# Revolution--S01E03--10/01/2012--"No Quarter"



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Another good episode.

Now let's start all the complaining about it not being realistic.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I haven't even seen it yet, and I'm ready to complain about that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

allan said:


> I haven't even seen it yet, and I'm ready to complain about that.


I think that's a pretty unrealistic attitude.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> Another good episode.


Really?

I am still looking for the first good episode........


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

This show reminds me of Terra Nova. That's not a good thing.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

The iPod turned on and she got to see her kids!!!!!!!!! I never saw that coming.


----------



## klj (Feb 26, 2010)

Fahtrim said:


> Really?
> 
> I am still looking for the first good episode........


lol. i was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Yeah I am still kinda waiting for it to find its footing. The "reveals" are setup like they were on Lost but the music and acting is just not the same it all falls flat. Charley is getting on my nerves, she has lived in a post apocalyptic world most of her life and someone she just meets who is dying on a table makes her cry?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mwhip said:


> Yeah I am still kinda waiting for it to find its footing. The "reveals" are setup like they were on Lost but the music and acting is just not the same it all falls flat. Charley is getting on my nerves, she has lived in a post apocalyptic world most of her life and someone she just meets who is dying on a table makes her cry?


It was established on the first episode that her father sheltered her. She had to sneak away to viiew any of the outside world and that was only for a very short trip. Like she did in the first episode. And her father did not want to make any waves with the militia either so they kept quiet and paid taxes and did what they were told.

I'm actually surprised how well she has done considering she was sheltered. She grew up in a sheltered area and was not seeing dead people or people killed like she is now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I see the preliminary ratings are in. Revolution dropped 6% from last week but still won it's time slot(18-49 which is what the advertisers care about) with it's 3.2 rating compared to a 1.9 for castle and a 1.9 for Hawaii Five 0.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...he-stars-partners-the-mob-doctor-fall/150950/


----------



## Martha (Oct 6, 2002)

I'm still watching for now. I did get a huge kick out of Miles introducing himself and Charlie as Stu Redman and Franny. I just started re-reading The Stand on Sunday so that jumped out at me.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Martha said:


> I'm still watching for now. I did get a huge kick out of Miles introducing himself and Charlie as Stu Redman and Franny. I just started re-reading The Stand on Sunday so that jumped out at me.


So that is where the names came from? I see he also referenced The Shawshank Redemption.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> So that is where the names came from? I see he also referenced The Shawshank Redemption.


Yes, clearly he's the Sawyer of the show.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

That and the Randall "Randall Flagg" bad guy character at the computer lady's door in episode 2. It seems the writers are trying to steal/borrow credibility from previous post apocalyptic stories/authors.



Martha said:


> I'm still watching for now. I did get a huge kick out of Miles introducing himself and Charlie as Stu Redman and Franny. I just started re-reading The Stand on Sunday so that jumped out at me.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Martha said:


> I'm still watching for now. I did get a huge kick out of Miles introducing himself and Charlie as Stu Redman and Franny. I just started re-reading The Stand on Sunday so that jumped out at me.





dwatt said:


> That and the Randall "Randall Flagg" bad guy character at the computer lady's door in episode 2. It seems the writers are trying to steal/borrow credibility from previous post apocalyptic stories/authors.


That was what I was thinking as well. I smiled when his name was Randall, but I loudly groaned when Miles gave his introduction. They're trying hard, "HEY AUDIENCE? See??? We know the same references YOU do!"

So that set it all up for me to be disappointed, then the music & phone powering up due to the device pushed me over the edge. On one hand, I'm happy they're doing these reveals quickly, but on the other, it was a REALLY stupid scene.

Remember, I'm the guy who usually defends these things.

My 10-year-old loves the show so far, but loves anything post-apocolyptic or action oriented, or with dinosaurs. He's still mourning Terra Nova, but I told him this morning, don't be too upset when Revolution is cancelled. At least he still has Falling Skies. 

I also kept thinking something was missing, then I realized that this is the Walking Dead without the walking dead.

Greg


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Martha said:


> I'm still watching for now. I did get a huge kick out of Miles introducing himself and Charlie as Stu Redman and Franny. I just started re-reading The Stand on Sunday so that jumped out at me.


Yeah, I caught that immediately too. Definitely appropriate in a post-apocalyptic story.


----------



## Seattle (Dec 13, 2001)

I still like the show and will keep watching. I thought the Back to the Future reference was funny (Lone Pine Mall).


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

gchance said:


> I told him this morning, don't be too upset when Revolution is cancelled.


He's probably not going to be upset anytime soon - the ratings in the key demo (where _Revolution_ is dominating both_ Castle_ and _Hawaii:5-0_) are going to keep this around for a while.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> He's probably not going to be upset anytime soon - the ratings in the key demo (where _Revolution_ is dominating both_ Castle_ and _Hawaii:5-0_) are going to keep this around for a while.


Revolution has been picked up for a full season. Just announced.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Revolution has been picked up for a full season. Just announced.


:up:
Sweet!!


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> I'm actually surprised how well she has done considering she was sheltered. She grew up in a sheltered area and was not seeing dead people or people killed like she is now.


Sheltered, but pretty good with a crossbow--I was surprised they let her take the shot at the bomb thingy.

I'm liking the flashbacks more than the current stories right now. And the girl just seems out of place with the rest of the show.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Revolution has been picked up for a full season. Just announced.


Yup, I just came on to mention it but you beat me to it. But have no fear, here's a link. 

I'll tell my son, he'll be happy.

Greg


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I've enjoyed it so far.

When I saw the Apple logo appear on her phone, I teared up. (Not because she'd get to see her kids, but because, hey, iPhone. Warmed my heart).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I think this is the first TV drama that properly showed that car doors (and houses) aren't bullet proof. If for nothing else, that gets this episode a thumbs up. 

Also they brought up how quickly society crumbled and showed why the militia was formed.


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

I hope they don't turn into a big militia oriented show. That's what happened to Jerico and Terra Nova. They all started out as sci-fi type premises, then slowly turned into "cowboys vs Indians".
I did like all the talk about the Rebel Alliance, thought I was watching Star Wars. Kept waiting for someone to spit out the "dirty scums" reference. 
I also think its neat that after 15 years, they still have an abundance of candles. Every room has like 50 of them burning. Yankee Candle must have gotten an advance notice of the power outage and ramped up production.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DougF said:


> The iPod turned on and she got to see her kids!!!!!!!!! I never saw that coming.


iPhone, not iPod.

I sure wish my iPhone booted that fast.. I'd turn it off more often (to conserve battery).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I can't stand Charley even a little bit but I'll keep watching for a while hoping her character becomes less annoying over time. Her self righteousness and constant furrowed brow gets on my nerves.

Why were the militia troops using Civil War era rifles? Where would the blackout reduce government troops to using antiquated rifles?

The comparisons to Terra Nova are spot on. I'm not expecting much depth.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Watched Ep3 last night. It's sort of hanging on by a thread for me. 

I'm already tired of all the swashbucking scenes. Yawn.

But it still has a TINY nugget of strangeness to keep me watching to see if it gets better and more exciting.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

There's a fundamental difference between the concepts of evolution and revolution, and one does not necessarily lead to the other. Thus far we've seen nothing to suggest that this show has anything whatsoever to do with evolution. The title card, therefore is interesting to me, as the animation seems to make a big deal over flashing the R off and on. I wonder if that's just a stylistic thing ("hey, those two words look almost alike, let's do something with that!") or if the show will eventually develop into something having to do with evolution. I doubt it, based on what we've seen so far.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Gene S said:


> I did like all the talk about the Rebel Alliance, thought I was watching Star Wars. Kept waiting for someone to spit out the "dirty scums" reference.


When my wife and I watched it, it was so clear Miles is Han Solo, and Nora is Princess Leia, which means Charlie is Luke?? Okay, that's not as good a fit, but Miles and Han are so alike it's painful.

This show is quickly slipping into "maybe I'll be in the room while it airs" for me. At any moment if you press Pause I can tell you what will happen in the next five minutes, and even get a lot of the dialog right, down to the word. The fight scenes are dull, none of the surprises are surprises, and the plot depends way too much on people being stupid and/or not talking to one another even when they have every reason to do so.

The big question for me is whether we're going to get more exploration of how the world changed, and how it got to where it is, after the blackout; each episode gives enough of that to tantalize, which is why I haven't given up, but not enough to convince me they have solid answers.

To my surprise, the Google guy is the most compelling character so far. His comment about how the blackout turned the world back into a big playground of bullies is the most insightful thing said yet about the effect that the blackout had on the world. When you think "how would I react to this?" you always start by thinking of having to deal without your favorite technology, or the ability to travel, and jump right from there to post-apocalypse; but his comment is the kind of thing that is (just slightly) less obvious but would end up more impactful on your life. (Assuming you survived. I doubt I would!)

The fact that the first thing he did with power was listen to music made me think, that's probably one of the things I'd do, too. 15 years without hearing music other than my own singing would make me batty. (On the up side, with no jobs and no computers, assuming I could scrounge up a drum kit, I would finally have the time to learn it. Maybe I could form a band!)


----------



## MasterCephus (Jan 3, 2005)

No one mention yet that they tried to explain why there are no modern weapons?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

MasterCephus said:


> No one mention yet that they tried to explain why there are no modern weapons?


They actually did try to explain it. No way to make bullets for them. So they have to resort to the old ways of making them.

I almost bailed on the show when they went into the lady's house and not even raised an eyebrow at why, 15 years later, there's a CD player with headphones right there on the table.

I don't really care about the explanation on why electricity was shut off. I want to hear the explanation on how, in just 15 years, Americans threw away their country, their flag, and any semblance of patriotism. Are we sure this is not an Al-Qaeda propaganda show?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

WHen it becomes every person for them self, patriotism is the last thing you would be concerned with.

They explained well the reason they started the militia. There was no order around. And as bad as the Militia is, it's not as bad as it could have been without it. They did bring some sort of order to the region. Although you of course don't have alot of liberties.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I don't really care about the explanation on why electricity was shut off. I want to hear the explanation on how, in just 15 years, Americans threw away their country, their flag, and any semblance of patriotism. Are we sure this is not an Al-Qaeda propaganda show?


That's is the one believable thing about this show, that we'd go to hell in a hand basket within 15 years.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> That's is the one believable thing about this show, that we'd go to hell in a hand basket within 15 years.


Not so sure. I think the US military would fare quite well against the monroe militia.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> That's is the one believable thing about this show, that we'd go to hell in a hand basket within 15 years.


I absolutely agree.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Not so sure. I think the US military would fare quite well against the monroe militia.


Unless they all deserted like in this episode, which I think is highly likely.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

pmyers said:


> Unless they all deserted like in this episode, which I think is highly likely.


For an organization that depends as highly on chain-of-command as the military does, the breakdown in communication ability would be severely damaging. You can see them sitting back in their barracks, waiting for orders, and watching the world around them collapse into chaos. I can imagine that you'd start to see deserters pretty quickly.


----------



## MasterCephus (Jan 3, 2005)

that's the one thing i'm hoping they explain. So far I take it that these two guys are ex-military (Sgts if I remember) and they are the ones who started this huge militia. I agree that chaos would reign, but I also would believe that local national guard posts, army forts, etc. would try and create some type of order. I'd much rather believe that a general at the closest fort to Chicago would be the leader of the militia over some random army guy.


----------



## MasterCephus (Jan 3, 2005)

DreadPirateRob said:


> For an organization that depends as highly on chain-of-command as the military does, the breakdown in communication ability would be severely damaging. You can see them sitting back in their barracks, waiting for orders, and watching the world around them collapse into chaos. I can imagine that you'd start to see deserters pretty quickly.


Every barracks has a leading person who got to his position because of their ability to lead. I would expect that person at some point to say "ok, I have to do something" to ensure order locally. I can't believe that all the COs at the forts just give up.

Career military people need order and discipline. In fact, they create it when it's not there. So I would almost guarantee they would be attempting something like a local militia.

Now, they might have plans to show that this in fact did happen and the Monroe militia won, so we'll see...


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

They would also want to protect their families...can't do that at a base.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Seriously you guys? how many military people you know would pledge allegiance to the Monroe Republic and kill people trying to revive the U.S.? I can understand if this was 250 years later, but 15? no fraking way.

I can see pockets of "new states" forming up, with governors taking the role of dictators. But law and order was never the province of electricity. Countries lived quite well without it for centuries.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MasterCephus said:


> that's the one thing i'm hoping they explain. So far I take it that these two guys are ex-military (Sgts if I remember) and they are the ones who started this huge militia. I agree that chaos would reign, but I also would believe that local national guard posts, army forts, etc. would try and create some type of order. I'd much rather believe that a general at the closest fort to Chicago would be the leader of the militia over some random army guy.


Yeah. I'm sure they won't overlook this. There has to be an explanation given at some point.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

MasterCephus said:


> Every barracks has a leading person who got to his position because of their ability to lead. I would expect that person at some point to say "ok, I have to do something" to ensure order locally. I can't believe that all the COs at the forts just give up.
> 
> Career military people need order and discipline. In fact, they create it when it's not there. So I would almost guarantee they would be attempting something like a local militia.
> 
> Now, they might have plans to show that this in fact did happen and the Monroe militia won, so we'll see...


I think what some people are missing is that there are *many* militias around. It hasn't been all that clear from the show so far, because it's all dealt with a pretty small area, the entire country (or what used to be the country) is now made up of smaller fiefdoms ruled by warlords and/or militias. I'm guessing that most of those are former military.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Not so sure. I think the US military would fare quite well against the monroe militia.


Not as well as you'd think. The US military's main current advantage is technology (tanks, jets, missiles, etc). With no power, it's a level playing field. It would come down to man-power, training and weapons. Thanks to the 2nd amendment, the public would have plenty of the later and civilians vastly outnumber the military.

Plus a military is only as good as it's commanders. In ancient times, generals would ride out with the troops, but in this day and age, they command remotely. Without orders, the military would basically do what Miles and Monroe were doing on the show, which is sitting in their base, waiting for orders which would never come. The entire U.S military would need to restructure into numerous semi-autonomous units or basically militia.

Also it's hinted that the Monroe Miltia is at least partially made up of ex-US military.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Anubys said:


> I can see pockets of "new states" forming up, with governors taking the role of dictators. But law and order was never the province of electricity. Countries lived quite well without it for centuries.


Because they never had it. We've relied on electricity for so long that we have forgotten how to live without it.

The problem with American society today is that, by and large, we are a nation of consumers, not producers. We have no idea how to make anything anymore. So what happens when you are struggling to survive and cannot make your own food/shelter/clothing/whatever? You have to steal it from someone else. Sure, you can scavenge for awhile, but inevitably you will have to steal from someone else. And that person won't like it, and violence will break out. Who's going to punish the thief? No one. The police and the judges and everyone else that used to provide law and order are all trying to survive and protect their families too.

After not too much time, I can see society breaking down near completely. Sure, there will be pockets of co-ops that will spring up, as people of like minds band together to try and survive. But they will have to be prepared to defend themselves against those who would rather steal than learn how to create.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

morac said:


> Not as well as you'd think. The US military's main current advantage is technology (tanks, jets, missiles, etc). With no power, it's a level playing field. It would come down to man-power, training and weapons. Thanks to the 2nd amendment, the public would have plenty of the later and civilians vastly outnumber the military.


But how many people are going to suddenly be willing to overthrow the government? It seems like the military and government just dissipates in Revolution.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> But how many people are going to suddenly be willing to overthrow the government? It seems like the military and government just dissipates in Revolution.


What government? There will be no communication from the government. There will be no supplies/provisions from the government. Those people who are waiting for the government to save them are going to die off pretty quickly.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> What government? There will be no communication from the government. There will be no supplies/provisions from the government. Those people who are waiting for the government to save them are going to die off pretty quickly.


Really? So all local, state, and national authorities magically disappear in this scenario? All military bases are just abandoned with no one attempting any communication for years? No one beyond Monroe could possibly figure out how to organize at any level for 15 straight years, and all of the huge stockpiles of weaponry and law enforcement tools no longer exist ANYWHERE? And none of this is the result of a civil uprising? Sorry, but it's completely preposterous.


----------



## MasterCephus (Jan 3, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> Really? So all local, state, and national authorities magically disappear in this scenario? All military bases are just abandoned with no one attempting any communication for years? No one beyond Monroe could possibly figure out how to organize at any level for 15 straight years, and all of the huge stockpiles of weaponry and law enforcement tools no longer exist ANYWHERE? And none of this is the result of a civil uprising? Sorry, but it's completely preposterous.


That's kind of my point. I don't buy the "people would run to their families" kind of argument. I would imagine the best way to protect my family would be to fall in line with a group of people who can defend. And after a collapse like that, it would be local law enforcement, national guard posts, etc.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's quite a sell to say only this Monroe guy can inspire people to join him in his quest to restore order...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

MasterCephus said:


> That's kind of my point. I don't buy the "people would run to their families" kind of argument. I would imagine the best way to protect my family would be to fall in line with a group of people who can defend. And after a collapse like that, it would be local law enforcement, national guard posts, etc.
> 
> I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's quite a sell to say only this Monroe guy can inspire people to join him in his quest to restore order...


Right. And I assume (perhaps erroneously) that they will address this one way or another and not just leave it to the audience to assume that the entire world order collapses into random local militias in 15 years.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'm not disputing the lawlessness and the killing. I'm sure all that would happen as the worst in people would come to the forefront.

I just cannot fathom that people would abandon their identity (America) that easily and completely. People who organize those militias would do it in the name of the flag and patriotism (which is what Miles did, we presume) much easier than via allegiance to Monroe's republic and having the rebels being the "Americans". There is no way this would happen in 15 years. No way.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I can see pockets of "new states" forming up, with governors taking the role of dictators. But law and order was never the province of electricity. Countries lived quite well without it for centuries.


"New states" are forming, they are just being formed by ex-military, not politicians. Most modern politicians would not make "good" dictators.

As for countries living well before electricity. That was then, this is now. Technology actually makes people "dumber" in that they become dependent on it. A good example is people who follow GPS navigation devices on to train tracks or into rivers.

For other examples see:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2005/04/21/why-reliance-on-technology-is-a-bad-thing/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...echnology-is-undermining-spelling-skills.html


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MasterCephus said:


> I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's quite a sell to say only this Monroe guy can inspire people to join him in his quest to restore order...


That's just it, it's not "only this Monroe guy". Monroe and Miles were the guys in the Chicago area that did this. It's been stated that there are other Militias. That's why Monroe wants to get the electricity back so he can defeat the other militias.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

morac said:


> That's just it, it's not "only this Monroe guy". Monroe and Miles were the guys in the Chicago area that did this. It's been stated that there are other Militias. That's why Monroe wants to get the electricity back so he can defeat the other militias.


When was this stated? I find it hard to believe that Monroe is the only person capable of holding together a militia in his area and that he remains unchallenged by his highly oppressed citizens who are murdered on a whim and treated like slaves.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I just cannot fathom that people would abandon their identity (America) that easily and completely. People who organize those militias would do it in the name of the flag and patriotism (which is what Miles did, we presume) much easier than via allegiance to Monroe's republic and having the rebels being the "Americans". There is no way this would happen in 15 years. No way.


I can see Monroe and Miles telling people that they are going to run things until the U.S. Government re-establishes and then over a few years morphing that into a ban on anything "U.S. related". It wouldn't be the first time something like this happened, especially if Miles or Monroe was charismatic.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Really? So all local, state, and national authorities magically disappear in this scenario?


Of course not. But local authorities are pretty much useless when it comes to providing basic necessities. We've seen that for years. Cue up every natural disaster in recent history, when the locals needed FEMA to help out almost immediately. Guess what - there's no FEMA anymore (well, there is, but they can't go anywhere not within walking distance, and they can't really carry any supplies except what they can pack on the back of a bicycle or horse).

I think you're discounting the problems that will arise when instantaneous mass communication is no longer possible. How will orders be communicated, much less carried out? How will the states, even, communicate to their citizens that they are still up and running? Especially in one as big as CA, where the capital is nearly 500 miles from one of the borders? A government is only going to be respected when it can provide for and protect its citizens.



TAsunder said:


> All military bases are just abandoned with no one attempting any communication for years? No one beyond Monroe could possibly figure out how to organize at any level for 15 straight years, and all of the huge stockpiles of weaponry and law enforcement tools no longer exist ANYWHERE? And none of this is the result of a civil uprising? Sorry, but it's completely preposterous.


Did you miss the part where the entire country is fractured into local regions run by militias and warlords? There's your answer right there. I'm sure that local militias sprang up on the military bases once they realized there was no federal government with any power to protect or lead (or at least without the ability to communicate that over any distance). The garrisons banded together, a leader emerged, and the militias started to take shape.

As for the weapons - did you see the troops guarding the outside of Monroe's tent? They had submachine guns. So clearly the huge stockpiles of weapons are there, they are just being closely held.

I don't think it's preposterous. It's surely unlikely, but then again so is the whole scenario. But it's a pretty common theme in just about every post-apocalyptic scenario, whether in literature or movies.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> When was this stated? I find it hard to believe that Monroe is the only person capable of holding together a militia in his area and that he remains unchallenged by his highly oppressed citizens who are murdered on a whim and treated like slaves.


I don't remember exactly when it was stated, but it was a throw away line in the pilot episode. Something like, with electricity he could dominate the other militias.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> When was this stated? I find it hard to believe that Monroe is the only person capable of holding together a militia in his area and that he remains unchallenged by his highly oppressed citizens who are murdered on a whim and treated like slaves.


Just about every pre-premiere interview or article that I read had some version of this tagline: "Revolution takes place 15 years into the future, in a world in which all electricity -- anything that can throw a spark or carry a charge -- doesn't work any more. *The country has been taken over by various factions and militias*..."

I'm also fairly certain that a throwaway line somewhere in the pilot that alluded to it.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Of course not. But local authorities are pretty much useless when it comes to providing basic necessities. We've seen that for years.


No we haven't. There are occasional cases of this but flooding and other things happen regularly and are handled quite well by local authorities.



> Cue up every natural disaster in recent history, when the locals needed FEMA to help out almost immediately. Guess what - there's no FEMA anymore (well, there is, but they can't go anywhere not within walking distance, and they can't really carry any supplies except what they can pack on the back of a bicycle or horse).


Please name these natural disasters in recent history where only FEMA has been able to do anything useful. I think you are basing your entire assumption of how the world operates on a narrow and inaccurate view of hurricane katrina. There have been many other hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. and to characterize everything local authorities have done in this way is inaccurate and somewhat insulting.



> I think you're discounting the problems that will arise when instantaneous mass communication is no longer possible. How will orders be communicated, much less carried out? How will the states, even, communicate to their citizens that they are still up and running?


Clearly no one would be able to figure this out and everyone would just sit around in the barracks for months with no ability to communicate, eventually leading to mass treasonous abandonment of posts which in turn leads to small militias forming and murdering huge swaths of citizens for no reason. Obviously there are no protocols for dealing with EMPs and the complete command structure of military bases would crumble instantly as soon as people are forced to relay orders via horse or foot. No one in charge would think to assemble and intervene to help citizens out, evacuate them to safe locations, etc. Except for Monroe's militia which for some reason manages to stick together by communicating face to face on horseback -- something no one else could possibly think of in 15 years.



> Especially in one as big as CA, where the capital is nearly 500 miles from one of the borders? A government is only going to be respected when it can provide for and protect its citizens.


So you think Monroe's militia is better at any of this? They aren't. Monroe does none of the above and treats his citizens like meat. He does not communicate beyond horse travel and seems to have little or no ability to control his own people. Seems improbable that he comes to power yet the highly trained military of the us, national guard of illinois, etc. are all completely incapable of organizing and doing anything useful. Only FEMA is capable of handling emergencies at all. That's why we send them overseas to afghanistan whenever there is a dust storm.



> Did you miss the part where the entire country is fractured into local regions run by militias and warlords? There's your answer right there. I'm sure that local militias sprang up on the military bases once they realized there was no federal government with any power to protect or lead (or at least without the ability to communicate that over any distance). The garrisons banded together, a leader emerged, and the militias started to take shape.


You are sure that in a short period of time the entire military structure of the united states would collapse into local militia? And you are sure that somehow the one Monroe started near one of the largest metropolitan areas in the US can somehow remain unchallenged despite committing mass murder?



> I don't think it's preposterous. It's surely unlikely, but then again so is the whole scenario. But it's a pretty common theme in just about every post-apocalyptic scenario, whether in literature or movies.


I'm confused... is it unlikely or isn't it? You seem to be arguing that it is likely and inevitable.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I'm confused... is it unlikely or isn't it? You seem to be arguing that it is likely and inevitable.


Don't be obtuse.

The entire situation is implausible. My argument is that _in this particular set of circumstances_, I don't think that the devolution is society is all that unrealistic. And nor does anyone else who's ever written a post-apocalyptic story, where the complete breakdown of society is a given.

I have no interest in debating this further with you, since I don't see any flexibility of thought processes with which to work with. Especially since you consider 15 years "a short amount of time".


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Any of you who think the breakdown of society on this show is unrealistic should go stand outside of a Walmart when it opens on Black Friday.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DougF said:


> Any of you who think the breakdown of society on this show is unrealistic should go stand outside of a Walmart when it opens on Black Friday.


Sigh...I'm the one who started this and it veered off of my original thought.

Breakdown is totally realistic. The loss of country identity and having the U.S. be a dirty word is totally unrealistic and would never happen in a 15 year span. Certainly not if it started with military people, who are much more sensitive to Country/flag/patriotism than most people (on average, anyway).


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Don't be obtuse.
> 
> The entire situation is implausible. My argument is that _in this particular set of circumstances_, I don't think that the devolution is society is all that unrealistic. And nor does anyone else who's ever written a post-apocalyptic story, where the complete breakdown of society is a given.
> 
> I have no interest in debating this further with you, since I don't see any flexibility of thought processes with which to work with.


So I'm obtuse and inflexible in my thought process because I disagree with your assessment of things like FEMA and the military? Yeah, ok...

As to your post-apocalyptic assessment... yes, a story that is post apocalyptic typically assumes that something has led to the breakdown of society. They also typically explain why all known forms of military and government collapsed. Here it is being suggested by you and others that no such explanation is needed -- you just assume by default that humanity would devolve into brutal dictatorship militias.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Sigh...I'm the one who started this and it veered off of my original thought.
> 
> Breakdown is totally realistic. The loss of country identity and having the U.S. be a dirty word is totally unrealistic and would never happen in a 15 year span. Certainly not if it started with military people, who are much more sensitive to Country/flag/patriotism than most people (on average, anyway).


I'm looking forward to an episode where they go around to the huge number of people with us flags tattooed on their body from before the power loss and make them remove them somehow.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> Sigh...I'm the one who started this and it veered off of my original thought.
> 
> Breakdown is totally realistic. The loss of country identity and having the U.S. be a dirty word is totally unrealistic and would never happen in a 15 year span. Certainly not if it started with military people, who are much more sensitive to Country/flag/patriotism than most people (on average, anyway).


Yeah, I'm with you. I can see a vast number of tiny military dictatorships...but they'd still mostly be calling themselves the United States, except the ones that are run by the anti-government militias that are out there now, just PRAYING for civilization to collapse.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Anubys said:


> Breakdown is totally realistic. The loss of country identity and having the U.S. be a dirty word is totally unrealistic and would never happen in a 15 year span. Certainly not if it started with military people, who are much more sensitive to Country/flag/patriotism than most people (on average, anyway).


I do agree with this. It seems.... weird. I can see former soldiers being nostalgic for what once was, but not the outright hostility.

Although I suppose that probably the first step in imposing order in a dictatorship is forced conformance - i.e. you're with us, or you're against us, and if you're against us, you're dead.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TAsunder said:


> So I'm obtuse and inflexible in my thought process because I disagree with your assessment of things like FEMA and the military? Yeah, ok...


What you wrote makes a lot of sense. That's probably the real reason the pirate decided to stop debating the issue with you.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Anubys said:


> Breakdown is totally realistic. The loss of country identity and having the U.S. be a dirty word is totally unrealistic and would never happen in a 15 year span. Certainly not if it started with military people, who are much more sensitive to Country/flag/patriotism than most people (on average, anyway).


So far though, the ones who consider the United States to be a dirty word are the ones who are or have enforced the new order.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

MasterCephus said:


> That's kind of my point. I don't buy the "people would run to their families" kind of argument. I would imagine the best way to protect my family would be to fall in line with a group of people who can defend. And after a collapse like that, it would be local law enforcement, national guard posts, etc.
> 
> I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's quite a sell to say only this Monroe guy can inspire people to join him in his quest to restore order...


But what do you think keeps local law enforcement, national guard, marines, etc showing up to work everyday? I would argue a paycheck and the ability to provide for their families. You take that away and I would predict that wouldn't be military for very long.



Anubys said:


> Seriously you guys? how many military people you know would pledge allegiance to the Monroe Republic and kill people trying to revive the U.S.? I can understand if this was 250 years later, but 15? no fraking way.


I'm not saying they would plege allegiance to Monroe (or any other militia), I'm saying they would stop being military and focus on their families. This would easily lead to militias to prosper.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

john4200 said:


> What you wrote makes a lot of sense. That's probably the real reason the pirate decided to stop debating the issue with you.


I stopped debating with him because he refuses to consider other possibilities. When we're talking about hypothetical situations only loosely based in reality, that's frustrating.

I still don't see how local government is going to be of much help in the event of a disaster such as this one. Do they have food and water stockpiled away? Doubtful. They would have to import it from somewhere. Where and how? No cars/trucks/planes/trains are working. If you're on a river, sure, you could use a raft or something. Guess what - there are very few rivers west of the Mississippi.

Then there's the supply issue. Where do the supplies come from? Most of our food these days is not grown or produced locally. It's shipped large distances. That's going to be a problem if the ability to move large quantities over long distances in a short period of time is all of a sudden lost overnight. People in rural areas would probably be okay. In places like the Central Valley in CA, where a lot of agriculture takes place, they would probably do fine. But big cities would be warzones inside of a month. So I think the show has it right in that regard.

So I'm not all that impressed with the argument that "local government would step in and save everybody!" That's Pollyanna-ish to the nth degree.

I give a little more credence to the idea that the local military bases would probably help in the community. That's exactly where I think the show is going with the militias and warlords in terms of how they got started.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I stopped debating with him because he refuses to consider other possibilities.


That's not what it looked like to me. He is making sense, and you are not.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Anubys said:


> Sigh...I'm the one who started this and it veered off of my original thought.
> 
> Breakdown is totally realistic. The loss of country identity and having the U.S. be a dirty word is totally unrealistic and would never happen in a 15 year span. Certainly not if it started with military people, who are much more sensitive to Country/flag/patriotism than most people (on average, anyway).


I would agree that the U.S name thing is silly and highly unprobable but so far it hasn't been a very big plot point and we only know about Monroe. Perhaps that's just his "rules".


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

john4200 said:


> That's not what it looked like to me. He is making sense, and you are not.


Fine. Explain to me how the local government is going to step in and save the day/maintain order when they have no ability to a) communicate with people other than in person and b) provide food and water once local supplies are used up.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I think people tend to accept loss of freedom to avoid living in anarchy. At first it would be about scrounging stuff, but soon you would realize that you have to learn to grow food, raise animals and make basic needs for yourself. Then you plant a nice crop, and when harvest comes a band of thugs come and steal it. You would be willing to throw in with anyone who could stop that and not worry about what they call the country. Probably most people are paying their "taxes" and being left alone--we're just seeing the ones who aren't.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

LOL

This thread and the discussions about the societal possible breakdowns is way better than the actual show, all we need is a concept and a theory to spark good intelligent conversation here. 

The show is insipid, predictable, and tiresome, but these threads are philosophical and thought provoking and elicit individual thought processes and theories. If I knew what irony was, I'd call this ironic.........


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I still don't see how local government is going to be of much help in the event of a disaster such as this one. Do they have food and water stockpiled away?


Are you assuming "local government" means just the local county or city? There are also state governments that have armed forces supporting them in the form of national guard units. Additionally, there is the local military bases and local military groups. Those are the groups that would be expected to take action locally and where it does not obviously lead to slaughtering local citizens on a whim or declaring the united states null and void.

I would expect such groups to have a fair amount of supplies compared to most everyone else. In any case they certainly have guns and a well established chain of command. In order for them to be unable or unwilling to police the local area as is their sworn duty, something has to have happened. If the explanation given or un-given is that they just abandoned their duties then I don't see it as realistic. That's not to say there isn't a possible explanation. I just can't see it being the default behavior of people. It is possible that what we see in the show is just one small exception to the general behavior within the US, but it doesn't seem to be framed that way. I think the writers wanted a mad-max-like world but were too lazy to properly get there.



> Doubtful. They would have to import it from somewhere. Where and how? No cars/trucks/planes/trains are working. If you're on a river, sure, you could use a raft or something. Guess what - there are very few rivers west of the Mississippi.


Chicago is east of the mississippi. The show takes places around chicago seemingly. Things could get problematic in desert-like areas but I can't imagine the chicago area having issues with water. There's an abundance of farms relatively nearby, many run by technology-shunning groups. You'd think that the amish would become major superheroes in this storyline, come to think of it.



> So I'm not all that impressed with the argument that "local government would step in and save everybody!" That's Pollyanna-ish to the nth degree.
> 
> I give a little more credence to the idea that the local military bases would probably help in the community. That's exactly where I think the show is going with the militias and warlords in terms of how they got started.


It seems like if you keep posting long enough you will find that you actually don't think it is plausible for society to have collapsed so quickly and allowed a villainous overlord who murders on a whim to take over without further explanation. Or perhaps you think it is inevitable for the national guard and local military to turn for the worse and become brutal dictators in less than 15 years...?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> It seems like if you keep posting long enough you will find that you actually don't think it is plausible for society to have collapsed so quickly and allowed a villainous overlord who murders on a whim to take over without further explanation. Or perhaps you think it is inevitable for the national guard and local military to turn for the worse and become brutal dictators in less than 15 years...?


Again, there is not a "single villainous overlord" that society has allowed to take over. There are *many* militias/warlords. We've just seen one so far. So we can''t just assume that society has allowed him to completely take over. All we know is that he runs this little corner of the country.

And I think 15 years is a really long time, when every day is going to be a struggle for survival. I'm not the only one here who thinks that society would break down pretty quickly. We're far too much of a consumer-driven nation at this point, and we've lost the ability to produce that made us a superpower. Especially once electricity was removed. So yes, if someone comes along that wields enough power - and brutality - many people are going to willingly fall in line because they lack the ability to resist.

And the ones who don't? Well, they form a rebellion. Like we've seen the past 2 episodes.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I agree that 15 years is an extremely long time for things to drastically change in the scenario that they have created and that desperate people will do desperate things including giving up freedoms (which has been demonstrated plenty in history).


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Are you assuming "local government" means just the local county or city? There are also state governments that have armed forces supporting them in the form of national guard units. Additionally, there is the local military bases and local military groups. Those are the groups that would be expected to take action locally and where it does not obviously lead to slaughtering local citizens on a whim or declaring the united states null and void.


Unless the local/state military somehow develops superpowers, I still don't see how they are going to be able to do much good beyond the area immediately surrounding their base. There's no way the military would be able to police an entire state.

Let's look at the total number of enlisted military for 2012. This includes everything (reserves, national guard, army, etc). That number is 2,255,100.

If you look at the active number of deployed military in the continental U.S at the start of 2012, that number was 1,017,418. There are 847,100 reserve troops (may not all be in continental U.S.), but they may or may not be able to get to their bases. Let's assume they can though. That's a total of 1,864,518 enlisted people in the continental US. Not all of these people are technically soldiers. There are pilots, technicians, etc, but let's just assume there are 1,864,518 available soldiers in the U.S.

Let's take this number and divide by 48 which is not totally accurate since forces wouldn't be divided equally, but it should be "good enough" for this demonstration. That gives about 38,844 soldiers per state. That's definitely an over-estimation, but I'll use it.

Since the show is set near Chicago, I'll use Illinois as the state. Illinois has a population of 12,869,257 people. That means that for every "soldier" in Illinois, there are about 331 people. That means that each soldier has to police 331 people assuming they the military wants to police the entire state. Under normal circumstances this would be possible, but without vehicles and with people in a panic state it would not be possible to maintain order at that ratio. I suppose the military could maintain order by killing rioting people, but I doubt that would last long and it wouldn't be any better than having a militia.

The best the military could do is to take control of areas near military bases and police that. That would leave the "lawless" areas to local militias.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Again, there is not a "single villainous overlord" that society has allowed to take over. There are *many* militias/warlords. We've just seen one so far. So we can''t just assume that society has allowed him to completely take over. All we know is that he runs this little corner of the country.


So far, by all indications, there is a single villainous overlord running the chicago area. And how did he come to power when the same area would have plenty of national guard and local military units who you too think were likely to become active, benevolent forces in the local area? Did they within 15 years devolve into mindless psychopaths obeying a low-to-mid-level military dude who previously had abandoned his post? And did they also agree to formally abandon the united states and all it stood for and treat anyone who did not as enemies guilty of the highest order of treason? Perhaps monroe put something in the water to accomplish this?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

See the post above yours.

To add to that, how many active duty/reserves were located in the area when the blackout hit? How many active bases are in the Chicago area? How many of the troops stationed there were deployed? How many were in airplanes at the time? (Because they are undoubtedly dead). Maybe one of those falling planes hit the base and wiped them out.

Who knows. But 15 years is a *long* time. Maybe the local cops and soldiers keep doing their duty for a week or two while everything goes to hell around them. But if they have families, that's probably all we could expect of them. Faced with protecting their family and trying to find supplies to survive on, "doing their duty" is going to come in a distant second. One day, 2 guys don't show up. The next, 5 more. Within a week, no one is showing up.

Again, 15 years is a tremendously long time, when surviving for a month is going to be hard. I think that old allegiances are going to fall pretty quickly, once you realize that the USA, as you know it, is dead, or at least not able to help you save your family.

Now, the show may never satisfactorily explain this to me, or to you. But after 3 eps, I'm at least willing to consider the _possibility_ that it could go down like that, and I'm not ready to rule it out as being preposterous. But maybe you just have more faith in the human condition than I do.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

morac said:


> Since the show is set near Chicago, I'll use Illinois as the state. Illinois has a population of 12,869,257 people. That means that for every "soldier" in Illinois, there are about 331 people. That means that each soldier has to police 331 people assuming they the military wants to police the entire state. Under normal circumstances this would be possible, but without vehicles and with people in a panic state it would not be possible to maintain order at that ratio. I suppose the military could maintain order by killing rioting people, but I doubt that would last long and it wouldn't be any better than having a militia.
> 
> The best the military could do is to take control of areas near military bases and police that. That would leave the "lawless" areas to local militias.


You just described the Chicago area. It contains a few key military bases (e.g. the navy RTC) as well as the second largest police force in the united states. It would be quite something for Monroe to take dominion over this area if all of those soldiers are still around and waving the US flag.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

For some reason I have faith that police officers would be dedicated to their duties beyond "a week or two." Call me crazy.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> For some reason I have faith that police officers would be dedicated to their duties beyond "a week or two." Call me crazy.


I normally would as well.

But in a situation like this, I'm not so sure. I just think that when something like this goes down - whether it be zombies, aliens, The Event, or The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia - your first instinct is going to be to take care of your family. Everything else is secondary.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> For some reason I have faith that police officers would be dedicated to their duties beyond "a week or two." Call me crazy.


In this scenario...I think that is crazy. Maybe military would hold on a little longer.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

morac said:


> Unless the local/state military somehow develops superpowers, I still don't see how they are going to be able to do much good beyond the area immediately surrounding their base. There's no way the military would be able to police an entire state.


And yet Monroe's regime has eliminated the vast majority of civilian-held firearms in the entire region. Why is Monroe able to police the entire area when you say the legitimate police and military are unable to do so?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> So far, by all indications, there is a single villainous overlord running the chicago area. And how did he come to power when the same area would have plenty of national guard and local military units who you too think were likely to become active, benevolent forces in the local area? Did they within 15 years devolve into mindless psychopaths obeying a low-to-mid-level military dude who previously had abandoned his post? And did they also agree to formally abandon the united states and all it stood for and treat anyone who did not as enemies guilty of the highest order of treason? Perhaps monroe put something in the water to accomplish this?


Adolph of Austria never was promoted beyond the rank of Gefreiter or Private when he served in the German Army.
He was also convicted of high treason and yet managed to become head of State.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

After 15 years, the iPhone still had an 11% charge? Wow!

(Yes, really, I assume that's a function of electricity no longer "working," thus meaning it doesn't discharge.)


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

john4200 said:


> And yet Monroe's regime has eliminated the vast majority of civilian-held firearms in the entire region. Why is Monroe able to police the entire area when you say the legitimate police and military are unable to do so?


Well, we've already seen that Monroe isn't able to effectively police the entire area because a) some people still have guns, and b) there is a rebellion working to subvert him. Monroe rules through fear - apparently by random acts of cruelty through his traveling bands of henchmen - and by defusing the ability of others to rise to power (by confiscating weapons when they are discovered).

The difference is that Monroe presumably rose to power in a vacuum, after society had devolved. Order from chaos and all that. He wasn't trying to prevent it from devolving, as the legitimate police/military would have tried to do. They would have been fighting a losing battle from Day 1, whereas Monroe was able to be more opportunistic. Just speculating here, but I imagine that the Monroe Rebublic started out as a good thing - providing some security to its members, the ability to focus on starting over and setting up a new infrastructure instead of just surviving the general lawlessness - but then went bad for one reason or another.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Adolph of Austria never was promoted beyond the rank of Gefreiter or Private when he served in the German Army.
> He was also convicted of high treason and yet managed to become head of State.


And he managed to do so in less than 15 years in a civilized society through "peaceful means" and without having to rely on a catastrophe or apocalyptic event to take place, merely by scapegoating and preying on the fears and insecurities of his followers. Once he got a bit of power, he began consolidating it and systematically eliminating his enemies and their ability to fight back (by throwing key opponents in concentration camps, silencing the press, and by organized brutality).

So it's not like there's no precedent...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> I think people tend to accept loss of freedom to avoid living in anarchy. At first it would be about scrounging stuff, but soon you would realize that you have to learn to grow food, raise animals and make basic needs for yourself. Then you plant a nice crop, and when harvest comes a band of thugs come and steal it. You would be willing to throw in with anyone who could stop that and not worry about what they call the country. Probably most people are paying their "taxes" and being left alone--we're just seeing the ones who aren't.


This seems like a very realistic response to their world. And we know the people in the cul-de-sac were paying their taxes and probably did not have any issue until they came around looking for Charlies father.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

I am going to disagree here. All forms of communication ceased in an instant. Without communications, there is no chance for the government to coordinate serving the population. How would the POTUS command the government? Hand written orders? How could you authenticate such orders? 

As an example, how far do you live away from your work? Most do not work within walking distance. I work 65 miles away from my house. How long for me to walk home, especially if I was not prepared with potable water and food?

Even on military bases, only the lowest rank typically live on base. Most higher rank live off base, and not within walking distance. And would they leave their homes to report for duty in these circumstances? And those on duty on base would try to get to their loved ones. And if a messenger showed up with written orders from POTUS, would you know what his handwriting really looked like?

And the rest of the globe is in the same boat as we are, so potential invasion from hostile forces is a minimal threat in the short time.

Local law enforcement? Look at New Orleans and Katrina, and they had warning.

Society would fall within a few days in urban areas, a week in suburban, and a month in rural. Our food supply chain delivers "Just in time", and most people have maybe a weeks worth of food available after pershiables go bad due to a lack power. No food? Bad things happen... What I have found interesting is there has been no mention on what was done with the bodies of those who did not survive. I am curious on what the population of the CONUS is at that point in time.

Maybe there is something to the Mormon belief to have a years worth of food on hand. Have I just talked myself into being a prepper? (Do not cue the Dr. Pepper jokes)....

I would love to hear more on what happened on the boarder regions after the event, and what did really happen to the government.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> For some reason I have faith that police officers would be dedicated to their duties beyond "a week or two." Call me crazy.


What type of support would the police have? How would they eat? Are they enough police not to send them out alone? And it is nothing but foot patrol, so their effective radius is a half days walk from the station. And would it be martial law, or would they arrest people? How would you feed those arrested? Would the jails be manageable without electricity? And would the courts be functional?

Police would be the first to throw in the towel.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Well, we've already seen that Monroe isn't able to effectively police the entire area because a) some people still have guns, and b) there is a rebellion working to subvert him. Monroe rules through fear - apparently by random acts of cruelty through his traveling bands of henchmen - and by defusing the ability of others to rise to power (by confiscating weapons when they are discovered).


The fact that some civilians have guns does not mean that Monroe is not able to police the region. It just means that it is not perfect. Which no police force is.

Similarly, the fact that there is resistance to his rule proves little. Every dictatorship I'm familiar with had to deal with rebels, but many dictatorships last quite a while anyway.

And all rule is ultimately by fear. Even in a democracy, the reason most people obey most laws is not because they are perfect citizens (or, not only because), it is because they fear the consequences if they break the law.

So, none of your justifications make sense. The question remains. If Monroe is able to rule the whole region, then why did the much better equipped and trained police and military of the US not do so? Especially when they had the existing government backing going for them. It is absurd that the US patriots are considered rebels now. Completely unbelievable.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Why do I have this crazy feeling that, somehow, the rebels are going to manage to get the one operating warship that doesn't need electricity - USS Constitution - into Lake Michigan and somehow use it to take back the region?

For that matter, why do I think that, if there ever is an ending, that the people who want the "United States" to return would want to reform the 50 states as they were, which makes no sense?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

john4200 said:


> So, none of your justifications make sense. The question remains. If Monroe is able to rule the whole region, then why did the much better equipped and trained police and military of the US not do so? Especially when they had the existing government backing going for them. It is absurd that the US patriots are considered rebels now. Completely unbelievable.


See Win Joy's posts above.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DreadPirateRob said:


> See Win Joy's posts above.


I saw it. Does not answer my question. All he does is list reasons why it would be difficult to maintain rule after the electricity stopped working.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I saw it. Does not answer my question. All he does is list reasons why it would be difficult to maintain rule after the electricity stopped working.


I addressed your question in the second paragraph of my post that you for some reason redacted when you responded to it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I addressed your question in the second paragraph of my post that you for some reason redacted when you responded to it.


I didn't respond because it was a non-answer. It makes no sense.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

john4200 said:


> So, none of your justifications make sense. The question remains. If Monroe is able to rule the whole region, then why did the much better equipped and trained police and military of the US not do so? Especially when they had the existing government backing going for them. It is absurd that the US patriots are considered rebels now. Completely unbelievable.


You are missing my point. The government ceased to exist when the power went out. There is no command and control system in place without communications. How would the commanding officer of a military base in the Chicago coordinate with Washington which is days or weeks ride away?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Anubys said:


> They actually did try to explain it. No way to make bullets for them. So they have to resort to the old ways of making them.
> 
> I almost bailed on the show when they went into the lady's house and not even raised an eyebrow at why, 15 years later, there's a CD player with headphones right there on the table.
> 
> I don't really care about the explanation on why electricity was shut off. I want to hear the explanation on how, in just 15 years, Americans threw away their country, their flag, and any semblance of patriotism. Are we sure this is not an Al-Qaeda propaganda show?


Think about how much the world has changed since 1997 with central authority and numerous ways to keep in contact and distribute information. It would take a relatively short period of time for these things to fall about. Within twelve months everything would have pretty much dissolved. People would strictly be trying to survive. With new authority, power and control things would change.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Not so sure. I think the US military would fare quite well against the monroe militia.


The us military would cease to exist fairly quickly as soldiers leave to go help their families and friends. Soldiers are not machines. Without power and information they are not just going to sit around.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> And he managed to do so in less than 15 years in a civilized society through "peaceful means" and without having to rely on a catastrophe or apocalyptic event to take place, merely by scapegoating and preying on the fears and insecurities of his followers. Once he got a bit of power, he began consolidating it and systematically eliminating his enemies and their ability to fight back (by throwing key opponents in concentration camps, silencing the press, and by organized brutality).
> 
> So it's not like there's no precedent...


Not to disagree with your point, but Germany had recently lost a war, was socked with humiliating and costly reparations and the entire world was in the Great Depression. He used all that to gain power.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

john4200 said:


> And all rule is ultimately by fear. Even in a democracy, the reason most people obey most laws is not because they are perfect citizens (or, not only because), it is because they fear the consequences if they break the law.
> 
> So, none of your justifications make sense. The question remains. If Monroe is able to rule the whole region, then why did the much better equipped and trained police and military of the US not do so? Especially when they had the existing government backing going for them. It is absurd that the US patriots are considered rebels now. Completely unbelievable.


Who are you going to fear more, a soldier/cop who will arrest you if you steal food or a militia man who will slaughter your entire family?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> For some reason I have faith that police officers would be dedicated to their duties beyond "a week or two." Call me crazy.


You are crazy. I really don't think you grasp the magnitude of disruption this is. No electricity, no communication. None of these would be resolved nor any idea what happened. One day maybe? Once you walk home to your family that first night are you going to wake up and walk back to work?

I think your take on police officers and military soldiers is completely unrealistic. Even the ones who stuck it out would give up quickly. No communication, no real travel, chaos on the streets.

You really underestimate the survival instinct people have. It probably took 15 months just for survivors to get to a place where they had their basic needs met.

I have a lot of military members in my family and firefighters and I doubt any of them would just be hanging out in downtown Chicago trying to police things while not having any idea if their family is safe.

In fact soldiers and cops would be the most equipped to get their families out of the cities safely.

After fourteen days of a blackout with no communication and millions of dead people, nobody is staying around to protect the non existent United States.

Food. Shelter and water and security are primary goals for everybody. I don't see anyway with these drastic of circumstances that all these things don't collapse almost instantly.

You may have small groups of cops and soldiers who join up with their friends and provide for their families but that comes first second and third before reporting for duty. Soldiers and police officers are just people. Most of them do what they do for a paycheck.

They idea that any of these groups would remain intact for any period of time is just misplaced


----------



## Cereal_Killer (Jan 5, 2007)

marksman said:


> Food. Shelter and water and security are primary goals for everybody. I don't see anyway with these drastic of circumstances that all these things don't collapse almost instantly.
> 
> You may have small groups of cops and soldiers who join up with their friends and provide for their families but that comes first second and third before reporting for duty. Soldiers and police officers are just people. Most of them do what they do for a paycheck.
> 
> They idea that any of these groups would remain intact for any period of time is just misplaced


This makes a lot of sense.

Also DreadPirateRobs scenario makes a lot of sense, as do many others. After a month of no reliable food source, or information of any kind from the government, many people (not all) will say phuck the US!! I have to survive by any means necessary!


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Cereal_Killer said:


> This makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Also DreadPirateRobs scenario makes a lot of sense, as do many others. After a month of no reliable food source, or information of any kind from the government, many people (not all) will say phuck the US!! I have to survive by any means necessary!


Not according to john4200 - he says I make no sense at all.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

morac said:


> Not to disagree with your point, but Germany had recently lost a war, was socked with humiliating and costly reparations and the entire world was in the Great Depression. He used all that to gain power.


I know all that. Post-WWI Germans probably considered those events catastrophic, but I was more talking along the lines of an event that caused society to break down to its very basic levels of survival.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I didn't respond because it was a non-answer. It makes no sense.


Just because you cannot comprehend it or it doesn't fit with your worldview does not mean that it doesn't make sense.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Win Joy Jr said:


> You are missing my point. The government ceased to exist when the power went out. There is no command and control system in place without communications. How would the commanding officer of a military base in the Chicago coordinate with Washington which is days or weeks ride away?


He doesn't choose to accept that.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Just watched it. Not as interesting as the discussion here, but not as long-winded either.

When are they going to get back to pretending to be sci-fi?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I noticed that when Maggie opens her phone, the date and timed are displayed. Does an iPhone have to sync with a network to know the date/time? And wouldn't the battery be long dead after 15 years?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> I noticed that when Maggie opens her phone, the date and timed are displayed. Does an iPhone have to sync with a network to know the date/time? And wouldn't the battery be long dead after 15 years?


Watching tv must be mentally exhausting for you


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Win Joy Jr said:


> You are missing my point.


No, you are the one missing the point. I read what you wrote. Some is correct, much is incorrect. But that is irrelevant to the fact that it does not explain the inconsistency of why Monroe is able to rule while none of the established government police and military from 15 years ago were able to adapt to provide some amount of order. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Just because you cannot comprehend it or it doesn't fit with your worldview does not mean that it doesn't make sense.


Actually, it does. You wrote something about order out of chaos that made no sense. The fact that is does not make sense has nothing to do with my worldview. You just posted nonsense.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

I don't have an iPhone but it could conceivably get the date and time from GPS satellites if they were still working.

Lithium ion batteries probably would have self-discharged in a year or less. Most have a low (and high) voltage protection circuit. Once a battery discharges below a certain voltage level, the circuit kicks in and won't allow the battery to be recharged. A lithium ion battery that has sat for too long below a certain voltage will deteriorate and become dangerous to recharge.

The battery might last that long if it was kept in a partially-charged state by receiving maintenance charges every few months.


----------



## Cereal_Killer (Jan 5, 2007)

RGM1138 said:


> I noticed that when Maggie opens her phone, the date and timed are displayed. Does an iPhone have to sync with a network to know the date/time? And wouldn't the battery be long dead after 15 years?


None of the science or technology on this show makes any sense. How is the amulet that turned on the iPhone and music, powered up?

Also, that lady (Grace) was communicating with a powered up modem over what network? Remember, supposedly there's no power except near the amulet. I just choose to believe it's techo-magic for now until they tell us more in future episodes

I do wish someone with an amulet would activate it and then use a cattle prod on Charlie- she's annoying.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

It's curious to me that the militia was using flintlocks. Wouldn't those be hard to find, (other than in a movie armory)? Maybe this has already been discussed, but why aren't they using more readily available modern weapons?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Another thing that bugs me is how can anyone belong to a militia where your CO uses your life to deplete the bullet inventory of your enemy.

Isn't that how a CO usually falls on a knife, 10 or 12 times?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

squint said:


> I don't have an iPhone but it could conceivably get the date and time from GPS satellites if they were still working.
> 
> Lithium ion batteries probably would have self-discharged in a year or less. Most have a low (and high) voltage protection circuit. Once a battery discharges below a certain voltage level, the circuit kicks in and won't allow the battery to be recharged. A lithium ion battery that has sat for too long below a certain voltage will deteriorate and become dangerous to recharge.
> 
> The battery might last that long if it was kept in a partially-charged state by receiving maintenance charges every few months.


The iPhone gets its time from the cell network, so my take is that the date and time were wrong,

As for the battery, the fact that it still worked makes me think that the issue with electricity is that electrons are locked in place. That would explain the lack of electricity working as well as the lack of any leaking in the battery. Though that wouldn't explain why electricity still works inside the human body.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Another thing that bugs me is how can anyone belong to a militia where your CO uses your life to deplete the bullet inventory of your enemy.


That was so ridiculously stupid that it was actually funny.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

morac said:


> I think this is the first TV drama that properly showed that car doors (and houses) aren't bullet proof. If for nothing else, that gets this episode a thumbs up...


Double thumbs up for me....that shot through the car door was awesome...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Hunter Green said:


> ...To my surprise, the Google guy is the most compelling character so far...


I just can't get past the obvious fact that his glasses are SO fake...


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Bierboy said:


> I just can't get past the obvious fact that his glasses are SO fake...


Someone once pointed out something to me about glasses on television shows, and now that I know it I can't stop looking for it (and I see it all the time) -- very often, you can see reflections of prompters and monitors (or reflections of the greenscreen itself) in actors' glasses. Look for glowing green squarish reflections. They're often edited out in post, but frequently get missed.


----------



## voripteth (Apr 9, 2003)

The premise that the lack of electricity causes the downfall of society I find hard to swallow. We did just fine for thousands of years before electrification. Will it be a pain to go back to using older technologies? Sure! Somehow the series completely ignores the resourcefulness of humanity.

Take bullets for example. Revolution says they can't be made any more yet this Wikipedia article says there were invented in the 1800's before electricity.

My father restores antique cars so I went to many antique car shows growing up and saw dozens steam powered cars, trucks and tractors in my local area. Steam powered trains would certainly still be around as well. Heck, why don't we see bicycles everywhere?

Perhaps there will be explanations in future episodes but for now the premise feels poorly thought through.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

voripteth said:


> The premise that the lack of electricity causes the downfall of society I find hard to swallow. We did just fine for thousands of years before electrification. Will it be a pain to go back to using older technologies? Sure! Somehow the series completely ignores the resourcefulness of humanity.


My great-great grandfather probably shot and ate squirrels. I don't have a gun, probably couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, and have no clue how to prepare a squirrel, or even start a fire to cook one without electricity. I doubt that any of my neighbors could either. Sure, humanity will survive, but a lot of indivdual humans won't and I could easily see the disruptions bringing down society as we know it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)




----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Well, let's put it this way... a lot of people can see it happening and don't feel the need for the story to fill in the gaps. But some people don't see it happening. Which goes to my original point... they should show it even if it's what some people assumed would happen. The more we talk about it, however, the more convinced I am that the writers don't think deeply about such things. The show has a great opportunity to address a lot of interesting questions about a world like they've set up, but seems only interested in swashbuckling, whiny teens, and boogeymen so far.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

allan said:


> My great-great grandfather probably shot and ate squirrels. I don't have a gun, probably couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, and have no clue how to prepare a squirrel, or even start a fire to cook one without electricity. I doubt that any of my neighbors could either. Sure, humanity will survive, but a lot of indivdual humans won't and I could easily see the disruptions bringing down society as we know it.


Exactly. Those people "grew out" of the old ways and into an electric era. They already possed the required skills to survive. Most people don't possess any of those skills today because we haven't known anything different than what we've grown up with.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Bierboy said:


>


Seriously.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

The Iphone discussion did leave me with a question.....I wonder how far reaching this "blackout" is. We know that planes fell from the sky but what about satellites? Are they still in orbit or did those come crashing down too?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Exactly. Those people "grew out" of the old ways and into an electric era. They already possed the required skills to survive. Most people don't possess any of those skills today because we haven't known anything different than what we've grown up with.


I think you would be surprised at how many people have such skills. Mostly hipsters. I hope you will all welcome the hipster overlords who have been practicing whole hog butchering, pickling, and mustache growing of late. Cue the Portlandia dream of the 1890's sketch.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

pmyers said:


> The Iphone discussion did leave me with a question.....I wonder how far reaching this "blackout" is. We know that planes fell from the sky but what about satellites? Are they still in orbit or did those come crashing down too?


Did the "Event" extend past the atmosphere? If so, how far? If it did not, then the sats in orbit would safe and be floating along if their orbits are high enough. Others would have re-enterd and burned up. ISS? not sure if it would still be in orbit. i wonder what happened to the crew? did they abondon the station and do a blind re-entry? After 15 years of no communications from the ground, the ones still in orbit would be dead from no management, so solar array and battery management would not have been done, leading to electrical systems failures.

It seems the laws of physics regarding gravity and momentum are not affected, so nothing tells me that they would have fallen from orbit...


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

First of all, here's a quote: "Any society is only three square meals away from revolution"

Secondly, we saw that Monroe and Miles killed the thugs _six months _after the blackout, and picking the 3rd guy. I assumed as they travel to Chicago, they will pick up more men for their militia. Once they get there, there will be a power vacuum, and they will gradually rule the area.

As for "the Event", I've wondering since the 1st episode, if there's any significant to the order in which the blackout started. As you can see from the Earth view, it started on the East Coast and then move to the West Coast, instead of going dark all of the sudden. Maybe it's just done for dramatic effect.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

john4200 said:


> No, you are the one missing the point. I read what you wrote. Some is correct, much is incorrect. But that is irrelevant to the fact that it does not explain the inconsistency of why Monroe is able to rule while none of the established government police and military from 15 years ago were able to adapt to provide some amount of order. You can't have it both ways.


The local militia did not adapt, they saw an opportunity and seized it. And you seem to be thinking that the 2 are happening in close time proximity to the other. I do not think that happened, nor have we seen any information to draw that conclusion. The US Government may have fallen / evaporated in a short time and the militia did not start to rise until weeks/months/years after the event.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> No, you are the one missing the point. I read what you wrote. Some is correct, much is incorrect. But that is irrelevant to the fact that it does not explain the inconsistency of why Monroe is able to rule while none of the established government police and military from 15 years ago were able to adapt to provide some amount of order. You can't have it both ways.


You don't even know when Monroe took power. Everything had to collapse before rebuilding started. It probably took a while for Monroe to get any kind of power. By that time the military was long gone. The militias gained power after they were able to meet their basic needs and grow from there.

Most soldiers would have left before basic needs were met or they could do anything useful. You really seem to think soldiers are robots and not human beings.

If Monroe took over five years in cant you see how that is vastly different from paid soldiers doing something in the wake of the black out?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

It is still not clear to me why anyone thinks that Monroe is able to meet the basic needs of people. Or do you just mean of his own militia? That is reasonable, but so far it doesn't seem like the random farm collectives are actually getting anything out of the relationship. It's kind of a seven samurai situation as far as I can tell. And I have no doubt they will rip off seven samurai at least once this season.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> It is still not clear to me why anyone thinks that Monroe is able to meet the basic needs of people. Or do you just mean of his own militia? That is reasonable, but so far it doesn't seem like the random farm collectives are actually getting anything out of the relationship. It's kind of a seven samurai situation as far as I can tell. And I have no doubt they will rip off seven samurai at least once this season.


I believe....that protection was mentioned when the milita came to the "sub division". I could be wrong though.

So far, the relationship does seem to be severly one sided.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I believe....that protection was mentioned when the milita came to the "sub division". I could be wrong though.
> 
> So far, the relationship does seem to be severly one sided.


I think you meant, "protection" ... and I assume you mentally said it with a cliched mafia accent.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> I think you meant, "protection" ... and I assume you mentally said it with a cliched mafia accent.


and "air quotes".


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I wonder why the amulet came on all by itself? Didn't Grace have to push the button to turn it on? And, was the amulet on the table the one Grace had, or the one now belonging to Mr. Google?

Questions...... 

Dave


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mrdbdigital said:


> I wonder why the amulet came on all by itself? Didn't Grace have to push the button to turn it on? And, was the amulet on the table the one Grace had, or the one now belonging to Mr. Google?
> 
> Questions......
> 
> Dave


Don't they light up when someone else with an activated one is nearby? I thought we saw that last episode.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Anubys said:


> Another thing that bugs me is how can anyone belong to a militia where your CO uses your life to deplete the bullet inventory of your enemy.


Yeah, I was waiting for someone to waste him, but he obviously has a connection to our hero, so he survives.



TAsunder said:


> Don't they light up when someone else with an activated one is nearby? I thought we saw that last episode.


Or maybe not so nearby? Is that how Grace connected with the person on the other end of the computor?

When this occurred, first a huge percentage of people in even smaller cities would die, then the rest would overrun the nearly countryside, and lots of them would die--then you would have dead bodies everywhere plus no sanitation, so another big group of the survivors would get sick and die.... How many years would it take to be able to form any kind of societal organization? I wonder how big an area and how many people are really controlled by this militia? I can't imagine it's huge. The whole idea of reforming the United States does seem really stupid. Forming a democracy instead of a dictatorship, that I can see.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> When this occurred, first a huge percentage of people in even smaller cities would die, then the rest would overrun the nearly countryside, and lots of them would die--then you would have dead bodies everywhere plus no sanitation, so another big group of the survivors would get sick and die.... How many years would it take to be able to form any kind of societal organization? I wonder how big an area and how many people are really controlled by this militia? I can't imagine it's huge. The whole idea of reforming the United States does seem really stupid. Forming a democracy instead of a dictatorship, that I can see.


I'd guess that there's a whole slew of militias, most of which don't even control a whole state. I can't see a pre-electric (oops, post-electric) government controlling more than a fraction of a nation as big as ours.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

danterner said:


> Someone once pointed out something to me about glasses on television shows, and now that I know it I can't stop looking for it (and I see it all the time) -- very often, you can see reflections of prompters and monitors (or reflections of the greenscreen itself) in actors' glasses. Look for glowing green squarish reflections. They're often edited out in post, but frequently get missed.


What I've heard is that prop glasses often don't have lenses to avoid the reflection issue. Another technique is to make the lenses so they are perfectly flat on the front (not sure how that helps, perhaps it reduces glare off lights since there's a smaller range of vunerable angles).


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

allan said:


> I'd guess that there's a whole slew of militias, most of which don't even control a whole state. I can't see a pre-electric (oops, post-electric) government controlling more than a fraction of a nation as big as ours.


They've bascially gone back to a feudal structure. How big was a barony?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

vman41 said:


> What I've heard is that prop glasses often don't have lenses to avoid the reflection issue. Another technique is to _*make the lenses so they are perfectly flat on the front *_(not sure how that helps, perhaps it reduces glare off lights since there's a smaller range of vunerable angles).


Ugh...well, it didn't work. That was SO distracting on Google guy in this ep. Every time he moved his head, those flat pieces of glass (NOT lenses) reflected so much light...curved lenses don't reflect nearly as much.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

marksman said:


> After fourteen days of a blackout with no communication and millions of dead people, nobody is staying around to protect the non existent United States.
> 
> Food. Shelter and water and security are primary goals for everybody.


Reading this gave me one thought - soylent green! Wouldn't canabalism become rampant? Millions of people are dying. No immediate sources of food?

How do they make US flag tattoos? Don't know how tattoos are made but would think modern tattoos require electricity.

Wonder if Monroe is behind the initial cause of the blackout. Seems that he had a bit on unabomber-esque anti-technology bent to him. Remember him and Miles in the car? He was complaining that the young girl he was hitting on would only communicate via text messaging

Loved how the iPhone powered up and the date was September 17th - the exact date of episode 1. Also funny seeing the "Searching" on the display. Must have been an AT&T iPhone


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

RickStrobel said:


> Loved how the iPhone powered up and the date was September 17th - the exact date of episode 1. Also funny seeing the "Searching" on the display. Must have been an AT&T iPhone


It was just nice to see that it wasn't being used to make a phone call in airplane mode like some other shows do. 

Also the real reason the woman is dragging around an iPhone is because Apple sponsors the show.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

After 15 minutes in I realized I didn't care about anyone and deleted the episode and SP. I'm not going to commit to a series I know will be cancelled.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I predict that Giancarlo Espisito's character will begin to have growing respect for Charlie's brother, and will eventually take him under his wing. Some sort of Stockholm Syndrome relationship will develop, and by the time Charlie finally reaches her brother (at the end of this season), he'll be fully involved as a member of the militia. Maybe even directly involved with Monroe.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

One of my favorite books is The Stand. The second he said Stu Redmond and Franny I was rolling on the floor. My wife had to ask why.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

gossamer88 said:


> After 15 minutes in I realized I didn't care about anyone and deleted the episode and SP. I'm not going to commit to a series I know will be cancelled.


And yet it was just renewed for a full season...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> After 15 minutes in I realized I didn't care about anyone and deleted the episode and SP. I'm not going to commit to a series I know will be cancelled.


It shouldn't be cancelled this season since they got an order for a full season yesterday. The ratings are currently very good for Revolution.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And yet it was just renewed for a full season...


Didn't The Event and FlashForward also get a full season ticket?


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> Didn't The Event and FlashForward also get a full season ticket?


True, but they also got "retooled" mid-season. That has not happened for Revolution. Could it? Maybe...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

As long as they keep getting decent ratings they will be ok. If the ratings start to drop alot then that is another story. But currently it's beating everything in it's time slot by a good margin. (At least in the demographic that matters to advertisers)


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

RickStrobel said:


> How do they make US flag tattoos? Don't know how tattoos are made but would think modern tattoos require electricity


The only requirement for a tattoo is some sort of needle and some sort of pigment.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> The only requirement for a tattoo is some sort of needle and some sort of pigment.


Sure, but an intricate us flag tattoo is certainly going to be a lot more effort.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

DouglasPHill said:


> One of my favorite books is The Stand. The second he said Stu Redmond and Franny I was rolling on the floor. My wife had to ask why.


+ 1. I thought it was great. At least one writer is a fan of the Stand. Not to mention the unknown baddie called Randall. I immediately thought Flagg.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Sure, but an intricate us flag tattoo is certainly going to be a lot more effort.


I'm not saying it's quick and easy, and in fact I think it's kind of ridiculous to think the rebels would take the time to do it given the situation they're in. I'm just saying it doesn't require any electricity. Lots and lots of absolutely beautiful tattooing was going on long, long, long before anyone ever even _thought_ about electricity.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> I'm not saying it's quick and easy, and in fact I think it's kind of ridiculous to think the rebels would take the time to do it given the situation they're in. I'm just saying it doesn't require any electricity. Lots and lots of absolutely beautiful tattooing was going on long, long, long before anyone ever even _thought_ about electricity.


True. And the whole us flag tattoo thing is kind of weird anyway since, as I alluded to earlier, there are a LOT of people who currently already have them. Unless they go around and force the removal of them, it's not really all that significant for someone to have one.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> True. And the whole us flag tattoo thing is kind of weird anyway since, as I alluded to earlier, there are a LOT of people who currently already have them. Unless they go around and force the removal of them, it's not really all that significant for someone to have one.


That wouldn't be a problem. Tattoos that were made with electricity would have disappeared.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a tattoo gun on the interwebs that worked by pumping a treadle with your foot instead of using electricity. I'm sure one exists out there, I found dental drill that worked by pumping a foot, and of course there's sewing machine's.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Sure, but an intricate us flag tattoo is certainly going to be a lot more effort.


The tattoo only used one color ink and the flag only had 13 stars, didn't seem that intricate to me.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

vman41 said:


> The tattoo only used one color ink and the flag only had 13 stars, didn't seem that intricate to me.


There were at least three ink colors (white, blue, and red or black - can't tell from screen caps). The stars were tiny. That would be pretty impressive work for a prison tattoo.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> There were at least three ink colors (white, blue, and red or black - can't tell from screen caps). The stars were tiny. That would be pretty impressive work for a prison tattoo.


I think it's just red & blue, with her skin serving as white. And there's no reason it has to be a "prison" tattoo in regards to the skill level. As I said, there were plenty of people doing gorgeous tattoo work long before there were any powered needles.

Again, I'm not saying there's any good reason for the rebels to be doing this in the context of the story that's being told here. I'm just saying that tattoos can be done, and done very well, without any modern technology whatsoever.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

robojerk said:


> I looked and looked, but I couldn't find a tattoo gun on the interwebs that worked by pumping a treadle with your foot instead of using electricity. I'm sure one exists out there, I found dental drill that worked by pumping a foot, and of course there's sewing machine's.


Just a plain old sewing needle will work just fine. No machine necessary. It won't be quick, it won't be convenient, and it won't make any story sense in this show, but it will work. I promise.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> I think it's just red & blue, with her skin serving as white. And there's no reason it has to be a "prison" tattoo in regards to the skill level. As I said, there were plenty of people doing gorgeous tattoo work long before there were any powered needles.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying there's any good reason for the rebels to be doing this in the context of the story that's being told here. I'm just saying that it tattoos can be done, and done very well, without any modern technology whatsoever.


Yes. I'm agreeing with you. The tattoo is more impressive than a typical prison tattoo (though some prison tattoos are pretty impressive!) and seemed like a lot of effort for what it is supposed to be.


----------



## Haps (Nov 30, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> That's is the one believable thing about this show, that we'd go to hell in a hand basket within 15 years.


I would expect hell to arrive during the first 2-5 years. But 15 years later I would think normal societies would be back.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

We were driving through Wilmington, NC this summer from the beach house and my wife says "Hey their filming a civil war scene". Now thinking back it must have been a "Revolution" scene.

Was the military using muskets?? Why are rifles/ shotguns so rare? I have three in my basement with plenty of ammo they can use. I know only a few hard core deer hunters that use muskets to get a few extra weeks of deer hunting in but shotguns and rifles are quite bountiful.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Well it is 15 years later. I'm sure it was hell for many years while the global herd was thinned out.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Show is moving too slow for me.. hard for me to really get into it. Gotta pick up the pace.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> Show is moving too slow for me.. hard for me to really get into it. Gotta pick up the pace.


It's moving too slowly on the central mythology side of things for me. I don't really care that what that one soldier has to tell to his dead buddy's wife, or that what's-her-name is doing it for her miscarried kid, or that the other lady's son had asthma, or how Elizabeth Mitchell shot that guy for stealing their stuff. This show isn't written well-enough to be able to get away with it like Lost did. I want to know what caused the "event", where those amulets came from, how did Miles' brother come by it, etc., etc.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

yeah... Me too. I want to know about the power outage.. More on that. less on the current day crap. even the history of the militia. I would think they would have some flash backs back PRIOR to the black out. And why haven't they shown us other people that have power and computers??


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

wprager said:


> I want to know what caused the "event", where those amulets came from, how did Miles' brother come by it, etc., etc.


What would they have left once that was revealed?

Shows like this can be a drag because you know if they ever solve the main problem (i.e. get the electricity back) the show would be over. Just like if Gilligan got off the island.

Another nit-pick: the condition of the houses...

They act like every house is pretty normal except they burn candles. Wouldn't they all be rotting and mold infested after 15 years? Roofs would eventually leak. Water would freeze in the winter. Rain would come in because not everything would remain perfectly sealed.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

RickStrobel said:


> They act like every house is pretty normal except they burn candles. Wouldn't they all be rotting and mold infested after 15 years? Roofs would eventually leak. Water would freeze in the winter. Rain would come in because not everything would remain perfectly sealed.


Yeah, I want to see the outhouses they all presumably have in the backyard because the bathrooms are unusable, or see everyone sleeping outside in the summer because the windows aren't big enough to get much air into the house...


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Martha said:


> I'm still watching for now. I did get a huge kick out of Miles introducing himself and Charlie as Stu Redman and Franny. I just started re-reading The Stand on Sunday so that jumped out at me.


Yup - that hooked me, too.

I love clever pop culture references - this one worked!


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

RickStrobel said:


> Another nit-pick: the condition of the houses...
> 
> They act like every house is pretty normal except they burn candles. Wouldn't they all be rotting and mold infested after 15 years? Roofs would eventually leak. Water would freeze in the winter. Rain would come in because not everything would remain perfectly sealed.


My grandmother grew up in a farmhouse with no electricity and no running water--it stood there for quite a few years. They still have hammers and nails and nothing to do except hunt and plant--no tv, no internet. To me the interesting part of these shows is how they adjust to this kind of stuff, but they're pretty much ignoring that. That tiny little patch of corn they had in their "village"--in 15 years you should have bigger fields than that.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> That tiny little patch of corn they had in their "village"--in 15 years you should have bigger fields than that.


They did.
You must have missed the zoom out when Charlie and company left the village to start on their quest which a lot of (digitally inserted) cultivated fields surrounding the area.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

marksman said:


> Food. Shelter and water and security are primary goals for everybody. I don't see anyway with these drastic of circumstances that all these things don't collapse almost instantly.


Exactly. Ultimately everything boils down to basic survival, if not for oneself, then for one's loved ones. Lack of electricity not only means loss of communication and transportion of goods and services, but the collapse of our banking system.

Right now what determines who gets what goods and services is money. The relatively few who violate that rule are often punished, thus minimizing the amount of theft that takes place.

But when most people no longer have any access to their money, how do they even buy the remaining supplies that are left? And once those supplies are gone, then what happens?

What happens is that more and more people begin stealing from stores, and then from one another as they run out of their own resources. So even if law enforcement was completely unaffected by tbe blackout, the problem would quickly become too big for them to handle.

When people are starving, suddenly the fear of going to prison is not such a big deal anymore. And with the lack of weapons and communication of the military and law enforcement agencies at a large scale, the only options for people in those groups would be to leave to go protect their families or form their own militias to maintain order.

This is how all the militias, including Monroe's, were able to gain power. Most, like Monroe's, probably started out with good intentions to bring order back to the lawlessness that had resulted from the blackout. And people were willing to join and/or support them because they wanted to be kept safe.

But what happens when another militia rises up, and says their way is law? There would no longer be any higher court to settle the dispute. Thus, things would likely often boil down to "might makes right", and the militias that remained would grow stronger and impose stricter laws to prevent future uprisings.

Comparing the United States government to militias doesn't work because a militia doesn't need to maintain power at the national level. The current power structure of the United States depends on a chain of command that requires a significant amount of technology to back it up. Without that, there is no order as a nation.

The reason the country is called "The United States" is because states wanted to maintain some independence. As communication and travel improved, state independence lost much of the weight it once had, but if we were to once again be cut off from the bulk of the rest of the country, it wouldn't take long for local power to once again rise up.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I hope everyone is happy after seeing the preview for episode 5.


----------

