# Emergence - Season Thread *spoilers*



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Emergence -- new show on ABC.

From wiki:
_A police chief on Long Island's Peconic Bay takes in a young child whom she finds near the site of a mysterious accident but soon discovers that the girl has no memory of what has happened or who she is. The child's mystery becomes more intense than expected when the chief starts investigating the history that led up to the accident and the questions of how and why it happened. A series of bizarre electronic disruptions, unexplained forces, and a strange cryptic symbol are also at play, all tied to the young girl._

Good start. Strong cast. I tend to be a little hesitant when it comes to ABC's mystery/thriller/dramas. Burnt too many times. But I like the cast, especially Allison Tollman (Fargo). And the writers did a decent job of balancing mystery with character development. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

I don't see it going for long. The actress playing Piper is going to obviously age if it goes to a 2nd or 3rd season. That will require time jumps to keep up appearances.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

rharmelink said:


> I don't see it going for long. The actress playing Piper is going to obviously age if it goes to a 2nd or 3rd season. That will require time jumps to keep up appearances.


That's not really a big concern for me at this point. We haven't been given any indication as to how time will pass in the story yet. As long as they don't force themselves into a slow-moving time frame like Lost or The Walking Dead did, there shouldn't be a problem with the actors/characters aging.

My biggest concern with it is that it feels like I've already seen a half dozen variations on the same story in recent years. It's like ABC has a Mad Libs style script floating around and they send it to a different set of writers each year to fill in the blanks, hoping to make the next Lost.

The one thing it has going for it is a cast of actors that I like to watch. Tolman, Brown, and Faison are all excellent, so I'll stick with it for a while longer to see how it progresses.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

rharmelink said:


> I don't see it going for long. The actress playing Piper is going to obviously age if it goes to a 2nd or 3rd season. That will require time jumps to keep up appearances.


I'll watch this until I don't, but the concept's been done a zillion times.

The problem with this type of story and network TV is they try to squeeze in 20+ episode seasons. The idea has a shelf life. I might have heard they were going to limit this one.

Another issue is network tries to make these shows too focused on relationships. Hopefully they will keep the story confined to a family trying to keep things together and not add other love interests. That's when I can't take it anymore.

Thinking of Manifest, which seems like the same show.


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

Haven't seen the show yet, but a part of it was filmed in our small town.

deb


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

I like these kinds of shows but they always get cancelled so I don't even give 'em a chance anymore. Somebody PM me in a few years if the show lasts and _actually has a finale_.

Then I'll binge it.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

getbak said:


> My biggest concern with it is that it feels like I've already seen a half dozen variations on the same story in recent years.* It's like ABC has a Mad Libs style script floating around and they send it to a different set of writers each year to fill in the blanks, hoping to make the next Lost.*
> 
> The one thing it has going for it is a cast of actors that I like to watch. Tolman, Brown, and Faison are all excellent, so I'll stick with it for a while longer to see how it progresses.


Well said. This is exactly what I was referring to in my post, about being burnt by ABC. They have this endless stream of sci-fi/mystery dramas, that always ALWAYS end up going off-track and self-destructing. They really don't seem to understand what it takes to keep an audience for this type of series.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Well said. This is exactly what I was referring to in my post, about being burnt by ABC. They have this endless stream of sci-fi/mystery dramas, that always ALWAYS end up going off-track and self-destructing. They really don't seem to understand what it takes to keep an audience for this type of series.


What network does?

Just asking. Can't think of any recently that last. Lost might be the last successful one and that was ABC.

It's a limited premise.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Family said:


> Thinking of Manifest, which seems like the same show.


Anyone know when Manifest returns? I don't see it on the fall schedules.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

jamesbobo said:


> Anyone know when Manifest returns?


The proverbial "midseason".


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Although it's true that this was basically just an amalgam of elements from other shows and movies, the writing and especially the acting were considerably stronger than usual, so I enjoyed it a surprising amount even as I recognized that it was basically recycled material. (The Poltergeist scene was the only one that literally made me roll my eyes.) Tolman in particular is fantastic, and the young actresses (often a weak link) were also pretty solid. 

I read an article that was like, we have a plan! it'll move fast and answer your questions! really, we promise, a plan! But they always say that. I'll keep watching for a while and hope this is the one that pulls it all together and doesn't get cancelled in 15 minutes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The good news is it's a Tara Butters/Michele Fazekas show, and they've got some pretty good history (Reaper, Dollhouse, Agent Carter, some Captain Marvel comics). So I'd say this has a better-than-average chance of being, well, better than average.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I enjoyed it, but I agree about the similarity with other shows done in the past. Network TV just can't seem to find any fresh new ideas to work with. I loved Allison Tolman in Fargo and so far she seems to have picked up right where she left off. She seems to have been stereotyped as a cop in a small town in each of her two major TV roles. It works for her so I'm not complaining. I'll stick with it to see where it goes. Maybe they'll finally break the mold with the genre and make it to a 2nd season, unlike all of the show's predecessors. You would think the network execs would take things like that into account before they approve a "new" series.


----------



## tim1724 (Jul 3, 2007)

Tolman is great. (I wish the Fargo series had stuck with her!) The rest of the cast is pretty good too. The writing so far is pretty meh but pilots for this kind of thing are hard so I'll give it a few more episodes. But unless they break out of the formula I'm not sure I can stick with it. Of course ABC will most likely kill it off anyway, unless it gets stellar ratings (which I don't really expect).


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

I too liked Tolman in Fargo. One thing I don't like, so far, is the ex-husband character. Is he really needed? I don't want to see inter-character conflict. Maybe he'll end up being all onboard and not grating.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

debtoine said:


> Haven't seen the show yet, but a part of it was filmed in our small town.deb


Hey Deb - where is that? I was surprised they said it was Long Island - I thought the place looked gorgeous - - - - (I live in Manhattan) -

Emergence and Evil were my two favorite shows of the new shows that premiered this week.
LOVED Alison Tolman and LOVED that she got a lead.
I am in.

I jumped outta my seat at the turn over of the car during the kidnapping...


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> Hey Deb - where is that? I was surprised they said it was Long Island - I thought the place looked gorgeous - - - - (I live in Manhattan) -
> 
> Emergence and Evil were my two favorite shows of the new shows that premiered this week.
> LOVED Alison Tolman and LOVED that she got a lead.
> ...


Keyport, NJ. We're told they'll be filming here again at some point. We still haven't watched, but we've been busy.
https://www.thejournalnj.com/articles/abc-studios-to-film-television-show-in-keyport-emergence/

deb


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

debtoine said:


> Keyport, NJ. We're told they'll be filming here again at some point. We still haven't watched, but we've been busy.
> https://www.thejournalnj.com/articles/abc-studios-to-film-television-show-in-keyport-emergence/
> ABC Studios to Film Television Show in Keyport - The Journal Publications
> 
> deb


I'll have to keep an eye out.
Although it's been a long time since I was in the Keyport, Keansburg, Leonardo area.

Agreed that this show is a bit of pastiche of other "Sci Fi Mystery" shows that we've seen before.
But it seems to be packaged well and it's a good cast.

I'll give it a couple more episodes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ruth said:


> Although it's true that this was basically just an amalgam of elements from other shows and movies, the writing and especially the acting were considerably stronger than usual, so I enjoyed it a surprising amount even as I recognized that it was basically recycled material. (The Poltergeist scene was the only one that literally made me roll my eyes.) Tolman in particular is fantastic, and the young actresses (often a weak link) were also pretty solid.
> 
> I read an article that was like, we have a plan! it'll move fast and answer your questions! really, we promise, a plan! But they always say that. I'll keep watching for a while and hope this is the one that pulls it all together and doesn't get cancelled in 15 minutes.


This. At least the first episode was well written. And the cast is superb. But, I still feel that shows like this always wind up on a predictable path. Two or three episodes that are really intriguing as they work toward the big reveal (that always happens). Once they reveal the big conspiracy (because having fake NTSB agents there smells of conspiracy...of course), then these type of shows always unravel as the writers just don't know where to go from there. We'll see, maybe it will surprise me. Heck Lost lasted a few SEASONS before it went off the rails, so maybe that can happen here. For now, I'm in. Enjoyed it.


----------



## carriepete (Nov 21, 2005)

JYoung said:


> I'll have to keep an eye out.
> Although it's been a long time since I was in the Keyport, Keansburg, Leonardo area.
> 
> I was just in Greenport Long Island and they definitely showed locations there too. Here is a famous landmark that was shown.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I didn't realize that's where they were filming. That's about 20 minutes from my house. I'll have to pay attention to the surroundings!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Second episode was good. I'm still in. As long as they keep it moving, and throw us a mystery bone every now and then, I'm okay.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought the second episode was good also - I love the entire cast.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I am still watching but I enjoyed this episode less than the pilot. Mainly because of all the shoddy police work. 

She's supposed to be a great police chief, right? So she brings officers to the house to upgrade security and protect Piper . . . but also leaves the front door unlocked for hours so anyone can walk right in? (I don't mean the bad guy -- there were several shots of various people just walking in the unlocked door.) And she stores her guns and ammo in a downstairs, unlocked cabinet while there are kids in the house, including the mysterious, possibly dangerous, Piper? Then they go to the tow yard and she's like, oh, we beat the bad guy here but we know he'll be arriving any minute? Great! I sensibly brought backup, but now let's split up for no apparent reason so I can explore on my own in the dark during these critical moments! Come on. 

I know they have to do some of these things for narrative reasons, but some of this stuff was so inexplicable and unnecessary that it jolted me right out of my suspended disbelief.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I've had this feeling since I saw the card in the pilot, time travel is involved.
The radio, the cut out tracking chip, and the card all scream future tech.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ruth said:


> And she stores her guns and ammo in a downstairs, unlocked cabinet while there are kids in the house, including the mysterious, possibly dangerous, Piper?


I'm not sure what's in that cabinet, though...whenever she gets a gun out from it, she seems to fiddle a little; there might be a gun safe inside?


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

After both episodes SP stays for now. I just hope this doesn't end up another casualty like The Crossing, Flashforward, Frequency, etc....


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure what's in that cabinet, though...whenever she gets a gun out from it, she seems to fiddle a little; there might be a gun safe inside?


Oh, I hope so. I thought she was loading/unloading and she was fiddling with ammo boxes in there, but the safe would make more sense (and is less of a stupid idea). I stand by my other examples though!


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Ruth said:


> I am still watching but I enjoyed this episode less than the pilot. Mainly because of all the shoddy police work.
> 
> She's supposed to be a great police chief, right? So she brings officers to the house to upgrade security and protect Piper . . . but also leaves the front door unlocked for hours so anyone can walk right in? (I don't mean the bad guy -- there were several shots of various people just walking in the unlocked door.) And she stores her guns and ammo in a downstairs, unlocked cabinet while there are kids in the house, including the mysterious, possibly dangerous, Piper? Then they go to the tow yard and she's like, oh, we beat the bad guy here but we know he'll be arriving any minute? Great! I sensibly brought backup, but now let's split up for no apparent reason so I can explore on my own in the dark during these critical moments! Come on.
> 
> I know they have to do some of these things for narrative reasons, but some of this stuff was so inexplicable and unnecessary that it jolted me right out of my suspended disbelief.


In the scene where she returns her pistol to the cabinet, you can clearly see the door of her gun safe.

At the impound yard she had her subordinate move her vehicle out of sight while she went in to wait in hiding for the bad guy. There was a sensible reason for splitting up, she got the drop on the bad guy because of her tactic.

However, it is pretty weird that her brass and lead bullets were deflected by the (presumably) magnetic field. But I have observed that apparently no TV writer ever owned a toy magnet as a child, because none of them realize that not all metal is magnetic, nor understand how fast magnetism falls off with distance.

Most people that live out in the sticks don't lock their doors when they are home.

It didn't seem to me that we got a good explanation as to how the deputy was bamboozled into letting the bad guy into the house. It also wasn't clear to me why they were disposing of the magnetic van, unless (as was hinted at) they are dropping it in a recoverable location.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> It also wasn't clear to me why they were disposing of the magnetic van, unless (as was hinted at) they are dropping it in a recoverable location.


The police chief said she wants to control the narrative and a magnetic car would draw too may eyes and bring a lot of attention, so she got rid of it. She knows the source of the magnetism was from Piper.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Allanon said:


> The police chief said she wants to control the narrative and a magnetic car would draw too may eyes and bring a lot of attention, so she got rid of it. She knows the source of the magnetism was from Piper.


Yeah, I heard that, but why permanently dispose of the van after going to so much trouble to prevent someone else from disposing of it? I would think she would consider its possible value as evidence or leverage depending upon how things work out.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

getbak said:


> My biggest concern with it is that it feels like I've already seen a half dozen variations on the same story in recent years. It's like ABC has a Mad Libs style script floating around and they send it to a different set of writers each year to fill in the blanks, hoping to make the next Lost.


Probably only because it has a kid and is "creepy", it reminds me of that show from IIRC several years ago that had kids talking to some creepy alien or something? I don't even remember the resolution, just that it was something that lived in electronics or something???? I'm probably wrong about that too.


----------



## KDeFlane (Jan 29, 2014)

mattack said:


> Probably only because it has a kid and is "creepy", it reminds me of that show from IIRC several years ago that had kids talking to some creepy alien or something? I don't even remember the resolution, just that it was something that lived in electronics or something???? I'm probably wrong about that too.


You are remembering "The Whispers" with the disembodied presence they called Dril; a one-season summer show in 2015.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Another good episode. Allison Tolman is doing a phenomenal job in this show. Which is good, because she's in most every scene .

The mystery, the story, the character development... all moving forward. Makes for a much better show than the dreck ABC has given us in the past, where we felt like we were going backwards each episode.

So, it's obvious the dad _isn't_ doing well, right? But the question is, will Piper have the cure?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

astrohip said:


> Allison Tolman is doing a phenomenal job in this show.


^ +1.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Not only is Allison Tolman doing a phenomenal job - they are doing a pretty good job of keeping me guessing. I did not see that major twist coming (although now that I know that one thing).... and I loved the robot dogs - even though that Black Mirror episode did it way better.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Cainebj said:


> Not only is Allison Tolman doing a phenomenal job - they are doing a pretty good job of keeping me guessing. I did not see that major twist coming (although now that I know that one thing).... *and I loved the robot dogs* - even though that Black Mirror episode did it way better.


^ +1.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Really? I thought the robot dogs were kinda..dumb.

How did the one get on top of the table?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? I thought the robot dogs were kinda..dumb.
> 
> How did the one get on top of the table?


It jumped?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> It jumped?


Considering they could barely walk, I wouldn't think that was a very high probability...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Considering they could barely walk, I wouldn't think that was a very high probability...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


>


Um...you realize that's not the robot from the show, right?


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Um...you realize that's not the robot from the show, right?


I think they were based off this robot from the same company.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Um...you realize that's not the robot from the show, right?


Yep--it's just showing what's possible, in real life.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> Yep--it's just showing what's possible, in real life.


Right. But not what they showed on the show, which was a really slow, clumsy robot.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right. But not what they showed on the show, which was a really slow, clumsy robot.


It seemed kind of similar to me to the dog robot above. But then, the shots of the robots on the show were fast and fleeting and a bit shadowy (I assume CGI, and not real robots), and the dog robot above is somewhat engraved in the mind.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

I thought the dogs were kind of lame. Especially they way they're leading us with Piper...

If she is some type of cyborg or android, I would think dogs would be a lot easier to do than little girls. And something they'd be trying to do before attempting a little girl.


----------



## longrider (Oct 26, 2017)

The robots were slow while they were searching but once they started running for the door the pace certainly picked up. i am confident the robots were CGI, that would have blown their budget to rent real robot dogs from a robotics company


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I was thinking they stole the robot dogs from that episode of Black Mirror. Not the actual robot dogs but the concept for them. Perhaps the girl is the precursor to The Terminator. If she says "Ahll be back!" I'm outta here.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

I think it would have been more interesting, and applicable to the plot, to have them look like REAL dobermans (or whatever). Maybe with a slight, but noticeable difference. Glowing eyes or something? And then have one get damaged in their escape, making it obvious it's not a real dog.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Speaking of the robot dogs, I liked that this would absolutely freak out intruders. Then when the one dog came through the door and tipped over on its side, that threw me off, as it stopped but was still perfectly balanced on four legs. There was no reason to tip over onto its side. FAKE!!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

getreal said:


> Speaking of the robot dogs, I liked that this would absolutely freak out intruders. Then when the one dog came through the door and tipped over on its side, that threw me off, as it stopped but was still perfectly balanced on four legs. There was no reason to tip over onto its side. FAKE!!


It was done for dramatic effect and also to emphasize that the dog had been disabled. If it just stopped dead in its tracks it would leave the viewer wondering what happened. This way it was pretty clear that the danger had been squelched.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> It was done for dramatic effect and also to emphasize that the dog had been disabled. If it just stopped dead in its tracks it would leave the viewer wondering what happened. This way it was pretty clear that the danger had been squelched.


I understood that. I'm just saying that they could have made sparks shoot out to indicate it had blown a circuit and was disabled, but falling over without even making one or two of the legs collapse to cause the fall was ridiculous. It was just a nitpick ... I am otherwise enjoying this show a lot. And I still liked the concept of robot security dogs. Next time they break in they could bring along a nice bowl of hydraulic fluid and some "Nuts & Bolts" to distract the robot dogs ...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

getreal said:


> And I still liked the concept of robot security dogs.


Except that they were incredibly ineffective...


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

The Oct 15 episode. Didn't anyone else notice a little judder or judder on the picture? Hopefully it was an ABC issue and not the beginning of the end for my hard drive.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

mattyro7878 said:


> The Oct 15 episode. Didn't anyone else notice a little judder or judder on the picture? Hopefully it was an ABC issue and not the beginning of the end for my hard drive.


No judder on my end via Directv in So. Cal.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

mattyro7878 said:


> The Oct 15 episode. Didn't anyone else notice a little judder or judder on the picture? Hopefully it was an ABC issue and not the beginning of the end for my hard drive.


Most things I record from KABC on my TiVo have some judder; it has been that way for some time. (I haven't noticed this artifact on any other channel.) Except for "Jeopardy", I usually wait for 3AM to watch them on Hulu instead in judderless 1080p.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i actually had to look up the word judder... 

(allison tolman is great, the primary reason i'm still watching)


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Anyone watching this also watch Mr. Robot? 
Was the computer specialist/hacker the same actress who plays the taxidermist on Robot? I watch the 2 shows back to back and thought what an odd coincidence if it is...


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

I watch both, and yeah, I was surprised to see her in both, but very different roles.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Cainebj said:


> Anyone watching this also watch Mr. Robot?
> Was the computer specialist/hacker the same actress who plays the taxidermist on Robot? I watch the 2 shows back to back and thought what an odd coincidence if it is...


Yes, the large, black haired female. She was nasty in Mr Robot and a decent human being in Emergence.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Cainebj said:


> Hey Deb - where is that? I was surprised they said it was Long Island - I thought the place looked gorgeous - - - - (I live in Manhattan) -
> 
> Emergence and Evil were my two favorite shows of the new shows that premiered this week.
> LOVED Alison Tolman and LOVED that she got a lead.
> ...


Evil was a very pleasant surprise. I am officially in love with the lead. And...I was truly scared in that night terrors scene!!


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Kicking self in the head. How did I not realize this? I've read a bunch of scifi with emergent AI as the plot. Didn't connect until now. This is awesome!!! Please continue the AI aspect!


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Still liking this show. I think my favorite aspect is that while there's a mystery/secret to be kept, the characters actually talk to each other and don't hide things from each other. Even though Jo and Alex are divorced, they still have a friendly relationship and work together. It's a refreshing departure from most representations of divorced parents.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Hmm, didn't see _that _coming. So the nerdy, introverted Emily is really behind the "visits" to Piper.

Still think Piper will somehow cure Grandpa.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Still think Piper will somehow cure Grandpa.


Dare I say, "Well, duh"?


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Piper is definitely going to cure grandpa somehow. I just don't see the show killing him off at this point.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm not really getting how Piper, as basically a robot, can do these things like making a huge object move around or curing an illness. (which I'm sure she will do) What is she? Is this some super advanced tech that is possible, but I'm just too stupid to have heard of it? It made a lot more sense to me that she's an alien.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> I'm not really getting how Piper, as basically a robot, can do these things like making a huge object move around or curing an illness.


She's not a robot; she's a human being with an AI for a mind.

But your point still stands!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Well, she's an artificial person---not a human being. She's more like a replicant...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Well, she's an artificial person---not a human being. She's more like a replicant...


Replicants are human beings. Just human beings that are manufactured, not born.

(And one could argue that the replicants in Blade Runner weren't terrorists; they were freedom fighters. )


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

I missed that she is a real person with AI. I thought she was completely artificial.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

It depends what you mean by "artificial". She is an engineered creation----both her body and her mind.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Can someone explain why Emily had to disguise herself in Piper's mind if Piper knows neither?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Family said:


> Can someone explain why Emily had to disguise herself in Piper's mind if Piper knows neither?


Because _we _know both?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Family said:


> Can someone explain why Emily had to disguise herself in Piper's mind if Piper knows neither?


Emily's explanation in-show was that it was a test of Piper's perceptiveness. But Rob has a better answer.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

Family said:


> Can someone explain why Emily had to disguise herself in Piper's mind if Piper knows neither?


Perhaps Piper really _does_ know Emily, just doesn't remember her (she seems to have complete memory loss at the moment). Seeing her 'creator' may trigger some past memories, be they good or bad.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I will say this. Usually by now these types of shows go off the rails. Right now, I'm still really interested. I don't know if it's because I really love watching Alison Tollman, or if the story is still pretty decent, but I'm in.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I will say this. *Usually by now these types of shows go off the rails.* Right now, I'm still really interested. I don't know if it's because I really love watching Alison Tollman, or if the story is still pretty decent, but I'm in.


[my bold] Very true. I can name a dozen shows in this genre that started strong, and trainwrecked before Halloween. Emergence is holding my interest, and continuing to grow on me.


----------



## RchGrav (Oct 25, 2007)

debtoine said:


> ABC Studios to Film Television Show in Keyport - The Journal Publications





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Replicants are human beings. Just human beings that are manufactured, not born.
> 
> (And one could argue that the replicants in Blade Runner weren't terrorists; they were freedom fighters. )


Oh for sure.. She's totally a replicant.. The timeline checks out, they have been meticulous so far with everything, props, cars, wardrobe, set design, and even the small details like the date on a calendar, or the amount of border around the edge of an LCD being used in a television. They are really GOOD..


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

RchGrav said:


> She's totally a replicant..


That is the funniest thing I have seen today - I was just talking about how we passed Blade Runner time this month...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Unfortunately I feel the shark is starting to swim up stream on this series, ready to be jumped. This past episode is beginning to make me feel that wey. The crazy lady decides to make a girl just so she can have a daughter to love? Seriously? There are so many better ways they could take this. I'm in, but it's starting to lose me.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I haven't seen any discussion of the fall finale... such a major revelation....which doesn't really seem to make sense in terms of what we know about the show...


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I haven't seen any discussion of the fall finale... such a major revelation....which doesn't really seem to make sense in terms of what we know about the show...


I don't even remember the fall finale. I guess tonight's episode will have to jog my memory.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Um, Benny's a robot...


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Um, Benny's a robot...


Actually, I came back here to say I read the recap of the last episode and now I remember. If I didn't do that, I'd be asking "who's Benny?" Now that I think of it, I can't tell you the name of a single character on the show. And I've seen every episode.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I can see the guy, but I didn't remember his name was Benny. Or even that he was a robot, until this thread reminded me of it.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Seeing him be all glowy reminded me that I have a hard time with the doctor giving Piper various tests, yet missing the purple circuits or whatever. That doesn't make much sense.

It's like the Cylons passing for human, but also having spines that glowed during sex.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Amnesia said:


> It's like the Cylons passing for human, but also having spines that glowed during sex.


It is uncommon to have sex during a medical examination, unless it is conducted by Dr. Masters or Dr. Kinsey.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> It is uncommon to have sex during a medical examination, unless it is conducted by Dr. Masters or Dr. Kinsey.


But spines that glow during sex are necessarily different from human spines, and thus should be easy to detect with a pretty basic medical examination.

Same thing with skin and bones that can break steel, arms that can be connected to computer systems, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But spines that glow during sex are necessarily different from human spines, and thus should be easy to detect with a pretty basic medical examination.
> 
> Same thing with skin and bones that can break steel, arms that can be connected to computer systems, etc. etc. etc.


In both cited cases the androids were constructed with the specific purpose of mimicking humans. When the glow function was inactive (in each case), exactly what would the examiner discern as unusual? I suggest that, in story, the mimicry was successful to the extent required for the required plot points.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> In both cited cases the androids were constructed with the specific purpose of mimicking humans. When the glow function was inactive (in each case), exactly what would the examiner discern as unusual? I suggest that, in story, the mimicry was successful to the extent required for the required plot points.


But spines that glow are not the same as spines that do not. All you have to do is look for what makes the spine glow to determine that they're not human. All you have to do is test whether their skin and bones are stronger than steel. All you have to do is look for networking cables in their arms.

And yes, they did it solely to further the plot without any regard for whether it made a lick of sense. Just as they always did. Which is what made BG such crappy science fiction.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But spines that glow are not the same as spines that do not. All you have to do is look for what makes the spine glow to determine that they're not human. All you have to do is test whether their skin and bones are stronger than steel. All you have to do is look for networking cables in their arms.


Exactly how is a spine that glows visibly different from a normal spine? If the reason it glows is an internal light source, no visible difference would be seen with a non-invasive test. An Alzheimer's brain is different from a normal brain; yet for a long time the only way to identify one was to wait for the patient to die and saw open the brain case.

I have never had my doctor determine the force necessary to break my bones. I'm sure I would remember if she did. (I admit she is endlessly testing my skin's resistance to penetration, however.)



Rob Helmerichs said:


> And yes, they did it solely to further the plot without any regard for whether it made a lick of sense. Just as they always did. Which is what made BG such crappy science fiction.


Jeez, we were having such a nice argument and you have to say something I completely agree with.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> Exactly how is a spine that glows visibly different from a normal spine? If the reason it glows is an internal light source, no visible difference would be seen with a non-invasive test.


X-Ray, CAT-scan, etc. The very structure of the spine would have to be different in order to allow the glowing.

The fact that they had Spylons who could do things impossible with normal human anatomy, yet were medically indistinguishable from humans, was an early indication of the sheer contempt the show's makers had for science. And for us, the viewers.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

The most surprising thing about the new episode? That even though they just returned from winter break, there are only 2 more shows left in the season.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

jamesbobo said:


> The most surprising thing about the new episode? That even though they just returned from winter break, there are only 2 more shows left in the season.


i believe they said 2 more shows until the season finale, but that still means only 13 total for season one, but that's ok - last night was really good, i'll be back for season 2.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> X-Ray, CAT-scan, etc. The very structure of the spine would have to be different in order to allow the glowing.


X-rays and CAT scans aren't taken in a general exam; they are done to diagnose specific conditions, such as broken bones.

One the other hand, I must admit that "Emergence" is absurd in that current technology is very far from producing life-like simulacra that could fool even a casual observer. This would be the "one impossible" that is allowed in a science fiction story, if that weren't already used up by the main plot, the emergence of an AI.

Glowing spines, on the other hand, I have little problem with because there is no explanation why they glow; BG has a supernatural component, so if the spines are glowing by "psychic energy", I wouldn't have a problem with doctors not spotting the difference because that would just be magic. I would have a problem if there were glow tubes in the spine, but that wasn't given as the explanation. In-story, the premise is that Cylons are indistinguishable from humans; without that there is no story.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

OK, while I can enjoy and take reasonably seriously the idea that there's an AI that mimics a person, the whole turn-into-dust business is just taking it too far...


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> OK, while I can enjoy and take reasonably seriously the idea that there's an AI that mimics a person, the whole turn-into-dust business is just taking it too far...


 It's funny how everyone has a line in the sand! That doesn't seem too much more ridiculous than the rest of it to me. But I am getting a little tired of having a new head villain materialize every 2 episodes.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

A line in the sand is one thing. Having that sand form up into a solid robot is another...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I suspect that the "sand" was really nanobots/nanotech like we saw in Terminator: Genisys.
Unless you're of the opinion that a liquid metal Terminator is too much.


That said, the tech being shown is way too advanced to current times which is why I think time travel or alien intelligence is involved here.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

JYoung said:


> That said, the tech being shown is way too advanced to current times which is why I think time travel or alien intelligence is involved here.


Yes, they confirmed that in this ep. Helen said the tech for the biobots originally came from an alien transmission.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I thought she said that the government thought it was Russian or Chinese...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I thought she said that the government thought it was Russian or Chinese...


Initially. Until they saw what was on it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Right, they initially thought that it was Russian or Chinese but Loretta described it as of "unknown origin".

Could be aliens. Could be a temporal transmission.
(Or it's Agents of SHIELD tech.  )


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Is it only because this is a TV show with a little kid that the nanobots turn into clothing as well as the emergent AI being?
I was able to enjoy this show for most of the season, but after the last two episodes, I think I'm bailing before Season 2 begins.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

this may be shocking news to some:



Spoiler: another series



wil e. coyote never actually fell off a cliff, either  :


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getreal said:


> Is it only because this is a TV show with a little kid that the nanobots turn into clothing as well as the emergent AI being?


What was the show/movie where a hot woman shape-shifted admitted that she was actually naked (even though she appeared fully dressed), much to the consternation of the men around her?

Mystique of the X-Men, maybe?


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

jamesbobo said:


> Actually, I came back here to say I read the recap of the last episode and now I remember. If I didn't do that, I'd be asking "who's Benny?" Now that I think of it, I can't tell you the name of a single character on the show. And I've seen every episode.


This is true for me too, though in my case it's because I rarely EVER remember character names, and has NOTHING to do with how much I'm enjoying a story. I'd forgotten that gigantic twist too, so yay pre-show-recaps, and I really like the series.

I usually don't even remember character names IN BOOKS, where the characters are only being identified BY NAME lol


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

getreal said:


> Is it only because this is a TV show with a little kid that the nanobots turn into clothing as well as the emergent AI being?
> I was able to enjoy this show for most of the season, but after the last two episodes, I think I'm bailing before Season 2 begins.


you wont have to worry about bailing. Thee will be no season two. If no extra episodes were ordered, and no renewal announcement made yet as they have already with other shows pretty much means its dead. Wait till May or so when all the actors are notified and they take to twitter when it is officially dead. Network will never come out and say it.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Yeah, it's getting increasingly ridiculous for sure. There is just such good casting in this show, I want it to succeed. But the writers really have gone off the rails at this point.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

type_g said:


> you wont have to worry about bailing. Thee will be no season two. If no extra episodes were ordered, and no renewal announcement made yet as they have already with other shows pretty much means its dead. Wait till May or so when all the actors are notified and they take to twitter when it is officially dead. Network will never come out and say it.


Actually no, 13 episodes ordered doesn't mean anything in Emergence's case as the show was designed to be 13 episodes per season.

That said, the ratings aren't stellar and it's a toss up if it will be cancelled or renewed.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

The journey was certainly better than the destination. But I was fine with this show from start to finish. Having said that, while I'd like to see it come back, I probably won't even notice if it doesn't.


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Actually no, 13 episodes ordered doesn't mean anything in Emergence's case as the show was designed to be 13 episodes per season.
> 
> That said, the ratings aren't stellar and it's a toss up if it will be cancelled or renewed.


Well we will see in April/May. By seeing the ratings no way it will get renewed unless the studio that creates it gives the Network a steep discount to run another season.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Was that the season (possibly series) finale? Kind of a weird stopping point IMO. I guess they wanted to leave cliffhangers with the remote-controlled-Piper angle and whether Donald Faison is leaving the show (hope not, if it returns)?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That was the season finalé. We shall see if it was the series finalé!


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Well, they've answered enough of the intriguing questions I had as the story progressed. At this point I'm completely fine with the decline in writing quality in the last two episodes if this will be "one [season] and we're done". If it goes to another season, my fear is that it will quickly become another "Under the Dome" fiasco.


----------



## tim1724 (Jul 3, 2007)

I'm guessing it's likely to be canceled given the lackluster ratings. One thing in its favor though: it's produced by ABC Studios so it's cheaper than if they were buying it from elsewhere. This also means they own the rights to it so if they see any money in streaming or overseas sales they may want to hold onto it.

Most likely they're leaving the renewal decision to the last minute so they can wait to see how pilot season went. If they have a lot of strong shows lined up for fall, they'll cancel Emergence. But if they have a gap in their lineup or they think the lineup looks weak enough that they expect to need mid-season replacements for shows that fail early, they'll keep Emergence around (probably on a reduced budget and probably moved to Friday night or some other weak timeslot). Similarly they could keep it and schedule it for spring if they have something planned for the fall that has a short (10–13 episode) season.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

And it was the series finale... ...

Emergence Cancelled at ABC


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

astrohip said:


> And it was the series finale... ...
> 
> Emergence Cancelled at ABC


Bit of a bummer but I'd rather this than have another season that has no plan for a compelling story line.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

astrohip said:


> And it was the series finale... ...
> Emergence Cancelled at ABC


BOO! Thumbs down! I liked it, but... I guess it's going out on a relatively high note. My fears of forcing myself to sit through a bad second season are now gone.


----------

