# Human Target 1/20/10 "Rewind"



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

So we go from outrageous happenings on a train to even more ridiculous happenings on a jetliner. Here are a few things we learned in this episode (these are from memory, I'm sure I'm missing a lot of other WTFs):


Breaking every password and any encryption on the internet is possible and the ability to do so can be stored on a USB device. :down::down::down:
Doing a barrel roll will crash a flight computer.
A failed flight computer will disable all controls of the plane. There are no redundancies in computers/software or any manual controls.
A passenger jetliner can fly indefinitely in an inverted fashion, even with no controls.
More air will put out fires just like blowing on a birthday candle. 
Air can flow from the landing gear to a place in the back of the plane where the fire is.
The pilot can open some sort of vents at altitude that let in air which will somehow increase cabin pressure instead of lessening it.
Pilot oxygen systems in the cockpit are easily overcome by smoke from the back of the plane that hasn't even yet entered the passenger cabin. 
The software which runs a specific airliner can be found in ten seconds on a corporate intranet by a hacker. (Thank God for the "skeleton key!" And thanks even more to Chi McBride's character for reminding us of it at that important point!)
The software which runs this airliner can execute on a x86 laptop and interface with the airplane components through an ethernet connection that is on the ceiling of the landing gear compartment. 
Hackers know everything about airliner avionics. 
There are fuses/circuits exposed in the passenger cabin that can easily be messed with.
The airliner had some sort of cellular repeater or lucky coverage from terrestrial origins.
It's trivially easy to impersonate a flight attendant.
Impersonating a flight attendant draws less attention than two insurance agents on a plane. 
Airliner WiFi works while the plane is inverted (most plausible idea out of everything, I guess)
Russian data miner guys fold after a good speech. 
Christopher Chance becomes a weakling when it comes to pulling up tiny women who are close to falling to their death. 

Now I can go through outrageous shows like "24" and roll my eyes at things that push my suspension of disbelief, but this show doesn't even try to have anything make sense. I think many grade-schoolers have a better grasp of technical reality than the writing staff of "Human Target."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

This is reminding me more and more of those goofy 70s/80s shows (A-Team, etc.) with a thin modern veneer.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

You forgot "A flight itinerary is not canceled even if you don't board at the city of origin. All you need to board at the middle stop is a faked boarding pass."

ETA: Ooh, and "Airplane ceilings are built strong. In fact, they specifically plan for them to be strong enough to support the weight of several decent sized men walking around on it."


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

I'm watching this now and I'm nearly gagging. Too bad, the premise of the show was interesting but the writing is just god awful.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Glad I read this before investing time in watching the pilot and this episode.

Frank


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> ETA: Ooh, and "Airplane ceilings are built strong. In fact, they specifically plan for them to be strong enough to support the weight of several decent sized men walking around on it."


 Hehe I was thinking that too!!!

I did think the plane should have crashed on the Lost island...


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

I heartily concur. At least the train one wasn't "too" ridiculous. But the plane one was just idiotic. You might as well just write "and then he sprinkled magic fairy dust and they all flew off to Never Never Land...". yeesh.

I'm almost tempted to watch another episode just to see if they can really maintain that level of badness.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Additionally: I generally hate _in media res_ stories. I hate even more... whatever this was. If they're going to skip around in the story, all they're going to do is confuse and annoy the viewers, especially since this series doesn't appear to be targeting the particularly deep thinkers among us.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> This is reminding me more and more of those goofy 70s/80s shows (A-Team, etc.) with a thin modern veneer.


Yup, I agree. This show is like a corny 70's action show. You can't approach with _any_ degree of expectation of realism. It is almost like a live-action spy comic book. If you try to take it any other way, you are in for disappointment. If you are able to accept it for what it is, the show is fun.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Additionally: I generally hate _in media res_ stories. I hate even more... whatever this was. If they're going to skip around in the story, all they're going to do is confuse and annoy the viewers, especially since this series doesn't appear to be targeting the particularly deep thinkers among us.


Well, to defend the show (and I can't believe you put me in that position! ), it wasn't the least bit confusing, and it did make possible the revelation of Big Bad II in different time-lines.

(It took me a while to recognize her as John Lithgow's daughter and Superman's wife...)


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

justen_m said:


> It is almost like a live-action spy comic book.


Well...


Wikipedia said:


> The Human Target (Christopher Chance) is an American comic book character created by Len Wein and Carmine Infantino: a unique combination of private detective and bodyguard who operates by impersonating his clients in order to eliminate threats to their safety.


Though I guess they kind of stray from the "impersonating his clients." He probably wouldn't make a convincing Tricia Helfer...


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

ElJay said:


> So we go from outrageous happenings on a train to even more ridiculous happenings on a jetliner. Here are a few things we learned in this episode (these are from memory, I'm sure I'm missing a lot of other WTFs):
> 
> 
> Doing a barrel roll will crash a flight computer.


Doing a 1G manuver throws everone hard against the side of the plane.

It's called a 1G manuver because, if done correctly, you can't feel the plane perform it; you feel a constant 1G vector towards the floor despite/because of the plane's motion. Unless you look at the intruments or the horizon you shouldn't really be able to tell a plane is doing a barrel roll.

Anyway, I think this was noticably worse than last week's, and I think I'm done with it.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

The technical stuff is (apologies) like watching a train wreck. 

I do like the interplay between the characters. It's a pity they can't fake the tech stuff better.

Jan


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

murgatroyd said:


> The technical stuff is (apologies) like watching a train wreck.


I think you're posting in the wrong episode thread...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, to defend the show (and I can't believe you put me in that position! ), it wasn't the least bit confusing, and it did make possible the revelation of Big Bad II in different time-lines.


Well, I was a bit confused the first time it happened... I thought something had screwed up either at the network and they skipped broadcasting a part of the show, or my TiVo screwed up and it skipped to a later point in the show buffer.

Once they jumped back to the beginning the second time, I figured out what was going on... then I wasnt so much confused as just plain annoyed.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

Jonathan_S said:


> Doing a 1G manuver throws everone hard against the side of the plane.
> 
> It's called a 1G manuver because, if done correctly, you can't feel the plane perform it; you feel a constant 1G vector towards the floor despite/because of the plane's motion. Unless you look at the intruments or the horizon you shouldn't really be able to tell a plane is doing a barrel roll.
> 
> Anyway, I think this was noticably worse than last week's, and I think I'm done with it.


Yeah! I forgot about that one. (Maybe I blocked it out) I was like yelling at the TV, "It's a 1G maneuver! Why does everyone have to lean to one side!" It's one thing to just invent tech like laptops that can simulate an avionics computer but when you simply mangle all the terms of general aviation, it's just annoying. why not just say "we will perform the fizzbang jump or the snorkwaller reverse?"

I can willing suspend my disbelief a long ways but when you start using real world terms and can't even be bothered to use them even remotely correctly, it just pushes me out of the story completely.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Additionally: I generally hate _in media res_ stories. I hate even more... whatever this was. If they're going to skip around in the story, all they're going to do is confuse and annoy the viewers, especially since this series doesn't appear to be targeting the particularly deep thinkers among us.


My wife complained about this too. I told her to blame the Greeks.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Nice coverage, OP. How about "It's much easier to kill someone and get away with it if you're not confined in a plane (or train) with them."

Especially last week with the wife on the train. What was the rush? Wait a few days and do something low profile.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> This is reminding me more and more of those goofy 70s/80s shows (A-Team, etc.) with a thin modern veneer.


I like this show so far and I can't put my finger on why, but this is probably it.

ANNND judging by the posts here this show should be on for awhile.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

Did anyone else look at the guest star list that the Tribune provided for this episode? Amy Acker, Summer Glau and Alan Tudyk? I was psyched for this one, a couple of my wish lists were triggered and then .... nothing. No Amy Acker, no Summer Glau, not even an Alan Tudyk. Obviously someone was pulling my leg (at least). I even looked at the extras.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Amy Acker, Summer Glau and Alan Tudyk?


Sounds like an episode of


Spoiler



_Dollhouse_


from a few weeks ago.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> I think you're posting in the wrong episode thread...


The wink smiley was there for a reason. 

Jan


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

I agree the plot lines are completely ridiculous...but we're enjoying it for the absolute craziness of it all.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

And of course a minor issue. International flights do not require a co-pilot.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

ADG said:


> And of course a minor issue. International flights do not require a co-pilot.


Given the other 148 ridiculous things that happened, you focus on this?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

I don't remember Felicia Day being on that show. She was also listed as a guest on "Rewind."


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

We stopped watching midway through the pilot. Dunno why, but one thing that bothered me was the lower level of the two-level train having an arched ceiling as if it was the upper level...


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

OK. Yes I enjoyed the train episode. It was fun to sit back and watch. And I liked Haley's character.

But as soon as they got through saying there's a hole in the entire Internet...I groaned and stopped watching. I haven't deleted yet but I lost all interest.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Two episodes is too few to complain about a pattern, but if episode 3 includes:

"Out-of-control vehicle has X minutes before it enters Y and is destroyed"

then I think it'll be SP-Delete for me.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Queue said:


> But as soon as they got through saying there's a hole in the entire Internet...I groaned and stopped watching. I haven't deleted yet but I lost all interest.


It was a flaw in the architecture of the internet! Totally different!


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

eddyj said:


> It was a flaw in the architecture of the internet! Totally different!


Like the recent attacks on Google because of a flaw in Microsofts IE browser? That could never happen. 

But yeah, the idea of a skeleton key for everything everywhere had me groaning a bit too. It wouldn't have taken more than a second to come up with something a bit more believable. Like finding a back door to financial software that is used by tons of Fortune 500 companies, or something.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Jonathan_S said:


> Doing a 1G manuver throws everone hard against the side of the plane.
> 
> It's called a 1G manuver because, if done correctly, you can't feel the plane perform it; you feel a constant 1G vector towards the floor despite/because of the plane's motion. Unless you look at the intruments or the horizon you shouldn't really be able to tell a plane is doing a barrel roll.
> 
> Anyway, I think this was noticably worse than last week's, and I think I'm done with it.


A barrel roll would have been a 1 g maneuver but they did an aileron roll instead which is certainly not a 1 g maneuver.

Bob Hoover Barrel Roll


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> A barrel roll would have been a 1 g maneuver but they did an aileron roll instead which is certainly not a 1 g maneuver.
> 
> Bob Hoover Barrel Roll


Sure it is! They remained at 1G the whole time the roll happned, right?


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

danterner said:


> Two episodes is too few to complain about a pattern, but if episode 3 includes:
> 
> "Out-of-control vehicle has X minutes before it enters Y and is destroyed"
> 
> then I think it'll be SP-Delete for me.


I was thinking if they are on a boat next week I am done.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

It's funny, I can at times be picky, but I'm willing to completely suspend belief for this show.

I really enjoy it and just put the brain into standby for 42 minutes, the leads are fun to watch and in only 2 episodes I already see chemistry. Sure the science was dreadful, but like the BBT laugh track, it never bothered me.

SP kept 
Diane


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> It's funny, I can at times be picky, but I'm willing to completely suspend belief for this show.
> 
> I really enjoy it and just put the brain into standby for 42 minutes, the leads are fun to watch and in only 2 episodes I already see chemistry. Sure the science was dreadful, but like the BBT laugh track, it never bothered me.
> 
> SP kept


Yeah, it's total brain-on-standby mind candy. But fun.

(And speaking of BBT, watching this show with Sheldon would totally suck ...)

Jan


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

Dude, I am not sure if anyone mentioned yet but what about the awesome 80's type background music during the fight/action scenes, reminds me of old school A-Team and Macguyver.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

LoadStar said:


> Additionally: I generally hate _in media res_ stories. I hate even more... whatever this was. If they're going to skip around in the story, all they're going to do is confuse and annoy the viewers, especially since this series doesn't appear to be targeting the particularly deep thinkers among us.


+1

It seems to me that mixing up the scene order on TV shows has become trendy in the last year or so. I'm not sure why the writers and/or producers think this sort of jumping around is a good thing. Just tell the story in order, sheesh!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Just like the train episode, I was willing to suspend disbelief for a lot of smaller things, but the big thing that got me was that to get the hatch nearer to the higher winds, they decided to roll the plane. Hello? Why not just throttle up and climb 1000 feet or whatever?

Or better yet, go into a power dive to increase the airspeed.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> I was thinking if they are on a boat next week I am done.


Oh my. That would almost be funny.

I loved the ending when they were in the car and said something about if he was okay to fly home. Then driving was suggested and then Chance said something about taking the train.

All I could think of was the bullet train.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

type_g said:


> Dude, I am not sure if anyone mentioned yet but what about the awesome 80's type background music during the fight/action scenes, reminds me of old school A-Team and *Macgruber*.


FYP


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I liked it, except for the time-jumping. It rates an F- for any sort of realism, but it was fun, and unlike many shows, each show stands alone. I don't have to see each and every episode to understand what's going on.


----------



## unixadm (Jan 1, 2001)

I left my logical thinking cap off for the pilot.....somewhat enjoyed it...but the second episode....too far fetched to even watch.....I got about 10 minutes in, and deleted.

I will leave the SP for now and give it one more chance.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I think people are being overly critical of a show that's essentially meant to be a live-action comic book.

The bad stewardess was cute. She kinda looked like Olivia Munn.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

ElJay said:


> Russian data miner guys fold after a good speech.


I think you missed the subtext in that speech. 

Rorshach wasn't appealing to the Russian's better angels, he was calmly letting him know that he was onto his con and that he would be dead if he didn't cooperate.

Apparently, Rorshach is a major bad-ass that you do _not_ want to cross, and the Russian just needed reminding of that.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Just like the train episode, I was willing to suspend disbelief for a lot of smaller things, but the big thing that got me was that to get the hatch nearer to the higher winds, they decided to roll the plane. Hello? Why not just throttle up and climb 1000 feet or whatever?
> 
> Or better yet, go into a power dive to increase the airspeed.


I was coming here to post this. Why turn upside down to get the cooler air from above? Why not just climb?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I was coming here to post this. Why turn upside down to get the cooler air from above? Why not just climb?


I don't think it was a matter of cooler air being higher up, I think they were saying that the air flowing over the top of the plane was at a higher pressure than the air flowing over the bottom of the plane, not as a result of the incremental difference in altitude, but as a result of the general nature of the differences in airflow over the top and bottom of the body of an aircraft.

Of course, the problem with that is, if I remember my high school physics correctly, that's the exact opposite of what happens in reality.  A plane achieves lift by creating a higher pressure airflow _below_ the wing, relative to the airflow above the wing.

Then again, this is a concept that I haven't thought about in about 20 years, so I might have it wrong.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> Apparently, Rorshach is a major bad-ass that you do _not_ want to cross, and the Russian just needed reminding of that.


And at this point, Haley is the only thing I really like about HT. It's as if he walked in from another, much better show...he exudes a sense of palpable menace that makes the rest of the show look silly (OK, it looks silly already, but even if it didn't it would in comparison to him).

Another problem I have with it is that the latest comic book series was just SO good, and the show doesn't even acknowledge the existence of any of the comics. This is one of those cases where the premise is so far removed from the source material, it makes me wonder why they even paid DC for the rights. Had they called it "Bodyguard" and changed the character's name, I doubt it would have occurred to even the people around here who think The Mentalist is a rip-off of Psych that there is a connection. Because even though Mentalist bears only the very slightest thematic resemblance to Psych, it really _is _a direct rip-off compared to the resemblance between Human Target the show and Human Target the comic book.

I'll give it one more shot, but my Now Playing list is getting crowded again, and it will really have to show marked improvement to keep me much past the next commercial break. Even _with _Jackie Earl Haley.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

john4200 said:


> Just like the train episode, I was willing to suspend disbelief for a lot of smaller things, but the big thing that got me was that to get the hatch nearer to the higher winds, they decided to roll the plane. Hello? Why not just throttle up and climb 1000 feet or whatever?
> 
> Or better yet, go into a power dive to increase the airspeed.


What he needed to do was to simply increase the angle of attack, but that would have been WAY too quick.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I enjoy this roughly as much as House and 24. I also find it no less plausible than what happens on those shows, though at least in the case of House "most people" wouldn't be able to tell that it's completely absurd. This show delivers what it promised from the previews... cheeky action with no semblance of being realistic. It's like a dumbed down Burn Notice. Wow... who knew that was even possible?

I would certainly rather watch this than, say, Chuck, which is not only equally implausible on a regular basis, but actually has potential that it repeatedly ignores in order to show us completely brainless, poorly-written, and trivial plots concerning a "love story" that was inane before it even began.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Also, not that the "logic" on this show is really worth defending, but I am pretty sure they explicitly mentioned that they couldn't climb any higher due to [some made-up technobabble].


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Church AV Guy said:


> What he needed to do was to simply increase the angle of attack, but that would have been WAY too quick.


If the goal was to get more air flowing into the bottom hatch, then I agree that increasing the AOA would have done it. Inversion accomplishes the opposite. The entire premise of the fire and the solution was just ridiculous. I guess the writers just wanted to get an airliner inverted, and the hell with any half-way reasonable explanation.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> Of course, the problem with that is, if I remember my high school physics correctly, that's the exact opposite of what happens in reality.  A plane achieves lift by creating a higher pressure airflow _below_ the wing, relative to the airflow above the wing.


While you are correct that the Bernoulli effect (with an airfoil curved on top) is sometimes trotted out as the explanation for aircraft lift, it is actually a poor explanation. For example, how can a plane fly upside down if the lift is entirely due to an airfoil curved on top and flat on the bottom?

Although the Bernoulli effect can contribute to lift (with a round/flat airfoil properly oriented), the dominant effect in producing lift is actually simple air deflection -- the wing (and rest of the plane) deflects air downwards. Same as if you stick your flattened hand out of the car window while traveling at high speed -- if you angle your hand one way the air flow pushes it up, but if you angle it the other way, the air flow pushes it down.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

justen_m said:


> Yup, I agree. This show is like a corny 70's action show. You can't approach with _any_ degree of expectation of realism. It is almost like a live-action spy comic book. If you try to take it any other way, you are in for disappointment. If you are able to accept it for what it is, the show is fun.


This. I liked this episode a LOT better than the first one. I'm not the type that nitpicks every unrealistic thing that happens, so that whole list of things the OP said, I just didn't care. It's an action, adventure story, plain and simple. I'll give it a few more episodes to see if there is any consistancy to the stories or if they are going to be hit or miss like the first 2.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

justen_m said:


> Like the recent attacks on Google because of a flaw in Microsofts IE browser? That could never happen.
> 
> But yeah, the idea of a skeleton key for everything everywhere had me groaning a bit too. It wouldn't have taken more than a second to come up with something a bit more believable. Like finding a back door to financial software that is used by tons of Fortune 500 companies, or something.


It's based on a comic book!! This isn't supposed to be real. There's no such thing as a man shooting webs out of his hands or a man flying wearing a red cape. Think of this as an action comic rather than nitpicking at it's realism. If you don't like the cheesy graphics, or the stories, fine, I get it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Nitpicking?!?

Good grief...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought Jack Bauer fixed that bug in the internet last year or maybe the year before, I forget.

Now that I know I have to, I don't have that big a problem suspending belief with this show. It's like a live action comic book. Just about every show I watch has absurdies in every episode. This one just super sizes them.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm sorry to learn it's now nitpicking to expect writers of a show to put some sort of effort into making realistic plot devices. Jetliners flying upside down without controls, smoke in pilot oxygen systems, internet magic that hacks everything... These items don't make sense in any way. If "Fringe" can make me accept the idea of a separate universe in that show's world then this show should be able to create better ways to put its person of the week in danger.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, there's a difference between nits and giant spiders from Mars. Sometimes, picking just won't do.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I'd be the first person to say that if the show could withstand criticism by Sheldon (on BBT), it would be a better show. 

However, the question remains: are the huge howlers enough to make me give up watching Mark Valley, Chi McBride, and Jackie Earle Haley? 

So far the answer is "no" -- the funny bits and the eye candy are enough to make me hold my nose and look the other way about the inane techno-babble parts.

For others, obviously, the tipping point is going to be at a different place. 

For me, I can either 

1) watch Human Target and see Mark Valley and Chi McBride do new things or 

2) pull out my DVD sets of Pushing Daisies and Keen Eddie, and watch stuff I've already seen.

For now, I'm picking option 1. YMMV

Jan


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

Hi. I'm Eddie. How do you like me so far?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> However, the question remains: are the huge howlers enough to make me give up watching Mark Valley, Chi McBride, and Jackie Earle Haley?
> 
> So far the answer is "no" -- the funny bits and the eye candy are enough to make me hold my nose and look the other way about the inane techno-babble parts.
> 
> For others, obviously, the tipping point is going to be at a different place.


Apparently so. I don't know how anyone can have problems with this show due to its lack of realism but still find Chuck, 24, House, CSI, Flash Forward, Bones etc. acceptable. Maybe people just don't think the characters justify watching. I can at least understand that point. Bailing because the plot is implausible while still enjoying those shows seems a bit questionable to me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

ElJay said:


> I'm sorry to learn it's now nitpicking to expect writers of a show to put some sort of effort into making realistic plot devices. Jetliners flying upside down without controls, smoke in pilot oxygen systems, internet magic that hacks everything... These items don't make sense in any way. If "Fringe" can make me accept the idea of a separate universe in that show's world then this show should be able to create better ways to put its person of the week in danger.


Because it's a comic book and you are SUPPOSED to suspend beliefs. If it's poorly written, I get it, but if it's just because a bunch of things that happened are unrealistic? This isn't a documentary, the idea is to suspend belief. None of what was originally posted even OCCURED to me. Probably the average viewer, unless they were aware of the 8th grade physics they've forgotten for years would it even matter. It's mindless escapism like any other show. Like someone said, 3/4 of what happens on 24 couldn't ever happen for real but it's not a reason to NOT watch the show.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> I don't know how anyone can have problems with this show due to its lack of realism but still find Chuck, 24, House, CSI, Flash Forward, Bones


It is not black and white -- there are shades of grey when it comes to implausibility.

On your list, I don't watch 24 or CSI. Of the others: Chuck (unlike, say, Burn Notice) is mostly a comedy, so I look at the plot as just a big joke. The only Chuck implausibilities that would really bother me would be if a character does something highly out of character. Most House implausibilities are simply exaggeration of something otherwise plausible, and that does not usually bother me. Ditto for Bones. Flash Forward, on the other hand, is full of ridiculous implausibilities that really bother me. And Human Target is much worse than Flash Forward.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Jon J said:


> Hi. I'm Eddie. How do you like me so far?


I thought they gave a nod to _Keen Eddie_ when Chance tells Winston "let's pull a crazy Eddie." Wouldn't a "crazy" move be called a "Crazy Ivan?"


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Chuck/24/Alias/whatever work for me because they don't pile a new implausible thing onto the story every thirty seconds. Sure, "24" is ridiculous most of the time, but I think "Human Target" has condensed an entire season of "24" WTFs into two episodes. "House" has built up its characters so well that I give it a license to do stupid things. This show goes out of the gate with monstrous crazy writing. If you want to look at it as a comic book, great, but I think the writers are being incredibly lazy.

"FlashForward" also had crap writing and I shut it off because the characters were idiots and the story was moving at a glacial pace.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I thought they gave a nod to _Keen Eddie_ when Chance tells Winston "let's pull a crazy Eddie." Wouldn't a "crazy" move be called a "Crazy Ivan?"


We don't use "Crazy Ivan" anymore, because it is offensive to Russians.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

I don't know about this one. I'm still on the fence. Although I don't see Chi Mcbride as Winston, but as Emerson. I Guess Pushing Dasies is still to recent a memory for me to see him as any other character. It doesn't help that the characters are very similar in tone and mood.

I'll keep it for now, but it may just disappear without notice from my DVR.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I thought they gave a nod to _Keen Eddie_ when Chance tells Winston "let's pull a crazy Eddie." Wouldn't a "crazy" move be called a "Crazy Ivan?"


I misheard Eddie as eight.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> We don't use "Crazy Ivan" anymore, because it is offensive to Russians.


Well, Crazy Eddie is offensive to me. Although Crazy Eddy would be worse!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Well, Crazy Eddie is offensive to me. Although Crazy Eddy would be worse!


But it would have to be "Loco Eddy", no?


----------



## SorenTodd (May 26, 2009)

Well, the plane ep was better than the train, but not by much. I don't have high hopes for tonight.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Will the 3rd episode involve automobiles?


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Which crazy Eddie are we talking about?


----------



## G8rMan (May 26, 2005)




----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'd say the vast majority of hour long dramas I watch are incredibly implausible.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

G8rMan said:


>


That's the right one.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Well despite it's lack of realism, I find the high action show to be entertaining, and I now have an SP for it. I've watched the first 3 eps so far, and have enjoyed all 3.


----------

