# Homeland S2E10 - "Broken Hearts" - 12-2-12



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

So the Vice President of the United States has a hackable pacemaker??


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Azlen said:


> So the Vice President of the United States has a hackable pacemaker??


I find tons of holes in this week's episode. First of all, Mike and Jess aren't going to be making out like that and talking about how "fun" last night was - WITH both their kids in CLOSE earshot. The son seemed to be right in the next room, and the daughter just around the corner.

Second, no way the FBI/CIA would be letting Brody, a known and admitted terrorist (even if he "turned back") anywhere un-escorted near the VP, that he previously tried to kill, much less let him wander around, undetected, around the VP's office like that. Somebody would have been watching him.

Third, it's going to take the CIA about 2.5 seconds to implicate Brody in the VPs death, even if it looks like "natural causes" or a pacemaker malfunction. And Brody's finger prints are all over the pacemaker box. And there aren't video cameras all around the compound that has Brody wandering around? Come on.

Fourth, WTF with Carrie going back for Nazir? I know she's crazy, but not that F'n crazy. He's the world's (second) most notorious terrorist, and she's going after him with a steel pipe?

I liked how Nazir left Carrie's lower lip un gagged -- if you saw the SNL Homeland parody, that's all she did. Pretty funny, I think.

I actually find the pacemaker hacking believable.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I was waiting for Nazir to make Brody do a pinkie swear and cross your heart swear, before letting Carrie go. Yeah, Brody just wandering around the Naval Observatory seemed a little unrealistic.


----------



## NJ_HB (Mar 21, 2007)

We have to remember that is is a TV/Cable show - you have to be able to suspend belief for a lot of stuff to find the entertainment value. I found it pretty funny when he had his phone at arms length and was begging Nazir to let Carrie go. The reality is a real terrorist would have chopped off an appendage to make a point, but that's how the writers/directors wanted that scene.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

_Some_ networked Medical equipment is hackable. Pacemakers DO NOT have live WiFi connections. It's not like they turn it off when you stop making payments. If so, Dick Cheney would have had his plugged pulled.

Nazir is gonna have a lot of 'splaining to do when he takes that truck back to Avis.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

There are internet connected pacemakers. They are used for monitoring though, not control meaning that you shouldn't be able to turn it off or cause it to malfunction remotely. But even assuming that you could find a weakness in the code to cause it too malfunction, you would hope that the Secret Service would have incredibly tight security around that but given the fact that Brody was able to wander around without any hassle, I'm guessing that the Secret Service in this world is much too busy to deal with protecting the vice president.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

NJ_HB said:


> The reality is a real terrorist would have chopped off an appendage to make a point, but that's how the writers/directors wanted that scene.


A smart Brody would have rapidly agreed to get the number for Nazir and then immediately contacted the CIA and let them deal with it, possibly with Brody's help for the next call.

But on TV the hero almost always stupidly does whatever the hostage taker says.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Hank said:


> Fourth, WTF with Carrie going back for Nazir? I know she's crazy, but not that F'n crazy.


The CIA really needs to give Carrie their remedial sneaking course. It seemed like she was stomping her feet as she was hunting Nazir.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Azlen said:


> There are internet connected pacemakers. They are used for monitoring though, not control meaning that you shouldn't be able to turn it off or cause it to malfunction remotely. ...


I'll bet that the connection is through the home docking unit, which still would have been a problem here.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

netringer said:


> _Some_ networked Medical equipment is hackable. Pacemakers DO NOT have live WiFi connections. .


I don't know if you actually mean "WiFi" as in "WiFi" or just a generic wireless communications protocol. Yes, they aren't actually "WiFi". But there are Atrial Fibrillation units (which aren't really "pacemakers", but "pacemaker" is a generic term the audience would understand).. they are programmed wirelessley, but usually through an inductive paddle, just like the one in the unit Brody was fumbling with. There may be other units which use very close range RF for programming. I could totally see Nazir's group placing a directed, hi gain antenna nearby, and flooding the compound with just the right frequency to fool the "pacemaker" into being re-programmed to cause a failure. But it's a one-way trip -- the pacemaker wouldn't have enough signal strength to reach their rouge antenna to feedback the monitoring info.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Hank said:


> ...the pacemaker wouldn't have enough signal strength to reach their rouge antenna to feedback the monitoring info.


I prefer my antennae pale, never rouge.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

"Broken Hearts" Ha! The VP's heart, the father-son game of hearts, the love square of Carrie, Brody, Jess and Mike, ....

I guess since she didn't mention it, Carrie intends to protect Brody and not tell anyone that he is responsible for the VP's heart attack.

Oh yeah, and Finn's little broken heart


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Here's the article from the NY Times in 2008 that inspired the hackable pacemaker story line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/business/12heart-web.html?_r=1&


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The thing that's been really bothering me this season is how totally awesome Nazir's organization is. Islamic terrorists tend to be unbalanced teenagers who can be talked into strapping on a suicide vest; Islamic hit-squads tend to be mobs with mis-matched guns hanging off the back of a Jeep; domestic terrorism is usually morons trying to buy fertilizer from the FBI. But here, they're able to field teams in the US that are armed and trained like the Special Forces, and repeatedly gain the most detailed information about the Vice President.

Last season seemed like something that, if you squinted at it just right, was borderline plausible. This season, not so much. It's still decent, watchable TV. But last year, it was one of the best shows ever, so passable adequacy is a real let-down.

[edit] Oops, I forgot what triggered my outburst in this episode...their use of the hoary Hollywood cliché, the broadside ambush, which would require incredible resources and planning to actually pull off. I HATE when they do that.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The thing that's been really bothering me this season is how totally awesome Nazir's organization is. Islamic terrorists tend to be unbalanced teenagers who can be talked into strapping on a suicide vest; Islamic hit-squads tend to be mobs with mis-matched guns hanging off the back of a Jeep; domestic terrorism is usually morons trying to buy fertilizer from the FBI. ...


Yeah. Remember that in the first WTC attack by what was Al Quaida, the one maroon was busted on his _second_ trip to Ryder trying get deposit back for the van they blew up.

Nazir has ultra-pro hackers and all knowing spies, too.

It looks like we're going to find out that there is a mole in the CIA. It may be why they're asking Saul questions, but I say it'll be Garza(?) who just came back.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I was expecting a mountain lion to appear when Carrie was released.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> [edit] Oops, I forgot what triggered my outburst in this episode...their use of the hoary Hollywood cliché, the broadside ambush, which would require incredible resources and planning to actually pull off. I HATE when they do that.


That one bothers me, too. It always seems to go off perfectly on TV, and the driver of the target car never sees it coming. Which is absurd, of course, because the person driving the attack car has to be able to see the target car and adjust speed to hit it (or else be in radio contact with a spotter, but even that would be tough to coordinate if the attack driver cannot see the target). And if the attack car *can* see the target, then the target driver would be able to see the attack car coming, and a couple seconds would be enough for someone like Carrie to swerve and at least manage not to be hit solidly.

I also agree with you that Nazir's organization seemed ridiculously competent this season. Besides being able to get a helicopter on short notice and escape from active CIA surveillance without being tracked, they also managed to put together a hit team (also on short notice) to take out a team of CIA operatives. And then Nazir, apparently all by himself, managed to find out where Carrie was going to be and arranged to ram her car with his vehicle, recover from the collision instantly, kidnap a trained CIA field operative, and get her to a secure location without being tracked.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

There's no reason to believe that it was Nazir who crashed into her car and kidnapped her. In fact, I'd seriously doubt was anywhere near there.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

john4200 said:


> ...I also agree with you that Nazir's organization seemed ridiculously competent this season. Besides being able to get a helicopter on short notice and escape from active CIA surveillance without being tracked, they also managed to put together a hit team (also on short notice) to take out a team of CIA operatives. And then Nazir, apparently all by himself, managed to find out where Carrie was going to be and arranged to ram her car with his vehicle, recover from the collision instantly, kidnap a trained CIA field operative, and get her to a secure location without being tracked.


They were able to fly a Trump-leve helicopter, which requires a crew.

Smart? The well-equipped Terrist SWAT team waited until the CIA were inside the empty for weeks tailor shop to go in to get their hidden cache.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

john4200 said:


> That one bothers me, too. It always seems to go off perfectly on TV, and the driver of the target car never sees it coming. Which is absurd, of course, because the person driving the attack car has to be able to see the target car and adjust speed to hit it (or else be in radio contact with a spotter, but even that would be tough to coordinate if the attack driver cannot see the target). And if the attack car *can* see the target, then the target driver would be able to see the attack car coming, and a couple seconds would be enough for someone like Carrie to swerve and at least manage not to be hit solidly.


And in all those cases, they could just as easily use a PIT maneuver, which has the benefit of being able to be performed relatively unexpectedly. Of course, you don't get the big sudden crash to startle the audience, which is all they really seem to care about...


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I'm just glad they didn't used the awful cliche of the person walking across an empty street when suddenly a transit bus appears out of nowhere and hits the pedestrian at full speed -- never honking or applying brakes or stopping. 

And Carrie was going after Nazir barehanded until she happened upon the steel pipe.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Hank said:


> There's no reason to believe that it was Nazir who crashed into her car and kidnapped her.


You're just making a wild guess. Nazir appeared to be by himself this episode, except for his remote computer hacker contact.

Anyway, even if he did have help, it just supports the point that Nazir has an unbelievably large and intermittently competent terrorist organization inside the US.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

getreal said:


> I'm just glad they didn't used the awful cliche of the person walking across an empty street when suddenly a transit bus appears out of nowhere and hits the pedestrian at full speed -- never honking or applying brakes or stopping.


I hate that. It seems like the directors forget that people, unlike cameras, have peripheral vision (and ears).


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

john4200 said:


> You're just making a wild guess. Nazir appeared to be by himself this episode, except for his remote computer hacker contact.
> 
> Anyway, even if he did have help, it just supports the point that Nazir has an unbelievably large and intermittently competent terrorist organization inside the US.


Sorry, but you're the one making the wild guess. Which seems more likely? that Nazir is acting entirely on his own, or he has dozens or hundred of soldiers at his disposal to kidnap Carrie? He was by himself only inside the bunker.. I can't possibly take that and extrapolate that to mean he did everything else entirely by himself. That's a wild guess I'd you ask anyone else.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Hank said:


> Sorry, but you're the one making the wild guess.


We saw no evidence that Nazir had anyone with him at any time in this episode.

Me: evidence

You: speculation

You should probably learn what "guess" means before you continue to make errors in using the word.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

john4200 said:


> A smart Brody would have rapidly agreed to get the number for Nazir and then immediately contacted the CIA and let them deal with it, possibly with Brody's help for the next call.
> 
> But on TV the hero almost always stupidly does whatever the hostage taker says.


A) Brody isn't the hero. At best, he's an anti-hero, an antagonist.

2) Brody _wanted_ the VP dead. He wasn't down for abetting Nazir kill innocents, but he had no reservations at all about taking Walden out.

He didn't "just stupidly do whatever the hostage taker said". He negotiated Carrie's release, then helped kill Walden. As far as Brody was concerned, it was a win-win.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

tiams said:


> I guess since she didn't mention it, Carrie intends to protect Brody and not tell anyone that he is responsible for the VP's heart attack.


Watching it, I couldn't figure out why she didn't say anything, but I suppose that's a possibility.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> A) Brody isn't the hero. At best, he's an anti-hero, an antagonist.


I think you mean "an anti-hero, a protagonist"..?

Protagonist is the main character, antagonist is the guy who goes against the protagonist. As opposed to hero vs villain, which is good guy and bad guy. A protagonist can be either a good guy or a bad guy (same with antagonist).

Carrie is clearly the protagonist of the show. I think your point is that we don't know whether Brody is a protagonist or an antagonist; to some degree, he is working with for and against Carrie (e.g., lately he's working against Nazir but willing to kill the Veep).

But not a hero, yes. Also not (purely) a villain. He's one of the most interesting, conflicted characters on television, which is why this is still at times a pretty good show despite the stories becoming much more pedestrian this year.


----------



## snowjay (Mar 27, 2007)

Hank said:


> There's no reason to believe that it was Nazir who crashed into her car and kidnapped her. In fact, I'd seriously doubt was anywhere near there.


According to surveillance footage he was within 5 blocks not long before her "accident."


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Last season seemed like something that, if you squinted at it just right, that.


Ahhh - a West Wing fan. I knew I liked your programming tastes!!


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

snowjay said:


> According to surveillance footage he was within 5 blocks not long before her "accident."


But that doesn't mean he was acting entirely alone, which is an absurd assumption.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

john4200 said:


> We saw no evidence that Nazir had anyone with him at any time in this episode.
> 
> Me: evidence
> 
> ...


We saw no evidence that Nazir didn't have anyone with him at any time in this episode.

I don't think you know what the word "evidence" means.

"Evidence" would be showing Nazir, by himself, actually driving the truck. All you have is idle speculation based on a wild assumption.

All I have is idle speculation based on logic and how the largest terrorist organization in the world actually works, and as we've seen previously on this show.


----------



## snowjay (Mar 27, 2007)

Hank said:


> But that doesn't mean he was acting entirely alone, which is an absurd assumption.


I agree, but you said you didn't think he was anywhere near there, but footage shows that he was in close proximity. He may not have been the driver but he could of been a passenger or observing from a distance.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

snowjay said:


> I agree, but you said you didn't think he was anywhere near there, but footage shows that he was in close proximity. He may not have been the driver but he could of been a passenger or observing from a distance.


Yes, that makes sense.

Saying he was the only one in the truck, does not.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

I wonder if this season will be the end of the Brody storyline? Hard to see where he would fit now. 

It has become dangerously 24ish. From get me the pacemaker code to setting Carrie free was less than an hour. Still like the show, just worried it could become a parody of itself.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> It has become dangerously 24ish.


I chuckled when they zoomed-in on Nazir's license plate on the convenience store's security cam video, pulling a sharp resolution image from the fuzzy pixels.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I wonder if this season will be the end of the Brody storyline? Hard to see where he would fit now.


Then again, I thought the same thing at this point last season...


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think you mean "an anti-hero, a protagonist"..?
> 
> Protagonist is the main character, antagonist is the guy who goes against the protagonist. As opposed to hero vs villain, which is good guy and bad guy. A protagonist can be either a good guy or a bad guy (same with antagonist).
> 
> ...


I thought that you call a "bad guy main character" an antagonist.


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

Anyway... what's in the CIA's basement?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

The hackable pacemaker is about as logical as a safe with a piece of paper containing encryption keys. 

The show is infinitely better with Nazir on screen.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> I thought that you call a "bad guy main character" an antagonist.


Nope.

E.g., in an Al Capone movie, Al is the protagonist and Elliot Ness is the antagonist, even though Ness is the "good guy" and Capone the "bad guy."

Hero vs villain is a moral distinction. Protagonist vs. antagonist is purely about the roles they play in the story structure.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> The show is infinitely better with Nazir on screen.


Agree, very solid character.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I wonder if this season will be the end of the Brody storyline? Hard to see where he would fit now.


http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/11/27/nicholas-brody-needs-to-die-on-homeland/


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I wonder if this season will be the end of the Brody storyline? Hard to see where he would fit now.
> 
> It has become dangerously 24ish. From get me the pacemaker code to setting Carrie free was less than an hour. Still like the show, just worried it could become a parody of itself.


This. Given that Gansa and Gordon (the 24 guys) are running the show it was always a danger.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I was mildly disappointed with this episode. Too much hard to believe stuff, not enough of the intricate, layered conversations between the principal characters. What makes Homeland great is interplay and emotional currents running through the story. I don't particularly care about Nazir's grand plan, though I understand that the pull of Nazir is what keeps Brody conflicted.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

I really liked the introduction of the Dar Adul character (F. Murray Abraham).










I would love to see to more interaction between Dar Adul and Saul (respect, disdain, etc.). Maybe a good/new arc for Season 3?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I thought it was "Dar Dall", but looking it up, it's actually "Dar Adal "

What an odd name, but I like how it fits. Kind of mysterious.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Hmm, I found it spelled here:

http://homeland.wikia.com/wiki/Dar_Adul

Anyhoo, good character addition


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I looked on Wikipedia.

<shrug>

IMDB also has it as Dar Adal.

Can't find in on the Showtime website (which is ATROCIOUS).


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Showtime's twitter is the closest official source I could find:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/273546814278496257


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

I loved the scene with Brody and his wife when he sort of confronts her about Mike. It was a small scene, but the expressions on her face were perfect - sort of defiant turning to sadness.


----------



## jacobp (Oct 8, 2001)

Nazir's colliquy on the islamic ideal should be must reading for every American. Their view is simply that we are weak and not committed to anything other than shopping and sports bars, while they are fighting for a higher good and are not afraid, and in fact, welcome death. I thought his speech was a spot-on summary of what we, and especially Israelis, are up against. The only problem is that we, as Americans, don't get it.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

jacobp said:


> Nazir's colliquy on the islamic ideal should be must reading for every American. Their view is simply that we are weak and not committed to anything other than shopping and sports bars, while they are fighting for a higher good and are not afraid, and in fact, welcome death. I thought his speech was a spot-on summary of what we, and especially Israelis, are up against. The only problem is that we, as Americans, don't get it.


Agree, Nazir's 1, 2, 3 century longview was an interesting angle.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

It didn't make any sense that Brody would be wandering around the VP's office.....unless that is what the CIA wanted. We know they want to take Brody out because he knows about the attacks. We are assuming that they want to ensure that Brody stays quiet to protect the VP. Maybe this isn't the case at all. Maybe the CIA wants the VP dead and Brody is their best bet for this to happen.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> It didn't make any sense that Brody would be wandering around the VP's office.....unless that is what the CIA wanted. We know they want to take Brody out because he knows about the attacks. We are assuming that they want to ensure that Brody stays quiet to protect the VP. Maybe this isn't the case at all. Maybe the CIA wants the VP dead and Brody is their best bet for this to happen.


I think there are few people, even in the CIA know about Brody because it's a huge embarrassment, and careers are at stake. I think the rest of the CIA goons only know that he is a congressmen, working with the CIA on some assignemnt involving terrorism, and tapped to be the running mate for the VP's presidential bid. Why wouldn't they take him to the VP? If someone has proof to counter that argument, please share.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

If you're the CIA, watching over Brody's family at the safe house, and Brody gets an urgent call to go see the VP and requests a ride, don't you think the goons would on the watch would _at least_ alert their upper management (Quinn, Estes, Carrie, Virgil, etc) about it?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Hank said:


> If you're the CIA, watching over Brody's family at the safe house, and Brody gets an urgent call to go see the VP and requests a ride, don't you think the goons would on the watch would _at least_ alert their upper management (Quinn, Estes, Carrie, Virgil, etc) about it?


True.. I'm not saying you're wrong, but unless the CIA nanny's at the safe house were told specifically to report all movement to upper management, would they normally do so, or would they just file reports up the ladder of what they did when they did it after they clock out.
Then add to the fact Brody is congressmen and running mate in a presidential election, I would think the head nanny wouldn't want to inconvenience Brody. If Congressmen Brody wants to move from the safe house to another secure location, and the nanny's at the CIA have the resources to move him would it _normally_ require approval from upper management?

If we find out later on that CIA nanny knew about Brody being a traitor, or told to report all of his movements, then yes she should have reported it up the ladder immediately.

In the end, it's a moot point. If she had run it up the ladder Brody would have been denied, Carrie would have died, etc, etc, etc. To move the plot where the writers wanted to go things had to happen the way they did.


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

robojerk said:


> it's a moot point.


Don't you mean "MOO" LOL! A tribute to Joey Tribiani


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> A) Brody isn't the hero. At best, he's an anti-hero, an antagonist.
> 
> 2) Brody _wanted_ the VP dead. He wasn't down for abetting Nazir kill innocents, but he had no reservations at all about taking Walden out.
> 
> He didn't "just stupidly do whatever the hostage taker said". He negotiated Carrie's release, then helped kill Walden. As far as Brody was concerned, it was a win-win.


A) Good point. I should have written "person wanting to save the hostage" instead of "hero".

2) Why is it "2)" instead of "B)"?

Also a good point that Brody wanted the VP dead. But the question is which was more important to Brody, the VP dead, or Carrie alive? If rescuing Carrie was more important, then the best move would have been to bring the CIA in. It is pretty crazy to assume that a terrorist would release a captured CIA spy just because you made a deal with the terrorist and you hope he will keep his word. Add to that the difficulty of getting the information Nazir wanted, and the chances of Carrie surviving look a lot worse the way Brody did it. Of course, it is TV so it all worked out okay for Brody, but realistically, he made the wrong choice if his highest priority was to get Carrie out alive.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Alan Sepinwall's review of the episode: http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/review-homeland-broken-hearts-whatever-it-takes He notes all of the problems many of us had with it and adds a few more.

A sample:

I recognize that 1)the CIA just put a big crimp into Nazir's operation, and 2)he really wants Walden dead (for killing Isa and for the drone strikes in general), but the pacemaker scheme strikes me as more of a supervillain scheme than that of a man whose terror aesthetic - as Carrie has told us over and over and over again - involves mass casualties of civilians in a symbolic way that will both inflict maximum psychological damage and make it absolutely clear he was the man responsible. Killing Walden in this complicated, stealthy way eliminates a man Nazir wants to kill, but not in a way that accomplishes any of his other goals.

And blackmailing Brody in this way to get him to do it felt like one of the many, many "24" instances where Jack was forced to turn on CTU, his partners, his government, etc., because the bad guys were holding one of his loved ones hostage.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

I wondered why the kids wanted to return to their dumpy rambler instead of an elegant apartment. I would think Brody could make a ton of dough on book deals and speeches, so their middle class digs always strike me as ridiculous. And Mike lives in a pretty swank townhouse, but I guess that comes from no kids. 

I want Brody to stick around because I think Morena Baccarin is insanely beautiful. 

How many episodes left this season?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

So has Carrie been re-instated to the CIA, or is she just an unpaid independent contractor who just happens to be in love with a terrorist and traitor?

They kinda skipped over that part. Because she (and everyone else) sure is acting like she's CIA again.


----------



## snowjay (Mar 27, 2007)

Well she's a member of the "task force" but that doesn't mean she is a CIA agent again, she's probably being paid as a consultant.


What they really glossed over is how Nazir knew to target Carrie. Did they have a tap on Brodys phone, or is it the supposed mole that tipped him off?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

snowjay said:


> What they really glossed over is how Nazir knew to target Carrie. Did they have a tap on Brodys phone, or is it the supposed mole that tipped him off?


With the size and quality of his organization, no doubt he's had Brody under 24/7 surveillance for weeks, including full sound and picture on his residence, office, shed, car, and daughter's locker. 

But seriously, the way Brody and Carrie have been carrying on, it wouldn't take a lot of surveillance to pick up on her. I suspect the broadside ambush would be a lot more of a logistical problem than finding out about Carrie.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

And Roya knew all about their relationship.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Hank said:


> And Roya knew all about their relationship.


Brody told Roya that he was contacted by Carrie again. Brody was instructed to keep Carrie close.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Actually Brody was told by Roya to renew his relationship with Carrie and when Roya asked about his whereabouts the night before (last episode or two), he said he was with Carrie (which they likely already knew). So it's much more than "keep Carrie close".


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I want Brody to stick around because I think Morena Baccarin is insanely beautiful.


You should see her in Firefly.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> How many episodes left this season?


2


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

The only way I see Brody surviving the season is if David Estes and Peter Quinn both die, so maybe Nazir big public thing still planned that would take them both out.

Now that Brody has succeeded in killing the VP some consequence (prison, gitmo) has to happen to him, if he gets away with it I don't think I'll be very satisfied.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

robojerk said:


> Now that Brody has succeeded in killing the VP some consequence (prison, gitmo) has to happen to him, if he gets away with it I don't think I'll be very satisfied.


It seems to me that the writers made a point of making the VP a highly unsympathetic character to at least give themselves a bit of an out for letting Brody get away with it.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

busyba said:


> It seems to me that the writers made a point of making the VP a highly unsympathetic character to at least give themselves a bit of an out for letting Brody get away with it.


He also got away with killing Tom Waker and effectively, the tailor.

Many know that he killed Tom Walker but he hasn't even been asked about it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

netringer said:


> He also got away with killing Tom Waker and effectively, the tailor.


Yeah, but those were both terrorists.

If you're going to have a character kill the VPOTUS and still want him to be even remotely redeemable, you need to do _something_ to give the viewers an excuse to be okay with it.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

The VP is a very high profile target. Him dying will have HUGE repercussions. You can't ignore it. *Nazir will likely want to boast the fact he killed the VP as well.* Brody has no out unless Nazir dies as well.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Silly question, are there two more episodes left in the season, or in the series? Part of me wishes they would just wrap the whole thing up in the next two episodes.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

DeDondeEs said:


> Silly question, are there two more episodes left in the season, or in the series? Part of me wishes they would just wrap the whole thing up in the next two episodes.


2 more for the season.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> Silly question, are there two more episodes left in the season, or in the series? Part of me wishes they would just wrap the whole thing up in the next two episodes.


It's already been renewed for a third season.


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

DeDondeEs said:


> Silly question, are there two more episodes left in the season, or in the series? Part of me wishes they would just wrap the whole thing up in the next two episodes.


Why would you want that?
I know there are some folks who are "picking apart" some of the questionable things that are occurring in the show. However, for those of us who aren't 'experts' in CIA/FBI operations, or who don't hold a microscope over every scene or question every exchange, this is still one of the best shows on TV.

If I am particularly knowledgeable about something and see a show about it and might be more aware than other viewers, that something is amiss, I usually don't watch because I find it annoying.

If you find some of the Homeland stuff annoying, that's fine. And, I don't even mind folks 'raggin'' on it. However, to keep brining up the implausibility of things ( rightly or wrongly) just is a downer for those of us who really enjoy the show...Despite my response, sometimes, of "huh? you're kiddin' me!?

I still wouldn't wish the show off the air.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Agreed. Season 1 > Season 2 but still a fun show. It will have to go in some kind of a different direction next year as I think the Brody storylines have run their course. With the 24 guys in charge I don't have a lot of confidence that the show will stay a quality show for long. I was waiting for Carrie to yell "TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS!".


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

VegasVic said:


> Agreed. Season 1 > Season 2 but still a fun show. It will have to go in some kind of a different direction next year as I think the Brody storylines have run their course. With the 24 guys in charge I don't have a lot of confidence that the show will stay a quality show for long. I was waiting for Carrie to yell "TELL ME WHERE THE BOMB IS!".


Yes...I get it. I don't want it to become a parody, or is that caricature, of itself either. Hopefully, then can turn it around, but it does seem that they'd need to get rid of Brody to do that. And, since he won best actor Emmy, that's not likely to happen.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> A smart Brody would have rapidly agreed to get the number for Nazir and then immediately contacted the CIA and let them deal with it, possibly with Brody's help for the next call.
> 
> But on TV the hero almost always stupidly does whatever the hostage taker says.


I think it's been said, but Brody didn't want to protect the VP. Brody's intention for the VP were right in line with Nazir's so it makes sense that Brody carried out Nazir's plan after Nazir let Carrie go.


Hank said:


> There's no reason to believe that it was Nazir who crashed into her car and kidnapped her. In fact, I'd seriously doubt was anywhere near there.


They had security camera footage of Nazir in the vicinity at that time driving that vehicle. I'd say that's about as concrete as you can get in a show like this.

But ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether Nazir was acting on his own or not. He got Carrie and used her to manipulate Brody. That's all that mattered.


Hank said:


> If you're the CIA, watching over Brody's family at the safe house, and Brody gets an urgent call to go see the VP and requests a ride, don't you think the goons would on the watch would _at least_ alert their upper management (Quinn, Estes, Carrie, Virgil, etc) about it?


The CIA was tasked with protecting Brody's wife and kids, but not him. Remember, he was out on his own when the family was sequestered there, he came in later by himself, and I see no reason why they wouldn't allow him to leave on his own. They weren't told that there was any threat to Brody or that Brody was a threat to anyone else.


busyba said:


> Yeah, but those were both terrorists.
> 
> If you're going to have a character kill the VPOTUS and still want him to be even remotely redeemable, you need to do _something_ to give the viewers an excuse to be okay with it.


We were given that in S1: Walden ordered the drone strike that killed Issa, and then covered up the evidence and went on international TV and claimed that the strike didn't hit a school and that no kids were killed. Then the VP pays off the family of the hit-and-run victim to protect his candidacy. And finally, in that final scene, the VP says that obtaining the VP spot is more important than anything, even one's own family. I think those things are pretty convincing for the viewers to be OK with Brody killing Walden.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

This is by far one of my favorite show right now, and generally speaking I don't care if a show I'm watching doesn't make logical sense in the real world as long as it makes sense to me within the context of the show itself. Unfortunately, for the first time this week I was not able to maintain my suspension of disbelief while I was watching. I'm hoping this is not an indication of the direction we're heading.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> We were given that in S1: Walden ordered the drone strike that killed Issa, and then covered up the evidence and went on international TV and claimed that the strike didn't hit a school and that no kids were killed. Then the VP pays off the family of the hit-and-run victim to protect his candidacy. And finally, in that final scene, the VP says that obtaining the VP spot is more important than anything, even one's own family. I think those things are pretty convincing for the viewers to be OK with Brody killing Walden.


Yes, I know. I was just following up on my assertion that the writers provided themselves an out to keep a guy on the show who had killed the VP and that they needed to do so with that character more so than they had to with the other two guys Brody had killed.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Azlen said:


> It's already been renewed for a third season.


Ah OK, thanks!



brebeans said:


> Why would you want that?
> I know there are some folks who are "picking apart" some of the questionable things that are occurring in the show. However, for those of us who aren't 'experts' in CIA/FBI operations, or who don't hold a microscope over every scene or question every exchange, this is still one of the best shows on TV.
> 
> If I am particularly knowledgeable about something and see a show about it and might be more aware than other viewers, that something is amiss, I usually don't watch because I find it annoying.
> ...


I just like shows that end on top. If they brought the show in some completely different direction next season I will be more interested. If this season ends with us still wondering who's side Brody is on, and Nazir still on the loose, I won't have high hopes for season three. If they wrap up this story line, and move onto some new terrorist plot/organization it might draw me back in again. I don't have too many problems looking past inaccuracies etc. I just get bored when they stretch a story line out too much, or a conspiracy goes waay deeper that we originally thought (e.g. Burn Notice).


----------



## brebeans (Sep 5, 2003)

DeDondeEs said:


> Ah OK, thanks!
> 
> I just like shows that end on top. If they brought the show in some completely different direction next season I will be more interested. If this season ends with us still wondering who's side Brody is on, and Nazir still on the loose, I won't have high hopes for season three. If they wrap up this story line, and move onto some new terrorist plot/organization it might draw me back in again. I don't have too many problems looking past inaccuracies etc. I just get bored when they stretch a story line out too much, or a conspiracy goes waay deeper that we originally thought (e.g. Burn Notice).


Got it. Yes, they need to have a different, major story line to keep it "good", otherwise, watching the back and forth between Brody and Carrie, Carrie and Saul, Saul and Estes, Jessica and Mike, Jessica and Brody, etc. etc......well, yes....we need a big new twist that's, at least, plausible.

Loving this show, though. Great acting, refreshing twists and a nice mix of quality drama/suspense and "soap opera"


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Hopefully Patinkin sticks around. He left after 2 years on Chicago Hope (came back near the end) and after 2 years of Criminal Minds


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

VegasVic said:


> Hopefully Patinkin sticks around. He left after 2 years on Chicago Hope (came back near the end) and after 2 years of Criminal Minds


Not to mention Dead Like Me.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

I agree with others here. The show is still excellent and fun to watch, but it is NOT the same show we had last season. Its certainly turned into a more sophisticated and adult version of 24 at this point. Which is fine by me. Although, season 1 Homeland was still better.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

I really think they need to move Body off of the show, but I fear they won't. My nightmare scenario is that with no VP and the "powers that be" infatuated with Brody there will be a "Brody for VP" thread next season. (BTW if that happens Homeland will officially "Jump the Shark").


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

tiassa said:


> I really think they need to move Body off of the show, but I fear they won't. My nightmare scenario is that with no VP and the "powers that be" infatuated with Brody there will be a "Brody for VP" thread next season. (BTW if that happens Homeland will officially "Jump the Shark").


For his deal, Brody has to resign from congress "to be with my family" "for personal reasons," so he won't be accepting any interest in making him VP. And, being that the deal comes from the US Attorney General, we can assume that the unseen President will know what's up.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

netringer said:


> For his deal, Brody has to resign from congress "to be with my family" "for personal reasons," so he won't be accepting any interest in making him VP. And, being that the deal comes form the US Attorney General, we can assume that the unseen President will know what's up.


Although it hasn't happened yet, so I'm sure there are any number of ways they can write themselves out of it now that they've abandoned serious plausibility...


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

If the writers can come up with a plausible way to keep Brody alive, and not a fugitive I'd be surprised.
CIA wants him dead
His proximity to the VP when the VP had the hart attack is damning
Nazir taking Carrie, then the VP having a heart attack is also damning
Nazir will likely want to boast the fact he killed the VP

Brody's only hope for a plausible way of surviving to see season 3 would be if Nazir doesn't brag about his role in the VP's death and somehow kills (blows up) the CIA guys that want to kill him. Carrie, blinded by her affection keeps Brody's role in the VP's death a secret.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Yup Carrie knows Brody gave up the serial number but I guess she might keep quiet for her love.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

I suppose Brody and Carrie could always go rogue. Fits with the 24 way of doing things. I think it would be a train wreck, though.


----------



## crowfan (Dec 27, 2003)

https://twitter.com/SergeantBrody


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

A CIA mole also fits the 24 framework. I expect there will be one revealed soon.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

crowfan said:


> https://twitter.com/SergeantBrody


LOL! I generally avoid Twitter, but that was funny! :up:


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

getreal said:


> LOL! I generally avoid Twitter, but that was funny! :up:


Really funny!!


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The thing that's been really bothering me this season is how totally awesome Nazir's organization is. Islamic terrorists tend to be unbalanced teenagers who can be talked into strapping on a suicide vest; Islamic hit-squads tend to be mobs with mis-matched guns hanging off the back of a Jeep; domestic terrorism is usually morons trying to buy fertilizer from the FBI. But here, they're able to field teams in the US that are armed and trained like the Special Forces, and repeatedly gain the most detailed information about the Vice President.
> 
> Last season seemed like something that, if you squinted at it just right, was borderline plausible. This season, not so much. It's still decent, watchable TV. But last year, it was one of the best shows ever, so passable adequacy is a real let-down.
> 
> [edit] Oops, I forgot what triggered my outburst in this episode...their use of the hoary Hollywood cliché, the broadside ambush, which would require incredible resources and planning to actually pull off. I HATE when they do that.


The show has become as believable as 24, but I can't stop watching.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

tiassa said:


> My nightmare scenario is that with no VP and the "powers that be" infatuated with Brody there will be a "Brody for VP" thread next season. (BTW if that happens Homeland will officially "Jump the Shark").


Not sure what you mean by this. There is a clear succession plan when the VP is removed from office or dies. He would be replaced by the Speaker of the House.

And if you mean some other "Brody for VP" that would require Brody teaming up with *another* presidential candidate. That's really not likely to happen at this point.



tiassa said:


> I really think they need to move Body off of the show, but I fear they won'


Totally agree. I'm not sure this show has the potential to go past 2 or even 3 seasons.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

crowfan said:


> https://twitter.com/SergeantBrody


BA HA HA HA!  :up::up:


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Hank said:


> Not sure what you mean by this. There is a clear succession plan when the VP is removed from office or dies. He would be replaced by the Speaker of the House.


The new VP is appointed by The President but has to be confirmed by Congress.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

You're right. My bad.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Hank said:


> Not sure what you mean by this. There is a clear succession plan when the VP is removed from office or dies. He would be replaced by the Speaker of the House.


That's not how it works.

The defined line of succession you're talking about is only for replacing the President. You go down the line until you find the first person who is eligible and capable (and presumably willing) to fill the position.

The Speaker of the House only comes into play in the event that both the President and VP are dead or otherwise incapacitated. If the Speaker is unable to be President (because, for instance, he's dead too or not a natural born citizen) then you go to the next in line. When Madeline Albright was Secretary of State, or when Henry Kissenger was, they were in the line of succession, but if it ever came to them, they would be passed over as they were not natural born citizens.

The line of succession is not used to fill any other positions, not even the VP.

If someone in middle of the line dies, everybody from that spot down doesn't suddenly move up a spot.

It the office of VP is vacated in mid-term for whatever reason, the President nominates someone and Congress has to approve them.

EDIT: Total Smeek


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

President picks Brody? Brody's political party wants him to make a presidential bid.


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

crowfan said:


> https://twitter.com/SergeantBrody


That was some of the funniest stuff I have read in a long time- awesome!


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

40 people and military around the VP's house, all conveniently downstairs. But a quick trip to the potty and up Brody goes to an empty upstairs and office. Then th VP is all, "oh, their you are! Getting ready to move in?". Chuckle. 

Yikes, sloppy writing.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

crowfan said:


> https://twitter.com/SergeantBrody


Just got interrogated by Carrie. Huge Boner. The. Whole. Time.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

VegasVic said:


> A CIA mole also fits the 24 framework. I expect there will be one revealed soon.


We already know there's a mole. That's how Brody got the combination to Estes safe.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

gossamer88 said:


> I was expecting a mountain lion to appear when Carrie was released.


Me too. Is it just me or did this show go all "24" season 2? I never thought it was a "24" clone during season one, but I don't think I new that it was done by the 24 people back then. Maybe it's the placebo effect...

Last year, best show ever. This year still pretty good, but a very different TV show.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Hank said:


> I find tons of holes in this week's episode. First of all, Mike and Jess aren't going to be making out like that and talking about how "fun" last night was - WITH both their kids in CLOSE earshot. The son seemed to be right in the next room, and the daughter just around the corner.
> 
> Second, no way the FBI/CIA would be letting Brody, a known and admitted terrorist (even if he "turned back") anywhere un-escorted near the VP, that he previously tried to kill, much less let him wander around, undetected, around the VP's office like that. Somebody would have been watching him.
> 
> Third, it's going to take the CIA about 2.5 seconds to implicate Brody in the VPs death, even if it looks like "natural causes" or a pacemaker malfunction. And Brody's finger prints are all over the pacemaker box. And there aren't video cameras all around the compound that has Brody wandering around? Come on.


I basically agree with all those. But oddly the thing that bothered me most about the episode was the almost irrelivant line from the trucker that placed the deserted facility and 2 lane country road as "Highway 50, east of Chantilly [VA]".

It's one of those local knowledge things that just bugs you. 
1) In VA it's known as Rt 50, not Highway 50. 
2) And from Chantilly, all the way into the city it's basically solid strip malls, office parks, and sububan housing; with frequent stoplights
2) At Chantilly, Rt 50 is 6 lanes wide (plus turn lanes) and while it does eventually narrow down to 'only' 4 lanes further east, it's still not a 2 lane road through the country; at least not anywhere near Chantilly.

How hard would it have been to pick someplace much further south or west that actually is outside heavy suburban buildup and might look like that? Any yes I know this is incredably minor, and it shouldn't bother me; but it does a bit. Oh well 

(Still mostly like the show, just nitpicking a little 'cause that's what we do )


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Jonathan_S said:


> It's one of those local knowledge things that just bugs you.


That reminds me of college - Univ. of Penn in the 80's. At one point, I can't remember the TV show -- St. Elsewhere maybe? Anyway, in one episode they visit their college -- U Penn -- our campus -- to film parts of the episode. When it aired, all the "college student" extras were obviously shipped in, and man-o-man, nobody at our school looked like that (and I'm being sexist here and talking about the women). My friends were all "no way she goes here".. "or her" "or her".. and so on. So yeah, local knowledge helps. I just don't know why they didn't hire actual Penn students to be the extras. I guess nobody looked good enough to be a background extra for 2 second shots.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Jonathan_S said:


> I basically agree with all those. But oddly the thing that bothered me most about the episode was the almost irrelivant line from the trucker that placed the deserted facility and 2 lane country road as "Highway 50, east of Chantilly [VA]".
> 
> It's one of those local knowledge things that just bugs you.
> 1) In VA it's known as Rt 50, not Highway 50.
> ...


This bothered me too - it's lazy writing.

There are plenty of rural spots on Rt 50 they could have used. Perhaps they were using Apple Maps?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

That's pretty common on TV shows. A few weeks ago on The Mentalist, Patrick Jane was in Clearlake, talking on the phone with Lisbon, who was in the office in Sacramento. At the end of the conversation, she said, "I'll see you in an hour." On a good day, Clearlake is 2 hours from Sacramento.

I chuckled, then watched the rest of the show.

Greg


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

gchance said:


> That's pretty common on TV shows. A few weeks ago on The Mentalist, Patrick Jane was in Clearlake, talking on the phone with Lisbon, who was in the office in Sacramento. At the end of the conversation, she said, "I'll see you in an hour." On a good day, Clearlake is 2 hours from Sacramento.
> 
> I chuckled, then watched the rest of the show.
> 
> Greg


If they met somewhere half-way, it would work.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getreal said:


> If they met somewhere half-way, it would work.


Plus she won't get pulled over for speeding. If she goes 140, she can make it easy! 

TV geography can be so amusing...


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I live near LA.. That show 24 always made me laugh how Jack was able to get from 1 side of LA to the other in a commercial break.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

robojerk said:


> I live near LA.. That show 24 always made me laugh how Jack was able to get from 1 side of LA to the other in a commercial break.


Hey. Jack only had 24 hours for the whole season.

Maybe he worked in the same days as in Genesis.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

getreal said:


> If they met somewhere half-way, it would work.


Not even. While Lisbon would get to the halfway point pretty quickly (she's driving up I-5 at 70mph), the drive down Hwy 20 to I-5 is a windy road through foothills that vary from 55mph all the way down to 25 in places.

Of course, Jane has magical Mentalist powers, so who knows? 

Greg


----------

