# The Event - Pilot - OAD 9/20/10 *spoilers*



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Oy....

OK... Now that the thread is started... The jumping around in the time line was annoying me. But the end took the cake. A friggin' wormhole? REALLY?

<sigh>

What to do....


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The jumping back and forth was REALLY annoying. The cliffhangers every friggin' commercial were REALLY annoying. The multiple different perspectives of the same event (not *THE EVENT* mind you) were REALLY annoying.

Sorry, season pass deleted.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Are the prisoners in Alaska aliens? 

Dammit.

This show is gonna suck me in. I can't just bail on something like this after the first outing.


----------



## osterber (Feb 13, 2001)

B A R F.

-Rick


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

after 4 comments I may just delete the pilot and forget about it


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Are the prisoners in Alaska aliens?


Aliens, or "heroes" (super-power humans). One of the two.

BTW: for those who watched both this and Chuck: at "The President's Retreat," the part of the set with the fountain... was that or was that not the same set as used for the plaza outside Chuck's, Ellie's and Casey's apartments? Or just very coincidentally similar?

Edit: nope, just similar-ish fountains. Never mind.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

oh, boy.. I didn't even think about it being super-heroes.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> ... I can't just bail on something like this after the first outing.


I can.  bag o suck


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

I'm intrigued enough to keep watching.
I think people were expecting to much and were bound to be let down.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Maui said:


> I'm intrigued enough to keep watching.
> I think people were expecting to much and were bound to be let down.


I wasn't expecting anything... and I was still let down.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Maui said:


> I'm intrigued enough to keep watching.
> I think people were expecting to much and were bound to be let down.


I will keep watching, too. I wasn't expecting all to be revealed in the first episode.

Maybe subsequent episodes won't jump around like this one did? Though even if it did, there is still the worm hole. And now, a LOST plane. I know there are no original ideas out there anymore. But come on.... Try a little harder to re-use stuff in a different way.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Aliens, or "heroes" (super-power humans). One of the two.


Or people from the future?

Maybe some of the same people, like Jason Ritter? That would explain why Laura Innes is there, in chains...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Future people?

Yet another possibility I had not considered. Mind you, I haven't seen a single episode of 'Lost', so I have no clue as to what that is all about, so I don't know if The Event is like Lost.

I can see the government trying to cover something up. And some people trying to expose it. And some people trying to keep it from being exposed. That all makes sense. But what's the connection with the girl and guy on the cruise?


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm thinking "Future People" too. Obviously, the writers from The 4400 must still have some ideas on how their show could have gone. 

Oh please someone advise me...

I save TV shows I like. (Cheaper than buying DVD sets later.)

My non-TiVo DVR has a six hour buffer. I left the thing set on NBC all night long.

Provided I do it by 3AM, I can save the opener to DVD.

Do I save it or not?

Gotta admit, I was on the verge of swearing the show off for good until the plane disappeared. Now, I dunno.

HELP ME!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Maybe that Alaskan base is actually a Torchwood base.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> I can see the government trying to cover something up. And some people trying to expose it. And some people trying to keep it from being exposed. That all makes sense. But what's the connection with the girl and guy on the cruise?


The girl's father was the airline pilot who was being blackmailed to crash the plane (presumably to save the girl, and probably her daughter as well; Mom is already dead). The guy was probably recruited by the other side (the side Detective Choi is on) to stop him.


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

Count me in at least for the time being. I was very intrigued. As a big fan of Lost, I enjoy mystery shows. The time jumping took a bit to get used, too, but I got used to it after about 15 minutes. I did not expect the wormhole, or whatever it was and found Sophia (Laura Innes) character very creepy. All in a good way.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Maybe that Alaskan base is actually a Torchwood base.


And the airplane was actually the Master's Tardis?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I think Im going to wait and see if this one survives before i watch it...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

brermike said:


> found Sophia (Laura Innes) character very creepy.


And I so did not. In fact, she was the weakest part of the show for me. I know, it's not fair to her, but Laura Innes to me is so badly typecast as Dr. Kerry Weaver, that's all I can see, even all these years after ER and her role on the show ended.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The girl's father was the airline pilot who was being blackmailed to crash the plane (presumably to save the girl, and probably her daughter as well; Mom is already dead). The guy was probably recruited by the other side (the side Detective Choi is on) to stop him.


OK.. I thought the pilot was the girls father, but with all the damn jumping around, it was hard for me to keep everything straight.


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

Dubya. Tea. Eff?!?!!!!!

Agree with many about the jumping around being VERY annoying.

This feels like it should have been a 2 hour ep but they scrapped that and gave us condensed version that was really really REALLY bad.

Is this gonna be a like reverse 'Flash Foward'? Cuz they haven't explained DickButtKiss about how and why the 'almost fiance' got on the plane.

Or how a guy chasing a plane at the airport arrives to where it is going to crash...... *before the plane did*. :down:

Can someone tell me why everyone was just standing there looking dumbly at the plane as it headed towards them..... slowly. In the shots they showed us it seemed quiet far off. But yet everyone just stood there like deer in headlights instead of GTFO.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Ok seriously Loadstar, we get it, you didn't like it. Fine, you can leave the thread now. I found it intriguing, we'll see how it goes from here.


----------



## kenr (Dec 26, 1999)

Personally, I thought the show was quite interesting, though the time shifting was a bit confusing. I found that after watching the first 7 minutes, I rewound and started over.

I don't see why people are so quick to bail out on a show, yet you see lots of criticism here how some networks don't give shows enough time to garner viewership. So what if you spend a few more hours before making a decision. Many shows take a few episodes before they hit their stride. If you didn't like it, give it a chance and watch a few more weeks. Maybe you'll change your mind.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

kenr said:


> I don't see why people are so quick to bail out on a show, yet you see lots of criticism here how some networks don't give shows enough time to garner viewership.


Go back and look at any thread for a new show in this forum. People are tripping over themselves to get to the computer to crap on the show.


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

I'll watch a few more episodes. I think it would have been stronger as a two hour premier, however. There was a lot going on.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting.

While I don't normally have a problem non-linear storytelling this one jumped around too much.

That said, this could be a very interesting mystery, as long as they back on the jumping around within episodes.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I actually found it interesting as well. The jumping around became laughable, but a good mystery/sci-fi type show that seems well produced is enough to keep me coming back.

One note -- I thought the original score was fantastic!


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

What was causing the earthquake just before the plane was going to hit?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> What was causing the earthquake just before the plane was going to hit?


Displaced air by the wormhole vortex?


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

I didn't have any problem with the flashbacks at all. It's a common TV and movie ploy by now. Haven't seven years of Lost trained us on that by now?

Allow me to add to the few voices of sanity in this thread. I understand that the reality of a pilot today means that a lot of the mystery is going to be kept up for a little while longer, and that you're going to want to both keep people on the edge of their seats so they don't walk away during the commercials (assuming they don't DVR) and leave them with a huge cliff hanger to get them to at least check out the second episode. I'll allow a show that for the first few episodes. This pilot pulled me in enough to keep watching.

Pretty soon though, I expect the writers to wow me with a great concept and back story that makes me want to tune in again to see where they're going from here, and not simply to understand the premise in the first place.

I'm in it for a while. This will probably be one of the first Monday shows I tune in for (before Chuck even, although I haven't seen the season opener yet).


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

I actually was entertained by the show. I understand the need for the flashbacks, and I certainly don't have a problem with that method of storytelling, but the problem is-the flashbacks were all over the place for various characters and various times. However, the reveal that the father in law was the pilot was great.


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

Now I get it. I wondered why they would hold the pilot's younger daughter to force him to crash the plane, and at the same time cause Sean (Jason Ritter) to foil the plan by kidnapping the almost fiance. Then I realized they just abducted both daughters.

Although... How did Sean know about the airplane? Maybe he was being forced by another faction, since they didn't just abduct the older daughter, they made it seem like she was never on the ship.

I missed a few minutes here and there due to pixelation and glitches in my recording. I think one of my Tivo drives is dying on me. Maybe I missed something in Sean's conversation with the air marshal.

And of course, we all know Sterling (the intelligence director from the prez' entourage) is in on it and evil, right?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The flashbacks were annoying because they were inconsistent. Those who've watched Lost (and listened to the podcasts) will know that the flashbacks in Lost were in chronological order, just as the present-time scenes (in a weird way, The Good Guys does this as well, sort-of). In non-Lost-like shows, typically there is a single "reset" -- think of last night's Castle as the most example: a WTH scene in the cold open, followed by a "3 days earlier" reset, and then the story progresses toward that scene we saw in the beginning.

This show was like neither one of those. I was actually laughing out loud after the third-or-so flash back. It was like an unintentional parody of itself.

But I enjoyed it well enough (after a summer of re-runs of The Office and Friends) to give it a few more nights.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

I enjoyed it enough to watch a couple more episodes. I was not 'wowed' though.

Oddly, my biggest peeve was the musical score. It was just so loud and overbearing and generic.

I thought the whole scene with the plane headed towards the Prez rang too false and wasn't suspenseful at all. They really thought I'd be on the edge of my seat believing the stars of the show might actually die in the first episode?

I was at first thinking aliens, but when after the plane disappeared, I'm thinking time jumping.

The number of and order of the flashback timelines didn't bother me too much. I was more bothered by how abrupt they were, At least on, say, Lost, you knew a flashback was coming because of the distinct musical cue and quick fade. Here, it was just "cut!".


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

I liked it. I'm sucker enough for this sort of show anyway, but it succeeded in getting me interested to keep watching. I can't understand why someone would jump to post negatvely multiple times instantly after a new show is over. It drowns out any real discussion from those who enjoyed the pure entertainment. Get a life. 

Not the best beginning ever, but if you like this genre it's always nice to have a few of these around. Wheither the writers can develop a few unique/interesting angles will decide if it's the next Persons Unknown or Lost. Probably will be somewhere in the middle.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Good enough that I'll come back for more and hope it doesn't turn into another Flash Forward. The jumping around bothered me at first but the story was interesting enough to overcome that... not sure most people will feel the same and that gimmick is going to cost them some viewers.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

andyw715 said:


> after 4 comments I may just delete the pilot and forget about it


That's what I was thinking too. The commercials made it seem like something I could like, but then I read an article online that someone posted somewhere and I realized I probably wouldn't like it.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I didn't like the time jump arounds. Too many of them.

The young couples' vacation bored me to tears. I thought couple #2 were going to kidnap them or something.

Is it possible to smuggle a gun onto a plane any more? Why even do that to stop a suicidal pilot? Just call the airport up and say your futire father in law might crash the plane.

I hate "they kidnapped my daughter, now I must kill 200 people to save her" plots. You can kidnap the person I love most in the universe and I won't become a mass murderer.

Other than that, I liked it and will keep the sp for a while, at least.



mtnagel said:


> That's what I was thinking too. The commercials made it seem like something I could like, but then I read an article online that someone posted somewhere and I realized I probably wouldn't like it.


It always amazes me that some people let someone else determine whether they will watch a show.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

5 minutes in I wanted to delete the show.

20 minutes in, I really wanted to delete the show.

40 minutes in, I wanted to throw my TV out the window the show was so awful. 

Then the ending happened and now I want to know what is going on.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> It always amazes me that some people let someone else determine whether they will watch a show.


But I now realize it's a show I probably wouldn't like based on what I've now heard about it. Do you watch EVERY SINGLE brand new show on tv to see whether you will like it or not?


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

jschuur said:


> I didn't have any problem with the flashbacks at all. It's a common TV and movie ploy by now. Haven't seven years of Lost trained us on that by now?


I'm OK with flashbacks, but I'm not OK with watching the same scene two or three times.

I'll give it a few more episodes with the hope that the storytelling improves so we're not seeing half of the episode twice or more.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> The young couples' vacation bored me to tears. I thought couple #2 were going to kidnap them or something.


I suspect they did...her, anyway. They #2 poisoned her #1 to keep her on the ship, then she #2 drew him #1 away snorkeling while he #2 (with the excuse of the fake broken arm) stayed behind to kidnap she #1.

I also suspect (time-jumps, remember?) we haven't seen the last of what happened on the cruise. And I suspect that when all is said and done, it would have been more compelling to say and do it all at once. So far, at least, the time-jumping is too gimmicky and confusing to be effective. Especially if there are multiple versions of characters, as seems to be the case with Kerry Weaver at least.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I suspect they did...her, anyway. They #2 poisoned her #1 to keep her on the ship, then she #2 drew him #1 away snorkeling while he #2 (with the excuse of the fake broken arm) stayed behind to kidnap she #1.
> 
> I also suspect (time-jumps, remember?) we haven't seen the last of what happened on the cruise.


There may still be one item left in his room: the ring in the in-room safe. In real life they'd never miss that (if the safe is locked, remove it and put in a new definitely-empty one!), but here they can use it for a plot device.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

I'd vote for future people, but why would future people have a "leader"? They need one? 

I enjoyed it enough to keep watching.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

martinp13 said:


> There may still be one item left in his room: the ring in the in-room safe. In real life they'd never miss that (if the safe is locked, remove it and put in a new definitely-empty one!), but here they can use it for a plot device.


I forgot about the ring, but obviously you're right...and since the cruise ship is in on it, they wouldn't have to remove the safe (surely they have an override combination in case the guest forgets his).


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

I liked the pilot episode a lot. Two big thumbs up.
I didn't realize the dad was the pilot.

I'm in it for the long haul.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Only problem I had, and it is completely logistical, how did Jason Ritter get on the ship and THEN not be able to get into his room. The room key is very important on a cruise ship, it is your ID for getting back on, the key to your room, and your ship board charge card. It seems they made him "disappear" very quickly.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

We liked it, although the skipping around was a bit much. We're going to give it a chance, for sure. 

Brad


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I wasn't thrilled with the time-jumping. Other than that, too soon to say. For now, it's on my list.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I didn't mind the skipping around at all, and I didn't find any of it confusing. That may change as the series progresses, I suppose. Rewatching the same scene briefly with new information was actually good editing as far as I am concerned. It is rather commonplace for shows/movies that jump around like this.

As for the quality of the show... it is unclear. It seems better than Flash Forward so far, but that isn't saying much. It was a lot better than Chase, but it doesn't really seem to fit in with the rest of the NBC Monday line-up. I don't think it's going to last, but I will keep watching anyway. For now.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Gunnyman said:


> Only problem I had, and it is completely logistical, how did Jason Ritter get on the ship and THEN not be able to get into his room. The room key is very important on a cruise ship, it is your ID for getting back on, the key to your room, and your ship board charge card. It seems they made him "disappear" very quickly.


For those of us that have never been on a cruise (or haven't been on one in ages), it worked.  Plus he was probly with the other gal after snorkeling?


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Or people from the future?
> 
> Maybe some of the same people, like Jason Ritter? That would explain why Laura Innes is there, in chains...


So are you suggesting that the Laura Innes character in chains and the one at the President's retreat were not the same person? I assumed they were and that he'd freed her to take part in his big announcement.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ADG said:


> So are you suggesting that the Laura Innes character in chains and the one at the President's retreat were not the same person? I assumed they were and that he'd freed her to take part in his big announcement.


But their interaction at the announcement was very friendly and relaxed.

I think they're the same person, but from different times (i.e., Laura In Chains is Future Laura). Maybe the future people are trying to change something (The Event), and the present people who are in on it aren't sold on their plan.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Hmmm. As I was watching all three possibilities mentioned in this thread (aliens, "heroes" and future beings) occurred to me and the least likely seemed that they were "superhuman". Future seemed the _most _likely, but I didn't (and don't) think there were multiple versions of each. At this early stage, my guess would be that the relationship between Innes & the president was warmer because she was free and he was going to explain all to the public.

But of course these speculations and conversations are precisely what the producers and writers are trying to fuel, so who knows? There could be a fourth possibility we haven't even thought of yet - the first three being so "obvious" to those of us who regularly watch shows like this.

WAIT - maybe the internment camp is really purgatory and........


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I enjoyed it. Same reaction as most of you. The time jumps were distracting. Too frequent, too confusing. Three days, eight days, 8 months, whatever. It did seem like a candidate for a two hour pilot, but NBC doesn't have the cojones for that.

I always have issues when improbable actions become the story line. Ex: the ending, where the plane is bearing down on the pres & his entourage. The SS did an admirable job of shepherding him out of the house and into the car, then they froze and all just watched the plane as it bore down on them. Aren't SS agents trained to get the pres OUT OF DANGER?

There will be (and already are) comparisons to LOST, the serial drama that all future serial dramas will be compared against. One big difference to me was in LOST, as implausible as events may have been, the characters basically remained honest. They did what most people would do. You could believe in them, even if the situation seemed incredible. But in so many other dramas, regardless of the incredibleness of the situation, the characters don't do what we, as viewers, find believable (see FF as a perfect example of this). Thus we find ourselves being taken out of the moment. A show like this treads a fine line. I can handle wormholes, but I can't handle characters who don't react to them as I think they should.



Family said:


> Whether the writers can develop a few unique/interesting angles will decide if it's the next Persons Unknown or Lost. Probably will be somewhere in the middle.


EVERY show falls somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

I kind of liked it although it had a few too may "24" leap of faith moments. 

* Is it really that easy to drive my SUV onto a major airport runway to try and crash into a Jumbo jet?

* How did Ritter sneak the gun on the plane and was that really the best plan he could come up with to stop his future father-in-law's mass murder suicide.? 

* To make a plane crash and kill the president, all that needs to be done is kill a pilot's wife and kidnap his kids and tell him to do it or else?

* Why after quickly trying to move the president to safety why did they all just sit there mouths open and watch the plane heading right for them for a certain death strike. Why didn't they keep moving to get out of the way?

Maybe some of these things will be explained to be somewhat logical in future episodes so I will keep watching - plus I am a sucker for Flashforward, Surface, and Invasion type shows. 

I am pretty sure this is a one season and done show so I will view it as a one season mystery. If they wrap it up well, I am fine with that.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

ADG said:


> WAIT - maybe the internment camp is really purgatory and........


Introducing elements of religion into a sci-fi show is blasphemy! 

I haven't watched this yet, but based on this thread, I think I'll give it a chance. Maybe a two episode marathon after next week's ep.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The idea of a future and a present Laura Linney is very intriguing, but what she says at the end ("They saved us" or something like that) makes that unlikely. It would imply that the present-day character knows about the future one. She also says something like "I haven't told you everything" which, to me, was a reference back to the talk they had in the flashback, when they (presumably) first met.

Anyhow, that was my take on it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Johnny Dancing said:


> * How did Ritter sneak the gun on the plane and was that really the best plan he could come up with to stop his future father-in-law's mass murder suicide.?


He didn't...somebody left it for him in the bathroom (when he was leaving the bathroom with that guilty look on his face, you could see the bag the gun had been in sticking out of the trash).

At the time, we were supposed to think he had been doing/smuggling drugs, but in retrospect it's pretty clear what happened, and I assume they will make it explicit later (when they show us how he got drafted in the first place).

That's one (maybe the only) good thing about this bizarre time-jumping structure they've adopted...we can always hope that any gaps we see will be filled later, and if worse comes to worst, if they screw up they can ret-con something in.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Hi ALL,

I thought it was only OK, but will probably stick with it for now. As far as the repeated flashbacks, after a while I started to laugh every time a flashback happened. AND I had a really big laugh when the plane disappeared in what ever that hole-in-the-sky was!!! But the show is not supposed to be a comedy!!!!



Johnny Dancing said:


> * Why after quickly trying to move the president to safety why did they all just sit there mouths open and watch the plane heading right for them for a certain death strike. Why didn't they keep moving to get out of the way?





astrohip said:


> where the plane is bearing down on the pres & his entourage. The SS did an admirable job of shepherding him out of the house and into the car, then they froze and all just watched the plane as it bore down on them. Aren't SS agents trained to get the pres OUT OF DANGER?


The above was the thing that bugged me the most. The SS agents find out something is wrong and run full tilt to get the Pres and his family away. They get into the limo, and then . . . . just sit there watching the plane bearing down on them. THAT WAS THE DUMBEST THING IN THE WHOLE SHOW!!!!!!!!!

But for now I'll stay with it - at least for a few more episodes!!

Gerry


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He didn't...somebody left it for him in the bathroom (when he was leaving the bathroom with that guilty look on his face, you could see the bag the gun had been in sticking out of the trash).
> 
> At the time, we were supposed to think he had been doing/smuggling drugs, but in retrospect it's pretty clear what happened, and I assume they will make it explicit later (when they show us how he got drafted in the first place).
> 
> That's one (maybe the only) good thing about this bizarre time-jumping structure they've adopted...we can always hope that any gaps we see will be filled later, and if worse comes to worst, if they screw up they can ret-con something in.


I thought it was a blue uniform sticking out of the trash. Like he had been impersonating ground crew, and somehow got on the plane (and a window seat, at that!).

We need a lot more of the holes filled in... I think next week will reveal a lot.


----------



## SorenTodd (May 26, 2009)

Loved it (and it looked great in HD). My only complaint (which others have noted) was that the jumping around in time was a bit distracting. It should have been more linear, like a "24" episode.



> How did Ritter sneak the gun on the plane and was that really the best plan he could come up with to stop his future father-in-law's mass murder suicide.?


This was a bit confusing to me at first. I thought both of Ritter's fiancee's parents were shot and killed in that home invasion? I just assumed that the man in the cockpit was an impostor.

Anyways, ratings were 11 million viewers for the pilot (way ahead of Chuck and Chase). NBC must be happy with that.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

One thing I'm confused about: in the scuffle on the plane, everyone reacts to hearing something, and someone in the back of the plane says "was that a gun shot?". I rewound it twice... I heard absolutely nothing. Did they mess up the sound byte?


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

SorenTodd said:


> This was a bit confusing to me at first. I thought both of Ritter's fiancee's parents were shot and killed in that home invasion? I just assumed that the man in the cockpit was an impostor.


You saw the invaders come in and start shooting. You never saw anyone hit until you saw the blood on the floor when Sean called for help from the boat. I think you saw Mike's wife with the blood?


----------



## aaronw (Apr 13, 2001)

Next week I think it is listed as 2 hours....


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

aaronw said:


> Next week I think it is listed as 2 hours....


Most likely they'll repeat the pilot episode along with a new one if that's the case.


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

it will not be till 5th and final season till we find out what happens, just like in LOST and still we will not know what the heck is going on.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

The show failed my nod-off test. I fell asleep in my chair near the end. I just recorded one episode, if its any good, it will be out on DVD in a few years, and i'll just watch it then.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

type_g said:


> it will not be till 5th and final season till we find out what happens, just like in LOST and still we will not know what the heck is going on.


On the contrary. The producers have already said that the nature of "The Event" will be revealed early in season 2.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

ADG said:


> On the contrary. The producers have already said that the nature of "The Event" will be revealed early in season 2.


I knew the thing with the airplane wasn't The Event. But I have to wait until season TWO?

Sheeeett.

There is a chance there won't be a season two.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

SorenTodd said:


> This was a bit confusing to me at first. I thought both of Ritter's fiancee's parents were shot and killed in that home invasion? I just assumed that the man in the cockpit was an impostor.


I think they only killed the wife to show they mean business, then took the little girl and Ritter's fiance to blackmail the pilot father into crashing the plane.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Is it possible to smuggle a gun onto a plane any more?


Of course it is. It's probably easier now then ever.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Why does everyone assume they killed the wife? All it showed was them busting in and shooting. They could have done it to scare em.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Why does everyone assume they killed the wife? All it showed was them busting in and shooting. They could have done it to scare em.


They later show a scene at the house and there's a big pool of blood.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Why does everyone assume they killed the wife? All it showed was them busting in and shooting. They could have done it to scare em.


They showed a motionless hand and blood on the floor. Of course, the wife could still be alive, just missing a hand.



martinp13 said:


> One thing I'm confused about: in the scuffle on the plane, everyone reacts to hearing something, and someone in the back of the plane says "was that a gun shot?". I rewound it twice... I heard absolutely nothing. Did they mess up the sound byte?


I think the pilot shot the copilot. After that the plane started to change direction and attitude.



dswallow said:


> Of course it is. It's probably easier now then ever.


I think pilots can have guns in the cockpit nowadays. Of course, not all pilots would participate in that program so the pilot here would have just happened to be one of them.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

squint said:


> They showed a motionless hand and blood on the floor. Of course, the wife could still be alive, just missing a hand.


It might not even be the wife's hand. They might have gotten someone else to lend them a hand for this occasion.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I really enjoyed it. I knew people would complain about the out of sequence chronology, but I think that given the nature of the story they're trying to tell, that's really the only way to provide the necessary information to get people interested.

Here's what we know chronologically:

*Sometime prior to 13 months ago:* The CIA set up a prison camp in a remote location in Alaska. There are 93 prisoners there. These are not your average prisoners and this facility is ultra-secret.

*Approximately 13 months ago:* Laura Innes character is one of the prisoners in Alaska. She seems to think that someone is going to spill the beans about "The Event." People are clearly afraid of that happening. The newly-inaugurated POTUS somehow learned about the Alaska facility and questioned his CIA director about it. The CIA director seemed surprised that POTUS found out about the facility and it appeared that it had been kept secret from previous presidents. New POTUS demands to visit the facility. When he arrives, he asks to visit the leader of the prisoners and he's introduced to the Laura Innes character.

*Approximately 8 days ago:* Sean Walker and his girlfriend, Leila Buchanan, are preparing to go on a cruise. Sean asks Leila's dad, Mike, for his blessing to marry Leila. Sean is clearly planning to pop the question while on the cruise.

*Approximately 6 days ago:* Sean and Leila are on St. Lucia and he is about to pop the question when they hear someone screaming for help. It's a guy with a broken arm, saying that his girlfriend fell off the cliff into the ocean and hit her head. She's flailing around and appears to be drowning, so Sean dives into the ocean to save her. Later that evening, Sean and Leila have drinks with the couple, Greg and Vicky, and they seem to be becoming fast friends. Leila's parents are worried about her so her dad calls to check in. They talk briefly, but Leila can't hear well due to the music, so she says she'll call back the next day. Shortly after the dad hangs up the phone, their home is invaded by people in masks with guns. Someone is left laying on the floor in a pool of blood. Back on the ship, Sean and Leila are in their room and Leila says she's sick. She thinks she drank too much. They make plans to have a romantic dinner the following evening and Sean hides the engagement ring in the room's safe.

*Approximately 5 days ago:* Sean and Vicky are on a snorkeling excursion. Apparently Leila was too sick from the night before, and Greg couldn't go due to his broken arm. Back on the ship, Sean tries to get into his room, but the keycard doesn't work. He goes to the Purser's desk and they have no record of him ever being a passenger. A security guard escorts Sean to the room and there is another couple living there. There is no record of Sean ever being a passenger, and there is no trace of Leila.

*Today:* Sean has snuck on board an airliner at Miami airport about to depart to Buenos Aires. He's clearly nervous about something. Sean's soon to be father-in-law, Mike Buchanan, boards the plane as the pilot. The first officer expected someone different, but there's apparently been a change of plans. Simon Lee appears to be some kind of federal agent hell bent on stopping Sean's plane from taking off. He calls in a bomb threat to the tower. The tower attempts to contact the plane but all their radar and communication equipment go dark. Simon Lee drives his SUV onto the runway alongside the plane as it's taking off, but he's unable to stop it. Once in the air, Sean jumps from his seat and pulls out a gun, demanding to get into the cockpit. An air marshal gets Sean to drop his gun but Sean is still insisting that they have to get in the cockpit. He's banging on the cockpit door pleading with Mike to open it. Suddenly, there's a sound of a gunshot from the flight deck and the plane begins a steep nose dive.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Miami, POTUS and his family are hosting an event at the "President's Retreat." There are press vans there and the President is planning to make a speech. The CIA director and some other military types pull POTUS aside and urge him not to make the annoucement. He denies their request and claims that he can't keep a lid on it any longer, because he's promised an exclusive interview to a reporter later that day. He leaves the secret meeting and greets the Laura Innes character, who appears to have been released from the Alaska facility and is somehow involved with the announcement POTUS is about to make. Suddenly, the ground starts to shake, the wind starts to blow, and the Secret Service agents start scrambling to get everyone to safety. They look to the sky and see the airliner plummeting straight toward them. Just before it impacts the ground, some kind of strange lights appear in the sky and the plane vanishes.

So that's how it goes chronologically. I don't think it would be very compelling if told in that order.

By the way, the ratings were pretty good, by NBC's standards (3.7 adults 18-49 and 11 million viewers). Unless the ratings drop off pretty significantly next week, I think this show will be around for a while.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

SorenTodd said:


> Anyways, ratings were 11 million viewers for the pilot (way ahead of Chuck and Chase). NBC must be happy with that.


According to Tv By the Numbers, The Event pulled a 3.7 in 18-49.
Decent numbers against Dancing with the Stars.

The question is, will it maintain those numbers.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

I refuse to try to understand an illogical show, but I'll watch it to see what happens.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> By the way, the ratings were pretty good, by NBC's standards (3.7 adults 18-49 and 11 million viewers). Unless the ratings drop off pretty significantly next week, I think this show will be around for a while.


Only 3.7 adults? I knew TV audiences were shrinking, but  

And I just realized, I've inched out of their target age.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Your girlfriend is drowning. You have a broken arm in a cast. What do you do?

A) Ok, so I have a cast. I'll ruin it (aren't all casts fiberglass nowadays?), won't be able to swim very well, and maybe dork up my arm, but I gotta save my girlfriend.

B) Scream and yell for help, running around saying "Help! Do something! Do something! I'd do it but my arm's in a cast".


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Although this seemed like a collage of recycled ideas from other suspense and sci-fi shows and movies, I enjoyed it. I agree that the number of flashbacks got to be a little annoying. I thought Jason Ritter was great.

I like the theory that the prisoners are people from the future. I would prefer that to aliens or super-people.

This is already better than Flash Forward. The dialog, acting, and action on Flash Forward were pretty much horrible from the start, never believable to me. None of that bothered me in the premiere of The Event.



Johnny Dancing said:


> * To make a plane crash and kill the president, all that needs to be done is kill a pilot's wife and kidnap his kids and tell him to do it or else?


Well that and the ability to instantly disable the air traffic control tower as well as the fighter sent to shoot down the plane.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> *Approximately 13 months ago:* Laura Innes character is one of the prisoners in Alaska. She seems to think that someone is going to spill the beans about "The Event." People are clearly afraid of that happening. The newly-inaugurated POTUS somehow learned about the Alaska facility and questioned his CIA director about it. The CIA director seemed surprised that POTUS found out about the facility and it appeared that it had been kept secret from previous presidents. New POTUS demands to visit the facility. When he arrives, he asks to visit the leader of the prisoners and he's introduced to the Laura Innes character.


Wasn't there a conversation about a reported already knowing about this place in Alaska and that they had been there?

Is the Laura Innes character that reporter? That's how I took it.

What did I miss?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

allan said:


> And I just realized, I've inched out of their target age.


HA!! *I* still *MATTER*!! 

For a few more weeks.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

martinp13 said:


> Your girlfriend is drowning. You have a broken arm in a cast. What do you do?
> 
> A) Ok, so I have a cast. I'll ruin it (aren't all casts fiberglass nowadays?), won't be able to swim very well, and maybe dork up my arm, but I gotta save my girlfriend.
> 
> B) Scream and yell for help, running around saying "Help! Do something! Do something! I'd do it but my arm's in a cast".


Except that I'm sure we'll soon find out that Greg and Vicky were in that location deliberately to try to get close to Sean and Leila. So Vicky wasn't really drowning and Greg's arm isn't really broken, but they needed to maintain the ruse to get in with Sean and Leila. (And just in case that's not what happens, the current in that area looked pretty brutal. They mentioned how lucky Vicky was that Sean was a strong swimmer. I'm not sure how well a guy in a cast is going to do trying to swim against a current like that while also trying to drag a drowning girl.)


jsmeeker said:


> Wasn't there a conversation about a reported already knowing about this place in Alaska and that they had been there?
> 
> Is the Laura Innes character that reporter? That's how I took it.
> 
> What did I miss?


If there was a conversation that pointed to that, I missed it. I'll admit that I don't remember much about that initial conversation with the Laura Innes character, except that we were supposed to be surprised when she stood up and she was the one in shackles.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> Wasn't there a conversation about a reported already knowing about this place in Alaska and that they had been there?
> 
> Is the Laura Innes character that reporter? That's how I took it.


No, the reporter was going to break the story that the facility was going to be shut down. She was the TV lady outside the Florida place.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

martinp13 said:


> Your girlfriend is drowning. You have a broken arm in a cast. What do you do?
> 
> A) Ok, so I have a cast. I'll ruin it (aren't all casts fiberglass nowadays?), won't be able to swim very well, and maybe dork up my arm, but I gotta save my girlfriend.
> 
> B) Scream and yell for help, running around saying "Help! Do something! Do something! I'd do it but my arm's in a cast".


I would do that, if I didn't really need to save my girlfriend, and only wanted to stage a need for a rescue in order get into the rescuer's lives and subsequently kidnap one of them.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

martinp13 said:


> Your girlfriend is drowning. You have a broken arm in a cast. What do you do?
> 
> A) Ok, so I have a cast. I'll ruin it (aren't all casts fiberglass nowadays?), won't be able to swim very well, and maybe dork up my arm, but I gotta save my girlfriend.
> 
> B) Scream and yell for help, running around saying "Help! Do something! Do something! I'd do it but my arm's in a cast".


My take on that is that it was faked. Those people were part of the plan to abduct the girlfriend.

This is an example of the recycled idea thing I mentioned. Recent examples of a couple meeting nice people on their vacation only to later find out they are not so nice: A Perfect Getaway (2009) and Gone (2007).

Edit: Ah, double smeek. I need to post faster next time.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, the reporter was going to break the story that the facility was going to be shut down. She was the TV lady outside the Florida place.


Tehre were a lot of TV people outside of the President's Miami home/retreat. He was going to hold a press confernce.


----------



## plateau10 (Dec 11, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> Tehre were a lot of TV people outside of the President's Miami home/retreat. He was going to hold a press confernce.


The press conference was going to be immediately followed by the exclusive interview with that specific reporter.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Tehre were a lot of TV people outside of the President's Miami home/retreat. He was going to hold a press confernce.


But he said in that meeting with the CIA director and the general that he had already promised an exclusive to a reporter, which is why he couldn't delay the speech. Even if he didn't make the public announcement, it was going to come out in the one-on-one interview.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Sorry guys, I meant to turn on the [sarcasm] flag.  I definitely think it was faked, but looking back on it, it's so fake it's ridiculous.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> But he said in that meeting with the CIA director and the general that he had already promised an exclusive to a reporter, which is why he couldn't delay the speech. Even if he didn't make the public announcement, it was going to come out in the one-on-one interview.


Ahh... OK

With all the jumping around, it gets so confusing.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I wonder if there's any chance that the Broken-Arm guy & Drowning Girl DIDN'T have anything to do with the kidnapping? Nobody would see THAT coming.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

As long as I'm at it, see Flightplan (2005) for an example of the "we have no record of her being on board" thing. Hopefully the writers have more original ideas in future episodes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

plateau10 said:


> The press conference was going to be immediately followed by the exclusive interview with that specific reporter.


And the way they focused on that one reporter, and the bird-who-ate-the-canary look she had, made it clear that she was the one.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Suddenly, the ground starts to shake, the wind starts to blow, and the Secret Service agents start scrambling to get everyone to safety. They look to the sky and see the airliner plummeting straight toward them. Just before it impacts the ground, some kind of strange lights appear in the sky and the plane vanishes.


One thing you left out that was pretty significant. As they were moving the president to the limo one of the agents said that all radar on the east coast was out and "_it may have started_".


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

ADG said:


> One thing you left out that was pretty significant. As they were moving the president to the limo one of the agents said that all radar on the east coast was out and "_it may have started_".


I thought they said something like, "they can't get it restarted".


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> I thought they said something like, "they can't get it restarted".


Nope - - just watched it again and they said "The entire seaboard is down. We think the attack is underway"


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ADG said:


> One thing you left out that was pretty significant. As they were moving the president to the limo one of the agents said that all radar on the east coast was out and "_it may have started_".


Ah, I didn't hear that. I heard them say the radar was down, but I figured it was just locally and didn't hear anything about something being "started." There are several conversations I'm going to re-watch tonight if I get a chance, so I'll add that scene to the list.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

How many people do you think were on that plane?
Do you think the 93 prisoners could have originated from that plane?

Show has an interesting concept, but the acting and dialogue are weak. I give it a couple of more episodes than bailing out.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Jeeters said:


> I thought they said something like, "they can't get it restarted".


Goth!


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> I thought couple #2 were going to kidnap them or something.


I think they did.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think they're the same person, but from different times (i.e., Laura In Chains is Future Laura).


I thought you were on to something but the president is introduced to the Laura Innes character, so she can't be future if he didn't know her and then he does.



DevdogAZ said:


> Here's what we know chronologically:


DevdogAZ - that was one helluva recap - you have too much time on your hands but thanks...:up:



allan said:


> I wonder if there's any chance that the Broken-Arm guy & Drowning Girl DIDN'T have anything to do with the kidnapping? Nobody would see THAT coming.


OK - I might be crazy but couple #2 - the drowning girl that DevDog said her name was Vicki?
I am pretty certain that she was the ticket agent at the airport desk when Mike boards the plane.

But then again - at first I thought she was the female shooter who shot Mike's wife - but she couldn't have been because she was snorkeling with Sean. 
If you watch closely the shooter can be seen and it is a woman.



mtnagel said:


> Do you watch EVERY SINGLE brand new show on tv to see whether you will like it or not?


As a matter of fact, I do. 
Or at least I try. 
And this year I am trying to give shows a little more of a chance - usually they have 15 minutes and I am out.

THE EVENT? I am in. I liked enough to read this entire thread


----------



## lovegardener (Sep 22, 2010)

DevdogAZ said:


> Except that I'm sure we'll soon find out that Greg and Vicky were in that location deliberately to try to get close to Sean and Leila. So Vicky wasn't really drowning and Greg's arm isn't really broken, but they needed to maintain the ruse to get in with Sean and Leila. (And just in case that's not what happens, the current in that area looked pretty brutal. They mentioned how lucky Vicky was that Sean was a strong swimmer. I'm not sure how well a guy in a cast is going to do trying to swim against a current like that while also trying to drag a drowning girl.)
> 
> If there was a conversation that pointed to that, I missed it. I'll admit that I don't remember much about that initial conversation with the Laura Innes character, except that we were supposed to be surprised when she stood up and she was the one in shackles.


Vicky and Greg did the home invasion.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> I thought you were on to something but the president is introduced to the Laura Innes character, so she can't be future if he didn't know her and then he does.


I'm not sure what you mean...


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Is it possible to smuggle a gun onto a plane any more? Why even do that to stop a suicidal pilot? Just call the airport up and say your futire father in law might crash the plane.


I'll keep watching it but I have problems with a show that already seems to have a few plot holes. Supposedly, the creator of this series has this planned out in detail for five seasons. I'll trust that things will make more sense in the weeks ahead.

1. As noted above, why wait until the plane is airborne before trying to stop it? All he had to do was to delay the take off until after the President was done. If he had to, he could have pulled the gun out while the plane was still on the ground.

2. At lot of work and time went into kidnapping the daughter off of the cruise ship. Wouldn't it have been more cost efficient to just kidnap everyone when the five of them were still at the pilot's house? (I'm thinking that some of the plotters just wanted themselves a Caribbean vacation. Either that or this was definitely a government operation.)

3. Why assume that the boyfriend would jump into the water? Even if I were a great swimmer, I would probably just call the police. The pretext for the meeting was just too elaborate and left too much to chance.

4. As someone else here has noted, why leave Josh Ritter's character to run around and cause trouble? Certainly the bad guys had the resources to kidnap them both (like when he was trying to propose to her with no one else around).

5. Why make the girlfriend sick? If I were on a cruise and my girlfriend was sick, no way would I go off alone with someone else's hot girlfriend. Even if my own girlfriend insisted, I would not be stupid enough to think that she really meant it.

6. Why kill the mother? Wouldn't more hostages generally be better, especially when you're trying to convince someone to kill a couple hundred strangers?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

wprager said:


> I was actually laughing out loud after the third-or-so flash back. It was like an unintentional parody of itself.
> 
> But I enjoyed it well enough (after a summer of re-runs of The Office and Friends) to give it a few more nights.


I feel the same way.

8 days earlier
Now
13 months earlier
7 days earlier
Now
8 months earlier
8 days earlier
Now
3 days ago
Tuesday
Now
Last Summer
12 months ago
Now
Some day in May
Now

That was just silly.

However, I liked the show.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> The jumping back and forth was REALLY annoying. The cliffhangers every friggin' commercial were REALLY annoying. The multiple different perspectives of the same event (not *THE EVENT* mind you) were REALLY annoying.
> 
> Sorry, season pass deleted.


I *like* time jumping in general. It was too much in this show though

I definitely *DID* like the "multiple different perspectives of the same event" (what I call the Rashomon homages, since that's at least a well known early example, though I've never actually seen that movie).

I did predict a wormhole or something like it a little while before it happened.

This is one of the FEW (so far) shows I will watch at LEAST a few more of...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DLiquid said:


> This is an example of the recycled idea thing I mentioned. Recent examples of a couple meeting nice people on their vacation only to later find out they are not so nice: A Perfect Getaway (2009) and Gone (2007).


Even though these are now spoiled, are those good movies?


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I really enjoyed it. I knew people would complain about the out of sequence chronology, but I think that given the nature of the story they're trying to tell, that's really the only way to provide the necessary information to get people interested.
> 
> Here's what we know chronologically:
> 
> ...


Great recap.

I still wanna know how the hell the federal agent got from the airport to where the plane was going to crash before the plane did.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> I feel the same way.
> 
> 8 days earlier
> Now
> ...


and the thing that confused me at first was whether those were deltas from the PREVIOUS flashback, or deltas from NOW. (After watching a while longer, they were deltas from NOW.)


----------



## renov (Jan 27, 2006)

I enjoyed it. Not great but enough to keep me interested. 

I think the girlfriend was kidnapped to get Jason Ritters character to stop her father from flying the plane into the retreat and the daughter was kidnapped to get the father to fly the plane into the retreat. Two groups at work against each other. Of course, as usually, I could be completely off base.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Snappa77 said:


> Great recap.
> 
> I still wanna know how the hell the federal agent got from the airport to where the plane was going to crash before the plane did.


From what I can guess he drove directly to the Presidents compound, while the plane was going in the opposite direction and then was re-directed in midair to turn around. That's feasible.


----------



## jerrad707 (Dec 27, 2004)

Family said:


> I can't understand why someone would jump to post negatvely multiple times instantly after a new show is over. It drowns out any real discussion from those who enjoyed the pure entertainment. Get a life.
> 
> Not the best beginning ever, but if you like this genre it's always nice to have a few of these around. Wheither the writers can develop a few unique/interesting angles will decide if it's the next Persons Unknown or Lost. Probably will be somewhere in the middle.


*+1* to both paragraphs. I enjoyed it, and frankly, would rather the naysayers stay in the "Glee" and "DWTS" threads...did you pay more to watch it than if you had missed it? At least you'll be able to snidely say you gave it a chance rather than have to fake interest when everyone at work is talking about it.

...and I digress. I enjoyed the show. SP definitely safe for now. However, I could have done without the constant reminder that "_CHASE _STARTS IN 45, 30, 20, 10 MINUTES"


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

renov said:


> I enjoyed it. Not great but enough to keep me interested.
> 
> I think the girlfriend was kidnapped to get Jason Ritters character to stop her father from flying the plane into the retreat and the daughter was kidnapped to get the father to fly the plane into the retreat. Two groups at work against each other. Of course, as usually, I could be completely off base.


I was thinking the exact same thing, which patches up some holes but also begs some more questions -- like, did they really have to kidnap his fiance to force Dudley Do-right to help prevent an assassination attempt against the POTUS, or why did he try to do it while in the air instead of getting to the pilot while on the ground.


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

robojerk said:


> How many people do you think were on that plane?
> Do you think the 93 prisoners could have originated from that plane?


When the president got a tour of the Alaska facility, there was a comment about seeing their research lab or something like that. I got the sense the 93 were the ones performing research and not being performed upon. I don't think a random plane load full of people would all turn out to be scientists and other researchers.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

One thing I noticed was when they showed Mike in the cockpit in some scenes he had an airline pilot's shoulder boards with 4 stripes, but in other scenes they were 4 stars like an Air Force General. I'm not sure if it was intentional or just a continuity break. I'm leaning towards it being intentional and a byproduct of two realities/dimensions.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

atrac said:


> One note -- I thought the original score was fantastic!


It was fine - just too loud in a lot of spots.



wprager said:


> I was actually laughing out loud after the third-or-so flash back. It was like an unintentional parody of itself.


Ditto that. We started to joke: "27 years earlier..."


martinp13 said:


> I thought it was a blue uniform sticking out of the trash. Like he had been impersonating ground crew, and somehow got on the plane (and a window seat, at that!).


That's what I thought as well. I think we'll see a flashback to him doing just that.

I'm at least sticking with it until the nature of the 93 prisoners becomes clearer. I hope that happens before the reveal of THE EVENT in season 2.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> I thought they said something like, "they can't get it restarted".


I thought they said "somebody just farted."


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I thought they said "somebody just farted."


That would explain the fear in their eyes.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jerrad707 said:


> *+1* to both paragraphs. I enjoyed it, and frankly, would rather the naysayers stay in the "Glee" and "DWTS" threads...did you pay more to watch it than if you had missed it? At least you'll be able to snidely say you gave it a chance rather than have to fake interest when everyone at work is talking about it.
> 
> ...and I digress. I enjoyed the show. SP definitely safe for now. However, I could have done without the constant reminder that "_CHASE _STARTS IN 45, 30, 20, 10 MINUTES"


Considering the extensive hype surrounding the show, I certainly can understand someone finding it disappointing and needing an outlet to express that. And if that person chooses to keep watching, and continue to find it disappointing, I'd fully expect (and even welcome) their coming to that episode thread and expressing their opinions and engaging in a discussion about them, too.

The only thing that would bother me is someone coming into an episode thread who hadn't watched that episode and dumping on it/the show.

Of course, my key phrase here is "expressing their opinions and engaging in a discussion about them".  I can endure a brainless dump against a show here and there, but would at least like to see some "why" in that sort of dump, too.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I mostly liked it and I'll keep watching. Yeah, the time jumps were confusing, but after I started knowing something about the characters, it was less so. I think part of the problem with the time jumps were that we had no clue who anyone was.

I'm hoping all of these things come together. I think it was obvious that they were going to try and kill the Prez to keep the secret of why those people are prisoners in Alaska. I expect the reporter to be kidnapped or killed. I think the Jason Ritter character has been recruited by the Laura Innes team to stop the crash so that the Prez can make his speech. We don't know why that is yet. I'm guessing he somehow got off the cruise ship, escaping from security (I would think they'd lock him up as a stowaway). The two "friends" were definitely in on the plan and I think they KNEW that he was a good swimmer, which is why that all worked.

One thing that worries me is that the Prez speech is "The Event" and that this whole season will be spent not moving forward but as a series of flashbacks to explain what we saw in the pilot. I think that will get old quick.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I mostly liked it and I'll keep watching. Yeah, the time jumps were confusing, but after I started knowing something about the characters, it was less so. I think part of the problem with the time jumps were that we had no clue who anyone was.
> 
> I'm hoping all of these things come together. I think it was obvious that they were going to try and kill the Prez to keep the secret of why those people are prisoners in Alaska. I expect the reporter to be kidnapped or killed. I think the Jason Ritter character has been recruited by the Laura Innes team to stop the crash so that the Prez can make his speech. We don't know why that is yet. I'm guessing he somehow got off the cruise ship, escaping from security (I would think they'd lock him up as a stowaway). The two "friends" were definitely in on the plan and I think they KNEW that he was a good swimmer, which is why that all worked.
> 
> One thing that worries me is that the Prez speech is "The Event" and that this whole season will be spent not moving forward but as a series of flashbacks to explain what we saw in the pilot. I think that will get old quick.


I finally watched it last night, and also hated the time jumping in the storyline. We need a point of reference for the references to time, but you lose track of that pretty quickly when they spell out backward jumps but then cut to a "current time" without warning. :down::down: Bad story-telling device, writers! :down::down:

Thanks for your concise analysis and speculation, Steveknj. It makes more sense to me now.

I'll try to keep watching. But I cannot watch in real time, as I will be relying on the ability to rewatch certain scenes just to keep up with the flash-back-and-forth story.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

mattack said:


> Even though these are now spoiled, are those good movies?


I probably gave away less than you would learn from watching trailers, but I apologize if I spoiled anything. No, they were not particularly good movies.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

getreal said:


> I finally watched it last night, and also hated the time jumping in the storyline. We need a point of reference for the references to time, but you lose track of that pretty quickly when they spell out backward jumps but then cut to a "current time" without warning. :down::down: Bad story-telling device, writers! :down::down:
> 
> Thanks for your concise analysis and speculation, Steveknj. It makes more sense to me now.
> 
> *I'll try to keep watching. But I cannot watch in real time, as I will be relying on the ability to rewatch certain scenes just to keep up with the flash-back-and-forth story*.


These types of shows are made to watch with a DVR. You need the ability to watch some things over and the ability to rewatch, especially after reading the speculation in these threads.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

TIVOSciolist said:


> 1. As noted above, why wait until the plane is airborne before trying to stop it? All he had to do was to delay the take off until after the President was done. If he had to, he could have pulled the gun out while the plane was still on the ground.


For one thing he was focused on getting away from the guy in the black SUV. If he pulled the gun while still on the ground, maybe he thought there was a chance he would be arrested and the plane would be allowed to take off. He might not of known the details of where the president was or how long he would be there.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

lovegardener said:


> Vicky and Greg did the home invasion.


On what are you basing that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but didn't the home invasion happen just moments after the dad got off the phone with Leila as Leila was with Greg and Vicky in St. Lucia? If the home invaders were Greg and Vicky, and if we were supposed to catch that, then that gives us a major clue into the nature of what's going on.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure what you mean...


well, i may have misunderstood what you meant when you said "future" laura innes.
i "thought" you meant that were messing with the timeline and the president visiting the facility happens in the future outside of the timeline leading up to the event.

what i meant was that could not be possible because the POTUS knows the laura innes character from the day of the near airplane crash.



lovegardener said:


> Vicky and Greg did the home invasion.


well that's what i thought, but they couldn't have because they are still on the cruise with Sean and the fiance at the time of the home invasion...

but, i do still think Vicky is the airport ticket agent.

but then again - i didn't at first realize Mike the pilot was the father.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I really enjoyed it. I knew people would complain about the out of sequence chronology, but I think that given the nature of the story they're trying to tell, that's really the only way to provide the necessary information to get people interested.
> 
> Here's what we know chronologically:
> <snip>
> ...


I disagree. I thought your chronological presentation was very compelling. I liked the initial scene with the hysteria at the Coral Gables POTUS retreat, and then it should have followed with one flash way back and proceed forward from there. That would have kept my interest, and I would have understood the storyline much better.



Steveknj said:


> These types of shows are made to watch with a DVR. You need the ability to watch some things over and the ability to rewatch, especially after reading the speculation in these threads.


Although I agree with you, it is foolish on the part of the writers, as the flashing method confuses and loses the real-time audience, and therefore threatens the show's future with impending cancellation due to dwindling ratings, as they are not tracking how many people are recording the show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

getreal said:


> I disagree. I thought your chronological presentation was very compelling. I liked the initial scene with the hysteria at the Coral Gables POTUS retreat, and then it should have followed with one flash way back and proceed forward from there. That would have kept my interest, and I would have understood the storyline much better.


I think something between the two would have been better. While the time jumps didn't confuse me, I did think they were too abrupt and might have been hard for some to follow. But I think your proposal wouldn't have been very interesting. I think we needed the intrigue about why the Jason Ritter character was pulling a gun on the plane before we got his backstory to (sort-of) explain it. And I think that knowing the plane was getting hijacked before finding out the pilot was Leila's dad was also a better way to present it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> well, i may have misunderstood what you meant when you said "future" laura innes.
> i "thought" you meant that were messing with the timeline and the president visiting the facility happens in the future outside of the timeline leading up to the event.


No, I mean that Laura Innes goes through all this, then at some point in the future is sent back and imprisoned. So there are now two Laura Inneses...the current one (who is just meeting the President in Florida) and the future one (who is imprisoned in the Arctic).


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, I mean that Laura Innes goes through all this, then at some point in the future is sent back and imprisoned. So there are now two Laura Inneses...the current one (who is just meeting the President in Florida) and the future one (who is imprisoned in the Arctic).


Just like there are two Mikes. The one with airline Captain stripes and the one with Gerneral stars. Hmm ...


----------



## SLJackson (May 17, 2010)

ADG said:


> So are you suggesting that the Laura Innes character in chains and the one at the President's retreat were not the same person? I assumed they were and that he'd freed her to take part in his big announcement.


I though the same thing. I liked the show and really want to know where the plane went.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

It wasn't mind blowing, but I'll give it some time. Pilots are hard to judge.


----------



## aaronw (Apr 13, 2001)

loubob57 said:


> One thing I noticed was when they showed Mike in the cockpit in some scenes he had an airline pilot's shoulder boards with 4 stripes, but in other scenes they were 4 stars like an Air Force General. I'm not sure if it was intentional or just a continuity break. I'm leaning towards it being intentional and a byproduct of two realities/dimensions.


I did notice the 4 stars and thought "huh, that's wrong", but I didn't go back to see if they had the 4 stripes in other scenes. I would chalk it up to a continuity error.... but I'm willing to be surprised.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

OK, just rewatched a couple segments and here are a few observations:

Leila's father as the pilot with stars (look at his shoulder):










Leila's father as the pilot with stripes (look at his shoulder):










These two screen caps are four seconds apart in the show. I hope that's not just a continuity error, because if so, that's pretty blatant.

I also tried to see if we got a good enough look at the home invaders to see if it's Greg and Vicky, and we definitely don't. If it does turn out to be them, I don't think we're supposed to know about it yet.

And the gate agent at the airport is an attractive brunette, but I'm pretty sure it's not Vicky.

Simon Lee knows about the Mt. Inostranka facility and in his talk with Sophia (Laura Innes) thirteen months ago, he tells her that they recaptured "William," "hiding in plain sight in Los Angeles" "after all this time" and brought him back to the facility. William believes he can buy back his freedom by telling "them" about The Event. Sophia says he can't, do whatever it takes to change his mind. This is their dialogue after that: 


> Simon: "Don't you think we should at least warn them, so they can prepare? There's a new president in the White House, Martinez. He's a good man. I think he would help us."
> Sophia: "Presidents haven't helped us before, and even if he is a good man, Whitman and the others won't let him find out about this place.
> Simon: "Yeah, well I'll make sure he finds out."
> Sophia: "Simon, you are my only conduit to the outside. If our people out there are having doubts, I need you to reason with them. We have to protect ourselves. Can I count on you?"
> Simon nods, gets up and leaves.


So this facility has existed through several presidential terms. Simon thinks the new president might be able to help them. There are others out there who might be having doubts. "William" wants to tell someone about "The Event" and Sophia is clearly afraid of that.

The President finds out about the facility and confronts CIA Director Sterling about it. Director Sterling asks where he got the information, and POTUS refuses to tell (but we can assume it came from Simon). POTUS demands to see the facility, is taken there, and is told he should meet their leader. He is introduced to Sophia.

Back in the present day, in Miami, the President, Eli Martinez, is of Cuban descent and he's going to close the Mt. Inostranka facility and let the prisoners free because he believes it's illegal to detain these people and that it's a human rights violation. The CIA Director, Sterling, says that they don't have enough information yet to know whether it's safe to let them out. Even after it's clear they can't change the President's mind about letting the public know about the facility, he still pleads with POTUS not to let the prisoners out. Seems like he's pretty afraid of them. POTUS leaves the room and greets Sophia, who is there for the press conference. It appears they've become quite close. He asks if she's sure she's ready to do this. She says, "We've been ready for a long time." POTUS: "Well, your time has come."

There are 97 prisoners, not 93, as I previously posted.

The plane was heading to Sao Paulo, not Buenos Aires, as I previous posted.

The bloody hand is shown when Sean calls Leila's parents after he can't find her on the ship. So presumably, the invasion happened the night before, and the body has been sitting there undetected for an entire day.

When the Secret Service panics and starts to move to protect the President, someone says, "We've lost all radar capability. Our whole system is down." I didn't hear anything about the entire seaboard.

Simon is never at the President's retreat, as some here speculated. He's traveling on a causeway and is in radio communication with the F-16s that are flying beside the jet. He says, "If you're gonna do it, you better do it now." The F-16 pilot responds with "Something's jamming my systems. Mayday! Mayday!" as his plane peels off out of the picture.

After the jet disappears, Sophia says, "They saved us." POTUS hears her and gives her a strange look. "Who? Who saved us?" She responds with, "I haven't told you everything."


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> These two screen caps are four seconds apart in the show. I hope that's not just a continuity error, because if so, that's pretty blatant.


That CAN'T be a continuity error. 
Hmmmmmm.
Thanks for the screen caps.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, I mean that Laura Innes goes through all this, then at some point in the future is sent back and imprisoned. So there are now two Laura Inneses...the current one (who is just meeting the President in Florida) and the future one (who is imprisoned in the Arctic).





loubob57 said:


> Just like there are two Mikes. The one with airline Captain stripes and the one with Gerneral stars. Hmm ...


uh oh. 
maybe there are 2 Vicky's - the one on the cruise and the one who shot the mother.

this might be turning into invasion of the body snatchers.


----------



## shaown (Jul 1, 2002)

renov said:


> I think the girlfriend was kidnapped to get Jason Ritters character to stop her father from flying the plane into the retreat and the daughter was kidnapped to get the father to fly the plane into the retreat. Two groups at work against each other. Of course, as usually, I could be completely off base.


See - why goto the trouble to girlfriend to stop the father. Just shoot him / use the kidnappers to stop him. Way simpler.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

shaown said:


> See - why goto the trouble to girlfriend to stop the father. Just shoot him / use the kidnappers to stop him. Way simpler.


I don't think renov's theory is correct. I don't think there are two sets of kidnappers, one kidnapping the younger daughter to manipulate Mike, and one kidnapping Leila to manipulate Sean. When Sean is sitting outside the cockpit door talking to Mike through the handset, he says that they'll find her, and that he loves her too, and that there has to be another way, etc. I'm pretty sure that Mike is doing what he's doing in order to save both his daughters, and he knows they're serious because they killed his wife right in front of him.


----------



## lovegardener (Sep 22, 2010)

DevdogAZ said:


> On what are you basing that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but didn't the home invasion happen just moments after the dad got off the phone with Leila as Leila was with Greg and Vicky in St. Lucia? If the home invaders were Greg and Vicky, and if we were supposed to catch that, then that gives us a major clue into the nature of what's going on.


I've reviewed the invasion scene several times and would swear I see Vicky for sure and possibly Greg. I agree that being in two places at one time seems impossible, but if they are not constrained by the physics we think we understand, then, well it's an interesting story unfolding indeed. This may also explain the zombie-like demeanor of Mike in the cockpit.


----------



## lovegardener (Sep 22, 2010)

Cainebj said:


> That CAN'T be a continuity error.
> Hmmmmmm.
> Thanks for the screen caps.
> 
> ...


I think you may be on to something


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DLiquid said:


> For one thing he was focused on getting away from the guy in the black SUV.


This is the guy that tried to stop the plane, right?

I was expecting him to drive in FRONT of the plane. Maybe he wasn't suicidal, but that would have stopped it (?), if he REALLY wanted to stop it.

(yes, it makes me think of too)


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Haven't read the thread at all yet, wanted to post my opinion before everyone else's colored it. 

I really liked this pilot. The "Eleven hours earlier" etc was a bit unnecessary, but I guess it worked to build some tension and mystique.

Good acting, good pacing, good mystery, good characters. Already looking forward to next week.

Now off to read the thread.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Jeeters said:


> I thought the whole scene with the plane headed towards the Prez rang too false and wasn't suspenseful at all. They really thought I'd be on the edge of my seat believing the stars of the show might actually die in the first episode?


Of course not, they hoped you'd be on the edge of your seat wondering how the heck they would survive.



getreal said:


> I disagree. I thought your chronological presentation was very compelling. I liked the initial scene with the hysteria at the Coral Gables POTUS retreat, and then it should have followed with one flash way back and proceed forward from there. That would have kept my interest, and I would have understood the storyline much better.


I agree. Although the technique has been done to death in recent years (BSG was especially bad about it), it would have made it more accessible IMO. But it's a minor complaint, I really liked the show even as it was. 

Interesting theories about the possibility of characters in two places at once, and about the pilot having the stars and the stripes. Hmm.


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Back in the present day, in Miami, the President, Eli Martinez, is of Cuban descent . . . .


This is what I thought I heard but, unless they've changed the Constitution, at least one of his parents would have had to be an American for him to be a "natural born citizen" and qualify to run for President. I don't imaging there were that many Americans living in Cuba under Castro in the 1960s. We'll probably understand this more as we see future episodes.


----------



## FireMen2003 (Apr 1, 2004)

I enjoyed it. The suspense was pretty good. The whole ending was unbelievable, alteast with the Secret Service especially when they rush the President to the car and the "switch/bomb" goes off but they leave the door open. Made no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

There's an interesting, somewhat spoilery blurb about the second episode in Ask Ausiello today (last item) that gives an indication of where the show is going. And it sounds promising.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I was hoping that this would be a government conspiracy that the President doesn't know about rather than SF. You have probably heard of all the conspiracy theories about 9/11. I was hoping it would be like that. Oh well, bad TV SF. I will give it some more time.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I was hoping that this would be a government conspiracy that the President doesn't know about rather than SF. You have probably heard of all the conspiracy theories about 9/11. I was hoping it would be like that. Oh well, bad TV SF. I will give it some more time.


Funny, I felt the exact opposite. I was relieved to see it is heading towards sci-fi with that ending, rather than a "24" style mole-infestation.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

lovegardener said:


> I've reviewed the invasion scene several times and would swear I see Vicky for sure and possibly Greg. I agree that being in two places at one time seems impossible, but if they are not constrained by the physics we think we understand, then, well it's an interesting story unfolding indeed. This may also explain the zombie-like demeanor of Mike in the cockpit.


I'm curious about you. Your first three (and to date, only) posts in this forum are about the possibility that this show has characters in two places at once. Are you a fan of this show who just happened to find our forum at the same time this show aired, or do you know something more about this show and you're just coming here to drop hints and theories to keep people watching the show?


TIVOSciolist said:


> This is what I thought I heard but, unless they've changed the Constitution, at least one of his parents would have had to be an American for him to be a "natural born citizen" and qualify to run for President. I don't imaging there were that many Americans living in Cuba under Castro in the 1960s. We'll probably understand this more as we see future episodes.


They didn't say he was born in Cuba. Here is what Director Sterling said:


> "I understand your family had it rough back in Cuba, but you can't let personal feelings affect your decision, not when the safety of our citizens is at stake."


No reason to believe he isn't a natural-born US citizen. It just shows a little about his background and what has informed his politics.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm curious about you. Your first three (and to date, only) posts in this forum are about the possibility that this show has characters in two places at once. Are you a fan of this show who just happened to find our forum at the same time this show aired, or do you know something more about this show and you're just coming here to drop hints and theories to keep people watching the show?


Well, I've also done the same thing (in regard to Carrie Weaver/Laura Innes). And I have no special knowledge...


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)




----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I've also done the same thing (in regard to Carrie Weaver/Laura Innes). And I have no special knowledge...


The difference is: 1) you have a track record here, so we know you're not a plant for the show; and 2) your musings about the Laura Innes character made no sense at all.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

lovegardener said:


> I think you may be on to something


Thank you.

See post #118.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> your musings about the Laura Innes character made no sense at all.


DevDog that was a good one.

I wonder how Laura Innes got rid of that limp she had on ER.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> DevDog that was a good one.
> 
> I wonder how Laura Innes got rid of that limp she had on ER.


Hip replacement.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

I kept thinking alternate universe, but they keep talking about "The Event" (duh  ) as if they know what's going to happen in the future. It could be something like the sun going supernova (natural) or it could be WW3 (man-made). I think The Event is world-devastating, and the 97 somehow went back in time to escape it. If that's the premise, then the only good-TV thing would be if The Event is man-made, like a WW or nuclear holocaust, and the characters have to figure out how to keep that from happening.

But it sounds like The Event happens in season 2... hmmmm


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

martinp13 said:


> But it sounds like The Event happens in season 2... hmmmm


If you're referring to my post earlier in this thread, what I said is that the producers said the nature of the event will be revealed early in season two. I have not heard anything about when (or if) the event will actually occur (or if it already occurred).


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

mattack said:


> and the thing that confused me at first was whether those were deltas from the PREVIOUS flashback, or deltas from NOW. (After watching a while longer, they were deltas from NOW.)


This is what I wondered. So when is NOW? When the plane disappears?

Whose now is it.  Always a concern in time travel.

Actually my first thought when the plane disappeared was not that Sophia is an alien, but that she has had contact with aliens, and knows stuff about them that the Pres doesn't. But the time travel thing makes more sense. Which shows how crazy I am.....


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, I mean that Laura Innes goes through all this, then at some point in the future is sent back and imprisoned. So there are now two Laura Inneses...the current one (who is just meeting the President in Florida) and the future one (who is imprisoned in the Arctic).


But the people in prison have been there through several administrations. If she traveled back to the past from the future, and then stayed there for 8+ years, would sh not look a bit older?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> This is what I wondered. So when is NOW? When the plane disappears?


The show opened with a clock switching from 1:59 PM to 2:00 PM and then showed the reporters gathered outside the President's Retreat freaking out and the ground starting to shake. So yes, NOW is 2:00 PM on whatever day that was, and that's the time when the plane disappeared.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm not sure how I feel about making a committment to a show that's going to take a lot of effort to keep straight right now. Other than that, though, I was intrigued. They sure got close to going too far with the "five minutes ago, no, three days ago, no, we mean six months ago" thing, but in the end I think they pulled it off, particularly with some of the Rashomon-like aspects.

They certainly did a really good job of getting the exposition they needed into an hour without sacrificing tension, suspense, and action. That's an easy thing to overlook.

They also managed to pull off an ending that I didn't see coming. That's rare.

On the quibbles front: I think if I saw a plane coming at me from that close I might freeze too. Given the location is there really anywhere they could have run in the few seconds they had? Maybe we're all too used to the idea of outrunning explosions and all, but a plane at that distance will be on site in probably five seconds, and you are not going to be able to get away. There's a point where it's time not to try.

On the other hand, how long the SUV could outpace the plane on the runway, and how wholly unaffected it was by the plane's turbulence, bugged me. I guess it's not really any bigger a quibble than anything else, though. No one else here even mentioned it.

One more quibble:


Rob Helmerichs said:


> And the way they focused on that one reporter, and the bird-who-ate-the-canary look she had, made it clear that she was the one.


The *bird* ate the canary? That's it, I'm not watching the Rob Helmerichs show anymore. The writers are clearly just making it up as they go along.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

It really depends on how they do the conspiracy. I found the one in Prison Break to be intriguing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hunter Green said:


> On the other hand, how long the SUV could outpace the plane on the runway, and how wholly unaffected it was by the plane's turbulence, bugged me. I guess it's not really any bigger a quibble than anything else, though. No one else here even mentioned it.


That bothered me too, but I just didn't get around to mentioning it. I can see the SUV outpacing the plane early on, if it's got a run and the plane just started its takeoff. But that would only last a few seconds before the plane was traveling significantly faster than the SUV. And yes, driving up behind the jet engine would definitely have some visible effect on the car.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I just read something encouraging in terms of whether this show will make it or not...

This show will have its Swedish broadcast premiere on Sunday, only 6 days after the US premiere. This is something that is unheard of to me, usually shows are behind at least several weeks, and for many shows it's months or longer. I'm guessing this is a reaction to the common practice of downloading shows and watching them right after the US airing, which obviously is a problem for international broadcasts that are significantly delayed. Just like movies now routinely open on the same day worldwide, maybe TV series will move towards a more compressed release schedule as well.

Whatever the reason is, I assume that this means this show (like some others) is presold to many other countries already, maybe with a commitment to follow through on a minimum number of episodes, and that even with low-to-medium ratings, it has a fairly good chance of making it. I remember reading that "Prison Break" was a show that despite fairly unimpressive US ratings, went on quite long because of the international market. I hope (if this show is any good ) that this could be the case here too...


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Most of my nit picks have been covered. I'll just add one.

Did it seem to anyone else like they stood around and watched the plane come towards them for about 5 full minutes? I know they were drawing it out for the viewers, but it really seemed like it took that long for the characters.

And even if it was only twenty seconds, wouldn't you be putting distance between yourself and the apparent ground zero, even if only on foot?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

MickeS said:


> I just read something encouraging in terms of whether this show will make it or not...
> 
> This show will have its Swedish broadcast premiere on Sunday, only 6 days after the US premiere. This is something that is unheard of to me, usually shows are behind at least several weeks, and for many shows it's months or longer. I'm guessing this is a reaction to the common practice of downloading shows and watching them right after the US airing, which obviously is a problem for international broadcasts that are significantly delayed. Just like movies now routinely open on the same day worldwide, maybe TV series will move towards a more compressed release schedule as well.
> 
> Whatever the reason is, I assume that this means this show (like some others) is presold to many other countries already, maybe with a commitment to follow through on a minimum number of episodes, and that even with low-to-medium ratings, it has a fairly good chance of making it. I remember reading that "Prison Break" was a show that despite fairly unimpressive US ratings, went on quite long because of the international market. I hope (if this show is any good ) that this could be the case here too...


It's presold to something like 200 countries.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

Finally watched it last night. It was ok - definitely had some issues but seems like there is enough there to build on. Not having followed a lot of the pre-show hype, is there a set plot to the show, or will they end up making it up as they go along? There were a few posts that mentioned the creator having a five-season story arc set - is that right?


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

The Simon/Sophia conversation intrigues me the most. Anyone have theories for these questions?

13 months ago Simon is talking to Sophia. Simon has captured and returned "William" after "all this time".

Simon: He think's he can buy his freedom back. Trade it for information.
Sophia: What kind of information?
Simon: He's going to tell THEM about The Event.
Sophia: He can't.
Simon: He's going to.
Sophia: You have to convince him to change his mind. Do whatever it takes.
Simon: Don't you think we should at least warn THEM...

1) The Event is in the future because "they" could be warned.
2) Who could William tell? He's back in the facility, so it's not the public. The other prisoners? The guards? The CIA other than Simon?
3) Simon (CIA) works with and possibly takes direction from Sophia who is in restraints at the facility.
4) There's no where to escape to. So are the restraints because Sophia's psycho violent?
5) Weeks* after we see Sophia in restraints she's shaking hands with the President. Simon is accompanying the pres.

* Both were part of "13 months ago" segments. There's a small spoiler here that makes me say "weeks".


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tlc said:


> 4) There's no where to escape to. So are the restraints because Sophia's psycho violent?


And yet William escaped and was found in Los Angeles. So perhaps escape from Mt. Inostranka isn't so impossible. Or perhaps the prisoners were moved to Mt. Inostranka after William escaped from the previous holding facility.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> On the quibbles front: I think if I saw a plane coming at me from that close I might freeze too. Given the location is there really anywhere they could have run in the few seconds they had?


You run PERPENDICULARLY to the direction the thing is coming at you (car/plane/whatever).
(Err, ok, maybe 45 degrees "away", so you get both farther away and to the side.. but mostly to the side..)


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Once the area started vibrating I would be trying to find cover, because I would assume it was an earthquake. If I recollect, you could see the ocean from the venue they were at. I would be dogtrotting to high ground or at least away from the beach. Tsunami!!!! (I may have never even seen the aircraft because I would be thinking of a large wave engulfing me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> Once the area started vibrating I would be trying to find cover, because I would assume it was an earthquake.


I suspect people in Florida wouldn't be thinking in those terms...

I know from firsthand experience the first time somebody from a non-earthquake area feels an earthquake, the first response isn't "Holy crap, it's an earthquake" but rather, "Huh?!? That's not right!"


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I suspect people in Florida wouldn't be thinking in those terms...
> 
> I know from firsthand experience the first time somebody from a non-earthquake area feels an earthquake, the first response isn't "Holy crap, it's an earthquake" but rather, "Huh?!? That's not right!"


In Florida, you think "sinkhole" when the ground shakes. You run out, away from the structure, probably in the direction of higher ground. You don't stand under a door frame. Nor do you just stand there dumbfounded.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

sieglinde said:


> Once the area started vibrating I would be trying to find cover, because I would assume it was an earthquake. If I recollect, you could see the ocean from the venue they were at. I would be dogtrotting to high ground or at least away from the beach. Tsunami!!!! (I may have never even seen the aircraft because I would be thinking of a large wave engulfing me.


Well, the tsunamis seem to hit the banks on the opposite side of the ocean so if you were near the epicenter of an earthquake, you might not get much of a tsunami.

A nearby erupting volcano's pyroclastic flow could cause nearby tsunamis though.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Johnny Dancing said:


> I kind of liked it although it had a few too may "24" leap of faith moments.


It's funny how many people keep mentioning _24_... I kept thinking of it for a totally different reason. They used the same font for all the text screens (the time and name messages). 



squint said:


> They showed a motionless hand and blood on the floor. Of course, the wife could still be alive, just missing a hand.


I am not sure why people think her hand was cut off... IIRC, the arm just went off into the corner of the screen, it didn't look disconnected to me.



DevdogAZ said:


> Here's what we know chronologically:


I think this is a little off, not that it matters a ton, but... 


> *Approximately 8 days ago:* Sean Walker and his girlfriend, Leila Buchanan, are preparing to go on a cruise.


Pretty sure this was 11 days.



> *Approximately 6 days ago:* Sean and Leila are on St. Lucia and he is about to pop the question when they hear someone screaming for help.


And I think this was 8 days.

Like I said, I could just be being anal retentive and it makes no difference.  But either way, there's 6-7 whole days left to recap between the post-snorkeling incident and the plane incident.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I suspect people in Florida wouldn't be thinking in those terms...
> 
> I know from firsthand experience the first time somebody from a non-earthquake area feels an earthquake, the first response isn't "Holy crap, it's an earthquake" but rather, "Huh?!? That's not right!"


Yep, just had one not far from Ottawa (epicenter was under 30 miles) that was originally reported to be 5.7. Initial thoughts were "truck hitting pothole" and "thunder" but when it didn't stop it became pretty obvious. I got up, grabbed my laptop and for a few seconds stood in the doorway -- until I realized I was in a cubicle farm and this was just a hallway with a door cut-out and likely no load-bearing *anything* anywhere near me.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

laria said:


> I think this is a little off, not that it matters a ton, but...
> 
> Pretty sure this was 11 days.
> 
> And I think this was 8 days.


Yep. I'm guessing there will be some blanks filled in there.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Okay, I just watched this. First off, the time-bobbing was annoying. It felt like a tactic to make us think that it's clever writing.

Jason Ritter seems too young and lightweight to anchor this show. 

First thing I thought during the "my-girlfriend-is-drowning" scene is this is a setup.

I read somewhere that one of the producers said, "Oh, the (wormhole) is only 5&#37; of the show, the real interest will be in the mystery, the cover-up, etc." (Paraphrased).

That's like saying, "Well, aliens have landed, but that's not important right now."

I'm intrigued enough to watch for a few more eps, at least. But I don't want to have spent a full season keeping up only to find out that I still won't know who built the quantum flux capacitor in the desert. In the past.

EDIT: If this was "future people" why wouldn't they also go back and stop the Hindenburg disaster, or Hitler? If it's aliens, how do they know which events to interfere with, without causing an even greater catastrophe later on?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Like it!


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

*20 Seconds Ago*

I Didn't


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

We watched it last night. I think I will let 4 or 5 pile up on the DVR at this point to see if the show "makes it".
I found it mildly intriguing, even if the whole airport scene was a stretch. It wasn't enough to delete the SP, but "must see" it isn't.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I rewatched it last night, and liked it better when I could easily follow the time jumps. I noticed that when the dad closed the car door as they drove to the airport, he said,"prepare for takeoff" which makes more sense now. 

Also, when the President was discussing with his staff letting the prisoners out, he said "I know they aren't Americans..." They look and sound like Americans. If they are aliens, you'd say, I know they aren't humans... So what are they?


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> They look and sound like Americans. If they are aliens, you'd say, I know they aren't humans... So what are they?


Canadians?


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

What's with the flickering light outside the ship's cabin and the fact that the security guard's radio started squawking like crazy as he approached the light/room?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

laria said:


> Canadians?


Hey!

I mean:

Eh!


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Finally got around to watching this...

Agree with everyone that the flashbacks/forwards were very annoying.

But I'm intrigued enough to watch a few more eps to see if it can hold my interest.

It already conflicts with another set of shows so I'm going to have to figure out which show if worthy of being recorded.

As for what's going on..I told my wife I'm betting on this whole thing being some crazy alien related scenario.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I like the flashbacks, but then again I also liked shows like Boomtown, Lost, etc, so...


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I don't mind a time line flashback a couple of times during an hour long show...but this episode borderline on the ridiculous...I mean what were there...10 or so at least?

*"Oh wait...it's now 3 weeks ago.."....wait no... it's 6 hours earlier....no no ...now it's 4 months ago....(commercial break) ...hold on now...we're back to present time...wait are we? No it's 1 hour earlier.....DAMN! now they're repeating each scene two or three times...but now we're 8 hours ago....now 2 days ago...wait...what's this characters name?? Oh yeah..there it is on the screen so I don't get too confused...arggggh!"*


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

wprager said:


> The idea of a future and a present Laura Linney is very intriguing, but what she says at the end ("They saved us" or something like that) makes that unlikely. It would imply that the present-day character knows about the future one. She also says something like "I haven't told you everything" which, to me, was a reference back to the talk they had in the flashback, when they (presumably) first met.
> 
> Anyhow, that was my take on it.


I do sort of wonder about that statement.

Specifically I'm wondering about the members of the groups "them" and "us".
Is "they" the plane and the people on it, or is it the group that disappeared the plane, or some unknown third option.
Is "us" the President and other people around her, or her Alaskan detainees, or some unknown third option.

But even with that, I'm not sure if I'm going to stick with the show. <shrug>


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

wprager said:


> The idea of a future and a present Laura Linney is very intriguing, but what she says at the end ("They saved us" or something like that) makes that unlikely. It would imply that the present-day character knows about the future one. She also says something like "I haven't told you everything" which, to me, was a reference back to the talk they had in the flashback, when they (presumably) first met.
> 
> Anyhow, that was my take on it.


You must have been watching this series from whatever universe the plane went to, because the show I saw didn't have Laura Linney in it.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

scooterboy said:


> You must have been watching this series from whatever universe the plane went to, because the show I saw didn't have Laura Linney in it.


Nonetheless, the idea of a future and a present Laura Linney _is_ very intriguing.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Regarding the "you're not a listed passenger" bit on the ship: did the offenders bother to erase the security footage too? There should be a visual record of him boarding the ship, both on the ship and at the originating port, proving he's a passenger. My first thought is that he was an idiot for not asking to see it before being escorted away.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> Once the area started vibrating I would be trying to find cover, because I would assume it was an earthquake. If I recollect, you could see the ocean from the venue they were at. I would be dogtrotting to high ground or at least away from the beach. Tsunami!!!! (I may have never even seen the aircraft because I would be thinking of a large wave engulfing me.


Well, considering that the highest point in the state of Florida is about 35 feet above sea level, running for higher ground probably isn't really something that Floridians instinctively think of.


laria said:


> I think this is a little off, not that it matters a ton, but...
> 
> Pretty sure this was 11 days.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm sure I got the actual number of days wrong. I was doing it all from memory. I was simply trying to point out that if you told the story in chronological order, it wouldn't have been as compelling as if you told it in little bits and pieces that were placed specifically to make the reveals at the end more intriguing.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Well, considering that the highest point in the state of Florida is about 35 feet above sea level, running for higher ground probably isn't really something that Floridians instinctively think of.


The highest point in the state of Florida is 345 feet above sea level.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dswallow said:


> The highest point in the state of Florida is 345 feet above sea level.


OK, I stand corrected, but the point remains. There isn't much high ground for people to escape to. Especially when we're talking about south Florida.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

scooterboy said:


> You must have been watching this series from whatever universe the plane went to, because the show I saw didn't have Laura Linney in it.


Hardy-har-har, but I wonder if what you said has more truth to it than you may think.

The President said that he knew they were not Americans, yet they (or at leas their leader) appeared to be Americans. All jokes aside, they are not Canadians, so are they possibly from a parallel universe? Would they be ripping off on Fringe that blatantly that early on?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

wprager said:


> Would they be ripping off on Fringe that blatantly that early on?


Wait... _Fringe_ invented the idea of alternate universes now? Gods, I feel so old.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

dswallow said:


> The highest point in the state of Florida is 345 feet above sea level.


In FL, yes. But in Dade, not so much. Not sure what it is, but in Broward (just North) it is 23 ft.

(Unless you count the landfill.)


----------



## Sromkie (Aug 15, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> Regarding the "you're not a listed passenger" bit on the ship: did the offenders bother to erase the security footage too? There should be a visual record of him boarding the ship, both on the ship and at the originating port, proving he's a passenger. My first thought is that he was an idiot for not asking to see it before being escorted away.


Of course, as viewers, we have no idea if they erased the security footage or not. However, if they went to all the trouble to delete all records of Sean and Leila, to deactivate their keys, to clear their stuff out of the cabin, and to plant another couple there (as well as inserting all of their records into the ship's computer system), then it's not too big of a stretch for them to have also erased the security footage. I imagine, if this ever comes up, that's likely what we will find out happened. If not, then the kidnappers are more sloppy than they appear at this point.

Now, if Sean didn't ask about security footage, he clearly should have. I agree that many people would eventually think of that and ask, but not everyone would think of that in such a stressful, crazy situationat least not right away. It's possible that he asked later (off camera), and maybe we will eventually see this in a flash back.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Sromkie said:


> Now, if Sean didn't ask about security footage, he clearly should have. I agree that many people would eventually think of that and ask, but not everyone would think of that in such a stressful, crazy situationat least not right away. It's possible that he asked later (off camera), and maybe we will eventually see this in a flash back.


I have been on a cruise, and it never occurred to me that there would be footage of the boarding (although in hindsight, it makes sense).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

eddyj said:


> I have been on a cruise, and it never occurred to me that there would be footage of the boarding (although in hindsight, it makes sense).


Actually normally on cruises they take a "welcome aboard" photo as you board the ship which they later try to sell to you. In this case though it would be easy to simply remove said photo.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

morac said:


> Actually normally on cruises they take a "welcome aboard" photo as you board the ship which they later try to sell to you. In this case though it would be easy to simply remove said photo.


Probably not as easy as one might think. The photos are taken sequentially. They're numbered. That's how you order them onboard to get more copies. It would certainly be suspicious to discover a skipped number or numbers right where he may have recognized the people in front or behind them in the photo line.

Plus the photos often are taken with the next passenger/group in the background.

And then there's the various shipboard and organized-tour photos in which he may appear, including photos at the dining room tables -- and while certainly it can vary, the dining room tables are usually large enough there's others at them, who would both recognize them and possibly be in photos where they also appear.

And then if you really get into it, they're likely to be in photos taken by other passengers.

Erasing a record of somebody is always much more difficult in practice than TV shows make it out to be.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Hunter Green said:


> Wait... _Fringe_ invented the idea of alternate universes now? Gods, I feel so old.


Not what I meant. Fringe is the only show on right now with parallel universes as the central premise. If Fringe came on in Quantum Leap's third season I'd be calling foul on them, too.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

wprager said:


> Not what I meant. Fringe is the only show on right now with parallel universes as the central premise. If Fringe came on in Quantum Leap's third season I'd be calling foul on them, too.


Why? Leap had nothing to do with Parallel Universes. But everything to do with time travel. Now Sliders had Parallel universes so that would be a better comparison even though the two shows are wildly different.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

You're right. I meant Sliders -- the one Jerry O'Connell and John Rhys Davis?


----------



## lovegardener (Sep 22, 2010)

Would someone validate or refresh my memory about a scene from episode 2? There was a discussion about the fact that apes differ by approximately two percent from humans while "prisoner" DNA is only one sequence away from being identical to human DNA. 

Does this reinforce a human visitor from the future scenario?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

lovegardener said:


> Would someone validate or refresh my memory about a scene from episode 2?


NOT IN THIS THREAD.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Oops, didn't realize this was last week's thread. I'll repost in the other one.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I know from firsthand experience the first time somebody from a non-earthquake area feels an earthquake, the first response isn't "Holy crap, it's an earthquake" but rather, "Huh?!? That's not right!"


My firsthand experience tells me the response is "hey, a truck just drove by! Oh wait...this road is too small for trucks. Hey, maybe it was an earthquake! I should run to the window to see." and then google earthquake tracking.

I just watched the pilot, and rather than my standard dozen-multiquote page-long response, I'll try to condense a bit. 

I don't think anyone thinks the hand was cut off, the point was that all we *know* is that a woman's hand is lying in a pool of blood. Yes, the mom is probably dead and attached to it, but that shot is not proof positive that she's dead.

It doesn't surprise me that he was able to get on the ship when his key didn't work. That way they have him captured as opposed to just leaving him at port.

Devdog, great summary!

Swimming with the cast: those were rough waters. I'm a good swimmer with some (ancient) lifeguarding training, but I don't know that I could have gotten *myself* out of trouble with a cast weighing me down. I certainly couldn't have rescued someone else. You need one arm to hold the victim and the other arm to swim. They established with the hike to get there that they weren't close to help, it's fair to say that the girl would have drowned (had she actually been in trouble and not a trap) had they gone for official help instead of him jumping in.



DevdogAZ said:


> The difference is: 1) you have a track record here, so we know you're not a plant for the show;


OR perhaps it's a veeerrry elaborate trap! The producers thought through the show years ago and created his persona.



TIVOSciolist said:


> 5. Why make the girlfriend sick? If I were on a cruise and my girlfriend was sick, no way would I go off alone with someone else's hot girlfriend. Even if my own girlfriend insisted, I would not be stupid enough to think that she really meant it.


THIS. Honestly, I thought this was the biggest plot hole in the episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Robin said:


> OR perhaps it's a veeerrry elaborate trap! The producers thought through the show years ago and created his persona.


Oooh, I have a persona!


----------

