# Fringe - "The Firefly" - 1/21/11



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Sad to see the show isn't getting more forum traffic, even though I thought this episode was just... meh. I did get a kick out of knowing Walter had a good friend in the town of Twin Peaks, a nice shout out to one of my favorites.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

You may not get a ton of day of the broadcast chatter since this is a heavily DVR'd show.
I also loved the shout out to Twin Peaks.



Spoiler



but I'm miffed I read a spoiler suggesting alt-livia is pregnant, making the line to Peter about "it must be difficult to be a father" much more of a big deal.



I saw the ClicqueClack review complaining how "confusing" the episode was, and I disagree, Ryan McGee had it better, respecting that Fringe doesn't talk down to it's audience, it's smart, intelligent, and you just need to trust them.
Great return episode!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I also got a chuckle out of the fact that the Christopher Lloyd time travel originated in 1985, the year of Back to the Future.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Loved this episode. So glad the show is back. I'm interested to see what the ratings were.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Loved this episode. So glad the show is back. I'm interested to see what the ratings were.


Yes I agree. Good/bad... it's still better than almost anything else on television. The ratings these next few weeks may determine wheither we get to see more after this season. It would be sad to see Fringe canceled after this season. That said I would have liked the return episode to move the story arch more than simply "The Return of the Observers".

Don't these guys know everything is on the line? You might be canceled in a few months. Hold nothing back. You must have originally planned five seasons. Well write for four.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

The writing in this show is superb. It really shows you how good a show can be with planning. I just wish Peter would boot Olivia and decide he wants alt-Olivia.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Anyone have caption problems? The captions were missing the entire show. I need to find a way to watch this (online?) with captions.

If anyone has the ability to see if your specific recording is captioned, I would appreciate it. I need to narrow down whether it's FOX or my local station.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

caslu said:


> Sad to see the show isn't getting more forum traffic,





dianebrat said:


> You may not get a ton of day of the broadcast chatter since this is a heavily DVR'd show.


This- we are serious Fringe fans and would never even consider missing an episode, but never see it until at least the next night. Sometimes it is Sunday before we both have the time to sit down together to see it.
Haven't watched this one yet.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Great episode. When the revelation about why Bobby died came out, it hit me (and Walter) like a ton of bricks. What a clever way for September to show Walter the personal consequences of Peter coming to our world.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Hooray!!!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Anyone have caption problems? The captions were missing the entire show. I need to find a way to watch this (online?) with captions.
> 
> If anyone has the ability to see if your specific recording is captioned, I would appreciate it. I need to narrow down whether it's FOX or my local station.


Captions were fine here....


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> Hooray!!!


:up::up::up::up::up::up:


----------



## fliptheflop (Sep 20, 2005)

spikedavis said:


> Hooray!!!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Let's just hope Kevin Reilly isn't saying "Oh, crap, I never DREAMED it would hold in the ratings! Now, how do I weasel out of this?!?"


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

OK, watched.
All I have to say is just give John Noble a damn Emmy already, and Christopher Lloyd was excellent as well. The scenes between them ranged all the way from lighthearted to wrenching.

Especially enjoyed Olivia and Peter dancing around each other- IMO whomever is writing their scenes together really gets them.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

Cearbhaill said:


> This- we are serious Fringe fans and would never even consider missing an episode, but never see it until at least the next night. Sometimes it is Sunday before we both have the time to sit down together to see it.
> Haven't watched this one yet.


I'm still struggling to get past season one, I got into it late into the 1st year, and got my wife into it also, with her on a three shift rotation, and watching DVR'd shows over dinner (she has a weak stomach and an active imagination, especially when eating), it has been hard to get past the half way mark, what with the exploding head and the animate plant in the gut episodes.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

spikedavis said:


> Hooray!!!


The goodness of the news seems to depend on what you are comparing it to. EW seems to say its up .. but I'm guessing that is relative to a repeat ... where as Zap2it has it down 8% (both comparisons based on a 4.9 rating) .. and this appears to be its last first-run (new) episode. (Source: http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsideth...te-for-cbs-fringe-dips-after-friday-move.html)

Still, it could have been worse..


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

spikedavis said:


> When the revelation about why Bobby died came out, it hit me (and Walter) like a ton of bricks. What a clever way for September to show Walter the personal consequences of Peter coming to our world.


I completely disagree. I thought it was absurd. They failed to develop any reason why saving Peter was any different than anything else ordinary people do every day that affects the world around them. Walter or the observer could have NOT saved Peter, and then swatted that firefly, and the outcome could have been the same. Life is like that -- there are unforeseeable consequences to everything one does.

What if Walter stepped on a bug and set off a similar chain reaction? Would that also "hit him like a ton of bricks"? If so, he would be a lot less functional than he is, worrying about every breath he takes and whether he might breathe in an insect and kill another boy.

In life, one should NOT feel guilty about doing something (anything!) that results in unforeseeable negative consequences. What is culpable is when you do something KNOWING that it will directly result in negative consequences (eg., set off a bomb), or at least suspecting that negative consequences are likely to be a direct result of your actions (eg., driving drunk).

Perhaps Walter is culpable for going to the other side and stealing Peter. Not necessarily because it was an alternate dimension, but just because it does not take extraordinary foresight to know that if you kidnap someone's son, there may be negative consequences. Of course, with the alternate dimension thrown in, the consequences turned out to be especially dire.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Anyone have caption problems? The captions were missing the entire show. I need to find a way to watch this (online?) with captions.
> 
> If anyone has the ability to see if your specific recording is captioned, I would appreciate it. I need to narrow down whether it's FOX or my local station.


My recording was captioned, and I live in San Diego. Look like it was your local station that F**k up.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> All I have to say is just give John Noble a damn Emmy already


this :up::up::up:


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Great episode. Great acting all around but John Noble is ridiculously wonderful as Walter.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Some help here?

What was the reference to Twin Peaks? I never gave that show more than a passing glance.

And who is "September"? The Observer? I don't recall anyone being named September.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Some help here?
> 
> What was the reference to Twin Peaks? I never gave that show more than a passing glance.


Dr. Lawrence Jacoby, Eccentric former psychiatrist of Laura with an obsession for Hawaii, he wore a pair of glasses just like Walter did



scooterboy said:


> And who is "September"? The Observer? I don't recall anyone being named September.


There was an episode where we learned some of the Observers names, the one Michael Cerveris plays is named September, If I remember Peter Woodward's Observer was named August and had an episode named for him



Spoiler



the extras in the season 2 discs give a lot more on this


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

dianebrat said:


> Dr. Lawrence Jacoby, Eccentric former psychiatrist of Laura with an obsession for Hawaii, he wore a pair of glasses just like Walter did


Russ Tamblyn, Amber's dad.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

I thought it was a great Butterfly Effect episode. I also agree that John Nobel should get a Emmy.. Of all the shows we watch at our house no one comes close to his acting.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MirclMax said:


> The goodness of the news seems to depend on what you are comparing it to. EW seems to say its up .. but I'm guessing that is relative to a repeat ... where as Zap2it has it down 8% (both comparisons based on a 4.9 rating) .. and this appears to be its last first-run (new) episode. (Source: http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2011/01/tv-ratings-medium-ends-on-high-note-for-cbs-fringe-dips-after-friday-move.html)
> 
> Still, it could have been worse..


I'm not sure why zap2it bothers to write articles like that. Total viewers and household share don't matter. They're fine for network research and PR, but the advertisers only care about the 18-49 numbers, and Fringe rocked that number (relatively). Because that's what advertisers care about, that's what the networks care about. Kevin Reilly said that if Fringe could hold onto 80% of its Thursday ratings, it would be around fir years. Well, it held onto 100%. Let's hope it stays there.

Ratings are confusing enough already. Zap2it is doing its readers a disservice by not focusing on the numbers that matter.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I completely disagree. I thought it was absurd. They failed to develop any reason why saving Peter was any different than anything else ordinary people do every day that affects the world around them. Walter or the observer could have NOT saved Peter, and then swatted that firefly, and the outcome could have been the same. Life is like that -- there are unforeseeable consequences to everything one does.
> 
> What if Walter stepped on a bug and set off a similar chain reaction? Would that also "hit him like a ton of bricks"? If so, he would be a lot less functional than he is, worrying about every breath he takes and whether he might breathe in an insect and kill another boy.
> 
> ...


I think you missed the point. The Observer sees multiple possible futures simultaneously, so when he says that Bobby was killed as a result of Peter catching that firefly, we know it's true. You don't have to analyze it any further than that.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I loved the Twin Peaks reference, too. But what was the name of Christopher Lloyd's band? And did anyone else get the sense that the Asian girl was the one trying to catch the firefly 25 years ago?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I loved the Twin Peaks reference, too. But what was the name of Christopher Lloyd's band? And did anyone else get the sense that the Asian girl was the one trying to catch the firefly 25 years ago?


The band was "Velvet Sedan Chair."

I did not get that sense about the girl, but I suppose it's possible.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I loved the Twin Peaks reference, too. But what was the name of Christopher Lloyd's band?


"Velvet Sedan Chair"

ETA:
Late- was checking online anagrams, none of which were interesting.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I loved the Twin Peaks reference, too. But what was the name of Christopher Lloyd's band? And did anyone else get the sense that the Asian girl was the one trying to catch the firefly 25 years ago?





DevdogAZ said:


> The band was "Velvet Sedan Chair."
> 
> I did not get that sense about the girl, but I suppose it's possible.


I thought it was pretty obvious it WAS her!

Walter has to choose between correcting what changed (saving the girl, and letting Peter die) vs what did happen in the past.
So figured it was the same girl, she seemed about the right age and all


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It was Violet Sedan Chair.

I thought it was Violent, and my friend thought it was Velvet. He looked it up on his iPhone, and it was Violet. So I was closer.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was Violet Sedan Chair.


Then they do work-

A Chorale Divinest
Achieved a Nil Sort
A Chained Evil Sort
Tis a Chained Lover
Its a Ranched Olive
Cathodes in a Liver



MikeMar said:


> I thought it was pretty obvious it WAS her!


Me too.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Blue Car Seat?


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Im 100&#37; certain the asthma girl had nothing to do with the story of Peter and Bobby.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

spikedavis said:


> Im 100% certain the asthma girl had nothing to do with the story of Peter and Bobby.


That's how I took it. September simply used her as a tool to test Walter.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> Im 100% certain the asthma girl had nothing to do with the story of Peter and Bobby.


I think you're 100% wrong. I just reviewed. Right before the car crash, Walter specifically called Peter to have him ask the girl "where she was in 1985." Taking Checkov's Gun into consideration, that means she was the titular girl. Not only was the Observer saving Walter's life, he was offering him redemption.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I think you're 100% wrong. I just reviewed. Right before the car crash, Walter specifically called Peter to have him ask the girl "where she was in 1985." Taking Checkov's Gun into consideration, that means she was the titular girl. Not only was the Observer saving Walter's life, he was offering him redemption.


Exactly.

I immediately flashed on the fact that this was the Firefly girl.

It's just too bad she couldn't have been played by Summer Glau or Jewel Staite.

I was disappointed that there was no reference to a "Midbulk transport".


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> "Velvet Sedan Chair"
> 
> ETA:
> Late- was checking online anagrams, none of which were interesting.


May not be an anagram, but there's still some cool backstory to it.

I find the second image particularly interesting:










...it reminds me of the image-reader thingies we used the other day to scan a Burger King toy into the XBOX 360 Kinectimals game. You hold the card up to the camera, and the camera reads the colored squares on the card and adds the appropriate doll into the game. Those cards look like this:


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think you missed the point. The Observer sees multiple possible futures simultaneously, so when he says that Bobby was killed as a result of Peter catching that firefly, we know it's true. You don't have to analyze it any further than that.


I think you need to read my post again (which you quoted at length). I do not see how I could have been more clear. Whether the Observer sees multiple possible futures is irrelevant to the question about whether Walter should feel guilty that he is responsible for a death because Peter captured a firefly.


----------



## MasterCephus (Jan 3, 2005)

Walter feels guilty simply because he knows that what he did (saving Peter) caused someone else to lose their child. The same feeling Walter had causing him to go to such great lengths. Walter is a supremely emotional person and it hurts him so to know that he's the cause all the issues.

Add to that, he starts thinking that the Observer is trying to "right" the wrong that Walter has caused, thus killing Peter, it causes Walter to lose it. Walter's redemption is that even though believing Peter was going to die, he was willing to "give him up" to right the wrongs of the past.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

MasterCephus said:


> Walter feels guilty simply because he knows that what he did (saving Peter) caused someone else to lose their child.


If you mean the child who died after Peter captured a firefly, then as I already wrote, that is a completely absurd thing to feel guilty about.

Better to feel guilty about breathing. Some of the molecules you breathed in and out would have a new position and velocity and could have gone on to give a slight bump to a bee which then flew into a car window and caused a fatal accident. So, better not breathe or you will be responsible for killing children!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> If you mean the child who died after Peter captured a firefly, then as I already wrote, that is a completely absurd thing to feel guilty about.


And people are always perfectly rational when dealing with grief and guilt.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

john4200 said:


> If you mean the child who died after Peter captured a firefly, then as I already wrote, that is a completely absurd thing to feel guilty about.
> 
> Better to feel guilty about breathing. Some of the molecules you breathed in and out would have a new position and velocity and could have gone on to give a slight bump to a bee which then flew into a car window and caused a fatal accident. So, better not breathe or you will be responsible for killing children!


You're getting hung up on trying to make people feel the way you think they should feel. Not everyone can be as perfect as you and control when they feel guilty or not.

And, you missed the whole point of the Observer making Walter feel that way. It was to prime Walter to let Peter do what he had to with the Doomsday machine, without interference. Perhaps even help him.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And people are always perfectly rational when dealing with grief and guilt.


I'm not expecting rationality. Even the slightest glimmer of a sense of proportion would suffice. It is just absurd to feel guilty about a captured firefly causing someone's death, when there are so many bigger things for one to feel guilty about!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> I'm not expecting rationality. Even the slightest glimmer of a sense of proportion would suffice. It is just absurd to feel guilty about a captured firefly causing someone's death, when there are so many bigger things for one to feel guilty about!


But Walter's saving Peter led to the death, and Walter now knows that. What kind of monster would you have to be not to be affected by the knowledge that you put somebody, even inadvertently and indirectly, through the same hell that shattered your own life?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Peter000 said:


> You're getting hung up on trying to make people feel the way you think they should feel. Not everyone can be as perfect as you and control when they feel guilty or not.
> 
> And, you missed the whole point of the Observer making Walter feel that way. It was to prime Walter to let Peter do what he had to with the Doomsday machine, without interference. Perhaps even help him.


It hardly takes perfection to not feel guilty about walking and breathing -- just common sense, admittedly a trait lacking among the Fringe writers.

And I watched the episode, of course I know why the Observer did what he did. It is just absurd that he succeeded in that manner. It would have made more sense if the Observer had pointed out that by kidnapping Peter, Walter set in motion Walternate's entire murderous operation in this world. Now that might be something to feel guilty about.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But Walter's saving Peter led to the death, and Walter now knows that. What kind of monster would you have to be not to be affected by the knowledge that you put somebody, even inadvertently and indirectly, through the same hell that shattered your own life?


How can anyone with a modicum of sense consider Walter responsible for that boy's death? Ordinary people do ordinary things everyday, like breathing and walking, which could indirectly figure in a chain of events leading to a death, jut like that described in this episode. But no one with any sense considers themselves responsible for deaths because they walk around and breathe. Just because the Observer pointed out one such chain, among the uncountable billions of such chains that a person sets in motion every day, does not change anything with regards to culpability.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

john4200 said:


> How can anyone with a modicum of sense consider Walter responsible for that boy's death? Ordinary people do ordinary things everyday, like breathing and walking, which could indirectly figure in a chain of events leading to a death, jut like that described in this episode. But no one with any sense considers themselves responsible for deaths because they walk around and breathe. Just because the Observer pointed out one such chain, among the uncountable billions of such chains that a person sets in motion every day, does not change anything with regards to culpability.


That's an ad absurdum argument. Walter didn't cause the girl's death by breathing the wrong way, he created a device to travel between universes and Peter and save him from dying. HARDLY an everyday occurrence. Had Walter not done that or simply cured Peter on the other side, he wouldn't have been responsible for the girl's death. Or more importantly Walternate's vengence which caused many more deaths.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Peter000 said:


> Walter didn't cause the girl's death by breathing the wrong way, he created a device to travel between universes and Peter and save him from dying. HARDLY an everyday occurrence. Had Walter not done that or simply cured Peter on the other side, he wouldn't have been responsible for the girl's death. Or more importantly Walternate's vengence which caused many more deaths.


What girl?

If Walter had not traveled to the other world, but had instead failed to get his machine to work, and while taking the machine down he happened to swat a firefly, the very same chain of events could have been set in motion. There are uncountable billions of these hypotheticals in the everyday life of ordinary people.

And yes, the chain of events in the death in question WAS caused by breathing, or in this case, capturing a firefly. It had virtually nothing to do with Peter being from an alternate universe. Walter could have adopted Peter from a local orphanage and set off the same chain of events.

It is absurd to worry about such indirect chains of events, especially when there are much more direct chains of events to worry about. Walter should not have kidnapped Peter (or failed to return him after curing him) because it caused distress and/or anger in Walternate, who then began a murderous crusade against this world. THAT is something that could be worth some guilt.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

john4200 said:


> What girl?
> 
> If Walter had not traveled to the other world, but had instead failed to get his machine to work, and while taking the machine down he happened to swat a firefly, the very same chain of events could have been set in motion. There are uncountable billions of these hypotheticals in the everyday life of ordinary people.
> 
> ...


But it wasn't an indirect chain of events. The Observer told Walter that due to a new Peter living in our universe, he caught the firefly (months after he emerged into our reality) and it caused Christopher Lloyd's son to die. So it couldn't have happened if Walter adopted a new kid from an orphanage. It was Walter's fault.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

IndyJones1023 said:


> But it wasn't an indirect chain of events. The Observer told Walter that due to a new Peter living in our universe, he caught the firefly (months after he emerged into our reality) and it caused Christopher Lloyd's son to die. So it couldn't have happened if Walter adopted a new kid from an orphanage. It was Walter's fault.


Of course it was an indirect chain of events. Peter caught a firefly, for crying out loud!

The fact that the Observer picked that chain of events to point out to Walter makes no difference in culpability. The Observer could have instead pointed out any of a billion other similarly indirect chains of events, some with favorable outcomes and some with negative outcomes. Walter is culpable for none of those absurdly indirect chains of events.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Of course it was an indirect chain of events. Peter caught a firefly, for crying out loud!
> 
> The fact that the Observer picked that chain of events to point out to Walter makes no difference in culpability. The Observer could have instead pointed out any of a billion other similarly indirect chains of events, some with favorable outcomes and some with negative outcomes. Walter is culpable for none of those absurdly indirect chains of events.


I guess you didn't actually watch this episode? The Observer told Walter that due to his actions, the events occured. He didn't say "maybe this happened." He told Walter what the chain of events were.

I suggest you stop watching the show because either you don't pay enough attention, or you don't like the show.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I guess you didn't actually watch this episode? The Observer told Walter that due to his actions, the events occured. He didn't say "maybe this happened." He told Walter what the chain of events were.
> 
> I suggest you stop watching the show because either you don't pay enough attention, or you don't like the show.


*slow clap*


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

IndyJones1023 said:


> The Observer told Walter that due to his actions, the events occured. He didn't say "maybe this happened." He told Walter what the chain of events were.


The Observer only told Walter about this after it had occurred. As he could have told Walter about any of uncountable billions of other possible chains of events. And the Observer could have mentioned any of the other uncountable billions of factors that were also involved in the boy's death (the brakes needed work, the person crossing the street 5 blocks down delayed the driver by a few seconds, the factory in the next state put out just the right amount of emissions that caused the rain to start at exactly 7:42pm, etc. etc.).

Even if the Observer were God himself, just because he told Walter about the firefly -- after the events took place -- does not make Walter culpable. Maybe if God told Walter about the firefly beforehand, Walter might be culpable. But that is not how this story went.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

john4200 said:


> The Observer only told Walter about this after it had occurred. As he could have told Walter about any of uncountable billions of other possible chains of events. And the Observer could have mentioned any of the other uncountable billions of factors that were also involved in the boy's death (the brakes needed work, the person crossing the street 5 blocks down delayed the driver by a few seconds, the factory in the next state put out just the right amount of emissions that caused the rain to start at exactly 7:42pm, etc. etc.).
> 
> Even if the Observer were God himself, just because he told Walter about the firefly -- after the events took place -- does not make Walter culpable. Maybe if God told Walter about the firefly beforehand, Walter might be culpable. But that is not how this story went.


Think about it. The Observer could have told Walter about any innumerable chains of events. But he told him about this one. Knowing that storytelling isn't about things that don't matter to your story, do you think the Observer told him about something that has no bearing to the story?

I refer to my post above. Stop watching.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

IndyJones1023 said:


> The Observer could have told Walter about any innumerable chains of events. But he told him about this one. Knowing that storytelling isn't about things that don't matter to your story, do you think the Observer told him about something that has no bearing to the story?


The episode was named after the firefly story that the Observer told Walter. I think the writers were trying to be clever with something like the cliched butterfly effect of chaos theory, but the writers tried to force it (or did not want to take the time to develop a reasonable chain of events) and ended up making the Observer's story absurd. As I wrote before, the episode would have worked better if the Observer had pointed out to Walter that by kidnapping Peter, Walter caused Walternate to start his murderous operations in this world, and that has resulted in a number of deaths.

And I did read your suggestion, there is no need to keep repeating it. You might want to note that I did not ask for your advice on my viewing choices.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

john4200 said:


> The episode was named after the firefly story that the Observer told Walter. I think the writers were trying to be clever with something like the cliched butterfly effect of chaos theory, but the writers tried to force it (or did not want to take the time to develop a reasonable chain of events) and ended up making the Observer's story absurd. As I wrote before, the episode would have worked better if the Observer had pointed out to Walter that by kidnapping Peter, Walter caused Walternate to start his murderous operations in this world, and that has resulted in a number of deaths.
> 
> And I did read your suggestion, there is no need to keep repeating it. You might want to note that I did not ask for your advice on my viewing choices.


But this story setup a test for Walter to see if he would be willing to let Peter die for a reason.

If he just pointed out the other universe and what happened, there would be NO TEST

THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE EPISODE. What Walter did and the test to see if he would let Peter go


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Not to sound repetitive, but Walter didn't just save Peter, he took him and replaced his dead Peter. The Observers point is that Peter just existing here is causing disruptions. He picked out one that would impact Walter the hardest and maybe the most poetic, he saved himself a son but in the end it cost another (one of his heroes) his son.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

MikeMar said:


> But this story setup a test for Walter to see if he would be willing to let Peter die for a reason.
> 
> If he just pointed out the other universe and what happened, there would be NO TEST


Why do you say that? I assume you are referring to the test of whether Walter would give the keys to Peter and save the girl, knowing that Peter might be killed. That test would have still been feasible if the Observer tried to make Walter guilty using a more direct chain of events to demonstrate Walter's culpability.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Test said:


> Not to sound repetitive, but Walter didn't just save Peter, he took him and replaced his dead Peter. The Observers point is that Peter just existing here is causing disruptions. He picked out one that would impact Walter the hardest and maybe the most poetic, he saved himself a son but in the end it cost another (one of his heroes) his son.


But any ordinary person, just walking and breathing, causes similar "disruptions" as the story the Observer told. So Peter is not special in that respect. On the other hand, if the Observer pointed out that Walternate is causing disruptions in this world, and an important cause of Walternate's behavior is that Walter kidnapped Peter, then that would make sense. In that respect, Peter is not like everyone else. He is Walternate's son, and Walternate is powerful and malevolent.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

john4200 said:


> But any ordinary person, just walking and breathing, causes similar "disruptions" as the story the Observer told. <snip>


Everyone here understands your point. It appears no one agrees, or has spoken up if they do, but regardless, everyone understands what you're saying. Can we move on please?

I thought this was an excellent return episode. Grabbed you from the start and never let go.

BTW, on the captions, on DirecTV they were missing on my recording. On my TiVo, which grabbed a Comcast signal, the captions were perfect. Weird.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

john4200 said:


> How can anyone with a modicum of sense consider Walter responsible for that boy's death? Ordinary people do ordinary things everyday, like breathing and walking, which could indirectly figure in a chain of events leading to a death, jut like that described in this episode. But no one with any sense considers themselves responsible for deaths because they walk around and breathe. Just because the Observer pointed out one such chain, among the uncountable billions of such chains that a person sets in motion every day, does not change anything with regards to culpability.


But saving Peter was not an "ordinary thing." It was an _extraordinary_ thing that set in motion a chain of events that led to the boy's death.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

john4200 said:


> But any ordinary person, just walking and breathing, causes similar "disruptions" as the story the Observer told. So Peter is not special in that respect. On the other hand, if the Observer pointed out that Walternate is causing disruptions in this world, and an important cause of Walternate's behavior is that Walter kidnapped Peter, then that would make sense. In that respect, Peter is not like everyone else. He is Walternate's son, and Walternate is powerful and malevolent.


I get what you're saying, but any ordinary person is suppose to be here. Whatever disruption they cause is just, Peter isn't supposed to be here.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Test said:


> I get what you're saying, but any ordinary person is suppose to be here. Whatever disruption they cause is just, Peter isn't supposed to be here.


Not supposed to be here? According to whom? I have seen no reference on Fringe to an omnipotent God who decides what is supposed to happen. The Observers are certainly not omniscient nor omnipotent -- that was clear in this episode.

Peter has as much right to live where he likes as anyone else. If you were to argue that Walter had no right to kidnap Peter and keep him from his father, then I would agree. I might even agree that it is likely to save lives in both worlds if Peter were to go back and try to make peace with Walternate (although Peter might fail -- Walternate seems sociopathic). But to argue that Peter has no right to be in this world is to make reference to some unwritten rule or unknowable higher power, and that is just not persuasive.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Not supposed to be here? According to whom? I have seen no reference on Fringe to an omnipotent God who decides what is supposed to happen. The Observers are certainly not omniscient nor omnipotent -- that was clear in this episode.
> 
> Peter has as much right to live where he likes as anyone else. If you were to argue that Walter had no right to kidnap Peter and keep him from his father, then I would agree. I might even agree that it is likely to save lives in both worlds if Peter were to go back and try to make peace with Walternate (although Peter might fail -- Walternate seems sociopathic). But to argue that Peter has no right to be in this world is to make reference to some unwritten rule or unknowable higher power, and that is just not persuasive.


It's been said by an Observer in a previous episode (as well as this one). I can only take what the shows creators set up for me, it's their world and I'm just watching it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Test said:


> It's been said by an Observer in a previous episode (as well as this one). I can only take what the shows creators set up for me, it's their world and I'm just watching it.


Even so, did the show's creators tell you that the Observers were always right and never lie? Otherwise, you can hardly take what they say as absolute truth.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Even so, did the show's creators tell you that the Observers were always right and never lie? Otherwise, you can hardly take what they say as absolute truth.


Now you're just being contrary, right?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I love the internets.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Time to close this thread.


----------



## magaggie (Apr 9, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> Time to close this thread.


Hey man. Don't ruin it for the lurkers...be cool


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

magaggie said:


> Hey man. Don't ruin it for the lurkers...


...or the trolls....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Believe me, you do NOT want to be picketed by the Troll Rights Coalition.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Now you're just being contrary, right?


No, I am serious. I've seen nothing on the show to suggest that the Observers are Gods. They are certainly more powerful and knowledgeable than the humans, but they have been seen to make mistakes, and they certainly do not know everything.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

john4200 said:


> No, I am serious. I've seen nothing on the show to suggest that the Observers are Gods. They are certainly more powerful and knowledgeable than the humans, but they have been seen to make mistakes, and they certainly do not know everything.


But September (that's his name, right?) stated that he did have knowledge of this situation. So either pay more attention or open up your mind a bit more, because you're not getting this show so far.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

*sigh*


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I don't understand why this is even up for discussion. By bringing Peter back and having him saved at the lake by an Observer, new possible futures come into existence. If we accept the Observers at face value (I know this is hard for some) then they clearly have significant concerns over the current strands of possibility that have become possible because of the Observer's intervention at the lake. These new possibilities can have seemingly random consequences such as the butterfly/firefly effect. Whether or not it could have happened an infinite number of other ways is something the Observers would know.

As far as responsibility for the death, anyone who actually watches and understands this show more than the most microscopic amount would know that Walter has significant guilt over bringing Peter back and all of the serious consequences that resulted. He also isn't the most logical being in the world. By telling Walter a half-truth about the firefly (after all, the Observer is probably more culpable), he correctly gambled that it would make him realize that he can't put Peter over the entire multiverse. You know what's not logical? Putting your son ahead of the entire multiverse.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> You know what's not logical? Putting your son ahead of the entire multiverse.


I would pick my son 100 times out of 100...I might feel bad about it, but I would put my son first...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I would pick my son 100 times out of 100...I might feel bad about it, but I would put my son first...


Sounds like you need someone to tell you a story about a firefly...


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Sounds like you need someone to tell you a story about a firefly...


Here we go again...


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anubys said:


> I would pick my son 100 times out of 100...I might feel bad about it, but I would put my son first...


yeah for sure, on a 1 to 1 setup.

But (not that we should really go into it) it gets hard picking your son vs like 10,000 people or something
Or in this case, maybe Peter vs an entire Universe!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> yeah for sure, on a 1 to 1 setup.
> 
> But (not that we should really go into it) it gets hard picking your son vs like 10,000 people or something
> Or in this case, maybe Peter vs an entire Universe!


Or multiple universes!


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I don't understand why this is even up for discussion. By bringing Peter back and having him saved at the lake by an Observer, new possible futures come into existence.


But clearly, _a_ Peter is needed for something significant in history. One was already dead, so the Observer had to save the other one.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

The Observer told Walter that there are numerous possible futures. That means free will exists, and as such I see no reason why Peter has to be in one universe or another. There is no set future. There are important people that the observer's protect, but I think they're just manipulating events for some outcome they want to happen.

In the grand scheme of things all of our actions, big and small, have little butterfly effects, and when the Observer said that there are multiple possible futures he confirmed that idea. I get that Walter set things in motion so that Roscoe Joyce's son would die in 1985, however I don't see how it's Walter's fault. Walter shouldn't be held responsible for the driver of the vehicle that killed the boy in the past.

My take on the episode is that the observer's are concerned with what's about to happen, and this was just a test to see if Walter was capable of making the right decision in the future. The past events of the firefly, the girl, the boy from 1985, and peter have already happened, and the observer's are not concerned about what happened before but knowing that Walter carries guilt about bringing Peter over, they used this scenario to play on Walter's guilt to test him.

Walter passed.

We still don't know if the intentions of the observer's are are malicious or not. So far the show has suggested they only intervene sometimes, but for what outcome?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> If you mean the child who died after Peter captured a firefly, then as I already wrote, that is a completely absurd thing to feel guilty about.
> 
> Better to feel guilty about breathing. Some of the molecules you breathed in and out would have a new position and velocity and could have gone on to give a slight bump to a bee which then flew into a car window and caused a fatal accident. So, better not breathe or you will be responsible for killing children!


You are correct that in a real-world scenario, it would be impossible to attribute the boy's death to Peter catching the firefly, as we have no way to know what other factors were involved. In the real world, that's simply an absurd accusation.

But in the world of Fringe, we know that the Obervers are able to see multiple possible futures. We know that if Walter had not pulled Peter from the other side, he wouldn't have caught that firefly and the girl then would have caught it, which would have left her dad at home rather than driving in the rain that night. This isn't a hypothetical exercise. This is the Observer, who saw both possible futures, telling Walter that that one small variation caused the boy to get killed. The Observer knows that's what happened because he also saw the variation where the boy lived if Peter didn't catch the firefly.

I simply can't understand why you're being so pedantic about trying to apply real-life analysis to this fictional TV show that has some different parameters than our own world.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I simply can't understand why you're being so pedantic about trying to apply real-life analysis to this fictional TV show that has some different parameters than our own world.


Um... are you sure you posted this to the right forum? Being pedantic and trying to apply real-life analysis to fictional TV show is pretty much the main thing we do in this forum. Second to that is commenting on sex scenes and relative attractiveness of actors.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Um... are you sure you posted this to the right forum? Being pedantic and trying to apply real-life analysis to fictional TV show is pretty much the main thing we do in this forum. Second to that is commenting on sex scenes and relative attractiveness of actors.


Yes, we do lots of that . . . when the show is supposed to take place in our same reality. But Fringe isn't.

Complaining that what the Observer said isn't true is about as pointless as complaining that the streets they shot this episode on weren't really in the Boston area. The show has laid out a reality that is consistent within the show. Whether it's consistent with our own reality is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that either the Observer told the truth or he lied. If he told the truth, then john4200's concerns are ridiculous, since he's directly contradicting what the character told Walter. If he lied, then he's got some ulterior motive and we'll likely find out what that is down the road. But either way, we as viewers are supposed to accept the fact that the Observer was able to see the various possible futures and he saw that Peter catching the firefly was the one variable that changed between a reality where Bobby was killed and a reality where Bobby wasn't killed.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

This is just the second episode that I've ever watched. I saw the previous one where there was all the drama about the young guy boinking the alternate dimension version of blondie. Hmmm... well, whatever.

Then this one where they have some super-human watcher dudes that apparently interfere with history and then have to correct it, or something like that. No need to correct me if I'm wrong, as it's not important enough to worry about it.

This show is interesting but I get the feeling they could double the budget for the entire thing and it would only cost them another $50. 

I really like the black dude who plays their boss, or whatever position it is. He's very overly intense and it's entertaining. 

I guess this was all inspired by X-Files, which was inspired by Night Stalker, which was inspired by Howdy Doody. Yeah, they did a lot of acid back in those days so you never what a show was going to inspire. Anyway, seems like it could be interesting. But that one dude was seriously lactose intolerant. I hope he never tries that again. 

I thought this episode was kind of interesting in that they had Christopher Lloyd guest starring, especially since he would have been the first choice for the old scientist guy character.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

MikeMar said:


> yeah for sure, on a 1 to 1 setup.
> 
> But (not that we should really go into it) it gets hard picking your son vs like 10,000 people or something
> Or in this case, maybe Peter vs an entire Universe!


Not much sense in saving your son if the Universe is destroyed in the process. But I guess if you just destroy the one you and he aren't living in it's ok.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

retrodog said:


> This is just the second episode that I've ever watched <snip>
> This show is interesting but I get the feeling they could double the budget for the entire thing and it would only cost them another $50.


So are you saying that this show looks cheaply done? 
I recommend going back and watch from the beginning. IMO, I thought this show had some of the best special effects I had seen in a long time, for a TV show. Maybe they had to cut the budget this season.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> I simply can't understand why you're being so pedantic about trying to apply real-life analysis to this fictional TV show that has some different parameters than our own world.


I am certainly NOT assuming that the reality in Fringe is identical to the reality I live in. But there are obviously similarities, and that is the basis for reasoning about the events that occur in Fringe.



> The bottom line is that either the Observer told the truth or he lied. If he told the truth, then john4200's concerns are ridiculous, since he's directly contradicting what the character told Walter. If he lied, then he's got some ulterior motive and we'll likely find out what that is down the road. But either way, we as viewers are supposed to accept the fact that the Observer was able to see the various possible futures and he saw that Peter catching the firefly was the one variable that changed between a reality where Bobby was killed and a reality where Bobby wasn't killed.


You missed another possibility -- the Observer is just wrong.

As I have already written, the chain of events involving the firefly is one of uncountable billions of factors that were involved in the death of Roscoe Joyce's son. If any of those factors were different, then the outcome could be different. If the Observer was not lying, then he is obviously wrong about Walter being solely responsible for the accident, since there are so many other factors that, if changed slightly, would have prevented the accident (eg., the driver went walking to look instead).

As robojerk elegantly explained, the Observer confirmed that there are multiple possible futures (which he cannot entirely predict), and thus the Fringe people have free will. A necessary consequence is that Walter cannot be solely responsible for the accidental death. Other people could also have chosen differently and prevented it.

And of all the people who could have chosen differently, it does not make sense to single out Walter, whose involvement in the accident was absurdly indirect. The driver is the most directly responsible, and certainly could have made different choices that would have prevented the accident (not driving, for one).

So, the Observer is either wrong, or was not telling Walter the whole truth. Maybe both.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Now I'm just enjoying this for the comedy of it.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

My head hurts. All this multi-universe and "butterfly" effect stuff is complicated. 

I can respect john4200's opinion on the different possibilities attributed to the concept of time travel, but for the purpose of this show, he seems to be arguing for arguings sake. Is that what it means to be "pedantic"?

This is a fictional show. We have to take what is presented to us as fact if we are to follow the story as it was meant to be told.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

steve614 said:


> This is a fictional show. We have to take what is presented to us as fact if we are to follow the story as it was meant to be told.


What if the facts are contradictory? Which fact do you accept? That the characters in Fringe have free will, or that the Observer apparently thinks that no one else has free will except Walter?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> You missed another possibility -- the Observer is just wrong.


In real life, you are absolutely correct that there would be no way to isolate such an event as the cause of something else so far removed. But in the Fringe universe, we have to assume that what the Observer said is true. Why would they put it in the script otherwise? They don't write characters like that who have "otherworldly" knowledge and abilities and then just have them state random falsehoods. Without some kind of clue to the viewers that the Observer is either lying or intentionally misleading Walter, we have to take what he says at face value. If not, there's really no purpose in watching anything, because you can always question the veracity of anything any character says if you want to.


john4200 said:


> What if the facts are contradictory? Which fact do you accept? That the characters in Fringe have free will, or that the Observer apparently thinks that no one else has free will except Walter?


It's been established that the Observer can see multiple simultaneous futures. He said the fact that Peter caught the firefly was the indirect cause of Bobby getting hit by the car. Without some sort of signal to the viewers that this information was incorrect, we're supposed to take it as fact. You're clearly not able to suspend your disbelief in order to do so, but that's how we were meant to view it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's been established that the Observer can see multiple simultaneous futures. He said the fact that Peter caught the firefly was the indirect cause of Bobby getting hit by the car. Without some sort of signal to the viewers that this information was incorrect, we're supposed to take it as fact.


If that is what the writers meant, then it is just terrible writing. There is an obvious contradiction, as I pointed out. It cannot be true both that all the people in Fringe have free will, and no one but Walter has free will.

Why couldn't the driver have decided to drive slower, as any safety conscious person would in dark, slippery conditions? Why couldn't the driver have chosen not to drive at all, given the conditions, and the fact that his daughter was likely on foot anyway? Or if you want to get more indirect: Why didn't the girl's parents set a curfew for her, or make sure that she carried a phone, beeper, or GPS? Why didn't they teach her not to stay out late? Or even less direct, why didn't the girl come home despite not catching a firefly, since she might have known her parents would be worried?

Why didn't the Observer go and save the boy? Or even just take the girl home before the father set out?

There are numerous choices other people than Walter could have made to prevent the accident. I could go on for pages listing choices others made that are more directly involved in the accident than Walter's bringing a boy into the area who caught a firefly.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

John, I suggest you stay away from procedural cop shows. All the evidence could be planted and the witnesses might be lying.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And I suggest everybody else stay away from John. There's just no point.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)




----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

john4200 said:


> What if the facts are contradictory? Which fact do you accept? That the characters in Fringe have free will, or that the Observer apparently thinks that no one else has free will except Walter?


The only people with free will here are the writers.

They decide the "reality" of the show.

Characters have no free will. They are characters. FICTIONAL characters. As in NOT REAL.

The writers dictate the "reality".

It's a SHOW.

Oy


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

But... But... But...


----------



## danplaysbass (Jul 19, 2004)

I think just about everybody here has missed the point. While Walter saving Peter by crossing universes was bad, this whole episode came about because the Observer saved Walter and Peter from drowning in the lake.

Observers are not supposed to get involved so it was the Observers actions that saved Peter which set into motion the whole firefly. Go back to that conversation between Walter and the Observer.

I thought the episode was great and very well done. I also loved Doc Brown and the 1985 references. I also believe that the asthma girl is the same one from the firefly.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

why is John a troll, exactly?

he has an opinion and he is defending it...everyone else does not agree with him but it's not like he's calling people names...he just believes his opinion is correct...

he's wrong, of course, but he's not a troll


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

No, not a troll. Just incredibly stubborn and blindered...he keeps saying the same thing over and over again without really engaging contrary ideas. To the point where it's really ruined the thread and frustrated those of us who tried to get across another point of view.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

danplaysbass said:


> I think just about everybody here has missed the point. While Walter saving Peter by crossing universes was bad, this whole episode came about because the Observer saved Walter and Peter from drowning in the lake.
> 
> Observers are not supposed to get involved so it was the Observers actions that saved Peter which set into motion the whole firefly. Go back to that conversation between Walter and the Observer.
> 
> I thought the episode was great and very well done. I also loved Doc Brown and the 1985 references. I also believe that the asthma girl is the same one from the firefly.


But I think September *had* to save Peter because he's "important." If Walter had left Peter on the other side nature would have run its course.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Just because the Observer can see all possible futures doesn't mean that there are an infinite number of possible futures or that everyone could realistically make any decision at any time. 

I would liken it to the whole "monkeys writing shakespeare" concept, wherein if you give infinite monkeys infinite typewriters, one of them will supposedly write shakespeare. However, evidence indicates otherwise - monkeys eventually became enamored with specific letters (mostly, the letter S) and just ended up typing that letter over and over, urinating and defecating on the typewriter, and bashing it with other objects. 

Similarly, even though humans have the physical capacity to do a lot of things, our brains behave in a specific and somewhat predictable way. If we didn't behave in specific and predictable ways, then we would likely all be considered mentally unstable.

Keep in mind that this is the same show where we saw a guy (granted, in the other universe) calculate out exactly what everyone would do down to the most microscopic detail; he was only defeated because he didn't include one variable of which he was unaware in his calculations. If we assume that guy can put a pen on a mailbox and cause someone to die using basic logic, then it stands to reason that the range of possible human actions is probably much more limiting, and that the observer could reasonably isolate one variable (Peter & the firefly) and determine that it was the deciding factor.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Well done.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Just incredibly stubborn and blindered...he keeps saying the same thing over and over again without really engaging contrary ideas. To the point where it's really ruined the thread and frustrated those of us who tried to get across another point of view.


I believe I have responded to every person who has posted anything substantive about the issue of Walter's guilt and the meaning of what the Observer told Walter. I have explained my thinking on the matter, and asked questions to better understand what others are thinking. I did ignore the personal attacks, until now. If I have repeated some of the same things, it is because new posts questioned the same thing about what I wrote. I could have ignored them, but then I would have failed to engage them, wouldn't I? It seems, in your opinion, I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

So, is the only way for me to be not stubborn and not blindered to agree with you?

If so, you could try explaining your point of view, because the only thing I remember from you was a short post saying that Walter would be a monster if he did not feel guilty about the firefly events.

You could also explain why you disagree with the point that there are contradictory facts involved with the Observers -- on one hand, the people have free will. On the other, only Walter has free will since his indirect decision made him solely or primarily responsible for the car accident.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> Just because the Observer can see all possible futures doesn't mean that there are an infinite number of possible futures or that everyone could realistically make any decision at any time.


So you are saying that people in the Fringe universe only have free will sometimes?

The driver of the car could not have chosen differently, because he had no free will at that time?

How do we tell when the characters have free will and when they do not? Wait for the Observers to tell us?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

john4200 said:


> So, is the only way for me to be not stubborn and not blindered to agree with you?


I get the feeling this is a rhetorical question but I'm still going to go with "yes"  

but seriously, everyone having free will is possible and the observer's story can still hold...everyone chose what to do next but all was pushed towards their decision by the butterfly effect of bringing Peter to this world...

it is perfectly logical then for Walter to feel guilty about introducing Peter to this world and therefore causing this free will chain of events...even if the observer is lying, it is not relevant since Walter believes him and therefore his guilt is real from his own point of view (which is what we are "observing")...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Free will has nothing to do with this. We're not dealing with all the infinite possibilities that you keep talking about. We're dealing with the set of facts that the writers chose to very clearly outline for us:
1. The Oberserver can see multiple possible futures
2. The Observer laid out the sequence of events that led from Peter catching the firefly to Bobby getting hit by a car.
3. There has been no evidence given that the Observer has any reason to lie to Walter about that.
4. There has been no evidence given that the Observer might be mistaken about the possible futures he's seen.

Given that information, we as viewers are supposed to accept it as fact that Peter's catching of the firefly was the indirect cause of Bobby's death. TV shows don't have time to lay out the facts any more explicitly than that. If they did, they'd lose most of their viewers due to boredom or get mocked for including too much exposition.

In the real world, there's no way for anyone to attribute something so miniscule and so far removed as the cause of something like that. So it's understandable that you'd be skeptical about it. But the difference between the real world and the Fringe world is that in the Fringe world the Observer can see how the two different scenarios played out. In the one where Peter didn't catch the firefly, Bobby lived. In the one where Peter did catch the firefly, Bobby died. We don't need any more detailed explanation than that.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> So you are saying that people in the Fringe universe only have free will sometimes?
> 
> The driver of the car could not have chosen differently, because he had no free will at that time?
> 
> How do we tell when the characters have free will and when they do not? Wait for the Observers to tell us?


A) I'm explaining the difference between how humans act and the random choice model you are attempting to describe. Just because a monkey chose to hit S over and over again doesn't mean it didn't have a choice. It preferred S and therefore hit it a lot.

The driver could have chosen differently, but that doesn't mean the driver ever would have, and it's absurd to claim that the firefly chain of events is no more likely than the driver jumping out of his car, stripping naked, and then being voted in as president of the galaxy the next day.

B) The observer likely is the one with the "most" free will since he can see consequences, is the important point about this episode (IMO)


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Anubys said:


> but seriously, everyone having free will is possible and the observer's story can still hold...everyone chose what to do next but all was pushed towards their decision by the butterfly effect of bringing Peter to this world...


That does not sound like free will to me. To me, free will means you are free to make your decisions in any way you choose. Freely.

Either the driver could have chosen not to drive, or he did not have that choice. Either he had free will or he did not. Either he is primarily responsible for for the accident, or Walter is.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> 4. There has been no evidence given that the Observer might be mistaken about the possible futures he's seen.


I think there is evidence that the Observers make mistakes, and therefore evidence that he could be mistaken:

The Observer aided in rescuing Peter, which was apparently a mistake, according to the Observers. Or if Peter is important and must live, the Observer erred in not curing Peter before Walter got involved.

The Observer failed to stop the car accident in question. It would have been simple if he could actually see the futures and factors so clearly. He could even have simply brought another firefly to the girl. But he did not. Seems an obvious mistake.

The two Observers DISAGREED about whether Walter would make the choice they wanted. So one of the Observers was obviously wrong. If "free will has nothing to do with this", then how can one of the Observers be wrong about Walter?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> That does not sound like free will to me. To me, free will means you are free to make your decisions in any way you choose. Freely.
> 
> Either the driver could have chosen not to drive, or he did not have that choice. Either he had free will or he did not. Either he is primarily responsible for for the accident, or Walter is.


The Observer is viewing what actually happened. Apparently there wasn't a scenario where the driver chose not to drive. Did he have the free will to make that choice? Of course. But he apparently chose not to use it. 


john4200 said:


> I think there is evidence that the Observers make mistakes, and therefore evidence that he could be mistaken:
> 
> The Observer aided in rescuing Peter, which was apparently a mistake, according to the Observers. Or if Peter is important and must live, the Observer erred in not curing Peter before Walter got involved.
> 
> ...


You're confusing the role of the Observers. They are there to OBSERVE. They weren't supposed to stop the car accident. They weren't supposed to plant another firefly. They weren't supposed to stop Walter from abducting Peter. They are just supposed to OBSERVE.

The one time (that we know of) where the Observers got involved is when September saved Walter and Peter from drowning in the lake. After that, any further involvement on the part of September is him trying to correct that apparent mistake that he made. But we've never seen any evidence that September's visions of the various possible futures is flawed, or that he has any reason to want to mislead Walter.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> The two Observers DISAGREED about whether Walter would make the choice they wanted. So one of the Observers was obviously wrong. If "free will has nothing to do with this", then how can one of the Observers be wrong about Walter?


I am not sure if you are being pedantic here, but we are saying "free will has nothing to do with it" in reference to the concept you seem stuck on of infinite permutations of actions. We aren't saying that there is no free will, but rather that the question of whether one has free will or not is not relevant to the point being made.

As for your other points, it seems fairly apparent that the observers are not always in agreement on certain things. That doesn't mean that they are always mistaken or should be assumed to be mistaken on every particular point as you seem to believe.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

john4200 said:


> I think there is evidence that the Observers make mistakes, and therefore evidence that he could be mistaken:
> 
> The Observer aided in rescuing Peter, which was apparently a mistake, according to the Observers. Or if Peter is important and must live, the Observer erred in not curing Peter before Walter got involved.
> 
> ...


I agree, but as I said earlier I don't think what happened in 1985 regarding the firefly doesn't really matter to the observers. Only Walter cares because of the guilt he carries about what happened, then compounding it with setting off a chain of events that resulted in the death of his musical idol's son. I think it's idiotic to believe that Walter is at fault for the boy's death, but by bringing Peter over here he did a subtle change.

The observers were testing Walter's emotions, and whether they would get in the way of allowing some decision to be made in the near future.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> The driver could have chosen differently, but that doesn't mean the driver ever would have, and it's absurd to claim that the firefly chain of events is no more likely than the driver jumping out of his car, stripping naked, and then being voted in as president of the galaxy the next day.


If the driver could have chosen differently, then why is he not responsible for the death? He was driving the car, and he could have chosen to drive more slowly, or not drive at all, given the unsafe driving conditions.

Why say Walter is responsible, if the driver who actually hit and killed the boy could have chosen differently and not killed the boy?

I don't understand your point about the driver doing something strange. As far as I can tell, you are equating the driver choosing to drive more safely (or not drive), which seems a reasonable and prudent choice to me, with him doing something that makes no sense. That is where you lost me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> If the driver could have chosen differently, then why is he not responsible for the death? He was driving the car, and he could have chosen to drive more slowly, or not drive at all, given the unsafe driving conditions.
> 
> Why say Walter is responsible, if the driver who actually hit and killed the boy could have chosen differently and not killed the boy?
> 
> I don't understand your point about the driver doing something strange. As far as I can tell, you are equating the driver choosing to drive more safely (or not drive), which seems a reasonable and prudent choice to me, with him doing something that makes no sense. That is where you lost me.


Nobody is saying Walter is solely responsible for Bobby's death. Of course the driver was directly at fault. All the Observer said was that Peter catching the firefly led to a series of events that resulted in Bobby getting hit by the car, and the implication was that if Peter hadn't caught the firefly, Bobby wouldn't have been killed. There was no blame placed on Walter. It was simply a way to make him feel guilt over what happened so they could test whether he would be able to let Peter do something dangerous in the near future.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

robojerk said:


> The observers were testing Walter's emotions, and whether they would get in the way of allowing some decision to be made in the near future.


I agree, that seems like the best explanation, all told. The Observers are basically manipulators. Apparently they thought, for some inexplicable reason, that telling Walter the absurd story would be more likely to get him to do what they wanted, than would telling Walter that he was wrong to keep Peter and not return him to his world after curing him. Or rather, one of the Observers thought that. The other disagreed that Walter would do as they desired. But was proved wrong.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> If the driver could have chosen differently, then why is he not responsible for the death? He was driving the car, and he could have chosen to drive more slowly, or not drive at all, given the unsafe driving conditions.


I don't think the Observer said anything about whose fault it was. He talked about actions and consequences and described the consequences of Walter's actions.



> I don't understand your point about the driver doing something strange. As far as I can tell, you are equating the driver choosing to drive more safely (or not drive), which seems a reasonable and prudent choice to me, with him doing something that makes no sense. That is where you lost me.


Not looking for a missing daughter doesn't seem very prudent to me. And our examples are equivalent since they both involve assuming that an Observer who claims to see possible futures and the past is in error and that any number of possible actions could have prevented the chain of events. It doesn't matter what other people "might have" chosen if you have direct empirical evidence that they wouldn't have in any branch of time.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> Not looking for a missing daughter doesn't seem very prudent to me.


Who said anything about not looking? When the conditions are low visibility and slippery, you either drive more slowly (so that you can stop in time if a person is in front of your car), or don't drive and continue the search on foot.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Who said anything about not looking? When the conditions are low visibility and slippery, you either drive more slowly (so that you can stop in time if a person is in front of your car), or don't drive and continue the search on foot.


I will have to take your word for it since you are seemingly an expert on the proper way to look for your daughter who has gone missing during a storm.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

So....what did everyone think of this episode of Fringe?

I think for the first time, the writers made everything crystal clear and didn't leave anything open to interpretation. Very refreshing.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

scooterboy said:


> So....what did everyone think of this episode of Fringe?
> 
> I think for the first time, the writers made everything crystal clear and didn't leave anything open to interpretation. Very refreshing.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

steve614 said:


> My head hurts. All this multi-universe and "butterfly" effect stuff is complicated.
> 
> I can respect john4200's opinion on the different possibilities attributed to the concept of time travel, but for the purpose of this show, he seems to be arguing for arguings sake. Is that what it means to be "pedantic"?
> 
> This is a fictional show. We have to take what is presented to us as fact if we are to follow the story as it was meant to be told.


Oh Please, if your head hurts, you never seen Charlie Jade.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Oh Please, if your head hurts, you never seen Charlie Jade.


OW...just reading that gave me a headache....


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

scooterboy said:


> So....what did everyone think of this episode of Fringe?
> 
> I think for the first time, the writers made everything crystal clear and didn't leave anything open to interpretation. Very refreshing.


How do you even know you were watching an episode of Fringe? Because the main titles told you? Is that really reliable. For all you know this was an episode of HOUSE disguised as an episode of FRINGE. Is that really something you should take at face value?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> I will have to take your word for it since you are seemingly an expert on the proper way to look for your daughter who has gone missing during a storm.


No need to take my word for how to drive in wet, low-visibility conditions. Virtually every driver manual explains the basics. Here is the first hit that came up on my google search:

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter10-manual.htm#drv-rfs


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Stop the insanity!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

john4200 said:


> *If that is what the writers meant, then it is just terrible writing.* There is an obvious contradiction, as I pointed out. It cannot be true both that all the people in Fringe have free will, and no one but Walter has free will.


That's it.
It was just terrible writing.

Glad that's settled.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Wow.

Just....wow.


----------



## obixman (Sep 7, 2004)

However, evidence indicates otherwise - monkeys eventually became enamored with specific letters (mostly, the letter S) and just ended up typing that letter over and over, urinating and defecating on the typewriter, and bashing it with other objects. 



AH - you've hung out with novelists, I see.

(I used to run the green room for Science Fiction conventions....)


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

DouglasPHill said:


> Stop the insanity!!!!!!!!


:up:


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

obixman said:


> (I used to run the green room for Science Fiction conventions....)


Eric Stillwell... is that you?

Greg


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

john4200 said:


> No need to take my word for how to drive in wet, low-visibility conditions. Virtually every driver manual explains the basics. Here is the first hit that came up on my google search:
> 
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter10-manual.htm#drv-rfs


I drive in those conditions regularly. This is a losing argument you are trying to make here. The guy's daughter was missing and you are suggesting that he should have opted to travel on foot or some other non-car method. Complete idiocy. It also has nothing to do with the point you were making which has been soundly trounced both logically and in terms of practical writing.


----------



## obixman (Sep 7, 2004)

gchance said:


> Eric Stillwell... is that you?
> 
> Greg


Nope....


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> I thought it was pretty obvious it WAS her!
> 
> Walter has to choose between correcting what changed (saving the girl, and letting Peter die) vs what did happen in the past.
> So figured it was the same girl, she seemed about the right age and all


The girl who didn't catch the firefly was never in any need to be saved in the past. Walter was definitely led to believe it was her, but for the Observer's purposes, I think the asthma girl could have been anyone.



danplaysbass said:


> I think just about everybody here has missed the point. While Walter saving Peter by crossing universes was bad, this whole episode came about because the Observer saved Walter and Peter from drowning in the lake.
> 
> Observers are not supposed to get involved so it was the Observers actions that saved Peter which set into motion the whole firefly. Go back to that conversation between Walter and the Observer.


Exactly.

The "butterfly" that was stepped on wasn't Peter catching the firefly or even Peter bring brought into Blue World; it was September being seen by Walternate.

If September hadn't distracted Walternate, Walternate would have been able to cure Peter, and Walter would not have tried crossing over to save him. After September changed that course of events, he tried to fix it by saving Walter and Peter when they returned from the other side, but that led to other unforeseen consequences, including Peter catching a firefly that led to another person's death.

When September came to Walter, he didn't say, "You need to correct a mistake you made." He said, "I need your help." Before telling Walter the firefly story, he told Walter that he could foresee some things, but others he could not, including Peter catching the firefly. The point of telling Walter the story wasn't to blame Walter; it was just the opposite. September was telling Walter about a consequence of a mistake he (September) had made, and asking for Walter's help in correcting it.

Now, why did Walter feel guilty after hearing the story? Because if he had done the honorable thing, and had been willing to return Peter to Walternate after curing him, the firefly events would not have occurred. I don't think he saw himself as directly responsible for those specific events so much as he saw them as one more consequence of his selfishness.

Even though September started the chain of altered events, if Walter had been willing to give up Peter in the past, he could have helped to restore things. September was asking Walter to be willing to give up Peter this time in order to help him put events back on track.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> Walter was definitely led to believe it was her, but for the Observer's purposes, I think the asthma girl could have been anyone.


If September just needed any old girl, he wouldn't have bothered to save _this one_ from the robbery. She was definitely the Firefly.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> If September just needed any old girl, he wouldn't have bothered to save _this one_ from the robbery. She was definitely the Firefly.


But we don't know that September didn't just pick a random girl to save in an event that would be high profile enough to get noticed by Fringe Division. They didn't tell us anything about her that would indicate there was anything special. September wanted Walter to think there was something special so he would ask for her to be brought to him, thus setting up the scenario for Walter to choose between letting Peter go and saving her. But if we don't learn anything more about her in future episodes, I'm inclined to think she was just a random pawn in September's test.

And perhaps that's the main reason she was chosen. If Walter had chosen Peter over her, she would have died from an asthma attack. But since that's what would have happened without September's intervention, he wouldn't have felt responsible for her death being a result of being used as part of his test.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Does John have 2 accounts?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Does John have 2 accounts?


No. He has 4. 



spikedavis said:


> Im 100% certain the asthma girl had nothing to do with the story of Peter and Bobby.





DevdogAZ said:


> That's how I took it. September simply used her as a tool to test Walter.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Walter's makeshift inhaler wouldn't do squat for an asthma attack. Therefore she actually recovered on her own and Walter didn't save her. Makes as much sense as much of the spewage in this thread.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Is it over yet? Is it safe to come out?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I wonder if September feels guilty about saving Peter and Walter. If he didn't, then Peter would never have caught that firefly.

And as for September _lying to_ Peter, well, he certainly didn't tell him the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he let him think that Peter would die in order to test him. How do we know that this whole firefly thing was not just part of the test?

Not that it really matters in the least.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> Walter's makeshift inhaler wouldn't do squat for an asthma attack. Therefore she actually recovered on her own and Walter didn't save her. Makes as much sense as much of the spewage in this thread.


Taking it another direction I see. I'll bite...

So (), how do you know it wouldn't work? Have you ever tried using that technique?


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

steve614 said:


> Taking it another direction I see. I'll bite...
> 
> So (), how do you know it wouldn't work? Have you ever tried using that technique?


From Politedissent.com: http://www.politedissent.com/archives/6714



> 3. If I Ever Have an Asthma Attack, Dont Let Walter Near Me
> Walters little contraption using the 20 oz soda bottle isnt going to work. First, theres not enough volume in that to significantly expand the lungs. More importantly, there is the matter of air resistance. There is a great deal more inherent resistance in the human airway than you might expect. To inflate the lungs, especially in situations like an asthma attack, a tremendous amount of air pressure is needed and the 20 oz soda bottle cant pull it off. Additionally, the human mouth and throat offer tremendous air resistance of their own; simply placing the mouth of the bottle in her mouth isnt going to overcome that. When emergency ventilation is needed, an endotracheal tube is used because it bypasses the innate air resistance of the mouth/throat/upper airways. Again, this is even more important in asthmatics who would have constricted airways and higher resistance.


The author of the Polite Dissent blog is a doctor.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

I see this is turning into another lost thread.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm subscribed to it so that I cannot lose it.


----------



## mmilton80 (Jul 28, 2005)

Craigbob said:


> The author of the Polite Dissent blog is a doctor.


What kind of doctor? Board certified? Which board? Does he deal with asthma patients or only feet? Is he a witch doctor? I am not sure what to believe.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

mmilton80 said:


> What kind of doctor? Board certified? Which board? Does he deal with asthma patients or only feet? Is he a witch doctor? I am not sure what to believe.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I'm a doctor.

And if you would come to me for medical advice, I have some AMAZING investment opportunities I'd like to share with you!


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I'll see if I can get an answer from my wife, who has the initials FACAAI and FAAAAI after her name.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> I'll see if I can get an answer from my wife, who has the initials FACAAI and FAAAAI after her name.


Yes, but how can WE be sure she's your wife...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Maybe she's his wife in the other universe, but here he's just her stalker?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> The guy's daughter was missing and you are suggesting that he should have opted to travel on foot or some other non-car method.


No, you are not reading carefully. I did not suggest that he must not drive a car.


----------



## JasonLP (Jul 3, 2003)

Wow, six pages of comments and no one has mentioned yet if they've spotted the Observer in this episode.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

JasonLP said:


> Wow, six pages of comments and no one has mentioned yet if they've spotted the Observer in this episode.


Are you joking they were the episode. All 3 where in there.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JasonLP said:


> Wow, six pages of comments and no one has mentioned yet if they've spotted the Observer in this episode.


He was in this episode? Where? I missed him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> He was in this episode? Where? I missed him.


I think I saw him, but I can't remember where...


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think I saw him, but I can't remember where...


Just because he's bald and wears a suit, you take it at face value that he's an "Observer"?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)




----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

We watched this episode last night, and I was so excited that it attracted so many posts. Then I read the thread, well most of it.



I enjoyed the episode, even though I didn't do a forensic examination of every nuance.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Just tried the bottle move. Didn't work.

Anyway, even aside from the physics/thermodynamics of it, if you could force air into the lungs, that won't cure an asthma attack; it would at best prevent the attack from killing you by making sure air gets into your lungs, but won't address the underlying condition (bronchospasms, excessive mucus, etc). He would have had to keep doing it until she recovered on her own or real medications could be administered.

Therefore Walter has no free will.

QED


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I could be wrong (and I'm sure that if I am the kind folk of this thread will tell me), but I had the impression that the bottle was one component of a Macguyver-like lifesaving device Walter was creating. I just took it at face value that the other unseen components are what would have made the difference.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mr. Soze said:


> I didn't do a forensic examination of every nuance.


WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?!?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

danterner said:


> I could be wrong (and I'm sure that if I am the kind folk of this thread will tell me), but I had the impression that the bottle was one component of a Macguyver-like lifesaving device Walter was creating. I just took it at face value that the other unseen components are what would have made the difference.


Everyone knows that the only legitimate MacGuyver move in this scenario is a ballpoint pen tracheotomy.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?!?


Sig material! Woo hoo!


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> I'll see if I can get an answer from my wife, who has the initials FACAAI and FAAAAI after her name.


I didn't show the scene to my wife, but when I described it, she rolled her eyes and shook her head.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Mr. Soze said:


> Sig material! Woo hoo!


I find Rob to be an excellent source for sig fodder



JETarpon said:


> I didn't show the scene to my wife, but when I described it, she rolled her eyes and shook her head.


maybe she rolled her eyes and shook her head at you out of habit?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> I find Rob to be an excellent source for sig fodder


I've always disliked vanity .sigs, but...


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Anubys said:


> I find Rob to be an excellent source for sig fodder
> 
> maybe she rolled her eyes and shook her head at you out of habit?





Rob Helmerichs said:


> I've always disliked vanity .sigs, but...


Hey Anubys, can you come up with one for me? My old one's getting, well, old.

Greg


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

gchance said:


> Hey Anubys, can you come up with one for me? My old one's getting, well, old.
> 
> Greg


genius does not create on command, I'm afraid...


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Anyway, even aside from the physics/thermodynamics of it, if you could force air into the lungs, that won't cure an asthma attack; it would at best prevent the attack from killing you by making sure air gets into your lungs, but won't address the underlying condition (bronchospasms, excessive mucus, etc). He would have had to keep doing it until she recovered on her own or real medications could be administered.


Isn't that essentially what Walter was trying to do, though? Keep getting air into her lungs so that she could survive until help arrived? We did, after all, see her getting attended to by paramedics at the end of the ep, so it's not like they made it seem like Walter had stopped the asthma attack dead in its tracks...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Isn't that essentially what Walter was trying to do, though? Keep getting air into her lungs so that she could survive until help arrived? We did, after all, see her getting attended to by paramedics at the end of the ep, so it's not like they made it seem like Walter had stopped the asthma attack dead in its tracks...


You could be right. I thought that she was fine and breathing with no issues before they arrived, but I could be mistaken. In which case, it's merely the general science of the thing that was suspect.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Perhaps she was faking it because she's part of a faction working against the Observers. They're called The Observer Watchers and they monitor Observer activity and subvert their goals.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I can't wait for tonight's episode to air so this thread will hopefully go away.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

It would be a while before this thread dies.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

...unless a mod puts it out of its misery....


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I'm sure we'll find _something_ to nit-pick in the next thread.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

steve614 said:


> I'm sure we'll find _something_ to nit-pick in the next thread.


Really? Two weeks in a row?

What are the odds?



(And now...off to watch!)


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? Two weeks in a row?
> 
> What are the odds?


I don't know. Will john4200 be participating?


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? Two weeks in a row?
> 
> What are the odds?
> 
> ...


3,720 to 1


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

robojerk said:


> I can't wait for tonight's episode to air so this thread will hopefully go away.


This thread is caught in a groundhog loop.

Click here >> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=463265


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Perhaps she was faking it because she's part of a faction working against the Observers. They're called The Observer Watchers and they monitor Observer activity and subvert their goals.


Who watches them?


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Who watches them?


The Watchmen.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

JETarpon said:


> I didn't show the scene to my wife, but when I described it, she rolled her eyes and shook her head.


What was her reaction to the re-animation of the severed, frozen head?


----------

