# 'Forever' - New Drama - Watch pilot online



## Malcontent (Sep 5, 2004)

Just a heads up. The pilot episode of the new show called 'Forever' is available to watch on the ABC website.

http://abc.go.com/shows/forever/episode-guide/season-01/101-pilot

It's also available via magical means.



> Forever centers on Dr. Henry Morgan, New York Citys star medical examiner. But what no one knows is Henry studies the dead for a reason  he is immortal. His investigative work with Detective Jo Martinez and relationship with best friend Abe will peel back the layers of Henrys colorful and long life.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Well, it starts with one strike, since it won't let me watch it. My provider (DIRECTV) is not good enough, I guess.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I'm looking forward to this series.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'll probably check out the pilot when it hits the airwaves, but the whole medical examiner schtick has been done to death (pun intended ). The networks must think that anyone with a medical degree either works exclusively with the cops or in a hospital that hires nothing but sex addicts. About the only scenario they haven't covered yet is a medical examiner that's a necrophiliac. 

My guess is we'll find out that the guy's actually a vampire and they'll bring back Buffy as his co-star.  Last I heard she was available.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

It's also available on hulu plus


----------



## Silverman (Jan 18, 2013)

Like that Buffy idea, a lot. The other kind of medical examiner is also coming, a show called IZOMBIE. Yes there seem to be too many medical examiners and I assume the new NCIS New Orleans will do that as well, too.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Silverman said:


> Like that Buffy idea, a lot. The other kind of medical examiner is also coming, a show called IZOMBIE. Yes there seem to be too many medical examiners and I assume the new NCIS New Orleans will do that as well, too.


Nah, NCIS N'awlins will be about Voodoo.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

So, basically it's _Highlander, M.E._ With Reed Richards, ADA Connie Rubirosa, and Alex Rieger.

And an evil twin.

I'm in.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Graymalkin said:


> So, basically it's _Highlander, M.E._ With Reed Richards, ADA Connie Rubirosa, and Alex Rieger.
> 
> And an evil twin.
> 
> I'm in.


And maybe the Invisible Girl, er, Woman can visit, on occasion.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Well, it starts with one strike, since it won't let me watch it. My provider (DIRECTV) is not good enough, I guess.


I guess I can get it On Demand on DIRECTV, so I will check it out. I'm a sucker for ME type shows.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

I liked it better when it was New Amsterdam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dianebrat said:


> I liked it better when it was New Amsterdam.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam_(TV_series)


The guy in New Amsterdam was an M.E.?!?

Man, I must not have been paying attention...


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The guy in New Amsterdam was an M.E.?!?
> 
> Man, I must not have been paying attention...


HA! but he was police Detective and in procedurals they seem to play pretty loose with what an M.E. does.

Amusingly enough when I reread the wikipedia article this jumped out


> After hearing about the upcoming series, author Pete Hamill alleged that the show has similarities to the plot of his 2003 novel, Forever, but producer David Manson claimed he had no knowledge of the book until after filming had wrapped.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

RGM1138 said:


> And maybe the Invisible Girl, er, Woman can visit, on occasion.


Maybe she will, but you just can't see her. In fact, she could be in the room with you right now and you'd never know it.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Watched this last night. Probably will watch for a while. But like I said, I am a sucker for these types of shows, so it has to get pretty bad before I'll quit. 

For a pilot, it wasn't too bad.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

In New Amsterdam, the immortal was a cop & the romantic interest was a doctor who got curious about him. Here he's an ME & she's a cop who gets curious. (BTW both curious deaths/events happened on the subway.)

Also, both have relationships to men they raised, those men own bars with the immortals' secret lairs. In New Amsterdam it's his biological kid. In Forever, it's a child rescued from a nazi death camp. Both involved women they deeply loved and have flashbacks about.

The big differences seem to be that in New Amsterdam, the immortal guy wants to die, his body doesn't magically go underwater when he is resurrected and he is not being stalked by a fellow immortal. (which, for a 200 year old man to get that upset about a stalker who might know his secret, seems a bit overblown.)

I'm not too sanguine about the possibilities of Forever being a success. Besides its plotline similarities to New Amsterdam, its tone & feel are real close to it. And New Amsterdam did dismally in the ratings.

But I will watch. I've like these kinds of stories since reading L. Sprague de Camp's "The Gnarly Man" and Poul Anderson's _The Boat of a Million Years_.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

So when he falls off a building and dies on top of a car, then resurrects naked in water, did his clothed corpse simply disintegrate from the car?

Or if he is injected with poisoned blood and he dies on a gurney, then resurrects in water, did he vanish from the gurney?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

getreal said:


> So when he falls off a building and dies on top of a car, then resurrects naked in water, did his clothed corpse simply disintegrate from the car?
> 
> Or if he is injected with poisoned blood and he dies on a gurney, then resurrects in water, did he vanish from the gurney?


I think we have to assume that, otherwise, the place would be littered with his corpses, at the rate he dies.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

When they showed the police in the crashed subway car, neither his corpse or his clothes were left behind if I remember it right. Thus, his corpse and clothing are magically of no importance to the plot.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Thom said:


> When they showed the police in the crashed subway car, neither his corpse or his clothes were left behind if I remember it right. Thus, his corpse and clothing are magically of no importance to the plot.


Although I suspect it will become an issue at some point...there are just too many things that can go wrong in interesting ways for it not to.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I liked it all enough to watch a few episodes more (or, at the very least, to record then all for the "down" time).

The lady cop looked familiar. Looked her up and she has been on a couple of the L&O spinoff, but I don't think we watched those. Anyhow, while looking her up in IMDB I saw that (possible mild spoiler)


Spoiler



she is listed as appearing in only 1 episode, and another policewoman is listed on all four. Re-casting?


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

wprager said:


> I liked it all enough to watch a few episodes more (or, at the very least, to record then all for the "down" time).
> 
> The lady cop looked familiar. Looked her up and she has been on a couple of the L&O spinoff, but I don't think we watched those. Anyhow, while looking her up in IMDB I saw that (possible mild spoiler)
> 
> ...


I noticed that too. I'm hoping it's an error, and that Alana de la Garza remains on the show.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> Maybe she will, but you just can't see her. In fact, she could be in the room with you right now and you'd never know it.


Unpossible, I bump into everything, visible or not, and there's too much stuff around here for her to be able move out of the way quickly enough without knocking some of it over.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Thom said:


> When they showed the police in the crashed subway car, neither his corpse or his clothes were left behind if I remember it right. Thus, his corpse and clothing are magically of no importance to the plot.


Yet the cops retrieved his 200 yr. old stopwatch with his blood on it in order to place the good coroner/medical examiner in the subway.

Oh well, I'm liking this show for now.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

I assumed it was because the watch was no longer in his possession.

Which would seem to mean, anything in his possession will vanish when he dies.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

If Alana de la Garza is only in the pilot episode, I'm going to be a bit disappointed.

But just a bit.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The whole watch thing is stupid. Either all his possessions remain where he dies, or they don't. If they do, no way he is able to always find/reclaim the watch. If not, how does he ever get it back? Very weak point, IMO.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> The whole watch thing is stupid. Either all his possessions remain where he dies, or they don't. If they do, no way he is able to always find/reclaim the watch. If not, how does he ever get it back? Very weak point, IMO.


I think the point is the watch wasn't on him this time when he died. In the past, presumably, it always was (or was in a place, like his home, where he could easily recover it).

I think if you want the root of the stupid, you have to go back to him dying and waking up in the river. That will require some explanation to get past the eye-rolling.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think the point is the watch wasn't on him this time when he died. In the past, presumably, it always was (or was in a place, like his home, where he could easily recover it).
> 
> I think if you want the root of the stupid, you have to go back to him dying and waking up in the river. That will require some explanation to get past the eye-rolling.


See, that does not bother me. If I can suspend belief about the resurrection, the fact that it is in water does not bother me at all. Wasn't the first time he died a drowning? Maybe that has something to do with it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> See, that does not bother me. If I can suspend belief about the resurrection, the fact that it is in water does not bother me at all. Wasn't the first time he died a drowning? Maybe that has something to do with it.


So the thing that has a logical explanation bothers you, but the thing that makes no sense is fine?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So the thing that has a logical explanation bothers you, but the thing that makes no sense is fine?


Well, I don't agree with the explanation being logical. 

The other stuff is just magic, and is therefore accepted. I have standards!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think the point is the watch wasn't on him this time when he died. In the past, presumably, it always was (or was in a place, like his home, where he could easily recover it).


Yes, he knew the watch wouldn't go with him which is why he was trying to reach it before he died.
I'm not sure exactly where it was, but at one point he was shown surfacing in the water with the watch in his hand.

I'm going to guess that when he initially died after being shot and thrown overboard, he wasn't naked when he resurrected and he probably didn't even know that he had died and resurrected. After that, whenever he died, everything in his possession that was not with him when he originally died just disappears. The watch is the only thing to travel back with him (if it's in his possession) because it's the only piece of original equipment he still has.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

?!?!? We already had ANOTHER thread that compared this to New Amsterdam...


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

The concept seems interesting. I like stories of immortals in the present day. I did not especially like this show, but I'll keep watching.


----------



## cal_s7 (Oct 1, 2003)

Saw it last night. I'm in, looks good. I have no issues with the clothing or watch. They have not shown what happens yet. We don't currently know the rules. As long as they are consistent with the rules they set them I'm good. So far I don't see any conflicts.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> If Alana de la Garza is only in the pilot episode, I'm going to be a bit disappointed.
> 
> But just a bit.


The Futon Critic reviewed the second episode, and said Alana de la Garza was in it. Here's hoping.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

Watched this last night - thought it was pretty good. SP Set.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Watched last night. Thought it was meh. Seems like a typical procedural with the twist of him not dying. I will give it another week to grab me.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

I watched the pilot last night and was very disappointed when he went into "Sherlock Holmes Mode" it was just far too derivative and didn't work for me.

Most of the rest of it I liked, but that one character trait could kill the show for me.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Maybe they'll bring back Sean and Guster as his sidekicks.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Thought it was good enough to continue to watch.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

I can accept a premise like not dying and being resurrected in water.

But I can't believe that living a couple of hundred years makes you super-observant, super-deductive and able to identify poisons by experiencing them.

Still watching though. But worried about how they'll contrive ways for him to die 3 times an episode.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think the point is the watch wasn't on him this time when he died. In the past, presumably, it always was (or was in a place, like his home, where he could easily recover it).
> 
> I think if you want the root of the stupid, you have to go back to him dying and waking up in the river. That will require some explanation to get past the eye-rolling.


Maybe he had just been pick-pocketed so the watch was not on him but was on the subway!


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I enjoyed it, although it is a near copy cat of ABC's own Castle with the only twist being the death thing. We'll keep watching for the time being.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I can see this show being an early casualty. It definitely had the feeling of a cross between Elementary and Castle.

Not terrible, but I think the 'resurrection' thing will get old fast.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Yeah I guess if in every episode the ending will be a form of him basically killing himself to save the day and wrap the story up, most folks will get jaded quick and grow weary. 

So at this point it's like the first few seasons of Castle in that female detective teams up with off-the-wall guy, they play cat and mouse and act like they don't really care too much about each other, he covers up his secret as much as possible, and the audience will keep wondering when Miss Detective will finally figure out docs secret. 

But I guess I can see based on the rating, this one might not have legs for much longer.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

So last night's episode confirmed that his body does disappear after he dies. It was only strongly implied in the Pilot.

I guess his death/disappearances were witnessed before, and that's why he's always ready to start a new life somewhere else at a moment's notice.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I can see this show being an early casualty. It definitely had the feeling of a cross between Elementary and Castle.
> 
> Not terrible, but I think the 'resurrection' thing will get old fast.


Elementary, my Dear Castle!


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

dtle said:


> So last night's episode confirmed that
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


SPOILER TAGS PLEASE!.. at the moment this is an episode specific thread and that is from the subsequent episode.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> In New Amsterdam, the immortal was a cop & the romantic interest was a doctor who got curious about him. Here he's an ME & she's a cop who gets curious. (BTW both curious deaths/events happened on the subway.)
> 
> Also, both have relationships to men they raised, those men own bars with the immortals' secret lairs. In New Amsterdam it's his biological kid. In Forever, it's a child rescued from a nazi death camp. Both involved women they deeply loved and have flashbacks about.
> 
> ...


There's also Jerome Bixby's The Man From Earth.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

dianebrat said:


> SPOILER TAGS PLEASE!.. at the moment this is an episode specific thread and that is from the subsequent episode.


Apparently the dome wanted him to post that here w/o spoiler tags.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Watched only the first episode so far.. Will likely watch the 2nd walking on my treadmill tonight.

Thought it was pretty good, but him purposely getting killed when he's trying to save everyone on the roof seemed strange.. So he gets killed, then the cop and everyone else dies.. Even if he's immortal, it seems to put his goal (saving everyone ELSE) in huge jeopardy.

Was that really Grand Central Station? and do they use FX to erase the Apple Store or other brands from GCS? (I have no idea if those are blatantly visible in GCS.)


----------



## Bill Reeves (Jul 18, 2002)

I'm not sure this show warrants having a separate thread for each episode. But I'll try to keep this free of specific spoilers for the second episode.

Agree with Alfer that this show is very much like Castle.

Agree with dianebrat that the Sherlock Holmes thing is tiresome. The crime in the second episode was incredibly convoluted, but the hero figures it out in an instant and is completely correct about everything at every step.

The overarching mystery, of some mysterious guy who knows the hero's secret, either needs to be more compelling, or needs to be dropped. It seems like shows always feel like they need an overarching plot to keep people coming back, e.g. who killed Beckett's mom in Castle. But it's more of a distraction in this show, so far - we're trying to keep all the details straight in this convoluted case, and then he gets a phone call which drops us out of "detective mode".


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I hope they don't do anymore of the cheesy (cliche) bits every week where the "bad" guy calls the hero as the credits roll saying "I know who you are blah blah blah". Yeah we get it, show the guy, interact with him or something or wrap it up and move on.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Torchwood meets Castle and Elementary.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Alfer said:


> I hope they don't do anymore of the cheesy (cliche) bits every week where the "bad" guy calls the hero as the credits roll saying "I know who you are blah blah blah".* Yeah we get it, show the guy, interact with him or something or wrap it up and move on*.


After only two episodes, I agree, this mystery guy is not so engrossing that I want it to be a season long story.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Watched the pilot the other night and I was reminded of a cross between a bad imitation of Highlander and Sherlock Holmes. 

It wasn't bad, but I had low expectations to begin with.

My GF likes it so I'll keep watching for now.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I enjoyed the first 20 minutes of the pilot and then it kinda just turned into another crime drama show with a twist.

In the second episode there seems to be some exposition of what happens to the body


Spoiler



he gets hit by a truck and by the time the driver gets to the front of the truck the body is gone so it would appear that the body just disappears



I think they added a new police chief type character in episode 2 and that might be who is on the imdb - I think Alana is staying put.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Not sure if anyone is watching, but this is still a guilty pleasure of ours. Not top notch TV but still an amusing procedural show with an interesting twist.

Last nights episode threw in yet another interesting twist regarding the two immortals.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

We still watch, but didn't see last night's yet, hope to watch it tonight!


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Alfer said:


> Not sure if anyone is watching, but this is still a guilty pleasure of ours. Not top notch TV but still an amusing procedural show with an interesting twist.
> 
> Last nights episode threw in yet another interesting twist regarding the two immortals.


I like it too, but from what I read, "It's dead Jim."


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

pjenkins said:


> We still watch, but didn't see last night's yet, hope to watch it tonight!


I still watch it, but this weeks episode was very predictable and didn't add much to the mythology.

I still see it as a mix of Quincy ME meets Highlander without the swordplay and decapitations.

Damn I miss Highlander.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

When was the last time Dr. Morgan actually died and was resurrected? They seem to have dialed way back on that schtick.

I enjoy this show, but I won't be verklempt if they cancel it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Got a couple of unwatched episodes, but I enjoy it.. yeah, I thought it was probably already dead due to bad ratings.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Still watching, but missed last night's episode because the DVR misbehaved. I'll have to catch it on Hulu or something.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i've been debating nixing it for a while now, really wanted to enjoy the show, but haven't for a few weeks, and only made it halfway through this week before finally deleting the pass.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mattack said:


> Got a couple of unwatched episodes, but I enjoy it.. yeah, I thought it was probably already dead due to bad ratings.


It was dead, but it came back again...


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> When was the last time Dr. Morgan actually died and was resurrected? They seem to have dialed way back on that schtick.
> 
> I enjoy this show, but I won't be verklempt if they cancel it.


I think it was the time


Spoiler



Adam sent him to the bottom of the Hudson in a taxicab.


----------

