MovieChat Forums > 36 Hours (1965) Discussion > Ludicrous Comment by General Allison

Ludicrous Comment by General Allison

posted 15 years ago by nvasapper
37 replies | jump to latest

When Pike, General Allison and the British officer are at staff headquarters in London discussing his imminent trip to Portugal, Pike expresses concern that since he knows all the details of the planned invasion, he would be someone whom the Germans would want to get their hands on very much. General Allison dismisses this by stating that the Germans have not violated Portuguese neutrality up to that point and there's no reason to think that they would. Is he kidding? Like the Germans wouldn't do whatever they had to in order to learn when and where the invasion would take place.

[–] hobnob53 15 years ago

You're right -- that was a stupid comment. Not violate the country's neutrality? Um, did the general ever hear of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg -- even the United States? Pretty absurd.

In 1943 the Luftwaffe shot down an unarmed civilian airliner flying from Lisbon to London because they thought Winston Churchill was on it. He wasn't, of course -- but Leslie Howard, on a mission for the British government, was. It's thought the plane was targeted because Howard had an aide who from a distance bore a remarkable resemblance to Churchill. The belief is German agents at the Lisbon airport spotted this guy from afar and believed it was WC. But even though the plane was British, it was a civilian airliner, and may have had Portugese or other neutrals on board. They didn't mind violating the rights of neutrals there, and besides, like the Allies, they operated spy rings out of Portugal, whose neutrality (like Sweden's) was useful to the Germans...and a clear violation of neutrality.

[–] nvasapper 15 years ago

Thanks for the background on that airliner shootdown. I remember my Dad telling me a long time ago that the actor Leslie Howard was killed when the plane he was flying in crashed during the war. But he didn't mention to me anything about it being a Luftwaffe attack. He may not have been aware of that or else I'm sure he would have referenced it. So thanks for filling in the blanks! As well as for your gracious comment on my post. :-)

[–] hobnob53 15 years ago

And thank you back. Always great exchanging views with interesting and informed people around here, like yourself, nvasapper.

I'm certain General Allison would concur. He's a very obliging fellow.

[–] tmf_scipio 15 years ago

I thought Howard looked like Montgomery, not Churchill, but I could be wrong.

"Whenever Mrs. Kissell breaks wind, we beat the dog."

[–] hobnob53 15 years ago

No, you misread the earlier post: it wasn't Howard who looked like Churchill (far from it), it was his friend and aide, whose name I don't recall. This guy looked a lot like Churchill in face and build, especially from a distance, where he could easily have been mistaken for the British PM. I've seen a couple of photos of him, and Nazi agents, looking on from afar, might well have thought that it was W.C.

I don't think Howard looked like Montgomery (though closer than any resemblance to Churchill, that's for sure), but there was a British actor named Clifton James who was such a dead ringer for Montgomery that he was used by the British government throughout the war to impersonate Monty and fool the Germans, very successfully. James later retold the story in the book I Was Monty's Double, which was made into a very good film in Britain in 1958, with James reprising his real-life role as himself-as-Montgomery.

[–] Argyll12 15 years ago

The idea that the Luftwaffe thought Churchill was on Howard's plane has been completely discredited.

Aside from the silliness of assuming Churchill would be traveling alone aboard an unescorted and unarmed civilian airliner, there's evidence that the Germans either shot it down accidentally or were targeting Howard.

[–] hobnob53 15 years ago

It does sound ridiculous to believe that Churchill would be traveling aboard an unarmed, unescorted civilian aircraft. Still, how has this idea been discredited? I mean, is there some definitive evidence that the Germans knew the PM wasn't on that plane?

Aside from that, why would they have sent several fighters to kill Leslie Howard? What would have been the point of that -- he wasn't a major agent or spy for the British, though he did work for MI5. It also seems a waste of time to commit several aircraft to such a mission, with the other tasks the Germans were facing. You may be right, but where's the proof? This sounds more like speculation. (And since the fighters quite deliberately went after the aircraft, the notion that this was an accident is ridiculous...unless they were so incompetent that they mistook it for a military plane. Again, any proof?)

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Replying to myself, and temporarily changing the thread title, here's some more information regarding our discussion on the shooting down of actor Leslie Howard....

I just caught an episode of the History Channel program Vanishings concerning the circumstances of Howard's loss, and here's the gist of that program. Howard was touring Iberia (both Spain and Portugal) on a mission from the British government, ostensibly to persuade those countries to start showing British films, including anti-German ones, in their cinemas. In this Howard was apparently successful (while he was still in Portugal they began running his 1942 film Spitfire -- US title The First of the Few -- starring Howard himself as the inventor of the Spitfire fighter; it would be the last film in which Howard ever appeared).

Soon after, he departed Lisbon on a KLM (Dutch) civilian airliner for the flight back to London. About halfway through the flight the plane was intercepted by a squadron of German Junker bombers over the Bay of Biscay, which shot the unarmed plane down, killing everyone aboard.

While the program presented such facts as are known, some doubt and mystery remain. Howard was apparently reluctant to undertake the trip, and there remains speculation that his mission involved more than simply trying to get these two fascist nations to start showing British films again. It's claimed that Josef Goebbels was furious at the success Howard had in that regard, as Germany had expended a lot of effort to have anti-Axis films (or any films from Allied nations) shown in Spain and Portugal, and that this may have triggered a decision to shoot down Howard's plane.

It is also true that Howard's aide, Alfred Chenhalls -- the man who looked like Churchill from afar -- was with him, and it's still speculated that someone at the Lisbon airport reported that the Prime Minister was aboard that flight...though Churchill himself said afterward that the Germans would have to have been extremely stupid to believe that he would be flying on an unarmed airplane, unaccompanied by any escort craft. The German flyers who shot down the plane said after the war that they had no idea that the plane they were attacking was a civilian aircraft, let alone that Howard was aboard it.

But none of these accounts or speculation has been absolutely verified. It may just be that the plane ran into this squadron, which was apparently low on fuel and within minutes of having to return to their base in Bordeaux, by unhappy chance, and that the Germans simply attacked without regard to (or bothering to find out about) its civilian status. (It was a Dutch airliner, and the Netherlands was under German occupation, so in that sense it was an enemy aircraft as far as the Germans were concerned.) But the program itself reached no definite conclusions, stating only that the shooting down of the plane carrying Leslie Howard and a dozen or so others remains shrouded in some mystery.

For what it's worth, there's some more information. I guess we should probably steer this thread back to 36 Hours sometime soon, but this diversion has been interesting, and not entirely off-topic.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 13 years ago

I recently acquired VHS copy of 36 hrs from a library sale for $1 and have been playing it quite a bit.
I thought it seemed a little reckless when Gen. Allison stated about Germany not violating Portugal's neutrality, but the general also said that Maj. Pike (James Garner) had been making regular, diplomatic trips to Lisbon, so suddenly quitting these trips could enhance suspicions. Pike also stated that his Lisbon contact would only speak to him.
I guess this could be viewed an an inherit risk that goes with the territory.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

(Back to the original thread title, as promised two years ago!)

Fear of Pike's absence arousing suspicion was used as a rationale for Pike's trip. But as the Germans had him pegged for kidnapping anyway, they might have been able to grab him in England if need be. Either way, in real life, no one with foreknowledge of D-Day was allowed out of Britain for months prior to the invasion, so the plot point is unrealistic anyway.

BTW, why did you buy the VHS (even at a $1 bargain)? The tape wasn't in widescreen, and you miss a lot by not seeing the film framed in its original 2.35:1 aspect ratio, as it is on the DVD -- not to mention the latter's superior sound and picture quality.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 13 years ago

Hi hobnob53,

From what I can determine, Pike (James Garner) was some type of courier and his Lisbon contact would only speak to him so, like was said in the movie, an exception may have been made to the tight security about anyone leaving Britain.
The reason I bought the VHS version is that I'm retired and on a fairly tight budget. Also, the DVD part of my VHS/DVD combo is down, so I'm relying on the VHS format for now. I hope to replace my old VHS/DVD unit with a new one within the next several months.
I'm relying on Movies Unlimited for a lot of my DVD purchases. You've probably heard of them. I've had pretty good luck with this outfit.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Hi lrcdmnhd,

No, you've got the plot contrivance for sending Pike to Lisbon right. It's just that in real life that just wouldn't have happened...which is why, in that context, having him kidnapped from Britain might have been a more realistic (if in reality much tougher to pull off) way to get hold of him.

I've been an MU customer for years, in fact just ordered something from them tonight. But you have to pick and choose what you purchase from them. MU is by far the most expensive outfit around, and though currently they often offer free economy shipping (which is fine), usually their s&h costs are very high as well. Their price reductions are normally still much more expensive than other outlets' prices, like Amazon, or Deep Discount or DVD Planet, whose shipping is always free to boot. But MU's basic prices are almost always higher, sometimes by $5, $8 or $10 -- and as much as $30 or $40 in big sets -- as most other places'. Many times their "normal" price is actually higher than the manufacturer's price, which MU then "reduces" to the SRP. (Currently they've got Warner Archive titles "on sale" for $19.99, which is the standard price for the discs at Warners itself; MU, like many other outlets, prices them standardly at $29.99, $10 more than they cost if ordered direct from WA.) They do carry more titles, and if you look judiciously you can sometimes get things cheaper from them than others, as I did tonight. But do check out other vendors. A helpful, though not exhaustive, site to go to to compare prices is dvdpricesearch.com, but you have to have the title exactly: their site doesn't allow for mis-worded titles or typos -- even when they're the site's own fault! (I once tried to look up Land of the Pharaohs on the site and it said there was no such movie. Turned out they did have it listed -- only they had misspelled it "Pharoahs". Not a well-run site, but it is informative.)

BTW, you can find a new DVD of 36 Hours on Amazon (actually Amazon Marketplace) for under $10. Tonight I saw it at MU for $16.99.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 13 years ago

Hi Hobnob53,

Thanks for the heads-up about <dvdpricesearch.com>
I just clicked on the site from the URL you sent me and have its icon on my desktop. I will further look into it later.
MU may be a little expensive, but once I get onto a trusted site, I tend stay with it, but I'm also open to leads and referrals.
I have a PayPal account so maybe I can be a little more secure when ordering from new sites. I've never used Amazon yet, but might look into it.
Thanks again.
Best.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

No problem, my friend, you're most welcome.

As I said, look over several sites before buying anything. Prices usually vary, often by a lot. Also, many times you can find a title on one site but not another. It takes some practice but eventually you get a pretty good idea of where to go for specific titles, and who's got the best price for a specific item, as well as tax and s&h issues.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 13 years ago

Hi hobnob53,

Got it.

Thanks again for the info. I like movies dealing with human emotions, ie, 36 Hours, Forbidden Planet (1956), THEM, just to mention a few.
Another good shrink show would be the old Outer Limits episode: "Nightmare." dealing with POW activity. This rascal is rather scary, and along with 36 Hours, should be a "Must See," especially for anybody undergoing POW resistance training. Best.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

You and I are on the same wavelength, lrcd! Forbidden Planet and Them! are also among my favorites. I like movies that, well, move -- either good action, or great dialogue (e.g., 12 Angry Men, Anatomy of a Murder), anything that makes for a solid, well-told story.

Check out a film called The Counterfeit Traitor, with William Holden (1962). It's by the same writing-producing-directing team as 36 Hours, but much better. It's based on the true story of a Swedish businessman who's blackmailed into spying for the Allies, since he makes frequent trips into Nazi Germany and has many contacts there. Really excellent -- adult, intelligent, all filmed on location. Unfortunately it's out of print but you might be able to rent it from Netflix or someplace.

I remember that Outer Limits episode (hell, I remember all of them!) very well. That was a really good one. The guy who played the interrogator under all the lizard make-up was John Anderson, a busy character actor. He was the used car salesman in Psycho and on TV was in a couple of Twilight Zones -- "The Odyssey of Flight 33", about a jet airliner that breaks the time barrier while flying to New York (seeing first a brontosaurus on Manhattan Island, then later the 1939 World's Fair); then three years later "The Old Man in the Cave", a really disturbing episode focusing on a handful of survivors in a small town ten years after a nuclear war: he was the leader who consulted with "the old man", which turns out to be a computer. A ragtag bunch of soldiers led by James Coburn rallies the hungry populace to disregard the "old man's" warnings against eating contaminated food, so they destroy the computer and of course all die, except Anderson, who's left alone to see out the last of the human race. Somber but great stuff.

Leaving for a while, so won't be readily able to answer anything quickly, but am looking forward to more soon! Take care, see you in a few days.

[–] nvasapper 13 years ago

Hello Hobnob!
NVASAPPER here. I was reading through your posts and found them to be very informative and elucidating. You are just a fount of information! In college many, many moons ago I was an American History major, so I can appreciate these very detailed and scrupulous essays of yours. You should write a book!

As for that Twilight Zone episode "The Odyssey of Flight 33", that's one of my faves. Here's some food for thought- when they see the Trylon and Perisphere of the World's Fair and realize they only made it back as far as the year 1939, they were only 22 years back in time from where they were supposed to be. What if they had landed at Laguardia instead of trying to bridge that two-decade gap? They would have advanced knowledge of everything that was about to happen, especially over the next couple of years with Germany and Japan. They would all know about Pearl Harbor. The plane they were flying in would be one element of proof that they originated in the future since there were no civilian jet planes in 1939 yet. And they could also state what was going to happen before it happened so that when it appeared in the newspapers and on the radio at the appointed time and place, people would have to believe they were actual time travellers- "Germany will invade Poland on September 1st, plunging Europe into World War II." "Germany will invade Norway in May of 1940", etc. Interesting, huh?

Rod Serling was obviously fascinated with the idea of time travel since he used it in so many episodes. Do you remember "The 7th Is Made Up of Phantoms" where the three Montana National Guardsmen are on maneuvers near the Little Big Horn and a time warp sends them and their Sherman tank back to 1876 right before Custer met up with the Sioux? One of my all-time favorites.

My favorite film dealing with time travel is "The Final Countdown" with Kirk Douglas, James Farentino, Martin Sheen and Katherine Ross, where the USS Nimitz, on routine patrol in the Pacific on December 6th, 1980 gets caught in a time storm and reemerges on December the 6th, 1941- one day before the Japanese attack. That film is my all-time favorite time travel movie. I love the sequence where the two F-14 Tomcats take on the pair of Japanese Zeros! You think the F-14 pilots were worried?!!

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Hi Nvasapper! Good to hear from you again -- and thank you for your extremely kind comments! I've been told I should write a book but I fear it may have already been written. But like you many thousands of days ago I was a history and government major, as well as a sometime writer and perpetual movie nut, so I guess all this combined to help make me sound edgy-kated.

I do indeed remember all the TZ's you mention. I was never completely clear about what was supposed to have happened in "The Seventh is Made Up of Phantoms": was it a time warp, or was the battle still going on on some other plane? Not a bad episode, though. Do you recall the hour-long one with Dana Andrews, where he travels back to the "simpler" small-town America of 1881, only to find that his foreknowledge of the future had become a curse -- and that he couldn't change events. (A fire at a school that killed several children had been started by a wild horse careering away with a wagon, from which a lantern was flung that caught fire on some bunting, burning down the school; it turns out that by trying to prevent this from happening, Andrews himself set in motion the train of events.) I think that episode was called "No Time Like the Past" (though I may be confusing that title with another episode), and it was really good.

Then there was the one with Russell Johnson as a professor (!) who reaches back in time with his time machine and rescues a murderer about to be hanged in the old west; he kills the prof but then can't deal with life in the 60s and is himself killed by a robber...who in turn gets in the machine and is transported back to 1880 -- hanging in the first guy's stead! Or the one with Gig Young, "Walking Distance", with him going back to his hometown to find himself in the 30s, meeting his parents and others long dead. Plus the comic one with Buster Keaton trying on his employer's goofy time-traveling helmet in 1890, suddenly transported to 1962 -- the 1890 scenes done as silents. Great stuff.

I've thought about the jet deciding to land in 1939 in "Odyssey of Flight 33", but imagine dozens of people telling the world back then what would happen -- and how they might screw up the future by giving too much information, making the Allies complacent or somehow providing knowledge to Hitler that would help Nazi Germany. Not to mention that most of the people on board were alive in 1939 and would run into their younger selves...which would certainly lead to lots of personal second-guessing!

I also love The Final Countdown. Very imaginative. I've often thought that if time travel were feasible it would not be possible to change events -- because the very fact of your going back in time would itself have been part of past events, not a variation of them; in effect, you'd be fulfilling, not altering, history. Hence the moral of that hour-long TZ above, and I think The Final Countdown as well.

Anyway, I thank you again for your most generous compliments. I always enjoy reading your posts as well, and look forward to many more exchanges across the boards. Hope to speak with you again soon.

Hey, General Allison -- you're not going to hit the right bunkers on Utah Beach! Best regards, West Point Class of 2011.

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

Russell Johnson also did an episode in which he was an inventor who went back in time and tried to stop the Lincoln assassination with the help of a policeman played by Jimmy Lydon, the second Henry Aldrich. He was unable to stop the murder of Lincoln but his contact with the policeman led to the policeman becoming rich. As a result, his descendent, who was a janitor at Johnson's club for rich men when he left, was now a millionaire and club member. The idea was that things that would affect the general flow of history and major events could not be changed, but relatively minor things could. Nonetheless, your arguments are sound. By going back to the past you become a part of the events that happened and help cause them to happen.

If it were possible to change the past, the consequences could be disastrous. What if you went back millions of years and accidentally killed the first creature in the chain of evolution that would become man?

In the remake of the Twilight Zone hosted by Forrest Whitaker, Katherine Heigl goes into the past to kill Hitler, and lands in the year when he is just an infant. Torn by guilt, she kills herself and the baby. However, a servant, fearful of the revenge of the family, secretly replaces the dead infant with that of a crazy homeless woman. That child becomes "the" Adolf Hitler. It is an excellent example of the point you've made and reflects the message of your other examples.

I'm glad to see you're still posting. If you remember me, we had a series of exchanges two years ago.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Hi pmiano -- I do remember speaking with you, because I remember your "name", but just now I can't recall where we were exchanging messages back when. Please refresh my failing (and flailing!) memory.

But funny you mention the two TZs you do. I was thinking about both of them when writing my previous post. The strange thing is I don't like the new show and have seen only portions of a handful of its episodes. The only one I ever watched all the way through was that "baby Hitler" one! It was okay, but I couldn't escape the feeling that they would have done it much better in the original show.

Your theory about going back millions of years and killing the key link in the evolutionary chain reminds me of a Ray Bradbury story I read over 40 years ago, in which a company in the future offers time travlers the chance to go back and hunt dinosaurs. They first send back scouts who locate animals who are destined to die later that day by some other means, thereby making them "safe" for their clients to kill first. One hunter in some sort of panic accidentally steps on a butterfly on his way back to the time transport, and when he gets back to the future finds his own world changed, with a psychotic political figure previously rejected by the country now its hero, and even spellings different ("tyme" for "time").

Of course, The Simpsons tackled the same theme in one of their "Treehouse of Horror" trilogies for Halloween. In trying to repair his toaster Homer acciedentally turns it into a time machine and keeps going back to prehistoric times, killing some ancient creature each time and finding a different altered universe every time he gets back. In one, Ned Flanders is dictator of the world. In another, he thinks he finds the perfect set-up when he discovers he's rich, with polite, smart kids and both sisters-in-law dead...until he asks Marge fror a donut, at whcih she stares blankly at him and asks, "What's a donut?" He screams and runs back down to the basement to change time yet again, disappearing just before the sky opens up and begins raining -- donuts. I always wondered whether the writers of that segment had read the Bradbury story.

I feel guilty seeing this thread veer totally away from 36 Hours. But then, perhaps in an alternate time it stays on its topic!

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

We discussed Lew Ayres and how, though a conscientious objector during WWII, he served as a Navy medical corpsman and was a far greater patriot than John Wayne. To get back on track, I have seen two versions of 36 Hours. Which one do you prefer? The second one was a TV movie called "Breaking Point" and starred Corbin Bernsen and John Glover in the James Garner and Rod Taylor roles. In many ways, I thought it was better than the 1965 movie.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Oh, yes, I remember now -- thanks for the memory jog.

Though I vaguely know of Breaking Point I've never seen it. I suppose it could have been better, at least in some regards, than the original, though this is so rarely the case with made-for-TV movies that it's usually not even a topic for meaningful discussion. (Although occasionally there are exceptions: for instance, I did think the TV-movie version of "In Cold Blood" was in most ways a far more accurate depiction of the crime, its characters and its aftermath that what's shown in the theatrical film. But the latter is a better work of art.)

36 Hours has a number of plot flaws that could certainly be improved on: for example (as I've made an issue of elsewhere), the utterly pointless and needlessly risky conceit of having Pike believe he's married to Anna. If the TV movie avoided such stupid plot asides, that alone would be an improvement. But in general, TV movies have to me always been inferior, usually vastly so, to theatrical films.

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

Actually, making Pike think he was married in itself wasn't so pointless. At the point in his life he was made to think he was, Pike would have considered it odd if he wasn't married. In those days, most people got married much sooner than today.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

But whether Pike might have expected to have been married by then (and maybe he wouldn't have necessarily expected it) was irrelevant to the Germans' needs. Imposing the phony marriage required them to add more, and more intricate, lies, fake evidence (e.g., the phony photo of Pike and Anna), and arrange other cover stories and details that simply made the whole intricate plot all the more vulnerable and open to discovery. With so many people already involved, requiring them to to learn the details of yet another layer of deceptions was risking much -- especially since the marriage had not the slightest connection with, or impact on, the Germans' plot.

The key to such a fantastic endeavor was to keep things as simple and direct as possible. Besides lessening the chance of mistakes, this was also crucial because of the Nazis' very limited window of opportunity (the 36 hours). Making Anna Pike's wife accomplished nothing -- if anything, it was a further distraction to Pike, whom it was absolutely necessary for the Germans to keep focused on the information they wanted to get. They didn't need her (or use her) to get information from him. In fact, the wife business might well have served to alert Pike that something fishy was afoot: too much detail, too much to be confronted with at once. Again, simplicity is what was needed.

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

Anna was a poor choice, but making him think he was married was a necessary touch. If experience has taught us anything, it is that men will usually blab their heads off to the women they love, and sometimes to their wives too. The mistake was in using Anna instead of a trained SD agent.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

I agree that Anna was a bad choice, for obvious reasons. But I still say that there was nothing necessary or even advisable about conjuring this phony marriage. Even a trained agent would never know many of the intimate things a wife would know about her husband -- not necessarily physical things (though those too), but personal information that would not simply be in some record someplace. Pike would be more likely to catch on to an impostor wife than to the overall false situation. And again, given the short time span, I doubt he'd blab to his "wife" as he wouldn't be used to being wed to this stranger (given his "amnesia") and would be reticent for a long time in discussing anything -- as indeed was the case with Pike, especially after being told they were married. He didn't tell Anna anything of import, compared to what he told the Germans.

The "marriage" was a risky and needless complication, and yielded little.

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

Your points are valid as always, but I was merely commenting that they were riught to give him a wife, one who could fake concern and maybe get him to reveal something. She wouldn't have to know everything, especially if they were supposed to have met during the war.They really didn't have to even have him meet her. They could have said she was abroad with the kiddies and was very concerned. This might have weakened his resistance. Let's be honest, Anna was their because they wanted a romantic interest, as most films do. Some things are merely conventions necessary for the story. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. By the way, you missed the joke. Reread my full comment.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Oh, my gosh, pmiano, I read it late last night but indeed it didn't hit me. If I told that to my wife (let alone my loved one) they'd both kill me (figuratively speaking, I trust!).*

Actually, your point about telling Pike he had a wife and kids back in the States is a good one. They could probably fake that at an acceptable level -- after all, they told him about his father, and that was all made up -- while not running the risk of having Pike actually meet or talk to his "wife". That way there are fewer loose ends or chances for slip-ups, or anything immediate for Pike to latch onto as phony.

So, in that respect, such a fake wife might be an acceptable risk to take -- provided they engineered it right. In a deception scheme like this, there's always the chance of going too far, taking one step too many that'll trip you up. That's why having someone right there posing as a wife, to me, leaves way too many areas for her to make a mistake or say something that would alert Pike. As I've said, the fewer complications, the better. But a vague wife "off stage", so to speak, might have some merit in weakening his guard.

Even so, I still think the simpler, the better.

*Only kidding about that "loved one"...who's as real as Pike's "wife"!

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

My wife would not kill me if I told her that joke. She is a Latina and would do something far worse. Do you remember Lorena Bobbit?

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

My wife is English. She would probably use a proper garden shears.

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

My wife is Puerto Rican. She has a machete, and I am not kidding.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Yikes! Those things cut rather a wide swath. I trust she can wield it with surgical precision.

Weren't we discussing 36 Hours around here someplace?!

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

One of these days, I'll invite you over to my house. You can watch her slice up a pineapple. It's a terrifying experience if you use some imagination. Between her machete and your wife's garden shears, I think it will be far safer if we both toe the line.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Just remember to count our toes.

[–] pmiano100 13 years ago

And other parts.

[–] nvasapper 13 years ago

To Hobnob:
Hi! Your friend Nvasapper here. And good to hear from you again. Re my comments on your writing- you're most welcome. Small world indeed- we were both History majors and I am also a lifelong movie buff as well.

Re "The 7th Is Made Up of Phantoms"- you posed a very interesting question. I gave this some thought and I believe the signs point to a time warp hypothesis. Here's what leads me to that conclusion- Serling did a lot of episodes which involved actual time travel into the past, so it would be feasible to assume that this was one of those, rather than the soldiers witnessing the events on another plane. Also, at the end they join the battle and wind up being killed, with their names appearing on the memorial marker at Custer Battlefield National Monument. So the implication for me is that they were actually physically jumping through some kind of time portal between 1964 and 1876. Because if they were only witnessing it as some kind of ghostly replay on another dimensional plane 88 years after the fact, then they wouldn't have been at the actual battle on June 25th, 1876 and their names would not have wound up on the marker. Unless I'm missing something. Which if I am- I know you'll be able to fill it in for me! But I'm comfortable with the time warp explanation. The episode induces the viewer to accept that plot line. Too bad we can't ask old Rod himself!

Yes- I saw that one with Dana Andrews. That was also very nicely done. And you're right- the moral here was that by trying to change something in the past, you will only succeed in bringing it about. By trying to stop it, you will cause it to happen. That's a mind blower! In wanting to do the right thing and trying to save those school children, he caused their deaths. Even if he had stayed put and not intervened, the horses would have been spooked by someone else and taken off at a gallop, causing the kerosene lamp to be flung into the school. I just had a thought- what if, instead of fighting with that travelling salesman and spooking his horses, Dana Andrews had instead gone inside the school and persuaded the teacher, who was also his love interest by that time, to have the children exit the schoolhouse? No, on second thought, that probably wouldn't have saved them because someone or something else would have panicked the horses anyway and the kids wouldn't have been able to get out in time. Unless Andrews knew exactly at what time it was suppose to happen from that little book he had with him recounting the incident. If he knew it was going to happen at let's say 2:30 P.M. couldn't he have tried to get the kids out an hour before? He could have shown the teacher his book and told her that he came from the future, but then she wouldn't have believed him anyway, most likely and the result would be the same in the end. And even if he had prevailed upon her to release the children early, then the school would have caught fire an hour earlier and the tragic hour recorded in his history book would have been a typo by the publisher or an error made by the original chronicler of the tragedy. Wow! You can really go off on a lot of different tangents with something like this!

That episode with Gig Young was very profound and moving. Whenever I see it, it always brings tears to my eyes. There's a sadness to it that moves me on a deep level.

Re "The Odyssey of Flight 33"- you make some good points here. I didn't think about that. Yes. it's certainly possible that the Nazis and perhaps the Japanese could have found out the future information about the war that might have benefitted them. But since we know that the past can't be altered on a grand scale, that foreknowledge wouldn't have done them any good. They probably would have concluded that it was an attempt by Allied Intelligence to fool them and trick them. Consequently, the Panzer Reserves would still not have been sent to the Normandy coast before June 6th, 1944! And we would have still gained a foothold in France and pushed the Germans back to der Vaterland! As for the people on the plane meeting their younger selves 22 years in the past, I hadn't even considered that aspect. Good point. Like when Gig Young met up with his 12 year old self.

Great analysis of the Final Countdown theme. Nicely done. And you're absolutely correct. Remember the part where Kirk Douglas gives that pep talk to his fighter pilots on the morning of December the 7th? And he tells them that the Nimitz, having passed through that weird storm 18 hours before has apparently gone through a portal in time. He says "Today is December 7th, 1941. I'm sure you're all aware of the significance of this date in this place in history. We're about to fight a battle that was lost before most of you were even born. This time- with God's help, it's going to be different." But what he failed to realize, as you pointed out so well, was that "this time" is the first time! And the Nimitz being there at that moment in time did not prevent the Japanese attack from occurring. For the simple reason that the history books (as well as The History Channel!!) said the attack occurred. But Douglas figured that if they could go back in time in the first place, then they should also be able to change what happened. Because if they can do one, then they should be able to do the other. But what he missed was that from whatever future date the Nimitz went back into the past, the attack had already occurred and was part of history. Their going back couldn't change that fact. However, the time stream can accommodate minor changes and alterations- like James Farentino being trapped in the past with Katharine Ross (who was in her proper time placement)and, with all his foreknowledge of what was going to happen, became a multi-billionaire, changing his name to Richard Tideman and establishing the industrial corporation that wound up building the USS Nimitz!! Cool stuff.

Again, my friend, you're welcome. And thank you for your kind comments as well.
Your online bud,
Steve

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Hi nvasapper -- Looks like we may have been caught in the same time-warp of parallel interests!

I saw that most of the old TZs we've been talking about were broadcast on the Syfy Channel in its annual Fourth-of-July marathon, though I only saw a scattering of them. But one of those was "Flight 33", and one of the things about that one that made it different from most of the other time-travel Zones is that, as I mentioned, most of the people aboard the flight in 1961 were very much alive -- many of them already adults -- just 22 years earlier, in 1939: hence the many unforeseeable problems that would come about with the passengers mingling with their younger selves.

On the other hand, these other episodes took place a century or so apart, so there was no chance of someone from the future meeting up with his younger self. This at least simplified the time-travel theme, and makes it easier to posit the notion that traveling backward in time fulfills, but does not change, history. You can meld into a far past. But it's rather more difficult to do that when there are two of you running about simultaneaously! Perhaps that's why, in "33", they don't land, but try to fly back to 1961 a third time...presumably never making it, though this is an inference I draw, not stated fact.

The only reason I don't think they slipped through a time portal in "The 7th is Made Up of Phantoms" is that they never experience any sign of transiting through such a warp. This was not always done in TTZ, but usually. (It wasn't done in "Walking Distance", for instance.) Plus they keep going back and forth between 1964 and 1876, something I never recall occurring in any other episode. Every other time, you went back once, then came back once (usually). As for the marker with the guys' names on it, well, it is The Twilight Zone, after all! But I don't suppose we can really be sure. The main point is, it happened...or did it?

I still believe that if one could travel back in time, it'd be fulfilling history, not changing it. More than that -- I hope that's true. We all talk about "what if" you could go back and assassinate Hitler and so on. But even if you succeeded, there are always unintended consequences. Who knows what changes you could unleash in history -- maybe some good; but maybe some bad. So perhaps we're better off accepting that what was will remain as it was, with all its attendant horrors and glories. After all, by going back and killing Hitler, you might prevent the Third Reich; but you might also so alter the world that you yourself might never have been born. In which case, how could you go back and kill Hitler? But if you never existed, you would never have killed Hitler, so therefore history unfolded as we know it, you were in fact born, and.... It's here that the idea of time travel becomes an endless quandary!