Occupation/Resistance --Terra Nova # 12 & 13/Season I 2011/Season Ending

[Banshee16]

What I didn't get with the whole thing is related to the whole time paradox thing.

Obviously, we can't look too seriously at it. But....

These guys in the future...the Phoenix Group....why would they want to despoil the earth 90 million years in the past or whatever? Obviously, 90 million years is a long time for it to recover. But if they wipe out a continent, and most of the living creatures on that continent, that's the equivalent of a major extinction event....essentially resetting the clock for evolution. Now, there have been major extinction events in the past before.....but their timing allowed for humans to evolve. Mess with that timing, and in 2149, anything could happen....you could have dinosaurs still running around, humans could still be at the stage of australopithecus, etc. etc.

Now, the people living in the past.....I suspect once they're cut off, they really don't need to worry about the future anymore. They effectively have no connection to it. So, if they take the knowledge of what happened in the future, and use it to govern their behaviour in the past, yes, the future could end up very different.....but they might not wreck the earth like what happened the first time around. Maybe they live back there for 3 million years, evolve into little grey men, develop flying saucers, and fly off to populate Pluto or something....then come back in the "future" as alien greys. Or, from a paradox standpoint, if they change the storyline of the future it might mean they never needed to be sent back, thus they can't be there and cease to exist etc. It hurts to think about

I don't think having people 90 million years back would *necessitate* that paleontologists in 2011 are finding fossils of people from a colony 90 million years back, that were sent there from 140 years in the future. There's a TV show about earth after man, and it makes pretty clear that even 200 years after people, not much sign of our presence would remain.....and 90 million years on, unless someone got trapped in a tar pit or drowned in a river, if the colony died out, it may very well not leave any traces to be found later on.

And there was the whole thing with those bomb things they were planting. They claimed that only 10 of them could clearcut the entire continent, so they could start strip mining. Well, back then, it's what....Pangea? The super continent? So, it's one massive continent, with a whole whack of ocean around. 10 bombs clearing the whole continent mean those would be *big* bombs....far bigger than any nuke. Yet, they only need what....15 minutes to drive out of the blast radius? How fast are those jeeps going, anyways?

Interesting show. I don't like it as much as Earth 2, but it's got dinosaurs, and sci-fi, and, even if stretches of it don't make sense, at least it's not yet another reality TV show Hopefully they can learn from this season, and improve, if they're given a season 2.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Land of the Lost!

As to a second season, I have heard Spielberg wants to be commented to five, which I take means if he will keep paying for the show, they will make it.

I'm thinking with Spielberg attached, they may be reluctant to let it fail after one season. Did Earth 2 get a second season?

I do think some of the problems with the show are fixable.

Banshee

 

[Dire Bare]

What I didn't get with the whole thing is related to the whole time paradox thing.

Earlier episodes state that the colonists, and the folks bankrolling them, believe that they have traveled to the distant past in an alternate timeline, and thus there is no danger of changing the future timeline. Whether this is part of the show's "reality", or a mistaken theory with severe consequences is yet to be seen.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Earlier episodes state that the colonists, and the folks bankrolling them, believe that they have traveled to the distant past in an alternate timeline, and thus there is no danger of changing the future timeline. Whether this is part of the show's "reality", or a mistaken theory with severe consequences is yet to be seen.

Yes, you're correct.

I think it was in the pilot episode, but after Taylor went back as the first person, they sent some sort of indestructible monument back there as a "sign post" that they would hopefully be able to find again 85 million years later in 2149. Or, maybe they sent the monument first. But, when they couldn't find it, they realized it was a different timeline/alternate reality.

When they initially found something in the Badlands as some sort of trophy, I had thought it was that original monument, but it was in another location. However, it turned out to be the prow of a ship circa the 1700s.

 

[Jack7]

I almost missed these. Been so busy lately. Excuse the delay, wasn't ignoring you.

"Hollywood/Media Types"? Don't you mean "most heroic fiction for the last 100 years"? Was, say, Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond stories in the 50s and early 60s a "Hollywood/Media Type"?

Yes, but Fleming killed his bad guys. That's what I mean. But I think you've got a good point, generally speaking about heroic fiction being screwed up in this way.

So...you're saying you could put a bullet into your own child, without compunctions? As frustrating as it was to see the guy get away, I can completely empathize with the father's inability to terminate his own offspring.

You mean could I kill my own son without regret? No, of course not. I don't like killing anything. And won't unless I have to. But do you mean would I kill him to save innocent loves? Absolutely.

I hope you won't misunderstand what I'm saying, but the fact that he was my kid would not be my primary concern.

Not long ago I had a dog, whom I had bred as part of an experiment. The experiments were very important to me, the dog more-so. Didn't love him as much as my own children, but he came pretty damn close to being like a son to me. As close as an animal could be. Which to me is, at least potentially, a thin line. Especially with dogs because they are so loyal. I often say, "God did man great good by giving him dogs." Huge dog too, extremely intelligent. Just the way I like em. And he had defended my own children from potential harm at risk to his own life on more than one occasion. Just the way I trained him. He was a guard dog for my wife and children and home when I was away, which to me was a high honor among dogs. I owed him. Respected him. When my family was away he slept with me on my bed. He went with me shooting. We walked in the oods together. I raised him and his brother (maybe the best and outright toughest and most loyal and fearless, and yet gentle dog I ever saw) from pups. I delivered him from a breach birth.

One morning though he attacked my mother, as we were getting ready to go white water rafting, when the very night before he'd had his head in her lap insisting on being petted and hand fed. If I and my other dogs had not attacked him he would have killed my mother. He was easily capable of it.

I loved the dog. But if not for my wife and children I would have taken him out to the woods behind the house and put a slug in his head right then. Turned out he had a bad brain tumor and he was going crazy through no fault of his own. Nevertheless he had become extremely dangerous, so I had him put down. By painless injection, but still put down. Did I regret it? Yes, I cried on several occasions (rare for me) and wondered if I had figured it our earlier if he could have been saved. If my mother could have been saved the attack. I blamed myself for both things for some time. But the dog was dangerous, and my mother was innocent. I had the dog killed. I regretted it, but I did it cause it had to be done. If dogs survive death, and I both think and hope they do, I intend to see him again, apologize and do what I can to make up for it. But it still had to be done. And the same to me applies to people.

I have no prejudices about killing, or maybe I have equal prejudices about killing. I hate it, but I never fear it if necessary. I'm pragmatic that way.

I have a deal with some of my buddies. If I ever go loopy and become a danger, say I have a brain tumor or something unexpected happens to me and I lose control of my behavior, and I take to harming others, they are to hunt me down and execute me. I'd do the same for them.

I have certain religious and moral beliefs that guide my behavior. I've never hated anything I've ever killed. But if the situation demands, I kill. (I would never murder, but I will kill to defend self and others.)

However not killing my son, or anything or anyone else, and allowing them instead to go to their deaths with innocent blood on their hands is in my opinion, a far worse sin upon both society and their soul (and mine) than me killing them and sparing everyone else the grief and suffering. I'd absorb the grief for my own son's killing a lot better and I think I'd do his soul far greater good than absorbing the grief of 10 (or even 1 other) innocent persons because I lacked the guts to kill one child, even my own. Every innocent person my psychopathic kid killed is someone's son or daughter, or has one of their own. My neighbor and his kid are not beneath me, nor are they of less value than me and my kids, just because they are not my blood. Blood is not thicker than Truth to me. And truth is if my kid was murdering he'd be the lesser man.

However even if I had no such religious beliefs, I'd still have a moral and pragmatic obligation to others to do the same.
It's jest the way I am, and I consider it foolish self-indulgence and spiritually and pragmatically ridiculous to be otherwise. And as a leader of men, and a commander responsible for the protection of women and children, there is no way I'd ask others to endanger themselves for sake of my kid. I've told my own kids that numerous times. I love you immensely, but if you ever take to murder you're on your own and I better never have to track you down myself. Because you won't evade me.

But I wouldn't like it, and I would regret it. Hell yeah. Wouldn't stop me though, for everyone's own good. Including theirs.

Also another thing that really, really bothered me. Sending trained soldiers to make a cargo exchange but allowing an untrained girl to escort his captured son back - ALONE. Somebody really screwed that one up. If you're not gonna shoot on sight, then at least overwhelm and cripple so he's no danger to anyone else. A broken leg and a few broken fingers and even the girl could have hauled him in safe. If you're gonna go that route.

Yes, you're correct.

I think it was in the pilot episode, but after Taylor went back as the first person, they sent some sort of indestructible monument back there as a "sign post" that they would hopefully be able to find again 85 million years later in 2149. Or, maybe they sent the monument first. But, when they couldn't find it, they realized it was a different timeline/alternate reality.

When they initially found something in the Badlands as some sort of trophy, I had thought it was that original monument, but it was in another location. However, it turned out to be the prow of a ship circa the 1700s.

That's very interesting considering what they did find, and I didn't know it. Started seeing the show late.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

Yes, you're correct.

I think it was in the pilot episode, but after Taylor went back as the first person, they sent some sort of indestructible monument back there as a "sign post" that they would hopefully be able to find again 85 million years later in 2149. Or, maybe they sent the monument first. But, when they couldn't find it, they realized it was a different timeline/alternate reality.

When they initially found something in the Badlands as some sort of trophy, I had thought it was that original monument, but it was in another location. However, it turned out to be the prow of a ship circa the 1700s.

My personal theory is that there is more then one time hole. There are many, in different parts of the world. With the right set of circumstances these holes in time can be opened just like the first. So....working under that assumption, that means there is ANOTHER time vortex in the Badlands. Ok, but where does it lead that a ship from the 1700's would be there? The Bermuda Triangle. I think the other vortex links to the Triangle, and lightning could activate it....thus all the ships over the years disappearing.

That's my theory.