# Scorpion "Pilot" (9/22/14) SPOILERS!



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Well, I'd love to read the "true story" that this based on.

I'm reasonably sure that the plane to car transfer never took place. For one thing, at 200 MPH, a cable is gonna flap in the wind like a mutha. Not to mention the copilot standing on the gear. pffft.

I don't know how much of the tech talk was BS, but it came so fast, it didn't really matter.

I liked the connection between the head genius and the kid. And the mom is a hottie.

Don't know if they can keep up this kind of pace on a weekly basis.

As a popcorn show, I liked it. Got a good beat, easy to dance to. I give it an 85. And an SP for now.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I didn't recognize the guy from American Pie till he was in the diner.

And if they ever need someone to break out in song for some reason, Mom has that covered.

I enjoyed it. Wish it wasn't on Monday nights with everything else and football. Wow my Mondays are gonna be all tuners on deck.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Love the characters hated the story. I'm going to give it a few more episodes before I ditch. It was Hawaii 5-0 level of implausible.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I didn't recognize the guy from American Pie till he was in the diner.
> 
> And if they ever need someone to break out in song for some reason, Mom has that covered.
> 
> I enjoyed it. Wish it wasn't on Monday nights with everything else and football. Wow my Mondays are gonna be all tuners on deck.


I didn't recognize him til I saw his photo on the DirecTV guide listing for the show.


----------



## Ben_Jamin75 (Dec 18, 2003)

I loved this show.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Only 20 minutes into it currently, but... Planes are going to fall out of the sky because of a software glitch at LAX and no communication. If every episode is this ridiculous I don't know how long I can last.

It's easy to communicate with a plane. It takes a handheld radio you can get easily. I have one. Hell, 1/2 the pilots I know have one.

It's not anything that would cause planes to fall out of the sky. Hell, all the planes can talk to each other even. Uncontrolled airports are not rare. Any pilot is familiar with them. Sure, not at the capacity of LAX, but even then it would be doable, especially if only landing and no departing. Never mind that it would be easy to divert them to air force bases, las Vegas, San Francisco, salt lake city, Phoenix, San Diego, etc.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

What a ridiculous plot.
But I really liked all the characters. 

This one gets a second chance. Here's hoping they dial back the ridiculousness a little in subsequent episodes.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Well, I'd love to read the "true story" that this based on.


I haven't watched the pilot yet but Walter O'Brien is a real person.
http://www.scorpioncomputerservices.com/the_founder.html


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Maui said:


> What a ridiculous plot.
> But I really liked all the characters.
> 
> This one gets a second chance. Here's hoping they dial back the ridiculousness a little in subsequent episodes.


I agree. I really, really enjoyed the character interactions, the mom and the kid. But my brain is still recovering from the sheer stupidity and holes throughout practically every single tech moment of this show.

They either need to hire somebody capable of using at least 5% of their brain to straighten out the stupidity, or hire someone to make the overall flow go more like a comic book.

I'm still gonna watch it, but it's so disappointing in that respect and I just know they could so easily have done better.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Ok, finished it and it just ramped up the ridiculousness... 

I'll give it another shot, but only because I'm a sucker for "misfit group of geniuses save the ..." type shows.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Well that was a stupid show. Liked the characters and the premise, provided they come up with better plots.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I'll watch anything with Katharine McPhee in it and knew going in that I would have to turn off the tech BS detector but they really, really, really needed to come up with a different story. I was almost to the point where I felt it was written by people who did know something about technology but were really drunk and wanted to see just how ridiculous they could make it. They did succeed if that was their goal.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Pilot here,

Still watching, but the whole airplane plot setup just 

but....

No....

Wwha...

And a Computer Engineer.... none of the computer stuff....

Fricking hard to suspend disbelief if you know anything about the subject.

Fricking insulting intelligence left and right. Pilots and computer guys.

Pilots won't sit there like a bump on a log.

Radios don't need software.

--Carlos V.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> And if they ever need someone to break out in song for some reason, Mom has that covered.


Oh, jeez, not another great singer buried on a show with good characters but really lame writing.

Why, gods of television, why? Didn't I suffer enough when you put Audra McDonald on _Private Practice_ and she had nothing worthwhile to do?

I didn't set up a recording for this week's episode, so I haven't watched yet, but ugh, I hate it when shows have characters I like and/or actors I like and the writing is so stupid it drives me crazy. Hate it hate it hate it.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

The airport where the "transfer" took place was the Ontario Airport.

--Carlos V.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Flop said:


> Only 20 minutes into it currently, but... Planes are going to fall out of the sky because of a software glitch at LAX and no communication. If every episode is this ridiculous I don't know how long I can last.


Well, in my case, eight minutes. 

That was the point in the show where they said all the planes would crash. I couldn't watch any more. Just. Too. Stupid.

It wasn't helped by the fact I had five hours of TV last night, so I wasn't going to spend any more on this. I didn't delete it, just went on to something else. I will probably go back and finish this, and give it one more eps, as I too am a sucker for the misfit genius genre.

But episode #2 needs to bring its game face. And I had such high hopes.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I felt it was pretty bad, for all the reasons above. In fact, I was on the cusp of deleting the SP... then they had Katherine McPhee throw up after the car ride. That was barely enough to tip it back to "keep" for me... for one more week at least.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Maui said:


> What a ridiculous plot.
> But I really liked all the characters.
> 
> This one gets a second chance. Here's hoping they dial back the ridiculousness a little in subsequent episodes.


+1
Likable characters but the worst writing ever. Made any episode of 24 look like it was written by Steinbeck. Moronic plot backed up by nonsensical tech explanations. And four geniuses who need a waitress to set them straight (and then she becomes the heroine).

Also going to give it one more look to see if they try for just a touch of believability.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm with everyone else. Interesting characters, boneheaded plot. Usually the writers spend significantly more time on the pilot of a show than any subsequent episodes, so I don't have high hopes that it will improve. Plus, they'll have to scale the budget way back for future episodes, so that won't help either. But I'll give it another episode because I like Kat McPhee and want to see her succeed.

Surprised nobody has brought up the show's logo. </scorpion> WTF? End scorpion? Is that really what they're going for, or did some graphic designer just think it looked cool and had no clue what it meant?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Well, I'd love to read the "true story" that this based on.
> 
> I'm reasonably sure that the plane to car transfer never took place. For one thing, at 200 MPH, a cable is gonna flap in the wind like a mutha. Not to mention the copilot standing on the gear. pffft.
> 
> ...


This show was hilarious. I ended up watching the entire thing. I just could not stop laughing during the plane bit. The co-pilot comes down on the landing wheel, with an ethernet cable. Then gives it to the people in a car all while driving at 200 MPH That was pure cheese. I will continue watching if I can get some more good laughs like that. Just thinking about it is making me laugh again.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

One of the most contrived plots in the history of the world. Even _Agents of SHIELD_ is more believable.

I'll just sit back with a bowl of popcorn, turn my critical faculties off, and enjoy the ride. Plus Katherine McPhee.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

I'll admit that I knew little of the show before I watched it and did not realize that Katherine McPhee was in it but as I was watching the show I kept thinking 2 things about the character.

1. Where do I know this actress from?
2. Damn she's attractive!


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

I didn't mind the characters, but the plot was a big steaming pile of stupid!


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

I enjoyed it enough to keep watching. SP Set.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Surprised nobody has brought up the show's logo. </scorpion> WTF? End scorpion? Is that really what they're going for, or did some graphic designer just think it looked cool and had no clue what it meant?


Yeah, my wife brought that up too. I thought it would have been better if it were <scorpion/>. Not surprised they f'd it up though.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I posted this elsewhere, but it's a darned good thing "Under the Dome" exists, or this might well be the stupidest show on TV. There were many "oh my god, this is too dumb to believe" laugh out loud moments. In fact, I'm almost afraid to count them, as it might be as high as one per minute.

I did like the cast, though.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

I'll be the odd man out here - I thought the characters were terribly cliched nerds, though well-acted by the cast. And agree the plot was utterly preposterous.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

For the pedantic, it's Katharine not Katherine.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Hcour said:


> I'll be the odd man out here - I thought the characters were terribly cliched nerds, though well-acted by the cast.


Only the math guy and the main guys were "nerds". I don't think most people would use that term to describe the "mechanical genius" girl or the annoying shrink guy.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Azlen said:


> For the pedantic, it's Katharine not Katherine.


Who is Katharine McPhee? Am I supposed to know her?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Only the math guy and the main guys were "nerds". I don't think most people would use that term to describe the "mechanical genius" girl or the annoying shrink guy.


Those are great names. I can almost see a new Strongbad comic now!

Super Genius! Math Nerd! Annoying Shrink Guy! Mechanical Genius Girl! The Hot One!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> Who is Katharine McPhee? Am I supposed to know her?


She was a runner up on American Idol (I think. One of those singing shows), and starred for 2 seasons in "Smash".


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Ereth said:


> She was a runner up on American Idol (I think. One of those singing shows), and starred for 2 seasons in "Smash".


Ah, thanks.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

May have been one of the worst shows I've seen in awhile. So bad that even Under the Dome now looks like it's plausible and based in reality.

When did being a "nerd" come to mean that you have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Gunnyman said:


> Love the characters hated the story.





dswallow said:


> I really, really enjoyed the character interactions...But my brain is still recovering from the sheer stupidity...





ADG said:


> Likable characters but the worst writing ever.


there's no better way to say it, and i'll be surprised if i keep the sp longer that 1 or 2 more weeks. my first pilot fail of the season... :down:


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Abysmal story and plot.

They were on the phone with the pilot, at an airport with a cleared runway, but they don't have him land?? They have wifi on the plane, but can't send an email? They have a homeland security team at their disposal, but the waitress is the daredevil? Too many others to mention.

As for the characters, I didn't particularly like them either. They weren't as terrible as the writing, just didn't think they were great. Just normal, every day TV misfits.

And yes, Katharine is attractive, but no more so than every other actress on just about any other TV show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So they had to go the the diner in order to get a good wifi signal, yet they risked everything on the data transferring properly in real time from a laptop traveling at 200 mph and then being destroyed seconds later?

Not to mention that it would take the entire length of the runway for that car to even begin approaching 200 mph. It's not like it would be able to do 200 mph the entire time.

But I guess if we're going to start picking nits like this, this thread would quickly grow to 1000 posts, and I don't want to read all of that, so please disregard this post.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> So they had to go the the diner in order to get a good wifi signal


You could probably stop at "they needed wifi".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

spartanstew said:


> They were on the phone with the pilot, at an airport with a cleared runway, but they don't have him land?? They have wifi on the plane, but can't send an email? They have a homeland security team at their disposal, but the waitress is the daredevil? Too many others to mention.


True. But those ain't them...

The small regional airport's runways were too short for a large airliner.

Communications to the plane were down, so the wifi had nowhere to go.

The genius and the waitress took off without permission while the Feds were trying to cut through the red tape to clear the roads, so there were no Feds with them.

Come on, dude! All the logic problems with this show, and you couldn't pick out ONE?!?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Andrew_S said:


> You could probably stop at "they needed wifi".


As I recall the throwaway comment was something like WiFi that wouldn't go down... so at the time I was just allowing that he did something to provide a more seriously robust internet connection that couldn't be brought down. But then I never quite could figure out what could possibly affect all communications, or why the fighter pilots couldn't hold up a sign written with some thick black marker for the pilots to read, et. al. Then I realized my problem was thinking, and just sort of stopped.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

dswallow said:


> As I recall the throwaway comment was something like WiFi that wouldn't go down...


Well, you do tend to find your better wifi hot spots at diners.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Andrew_S said:


> Well, you do tend to find your better wifi hot spots at diners.


He was the person who set it up -- hence why I figured there was some sort of special connection behind it.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The small regional airport's runways were too short for a large airliner.


lol, but large enough for the car and plane to directly connect at 200 mph.

Maybe they should have found a 50 year old salesman on a smaller plane.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I'll watch anything with Kat McPhee in it. I even watched several episodes of Smash, and I hated the show.

So are these guys geniuses? If it was mentioned during the show, I must have missed it.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

As Sci-Fi, it sucked. As a total fantasy, I just shut off my brain and enjoyed the ride.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

spartanstew said:


> lol, but large enough for the car and plane to directly connect at 200 mph.
> 
> Maybe they should have found a 50 year old salesman on a smaller plane.


Much better!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

spartanstew said:


> Maybe they should have found a 50 year old salesman on a smaller plane.


better make sure he has one of those hand-held analog 3w flip phones...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Finished it today. Writing got worse, not better. I can see the fun potential in this show, and the characters show a little chemistry, but good gosh almighty they *have* to write some better stories than this. I find it hard to believe any demo will stick with it unless it dramatically improves.



DevdogAZ said:


> I'm with everyone else. Interesting characters, boneheaded plot. Usually the writers spend significantly more time on the pilot of a show than any subsequent episodes, so I don't have high hopes that it will improve.


Yeah, that hit me too. If this is the pilot, the culmination of weeks of tweaking the story line, what will next week bring? Nonetheless, I'll give another shot.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

On the other hand, modern pilots are usually aired as the first episode of a series rather than being used internally as a step towards getting a show ready and selling it to the network. So often there are significant changes between the pilot and the second episode, which is the first made under the network order and which will reflect people's notions of what worked and didn't in the pilot.

Not saying those changes will be made here, or if so that they will help the show. Just that it's a lot harder to realistically judge a show these days from its first aired episode.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Ereth said:


> She was a runner up on American Idol (I think. One of those singing shows), and starred for 2 seasons in "Smash".


And the wardrobe malfunction. Don't forget the wardrobe malfunction.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not saying those changes will be made here, or if so that they will help the show. Just that it's a lot harder to realistically judge a show these days from its first aired episode.


Totally agree. I started a sitcom rule a couple seasons ago, don't delete the SP during the pilot. They often grow much better after a couple eps.



wprager said:


> And the wardrobe malfunction. Don't forget the wardrobe malfunction.


Clue us clueless in?

BTW, there was one more scene that really bugged me (I know, *only* one more?). The backup was going to be wiped out by the next backup. You know, because keeping more than one backup is... well, crazy talk, I guess.


----------



## JoBeth66 (Feb 15, 2002)

astrohip said:


> BTW, there was one more scene that really bugged me (I know, *only* one more?). The backup was going to be wiped out by the next backup. You know, because keeping more than one backup is... well, crazy talk, I guess.


I thought hubby was going to break something laughing his butt off when this came out. (He designs storage & backup solutions for his firm.)

They completely lost it for me when the "brownout" not only killed the electronic lock, but caused /all the doors to open/. Then using the photo to decide where the right "server" (that's a hard drive) would be, when we all know that whomever is in charge of the facility isn't actually racking servers.

So it's on the edge for us, we'll give it a few more eps but unless they either get better writers or better consultants, we're probably out.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Clue us clueless in?


The only one I vaguely remember was when a button popped on a yellow dress she was wearing. It didn't really show all that much of anything if I recall correctly.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

So which character was on American Idol?


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

The daredevil waitress.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, modern pilots are usually aired as the first episode of a series rather than being used internally as a step towards getting a show ready and selling it to the network. So often there are significant changes between the pilot and the second episode, which is the first made under the network order and which will reflect people's notions of what worked and didn't in the pilot.
> 
> Not saying those changes will be made here, or if so that they will help the show. Just that it's a lot harder to realistically judge a show these days from its first aired episode.


Typically a network pilot is ordered based on a script that the network execs like and it's produced over the course of several weeks between January and March. Then around the end of April/beginning of May, the network decides which pilots it will order to series. At that point, the creator(s) hire a writing staff, begin to plan out the season story arc (if it has one), and start breaking individual stories and writing episodes.

Usually, the script that results in the pilot has been through many rounds of tweaking and evaluation, and may have been worked on over the course of many weeks, months, or even years. And then during the production of the pilot, the network offers copious notes and suggestions to "improve" the pilot. The writing of subsequent episodes is usually completed within about a week per episode, and each episode script receives much less network scrutiny than the original pilot script.

So yes, it's possible that the writers will reflect on what worked and what didn't in the pilot episode and incorporate some changes into the subsequent episodes. But given that the ridiculous plot we saw on screen is what they came up with after weeks/months/years of writing and development, and it made it through all the network notes without removing all of the eye-rolling and groan-inducing moments, how much hope can we have that subsequent episodes, with less writing time and less oversight will end up with better, more coherent plots?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> So which character was on American Idol?


This was Katharine McPhee on American Idol:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> So yes, it's possible that the writers will reflect on what worked and what didn't in the pilot episode and incorporate some changes into the subsequent episodes. But given that the ridiculous plot we saw on screen is what they came up with after weeks/months/years of writing and development, and it made it through all the network notes without removing all of the eye-rolling and groan-inducing moments, how much hope can we have that subsequent episodes, with less writing time and less oversight will end up with better, more coherent plots?


Very possibly. The difference is, in the old days the network would look at the pilot and even if they pick up the show, order changes, sometimes major changes, to the show. Including adding and/or removing characters, recasting, etc.

They still do that. But now, they usually just air the original pilot and then make the changes to subsequent episodes, whereas in the past they would shoot a new first episode. So all I'm trying to say is the second episode of a modern series is much more likely to represent the network's vision of the show they ordered than the pilot, as opposed to the past when the first episode was shot after the pilot, and reflects those changes.

In this case, it is possible (although, I admit, not terribly likely) that the network had many of the same reactions we did, and told the producers to change the tone and the stories to make the show better. Or not. We'll have a much, much better idea of exactly the kind of show they had in mind next week.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Very possibly. The difference is, in the old days the network would look at the pilot and even if they pick up the show, order changes, sometimes major changes, to the show. Including adding and/or removing characters, recasting, etc.
> 
> They still do that. But now, they usually just air the original pilot and then make the changes to subsequent episodes, whereas in the past they would shoot a new first episode. So all I'm trying to say is the second episode of a modern series is much more likely to represent the network's vision of the show they ordered than the pilot, as opposed to the past when the first episode was shot after the pilot, and reflects those changes.
> 
> In this case, it is possible (although, I admit, not terribly likely) that the network had many of the same reactions we did, and told the producers to change the tone and the stories to make the show better. Or not. We'll have a much, much better idea of exactly the kind of show they had in mind next week.


I guess I'm confused about what you're saying. I'm not sure about the old way vs. the new way. What I'm familiar with is the fact that currently, pilots are produced under the direction of the networks. So it's not like the writer and studio get together and make a pilot and then try and sell it as is to the networks. Instead, the networks read the scripts, order the pilots, and then have executives that are extremely hands on during the development of the pilot, and then the pilot is screened for multiple layers of networks execs who give notes, then the pilot is re-edited based on notes, etc.

So the network is typically very hands-on with the production of the pilot. The pilot typically has a much higher budget, has gone through many more re-writes, and has received much more scrutiny from execs than any subsequent episode ever will.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But they haven't seen how it will turn out.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> So yes, it's possible that the writers will reflect on what worked...


That should not take long.



> ...and what didn't in the pilot episode ...


This should take much longer.

I will say that I think I laughed out loud more frequently on this show than during Big Bang Theory.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I do like that they air this show without a laugh track!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

JoBeth66 said:


> I thought hubby was going to break something laughing his butt off when this came out. (He designs storage & backup solutions for his firm.)
> 
> They completely lost it for me when the "brownout" not only killed the electronic lock, but caused /all the doors to open/. Then using the photo to decide where the right "server" (that's a hard drive) would be, when we all know that whomever is in charge of the facility isn't actually racking servers.
> 
> So it's on the edge for us, we'll give it a few more eps but unless they either get better writers or better consultants, we're probably out.


I'll admit that these were very straining for me (not to mention the geography errors) but my rational center totally shut down on the plane having a Cat 5 cable long enough to reach the ground.

I was thinking that this show has a lot in common with Hawaii Five-0 when I saw the credits at the end for the executive producers:
Roberto Orci.
Alex Kurtzman.

Yep, with Nick Santora (Lie to Me, Prison Break, Vegas) that explains a lot.
I'm sure CBS came to Orci and Kurtzman wanting another Hawaii Five-0 and this is what the came up with.

At least now I know that I should turn off my brain when watching this show.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Ereth said:


> She was a runner up on American Idol (I think. One of those singing shows), and starred for 2 seasons in "Smash".


Yes, American Idol. She was on the same season as Chris Daughtry. It was also the season that Taylor Hicks inexplicably won.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I liked it, plus I've been a fan of Katharine McPhee since Idol. Man is she HOT!


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> And if they ever need someone to break out in song for some reason, Mom has that covered.


And what do you want to bet that they'll eventually come up with a plot that forces her to sing?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But they haven't seen how it will turn out.


Who hasn't seen how what will turn out?


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

I have McPheever


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

io9 brings the nerd rage on Scorpion.


----------



## wtherrell (Dec 23, 2004)

Figured it was stupid when a main character manages to keep a pork pie hat on, no matter what.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

wtherrell said:


> Figured it was stupid when a main character *wears* a pork pie hat (...)


FYP


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

JYoung said:


> io9 brings the nerd rage on Scorpion.


Obviously someone paid them to keep their commentary on the show somewhat civil.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Yes, American Idol. She was on the same season as Chris Daughtry. It was also the season that Taylor Hicks inexplicably won.


Soul Patrol!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

RGM1138 said:


> Well, I'd love to read the "true story" that this based on.


It's not based on a true story.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This was Katharine McPhee on American Idol:


Is that really the same woman that played the waitress? She looks alot different there. And larger.

Man I keep getting some good laughs from this show. A couple of co-workers also watched it. And I just could not stop laughing when we were discussing it.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

aaronwt said:


> Is that really the same woman that played the waitress? She looks alot different there. And larger.


I was gonna say.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Is that really the same woman that played the waitress? She looks alot different there. And larger.


It's not so much the jewel as the setting.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I thought it was terrible but the female head of household liked it, we have a season pass. For anybody that wants to watch the pilot and didn't record it, Vudu has it for free.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Is that really the same woman that played the waitress? She looks alot different there. And larger.


She's lost some weight since she was on Idol. Frankly, I think she looked better before. And not just because of the boobs.



scandia101 said:


> It's not based on a true story.


Inspired by.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Ha! Just watched it and came here to say what everybody on the first page of the thread is saying. Liked the characters and the basic premise. But the whole plane crisis was way stupid.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

JYoung said:


> io9 brings the nerd rage on Scorpion.


Spoiler for next week's show. 



the author of the io article said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Next week, the geniuses will help a guy whose pants keep falling down.




Thanks for posting the link.

I'm kind of sorry I didn't record the episode now. It's the TV episode equivalent of the classical music fan's "party record" (an interpretation that's so weird/bad you have to play the recording for people, because no verbal description of the weirdness does it justice).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

When I first saw the trailer for this show in a movie theater a while back, it looked like a fake trailer parodying this kind of show. I figured they had just made an especially crappy trailer, and that the show itself would be better.

Frankly, I didn't believe it _could _be accurate. But without the irony and self-awareness that would make this particular show a great parody, I guess the trailer _was _accurate.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Reading that io9 link reminded me of another ludicrous part of the plot. All of the planes carried the same software as what the LAX control tower was running on, but they'd all already uploaded the new version. They had to find a plane that had been in the air for more than 12 hours to find one that hadn't already downloaded the corrupt update.

How ridiculous that planes somehow share software with the tower, and that the software on said planes is automatically updated whenever they're within proximity of the airport.

Not to mention that FAA air traffic control is done from a central location for an entire region. The LA Air Route Traffic Control Center is not located at LAX and controls all the air traffic for airports as far away as Las Vegas and San Diego. So the FAA could have easily re-routed those planes to Vegas or SD if there were really some communication issue with all of the airports in the LA Metro area.

Sometimes I really wonder about TV writers. I know medical marijuana cards are very common in California, especially in the entertainment industry. I wonder if it requires a chemically-altered mind in order to come up with all of the plot contrivances to make something like this work. I'd love to be a TV writer, but I'd never be able to leave reality so far behind to come up with a plot that's supposed to take place in our current world.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Sometimes I really wonder about TV writers. I know medical marijuana cards are very common in California, especially in the entertainment industry. I wonder if it requires a chemically-altered mind in order to come up with all of the plot contrivances to make something like this work. I'd love to be a TV writer, but I'd never be able to leave reality so far behind to come up with a plot that's supposed to take place in our current world.


Apparently the argument is that certain details don't matter because "no one in the audience is going to know the difference". 

That's why we get scenes in movies like the one where people drive out of San Francisco toward the East Bay on the top deck of the (old) Bay Bridge.

To me it doesn't matter how many people will know you got it right (or not). I think things are more fun if you follow reality as much as you can, but apparently I'm in the minority.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> Apparently the argument is that certain details don't matter because "no one in the audience is going to know the difference".
> 
> *That's why we get scenes in movies like the one where people drive out of San Francisco toward the East Bay on the top deck of the (old) Bay Bridge.*
> 
> To me it doesn't matter how many people will know you got it right (or not). I think things are more fun if you follow reality as much as you can, but apparently I'm in the minority.


At least that screw up has a real-life logistical reason. Cars on the top deck are easier to film.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Thinking about this stupid show, it must be a parody of cyber terrorism movies. The US government and a group of misfit geeks will save the day, exciting and excruciatingly stupid. Nothing about the first episode could be considered anything other than parody. The chess game between the math genius, a Grandmaster, and the kid, using restaurant items as a chess set, the kid wins in 8 moves. Everything that happened in that pilot episode was absurd.

A Get Smart episode like the one where KAOS was smuggling secrets out of the country using talking dolls with pull strings is parody on a par with that episode. Government agents saving the world from a complicated evil plot makes for great comedy.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

This first episode was a blast. I'm not sure more of the same will sustain the enjoyability, but this was worth watching.

I've always been confused as to why people with 125+ IQs and experiential sophistication object to well-crafted TV which is aimed at 90 IQs who have lived their lives in Skinner boxes. If it's fun it's fun. I'm not saying spend hours a day watching this kind of stuff, but there's nothing to be ashamed of for wallowing occasionally.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, two objections: First, to "well-crafted." And second, stupid TV is stupid TV. If stupid people (or people who don't mind stupidity in their TV) like it in enough numbers to make it popular, than so be it. But why do you expect people who can't stand stupidity not to object to stupid television?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

murgatroyd said:


> That's why we get scenes in movies like the one where people drive out of San Francisco toward the East Bay on the top deck of the (old) Bay Bridge.


Errors like this are only distracting to people who know specific info. When they show a cop car in Des Moines painted black, and everyone in DM knows they're white, most of the world is ok.

But when it doesn't take any knowledge in an area to be distracted, then it's a problem. That's bad writing.

I know nothing about air traffic control, or aircraft flight. But even I know they don't update software that can crash 56 planes (on a sunny blue day!) with no backup, and expect four unknown geeks to save the day.

The real tell will be the next episode. 'nuff said.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Well, in my case, eight minutes.
> 
> That was the point in the show where they said all the planes would crash. I couldn't watch any more. Just. Too. Stupid.
> 
> ...


I had it on in the background last night while playing Skyrim. The tech idiocy was _still_ too painful endure for more than about 30 minutes.

Thumbs down and deleted; gah. I just couldn't handle it, not even for Katharine McPhee.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm with everyone else. Interesting characters, boneheaded plot. Usually the writers spend significantly more time on the pilot of a show than any subsequent episodes, so I don't have high hopes that it will improve. Plus, they'll have to scale the budget way back for future episodes, so that won't help either.


True, but future episodes should be easier to write now that the team is together. The difficulty with the pilot was that they had to come up with a justification for Cabe to ask for Walter's help, while demonstrating each member's usefulness, including Paige's so that they would eventually all get hired. Many of the absurdities, such as needing to go to the diner to get Wi-Fi, were done simply because they were more focused on the outcome of the story than the story itself.

Hopefully now that they are an official task force, the characters will be written into the stories rather than the stories being written around the characters.



astrohip said:


> BTW, there was one more scene that really bugged me (I know, *only* one more?). The backup was going to be wiped out by the next backup. You know, because keeping more than one backup is... well, crazy talk, I guess.


Not to mention the fact that the one backup was only stored at that one location. The purpose of having off-site backups is for redundancy. Storing it at just that location on one hard drive is no better than storing it only on site. And what kind of storage service lets you upload backups, but not download them? If you need to preform disaster recovery, you actually have to go to this facility that is not open 24/7?

I hope the only thing that is based on the true story in this episode is the names of the characters, because if anything else is even remotely real, we are in serious trouble.



Chris Gerhard said:


> The chess game between the math genius, a Grandmaster, and the kid, using restaurant items as a chess set, the kid wins in 8 moves.


Yeah. Winning in 8 moves says more about how the loser played than the winner. I don't know why they couldn't have stuck with just saying the kid had won instead of trying to "up the ante" by saying he had won in 8 moves. They might as well have said that the kid beat a world champion runner in the 400 meter dash by 5 minutes.

I remember getting a call from one of the writers about this show.

"Would you be so kind as to take a look at this show?" he asked.

"How do I know it won't involve a bunch of nonsensical technobabble and absurd situations?" I replied.

"It's based on a true story," he responded assuredly, "Plus, if we were to write such absurdities, people would stop watching the show, and then we would lose our jobs."

"Ah, well I guess that makes sense," I agreed hesitantly.

So I decided to jump on board, and start my journey.

Halfway through the show, I gave him a call.

"Why?" I asked, "If it was based on a true story, couldn't you have at the very least asked the real people involved for feedback? Now people are going to stop watching and you are going to lose your jobs."

He replied, "We cannot help ourselves. It's in our nature."


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

It's not even self-consistent. They won't head to LAX without help because "we might run into another plane" but they'll go to that po-dunk airport.

Wireless doesn't work because the plane goes too fast, so they need a wired connection. But the transfer from the laptop to LAX is wireless, and going just as fast.

--Carlos V.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> At least that screw up has a real-life logistical reason. Cars on the top deck are easier to film.


Well, it was.

Caltrans has sort of solved that problem now.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BitbyBlit said:


> Yeah. Winning in 8 moves says more about how the loser played than the winner. I don't know why they couldn't have stuck with just saying the kid had won instead of trying to "up the ante" by saying he had won in 8 moves. They might as well have said that the kid beat a world champion runner in the 400 meter dash by 5 minutes.


I'm almost positive that he said "Checkmate in eight moves." Which meant that he would win eight moves from now no matter what the other guy did, not that the game was only eight moves long.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Thinking about this stupid show, it must be a parody of cyber terrorism movies. The US government and a group of misfit geeks will save the day, exciting and excruciatingly stupid. Nothing about the first episode could be considered anything other than parody. The chess game between the math genius, a Grandmaster, and the kid, using restaurant items as a chess set, the kid wins in 8 moves. Everything that happened in that pilot episode was absurd.


I don't have a problem with the kid beating the Grandmaster guy. That's just TV shorthand to let us know what a prodigy the kid is. The bigger problem was that the kid is such a chess genius but the mom didn't even know he liked chess.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm almost positive that he said "Checkmate in eight moves." Which meant that he would win eight moves from now no matter what the other guy did, not that the game was only eight moves long.


That's how I heard it too. But this was such a minor thing in the huge ocean of bull crap, that it really did not even register.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm almost positive that he said "Checkmate in eight moves." Which meant that he would win eight moves from now no matter what the other guy did, not that the game was only eight moves long.


That might be right and makes more sense although there is no reason to believe anything from that show made any sense. If in fact the story does have the kid beat a Grandmaster in 8 moves, that is just as believable as everything else that happened in that episode. It was hard to tell how much time had elapsed in the diner but it didn't appear that they had enough time to play a game unless it was only 8 moves for each player, even if they were playing at a blitz pace, especially if you consider how much time it must have taken to put together a makeshift chess set.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Chris Gerhard said:


> That might be right and makes more sense although there is no reason to believe anything from that show made any sense. If in fact the story does have the kid beat a Grandmaster in 8 moves, that is just as believable as everything else that happened in that episode. It was hard to tell how much time had elapsed in the diner but it didn't appear that they had enough time to play a game unless it was only 8 moves for each player, even if they were playing at a blitz pace, especially if you consider how much time it must have taken to put together a makeshift chess set.


It didn't take any time to put together a makeshift chess set. When Walter was in the diner at the beginning of the show, he noticed the kids playing chess with the various items and even made a couple moves. So the makeshift chess set existed before the team ever arrived at the diner.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> It didn't take any time to put together a makeshift chess set. When Walter was in the diner at the beginning of the show, he noticed the kids playing chess with the various items and even made a couple moves. So the makeshift chess set existed before the team ever arrived at the diner.


I sure didn't see the kid with something that could have been a 32 piece chess set but I guess that doesn't mean it wasn't there. The events seemed to be happening in real time, that would have given a few minutes to play the game, again, not impossible but certainly beyond silly.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

For some reason I'm finding I enjoy laughing about this show enough that I'm actually looking forward to seeing what ludicrousities they come up with this week!

And yes, I think I just made that word up, but I couldn't think of one that would fit better.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Ereth said:


> For some reason I'm finding I enjoy laughing about this show enough that I'm actually looking forward to seeing what ludicrousities they come up with this week!
> 
> And yes, I think I just made that word up, but I couldn't think of one that would fit better.


Why not? It fits a thread about a show that makes ludicrousities up.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Ereth said:


> For some reason I'm finding I enjoy laughing about this show enough that I'm actually looking forward to seeing what ludicrousities they come up with this week!
> 
> And yes, I think I just made that word up, but I couldn't think of one that would fit better.
> 
> ...


If y'all are going to make words up, then you need to spell them properly.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Well, I'd love to read the "true story" that this based on.


The guy was on a very recent Adam Carolla Show episode. He was very smart. My opinion of him went down very slightly after seeing this show..

I thought it was an interesting/dumb action show. Though I do think planes would just start landing, even if they possibly could have a collision, once they got low on fuel.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm almost positive that he said "Checkmate in eight moves." Which meant that he would win eight moves from now no matter what the other guy did, not that the game was only eight moves long.


Ah yeah, that makes sense. For some reason while watching it the first time, I interpreted it as him saying the kid had gotten checkmate in eight moves. But going back and re-watching that scene, they clearly meant "from now". They had Sylvester playing the kid in the background, which I had ignored the first time because I didn't realize they were doing anything important. So they had time to play a longer game. And Walter specifically said that Sylvester was "about to" lose.


----------



## Bill Reeves (Jul 18, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> Ah yeah, that makes sense. For some reason while watching it the first time, I interpreted it as him saying the kid had gotten checkmate in eight moves. But going back and re-watching that scene, they clearly meant "from now". They had Sylvester playing the kid in the background, which I had ignored the first time because I didn't realize they were doing anything important. So they had time to play a longer game. And Walter specifically said that Sylvester was "about to" lose.


(a) You went back and re-watched part of this show? I'm so sorry.  But thanks for taking one for the team.

(b) Who's Sylvester? I thought his name was "math guy". Let's see, the team consists of Walter, "math guy", "hat guy", "asian chick", with "hot waitress chick" and "autistic kid", and Terminator T-1000 as the government suit. Are you telling me that all these other characters have names?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mattack said:


> I thought it was an interesting/dumb action show. Though I do think planes would just start landing, even if they possibly could have a collision, once they got low on fuel.


Absolutely. As a pilot, your choice is crash from lack of fuel (certain death for all on board), or attempt a blind landing, with a very high percentage of survival. Certainly higher than 0%



Bill Reeves said:


> Let's see, the team consists of Walter, "math guy", "hat guy", "asian chick", with "hot waitress chick" and "autistic kid", and Terminator T-1000 as the government suit. Are you telling me that all these other characters have names?


Not anymore. :up:


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Bill Reeves said:


> Let's see, the team consists of Walter, "math guy", "hat guy", "asian chick", with *"hot waitress singer chick*" and "autistic kid", and Terminator T-1000 as the government suit. Are you telling me that all these other characters have names?


FYP.


However, since hot waitress singer chick was wearing a name tag that read "Paige", I actually do remember her name.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Judging from tonight's season premiere of "Hawaii 5-O," they're definitely in a competition with "Scorpion" to see who can come up with the most ludicrous plots.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> Judging from tonight's season premiere of "Hawaii 5-O," they're definitely in a competition with "Scorpion" to see who can come up with the most ludicrous plots.


And for me, that's a bad sign, as I gave up on H5O back in S1. The stories were so farfetched, I couldn't watch. And I really liked the characters. and the scenery.

So if Scorpion ends up on that road...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> Judging from tonight's season premiere of "Hawaii 5-O," they're definitely in a competition with "Scorpion" to see who can come up with the most ludicrous plots.


Pretty much what I was thinking. Plus a dab of simul-drone plots with the current episode of "Legends."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> And for me, that's a bad sign, as I gave up on H5O back in S1. The stories were so farfetched, I couldn't watch. And I really liked the characters. and the scenery.
> 
> So if Scorpion ends up on that road...


Totally mirrors my view, and my response to H50. I came into Scorpion with rather low expectations (as I said, the trailer seemed like a comedy show parody), but even those weren't met. I almost never abandon a show with a promising premise after just the pilot because of the networks' current habit of airing the pilot and fixing its flaw in the regular series order, so I will reluctantly give it one more chance. But my already low hopes have plummeted. It will have to become either a whole lot smarter, or a whole lot more entertaining (both would be nice, but I'd settle for one or the other).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

OK, I thought it was dumb too... but EVERY episode of "Person of Interest" has things that are as dumb or worse.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

mattack said:


> The guy was on a very recent Adam Carolla Show episode. He was very smart. My opinion of him went down very slightly after seeing this show..


He may be very smart but he's also a ******** artist and a liar.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...er-obrien-real-computer-security-genius.shtml


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> OK, I thought it was dumb too... but EVERY episode of "Person of Interest" has things that are as dumb or worse.


Which is why I only lasted about five episodes.

I can stand dumb as long as it's self-knowing dumb. Dumb-on-purpose can be fun. But dumb that thinks it's smart just pisses me off (it feels like it's counting on me being dumb enough to fall for it).

I think it's conceivable that Scorpion will veer into dumb-on-purpose territory. Not likely, but conceivable.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

mattack said:


> EVERY episode of "Person of Interest" has things that are as dumb or worse.


Nothing in POI is as dumb as Scorpion. Poorly constructed world, no rules, bad writing, plot holes that even the deaf and blind can spot. At least POI is based on something that is remotely true, a corrupt government spying on it's citizens.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Ereth said:


> For some reason I'm finding I enjoy laughing about this show enough that I'm actually looking forward to seeing what ludicrousities they come up with this week!
> 
> And yes, I think I just made that word up, but I couldn't think of one that would fit better.


Shouldn't that be spelled 'ludicrosities'? 

(by analogy with 'atrocity' and 'atrocious')

It's a fine word in any case.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Andrew_S said:


> Nothing in POI is as dumb as Scorpion. Poorly constructed world, no rules, bad writing, plot holes that even the deaf and blind can spot. At least POI is based on something that is remotely true, a corrupt government spying on it's citizens.


I would say it's just the opposite. The basic premise of POI puts it in a sci-fi world so that essentially gives them some leeway to bend the rules of reality a little, whereas Scorpion appears to be taking place in the real world, present day, so it doesn't get that same leeway.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Judging from tonight's season premiere of "Hawaii 5-O," they're definitely in a competition with "Scorpion" to see who can come up with the most ludicrous plots.


Why is this surprising?
As I noted upthread, both shows have the same executive producers.



DevdogAZ said:


> I would say it's just the opposite. The basic premise of POI puts it in a sci-fi world so that essentially gives them some leeway to bend the rules of reality a little, whereas Scorpion appears to be taking place in the real world, present day, so it doesn't get that same leeway.


If you think about Scorpion should get a lot of less leeway then a lot of other shows.

Because most pilots don't have an opening card that reads "Inspired by a true story" and then proceed to veer off completely into Fantasyland.

The producers set up an expectation of something close(r) to reality with that card, leading us to believe that we'd get something more along the lines of Southland and not Hawaii Five-O.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Because most pilots don't have an opening card that reads "Inspired by a true story" and then proceed to veer off completely into Fantasyland.


Well, Fargo was "Inspired by a true story."

Then again, Fargo's "true story" was a lot truer.

And Fargo was a lot more plausible.


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I would say it's just the opposite. The basic premise of POI puts it in a sci-fi world so that essentially gives them some leeway to bend the rules of reality a little, whereas Scorpion appears to be taking place in the real world, present day, so it doesn't get that same leeway.


That's what I meant. POI is consistent in how the world is presented. Scorpion, not at all. These are the reasons why comic book shows may work and something like Scorpion may not.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, Fargo was "Inspired by a true story."


Not inspired by and not based on...
Fargo opens with the words "This is a true story" which is just part of the fictional story.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Just finished the first episode. This was by far the stupidest tv show I've watched in a long time... and I'm a frequent watcher of under the dome and the following.

Nearly everything about the episode was wrong, from the planes being unable to land onward.


----------



## buckeyenut (Apr 1, 2004)

I just finished the pilot... the writing and plot was an insult to anyone with an average IQ. Horrible.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I just finished the pilot and thought is was fun popcorn TV and didn't seem to have any problem enjoying it through all the stuff that seems to have disturbed you all so much.

Katharine McPhee - she's getting better as an actress.
Way better than she was in Smash.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I had to look up what the actual plot was again to make sure I didn't miss something. The plot of the episode to keep the planes flying above LAX (and neighboring airports) from crashing due to a software glitch.

This was beyond stupid. If the plot of the next episode is anywhere near this stupid Under the Dome may no longer be the stupidest show on TV for the year.

Radios wouldn't be effected by a software glitch. If a pilot can buzz the tower, or fly just above the runway to hand a cat5 cable to a waitress, why doesn't he just f'ing land the damn plane?

I think some of you still have McPhee-ver.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

robojerk said:


> If a pilot can buzz the tower, or fly just above the runway to hand a cat5 cable to a waitress, why doesn't he just f'ing land the damn plane?


The Dome wanted it this way.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I really liked this show. 

After reading this thread I went in with super low expectations and found that I can easily like all of the characters -- unlike UtD where everybody is prepared to either threaten to or actually murder each other at the blink of an eye. 

I had also prepped myself a bit by listening to Adam Carolla's podcast where he interviewed Nick Santora and Walter O'Brien.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I finally watched this... I'll give it a few more episodes, but it was not that great.

Why is it in tv shows, someone always plugs a cable or a USB drive into a computer and it suddenly starts automatically transferring EXACTLY what they need as soon as it's plugged in. Why doesn't my computer interface with my brain like that? Why do I have to manually copy files and select the folder to copy them to? Come on Apple, let's get on that mind reading technology they have in the tv shows!

I don't understand why they didn't just land the plane and then get the backup off it while it's sitting on the ground. I understand that maybe the airport they were doing this at was not big enough (although wow they sure were driving down that runway at 200 mph for an awful long time), but if they could talk to that plane, why didn't they say, hey guys. Since we can communicate to you on the old man's flip phone, you can go land at LAX and we'll meet you there!


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

getreal said:


> I really liked this show.


Maybe it's because I'm a pilot, but I just can't get past 1) them not being able to simply land the planes, and 2) there being no way to communicate due to the buggy software at LAX. Its simple VHF radio FFS. It shows a complete lack of any kind of a technical consultant. It's even more than that, it's a complete lack of consistency. As pointed out, they could communicate with a plane. It could overfly the runway. Obviously if you can do that, then you could land. I can usually suspend disbelief, but this was just too much.

When we throw in some of the other things, like psychoanalyzing the owner of the data storage company to find out which hard drive to pull, or the instant transfers of just the right data, it becomes like a layer cake of stupid piled on stupid piled on stupid. I can find almost nothing that was done right about the plot.

I agree with you that i do like the characters, and hope episode #2 is superior to the pilot.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

smbaker said:


> like psychoanalyzing the owner of the data storage company to find out which hard drive to pull


That part at least was a joke.  He said it was labeled "LAX" after spouting all that off to the girl.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

laria said:


> That part at least was a joke.  He said it was labeled "LAX" after spouting all that off to the girl.


He didn't have time to read all of those drive labels. He narrowed it down to at least which unit in which rack, didn't he?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smbaker said:


> He didn't have time to read all of those drive labels. He narrowed it down to at least which unit in which rack, didn't he?


I think he narrowed it down to the general area...


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

smbaker said:


> When we throw in some of the other things, like psychoanalyzing the owner of the data storage company to find out which hard drive to pull, or the instant transfers of just the right data, it becomes like a layer cake of stupid piled on stupid piled on stupid. I can find almost nothing that was done right about the plot.


I have nothing to contribute, but I am compelled to post that I love the expression "layer cake of stupid".


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I've since deleted this ep, but I thought the "LAX" label was on the face of the drive (inside the slot) and not on the outer portion that would have been visible before pulling it. I could be wrong.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> I've since deleted this ep, but I thought the "LAX" label was on the face of the drive (inside the slot) and not on the outer portion that would have been visible before pulling it. I could be wrong.


IIRC, once he had the general area through his shrinky-magic, he pulled the drive. The so-called "mechanical genius" girl couldn't believe that his psycho-babble actually would help him pick a particular drive, and he confirmed that he chose the drive he did because of its label.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I think the comparison to H50 is right. Except substitute geeks for cops. So I can watch it with that in mind (i.e. they are live-action comic books). There is no reality involved at all.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

This show reminded me and SO of _NUMB3RS_. Team of crack geeks helping the government solve problems. Main geek is a shaggy haired boy wonder.  Daredevil ethernet cable dangling pilot guy was even one of the main characters on that show.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

For such a terrible show, this certainly has generated quite a long thread!


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> For such a terrible show, this certainly has generated quite a long thread!


It's pretty rare for shows to be so wildly agreeably blatantly stupid-terrible. Except for SyFy Channel movies of the week.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dswallow said:


> It's pretty rare for shows to be so wildly agreeably blatantly stupid-terrible. Except for SyFy Channel movies of the week.


Which mostly do it on purpose. I detect no Syfy Original wink-and-nudge from Scorpion.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

laria said:


> This show reminded me and SO of _NUMB3RS_.


It reminds me as well. However, Numb3rs worked, and I think the reason it worked is because the basic mathematical principles were sound. The little mini-lectures on the algorithms reminded me of college classes I took. The usage was generally exaggerated, solving complex crimes with a simple application of an algorithm, but the show had lots of normal plausible-looking FBI types to back it up.

In Numb3rs, my mood would be an excited "_yeah! I remember the knapsack problem!_" whereas in Scorpion, it's "_Come on dude, you know planes can land, right?_"

Basically, I can accept a TV show getting one thing 'kinda wrong'. It's hard to accept a TV show that gets everything completely wrong.

Still have high hopes the series can be redeemed in the second episode.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Yeah, I just meant the general feel of the show. I actually went looking up the people involved in production to see if it was the same people.

I agree that _Numb3rs_ was a better show... at least so far. The jury is still out.  I'll give it a couple eps to improve.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

laria said:


> I'll give it a couple eps to improve.


Even two Eppes will not help.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think getting the technical stuff wrong could be forgiven if it were just your typical Hollywood glossing-over of the details. But in this case, they were so far out in left field that they were suggesting it was OK to kill hundreds of people rather than let the pilots try to find their way safely to the ground or to another airport that had working communications. That's just plain ridiculous. 

Given the massive contortions they went through to explain the issue, I'm surprised they never even addressed the possibility of the planes being diverted elsewhere or the pilots being contacted through some alternate means of communication.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I still think the writers are tech knowledgeable but wanted to see how dumb they could make it and still get away with it.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

McPheever is the only reason while I'd continue to watch.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> I still think the writers are tech knowledgeable but wanted to see how dumb they could make it and still get away with it.


I think you're giving them a benefit of the doubt they haven't earned.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think you're giving them a benefit of the doubt they haven't earned.


Probably, just find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid and not be some elaborate hoax. I mean dangling an ethernet cable out of a jet so that someone can download an old version of the control tower software to keep planes from crashing into the ground just can't be something that someone thought of as a realistic without a lot of drugs.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Probably, just find it hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid and not be some elaborate hoax. I mean dangling an ethernet cable out of a jet so that someone can download an old version of the control tower software to keep planes from crashing into the ground just can't be something that someone thought of as a realistic without a lot of drugs.


I give them a pass on that past, because clearly they were trying to put something exciting and crazy in the pilot in order to hook viewers. My problems are with all the nonsense they had to use to get to that point of the show.


----------



## tcorning (Nov 14, 2001)

JLucPicard said:


> I've since deleted this ep, but I thought the "LAX" label was on the face of the drive (inside the slot) and not on the outer portion that would have been visible before pulling it. I could be wrong.


What surprises me is that nobody has mentioned that pulling a single drive would most certainly not have given them a usable copy. The data would be distributed across many drives as part of the standard storage scheme. Not that it matters since a weak door speaker magnet erased the drive anyway.

That said, I still have McPheever, at least for a few more eps. I agree with the earlier comment that her acting has improved, too.

Ted


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tcorning said:


> What surprises me is that nobody has mentioned that pulling a single drive would most certainly not have given them a usable copy. The data would be distributed across many drives as part of the standard storage scheme.
> 
> Not that it matters since a weak door speaker magnet erased the drive anyway. That said, I still have McPheever, at least for a few more eps. I agree with the earlier comment that her acting has improved, too.
> 
> Ted


I don't think that was a single drive that he pulled. I think it was a backup server where it's a whole RAID array on a single, hot-swappable blade.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

tcorning said:


> Not that it matters since a weak door speaker magnet erased the drive anyway.


How is it that the "mechanical genius" girl didn't know that would be a bad idea?


----------



## Lenonn (May 31, 2004)

Potential spoilers in the link I am posting below.

And with that, we will be getting our first _Scorpion_ crossover with another CBS series: _NCIS: Los Angeles_.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

eddyj said:


> Even two Eppes will not help.


 :up: :up: :up:


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

madscientist said:


> :up: :up: :up:


Glad someone picked up on that! I was getting worried.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think that was a single drive that he pulled. I think it was a backup server where it's a whole RAID array on a single, hot-swappable blade.


No, it looked like a single drive in a RAID carriage to me.
So it would have been only part of a RAID.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

JYoung said:


> No, it looked like a single drive in a RAID carriage to me.
> So it would have been only part of a RAID.


It's a single drive in a removable tray. RAID or not is unknown.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

dswallow said:


> It's a single drive in a removable tray. RAID or not is unknown.


Well, it would be foolish for an off-site backup facility to not be running RAID but then, it's also foolish for an off-site backup facility to not be doing multiple backup versions.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Well, it would be foolish for an off-site backup facility to not be running RAID but then, it's also foolish for an off-site backup facility to not be doing multiple backup versions.


But we never know because it was damaged by the car speaker before we could have had something like a "Oh, it's actually one drive of a RAID5 array and isn't usable" (yeah, like they'd have put anything in the pilot that was plausible!).

That also could've been the "spare-in-case-of-virus-emergency" drive rather than the normal backup array, too.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

dswallow said:


> But we never know because it was damaged by the car speaker before we could have had something like a "Oh, it's actually one drive of a RAID5 array and isn't usable" (yeah, like they'd have put anything in the pilot that was plausible!).
> 
> That also could've been the "spare-in-case-of-virus-emergency" drive rather than the normal backup array, too.


But - "he only pulled one volume of the RAID array and we can't rebuild the whole array" would not have met the Stupid Quotient. It would have actually made sense, and been MUCH better than "The speaker magnet damaged the hard drive".

I'm certain the Stupidity Monitor assigned to ensure they had sufficient Stupidity wouldn't have allowed that to pass.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Well, it would be foolish for an off-site backup facility to not be running RAID but then, it's also foolish for an off-site backup facility to not be doing multiple backup versions.


Is this the same foolish facility where a power cycle will open all the secure doors?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> But - "he only pulled one volume of the RAID array and we can't rebuild the whole array" would not have met the Stupid Quotient. It would have actually made sense, and been MUCH better than "The speaker magnet damaged the hard drive".
> 
> I'm certain the Stupidity Monitor assigned to ensure they had sufficient Stupidity wouldn't have allowed that to pass.


The problem is that with that explanation, the logical solution would have been to go back to the backup facility and see if by pulling the one drive, the rest of the backup didn't complete and maybe they could still salvage something from the backup if they had all the drives of the RAID array.

Since the whole endgame of what they were going for was the huge set piece with the plane/car/ethernet cable, any realistic explanation that provided for them to potentially solve the problem by making another trip back to the backup facility was a non-starter.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> But - "he only pulled one volume of the RAID array and we can't rebuild the whole array" would not have met the Stupid Quotient. It would have actually made sense, and been MUCH better than "The speaker magnet damaged the hard drive".
> 
> I'm certain the Stupidity Monitor assigned to ensure they had sufficient Stupidity wouldn't have allowed that to pass.


Of course there was no reason to take the drive out of the facility either.
I mean, it's not like they were already in a facility with computers and high speed data connections and couldn't have transmitted the file that way.


----------

