Talk:The Time Tunnel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Time Tunnel article.

Article policies
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents


[edit] Krakatoa Footage

Actually, footage from "Krakatoa, East of Java" was NOT used in "The Time Tunnel" episode "The Crack of Doom"- since that movie came out in 1969, two years after "TT" was cancelled. For once, the writers did do some decent research and got their geography right, but not the actual events of the eruption, since the islands had lost their vegetation by late July, and the entire area was blacked out from afternoon of the 26th. From that time until the explosions on the morning of the 27th, there would have been NO doubt that something major was going on, and it would be best to leave the entire vicinity. One interesting point, whoever did the opening teaser (where you see a long shot of a volcano just before Tony and Doug land) animated the May photograph of Perbowatan erupting. It's a very well-done bit.

source- Krakatoa, by Rubert Furneaux (1964)- for both the eruption sequence and the May photo; also the episode's title is a chapter title from the book CFLeon 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Time Tunnel comics

I seem to remember seeing a few Time Tunnel comics in the late 1960s.

How many such comics were produced? Are they collectable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.21 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 February 2006

Good question. Mile High Comics shows that Gold Key published two issues, at least ([1]). Luis Dantas 14:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities to Stargate SG-1??

In 2002 Fox showed interest in remaking this series...A pilot episode...was filmed but later turned down due to similarities to Stargate SG-1.

Stargate SG-1? I would have thought that a revival would be shot down for its similarity to Quantum Leap, which handled the same concept much better and for much longer. How on earth would a TT revival have been similar to Stargate SG-1? Can we get a citation to support this statement? This does not sound right. Canonblack 02:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1 also is set on a top-secret millitary base and also involves traveling through a portal. That may not sound like much, but it would give a strickingly similar milieu. Plus, as of 2002, Quantum Leap had not been in production for almost ten years. 67.171.163.212 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The unaired 2002 Time Tunnel pilot is contained on the second volume of the Time Tunnell DVD release. After watching it, you can see where someone would think it is similar to Stargate. The time tunnel base is underground, the team consists of four members (after one dies) and they go through a portal/tunnel on missions. Unlike the original, the cast are not lost in time. It was fun to watch and a shame it didn't go anywhere. Although there was one serious plot problem, the main character Doug Phillips gains a family due to a time malfunction and every time he goes back in time he may lose his family - he therefore has no real incentive to fix the time malfunction.

Doug got his family because of the incident of the "240". They apparently can't fix what happenned in the "240" because they didn't have one end of the time storm anchored at the time. Now that they have it anchored, they can fix the problems caused by the time storm. Doug has an incentive to fix the problem so that he can keep the family that he got as a result of the "240". Val42 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin Allen's Re-use of Costumes and Props

Certain episodes featured aliens who wore costumes and carried props originally created for other Irwin Allen television and movie productions. Prop sets were similarly re-used... Yes, that's Irwin Allen for you. His aliens from the Khartoum episode also appeared briefly in an episode of Lost in Space involving the intergalactic con man, Farnum. In fact, I can't think of any show that Irwin Allen ever did, that did not involve some kind of re-use of costumes, props, or sets. That's one reason why Irwin Allen will always be the King of Schlock to me. --Temlakos 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 60 min?

Were the episodes actually 60 minutes long, or has someone included commercials in the running time? Arctic Gnome 16:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Episodes were about 52 minutes long, add 8 minutes of commercials to make an hour of "programming". Nowadays in the US, I think there are about 8 minutes per half hour! I remember watching the Disney show on Sunday evenings in the 60s and there would actually be an intermission, or snack break,.. ahh, the old days. Heywood Kirk is listed as an actor under the sidebar picture, he is actually the "General" character played by Whit Bissel, so that name ought to be removed. maynardjr 15 July 2006

[edit] Murray Leinster?

A loosely based novelization was written by Murray Leinster

I just finished reading an old paperback copy of Murray Leinster's "Time Tunnel" (no "The"), which was first printed by Pyramid Books in 1964. Apart from the name, it shared very little with the TV series but undoubtedly was the inspiration for it. (Apparently Leinster also wrote several novelizations based on the television show as well.) [22:15, 30 July 2006 69.196.216.26]

I subsequently added text regarding this question. Wasted Time R 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The juvenile novel "Tunnel Through Time" was written by Lester del Rey, not Murray Leinster. Here are a couple of external references: [2] [3] JohnC 02:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on the nature of the Tunnel's "malfunction"

"But the time machine was not built to handle two people travelling in time; it malfunctions, making Newman and Phillips' return impossible until repairs are effected."

I just watched the pilot episode and this is incorrect. The problem had nothing to do with there being two travellers; the system was still being developed and a method for return -- even of the test animals sent off to times unknown prior to the events of the pilot -- had simply not yet been devised. (Mark Hayes) [08:15, 4 January 2007 68.122.71.188]

Yes, I always thought this was wrong too ... have corrected the article. Wasted Time R 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Tunnel (2002)

I watched the 2002 pilot for the Time Tunnel today. I think that there is enough information for this to have its own article. If no one objects within the next few days, I'll split it off. Val42 06:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it for almost a week, I think that this wouldn't be a good idea. While there is enough information for said article, I don't think that it would meet "notability guidelines" because it was an unbroadcast pilot. I'll just expand said section in this article. But this decision now doesn't preclude me changing my mind. Val42 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Always historical

This sentence, "Tony and Doug's random placement in time always landed them right before an event ...", isn't correct. After reviewing the episodes (now that I've made the summaries), I found that End Of The World, Secret Weapon, Visitors From Beyond The Stars, The Ghost Of Nero, Pirates Of Deadman's Island, Chase Through Time, The Kidnappers and Town Of Terror do not deal with a major historical event, and Devil's Island, Reign of Terror, Billy The Kid are borderline. I know that "historical event" isn't what is used in the above sentence, but it is heavily implied. Val42 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting article

On my talk page, an editor suggested that the episode grid be split off into its own article, each episode be split off into its own article and he could add an episode screen shot to the table. I thought that this discussion would best take place on this talk page. Since there was only one season, I think that the episode list and summary should remain on the article page. I'd like The Time Tunnel to eventually reach the point where each episode could be on their own pages but it is far from that now. I think that we should expand the episodes in place then, when they get big enough, they can be split off into their own articles. However, adding the episode screen shot is an excellent idea; go ahead and do it. Val42 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Let's include all the info we can, but keep the whole thing on one page.TechnoFaye Kane 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree also, I would suggest placing the LOE on a "List of" page however, generally speaking most LOEs are kept separate from the parent article. Matthew 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1968

Should it be noted that while this show was set in 1968 it was shown in 66-67? Or is that a typo? After watching the pilot, it caught my ear that Tony said he was from 1968.

[edit] Art of War

"Note: In this episode, Machiavelli says that he is working on his book, The Art of War. But that book was written by Sun Tzu. Machiavelli's famous work is called Il Principe (The Prince). "

In fact, there IS a book from Machiavelli called "Dell'arte della guerra (The Art of War, 1519-1520)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War_%28Machiavelli%29

Zwargh 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, please make this change then. Val42 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2007 series dead?

Since there are no further mentions, is it safe to assume the 2007 series mentioned is dead? Nuts. --John Kenneth Fisher 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. (looks at the date) --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

I would like to suggest that a see also section be created. The section would include Time Tunnel episode and Time Tunnel Remakes. The remakes that I am refering to are from 2002 and 2007 as well as all the information gathered on them. Splitting both sections off into other articles would cut this long article in half. Both articles would still be easy to access through the see also section.-User Samdeham-07-03-07