Jump to content
Taviss

Timey Wimey Wibbly Wobbly Stuff & Other Questions?

Recommended Posts

Hey,

 

I have a problem with the plot of this series.In one scene Cole scratches the watch from the past and the effect also appears on the one from the future.Well, if he told Dr. Reilly who he was and she was now considered "crazy" and was no longer in activity, doesn't this mean that the message in the future wouldn't have been recorder, thus the whole plot wouldn't have existed in the first place?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

The time travel paradoxes can be maddening.  The entire story relies on Cole being able to change the past, though if he changes the past how does he exist in the future in order to change the past?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the fact that the plot is completely caught up in timeloops and changed futures and pasts is great. It means they can go any which way they like with the characters, and then reset things by changing the past.

 

Like Cole in this episode, lamenting that no matter what he does, Cassie dies. It's surely going to end up being one of his priorities to figure out how to end the virus and save Cassie. He needs to figure out how to put all the pieces in place to get the win that he wants. And that's what makes him such a great antagonist to me. He's not doing anything for himself, because he knows (or believes) that if he succeeds, he is erased. 

 

Time travel never makes sense when you actually stop to think about it, because it relies on people changing things that have already happened, so that their need to change those things would never arise in the first place. I think The Sarah Connor Chronicles made a decent fist of it by using Terry Pratchett's 'Trousers of Time' theory, that all the changes they made just spun time off in a different direction, so they were never going to change the future they came from, just create a new one.

Share this post


Link to post

Alright, but then the watch souldn't have changed or at least he shouldn't have said that anything in the past also has effect in the future.It's misleading.

 

Btw, I watched Primer, in which the time travel makes much more sense and comes closer to what you would expect in real life.

Edited by Taviss

Share this post


Link to post

But we don't know what's going to happen.  Cole is going to be traveling a lot more.  Where he goes and what he does could be the cause for the watch thing.  We are also learning this show's time travel rules as we go along.  And really, time travel never makes sense outside of a contained universe, like a tv show.  There's no such thing as it making sense in real life because it just doesn't.  Too many paradoxes.  What matters is that it follows the rules and logic that the contained universe creates.  Time travel in fiction is more often just a method to explore certain themes or navigating the human heart in conflict with itself.  It's hardly ever really about the time travel.  

Edited by bluebonnet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the fact that the plot is completely caught up in timeloops and changed futures and pasts is great. It means they can go any which way they like with the characters, and then reset things by changing the past.

Like Cole in this episode, lamenting that no matter what he does, Cassie dies. It's surely going to end up being one of his priorities to figure out how to end the virus and save Cassie. He needs to figure out how to put all the pieces in place to get the win that he wants. And that's what makes him such a great antagonist to me. He's not doing anything for himself, because he knows (or believes) that if he succeeds, he is erased.

Time travel never makes sense when you actually stop to think about it, because it relies on people changing things that have already happened, so that their need to change those things would never arise in the first place. I think The Sarah Connor Chronicles made a decent fist of it by using Terry Pratchett's 'Trousers of Time' theory, that all the changes they made just spun time off in a different direction, so they were never going to change the future they came from, just create a new one.

RIP, SIR TERRY...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is it immoral to kill the rest of humanity to save one life when the rest of humanity is already dead?

Time travel creates some weird questions.

 

 

It isn't just one life though is it.  I mean it is one life Ramse might be focused on but if his son would cease to exist as a result of stopping the plague there would have to be others wouldn't there.  It may be only be hundreds or thousands or even millions vs billions, but the reality isn't 1 vs billions like is being portrayed.  Granted he might not give a crap about anything more than that 1 but why should he.  Why should the billions he has never met mean more to him than those he has already met.  Jones isn't doing what she is doing for the billions she is just doing it for 1, why is she a good guy for wanting to kill however many would cease to exist to bring back 1 while Ramse is a bad guy for wanting to leave billions dead so the 1 can continue to live.  So yeah great question and tough to answer because it isn't really all that black and white.

 

 

Then does it become a question of whether or not motivation matters?

 

Bringing this from episode 11 discussion because lots of philosophical questions about morality and motivation were introduced. 

Share this post


Link to post

The whole idea of motivation is what bothers me about the criticism of how the Ramse character was handled vis a vis his son as motivation.  Cole is doing what he is doing to save Cassie and Jones is doing what she is doing to save her daughter, why is Ramse doing what he is doing for his son any less believable.  Because he knew him for 5 minutes, well the same could be said for how long Cole knew Cassie and there is no blood relation there.  It is funny how quick people are to dismiss love at first sight for your child while having no issue with romantic love at first sight.  I get it shippers rule the tv scene nowadays and you can't get away with creating a show that doesn't have star crossed lovers involved in a love triangle,  I think the internet would blow up if these things didn't exist in tv today.  But it really bothers me that people who are rooting for a pair of strangers who have no blood connection with each other are at the same time having a hissy fit that Ramse became a father the minute he laid eyes on his son.

 

Ramse's motivation is no less pure than that of either Jones or Cole in my opinion.

Edited by lucifer316
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll try to limit the spoileriness of this post

 

Clearly what is happening is a predestination paradox, where Cole's time travel caused all of this to happen in the first place.

 

I am struggling with the watch paradox. Somebody help me out here:

 

  1. Cassie has a watch (2013?)
  2. Cole gets Cassies watch from his time and brings it back with him (2043)
  3. Cole brings the two watches together to save Cassie (2015)
  4. The watches eliminate them selves. things go boom, Cassie is saved. (2015)
  5. The watch no longer exists. so It could't be there in 2043 for them to bring back.

 

I am okay with this series of events except that I can't reconcile it with the predestination paradox.

 

  1. The watch no longer exists(2015)
  2. Cole can't bring the watch from his time to 2015
  3. Cole cant bring the two watches together, to save Cassie.
  4. Cassie dies, No message, thus no time traveling Cole.

 

It seems to me that the only way to escape a predestination paradox would be to use one of these (elimination?) paradoxes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

The watches do not eliminate themselves as Cole picks one up next to Goines' dead body and hands it to Cassie and tells her not to lose it.  In fact you can also see the watch in the scene where she dies, it is on her wrist and the scratch becomes undone.

Share this post


Link to post

For me, it was less Ramse's motivations and more his actions.  He stabbed Cole!  Of course, Cole was also fighting him, he just happened to be lucky enough to already have so much of our viewing time and sympathy built up.  Plus, he was the stabbee rather than the stabber.  

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, the watch is never destroyed because Goines separates them (offscreen) because they do the red forest thing that Ramse's necklaces did in Shonin.  

Share this post


Link to post

I think the difference is even with Jones and Cole's sole (personal) motivation, they will still save millions of lives.  Ramse's sole motivation will kill millions. 

I also do think from the viewer's point of view, less screen time/development for the relationship of Ramse and his son does not trump the screen time development of Cassie/Cole, and Jones (who is played by a very commanding actress.)

Share this post


Link to post

The fight just like jumping into the 'time machine' was a live or die choice he had to make.  There was no other option for him, there was no them fighting their way out back to back or anything of the sort.  It was kill or be killed and his death would mean the 'death' of his son. 

Share this post


Link to post

And now we viewers are put in sort of a similar predicament where our natural desires are steered towards those we are closest to.  In this case, Cole (though yes, mileage varies based on viewer experience and interest).  

Share this post


Link to post

Lucifer, I don't think Cole's motivation is to save Cassie. At least not originally. He got involved to save the world from the plague. At the time he didn't know that Jones might have had other motivation (ie her daughter). Now that he's interacted with Cassie I can see him wanting to save her, but I've not gotten that this is his motivation at all. He still seems to be wanting to save the world & that perhaps saving Cassie at the same time would also work into it. I don't think they're telling any great love story here.

 

It's easy to think that they are/they might because it's so trope now. But I'm still not getting that that's what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the difference is even with Jones and Cole's sole (personal) motivation, they will still save millions of lives.  Ramse's sole motivation will kill millions. 

I also do think from the viewer's point of view, less screen time/development for the relationship of Ramse and his son does not trump the screen time development of Cassie/Cole, and Jones (who is played by a very commanding actress.)

I am sorry but that first sentence is not entirely correct.  If Ramse's son will 'die' as a result of the plague not happening it stands to reason that there are a number of other people who will also cease to exist.  These are people who actully exist in 2043 who are being 'killed' by the actions of Jones and Cole, how are those lives any less valuable than the ones that Ramse goes back in time to kill who are technically already dead in 2043.  Both sides are picking and choosing a group of people who will live or die and their motivation to save a particular group is the same across all three people.

 

Hell Cole went back in time because he would have been dead in less than a month if he and Ramse had to go back out into the wilds, so I am not sure how people are ascribing all of these noble intentions to the guy.  His out of nowhere love for Cassie caused him to take a 180 just like Ramse's character.  The only difference is one is portrayed as good and the other evil.  I don't see it as quite so black and white personally because I empathize with the guy and his son more than the skirt chaser.

Edited by lucifer316

Share this post


Link to post

Lucifer, I don't think Cole's motivation is to save Cassie. At least not originally. He got involved to save the world from the plague. At the time he didn't know that Jones might have had other motivation (ie her daughter). Now that he's interacted with Cassie I can see him wanting to save her, but I've not gotten that this is his motivation at all. He still seems to be wanting to save the world & that perhaps saving Cassie at the same time would also work into it. I don't think they're telling any great love story here.

 

It's easy to think that they are/they might because it's so trope now. But I'm still not getting that that's what they're doing.

His initial motivation was not to save the world the back story of their capture and his reluctance to even stick around tells a completely different story.  He stuck around because there was nothing else to do and they were close to dying the last time they were on their own prior to meeting up with West VII.  By going along with these people he was given sanctuary and food etc.  He absolutely was not in it to save the world.  Also I am sorry but you can tell by watching that given a clear choice between stopping the plague and letting Cassie die or saving Cassie and attempting to stop the plague at another time he would choose the former, and I would not be shocked if at some point we do not see an episode where something like that happens.

 

And now we viewers are put in sort of a similar predicament where our natural desires are steered towards those we are closest to.  In this case, Cole (though yes, mileage varies based on viewer experience and interest).  

Personally screen time doesn't equate to relatability.  At this point I don't have a horse in the race so to speak but being a father I can relate to Ramse's motivations much more than I can to Cole's.

Share this post


Link to post

You never know, maybe the son or the people who will cease to exist will eventually exist, but not in the post apocalyptic timeline.  Plus I don't think the numbers are comparable.

 

I also don't agree that Ramse is being portrayed as evil.   Maybe some audience members may think he is evil now, but I don't think he is being portrayed as such.  I also don't think Cole is being portrayed as a "skirt chaser",  as you call him.  I think they are all selfish (most people are), but I tend to support Cole first, and then Jones over Ramse because I like them and their portrayers more.

Edited by dirtydi

Share this post


Link to post

You never know, maybe the son or the people who will cease to exist will eventually exist, but not in the post apocalyptic timeline.  Plus I don't think the numbers are comparable.

 

I also don't agree that Ramse is being portrayed as evil.   Maybe some audience members may think he is evil now, but I don't think he is being portrayed as such.  I also don't think Cole is being portrayed as a "skirt chaser",  as you call him.  I think they are all selfish (most people are), but I tend to support Cole first, and then Jones over Ramse because I like them and their portrayers more.

I am sorry but you have a group of people who are dead vs a group of people who are alive, why do the dead matter more than the living.  As for the numbers being comparable or not what killing millions is bad but killing thousands is ok,  Killing live people vs allowing dead people to remain dead.  I don't think Cole is portrayed as a skirt chaser it was just short hand for pointing out that his motivations are being decided below his waist.  I guess in a manner of speaking the same thing could be said about Ramse from a different perspective.  Look I get it people love Cole and thus his side is automatically noble and good while those opposed are aren't.  I just don't see it that black and white.

Share this post


Link to post

LUcifer, good point about who gets saved by the plague/no plague. Personally, I find it easier to be motivated to save one person I love as opposed to a million faceless people who I don't know. Millions die or survive no matter what.

 

I get that there's an attraction between Cole & Cassie. I'm not getting any epic love story though (& I hope we don't. I hate that

shit. It ruined Haven). She didn't look especially upset when he seemed to have been killed with the others in that strike attack. "Cole's gone," she said matter of factly and in the next scene she's cozing up to Aaron.

 

Dr. Jones indicated that Cassie is important to their cause so any saving he's doing of her is under Jones' instructions and perhaps an unacted upon attraction.

 

Lucifer, as a parent I can see why you can relate to Ramses's wanting to save his son. Also, good point about Cole's initial involvement. I'd forgotten that. Yeah time travel is cool opposed to starving to death.

 

dirtydi, Ramses is coming off a bit evil in certain scenes. More than that I see him as driven and angry and intense. Which gets tiring to watch.

Share this post


Link to post

They matter more because the virus still exists and can mutate.  I am on the side of those who want the virus to have never existed.  I'm selfish I want to save myself and my friends/fam in the now, not the people in the bleak future. Their quality of life blows anyway :)

Share this post


Link to post

I think allowing billions to suffer and die horribly from a disease that is still in 2043 mutating and threatening humanity is much, much worse than resetting the time line. The consequence is that some people may have never existed,like Ramse's son. I am a parent, and I can't imagine condemning billions to die, even if the alternative is stopping my daughter from existing in the first place. After all, if the time line resets and there is no plague, Ramse will never know that in an alternate time-line he had a son who got erased. He will just reset and go on to live a normal life along with the billions of others who don't suffer and die. Everyone who was alive in 2017 will just go on, never knowing what horrible (or sometimes wonderful) fate they may have escaped. The upshot of it is that billions of people will not suffer and die, and those who are left after the plague like Cole and Ramse will not suffer, starve, and turn to killing to survive. For me, it is an brainer to stop the plague and give the most people the chance to survive and thrive, even if that means erasing my child (in one time-line) from ever existing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

LUcifer, good point about who gets saved by the plague/no plague. Personally, I find it easier to be motivated to save one person I love as opposed to a million faceless people who I don't know. Millions die or survive no matter what.

 

I get that there's an attraction between Cole & Cassie. I'm not getting any epic love story though (& I hope we don't. I hate that

shit. It ruined Haven). She didn't look especially upset when he seemed to have been killed with the others in that strike attack. "Cole's gone," she said matter of factly and in the next scene she's cozing up to Aaron.

 

Dr. Jones indicated that Cassie is important to their cause so any saving he's doing of her is under Jones' instructions and perhaps an unacted upon attraction.

 

Your point about motivation is the reason I tend to view all 3 as having fairly even motivations, but if not even Ramse's is hardly an unworthy one IMO.  Epic love story not yet but the triangle is already in place and anyone who watches TV knows you must have your triangle.  That has to be followed by several seasons of flip-flopping.  Cassie not being upset about Cole 'dying' makes sense given her survival instinct at this point in time probably trumps any feelings she has for him, especially since she still harbors feelings for Aaron.  As for Jones and Cassie, actually Jones told Cole in no uncertain terms prior to his 3rd splinter that he was to leave Cassie out of it, that it was never her intention for Cole to make Cassie his accomplise.  In fact in the post op 'briefing' Jones mentions finding Cassie's name in the paper work and procceds to yell at Cole that she gave him specific orders not to get her involved.  This all bookended the 2nd episode.

 

They matter more because the virus still exists and can mutate.  I am on the side of those who want the virus to have never existed.  I'm selfish I want to save myself and my friends/fam in the now, not the people in the bleak future. Their quality of life blows anyway :)

That is fine regarding the motivations of Cassie and Aaron as they live in the preplague time.  We are disussing the motivations of those who are from 2043.  Ramse wants to save his family, so why is that any different than what you want.  Why should Ramse care more about people who are already dead over his own son.

Edited by lucifer316

Share this post


Link to post

I just have this feeling that when they iron out all these time-travel cause-effect wrinkles, and successfully stop the plague, someone is going to just nuke the world to hell like a year later, and even MORE people will die.  

Share this post


Link to post

If the virus is stopped from happening, then millions born would cease to exist.   HOWEVER, those who do not die from the plague would likely reproduce and make millions of others that would not have existed otherwise.   Stopping the plague means humanity has a future.

 

Not stopping the plague means millions die and never get a chance to reproduce,   The virus is also mutating so it is possible that Ramses son will contract it at some point and DIE.   

 

I know this sounds like dilemma solved.   But it's not.    Are speculative millions worth more than actual millions?    Will humanity really be saved.   In one of Robert Heinlen's books (I think it's The Cat Who Walks Through Walls) they talk about stopping Hitler.   Yaaaay, no Holocaust.   Ooops, World War III starts and Earth becomes radioactive dust.    Stopping the plague does not mean humanity is saved.   Maybe Yellowstone finally goes off.   Maybe the millions who di dnot die from the plague so overproduce we choke to death on our waste products.   Do you save what you KNOW happened versus a speculative future that might not be all sunshine and roses?

Share this post


Link to post

There is nothing on Earth I love more than my son and daughter and I would sacrifice anyone for them. (hopefully I'll never be forced to do so) That said however, Ramses just desserts his child to avenge his mother, putting himself in danger, and possibly leaving his son an orphan? Just too much wrong with this. Instead of turning paternal after he found out he had a child, he became militaristic. I'm not sure his motives are as pure as he claims.

eta: I'm not sure this goes here, so I also put it on the episode forum.

Edited by Rhetorica

Share this post


Link to post
×