SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Curious to hear what others are saying about this. I made a conscious effort to avoid it as I thought the movie did and said it all dramatically within a couple of hours and didn't need the trivial amplification of a weekly series where nothing much happens. Am I wrong? My daughter and son-in-law seem to think so.

I didn't know it existed. I guess it depends on what's done with it. Some would say the original short 'La Jetée' was enough, but if a new version can give something new, or to new people at least, then that's all good. Of course your question is about whether this series does that or not. The truth is that most serials are a lot of padded-out time wasting and simple tricks to keep you watching. I'll check it out when I can and maybe comment again. I see it's got a high rating from almost 1000 users on IMDB, but then to me that site's ratings are always inflated for mainstream fare.

I watched it last night, and for much of the pilot it was pretty much the same as the movie, up until the ending, which seemed to diverge a bit.

The acting was competent. The guy playing the part of Cole was better than Bruce Willis, the woman was a wash with Madeleine Stowe and there wasn't an equivalent of Brad Pitt's over-the-top craziness. I suspect the Pitt character will show up soon enough.

It was entertaining enough and moved right along, but so far I don't see the point of remaking it.

I haven't watched it... yet. I have heard good things though.


http://io9.com/only-a-time-traveler-c...

They've turned it into a less-thoughtful adventure show. But that's inevitable, I suppose.

The movie was tragic, given Cole's inability to change time. The series, of course, allows time to be changed so that the series has somewhere to go. Also, the movie took the philosophical aspects of time travel seriously, but the tv series just pays lip service.

It might be a decent adventure show... we'll see. But I suspect the "sci-fi" aspects will keep annoying/frustrating me.

My husband and I love the movie and we both enjoyed the first episode of the TV show. I'm not blown away or anything, but I'll definitely watch the next episode.

Then again, I've been dying to find good sci-fi that involves time travel. So, I really wanted to like it. There are so few decent sci-fi TV shows these days.

"...padded-out time wasting and simple tricks...". That's exactly what I'm afraid of, Mark.

Trike, better than Bruce Willis? C'mon!

Kathryn, I refer you to James' comments, below. Not sure who's likin' it, but it would drive me bonkers - just as I suspected.

"The movie was tragic, given Cole's inability to change time. The series, of course, allows time to be changed..." And there it is, James! Just as I suspected. Why turn a tragic, dark view of an inevitable future into something else, i.e. a hopeful view that all will be well?

Amen, Melissa.

Samuel wrote: ""The movie was tragic, given Cole's inability to change time. The series, of course, allows time to be changed..." And there it is, James! Just as I suspected. Why turn a tragic, dark view of an inevitable future into something else, i.e. a hopeful view that all will be well?"

Or it could be an even crueler fate by offering false hope. Yes, you can change the future by what you do in the past, but ultimately it doesn't matter. You can't stop the plague.

I rather doubt anything from Syfy will do something like that -- deep and dark -- but they're due for something good. It's been ages.

Trike wrote: "I suspect the Pitt character will show up soon enough"

The Pitt character showed up at the end. In female form, with a crazy look and drawing the 12 Monkeys emblem.

I thought it wasn't bad. The first episode was a re-imagining of the movie just to set up the series. But honestly, how can this story sustain a series. They can only bounce around in time for so long while looking for who started the plague. And time tavelers are never "out of time." :-p

The first "season" is only 6 episodes.

Neal wrote: "I thought it wasn't bad. The first episode was a re-imagining of the movie just to set up the series. But honestly, how can this story sustain a series. They can only bounce around in time for s..."

Well, 24 did 8 seasons and a movie to cover... 9 days of story.

But I agree that it's a fairly thin idea to base a multi-year series on. On The Mentalist they spent 5 1/2 years (!!!) tracking down and dealing with "Red John". And as much as I enjoy the series... that was 4 1/2 years too long, for that storyline.


The difference is that The Mentalist was able to do all kinds of other stories and only focus on Red John, from time to time. Whereas 12 Monkeys has a storyline that kind of demands focus, 24/7. And if he substantially changes time, there's no time machine to call him back and it stops being a sci-fi show and becomes a standard action/adventure... which is why that'll never happen.

Neal wrote: "I thought it wasn't bad. The first episode was a re-imagining of the movie just to set up the series. But honestly, how can this story sustain a series. They can only bounce around in time for s..."

I was thinking the same thing. If the series continues, they'll probably have to start creating their own ideas. Kind of like True Blood, if anyone ever watched that. Eventually, the plot was nothing like the books.

I've been reviewing ever episode of the 12 Monkeys TV series, and think it's excellent indeed http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2015... And that's saying a lot, since I think the movie is the best time travel movie ever made, and one of the best movies ever made, period.

If you squint, really tightly, you can pretend the series is making some kind of sense.

Cassandra's death causes Cole to get killed before making it to the hidden base and Ramse to become leader of the VII's. For the most part, that seems to be the sum total effect of her death. That makes sense.

I listed off, elsewhere, a few of the major weirdnesses of that episode.

I still want to like it, but I want it to earn it. If they're going to cannibalize one of the best time travel movies, then they need to earn my appreciation.

They have failed, so far.

But for anyone who pretty much enjoys all time travel shows, this is probably an okay one.

Sage Italian review of 12 Monkeys, w/ref to Stephen Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture http://www.telefilm-central.org/2015/...

I don't read Italian, but Hawking's conjecture is about the closest he has ever got to calling on a divine power, to make the bad thoughts go away.

Time travel gives the poor man the heebie-jeebies.

Looks like the ratings keep declining down to about 400,000 viewers, while their other time travel show, Continuum, holds steady around a million viewers.

I heard a former Friends writer say the show he worked on before that was canceled due to low viewership -- only 17 million viewers.

It's a different world.

James wrote: "I don't read Italian, but Hawking's conjecture is about the closest he has ever got to calling on a divine power, to make the bad thoughts go away.

Time travel gives the poor man the heebie-jeebies."

Google translates that page quite well :) As for Hawking, I don't see his conjecture as calling upon a divine power at all - it's rather positing a natural state of affairs, like antibodies attacking a disruptive influence to the system.

Trike wrote: "Looks like the ratings keep declining down to about 400,000 viewers, while their other time travel show, Continuum, holds steady around a million viewers...."

I started watching Continuum, and found it ok, but no comparison to 12 Monkeys.

Paul wrote: " As for Hawking, I don't see his conjecture as calling upon a divine power at all - it's rather positing a natural state of affairs, like antibodies attacking a disruptive influence to the system. "

It's not based on any need, in physics. In fact, the laws of physics, as we know them, allow for travel back in time.

Paradoxes give scientists the willies, but that's no justification for calling on magical stuff, like universal rules which have no basis in observation.

His noting a lack of temporal tourists doesn't even make sense, since how would he know that we're not being flooded with them?

Oogie-boogie stuff, to make cosmologists sleep at night.

Paul wrote: "I started watching Continuum, and found it ok, but no comparison to 12 Monkeys. "

I didn't get past the first episode, of Continuum.

James wrote: "Paul wrote: "I started watching Continuum, and found it ok, but no comparison to 12 Monkeys. "

I didn't get past the first episode, of Continuum."

I saw about 6 episodes - it gets a little better.

Trike wrote: "Looks like the ratings keep declining down to about 400,000 viewers, while their other time travel show, Continuum, holds steady around a million viewers.

I heard a former Friends writer say the s..."

Cable is dying. Lower ratings all around because of cable cutters.

I may be one of them soon. My latest bill had a $75 increase on it. Coming after a month of terrible service. It's getting ridiculous.

Tannera wrote: "12 Monkeys doesn't work for me. I barely sat through five minutes of an episode. Continuum was great the first two seasons. Season three jumped the shark. Upcoming season is the last."

I deep-sixed 12 Chimps after the latest episode. I've been trying hard to find a reason to keep going, but just couldn't. So bored with it, that I kept losing track of the plot (such as it is). Doing dishes was more interesting.

James wrote: "Paradoxes give scientists the willies, but that's no justification for calling on magical stuff, like universal rules which have no basis in observation."

Paradoxes give everyone the willies - as they should - because the represent the jagged edges and limits of our logic.

But I still don't see the CPC as "magical stuff" - it's a proposition, which, like time travel itself, remains to be decisively proven or disproven. But there's nothing in it that tries to avoid falsification or disproof.

Tannera wrote: "Al, I'm not pleased by most shows on Syfy right now. Perhaps I'm biased. I grew up on technology and military science fiction. With the Stargate and Battlestar Galactica series long over, not much ..."

I suspect that the really good shows cost too much to produce. TV viewership -- especially cable -- seems to be falling off, so the stations can't charge as much for advertising. That in turn lowers the budgets for shows. Special effects have gotten cheaper, but apparently can't make up for higher actor salaries, higher union wages, and falling revenues. Soooo, they end up shooting plots that require a minimum of special effects, which leaves those of us who like REAL science fiction out in the cold.

And the new plots seem to suck as well (witness "Last Man on Earth").

Yep! And cost is what killed Eureka, one of the better shows that SyFy produced. Huge and loyal following, but too expensive. A shame.

These days I get most of my SciFi entertainment from books (like I did when younger -- before Kubrick started the special effects revolution in "2001 A Space Odyssey". No more "space ships" sliding along on a wire with smoke trailing out of the rear).

Paul wrote: "But there's nothing in it that tries to avoid falsification or disproof. "

Is there anything in it that can be tested, at all? Ever? If memory serves, it basically says, "nature won't allow that... because."

Yes - if we're ever able to send something through a proper wormhole, the chronology protection conjecture can be tested.

Paul wrote: "Yes - if we're ever able to send something through a proper wormhole, the chronology protection conjecture can be tested."

Actually, no. There's no mechanism put forward, that would prevent time travel to the past. With no mechanism, no explanation, there is nothing to test.

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that time travel is impossible. You can only prove that one test failed. Then another. Another. That may simply mean that you are doing it wrong.

As I said, it's oogie-boogie stuff, designed to make the paradoxes go away.

James wrote: "As I said, it's oogie-boogie stuff, designed to make the paradoxes go away. "

Actually, in recognition of the insurmountable paradoxes, not designed to make them go away.

And I already gave you a hypothetical example of how it could be disproven, which makes it scientific in structure.

Paul wrote: "Actually, in recognition of the insurmountable paradoxes, not designed to make them go away."

The theory prevents paradoxes from ever occurring. It makes them go away.

Paul wrote: "And I already gave you a hypothetical example of how it could be disproven, which makes it scientific in structure. "

Sorry, yes, you did. It can be disproven.

But there is still no mechanism. My saying that Dracula is standing behind you is not a reasonable assertion, simply because you can disprove it, by turning around The point is that I have no basis for suggesting that Dracula is standing behind you, not that it is testable.

You can't verify the theory as true, since it specifies a negative and offers no mechanism or real reasoning. In fact, you can never, ever, test this in a way that would prove it true. Even if it is true. And the reason is: there's no actual theory, just a belief.

Paul wrote: "And I already gave you a hypothetical example of how it could be disproven, which makes it scientific in structure. "

One take-away?

If you can never, with all the science and magic in the world, prove it to be true (even once), then it's not really a scientific theory. And you can't prove it true, without a mechanism to test.

As best I remember the theory, anyway.

Lost interest with the Haiti outbreak (?) episode. Having the main character sleep with a random person for absolutely no reason related to plot or storytelling was an eye roller.

Ignored it for awhile while the DVR picked up episodes, but deleted them all last night knowing I'd never watch them. Oh well.

It seems that the series is action-oriented and less thought-provoking than the movie. I guess it's intended for younger audiences with shorter attention spans?

I've seen the movie over 10 times and never got sick of it. My interest in the series dwindled after each episode, and completely lost it at episode 4 or 5.

I NEED to start watching this. I NEED to make time.!!.

Binny wrote: "I NEED to start watching this. I NEED to make time.!!."

As long as you can watch it as mindless sci-fi adventure. If you are a big fan of the movie, the series falls massively flat.

Noted. Thank you. I will watch with an open mind and hope it doesn't disappoint.!.