# Covert Affairs - 7/13/10



## dilbert27 (Dec 1, 2006)

Must say I really liked the premier of this show.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Me too. I knew the disappearing boyfriend would come back.

My recording cut off. What happened after she was remembering the beach and we saw the boyfriend take his bracelet off his rear-view mirror?


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Me too. I knew the disappearing boyfriend would come back.
> 
> My recording cut off. What happened after she was remembering the beach and we saw the boyfriend take his bracelet off his rear-view mirror?


There was a big explosion and everybody died. 

Actually, he just drove off.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 8, 2008)

Christopher Gorham played a IT guy at the NSA in "Jake 2.0." Now he is an IT guy at the CIA. I half-way expect him to be infected by nanites soon. 

I must be getting soft in my old age, I seem to be liking more of these new shows than is normal.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

She has to be the perkiest agent in the history of the CIA! 

Nice to see her in a halfway decent role. I've always thought of her as a very good actor with very bad taste...every once in a while she'll do something amazing, but most of the time she's in crap movies.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I was expecting better. A show of this type should have good attention to detail, but right from the beginning they screw it up. If you are going to specifically mention a skydive from 2000 ft AGL, at least make it look like it was actually 2000 ft. And that was the first of many errors the show made. Also, if you are going to play your agent up as the most skillful in a decade of recruits, then don't have the agent make numerous amateur mistakes. First time in the field is one thing, but the mistakes she was making were not rookie mistakes -- they were the kind of mistakes an untrained and/or inept person would make.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

john4200 said:


> I was expecting better. A show of this type should have good attention to detail, but right from the beginning they screw it up. If you are going to specifically mention a skydive from 2000 ft AGL, at least make it look like it was actually 2000 ft. And that was the first of many errors the show made. Also, if you are going to play your agent up as the most skillful in a decade of recruits, then don't have the agent make numerous amateur mistakes. First time in the field is one thing, but the mistakes she was making were not rookie mistakes -- they were the kind of mistakes an untrained and/or inept person would make.


Right. 2000 feet with 15 second free fall.

2000 = 16(t**2)

T**2 = 125

T = 11 seconds before you splat into the ground.... Much less open canopy and fall softly to earth.

I am also amused to see a 34 YO playing a rookie spy. BTW, am I the only one wondering how she got the money to travel? See met the guy in Sri Lanka and then followed him to 4-5 place including easter island. She must have lots of money and if she does, why does she drive a (her words) "piece of crap" car?

Next thing you know she'll find a tape drive in the wall....


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I liked it. Does anyone know who played her professor? I couldn't find him on IMDB, but he's a dead ringer for a friend of mine.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Has there ever been a USA show that had any interest whatsoever in realism?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I believe it was Clarke Peters


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I enjoyed it though I was 1000&#37; in agreement that it was very similar to Alias. I actually went out of my way to find USA Network to catch the pilot episode and wound up camped there early (didn't care to watch any of the All-Star baseball game) so I caught the show (White Collar) that preceeded it as well. Not a bad combo and worth setting up a series link/season pass for.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Has there ever been a USA show that had any interest whatsoever in realism?


I make a distinction between realism and attention to detail. If I was complaining about realism, I would have complained about things like the absurd relationship of the married agents, or the lie detector test. But that did not bother me so much, since I expect that kind of thing. Dramatic license.

But attention to detail is different. It is more of a consistency thing than a realism thing. If you specifically mention something, then stick to it.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I think the show will be cute and fun to watch (provided it doesn't get too annoyingly "out there"),

but I think it should have been titled "C.I.A. - The High School Years". I like how everyone in the CIA building was under 30 (except for the bosses), we already have people abusing their powers because of their drama. Cute and perky chick already has at least 2 out of 3 guys interested in her, the dark and handsome obsessive ex lover, the fun and cute blind guy, and the flirtatious pretty boy she met in the CIA parking lot.

Also, what was she planning on doing when caught the assassin she was chasing? I mean she's not military trained and weighs like 140 lbs meanwhile they painted him to be a guy that could kill you with a handful of play dough.

Speaking of military trained, is it just me or does no one in this CIA seem like they've served in the military? Unless you're a paper pusher I think a military background would almost be required since that's the easiest place to obtain a security clearance and weapons training. I mean they could give her some excuse for her linguistic skills, and luck on how she became a field agent.

Oh well, despite all that I'll watch a few more episodes.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

robojerk said:


> I think the show will be cute and fun to watch (provided it doesn't get too annoyingly "out there"),
> 
> but I think it should have been titled "C.I.A. - The High School Years". I like how everyone in the CIA building was under 30 (except for the bosses), we already have people abusing their powers because of their drama. Cute and perky chick already has at least 2 out of 3 guys interested in her, the dark and handsome obsessive ex lover, the fun and cute blind guy, and the flirtatious pretty boy she met in the CIA parking lot.
> 
> ...


I have several friends who work for the company and none of them are military. Contrary to popular belief, most of the stuff they do isn't field work.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Covert Affairs = 'Alias' minus all the Rambaldi sci-fi elements or as I call it, 'Sydney Bristow: The Rookie Years'. I don't like it as much as Alias but I definitely like it enough to keep watching.


----------



## RichardHead (Nov 17, 2003)

I thought it was fun and will watch again.What show on today doesn't require a serious suspension of belief ... even the reality shows require it sometimes.

More importantly, Piper is cute and I enjoyed Jake 2.0.

I watch way too much TV!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

RichardHead said:


> I thought it was fun and will watch again.What show on today doesn't require a serious suspension of belief


Suspension of DISbelief, I can usually handle. But I have problems with lack of attention to detail. Hence the correction.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

RichardHead said:


> ....What show on today doesn't require a serious suspension of belief ...


Crap, the nightly news requires suspension of disbelief....


----------



## barbeedoll (Sep 26, 2005)

"Next thing you know she'll find a tape drive in the wall...."

Love the reference! You made me laugh.

Barbeedoll


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

We thought it was pretty bad. 

But to each their own, and I certainly like a lot of craptacular shows myself.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

uncdrew said:


> We thought it was pretty bad.
> 
> But to each their own, and I certainly like a lot of craptacular shows myself.


Yeah, there were some spectacular goofs, enough to make a list. Where were all those bruises that should have been on her neck?


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I am also amused to see a 34 YO playing a rookie spy. BTW, am I the only one wondering how she got the money to travel? See met the guy in Sri Lanka and then followed him to 4-5 place including easter island. She must have lots of money and if she does, why does she drive a (her words) "piece of crap" car?


I just had to comment. I know a guy that goes on like 6 month trips around the world every 2-3 years. He's able to do it because he drives a piece of crap car. He saves money like crazy for a couple years and then goes on these really long trips.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

john4200 said:


> I was expecting better. A show of this type should have good attention to detail, but right from the beginning they screw it up. If you are going to specifically mention a skydive from 2000 ft AGL, at least make it look like it was actually 2000 ft. And that was the first of many errors the show made. Also, if you are going to play your agent up as the most skillful in a decade of recruits, then don't have the agent make numerous amateur mistakes. First time in the field is one thing, but the mistakes she was making were not rookie mistakes -- they were the kind of mistakes an untrained and/or inept person would make.


I noticed this as well. He makes the point how low to the ground they are. I think he even mentioned that the parachute will have to deploy immediately?? Then she's like flipping around or whatever for half an hour before he chute opens.

I kinda liked the show. I'll probably watch another episode or two and see if it gets better.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> I just had to comment. I know a guy that goes on like 6 month trips around the world every 2-3 years. He's able to do it because he drives a piece of crap car. He saves money like crazy for a couple years and then goes on these really long trips.


Burn all your money on travel, drive a piece of crap car... I did it for years so I don't find it so unbelievable. People spend money on what they find important and some people don't really care what they drive.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

barbeedoll said:


> "Next thing you know she'll find a tape drive in the wall...."
> 
> Love the reference! You made me laugh.
> 
> Barbeedoll


No worries, just trying to do my part....


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Hoffer said:


> I just had to comment. I know a guy that goes on like 6 month trips around the world every 2-3 years. He's able to do it because he drives a piece of crap car. He saves money like crazy for a couple years and then goes on these really long trips.


How do people take 6 months off? Aside from which I suspect his standards must be lower than mine. I'm over the youth hostel phase...


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Couldn't even make it through half the show. Awful.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> How do people take 6 months off? Aside from which I suspect his standards must be lower than mine. I'm over the youth hostel phase...


The guy drives like a 20 year old car. He actually rides his bike to work to save on gas money. He rents a room for cheap.

These trips he goes on are the most important thing in this guy's life I suppose.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I have a friend who took something like 5 or 6 years to finish ONE college class because he traveled so much he could never complete a semester. He lived in a small apartment, drove an old car, and simply saved all his money. He waited tables, but always in the fancy restaurants. He saved his money, and pretty much every semester he'd leave for Europe again, about a month or so before exams.

With good planning and good timing, travel can be pretty affordable.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

I enjoyed the show and will probably watch another episode. 

If spy guy wasn't going to show up again, they never would have mentioned him. I do wish they had left the intrigue about the CIA being interested in capturing him (or killing him or whatever).

Finally, I thought the CIA was specifically for foreign operations. The FBI does what this office says it does. A minor quibble but still... Why not make it a third organization that isn't affiliated with either the FBI or the CIA. Some super secret organization whose headquarters are underneath a Starbuck's in downtown DC or something?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I enjoyed it for what it is - mindless summer entertainment. 

If I stop to think about pulling a rookie agent out of training sending her into a high stake situation as a handler on her first time out all because she speaks Russian with NO back up except a bunch of other agents it appears she's never met...

Mindless entertainment...

My other thought - why can't Anne Dudek get a starring role already? I had to double check it was her because I couldn't quite believe the barely supporting role in this.
I thought she was brilliant in House as Amber and all she is ever seen as is the girlfriend, neighbor, sister-wife, sister in Mad Men, Big Love and now this...???


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Actually I found it less Alias-like than I was expecting. Piper certainly looks like Jennifer Garner and they played that up in the promos making it look like it was going to have that same kind of (delightfully) over-the-top action. But while it took liberties with reality on a number of points, it seemed far, far more grounded in my world than Alias ever was. I'm not saying one is better than the other; I'm just saying, I loved Alias (first season) and I'm nevertheless glad this is something else.

I'm also liking that the techie is not socially stunted, and manages to have a hint of comic relief about him by being likeable, not someone to laugh _at_.

That everyone's so young was sort of explained in the show (though I doubt it's very realistic, it's at least plausible).


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Liked it. SP remains in place.


----------



## moot (Apr 8, 2006)

Haven't seen anyone mention it, but it was probably the most interesting thing about the episode for me... that green laser thing which was the apparent replacement for a blind person's walking stick? Is that real technology, or made-up tv super-tech? If it's real, I'd be interested to learn more about it.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I was amused and entertained by this. I look forward to the next one. And I'm keeping the SP


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I was expecting better. A show of this type should have good attention to detail, but right from the beginning they screw it up. If you are going to specifically mention a skydive from 2000 ft AGL, at least make it look like it was actually 2000 ft.


Deception training.

When you go through a door what you find on the other side may not be what you are told will be there.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> If I stop to think about pulling a rookie agent out of training sending her into a high stake situation as a handler on her first time out all because she speaks Russian with NO back up except a bunch of other agents it appears she's never met...


But if you would have stopped to think about that you would not be stopping to think about the actual show you watched, because that is not the real reason why she was pulled out of training.

She was pulled out of training because they are trying, for whatever reason, to get a hold of this guy she dated briefly and they are using her as bait.

I enjoyed the show. I thought Piper looked very good, and I don't really spend my time nitpicking the show. I have never been a CIA agent, so I don't feel really qualified and most of that kind of stuff doesn't bother me anyways. It is for entertainment, and I thought it was pretty fun.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I was ready to bail and started to watch something else when the lie detector guy asked her if the sex was good. I returned to it and ended up liking it enough to keep the SP and give it a handful of episodes.

I thought the CIA wasn't allowed to work on American soil. Did that change? Was I wrong or is this just a tv show and I shouldn't waste time worrying about this stuff?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I thought the CIA wasn't allowed to work on American soil. Did that change? Was I wrong or is this just a tv show and I shouldn't waste time worrying about this stuff?


You are right but the script covered it for the purposes of the tv show.

To heavily paraphrase - Annie is asked by head of Domestic Protection Division "Have you heard of the Domestic Protection Division", Annie replies "No", the head says "That is how we like it".


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> You are right but the script covered it for the purposes of the tv show.
> 
> To heavily paraphrase - Annie is asked by head of Domestic Protection Division "Have you heard of the Domestic Protection Division", Annie replies "No", the head says "That is how we like it".


Yeah, but wouldn't Congress have heard of it?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Yeah, but wouldn't Congress have heard of it?


What if the Domestic Protection Division did not tell Congress?

I suspect an interesting sub-plot could be developing regarding information being leaked to the press, regarding the Director of the National Clandestine Service and his relationship with the lady from the Congressional Oversight Committee.

The head of the Domestic Protection Division got somebody to check out the telephone conversations between her husband (the Director of the National Clandestine Service) and the lady from the Congressional Oversight Committee.

She said it was because she thought he was having an affair with her - but perhaps that is a deception - perhaps she is worried that he is giving information to the press and the Oversight Committee about her rogue operations.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I know FBI=domestic and CIA=foreign, but it kinda makes sense for the CIA to have a domestic department that handles foreign cases when they reach into the US. Otherwise, what happens? Do the CIA and FBI have separate investigations? It seems like a recipe for, well, foreign terrorists blowing up America...

I wonder how that works in real life?


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

> The collection of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence within the United States shall be coordinated with the FBI as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General
> Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981


After the 9/11 attacks a coordination failing involving many intelligence agencies was identified. The Department of Homeland Security was established on November 25, 2002 partly to "coordinate the sharing of essential homeland security information" >
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_hls.pdf


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I know FBI=domestic and CIA=foreign, but it kinda makes sense for the CIA to have a domestic department that handles foreign cases when they reach into the US. Otherwise, what happens? Do the CIA and FBI have separate investigations? It seems like a recipe for, well, foreign terrorists blowing up America...
> 
> *I wonder how that works in real life?*


According to Today's Washington Post, quite badly.

Intelligence OPs Beyond Control


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> According to Today's Washington Post, quite badly.
> 
> Intelligence OPs Beyond Control


Yeah, after my post I saw the same article in the Minneapolis paper! Yikes...kinda what I suspected, but one would still hope...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Intelligence OPs Beyond Control


We need a secret agency to investigate why I had to click 15 extra links to read that one article.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

All I can say is, Piper = yummmmmm. Coyote Ugly now a CIA agent 

I liked it, even though there was a lot that was truly unbelievable. But same can be said for James Bond, Bourne Identity and any number of spy movies/TV series. But that's ok, for what it is, it was a fun watch, and had definite eye candy  I'll definitely keep watching


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> and had definite eye candy...


I was wondering who shows up for her first day of work at the CIA with the top seven buttons on her blouse unbuttoned. Then her boss showed up showing cleavage aplenty and I decided to stop thinking about it.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I enjoyed this. Now how about a Covert Affairs/Burn Notice/White Collar triple crossover?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> We need a secret agency to investigate why I had to click 15 extra links to read that one article.


The obsession of web sites for generating extra page hits by splitting content is beyond annoying. The post is notorious for that practice.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> The obsession of web sites for generating extra page hits by splitting content is beyond annoying. The post is notorious for that practice.


I'd offer a link to the Minneapolis version of the story, but sadly the online edition just has a very short summary and a link to the Washington Post.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> I enjoyed it for what it is - mindless summer entertainment.
> 
> If I stop to think about pulling a rookie agent out of training sending her into a high stake situation as a handler on her first time out all because she speaks Russian with NO back up except a bunch of other agents it appears she's never met...


Actually, I kind of got the idea that all that was done to entice her ex boyfriend out in to the open, which seems to have worked.

It wasn't supposed to be exciting, just meet a spy in a hotel room and get information.

-smak-


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> I am also amused to see a 34 YO playing a rookie spy. BTW, am I the only one wondering how she got the money to travel? See met the guy in Sri Lanka and then followed him to 4-5 place including easter island. She must have lots of money and if she does, why does she drive a (her words) "piece of crap" car?


She doesn't live in Washington, she lives in Georgetown, she can distinguish different types of caviare and has nice shoes.

The car is usually good but crap when you are the hunted or the hunter in a high speed tactical pursuit (and it can reduce the pain if you blame the equipment if you fail as the hunter).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> She doesn't live in Washington, she lives in Georgetown, she can distinguish different types of caviare and has nice shoes.
> 
> The car is usually good but crap when you are the hunted or the hunter in a high speed tactical pursuit (and it can reduce the pain if you blame the equipment if you fail as the hunter).


Hmmmmm...I always thought Georgetown is a neighborhood in DC.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Hmmmmm...I always thought Georgetown is a neighborhood in DC.


Yes it is.

The point being when the polygraph interrogator asked her if she lived in Washington she replied Georgetown in a sorta rebuking way - Georgetown is highend.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

smak said:


> Actually, I kind of got the idea that all that was done to entice her ex boyfriend out in to the open, which seems to have worked.


As a possible addition - perhaps the reason she joined the C.I.A. is that it is a good place to be if you want to find an ex-boyfriend who has disappeared.

When during her polygraph interrogation and she was asked if she would be able separate her work from her personal life perhaps her "Absolutely" reply was deception.


----------



## SorenTodd (May 26, 2009)

> Haven't seen anyone mention it, but it was probably the most interesting thing about the episode for me... that green laser thing which was the apparent replacement for a blind person's walking stick? Is that real technology, or made-up tv super-tech? If it's real, I'd be interested to learn more about it.


I noticed that too. Not sure if it's real tech or not, but if it is it most likely works like SONAR on a submarine. Auggie's character was wearing some kind of earphones, leading one to believe he was hearing clicks from an invisible beam bouncing off objects close to him.


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

Cainebj said:


> why can't Anne Dudek get a starring role already? I had to double check it was her because I couldn't quite believe the barely supporting role in this.
> I thought she was brilliant in House as Amber and all she is ever seen as is the girlfriend, neighbor, sister-wife, sister in Mad Men, Big Love and now this...???


Same here!!



Steveknj said:


> I liked it, even though there was a lot that was truly unbelievable. *But same can be said for James Bond, Bourne Identity and any number of spy movies/TV series.* But that's ok, for what it is, it was a fun watch, and had definite eye candy  I'll definitely keep watching


Exactly. You can't watch these types of show and expect any kind of realism or you're bound to be disappointed.



Graymalkin said:


> I enjoyed this. Now how about a Covert Affairs/Burn Notice/White Collar triple crossover?


I'd be up for it! Love Burn Notice and White Collar.



pgogborn said:


> She doesn't live in Washington, she lives in Georgetown, she can distinguish different types of caviare and has nice shoes.
> 
> The car is usually good but crap when you are the hunted or the hunter in a high speed tactical pursuit (and it can reduce the pain if you blame the equipment if you fail as the hunter).


Yes, she lives with her sister, drives a crap car but apparently can afford $700 designer shoes. (I'm so jealous of those shoes, I knew instantly what they were as she walked in them. I'd have gone back to the room just for them myself.. heee)

--------

Anyhow the only thing about the show that bugged me was just the entire premise of the ex-boyfriend. It was hokey and predictable. Of course you fall in love in 3 weeks, happens to me all the time. Then of course he disappears and you decide to join the CIA. And of course he's some rogue CIA operative. And of course he swoops in for the last minute save when you're in danger. Ugh. So could have done without that. But the rest I liked. Jake 2.0 is awesome as always!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

photoshopgrl said:


> Yes, she lives with her sister, drives a crap car but apparently can afford $700 designer shoes. (I'm so jealous of those shoes, I knew instantly what they were as she walked in them. I'd have gone back to the room just for them myself.. heee)


Well, to be fair, they were probably provided by the Agengy, along with the rest of the outfit.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Well, to be fair, they were probably provided by the Agengy, along with the rest of the outfit.


Or knock-offs? Or both?


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

eddyj said:


> Well, to be fair, they were probably provided by the Agengy, along with the rest of the outfit.


I thought it was what she wore for her first day on the job and they said what she had on already would be good. Unless they pay for your everyday work attire, she bought those shoes herself. And trust me, they were not knock offs. Not that it matters.


----------



## moot (Apr 8, 2006)

photoshopgrl said:


> Jake 2.0 is awesome as always!


Too bad he had to be the lab rat on those nano-bots, though... at least now they know that they cause blindness!


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> I enjoyed it for what it is - mindless summer entertainment.
> 
> If I stop to think about pulling a rookie agent out of training sending her into a high stake situation as a handler on her first time out all because she speaks Russian with NO back up except a bunch of other agents it appears she's never met...


I don't think they put her in because she spoke Russian. That was just the married boss' cover. They put her in the situation because they thought she would need help, to try and flush out the mysterious ex. That was the whole point at the end of the show with trying to lure him out I thought.

As for "already has 3 guys after her", I didn't get that the blind guy was. He seemed more wanting to be her friend. He's clearly smooth. And if Piper walked into most offices, don't you think she'd have at least 3 guys lusting after her? That was the most realistic point in the show!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

photoshopgrl said:


> I thought it was what she wore for her first day on the job and they said what she had on already would be good. Unless they pay for your everyday work attire, she bought those shoes herself. And trust me, they were not knock offs. Not that it matters.


I thought the comment about "what you are wearing is good enough" was just giving her sh*t as a rookie. Cause I am pretty sure her hooker outfit was not what she was wearing in the office.

Mind you, I did not notice her shoes at all until that scene about them. In fact, I could not even tell you if she was wearing shoes at all.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> I enjoyed this. Now how about a Covert Affairs/Burn Notice/White Collar triple crossover?


Throw in In Plain Sight as well  I watch all of these shows.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Well, to be fair, they were probably provided by the Agengy, along with the rest of the outfit.


In a way you have driven past one of my favourite moments.

*Annie:* Do I have to wear a costume?
*Joan:* Hookers in DC are pretty conservative. What you're wearing is fine.

(cat fight)


----------



## desaun (Mar 17, 2004)

photoshopgrl said:


> Yes, she lives with her sister, drives a crap car but apparently can afford $700 designer shoes. (I'm so jealous of those shoes, I knew instantly what they were as she walked in them. I'd have gone back to the room just for them myself.. heee)


I can't tell you how many women I know who have crap cars and wear expensive shoes/purses/dresses, etc. Doesn't seem to out of sorts for a lot of women I know.

Most men are the opposite...crappy wardrobe, but sweet ride.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

desaun said:


> I can't tell you how many women I know who have crap cars and wear expensive shoes/purses/dresses, etc. Doesn't seem to out of sorts for a lot of women I know.
> 
> Most men are the opposite...crappy wardrobe, but sweet ride.


And this is puzzling....why?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> In a way you have driven past one of my favourite moments.
> 
> *Annie:* Do I have to wear a costume?
> *Joan:* Hookers in DC are pretty conservative. What you're wearing is fine.
> ...


I thought that was great too. But I also think she did change for the assignment, right?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pgogborn said:


> *Annie:* Do I have to wear a costume?
> *Joan:* Hookers in DC are pretty conservative. What you're wearing is fine.


It would have been nice if that had been an ironic comment on the tendency for actresses playing professional women (lawyers, cops, etc.) on TV shows to dress (or at least be dressed by the costume department) like hookers. But I suspect that little irony was entirely unintentional...


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

eddyj said:


> I thought that was great too. But I also think she did change for the assignment, right?


If anybody Googles pgogborn "shoes to die for" they will find this is not the first time I have paid attention to teh shoes - I previously noticed the one's Dr. Song wore in an episode of Doctor Who (and remarked "but not very sensible") 

I reckon Annie wore to the hotel the same shoes as she wore entering C.I.A. I reckon she wore the same blouse and jacket as when she had her ID photo taken - the number of unbuttoned buttons were also about the same.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

OK, I admit it. I was not paying attention to any of her clothes, but rather what was contained in them.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> If anybody Googles pgogborn "shoes to die for" they will find this is not the first time I have paid attention to teh shoes - I previously noticed the one's Dr. Song wore in an episode of Doctor Who (and remarked "but not very sensible")


And already this post has been Googled and added to the ones found by Googling pgogborn "shoes to die for" - less than 10 minutes.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

What kind of little red car was she driving? It shouild not have done as well in the car chase as it did if it was a Yaris or other little bitty car.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

I am good at spotting shoes, useless at car spotting, but it could have been a Volkswagen Golf.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

sieglinde said:


> What kind of little red car was she driving? It shouild not have done as well in the car chase as it did if it was a Yaris or other little bitty car.


Looked like she was driving a VW Jetta to me.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She has to be the perkiest agent in the history of the CIA!
> 
> Nice to see her in a halfway decent role. I've always thought of her as a very good actor with very bad taste...every once in a while she'll do something amazing, but most of the time she's in crap movies.


I don't think of her as a great actress, but she's no worse looking than Jennifer Garner, and IMHO no worse of an actress.

It's easy to nitpick (underground subway didn't look like a Washington DC Metro station, for example), but an enjoyable show.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Hmmmmm...I always thought Georgetown is a neighborhood in DC.


Georgetown is a neighborhood in DC, yes.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

BriGuy20 said:


> It's easy to nitpick (underground subway didn't look like a Washington DC Metro station, for example)


Because it was the Los Angeles Metro Red/Purple line.

--Carlos V.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Craigbob said:


> Looked like she was driving a VW Jetta to me.


Jetta's have trunks, this is a Golf or Rabbit, I think it was old enough to be a Golf.

Diane


----------



## photoshopgrl (Nov 22, 2008)

BriGuy20 said:


> I don't think of her as a great actress, but she's no worse looking than Jennifer Garner, and IMHO no worse of an actress.


I really wish I saw the appeal of Garner. I find her to be one of the ugliest "pretty actresses" on screen. Piper IMO is much more attractive.


----------



## Mr Flippant (Jan 2, 2009)

I have a feeling the spat between husband and wife managers is going to become too much part of the show. Let them get divorced and move on.

The show seems to have potential to be very good, but I am worried they fill time with such mundane fare as wife using CIA resources to spy on her husband. ugh.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Unbeliever said:


> Because it was the Los Angeles Metro Red/Purple line.
> 
> --Carlos V.


I thought the same thing, forgot to post it. The DC Metro stations all look similar (at least the ones in DC proper), and so do the trains. Luckily most of the country is not familiar with it


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Mr Flippant said:


> I have a feeling the spat between husband and wife managers is going to become too much part of the show. Let them get divorced and move on.
> 
> The show seems to have potential to be very good, but I am worried they fill time with such mundane fare as wife using CIA resources to spy on her husband. ugh.


I think that was a lead to the husband trying to flush out who the leaks were. I think he suspects the woman he was having dinner with, but the wife thinks he's having an affair.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

To me it looked like the Toronto subway.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Did they film it in Toronto? I saw a lot of white buildings that looked like Washington DC but it certainly could have been somewhere else.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Definitely filmed in Toronto.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Imagine if this show was about the CSIS we would have no idea where it was.

Polygraph examiner: "Do you live in North America?"

Piper: "I believe so maybe?"


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

marksman said:


> Imagine if this show was about the CSIS we would have no idea where it was.


I think you mean we'd have no idea what is was about.

I'm guessing that's the Canadian counterpart of the CIA?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Mr Flippant said:


> I have a feeling the spat between husband and wife managers is going to become too much part of the show. Let them get divorced and move on.


Since the agents are encouraged to date and marry within the agency, productivity must plummet when couples break up or divorce.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Since the agents are encouraged to date and marry within the agency, productivity must plummet when couples break up or divorce.


I would think it would be the opposite...less distractions.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> Definitely filmed in Toronto.


Yeah, in the second episode, the didn't do a good job of hiding a sign with a Canadian website (.ca) and the signs in the train station - it said like "scotia bank." 
I fine with not filming on location but some attention to detail would be nice. I'm going to give it 1 more episode.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Cindy1230 said:


> Yeah, in the second episode, the didn't do a good job of hiding a sign with a Canadian website (.ca) and the signs in the train station - it said like "scotia bank."
> I fine with not filming on location but some attention to detail would be nice. I'm going to give it 1 more episode.


Yeah, if you were not looking at the action or replaying through a PVR and using stop frame etc you would have noticed Scotiabank Offices.

But perhaps the first person who posted a screen capture of it on another website and commented "I think the location scout needs to sack the set dresser, and fast. Those are some seriously glaring mistakes right there" should have considered a couple of things:

a) Scotiabank is one of the largest international financial institutions.
b) International financial institutions can be found in Washington - indeed the basic plot line was about an operation to bomb an international financial institution operating in Washington (admittedly a British, not a Canadian 'foreign' bank).

And it is not against the law to advertise Canadian web sites or even fly Canadian flags in Washington - sometimes people actually do it.

For the benefit of others here are screen grabs of the so called 'lack of attention to detail' as posted on http://www.popbunker.net/2010/07/covert-affairs-walters-walk-recap/


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

eddyj said:


> Well, to be fair, they were probably provided by the Agengy, along with the rest of the outfit.


That would be worse. Bad enough that people are stupid enough to pay $700 for shoes. Can you imagine the government justifying it?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

photoshopgrl said:


> I really wish I saw the appeal of Garner. I find her to be one of the ugliest "pretty actresses" on screen. Piper IMO is much more attractive.


True from some angles but not nearly as odd as horse face sjp.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

Mr Flippant said:


> I have a feeling the spat between husband and wife managers is going to become too much part of the show. Let them get divorced and move on.
> 
> The show seems to have potential to be very good, but I am worried they fill time with such mundane fare as wife using CIA resources to spy on her husband. ugh.


As long as they lose the guy and keep Kari I'm fine with that. Fine looking woman. Makes Piper look like a boy.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> That would be worse. Bad enough that people are stupid enough to pay $700 for shoes. Can you imagine the government justifying it?


How about $600K for a bottle of water? (...on the news this morning...)


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

How about you guys pay attention to the show rather than what banks are in the background? I didn't even notice the foreign Canadians in the background


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DavidTigerFan said:


> How about you guys pay attention to the show rather than what banks are in the background? I didn't even notice the foreign Canadians in the background


Yeah, in this age of shows being filmed in Canada, it boggles my mind that people are still surprised that Canadian stuff shows up in the background.

I wonder what kind of budget it would take to eliminate all traces of Canada from every scene?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> How about you guys pay attention to the show rather than what banks are in the background? I didn't even notice the foreign Canadians in the background


How did you not notice the Canadians??!!
I mean with their ...
and their ...
and the funny way they...
not to mention them all wearing ...

aww heck, nevermind..


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I wonder what kind of budget it would take to eliminate all traces of Canada from every scene?


Not one that also provided shoes to die for 

(and shoes to die for beats eliminating all things Canadian)


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

photoshopgrl said:


> I thought it was what she wore for her first day on the job and they said what she had on already would be good. Unless they pay for your everyday work attire, she bought those shoes herself. And trust me, they were not knock offs. Not that it matters.


Definitely NOT knock-offs.

Christian Louboutin has a trademark on the red bottoms.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

This is one of those shows I want to like more than I do, and that I watch in spite of how not very good it is.

I really like Piper Perabo. There's something about her. I watch "Coyote Ugly" when it comes on TV, just because I like her in it, even thought the movie is rather bad. I still like her here.. but I don't know if she's right for this character. I think she needs to portray her character with a bit of a harder edge, and so far I'm not entirely convinced that Perabo is up to it.

I like the inclusion of the non-CIA elements. It's one thing I missed about Alias as the series went along, the phasing out of Bristow's non-spy-life friends. Yet, coming back to this show, I'm not sure if there's enough to Perabo's non-spy-life to keep that interesting or worth continuing to watch.

The biggest problem with this show is the spy stuff. It's just sort of "blah" here. It's not really all that thrilling, engaging, or any of that. Most of it is rather lightweight. There's very little action and very little tension in that part of the show, and frankly, a spy action thriller without any action or thrill is rather pointless and dull. That was one thing that Alias never got wrong... they were always able to portray the spy stuff with a lot of style and a lot of suspense/thrill.

I've seen this episode and the second, and it's a very tentative season pass still...but it's definitely not a must watch by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> The biggest problem with this show is the spy stuff. It's just sort of "blah" here. It's not really all that thrilling, engaging, or any of that. Most of it is rather lightweight. There's very little action and very little tension in that part of the show, and frankly, a spy action thriller without any action or thrill is rather pointless and dull. That was one thing that Alias never got wrong... they were always able to portray the spy stuff with a lot of style and a lot of suspense/thrill.


You really put your finger on something I was thinking but couldn't quite get into words. It's almost like a CIA procedural more than a spy action thriller. I'm also still holding judgment in reserve. First few episodes are often a bit slow while they set things up, so maybe we haven't seen what show's going to be yet. But if it stays like this it'll probably fall onto the list of shows I half-watch while doing something else.


----------



## Mr Flippant (Jan 2, 2009)

As Randy would say, "I'm just not feeling it dawg." It has potential but it has absolutely no edge to it. Even though there are obviously deadly encounters every week, you never worry anything bad is going to happen and everything will be worked out by the end. Likewise the spy technology angle is just fake and blah and will always save the day. It is all too predictable and bland. I will still give it a chance but if the stories don't improve, my SP will have to prematurely expire.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I've seen this episode and the second, and it's a very tentative season pass still...but it's definitely not a must watch by any stretch of the imagination.


After reading some good reviews here and elsewhere, I downloaded the first two episodes from VOD yesterday. They were better than I expected, but not great. Like the other poster said, I set a tentative SP, but not sure if my husband will enjoy it or not. But then, he like Risolli and Isles and I hated it, and I certainly think this is better than that, so we'll see. ;-)

Cheryl


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> You really put your finger on something I was thinking but couldn't quite get into words. It's almost like a CIA procedural more than a spy action thriller. I'm also still holding judgment in reserve. First few episodes are often a bit slow while they set things up, so maybe we haven't seen what show's going to be yet. But if it stays like this it'll probably fall onto the list of shows I half-watch while doing something else.


Yeah, that might be it right there. It does feel like a rather mediocre FBI procedural, but with FBI search and replaced with CIA, rather than a spy action thriller.

This "domestic protection division" or whatever feels like the FBI's annoying kid brother... can't quite do what the older brother does, but still tagging along and getting in the way, and quite often making a mess of things.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Wow....you guys are being pretty brutal on a show that's only aired two episodes. Give it time...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> Wow....you guys are being pretty brutal on a show that's only aired two episodes. Give it time...


I don't think we're being "brutal." We're just giving our honest opinions about the episodes that have aired, just as we do in other episode threads. I don't think we're doing anything different with this show, or treating it any differently.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I think part of the problem is that USA shows tend to abandon logic and realism (even by TV standards) in favor of characters, and Covert Action doesn't really have any appealing characters aside from the lead (I think Piper Perabo is doing fine; she just doesn't have anybody interesting to interact with). And maybe the blind tech guy. So you've got a nice lead character moving through ridiculous yet dull storylines surrounded by bland and/or unlikeable characters. Not exactly a recipe for success...

Hopefully they'll pull it together, but they really need to A) beef up the supporting cast, and B) embrace their inner silliness like most of the other USA shows do. If you're going to be silly, you need to give in to it enough so that the silliness doesn't become an obstacle to enjoying the show, but rather a part of enjoying the show.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

moot said:


> Haven't seen anyone mention it, but it was probably the most interesting thing about the episode for me... that green laser thing which was the apparent replacement for a blind person's walking stick? Is that real technology, or made-up tv super-tech? If it's real, I'd be interested to learn more about it.


The prop is just a flashlight with green (laser?) LEDs.

They keep showing the green laser pattern on the walls in those scenes. I hope they're careful not to let it shine into anybody's eyes. It was just reported that green lasers can be very dangerous due to leaking infrared light.


----------

