Timeless S1E1: Hindenburg
A week ago I watched the pilot episode of Timeless, a 2016-2018 TV series about time travel. It's a cat-and-mouse type story where two groups have time machines. One is trying to change things the in the past, the other is chasing after them trying to prevent world-altering changes. I already wrote a few thoughts about the pilot in general. Now I'd like to share three thoughts about specifics in the in S1E1, "Hindenburg". Spoilers marked.
The "What If?" Game
Early on in the episode we learn the thieves have travel back in time to the day the Hindenburg explosion in 1937. The characters challenge each other- and, by extension, us- to think how history could be different if there was no Hindenburg disaster.
"It could have made Germany stronger going into WWII," Hawk suggested.
"Ennnnh," I objected. "The Hindenburg was a bad design with its hydrogen flotation. A successful demo success would have risked German aeronautics pouring more time and money into a fatally flawed design."
"But a success there could have intimidated the US into staying out of WWII..."
Except the US did stay out of WWII for two years. And when the Japanese thought they could intimidate us by bombing Pearl Harbor and destroying half our Pacific fleet, they miscalculated. Their attack, which did hobble our Pacific fleet, galvanized the country into action. It spurred us to join WWII and, more importantly, awoke us from a long stupor of underdeveloped manufacturing capability.
Ultimately the time-thieves' plan was [Spoiler (click to open)]not to save the Hindenburg to promote German aeronautics. They did stop the Hindenburg from exploding due to static electricity discharge in a rain storm... to try to blow it up with a bomb on its next voyage, when various American political and military leaders would be passengers aboard it.
An Oddly Timed Plot Reveal
At the climax of the episode the writers make a plot reveal that seems premature. [Spoiler (click to open)]Flynn, the lead time thief, addresses Lucy, one of the protagonists, by name. How does he know her? She wasn't part of the time machine engineering team; she was only picked by the authorities as a history guide when they assembled a small team to chase the time thieves after they absconded into the past with the stolen time machine. So how- and when- did he learn her bio?
Normally, as a matter of writing, I'd expect writers to plant this hook and leave it. But instead of leaving it as something to keep audiences wondering and entice them to tune in to the next episode, they reveal the answer right there.
In a clunky scene that combines the awful tropes of both chewing the scenery and talking to the camera, Flynn explains that he has Lucy's hand-written journal... which she apparently hasn't even written yet! Furthermore, he tells her she's being used by people with motives she wouldn't support if she knew them.
That does a decent job of leaving a mystery for us to enjoy seeing unraveled in upcoming episodes but, again, it rang as premature and a false note to have such a reveal in episode 1. Why not hold that reveal for episode 2. It's like they broke a unwritten rule of pacing.
"Killing [them] in the Cradle"
As the three protagonists are discussing what happened before they return to present day, Lucy declares to the other two, [Spoiler (click to open)]"They're trying to kill America in the cradle." She elaborates in another clunky, talking-to-the-camera type scene that "America has strong institutions today, but that wasn't always the case." In the past, she says, our institutions were very weak, and killing a key individual person would make the difference between success and failure.
This was actually the point where I had to go and look up when this series was produced. That's because what we've seen through the Donald Trump era, starting with his actions in the presidency in early 2017, is that our political and legal institutions are not as robust as we told ourselves up through 2016. And, no surprise, this episode was produced in 2016. So this talking-to-the-cameras scene seemed like the writers talking directly the camera, telling us not to worry. Hahahahahahaha.
Also, I disagree that our institutions were vastly weaker in the past. Trump has committed numerous acts in office and since leaving office that almost nobody in 2016 would've expected our system not only to permit to happen but to go unpunished. If anything our political and legals norms were far firmer in the past. And the key-person theory? Yeah, there's always that. But a lot of key events in the past were the culmination of long simmering issues. Manipulating an individual person could change whether an issue reached its tipping point sooner or later but it's not going to change the issue itself.
The "What If?" Game
Early on in the episode we learn the thieves have travel back in time to the day the Hindenburg explosion in 1937. The characters challenge each other- and, by extension, us- to think how history could be different if there was no Hindenburg disaster.
"It could have made Germany stronger going into WWII," Hawk suggested.
"Ennnnh," I objected. "The Hindenburg was a bad design with its hydrogen flotation. A successful demo success would have risked German aeronautics pouring more time and money into a fatally flawed design."
"But a success there could have intimidated the US into staying out of WWII..."
Except the US did stay out of WWII for two years. And when the Japanese thought they could intimidate us by bombing Pearl Harbor and destroying half our Pacific fleet, they miscalculated. Their attack, which did hobble our Pacific fleet, galvanized the country into action. It spurred us to join WWII and, more importantly, awoke us from a long stupor of underdeveloped manufacturing capability.
Ultimately the time-thieves' plan was [Spoiler (click to open)]not to save the Hindenburg to promote German aeronautics. They did stop the Hindenburg from exploding due to static electricity discharge in a rain storm... to try to blow it up with a bomb on its next voyage, when various American political and military leaders would be passengers aboard it.
An Oddly Timed Plot Reveal
At the climax of the episode the writers make a plot reveal that seems premature. [Spoiler (click to open)]Flynn, the lead time thief, addresses Lucy, one of the protagonists, by name. How does he know her? She wasn't part of the time machine engineering team; she was only picked by the authorities as a history guide when they assembled a small team to chase the time thieves after they absconded into the past with the stolen time machine. So how- and when- did he learn her bio?
Normally, as a matter of writing, I'd expect writers to plant this hook and leave it. But instead of leaving it as something to keep audiences wondering and entice them to tune in to the next episode, they reveal the answer right there.
In a clunky scene that combines the awful tropes of both chewing the scenery and talking to the camera, Flynn explains that he has Lucy's hand-written journal... which she apparently hasn't even written yet! Furthermore, he tells her she's being used by people with motives she wouldn't support if she knew them.
That does a decent job of leaving a mystery for us to enjoy seeing unraveled in upcoming episodes but, again, it rang as premature and a false note to have such a reveal in episode 1. Why not hold that reveal for episode 2. It's like they broke a unwritten rule of pacing.
"Killing [them] in the Cradle"
As the three protagonists are discussing what happened before they return to present day, Lucy declares to the other two, [Spoiler (click to open)]"They're trying to kill America in the cradle." She elaborates in another clunky, talking-to-the-camera type scene that "America has strong institutions today, but that wasn't always the case." In the past, she says, our institutions were very weak, and killing a key individual person would make the difference between success and failure.
This was actually the point where I had to go and look up when this series was produced. That's because what we've seen through the Donald Trump era, starting with his actions in the presidency in early 2017, is that our political and legal institutions are not as robust as we told ourselves up through 2016. And, no surprise, this episode was produced in 2016. So this talking-to-the-cameras scene seemed like the writers talking directly the camera, telling us not to worry. Hahahahahahaha.
Also, I disagree that our institutions were vastly weaker in the past. Trump has committed numerous acts in office and since leaving office that almost nobody in 2016 would've expected our system not only to permit to happen but to go unpunished. If anything our political and legals norms were far firmer in the past. And the key-person theory? Yeah, there's always that. But a lot of key events in the past were the culmination of long simmering issues. Manipulating an individual person could change whether an issue reached its tipping point sooner or later but it's not going to change the issue itself.