# Journeyman 11/26/2007 (S01E10) "Blowback"



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Apparently Jack's knowledge of Dan's time travel is now sticky. 

I wonder what sort of consequences occur now from the death of the FBI agent and his "unknown" investigation.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

[Keanu]Whoa.[/Keanu]


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

First: for those who do not watch the previews to avoid spoilers, you might be interested to note there was a promo for a new episode in 2 weeks. It was not a preview - it showed a few short clips from previous episodes, as far as I could tell. The fact that they even promo'ed a new episode is possibly good news. I've got my fingers crossed.

If not - well, this was as nice of an episode to end off on, I suppose, which may have been what NBC was thinking when they said that if ratings didn't improve that this would be the last episode. There was a pseudo-conclusion, ending the whole rift between Jack and Dan. I wonder if Livia will continue to intrude into "current time" when necessary.

I wonder why Dan's changes in the past didn't have any effect, other than a distant memory... the "Butterfly" effect would suggest that even slight changes would have ripple effects that continue on into the future.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

There's a story on AICN regarding Journeyman. There are some spoilery stuff listed about the PLANS of the show IF it gets renewed-so read at your own risk..

AICN


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

I hope they give this show a full season order/renewal. This is an awesome show, I love it!!


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Please let the "in 2 weeks" be true! I'm glad Jack is in the loop now!


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

If NBC does cancel this show, what are the chances of a cable network like SciFi picking it up for new episodes? This is the best damn show on TV, and because it takes a little thought, and a little getting used to, and the time slot sucks, its going to die. If they put in on Wed, and hyped it like Bionic Woman, it would be heralded as the smash hit of the season.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I loved the iPhone in the ER.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I loved the iPhone in the ER.


Yeah the ER docs were like whoa check this thing out!


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Here's a question I have about Dan making money: if he travels to the past and buys stock in Microsoft, doesn't he have to pay taxes on the gains every year? So, if he buys MS stock in 1985, and doesn't know about it until 2007, won't the IRS kick his ass for not paying taxes on the gains for 22 years?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> Here's a question I have about Dan making money: if he travels to the past and buys stock in Microsoft, doesn't he have to pay taxes on the gains every year? So, if he buys MS stock in 1985, and doesn't know about it until 2007, won't the IRS kick his ass for not paying taxes on the gains for 22 years?


You only pay taxes on gains when you actually have realized gains, which occurs when you sell the stock (or when you receive dividends, etc.). But just from the value increasing, there's not yet a realized gain to be taxed.

He could also set up a corporation and have a lawyer handle all that stuff on his behalf, making available funds to him in some manner he can use as needed.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I wonder why Dan's changes in the past didn't have any effect, other than a distant memory... the "Butterfly" effect would suggest that even slight changes would have ripple effects that continue on into the future.


What Dan did in the house had no effect on anything really... young Aedan was out of the room for a little while talking to a weird dude, and that was it.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

I think Dan learned that attempting to change his own present is pretty futile. Despite his attempts to change things with the boy he still ended up shot and his wife still ended up in danger.

In that interview that was posted in the Journeyman vote thread Kevin Falls, the producer, implied that this episode's purpose was to show what would happen if Dan went "off-mission".



dswallow said:


> Philosofy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a question I have about Dan making money: if he travels to the past and buys stock in Microsoft, doesn't he have to pay taxes on the gains every year? So, if he buys MS stock in 1985, and doesn't know about it until 2007, won't the IRS kick his ass for not paying taxes on the gains for 22 years?
> ...


That kind of thing is also talked about in that interview. It's a good read!


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Antibiotics do not treat viruses, whether the antibiotic is 20 years old, or cutting edge.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

JETarpon said:


> Antibiotics do not treat viruses, whether the antibiotic is 20 years old, or cutting edge.


Did one of the nurses say it was for a virus? The only thing I recall is the present-day nurse saying he had a staph infection, which is bacterial.

Which is interesting in that he had a present day staph germ on his skin, went back into the past, got shot, got infected, got an antibiotic that was ineffective against a current day staph germ, and almost died as a result. Raises some ideas about the medical risks of traveling to the past!


----------



## ZooCaretaker (May 22, 2007)

How many journeymen are there? We know of at least two -- Dan and Livia, but FBI-Guy alluded that there are more with the statement "They always need money."


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

Methinks the FBI guy will be 'restored' through another journey and Jack's knowledge (especially the seeing Olivia part) will get wiped clean. 
Here's how it might happen- Dan changes a time-line that ends up sending someone to intercede on Aeden's (sp?) behalf. Or his mom doesn't leave or his dad gets shot. Really endless possibilities to 'reset' a lot of the big things from this ep. Why would they have the FBI agent drop such tantalizing clues and be content with leaving him dead?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

5thcrewman said:


> Why would they have the FBI agent drop such tantalizing clues and be content with leaving him dead?


Probably because there's many more than one FBI agent investigating such things.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dswallow said:


> Probably because there's many more than one FBI agent investigating such things.


There may not have been... until now. He was a rogue FBI agent, supposedly, working off book. Now, the question for the FBI will be - why was the FBI agent in this particular house when he didn't have an open case file for anyone involved? That's worthy of an investigation.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> There may not have been... until now. He was a rogue FBI agent, supposedly, working off book.


Or more likely, he was working for somebody higher up the food chain than the FBI who has an interest in time-travelers..?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Another great ep. If it's going to end I would almost like it to end now with the majority of things wrapped up. I'd hate to start a new set of stuff and be left hanging.

I also though the "All new episode" looked like something I'd seen before ???

They handled this one really well, clever as ever, and Jack seeing Livia was a great moment.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> Jack seeing Livia was a great moment.


I was afraid they'd do the standard "he looks away for a moment and she's gone" thing there, and I was so happy that they didn't.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Getting Jack on board seemed kind of rushed: like they knew they wouldn't have many more episodes for it to play out. I think they did a good job, it just felt like that wasn't the way they had planned it.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> I also though the "All new episode" looked like something I'd seen before ???


I didn't get that vibe but I did hear that it's supposed to be (mild spoiler)


Spoiler



a Christmas episode.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

appleye1 said:


> Did one of the nurses say it was for a virus? The only thing I recall is the present-day nurse saying he had a staph infection, which is bacterial.


"Ampicillian? That's 20 years old. We would never give you that. It wouldn't put a dent in today's virus."


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Philosofy said:


> Getting Jack on board seemed kind of rushed: like they knew they wouldn't have many more episodes for it to play out. I think they did a good job, it just felt like that wasn't the way they had planned it.


From everything I've read, everything through episode 12 (I think this was episode 9) is as they planned it. For episode 13, they filmed it so it could be a series finale, but if they get a full order they can remove lines in order to leave things open.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Probably because there's many more than one FBI agent investigating such things.


Mulder and Scully?


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

JETarpon said:


> "Ampicillian? That's 20 years old. We would never give you that. It wouldn't put a dent in today's virus."


Hah, good catch! She should have said bacteria. I guess some screenwriter doesn't know the difference. (And they want a raise! )


----------



## WinBear (Aug 24, 2000)

appleye1 said:


> Hah, good catch! She should have said bacteria. I guess some screenwriter doesn't know the difference. (And they want a raise! )


They totally wasted the effort to come up with a 25+ year old antibiotic and then said "virus" instead of "bacteria" for the payoff.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

WinBear said:


> They totally wasted the effort to come up with a 25+ year old antibiotic and then said "virus" instead of "bacteria" for the payoff.


On the other hand, since he had a staph infection it can at least be put down to a mis-speak by the nurse and not a complete botching of the concept.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> First: for those who do not watch the previews to avoid spoilers, you might be interested to note there was a promo for a new episode in 2 weeks. It was not a preview - it showed a few short clips from previous episodes, as far as I could tell. The fact that they even promo'ed a new episode is possibly good news. I've got my fingers crossed.
> 
> If not - well, this was as nice of an episode to end off on, I suppose, which may have been what NBC was thinking when they said that if ratings didn't improve that this would be the last episode. There was a pseudo-conclusion, ending the whole rift between Jack and Dan. I wonder if Livia will continue to intrude into "current time" when necessary.
> 
> I wonder why Dan's changes in the past didn't have any effect, other than a distant memory... the "Butterfly" effect would suggest that even slight changes would have ripple effects that continue on into the future.


There was a change. In the past, young Bennett gave Dan the same shirt present Bennett was wearing. When we came back to the present, Bennett was wearing a wife-beater while Dan was wearing the old shirt.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> I also though the "All new episode" looked like something I'd seen before ???


After thinking about it more, I think the footage was from "Year of the Rabbit." But yes, it was still promoting a new episode.

Just a guess, but this could possibly be a rights issue in case the network decides not to show the new episode. That is, showing clips from the episode might require the network to pay a fee to the studio for the episode, even if they end up not showing the episode at all. Again, just a guess, complete WAG situation here.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

JETarpon said:


> (I think this was episode 9)


This was episode 10 (production code 1ANJ10 to be precise). The series started with the pilot episode, 1ANJ79, then continued on with 1ANJ02 through this episode in consecutive order.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Sorry to marathon post - but ratings for last night put Journeyman in third place again, but a still fairly respectable 3.8/6 share. (First is CSI: Miami, of course, at 10.2/17, and October Road on ABC got a 4.4/7 share.)

Is this enough to save it? Hard to say. If I were an network executive, I'd weigh this and the fact that at least another ratings point worth of audience watch it on a DVR, and I'd consider keeping it around, finding a new night for it if I needed to. But, then again, I have brains, which is something that cannot be said for network executives.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

They must have something totally awesome waiting to replace it.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

serumgard said:


> There was a change. In the past, young Bennett gave Dan the same shirt present Bennett was wearing. When we came back to the present, Bennett was wearing a wife-beater while Dan was wearing the old shirt.


I don't think so. I think Bennett was wearing a different shirt entirely and simply took it off at some point to reveal an undershirt.

I was totally expecting Dan to take the opportunity to save Bennett in the past, thus alleviating the hostage situation in the present. Kudos to the writers for not making it so obvious.

I'm not sure I got the whole goosebumps feeling when Jack saw Livia. That's probably cuz I watched the previews last week... It was still really cool though.

Good call whoever posted the theory a while back that the fed was after something bigger than Dylan McCleen. I loved the comparison of the photos from the past and present. I never did consider that he might get his picture taken in the past.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Mike20878 said:


> I don't think so. I think Bennett was wearing a different shirt entirely and simply took it off at some point to reveal an undershirt.


The shirts were far too similar for it to be a coincidence, especially when you consider the fact that we never saw present Bennett take the shirt off.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Sorry to marathon post - but ratings for last night put Journeyman in third place again, but a still fairly respectable 3.8/6 share. (First is CSI: Miami, of course, at 10.2/17, and October Road on ABC got a 4.4/7 share.)
> 
> Is this enough to save it? Hard to say. If I were an network executive, I'd weigh this and the fact that at least another ratings point worth of audience watch it on a DVR, and I'd consider keeping it around, finding a new night for it if I needed to. But, then again, I have brains, which is something that cannot be said for network executives.


Those ratings are on par with Chuck which received a full season order (whatever THAT means now!). Futon Critic says Chuck is averaging 3.4 (although it did 5.0 last night).


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

serumgard said:


> The shirts were far too similar for it to be a coincidence, especially when you consider the fact that we never saw present Bennett take the shirt off.


Similar? Not so much.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> Similar? Not so much.


Well, clearly I'm an idiot.


----------



## nlsinger (Feb 8, 2006)

serumgard said:


> Well, clearly I'm an idiot.


You're still smarter than that [email protected] writer. Virus.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

Not to sound like a thread crapper, but can someone please explain to me what is so great about this show? I liked the pilot and I wanted to like the show, but the show has just been going downhill steadily, culminating in what I thought was easily the worst episode last night.

I recap the show for Recapist.com and you can read my thoughts on last night's episode much more thoroughly there.

http://www.recapist.com/2007/11/27/journeyman-blowback-episode-110

I just simply don't understand how people can find so much to like about this show and don't seem to notice all about it that is absolutely horrible.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Vito the TiVo said:


> I just simply don't understand how people can find so much to like about this show and don't seem to notice all about it that is absolutely horrible.


To each his own. I like the interactions between the characters, the overall story and the individual plot elements. Which I guess means I just like the show a lot overall. 

EDIT: and I just read your review... man you're just nitpicking for the hell of it there. If you don't like the show, it's OK. You don't have to sit and pick nits to justify that.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

MickeS said:


> To each his own. I like the interactions between the characters, the overall story and the individual plot elements. Which I guess means I just like the show a lot overall.


I'm just at a loss. I've never found my opinion on a piece of entertainment to differ so radically from the geek community at large.

But it's not even that I simply dislike the show, it is a badly written, acted and produced hour of television and I am amazed that so few people in the internet community seem to hold the same opinion.

EDIT: I may be nitpicking for the sake of it now, simply because I have to keep writing up the show and I find it excruciating how badly they treat their own material.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Vito the TiVo said:


> I'm just at a loss. I've never found my opinion on a piece of entertainment to differ so radically from the geek community at large.
> 
> But it's not even that I simply dislike the show, it is a badly written, acted and produced hour of television and I am amazed that so few people in the internet community seem to hold the same opinion.


So maybe *you're* wrong. 

I love this show. I think it's fun, I care about the characters and think the time traveling stuff is the perfect amount of geek.


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Not to sound like a thread crapper, but can someone please explain to me what is so great about this show?


I watch it about 60% for the story and 40% because it is partially shot in San Francisco.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

I enjoy the show. I don't have to justify or explain my tastes. When there are shows I don't like I don't watch them and I don't tell people why they shouldn't watch them.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Vito the TiVo said:


> I recap the show for Recapist.com and you can read my thoughts on last night's episode much more thoroughly there.
> 
> http://www.recapist.com/2007/11/27/journeyman-blowback-episode-110


Ok, time to look into your review. 



> We begin right where we left off last week, with the family at home and the kidnapper outside the house. Only its morning, with Lil' Dan complaining about school, so doesn't that mean that a whole night has passed?


I see nothing to believe that the beginning of this episode was supposed to happen *directly* after the conclusion of the previous one. At the end of the previous one it simply appeared to me as if the bad guy was confirming that he found the right place. That's it.

He could have come back the next morning, or a week later, what does it matter? It changes nothing and actually makes sense, unlike the "problem" you try to create in saying that he apparently sat outside in his car all night.



> So as soon as Wifey leaves, the kidnapper bursts through the door and puts a bullet in Dan's shoulder. Was he waiting for the family to leave? What sense does that make, especially considering the lengths he goes to get Wifey to come back home again?


He only cared about getting Katie to come back _when he lost Dan_! Before that all he cared about was Dan and getting his revenge on him.



> Later, he's in the hospital being treated, but when asked how he got shot, Dan mentions Starbucks for no reason whatsoever.


Dan's trying to come up with a plausible story of why he's been shot, all while lying in pain and confusion on a hospital table. I don't think it's a stretch that he said something very common nowadays but forgot in his clouded mind that they weren't around in the 80s.

Ok, I started this without reading your entire article and I've realized that responding to each thing you mention is going to take me waaaay more time than I've got. But these first few I think are enough. If you miss some (what I consider to be) fairly simply story points then I don't see how you can write a review about the show. It's almost like you didn't understand what was happening in the story at all. And not because it was poorly written, but it seems to me more like you weren't paying attention.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Vito the TiVo said:


> I'm just at a loss. I've never found my opinion on a piece of entertainment to differ so radically from the geek community at large.
> 
> But it's not even that I simply dislike the show, it is a badly written, acted and produced hour of television and I am amazed that so few people in the internet community seem to hold the same opinion.
> 
> EDIT: I may be nitpicking for the sake of it now, simply because I have to keep writing up the show and I find it excruciating how badly they treat their own material.


How do you classify what you write as "writing up" the show? I didn't bother to read any recaps from anything other than this particular epsiode, but it strikes me as very similar to Television Without Pity. What bothers me is that your recaps seem to be written by people who see themselves as somehow superior to the writers/actors/producers themselves, yourself included. Ooh, you're clever because you referred to the FBI guy as "FBI agent not-Chappelle." Too bad it took even me, who watches 24, a minute to figure out who the hell you were talking about.

You hate the show. We get that. But if you hate it so much, (a) why do you write about it? (I mean that sincerely, were you assigned it, or did you think it would be good and chose it, and now you're taking out your personal disappointment out on those people who might be dumb enough to read your recap?) and (b) why do you come here to complain about it?

I'm sorry...well, actually, I'm not sorry...I'm just sick of people who think they're more clever than the actual writers of these shows. Maybe you are. Doesn't mean we really care. But if you are more clever, why aren't you doing that instead? Are you waiting for your big break, hoping that some producer's going to be reading your recap and saying, "We need scab writers, come help us do the back 9 for Journeyman?"

I realize I'm coming off as hostile, and intentionally so, but I'm really curious about this.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

serumgard said:


> I realize I'm coming off as hostile, and intentionally so, but I'm really curious about this.


I'll try to respond to your questions directly since you said that you were actually curious. I realize that people would respond with hostility and I asked the question because I legitimately wanted to know what I am missing. I included the recap post simply to show that I do watch the show closely and I do have an interest in it "being good". I wanted to start an actual conversation rather than just be perceived as another person that pops into threads just to state "this show sucks".



> How do you classify what you write as "writing up" the show? ...it strikes me as very similar to Television Without Pity.


I'm paid by recapist.com to recap the events of the episode and review the episode as a whole. A certain amount of "snark" is encouraged. And yes, there is similarity to Television Without Pity and TVSquad and a number of other television sites. Its not my business or business model. I don't really know how to discuss it from that angle.



> What bothers me is that your recaps seem to be written by people who see themselves as somehow superior to the writers/actors/producers themselves, yourself included.


I'm not sure if you're referring to only recapist.com or all of these television sites as whole. I know my tone on this episode comes across that way and on some level is very much meant to. It's a little bit writing persona and a whole lot of being frustrated with this series. Other shows that I do for the site include _Battlestar Galactica_, _24_, _Supernatural_, _Reaper_, _The Shield_ and _The 4400_. I think there are a few more in there. Very few of my show devolve to this point of criticism, _The 4400_ being the other main culprit. Most of the others don't take on this form of superior tone, but rather are blogged from the viewpoint of a true fan.



> Ooh, you're clever because you referred to the FBI guy as "FBI agent not-Chappelle." Too bad it took even me, who watches 24, a minute to figure out who the hell you were talking about.


My internal references and short-hand for the characters kind of assume that you're reading the recaps for that particular series weekly. The Chapelle bit was set up previously.



> ...But if you hate it so much, (a) why do you write about it? (I mean that sincerely, were you assigned it, or did you think it would be good and chose it, and now you're taking out your personal disappointment out on those people who might be dumb enough to read your recap?) and (b) why do you come here to complain about it?


a) Like all my other shows, I selected it knowing it would be a show that I would be watching and hoping that it would be good. 
b) I wanted to open up a discussion of what people really like about this show and maybe find out if there are others on the board that are disappointed in the show as well. Like I said before, I didn't come here just to threadcrap, but wanted to start up a legitimate discussion on a show that I have a lot to say about. This forum is to discuss shows, not just compliment them. I have a lot of legitimate criticisms that I don't see being discussed on any of the boards where people are simply cheering this show on to more of the same for a back nine or second season. Perhaps I should have clued people into my earlier recaps before I got so bitter about the show.



> ...if you are more clever, why aren't you doing that instead? Are you waiting for your big break, hoping that some producer's going to be reading your recap and saying, "We need scab writers, come help us do the back 9 for Journeyman?"


In reverse order... no one should ever scab - I don't ever expect to get an ounce of work from these recaps. The most I hope for is for a writer of the show to read them an either feel congratulated, or in this case try to improve the dreck that they're turning out ('cause we want television to be better) - But yes, I am a writer who is looking for employment in that field and I am currently employed on a network prime time drama as an assistant. Maybe some of that bitterness comes through in my tone, but as I said before, I certainly don't treat all shows in that manner. Only the ones that don't deserve the kind of budgets and timeslots that are being wasted on them. 

And before someone else says it, yes the ulterior motive to starting a discussion is/was also to bring attention to other websites, like the one that I work for, where people are carrying on discussions about some of the same topics.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

serumgard said:


> Ooh, you're clever because you referred to the FBI guy as "FBI agent not-Chappelle."


BOY you don't read Blogs 4 Bauer recaps of 24, do you? *snicker*

Greg


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

Bryanmc said:


> It's almost like you didn't understand what was happening in the story at all. And not because it was poorly written, but it seems to me more like you weren't paying attention.


On the contrary, I don't believe it my lack of paying attention, but perhaps a symptom of paying _closer_ attention. A lot of what I note is something that strikes me as odd or inaccurate the very first time I watch an episode. I don't feel that it is all that dissimilar to the discussion of viruses vs. bacteria furher up the thread.

The writing on most series doesn't bump me the way it does on this show (_The 4400_ being another culprit I mentioned), but when a viewer is knocked out of the story so easily it either means that the story isn't particularly engaging or that the error in character motivation or plot or whatever is so egregious that the viewer can't easily pave it over.

It may just sound like I think that I am better than the writing staff, but these writers are paid a lot of money to simply think things things through and commit them to paper. Regardless of how easy it is, or if you or I could do it, they should be able to do it better than this. I also expect high-paid football players to not fumble and high-paid CEOs to not tank their company's stock.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I said recaps. I meant to say "Tivoblogs". Sorry. 

Greg


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Vito the TiVo said:


> On the contrary, I don't believe it my lack of paying attention, but perhaps a symptom of paying _closer_ attention.


I really don't think that's it. You didn't seem to understand some _very basic_ plot elements from this last episode.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

If the show does get cancelled, this would be a good episode to end it on.

I'm reminded of a sitcom from last season, "Big Day", which was a "24"-style sitcom where each episode was a 30-minute slice of a couple's wedding day. ABC cancelled it after 13 or so episodes. The next-to-last episode would have been a satisfying ending to the series (hell, they even ended the episode by having the couple driving off into the sunset), but then they went and aired one more episode, which took a lot of the previously tied up loose ends and unraveled them a bit, and also introduced new conflicts, all of which was pretty annoying since there were no more episodes after that.

I hope that doesn't happen here.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

Bryanmc said:


> I really don't think that's it. You didn't seem to understand some _very basic_ plot elements from this last episode.


But I think some of those very basic plot elements were cobbled together and asked the viewer to make greater leaps of logic than were justified.

For instance, I can ignore that the episode very clearly showed Livia leaping away from the ambulance before Dan leaped as well, and yes, if I ignore that I have no reason to question how she "knows" that Dan is somewhere in the city.

I can also ignore the unrealistic ways in which the FBI agent and Jack discuss time travel, both of them without batting an eye (even for show) or doubting the other ones sanity, but I did notice it and therefore point a finger at both of these points (for instance) as lazy writing.

I understand all the plot points as they progress, I just don't think that they're always justified by characterization or action.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

appleye1 said:


> Did one of the nurses say it was for a virus? The only thing I recall is the present-day nurse saying he had a staph infection, which is bacterial.
> 
> Which is interesting in that he had a present day staph germ on his skin, went back into the past, got shot, got infected, got an antibiotic that was ineffective against a current day staph germ, and almost died as a result. Raises some ideas about the medical risks of traveling to the past!


Imagine Dan taking MRSA into the past.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Vito the TiVo said:


> But I think some of those very basic plot elements were cobbled together and asked the viewer to make greater leaps of logic than were justified.
> 
> For instance, I can ignore that the episode very clearly showed Livia leaping away from the ambulance before Dan leaped as well, and yes, if I ignore that I have no reason to question how she "knows" that Dan is somewhere in the city.


The biggest indication that he is in the city is because SHE is in the city. Previous episodes, and this one, have more or less said flat out that as Dan's mission shifts from person to person from week to week, Livia's mission appears to be Dan, since she has been following him around every week and helping him out when he needs it. Therefore, if she travels into the present in San Francisco, the reason almost must be Dan, and must be because that's where he is.

Again, if you pay attention, they said all this in previous episodes, but made a point to talk about it in dialog in this very episode. Not picking up on this is not the fault of the writers - it's the fault of inattentive watching, IMHO. If they went any further to point it out, it would smack of being rather anvil-like and an insult to the viewer's intelligence and attention span.

Even if she doesn't know this for certain, she still probably has a fairly strong feeling that he is in the city somewhere... it's called intuition, and it's not a particularly uncommon trait, particularly between those with a significant bond like husband and wife (or boyfriend/girlfriend... I don't remember if Dan and Livia were actually married.)



> I can also ignore the unrealistic ways in which the FBI agent and Jack discuss time travel, both of them without batting an eye (even for show) or doubting the other ones sanity, but I did notice it and therefore point a finger at both of these points (for instance) as lazy writing.


The deal is that the FBI agent appears to believe in Time Travel, so he would not have blinked or considered Jack insane for suggesting it. On the other hand, the one time that the FBI agent really came out and point blank suggested that Dan was time traveling, Jack really did think the FBI agent was looney - hence him chasing back to Dan's boss.

However, at the same time, since Dan did tell Jack in the first episode that he was time traveling, family bonds would cause Jack not to COMPLETELY discount the possibility... oh, sure, until Livia showed up, he was pretty sure BOTH Dan and the FBI agent were completely off their rockers, enough so to force Dan against his will into psychological counseling... but there was just that little bit inside that comes from being Dan's family that makes him consider the possibility, as we saw in the events from last week.

As far as I can tell, you apparently want things spelled out in giant flashing neon lights when they're important, and apparently think it's "lazy" when the writers don't do this. On the other hand, I think its actually better when they include the details, but don't make any special attempt to call attention to them, and leave it for those viewers who are carefully watching the events unfold to pick up on details and put the pieces together themselves, and think it'd be lazy for them to assume that they have to hold the viewers hand and walk them through the events.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

busyba said:


> If the show does get cancelled, this would be a good episode to end it on.
> 
> I'm reminded of a sitcom from last season, "Big Day", which was a "24"-style sitcom where each episode was a 30-minute slice of a couple's wedding day. ABC cancelled it after 13 or so episodes. The next-to-last episode would have been a satisfying ending to the series (hell, they even ended the episode by having the couple driving off into the sunset), but then they went and aired one more episode, which took a lot of the previously tied up loose ends and unraveled them a bit, and also introduced new conflicts, all of which was pretty annoying since there were no more episodes after that.
> 
> I hope that doesn't happen here.


The producer says that if all episodes of Journeyman run the series will tie itself up nicely if cancelled. Problem is, if they cancel the show, NBC currently plans to end the series with one episode to go. And the last episode they plan to air is part one of a two-parter!  I'm sure they'll work something out. I hope.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

appleye1 said:


> The producer says that if all episodes of Journeyman run the series will tie itself up nicely if cancelled. Problem is, if they cancel the show, NBC currently plans to end the series with one episode to go. And the last episode they plan to air is part one of a two-parter!  I'm sure they'll work something out. I hope.


Check that... the deal was that the ratings for last week and this week (last night) determined the future for the series. Journeyman is not on next week, and NBC was rumored to have said that if the ratings didn't improve, it would not return to the air at all, leaving last night's episode as the last one we would see (regardless of the fact that they promoed a new episode in 2 weeks).


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> The biggest indication that he is in the city is because SHE is in the city.


Livia only _mostly_ travels to where Dan is. She had other missions before him and at least in the instance of her previous visit to 2007, it was a timeframe that Dan was not present in.

I *don't* think that a lengthy explanation should be spelled out, but rather that they shouldn't cheat by writing situations where a lengthy explanation is necessary at all. I understand your explanation, but I don't buy that Livia would "know" that Dan was there with her. Couldn't her mission have been to alert Jack to the situation at the house in order to help Dan continue to work in the past?



> The deal is that the FBI agent appears to believe in Time Travel, so he would not have blinked or considered Jack insane for suggesting it. On the other hand, the one time that the FBI agent really came out and point blank suggested that Dan was time traveling, Jack really did think the FBI agent was looney - hence him chasing back to Dan's boss.


My point is not that either character is acting out of character for what they think (agent clearly knows about time travel and Jack clearly had his suspicions) but rather that an "FBI Agent" and a cop would never converse about time travel in the way they did, especially when they both have their guard up in front of the other one. Jack's character in no way acted the way that a cop would in front of an FBI agent that he thought was off his rocker, regardless of whether or not he considering the possibility himself.



> As far as I can tell, you apparently want things spelled out in giant flashing neon lights when they're important, and apparently think it's "lazy" when the writers don't do this.


I can understand why it would come across like that, but in this case I truly believe that its not just that the writers haven't spelled the situation out, but that they themselves haven't _thought_ the situation out. We, as viewers, *are *smart and can find logic and justification for actions in a television show (look at those _Lost_ threads), but sometimes (even there) we are covering for poor writing rather than picking up the clues that the writers have laid out for us. For instance, I think that the Livia intuition is a good explanation and that she is perhaps "fine-tuned" to Dan, but they've never said or shown us anything for us to think that Livia has a sixth sense like that.

I understand this is sci-fi show (_light _sci-fi show) which automatically requires more explanation, but I don't find myself facing these kind of issues with other shows. Or even on a show like _Supernatural_ where they spelled out their rules once upon a time and have a delightful time playing inside of them.

I just think we're coming up with better explanations than they are when explanation shouldn't be required to this degree.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Livia only _mostly_ travels to where Dan is. She had other missions before him and at least in the instance of her previous visit to 2007, it was a timeframe that Dan was not present in.


Her only trip to 2007 was to retrieve the money - and that's because it was something he immediately needed at that very moment. Since Dan started traveling (leaping?) Livia has been following him around to every new moment in time that he is... and seems to be doing so in the exact same order that he is (that is, the events for Livia appear to be happening in the same order as they are for Dan). That cannot be coincidence.



> I *don't* think that a lengthy explanation should be spelled out, but rather that they shouldn't cheat by writing situations where a lengthy explanation is necessary at all. I understand your explanation, but I don't buy that Livia would "know" that Dan was there with her. Couldn't her mission have been to alert Jack to the situation at the house in order to help Dan continue to work in the past?


Because as established, her mission is Dan and to help him complete his missions in time. The mission is not Dan's family. While losing Katie would be bad for Dan, it would not particularly affect his ability to complete his missions in time.



> My point is not that either character is acting out of character for what they think (agent clearly knows about time travel and Jack clearly had his suspicions) but rather that an "FBI Agent" and a cop would never converse about time travel in the way they did, especially when they both have their guard up in front of the other one. Jack's character in no way acted the way that a cop would in front of an FBI agent that he thought was off his rocker, regardless of whether or not he considering the possibility himself.


And I wouldn't expect a veteran cop to immediately react either. For him to flip out and say "Dude, you CRAZY man!!!!" or whatever would be completely out of character. I'm perfectly OK with a veteran police detective to maintain a poker face while listening to a crazy person, let them say their peace, then go elsewhere and vent about how crazy this person is, like Jack did to Dan's boss.


> I just think we're coming up with better explanations than they are when explanation shouldn't be required to this degree.


I disagree. I think the writing is perfectly valid and presents all the explanation the viewer needs, should they so choose to put it together. And I didn't feel any explanation was particularly needed after this episode because all this stuff was fairly obvious to me. The only reason this much discussion is needed is because, to be blunt, I don't think you were really watching it carefully to pick up on it.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

They are slowly revealing how the whole time travel process works. We don't know the answers to your questions because they haven't told us yet, and plan to do so on their own schedule, if given the chance.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Check that... the deal was that the ratings for last week and this week (last night) determined the future for the series. Journeyman is not on next week, and NBC was rumored to have said that if the ratings didn't improve, it would not return to the air at all, leaving last night's episode as the last one we would see (regardless of the fact that they promoed a new episode in 2 weeks).


Well, that was not exactly the deal actually. Everybody really needs to read the interview with Kevin Falls. (LINK) It's very detailed and it clarifies a lot of this stuff we've just been speculating on. Here is an excerpt dealing with that rumor:


> BE: So what is going to happen with the remaining episodes? Because Aint It Cool News got everyone up in arms by saying that the network was gonna cancel the show unless the two-parter that started last night (Nov. 19th) and finishes next Monday (Nov. 26th) brings big numbers.
> 
> KF: Heres whatI think what got twisted around was that episodes 8 and 9, the episodes in question there, were certainly important episodes. Wed up-kicked on 7, and 8 and 9 were sweeps, and so theyre gonna be watching that closely. That, coupled with the fact that, on Dec. 3rd, Life gets our slottheres gonna be a Life episode on that night, and I think theyre doing a Monday / Wednesday episode thats a 2-parter, but youd have to check on thatand I think that made it seem like we were gonna get yanked after that, but thats not true. We will air Episodes 10 and 11; 10 is our Christmas episode, and 11 is the first part of a two-parter that leads into ourseason finale. (Writers note: I cant do justice to the inherent depression in his use of the term season finale, but suffice it to say that the words didnt come out easily.) Now, heres what no-one knows about and what I just found out about last night: theres no room for Episode 12. And the idea istheyre not saying, Were not going to give you that back 9. I mean, no-one can predict whats gonna happen with the strike. But I think the idea is that NBC, what they want to do is tie up all their loose ends. Like, Heroes and Life and our show, have all that stuff done by the first of the year, so that they can, if theres still a strike, air new programming or mid-season shows like Medium and Lipstick Jungle or another Law and Order and a ton of reality wallpaper, so they can start fresh. I think thats (NBC President Jeff) Zuckers thinking, and, business-wise, I get that. It makes sense. But whats frustratingand this is the second time Ive been frustrated with the networkis because I love them so much and I think they do the best TV shows. Its like being angry at your parents; you love them, but sometimes you dont like what theyre telling you to do. So weve got this Episode 12 dangling out there, andI dont know if itll ever see the light of day on the network. And it isin some ways, it could very much be the series finale. And its really good. Its directed by Alex Graves, its a really strong script, and it answers questions, and its gonna be one of those things that people are really, really gonna want to see. Now, Ive been told that theres gonna be a DVD, so you will get it. But itswhat makes us so frustrated is that, at a time when writers are striking and networks need programming, why on earth would you not find a place for Episode 12? And thats the question for which nobody seems to have an answer.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> The only reason this much discussion is needed is because, to be blunt, I don't think you were really watching it carefully to pick up on it.


*Sigh*. Alright, I'll stop arguing _these _points. But for the last time, it really isn't that I "don't watch carefully". Far too many negative criticisms of television are debated in these forums with the arguments that the critic "wasn't paying attention" or "didn't get it".

And even if I was a junior high dropout who watched while playing video games in the other room, it still doesn't explain all the various problems that I have seen in the writing and directing over the last ten episodes.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

appleye1 said:


> Well, that was not exactly the deal actually. Everybody really needs to read the interview with Kevin Falls. (LINK) It's very detailed and it clarifies a lot of this stuff we've just been speculating on. Here is an excerpt dealing with that rumor:


My mistake. I was still going on what was apparently reported by AICN.

Athough I'm still somewhat confused... he called episode 10 (the one that we're talking about here) the "Christmas episode" - and not only will there be one more episode to air before Christmas, but this episode did not have any Christmas themes that I can think of, so I'm not clear as to why he called it that.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Far too many negative criticisms of television are debated in these forums with the arguments that the critic "wasn't paying attention" or "didn't get it".


If you discount those then all that's left is that the critic is a moron. And we sure don't want to think that of you!


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> My mistake. I was still going on what was apparently reported by AICN.
> 
> Athough I'm still somewhat confused... he called episode 10 (the one that we're talking about here) the "Christmas episode" - and not only will there be one more episode to air before Christmas, but this episode did not have any Christmas themes that I can think of, so I'm not clear as to why he called it that.


He also said elsewhere in the article that "Blowback" was episode 9. There's a discrepency between his numbering system and ours. I think he may not be counting the pilot as episode #1. His episode 10 has not aired yet and I think it may be the one that airs week after next.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

appleye1 said:


> He also said elsewhere in the article that "Blowback" was episode 9. There's a discrepency between his numbering system and ours. I think he may not be counting the pilot as episode #1. His episode 10 has not aired yet and I think it may be the one that airs week after next.


The "fan" numbering system starts at 1; the studio numbering system usually starts at 0.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dswallow said:


> The "fan" numbering system starts at 1; the studio numbering system usually starts at 0.


Except in this case, the "first episode" was production number 1ANJ79; the next episode to air was 1ANJ02, and continued onto this one (1ANJ10). By both production AND "fan" numbering system, this was episode 10.

It is possible that he is considering contract-wise, which may have considered the pilot episode a separate contract from the rest of the episode order... this would be the 9th episode of this contract, in that case. *shrug*


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> The only reason this much discussion is needed is because, to be blunt, I don't think you were really watching it carefully to pick up on it.


Actually, I think Vito is watching it TOO carefully, and with the determination to be dumber than he really is.

Vito, come on man, EVERYTHING you nitpicked is easily explained and within context for anyone who has followed the show. The only reason I could see you dissecting it and intentionally misunderstanding is to justify why you don't like the show - not the other way around.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

And this is a first I think - this "Journeyman" thread right now has the same number of posts that the current "Heroes" thread has.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Except in this case, the "first episode" was production number 1ANJ79; the next episode to air was 1ANJ02, and continued onto this one (1ANJ10). By both production AND "fan" numbering system, this was episode 10.
> 
> It is possible that he is considering contract-wise, which may have considered the pilot episode a separate contract from the rest of the episode order... this would be the 9th episode of this contract, in that case. *shrug*


http://www.geocities.com/garn13/journeyman.html
http://journeyman.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Toughpigs


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Vito the TiVo said:


> I'll try to respond to your questions directly since you said that you were actually curious. I realize that people would respond with hostility and I asked the question because I legitimately wanted to know what I am missing. I included the recap post simply to show that I do watch the show closely and I do have an interest in it "being good". I wanted to start an actual conversation rather than just be perceived as another person that pops into threads just to state "this show sucks".


As others have said, the specific questions you've asked have been easily answered by people who clearly pay a lot of attention to the shows they watch. That said, I don't picture you as the sort of troll that wanders into a show thread and says, "This show blows." At the same time, I don't think you're paying as much attention to this show as your job requires.



Vito the TiVo said:


> I'm paid by recapist.com to recap the events of the episode and review the episode as a whole. A certain amount of "snark" is encouraged. And yes, there is similarity to Television Without Pity and TVSquad and a number of other television sites. Its not my business or business model. I don't really know how to discuss it from that angle.
> 
> I'm not sure if you're referring to only recapist.com or all of these television sites as whole. I know my tone on this episode comes across that way and on some level is very much meant to. It's a little bit writing persona and a whole lot of being frustrated with this series. Other shows that I do for the site include _Battlestar Galactica_, _24_, _Supernatural_, _Reaper_, _The Shield_ and _The 4400_. I think there are a few more in there. Very few of my show devolve to this point of criticism, _The 4400_ being the other main culprit. Most of the others don't take on this form of superior tone, but rather are blogged from the viewpoint of a true fan.
> 
> ...


Perhaps this is my own issue. Your link was the first time I've ever heard of therecapist.com. Reading your episode recap reminded me of the few times I've ever looked at Television Without Pity. Now, at my great fault, the few times I did that was before I'd discovered bittorrent and had missed an episode and genuinely wanted to know what I missed. In that regard, your websites are largely worthless (which I've never understood because it seems like something like that would be a decent resource).

Here's my big question. Why do you continue to do recaps for this particular show? You clearly can't stand it. Is everyone else at therecapist.com as disgusted with Journeyman as you are? Judging from the popularity of the show here, I'd find it amazing that the site couldn't find one person who likes the show. I mean, I started the fall season watching Reaper. Didn't do it for me, so I stopped. I didn't come in to show threads and say, "Can you explain why you like the show, because I don't get it." I didn't continue writing a detailed blog for a show that didn't live up to my expectations.

Look, I give you credit for putting up with my hostile questions, but I just don't understand why you continue working on this particular show. Others here have proved that your disdain for the show has impacted the quality of your work.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

serumgard said:


> Your link was the first time I've ever heard of therecapist.com.


I can't see that URL without thinking of this sketch:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3340769449794613869&hl=en


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

serumgard said:


> In that regard, your websites are largely worthless (which I've never understood because it seems like something like that would be a decent resource).


The correct address is just www.recapist.com. As I said before, its not my business, I'm just an employee. You have your right to your opinion of them as worthless, but they're clearly getting enough traffic that they are plenty profitable.



> Why do you continue to do recaps for this particular show? You clearly can't stand it. Is everyone else at therecapist.com as disgusted with Journeyman as you are? Judging from the popularity of the show here, I'd find it amazing that the site couldn't find one person who likes the show.


Honestly, I saw the downturn in both quality and ratings after the pilot and assumed it would be pulled at any moment. Ironically, the writers' strike probably didn't kill this show, but rather gave it more of a chance to gain momentum... which according the ratings, it hasn't (I know it has in some internet communities).

The general feedback to my question and my negative review disappoints me. I appreciate the people taking me to task with explanations of story points and odd character choices, but I'm extremely unnerved by the impression that your comment gives (among others) that forums or criticism is reserved for _fans_ of a show only. Threadcrapping is one thing, but I think genuinely challenging fans when you're trying to stick with a show and you're just not seeing it is another. Some people love to be negative on the forums (dswallow, where you at?) but they're mostly genuinely criticizing the show on valid points. Perhaps more importantly, this opinion usually comes from a perceived loss of quality. In my case, nothing that has been written on this show has even scratched at the humanity, pathos and (dare I say it) realism that the pilot exhibited.

And as for the work on recapist.com, I stand my hastily written reviews, regardless if other people can nitpick apart my nitpicks. There's a place for negative criticism, especially when so much runs (unjustifiably -imho) positive.

That being said, I'm only with the show because I know its going to be cancelled and I'm watching it to the bitter end. I doubt someone would pick it up at this point, but believe me, with a back nine order I would drop it regardless.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

And I guess, just to make a point with an example, I see threads like the current _Heroes_ thread where fans are simply tearing the show apart (and for the most part justifiably so). Yet everywhere I look, people seem to be comparing _Journeyman_ to unfairly cancelled shows of the past like _Arrested Development_ and building it up as so much better than it has ever been or probably ever could be.

Would the _Heroes_ thread look different if NBC was considering cancellation after this run? Because it got popular, did that make its popularity in the "geek" community sag? Is _Journeyman_ supported by the same community because the American public as a whole does not?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I'd miss Journeyman if it were canceled today far more than I'd miss Heroes if it were canceled today. I enjoy both, but Journeyman has become far more interesting just as quickly as Heroes has completely lost its allure.


----------



## Tivohud (Jan 11, 2003)

dswallow said:


> I'd miss Journeyman if it were canceled today far more than I'd miss Heroes if it were canceled today. I enjoy both, but Journeyman has become far more interesting just as quickly as Heroes has completely lost its allure.


+1

Heroes pulled out the same old formula for season 2, while, although not groundbreaking, Journeyman has proven much fresher.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I'd miss Journeyman if it were canceled today far more than I'd miss Heroes if it were canceled today. I enjoy both, but Journeyman has become far more interesting just as quickly as Heroes has completely lost its allure.


With you here, Doug. Amazing how fortunes can change so quickly in the wacky world of TV...


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

I, personally, think this show is written quite well. Dialogue is very good, each plot point is introduced subtley, yet effectively, and the sets and camera work both look good. I also believe each actor's performance is top notch. Even Dan's son is acted quite well. I know he's a child, but he's still pretty good. Can anybody say Shawny from John from Cincinnati?

I mean, let's remember, Kevin McKidd is British. On top of everything else he's doing (action, emotions, gestures) he's covering his accent. That, in and of itself isn't groundbreaking, but it's still pretty impressive. 

I'm no professional writer, but I am college educated, with several writing courses under my belt, and I believe that Journeyman is one of the most well thought out and executed shows on the air right now. Especially when compared to some other shows, I find very little holes in Journeyman, and believe me I look!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Not to sound like a thread crapper, but can someone please explain to me what is so great about this show? I liked the pilot and I wanted to like the show, but the show has just been going downhill steadily, culminating in what I thought was easily the worst episode last night.


Odd, because I think the show is getting better. The biggest reason for me (same as for shows like Chuck and others) is because I care about the characters. They are real and interesting. The simple fact that the wife stands by her guy (pretty much from the beginning) rather than it becoming a cliche that puts "strain" on the marriage.

Conversely, I totally gave up on the Bionic Woman because I didn't care if any of the characters lived or died. (The only interesting one at all was the Starbuck character and she is just a sideline.)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I just read Vito's review. Dreck. Being snarky just to be snarky is just plain dumb. Gee, let's see. Questioning the reactions of a character to a situation? Is everyone supposed to be the same? That would be bad writing. Every writing class will tell you to develop a character and be consistent with how they would react in a given situation. Don't assume everyone reacts the same way (this in reference to Jack meeting Livia in the elevator. Odd how Vito says that the writing is bad and boring yet when they do something that is not standard, he criticizes it. Jack was supposed to say "But you're dead?" That would be knee-jerk writing that shows no creativity at all).

Second, the show did not follow the traditional style that says Dan fixes the problem by fixing the young version of the kidnapper. Instead, it ended in a non-traditional way. Dan couldn't fix the situation by going back in time. Instead, he used his knowledge to get the kidnapper off-guard and saved his wife the traditional way.

And, yes, I am being harsh because I am so sick of snarkiness in reviewing entertainment, sports, politics, etc. It is easy and cheap. How about some real analysis for a change. Oh, that's right, I get a lot of that here.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

OK regarding the Kevin Falls interview. Is he saying that they have 10,11,12 left with 10-11 being a 2 parter and 12 will not be shown or what. I am completely lost in too much detail. Can someone simplify it for me


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> OK regarding the Kevin Falls interview. Is he saying that they have 10,11,12 left with 10-11 being a 2 parter and 12 will not be shown or what. I am completely lost in too much detail. Can someone simplify it for me


He's saying that they have 10-12 left. 10 is the Christmas ep and 11-12 is a two-parter but that there is currently no room on the schedule for 12 (probably due to Christmas and Zucker's self-imposed end of the year deadline). According to Falls, the show will be pre-empted on Dec. 3 for Life. It is currently scheduled to air on Dec. 10 (ep. 10) and Dec. 17 (ep. 11). The next two Mondays are Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. They're not going to air the final episode on those nights, and then we get into the new year where Zucker wants to start fresh with new stuff.

Maybe they can air the two-part finale back to back on the 17th since Heroes will already be over at that point.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

So they would show the first part of a 2-parter and not the second part. Wow, maybe what people say about networks is true


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Not to sound like a thread crapper, but can someone please explain to me what is so great about this show? I liked the pilot and I wanted to like the show, but the show has just been going downhill steadily, culminating in what I thought was easily the worst episode last night.
> 
> I recap the show for Recapist.com and you can read my thoughts on last night's episode much more thoroughly there.
> 
> ...


I'd like to read your review and judge for myself, but this link isn't working for me. I tried www.recapist.com and that didn't work either. Is anyone else having the same problem?


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'd like to read your review and judge for myself, but this link isn't working for me. I tried www.recapist.com and that didn't work either. Is anyone else having the same problem?


Works for me.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Bryanmc said:


> Works for me.


Sucks to me.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevDog, you're not missing much. Most of it has already been discussed on here. It's not the worst review I'd read, but it's the most thorough at picking at every little nit (some not being nits at all -- again, this has been discussed here).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bryanmc said:


> Works for me.


Must be a cookies issue. It goes back and forth between trying to load recapist.com and famesters.com but neither of them ever comes up. I then get a message that "This Page isn't Redirecting Properly."

Usually when a site won't load due to my blocking the cookie, I get a page explaining how to allow the cookie. Here, I just get nothing, but cookies is the only thing I can think of.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

My whole family was blown away by this episode. My wife is not a big scifi fan and she was totally locked into the show.

Only problem is that it had a series final feel to it. Just when it starts getting real good it's gone.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Am I a geek? Didn't know that, but I'll proudly join the ranks. (I usually like the same stuff the rest of you do)


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

JohnB1000 said:


> So they would show the first part of a 2-parter and not the second part. Wow, maybe what people say about networks is true


It happened with Nightstalker, as I recall, on ABC. From wikipedia: "The last episode that was aired was the first of a multi-part episode, so viewers never saw the end of the sixth story. However, some time after the cancellation, the seventh episode appeared on Apple's iTunes Music Store for download. On February 7, 2006, the final three episodes were released on iTunes." It was later showed in its entirety (10 episodes) on Sci-Fi, as I recall.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Here, I've got a legitimate nit to pick, although it's a very small nit: seeing a "1980" registration sticker on a car's license plate is not necessarily a sign that the current year is 1980. There's a fairly good chance that it's 1979. (If someone came back in time to today and looked at my car's license plate, they'd see the "2008" sticker that's been there since May.)


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

trainman said:


> Here, I've got a legitimate nit to pick, although it's a very small nit: seeing a "1980" registration sticker on a car's license plate is not necessarily a sign that the current year is 1980. There's a fairly good chance that it's 1979. (If someone came back in time to today and looked at my car's license plate, they'd see the "2008" sticker that's been there since May.)


I was thinking the same thing.  Even though, it doesn't matter too much if it's -80 or -79 I guess.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

trainman said:


> Here, I've got a legitimate nit to pick, although it's a very small nit: seeing a "1980" registration sticker on a car's license plate is not necessarily a sign that the current year is 1980. There's a fairly good chance that it's 1979. (If someone came back in time to today and looked at my car's license plate, they'd see the "2008" sticker that's been there since May.)


My car has an '09 sticker on it.

But speaking of that, wasn't that Cadillac an early 80's model, not a 70's model?


----------



## ZooCaretaker (May 22, 2007)

JohnB1000 said:


> So they would show the first part of a 2-parter and not the second part. Wow, maybe what people say about networks is true


It also happened with Tru Calling -- the series finale was never air'd. Luckily season one and all six episodes of season 2 did make it to DVD.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

trainman said:


> Here, I've got a legitimate nit to pick, although it's a very small nit: seeing a "1980" registration sticker on a car's license plate is not necessarily a sign that the current year is 1980.


Yes, I agree, but if I was my own critics, I would point out that they already addressed this and made fun of it in an earlier episode. People would tell me that I wasn't paying attention.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Yes, I agree, but if I was my own critics, I would point out that they already addressed this and made fun of it in an earlier episode. People would tell me that I wasn't paying attention.


So why DIDN'T you make this legitimate nitpick? It's not like you didn't have the chance.  Although this didn't affect the story at all even if it had been 1979.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

MickeS said:


> So why DIDN'T you make this legitimate nitpick? It's not like you didn't have the chance.  Although this didn't affect the story at all even if it had been 1979.


I have to nitpick my battles.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

danterner said:


> It happened with Nightstalker, as I recall, on ABC. From wikipedia: "The last episode that was aired was the first of a multi-part episode, so viewers never saw the end of the sixth story. However, some time after the cancellation, the seventh episode appeared on Apple's iTunes Music Store for download. On February 7, 2006, the final three episodes were released on iTunes." It was later showed in its entirety (10 episodes) on Sci-Fi, as I recall.


and the DVD has all 10 eps.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I finally got to see this episode. I thought it was pretty solid. My wife thought it was the best yet. 

Then we watched a little bit of Bionic Woman. And I have to admit there were a couple of good lines there. I'm not giving up on either of these shows. Just hoping that NBC doesn't either. 

Pam, you reading this?


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

JohnB1000 said:


> So they would show the first part of a 2-parter and not the second part. Wow, maybe what people say about networks is true


The article claims they "don't have room" for the last episode. Seems clear to me that they are just hoping people will buy the DVDs to see the last episode. I propose if they do this ONE person here buys the DVD and mail the last disc out to everyone else.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

emandbri said:


> The article claims they "don't have room" for the last episode. Seems clear to me that they are just hoping people will buy the DVDs to see the last episode. I propose if they do this ONE person here buys the DVD and mail the last disc out to everyone else.


I propose ZERO people here buy the DVD and everyone simply downloads it. This is not a marketing method to be supporting... showing all but the last episode on network television and having to buy the DVD set to get the finale.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I propose ZERO people here buy the DVD and everyone simply downloads it.


I don't know how to download stuff


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Found this over at the NBC board.

Journeyman Fans--

NBC has decided to air the 12th episode ("Perfidia") on Wednesday, December 19th at ten o'clock. That means our 10th episode will air on Monday the 10th ("Home by Another Way"), the 11th will air on 17th ("The Hanged Man").

The decision to air the 12th episode had a lot to do with the passion of our fans through SaveJourneyman.net, the online petition and letters and emails to NBC executives.

And is it true you can vote once a day for the People's Choice Awards?

There's still no news on our long term future, but we can promise you this: three terrific episodes inside of ten days. Oh, yeah, and you'll get some answers, too.

Your comments and pro-active attempts to save the show are very much appreciated by me and my fellow Executive Producer Alex Graves, Kevin McKidd and the cast, writers and crew. But more importantly, it's working.

But don't rest. We need you. We want a back nine--and beyond.

Thanks again,

Kevin Falls

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/node/34919


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Great!


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Vito the TiVo said:


> For instance, I can ignore that the episode very clearly showed Livia leaping away from the ambulance before Dan leaped as well, and yes, if I ignore that I have no reason to question how she "knows" that Dan is somewhere in the city.


She knows because she's interacting with Dan's life.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Kevin Falls said:


> And is it true you can vote once a day for the People's Choice Awards?


Oh, Kevin--you may do great television, but you don't do good coy.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I have never, nor will I ever, cared what a critic who "pretends to be dumb" has to say about a show or movie or book, because I don't really care what a dumb person thinks of a show or movie or book, because I myself am mostly not dumb. I do not consider it remotely valid criticism to say that something relies too much on paying attention to prior episodes. In fact that sounds like a compliment to me. If you look through such a lens at a show like the wire, the show becomes totally incomprehensible. Why are they looking at a computer screen with phone numbers? How do they know that the drug dealer is calling someone?


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

What?


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Vito the TiVo said:


> What?


Yeah, I can't tell if he likes you or hates you.


----------



## scsiguy72 (Nov 25, 2003)

Vito...I just have to say that you must have pretty thick skin.

It must not be easy taking fan wrath.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scsiguy72 said:


> It must not be easy taking fan wrath.


But I suspect the kind of guy who so loudly asks for it is probably better-equipped to deal with it than you or I... (And I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, he just seems to really like stirring things up. Kind of like a troll's much cooler cousin. )


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

man, i'm adding that to my sig.


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

Vito the TiVo said:


> What?


Man, and only three weeks ago, you were getting grief over the writer's strike.

I can't wait to see what you come up with next.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

TIVOSciolist said:


> Man, and only three weeks ago, you were getting grief over the writer's strike.
> 
> I can't wait to see what you come up with next.


The suspense is indeed exciting. I predict that, due to the strike, it will involve receipt checking at best buy.


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

I guess I shouldn't nitpick the logic of the insults...


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

Oh, and not just to throw fuel on the fire, but Kevin Well's recent announcement (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34919) that the final episode of _Journeyman_ will air does not seem to me to be the win that the internet community is making it to be.

Falls himself tells everyone to keep hoping for the back nine, but pushing out three episodes in 10 days in the middle of December smells like simply burning off the episodes to me.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Falls himself tells everyone to keep hoping for the back nine, but pushing out three episodes in 10 days in the middle of December smells like simply burning off the episodes to me.


At least there'll be something good to watch in December.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Does anyone think it's odd that NBC is airing an episode of Life in Journeyman's spot next week, but then will air an episode of Journeyman in Life's spot two weeks later? Why risk confusing viewers like that? Why not just air them when they're supposed to air?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Does anyone think it's odd that NBC is airing an episode of Life in Journeyman's spot next week, but then will air an episode of Journeyman in Life's spot two weeks later? Why risk confusing viewers like that? Why not just air them when they're supposed to air?


Well, for one that's not in the FOX manual on series development; NBC's just taking lessons from the best of them.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Does anyone think it's odd that NBC is airing an episode of Life in Journeyman's spot next week, but then will air an episode of Journeyman in Life's spot two weeks later? Why risk confusing viewers like that? Why not just air them when they're supposed to air?


I think the Life move was a test "How does this show work in this timeslot" Then they figured out they messed up on Journeyman


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I propose ZERO people here buy the DVD and everyone simply downloads it. This is not a marketing method to be supporting... showing all but the last episode on network television and having to buy the DVD set to get the finale.


Sorry to bump this old thread, but I find it interesting that people here are openly considering obtaining what might be the final episode of this great show via illegal means, whilst my same implication for the wrap up of the Ori arc in Stargate SG-1 got shot down in flames.

Maybe it's because we had 10 years of SG-1.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

Philosofy said:


> If NBC does cancel this show, what are the chances of a cable network like SciFi picking it up for new episodes? This is the best damn show on TV, and because it takes a little thought, and a little getting used to, and the time slot sucks, its going to die. If they put in on Wed, and hyped it like Bionic Woman, it would be heralded as the smash hit of the season.


The Chances are nil as long as the writers are on strike. I think if the writers had not gone on strike, Journeyman would have had a good shot at not only a full season this year, but a second season as well.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tiams said:


> The Chances are nil as long as the writers are on strike. I think if the writers had not gone on strike, Journeyman would have had a good shot at not only a full season this year, but a second season as well.


...except for that pesky little ratings thing...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Sherminator said:


> Sorry to bump this old thread, but I find it interesting that people here are openly considering obtaining what might be the final episode of this great show via illegal means, whilst my same implication for the wrap up of the Ori arc in Stargate SG-1 got shot down in flames.
> 
> Maybe it's because we had 10 years of SG-1.


It's no more illegal than the original suggestion of sharing one DVD.


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

Still illegal enough to have my post responding to :


emandbri said:


> I don't know how to download stuff


offering a PM when I have the ep., with a simple link for her to get it, deleted without comment.

But no-one else's disappeared tho'


----------



## bdlucas (Feb 15, 2004)

WinBear said:


> They totally wasted the effort to come up with a 25+ year old antibiotic and then said "virus" instead of "bacteria" for the payoff.


Meh, just a minor technical glitch. I could even believe it was the actor's error, not a writing error, and for any of a number of production reasons it didn't get corrected.



trainman said:


> Here, I've got a legitimate nit to pick, although it's a very small nit: seeing a "1980" registration sticker on a car's license plate is not necessarily a sign that the current year is 1980. There's a fairly good chance that it's 1979. (If someone came back in time to today and looked at my car's license plate, they'd see the "2008" sticker that's been there since May.)


I think it would have been more confusing if they had said "it's '79 or '80". Reasonable dramatic license IMO.

I don't have a problem with the way the FBI agent discussed time travel, since he apparently has been investigating it for some time, but I do think Jack seemed to accept it with a little too much equanimity.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bdlucas said:


> I don't have a problem with the way the FBI agent discussed time travel, since he apparently has been investigating it for some time, but I do think Jack seemed to accept it with a little too much equanimity.


...although (as I'm pretty sure somebody else pointed out) he's been subconsciously prepped for it since the first episode. And I think the fact that it was the FBI guy (not Dan or Katie) who first said out loud the Words That Must Not Be Said made it easier for all the pieces to finally fall together in his conscious mind.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

bdlucas said:


> I think it would have been more confusing if they had said "it's '79 or '80". Reasonable dramatic license IMO.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the way the FBI agent discussed time travel, since he apparently has been investigating it for some time, but I do think Jack seemed to accept it with a little too much equanimity.


And to anti-nitpick, Dan just looked down at the sticker that said "1980" and read it aloud, "1980." He didn't say "it's 1980" or anything like that.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

So I am sure this has already been said, but I just watched the episode last night. I was waiting for and loved the line 'ask him if he wants a ketchup sandwich'. 
I also loved Jack and his final acceptance of what was happening and how he helped Dan. I just thought that loop was really well written. 

Now I have to go back and read what you all are talking about - no last episode?


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

betts4 said:


> So I am sure this has already been said, but I just watched the episode last night. I was waiting for and loved the line 'ask him if he wants a ketchup sandwich'.
> I also loved Jack and his final acceptance of what was happening and how he helped Dan. I just thought that loop was really well written.
> 
> Now I have to go back and read what you all are talking about - no last episode?


Not anymore.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

I just watched this episode. The one thing I was waiting to see... Didn't he take the scissors back with him?? I'm surprised the scissors didn't come back out.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> So I am sure this has already been said, but I just watched the episode last night. I was waiting for and loved the line 'ask him if he wants a ketchup sandwich'.


Pizza sandwich.


----------



## Mike20878 (Jun 8, 2001)

Lopey said:


> I just watched this episode. The one thing I was waiting to see... Didn't he take the scissors back with him?? I'm surprised the scissors didn't come back out.


Scissors?


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Still getting caught up on old episodes...

Was the exterior for Dan's house the same as in earlier episodes? I was wondering if using the exterior for the house from Charmed was something new.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

PJO1966 said:


> Still getting caught up on old episodes...
> 
> Was the exterior for Dan's house the same as in earlier episodes? I was wondering if using the exterior for the house from Charmed was something new.


We thought there was a new one, between the one where the kidnapper dude was waiting for Dan's wife posing as a plumber, and later one where the house seemed more up on a hill.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Mr. Soze said:


> We thought there was a new one, between the one where the kidnapper dude was waiting for Dan's wife posing as a plumber, and later one where the house seemed more up on a hill.


It was the same from the beginning of the episode to the end, but I think they used a different house in the pilot, or whichever episode he buried the ring in the yard.


----------

