seem to go with "you've got our hands tied" pretty quickly with the "mutiny" threatened by everyone. Rufus is trapped, this Whittenhaus group or whatever is going to keep him there and Lucy (?) likely would be held there by similar means and they'd just tell them to nut-up and deal with the fact they want someone more useful there. Hell, the guy in the locker room seemed immensely more likable and personable than Wyatt has been so far, though he was good in this episode.
Cannot speak much as to the historical and timely aspects of this episode, knowing little about The Alamo and the events around it. I did like the portrayal of Davey Crockett and the legends surrounding him being myths used to make him seem larger than life. Given the area and era people seemed a bit too accepting of Rufus no matter how "progressive" the area may have been when it came to minorities.
But, good-enough episode. I'm still weary of the Lucy present-day drama nonsense.
EDIT
Good to see the series is doing well and got a larger episode order.
To answer, Christopher's question, usually with new series when it starts to air it's supposed to have a handful of episodes "in the can" and ready to air as well as another large handful or so written and ready to be produced, then giving the studio/network a chance to order more episodes should they be more interested in continuing the series. This usually gets us to a number around 12 or 13. Then there's the notion of "the back 9" where should the series do really well it'll get a full-season order and those last 9 episodes to make a full network TV season.
This is, more or less, how it goes though there's variations from time to time, it's not too uncommon for a TV show's first season to only be a dozen or more episodes due to production limitations and costs and how much the creators have written when the pitched the series (again, usually you want to pitch a TV series with a good handful of episodes written and finalized and at least treatments or ideas for future episodes.)
With the series doing well it getting a 16-episode order shows some level of confidence the studio has in the series. I suspect it'll get the back-9 order which usually is a show to take an opportunity to tweak elements of the series that aren't working or have gotten criticism. You can't easily change the episodes already filmed or written, but when writing new episodes you can make these adjustments. So when the show comes back from its winter hiatus, I'd suspect to see some tonal and plot elements to be tweaked so the show can appeal better to a larger audience and fix any criticisms or narrative problems that've come up in the already written episodes. Chiefly, ways to extend the show's story past the first season. (Something TV series like "Prison Break" and even "Lost" ran into when the show gained popularity so the show's writers and producers had to start finding ways to extend the story.
Last edited:
Wyatt's 'It's not my job to protect the timeline' shtick was annoying in episode one. It's still annoying in episode 5. I'm surprised he wasn't fired on day one, but apparently the show is going to pretend his decision-making process is valid because the timeline changes have been relatively innocuous so far.
I have been wondering the same thing. It appears it was always the plan to have this new series "Taken" to replace it in that time slot. But the number of episodes before that may not have been set in stone.
Wikipedia says the original order was 13 episodes, which makes it a bit weird to say that 16 episodes is a "full season" in comparison.
That is not encouraging. I would think they are testing the ratings with those two separate runs of new episodes with no repeats. If it is able to hold its numbers fairly well it will get a second season. If not, it is less likely. That number may also be based on what is needed to finished of currently produced storylines. All just speculation of course.
Yeah, that was painfully obvious too quickly, maybe we watch too much tv. Of course, it's actually much worse than that. They aren't trapped in a summer camp, it's an armed outpost. They showed us that they had cannon. Thus, powder. Before the grenade thing came up (and from a writing standpoint, they didn't need to introduce them to begin with, lazy writing), should have been able to just borrow an extra charge and blow the hole right there. Hell, he was staring at Davey Crockett's black powder horn hanging around his back when he was whining about how he was going to figure it out. And then came up with grenades instead of what was literally right in his face at the time...
Also, maybe it depends on the grenade, but they're not usually known for their concussive force; it's just used to propel the shrapnel, really. Not sure it's taking out a 3' section of solid rock, although it might pit it somewhat. While I'm nitpicking, do grenades even work the way he used them (I think no)? He popped the top on one, but then tossed it in a pack of unarmed ones. Not sure the other ones even explode without pulling their pins and arming as well. Not inherently explosive, really, again just a way to get the shrapnel out there and moving at a nice speed.
If it was a concussion grenade, maybe (still gotta arm them all I'd think), but what was shown seemed pretty clearly a regular old-model frag grenade.
If it was a concussion grenade, maybe (still gotta arm them all I'd think), but what was shown seemed pretty clearly a regular old-model frag grenade.
I'm curious as to what Flynn's endgame was with this mission. No independent Texas means no Texas joining the United States, which means what? A stronger Mexico keeping the United States' (and thus Rittenhouse's) power in check? Someone from Rittenhouse having close ties to Texas being wiped out of existence?
My biggest concern with this show is that whatever Flyn's motivation is revealed to be it will never fit with his actions in every episode.
Flynn can't exist in the same time zone twice.
This is not his first time machine.
He may have burned off a decade of moments of the past that he can never return to.
This is not his first time machine.
He may have burned off a decade of moments of the past that he can never return to.
