# Flashforward "137 Sekunden" 10/08/09 **Spoilers**



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Remember the verification of "I saw the same thing as the other people in my FF" from the first episode, when the bird smacked against the window? I bet that's connected. 

Final Ghana scene, what were we seeing? A Klingon Bird of Prey decloaking? Some big tower venting gas? As the boss said "The Earth farted"? That was weird.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

By the way, tonight's Closing Credits Secret Word was


Spoiler



HE, which returned a link to http: //m.msnack.com/v/11983370 (a short preview from next week's episode, I think)

Remove the space between the http: and // ... links aren't spoilerized.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

One thing I noticed was the reference to the Department of Homeland Security in the 1991 records search that Mark and Janis did for decrease in the crow population. There was no DHS in 1991.

And Demetri's reaction to his fiancee telling him she saw him in her FF made no sense at all...


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I finally figured out what I don't like about Joseph Fiennes in this: he seems to be trying to hard to be Christopher Meloni in L&O:SVU. 

Why was the Nazi the only person to notice all the dead crows in the yard?

The fiancee chick saw her wedding, but it looks like she only assumed that Harold was there, we never actually see the groom up close in her FF. Then again, if Harold dies in March, why would she be marrying someone else in April?


----------



## GadgetFreak (Jun 3, 2002)

busyba said:


> The fiancee chick saw her wedding, but it looks like she only assumed that Harold was there, we never actually see the groom up close in her FF. Then again, if Harold dies in March, why would she be marrying someone else in April?


Don't think she would marry someone else, but why else go? She already has the tickets? She is sad and decides to go anyway? Not sure -- you'd think he would have asked her more details.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I am still intrigued by the concept of this show, but I found this episode kind of incoherent. 

What the heck is the main character's motivation at this point? In his vision, his life was basically falling apart: He was drinking again, he seemed freaked out, his office was getting raided, his wife was having an affair, and his daughter was hanging out with a bad man. Of all people, this is the guy who should be working as hard as he can to fight AGAINST the future that he saw. Instead, he is doing exactly the opposite: He appears desperate to recreate what he saw and is doing everything he possibly can to make sure the future happens just that way -- even following totally irrational investigatory leads and begging his supervisors to help him recreate his horribly sucky vision of the future. Why? This show would make a lot more sense to me if he were trying to sabotage all those leads instead of being the one who insists on tracking them all down. 

Why are so many people lying about their FlashForwards to their loved ones? People's motivations are not making a lot of sense to me. And given that so many people ARE lying, how can a cornerstone of the investigation be the self-reported Mosiac database? 

The plea negotiation with the Nazi -- the whole Nazi subplot, actually -- was ridiculous. The terms were ludicrous, and there wasn't even any paperwork, court approval, anything.

The crow subplot also seemed missing a few links to me. OK, crows were dead. But instead of looking at whether other birds or animals died during the Flash, they totally fixate on crows. I didn't get that. If animals blacked out like humans, you'd expect a whole lot of dead birds, wouldn't you? They would suddenly stop flying and crash to the ground. Why would they all jump to the importance of crows specifically? 

Here's one explanation for her seeing him at the wedding when he didn't see it: There are two sets of visions, one for each possible future. In one they get married, in the other, he's dead. Maybe some people saw Option A, and some saw Option B.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

busyba said:


> Then again, if Harold dies in March, why would she be marrying someone else in April?


1) She splits up with him. Remember the speculation that he's the father of the other agent's yet-to-be-born baby?
2) She sees _something_ and erroneously assumes it was a wedding. Moreover, she assumes it was _her_ wedding. The thing is, from what we see there is no evidence of a wedding at all. The camera focused on her, not on what she was seeing. They showed very little of that dress she was wearing, so I assume it's misdirection.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

martinp13 said:


> Final Ghana scene, what were we seeing?


Somalia, not Ghana.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Ruth said:


> Why are so many people lying about their FlashForwards to their loved ones? People's motivations are not making a lot of sense to me. And given that so many people ARE lying, how can a cornerstone of the investigation be the self-reported Mosiac database?


It's a statistical sampling problem. It's assumed not enough of them are lying to skew the pattern, if there is one. Also, in flashforwards with more than one person, all of them would have to be lying.


Ruth said:


> If animals blacked out like humans, you'd expect a whole lot of dead birds, wouldn't you? They would suddenly stop flying and crash to the ground. Why would they all jump to the importance of crows specifically?


Actually, you wouldn't expect to see _dead_ birds. Birds are like mice, too light to hurt themselves because their terminal velocity in free fall is too low. More likely what was seen were _unconscious_ birds, but if they were dead it wasn't the fall that killed them. I assume they fixated on crows because of the other flashforward (the one with Alex Kingston) in which a crow slams into a window.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Beware the Ides of March!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Sponsor guy's flashforward of his daughter was false? Was this the first false (as of now) vision?

I don't get why governments don't pull the old "April Fools!" trick when negotiating with evil people. At least arrest them immediately again on some trumped up charges right after you release them.

Demitri is the only character I care about at this point. I'm happy to see Gabrielle Union on the show. I like her.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I was happy to see Gina Torres.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Sponsor guy's flashforward of his daughter was false? Was this the first false (as of now) vision?


She was injured in her flash forward. Maybe she lost a leg or something like that and that's all that made it back and what they happened to sample.

I agree with a previous post. Why is the FBI guy so desperate to start drinking again and be attacked by people with machine guns?


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

There are already too many mind-screw "I saw that in April 2010 so I did this today" sort of occurrences. So, uhh, what did they originally do to get there? Nazi man's vision required this weird loop of occurrences that Mark Benford appoint himself to the investigation at a time before the event he is investigating even existed. What did customs guy do to originally get the job? The entire interaction between him and Noh seemed to show no draw otherwise to seek out that position.

If the entire story arc is going to be the writers injecting random, completely ridiculous plot points into the story (e.g. old Nazi MacGuffin character taking the FBI for a ride over dead crows) then my patience is going to run out quite fast. I agree with an earlier poster that Benford seems to have no drive for what he's doing, other than he thinks he should do it because he saw himself doing it. In fact that seems to be how a lot of characters are acting. That seems like a lousy life to lead in the meantime. If Noh were following the same philosophy he would just blow his brains today and save himself the suspense of dying.

The writing simply isn't good enough for the premise of the show. Any run of the mill show can do mystery of the week things and then have some weak theory deployed at the end to haphazardly link them together. The better ones can at least make that ride [mostly] enjoyable.

What made people so afraid of air travel? Concern over another FlashForward happening? A plane in the air seems like one of the better modes of transportation to be on, save perhaps a train. Unless the plane is taking off or landing, it's very likely to be on autopilot or otherwise level flight. That is a lot better than driving 75mph down a freeway in a car or bus and then having the driver zone out with no control of the vehicle for the next couple of minutes.



crazywater said:


> One thing I noticed was the reference to the Department of Homeland Security in the 1991 records search that Mark and Janis did for decrease in the crow population. There was no DHS in 1991.


That annoyed me too. I don't know how such an obvious factual error could enter a show that wants to act smart.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

I also didn't realize we kept near real-time statistics on crow populations.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Sponsor guy's flashforward of his daughter was false? Was this the first false (as of now) vision?


Either Harold or his fiancées vision is "false" too.

He can't both be dead and getting married.

I'm starting to wonder if, as the series progresses, if there won't be more flash-forwards, and possibly some flash-backs too.

What if the sponsor-guy, sometime later, in a flash-*BACK* has the opportunity to save his daughter from being killed, making his flash-_forward_ come true?

I wonder if there are, indeed, multiple realities and each person saw one possible reality in their flashback.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

The bird scene at the end...was that happening current time? They were talking about it happening in 91 so I wasn't sure if that was suppose to be a flash back or what.

Noh confuses me. He should be pushing his fiance to elope right now...just to see if they can change things. Also, assuming Noh is really killed or gone away somewhere or whatever...maybe his fiance was participating in some kind of memorial service.

In the doctor chick's (Penny) replay of her flash forward...this week it sure does look like that guy makes eye contact with her.

I kept waiting for the agents to tell nazi guy...hahaha just kidding! I mean, he comes in and says the german government has signed off on everything and then nazi guy...without even asking for proof...starts spilling his beans. Once he started talking about dead birds, I would've been like, SEEYA!

Also, not to self...apparently the reason behind the length of the blackout was bogus...how 'bout let's NOT put that on the board this iteration. That way if we are stuck in some kind of time loop, next time you won't be so anxious to learn about dead crows.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Fish Man said:


> Either Harold or his fiancées vision is "false" too.


I assumed the fiancee was having a vision of a dream...


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

Did 'Harold' ever bust that guy for the bong? Or was it left unsaid?


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

Snappa77 said:


> Did 'Harold' ever bust that guy for the bong? Or was it left unsaid?


It was left unsaid, but in my opinion, it was very strongly implied that he didn't.

That wasn't what he was there for, and the fact that the guy smoked weed would have been a triviality compared to the gravity of the case he is working on and the knowledge (of his own impending death) he is dealing with.

No way he would have bothered with a petty pot bust.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Fish Man said:


> Either Harold or his fiancées vision is "false" too.
> 
> He can't both be dead and getting married.


Notice that we didn't actually _see_ Harold in his fiancée's vision.

My guess is that her vision was true, but that she was misinterpreting it and just assumed that Harold was there (even though she didn't actually see him) and she was there to get married to him.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Fish Man said:


> It was left unsaid, but in my opinion, it was very strongly implied that he didn't.
> 
> That wasn't what he was there for, and the fact that the guy smoked weed would have been a triviality compared to the gravity of the case he is working on and the knowledge (of his own impending death) he is dealing with.
> 
> No way he would have bothered with a petty pot bust.


Although, you could tell that Agent Harold was really tempted to bust him just because if he busted him then the guy would never become a Customs Agent, which means that his FF would be false which would then mean that maybe Harold won't die.

He keeps oscilating between wanting to change his fate and being resigned to it. He's striking me as a very Hamlet-like character, in that he's in a constant internal battle to try to figure out if he should be the "man of action" or the "man of contemplation", and he always chooses to be the wrong one at the wrong time (for instance, he overthinks it when he has the chance to kill his uncle in the church, and so he doesn't, and then he acts too rashly when he's in his mother's chamber and mistakenly kills Polonious, thinking it was his uncle.)

I suspect that Harold will have more of these "crossroads" moments and each time he'll make the wrong choice that will actually take him closer to his death.

[And if anyone gives me grief over not tagging the 'Hamlet' spoilers, I'm going to kick their ass! ]


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

tivogurl said:


> 1) She splits up with him. Remember the speculation that he's the father of the other agent's yet-to-be-born baby?
> 2) She sees _something_ and erroneously assumes it was a wedding. Moreover, she assumes it was _her_ wedding. The thing is, from what we see there is no evidence of a wedding at all. The camera focused on her, not on what she was seeing. They showed very little of that dress she was wearing, so I assume it's misdirection.


My guess is she's there to spread his ashes, and made a ceremony out of it.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

GDG76 said:


> cheesesteak said:
> 
> 
> > Sponsor guy's flashforward of his daughter was false? Was this the first false (as of now) vision?
> ...


It was said the exhumed body was compared to the DNA the military had on file. What if the military doesn't want the world to know this girl was captured/injured in the Middle East? A conspiracy maybe?


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

Vendikarr said:


> It was said the exhumed body was compared to the DNA the military had on file. What if the military doesn't want the world to know this girl was captured/injured in the Middle East? A conspiracy maybe?


That occurred to me.

Maybe, even, some secret branch of the military and/or government is behind the flash-forward itself, and this is part of the coverup.


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

Fish Man said:


> Either Harold or his fiancées vision is "false" too.
> 
> He can't both be dead and getting married.


In her vision, I don't think that she saw to whom she was getting married, did she? She may have just assumed that it was going to be to him.


----------



## mcdougll (Jan 27, 2003)

Fish Man said:


> That occurred to me.
> 
> Maybe, even, some secret branch of the military and/or government is behind the flash-forward itself, and this is part of the coverup.


I couldn't figure out why he would even want to exhume the body to do the DNA test. They would have done that in the first place to identify the remains, and even if the remains are her leg (for example) that doesn't mean that he couldn't still find his daughter later (sans leg), so there's nothing to be gained by it.

On another topic, I was pretty frustrated with the whole Nazi guy negotation. Why didn't they just say that they will give him what he wants IF his information justifies it. I'm pretty sure dead birds wouldn't qualify, at least in the minds of the agents & German officials.

And didn't they say he claimed to know why the blackout lasted 137 seconds? His answer is to put numbers to letters of a word (written in Herbrew?) and add them up? That doesn't explain anything.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Vendikarr said:


> My guess is she's there to spread his ashes, and made a ceremony out of it.


But at least some of the FFs seem to bring emotional content with them. The woman getting the ultrasound described her feelings about it, and Penny said she knew she had feelings for the guy she was with. If that's true, I don't see how you could mistake a wedding for a funeral.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

mcdougll said:


> On another topic, I was pretty frustrated with the whole Nazi guy negotation. Why didn't they just say that they will give him what he wants IF his information justifies it. I'm pretty sure dead birds wouldn't qualify, at least in the minds of the agents & German officials.
> 
> And didn't they say he claimed to know why the blackout lasted 137 seconds? His answer is to put numbers to letters of a word (written in Herbrew?) and add them up? That doesn't explain anything.


Yeah. And then AFTER the Kabbalah BS (come on, a _Nazi_ is interested in Jewish mysticism and writes Hebrew? A Nazi?! Gimme a break) they still want to go forward with the ludicrous deal even though it's obvious he's screwing with them?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

"It has to happen because it will happen."

I suspect that's going to be a recurring theme.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

busyba said:


> Notice that we didn't actually _see_ Harold in his fiancée's vision.
> 
> My guess is that her vision was true, but that she was misinterpreting it and just assumed that Harold was there (even though she didn't actually see him) and she was there to get married to him.


This is exactly how I took it. He'll probably ask her again if she actually saw him in her vision, and he'll find out she didn't.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Marc said:


> In her vision, I don't think that she saw to whom she was getting married, did she? She may have just assumed that it was going to be to him.


Well, I don't think she's getting married to somebody else less than a month after her fiancee is murdered.

Unless he breaks up with her now, so she doesn't have to go through the pain of being engaged to him when he's murdered.

Marrying somebody after 4 or 5 months is a little more of a possibility.

-smak-


----------



## lordargent (Nov 12, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> I was happy to see Gina Torres.


I was happy to see Gabrielle Union

It's been a while since that 2005 night stalker remake.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Oh, man, suddenly I have a bad, bad feeling about this show. Up until now, the flashforwards had some logical problems, but I hoped that there would be logical explanations. Those hopes are being shattered into many pieces.

First, it is now clear that the people in the flashforwards live in a post-flashforward world. They know about the flashforwards, and they know when it will happen, but they take no action whatsoever based on that knowledge. You would think everybody would be writing themselves notes warning themselves about what is to come, or that they would already have taken radical action to prevent their futures. Nope. They are exactly as active or passive as the plot, not logic, dictates.

And second (and most damning), people have vastly different abilities to know what's happening in their flashforward. So while the doctor knows only that there's a man in her living room, but not who he is or what he's doing there, the Nazi knows from a brief conversation with a stoner customs guard that he is out because of a deal he cut with the FBI; the exact terms of that deal; and the name of the FBI agent with whom he negotiated the deal.

Uh huh. Right.

I'll give it a little more time, but a week ago I nevber would have dreamed that by now the show would be so bad, I'd be talking about only giving it a little more time. What a major disappointment.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Well, Nazi guy's FF showed him free and he did hear himself name the FBI agent and say it was because of a "murder". Seeing all the dead crows immediately after that vision might have led him to the conclusion that he would get out and it would involve the information about the crows. That part didn't bother me so much. I do agree that many of the characters are acting in unexplainable (except that it's handy to the plot) ways which is a bit disappointing.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Ok, I'll be the wet blanket... can we please call the characters by their names or descriptions in THIS show? I don't know who 'Harold' or 'Penny' are... just guessing from context. I didn't watch Lost, don't watch a lot of movies... I'm watching this show. It's bad enough that I DO recognize 'Olivia' from 24, but another character's name here is Olivia. 

Thanks


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

busyba said:


> "It has to happen because it will happen."
> 
> I suspect that's going to be a recurring theme.


You're a regular Faraday, huh?


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Watch for a 30ish year old black man with a large scar on his face to appear on a future episode. Why mark the boy w/ a huge scar if not so we'll recognize him later?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

martinp13 said:


> Remember the verification of "I saw the same thing as the other people in my FF" from the first episode, when the bird smacked against the window? I bet that's connected.


Good catch.



busyba said:


> Why was the Nazi the only person to notice all the dead crows in the yard?


Very good question. Whoever compiles that data (hugely implausible that they have nearly-real-time worldwide day-by-day data on crow deaths, but nevermind on that) surely must have noticed too. Why didn't they contact Mosaic with that tip? Or maybe they did but it's lost in the ten thousand other tips someone's trying to go through... and Mr. Nazi only got attention because it ended up on his bulletin board.

While the crows thing is certainly interesting, though, note that the crows are _not_ (as far as I recall) on the bulletin board, but the "137 sekunden" thing _is_... so that goofy bit of qabalism is going to seem more relevant by April, maybe. Gosh, I hope we don't get deep into mysticism like that, though.

We've seen several examples of the future in the flashforwards being caused _by_ the flashforwards now, which is highly suggesting the Faraday Posulate applies here too: you can't change the timeline, because your changes are part of the timeline. Which is fine with me, provided something comes along to explain why no one's staring at the winning lottery numbers in their flashforward. And we'd better get some sign within the next few episodes that the writers have thought of the question, and the characters better think of it too. I'm cutting them slack, giving them the benefit of the doubt, and I'm even willing to accept that there might not be an _answer_ until April. But they can't _ignore the question_ any longer, without making me feel like they're ignoring it for plot convenience only. The whole show now turns on this point.

Whatever else you can say about it, the idea of looking over a hill and suddenly seeing thousands of crows drop to the ground all at once like that is _creepy_. The actual footage in the show felt a little too fake to live up to what I think the experience would be like, though. Pity.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

busyba said:


> Why was the Nazi the only person to notice all the dead crows in the yard?


He probably wasn't. But he was probably one of the few people, if not the only person, to have seen dead crows and have had a vision where said dead crows were mentioned. And given that the dead crows were the key to his release, he, above most others, would find it important to use that information.



Ruth said:


> What the heck is the main character's motivation at this point? In his vision, his life was basically falling apart: He was drinking again, he seemed freaked out, his office was getting raided, his wife was having an affair, and his daughter was hanging out with a bad man. Of all people, this is the guy who should be working as hard as he can to fight AGAINST the future that he saw. Instead, he is doing exactly the opposite: He appears desperate to recreate what he saw and is doing everything he possibly can to make sure the future happens just that way -- even following totally irrational investigatory leads and begging his supervisors to help him recreate his horribly sucky vision of the future. Why? This show would make a lot more sense to me if he were trying to sabotage all those leads instead of being the one who insists on tracking them all down.


He's trying to find out as much information as he can so he can make an informed decision. Yes, it appears he is going down the same path now, but since he doesn't know how he got there, he can't know what not to do to avoid the situation. What if everyone had a vision that the world was going to end tomorrow, and people starting partying, rioting, and generally just wasting everything they had? Then, what if nothing ended up happening, and now people needed to live with the consequences of their actions?

Agent Benford doesn't know how true the visions will end up being, what caused the visions, why the vision happened, or if with knowing them anything can be changed. He's trying to find out as much information as he can, even if it appears to be leading him to a future he wants to avoid. Even he has acknowledged this in the show when talking about the conflict between doing his job and not wanting the visions to come true for his family's sake.



unicorngoddess said:


> The bird scene at the end...was that happening current time? They were talking about it happening in 91 so I wasn't sure if that was suppose to be a flash back or what.


It was showing what happened in 1991. They are probably going to end up finding that boy who is now grown up. Maybe he was one of the people who was awake.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

unicorngoddess said:


> I kept waiting for the agents to tell nazi guy...hahaha just kidding! I mean, he comes in and says the german government has signed off on everything and then nazi guy...without even asking for proof...starts spilling his beans.


I'm sure the lawyer verified the agreement beforehand, and the government has to keep its word otherwise none of these deals would work.



mcdougll said:


> On another topic, I was pretty frustrated with the whole Nazi guy negotation. Why didn't they just say that they will give him what he wants IF his information justifies it.


Because they wanted the information more than they wanted him to be a prisoner. The Nazi knew that, and wasn't going to give them what they wanted up front.



Ruth said:


> Yeah. And then AFTER the Kabbalah BS (come on, a _Nazi_ is interested in Jewish mysticism and writes Hebrew? A Nazi?! Gimme a break) they still want to go forward with the ludicrous deal even though it's obvious he's screwing with them?


But his vision was confirmed by an outsider, and it was that more than his explanation about the 137 seconds that made them think there was signifiance in the information he gave them. And are people forgetting that his information was important? People are acting as if he "tricked" them, but we saw the importance of the information by the end of the episode.



madscientist said:


> Well, Nazi guy's FF showed him free and he did hear himself name the FBI agent and say it was because of a "murder". Seeing all the dead crows immediately after that vision might have led him to the conclusion that he would get out and it would involve the information about the crows.


Yeah. I think his vision only gave him enough basic points to be able to work everything out. I don't think he knew every detail of what to say or what to do from that alone.



martinp13 said:


> It's bad enough that I DO recognize 'Olivia' from 24, but another character's name here is Olivia.


Don't feel too bad. Sprague Grayden, who plays Olivia in _24_, is not in _FlashForward_. 



Hunter Green said:


> Whoever compiles that data (hugely implausible that they have nearly-real-time worldwide day-by-day data on crow deaths, but nevermind on that) surely must have noticed too.


I was also confused by the data going all the way into December. I thought it was only a few days up to maybe a week or two after the flashforwards given the funeral that was happening. It's possible the data was predicting the future population, but I'm not sure why the data they were looking at would have included that.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Fish Man said:


> ....the fact that the guy smoked weed would have been a triviality...


That's always been my credo....


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

BitbyBlit said:


> Don't feel too bad. Sprague Grayden, who plays Olivia in _24_, is not in _FlashForward_.


Damn, you're right... she has that same hairdo and acts just like her... I sit corrected! 

Ganwar region of Somalia... that's why I was thinking 'Ghana'.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

What I find odd is that apparently the flash forwards aren't memories of the future, but rather just a visual peek into the future.

For example, Commander Norrington doesn't recognize Penny because he didn't see her face in the flash forward. But if it were a memory from the future, he'd remember her without seeing her face during those 137 seconds.

And I agree with Rob, the wheels may not be coming off, but the lug nuts are getting loose.


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

ElJay said:


> What made people so afraid of air travel? Concern over another FlashForward happening? A plane in the air seems like one of the better modes of transportation to be on, save perhaps a train. Unless the plane is taking off or landing, it's very likely to be on autopilot or otherwise level flight. That is a lot better than driving 75mph down a freeway in a car or bus and then having the driver zone out with no control of the vehicle for the next couple of minutes.


Um...you saw all the crashed planes on the ground, right? 

And, in the first episode, head FBI guy said something like "8000 planes fell out of the sky today."

I would think that would make people afraid to fly.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I saw all of the crashed planes. I also saw a lot of crashed cars and busses, buildings on fire, etc. Did people stop living their lives completely?

They never explained why the planes crashed and my opinion remains that it seems like a rather safe place to be, even if the writers of this show want to (IMO illogically) imagine a world where that's not the case. In fact why not require the use of autoland when possible and then the human element is taken out of the landing process in the event of another FlashForward.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> What I find odd is that apparently the flash forwards aren't memories of the future, but rather just a visual peek into the future.


I just kind of accept that fact. It's like they're in their own bodies but don't have control over their own bodies, but are experiencing the moment anyway, with all of it's emotions.

I'm enjoying it so far, and actually think they're doing a pretty good job of mysteriously revealing information and such. It probably took a fair amount of planning, since the board was covered with pertinent clues in the first episode.


----------



## mcdougll (Jan 27, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> Because they wanted the information more than they wanted him to be a prisoner. The Nazi knew that, and wasn't going to give them what they wanted up front.


But my point was that if the Feds/German officials said that they would give the Nazi what he wanted IF his information justified it would give the Nazi the possibility of the deal he wants, and also covers the agents if he's just bluffing.



BitbyBlit said:


> But his vision was confirmed by an outsider, and it was that more than his explanation about the 137 seconds that made them think there was significance in the information he gave them. And are people forgetting that his information was important? People are acting as if he "tricked" them, but we saw the importance of the information by the end of the episode.


We did see the importance of the information, but only because the agents investigated and figured it out. The Nazi didn't know what the significance was, so he was betting on it. Essentially, he did trick them. 
My beef is that (if my memory serves) the Nazi claimed he knew WHY the blackout lasted 137 seconds. He provided no such explanation.


----------



## mcdougll (Jan 27, 2003)

The thing with Harold is pretty frustrating as well. If I were in his situation, I'd tell my fiance the truth, quit the FBI (or take a 6 month leave-of-absence), elope, and move to the most remote place in the US. Middle-of-nowhere Montana, maybe?
It might not guarantee his future won't come true, but it would be a good way to try to make his fiance's flashforward not come true, which would bode well for him as well.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm not worried about this show yet considering I spent three years yelling at my tv about why some moron on Lost, who just learned something really, really, really, really important wouldn't promptly share that information with the fellow Losties so maybe they'd have a better idea about what the heck was going on.


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

mcdougll said:


> If I were in his situation, I'd tell my fiance the truth, quit the FBI (or take a 6 month leave-of-absence), elope, and move to the most remote place in the US. Middle-of-nowhere Montana, maybe?


Then that exact course of action would be the one that led to the future that happened. Had he not done it everything would have been fine.

...Would have going to have been fine?... What tense am I looking for here...


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

firerose818 said:


> Um...you saw all the crashed planes on the ground, right?
> 
> And, in the first episode, head FBI guy said something like "8000 planes fell out of the sky today."
> 
> I would think that would make people afraid to fly.


"Gangbusters.... more scotch please.".... best line ever.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

A man walked into a town early in the morning. The streets were virtually empty, with only a few people walking about. Suddenly out of seemingly nowhere, a robed figure appeared and began touching people, causing them to collapse. It was only after the figure turned and starting walking toward him that the man realized that it was Death.

Fearing for his life, he ran to his car and drove as fast as he could to get as far away from the town as he could manage by nightfall. On the way, he stopped to buy new clothes. He also cut his hair and dyed it a different color. Finally, when he was too tired to go on, he pulled over to a nearby hotel and booked a room for the night.

Just after entering his room, however, he heard footsteps behind him. He turned in horror to see Death standing in the doorway.

"How did you find me?" the man asked.

"Oh, I always knew you'd be here," replied Death, "In fact, I was surprised to see you this morning so far away. I almost didn't recognize you, and had to walk a little closer to be sure you were who I thought you were."


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

firerose818 said:


> Um...you saw all the crashed planes on the ground, right?
> 
> And, in the first episode, head FBI guy said something like "8000 planes fell out of the sky today."
> 
> I would think that would make people afraid to fly.


Probably mentioned in one of the earlier threads, but why would planes even crash? Autopilot should be more than enough to keep them flying for 137 seconds.

8,000 seems like a big % of the total planes in the air all over the world.

-smak-


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

smak said:


> Probably mentioned in one of the earlier threads, but why would planes even crash? Autopilot should be more than enough to keep them flying for 137 seconds.


Planes that are taking off, landing, doing certain kinds of maneuvering, or in heavy weather aren't on autopilot.


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

lordargent said:


> I was happy to see Gabrielle Union
> 
> It's been a while since that 2005 night stalker remake.


She was in Life last year when Reese was pregnant in real life.


----------



## Chapper1 (Jan 2, 2004)

martinp13 said:


> Ok, I'll be the wet blanket... can we please call the characters by their names or descriptions in THIS show? I don't know who 'Harold' or 'Penny' are... just guessing from context. I didn't watch Lost, don't watch a lot of movies... I'm watching this show. It's bad enough that I DO recognize 'Olivia' from 24, but another character's name here is Olivia.
> 
> Thanks


Amen, brother. I guess it is too hard for people to remember the actual names of characters on the show they just watched


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

smak said:


> 8,000 seems like a big % of the total planes in the air all over the world.


Are you counting little planes? Most of which I would expect not to be on auto-pilot, and on which I suspect 137 seconds of a collapsed pilot would make a big impact.

(A _big_ impact...)


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Even little planes have autopilots, and otherwise the pilot will generally have them trimmed for level flight that wouldn't torpedo the craft without 137 seconds of input from the pilot. The only way that 8,000 number could make any sense is that every pilot in the world suddenly lurched forward on the control column as they passed out for the FlashForward. Either that or the fuel went bad ala "The Langoliers" during the FlashFoward and the engines quit.  Or there were thousands of planes under pilot control for takeoff, landing or some other maneuvering. The 8000 number, even in a worldwide setting, seems quite high for this. 

The best reasoning remains that the writers simply put no thought into this at all, which doesn't bode that well for the rest of the story.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> Planes that are taking off, landing, doing certain kinds of maneuvering, or in heavy weather aren't on autopilot.


I think I can safely claim to have been the first to grump about this one!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

But if both the pilot and copilot black out at the same time and slump on the controls, I can see how that could cause the planes to go into a dive. At least enough that my suspension of disbelief can cope with it.


----------



## BlearyEyed (Jun 11, 2002)

Mike Lang said:


> Watch for a 30ish year old black man with a large scar on his face to appear on a future episode. Why mark the boy w/ a huge scar if not so we'll recognize him later?


This was one of the things that most excited me about the episode, that scar looks exactly like that of Michael k Williams (Omar from "The Wire" and most recently on an ep of Law & Order and a regular on "The Philanthropist") I'll be excited to see him show up on this show.

I'll give this show a VERY long rope, but if I wasn't a fan of the genre and feel some need to watch shows of this type I don't know what so far would have really pulled me into this show. My main problem is the same as the one a lot here are having, if you know your Flashforward, and the exact time and date, why are all the characters in the flashes acting as if they had no idea? And why is nobody trying anything to change their fate?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Vendikarr said:


> It was said the exhumed body was compared to the DNA the military had on file. What if the military doesn't want the world to know this girl was captured/injured in the Middle East? A conspiracy maybe?


They didn't say exhumed _body_, they said exhumed _remains_. One of the parents specifically corrected himself or herself or the other person to this effect. I think a more likely theory is one that someone else mentioned earlier, that he does eventually find her alive but possibly missing whatever remains (an arm, leg, etc.) were in the cemetery. They do show her mostly covered, as though possibly in a hospital (I think he even mentioned she was under medical care of some sort) in the dad's vision.

Anyway, I thought the crows thing was rather contrived. That may be the clincher if I stop watching this show. Still a number of plot holes and trivial discrepancies that might only be a little annoying, but they'd be so easily fixed with a little effort. The DHS thing for example, caught that one right away too. But mostly, it's all these things that seem obvious to the viewers but not to the characters. I mean, wouldn't the dad know exactly what remains there were, and particularly in his state of desperation, be thinking this same theory as well?


----------



## TIVOSciolist (Oct 13, 2003)

Marc said:


> In her vision, I don't think that she saw to whom she was getting married, did she? She may have just assumed that it was going to be to him.


In the old days, didn't the Best Man take over the role of the groom in the event something happened to the groom? Maybe Demitri's Best Man is his twin brother who just couldn't say no to Gabrielle Union?


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

That would make just about as much sense as anything else that has happened so far...maybe more.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

busyba said:


> He keeps oscilating between wanting to change his fate and being resigned to it. He's striking me as a very Hamlet-like character, in that he's in a constant internal battle to try to figure out if he should be the "man of action" or the "man of contemplation", and he always chooses to be the wrong one at the wrong time (for instance, he overthinks it when he has the chance to kill his uncle in the church, and so he doesn't, and then he acts too rashly when he's in his mother's chamber and mistakenly kills Polonious, thinking it was his uncle.)


SPOILER!!!!


----------



## chronatog7 (Aug 26, 2004)

In my FlashForward, I saw this show being cancelled.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

busyba said:


> Why was the Nazi the only person to notice all the dead crows in the yard?
> 
> The fiancee chick saw her wedding, but it looks like she only assumed that Harold was there, we never actually see the groom up close in her FF. Then again, if Harold dies in March, why would she be marrying someone else in April?


As others have said, he was the only one to connect the dots enough to affect his circumstance. *Somebody* had to clean up all those dead birds.



mcdougll said:


> But my point was that if the Feds/German officials said that they would give the Nazi what he wanted IF his information justified it would give the Nazi the possibility of the deal he wants, and also covers the agents if he's just bluffing.


They addressed that - the lawyer said no to any type of escape clause. Think about it - what if the information is relevant, but the government just says that it wasn't, to keep him in prison?



mcdougll said:


> The thing with Harold is pretty frustrating as well. If I were in his situation, I'd tell my fiance the truth, quit the FBI (or take a 6 month leave-of-absence), elope, and move to the most remote place in the US. Middle-of-nowhere Montana, maybe?
> It might not guarantee his future won't come true, but it would be a good way to try to make his fiance's flashforward not come true, which would bode well for him as well.


I was listening to the wording of the call - she said he would be shot three times in the chest, and that it was on an intelligence report. Why would his murder appear on any intelligence report, unless it was a case he was working (possibly unwittingly), or if he was killed by a spy of some sort?



ElJay said:


> I saw all of the crashed planes. I also saw a lot of crashed cars and busses, buildings on fire, etc. Did people stop living their lives completely?
> 
> They never explained why the planes crashed and my opinion remains that it seems like a rather safe place to be, even if the writers of this show want to (IMO illogically) imagine a world where that's not the case. In fact why not require the use of autoland when possible and then the human element is taken out of the landing process in the event of another FlashForward.


Because the Autoland feature is less reliable that an qualified pilot who is awake and alert. Granted, during a FlashForward, an awake pilot is nearly impossible, but the likelihood of another flash is remote compared to the likelihood of a sudden gust of wind or something else that could jeopardize a landing.

Besides, that feature is generally for emergencies where no one qualified to fly the plane is available.



smak said:


> Probably mentioned in one of the earlier threads, but why would planes even crash? Autopilot should be more than enough to keep them flying for 137 seconds.
> 
> 8,000 seems like a big % of the total planes in the air all over the world.
> 
> -smak-





tivogurl said:


> Planes that are taking off, landing, doing certain kinds of maneuvering, or in heavy weather aren't on autopilot.





ElJay said:


> Even little planes have autopilots, and otherwise the pilot will generally have them trimmed for level flight that wouldn't torpedo the craft without 137 seconds of input from the pilot. The only way that 8,000 number could make any sense is that every pilot in the world suddenly lurched forward on the control column as they passed out for the FlashForward. Either that or the fuel went bad ala "The Langoliers" during the FlashFoward and the engines quit.  Or there were thousands of planes under pilot control for takeoff, landing or some other maneuvering. The 8000 number, even in a worldwide setting, seems quite high for this.
> 
> The best reasoning remains that the writers simply put no thought into this at all, which doesn't bode that well for the rest of the story.


There are around 200,000 flights daily, not counting small planes and such. Assuming the majority of those flights are during daylight hours in their locality, and about half of the world is in daylight at any given point, I don't find it unreasonable that of the planes in the air, 8,000 were in the middle of a take-off, landing, or another maneuver that requires the auto-pilot to be disengaged such as a course correction avoiding turbulent weather.



jeff125va said:


> They didn't say exhumed _body_, they said exhumed _remains_. One of the parents specifically corrected himself or herself or the other person to this effect. I think a more likely theory is one that someone else mentioned earlier, that he does eventually find her alive but possibly missing whatever remains (an arm, leg, etc.) were in the cemetery. They do show her mostly covered, as though possibly in a hospital (I think he even mentioned she was under medical care of some sort) in the dad's vision.


I think he was actually dreaming in his flash. Think about it, he has a flash and sees his daughter alive, hurt, and apparently in another country. He spends the next six months searching, or maybe not (based on this new DNA evidence). Either way, FlashFoward time is here, he's fallen off the wagon because he knows it won't come true, and he wallowing with his thoughts for his daughter, and falls asleep, dreaming about the very vision he saw in the FlashForward.

Unlikely, but hey, maybe.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

I thought aircraft built in the last few years could land on auto pilot?


----------



## chocophile (Dec 27, 2007)

Here's a nifty animation that shows all scheduled commercial flights over a 24 hour period.

http://www.flixxy.com/scheduled-airline-flights-worldwide.htm

According to the web page, there are between 8000 and 13000 airplanes in the air.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ruth said:


> Why are so many people lying about their FlashForwards to their loved ones? People's motivations are not making a lot of sense to me. And given that so many people ARE lying, how can a cornerstone of the investigation be the self-reported Mosiac database?


We know why Agent Benford is lying about his FlashForward. He said in the pilot that his wife had told him that she'd divorce him if he started drinking again. Why would he risk making her mad/suspicious in the current timeline over something that may not ever happen if he doesn't have to.

We also have a pretty good indication of why Demetri is lying to his fiance. Why worry the girl with something that may or may not come true and do potential damage to his current relationship, when he could enjoy his time with her now and hopefully prevent his murder from happening.


mcdougll said:


> We did see the importance of the information, but only because the agents investigated and figured it out. The Nazi didn't know what the significance was, so he was betting on it. Essentially, he did trick them.
> My beef is that (if my memory serves) the Nazi claimed he knew WHY the blackout lasted 137 seconds. He provided no such explanation.


That was addressed in the episode. He knew that the 137 seconds explanation was what would initially get Benford's attention. He knew it was bogus and acknowledged it, but by that point, he had Benford's attention for the real meat of his ploy.


jeff125va said:


> They didn't say exhumed _body_, they said exhumed _remains_. One of the parents specifically corrected himself or herself or the other person to this effect. I think a more likely theory is one that someone else mentioned earlier, that he does eventually find her alive but possibly missing whatever remains (an arm, leg, etc.) were in the cemetery. They do show her mostly covered, as though possibly in a hospital (I think he even mentioned she was under medical care of some sort) in the dad's vision.


IIRC, from the pilot, the AA sponsor said something about the remains brought back being completely unidentifiable and that they only knew it was his daughter because the military did a DNA test. If that's the case, then it's entirely possible the "remains" the military found were not a complete body.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> IIRC, from the pilot, the AA sponsor said something about the remains brought back being completely unidentifiable and that they only knew it was his daughter because the military did a DNA test. If that's the case, then it's entirely possible the "remains" the military found were not a complete body.


In fact, he said the remains only weighed 30-something pounds, of something like that.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Right now, I'm inclined to think that Dem's fiancee is simply lying to him about her vision. Just because we are shown what she is describing doesn't necessarily mean she is describing what she actually saw. It may be that she saw his funeral, but didn't want to tell him. So she lies to him, and describes the beach scene. And he lies right back, says he saw that too.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

danterner said:


> Right now, I'm inclined to think that Dem's fiancee is simply lying to him about her vision. Just because we are shown what she is describing doesn't necessarily mean she is describing what she actually saw. It may be that she saw his funeral, but didn't want to tell him. So she lies to him, and describes the beach scene. And he lies right back, says he saw that too.


I don't think so. She even asked him "Why are you asking me what I saw, you saw the same thing!" or something similar. So she believes he was in the vision, IMO.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

danterner said:


> Right now, I'm inclined to think that Dem's fiancee is simply lying to him about her vision. Just because we are shown what she is describing doesn't necessarily mean she is describing what she actually saw. It may be that she saw his funeral, but didn't want to tell him. So she lies to him, and describes the beach scene. And he lies right back, says he saw that too.


Possible, but I think it's unlikely that the show is intentionally misleading the viewers, by actually showing us the "footage" from a fake FlashForward.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

danterner said:


> Right now, I'm inclined to think that Dem's fiancee is simply lying to him about her vision. Just because we are shown what she is describing doesn't necessarily mean she is describing what she actually saw. It may be that she saw his funeral, but didn't want to tell him. So she lies to him, and describes the beach scene. And he lies right back, says he saw that too.


Totally not this. She wasn't acting like she was hiding a secret at all.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Well, Nazi guy's FF showed him free and he did hear himself name the FBI agent and say it was because of a "murder". Seeing all the dead crows immediately after that vision might have led him to the conclusion that he would get out and it would involve the information about the crows.


Did anyone else think it was extremely lame that the "murder" was a "murder of crows"?

I barely even remembered this episode when it was over. Not as impressed with this episode as the others.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

My suspension of disbelief has more of a problem with the numerous building fires than it does with the plane crashes. Were there really that many people (in both L.A. and Munich, at least) who happened to be walking around with lit candles, or matches, or something?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

trainman said:


> My suspension of disbelief has more of a problem with the numerous building fires than it does with the plane crashes. Were there really that many people (in both L.A. and Munich, at least) who happened to be walking around with lit candles, or matches, or something?


How about lit cigarettes?

All the time we hear about house fires being started by people falling asleep while smoking in bed, so just imagine how many people were probably smoking when the Blackout hit.

I'm just surprised ABC didn't make the writers drop in some dialogue about that so they could get some PSA credit.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

trainman said:


> My suspension of disbelief has more of a problem with the numerous building fires than it does with the plane crashes. Were there really that many people (in both L.A. and Munich, at least) who happened to be walking around with lit candles, or matches, or something?


Yes, I agree that the "overwhelming destruction" was way overplayed in the pilot. The roads would be bad, there would be a few airplanes and helicopters that crashed, but it wouldn't be the type of destruction that affected nearly every building on the skyline.

However, I chose to simply overlook that, because the producers were going for the dramatic effect of what it would be like for these people waking up to a completely changed world after just a couple of minutes. That's much more easily conveyed with dramatic pictures than with subtle dialogue.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, I agree that the "overwhelming destruction" was way overplayed in the pilot. The roads would be bad, there would be a few airplanes and helicopters that crashed, but it wouldn't be the type of destruction that affected nearly every building on the skyline.
> 
> However, I chose to simply overlook that, because the producers were going for the dramatic effect of what it would be like for these people waking up to a completely changed world after just a couple of minutes. That's much more easily conveyed with dramatic pictures than with subtle dialogue.


With all the helicopters in the air in LA, I can imagine it would look pretty bad if they went out for 2:17 though.

But otherwise I agree.

And would the airports really be THAT empty? People need to get home, no matter what. Most would probably take the chance.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Possible, but I think it's unlikely that the show is intentionally misleading the viewers, by actually showing us the "footage" from a fake FlashForward.


This. So far, we have no evidence of a fake FF shown to us. People have lied about what they saw, but we have seen the 'true' vision.

Still interesting how many FFs we haven't seen... the kids, the babysitter (all the drowning snippets we keep seeing in credits and commercials), suicide guy, etc.

I forget... do we know who babysitter's boyfriend is?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> IIRC, from the pilot, the AA sponsor said something about the remains brought back being completely unidentifiable and that they only knew it was his daughter because the military did a DNA test. If that's the case, then it's entirely possible the "remains" the military found were not a complete body.


I think that it's not just entirely possible, I think that that is the only logical inference. Especially given the part in this episode where he (or maybe the mom) corrected "body" with "remains." I think that by far the most plausible explanation is that the remains are body parts that she lost, presumably in combat, but that she survived.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MickeS said:


> With all the helicopters in the air in LA, I can imagine it would look pretty bad if they went out for 2:17 though.


What they haven't mentioned is that at the moment of the flashforward, there was a high-speed LA freeway chase going on. Most of the 8,000 aircraft that crashed were LA news helicopters covering it. That's why so many buildings were damaged in LA.


----------



## jimborst (Aug 30, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, I agree that the "overwhelming destruction" was way overplayed in the pilot. The roads would be bad, there would be a few airplanes and helicopters that crashed, but it wouldn't be the type of destruction that affected nearly every building on the skyline.
> 
> However, I chose to simply overlook that, because the producers were going for the dramatic effect of what it would be like for these people waking up to a completely changed world after just a couple of minutes. That's much more easily conveyed with dramatic pictures than with subtle dialogue.


I'm sure that they went for the dramatic effect, but look at how often a plane lands at the major airports. If every plane that is taken off autopilot for the landing, I would think there would be many, many crashes. All the small planes and helicopters in the area, and what if there was a car chase going on in downtown, more news helicopters.

I really liked the first two episodes but this one just didn't work for me, hopefully this week they can get it back on track.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jimborst said:


> I'm sure that they went for the dramatic effect, but look at how often a plane lands at the major airports. If every plane that is taken off autopilot for the landing, I would think there would be many, many crashes. All the small planes and helicopters in the area, and what if there was a car chase going on in downtown, more news helicopters.
> 
> I really liked the first two episodes but this one just didn't work for me, hopefully this week they can get it back on track.


I think 8,000 crashes worldwide is probably a little high, but even if we assume it's realistic, there are thousands of active airports worldwide. It's unlikely that more than a handful of those crashes occurred in any single metropolitan area, and even less likely that all of the crash sites would be visible in one single wide-camera shot.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I took the destruction we saw as helicopter and small planes crashing into buildings, not big commercial planes. We all know what happens when big commercial planes hit buildings.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

classicX said:


> I took the destruction we saw as helicopter and small planes crashing into buildings, not big commercial planes.


Haven't you been paying attention?

News helicopters!

High-speed freeway chase!


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> That was addressed in the episode. He knew that the 137 seconds explanation was what would initially get Benford's attention. He knew it was bogus and acknowledged it, but by that point, he had Benford's attention for the real meat of his ploy.


That explains everything except the most important part: "137 sekunden" is _still_ up on Benford's bulletin board in April, which means it's still important to him then. Maybe more so than a bunch of dead crows, which I don't think were on the board. And that in turn is _why_ the 137 thing works to get Benford's attention. There has to be another reason why 137 is important to Benford later for it to still be prominently on the board.



MickeS said:


> Did anyone else think it was extremely lame that the "murder" was a "murder of crows"?


Yes, especially given that the Nazi corrected the usage. (I don't even know if "murder" is an inappropriate usage when they're dead, but he seemed to think so.)


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Hunter Green said:


> That explains everything except the most important part: "137 sekunden" is _still_ up on Benford's bulletin board in April, which means it's still important to him then. Maybe more so than a bunch of dead crows, which I don't think were on the board. And that in turn is _why_ the 137 thing works to get Benford's attention. There has to be another reason why 137 is important to Benford later for it to still be prominently on the board.


Not only that, but there were other connections (the red string) on the board, which means he connects 137 sekunden to something else we have yet to see.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> That explains everything except the most important part: "137 sekunden" is _still_ up on Benford's bulletin board in April, which means it's still important to him then. Maybe more so than a bunch of dead crows, which I don't think were on the board. And that in turn is _why_ the 137 thing works to get Benford's attention. There has to be another reason why 137 is important to Benford later for it to still be prominently on the board.


Exactly... if the crows were up on the board, I'm sure we'd have seen them a million times by now.

Of course "137 sekunden" is recognizable in a FF... a bunch of black dots in a field isn't. 



Hunter Green said:


> Yes, especially given that the Nazi corrected the usage. (I don't even know if "murder" is an inappropriate usage when they're dead, but he seemed to think so.)


I think Herr Nazi was musing on the double meaning here of "murder of crows".


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

We now know three times crows died: 1991 (Somalia), during the blackout (Nazi), and during the flashforward (bird hits window).

Maybe someone has to hold a button down for exactly 137 seconds or something.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

martinp13 said:


> We now know three times crows died: 1991 (Somalia), during the blackout (Nazi), and during the flashforward (bird hits window).
> 
> Maybe someone has to hold a button down for exactly 137 seconds or something.


The bird hitting the window probably was not the same thing. Or at least I got no indication that it was related.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

classicX said:


> Not only that, but there were other connections (the red string) on the board, which means he connects 137 sekunden to something else we have yet to see.


There was a red string on the board, really? That would mean that the Nazi's numerological ramblings about Kabalah might not be nonsense after all. Kabalah followers wear little red string bracelets, no?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

eddyj said:


> The bird hitting the window probably was not the same thing. Or at least I got no indication that it was related.


When the British FBI agent told of her vision, she seemed to emphasize that the bird hitting the window was a crow. In hindsight, that seems significant now. I doubt that it would be a coincidence.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Hunter Green said:


> I don't even know if "murder" is an inappropriate usage when they're dead


Well, it's certainly insensitive.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

I'm glad we are getting a full season and the ratings are holding up.

John Cho is my favorite character. Hope he doesn't die.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> When the British FBI agent told of her vision, she seemed to emphasize that the bird hitting the window was a crow. In hindsight, that seems significant now. I doubt that it would be a coincidence.


I thought they emphasized that because it made it clear and obvious that they had "shared" the moment, at a time when no-one realized what was really going on.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

eddyj said:


> I thought they emphasized that because it made it clear and obvious that they had "shared" the moment, at a time when no-one realized what was really going on.


They could have had any random event to "verify" that they were sharing the vision: a phone rings, a cup of coffee is spilled, someone jumps up with an idea... no: a bird hits the window? That's too weird.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

eddyj said:


> I thought they emphasized that because it made it clear and obvious that they had "shared" the moment, at a time when no-one realized what was really going on.


I'm thinking that's what it seemed like when we first saw it, but maybe there is an added dimension of meaning there.


----------



## JoeyJoJo (Sep 29, 2003)

whitson77 said:


> I'm glad we are getting a full season and the ratings are holding up.
> 
> John Cho is my favorite character. Hope he doesn't die.


I like him too. I'm surprise no one has mentioned his Harold and Kumar callback when he tipped over the Airline Guys bong. "I know what a bong is."

I chuckled at that.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I just read that FlashForward just got a full season pickup from the network.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> We know why Agent Benford is lying about his FlashForward. He said in the pilot that his wife had told him that she'd divorce him if he started drinking again. Why would he risk making her mad/suspicious in the current timeline over something that may not ever happen if he doesn't have to.


Well, presumably his wife's affair would also destroy the marriage. But she confessed it and said she didn't want it to happen and couldn't imagine it. Obviously that was a risk for her. He could have done the exact same thing one he heard that, and they could have worked together to prevent that future from happening. That would make more sense to me than his lies.

It would be different if they were BOTH lying about what they saw. That would make sense to me, since it's hard to be the first one to confess.

As it is now, my guess is that his drinking will be the thing that leads her to the affair.



MickeS said:


> And would the airports really be THAT empty? People need to get home, no matter what. Most would probably take the chance.


I didn't buy this either. I was on a business trip on 9/11 and I was trapped in another city for almost a week. Lots of other people were stranded away from home too. As soon as I could possibly get a flight home, I did, and there were plenty of passengers. People were subdued and watchful, but they were on the plane. Risk or no risk, fear or no fear, people wanted to get home to their families.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ruth said:


> I didn't buy this either. I was on a business trip on 9/11 and I was trapped in another city for almost a week. Lots of other people were stranded away from home too. As soon as I could possibly get a flight home, I did, and there were plenty of passengers. People were subdued and watchful, but they were on the plane. Risk or no risk, fear or no fear, people wanted to get home to their families.


Except, after 9/11 you could figure that you and all the other passengers would be rather vigilant in standing ready to prevent a similar occurrence, but there's nothing anyone can do, as far as they know, to prevent another blackout, nor predict if and when another one will happen, so it's not really totally the same.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> Except, after 9/11 you could figure that you and all the other passengers would be rather vigilant in standing ready to prevent a similar occurrence, but there's nothing anyone can do, as far as they know, to prevent another blackout, nor predict if and when another one will happen, so it's not really totally the same.


Yeah, I suspect there are an awful lot of people who would NEVER get on another plane, get into another car, or even leave their houses, until either the cause of the flashforwards was determined or enough time had passed for the nightmare to fade. Which would be, for some people, a lot of time...months, years, decades.

This event would make 9/11 look like a terrorist accidentally bumping into somebody on the sidewalk.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

We are loving this show so far. Sure there are some holes and some minor problems but the show is good enough for us to look past that and just enjoy the ride. 

The meeting with the Nazi was disappointing, though. I expected a lot more from that. They did get the clue about the birds but even that was disappointing since there can't be any way we would know real-time data about crows. 

Despite that, we are having fun watching the show and that's all that matters.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

One more thing...

If Cho knows he's going to be shot in the chest 3 times on a specific date, why not where a bullet-proof vest on that day? Unless the bullets are armor-piercing or it's super close, he would probably survive, right?

I hope he survives somehow. Definitely my favorite character and his girlfriend is HAWT!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Supfreak26 said:


> One more thing...
> 
> If Cho knows he's going to be shot in the chest 3 times on a specific date, why not where a bullet-proof vest on that day? Unless the bullets are armor-piercing or it's super close, he would probably survive, right?
> 
> I hope he survives somehow. Definitely my favorite character and his girlfriend is HAWT!


I was thinking both of those things. Knew Gabrielle Union was going to be on this show and was wondering where she's been.

At some point we're going to find out one way or the other whether the FlashForwards are actual visions of the one and only actual future, or something else. If the former, my guess is that he's not an idiot and will take lots of measure including the obvious bullet-proof vest, but that for whatever reason, things will end up the way they were foreseen.

Of course, in this case, there was no actual vision of his being shot, only of an intelligence report that said he was shot to death. Who knows if the intelligence report is accurate?


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> I was thinking both of those things. Knew Gabrielle Union was going to be on this show and was wondering where she's been.


She was following her 15-year plan to become mayor of LA.

I'm still hooked on this show but I'm having the same problems with the execution as many others here. The protagonist keeps putting items on "the board" that he saw in his FF, and saying "this must be important because I saw it on the board in my FF" ... maybe they're just on the board _because you put them there._


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> This event would make 9/11 look like a terrorist accidentally bumping into somebody on the sidewalk.


Well, here in NYC, bumping into somebody on the sidewalk is pretty serious. 

[threadjack]
Seriously though, a couple of weeks ago, someone bumped into someone else on the steps of the giant post office across the street from Penn Station, and words were exchanged, fighting postures taken, and then one guy stabbed the other guy to death and walked away. Turns out that the stabber was a recent Iraq War vet. When they finally found him, he had committed suicide over the stabbing.
[/threadjack]


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

Dimitri will survive the day he's supposed to be murdered based upon him working to uncover the conditions of that situation. Because he's able to do this he'll realize that when the Flash Forward time comes he'll need to make his past self go through the same stuff in order to avoid being killed. So he'll close his eyes while he's on the beach waiting for his fianc&#233;e to walk up to him. He'll open his eyes as she approaches and they'll get married. End of season one.

Book it.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Bryanmc said:


> Dimitri will survive the day he's supposed to be murdered based upon him working to uncover the conditions of that situation. Because he's able to do this he'll realize that when the Flash Forward time comes he'll need to make his past self go through the same stuff in order to avoid being killed. So he'll close his eyes while he's on the beach waiting for his fiancée to walk up to him. He'll open his eyes as she approaches and they'll get married. End of season one.
> 
> Book it.


I don't think he said "It was dark in my FF".... I think he said he didn't have a FF at all.

I wonder how many people actually died *during* their 137 seconds?


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

MacThor said:


> I'm still hooked on this show but I'm having the same problems with the execution as many others here. The protagonist keeps putting items on "the board" that he saw in his FF, and saying "this must be important because I saw it on the board in my FF" ... maybe they're just on the board _because you put them there._


What has he put on the board that hasn't been related to the Flash Forward? Both D. Gibbons and 137 Sekunden were leads that turned out to be connected.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Keen said:


> What has he put on the board that hasn't been related to the Flash Forward? Both D. Gibbons and 137 Sekunden were leads that turned out to be connected.


That's kind of my point. How connected was 137 sekunden, really? He put it on the board because he saw it in his flash forward. He followed up on the Nazi lead because it was on the board. As far as we know, the Nazi just took advantage of him to secure his release, _and has nothing to do with the cause of the FF_.

Is it important because I saw it in the future?
Or did I place undue importance on it because I saw it in the future?


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

MacThor said:


> That's kind of my point. How connected was 137 sekunden, really? He put it on the board because he saw it in his flash forward. He followed up on the Nazi lead because it was on the board. As far as we know, the Nazi just took advantage of him to secure his release, _and has nothing to do with the cause of the FF_.
> 
> Is it important because I saw it in the future?
> Or did I place undue importance on it because I saw it in the future?


There must be some reason why "137 sekunden" is up there and not "Dead crows" (other than it sounds cooler and more mysterious). Why would "Friendship bracelet" be up there (and I think the bracelet itself is on the board?)?

He didn't make the board as a message to himself in the past, although that is how it is being used now.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

MacThor said:


> Is it important because I saw it in the future?
> Or did I place undue importance on it because I saw it in the future?


Will Benson ever add something to the board that isn't already there? It seems like he's wasting a lot of time covering things that his FlashForward self has already found and apparently didn't come up with an answer.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

MacThor said:


> That's kind of my point. How connected was 137 sekunden, really? He put it on the board because he saw it in his flash forward. He followed up on the Nazi lead because it was on the board. As far as we know, the Nazi just took advantage of him to secure his release, _and has nothing to do with the cause of the FF_.
> 
> Is it important because I saw it in the future?
> Or did I place undue importance on it because I saw it in the future?


Yeah, am I missing something in that whole sequence of events culminating in them releasing the Nazi guy? He gives them a bunch of B.S. about Kabbalah and number values. Benford says this is B.S., but Geyer threatens not to tell them anything unless they get him released, and he offers to prove that he has valuable information for them because they actually do release him. And he can prove that because they can verify his vision against the vision of the customs official.

Fine, so they find the customs guy, and verify the vision. So, accepting the premise that the matching visions are verification of future events, they know that they eventually let him go. I can see why that would give them a reason to continue negotiating with Geyer, but I just assumed that his release would still remain contingent upon actually providing them some useful information. But when did that ever happen, or am I missing something?


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> Yeah, am I missing something in that whole sequence of events culminating in them releasing the Nazi guy? He gives them a bunch of B.S. about Kabbalah and number values. Benford says this is B.S., but Geyer threatens not to tell them anything unless they get him released, and he offers to prove that he has valuable information for them because they actually do release him. And he can prove that because they can verify his vision against the vision of the customs official.
> 
> Fine, so they find the customs guy, and verify the vision. So, accepting the premise that the matching visions are verification of future events, they know that they eventually let him go. I can see why that would give them a reason to continue negotiating with Geyer, but* I just assumed that his release would still remain contingent upon actually providing them some useful information.* But when did that ever happen, or am I missing something?


I recall the sequence being the other way around. That is, he would only provide the "valuable" information after his release was secured. The kabbalah and customs information was given to make them think he had real information and to provide something verifiable. Once he hooked thiem with the kaballah line and they verified his vision, they secured his release. It was only then that he was going to provide the "real" scoop, which he seemingly failed to do. Unless it does somehow become vital.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

BrandonRe said:


> I recall the sequence being the other way around. That is, he would only provide the "valuable" information after his release was secured. The kabbalah and customs information was given to make them think he had real information and to provide something verifiable. Once he hooked thiem with the kaballah line and they verified his vision, they secured his release. It was only then that he was going to provide the "real" scoop, which he seemingly failed to do. Unless it does somehow become vital.


I think we're recalling the sequence the same way, I just can't imagine that they didn't have some kind of clause that it would be revoked if he didn't provide any info. I get why you highlighted what I said about making that assumption, but that's a perfectly logical assumption. When a criminal cuts a deal to testify against someone in exchange for dropped charges or reduced jail time or whatever, it's always dependent upon providing truthful, verifiable information. They don't just let someone walk out the door without getting the information first.

Usually someone offers up a little bit of information, just to prove that they have more. In this case, I can see why they would consider the matching visions as reason to believe that he actually had useful information to provide. That is, Benford would think ok, we let this guy go, so he must have told us something useful, and we therefore got him released. And that would be good enough to start calling in favors and whatever else was necessary to put together whatever documents were necessary. But the idea that those documents didn't include a provision that Geyer would actually have to provide the information first is absurd.

Edit: I didn't think that he hooked them with the Kabbalah stuff. I thought Benford thought that it was b.s.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

This is kinda out of the blue, but Demetrius' g/f saw her wedding (or so she thinks), and I believe it was daytime. 10PM PT would make it 7PM in the Caribbean -- it gets awfully dark there at 7PM. And going the other way, it would be 7PM in Hawaii. Also dark. It would be 7AM in Europe (French Riviera, anyone?) 

Anyhow, while I'm sure that there are probably *some* tropical areas where it would be the "right time", the most common destinations for this particular couple would be Hwaii or the Caribbean. And this leads me to believe (like others have, already) that she was dreaming.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

She said Hawaii. Wouldn't it be light out in April? Isn't that after the clocks change?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wprager said:


> This is kinda out of the blue, but Demetrius' g/f saw her wedding (or so she thinks), and I believe it was daytime. 10PM PT would make it 7PM in the Caribbean -- it gets awfully dark there at 7PM. And going the other way, it would be 7PM in Hawaii. Also dark. It would be 7AM in Europe (French Riviera, anyone?)
> 
> Anyhow, while I'm sure that there are probably *some* tropical areas where it would be the "right time", the most common destinations for this particular couple would be Hwaii or the Caribbean. And this leads me to believe (like others have, already) that she was dreaming.


Depending on where in the Caribbean, it wouldn't be 7 pm, it would be 1 am. However, she said they were in Hawaii and 7 pm is the correct time for Hawaii.

As for whether it would be light, according to this site, sunset in Hawaii on April 29, 2010 will be at 6:55 pm. So it wouldn't be dark yet but it would definitely be dusk.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Depending on where in the Caribbean, it wouldn't be 7 pm, it would be 1 am. However, she said they were in Hawaii and 7 pm is the correct time for Hawaii.
> 
> As for whether it would be light, according to this site, sunset in Hawaii on April 29, 2010 will be at 6:55 pm. So it wouldn't be dark yet but it would definitely be dusk.


The problem I'm having with this show is that I don't yet have any faith that the writers are thinking through these issues.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

danterner said:


> The problem I'm having with this show is that I don't yet have any faith that the writers are thinking through these issues.


Thus my lug nuts comment.


----------



## JCWest (Mar 23, 2004)

busyba said:


> He keeps oscilating between wanting to change his fate and being resigned to it. He's striking me as a very Hamlet-like character, in that he's in a constant internal battle to try to figure out if he should be the "man of action" or the "man of contemplation", and he always chooses to be the wrong one at the wrong time (for instance, he overthinks it when he has the chance to kill his uncle in the church, and so he doesn't, and then he acts too rashly when he's in his mother's chamber and mistakenly kills Polonious, thinking it was his uncle.)


Man, I must have missed some more episodes because I don't even know who his uncle is let alone Polonious!

Does anyone else feel insulted with the constant repeat of the flashforwards?! Whenever someone who is in a flashforward appears for the first, or second, or third, or more time we have to be shown the flashforward again as though we're little children with no memory. Perhaps it's a strategy based on the assumption that each week there is an entirely new group of viewers because the previous week chased everyone away.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

JCWest said:


> Man, I must have missed some more episodes because I don't even know who his uncle is let alone Polonious!
> 
> Does anyone else feel insulted with the constant repeat of the flashforwards?! Whenever someone who is in a flashforward appears for the first, or second, or third, or more time we have to be shown the flashforward again as though we're little children with no memory. Perhaps it's a strategy based on the assumption that each week there is an entirely new group of viewers because the previous week chased everyone away.


One of my cow-orkers is tired of the repeated FFs. Every time we see the boy's father, they show him on the couch in the FF... yeh, we got it, that's him.  Doesn't bother me much, since they're starting to show other parts of each FF. The last time they showed him on the couch, he had gotten all the way to looking at her (further than previous viewings).

I think they're making sure new word-of-mouth viewers understand who is who and what their FFs were.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Depending on where in the Caribbean, it wouldn't be 7 pm, it would be 1 am. However, she said they were in Hawaii and 7 pm is the correct time for Hawaii.
> 
> As for whether it would be light, according to this site, sunset in Hawaii on April 29, 2010 will be at 6:55 pm. So it wouldn't be dark yet but it would definitely be dusk.


I've never been in Hawaii, but my experience with Barbados (which is, admittedly, a little closer to the Equator -- 13 degrees North for Bridgeport versus 21 for Honolulu) is that it goes from light to dark very, very quickly. I'd say that 5 minutes after sunset the dusk would be very, umm, _dusky_. I seem to remember her flash forward was quite bright, actually.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> When a criminal cuts a deal to testify against someone in exchange for dropped charges or reduced jail time or whatever, it's always dependent upon providing truthful, verifiable information. They don't just let someone walk out the door without getting the information first.


But even if a criminal's testimony does not lead to a conviction, he still gets to go free unless that was part of the agreement. The actual usefulness of the testimony is not what causes the deal to happen. It's the perceived usefulness that causes law enforcement to make the deal. And if law enforcement is making deals, they are not likely in a position to be attaching many strings.

If they find out the Nazi was lying about the dead crows or withheld other information, I'm sure they could bring him back in. But as long as he gave an accurate and complete account of what happened, then he gets to go free regardless of how useful that information was.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

MacThor said:


> Is it important because I saw it in the future?
> Or did I place undue importance on it because I saw it in the future?


It's possible, certainly. But he's got six months to think better of it if it goes nowhere. I suspect that if this show stays with the Faraday Postulate (inelastic future), it will turn out that it's still there in April because it still seems important in April somehow. Maybe not how we expect, of course.



jeff125va said:


> Of course, in this case, there was no actual vision of his being shot, only of an intelligence report that said he was shot to death. Who knows if the intelligence report is accurate?


If it were me, I'd be working hard for the next five months to arrange that there would be a false report, that witness would see what looked like me being killed, and that on the big day I would be deeply sedated. That way, the vision can come true but *I* get to decide what it turns out to mean. Sure, maybe those efforts are what cause me to be killed, but if we have an inelastic future, this is my best and perhaps my only hope.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

BitbyBlit said:


> But even if a criminal's testimony does not lead to a conviction, he still gets to go free unless that was part of the agreement. The actual usefulness of the testimony is not what causes the deal to happen. It's the perceived usefulness that causes law enforcement to make the deal. And if law enforcement is making deals, they are not likely in a position to be attaching many strings.
> 
> If they find out the Nazi was lying about the dead crows or withheld other information, I'm sure they could bring him back in. But as long as he gave an accurate and complete account of what happened, then he gets to go free regardless of how useful that information was.


Yes, I realize that a plea agreement normally (if ever) does not depend on an actual conviction, but it would at least depend on the prosecutor's satisfaction that the testimony would be valuable toward gaining one. Unless I'm misremembering the sequence of events, I don't see where that happened. It seemed that the release was a done deal (with no contingency) before he told them about the crows. I may need to re-watch those scenes.

Either way, it raises the obvious question of how this guy was the only person who noticed a lot of crows dying that day.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

danterner said:


> The problem I'm having with this show is that I don't yet have any faith that the writers are thinking through these issues.


Why does it matter?

I watch the show and enjoy it under the premise that they are telling a story that I want to watch. I can do that without going through the work to essentially find out if the writers thought about some minute and likely minor detail.

I find no value in threads that analyze every little aspect of a show as if every little thing has meaning.

The writers / producers have already made it clear that if it's important, they will beat it into our brains.

I'm asking honestly because I am really curious, why does it matter whether the sun was up in her flash? Why can you not accept that if it is important, that fact will eventually be revealed?


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

classicX said:


> The writers / producers have already made it clear that if it's important, they will beat it into our brains.


Who is that again sitting on the couch in Dr. Benford's flash forward? I forget...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wprager said:


> I've never been in Hawaii, but my experience with Barbados (which is, admittedly, a little closer to the Equator -- 13 degrees North for Bridgeport versus 21 for Honolulu) is that it goes from light to dark very, very quickly. I'd say that 5 minutes after sunset the dusk would be very, umm, _dusky_. I seem to remember her flash forward was quite bright, actually.


The producers simply didn't think it through that well, or decided it wasn't important enough to try shooting that scene in the dusk. It's tough to shoot at dusk, because the light changes so quickly. They can't do multiple takes over the course of a couple hours like they can in the day or night. That's why you often see it go straight from day to night in TV/Movies.


jeff125va said:


> Yes, I realize that a plea agreement normally (if ever) does not depend on an actual conviction, but it would at least depend on the prosecutor's satisfaction that the testimony would be valuable toward gaining one. Unless I'm misremembering the sequence of events, I don't see where that happened. It seemed that the release was a done deal (with no contingency) before he told them about the crows. I may need to re-watch those scenes.
> 
> Either way, it raises the obvious question of how this guy was the only person who noticed a lot of crows dying that day.


Give it up. The way it was predicted was pretty unrealistic, but that's the way it was and we have to take it at face value. Don't waste any more time on it.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Give it up. The way it was predicted was pretty unrealistic, but that's the way it was and we have to take it at face value. Don't waste any more time on it.


O'tay < sniff >


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

classicX said:


> Why does it matter?
> 
> I watch the show and enjoy it under the premise that they are telling a story that I want to watch. I can do that without going through the work to essentially find out if the writers thought about some minute and likely minor detail.
> 
> ...


It's really not a trivial thing. They established early in the first episode that the flashes were all taking place at the same time when they had the FBI agent and the British woman compare their visions, and they specifically made reference to the time zone difference. So if they're trying to give the viewers clues to explain the mystery, they have to be consistent and reliable. This isn't the kind of show that they intend the viewers to just sit and watch and see what happens. Some viewers may choose to do that, but clearly they intend to be thought-provoking and involve the viewers in theorizing about the story. So it's more than fair to judge the show on the basis of how well they address such aspects of the story.

They have certainly raised questions about her vision by the fact that she says that he is there with her, even though he sees nothing. So it more than makes sense to apply some degree of scrutiny. No one is being so nit-picky in terms of precise angles of the sun or anything to that degree, just whether it's day or night.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jeff125va said:


> It's really not a trivial thing.


And while in itself it may be non-trivial but relatively minor, it's part of a much larger pattern. Taken as a whole, the flashforwards simply don't make sense. Either the people in the flashforwards know about the flashforwards or they don't, but the way they act in the flashforwards doesn't rely on whether they know or don't know about the flashforwards, it relies on what the needs of the writer are at that exact moment. (I.e., there are a number of cases where if they know about the flashforwards, their behavior makes no sense, and a number of other cases where if they don't know about the flashforwards, their behavior makes no sense.) And for a puzzle show, that well and truly sucks.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> Yes, I realize that a plea agreement normally (if ever) does not depend on an actual conviction, but it would at least depend on the prosecutor's satisfaction that the testimony would be valuable toward gaining one.


Just like the Nazi's deal depended on people thinking his information was important toward their goal. With a testimony there might be more information known before the deal since the bargaining power has more to do with the actual testifying than the giving up of information, but ultimately it boils down to how useful the people think it will be, not how useful it actually is.

In the case of a testimony, the goal is not to get the testimony itself, but the conviction. The deal is made to guarantee the testimony, but it doesn't guarantee the goal. In the same way, the deal with the Nazi guaranteed his "testimony", but it didn't guarentee how they would be able to use that information in their goal of finding out what happened and why.

Both Agent Benford and the customs agent's visions convinced them that what this guy had to say was important. Not only that, but the Nazi's vision led him to believe that he didn't need to give up any important information up front, so that made him more stubborn in his demands. Others might have caved, thinking they weren't going to get what they wanted. But this guy wasn't going to, and Agent Benford knew that.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

classicX said:


> Why does it matter? ... Why can you not accept that if it is important, that fact will eventually be revealed?


That's precisely it: it can't be revealed if it hasn't been figured out in a way that makes sense. That's why it matters.


----------



## peitsche (Nov 13, 2002)

super dave said:


> She was in Life last year when Reese was pregnant in real life.


thank you! :up:


----------

