‘Timeless’ episode 10 (fall finale) review: Did Lucy, Garcia Flynn stop Rittenhouse once and for all?
Tonight, “Timeless” began its fall finale with a brief glimpse into Benedict Arnold, known by many to be one of the biggest traitors in the history of the country. However, we didn’t stay there for very long before jumping back to the future.
Instead, we spent a little bit of time before hopping in the time machine getting some personal updates. We got see Agent Christopher’s wife for the first time! She invited Lucy over for dinner, and in the process the two shared some perspective on what she is going through in terms of her mother and her sister. Meanwhile, apparently Rufus has the same ideas as we do about how to spend his free time: Playing PS4 games! Unfortunately, he and Jiya were interrupted by Connor Mason turning up, and demanding that he either record the next mission properly for Rittenhouse or face the consequences.
This brings us back to yet another somewhat-loosely-threaded journey through time, and back to the age of the American Revolution — where things started to get weird. Lucy, Rufus, and Wyatt ran into Garcia Flynn, and at the same time, the same goes for George Washington. They were ordered by the future First President to go and find Arnold (as Flynn, using the alter ego of a Russian spy, told him of the traitor’s intention) and bring him to justice.
Flynn’s proposition – When they were alone, the team started to become aware of his true intentions and plans. He wanted to destroy Rittenhouse once and fore all, and had an opportunity to do so thanks to what happened in last week’s “Bonnie & Clyde” episode with the key. If they helped him catch Arnold and destroy the covert organization once and for all, he’d stop his journeys through time, given them the proper Mothership, and even tell Wyatt who was responsible for killing his wife. Sweet deal, no? Pretty sweet stakes, if nothing else, for the remainder of the episode. We wonder why Flynn just didn’t do this sooner to make matters easier on himself.
Eventually, the team opted to take him up on the offer — possibly realizing that they really did not have a better choice but to go ahead and go along with their former adversary. They eventually found Arnold after attempting to defect to the British, and from there proceeded to question him about Rittenhouse. As it turns out, this organization is older than the country!
Who is Rittenhouse? – As it turns out, we’re so far back in the past now where Rittenhouse as actually a person. David Rittenhouse is his name, and at this point our heroes faced their ultimate ethical dilemma: If they stop him, they change history. Maybe it’s for the better, or maybe it’s for the worst. It’s an enormous risk.
If you were ever looking for a story that humanized Flynn, this story was it. The best performance of Goran Visnjic’s entire time on the show came in his conversation here with Lucy, where he claimed that once he stopped Rittenhouse, he would only see his family for a brief moment before leaving them behind. He realized that he changed from the man he once was, and he couldn’t bring that sort of monster into their world. It was a sacrifice he was willing to make, and a heartbreaking one.
Meeting the man – Well, this was uncomfortable. When we finally made it to meeting the guy, he was every bit as horrible as he imagined. He was sexist, offensive, and unfortunately for the team, incredibly crafty. While they were able to dupe many people in their travels, the same could not be said for Rittenhouse. He intended to torment and have his way with the three plus Flynn, and were it not for Rufus (who was left outside) striking back, they may have been completely hopeless.
You know who is hopeless? Benedict Arnold. Rittenhouse didn’t buy his explanation of not know what he was getting himself into, and with that, he proceeded to fire several bullets into his chest. So much for keeping history the same, right? Rufus burst in and saved everyone, but as Flynn raised his gun to take Rittenhouse down once and for all, he proclaimed that the organization would outlive him and remain powerful, making the team’s mission null and void.
Garcia killing him, but then the team quickly regretted working for him for so long. He wanted to kill Rittenhouse’s young boy, feeling as though he would be the keeper of secrets that would keep everything in present day the same. This is where Lucy stepped in with a fairly compelling argument: Just because the boy believed the same thing that his father did not didn’t mean that he always would, and he could change. Too bad Flynn didn’t listen.
Your cliffhanger – An angry Flynn took Lucy aboard the Mothership, and that’s all we got. Talk about a tease!
As a whole, we’d say that the fall finale provided a lot of compelling drama, even if it didn’t really touch on many issues in the present and we have no idea where Flynn is taking her. While we wish there were even more reveals, we’d still say that this was an enormously entertaining end to the season — for now. Grade: B+.
Next time – We speculate on the return of “Timeless” to the air and so much more over at the link here. (Photo: NBC.)
December 13, 2016 @ 4:13 am
Agent Christopher has a “wife”?…makes me less sorry I missed the beginning,I hate that every show seems compelled to kowtow to “LGBT representation”.
Note that David Rittenhouse was a real person,presumably not much like this fictive villain.
The first big history change tonight was killing Cornwallis,who Lucy mentioned negotiated with Napoleon but more pertinently lost a major battle of the Revolutionary War in 1781,now perhaps a more effective general would get that job.But they didn’t show us just what these deaths did to change history in order to give us the Lucy-missing cliffhanger.
December 14, 2016 @ 3:50 pm
Agent Christopher having a wife is presented as incidentally as can be. If the mere presence of an LGBT character in the show upsets you, you might want to reexamine why that is.
December 14, 2016 @ 7:44 pm
The treatment of same-sex sexual relationships as acceptable upsets me.
If you are desensitized to the sociopathic nature of such practices,you may be frightened of reexamining why that is.
December 16, 2016 @ 2:46 pm
By all means, explain why you see it to be sociopathic.
December 16, 2016 @ 6:26 pm
That a species is sexually dimorphic determines that opposite-sex sexual relationships are the only logically justifiable kind for that species and all failures to adhere to that norm to be deplorable.
Willful persistence in behaviors that ought not to exist at all damages the social fabric in the service of disordered desires.We may never achieve the necessarily ideal state of 100% of the sexual relationships in the species being opposite-sex,but there can never be an excuse for working against that goal.
(Note that the simple fact of the relationship/act being opposite-sex is far more important than reproductive intent or capacity,just as it is a bottom-line criticality for archers to fire at least in the general direction of the target rather than at their fellow archers,whether or not they ever hit bullseyes.I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue).
December 16, 2016 @ 9:14 pm
I challenge your assertion that relationships and acts not directed towards reproduction are morally wrong. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe you are arguing that such relationships are a threat to the continuation of the species?
December 16, 2016 @ 10:16 pm
You appear to have completely ignored my point.
It is NOT that a sexual relationship or act be directed toward reproduction,but that it be between persons of opposite sexes,
that is the imperative.Reproduction is only a secondary consequence
best left to itself within that overarching context.
Both requiring reproductive intent or capacity and accepting same-sex partners are irrational polar extremes,the one insanely restrictive and the other insanely permissive.
December 16, 2016 @ 10:35 pm
That is why I asked clarification, so that I didnt waste effort attempting to refute a point you weren’t actually attempting to make.
In that case, I must ask you to explain the rationale behind your proposed imperative. What are the negative consequences you see for disregarding it?
December 16, 2016 @ 10:41 pm
It’s a total defiance of the logic equally imposed on every last one of us by the existence of 2 sexes.A deliberate departure from a necessarily universally ideal state.The demand to treat right and wrong as equal harms us all.
December 17, 2016 @ 4:33 am
I’m not following. On what basis do you claim opposite-sex pairs as a necessarily universally ideal state?
December 17, 2016 @ 5:03 am
Quite simply,if one sex were good enough we would never have evolved two…they exist for each other rather than for themselves.
To deny this necessary implication of two sexes existing in the selfish service of disordered desires is an outrage.
December 17, 2016 @ 5:07 pm
Sexual reproduction evolved because it allows for recombination of genetic traits on a large scale, making it more likely that some subset of the offspring is well adapted to the environment compared to asexual reproduction. Its quite a leap to derive moral imperatives from that fact.
December 17, 2016 @ 6:30 pm
Telling yourself an inseparable implication is “quite a leap” is profoundly unperceptive.
December 17, 2016 @ 7:09 pm
Then please explain to me, what is the link I am missing between “sexual reproduction evolved because it is evolutionarily advantageous over asexual reproduction” and “same-sex relationships are morally wrong”?
To me, morality is the measure of how something impacts the well being of society, the people who make it up, and the world they live in. For something to be immoral then, there must be some negative consequences to it.
December 18, 2016 @ 12:14 am
That the species has two sexes defines the well-being of society as harmed by the percentage of sexual relationships in the society that are opposite-sex falling short of 100% to any degree whatsoever.The existence of any same-sex sexual relationship constitutes a negative.
December 18, 2016 @ 1:43 am
How is it a negative though? In what measurable way is society harmed?
December 18, 2016 @ 4:31 am
The extent to which the percentage of sexual relationships that are opposite-sex falls short of 100% is a measure of how society is harmed.(So is the number of people blinded to the intrinsic wrongness of sexual relationships failing to be opposite-sex).
December 18, 2016 @ 5:25 am
Yes, you said that already. You have yet to explain how it is actually harmful.
December 18, 2016 @ 5:35 am
I have explicitly explained that it is BY DEFINITION harmful,that its being what it is is what is harmful about it.(Denial of being harmed is both symptom and proof of the harm caused).
The species having two sexes defines an unharmed society as having absolutely no same-sex sexual relationships.
December 18, 2016 @ 5:57 am
You are arguing circular logic here. I am trying my best to understand your position but you aren’t giving me anything to work with.
December 18, 2016 @ 6:07 am
I am making statements of fact to which you respond with bald denial.
You do not want to understand my position because you have a preconceived loyalty to contrary premises.
December 18, 2016 @ 7:06 am
Your statement is “It is harmful because it is harmful”. In what way would the world be better if there were no same-sex couples, by some measure other than the tautological “It is a good thing to maximize the percentage of opposite-sex couples, because it is a good thing to do so”
December 18, 2016 @ 11:49 pm
The statement is not “same-sex coupling is harmful because it is harmful”,but “same-sex coupling is harmful because it is same-sex”.
That the species has two sexes means that only opposite-sex coupling can make sense.Think of the sexes as analogous to the poles of a battery or magnet.
December 19, 2016 @ 12:01 am
You are asking me to accept your conclusion as the premise. What is the train of reasoning between “the species has two sexes” and “only opposite-sex coupling can makes sense”?
December 19, 2016 @ 12:08 am
You’re asking for a self-evident fact to be treated as dubious.
That the species has two sexes AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINES that only opposite-sex coupling makes sense,and any attempt to justify same-sex coupling to be ridiculous.That one can contrive to deny a fact in no way makes it any less of a fact.
As I said before,the sexes exist for each other and if one were good enough we would never have evolved two.
December 19, 2016 @ 12:11 am
Right, let’s try a different approach since this one is clearly getting us nowhere.
What is your definition of morality? What are the fundemental measures of what makes something moral or immoral?