Let me start by presenting a short 'definition' of the main subject of this essay. Time-geography constitutes a foundation for a general geographical perspective. It represents a new structure of thought under development, which attempts to consolidate the spatial and temporal perspectives of different disciplines on a more solid basis than has thus far taken place. Time-geography is not a subject area per se, or a theory in its narrow sense, but rather an attempt to construct a broad structure of thought which may form a framework capable of fulfilling two tasks. The first is to receive and bring into contact knowledge from highly distinct scientific areas and from everyday praxis. The second is to reveal relations, the nature of which escape researchers as soon as the object of research is separated from its given milieu in order to study it in isolation, experimentally or in some other way distilled. This is a very unofficial and condensed version of the definition given by Torsten Hagerstrand many years ago. It is not very easy to grasp. But to me, it is an excellent and compact version of what time-geography really is. As a backdrop, I will use a 'map' as a frame of reference. I will use a straightforward metaphor life as a drama. Though simple, this is a rather useful starting point. Every drama has three elements namely actors, roles (expressed by behaviors, activities), and the scene. (In fact, life is a drama without any spectators: we are all taking part in the play and cannot analyze the course of events from the comfort of a seat in the audience.) I will not dwell on this metaphor but will move ahead to make some short (and perhaps obvious) remarks. The human actors without them, there will be no play can be observed physically and portrayed by a trajectory in a timegeographic notation as they move around saying and doing things. Their thoughts, their experiences, expectations, aims, etc., are not directly observable, however. What they are doing, their activities, derives from the various roles they try to play. Most of the social sciences are concerned with these roles and how they are created and developed. Roughly speaking, their development is a matter of common culture values, rules, institutional frameworks, power structures, etc. In short, roles express what is called the underlying structure (or structures). The scene is the sum of all physical objects like natural phenomena, lakes, mountains, minerals and all that human beings and societies make out of raw materials transforming them into buildings, roads, machines, tools, etc. To complete the scene, we must add the actors themselves, who are part of the physical scene. This is a brief and rough rendition of Popper and Eccles' division of our world into three parts: the physical world (the scene), our inner worlds (actors' images) and the cultural heritage (role-creating), which has been established in our physical world or perhaps just in our minds. (Actually, I prefer the drama metaphor, because it captures the dynamics in human lives and societies). The name of the game is integration. The point is to deal with all worlds together, because the triad is something that we have superimposed on reality to make it easier to tackle. Time-geography, as a foundation for a general (geographical) perspective, tries to bring all these worlds together into a common framework. Or to put it the other way around, time-geography tries to separate the three worlds as little as possible in the analytic process. In this essay, I will briefly characterize the main areas that time-geographic thought has penetrated over the years. I will use the metaphor 'life as a drama' and Popper's tripartite world as a frame to reference to describe the shifts in emphasis over time and how time-geography has been accepted or rejected. In the same vein, I will sketch the contours of the critique of the time-geographic approach. Finally, I will try to outline the prospects of current developments for the future.