# Revolution - The Dark Tower 6/3/2013



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

Why would Randall shoot himself in the head after all that?

Bet the nukes don't go off - malfunction or some miraculous shutdown.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

even though he sees himself as a patriot he probably realizes others will see him as one of the greatest war criminals in history 
he knows they will eventually break through the glass and he will be executed, maybe slowly
so better to die quickly

as for the nukes, 
is it possible for them to turn the bugs back on and sap the electricity from them so they lose their guidance and detonation systems ?
nukes won't blow up just by falling from high altitude, they need to be triggered


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RickStrobel said:


> Why would Randall shoot himself in the head after all that?


I guess he figured mission accomplished, and he didn't want to starve to death in the control room, since he was never getting past the very angry people with super-guns on the other side of the door.

I noticed they didn't show the Prez...to be cast at a later date, I guess?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> Why would Randall shoot himself in the head after all that?
> 
> Bet the nukes don't go off - malfunction or some miraculous shutdown.


Like Randall said, he was a patriot and he basically had no chance of getting out of there without being captured and probably tortured for info.

As for the nukes, my bet is they shut the power off again. That's the only thing they can do from outside. They could turn the power off and then after the nukes crash, turn it back on. Somehow I doubt that's what the writers will come up with though.

Interesting though that the U.S. rebellion wasn't just rebels, but the actual old Government.

Wasn't Randall originally in the tower when the power went off though?

Finally we still don't know who set it up so that the power would go out using that back door code that Aaron talked about.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

RickStrobel said:


> Why would Randall shoot himself in the head after all that?.


Same reason he shot the launch button (*). If he's dead, he can't be convinced/forced to abort the detonation. There's no stopping him now..

And yah, they're going to turn the power back off to stop the detonation. Then then the control room will mysteriously fritz out, and they'll spend the rest of the second season searching across the continent for the emergency backup control room which they'll find at the end of the season. 

* (On second thought, that was maybe an abort button? That would make more sense... kinda...)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

morac said:


> As for the nukes, my bet is they shut the power off again. That's the only thing they can do from outside. They could turn the power off and then after the nukes crash, turn it back on. Somehow I doubt that's what the writers will come up with though.


More likely, they'll leave it off because we've proven that we're too violent and mean and nasty to be trusted with power, because when we get the power back on, within seconds we send off nukes.

There's also the side effects that we saw in the desert outside...if the weather continues to go nuts, they might HAVE to turn it off/leave it off to prevent it from getting worse.

In fact, that might be the route they (the writers) go...let the nukes hit, take out Phillie and Atlanta, set up a whole new group of players, and then have to turn the power off again to save the world from the side effects when they get out of hand.

The cool thing is, it's pretty wide-open right now, and with a new set of very good, high-profile writers coming in, they can pretty much establish any kind of status quo they want at the beginning of Season 2. I doubt THEY know what they're going to do; I'd bet money they didn't know when they wrote this finalé, or rather, that whatever they had in mind is now irrelevant. It's a new era coming.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

high profile writers coming in?


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

SnakeEyes said:


> high profile writers coming in?


I don't know if I'll be able to cope with that.

The ridiculousness of some of the 'plot' points is part of the show's charm. I kinda like it that way...


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

They better not turn the power back off! We spent an entire season turning it on. If it goes back off again I'm going to burn my TiVo. 

I think they can keep it interesting for a couple of more seasons with a post-apocalyptic world that has had no power for 15 years.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Where's the obligatory "How was the infrastructure still in place that would enable all the lights to come back on" post?


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Not sure, perhaps they're busy thread crapping on AVS.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

well I'll start by saying thats not how the electrical grid works. 

So they literally rebooted for season 2. Is it our little band against the old Government now? Monroe will be redeemed for sure with that speech that Miles gave in the tent.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kdmorse said:


> I don't know if I'll be able to cope with that.
> 
> The ridiculousness of some of the 'plot' points is part of the show's charm. I kinda like it that way...


Well, it's the same creator/show-runner. So maybe he'll be able to mix the best of Revolution as it exists with elements of, y'know, well-written television. 


Azlen said:


> Where's the obligatory "How was the infrastructure still in place that would enable all the lights to come back on" post?


Been there, done that, every time one of the amulets kicked in.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

ANY show that opens with Blind Faith and "Can't Find My Way Home" is a winner with me...

Quite the season finale....tried to figure out who the prez is from the dark image...difficult.


----------



## JTYoung1 (Aug 13, 2006)

morac said:


> Like Randall said, he was a patriot and he basically had no chance of getting out of there without being captured and probably tortured for info.
> 
> As for the nukes, my bet is they shut the power off again. That's the only thing they can do from outside. They could turn the power off and then after the nukes crash, turn it back on. Somehow I doubt that's what the writers will come up with though.
> 
> ...


My money is on Ben setting it up so all the power would go out, he was the one saying that it was all going to turn off in the first episode.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I don't think Aaron's "back door" into his code told him who was responsible for deliberately turning off the power. I think it just gave him his access to find that information embedded in the other programming code.

I hope someone knows how to make concrete, so they can fill up that hole at the front door of the tower. I think it's pretty stupid that they would have that big ass door and not have the framework around it reinforced to prevent exactly what the bad guys did to gain access.

And yeah, don't get us started on where all that power is coming from when the lights came back on. 

I thought the squeaking ceiling fan was a nice touch.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

If they turn the power back off immediately I'll be disappointed.

They have a wealth of opportunity right now.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Azlen said:


> Where's the obligatory "How was the infrastructure still in place that would enable all the lights to come back on" post?


Soon as the power came back on I told my wife that I couldn't wait to check out the people complaining on the Tivo board 

I really liked the last 5 minutes with the nukes and the New America.

Sadly, Randall is right and they do need to clear out those towns to start over.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

possible spoiler for next season but probably doesn't have anything to do with the plot



Spoiler



I did read on the Revolution Facebook page that next season will be filmed in Austin, TX.....so maybe next season will focus on the Texas territory....or maybe it was just cheap to film there, I don't know.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

So, Miles is out to kill Bass for pretty much the back half of the season. But he won't now . . . because you're my brudder? In fairness, though, he did try to have him killed by yelling that he was escaping.

It's convenient that the ICBMs were all fueled up in the bullpens and had regular maintenance on the warheads. Cuz, ya never know when you might need to nuke certain parts of the country. And, obviously, the coordinates were already in the system for Philly and Atlanta.

Miles was pretty smart using rounds on the glass that would disintegrate on impact and not ricochet back into the room killing everybody.

I can't believe it, Aaron. That girl's standing over there listening and you're talking about back doors!?!


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> I can't believe it, Aaron. That girl's standing over there listening and you're talking about back doors!?!


Geez.

Mr. PotatoHead!, Mr. PotatoHead!, Back doors are not secrets!

 I know that movie *way* too well!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> They better not turn the power back off! We spent an entire season turning it on. If it goes back off again I'm going to burn my TiVo.
> 
> I think they can keep it interesting for a couple of more seasons with a post-apocalyptic world that has had no power for 15 years.


This is a show about people dealing with life without power. If they keep the power on then this show just becomes any other generic action show but with a more interesting backstory. I think that in order to maintain the premise of the show, they've got to turn the power back off.



Azlen said:


> Where's the obligatory "How was the infrastructure still in place that would enable all the lights to come back on" post?


Should have been the first post of the thread. It's not like there was "leftover" electricity in all the transmission wires that was just waiting to be pushed down to everyone's homes. Even homes with generators wouldn't have electricity because that motor wouldn't run after sitting idle for 15 years.



Bierboy said:


> ANY show that opens with Blind Faith and "Can't Find My Way Home" is a winner with me...


Like the song, but thought that opening was super cheesy. Either do a "previously on" segment or don't, but to just have a musical montage makes no sense.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This is a show about people dealing with life without power. If they keep the power on then this show just becomes any other generic action show but with a more interesting backstory. I think that in order to maintain the premise of the show, they've got to turn the power back off.


I thought this show was about "Revolution". Maybe this season was a chapter about dealing with life without power. The next season can be about coping with getting power back but the underlying theme would be "Revolution" and the change of power.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

pmyers said:


> Soon as the power came back on I told my wife that I couldn't wait to check out the people complaining on the Tivo board


Yes, my thoughts also!!



RGM1138 said:


> It's convenient that the ICBMs were all fueled up in the bullpens and had regular maintenance on the warheads. Cuz, ya never know when you might need to nuke certain parts of the country. And, obviously, the coordinates were already in the system for Philly and Atlanta.


Yes, but this goes hand in hand with power just waiting to go into peoples appliances and not taking into account that the power generation grid has been idle for 15 years. So of course the ICBMs are ready to go and with new targeting info!

The above two points along with MANY similar technical silliness will just make most of us roll our eyes!!! The ONLY way to watch this show is to roll your eyes and then forget about it and move along. If it affects you more than that you shouldn't be watching it.



pmyers said:


> I really liked the last 5 minutes with the nukes and the New America.
> Sadly, Randall is right and they do need to clear out those towns to start over.


Yes, I agree on both counts!!

Gerry


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

I'll say this by prefacing that it doesn't bother me, just fun to think about...

Wouldn't it take longer than 2 minutes for ICBMs to reach Philly and Atlanta from CO?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

RickStrobel said:


> I'll say this by prefacing that it doesn't bother me, just fun to think about...
> 
> Wouldn't it take longer than 2 minutes for ICBMs to reach Philly and Atlanta from CO?


It's gonna take MONTHS....


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Bierboy said:


> It's gonna take MONTHS....


LOL


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

RickStrobel said:


> I'll say this by prefacing that it doesn't bother me, just fun to think about...
> 
> Wouldn't it take longer than 2 minutes for ICBMs to reach Philly and Atlanta from CO?


Not when it takes them 1 day to walk from Atlanta to Philly....LOL


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> I'll say this by prefacing that it doesn't bother me, just fun to think about...
> 
> Wouldn't it take longer than 2 minutes for ICBMs to reach Philly and Atlanta from CO?


Actually, according to some Googling, ICBMs travel approximately 4 miles per second, and Colorado Springs to Philly is about 1,700 miles, so it would take about 7 minutes. 1,400 miles to Atlanta, so only about 5.5 minutes.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Do we know who was playing (or voiced) the role of the President at the end?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Gerryex said:


> The ONLY way to watch this show is to roll your eyes and then forget about it and move along


agreed. i did not enjoy the finale as much as last weeks ep, but still found it engrossing and entertaining - while i ignored those obvious technical plot holes. definitely interesting to have the government and president at gitmo.

maybe leaving the power on, erasing atlanta and philly, and dealing with the unforeseen consequences of having the power back will lead to even more interesting plot developments. or maybe cutting the power back off would be better. who knows - either way, i'm in for season 2.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

How ironic that the folks who have spent the last 15 years sequestered in the Tower for the sole purpose of preventing anyone from accessing Level 12, and who were prepared to have their children and their children's children continue their cause, were taken out within seconds with an improvised fire extinguisher and within minutes there were several different factions who had gained access to Level 12.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

What about Level 7 where the guard was slaughtered in the elevator?


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> How ironic that the folks who have spent the last 15 years sequestered in the Tower for the sole purpose of preventing anyone from accessing Level 12, and who were prepared to have their children and their children's children continue their cause, were taken out within seconds with an improvised fire extinguisher and within minutes there were several different factions who had gained access to Level 12.


While the main characters may disagree with the folks guarding Level 12, I was also a little surprised how quickly they resorted to mass murdering of the entire bunch.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Ment said:


> well I'll start by saying thats not how the electrical grid works.
> 
> So they literally rebooted for season 2. Is it our little band against the old Government now? Monroe will be redeemed for sure with that speech that Miles gave in the tent.


I don't think the exiled US government will be the bad guys.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SnakeEyes said:


> I don't think the exiled US government will be the bad guys.


If they were in league with Randall to shoot off nukes at Philly and Atlanta, I don't see how they're not.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

End of Season 1 and we still haven't found out who Grace was talking to with her computer in the first episode. Could it have been the American colony in Cuba?


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

SnakeEyes said:


> I don't think the exiled US government will be the bad guys.


If they try to stop the nukes then yes old Government = bad



mrdbdigital said:


> End of Season 1 and we still haven't found out who Grace was talking to with her computer in the first episode. Could it have been the American colony in Cuba?


Most likely Grace was communicating with the people in the Tower.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> within minutes there were several different factions who had gained access to Level 12.


The militia people got into a highly secure facility by digging under the front door?

Gotta love the show. I'm looking forward to season 2.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

verdugan said:


> The militia people got into a highly secure facility by digging under the front door?
> 
> Gotta love the show. I'm looking forward to season 2.


Digging with explosives but yes.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Ment said:


> Digging with explosives but yes.


Facilities like that can survive a near direct nuclear strike. Good thing they were using C4.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

morac said:


> Facilities like that can survive a near direct nuclear strike. Good thing they were using C4 *with nanos*


fyp


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> If they were in league with Randall to shoot off nukes at Philly and Atlanta, I don't see how they're not.


Because they are trying to restore the United States and topple the dictatorships.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i'm just glad that unlike other tv shows and movies ive seen, that these devices didnt need simultaneous key turns from 2 locations to activat them...whew.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

RickStrobel said:


> Why would Randall shoot himself in the head after all that?
> 
> Bet the nukes don't go off - malfunction or some miraculous shutdown.


I figure they will need to shut the power down again. Then something will happen and they can't turn it back on.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Actually, according to some Googling, ICBMs travel approximately 4 miles per second, and Colorado Springs to Philly is about 1,700 miles, so it would take about 7 minutes. 1,400 miles to Atlanta, so only about 5.5 minutes.


They don't travel in a straight line. They go up very high and then come down.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

newsposter said:


> i'm just glad that unlike other tv shows and movies ive seen, that these devices didnt need simultaneous key turns from 2 locations to activat them...whew.


Didn't they change that several years ago, to where the nukes are under direct Presidential control?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

SnakeEyes said:


> Because they are trying to restore the United States and topple the dictatorships.


Except Georgia isn't a dictatorship as far as we've seen.

On the cliffhanger...


Spoiler



Giancarlo Esposito said he'd like the show return to Philly next year, which seems highly unlikely if it's destroyed in a missile strike. Either it's not destroyed or he forgot or wasn't aware of the missile cliffhanger.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> They don't travel in a straight line. They go up very high and then come down.


For ICBM's yes, which basically go into orbit. Not sure why an ICBM would be used for the relatively short distance to Philly and Georgia though, unless the writers don't know any better.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> I figure they will need to shut the power down again. Then something will happen and they can't turn it back on.


We've already seen ominous weather, which it was implied was a result of the power being turned back on. So they may have to shut off the power again (and keep it off) just to save the world.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> We've already seen ominous weather, which it was implied was a result of the power being turned back on. So they may have to shut off the power again (and keep it off) just to save the world.


true, but if aaron is right and the power was shut off due to someone manipulating the program through the back door (not by design), they may not know how to shut it back off.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> We've already seen ominous weather, which it was implied was a result of the power being turned back on. So they may have to shut off the power again (and keep it off) just to save the world.


To save the world, will they have to save the cheerleader??


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

SnakeEyes said:


> Because they are trying to restore the United States and topple the dictatorships.


I can't imagine why the President wouldn't have enough men to at least hold a small area of the US. Why on earth go to Guantanamo? How would they even get there--unless they knew what was going to happen.

Were the people in the tower rebelling against an order from the president to turn the power back on and fire the nukes?

And surely in 15 years they would mount an attack and try to land somewhere and take back some ground. The whole timeline on this show is weird. 15 years is a long time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> They don't travel in a straight line. They go up very high and then come down.


OK, so double or triple the times in my post. It's still only going to take 20 minutes max for a missile to get from Colorado to Philly. Not really much time for anyone to do anything about it, especially anyone who hasn't had access to electricity for 15 years.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> We've already seen ominous weather, which it was implied was a result of the power being turned back on. So they may have to shut off the power again (and keep it off) just to save the world.


I think that was a one time effect. It clearly stopped before the shot ended.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> I think that was a one time effect. It clearly stopped before the shot ended.


That's not how I recall it....I'll have to resurrect the ep and see, but I'd bet this will play out next season...


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

mrdbdigital said:


> I think that was a one time effect. It clearly stopped before the shot ended.


That's what I noticed as well when I watched it.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Yeah...I don't think the weather will make a repeated appearance.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

Didn't think too much of the weather either. I think it was a way to show that Monroe knew the power was back on. I'm guessing that lightning didn't exist for the last 15 years either.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

RickStrobel said:


> Didn't think too much of the weather either. I think it was a way to show that Monroe knew the power was back on. I'm guessing that lightning didn't exist for the last 15 years either.


I didn't think of that but I like your idea.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I went back and watched that scene again. The lightning clearly stops before the scene ends.

I took this as an side effect / indication of the nanobots shutting down, as well as a way to make Monroe realize the power was back on.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

RickStrobel said:


> Didn't think too much of the weather either. I think it was a way to show that Monroe knew the power was back on. I'm guessing that lightning didn't exist for the last 15 years either.


Either that or Captain Marvel will be appearing next season.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

RickStrobel said:


> Why would Randall shoot himself in the head after all that?


Is he really dead, or just a partially dead Lord Marshal, and will now be waiting for a Furian to "promote" him to fully dead? Yeah, movie reference from 2004. It was just on a cable station so it was fresh in my mind.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

One good thing about this show, they're not afraid to kill of people - except Monroe, of course. For some reason, nobody will/can kill him even though they've had ample opportunity for three episodes in a row. Neville's a much more interesting bad guy. My bet is that the unkillable Monroe joins Miles and the resistance fighters next season.

Now that Nora's dead, another guess is that Miles and Rachel McGrumpyface will be the season long, love story plot device.

Charlie is still the moral center of the show but definitely isn't the plot's main character any more. Thank goodness.

I was very surprised that the ICBMs and their silo infrastructure still worked after 15 years of no maintenance.

Show me code that I wrote 15-20 years ago and I'd be like "I wrote that? What's it do?"

What's the point of blowing up Philadelphia? Nobody important is there any more.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

if miles refuses to kill his brother right in front of him, does this mean all attempts/missions to do so next year will be off?

and will the feeling be mutual


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The cool thing is, it's pretty wide-open right now, and with a new set of very good, high-profile writers coming in, they can pretty much establish any kind of status quo they want at the beginning of Season 2


Who?



kdmorse said:


> I don't know if I'll be able to cope with that.
> 
> The ridiculousness of some of the 'plot' points is part of the show's charm. I kinda like it that way...


:up:



Bierboy said:


> ANY show that opens with Blind Faith and "Can't Find My Way Home" is a winner with me...


:up: :up: In my top ten favorite songs. I don't even care how cheesy the montage was.



cheesesteak said:


> One good thing about this show, they're not afraid to kill of people - except Monroe, of course. For some reason, nobody will/can kill him even though they've had ample opportunity for three episodes in a row. Neville's a much more interesting bad guy. My bet is that the unkillable Monroe joins Miles and the resistance fighters next season.


Monroe is insane and pathetic, Neville is scary.



cheesesteak said:


> Now that Nora's dead, another guess is that Miles and Rachel McGrumpyface will be the season long, love story plot device.


Ick. I hope not.



cheesesteak said:


> Show me code that I wrote 15-20 years ago and I'd be like "I wrote that? What's it do?"


Seriously.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jehma said:


> Who?


Rockne S. O'Bannon, who created Farscape among other things; Ben Edlund, who was on the writing staff for Supernatural I think its entire life, and more importantly the creator of The Tick; and some guy I've never heard of who was a producer on some high-rated crime show, but who is apparently very well-thought-of in Hollywood.

So it sounds like they're taking serious steps to upgrade the quality of their writing team.


cheesesteak said:


> Show me code that I wrote 15-20 years ago and I'd be like "I wrote that? What's it do?"





jehma said:


> Seriously.


Well, OBVIOUSLY you guys are no Aaron Pittman!

[or]

Nanites!


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Rockne S. O'Bannon, who created Farscape among other things; Ben Edlund, who was on the writing staff for Supernatural I think its entire life, and more importantly the creator of The Tick; and some guy I've never heard of who was a producer on some high-rated crime show, but who is apparently very well-thought-of in Hollywood.
> 
> So it sounds like they're taking serious steps to upgrade the quality of their writing team.


Sounds promising.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> Show me code that I wrote 15-20 years ago and I'd be like "I wrote that? What's it do?"


This ^... Not mention the "What the hell was I thinking when I wrote that?" thought that would come to mind.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

cheesesteak said:


> Show me code that I wrote 15-20 years ago and I'd be like "I wrote that? What's it do?"





Craigbob said:


> Not mention the "What the hell was I thinking when I wrote that?" thought that would come to mind.


i don't write code for a living, so from an amateurs pov - if it was a big project, and no one, including myself, had written any code since it was finished, i would think it might be a little memorable.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm hoping Rachel buys more shirts from Wife Beaters 'R Us next season.

With my luck, I'd be sitting on the couch when the tv came back on after 15 years and it'd be that We Buy Any Car commercial.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i don't write code for a living, so from an amateurs pov - if it was a big project, and no one, including myself, had written any code since it was finished, i would think it might be a little memorable.


Forget recognizing the code, on a strange computer system, Aaron wouldn't even know where to find the source code.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Forget recognizing the code, on a strange computer system, Aaron wouldn't even know where to find the source code.


He did say that he wrote the operating system it was running, so if that is true then he would know


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I'm hoping Rachel buys more shirts from Wife Beaters 'R Us next season....


This...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

zordude said:


> He did say that he wrote the operating system it was running, so if that is true then he would know


He'd know where the executables were, not necessarily the source unless he wrote the OS in Visual Basic.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

The power has been off for 15 years. Wouldn't people have unplugged and gotten rid of almost all their lamps and appliances by then? Yeah I know...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

loubob57 said:


> The power has been off for 15 years. Wouldn't people have unplugged and gotten rid of almost all their lamps and appliances by then? Yeah I know...


Not on the outside chance the power would come back on....keeping them would represent hope they have that it might happen.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

loubob57 said:


> The power has been off for 15 years. Wouldn't people have unplugged and gotten rid of almost all their lamps and appliances by then? Yeah I know...


Nostalgia and plot devices are a powerful thing.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

what would you put in place of a ceiling fixture or other light, they look so pretty


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

loubob57 said:


> The power has been off for 15 years. Wouldn't people have unplugged and gotten rid of almost all their lamps and appliances by then? Yeah I know...


Yeah, it's that kind of dumb that really bugs me, I can be very forgiving in a lot of cases, but we're reaching areas close to Heroes in them backtracking on things and being stupid.

Here's hoping that S2 and the revamped writing staff can fix these issues since I think the core is decent now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Yeah, it's that kind of dumb that really bugs me, I can be very forgiving in a lot of cases, but we're reaching areas close to Heroes in them backtracking on things and being stupid.
> 
> Here's hoping that S2 and the revamped writing staff can fix these issues since I think the core is decent now.


They have already shown that power can be supplied without a device being plugged in. For everything to come on and light up the way they did, they were being powered the same way. Not over the electrical grid.

Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> For everything to come on and light up the way they did, they were being powered the same way. Not over the electrical grid.


but by magic


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

loubob57 said:


> The power has been off for 15 years. Wouldn't people have unplugged and gotten rid of almost all their lamps and appliances by then?


i'm not so upset by this aspect of the series. who's going to carry off all of the electric appliances, the non-existent trash collection? and where do all the appliances go, the non-operational land fill and recyclers? and what happens if the power comes back on and you would like a few electric appliances that haven't been manufactured for 15 years?

i would think the priorites were more aligned with hunting, gathering, shelter, and defense, not appliance removal.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> i don't write code for a living, so from an amateurs pov - if it was a big project, and no one, including myself, had written any code since it was finished, i would think it might be a little memorable.


It's not the last code. It's his graduate project at MIT. Before he went onto become a big wig at Google. I'm sure it's a big deal to him, and I'm not so sure it's hard to recognize big deal code.

Dennis Ritchie famously had to go look at Williams Unix program to see that it wasn't using any of AT&Ts code, most of which he had written. His solution to that problem was to look for bugs that he knew were in his own code. Aaron could easily have done something similar.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> They have already shown that power can be supplied without a device being plugged in. For everything to come on and light up the way they did, they were being powered the same way. Not over the electrical grid.
> 
> Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


So the reversal of the nanites has them not only no longer blocking the flow of electricity, but now they're actually generating and transmitting electricity? Is that your understanding of what's happening?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> So the reversal of the nanites has them not only no longer blocking the flow of electricity, but now they're actually generating and transmitting electricity? Is that your understanding of what's happening?


I think his understanding is the same as jamesl's, and any rational person's understanding.

It's magic.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So the reversal of the nanites has them not only no longer blocking the flow of electricity, but now they're actually generating and transmitting electricity? Is that your understanding of what's happening?


That is what was happening with the pendants. The electrical grid would not be intact after fifteen years. I don't see how it could be anything else.

Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So the reversal of the nanites has them not only no longer blocking the flow of electricity, but now they're actually generating and transmitting electricity? Is that your understanding of what's happening?


They've switched from suck to blow.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> That is what was happening with the pendants. The electrical grid would not be intact after fifteen years. I don't see how it could be anything else.


Not even bad writing?


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> So the reversal of the nanites has them not only no longer blocking the flow of electricity, but now they're actually generating and transmitting electricity? Is that your understanding of what's happening?


Bam!

Awesome thought. Isn't that what Ben and Rachel we're trying to achieve with their little start-up long before the blackout? The world has gone from having no energy (electricity) for 15 years to there being an unlimited supply of free energy for all the world.

Imagine what our world would be like if there was an unlimited supply of free energy.

And the more I think about it the more I can "write-in" for the writers. This was part of Ben and Rachel's plan all along. They had perfected their free energy device. They new it could work in a big way, but the nanites would have spread far and wide first. So they "back-doored" the Pentagon's first trial run of the technology knowing that the world would black-out first, spread the nanites, then once spread you flip the switch back and you've got utopia.

The theory is consistent with Ben's attitude in the first episode. He came home and said "it's happening". His only surprise was that it was happening sooner rather than later - not the fact that it was happening.

Oh, well. Makes it sound like a nice grand plan.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

It also explains the "one in a billion" chance of "the world catching fire," assuming that would be a side effect if the nanites over-produce their free energy.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

RickStrobel said:


> Bam!
> 
> Awesome thought. Isn't that what Ben and Rachel we're trying to achieve with their little start-up long before the blackout? The world has gone from having no energy (electricity) for 15 years to there being an unlimited supply of free energy for all the world.
> 
> ...


Do you really think the writers on this show, who consistently ignore common facts, could plan this far ahead? I don't think so.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> Do you really think the writers on this show, who consistently ignore common facts, could plan this far ahead? I don't think so.


I give them credit that it might be in the bible for the show, and the weekly writers are just hacks


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

dianebrat said:


> I give them credit that it might be in the bible for the show, and the weekly writers are just hacks


It would be very interesting to take a look at the show's bible. Maybe one of these days a copy will turn up on the internet.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> I was very surprised that the ICBMs and their silo infrastructure still worked after 15 years of no maintenance.


Well, if automobiles and helicopters can, on 15 year old fuel (guess it wasn't the kind partially made from corn that'll kill a lawnmower carb if you let it sit for a month).



cheesesteak said:


> Show me code that I wrote 15-20 years ago and I'd be like "I wrote that? What's it do?"


Maybe he commented it really, really well.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

At the beginning of the season, wasn't it really unusual for anyone to have automatic weapons, because ammo was really rare? I thought it was really special that some of the top guys had semi-auto handguns.

Doesn't seem to be an issue anymore.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Right--we haven't seen a good sword fight in a long time.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

unitron said:


> Well, if automobiles and helicopters can, on 15 year old fuel (guess it wasn't the kind partially made from corn that'll kill a lawnmower carb if you let it sit for a month).
> 
> Maybe he commented it really, really well.


My GF had two year old, 10% ethanol gas in an old lawn mower. It started up and ran without any issues.

Sent from my HTC ReZound using Forum Runner


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

zordude said:


> At the beginning of the season, wasn't it really unusual for anyone to have automatic weapons, because ammo was really rare? I thought it was really special that some of the top guys had semi-auto handguns.
> 
> Doesn't seem to be an issue anymore.


You are correct. In fact, Monroe's men ruled the land with old flintlocks. Now one could blame bad writing or just abondoning that storyline, or maybe they were using those weapons because there was no real ressistance and that's all they needed so they could save the real weapons for when they needed....I don't know.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

RickStrobel said:


> Bam!
> 
> Awesome thought. Isn't that what Ben and Rachel we're trying to achieve with their little start-up long before the blackout? The world has gone from having no energy (electricity) for 15 years to there being an unlimited supply of free energy for all the world.
> 
> ...


I love the theory and it really would explain a lot.


----------



## Sromkie (Aug 15, 2002)

RickStrobel said:


> Bam!
> 
> Awesome thought. Isn't that what Ben and Rachel we're trying to achieve with their little start-up long before the blackout? The world has gone from having no energy (electricity) for 15 years to there being an unlimited supply of free energy for all the world.
> 
> ...


I finally got around to watching the season finale last night, and I'm onboard with this theory as well. It makes a ton of sense considering the events of the first episode.

I also don't think the old US government will be the villains next season. They might start out in conflict with the main cast just due to their extreme action, but the main cast wants the government restored probably nearly as much as the president wants to get it restored. Extreme actions aside, The goals are the same. And, really, this is a pretty straightforward and simple (although brutal) way to remove the existing regimes from power.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I agree....in fact....I could easily see our group working with/for the new US government.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

RickStrobel said:


> ...
> 
> Imagine what our world would be like if there was an unlimited supply of free energy.
> 
> ...


so, question
if this were real life, how would the people on this forum classify Ben and Rachel

they've ushered in utopia, an unlimited supply of free energy for all

and all it cost was 
millions or people having to die, 
land polluted by nuclear fallout/waste, 
governments destroyed, 
knowledge lost (think of all the libraries burned to generate heat during the cold winter months) 
art lost and destroyed (museums looted - all the great paintings gone forever)

was it worth the cost ?

if not, then how many years after civilization has rebuilt itself will it have been worth the cost

will they go down in history as mass murdering monstrous sociopaths or the "Bringers of the Enlightened Age"


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I wouldn't consider free energy yielding a utopia. You still need food, clothing, shelter. Governments will still fight each other....

Not a fair trade, IMO.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

jamesl said:


> so, question
> if this were real life, how would the people on this forum classify Ben and Rachel..


To me that would be like blaming the person who invented gun powder for gunshots or bombs.

Ben and Rachel's technology got used/change by the government.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

pmyers said:


> To me that would be like blaming the person who invented gun powder for gunshots or bombs.
> 
> Ben and Rachel's technology got used/change by the government.


or the secret hacker...


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

pmyers said:


> To me that would be like blaming the person who invented gun powder for gunshots or bombs.
> 
> Ben and Rachel's technology got used/change by the government.


but Rick's premise was 
"So they "back-doored" the Pentagon's first trial run of the technology knowing that the world would black-out first, spread the nanites, then once spread you flip the switch back and you've got utopia. "

so it seemed to me that he was suggesting that Ben and Rachel used the government, not the other way around

it was the government's plan to selectively turn the power the off, but B&R back-doored the Pentagon's computer program and turned the power off everywhere so that the nanites would spread everywhere

so B&R would be the ones at fault, not the government


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I don't believe Rachel's original work involved having to have a blackout for the technology to then work.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jamesl said:


> but Rick's premise was
> "So they "back-doored" the Pentagon's first trial run of the technology knowing that the world would black-out first, spread the nanites, then once spread you flip the switch back and you've got utopia. "
> 
> so it seemed to me that he was suggesting that Ben and Rachel used the government, not the other way around
> ...


I think you've got that backwards. They didn't create the blackout in order to further the spread of the nanites. The nanites had to already be spread worldwide in order for the blackout to have happened.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

jamesl said:


> ....if this were real life, how would the people on this forum classify Ben and Rachel...


Um.....fat?

Ooops....wrong forum....


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

danterner said:


> It also explains the "one in a billion" chance of "the world catching fire," assuming that would be a side effect if the nanites over-produce their free energy.


So the tower was guarded by people who let millions die over 15 years because they were afraid of the odds of something bad happening.

1 in 1,000,000,000 those are pretty good odds that nothing bad would happen, certainly not enough to keep the power off and let the world go down the tubes.

The odds are much better that the world have been destroyed by a meteorite or some other natural disaster during those 15 years.

Maybe 100 to 1 or 50 to 1 but 1 billion to 1 ??

Now by waiting they let millions die then they let a madman shoot off a few nuclear missiles by losing control of the on off switch.

You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Johnny Dancing said:


> You can't make this stuff up.


I can almost suspend disbelief enough to see their point *now*. X years have passed, a new political balance has emerged, and whose to say turning on the power again won't cause things to be even worse. Y amount of power has been absorbed, and releasing it could be catastrophic.

But I can't really see their point on, say, the day after the power went out. Sitting on level 12, with a nice big power button, thinking "hay, society is falling apart, let's *not* turn the power back on, lets watch it collapse". Then let's just wall the place up.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> So the tower was guarded by people who let millions die over 15 years because they were afraid of the odds of something bad happening.
> 
> 1 in 1,000,000,000 those are pretty good odds that nothing bad would happen, certainly not enough to keep the power off and let the world go down the tubes.
> 
> ...


Well, they weren't keeping the power off solely because of the chance the world would burn up. I thought they made some other arguments about how the human race couldn't be trusted with power and were better off without it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Well, they weren't keeping the power off solely because of the chance the world would burn up. I thought they made some other arguments about how the human race couldn't be trusted with power and were better off without it.


Plus she was the one claiming those were the odds, while arguing to turn the power back on. I got the impression that they were thinking it was somewhat more likely, and I still believe that whatever they feared would happen is actually starting to happen, which is why they'll have to shut it off again.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

jamesl said:


> but Rick's premise was
> "So they "back-doored" the Pentagon's first trial run of the technology knowing that the world would black-out first, spread the nanites, then once spread you flip the switch back and you've got utopia. "
> 
> so it seemed to me that he was suggesting that Ben and Rachel used the government, not the other way around
> ...


Pretty good summary of what I was suggesting.

But I don't think they expected it to be off for 15 years. For someone with noble intentions, I bet they thought it would be off for a few hours or maybe a day before coming back.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

Another thought - what's going to happen to Rachel's leg now that the power is back on?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> Another thought - what's going to happen to Rachel's leg now that the power is back on?


We discussed this previously in another thread. The consensus was that since Rachel's issue was a broken bone, and the nanite device healed it, that it would be fine once the power returned. Danny's issue was different, and we assume the nanite device was constantly keeping something at bay, and that something would have quickly killed him if the power came back.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> We discussed this previously in another thread. The consensus was that since Rachel's issue was a broken bone, and the nanite device healed it, that it would be fine once the power returned. Danny's issue was different, and we assume the nanite device was constantly keeping something at bay, and that something would have quickly killed him if the power came back.


Fully agree with Rachel's leg but I still don't understand the cancer lady and even ben. They seem to indicate some kind of sudden death if the power came on but that doesn't make sense to me. I would assume that the nanites "fixed" Ben's lungs and got rid of the cancer for the lady. Now I might believe that if the nanites died that the cancer could come back, although slowly or at least at the normal rate but I don't understand the sudden death. Same with Ben....the nanites either fixed his lungs or they didn't...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> Fully agree with Rachel's leg but I still don't understand the cancer lady and even ben. They seem to indicate some kind of sudden death if the power came on but that doesn't make sense to me. I would assume that the nanites "fixed" Ben's lungs and got rid of the cancer for the lady. Now I might believe that if the nanites died that the cancer could come back, although slowly or at least at the normal rate but I don't understand the sudden death. Same with Ben....the nanites either fixed his lungs or they didn't...


I think you mean Danny, not Ben...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Fully agree with Rachel's leg but I still don't understand the cancer lady and even ben. They seem to indicate some kind of sudden death if the power came on but that doesn't make sense to me. I would assume that the nanites "fixed" Ben's lungs and got rid of the cancer for the lady. Now I might believe that if the nanites died that the cancer could come back, although slowly or at least at the normal rate but I don't understand the sudden death. Same with Ben....the nanites either fixed his lungs or they didn't...


I don't think anyone said death would be sudden. I think all they said was that their loved ones would die. We know Danny had some kind of disease or congenital defect when he was a kid and the only reason he survived was due to the nanites and the little device. We don't know that the nanites "healed" him. All we know is that while the power was off, he was OK, and when the power came back on, he would likely die. Based on that, I think we have to assume that whatever the condition was, the nanites hadn't made it go away, they were simply keeping it at bay or preventing it from having a negative effect. Once they no longer have that ability, the disease or condition likely returns with a vengeance and it wouldn't take long for them to die.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think anyone said death would be sudden...


I'm not sure where I assumed sudden death. I think it was during the conversation with the lady with the journal. My impression was of all these people with nanites in them just spontaneiously dropping like flies.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> I'm not sure where I assumed sudden death. I think it was during the conversation with the lady with the journal. My impression was of all these people with nanites in them just spontaneiously dropping like flies.


That was the impression I got as well. Not saying it made sense, but that's how I felt the writers wanted it conveyed. I just chalked it up as another joke in this comedy show!


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

If cancer-lady will die when the power goes back on - how was she living before it went off?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Anubys said:


> That was the impression I got as well. Not saying it made sense, but that's how I felt the writers wanted it conveyed. I just chalked it up as another joke in this comedy show!


Ok...well at least I know I'm not the only one!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> If cancer-lady will die when the power goes back on - how was she living before it went off?


Again, nobody said she was going to die the second the power comes back on. She probably had terminal cancer before the power went off. Something about the combination of the nanites, the power being off, and the flashing device must be keeping those cancer cells at bay. Rachel and the Dr. lady seem to believe that if the power goes back on, whatever is keeping the cancer cells at bay would no longer be effective and cancer lady would get sick again and would again be terminal.

Let's remember that Danny, and presumably cancer lady, were going to die 15 years earlier without the intervention of the nanites and the flashing device. So it's not that the power going back on is going to kill them. It's simply going to remove the thing that is keeping them alive.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> If cancer-lady will die when the power goes back on - how was she living before it went off?


Presumably the same way she was when we saw her, with the nanites constantly healing her. The way it was explained was that there was no way to power off only the nanites draining the power, so all nanites would be shut off, including the healing ones.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Johnny Dancing said:


> You can't make this stuff up.


Either I missed a pretty critical history lecture or you can.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Polcamilla said:


> Either I missed a pretty critical history lecture or you can.


Didn't you know that everything on TV is real.. somewhere?

Waaaaay back in the 1960s there was a Superboy story where it was revealed that aliens had set up cameras around Smallville and were broadcasting "The Adventures of Superboy" as if it were a programmed drama. The fact that it was real was not revealed to the audience, who loved it. High rated show.

Except that one day they had a focus group and the focus group revealed that the audience thought Ma and Pa Kent were too old, and should be replaced with younger actors. Well, since they were real people simply being photographed on another planet, this was quite the conundrum for the TV producers. So they thought and they thought and they had the idea to spike the Kent farm family well with a rejuvenation drug that would make Ma and Pa Kent much younger, though still old enough to be Superboys parents, and they did that and Superboy got younger parents and TV ratings were never higher.

I'm not making any of this up. So, clearly, what WE are watching on TV is from another planet, too, and in this case, it's a planet of particularly stupid people, but no, you can't make this up! Really, you can't.

What's more logical? A bunch of stupid writers or a whole planet of stupid people?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> What's more logical? A bunch of stupid writers or a whole planet of stupid people?


Why does it have to be either/or? There's ample evidence for both right here on Earth...


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I'm not making any of this up. So, clearly, what WE are watching on TV is from another planet, too, and in this case, it's a planet of particularly stupid people, but no, you can't make this up! Really, you can't.


Dave Barry once opined that aliens were watching our TV shows, and particularly stupid TV commercials (what he cited were the Wisk "ring around the collar" ads) were actually the aliens' favorite part of the programming, and were the only thing keeping them from vaporizing Earth.


----------



## PotentiallyCoherent (Jul 25, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Didn't you know that everything on TV is real.. somewhere?
> 
> Waaaaay back in the 1960s there was a Superboy story where it was revealed that aliens had set up cameras around Smallville and were broadcasting "The Adventures of Superboy" as if it were a programmed drama. The fact that it was real was not revealed to the audience, who loved it. High rated show.
> 
> ...


Um, it was a way to extend the Clark's lifetime believably. Didn't you notice that the Clarks continued to be "young" into the future weeks as you read the comic?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

PotentiallyCoherent said:


> Um, it was a way to extend the Clark's lifetime believably. Didn't you notice that the Clarks continued to be "young" into the future weeks as you read the comic?


The Kents, and yes, absolutely. It was a plot device to keep Ma and Pa Kent around in the Superboy comic book. Because, you know, they'd been aging so naturally up to that. Superman being a full grown adult in 1938 and a youth in Smallville in 1965 doesn't seem to have been a problem for the writers, so the Kents being old wasn't REALLY a problem. But someone decided it was, so they wrote a story to solve it.

Doesn't mean it's not worth making fun of.  "The Super Hypnotist of Metropolis" was an attempt to explain why nobody thought Clark looked like Superman but with glasses, but it was so awful that it was almost universally ignored as an "imaginary issue" within only a few issues of appearing, even though it was actually a rather clever idea.


----------

