"Timeless" on NBC (1 Viewer)

[Alf S]

Well we thought it looked interesting when we saw the previews and it didn't let us down. It was a bit cheesy, but still, it's a lot better than the usual blah procedural crap that's on TV these days. Several twists and it's fun seeing the historical side of each story and how they weave it into each story.

My wife actually said "Ohhh, this could be a fun show" which is rare for her to say.

Looking forward to seeing what else they have to offer.

 

[Josh Dial]

Is it possible for an admin to change the title to "Timeless"?

My rating for this show was "fine." It was fine. The pacing was a tad rushed (although I appreciated that the show got right to the point), the green screening seemed especially weak for television in 2016, and only Abigail Spencer seemed really comfortable in her character.

I'm a sucker for time travel, so the core concept of the show will likely keep me watching. However, let's not pretend that this show is anywhere near the same level as shows on HBO, USA, Starz, AMC, and the other "premium" networks and streaming services. That fact that Timeless airs on NBC practically limits the show's potential: it can never really portray the level of racism that would have been seen 1930s America, for example. The show will always lack a level of realism that should be front and centre in a time travel story.

This is really more of a reality than it is a criticism, and it's true for almost every show airing on NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX. The Blacklist has generally escaped the network limitations by pushing the level of violence to a more realistic, cinematic place (Person of Interest managed the same feat), and Agents of SHIELD has some great special effects (though this season's Ghostrider is...not a good example) and some really cool fight scenes once or twice a season. Outside these few examples, network TV just isn't cutting it.

Imagine a show like Timeless on HBO. Now, imagine a show like Westworld on NBC.

I don't want this all to sound like I disliked Timeless: I liked it, and will be watching future episodes. The show is just really going to have to step up its game separate from the pack of other "fine" shows.

I think my point can be summarized by asking "is this show the best version of itself that it can be?" Some stories are just better told elsewhere. Take LOST for example. While opinions may differ on its place in the history of great television (I'm firmly in the camp that believes it should be included), just looking at this forum alone shows how it sparked great weekly conversations and was truly "must watch" television. Was the LOST that aired on ABC the best version of LOST? In other words, had it aired on HBO with a larger budget and perhaps even greater creative freedom (though I don't see how this is possible...), would it have been even better? Personally, I don't think so. The same goes for Mad Men: it's the best version it could be, and transplanting it elsewhere would have probably made it worse.

Just looking at the list of programs currently airing on NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX, very few shows are what I would label as truly "high quality." And I don't think I'm employing a truly subjective measurement here: I don't think anyone can honestly make a case that, for example, Blue Bloods is one of the best shows on television. Just scanning through the scripted prime time shows here's what jumps out at me as high quality:

NBC

• The Blacklist
• This is Us (while I think it's mediocre tripe, forum members whose opinions I trust really like it, so I'm willing to be wrong here)

CBS

• Nothing

ABC

• Agents of SHIELD
• Designated Survivor
• American Crime

FOX

• Brooklyn Nine-Nine

Meanwhile, the high quality shows on the premium channels (in Canada we call all of these "cable," but I think Americans use a different term) and streaming services are too legion to mention in an already long post.

 

[Alf S]

Fixed title.

 

[ScottH]

I haven't seen Timeless, but I agree with most of what you said Josh. Although I would argue none of those network shows you mention are close to the level of the best shows on the "cable" or "premium" channels (though I've never seen 'Designated Survivor').

 

[Josh Dial]

I haven't seen Timeless, but I agree with most of what you said Josh. Although I would argue none of those network shows you mention are close to the level of the best shows on the "cable" or "premium" channels (though I've never seen 'Designated Survivor').

I agree, Scott. Those shows I listed, while high quality for network television, simply cannot compare to the best on cable. I only have so much time; I would much rather spend my time watching shows like The Americans and Mr. Robot and Black Sails and American Crime Story than Bull or Blindspot.

 

[Greg_S_H]

When I heard on a radio ad that this was from Eric Kripke, I changed my mind about watching it. I'm still kicking myself for wasting so much time with Revolution. I won't ruin this thread beyond this one post out of respect for those who do plan to watch, however.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I have Timeless on the DVR, but after reading some reviews of the premiere episode I've moved this to 'on the fence.' The topic of "high quality" and networks is an interesting one and is why I'm posting.

I agree with Josh's sentiments (post #2) and doubt that many would disagree that the caliber of the 'best' cable series is significantly higher than the best that network television has to offer. Having said that, there are plenty of network television shows that entertain if one adjusts one's expectations accordingly. These shows aren't going to be on any critic's best of the year lists, but cast chemistry, genre, and themes can elevate these shows and make them quite viewable. (And if you enjoy them, that's all that counts.)

Re: Josh's list of shows...

I'm not sure if I agree with the inclusion of Designated Survivor. It is really too early. I think The Good Place might fit on that list, but once again I prefer to wait awhile. The one show that I would add to the list of best network shows is Black-ish primarily for the range of topics that it addresses, plus the sharpness of the writing.

Sorry for getting off topic.

- Walter.

 

[Doug Wallen]

I am intrigued so far. I just hope they don't really send our characters through emotional arcs and then just hit the reset button at the end of the season.

I just hope there is some way to chart the various timelines, like Dr. Beckett with Ziggy.

 

[NeilO]

Interesting pilot. They changed who died on the Hindenburg. We saw some ripples from it and we don't know how much will be reset in the end. The big twist is the Flynn has this notebook that Lucy wrote in the future. We also don't why Rufus was spying on them.

While it seems that Flynn is a bad guy - definitely his means are evil - the question is just what are his ends? From his point of view is he trying to restore his proper timeline?

 

[Darby67]

I enjoyed the pilot. Sure time travel is a shopworn plot device, but there were enough interesting twists to hold my interest. I definitely felt the show was challenging Irwin Allen's The Time Tunnel to a degree (in a good way); I'll have to rewatch the pilot again to see if I can pick up any specific homages.

 

[Doug Wallen]

Seems like Flynn (son/grandson???) is doing his best River Song impersonation.

I did get the Time Tunnel/Stargate vibe with the rotating wheels and a Timecop feel with the little car.

 

[Chris Will]

I still on the fence about watching this show. I'm a sucker for time travel stories but, the last time NBC had a time travel show I feel in love with they killed it after only 13 episodes. I may just wait and see how NBC treats this show before I give it a chance.

 

[Doug Wallen]

I still on the fence about watching this show. I'm a sucker for time travel stories but, the last time NBC had a time travel show I feel in love with they killed it after only 13 episodes. I may just wait and see how NBC treats this show before I give it a chance.

Is that a Journeyman reference? If so, I agree, still mad about that one.

 

[Chris Will]

Yep, loved Journeyman.

My wife wanted to watch Timeless so I ended up watching the pilot with her. It was good enough to continue to watch in the weeks to come but, I'm not sure if it will hold my interest. I just felt like this episode felt really rushed and I hope that isn't going to be a trend for the series. IMO, they can spread a mission out over a few episodes to give the story some breathing room, it doesn't need to be a trip of the week type of show.

 

[DaveF]

I'm hooked.

 

[todd s]

Impressed that they actually allowed a change in history. Usually, time travel shows fix things at the end. Also, I know it would end the show. But, the reasoning behind not just having them go back to before he steals the timeship and stop him them is not good.


On a side note. Really liked Journeyman.

 

[Josh Dial]

Impressed that they actually allowed a change in history.

This was definitely the best part of the pilot.

Hopefully the show continues to show changes to history, and focuses on both how those changes affect society (for the larger changes) and how the characters react to the changes (for the smaller changes, mostly). There is some really interesting potential for character development and social commentary here that other shows would kill for. However, if the show squanders this potential and keeps changes to a minimum or makes them counter for nothing, then I'll quickly drop it.

 

[David Weicker]

I'm not sure I like the non-causal changes.

The different Hindenburg story was acceptable.

The missing sister and not-sick mom isn't. First of all, I have a feeling they won't address why that change occurred (given how rushed the pilot felt). But more importantly, the sick mom is the main reason she became the prominent historian that she is (and the reason that she was picked for the mission). If the mom isn't sick, there is no drive to push herself, and no reason to be noticed or chosen.

 

[Josh Dial]

I

The missing sister and not-sick mom isn't. First of all, I have a feeling they won't address why that change occurred (given how rushed the pilot felt). But more importantly, the sick mom is the main reason she became the prominent historian that she is (and the reason that she was picked for the mission). If the mom isn't sick, there is no drive to push herself, and no reason to be noticed or chosen.

(emphasis added)

I'm not sure of either of these. First, I think Lucy was an historian before her mother got sick (it's cancer, right?), given how long it takes to complete the necessary education and rise the ranks. Perhaps her mother's illness and consequential retirement is why there was a tenure position open, but I'm not sure.

Second, and more importantly, I think Lucy was chosen for reasons other than her historical background. Flynn specifically noted this in his brief exchange with Lucy: he showed her the notebook and said something like "you were chosen for a specific reason" or something like that. Lucy's selection was certainly explained to her as flowing from her expertise in anthropology and history, but my guess is the real reason--likely all in the hands of Connor Mason--is something more...interesting.

 

[Doug Wallen]

Well, seems like they are upping the "mythology" aspect of this show with "Rittenhouse is a they not a him" and some secret about the Mom keeping knowledge from her daughter. I am not sure if this is going to be to convoluted or not. Was interesting to see that Lucy seems to be the only one who notices the time changes. Glad she has an ally.

Spoiler

I sure hope that Flynn does not turn out to be a delusional future relative (Dad, brother, uncle, step-dad, etc).