# 12 Monkeys remake series on Sifi channel coming soon



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

I understand it will be out in January 2015 but this is episode remake based on the 12 Monkeys movie staring Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt.

http://www.blastr.com/2013-8-26/12-monkeys-series-officially-gets-pilot-order-syfy


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Cool beans. One of my favorites.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

waynomo said:


> Cool beans. One of my favorites.


OK, you're the perfect person to help me understand this. It's one of my favorites, too... which is exactly why I _don't_ want to see it made into a series. The original was near-perfect, and it wouldn't make any sense as a series. But really, I feel that way about most of my faves, whether the original is a book, movie or TV show: I don't want them adapted, or remade.

But most people don't seem to feel that way. Any time a popular work gets adapted to a new medium, people get all excited for it. And then, nine times out of ten, those same people come back *****ing about how the adaptation sucks. So, why the excitement? It's like people don't learn from history.

I realize this is an excessively negative attitude to take towards a show that hasn't even started yet. And I know that it could turn out to be a perfectly fine show, _on its own terms_. But that's the thing -- it will _have_ to be on its own terms. Being an adaptation isn't a plus for it. Odds are, the people who will enjoy it the most will be people who've never seen the movie. Those who _have_ seen the movie will judge the show against it.

There are, in fact, a lot of adaptations that I enjoy -- mostly because I don't know the originals. A show based on a series of books that I haven't read? Great, bring it on. A show based on my own favorite book series? I dread it.

Why doesn't everyone?

</rant>


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Oddly enough, this is the one upcoming show that doesn't show up in the new TiVo advance SP search. Unless I'm doing something wrong...

Maybe it's (set) too far in the future?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Oddly enough, this is the one upcoming show that doesn't show up in the new TiVo advance SP search. Unless I'm doing something wrong...


i couldn't find it, either, but since they don't start filming the pilot until november, maybe we're jumping the gun a little by trying to set a sp? 


> Maybe it's (set) too far in the future?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> i couldn't find it, either, but since they don't start filming the pilot until november, maybe we're jumping the gun a little by trying to set a sp?


Really? I thought they were advertising it for January...


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? I thought they were advertising it for January...


you're right, i missed the year on the article, they must have filmed it last november...so we're back to "why can't we set an sp?"...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> you're right, i missed the year on the article, they must have filmed it last november...so we're back to "why can't we set an sp?"...


It's the time travel, I tell ya...screws up EVERYTHING!


----------



## Rainy Dave (Nov 11, 2001)

Weird...Syfy/12 Monkeys says it's coming in January 2015 also.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Back before the original came out I sat next to First Assistant Director Mark Egerton on a flight from Baltimore to LA. We had an interesting discussion about movie production and direction (he was also a producer on the movie). It was only later that I connected his name to the movie.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> OK, you're the perfect person to help me understand this. It's one of my favorites, too... which is exactly why I _don't_ want to see it made into a series. The original was near-perfect, and it wouldn't make any sense as a series. But really, I feel that way about most of my faves, whether the original is a book, movie or TV show: I don't want them adapted, or remade.
> 
> But most people don't seem to feel that way. Any time a popular work gets adapted to a new medium, people get all excited for it. And then, nine times out of ten, those same people come back *****ing about how the adaptation sucks. So, why the excitement? It's like people don't learn from history.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your sentiments. It's just not how I see the world. Perhaps I'm a glass half full guy? (Or perhaps I'm just used to some of the world sucking at times.) 

Each one exists in its own world. No matter how bad this adaption is, it won't tarnish the movie. It's not this sacred thing that can't be revisited. The movie exists as an entity unto itself.

Also I welcome the attempt to explore some ground that I enjoyed. Who knows, it might actually be good. I do agree that there is probably less than a 20% chance that this will be the case, but I'm willing to roll the dice and take that chance because of the potential reward.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

waynomo said:


> I appreciate your sentiments. It's just not how I see the world. Perhaps I'm a glass half full guy? (Or perhaps I'm just used to some of the world sucking at times.)
> 
> Each one exists in its own world. No matter how bad this adaption is, it won't tarnish the movie. It's not this sacred thing that can't be revisited. The movie exists as an entity unto itself.
> 
> Also I welcome the attempt to explore some ground that I enjoyed. Who knows, it might actually be good. I do agree that there is probably less than a 20% chance that this will be the case, but I'm willing to roll the dice and take that chance because of the potential reward.


What he said.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was a great novel. Blade Runner was a great movie. I'm glad we have both. And if Blade Runner had sucked, we'd still have DADoES.


----------



## PedjaR (Jan 4, 2010)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What he said.
> 
> Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was a great novel. Blade Runner was a great movie. I'm glad we have both. And if Blade Runner had sucked, we'd still have DADoES.


I'd say that generally an adaptation of an excellent book has a _much_ better chance of being real good than a remake of an excellent movie (whether the remake is another movie or a TV series). I can't think of many remakes of real good movies that were as good as the original, but there were more than a few not-quite-as-good-but-pretty-decent ones. For example (and this is restricting it only to relatively recent remakes of Swedish movies which were based on books) Let the Right One In/Let Me in and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. 
For TV series, sometimes being based on a rather unremarkable movie (say Stargate) may be better than being based on a great film.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I liked all versions of LA Cage aux Folles/ The Birdcage.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Fargo was really good as a TV show, so this could be as well.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

b_scott said:


> Fargo was really good as a TV show...


:up:


----------



## PedjaR (Jan 4, 2010)

b_scott said:


> Fargo was really good as a TV show, so this could be as well.


True. The series had little to do with the movie. Perhaps that's the recipe.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

PedjaR said:


> For TV series, sometimes being based on a rather unremarkable movie (say Stargate) may be better than being based on a great film.


Ah, yes. I'd also offer Alien Nation.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Ah, yes. I'd also offer Alien Nation.


Exceptions to the rule in your case?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

waynomo said:


> Exceptions to the rule in your case?


Nope. Good shows from mediocre movies. If those had been among my favorite movies, it'd be a different scenario.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Was the original 12 Monkeys movie based on a book?

Was it very faithful to the book?

Maybe the book would lend itself to a series better than it did a movie.

Speaking of PKD (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), the movie Total Recall was (rather loosely, I gather) based on one of his books, and did well enough that someone got to spend someone's money making a television series, Total Recall 2070, which I thought was pretty good, but was so different from the movie that you can't really compare them.

So maybe the 12 Monkeys TV series will be more of a reboot than a remake.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

12 Monkeys was based on an experimental French short film from 1962 called La Jetée.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> 12 Monkeys was based on an experimental French short film from 1962 called La Jetée.


They've shown it a few times on TCM. It'll probably come on again. Fans should setup a wishlist for it.


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

ABsoLUTEly - the film was great, SKYFRY Channel needs to go find some NEW material to massage into submission, instead of reworking perfectly good material that was already done well!

There are SO many good novels, shortstories and even graphic novels they could make a TV series or even miniseries from ... I recommend they do so!



wmcbrine said:


> OK, you're the perfect person to help me understand this. It's one of my favorites, too... which is exactly why I _don't_ want to see it made into a series. The original was near-perfect, and it wouldn't make any sense as a series. But really, I feel that way about most of my faves, whether the original is a book, movie or TV show: I don't want them adapted, or remade.
> 
> But most people don't seem to feel that way. Any time a popular work gets adapted to a new medium, people get all excited for it. And then, nine times out of ten, those same people come back *****ing about how the adaptation sucks. So, why the excitement? It's like people don't learn from history.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grimm1 (Jan 10, 2000)

SyFy Trailer


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

waynomo said:


> Each one exists in its own world. No matter how bad this adaption is, it won't tarnish the movie. It's not this sacred thing that can't be revisited. The movie exists as an entity unto itself.


12 Monkeys is one of my favorite movies, if not my favorite, and I agree. I'm looking forward to this. Since it is a series, I'm assuming they will be taking things in a different direction, so I would just consider this to be an "alternate universe" involving similar major events and people.

Could Syfy have come up with some other random time travel series called 13 Rhinos involving an alien invasion? Or maybe a series about an antique dealer who goes back in time to find his missing sports almanac? Perhaps, but to me most of those specifics are just the backdrop to the actual story.

As long as they do a good job with the details, I'm fine with them sharing the same basic premise as the movie.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i was able to set up the sp tonight, i think it listed ep1 premier 1/15/2015.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

waynomo said:


> They've shown it a few times on TCM. It'll probably come on again. Fans should setup a wishlist for it.


If anyone has a wishlist set up for the movie, and notices that it's on the schedule, please post here. Thanks!


----------



## thalador (Oct 26, 2007)

Anything done on the Syfy is doomed. They start out with great shows but when they get expensive they cancel them. Still don't understand what wrestling has to do with syfy but it seems like its their bread and butter now


----------



## Grimm1 (Jan 10, 2000)

thalador said:


> Anything done on the Syfy is doomed. They start out with great shows but when they get expensive they cancel them. Still don't understand what wrestling has to do with syfy but it seems like its their bread and butter now


That's one of the main reasons they changed the name from Sci-Fi to Syfy....so they could start airing things like wrestling and people wouldn't ask "what does that have to do with Sci-Fi"?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

thalador said:


> Anything done on the Syfy is doomed. They start out with great shows but when they get expensive they cancel them.


if syfy could generate enough viewers to raise ad revenue, i don't think production expense would be an issue with any of their shows.


Grimm1 said:


> That's one of the main reasons they changed the name from Sci-Fi to Syfy...


i agree, the rebranding was motivated by their desire to diversify programming,

did they really think that just changing the spelling would suddenly alter everyone's perception of the channel, when both names sound the same? do they really believe that the name is holding them back, not the quality of their programming?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The main reason for the change was having a name they could trademark...

They certainly haven't diversified their programming since. In fact, they've been inching back towards more science fiction.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The main reason for the change was having a name they could trademark...
> 
> They certainly haven't diversified their programming since. In fact, they've been inching back towards more science fiction.


that makes much more sense, and sounds like a smart move on their part.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

I could not set up a season pass. Only a wishlist.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

b_scott said:


> I could not set up a season pass. Only a wishlist.


If you have a Roamio or Premiere, you can set up an advance (all-channel) SP. Just do a search for the show, and an SP should be an option.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If you have a Roamio or Premiere, you can set up an advance (all-channel) SP. Just do a search for the show, and an SP should be an option.


I tried, it it did not come up. I have two Premieres. Only option was Wishlist.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

He meant ON the Tivo, not in the iOS app.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Gotta admit, I don't hate the trailer.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Fyi the TiVo app was updated and now you can do this


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I just tried and got an error "Unknown Collection". twice..


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I do have one big issue with the trailer.



Spoiler



In the trailer, Cole says he's come to stop the virus from being released. This is a major change from the movie, where Cole makes it clear that he's only here to collect samples, and not to change the past, which he considers fixed. OK, fine -- the movie's fatalistic premise probably wouldn't work for an ongoing show, anyway. BUT, the trailer also has Cole more or less quoting the movie, telling someone "He's already dead. Everyone is already dead. You're already dead." But those lines were based on the movie's fixed timeline. If time is changeable, then he can't write people off as "already dead"; his whole mission is to prevent that scenario. I wonder if the makers of the TV show didn't get this; or, if they did, but thought that the lines were too good not to reuse anyway?


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

I haven't watched the trailer but,



Spoiler



I could take that to mean that they're already dead unless they let him go or help him.


----------



## Grimm1 (Jan 10, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> I do have one big issue with the trailer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not gonna spoiler this since I'm not saying anything that isn't in the trailer or just my own speculation.

That's his response to her saying "you can't just kill someone". He's telling her he may have to get his hands dirty to save the world. If he doesn't those people will die anyways.

He also says if he succeeds he'll be erased. That implies that there is no alternate future (his present) for him. So as long as he exists the statement about "everybody is dead already" is true for him.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

For anyone interested in watching the movie first, it is airing on Sundance channel on 12/21 (2:15 p) and 12/22 (3:00 a).


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

NorthAlabama said:


> Did they really think that just changing the spelling would suddenly alter everyone's perception of the channel, when both names sound the same? do they really believe that the name is holding them back, not the quality of their programming?


My understanding was that "sci-fi" is in the public domain and cannot be registered as a trade name.

In 2010 Wunderlich Securities analyst Matthew Harrigan put a value on the NBC Universal networks:

$6.3 billion for Syfy, 
$3.9 billion for CNBC, 
$2.8 billion for MSNBC,
$2.6 billion for Bravo. and
-$600 million for NBC.

At the time more people watched NBC Sunday night football than all the programs on Syfy put together, but expenses are so high that overall NBC was losing money.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

The premiere date for the series is January 16th at 9 pm (EST)


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

FYI,

New series is starting this Friday (01-16-15) on Syfy channel.



> The show follows the journey of a time traveler, Cole, from the post-apocalyptic future. Using a dangerous and untested method of time travel, Cole arrives in the present day on a mission to locate and eradicate the source of a deadly plague that will eventually decimate 93.6% of the human race. Will Cole be able to save the fate of mankind or is mankind bound by fate? Taking place in the ravaged future of 2043 and the present day, 12 Monkeys explores themes of destiny, fate, love and the possibility of second chances.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

We know.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Season Pass set.
This might be one of those where I let the shows accumulate while waiting for the verdict.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Thx for reminder. SP added!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I wasn't going to watch this at first but after seeing the trailers I plan to watch 12 Monkeys along with Helix on Friday nights.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I'm looking forward to this. I really like the Terry Gilliam movie, and I enjoyed Aaron Stanford's take on the character of Birkhoff on Nikita.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> We know.


To be fair, that thread is in the Season Pass Alerts forum, which I would argue is the wrong place for that sort of thread.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dbranco said:


> The premiere date for the series is January 16th at 9 pm (EST)


If you miss it on Friday night, there are apparently going to be about 37 more chances to catch it all day Saturday.

(Okay, I exaggerate, but not by much)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

unitron said:


> If you miss it on Friday night, there are apparently going to be about 37 more chances to catch it all day Saturday.


Reminds me of the maintenance man who billed me for 26 hours of work in a single day.

(A day that, as it turned out, took place in his last week of working for me...)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

trainman said:


> To be fair, that thread is in the Season Pass Alerts forum, which I would argue is the wrong place for that sort of thread.


Yeah, I might have totally missed it over there.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

eddyj said:


> Yeah, I might have totally missed it over there.


I never go there....


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Reminds me of the maintenance man who billed me for 26 hours of work in a single day.
> 
> (A day that, as it turned out, took place in his last week of working for me...)


Was he a lawyer or doctor back in the old country?


----------



## KDeFlane (Jan 29, 2014)

Can anyone move this thread into the regular "Now Playing - TV Show Talk" forum? I keep thinking there is some kind of dire alert here.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Just watched the first episode. I thought it was pretty good.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Wow. That far exceeded my expectations! :up::up:

I like the reboot. (At least so far.) I like a few of the changes they've inserted. This will be a watch as soon as it's on the TiVo. (At least long enough so I can fast forward threw the commercials.)


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Yah. It was pretty good. I'm in.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

waynomo said:


> Wow. That far exceeded my expectations! :up::up: I like the reboot. (At least so far.) I like a few of the changes they've inserted. This will be a watch as soon as it's on the TiVo. (At least long enough so I can fast forward threw the commercials.)


I liked it, too! I'm so glad that it seems like the pendulum has finally swing back to sci-fi and away from wrestling, on Syfy. It looks like 2015 should be a good year for shows on the network.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

danterner said:


> I liked it, too! I'm so glad that it seems like the pendulum has finally swing back to sci-fi and away from wrestling, on Syfy. It looks like 2015 should be a good year for shows on the network.


Wrestling is still there, they just moved it off Fridays to Thursdays.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Kamakzie said:


> Wrestling is still there, they just moved it off Fridays to Thursdays.


They had so many commercials advertising this. I couldn't get away from them.

I'm still not sure about 12 Monkeys. I did like it but I guess because it seems like such a departure from the movie, I'm not sure what I think about it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

waynomo said:


> Wow. That far exceeded my expectations! :up::up:
> 
> I like the reboot. (At least so far.) I like a few of the changes they've inserted. This will be a watch as soon as it's on the TiVo. (At least long enough so I can fast forward threw the commercials.)


ep 2 is available vod (today only) for anyone interested, both were fast watches. there was only a single syfy promo during the breaks on comcast vod, so locked ffwd wasn't an issue (no commercials).

so far, so good, i really enjoyed the first 2 eps. :up:


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

NorthAlabama said:


> ep 2 is available vod (today only) for anyone interested, both were fast watches. there was only a single syfy promo during the breaks on comcast vod, so locked ffwd wasn't an issue (no commercials).
> 
> so far, so good, i really enjoyed the first 2 eps. :up:


Thanks. (I loathe commercials.)


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> ep 2 is available vod (today only) for anyone interested, both were fast watches. there was only a single syfy promo during the breaks on comcast vod, so locked ffwd wasn't an issue (no commercials).
> 
> so far, so good, i really enjoyed the first 2 eps. :up:


Do you have to download the SyFy app or is it available elsewhere?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

waynomo said:


> Do you have to download the SyFy app or is it available elsewhere?


it's available through my desktop browser at syfy.com, and a web search indicated a few 3rd parties are hosting it, too.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> it's available through my desktop browser at syfy.com, and a web search indicated a few 3rd parties are hosting it, too.


I didn't see it available at Vudu or Amazon. Although they both had the first episode available to purchase for zero dollars.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

So there are two threads for this show now?

'12 Monkeys' series starting on Syfy


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

So far I'm digging their attitude on the series, but by far the one line that got me committed to watching the series was :


> "Mother nature doesn't like it when we rearrange the furniture."


That's what I expect to hear on a messy time travel show, and I'm enjoying how they've distanced themselves from the movie, there's an article on io9 that mentiones that the initial premise was not 12 Monkeys, but a proposed show named "Splinter" that they then adapted into the 12 Monkeys footprint. http://io9.com/what-the-12-monkeys-showrunner-learned-from-writing-for-1679744051


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I loved the movie, have it on blu ray somewhere. Saw a tweet from Terry Gilliam (or a tweet attributing a quote to him) saying he was disappointed they are "re-making" it. Well, sorry, Terry, but the movie was not original material either (speaking of which, is La Jetée worth looking up and downloading?)

Anyhow, enjoyed the first episode (E01 is not available in Canada). Like the two leads and their takes on the characters.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> So there are two threads for this show now?
> 
> '12 Monkeys' series starting on Syfy


Which one do I use to discuss the show itself?

If everyone agreed that nothing should ever re-made or adapted, then there wouldn't be any TV shows or movies to watch.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> ep 2 is available vod (today only) for anyone interested, both were fast watches. there was only a single syfy promo during the breaks on comcast vod, so locked ffwd wasn't an issue (no commercials).
> 
> so far, so good, i really enjoyed the first 2 eps. :up:


I watched it and there were about 7 or 8 twenty second promos, what seemed like every 5 minutes on Xfinity VOD. It was quite annoying since most of them were for the "12 Monkeys Premiere" which anyone watching this would have seen already. The others were for Face off and wrestling.

That said, the episode was very good.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

do I discuss the show in this thread or the other one??


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Which one do I use to discuss the show itself?


Use the other one.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> do I discuss the show in this thread or the other one??


Use the other one.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Aaargh! Load* you're killing me. I've gone back-and-forth thinking I'm clicking the same damn link.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I liked it. I'm in. I don't remember anything about the movie other than it starred Bruce Willis which is probably a good thing. A lot of familiar faces in the first episode.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

cheesesteak said:


> A lot of familiar faces in the first episode.


Yeah, it was a bonus to see a couple of Nikita cast members. The blond girl was also on an episode of Nikita. I thought not only is this a good sci-fi story but this show could be used as a vehicle to eventually reunite the entire cast of Nikita. Stalker is probably canceled so Maggie should be available.

I just discovered the Nikita connection is not a coincidence since a couple of these 12 Monkeys writers were also writers and story editors for Nikita.

dianebrat - that's classic Nikita-style banter.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

I haven't watching anything on SyFy channel in years. This interested me and I'm glad I checked it out. Well done! Season Pass worthy.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wprager said:


> Aaargh! Load* you're killing me. I've gone back-and-forth thinking I'm clicking the same damn link.


 I'm glad I wasn't the only one.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Well, now the threads are merged, so the joke above doesn't make any sense anymore.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Well, now the threads are merged, so the joke above doesn't make any sense anymore.


This joke will live on in infamy.

Now, what are the spoiler rules? E02 has been released, albeit not everywhere. But even for E01, are there spoilers allowed here? I'll use them, just to be safe.



Spoiler



Since Goines was killed in E01 and you don't sign on Zeljko Ivanek for a one-episode role, I can only assume there will be a back-and-forth with different timelines. But how's that going to work? It's easy to see how Cole could go return to his present and then go further back (e.g. 1987) so we can meet up with Goines. Except you'd need a 30-year-younger Ivanek.

But IMDB is only listing Ivanek for the pilot, so who knows. maybe he'll be back in flashbacks. My money's still on something else. Somehow they have to figure out how to bring Ivanek and Cole *and* Railly all together in some other timeline.



Can't wait to see how this gets resolved.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

wprager said:


> Now, what are the spoiler rules? E02 has been released, albeit not everywhere. But even for E01, are there spoilers allowed here? I'll use them, just to be safe.


That's why I love episode threads.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Well, now the threads are merged, so the joke above doesn't make any sense anymore.




I guess I am in the right thread now?

I thought the show was interesting. The guy Cole was looking for (I am bad with remembering lots of names) was played by the same bad guy in The Event! I guess his daughter that is in the psychiatric hospital is the same basic character that Brad Pitt played in the movie?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I think the other thread time-traveled into the past and, in the process, changed history so it never existed.....


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Goines is the name of the character. Zeljko Ivanek is the actor, and you've seen him everywhere from X-Files (the first role I ever saw him in -- a mentally-challenged janitor in a jet propulsion lab, named Roland), to Lost (Elizabeth Mitchell's ex who gets run over by a bus), to Oz (never watched the show, sorry), Heroes, Revolution, etc.

EDIT: Correction, I remember him from X-Files, but I would have seen him earlier on St. Elsewhere and Law & Order (never missed it in those days).


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

wprager said:


> Now, what are the spoiler rules? E02 has been released, albeit not everywhere. But even for E01, are there spoilers allowed here? I'll use them, just to be safe.


IMO: I think anything in this thread needs spoiler tags-- it isn't a thread dedicated to discussion of the already-aired show; it's a thread announcing the upcoming show. If the thread title were changed to something like "12 Monkeys-- spoilers to current episode," that'd solve everything.


----------



## jmfreefly (Jan 15, 2015)

"It's the time travel, I tell ya...screws up EVERYTHING! "

Ha! +1


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I watched the premiere and it was surprisingly good.

SyFy has stepped up their game recently. I used to like the old Sci-fi Channel back in the Farscape days, but I have pretty much avoided it since then.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

I enjoyed it but not sure the wife did. She will watch shows just to watch with me even though they don't interest her. I tried to explain the premise of movie to her but it was hard to do without her seeing it.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I enjoyed the first episode. Much more than I thought I would.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

wprager said:


> Goines is the name of the character. Zeljko Ivanek is the actor, and you've seen him everywhere from X-Files (the first role I ever saw him in -- a mentally-challenged janitor in a jet propulsion lab, named Roland), to Lost (Elizabeth Mitchell's ex who gets run over by a bus), to Oz (never watched the show, sorry), Heroes, Revolution, etc.
> 
> EDIT: Correction, I remember him from X-Files, but I would have seen him earlier on St. Elsewhere and Law & Order (never missed it in those days).


And Banshee and Madam Secretary and, and, ehh....


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

AeneaGames said:


> And Banshee and Madam Secretary and, and, ehh....


For me, _24_ is usually the first thing I think of when I see him, if it's not whatever I'm seeing him in at the moment. But he's been in enough genre TV by now that he's nearly free of even that.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Liked the 1st episode a lot. So did my wife, who can barely remember anything about the movie -- whereas I remember a fair amount and consider it among my favorite movies (top 100 anyway).


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I feel stupid. I only realized yesterday that Cassandra is Louis' associate on Suits. Speaking of which, is it ever coming back?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Finally managed to find this on Amazon Prime: couldn't get it through my Plex or Roku and I dropped almost all my extended cable last summer.

I thought it was OK: I hope they keep it going. It will be tough to have regular cast members "in the past" if he can't go back with any accuracy. I mean, he's already made it clear that he won't be seeing Cassandra at any earlier point than 2015.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Just watched the first episode...it was quite good. Looking forward to the rest.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

wprager said:


> I feel stupid. I only realized yesterday that Cassandra is Louis' associate on Suits. Speaking of which, is it ever coming back?


ahhh I knew she was familiar from something!


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

wprager said:


> Goines is the name of the character. Zeljko Ivanek is the actor, and you've seen him everywhere from X-Files (the first role I ever saw him in -- a mentally-challenged janitor in a jet propulsion lab, named Roland), to Lost (Elizabeth Mitchell's ex who gets run over by a bus), to Oz (never watched the show, sorry), Heroes, Revolution, etc.
> 
> EDIT: Correction, I remember him from X-Files, but I would have seen him earlier on St. Elsewhere and Law & Order (never missed it in those days).


He's the bad(possibly) Chief of Staff on Madam Secretary. He gets a lot fo work.

See him in "That Guy...Who Was in That Thing." He has in his contract that the production has to make every effort to have the Ž in Željko.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

OK, watched the second episode last night. We need episode threads or rules to show spoilers up to the last aired episode. Lots of stuff to discuss. Interesting how they used a term referred to multiple times in the movie as the episode title, Mentally Divergent. At the same time the show continues to diverge from the source material.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

starting watching the movie again last night. It's been awhile. I forgot how much I love Gillam's style. It's SO apparent. Wide angle up close for distortion. All sort of angled camera shots.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

madscientist said:


> Finally managed to find this on Amazon Prime: couldn't get it through my Plex or Roku and I dropped almost all my extended cable last summer.


Episode 1 is free on Amazon (not just Prime) but they want $2 for the second or $25 for the season.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

wprager said:


> OK, watched the second episode last night. We need episode threads or rules to show spoilers up to the last aired episode.


 So, someone should create a new thread! Either per episode or a season-long thread.



pdhenry said:


> Episode 1 is free on Amazon (not just Prime) but they want $2 for the second or $25 for the season.


 It's $3/ep or $25/season for the HD version; you can get it SD for $2/$20. In some ways that feels like a lot for 12 episodes. I'm pretty sure that whatever cut Syfy was getting of my cable bill was less than $25/year, for the entire channel. But, it's possible we'll need to pay more a la carte since the cost is spread across fewer payers. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the price as more shows go this route.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

madscientist said:


> So, someone should create a new thread! Either per episode or a season-long thread.
> 
> It's $3/ep or $25/season for the HD version; you can get it SD for $2/$20. In some ways that feels like a lot for 12 episodes. I'm pretty sure that whatever cut Syfy was getting of my cable bill was less than $25/year, for the entire channel. But, it's possible we'll need to pay more a la carte since the cost is spread across fewer payers. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the price as more shows go this route.


As more shows? Its been like this for many years. The price has been similar for a very long time. These prices are nothing new.


----------



## Gromit (Nov 4, 1999)

I watched episode 1 last night. I loved the movie and thought the show was pretty good. I'll at least watch another episode.

I thought the Hue light synchronization was interesting. Sometimes it was a bit too much though. A couple of scenes had my living room going bonkers with flashing lights. But the overall effect was quite nice. The light strips behind my TV were the most impressive, with the colors matching the overall color in the scene. Dark scenes resulted in a darker living room while the lights increased in brightness when things on screen were brighter.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I liked episode 1. 

I'm interested how they will be able to stretch it over an entire season, or multiple seasons, but so far so good.

I really like the 2 main actors.

-smak-


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> As more shows? Its been like this for many years. The price has been similar for a very long time. These prices are nothing new.


I guess I wasn't very accurate. What I meant was, as people switch from cable (tiers) to streaming (a la carte) so channels get more revenue from the latter than from the former, will that make a difference in the price? We'll have to wait and see.

I agree that these prices have not changed appreciably but, for all the talk about it, I still don't think we've seen a tipping point of people ditching cable and going full-on streaming.

For me, I checked and in order to move up to a cable tier which includes Syfy I'd need to pay an extra $10/mo., and I'd get Comedy Central back again which would be nice (but the stuff I watch there is streaming for free), BUT that tier doesn't include BBC (which I currently have, so I'd lose it). To get a tier with both Syfy and BBC I'd need to pay a lot more. So, although for $120/yr. I'd get a lot more shows total I'll still probably just buy the seasons of shows that I want; I can get almost 5 seasons at $25/season HD for the same money. If I end up needing more than that, I'll reconsider.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

b_scott said:


> starting watching the movie again last night. It's been awhile. I forgot how much I love Gilliam's style. It's SO apparent. Wide angle up close for distortion. All sort of angled camera shots.


so after finishing the movie again, I realized that the entire point was that Cole was a pawn in order to close a loop and give them the name of the guy so the lady on the plane could get the virus. They never wanted him to stop anything, because they wanted to stay in power and also he HAD to die because it had already happened in the past and you can't change the past. They needed the pure strain so they can start at their current point in the future to cure it (but still stay in power). Deep stuff.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

b_scott said:


> so after finishing the movie again, I realized that the entire point was that Cole was a pawn in order to close a loop and give them the name of the guy so the lady on the plane could get the virus. They never wanted him to stop anything, because they wanted to stay in power and also he HAD to die because it had already happened in the past and you can't change the past. They needed the pure strain so they can start at their current point in the future to cure it (but still stay in power). Deep stuff.


In the movie, right from the start they made clear, even to Cole, that he never _could_ change anything, because that's not how time travel works. Everything he did in the past had already happened and was going to happen the same way. The turnabout, therefore, isn't that they never intended him to change the past. It's that they never intended him to bring a virus from the past, like they told him, but just to get the information that she could use to get the virus. Only it's not clear that was always the intent. It's quite possible they did intend him to bring a virus from the past, but when he failed, he was able to get them enough information to make a second, more targeted approach that (presumably) succeeded.

The TV show is of course changing all that, starting with the idea that the past _can_ be changed.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

My DirecTV DVR missed the second episode. This is like the third time this DVR has missed recording a show. Very annoying. I almost feel like I need to monitor it's to do list and make sure it is going to record what it needs to.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Hunter Green said:


> In the movie, right from the start they made clear, even to Cole, that he never _could_ change anything, because that's not how time travel works. Everything he did in the past had already happened and was going to happen the same way. The turnabout, therefore, isn't that they never intended him to change the past. It's that they never intended him to bring a virus from the past, like they told him, but just to get the information that she could use to get the virus. Only it's not clear that was always the intent. It's quite possible they did intend him to bring a virus from the past, but when he failed, he was able to get them enough information to make a second, more targeted approach that (presumably) succeeded.
> 
> The TV show is of course changing all that, starting with the idea that the past _can_ be changed.


They lied to him the whole time, in my opinion.

In the show they told him he was supposed to disappear once the future was changed, right?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> My DirecTV DVR missed the second episode. This is like the third time this DVR has missed recording a show. Very annoying. I almost feel like I need to monitor it's to do list and make sure it is going to record what it needs to.


FWIW, my DirecTV Genie did record it, so it's not across the board. Strange that yours would miss one. Maybe going bad? Conflict?


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

So far liking the TV show style better the surreal style of the movie. I tried to re-watch the movie and could not get through it.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The movie is a classic and you won't find too many agreeing with your opinion. But, although I loved the movie, I'm really enjoying the show so far.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

wprager said:


> The movie is a classic and you won't find too many agreeing with your opinion. But, although I loved the movie, I'm really enjoying the show so far.


Same here...


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Hey, there's an episode thread now:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=525275


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

b_scott said:


> so after finishing the movie again, I realized that the entire point was that Cole was a pawn in order to close a loop and give them the name of the guy so the lady on the plane could get the virus. They never wanted him to stop anything, because they wanted to stay in power and also he HAD to die because it had already happened in the past and you can't change the past. They needed the pure strain so they can start at their current point in the future to cure it (but still stay in power). Deep stuff.


This sounds like a lot of conjecture on your part. Would you care to present some evidence as to why you think this?


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

waynomo said:


> This sounds like a lot of conjecture on your part. Would you care to present some evidence as to why you think this?


Terry Gilliam talks about it in "The Hamster Factor" - check it out on youtube.

It makes complete sense if you remember the rules that are set up in the movie. You can't change the past. So his whole mission was to let them know who the carrier was so they could get the strain they wanted and could cure it - in the future. The "12 Monkeys" never had anything to do with it, but the rulers thought they did. He helped them figure out it was not them but the scientist, and they sent back the woman for "insurance" to grab a strain after he inevitably died (which was going to happen, since it had already happened in the past).


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

So catching up and just finished eps 2 & 3.

Question: Who was Jeremy that got killed in ep 2?

(Railly went to his house and he was dead and covered with flower petals.)


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

waynomo said:


> So catching up and just finished eps 2 & 3.
> 
> Question: Who was Jeremy that got killed in ep 2?
> 
> (Railly went to his house and he was dead and covered with flower petals.)


He's the retired CIA or some-such who helped her find out that "Frost" was the nickname used by the Mindbridge security to refer to Goines.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Who is this Deacon dude and why is he


Spoiler



torturing


 James?

I swear I have no idea what is going on in this show.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Well, that didn't take long. After 4 episodes I have completely lost interest in a show I was looking forward to. The story line is so convoluted it requires much too much work on the part of the viewer to figure out what is going on.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Huh, I have no problem following it...

Different strokes, I guess.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

My wife is having problems following it as well. The action is happening in several timelines (2043, 2015, now "flashbacks" to 2032) and that can be difficult to follow. Doesn't help that we start watching late and she's sometimes half asleep.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm notorious for being confused.  is my favorite icon. But I didn't really have any trouble with the first 4 episodes of this. Good show. :up:


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

At the end of Atari the previews are suggesting something that I'd already assumed HAD happened, but I was floored by them implying more about the who.


Spoiler



mainly that Cole was not the first subject and implying Tom Noonan's character may have been the previous attempt. I'd guessed there were others, but not who, if it's valid I'll really enjoy that tidbit


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

We're told that this version of 12 Monkeys differs from the movie in that time can be changed, but so far they've been taking the predeterministic version of time travel where if something happened it always did. Here's just a few examples.


Spoiler



1. Cole giving the 12 Monkeys leader the scar after learning that he gave him the scar.
2. Cole killing that doctor after being told the doctor was killed in Haiti. 
3. Cole being the one to tell the West 7 about the tunnels after going back in time because they snuck in the time.



Basically they are using the causal loop version of time travel. I actually prefer that version, but there is no "changing the past" with that version. I really hope they don't switch versions mid-stream as that wouldn't make any sense.

As for understanding the plot, I thought it was quite easy to follow considering all the consequences of the time jump occurred within the same episode, so it didn't recall remembering things that happened in previous episodes.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Huh, I have no problem following it...
> 
> Different strokes, I guess.


It's not a question of being able to follow it - it's that it takes too much effort to do so. I prefer to be entertained without having to work for it.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

morac said:


> We're told that this version of 12 Monkeys differs from the movie in that time can be changed, but so far they've been taking the predeterministic version of time travel where if something happened it always did. Here's just a few examples.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Very first episode, the scene with the watch where he proves that he is from the future he very much altered it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

wprager said:


> Very first episode, the scene with the watch where he proves that he is from the future he very much altered it.


Yeah I forgot about that. Doesn't make sense to have two opposite versions of time travel in the same show. Since they have used the predetermistic version exclusively since episode 2, maybe they changed the rules after the pilot.

Then again they do mention things like undoing the progress they've made, so maybe the writers just don't have a good grasp of the time travel genre.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

morac said:


> Yeah I forgot about that. Doesn't make sense to have two opposite versions of time travel in the same show. Since they have used the predetermistic version exclusively since episode 2, maybe they changed the rules after the pilot.
> 
> Then again they do mention things like undoing the progress they've made, so maybe the writers just don't have a good grasp of the time travel genre.


I like the ripple in a stream explanation. The timeline is like a river. You their in a stone and it makes a ripple, but the stream continues and very quickly the ripple from the stone are fine.

Like on Lost when Desmond true to save Charlie a few times but eventually give up because, as they put it there, the universe autocorrects.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

ADG said:


> Well, that didn't take long. After 4 episodes I have completely lost interest in a show I was looking forward to. The story line is so convoluted it requires much too much work on the part of the viewer to figure out what is going on.


I also have no idea what's going on. I feel like they don't have enough story to make a series out of the movie. I don't care about the future, I care about the past.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

morac said:


> We're told that this version of 12 Monkeys differs from the movie in that time can be changed, but so far they've been taking the predeterministic version of time travel where if something happened it always did. Here's just a few examples.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I also suspect that history was when your #2 happened, but it is hard to be sure.


Spoiler



I think you could argue that Cole killed the doctor so as not to mess up the timeline such that Reilly never goes to meet him at the hotel which is what led him to find the Doc in the first place. Had he let him live it's very likely he'd create too different of a future-- maybe better or maybe much worse. So he left history the way he believed he found it. Whether it was once different or not is hard to say.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

morac said:


> Then again they do mention things like undoing the progress they've made, so maybe the writers just don't have a good grasp of the time travel genre.


This is scary considering it's a show about ONLY time travel--it's not a secondary plot. Still very possible. 



b_scott said:


> I also have no idea what's going on. I feel like they don't have enough story to make a series out of the movie. I don't care about the future, I care about the past.


I've never seen the movie--or maybe so long ago that I don't remember it. I don't see why they should be limited by the movie.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> I've never seen the movie--or maybe so long ago that I don't remember it. I don't see why they should be limited by the movie.


Well they can't be, since you can't make 12 episodes out of 2 hours of movie. But the movie wasn't a book - it was written as a screenplay. So, it is the basis for this.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

They are NOT following the movie, and made it clear in the first episode. They are going a different direction with the series.


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

Would it kill them to put in a joke or two? Such a glum show.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

They had the joke about Chinese food delivery guys.


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

teknikel said:


> They had the joke about Chinese food delivery guys.


That was because I complained about it, so they went backwards in time to insert that joke in last week's episode.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Church AV Guy said:


> They are NOT following the movie, and made it clear in the first episode. They are going a different direction with the series.


actually the first episode was the most like the movie so far.

And they of course can't follow the movie since it's a series - but it's gotta be similar otherwise it's pointless to call it 12 Monkeys. Look at Fargo for example.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

this week's was better. but it's really a different thing than the movie. not sure I like that. the movie's timeline was more interesting.

article with some info:

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/12-monkeys-bosses-break-down-big-mythology-twist-030002466.html


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Wouldn't Cole have the virus in him? Just because he's immune doesn't mean he's not a carrier. Seems like his trips back in time should be spreading the virus.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Would he be contagious? The virus might only be contagious at a certain stage while he is just immune to it now?


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Would he be contagious? The virus might only be contagious at a certain stage while he is just immune to it now?


I think in the future everyone who got it is long dead. Anyone who survived is immune. They're just looking to change their present.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

b_scott said:


> I think in the future everyone who got it is long dead. Anyone who survived is immune. They're just looking to change their present.


I think the virus still exists because every time they come back in from the outside they have to go through some kind of quarantine which checks if the virus has mutated.

That's poorly worded if you ask me as most viruses mutate all the time. It's whether they mutate enough to affect people who are immune that's important.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

You should check out The Wall (http://www.syfy.com/12monkeys/wall). They put up notes, paper clippings and stuff like that with some interesting background info. Infected people become contagious after the incubation period, which is very short. But in those who are immune I suppose the virus is taken care of before they become contagious.

P.S. If you've already checked out The Wall be aware that it gets updated. There's new stuff there now that I didn't see last week.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

wprager said:


> You should check out The Wall (http://www.syfy.com/12monkeys/wall). They put up notes, paper clippings and stuff like that with some interesting background info. Infected people become contagious after the incubation period, which is very short. But in those who are immune I suppose the virus is taken care of before they become contagious.
> 
> P.S. If you've already checked out The Wall be aware that it gets updated. There's new stuff there now that I didn't see last week.


Thanks for the link, I hadn't realized they're updating it.

It also appears that it contains their time travel "bible" of what they believe is and isn't possible, those might be very useful


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

dianebrat said:


> Thanks for the link, I hadn't realized they're updating it.
> 
> It also appears that it contains their time travel "bible" of what they believe is and isn't possible, those might be very useful


Did you see the article clipping quoting Deacon Dave Sheridan? Except that article was from London, and the character named "Deacon" doesn't have a British accent.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The Wall is expanding. May be I just didn't notice it before, but there are multiple tabs -- the first one if labler The Virus, then Dr. Railly and so on. Each has different information. Some of the pin-ups on the last two tabs display a little lock symbol with a date -- I assume they will be unlocked on that date.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I really liked last nights episode. I am enjoying this show more and more each week. I'm glad I decided to watch this TV series.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

the last two eps have been much better. It's disconcerting to compare to the movie and its brilliance, but it's entertaining at least.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Foster = Percy


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> Foster = Percy


For those of us who can't remember any names but Cole & Ramse, who are we equating here?

I was somewhat disappointed with this week's episode. They're splintering the story, sending us to different times, creating multiple timelines, yada yada. Yeah, I know this is a time travel story, but I was hoping it would be a _clean _one. And this is starting to get messy. And we're running into fathers, ex-gf, sons we didn't know about... and of course, another core.

Are we supposed to think Cole splintered just as the bomb went off? Even though in story-telling time it was 1/2 an episode later? And why did Dr. Railly take one quick look and go "no Cole".

I just thought this was a weak episode. It's not a great show, but it's been good enough to keep me coming back. But they don't want to string a couple of weak eps back to back...


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I was referring to the growing list of former Nikita cast members who are now cast members of 12 Monkeys. The writers, producers, and crew of those two shows are mostly the same bunch of people. On Friday's episode I noticed actor Xander Berkeley, who played a major character on Nikita named Percy, is now on 12 Monkeys as Col. Jonathan Foster. Previous actor connections include Aaron Stanford, Amanda Schull, and Noah Bean.

I wonder what the over/under is on when Maggie Q shows up.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

astrohip said:


> It's not a great show, but it's been good enough to keep me coming back. But they don't want to string a couple of weak eps back to back...


That's the way I was through the entire run of Nikita and am having déjà vu with this show. I kept telling myself 'just one more episode then I'm out', 'just one more episode then I'm out'... but I eventually ended up watching every episode of Nikita's four seasons.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

series5orpremier said:


> I was referring to the growing list of former Nikita cast members who are now cast members of 12 Monkeys. The writers, producers, and crew of those two shows are mostly the same bunch of people. On Friday's episode I noticed actor Xander Berkeley, who played a major character on Nikita named Percy, is now on 12 Monkeys as Col. Jonathan Foster. Previous actor connections include Aaron Stanford, Amanda Schull, and Noah Bean.
> 
> I wonder what the over/under is on when Maggie Q shows up.


I would be surprised if M Quigley shows up. Although her show Stalker has not been renewed yet by CBS. So I guess you never know.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> That's the way I was through the entire run of Nikita and am having déjà vu with this show. I kept telling myself 'just one more episode then I'm out', 'just one more episode then I'm out'... but I eventually ended up watching every episode of Nikita's four seasons.


And was it worth it?

(never watched Nikita)


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

astrohip said:


> And was it worth it?
> 
> (never watched Nikita)


I think so. Every so often they reinvented the show with a big plot twist, plus with the nature of the show they sometimes had cool explosions and gunfights.

I'm just not sure they can keep 12 Monkeys as fresh, given the nature of it, and it does take a lot of the viewer's concentration and effort to follow what's going on with all the time jumps.

I'm just always looking for something to cut back on because I spend too much time watching TV, but I find it hard to quit shows I'm still watching after the 2nd episode.

And I don't know what jobs Maggie Q has lined up, but Stalker is "certain to be cancelled by May 2015" according to TV By The Numbers.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

astrohip said:


> And why did Dr. Railly take one quick look and go "no Cole".


I probably wasn't paying close enough attention, but from the context I thought it was because she was there at a different time than Cole was. She got there days after the explosion, but they flashed 2017 before Cole emerged from the rubble, like he splintered right before the explosion to the same location a couple of years later. When he emerged from the rubble the locals told him the world was already being ravaged by the plague, so I guess the explosion didn't work or the plague came from somewhere else.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The Cole flashing ahead two years thing didn't make a lot of sense. We saw him talking to the girl while her father tried to pull the beam up. It was then that he started to splinter, but the machine broke and he ended up 2 years ahead, yet the girl and her father are still there. Were they waiting there for two years?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> I probably wasn't paying close enough attention, but from the context I thought it was because she was there at a different time than Cole was. She got there days after the explosion, but they flashed 2017 before Cole emerged from the rubble, like he splintered right before the explosion to the same location a couple of years later. When he emerged from the rubble the locals told him the world was already being ravaged by the plague, so I guess the explosion didn't work or the plague came from somewhere else.


I think what you're saying is correct, although the show didn't make it clear. But it still doesn't answer how she said "no cole" so quickly. She just glanced around the explosion site, and said "No Cole".


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

morac said:


> The Cole flashing ahead two years thing didn't make a lot of sense. We saw him talking to the girl while her father tried to pull the beam up. It was then that he started to splinter, but the machine broke and he ended up 2 years ahead, yet the girl and her father are still there. Were they waiting there for two years?


He was talking to the girl and her father both immediately before and after the attempt to bring him back to 2043, so there was no time change there. That was 2017 all along, they just didn't tell us til the end to keep up the suspense that Dr. Railly was about to see him. The jump ahead two years had to have happened at the time of the explosion.

When Dr. Railly said "No Cole" she was looking right at the desolate rubble spot (with no people around) where Cole was being pulled out of by a group of rescuers in 2017. They kept flipping those shots of the same location back and forth between 2015 and 2017 without telling us... for the dramatic effect.

And they never actually flashed 2017, but the girl told Cole a plague was ravaging the world. He asked her what year it was and she said 2017.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That was the second attempt to bring him back, which apparently did nothing.

The first attempt also seemed to do nothing, but in fact it yanked him forward two years.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Between "No Cole" and "2017", my thoughts were actually going towards split/parallel timelines.

--Carlos V.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

That he moved two years on the *first* try makes much more sense, but we saw the visual effect during the *second* try.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Renewed by SyFy today for a 2nd season. Five more episodes left in the 1st season including the season finale April 10.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

series5orpremier said:


> Renewed by SyFy today for a 2nd season. Five more episodes left in the 1st season including the season finale April 10.


Sweet!!! Thanks!!


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/03/12/12-monkeys-renewed-for-second-season-by-syfy/374348/


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

If Maggie Q misses another sammich she will be invisible anyway.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

the year jumping and alternate stories are confusing.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

b_scott said:


> the year jumping and alternate stories are confusing.


I prefer shows that make you think and having to keep track of multiple active years is a good way to do it, you view it as a minus I view it as a plus


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dianebrat said:


> I prefer shows that make you think and having to keep track of multiple active years is a good way to do it, you view it as a minus I view it as a plus


Plus they literally spell it out for you (with the dates on the screen every time they change times).


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Plus they literally spell it out for you (with the dates on the screen every time they change times).


Exactly...I don't know how "confused" someone could get with the timelines...

Now, the alternate "realities" or stories I can understand the confusion at times.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

They've been lax lately about putting dates on the screen for every single time change, but sometimes it's for artistic effect and sometimes there's no need because it's so obvious that it would be redundant to put the date up on the screen again.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> Renewed by SyFy today for a 2nd season. Five more episodes left in the 1st season including the season finale April 10.


thank you!

i've been finding the dates on screen to be very helpful- 
Thrilled we'll get another season & there's more shows left in this one. I'm coming to hate having 9 ish eps be a called "a season"- that's bs.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

The wife pointed out something that makes just too much sense. I keep telling her to leave logic out of it.

So the town actually did make a cure to cover all strains of the virus, so why not send that back with Cole. Threat of the virus neutralized. Mission Accomplished.

_Maybe_ it _could_ still come into play. Ramsey's lady friend really wanted something out of that cabinet, maybe it has to do with the cure, maybe not. Maybe the kid got the vaccine, who knows?

Or the writers just wanted to show how ruthless/crazy they are, killing everyone (unarmed lab tech/scientists included) and the cure.. And didn't think that "team time travel" had a winning combo here.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

robojerk said:


> Or the writers just wanted to show how ruthless/crazy they are, killing everyone (unarmed lab tech/scientists included) and the cure.. And didn't think that "team time travel" had a winning combo here.


Once you accept Team Time Travel's premise (that resetting the timeline will not only prevent the outbreak, but make them all cease to exist) then their actions become entirely (if chillingly) logical. What does it matter what you do to achieve your goal if achieving your goal means none of it will have happened?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

robojerk said:


> The wife pointed out something that makes just too much sense. I keep telling her to leave logic out of it.
> 
> So the town actually did make a cure to cover all strains of the virus, so why not send that back with Cole. Threat of the virus neutralized. Mission Accomplished.
> 
> ...


Then the head lady would expose everyone to the fact that she lied to them


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Team time travel is having some sort of affect. When they finally pulled Cole back to the future after replacing the core the camera lingered for several seconds on Cassie's watch and it took me a few replays to clearly see why.



Spoiler



The crack was erased.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> Then the head lady would expose everyone to the fact that she lied to them


For her part it doesn't matter if he had the cure. She can save the survivors (with the cure), or she can save everybody (with time travel).

(Have we seen that he can bring stuff back with him? I don't think so...)


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (Have we seen that he can bring stuff back with him? I don't think so...)


He brought the watch back in time.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For her part it doesn't matter if he had the cure. She can save the survivors (with the cure), or she can save everybody (with time travel).
> 
> (Have we seen that he can bring stuff back with him? I don't think so...)


Didn't Cole bring the photo of the other leader and his wife back?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Didn't Cole bring the photo of the other leader and his wife back?


That's what Kat claimed, though she also claimed that Foster hadn't cured the virus.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> Team time travel is having some sort of affect. When they finally pulled Cole back to the future after replacing the core the camera lingered for several seconds on Cassie's watch and it took me a few replays to clearly see why.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I took it to mean the opposite, but I didn't replay that scene to check for sure.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

dianebrat said:


> I prefer shows that make you think and having to keep track of multiple active years is a good way to do it, you view it as a minus I view it as a plus


Yeah I like thinker shows too - but they are bouncing too often. 5 times an ep is too much.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (Have we seen that he can bring stuff back with him? I don't think so...)


No one mentioned yet that he's been bringing the clothes he's wearing back and forth every time.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Small bit of 12 Monkey's trivia..
Apparently several of the reviewers were sent the whole season to review, I'm pretty sure io9 mentioned that, so they're potentially reviewing while knowing where the season ends.


I'm not sure i"m ok with that approach to reviews.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> Small bit of 12 Monkey's trivia..
> Apparently several of the reviewers were sent the whole season to review, I'm pretty sure io9 mentioned that, so they're potentially reviewing while knowing where the season ends.
> 
> I'm not sure i"m ok with that approach to reviews.


Why not? Sounds preferable to me.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

This thread isn't an episode talkback thread so you should mark your entire post as spoilers as it contains fairly major spoilers or better yet start a talkback thread.

Since there was a lot of new info in the epsiode and major spoilers to the series as a whole, I started a talkback thread.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10454106#post10454106


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I thought the most recent ep (4/3/15) was excellent....


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I thought the most recent ep (4/3/15) was excellent....


Definitely a good take on the "twist" from the original movie.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I thought the most recent ep (4/3/15) was excellent....


I agree except for one thing. I'll spoilerize it just in case.


Spoiler



Crazy Jennifer Goines' corporate takeover scene was terrible. I've never liked her character. Whether it's the actress or the writers, I hate it when she appears onscreen.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I agree except for one thing. I'll spoilerize it just in case.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Yeah, it WAS a bit over the top....


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

But she's hot in a bat bleep crazy Ally Sheedy kind of way.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That part was stupid because there is no way the board would allow her to do that. Even if she's the majority share holder they can still vote her out. She's a nut who just got out of the psych ward, no way they'd trust her to run a corporation. :down:

Otherwise I really like the show. It's one of the few I watch every week.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That part was stupid because there is no way the board would allow her to do that. Even if she's the majority share holder they can still vote her out. She's a nut who just got out of the psych ward, no way they'd trust her to run a corporation. :down:
> 
> Otherwise I really like the show. It's one of the few I watch every week.


It's like they let the writers from Helix write that scene. It was a turd on an otherwise excellent episode.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For her part it doesn't matter if he had the cure. She can save the survivors (with the cure), or she can save everybody (with time travel).
> 
> (Have we seen that he can bring stuff back with him? I don't think so...)





cheesesteak said:


> It's like they let the writers from Helix write that scene. It was a turd on an otherwise excellent episode.


I think they just wanted to show her as capable of being hot.

She's not above the Hot/Crazy line, but I did perk up when I saw her.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That part was stupid because there is no way the board would allow her to do that. Even if she's the majority share holder they can still vote her out. She's a nut who just got out of the psych ward, no way they'd trust her to run a corporation. :down:
> 
> Otherwise I really like the show. It's one of the few I watch every week.


I thought she was majority owner? Which would give her enough votes to override the rest of the Board wouldn't it?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I don't know exactly but I *think* the board can still oust a majority owner with enough votes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> I don't know exactly but I *think* the board can still oust a majority owner with enough votes.


I don't think so...they can oust the largest plurality shareholder, but if he (she) has a majority stake, then there's no way they can outvote him (her).

I think that if one person owns more than 50%, then the Directors effective serve at that person's pleasure.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't think so...they can oust the largest plurality shareholder, but if he (she) has a majority stake, then there's no way they can outvote him (her).
> 
> I think that if one person owns more than 50%, then the Directors effective serve at that person's pleasure.


In the long run I think that's true. The shareholders can elect (replace) the board which in turn appoints the CEO.

In the short run though I don't think a stockholder, even a majority one, can just appoint a CEO. The shareholder would have to call for elections, replace the board and then appoint a new CEO. All of that would take more than the 1 minute it took on the show.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

morac said:


> In the long run I think that's true. The shareholders can elect (replace) the board which in turn appoints the CEO.
> 
> In the short run though I don't think a stockholder, even a majority one, can just appoint a CEO. The shareholder would have to call for elections, replace the board and then appoint a new CEO. All of that would take more than the 1 minute it took on the show.


This. There is a process that the SEC would require to be followed. She could call for new elections for the board (as a majority owner), but notice would have to be given, elections held, yada yada.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Wouldn't/Couldn't her mental competency be called into question too?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Season 2 premieres Monday, April 18


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

April???! Are they trying to make sure there is no S3?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Yeah, they'd rather try to compete Mondays in the summer than Fridays in the winter. Another 13 episode season would take that out to July 11. They could double up a couple of weeks to wrap it up by June 27. Watching 12 Monkeys is probably not a lot of people's top priority on July 4.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

series5orpremier said:


> Season 2 premieres Monday, April 18


Sweet!!! Thanks!!!!!


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

FYI,

The first episode of season 2 is available to watch on syfy.com.

It's also available via magical means.

Season officially starts April 18.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

woohoo!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Malcontent said:


> FYI,
> 
> The first episode of season 2 is available to watch on syfy.com.
> 
> ...


:up:
Thanks!! I forgot about this show!!!


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Very cool http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/41565/madeline-stowe-joins-syfy-s-12-monkeys


----------

