# CSI: Cyber S1.E1 Kidnapping 2.0



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

Well, I was expecting a big bag of suck and it certainly delivers. I think it may be a dumber tech show than Scorpion? I understand the mass market aspect, but can't we have a little cleverness? Maybe not have the "security cable" in a box mounted to the porch railing???? 

No SP 4 U!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

And they instantly assume that these people who use a high-tech system to track kids, etc can't remember a 20-character password without taking off their shirts and looking at a mirror?

I use several 20+ character passwords on a regular basis...


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Tuesday night's episode of Forever on ABC featured a whole episode using a Cyber Crimes unit. It almost felt like they were making a case for how important the Cyber Crimes unit was. I thought it was referring to the new CSI, but then realized they were on a different network. Weird to have that episode air the day before the CSI: Cyber show premieres.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I've been thinking the only thing I liked in Cyber was the neighbor kid saying, "Mom", a cliché, but kind of fun, his look, the way he said it.

The rest was pretty standard. It could be good, there are plenty of current stories for material.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I was so disappointed in this show. Too many things that they want you to believe in that are impossible. Like how they drove from Patterson, NJ to upper New York state in minutes and not hours. I don't see this lasting very long.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

One and done for me. I didn't like it. Just too ridiculous. No way I'll be able to watch this on an ongoing basis without picking apart all the stupid stuff. I kinda like the cast, seems like decent chemistry, but poorly written plots will lose me every time.

The scene where the bad guys drove away, and had a two hour head start on them:

"Ok, eliminate left turns, they won't want to get in any accidents"
"Look for higher ground, instinct says head up when you're being chased"
"stay off highways"
"Look, they must be in this cabin at the end of this road!"

And they drive there and find 'em. Really? Metropolitan DC/Baltimore area, 2 hour head start, and you just say "here they are".

I'll never be able to sit still for stuff like this. "No left turns" was my camel's straw.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Uh...did they "teleport" VR images of dead bodies from a New Jersey morgue? 

This was absolutely dreadful. Can't believe the same Patricia Arquette who just won a damn Oscar would settle for this garbage. And talk about your Hollywood cliche cyber crime unit: fat bearded man, hacker forced to reform, hipster Millennial woman with an eclectic wardrobe.

And why, oh WHY, must all things cyber crime be filmed using dark lighting, awkward close-ups and strange angles (accompanied, obviously, by the scene-to-scene "choppy cut" transitions with computers trilling)?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I was very happy with this show.

There's just too damned much on these days.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

http://threatpost.com/csi-cyber-we-watched-so-you-didnt-have-to/111440


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

stevel said:


> http://threatpost.com/csi-cyber-we-watched-so-you-didnt-have-to/111440


This is the greatest thing ever.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Once was more than enough for me. Ugh. Ugh. I won't even complain about the lack of understanding of tech as I can overlook that for a good whodunnit. Which this was not. 

Patricia Arquette was just absolutely horrible - cannot act. No charm, nothing. James Van Der ....whatever.....he's too quirky for be serious and I think they want it to be serious. He's good in a comedy or a wink/nod show. Not this one. 

Casting was very strange. They apparently think just the CSI name is all they need.

Not for me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

justapixel said:


> Patricia Arquette was just absolutely horrible - cannot act.


She CAN act. She CAN be brilliant.

For whatever reason, she often doesn't.

(I suspect it's a matter of limited range, and either not knowing her limits or trying too hard to surpass them.)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I disagree with you guys. 


It wasn't as good as you claim.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

eddyj said:


> I disagree with you guys.
> 
> It wasn't as good as you claim.


LOL. 

Rob, I will take your word for it. But, I stand by my statement in that she can't act in THIS. 

But the writing is so bad that maybe nobody could.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

stevel said:


> http://threatpost.com/csi-cyber-we-watched-so-you-didnt-have-to/111440


That was great! Long but worth it. So many quotes worth snipping...

"This makes Swordfish look like a documentary"

"She just said sit-stay to Bow Wow" [did not catch that!]

"if _The Wire_ cops had had these toys, that show wouldve been over in two episodes "


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

Gave up on this after the first commercial break. Horrible acting, hackneyed "cyberification" - just unbearable.

Did they do the typical solve a password by going character by character ridiculousness?

Intelligence was a better cyber csi show than this was, and it lasted only 13 episodes.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Amnesia said:


> And they instantly assume that these people who use a high-tech system to track kids, etc can't remember a 20-character password without taking off their shirts and looking at a mirror?
> 
> I use several 20+ character passwords on a regular basis...


passwordddddddddddddd

is not a very good password

neither is 
password1234567891011


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Don't know what was worse - the writing, the casting or the acting. It was just awful.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

jamesl said:


> passwordddddddddddddd
> 
> is not a very good password


Of course not!



> neither is
> password1234567891011


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

stevel said:


> http://threatpost.com/csi-cyber-we-watched-so-you-didnt-have-to/111440


Just OK (well, the source material was really weak) till this-

Dukes of Hazzard: Cyber

YES! I want this soooo bad!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

stevel said:


> http://threatpost.com/csi-cyber-we-watched-so-you-didnt-have-to/111440


I couldn't get through reading this. Was getting combat flashbacks. It was terrifying!


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

This was a pretty terrible show. I will watch one more because they often retool after a bad pilot. I will not keep watching just because they throw CSI in the title though.

Arquette was aweful. She had NO personality.

Can't stand Van Der Beek. Not sure if I spelled that right. Sure that I don't care enough to look it up. I just kept wanting to hear him say his line from Varsity Blues (which I never saw). "I don't want... your life" Heard that in previews a million times and thats all I think about when I see him now.






I don't like Peter McNichol either. At least he wasn't as weird as he was on Numbers.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I'll watch because I like the cast, but as a tech risk management consultant, I did have ot shake my head many times.

I had to promise my wife not to pause the show like 20 times every episode and say "that's not possible", "that's not real", or "that could/would never happen."

As long as it entertains, I'm cool.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

markz said:


> This was a pretty terrible show. I will watch one more because they often retool after a bad pilot. I will not keep watching just because they throw CSI in the title though.


I will give it my 3 episode minimum, but it needs to get HUGELY better to keep it.

And this from someone who enjoys Scorpion.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> And this from someone who enjoys Scorpion.


At least Scorpion has some life to it.

Bright, cheerful dumb is much preferable to grim, boring dumb.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

eddyj said:


> I will give it my 3 episode minimum, but it needs to get HUGELY better to keep it.
> 
> And this from someone who enjoys Scorpion.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> At least Scorpion has some life to it.
> 
> Bright, cheerful dumb is much preferable to grim, boring dumb.


I enjoy Scorpion too. At least I like the casting better than CSI: Cyber. I have never seen a cast with this many people I don't like all at once.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She CAN act. She CAN be brilliant.
> 
> For whatever reason, she often doesn't.
> 
> (I suspect it's a matter of limited range, and either not knowing her limits or trying too hard to surpass them.)


Wow - I've never found that to be the case. Ok, on The Medium she was certainly more in her element and did a creditable job, but have you ever seen her try to act as though she's crying? She's had to do so an a number of occasions and each time it make me cringe.

Sorry to disagree, but at best she's a journeyman actress who found a niche role in The Medium, IMO.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> At least Scorpion has some life to it.
> 
> Bright, cheerful dumb is much preferable to grim, boring dumb.





markz said:


> I enjoy Scorpion too. At least I like the casting better than CSI: Cyber. I have never seen a cast with this many people I don't like all at once.


Exactly. The technological stuff is ridiculous, but the show is fun to watch.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Terrible casting. Terrible acting. Terrible writing. Three name actors poorly cast. Three nobodies poorly written. Yet more stupid technobabble. Though I think even just calling it "technobabble" probably gives the writers far too much credit.

Two CSI donkeys in one season. It's dead, Jim.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I hadn't watched it yet but when I saw the summary on io9 of it that included this paragraph:



> Then there's James _Ah Dawn Wahnt, Ur Lahf_ Van Der Beek as gamer named....Agent Elijah Mundo (a very real name that someone would totally have) and Shad Moss aka the Artist Formerly Known as Lil' Bow Wow as a former black hat hacker forced Frank Abagnale-style to make good with the law, and apparently also forced to wear very terrible vests. We know he is a dope hacker because he uses the power of rap to guess a 20-character password on the first try.


I knew I had to watch it right away.  I didn't quite finish it before 7pm when I had something else to do, but I saw all but the last 10 min... that Threatpost article was hilarious.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

one of the most famous fails in tv techno speak






also know as Graphical User Interface Interface 
and with visual basic LOL


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> I use several 20+ character passwords on a regular basis...


I feel like there's some irony there - Amnesia has a great memory!

I can't even remember my own cel phone #.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Of course the fact that the password screen showed the exact number of characters needed was hilarious.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Of course the fact that the password screen showed the exact number of characters needed was hilarious.


On last night's The Blacklist Reddington was locked in a cage. Agent Keen tried several times to guess at a code to release him, and we heard a beep on every keypress. When the bad guys came in and opened the cage you heard two beeps and the cage opened.

Sometimes choosing s simple, short password, at least when it's not possible to use automated methods to try passwords, is actually pretty secure. Like if you need a 20-character password, just use 20 spaces.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I will watch it again, but there were so many holes and disconnects that had me going "hmmm" I'm hoping it will improve and will give it another chance.

I don't get Arquette and her monotone voice and affectless face. But it's 200000% better than David Caruso's creepy voice.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I liked this comment I read over on Gizmodo:

These scenes or shows or movies are like watching a show about driving by people who've clearly never driven. The dialogue sounds like the equivalent of "I need to wheel the bumper before the other driver roads the left-turn! Oh no! I can't believe he just rolled down the windows to hubcap the traffic light!"


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Yeah, this was awful. Time to put the entire CSI franchise to bed.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't see why they put this under the "CSI" umbrella to begin with. These guys aren't crime scene investigators...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I don't see why they put this under the "CSI" umbrella to begin with. These guys aren't crime scene investigators...


Well, sure they are!

When the crime scene is...

...CYBER!


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I really wanted to like this show. The only thing I really liked was keeping the CSI tradition of using The Who for the credit sequences.

Although, they re-edited the verse at the beginning, apparently after the closed captions were added.

And I can't see Van Der Geek as a stalwart FBI agent.

OTOH, how long before we get virtual holograms through our TiVos?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> OTOH, how long before we get virtual holograms through our TiVos?


About 7 years after the broadcast standard for holograms has been around.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, sure they are!
> 
> When the crime scene is...*(Takes off sunglasses)*
> 
> ...CYBER!


Fixed your post.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I haven't watched this, and have no plans to watch it, but if it lasts long enough for David Caruso to make a guest appearance, I'm in. How could TV get worse than that?


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Time to put Gary Sinise in the lead role.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

ADG said:


> Wow - I've never found that to be the case. Ok, on The Medium she was certainly more in her element and did a creditable job, but have you ever seen her try to act as though she's crying? She's had to do so an a number of occasions and each time it make me cringe.
> 
> Sorry to disagree, but at best she's a journeyman actress who found a niche role in The Medium, IMO.


One word: Boyhood.

Brad


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Sorry, but the fact that she was in a movie that took 12 years to make does not make her a great actress. We all, however, are certainly entitled to our opinions


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

I didn't even bother with this because their teaser episode, when the Patricia Arquette character debuted on the regular CSI, was an absolutely dreadful episode.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

ADG said:


> Sorry, but the fact that she was in a movie that took 12 years to make does not make her a great actress. We all, however, are certainly entitled to our opinions


She won an Academy Award for that performance, and well deserved IMO. She can act.

Having said that, I saw her parts in the "mothership" CSI series, and I agree with Maui, it was terrible.

Brad


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

bsnelson said:


> She won an Academy Award for that performance, and well deserved IMO. She can act.
> 
> Having said that, I saw her parts in the "mothership" CSI series, and I agree with Maui, it was terrible.
> 
> Brad


And again, it is widely known (and acknowledged by many in the know) that she won the award not so much for her acting as for the fact the movie took 12 years to make and she stuck with it (though clearly she had to do a decent job or would not have even been considered). However, I'm not arguing that you and others think she's a good actress, only that I don't.


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

SNJpage1 said:


> Too many things that they want you to believe in that are impossible.


I can't let stuff like this bother me. I've worked in the radio industry for over 40 years and have yet to see the technical assets accurately represented in TV or movies. Truth is most people don't know or care.We know, we care. But the show is not for us.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

ADG said:


> And again, it is widely known (and acknowledged by many in the know) that she won the award not so much for her acting as for the fact the movie took 12 years to make and she stuck with it (though clearly she had to do a decent job or would not have even been considered). However, I'm not arguing that you and others think she's a good actress, only that I don't.


I find that claim highly dubious, since neither the director of the movie, the other actor nominated for the movie, nor the movie itself won the award for a movie that took twelve years to make.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Just watched the cybercrime episode of "Forever" way, way much better than the CSI.
Also, Arquette should be good at poker. She's got the face for it.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I just got around to watching this.

I gave up when the computer started making old hard drive and floppy noises when the guy scrolled a webpage.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I liked this comment I read over on Gizmodo:
> 
> These scenes or shows or movies are like watching a show about driving by people who've clearly never driven. The dialogue sounds like the equivalent of "I need to wheel the bumper before the other driver roads the left-turn! Oh no! I can't believe he just rolled down the windows to hubcap the traffic light!"


LOL! :up:



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, sure they are!
> 
> When the crime scene is...
> 
> ...CYBER!


Music Cue: The Who


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Watched the first ep (it was free on Google Play and I think iTunes too -- only got it on Google Play since I saw a link to it on some other site).. Have recorded 2nd ep, will probably watch it today..

First ep was pretty bad. Their rationale that they covered (something close to) "everything that involves electronics" was pretty ridiculous... That would basically mean ALL cases, since cell phones are always used, etc..

I thought it was going to somehow all be (the bad use of) "hacking" cases.. which I also wondered how that could keep a series.

I do like some of the cast, but I too think there's too much better stuff already on, that this one'll almost certainly get my ax. Heck, I gave up on the other CSIs years ago. (Alas, I remember reading lately that Hulu has an exclusive.. So I'll have to re-up with DVDs with Netflix if I ever want to catch up on them.. No commercial-forced subscriptions for me.)

I did like all of the other CSIs, including the maligned CSI:NY.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

What I find funny is that CBS is now the old persons' channel. I watched The good wife the other night and the commercials were the same as when you watch something during the day. All boner pills, prescription drugs, and diapers. I think I read somewhere the CBS's average primetime viewer is over 50 years old.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

DavidTigerFan said:


> What I find funny is that CBS is now the old persons' channel. I watched The good wife the other night and the commercials were the same as when you watch something during the day. All boner pills, prescription drugs, and diapers. I think I read somewhere the CBS's average primetime viewer is over 50 years old.




I was watching episode 2 last week and commenting how bad it was. SO says, "You know this is a show for like 60 year olds, right?!!"


----------



## CraigThom (Sep 27, 2002)

In the second episode I learned that all circuit boards with Bluetooth on them have bright blue LEDs to make them easier to find.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DavidTigerFan said:


> What I find funny is that CBS is now the old persons' channel. I watched The good wife the other night and the commercials were the same as when you watch something during the day. All boner pills, prescription drugs, and diapers. I think I read somewhere the CBS's average primetime viewer is over 50 years old.


They've been like that (show-wise, not necessarily commercial-wise, which I wouldn't know since I don't watch commercials) for a very long time...people said that about them n the Murder She Wrote era.

And I find I watch them less now, post-50, then I did 10 years ago!


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Hey, you people will be 60 before you even know it, if you're lucky. I take plenty of prescription drugs, but I don't need the boner pills or diapers (so far). But I have been watching CBS more.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

CraigThom said:


> In the second episode I learned that all circuit boards with Bluetooth on them have bright blue LEDs to make them easier to find.


Compared to the first one, the second episode was practically accurate!


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I deleted the episode and series off my DVR after about 5 minutes. It was instantly obvious to me the show was terrible.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I am 39 and I'm pretty sure that CBS has been my most watched network for at least 10 years. I'm not sure what that says about me, though.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

laria said:


> I am 39 and I'm pretty sure that CBS has been my most watched network for at least 10 years. I'm not sure what that says about me, though.


Same here...except for the 39 part. That ship sailed a long time ago!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> What I find funny is that CBS is now the old persons' channel.


_now_?

Umm, that's been the prevailing wisdom for literally decades...

60 minutes, Murder She Wrote, etc.. (if I were younger, I could remember more examples.... just kidding)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Oh, and I've only watched about 1/4 of it so far, but the 2nd ep seems less lame.. Still likely a SP (err, onepass) nuke target, due to simply being one of the most recent shows I've started, and not GREAT.. With infinite storage, I'd probably keep recording it.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Well, I am old and CBS is my most watched network

CSI
Scorpian
Person Of Interest
Big Bang Theory
Elementary
Amazing Race


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

CraigThom said:


> In the second episode I learned that all circuit boards with Bluetooth on them have bright blue LEDs to make them easier to find.


Duh! BLUEtooth? Come on, that's common knowledge.



Brad


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

bsnelson said:


> Duh! BLUEtooth? Come on, that's common knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Brad


Kinda like how all bombs have big digital timer displays on them


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Somehow the gratuitous exposition didn't sit well with me on this show; I never liked it in the other iterations of CSI, but it seemed to bother me more here.

Probably because I have much deeper knowledge of the subject matter than I do of forensic science.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

loubob57 said:


> Kinda like how all bombs have big digital timer displays on them


If I were ever to build a bomb, I'd put one of those big timers on it, but have my bomb go off at 2:00 instead of 0:00


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> If I were ever to build a bomb, I'd put one of those big timers on it, but have my bomb go off at 2:00 instead of 0:00


"Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"

--Gomer Pyle


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> If I were ever to build a bomb, I'd put one of those big timers on it, but have my bomb go off at 2:00 instead of 0:00


That would be cruel. Much better to have the countdown go:

2:05
2:04
2:03
2:01
2:00
1:00
0:00


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Your way is crueler, because the victim would see it coming. Amnesia's way, they'd just blink (well, blow) out of existence out of the blue, not having a clue that they're about to die.

("About to" as in "right now" as opposed to "in two minutes." But I guess really, when your talking about blowing people up and cruelty, you're just arguing about pretty fine gradations... )


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Your way is crueler, because the victim would see it coming. Amnesia's way, they'd just blink (well, blow) out of existence out of the blue, not having a clue that they're about to die.


Exactly. I did not say mine was less cruel.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

The other common part of that trope is to have the countdown speed up after their first attempt at defusing the bomb.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I thought all those timers go down to 0:07 and stop.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

loubob57 said:


> The other common part of that trope is to have the countdown speed up after their first attempt at defusing the bomb.


That's what I was trying to get to, but without actually having to try to defuse it.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> What I find funny is that CBS is now the old persons' channel. I watched The good wife the other night and the commercials were the same as when you watch something during the day. All boner pills, prescription drugs, and diapers. I think I read somewhere the CBS's average primetime viewer is over 50 years old.


After 20, it's all downhilll.People go from knowing everything and having great taste, to being vacant idiots.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

SNJpage1 said:


> I was so disappointed in this show. Too many things that they want you to believe in that are impossible. Like how they drove from Patterson, NJ to upper New York state in minutes and not hours. I don't see this lasting very long.


I use to complain about this on The Mentalist all the time. They would drive back and forth across California like it was the size of Rhode Island. In one episode they drove back and forth to San Diego, twice, in one day which is over 8 hours each way.

I have no intention of watching CSI: Cyber. I just can't stand shows that deal with technology because they are just so unrealistic that they drive me nuts.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm still watching this show, for the giggles.

It's interesting, isn't it, how all of these government agencies can obtain whatever information they want about people, regardless of privacy laws? If search warrant laws, lawyer-client privilege, or HIPAA get in the way, just find a workaround. Are the scriptwriters trying to tell us, oh so subtly, that we really don't have any right to privacy, but it's OK because our heroic government agents are only seeking justice?

And oh yes, I'm an oldster, and CBS is my favorite channel.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Why CSI: Cyber Matters



> CSI: Cyber is getting beat-up by the information security community and at first we went along for the ride. You have to admit it is fun to play cyber bingo, live tweet during the show, or critique the technical inconsistencies, but there is something more here, something very important. The security community has long fought an uphill and losing battle to recruit new talent and educate users about the risks of information security. CSI: Cyber offers the potential to do just that, and on a massive scale. It also has the potential to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) and scare the masses, and our lawmakers, into reactions that would be counterproductive.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

Not canceled yet???? I started this thread and completely forgot this steaming pile of moose crap show even existed.


----------



## Rainy Dave (Nov 11, 2001)




----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Big Deficit said:


> Not canceled yet???? I started this thread and completely forgot this steaming pile of moose crap show even existed.


I watched for the first time, which I guess was this second episode.

Erase, erase, erase, erase. Suddenly I have 8 HD hours more free space.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

The last episode was relatively good, the one with rosanna arquette. It had a lot less tech.


----------



## Jeff_in_Bklyn (Apr 26, 2003)

Why does this show have two openings. The "it can happen to you" and the Who. So annoying.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Jeff_in_Bklyn said:


> Why does this show have two openings. The "it can happen to you" and the Who. So annoying.


Really? Thats what you picked to dislike about the show?


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

I know that this show has no concept of travel time, but the last episode was over the top.

They were in DC and they beat to Miami airport a flight that was 300 miles away from the airport ... already in the air? 

SIGH

Bad writing is one thing, but lazy writing? That's just lame.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

verdugan said:


> I know that this show has no concept of travel time, but the last episode was over the top.
> 
> They were in DC and they beat to Miami airport a flight that was 300 miles away from the airport ... already in the air?
> 
> ...


They obviously took a Bauer Airways flight.

And the episode's villain -- _that's_ the best they could come up with? Seriously?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

To be fair, the "it can happen to you" is so so very stupid.

The show feels like some tech PSA, with all of the explaining that they do, like they want the viewer to be as warned much as the victims.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I saw the most recent episode, the one where people were getting their phone data stolen at the airport. I didn't hate it. I'm pretty sure it won't come up for many Emmys, though.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

verdugan said:


> ....
> They were in DC and they beat to Miami airport a flight that was 300 miles away from the airport ... already in the air?
> 
> SIGH
> ...


My initial reaction was the same BUT I am pretty sure they quickly mentioned that All the affected planes were back in Miami. Which meant sufficient time had past.

At this point, I think we are all primed for distance time errors. Other episodes too could have been explained by them taking helicopters, just not filming it.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

jth tv said:


> My initial reaction was the same BUT I am pretty sure they quickly mentioned that All the affected planes were back in Miami. Which meant sufficient time had past.
> 
> At this point, I think we are all primed for distance time errors. Other episodes too could have been explained by them taking helicopters, just not filming it.


No, they only brought the one flight back to Miami because it was only 300 miles away. All other flights landed at their scheduled destinations.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

verdugan said:


> No, they only brought the one flight back to Miami because it was only 300 miles away. All other flights landed at their scheduled destinations.


You are correct, I just restored and took another look. It is ridiculous.


----------

