Conference rocks::uk_tv

    I watched it once, never again. It's extremely weak.
    
    Goldy.

    I wasn't going to be the first to say "I've watched it once, never
    again". :-)  I saw the one on Saturday.  The first half showed the
    crime and the second half showed the crime again but with a bit more
    detail (in case you didn't get it all the first time).  Seems like a
    clever way of spinning a half hour story out to an hour.  Kochanski, er
    I mean Chloe Annett is very nice though.
    
    /tmp

I like it, but then I like everything. Interesting to see Twelve Monkeys
type time travel ("Its already happened") handled so lightly. Every crime
*has* to be completely different to how it was initially perceived in order
for them to fail (or have failed) to prevent it, which will eventually become
tiring, but at the moment I think its OK. Like the Radio Times says, its the
Holy Grail of TV: The Cop Show No-One Has Done Before.

+Mark+

    
    I think it's pretty good, but who else thinks it's done a bit 'tongue
    in cheek' ? Some of the dialogue and acting is just a bit too over the
    top to be taken seriously.
    
    G

    >>Nearly up there with Bugs.
    
    Is that a compliment?
    
    
    Very tongue in cheek, which I understand was intentional. I spent the
    first episode watching for the locations used in Reading and after that I've
    not bothered. 
    
    Good of the Beeb to try something a little different on a Saturday
    night though. 
     
    
    
    				Stretch.

    
    re: -.1
    
    > Is that a compliment?
    
    Sure is. 
    
    I really do like these light 20:10 type progs that the Beeb put on.
    Beats the crap out of cak light Casualty.
    
    Chris D.
    
     

    Anything that is put on BBC1 at 20:10 on a Saturday night is, IMO, just
    a schedule filler and nowt to write home about.
    
    Goldy.

Of course its tongue-in-cheek. Its more like pantomime with every passing week.
What about last week's speech at the end from Morris saying Slade must have a
double and belongs to an organisation called "the Machine". Pure farce. 

I love it!

Simes %^)

    So what I want to know is, in the last episode when the bad guy was
    pointing the gun at David Wickes to stop him getting back to the time
    machine, why wasn't he already in the room preparing to travel back ?

Time Machines, even when they are not actively been used, must obey some
special rules as to whether time travellers can be seen/met in them: otherwise
every time Slade and Holly rush back to their machine, they would meet
themselves about to set off (seeing as how you have to reintegrate at the
moment you leave, so you can continue your life at the point you left off, 
without any injuries you didn't have at the time you travelled but inexplicably
*with* any betting slips you bought then). Presumably in order to avoid a Loop
of Infinity the time machines exhude some sort of variant-timestream aura ray
thing which is identical to the real world with the necessary excpetion that
no-one is ever in there when you visit.

+Mark+ (Who also makes sense of Quantum Leap)

    >>> variant-timestream aura ray thing
    
    That explains it then :-)
    
    Of course, this doesn't explain how, on Star Trek, when they hit a
    black hole and ended up back in the 1960s, then they beamed the pilot
    back into his aircraft at the exact point in time they took him in the
    first place, he didn't remember anything.
    
    Surely this means if Slade goes back two hours, when he gets there, he
    won't be able to remember why he went back ?    

    
    Ah, but that was using a black hole to do the time travelling rather
    than a mchine. I suspect that the rules of time-travel differ depending
    on the method used.... I mean, the De lorean had different rules than
    both the black hole and the 'Crime traveller' machine didn't it ?
    
    Graham 

    Maybe then this is why they can't go forward in time; if they stuck
    whats-her-name's machine on a truck and travelled at 65mph maybe they
    could go forwards as well (or sling-shot it around the sun at Warp Factor 
    10).
    
    However this doesn't explain how the Tardis works, or that thing
    Cheryl Lad and Chris Kristofferson backed airplanes through in
    "Millenium", both of which could be used to change the past as well.

re "Millenium"

But changing the past did cause time quakes thought didn't it.

Still a damn good film.


Simon

    
    From what I've seen and know about the subject  - I'll have to go along
    with Holly on Crime Traveller and her rules, 'specially since no one
    I know seems to have a clue on how the TARDIS "really" works.
    
    
    Chris D.
    
    (I know Millsie will differ on opinion to this one.)
    

    None of these tie into that Stephen King mini-series called The
    Gondoliers or something.  If you went to the past there all the nasty
    Gondoliers had eaten everything, houses, plants, the whole world, and
    just left gaseous clouds behind, which would make sense, you could get
    serious indigetion problems with what they were eating.
    
    /tmp

Wasn't it The Langoliers

    That sounds better, well I got most of the letters right :-)

	Of course in the original (H.G.Wells) Time Machine it was 
	possible to travel forward in time. As I remeber it, this was 
	achieved by rotating an umbrella at some rate. I never noticed
	this effect myself when spinning an old brolly but perhaps 
	it's a question of what material it's made of. Zanicordium 
	and dilythium crystal are both known to create an interaction
	with the space-time continuum, or ether, as we used to call it.

	Personally I'd be prepared to believe most everything that
	Holly might say and if she'd care to call round for an in-depth
	discussion of spatimion physics that'd be fine by me.
	
	-John

    Check out the above URL. Neat idea; start researching the possibility
    of developing a time machine, then hope someone from the future who
    already has one comes back to find out how it all started. (Then nick
    theirs, presumably).