# Mr. Robot (S01E01) "Pilot" - Preview of new Summer series on USA



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

USA has the full pilot episode online, and it's available via various VOD and digital sources. It actually premieres on the channel on Wednesday, June 24, 2015.

Forbes has a pretty good article on the pilot: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillbarr/2015/05/27/mr-robot-usa-review/

If you can tell by the title, they liked it...

'Mr. Robot' Review: The Best Show Of The Summer And On Track To Be A Modern Classic

And after watching it I really have to agree; it was engaging right from the beginning. And it was just refreshing for some reason -- a good approach to telling a good story.

And it was amazing to listen to a drama that has computer hacking and cyber security as a major component that didn't resort to spewing out a bunch of so-obviously-meaningless gibberish and pretending it was technical speak. Even the various things shown on computer monitors wasn't a stretch and had some reasonable basis in real life.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I mostly liked it...aside from the cognitive dissonance of a prolonged rant against consumer culture appearing on commercial television, the beating heart of consumer culture.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Loved this first episode. Loved how they used the side E for Evil corp(Also used by Enron). Can't wait for it to air and hope it has a long run.

I also love their website. http://www.whoismrrobot.com/


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I heard good things about this show a while back. I already had it penciled in as one of the new summer series to record. I just hope it fares better than every other Christian Slater show that has come before this. He doesn't have a good track record for longevity in a TV series, except perhaps for Archer.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

enrique said:


> i also love their website. http://www.whoismrrobot.com/




```
<!--
\   //~~\ |   |    /\  |~~\|~~  |\  | /~~\~~|~~    /\  |  /~~\ |\  ||~~
 \ /|    ||   |   /__\ |__/|--  | \ ||    | |     /__\ | |    || \ ||--
  |  \__/  \_/   /    \|  \|__  |  \| \__/  |    /    \|__\__/ |  \||__
-->
```


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

I liked this SO much more than expected, hope it sticks around.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I was intrigued by the commercials for this a while back. Looking forward to it.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Liked the pilot, though a bit dark.

My wife asked, "Are they really saying 'Evil Corp'?" I replied it must just be a nickname, from the the big "E" logo. Then I saw the poster with the name "Evil Corp" spelled out. How odd they made the decision to be so direct. Maybe the CEO's name is Mr. Greedy Badman?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

markp99 said:


> My wife asked, "Are they really saying 'Evil Corp'?" I replied it must just be a nickname, from the the big "E" logo. Then I saw the poster with the name "Evil Corp" spelled out. How odd they made the decision to be so direct. Maybe the CEO's name is Mr. Greedy Badman?


The poster was a hallucination (at one point, I think we saw one morph from E-Corp to Evil Corp)...

Remember, our narrator/viewpoint character is insane, so we can't entirely trust what we are seeing...


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The poster was a hallucination (at one point, I think we saw one morph from E-Corp to Evil Corp)...
> 
> Remember, our narrator/viewpoint character is insane, so we can't entirely trust what we are seeing...


Ahh, you may be right! The hallucinations/voices are an interesting aspect of the show. Hopefully they meter its usage.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

That was one of the best produced most polished pilots I've ever seen.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I'm not at all a spoilerphobe, but shouldn't "spoilers" be included in the title (or use spoiler tags)?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wprager said:


> I'm not at all a spoilerphobe, but shouldn't "spoilers" be included in the title (or use spoiler tags)?


Not required for an episode thread, which this is clearly labeled as...


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

I watched the DirecTV On Demand pilot.

I hated it. Intensely. Liked quite a few of the supporting characters, but I loathe the lead, both the actor and the role. The tone is way too dark and mind-numbingly depressing, and the "income distribution" idea from Christian Slater's character is simplistic and incredibly unfair.

I had already set up a season pass, but I quickly cancelled it. Not wasting my time on this steaming pile.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

It seems to be the cool thing these days to have all the characters smoke to emphasize their anti-establishment position. I thought we were past all that.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

I don't normally comment on TV shows, but I watched the Pilot last night on OnDemand and absolutely loved it. Loved how dark it was, reminded me of the original Matrix movie, which is one of my all time favorites.

I can't wait to see where this goes.



markp99 said:


> Ahh, you may be right! The hallucinations/voices are an interesting aspect of the show. Hopefully they meter its usage.


The silent self discussions is what really drew me in.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

[to us] "Tell me you're seeing this too..."


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

Seems fairly obvious that it is "Fight Club" With slater and him.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I thought this was fantastic. It reminded me a little of Donnie Darko, but strangely, what it reminded me most of was Risky Business, due to that synth-driven soundtrack and narration. Great soundtrack, great atmosphere. A lot happened, but it was a bit slow moving. Still, I'm interested in the story, and the guy playing the lead seems perfect for the part.

I'm pretty sure I haven't liked Christian Slater in anything since Heathers, and I was worried he was going to ruin this for me, but he didn't really bug me.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

MikeCC said:


> The tone is way too dark and mind-numbingly depressing, and the "income distribution" idea from Christian Slater's character is simplistic and incredibly unfair.


So you support the idea of double-digit interest rates on credit cards in a depressed economy? It basically amounts to legalized theft. Financial institutions that get bailouts from the government using taxpayer's money was just an insult to America. Every CEO from those banks should be behind bars. The fact that they get away with screwing the public on a daily basis is what's really depressing.

Mr Robot, go for it.

Absolutely love this show. The only downside is that it doesn't premiere until June 24th.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

We also enjoyed it. Will set a season pass for it.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> So you support the idea of double-digit interest rates on credit cards in a depressed economy?


I do without things I can't afford, so NO, I don't like the idea that everyone who went out and splurged on their credit cards is just home free while I get nothing. 

I felt insulted when he said the guy's password couldn't be very good because he's old. 

But overall I liked the show. :up:


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> I do without things I can't afford, so NO, I don't like the idea that everyone who went out and splurged on their credit cards is just home free while I get nothing.
> 
> I felt insulted when he said the guy's password couldn't be very good because he's old.
> 
> But overall I liked the show. :up:


Unfortunately, there are a large number of people that get caught up in the credit card crunch. I also try to stick to a budget and not use credit cards, but a certain member of my household doesn't understand that there are consequences to using them too fequently. Anyway, banks like to suck you into using them just like the tobacco companies try to get you to smoke their cigarettes. They prey on the addictions of some people that have a need to impulse buy. Others find themselves in situations where they end up using credit cards just to survive. It's ridiculously easy to wind up with serious credit card debt and not even realize how you got there. It's not an excuse, just a real fact.

I found the password statement amusing, and I'm 64.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

DLiquid said:


> I thought this was fantastic. It reminded me a little of Donnie Darko, but strangely, what it reminded me most of was Risky Business, due to that synth-driven soundtrack and narration. Great soundtrack, great atmosphere. A lot happened, but it was a bit slow moving. Still, I'm interested in the story, and the guy playing the lead seems perfect for the part.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I haven't liked Christian Slater in anything since Heathers, and I was worried he was going to ruin this for me, but he didn't really bug me.


Did you watch "My Own Worst Enemy"?

I thought it was great, and he was fantastic in it, and otherwise he's like fingernails on a blackboard for me.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm not saying that I don't feel for people who get caught up in debt. Just that it's very unfair for those of us who meet our obligations to let others off the hook. They still have all the stuff they bought, and we don't. I could see maybe forcing banks to lower the ridiculous rates they charge, but not just wiping out all the debt. But hey, it's a tv show.....


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DLiquid said:


> I thought this was fantastic. It reminded me a little of Donnie Darko, but strangely, what it reminded me most of was Risky Business, due to that synth-driven soundtrack and narration. Great soundtrack, great atmosphere. A lot happened, but it was a bit slow moving. Still, I'm interested in the story, and the guy playing the lead seems perfect for the part.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I haven't liked Christian Slater in anything since Heathers, and I was worried he was going to ruin this for me, but he didn't really bug me.


You didn't like Star Trek VI: Undiscovered Country? Pretty sure that was after Heathers.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> I'm not saying that I don't feel for people who get caught up in debt. Just that it's very unfair for those of us who meet our obligations to let others off the hook. They still have all the stuff they bought, and we don't. I could see maybe forcing banks to lower the ridiculous rates they charge, but not just wiping out all the debt. But hey, it's a tv show.....


It can be a complicated and confusing issue, fraught with emotional aspects, too, but this did come to mind when I read your post and wanted to share:

The consumer isn't the only one who benefits by the use of credit to obtain things; those things had to be manufactured/designed/distributed/sold/delivered. So while yes, it may seem somewhat unfair that someone may have that "thing" or what's left of it, and are now off the hook for paying for some/most/all of it, but there was a ripple effect into the economy by its purchase initially (and that ripple didn't end at the first level either), so it's not as bad as it may seem, in the larger view.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

unitron said:


> Did you watch "My Own Worst Enemy"?
> 
> I thought it was great, and he was fantastic in it, and otherwise he's like fingernails on a blackboard for me.


I think I might have just watched the pilot of that, so I probably didn't give it much of a chance.



wprager said:


> You didn't like Star Trek VI: Undiscovered Country? Pretty sure that was after Heathers.


Hmm, let's see, even numbered TOS movie... I probably liked the movie, but I'm not sure about Slater. Point taken though, it could just be his recent performances that I haven't liked. I usually just have a hard time believing he is his character.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Wow. F'ing Wow. That could have been the best produced pilot I've ever seen. Setting aside the philosophy of debt argument, the quality of the acting and screenplay was excellent. And, they must have Kevin Mitnick as their tech adviser or else the screenwriter truly knows his ****. Tons of tech jargon and all of it accurate to my ears.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Very Dexter like, right down to keeping souvenirs of his victims.

I'll keep watching


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> So you support the idea of double-digit interest rates on credit cards in a depressed economy? It basically amounts to legalized theft. Financial institutions that get bailouts from the government using taxpayer's money was just an insult to America. Every CEO from those banks should be behind bars. The fact that they get away with screwing the public on a daily basis is what's really depressing.
> 
> Mr Robot, go for it.


See, _THIS _is exactly what I meant when I lamented Slater's "plan" as oh-so-simplistic and incredibly unfair. Banks and corporations = evil [Yikes, even going so far as to label one _Evil _Corp!] The folks with piles of debt = the innocent good guys.

Sheesh.

Even if we don't discuss whether or not the reasons for the massive debt load was frivolous or not, the "double digit interest rates" (y'know, your naïve accusation of _legalized theft_) is the only way some people can get credit. People with a poor or non-existent credit record can only get access to credit by paying more interest. That is simply a reflection of the risk of default.

If you are a borrower that has an excellent credit history, you can borrow money at much lower rates, simply because your history of repayment shows you are very likely to repay the loan without any hassles.

Using Slater's plan to eliminate the debt, borrowers will have no way to give the poorest of borrowers any access to credit. The wealthiest of people will still have means to raise money. The poor will have few avenues available.

Aside from that, it is not only the wealthy "1 percenters" who keep their credit in good shape. In fact, many of the most affluent (by income standards) often destroy their credit-worthiness by spending frivolously. (Think of how many Hollywood stars, rock stars, or athletes have made enormous piles of money, only to flush it all away on a wasteful lifestyle, and then are forced to declare bankruptcy.) While those folks are spending like there's no tomorrow, maybe you or your neighbor is paying down the mortgage by forgoing that vacation, and the college kid is getting his student loans paid off.

Nope, the plan to erase debt will crash the economy, _not _improve it. Plus just how fair is it that someone who spent frivolously no longer has any consequences, and the careful budget-minded adult no longer has any reward for being careful?

To those with little background in economics, the Slater scheme may sound like justified payback, and getting even with the "rich." But with a closer look, and a little understanding of the mechanisms of economics, you should be able to see just how devastating it would be.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

It's just a TV show, one that's perhaps trying to put a modern spin on Robin Hood. There were numerous things I loved about the pilot, but I have to say I barely even paid attention to Slater's plan. I couldn't care less whether the plan is fair or realistic. It's not going to affect my enjoyment of the show. This group seems kind of crazy, so it's not surprising that their plan is kind of crazy.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

DLiquid said:


> It's just a TV show, one that's perhaps trying to put a modern spin on Robin Hood. There were numerous things I loved about the pilot, but I have to say I barely even paid attention to Slater's plan. I couldn't care less whether the plan is fair or realistic. It's not going to affect my enjoyment of the show. This group seems kind of crazy, so it's not surprising that their plan is kind of crazy.


I do not think Slater really revealed any sort of plan other than to leave the dat file in place and give it to the FBI. He basically said that this guy doesn't realize what crap is going to come down. They are most likely leaving that as a Mcguffin.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

:up:
I really enjoyed this.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Test said:


> Very Dexter like, right down to keeping souvenirs of his victims.
> 
> I'll keep watching


I also was reminded of Dexter in a lot of ways. I came here to say the same thing, but alas, you beat me to it.

One thing I really liked about this pilot, was that the tech felt real. It wasn't over blown, unrealistic graphics, well maybe excepting the server map.

It didn't talk down to the viewers at all.

I hope the series can keep up the quality of the pilot.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

MikeCC said:


> See, _THIS _is exactly what I meant when I lamented Slater's "plan" as oh-so-simplistic and incredibly unfair. Banks and corporations = evil [Yikes, even going so far as to label one _Evil _Corp!] The folks with piles of debt = the innocent good guys.
> 
> Sheesh.


The whole premise is that large corporations and financial institutions mostly just care about the bottom line and not the faceless individuals assigned an account number. I've been screwed by credit card companies just for being one day late with a payment and was rewarded by having my rate jacked up, even though I had been a loyal and reliable customer for years. The customer service drones just quote you the company line and say there's nothing they can do about it, which is total BS. My response was to pay off the card in full and take my business elsewhere, never to return.

Double-digit interest rates on credit cards in an economy that has a sub-two percent inflation rate is legalized theft, no matter how you look at it. Giving people credit cards with high interest rates just increases the likelihood that the card holders will default on their accounts. Banks have no business giving out credit cards to these people. They're basically loan sharks demanding a high vig on the money they lend. The same thing happened with mortgages and now people are simply walking away from them.

The government bailout just shows how much big business has politicians in their back pockets. The fact that so many CEOs still got outrageous bonuses after that was an insult to the American taxpayer.

In any case, it's just TV and the plot makes for an interesting premise, regardless of whether it's conceivable or not. It's always fun to root for the little guy that can stick it to the man.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Okay, economics isn't your area, I get it. You misunderstand the concept of interest rate charges, for example. Sure, inflation has an effect of the rate, but it is primarily a measure of _default risk_.

Plus, credit card usage is a contract between user and the issuing company. Each side has a defined set of obligations. In your instance, when you felt the company was not being flexible to a previously excellent customer, you exercised your option to end your relationship by paying off the balnce and moving on to another credit card.

But let's move away from economics and contract law.

Just consider this: Even though the _intent _behind a plan is laudable to you ("the little guy sticking it to the man...") does not mean the consequences will be good.

The law of unintended consequences invariably comes into play.

The man will find a way to adjust, even thrive. The little guy? Not so much.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It amuses me that there is a discussion of whether the extremist loons' plan is economically feasible...


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Yes the tangents some of these threads go baffle me.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

domat said:


> Seems fairly obvious that it is "Fight Club" With slater and him.


It wasn't obvious to me, until you mentioned it.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It amuses me that there is a discussion of whether the extremist loons' plan is economically feasible...


Rob, my concern over this grows out of my worry that so many folks have such poor economic understanding.

It's not like accepting that plot point requires a "suspension of disbelief," much like we listen to the technobabble of Star Trek with a smile and a wink. No, unfortunately, to many, this erasure of debt scheme seems plausible, and even something good. If some of the discussion in this thread is to be taken at face value, this ain't a plot point that requires a "suspension of disbelief," but instead an embrace of the existing economic ignorance.

Because of our already fragile understanding of economic principles and mechanisms, I fear plots like this further "dumb down" our grasp of how markets work.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Holy crap, it's a TV show. I was entertained.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

MikeCC said:


> Rob, my concern over this grows out of my worry that so many folks have such poor economic understanding.


My concern is that some people don't know a rant that's meant to be a jab at our current economic situation without understanding it's a joke (hence the emoticons). In no way would I ever expect the plot of this show to even come close to the real world, so rest easy and stop your worrying. 

OTOH, I still believe that charging upwards of 25% on credit cards is highway robbery, but that's just me.  However, I do feel that if you bought it you should pay for it. If you feel that banks and corporations have a soul and feel sympathy for their customers then you're the one I should worry about.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

MikeCC said:


> Because of our already fragile understanding of economic principles and mechanisms, I fear plots like this further "dumb down" our grasp of how markets work.


This discussion isn't really based on the show's plot--it's a response to all the people here who seem to think it would be a great idea. We're used to the people here being pretty smart and seeing through things--this time that doesn't seem to be the case, IMO.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

MikeCC said:


> Rob, my *concern *over this grows out of my worry that so many folks have such poor economic understanding.
> 
> It's not like accepting that plot point requires a "suspension of disbelief," much like we listen to the technobabble of Star Trek with a smile and a wink. No, unfortunately, to many, this erasure of debt scheme seems plausible, and even something good. If some of the discussion in this thread is to be taken at face value, this ain't a plot point that requires a "suspension of disbelief," but instead an embrace of the existing economic ignorance.
> 
> Because of our already fragile understanding of economic principles and mechanisms, I *fear* plots like this further "dumb down" our grasp of how markets work.


Concern? Fear? Really?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Thanks for the heads up


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> Concern? Fear? Really?


This.

Much ado about nothing.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Just watched this today, definitely setting a pass for it, was very fast paced and loved the tech jargon thrown in without *too* much corny-ness (you use Linux? OMG so do I - yikes...).


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Howie said:


> Holy crap, it's a TV show. I was entertained.


I was too...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I loved this show. Definitely a Dexter vibe. In fact my wife, not paying too much attention to the show, turned around and asked if I was watching Dexter 

Two small nitpicks. One, Angela working for a cyber security company in charge of trying to find who hacked the system wouldn't know what a rootkit is? Really? That's hacker 101. Second (and only someone from NY would know this), is that they are sitting in the Church Avenue station, and Christian Slater says, they are GOING to Brooklyn. Dude, you are IN Brooklyn. Church Avenue is IN Brooklyn. Nitpicks to be sure and it didn't take me out of the show one bit. 

I also knew that the assistant CTO, who obviously was a real techie was going to play into the plot. We'll see where this goes

I just hope that the rest of the series could live up to the pilot. That's going to be tough to do.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Two small nitpicks. One, Angela working for a cyber security company in charge of trying to find who hacked the system wouldn't know what a rootkit is? Really? That's hacker 101.


That jumped at me for a second, and then I realized they just needed an excuse to explain to the audience what a rootkit was. So a little clumsy, but forgivable.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

eddyj said:


> That jumped at me for a second, and then I realized they just needed an excuse to explain to the audience what a rootkit was. So a little clumsy, but forgivable.


That's why I figured they did it, but they did throw in some other technical jargon that was over the head of non-techies without explaining. Plus they could have done it better, perhaps explaining it to the CEO of Evil Corp.

Still didn't bother me really, I just happened to notice it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, that was jarring. It's normal for a show to have an idiot character who needs stuff explained so the audience can have the explanation, but why would this company put such an idiot in charge of such an important contract, without which they will collapse? This show is otherwise better than that.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

mr.unnatural said:


> So you support the idea of double-digit interest rates on credit cards in a depressed economy? It basically amounts to legalized theft. Financial institutions that get bailouts from the government using taxpayer's money was just an insult to America. Every CEO from those banks should be behind bars. The fact that they get away with screwing the public on a daily basis is what's really depressing.
> 
> Mr Robot, go for it.


Sounds like someone asked to borrow money and then resented being required to pay the money back.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dswallow said:


> USA has the full pilot episode online, and it's available via various VOD and digital sources. It actually premieres on the channel on Wednesday, June 24, 2015.
> 
> Forbes has a pretty good article on the pilot: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillbarr/2015/05/27/mr-robot-usa-review/
> 
> ...


Thanks. Now I just need to decide whether I watch it from Amazon or Vudu.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Numb And Number2 said:


> Sounds like someone asked to borrow money and then resented being required to pay the money back.


Not at all. What I resented was the fact that the bank simply refused to give me a pass on a payment that was only one day late and used it as an excuse to jack up my interest rate an additional six points. I just forgot to post the payment online so it was an oversight on my part. Most banks will allow you one or two such transgressions per year. Apparently Chase decided my business wasn't worth giving me a break, even though I had a good track record for making payments on time.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

I don't see how anyone can stick up for many of the practices that credit card companies utilize that just screw the consumer. From rates that should be illegal to fee upon fee related to accounts, it's something that needs to be further regulated, not reduced.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

pjenkins said:


> I don't see how anyone can stick up for many of the practices that credit card companies utilize that just screw the consumer. From rates that should be illegal to fee upon fee related to accounts, it's something that needs to be further regulated, not reduced.


Those demons! They are particularly evil when they _force _you at gunpoint to use the card... oh wait...


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

MikeCC said:


> Those demons! They are particularly evil when they _force _you at gunpoint to use the card... oh wait...


It's not the using of the card, it's the fees and ridiculous interest rates charged to the consumer, most of which while on the T&Cs are generally pushed to the consumer in very small print and/or bombarded with 1000s of other words.


----------



## domat (Apr 16, 2007)

Peter000 said:


> It wasn't obvious to me, until you mentioned it.


Just look at the parts where Slater and the Lead meet up with others. When that guy opens the door to the secret lair he just looks at the Lead and ignores Slater who is supposedly the boss.

I am not sure if Fight club was as obvious. I will have to rewatch it and see.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Predatory lending is a real thing


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Two small nitpicks. Second (and only someone from NY would know this), is that they are sitting in the Church Avenue station, and Christian Slater says, they are GOING to Brooklyn. Dude, you are IN Brooklyn. Church Avenue is IN Brooklyn. Nitpicks to be sure and it didn't take me out of the show one bit.


If Mr. Robot turns out to be a delusion of Elliot's then the error can be brushed away. 



domat said:


> Seems fairly obvious that it is "Fight Club" With slater and him.


The only people that Mr. Robot seems to interact with besides Elliot are a couple of men in black in the food court when he was begging for change.

When Elliot returned to the hacker hangout, he asked the hacker girl where her boss was. She told Elliot to stop screwing around and asked when he was going to give her access to the DAT file.

I got the feeling that Elliot might be the boss. If Just speculation on my part.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Finally, a TV character I can relate to. 



Rob Helmerichs said:


> The poster was a hallucination (at one point, I think we saw one morph from E-Corp to Evil Corp)...


He addressed this briefly in the show, saying he'd "reprogrammed" himself to read / hear it that way whenever its real name came up.



Craigbob said:


> One thing I really liked about this pilot, was that the tech felt real.


It was... less wrong than usual for a TV show, so points for that, I guess.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I watched this last night and enjoyed. When does the show start airing on cable TV?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> I watched this last night and enjoyed. When does the show start airing on cable TV?


On the date mentioned in the very first post in the thread.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Malcontent said:


> The only people that Mr. Robot seems to interact with besides Elliot are a couple of men in black in the food court when he was begging for change.


And they might have been a figment too.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

dswallow said:


> On the date mentioned in the very first post in the thread.


For any Canadian readers, Showcase will be airing this in Canada, but there is no starting date yet. When I asked all they said was that it will not share the same schedule with the USA network.

EDIT: September 4. That's not bad, I can wait.


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

Howie said:


> Holy crap, it's a TV show. I was entertained.


Wish I had a LIKE button for this post.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Awesome pilot. Don't let the discussions of credit card rates or inconsistencies in small details shy anyone away. There are very few pilots this well done.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dswallow said:


> On the date mentioned in the very first post in the thread.


 Thanks!


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

You guys have convinced me that an imaginary Mr. Robot is a possibility. It would be a little disappointing, just because we have seen that before, but I can live with it. I might re-watch the pilot with this in mind, something I NEVER do, but this was so good that I think I'll enjoy a second viewing.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

DLiquid said:


> You guys have convinced me that an imaginary Mr. Robot is a possibility. It would be a little disappointing, just because we have seen that before, but I can live with it. I might re-watch the pilot with this in mind, something I NEVER do, but this was so good that I think I'll enjoy a second viewing.


I did re-watch the Pilot and now I can easily see how "Mr Robot" (Christian Slater) is just an imaginary friend (a delusion or alter ego) of Elliot's mind. I truly believe Elliot is actually Mr Robot.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

The title of the show itself is a big hint.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Speaking of titles, I like style of the episode titles. I watched the pilot via the xfinity app and the title shown for the episode had me wondering if the app had screwed up. Looking forward at all of the episode titles, it's evident that it is intentionally done. It will make the way they are listed as NZBs a little extra-confusing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Two small nitpicks. One, Angela working for a cyber security company in charge of trying to find who hacked the system wouldn't know what a rootkit is? Really? That's hacker 101.


Angela isn't a hacker though. At least, I don't think she is.
Her title was given as account manager and she was handling E-Corp's account for Allsafe.

A lot of times, account managers are glorified CS or Sales persons.

I quite enjoyed the pilot and I agree that Christian Slater isn't real.

I'm in.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> The title of the show itself is a big hint.


He's Kilroy?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Try
http://www.whoismrrobot.com


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Angela isn't a hacker though. At least, I don't think she is.
> Her title was given as account manager and she was handling E-Corp's account for Allsafe.
> 
> A lot of times, account managers are glorified CS or Sales persons.
> ...


I get that she's not necessarily a hacker. I work for a software company and a lot of the account managers don't know a whole lot about the software. That said, you work for a cyber security company, and you are on call to deal with this hack, I think knowing at least a little bit about some common security intrusions is part of the job. It's not like a rootkit is that obscure.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I get that she's not necessarily a hacker. I work for a software company and a lot of the account managers don't know a whole lot about the software. That said, you work for a cyber security company, and you are on call to deal with this hack, I think knowing at least a little bit about some common security intrusions is part of the job. It's not like a rootkit is that obscure.


Yeah, I think anybody who works for any cyber-security company in any capacity is required to at least know about the existence of anything that the network news has done stories about... 

Obviously, she was a stand-in for the audience who might not know about these things. But a show this smart should be smarter about creating an audience stand-in.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Obviously, she was a stand-in for the audience who might not know about these things. But a show this smart should be smarter about creating an audience stand-in.


Her not being "tech savvy" was the essential part of the story

The E Corp boss said she wasn't "tech savvy" and got her fired as E Corp account manager.

Because the E Corp boss got her fired Elliot handed the FBI the file that framed him.

Note also she had only just been given the job as E Corp account manager - there was a hint she had been given it because she had brought Elliot into the company and she was Elliot's friend.

(I think Mr. Robot could be Elliot's dead father)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But the thought that a computer security firm would hand its most important account, without which they would go under, to a manager who knows nothing about computer security is pretty insane...


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

The company being dependent on one client suggests a senior level management failure - which is ongoing.

The big failure of Angela is not that she isn't "tech savvy", it is she believes in what she is doing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But the thought that a computer security firm would hand its most important account, without which they would go under, to a manager who knows nothing about computer security is pretty insane...


You don't work for big business, do you?


The CTO of E-Corp was portrayed as a tech moron. Or at least, not up to date with tech.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

JYoung said:


> You don't work for big business, do you?
> 
> 
> The CTO of E-Corp was portrayed as a tech moron. Or at least, not up to date with tech.


He had a blackberry !!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JYoung said:


> You don't work for big business, do you?
> 
> 
> The CTO of E-Corp was portrayed as a tech moron. Or at least, not up to date with tech.


Yeah, but he trusts the security company to put someone in charge who DOES! The thing is, we know the CTO is NOT a tech moron, and in fact may know much more about this than he's letting on.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Yeah, but he trusts the security company to put someone in charge who DOES! The thing is, we know the CTO is NOT a tech moron, and in fact may know much more about this than he's letting on.


You're confusing the CTO (the one with the Blackberry who got framed) with his Lieutenant who uses Linux and is part of the Secret Cabal.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

The CTO is the worst kind of moron, an arrogant moron.

His smart Linux using Lieutenant is Senior Vice President, Technology.

One of the things driving the rebels is the disparity between what people are paid and what they are worth.


----------



## dylanemcgregor (Jan 31, 2003)

MikeCC said:


> Rob, my concern over this grows out of my worry that so many folks have such poor economic understanding.
> 
> It's not like accepting that plot point requires a "suspension of disbelief," much like we listen to the technobabble of Star Trek with a smile and a wink. No, unfortunately, to many, this erasure of debt scheme seems plausible, and even something good. If some of the discussion in this thread is to be taken at face value, this ain't a plot point that requires a "suspension of disbelief," but instead an embrace of the existing economic ignorance.
> 
> Because of our already fragile understanding of economic principles and mechanisms, I fear plots like this further "dumb down" our grasp of how markets work.


So I'm probably giving too much credit after just one episode, but I have a feeling that the show has a more sophisticated view of a debt "Jubilee" than was shown in the first episode, and hopefully they will explore some of the concepts in a bit more detail as the show goes on.

Side note: A few months back they were scouting locations for the main character's apartment. Supposedly they were looking for a cool Brooklyn hipster loft vibe, and a friend suggested they look at our place. A guy came and scouted our place, but we never heard back and I assumed our place just wasn't cool enough (I had thought we were a shoo in because of all the Roomba parts I had lying around the house). After watching the pilot though and seeing the actual apartment they chose, I no longer have that worry.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Yesterday the website had a livestream. They had some codes you could enter for a chance to win 100,000 debt reduction prize.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Throughout the time I was watching this, I kept thinking "this would be a great show for Christian Slater!" ... then ... 
 :up:


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

The livestream is happening again now on http://www.whoismrrobot.com/live/ and again tomorrow for another 6 hours. I entered 4 codes so far and just got $100 by PayPal.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Just watched this. It actually aired for the rest of us tonight. You know, us old fogeys who watch on the boob tube. 

Agree on the rootkit. I was impressed with how well they were handling the jargon talk--Gnome and KDE and whatnot--when rootkit gets asked about. Briefly took me out of the groove they had created. But no biggie.

Hadn't thought about Mr. Robot being a internal construct. Very. Interesting.

Didn't really care about the economic excuse for a hack, as I figured that was smokescreen anyway. There's always a bigger WHY behind the obvious reasons given.

Interesting dynamics between Elliott and Angela.

BTW, the Enron <>Evil Corp analogy goes even deeper. At one point, they showed the exterior of the E Corp, and there was a large ring connecting several buildings a few stories up. Exactly like the Enron building (now Chevron). Pic below...










Flipper!

BTW, this was renewed for a second season, just before the pilot aired.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Hadn't thought about Mr. Robot being a internal construct. Very. Interesting.


I re-watched it last night with this in mind...and now it's painfully obvious. Mr Robot (and the Men in Black) never interact with anybody but Elliot (and, briefly, each other). When Mr Robot is yelling at Elliot on the subway, none of the other passengers look at him, or look away. When Elliot and Mr Robot are arguing in the Coney Island headquarters, all the hackers are giving Elliot strange looks, and ignoring Mr Robot. Etc., etc.

And all this made me wonder (with Elliot; "Is this really happening?") whether the last scene even happened...

I suspect reality is going to be rather...fluid in this show.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

At times I was wondering if Elliot was the boy with the dragon tattoo.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I was impressed with how well they were handling the jargon talk--Gnome and KDE


If you like command line Linux try >
http://www.whoismrrobot.com

(it is part of the official production, if you use the join command the emails you get are not excessive)


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I suspect reality is going to be rather...fluid in this show.


Although in the initial encounter only Elliot saw the Senior Vice President Technology in a subsequent scene the Senior Vice President interacted with others to give the instruction to remove Angela from the account (although it was hinted he did not approve of the way that the Chief Technology Officer was criticising Angela) so he could be more real than Mr. Robot.

Presumably because Elliot framed the CTO the Senior Vice President has been promoted and is in a position to offer Elliot a very different temptation to the Mr. Robot one.

Real person giving real temptation?
Real person but Elliot imagines the new temptation?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pgogborn said:


> Real person giving real temptation?
> Real person but Elliot imagines the new temptation?


I think he's a real person, but I'm not sure he (or anybody) was in that conference room at the end...

It could go either way, but they sure spent a lot of time setting up the fact that Elliot sees things that aren't there (I laughed at the "Evil Corp" ad in the subway with the woman bemoaning her student loan debt).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I re-watched it last night with this in mind...and now it's painfully obvious. Mr Robot (and the Men in Black) never interact with anybody but Elliot (and, briefly, each other). When Mr Robot is yelling at Elliot on the subway, none of the other passengers look at him, or look away. ..........


IN real life when someone is yelling like that most people don't look or look away either. I know I won't usually. There are a bunch of schizophrenics walking around that have entire conversations with imaginary people. Unfortunately I see it almost every day that I am in DC. So often that it is the norm for me to see it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> IN real life when someone is yelling like that most people don't look or look away either. I know I won't usually. There are a bunch of schizophrenics walking around that have entire conversations with imaginary people. Unfortunately I see it almost every day that I am in DC. So often that it is the norm for me to see it.


In my experience, people react one way or another...either stare, or furtively glance, or resolutely don't look. At the very least they'd be startled when he started yelling. I've never seen somebody making the kind of commotion Mr Robot was making (when he was yelling at Elliot from across the subway car) and nobody shows any reaction whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if you react more than you think you do...

Later, when he was talking more calmly, the guy standing next to him sneaked a peek. But I suspect that was an extra blowing it.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (I laughed at the "Evil Corp" ad in the subway with the woman bemoaning her student loan debt).


Elliot's delusions about debt and Mr. Robot's solution were triggered by something trivial - Angela telling him that she was behind on her student loans and the boss would not give her a pay rise.

Seems to me apart from the vigilante action of the week Elliot's deluded over-reactions could take him in all sorts of directions.

(a possible additional reason why the boss gave Angela a job she was ill equipped to handle - he can't give her a pay rise is because the company is in debt)


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

They made of point showing Evil corp.'s VP notice Elliot's last second switch of the reports. He probably suspects the frame up but let it go forward for his own reasons.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I re-watched it last night with this in mind...and now it's painfully obvious. Mr Robot (and the Men in Black) never interact with anybody but Elliot (and, briefly, each other). When Mr Robot is yelling at Elliot on the subway, none of the other passengers look at him, or look away. When Elliot and Mr Robot are arguing in the Coney Island headquarters, all the hackers are giving Elliot strange looks, and ignoring Mr Robot. Etc., etc.
> 
> And all this made me wonder (with Elliot; "Is this really happening?") whether the last scene even happened...
> 
> I suspect reality is going to be rather...fluid in this show.


I watched all the Mr. Robot scenes again and also realized this. The only time anyone looks at Mr. Robot is when he panhandles the two MIB sitting outdoors at the restaurant. And that made me realize the MIB are a figment too.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

vman41 said:


> They made of point showing Evil corp.'s VP notice Elliot's last second switch of the reports. He probably suspects the frame up but let it go forward for his own reasons.


And it's probably significant that in the end, Elliot decided to destroy Evil Corp's boss not for any philosophical reason, but because he was mean to his friend. As somebody else pointed out earlier in the context of Elliot's anti-credit beliefs.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I read today where this show has already been renewed for a second season.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> I read today where this show has already been renewed for a second season.


You might even have read that in this very thread.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dswallow said:


> You might even have read that in this very thread.


 It was actually at AVS in the Hot Off The Press thread. But now I see it was already posted in this thread. Which I actually read before the AVS thread. But somehow I over-looked it


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Elliot tells us right in the opening that he's talking to an imaginary person.


> Hello friend.
> "Hello friend." That's lame. Maybe I should give you a name. But that's a slippery slope. You're only in my head. We have to remember that. S**t. It's actually happened. I'm talking to an imaginary person. What I'm about to tell you is top secret, a conspiracy bigger than all of us. There's a powerful group of people out there...


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

I am not imaginary.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

pgogborn said:


> I am not imaginary.


But you cast no shadow . . .


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

This seems like fight club for 2015. I suspect that since we all think this, there will be a twist on the fight club twist at the end of the season.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I re-watched it last night, and I am still not sure what is real and what is delusion.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I liked it but Elliot's baggy, googly eyes are distracting.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

eddyj said:


> I am still not sure what is real and what is delusion.


I'm in the same boat. I hope this line in managed carefully by the writers; it could become a cheap device that might get old.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Thought it was very, very good. I hope the show can hold to this high of a standard. If it can, it will be far and away the best show ever on USA. I was pretty worried it would be cheesy and terrible based on most USA shows.

Didn't occur to me that Slater's character wasn't real. We saw him talking to people across the street at one point, but I don't recall if they were reacting to him or not. Now I'll be paying close attention.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> Didn't occur to me that Slater's character wasn't real. We saw him talking to people across the street at one point, but I don't recall if they were reacting to him or not. Now I'll be paying close attention.


Those were the Men in Black, who apparently don't exist either.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Those were the Men in Black, who apparently don't exist either.


Or do they?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> He addressed this briefly in the show, saying he'd "reprogrammed" himself to read / hear it that way whenever its real name came up.


Yeah, it was clear that the company's real name wasn't Evil Corp., but it was a little strange when we saw Evil Corp. printed on the ad and heard other characters use that name when talking to Elliott. I guess that was just the show's way of taking us inside his delusions and seeing them from his point of view.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I re-watched it last night with this in mind...and now it's painfully obvious. Mr Robot (and the Men in Black) never interact with anybody but Elliot (and, briefly, each other). When Mr Robot is yelling at Elliot on the subway, none of the other passengers look at him, or look away. When Elliot and Mr Robot are arguing in the Coney Island headquarters, all the hackers are giving Elliot strange looks, and ignoring Mr Robot. Etc., etc.
> 
> And all this made me wonder (with Elliot; "Is this really happening?") whether the last scene even happened...
> 
> I suspect reality is going to be rather...fluid in this show.


And don't forget all of Mr. Robot's smoking. Nobody ever batted an eye, even when Elliott told him that he wasn't allowed to smoke in the subway station. I think that's because there wasn't really anyone smoking.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Those were the Men in Black, who apparently don't exist either.


But were the Men in Black that Elliott saw throughout the episode not the same ones that forced him into the car at the end and then escorted him up the elevator and into the meeting with the SVP?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> But were the Men in Black that Elliott saw throughout the episode not the same ones that forced him into the car at the end and then escorted him up the elevator and into the meeting with the SVP?


Did that meeting happen?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Did that meeting happen?


I see no reason to think that meeting was a hallucination. Maybe the many other people milling about the room, but I think Elliott was really in the room with the SVP.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I am not in a sufficiently altered state of consciousness to understand this conversation.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yeah, it was clear that the company's real name wasn't Evil Corp., but it was a little strange when we saw Evil Corp. printed on the ad and heard other characters use that name when talking to Elliott. I guess that was just the show's way of taking us inside his delusions and seeing them from his point of view.


On watching a second time, Elliot says that he thinks of them as Evil Corp so deeply, that he automatically sees it as Evil Corp whenever he sees the name.



DevdogAZ said:


> I see no reason to think that meeting was a hallucination. Maybe the many other people milling about the room, but I think Elliott was really in the room with the SVP.


Pretty sure that meeting was real, but I did not notice if it was the same MIBs.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I am not in a sufficiently altered state of consciousness to understand this conversation.


You'll need to work on that. It is Friday after all!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I see no reason to think that meeting was a hallucination. Maybe the many other people milling about the room, but I think Elliott was really in the room with the SVP.


I'm not convinced it was fake, but I'm not convinced it wasn't...

The chain of fake takes us from Mr Robot to the Men in Black, so why not follow that chain to the Smoke-Filled Room?

I have a feeling they're messing with us. And will continue to. A lot.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

markp99 said:


> I'm in the same boat. I hope this line in managed carefully by the writers; it could become a cheap device that might get old.


My main hope is that they have decided what is real and what is a delusion and stick to it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

eddyj said:


> On watching a second time, Elliot says that he thinks of them as Evil Corp so deeply, that he automatically sees it as Evil Corp whenever he sees the name.


Yeah, I caught that, but I was just commenting on how I found it interesting that the audience saw it through his delusional eyes and not as it really exists. Which is yet another clue to Mr. Robot likely being a figment of his imagination.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

The meeting could be real but how he got there a hallucination.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

*Brothers?*


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I have a feeling they're messing with us. And will continue to. A lot.





pgogborn said:


> My main hope is that they have decided what is real and what is a delusion and stick to it.


This brings up one of my fears. I can handle delusions and figments, but if every episode makes you question what's real or not, it may get very tiring after a while. And become a crutch that wears out its welcome.

However, we've only had one episode, where it was handled well, so this is just musings on my part, and nothing else yet. Keep it up like E1 and it can be a fun ride.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

By "messing with us," I mean using the chain I mentioned earlier...we know Mr Robot is fake, and we know the MiB who were following Elliot have to be fake because they interacted with Mr Robot. So does that mean the MiB who took Elliot to the meeting are fake? Does that mean the people at the meeting were fake? Maybe. Maybe not.

Messing with us. And yes, so far in a good way. Let's hope it stays that way!

I think they have to know what's real and what's not in advance. Otherwise, this show will go south in a great big hurry. (And by "have to know" I mean both "Surely they know" and "They damn well better know.")


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Assuming we're right and Mr. Robot is fake, how does that work in a TV show? In FC, they could reveal it at the end of the movie and then leave everyone's jaws on the floor while the credits rolled. But here, they've got to reveal it at some point, and then how does the show continue after that?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Assuming we're right and Mr. Robot is fake, how does that work in a TV show? In FC, they could reveal it at the end of the movie and then leave everyone's jaws on the floor while the credits rolled. But here, they've got to reveal it at some point, and then how does the show continue after that?


Other shows have done it, haven't they? Dexter comes to mind...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Other shows have done it, haven't they? Dexter comes to mind...


But that wasn't the main character seeing the hallucination. It was a season-long villain, and they did the reveal in the season finale.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> But that wasn't the main character seeing the hallucination. It was a season-long villain, and they did the reveal in the season finale.


I was thinking about the main character, actually - I won't delve into the details since it could be a spoiler, but it was a recurring thing throughout all of the seasons, IIRC.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I was thinking about the main character, actually - I won't delve into the details since it could be a spoiler, but it was a recurring thing throughout all of the seasons, IIRC.


Are you talking about


Spoiler



Dexter's "dad"


? If so, I don't think that was ever presented to the audience as reality.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I re-watched it last night with this in mind...and now it's painfully obvious. Mr Robot (and the Men in Black) never interact with anybody but Elliot (and, briefly, each other). When Mr Robot is yelling at Elliot on the subway, none of the other passengers look at him, or look away. When Elliot and Mr Robot are arguing in the Coney Island headquarters, all the hackers are giving Elliot strange looks, and ignoring Mr Robot. Etc., etc.
> 
> And all this made me wonder (with Elliot; "Is this really happening?") whether the last scene even happened...
> 
> I suspect reality is going to be rather...fluid in this show.


But what is the Coney Island headquarters? He let his imaginary friend take him to his own place and walked in as a visitor? And the number Mr. Robot handed him he got himself?

I was ready to believe he imagined it all when weeks went by and nothing happened. But then it did, so I was believing again. 



DevdogAZ said:


> But were the Men in Black that Elliott saw throughout the episode not the same ones that forced him into the car at the end and then escorted him up the elevator and into the meeting with the SVP?


I thought they were at least some of the same men, and I assumed that the meeting took place and they had actually been following him. The cops turned away when they took him, which is sort of proof that they're there. Of course, the guy who stopped and talked to him at his job really didn't interact with anyone else either, although he was in the meeting.....if there was a meeting. At least we know that his friend was fired, so that meeting took place. I think.

I loved that song, "If you go away." It was familiar, but I hadn't heard it for a long time. When I googled it I realized that everybody who ever sang has done it. So sad.....


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Elliot said "at least I have you to talk to" to himself. That other Elliot can't be Mr. Robot.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> The cops turned away when they took him, which is sort of proof that they're there.


Or that there was nothing to see, except this guy talking to himself...


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> IN real life when someone is yelling like that most people don't look or look away either.


I can buy she wouldn't turn her head, but the woman standing by Elliot didn't even briefly move her eyes (but she could be hearing impaired).



stellie93 said:


> But what is the Coney Island headquarters? He let his imaginary friend take him to his own place and walked in as a visitor? And the number Mr. Robot handed him he got himself?


The person who opened the door did not seem to treat Elliot as a visitor, he let him in without asking a question, without looking at / acknowledging the presence of Mr. Robot.


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

pgogborn said:


> If you like command line Linux try >
> http://www.whoismrrobot.com
> 
> (it is part of the official production, if you use the join command the emails you get are not excessive)


I can verify that running "rm -rf /" didn't work.  I thought that the tech stuff was the least dumbed down in any TV show I ever remember seeing. I'd love to know what the "astu" command was supposed to do though.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> By "messing with us," I mean using the chain I mentioned earlier...we know Mr Robot is fake, and we know the MiB who were following Elliot have to be fake because they interacted with Mr Robot.


The MIB don't have to be imagined. There's no reason that Elliot can't imagine real people interacting with an imagined person. Also, they could be real in some instances and imagined in others. - Just because he's paranoid and imagining things doesn't mean that he's not being followed.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I really really liked the pilot and loved the lead actor. 
I hope the quality stays as high as it was in this episode.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> There's no reason that Elliot can't imagine real people interacting with an imagined person.


Unless the writers want us to have reliable hints who is and isn't real.

Elliot said "Fxxk society" before he apparently met the fsociety hackers for the first time. I take that to be an additional hint he had already met the fsociety hackers.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

pgogborn said:


> Unless the writers want us to have reliable hints who is and isn't real.
> 
> Elliot said "Fxxk society" before he apparently met the fsociety hackers for the first time. I take that to be an additional hint he had already met the fsociety hackers.


On his second visit to the F-Society location he was approached outside the building asked when he was going to give them the password. Yet there's no basis for the password being expected at this point. It keeps bothering me such that I suspect this is somehow conveying to us, the audience, his real relationship to the F-Society group as opposed to the Mr. Robot-vision-based relationship we've seen so far.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Finally got to watch this last night: really amazingly good. Hopefully it can keep it up!

Interesting everyone else's take on this; I got a serious Matrix vibe off of it.



Craigbob said:


> One thing I really liked about this pilot, was that the tech felt real. It wasn't over blown, unrealistic graphics, well maybe excepting the server map.


 I was pretty impressed overall. I mean, no real hacker would care much about Gnome vs. KDE; they probably all run LXDE or even xmonad or something. And no KDE user would say that Gnome is newer technology . Still, they got the names and pronunciations (and uses) of things right which is pretty amazing. Also many of the commands were real; I saw ps, grep, etc. If they'd had some Perl in there it would have clinched the deal for me


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I rented the 3D BD of Need for Speed and noticed that Rami Malek is in that too. I was going to finish watching the 3D BD of Need for Speed tonight. But since the second episode of Mr. Robot comes on tonight I want to finish watching the first episode again. Before watching episode 2 tonight. I'm very curious what will happen in the second episode.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I rented the 3D BD of Need for Speed and noticed that Rami Malek is in that too. I was going to finish watching the 3D BD of Need for Speed tonight. But since the second episode of Mr. Robot comes on tonight I want to finish watching the first episode again. Before watching episode 2 tonight. I'm very curious what will happen in the second episode.


You've got time. Mr. Robot airs on USA Network on Wednesdays not Tuesdays.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I rented the 3D BD of Need for Speed and noticed that Rami Malek is in that too.


I couldn't figure out where I saw that mopey guy with sad sunken eyes before.
It was in The Pacific.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

dswallow said:


> On his second visit to the F-Society location he was approached outside the building asked when he was going to give them the password. Yet there's no basis for the password being expected at this point. It keeps bothering me such that I suspect this is somehow conveying to us, the audience, his real relationship to the F-Society group as opposed to the Mr. Robot-vision-based relationship we've seen so far.


I don't recall it happening like this. He changed the rootkit access so only he would have access, then when he went back the girl asked him for access since she needed to add the CTO's IP address. Why she wouldn't have put it in the rootkit to begin with is beyond me, unless they actually needed the rootkit to discover his internal IP.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> You've got time. Mr. Robot airs on USA Network on Wednesdays not Tuesdays.


Sweet! Thanks. I recorded the first episode off Bravo to watch a second time but I thought the second episode aired on USA tonight.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Watched this last night.

100% got a Fight Club vibe when watching, but not because of the imaginary friend part, just because of the vibe, the voice over, the anti-corporate, lets destroy everything to start over.

Didn't really think about the other Fight Club aspect, but after reading the thread, and thinking back, I think it's interesting. Something is going on there.

Mr Robot just seems to be sitting and waiting for him wherever he goes.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I also think the title of the show kind of gives it away.

-smak-


----------



## moetown (Jan 25, 2006)

Episode 2; Did everyone else have a female voice over? In between the talking and Elliot;s inner dialog there was a female voice. Just saying stuff "Elliot looks over at his phone and see's that its ringing"

It was really distracting and I didn't see the point. I looked on other places online and didn't see anyone else talking about it.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Sounds like the AD thing (audio description, for blind). It's broadcast on the SAP audio channel. Sometimes the provider messes it up and it is audible even if SAP is off on your TV/TiVo


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

yeah....nothing here with a female voice.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

You should probably start a S01E02 thread for that question...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

moetown said:


> Episode 2;


This is a thread for episode 1; please start a new thread to discuss episode 2 thanks!


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Whoops--sorry. I thought it was a full season thread.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Just found this show. Like it a lot. Loved the lead dude in The Pacific


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

It's funny. I've never seen fight club and always meant to. Never actually knew the spoiler. Oh well. I'll survive.

I assumed Christian Slater's idea to eliminate all debt was supposed to be absurd. I mean I assume we all understand the morality of if you borrow money you should pay it back, whether you borrow from a friend or an "evil, faceless" corporation.

As far as the earlier poster wondering why credit card interest rates are so high, it's because the loan has no collateral. It's just the bank giving you money and hoping you'll pay them back. Mortgages and home equity loans have lower rates because your property is backing the loan. If you don't pay they take the property. With a credit card you can declare bankruptcy and the credit card company may get nothing or very little. 

But yeah, banks also make tons of money on credit cards. Nothing wrong with that. Personally, I make tons of money off of them. They've given me thousands of dollars in rewards and sign up bonuses while I've given them almost no interest because I pay my bill in full every month. Heck I just signed up for my 10th or 11th credit card in the last year (including spouse) to get the sign-up bonus that's worth over $600. And it cost me nothing. I love the credit card banks.

But back to the show. I'm a little nervous that the imaginary people thing might get overused. The writers can always just say that any character/event was just imaginary since we're seeing everything from the main character's view. If they do that they can ruin the show really quickly.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

See, _YOU _get it.

You understand the risk/reward equation, and the fact that parties on both sides of any transaction will, in the aggregate, tend to act in their own best interest.

Unfortunately, reading over a few of the replies, it is clear that economic ignorance and confusion is pretty deep set in several posters.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

What happened last night? Slater did a lot of talking to people.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Not sure but this probably isn't the right thread to discuss it, since this one says its for episode 1.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> What happened last night? Slater did a lot of talking to people.





BrettStah said:


> Not sure but this probably isn't the right thread to discuss it, since this one says its for episode 1.


It most definitely isn't the right thread to discuss the events of episode 5. The threads for episodes 2, 3, and 4 are also not the right threads to discuss episode 5.

You need the thread for the episode titled "eps1.4_3xpl0its.wmv" to discuss episode 5.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

For that matter, since this is the thread for "Pilot," perhaps we'd best not discuss "eps1.0_hellofriend.mov" here either...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Amazingly, the thread for the proper episode was higher up the page than this one.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Amazingly, the thread for the proper episode was higher up the page than this one.


I rarely visit the top page. I typically go to the threads from an email or the user control panel.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For that matter, since this is the thread for "Pilot," perhaps we'd best not discuss "eps1.0_hellofriend.mov" here either...


Well, I did already say this wasn't the thread to discuss episode 2.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> I rarely visit the top page. I typically go to the threads from an email or the user control panel.


You win!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> Well, I did already say this wasn't the thread to discuss episode 2.


Which is why I didn't say "eps1.1_ones-and-zer0es.mpeg"...


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Which is why I didn't say "eps1.1_ones-and-zer0es.mpeg"...


Sorry, I misread your comment


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Bump....

FYI,

Season 2 is going to begin July 13, 2016.

http://www.tv.com/shows/mr-robot/community/post/mr-robot-season-2-premiere-date-usa-146117777566/


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

Malcontent said:


> Bump....
> 
> FYI,
> 
> ...


:up: I'll be able to chat along this season!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

http://www.whoismrrobot.com/fivenine/?lbContent=0509


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

The season opens with Elliot waking and realizing that it was all a dream. Mr. Robot is real.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Elliot exists only in Mr Robot's mind.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

We'll reboot back to Elliott not knowing who anyone is including Mr Robot. I mean that's what they showed us right? That he keeps forgetting? Every season is a new way for him to discover the truth.


----------



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

FYI,

*Mr. Robot season 2 premiere 'leaked' on social media by show's creators*

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/10/12145312/mr-robot-season-2-premiere-watch-twitter-youtube

It's also available via magical means.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

At this point I'll wait until Wednesday to watch it when it airs on the USA Network.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Yep, me too. The show has so much going for it. I wanted to like season 1 so much, but felt more like it should have been so much better than it actually was. Not sure if it's a few of the characters I didn't like at all or if I was just not understanding.

I think the main thing that intrigues me is the plausibility of the hacking plots. Everything feels real, and that's why it draws me to want to keep watching. The drugs, amnesia, and such kinda detracted from the rest of the show. 

We'll see. I want it to be good.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

DancnDude said:


> I wanted to like season 1 so much, but felt more like it should have been so much better than it actually was. Not sure if it's a few of the characters I didn't like at all or if I was just not understanding.


SE01 did not miss for me at all. Cannot wait for SE02!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> I think the main thing that intrigues me is the plausibility of the hacking plots.


One of the hacking plots that fell flat for me was the "raising the temp of the backup facility" to destroy the backup tapes. You'd have to raise the temps way past 100F degrees before the tapes could even be affected. And the temp would have to stay there for a while. It's not like salmonella that once you reach 165F they all instantly die. And would the Iron Mountain A/C system even allow the heat to be raised that much -- BEFORE someone notices it (yes, I know the alarms were disabled, but people would notice).

Anyway, I didn't find that believable.

What they should have done is gone a few studio lots over, gotten Walter White's magnet truck and drove that around the trucks entering the facility. Magnets, *****!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hank said:


> One of the hacking plots that fell flat for me was the "raising the temp of the backup facility" to destroy the backup tapes. You'd have to raise the temps way past 100F degrees before the tapes could even be affected. And the temp would have to stay there for a while. It's not like salmonella that once you reach 165F they all instantly die. And would the Iron Mountain A/C system even allow the heat to be raised that much -- BEFORE someone notices it (yes, I know the alarms were disabled, but people would notice).


Even more unbelievable is that the heating system likely doesn't have the physical ability to heat a facility of that size up to well over 100 degrees.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Even more unbelievable is that the heating system likely doesn't have the physical ability to heat a facility of that size up to well over 100 degrees.


I'm not so sure about that...with that many servers all packed together, I suspect the trick is keeping the temperature down.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Even more unbelievable is that the heating system likely doesn't have the physical ability to heat a facility of that size up to well over 100 degrees.


That is what I meant when I said "_And would the Iron Mountain A/C system even allow the heat to be raised that much_".. there's likely a max heat it can generate based on human needs. I guess I should have said "capable". 



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not so sure about that...with that many servers all packed together, I suspect the trick is keeping the temperature down.


This was a tape backup facility, not a datacenter.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Hank said:


> One of the hacking plots that fell flat for me was the "raising the temp of the backup facility" to destroy the backup tapes. You'd have to raise the temps way past 100F degrees before the tapes could even be affected. And the temp would have to stay there for a while. It's not like salmonella that once you reach 165F they all instantly die. And would the Iron Mountain A/C system even allow the heat to be raised that much -- BEFORE someone notices it (yes, I know the alarms were disabled, but people would notice).
> 
> Anyway, I didn't find that believable.


There was some debate about that in the episode thread.
I think that they might have been better off tripping the fire suppression system to ruin the tapes.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

JYoung said:


> There was some debate about that in the episode thread.
> I think that they might have been better off tripping the fire suppression system to ruin the tapes.


Halon.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not so sure about that...with that many servers all packed together, I suspect the trick is keeping the temperature down.


No problem with that. When our chiller system went down from the roof our data center quickly rose to over 120F.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> No problem with that. When our chiller system went down from the roof our data center quickly rose to over 120F.


??? Sounds like there IS a problem with that!


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Anyone else's To Do show four recordings over two nights for Season 2?

All times CDT

Wed
9:01 pm - S2E1,2 - 91 minutes
10:32 pm - Hacking Robot 101 - 60 minutes

Thu
12:32 am - S2E1 - 91 minutes
11:00 pm - S2E2 - 60 minutes


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yep. The first one is the combined season premiere (two eps); the second is the post-game show; the third and fourth are (supposed to be) the individual episodes. That is as it should be; the 1P sees the combined episodes and the individual episodes as being different, which in my experience always happens when they do this. (The guide data for the third has it as just the first episode, although the length suggests it is the combined one again.)

It's unusual that the 1P is picking up the post-game show; usually (e.g., Walking Dead, Orphan Black) that's considered a separate series.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Thought that was it, but 91 minutes is short for two combined eps, especially when S2E2 on Thursday is 60 minutes. Is the 91 minute premiere commercial free?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cherry ghost said:


> Thought that was it, but 91 minutes is short for two combined eps, especially when S2E2 on Thursday is 60 minutes. Is the 91 minute premiere commercial free?


Must be, or nearly so (two eps should clock in at around 84 minutes).


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

15 minutes into it on Amazon Prime and I like it, but it just seems so much like Dexter.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

It's 100x better than Dexter. Just wait until it gets going.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Wow, I don't think it's anything like Dexter. Maybe the first 15 minutes were a little like Dexter, I can't remember .


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

There is one particular element of the show that's VERY similar to Dexter.


----------



## giSeries (Apr 20, 2020)

Great tv show


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

giSeries said:


> Great tv show


There are plenty of series threads on here about this show. I agree.


----------

