Warehouse 13 Forums

Syfy (ended 2014)

Official Discussion Thread: Time Will Tell (possible spoilers)

  • Avatar of kanniballl

    kanniballl

    [61]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 07/02/03
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,312

    nolefan32 wrote:
    Everyone making such a big deal over the H.G. Wells thing, from what I got, there were two H.G. Wellses: Herbert George, the writer, and his sister, Helena, the genius who gave him all the ideas to write about.


    Exactly.


    And from what I can tell, he *did* have 3 siblings but I'll be darned if I can find their names or if one of them was a sister.



    Then again, I doubt there was a sister with her name. Even in fiction, I'm sure that would rub someone the wrong way if their great-aunt was portrayed as a psycho villain. So to avoid law suits I'm sure the name is faked.


    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MOSTCAPABLEONE

    MOSTCAPABLEONE

    [63]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/14/05
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 1,477
    kanniballl wrote:

    nolefan32 wrote:
    Everyone making such a big deal over the H.G. Wells thing, from what I got, there were two H.G. Wellses: Herbert George, the writer, and his sister, Helena, the genius who gave him all the ideas to write about.


    Exactly.


    And from what I can tell, he *did* have 3 siblings but I'll be darned if I can find their names or if one of them was a sister.



    Then again, I doubt there was a sister with her name. Even in fiction, I'm sure that would rub someone the wrong way if their great-aunt was portrayed as a psycho villain. So to avoid law suits I'm sure the name is faked.




    Well for one thing, only a few people in here have a problem with HG Wells being a female. Also, in the show, HG Wells said that the author of the books was her brother Charlie (I guess validating your point about the name changing). Makes you think people in here never heard of a ghost writer. HG Wells was the youngest of four children but for some reason I could not find their names either...
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nolefan32

    nolefan32

    [64]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 393

    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    kanniballl wrote:


    nolefan32 wrote:
    Everyone making such a big deal over the H.G. Wells thing, from what I got, there were two H.G. Wellses: Herbert George, the writer, and his sister, Helena, the genius who gave him all the ideas to write about.


    Exactly.


    And from what I can tell, he *did* have 3 siblings but I'll be darned if I can find their names or if one of them was a sister.



    Then again, I doubt there was a sister with her name. Even in fiction, I'm sure that would rub someone the wrong way if their great-aunt was portrayed as a psycho villain. So to avoid law suits I'm sure the name is faked.



    Well for one thing, only a few people in here have a problem with HG Wells being a female. Also, in the show, HG Wells said that the author of the books was her brother Charlie (I guess validating your point about the name changing). Makes you think people in here never heard of a ghost writer. HG Wells was the youngest of four children but for some reason I could not find their names either...
    Actually, she said it was her brother George, as in Herbert George (the real H.G. Wells).

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MOSTCAPABLEONE

    MOSTCAPABLEONE

    [65]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/14/05
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 1,477
    nolefan32 wrote:

    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    kanniballl wrote:


    nolefan32 wrote:
    Everyone making such a big deal over the H.G. Wells thing, from what I got, there were two H.G. Wellses: Herbert George, the writer, and his sister, Helena, the genius who gave him all the ideas to write about.


    Exactly.


    And from what I can tell, he *did* have 3 siblings but I'll be darned if I can find their names or if one of them was a sister.



    Then again, I doubt there was a sister with her name. Even in fiction, I'm sure that would rub someone the wrong way if their great-aunt was portrayed as a psycho villain. So to avoid law suits I'm sure the name is faked.



    Well for one thing, only a few people in here have a problem with HG Wells being a female. Also, in the show, HG Wells said that the author of the books was her brother Charlie (I guess validating your point about the name changing). Makes you think people in here never heard of a ghost writer. HG Wells was the youngest of four children but for some reason I could not find their names either...
    Actually, she said it was her brother George, as in Herbert George (the real H.G. Wells).



    Watch it again. She said her brother Charles.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nolefan32

    nolefan32

    [66]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 393
    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    nolefan32 wrote:

    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    kanniballl wrote:


    nolefan32 wrote:
    Everyone making such a big deal over the H.G. Wells thing, from what I got, there were two H.G. Wellses: Herbert George, the writer, and his sister, Helena, the genius who gave him all the ideas to write about.


    Exactly.


    And from what I can tell, he *did* have 3 siblings but I'll be darned if I can find their names or if one of them was a sister.



    Then again, I doubt there was a sister with her name. Even in fiction, I'm sure that would rub someone the wrong way if their great-aunt was portrayed as a psycho villain. So to avoid law suits I'm sure the name is faked.



    Well for one thing, only a few people in here have a problem with HG Wells being a female. Also, in the show, HG Wells said that the author of the books was her brother Charlie (I guess validating your point about the name changing). Makes you think people in here never heard of a ghost writer. HG Wells was the youngest of four children but for some reason I could not find their names either...
    Actually, she said it was her brother George, as in Herbert George (the real H.G. Wells).



    Watch it again. She said her brother Charles.
    I'm at work so unfortunately re-watching it will have to wait until later. But a quick search on the Internet has several reputable review sites quoting this as the exact quote:

    "My brother George was the writer. I supplied the ideas, the research, the stories. He supplied the mustache."
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MOSTCAPABLEONE

    MOSTCAPABLEONE

    [67]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/14/05
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 1,477
    nolefan32 wrote:
    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    nolefan32 wrote:

    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    kanniballl wrote:


    nolefan32 wrote:
    Everyone making such a big deal over the H.G. Wells thing, from what I got, there were two H.G. Wellses: Herbert George, the writer, and his sister, Helena, the genius who gave him all the ideas to write about.


    Exactly.


    And from what I can tell, he *did* have 3 siblings but I'll be darned if I can find their names or if one of them was a sister.



    Then again, I doubt there was a sister with her name. Even in fiction, I'm sure that would rub someone the wrong way if their great-aunt was portrayed as a psycho villain. So to avoid law suits I'm sure the name is faked.



    Well for one thing, only a few people in here have a problem with HG Wells being a female. Also, in the show, HG Wells said that the author of the books was her brother Charlie (I guess validating your point about the name changing). Makes you think people in here never heard of a ghost writer. HG Wells was the youngest of four children but for some reason I could not find their names either...
    Actually, she said it was her brother George, as in Herbert George (the real H.G. Wells).



    Watch it again. She said her brother Charles.
    I'm at work so unfortunately re-watching it will have to wait until later. But a quick search on the Internet has several reputable review sites quoting this as the exact quote:

    "My brother George was the writer. I supplied the ideas, the research, the stories. He supplied the mustache."


    The Internet sources you have viewed are incorrect. Everything beyond the name being George is correct. I have just watched it three times again and she stated his name "Charles" twice. When you reach home, watch it again and you will see. To save you time, the dialogue takes place 33 minutes into the show during the scene where Pete and Myka are stuck to the ceiling.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of amaryllis88

    amaryllis88

    [68]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 10/01/08
    • level: 20
    • rank: Cow Bell
    • posts: 2,516

    kanniball wrote:
    It can be assumed Fredericks gave it to them. Then again, she is mysterious and possessed at least some artifacts in secret (the crystal necklace for example). So maybe it will come up again. Not everything has to be explicit.

    I'm not saying that I MUST have an explanation for what she chose to do with it. I merelywanted to knowwhat everybody else's opinions/thoughts were on that piece of the episode. Thank you for enlightening me with yours.
    I think she'll hold onto it for later use, like her crystal necklace that we didn't see into play until later on, and her "key" that she used for the Escher vault.

    Edited on 07/13/2010 11:17am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nolefan32

    nolefan32

    [69]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 393
    amaryllis88 wrote:

    kanniball wrote:
    It can be assumed Fredericks gave it to them. Then again, she is mysterious and possessed at least some artifacts in secret (the crystal necklace for example). So maybe it will come up again. Not everything has to be explicit.

    I'm not saying that I MUST have an explanation for what she chose to do with it. I merelywanted to knowwhat everybody else's opinions/thoughts were on that piece of the episode. Thank you for enlightening me with yours.
    I think she'll hold onto it for later use, like her crystal necklace that we didn't see into play until later on, and her "key" that she used for the Escher vault.

    The crystal necklace wasn't necessarily an artifact; not everything on the show is, even the things made up entirely for the show. Artifacts are those things which we don't the source or the full potential of the power, or which are so powerful we don't trust them falling into the wrong hands, hence they're tagged, bagged and put onto a shelf. The crystal necklace may be completely fictional, but within the world of this show, it's just a mineral that appears naturally and happens to have some pretty neat qualities.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nolefan32

    nolefan32

    [70]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 393
    I stand corrected - she does call her brother "Charles". Twice even. I could have sworn she said "George" when it aired last week - I recall even having to process it as to who "George" was and recall that H.G. is Herbert George.

    That name change I don't get. Why come up with a completely fictitious author, if "Charles", the one with the mustache, was indeed the writer, just not the genius inventor?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MOSTCAPABLEONE

    MOSTCAPABLEONE

    [71]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/14/05
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 1,477
    nolefan32 wrote:
    I stand corrected - she does call her brother "Charles". Twice even. I could have sworn she said "George" when it aired last week - I recall even having to process it as to who "George" was and recall that H.G. is Herbert George.

    That name change I don't get. Why come up with a completely fictitious author, if "Charles", the one with the mustache, was indeed the writer, just not the genius inventor?


    Perhaps not to denigrate HG Wells character or name by suggesting his stories and ideas came from a ghost writer.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nolefan32

    nolefan32

    [72]Jul 13, 2010
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 393
    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    nolefan32 wrote:
    I stand corrected - she does call her brother "Charles". Twice even. I could have sworn she said "George" when it aired last week - I recall even having to process it as to who "George" was and recall that H.G. is Herbert George.

    That name change I don't get. Why come up with a completely fictitious author, if "Charles", the one with the mustache, was indeed the writer, just not the genius inventor?


    Perhaps not to denigrate HG Wells character or name by suggesting his stories and ideas came from a ghost writer.
    I don't buy that. The photo that was displayed as she spoke of the mustache was definitely H.G. Wells (the same photo is on his Wikipedia profile). Not to mention they had no problem "denigrating" the name of Lewis Carroll by suggesting he had a hand in imprisoning a girl in a mirror for all eternity.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of MOSTCAPABLEONE

    MOSTCAPABLEONE

    [73]Jul 14, 2010
    • member since: 06/14/05
    • level: 13
    • rank: Regal Beagle
    • posts: 1,477
    nolefan32 wrote:
    MOSTCAPABLEONE wrote:
    nolefan32 wrote:
    I stand corrected - she does call her brother "Charles". Twice even. I could have sworn she said "George" when it aired last week - I recall even having to process it as to who "George" was and recall that H.G. is Herbert George.

    That name change I don't get. Why come up with a completely fictitious author, if "Charles", the one with the mustache, was indeed the writer, just not the genius inventor?


    Perhaps not to denigrate HG Wells character or name by suggesting his stories and ideas came from a ghost writer.
    I don't buy that. The photo that was displayed as she spoke of the mustache was definitely H.G. Wells (the same photo is on his Wikipedia profile). Not to mention they had no problem "denigrating" the name of Lewis Carroll by suggesting he had a hand in imprisoning a girl in a mirror for all eternity.


    I hear your point, but, I am saying maybe the writers didn't want to denigrate HG Wells name and character. Maybe after denigrating Lewis Carroll they took some heat and didn't want to make the same mistake so they altered the facts a little.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TankLike

    TankLike

    [74]Jul 15, 2010
    • member since: 05/21/10
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 102

    I really don't get what the whole discussion is about. Maybe it's because I'm from Germany and have no connection whatsoever with H-to-the-G Wells. But in SciFi I never thought twice about what the name of a character was or who he was intended to be. I mean seriously: They could tell me that Abe Lincoln (or Goethe to name someone famous and german ) was the inventor of creme cheese for all I care. As long as there are no inconsistencies IN the series (like they say that Lincoln died in 1930 and creme cheese was invented in 1956) I really don't care.
    And that has nothing to do with me not being American. I know that Lincoln died long before 1930. It's just that (in my understanding) the writers of SciFi can do whatever they want. They can create an alternate universe in which Lincoln could have lived 250 years to invent creme cheese in 1956. That's the beauty that comes with the Fi in SciFi. For the sake of the show I can swallow a lot of abstruse ideas

    Edited on 07/15/2010 2:16am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of kanniballl

    kanniballl

    [75]Jul 26, 2010
    • member since: 07/02/03
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,312

    TankLike wrote:


    I mean seriously: They could tell me that Abe Lincoln (or Goethe to name someone famous and german ) was the inventor of creme cheese for all I care. As long as there are no inconsistencies IN the series (like they say that Lincoln died in 1930 and creme cheese was invented in 1956) I really don't care.


    And that has nothing to do with me not being American. I know that Lincoln died long before 1930. It's just that (in my understanding) the writers of SciFi can do whatever they want. They can create an alternate universe in which Lincoln could have lived 250 years to invent creme cheese in 1956. That's the beauty that comes with the Fi in SciFi. For the sake of the show I can swallow a lot of abstruse ideas




    Exactly.


    It's fiction, and science fiction at that, so they can say whatever they want about the past. As you say, preferably as long as it doesn't contradict something they already established.


    People get too caught up in fiction and historical facts. I recall people screaming after "The Davinci Code" that pieces of fiction shouldn't change or make up facts about the past because it's not true. Umm, it's FICTION for a reason.


    - If someone wanted to write a story where the US Revolution failed at first and didn't leave Britain's control until the 1900's, so be it.


    - If they want to write a story where a certain carpenter from 2000+ years ago was a flippin' alien with psychic powers, go ahead.


    - If they wanted Abe Lincoln's wife to really be the person that invented peanut butter, then go ahead.


    Now, if they want to pass off fiction as a documentary and imply it's all true and nowhere mention it's fiction, that's bad. I recall an M Night Shamalan documentary thing on the SyFy channel a few years ago was promoted as a factual interview. And about 1/2 way in a bunch of weird stuff happened and it was apparent that it was a fictional piece. People flipped.

    Edited on 07/26/2010 8:35am
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nolefan32

    nolefan32

    [76]Jul 26, 2010
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 393

    kanniballl wrote:


    TankLike wrote:


    I mean seriously: They could tell me that Abe Lincoln (or Goethe to name someone famous and german ) was the inventor of creme cheese for all I care. As long as there are no inconsistencies IN the series (like they say that Lincoln died in 1930 and creme cheese was invented in 1956) I really don't care.


    And that has nothing to do with me not being American. I know that Lincoln died long before 1930. It's just that (in my understanding) the writers of SciFi can do whatever they want. They can create an alternate universe in which Lincoln could have lived 250 years to invent creme cheese in 1956. That's the beauty that comes with the Fi in SciFi. For the sake of the show I can swallow a lot of abstruse ideas




    Exactly.


    It's fiction, and science fiction at that, so they can say whatever they want about the past. As you say, preferably as long as it doesn't contradict something they already established.


    People get too caught up in fiction and historical facts. I recall people screaming after "The Davinci Code" that pieces of fiction shouldn't change or make up facts about the past because it's not true. Umm, it's FICTION for a reason.


    - If someone wanted to write a story where the US Revolution failed at first and didn't leave Britain's control until the 1900's, so be it.


    - If they want to write a story where a certain carpenter from 2000+ years ago was a flippin' alien with psychic powers, go ahead.


    - If they wanted Abe Lincoln's wife to really be the person that invented peanut butter, then go ahead.


    Now, if they want to pass off fiction as a documentary and imply it's all true and nowhere mention it's fiction, that's bad. I recall an M Night Shamalan documentary thing on the SyFy channel a few years ago was promoted as a factual interview. And about 1/2 way in a bunch of weird stuff happened and it was apparent that it was a fictional piece. People flipped.


    I would agree with this for the most part, though I do believe that since the shows are supposed to exist within the same reality we do (at least to a degree), then when they monkey with established history, especially history that is fairly well known, they need to at least make some sort of allusion to why the "truth" (in the construct of the fiction, that is) is different than what we've come to know. In other words, if you're going to have Lincoln living until the 1930s so that he can invent cream cheese, at least someone in the show has to acknowledge that most people think he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth a whole way long time before that. And granted, most sci-fi does that, quite neatly.


    Where the hoopla comes in regarding The Davinci Code, though, was Dan Brown's assertions that while the story itself was fiction, darn near everything else was fact, i.e., if he said that church had a basement, you can believe it had a basement, just whether or not it housed a historical record of Jesus' offspring is up for debate - though never mind the church in question doesn't have a basement after all. It was because of much of his assertions that people started to take The Davinci Code as fictionalized reality, kind of like James Cameron's Titanic, in that the Titanic really did sink and much of what's portrayed in the film did happen, but the romance and the necklace and all the other stuff were fiction. People started to think that The Davinci Code was real, that Jesus really did have a child, that the Roman Catholic Church really did dispatch the Knights Templar to keep it covered up, yadda yadda yadda, only the part about Tom Hanks being the one to uncover it all was fictional.


    Thus there's a huge difference here. With Warehouse 13, we know that the idea that H.G. Wells was actually two people, one of which was a rather pissed off feminist who's still alive and wreaking havoc, is all part of the fictional fun. Nobody behind the scenes at WH13 is trying to convince the world otherwise. If, for some reason, they were trying to tell us Alice was a really a homicidal maniac that Lewis Carroll managed to trap inside a mirror, then I could see all the Lewis Carroll aficionados crying foul (or in this case, all the H.G. Wells aficionados).

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of kanniballl

    kanniballl

    [77]Jul 27, 2010
    • member since: 07/02/03
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,312

    nolefan32 wrote:



    Where the hoopla comes in regarding The Davinci Code, though, was Dan Brown's assertions that while the story itself was fiction, darn near everything else was fact, i.e., if he said that church had a basement, you can believe it had a basement, just whether or not it housed a historical record of Jesus' offspring is up for debate - though never mind the church in question doesn't have a basement after all. It was because of much of his assertions that people started to take


    .....


    The Davinci Code as fictionalized reality


    ...




    Agreed, that was a common complain about Davinci Code.



    But I also recall reading about a group complaining that all Fiction should keep *everything* in the past completely accurate. I think it was a small splinter group of complainers but it had somehow made it into a large forum. I think it was one of the big news sites I visit, the news site wasn't saying it should happen but just reporting on that group's complaints. I think this was after the film aired.


    It was quite an odd read and I wish I had it bookmarked. It was an extreme response compared to other complaints about the book / film that I read.


    The way they worded it, it seemed it was about *all* fiction and *all* past events and that alternate history / alternate reality stories would violate their request/rules.


    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of nolefan32

    nolefan32

    [78]Jul 27, 2010
    • member since: 06/06/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 393

    kanniballl wrote:


    nolefan32 wrote:



    Where the hoopla comes in regarding The Davinci Code, though, was Dan Brown's assertions that while the story itself was fiction, darn near everything else was fact, i.e., if he said that church had a basement, you can believe it had a basement, just whether or not it housed a historical record of Jesus' offspring is up for debate - though never mind the church in question doesn't have a basement after all. It was because of much of his assertions that people started to take


    .....


    The Davinci Code as fictionalized reality


    ...




    Agreed, that was a common complain about Davinci Code.



    But I also recall reading about a group complaining that all Fiction should keep *everything* in the past completely accurate. I think it was a small splinter group of complainers but it had somehow made it into a large forum. I think it was one of the big news sites I visit, the news site wasn't saying it should happen but just reporting on that group's complaints. I think this was after the film aired.


    It was quite an odd read and I wish I had it bookmarked. It was an extreme response compared to other complaints about the book / film that I read.


    The way they worded it, it seemed it was about *all* fiction and *all* past events and that alternate history / alternate reality stories would violate their request/rules.



    There are extremists about everything. I'm a purist when it comes to driving - to me, I don't care how much better some of these new, high-tech transmissions may be, how well they may perform, if it doesn't have a clutch pedal, it's not a sports car. So I do get a degree of the purist mindset out there; I figure most of us have that thing we can be purists about.


    And I do get purists getting bent out of shape over Davinci Code. I didn't read the book, but I watched the movie and even then there was stuff being presented in such a way that it felt more like, as I said, fictionalized reality rather than pure fiction. So I could see people getting sucked in to thinking it could all really be true, well everything except for the albino assassin.


    But there just seems to be something different about the way that WH13 monkeys with history that it feels like complete hooey, that the concept of H.G. Wells being a woman is merely the product of a very fertile imagination. So that much, I do look a little crosseyed when people make a big deal about it, as I don't much see anyone accepting it as fact, the way they got sucked in to Davinci Code.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of lynna12000

    lynna12000

    [79]Jul 30, 2010
    • member since: 01/19/08
    • level: 21
    • rank: Snagglepuss
    • posts: 2,437
    Helen AND Chaarles could have written the books, and then blamed it on their brother. At that period in time, writing what is currently termed 'science fiction' was not considered a terribly socially acceptable occupation.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.