Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Lois & Clark Tempus Fugitive... huh??

I was watching Tempus Fugitive today and there were a few things that made me go )

My first reaction to your comment, Sara, was to say that our current (i.e. prior to the relatively recent change in the appearance of the $20, $50, and $100 bills) currency looks exactly like the currency in use in the 60s when I was a kid. But rather than depend on my memory, I did a quick net search and learned the following: Anyway, all the sites I visited agreed that the currency was basically the same prior to the anti-counterfeiting measures in 1996, which was after the Tempus Fugitive episode. The only difference is the series number and the signature of the current Secretary of the Treasury. But since currency from different periods is always in circulation and is recognized and guaranteed by the US gov't, no one would notice that their money had the "wrong" signature on it.

I was, however, amused by your comments about credit cards, which reminded me how ubiquitous they had become in modern life. Back in the 60s, there would have been no credit card to use because credit cards only existed for specific businesses (i.e. a Conoco gas card or a Sears card). MasterCard and Visa (and the host of their imitators) hadn't come into existence yet, so L&C would very definitely have paid cash for their rental car.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane

Close inspection of the bills would also show a year later than the "current" (60s) year. But it is quite likely that would not occur until after multiple transactions, when the bills were no longer traceable back to our time travelers.

Considering that now I think it's just about impossible to rent a car *without* a credit card, it is hard to remember that once upon a time, one could. What would the rental companies have used for surety, in the event that the renter simply took off with the car?

I went snooping for the history of credit cards.

And for VISA:
So even though both cards, in some form, had started by then, their usage would have been rather localized.

And interestingly enough, it was in 1966 that both credit card programs expanded and formed larger associations with other banks.

Kathy

Sara, I've thought about how they paid for the car as well, but the real deal killer for Lois and Clark wouldn't be method of payment. In order to rent a car, they would have to produce their driver's license.

Well, I can think of a number of problems with that. First, they look different. If I remember correctly, a driver's license in 1966 was paper and had no picture.
Second, when they looked at the date of birth, Clark and Lois would be less than a year old. Definitely phony licenses.

So cash wouldn't help them.

gerry

True, Kathy, Visa and MasterCard started spreading in 1966, but as someone who grew up in a small town in Colorado, they simply didn't exist in our area, particularly since our banks and businesses were locally owned rather than nationally affiliated. (Although we did have an A&W Root Beer stand that might have had a national affiliation, and a Safeway grocery store that certainly had a state-wide affiliation.) So while I'm sure someone in a city could use one of those credit cards at that time, it couldn't be done in a small town.

And as far as surety for the car went, I don't remember using anything. In small towns at that time, people basically trusted each other. What I do remember is being astonished the first time I discovered that I had to have a credit card to rent a car. Of course, that was in a city (in California, IIRC ), so I should have expected it.

When I got my first driver's license in '71, it was laminated and had a color photo on it, so it didn't look that much different than the ones we have now. At least not so different that it couldn't be passed off as one of those new-fangled licenses from Metropolis , which was decades ahead of rural Kansas.

As far as the date problem goes, I figure either Lois held her thumb over the date or Clark used a bit of pressure or heat vision to smudge the decade so you couldn't tell that it was a 6 instead of the 3 it would logically have to have been. Heck, he's Superman. There are ways around these problems.

I enjoy reading about the problems people have with the show, though, because it allows me to imagine the throwaway line that would explain it. For example, in Lois's explosive denunciation of Clark as a liar, she just adds one more line: "And that whole story you made up about the birthdate on your license, that was just another big fat lie." "Lois, he wouldn't have let me rent the car if he saw I was born in 1966."

Maybe they paid for the car with gold? Superman had, after all, gone mining for "fuel." One small nugget, traded at a bank for cash, should have been more than enough to rent a car and get whatever other necessities they might have purchased.

As for the baby, plotwise, he should have been crying and in quite a bit of pain. From a prodcution standpoint, however, I can't see making a baby cry or forcing a fussy baby to keep "working" instead of taking care of it. Besides, if you were that age and someone handed you a cool new glowy toy, would you have laughed, too?

Paul

Sara,

Nitpicking is inevitable when you watch and rewatch anything. I barely notice, even the most glaring inconsisties.

However as time goes on I am trying to pay more attention though usually blind enjoyment wins out on rare ocasions I pay attention to detail. Most recently, while re-educating my beloved best friend in the ways of FOLC knowledge, I've resorted to playing scavenger hunts with the "Ticker Tape" in the news room, and noting things like "50% Iced cream" and "Fries with..." that have no relevance to the show at all but hey.... Onward...

They had gold, and they had been to the past (1866). They could have either traded in gold and/or they could have pawned something that was an 'antique' though it didn't show them going through that process. As for those like me who were just in awe.... it never occured to ask the question of how to pay for the car. (I take too much on faith and for granted)

As for the baby, no In Story insights there , well none that I will post publicly as there are things I've heard, and I can't remember wherefrom or which incarnation of superman they apply to (EI not sure whether its lore from the comics or lore from the movies, definately I did not hear it on LnC or I'd have remembered... That).

-Songbird