# Flashforward "No More Good Days" 09/24/09 **Spoilers**



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

We need a spoiler thread for this episode. 

It seems like everything is going to be self-fulfilling. For instance, the FBI agent's wife is going to meet the kid's dad and they're both going to recognize each other from their flash forwards and develop the relationship they both know they're supposed to develop.

I'm really intrigued by the video of the guy who was moving around while the others were out! That was creepy!


----------



## StanSimmons (Jun 10, 2000)

I'm wondering if the two helicopters that were flying overhead right after the blackouts were a clue... or could the military really have them up that fast?


----------



## bpurcell (Mar 16, 2005)

How about in the previews at the end of the show:



Spoiler



Charlie from Lost is now in FlashForward, and surprise he thinks he knows what happens!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I found the first episode intriguing.

Is this a future set in stone or is it a possible future?
And what about John Cho's character?
Will he be dead in six months?

It's interesting how for some people, the flashforward has given them hope while others fear it.
The Social implications are quite interesting and I'm glad the producers put some thought into the effects of _everyone_ blacking out for 2:17.

And I almost fell down on my knees and thanked God when they didn't zoom in on the grainy video of the mystery "Suspect 0" and instantly "digitally reconstruct "a perfect picture of his face.

I do wonder how they are going to pace the episodes though.
Assuming 180 days to go until D Day, would one episode be about 2 days or do they have a shorter timeline in mind?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Fascinating. I'm wondering how long they'll drag out the big reveal. Will they solve it in 6 months, or do they expect that this series will run for years (ala Lost) and only give up tidbits spread over a long period of time?

In any case, I can't see this being terrorism or a natural phenomenon. I'm guessing either Divine Intervention or aliens. And given the background of the producers, I'm leaning toward the latter.

Bob


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Liked the show. Not too sure about the acting. Doesn't help when the two main actors are Brits with American accents. Something just doesn't come through in their acting for my taste. I've had this problem for awhile though, so maybe it's me.

-smak-


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I'm intrigued as well. Overall I liked it, but for some reason I couldn't shake the feeling that the show was a little pretentious...like the production as a whole knows it's trying to be the next "Lost." Yeah, I know, I'm weird. 

I was quite impressed with the visual effects work on this. The shot of the helicopter crashing into the building and then sliding down it was very well done.

John Cho not only didn't have a dream, he wasn't even in the car any more. I wonder if people who are dead in six months (assuming that's what it means) never even passed out (hence the guy in the video at the end).

Agreed with the accents. My brain was really getting overworked. Whenever I hear a fake American accent it always throws me off...and here it seemed like just about everyone was faking it (except for John Cho, the guy from "Glory," and the daughter). The worst was the AA Sponsor guy.

One thing that puzzled me was the little boy already knew Olivia's name (undoubtedly from his flashforward), but in Olivia's two minutes, we did not see him at all. Of course we didn't see ever second of it -- maybe she went into his room to check on him before she went out to the staircase to look down on Pirates of the Caribbean guy.


----------



## MMG (Dec 11, 1999)

atrac said:


> One thing that puzzled me was the little boy already knew Olivia's name (undoubtedly from his flashforward), but in Olivia's two minutes, we did not see him at all. Of course we didn't see ever second of it -- maybe she went into his room to check on him before she went out to the staircase to look down on Pirates of the Caribbean guy.


Didn't it show the boy's father as being Olivia's new boyfriend in the future?

This show reminded me of Odyssey 5. Hope it doesn't fizzle out like that show did...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

This is a definite keeper.

It was funny that FBI boss man's flash forward was of him reading the sports section while taking a dump. I wonder if he can use that info in Vegas.

Interesting that FBI guy didn't tell his soon to be ex-wife that he was drinking again in his flash.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

atrac said:


> John Cho not only didn't have a dream, he wasn't even in the car any more. I wonder if people who are dead in six months (assuming that's what it means) never even passed out (hence the guy in the video at the end).


I thought he said something about blacking out, but not dreaming. And if it WAS the case that people that would be dead did not black out, that agent reviewing all that footage from all those sources would surely have found others walking around.


cheesesteak said:


> I wonder if he can use that info in Vegas.


As could countless other people likely making the betting line at the time rather insignificant. I can't see that anyone would be getting rich. I would imagine that any betting in the period up to "the moment" would be pretty significantly changed seeing as people could have seen any number of things that would tip off a winner, unless of course having all that information actually known could result in results being changed? Oh, I'm getting a headache!


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

I liked it. It didn't hook me as much as the pilot of Lost, but it was enjoyable.

I do like the quandary the main character is having. He is fulfilling his "future" and using it to solve the case. But at the same time, he knows that fulfilling it will lead to a poor outcome (drinking, wife leaving him.)


----------



## danplaysbass (Jul 19, 2004)

I think we need to pay attention to anything marked with a "Red Penguin". I saw it multiple times during the show. It was in the main character's FF as part of his investigation board. It was also a bumper sticker on a bus driving by at one point.

I have a feeling that that company will play a major role.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

They can't change the past in Lost. I wonder if you they alter the future in Flash Forward.

I always watch the previews but the massive quantity of previews at the end bugged me. I know they were being shown out of context and probably out of order but still... Good thing I have a crappy memory.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

LOL. So I've been a HUGE fan of Family Guy for about six months now (yes, it *really* took me that long to even start watching it) and I know that Seth MacFarlane is the genius behind it.

All of that being said, I have some how never managed to see a picture of Seth or an interview with him, so I had no idea what he looks like.

One of the things I forgot to mention in my previous post is "that one agent guy that kind of looks like Ricky Gervais" seemed very out of place and wasn't a very good actor.

I now know that I would have been slamming the beloved Seth MacFarlane himself.

D'oh! Glad I didn't post that without knowing....lol


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I have a feeling that the little girl's "dream" will somehow be important.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

atrac said:


> John Cho not only didn't have a dream, he wasn't even in the car any more. I wonder if people who are dead in six months (assuming that's what it means) never even passed out (hence the guy in the video at the end).


As JLucPicard points out, this can't be true: in the entire world hundreds of thousands of people will die in the next six months. I agree it was odd that he was so far away from the car, and not injured badly enough to have been thrown there.



atrac said:


> One thing that puzzled me was the little boy already knew Olivia's name (undoubtedly from his flashforward), but in Olivia's two minutes, we did not see him at all. Of course we didn't see ever second of it -- maybe she went into his room to check on him before she went out to the staircase to look down on Pirates of the Caribbean guy.


Even if so, it's hard to believe the boy could know her so well.



MMG said:


> Didn't it show the boy's father as being Olivia's new boyfriend in the future?


Sure, but we didn't see Olivia see the boy, so how could the boy see Olivia, much less learn her name... and remember it well enough to recognize her in scrubs and in a traumatic setting.

Also remember the daughter saying "there are no more good days left", almost like she knows more than just about those 2:17. I wonder if the kids, or at least some of the kids, have ended up seeing a much more complete version of the future than the adults?


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

What about the people who were asleep during those 2 minutes in the future? Did they have a vision of what they were dreaming?

"In my flashforward I was flying like Superman. Yeah, I'm going to have superpowers!!"


----------



## dowalker (Sep 29, 2002)

What was with the Kangaroo?
Did it escape form a zoo or something? Just strange.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think the 'roo was simply a homage to Lost's polar bear. Not everything weird need necessarily fit into the story arc's mythos. Hopefully the show won't take itself that seriously.


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

dowalker said:


> What was with the Kangaroo?
> Did it escape form a zoo or something? Just strange.


Was wondering that too.

Guess I'm alone in feeling that this was kind of hokey/cheesy. What was up with the slow-mo running shot when he was running to the hospital? Just seemed very out of place. All I could think of was Baywatch.

And then this might be what others have said about Brits doing American accents, but when the main cop character was in the board room and he was figuring stuff out, it just bugged me. Might have been the accent thing, but I just felt it was cheesy too.

I'll keep watching as my gf liked it and said she wanted to see where it will go (as do I).


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

dowalker said:


> What was with the Kangaroo?
> Did it escape form a zoo or something? Just strange.


I assumed zoo escape + LOST homage. My wife said "guess they couldn't afford a polar bear..."

We both liked the show, and will keep watching.

The fact that the one FBI agent was able to somehow find random footage of an awake person so quickly means either (1) there actually were many awake people (even if just a small fraction of the total population), and she just randomly came across one, and this particular person is not necessarily significant although the reason they are conscious may be; or (2) the show is stretching all credulity and she was just VERY lucky to encounter video of this significant guy.

I wonder what would happen to people that advertise themselves as psychics, in the world of this show. Would they experience sudden new-found acceptance and respect?

If you pass out and have a vision of yourself in the future, at a known date and time (April 29, 2010, 10:00 PM), I wonder if shortly before April 29, 2010 you could prepare placards with important information on them explaining events covering the period of time from the blackout to April 29. (Like "Don't visit the donut shop on March 12 - it will be held up"). Then, at April 29, 2010, 9:59, start holding up the placards so that you see them in your original vision.

Why do people on TV shows always recall things in the third-person, so that they see themselves in their vision/memory? Aren't memories ordinarily in 1st person? Why are they almost never depicted that way?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

mtnagel said:


> Guess I'm alone in feeling that this was kind of hokey/cheesy.


I found it sorta hokey. My big issue with it was the way they're throwing clues in the viewer's face... red penguins!, an arm with three star tattoos!, "mosaic", yet I'm not interested enough in the mystery to want to put it all together.

With Lost, they gave the viewer an intriguing mystery up front which caused viewers to go and try to seek out the clues. In this show, it's the opposite... they're dropping clues left and right on the viewer, expecting the viewer to use them to seek out a mystery.


----------



## danplaysbass (Jul 19, 2004)

Jeeters said:


> I found it sorta hokey. My big issue with it was the way they're throwing clues in the viewer's face... red penguins!, an arm with three star tattoos!, "mosaic", yet I'm not interested enough in the mystery to want to put it all together.
> 
> With Lost, they gave the viewer an intriguing mystery up front which caused viewers to go and try to seek out the clues. In this show, it's the opposite... they're dropping clues left and right on the viewer, expecting the viewer to use them to seek out a mystery.


Thats an interesting perspective. I like variety though. If every show was just like Lost then it may eventually lose appeal. Lost is so good because nothing like this has ever been done on this scale before...


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

danterner said:


> Why do people on TV shows always recall things in the third-person, so that they see themselves in their vision/memory? Aren't memories ordinarily in 1st person? Why are they almost never depicted that way?


Probably because it is a lot easier to present it that way on tv and have the viewer understand what they are seeing. The whole show is from a third-person perspective, basically. It would be weird to have it jump from third-person to first-person for the flash-forwards.

However, in the novel in which this is based, the flash-forwards are presented in a first-person way.

That being said, I'm intrigued by the show. I thought they did a good job of setting up the story and characters fairly quickly. I've read the book and it looks like they are taking the show in a different direction, which I'm okay with. As good as the book was, it's nice to have some surprises.

Also, the creators have said that we will catch up to April 29, 2010 this season. Coincidence that this is a Thursday night? I think not


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Loved, loved, loved this. It felt like watching Lost.

Speaking of which.....anyone else notice the Oceanic Airlines billboard?


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

Good concept. They could have a flash forward each season to keep it fresh and exposing everyones flash forward gradually is a good way to add layers each week...

Shouldn't be too hard to get a good picture of "suspect 0". Odds are they have countless other surveillance cameras and game footage that should be able to give a better look at him. Also, while he could be a nice data point, he could easily play dumb, even if he's involved...


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

smak said:


> Liked the show. Not too sure about the acting. Doesn't help when the two main actors are Brits with American accents. Something just doesn't come through in their acting for my taste. I've had this problem for awhile though, so maybe it's me.
> 
> -smak-


I really dislike when they make a British actor speak with an American accent. I've seen this a few times and the actor is almost always better in their native tongue. Oh well, that's me.


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

jlb said:


> Loved, loved, loved this. It felt like watching Lost.
> 
> Speaking of which.....anyone else notice the Oceanic Airlines billboard?


Yes, which I think mentioned a "Perfect Safety Record." 

I enjoyed the show and am looking forward to see where it goes.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

NJChris said:


> I really dislike when they make a British actor speak with an American accent. I've seen this a few times and the actor is almost always better in their native tongue. Oh well, that's me.


I can think of a number of shows that are really good where that need not be the case.....

How about House and The Mentalist as 2 examples......


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Was it Red Penguin or Red Panda?

I liked the show. The effects were great, though the low contrast blue hue look seems like it's worn out by now. I agree the acting was a little off and hopefully that will improve with future episodes.

Glad to see a TV show for about the first time zoom in on a video and actually show it becoming pixelated and blurry.


----------



## djtweed (Mar 17, 2006)

+! for the NO MORE SLOW-MOTION RUNNING shots! So freakin' cheesy.

Kangaroo in downtown L.A.? Reminds me of a polar bear on a tropical island.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

I wonder if the Flash Forward date - April 29, 2010 - is significant.

The first thing I thought was, "That's going to be the season finale date - in which case, somebody doesn't have enough confidence in the show to think ABC would want to air it in May." Also note that 4/29/10 is a Thursday.

-- Don


----------



## mtnagel (Nov 15, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> I wonder if the Flash Forward date - April 29, 2010 - is significant.
> 
> The first thing I thought was, "That's going to be the season finale date - in which case, somebody doesn't have enough confidence in the show to think ABC would want to air it in May." Also note that 4/29/10 is a Thursday.
> 
> -- Don


I thought the same thing (about the season finale). But I didn't actually look it up.


----------



## danplaysbass (Jul 19, 2004)

ElJay said:


> Was it Red Penguin or Red Panda?
> 
> I liked the show. The effects were great, though the low contrast blue hue look seems like it's worn out by now. I agree the acting was a little off and hopefully that will improve with future episodes.
> 
> Glad to see a TV show for about the first time zoom in on a video and actually show it becoming pixelated and blurry.


Yes I believe you are correct. I don't know why I had penguins on the brain!


----------



## desulliv (Aug 22, 2003)

ElJay said:


> Was it Red Penguin or Red Panda?
> 
> I liked the show. The effects were great, though the low contrast blue hue look seems like it's worn out by now. I agree the acting was a little off and hopefully that will improve with future episodes.
> 
> Glad to see a TV show for about the first time zoom in on a video and actually show it becoming pixelated and blurry.


Yeah, I was waiting for the blurry video to snap into focus and have a square box pop up with address, phone number and full DNA profile.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

desulliv said:


> Yeah, I was waiting for the blurry video to snap into focus and have a square box pop up with address, phone number and full DNA profile.


"Zoom in on that....now rotate it...can we get a capture of the reflection in the glass there? Perfect. Now run a trace on that number. Now cross reference that with all past cases. Great. There's our man."


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

atrac said:


> I'm intrigued as well. Overall I liked it, but for some reason I couldn't shake the feeling that the show was a little pretentious...like the production as a whole knows it's trying to be the next "Lost." Yeah, I know, I'm weird.


I thought is was trying to be a little to "Losty" at the start. Instead of running around a beach among wreckage and explosions trying to figure out what had happened, they were running around the city among wreckage and explosions trying to figure out what had happened. Lost had the advantage of being first, so we really didn't know what to expect.



Jeeters said:


> I found it sorta hokey. My big issue with it was the way they're throwing clues in the viewer's face... red penguins!, an arm with three star tattoos!, "mosaic", yet I'm not interested enough in the mystery to want to put it all together.
> 
> With Lost, they gave the viewer an intriguing mystery up front which caused viewers to go and try to seek out the clues. In this show, it's the opposite... they're dropping clues left and right on the viewer, expecting the viewer to use them to seek out a mystery.


Yeah, it's definitely more "in your face." It's clear that they're working a formula as much as telling as story, if not moreso.



dowalker said:


> What was with the Kangaroo?
> Did it escape form a zoo or something? Just strange.


It's a Dharma-roo!



brermike said:


> However, in the novel in which this is based, the flash-forwards are presented in a first-person way.
> 
> That being said, I'm intrigued by the show. I thought they did a good job of setting up the story and characters fairly quickly. I've read the book and it looks like they are taking the show in a different direction, which I'm okay with. As good as the book was, it's nice to have some surprises.
> 
> Also, the creators have said that we will catch up to April 29, 2010 this season. Coincidence that this is a Thursday night? I think not


Novel? I did not know this was based on anything.

Yeah, I totally caught that date. Clearly meant to be one that we get to in real time on the show. Finale or not, that nights episode will be that day. 

Interesting enough for me to want to see where it goes. It's not quite Lost caliber, IMO, but we'll see what happens.


----------



## swinca (Jun 19, 2003)

I liked it. It's on my keep list. I'm not sure if this will be the next Lost, but they advertised another show during Flashforward that I think is a candidate. Wish I could remember the name.....


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I thought the first episode was good. I watched preview bit from the end and it looks interesting.


----------



## dowalker (Sep 29, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> I wonder if the Flash Forward date - *April 29, 2010 - is significant.*
> 
> The first thing I thought was, "That's going to be the season finale date - in which case, somebody doesn't have enough confidence in the show to think ABC would want to air it in May." Also note that 4/29/10 is a Thursday.
> 
> -- Don


It is my 55th Birthday. Should I be concerned?
Also I do not watch Lost, so not sure what the polar bear means? Just some random thing?
Preview Spoiler:


Spoiler



I think the kangaroo was in the previews also


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

dowalker said:


> It is my 55th Birthday. Should I be concerned?
> Also I do not watch Lost, so not sure what the polar bear means? Just some random thing?


Explanation of LOST polar bear:



Spoiler



LOST is set on a tropical island. In early episodes, the protagonists encountered a very-out-of-place polar bear on the island. What a polar bear was doing on a tropical island was a big mystery. It was eventually revealed that the polar bear had been used as a test subject for experiments being run at a scientific station located on an adjacent island



More on the LOST polar bears here: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polar_bears


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

hefe said:


> Novel? I did not know this was based on anything.


Yes, it's based on the book FlashForward by Robert J Sawyer which came out a while ago (mid-nineties, I think). I really enjoyed reading it and when I found out it was becoming a series, I was very excited. They've made some major deviations from the book (which I won't spoil) but the basic premise is the same. The book has a lot of science behind it which makes it seem a bit more "real" whereas I'm betting the series won't get too heady.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

GDG76 said:


> Good concept. They could have a flash forward each season to keep it fresh and exposing everyones flash forward gradually is a good way to add layers each week...
> 
> Shouldn't be too hard to get a good picture of "suspect 0". Odds are they have countless other surveillance cameras and game footage that should be able to give a better look at him. Also, while he could be a nice data point, he could easily play dumb, even if he's involved...


If I was to guess, the name the lead agent saw in his flashforward, the name where there could be thousands worldwide... one of those thousands will be in the same location as suspect 0.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Aside from being on ABC, is there some other connection to _Lost_ (i.e. same producers or something) that is prompting all the comparisons? I quit _Lost_ after the second season due to watching other programs.


----------



## dowalker (Sep 29, 2002)

Thank you danterner.
That helps!:up:


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

JLucPicard said:


> Aside from being on ABC, is there some other connection to _Lost_ (i.e. same producers or something) that is prompting all the comparisons? I quit _Lost_ after the second season due to watching other programs.


Well, in later seasons of Lost, the show stopped doing the flashbacks in time that showed the characters' histories to instead...


Spoiler



...doing flashfowards in time to show the characters' futures.


Also, two the actors on this series were formerly on Lost. One, a series regular; the other a less recurring but still notable character.

Other than that, I think it's mostly just ABC hype. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the series was originally intended for HBO, but HBO changed their minds during development and ABC gladly took the reigns.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

JLucPicard said:


> Aside from being on ABC, is there some other connection to _Lost_ (i.e. same producers or something) that is prompting all the comparisons? I quit _Lost_ after the second season due to watching other programs.


Connection? No.

Similarity in style and method of story telling? Big time.

Lost is all about a huge mystery and characters that are revealed slowly through flashbacks (and flash forwards) and full of intersecting characters and plot points, etc.


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

danterner said:


> If you pass out and have a vision of yourself in the future, at a known date and time (April 29, 2010, 10:00 PM), I wonder if shortly before April 29, 2010 you could prepare placards with important information on them explaining events covering the period of time from the blackout to April 29. (Like "Don't visit the donut shop on March 12 - it will be held up"). Then, at April 29, 2010, 9:59, start holding up the placards so that you see them in your original vision.


This is my number one problem with the flash forwards. There should have been a ton of people who have crucial information about the future because their future selves used the flash forward to communicate with their past self, via such a placard. I think our main character FBI dude (sorry, I'm terrible with names) was doing just that, but poorly. By the end of the episode, they knew exactly when the flash forward sent them to, so the writers should be aware of this too. Perhaps they'll figure out the cause of the flash forwards before then, or at least tell the public they figured it out? That way people wouldn't abuse the flash forward.


ElJay said:


> Glad to see a TV show for about the first time zoom in on a video and actually show it becoming pixelated and blurry.


Oh man, I hate it when shows do the ENHANCE, ENHANCE, ENHANCE thing on videos, I can't believe I didn't realize how awesome it was that they didn't do that here.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I would think that someone could make a season long show on purpose like some of the British shows which are complete in about 6 or so episodes. 

Also the mystery could be solved by April 29th 2010 and then the characters have to fight whoever did this to the world.


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

swinca said:


> I liked it. It's on my keep list. I'm not sure if this will be the next Lost, but they advertised another show during Flashforward that I think is a candidate. Wish I could remember the name.....


Are you referring to V?


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

I liked it. But I couldn't quite figure out why so many things would be on fire after people only blacking out for just over two minutes. Seeing all the dead surfers float up on shore was kinda creepy. Like, did the people that ended up dying see anything before their demise? Well, that's probably pretty impossible to figure. But maybe someone that ended up in critical condition due to the happenings of the blackout period...would they have seen anything?

Also, gotta wonder about babies/toddlers. Obviously we know little kids had the visions too but was there a cut off age on how young you could be or did infants pass out for two minutes also?


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

danterner said:


> If you pass out and have a vision of yourself in the future, at a known date and time (April 29, 2010, 10:00 PM), I wonder if shortly before April 29, 2010 you could prepare placards with important information on them explaining events covering the period of time from the blackout to April 29. (Like "Don't visit the donut shop on March 12 - it will be held up"). Then, at April 29, 2010, 9:59, start holding up the placards so that you see them in your original vision.





Keen said:


> This is my number one problem with the flash forwards. There should have been a ton of people who have crucial information about the future because their future selves used the flash forward to communicate with their past self, via such a placard.


But at a single point in time, they blacked out and had a flash-forward. For them to use the information from that intervening period to communicate with themselves as you're saying, they would have to have another point in time where they either blacked out and flash-forwarded again to that same point, or somehow went back in time to that inital black out point to experience the flash-forward again. After the initial flash-forward, they would have to flash-forward again to see the placards.

There was an episode of _Star Trek TNG_ in which the Enterprise was caught in a temporal rift and experienced the same sequence of events over and over again. They caught onto that and set something up to not repeat the events.

In the case of this show (at least as it seems at this point), there isn't a "repeat" instance of the flash-forward to see the same date/time in any different way than the first time.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

I think a good point is raised -- the majority of people (or at least the main cast) now know where they will be and what they will be doing on that particular date and time.

So would the head agent guy from "Glory" be on the throne reading the newspaper and the doctor lady be standing in the hallway overlooking her new found love if they knew that date/time was so important? I agree that if they knew they'd probably write down a message to themselves (winning lottery numbers?) or at least be doing something significant since it was such a big deal.

Is it possible that the lead actor was investigating a case with the code name "Mosaic" that actually had nothing to do with the FlashForward? But now he's going to start investigating this case (like he "did") but for different reasons now?

How about this? Time Travel in this show is possible. A group of people or organization in the near future are aware of some major terrorist attacks that occurred on the day of the FlashForward or a time just after it (the same case that lead actor -- dang I need to learn the character names -- was already working on with John Cho). They traveled back in time (for the first time ever) to change history and prevent the attacks from happening. A "side effect" of traveling through time in this show is everyone in the past at the time they arrive at blacks out and has a "FlashForward" to the time in the future that the time travelers came from. So they came back for two or so minutes, and thus the side effect occurred. The guy they saw on the footage was in a stadium -- maybe one of the places that an attack occurred. Perhaps he is a time traveler and off camera, the guy diffused the bomb or whatever and then went back to the future. There are probably more people that came back to other areas where terrorist attacks occurred and they prevented those too. I would guess that whatever kind of attacks "happened," they were catastrophic enough to prompt them to attempt time travel for the first time. (I keep referring to it being the first time since there has never been a world-wide human blackout before).

The only hole in my hypothesis is the boy in the hospital still knew who the doctor was. But I would guess that he already was going to have the accident that brought him to the hospital, regardless of the FlashForward, so he still would have met her and then his father and her would have ended up having the affair.

Of course, this falls into the category of Paradox because if the time travelers prevented the attacks from happening, then in the future they would have no incentive to travel back in time in the first place. But this is usually ignored in time travel stories (because of the theory of alternate realities).

What do you guys think? Am I on to something or just have way too much free time (or both?).


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

The boy in the hospital must have been looking at pictures of Olivia because if he had interacted with her, she would have remembered interacting with him. Unless people under a certain age went to a different time.

I wonder if once they reach the time of their visions, they will flashforward again while their past selves are occupying their bodies. Perhaps the reason someone was awake was because he had flashforwarded before, and what we saw was his past self occupying his present body while his present self was in the future.


----------



## Bernie (May 22, 2002)

Did anyone notice a billboard in one scene advertising Oceanic airlines??


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

I think this is gonna be my main problem with the show--it seems immediately paradoxical. I was hoping that the flash would be of their REAL future, had they not had the flash...but instead most of the stuff we saw in the future looks to be BECAUSE of the flash. 

Case in point, the cop flashes to his office where he's investigating the flash, and then him and John Cho start filling up his conspiracy board. So he's investigating the flash in the future, but he wouldn't be had the flash not occured. So I don't get it. 

I had though the premise was to show people their future so they could change it, like a warning, but all the stuff in the future is happening BECAUSE of the flash.... I see too much "lost season five" headaches here. 

Am I making sense? i'm really tired...


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

Good show, but one thing was odd. The flash forward time for everyone seemed to be Apr 29 at 10PM (L.A. time). So why was that female detective having an ultrasound at 10PM in her flash forward? Who has an ultrasound at 10PM?


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I think this is gonna be my main problem with the show--it seems immediately paradoxical. I was hoping that the flash would be of their REAL future, had they not had the flash...but instead most of the stuff we saw in the future looks to be BECAUSE of the flash.
> 
> Case in point, the cop flashes to his office where he's investigating the flash, and then him and John Cho start filling up his conspiracy board. So he's investigating the flash in the future, but he wouldn't be had the flash not occured. So I don't get it.
> 
> ...


What your suggesting doesn't make sense. If they have a flash to their future, then their past must contain the flash. They can't flash to a future where the flash never occurred. That wouldn't be their future, but rather an alternate time line.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

So is this future set in stone?

Let's examine Sonya Walgner's (Penny from Lost) character. She is meeting this new man (love interest) in her life because of the Flashforward. If the FlashForward never happened then the boy would've never been her patient that day.

This this theory leads me to believe that this future is set in stone somehow which I find upsetting or a huge plot hole. Because if we know our futures, and our unhappy with it one would be tempted to change something, like not be drinking again, or not cheating on their husband with some guy they just met, or be somewhere more important than taking a dump at 10AM on april 29th.

The show is interesting, and I'll watch it but this logic hole needs to be cleared up first.

Like maybe the Dr and her new boyfriend were supposed to meet under different circumstances and fall in love but the flashforward offered a glimps of their lives on an alternate timeline that was imploding on itself because someone changed something in the past (currently the present). This means the future is not set in stone, and anything one does to peruse this future is purely coincidental and/or suggested to them because of the flashforward. The likelihood of reaching the same future would be nearly impossible though.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I think this is gonna be my main problem with the show--it seems immediately paradoxical. I was hoping that the flash would be of their REAL future, had they not had the flash...but instead most of the stuff we saw in the future looks to be BECAUSE of the flash.
> 
> Case in point, the cop flashes to his office where he's investigating the flash, and then him and John Cho start filling up his conspiracy board. So he's investigating the flash in the future, but he wouldn't be had the flash not occured. So I don't get it.
> 
> ...





brermike said:


> What your suggesting doesn't make sense. If they have a flash to their future, then their past must contain the flash. They can't flash to a future where the flash never occurred. That wouldn't be their future, but rather an alternate time line.


To use a phrase from Lost, are they going to have a "What happens, happens?" or is the future changable?

I think we are already seeing different characters reacting differently to the flashes they see. Some (like the FBI agent) are looking at the future to find clues about what happened. Other (like his wife) want to change the future but are afraid they can't.

Whether the future is set in store or not, is likely going to be a major theme of the show.


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

Dnamertz said:


> Good show, but one thing was odd. The flash forward time for everyone seemed to be Apr 29 at 10PM (L.A. time). So why was that female detective having an ultrasound at 10PM in her flash forward? Who has an ultrasound at 10PM?


I had one at 2:30AM during my pregnancy when I had some cramping at 18 weeks. It could be a similar situation - at the emergency room.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Bernie said:


> Did anyone notice a billboard in one scene advertising Oceanic airlines??


No, no one noticed that.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

I see it as a classic question of free will vs predetermination. Religious wars have been fought over this one, so I like a tv show that tackles it.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

firerose818 said:


> I had one at 2:30AM during my pregnancy when I had some cramping at 18 weeks. It could be a similar situation - at the emergency room.


I was thinking that it would have to be some emergency situation, but a standard ultrasound wouldn't be scheduled at 10PM.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

Don't know if anyone mentioned this but Flashforward debuted on 9-24-2009 and as everyone knows in the opening they all flashed forward to 4-29-2010 during their blackout for a total of 2 minutes and 17 seconds.

Well there are 217 days between 9-24-2009 and 4-29-2010.

Also 9-24 is 4-29 backwards. 

What does it mean? I don't know buts its interesting...


----------



## Todd (Oct 7, 1999)

crazywater said:


> Don't know if anyone mentioned this but Flashforward debuted on 9-24-2009 and as everyone knows in the opening they all flashed forward to 4-29-2010 during their blackout for a total of 2 minutes and 17 seconds.
> 
> Well there are 217 days between 9-24-2009 and 4-29-2010.
> 
> ...


But how does 4 8 15 16 23 42 relate to all this?? 

I love that 4/29 is the date since it's my Bday.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

It was ok. Lots of problems with this episode, but many of them could be attributed to it being a pilot. The pacing was abysmal, much of the acting was sub-par, and many of the plot advancements weren't properly tied together. All of those things I'm guessing will improve.

The thing I'm really worried about with this show is the notion that we can have regular characters, some of them seemingly inconsequential, and meanwhile the whole time we will be wondering what the Dalai Lama or Osama Bin Laden saw instead of some stupid teenager that happens to babysit for an FBI agent. Let's call that the Kim Bauer effect.

That said, I enjoyed the premise enough to see where it goes and hope it doesn't turn into family drama while ignoring the big questions.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I had a feeling that I would either be hooked or ready to cancel the series, but I'm still undecided. Will definitely watch at least a few more, I'm sure. It's just a significant suspension of disbelief right from the beginning. Unlike Lost, where there was always the possibility of a non-supernatural or non-sci-fi explanation of most occurrences for a long time.

It appears, based on Benford's vision, assuming that it's at least mostly a true vision of the future, that April 29 is going to come and go and they really won't be close to figuring out everything about what caused the "blackouts". So in that sense, the show may have a shift in focus (i.e., we'll know whether their visions come true 100&#37 but presumably, they'll still be working on figuring out what happened and why/how.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Bernie said:


> Did anyone notice a billboard in one scene advertising Oceanic airlines??


No. Nobody did.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I think this is gonna be my main problem with the show--it seems immediately paradoxical. I was hoping that the flash would be of their REAL future, had they not had the flash...but instead most of the stuff we saw in the future looks to be BECAUSE of the flash.
> 
> Case in point, the cop flashes to his office where he's investigating the flash, and then him and John Cho start filling up his conspiracy board. So he's investigating the flash in the future, but he wouldn't be had the flash not occured. So I don't get it.
> 
> ...


Not to get into too much technical jargon, but it's all wibbly wobbly timey wimey.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

busyba said:


> No. Nobody did.


I know I didn't....


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

jlb said:


> Loved, loved, loved this. It felt like watching Lost.
> 
> Speaking of which.....anyone else notice the Oceanic Airlines billboard?


That means it all happens in Tommy Westphall's head so anything is possible.

The local papers made quick notes about how the guy walking around in the stadium was in Detroit. Of course, I'm irritated because the park looked nothing like our baseball stadium.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Sparty99 said:


> That means it all happens in Tommy Westphall's head so anything is possible.
> 
> The local papers made quick notes about how the guy walking around in the stadium was in Detroit. Of course, I'm irritated because the park looked nothing like our baseball stadium.


That scene doesn't make a whole lot of sense the more I think about it. Assuming that that guy had something to do with the "blackouts", then why allow yourself to be spotted somewhere you absolutely KNOW that cameras will be operating. And why would you be looking around to make sure no one sees you? If he was part of whatever caused them, and if it somehow didn't work on someone in that stadium, wouldn't that person be pretty darn easy to notice? Wouldn't that person be pretty easy to pick out from the crowd?

Unless that guy had nothing to do with it, and just happened not to black out for whatever reason, and maybe stole stuff from people in the stadium and was making sure no one spotted him as he was leaving.

Also, wouldn't there be parts of the world where a significant number of people would have been asleep, and other parts where a significant number would have been asleep at the time of the flashforward? They did a good job of taking into account the London-L.A. time difference, and worked that into the story, but neglected places where it would have been the middle of the night either during the blackouts or the flashforwards.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

Intriguing premise for a show.

People at ABC were fired for greenlighting "Lost" on the grounds that the premise couldn't possibly be carried further than half a season, at most... 

I can see where a network exec might think the same thing about this premise.

I guess "Lost" taught ABC a lesson about making that sort of assumption, especially when these guys are involved.

Season pass set!


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

My guess...

If you were sleeping when the FlashForward occured, you had a dream about what would occur on April 29/30... and you remember the dream.

If at 10pm Pacific on April 29/30, you would be asleep.... that's what you saw in your FlashForward.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

cheerdude said:


> My guess...
> 
> If you were sleeping when the FlashForward occured, you had a dream about what would occur on April 29/30... and you remember the dream.
> 
> If at 10pm Pacific on April 29/30, you would be asleep.... that's what you saw in your FlashForward.


Well, it depends... someone commented earlier about the people seeing themselves in the 3rd person in the flash forwards... I'm not sure if that's just how the scenes were shot by the cameras, or if that was supposed to be how the people really saw the scenes. If so, it was a mix of 1st and 3rd-person. In the Doctor (Sonya Walger)'s vision, we saw parts with her, and parts with the guy (as though she were looking at him)... Same with her husband's, really... we saw him, but we also saw the bulletin board as he would have seen it... My point is, people for whom that time would have been in the middle of the night might also have seen themselves lying in bed sleeping, instead of seeing whatever they were dreaming about.

This is probably all a pointless technicality. But I'm thinking that at some point they'll have to acknowledge that a sizable portion of the population of the eastern U.S. would have been asleep.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

A couple of thoughts (and I probably won't post many of these because I'm generally not smart enough to keep up). One, the girl who was getting the ultrasound probably wasn't focused on the fact that she was having an ultrasound at 10 PM because she was more shocked that she was pregnant in the first place. It'll probably be gone into as we get closer.

Two, and this is just a continuity issue with me because I'm a sports nut. If April 29 is "almost six months in the future", that means that this takes place in very late October or early November. That means that the baseball game that would be taking place was, presumably, a World Series game (woo hoo! Go Tigers!). The only issue with that is that a World Series game wouldn't be taking place during the day.

(Minor continuity issue, of course.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Sparty99 said:


> Two, and this is just a continuity issue with me because I'm a sports nut. If April 29 is "almost six months in the future", that means that this takes place in very late October or early November. That means that the baseball game that would be taking place was, presumably, a World Series game (woo hoo! Go Tigers!). The only issue with that is that a World Series game wouldn't be taking place during the day.
> 
> (Minor continuity issue, of course.)


Rain delay double-header.

(Sweep, Twins! Woo hoo! )


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Two, and this is just a continuity issue with me because I'm a sports nut. If April 29 is "almost six months in the future", that means that this takes place in very late October or early November. That means that the baseball game that would be taking place was, presumably, a World Series game (woo hoo! Go Tigers!). The only issue with that is that a World Series game wouldn't be taking place during the day.


I guess I missed the line where they said "almost six months in the future". I just assumed that since the episode that takes place on April 29th is almost certainly are going to air on April 29th, that the blackout probably also took place on the actual air date of the episode, September 24th, still during the MLB regular season.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

btw... when the FBI guys where brainstorming, they suggested "setting up a website" so they could get descriptions of the visions people had from all over the world.

I assumed that the line was deliberately there because there was going to be some kind of stuio-produced website put on the net for real as a tie-in to the show.

Anybody seen one yet?


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

busyba said:


> btw... when the FBI guys where brainstorming, they suggested "setting up a website" so they could get descriptions of the visions people had from all over the world.
> 
> I assumed that the line was deliberately there because there was going to be some kind of stuio-produced website put on the net for real as a tie-in to the show.
> 
> Anybody seen one yet?


you mean 
jointhemosaic.com ?
also:
truthhack.com and redpandaresources.com


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

JLucPicard said:


> But at a single point in time, they blacked out and had a flash-forward. For them to use the information from that intervening period to communicate with themselves as you're saying, they would have to have another point in time where they either blacked out and flash-forwarded again to that same point, or somehow went back in time to that inital black out point to experience the flash-forward again. After the initial flash-forward, they would have to flash-forward again to see the placards.


No. Benford (the main character) was looking at a wall of clues and working on the Mosaic case. He wouldn't be doing this is his past self hadn't flashed forward. This suggests that there's only one timeline, which means they should have been able to communicate with their past selves. But that just opens the door to paradoxes.


----------



## scsiguy72 (Nov 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> I think the 'roo was simply a homage to Lost's polar bear. Not everything weird need necessarily fit into the story arc's mythos. Hopefully the show won't take itself that seriously.


There was a billboard with a ad for Oceaninc Airlines on it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Precisely. And a kangaroo.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

robojerk said:


> So is this future set in stone?
> 
> Let's examine Sonya Walgner's (Penny from Lost) character. She is meeting this new man (love interest) in her life because of the Flashforward. If the FlashForward never happened then the boy would've never been her patient that day.
> 
> ...


I finally watched this last night. To me, the flash was always going to happen, just like me driving to work this morning was always going to happen. Sure, maybe it would have been delayed a day for some reason, but it's just an event, like the start of a radio broadcast or a tree falling in the forest. It just happened to be a global event.

I'm voting for the "set in stone" future, and I'm interested to see how they "force" things to happen. We've already seen it with the doctor and the boy's father: she has no intention of going down that path, but for some reason, she will.

On that note, the children seem to be having different visions. The little girl was asleep (last we saw) when the flash hit. She evidently talked to someone that told her "no more good days"... kids don't come up with that. And the little boy knew Olivia's name: in the flash he was probably in bed, so what did he see/experience to know it?

My guess about why some people didn't flash is that they will be dead (like Dimitri said). I think his girlfriend is lying when she says she saw their wedding: I think she saw <dramatic music> his funeral. 

This show was obviously meant to be watched on a big-ass HD TV... I could barely read the Oceanic billboard on my 27" tube. "Oceanic" was readable, but none of the rest was. Booooo.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Keen said:


> No. Benford (the main character) was looking at a wall of clues and working on the Mosaic case. He wouldn't be doing this is his past self hadn't flashed forward. This suggests that there's only one timeline, which means they should have been able to communicate with their past selves. But that just opens the door to paradoxes.


His "future self" didn't even seem aware that the "flash window" was open. No one did. If the "communicate with your past self" was possible, they would be doing it already! 

In April 2010, no one seems aware that they are being watched from the past (in 3rd person... but let's not go there), yet _everyone _knows from this first episode exactly when that window will open. I'm wondering if it's not someone herding humanity to figure something out. Show them a glimpse of their "future" when it's really just a prefab "mind movie", and let them run with it. Some people don't matter (the guy in the can), but some are really important (the main character).


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

scsiguy72 said:


> There was a billboard with a ad for Oceaninc Airlines on it.


There was?


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> There was?


Trust me, if you're watching on a 27" or smaller tube, you could have easily missed it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

martinp13 said:


> Trust me, if you're watching on a 27" or smaller tube, you could have easily missed it.


I was JOKING....


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Why am I getting the feeling that if this show stays on the air, threads about it will be at least 1/3 longer than they need to be because of people who don't read the entire thread before posting what has already been posted? The LOST threads have always been ruined by this inconsiderate behavior.

Please people - if you want your posts to be read by others (why else would you post?), then reciprocate by reading what others have already posted.


Oh, and did anyone else notice there was an Oceanic Airlines billboard in this episode?


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Oh, and did anyone else notice there was an Oceanic Airlines billboard in this episode?


Really?

And did you notice there was also an Oceanic Airlines billboard in there somwhere?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> Why am I getting the feeling that if this show stays on the air, threads about it will be at least 1/3 longer than they need to be because of people who don't read the entire thread before posting what has already been posted? The LOST threads have always been ruined by this inconsiderate behavior.
> 
> Please people - if you want your posts to be read by others (why else would you post?), then reciprocate by reading what others have already posted.
> 
> Oh, and did anyone else notice there was an Oceanic Airlines billboard in this episode?


And did anyone else notice the kangaroo?

(Well put, by the way.)


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> Oh, and did anyone else notice there was an Oceanic Airlines billboard in this episode?





Fish Man said:


> Really?
> 
> And did you notice there was also an Oceanic Airlines billboard in there somwhere?





Sparty99 said:


> And did anyone else notice the kangaroo?
> 
> (Well put, by the way.)


I did notice both of those, actually.

BUT, did you see the Oceanic Airlines billboard?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> I did notice both of those, actually.
> 
> BUT, did you see the Oceanic Airlines billboard?


Ironically enough, I did not. Or did I? I may have. I think the 14th person to mention it in the thread reminded me that I had seen it and just forgot.

(Seriously, I didn't notice it. The thing is that Lost isn't the only show that has featured Oceanic Airlines - only the most prominent, although Chuck made a claim that the Lost airliner was shot down by terrorists. It really shouldn't be that surprising that an Oceanic Airlines advertisement showed up in a new TV show.)


----------



## stark (Dec 31, 2003)

I personally think Benford is kind of a jerk. He knows he was drinking in his flash-forward and that his wife might leave him because of it.

But, he had absolutely no problem with letting her think she was a horrible person who cheated on her perfect husband.


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

martinp13 said:


> His "future self" didn't even seem aware that the "flash window" was open. No one did. If the "communicate with your past self" was possible, they would be doing it already!


Yes, that's the plot hole. Also his future self did give his past self information, he seemingly was the only person to do this actively. All those hand-written notes that his partner made came from information in his flash.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

martinp13 said:


> His "future self" didn't even seem aware that the "flash window" was open. No one did. If the "communicate with your past self" was possible, they would be doing it already!
> 
> In April 2010, no one seems aware that they are being watched from the past (in 3rd person... but let's not go there), yet _everyone _knows from this first episode exactly when that window will open. I'm wondering if it's not someone herding humanity to figure something out. Show them a glimpse of their "future" when it's really just a prefab "mind movie", and let them run with it. Some people don't matter (the guy in the can), but some are really important (the main character).


I'm going to have to go back to the book and see how they handled this. I know it was a plot point, but I can't recall the resolution/reason so many years later.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

Did anybody see all those debadged cars that were in the beginning of it? It was like we were in an alternative universe where there were no trademarked logos on cars!! what do you think it means for the show??? btw there was also an oceanic airlines billboard in one part I think.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Keen said:


> Yes, that's the plot hole. Also his future self did give his past self information, he seemingly was the only person to do this actively. All those hand-written notes that his partner made came from information in his flash.


Yeah, I would think that if I had seen a glimpse of my life at a particular time in the future, I would be eagerly anticipating that moment as it approached, and would probably be acting somewhat out of the ordinary. Not sure if I would wave to myself or something silly like that, but they seem to be going about their lives as usual.

Off the top of my head I don't recall what names or things were written on those notes, but he's going to have to discover those things independently or it will be a major plot hole.


----------



## jerrad707 (Dec 27, 2004)

Did anyone else notice the picture of Dennis Franz? I can't recall who it was that in the pic with him (one of the main characters) but is he an actor we have yet to meet in the show or some sort of homage to him? Random...


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

stark said:


> I personally think Benford is kind of a jerk. He knows he was drinking in his flash-forward and that his wife might leave him because of it.
> 
> But, he had absolutely no problem with letting her think she was a horrible person who cheated on her perfect husband.


I was surprized he didn't tell her after she confessed about the future-affair. I'm not sure I'd go as far as deciding he's a jerk, but it did seem odd that he didn't mention it at that point. If they each had a bad thing they were trying to avoid, they could work together on it and help each other.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I posted about it in my spoilers of the 18 minute preview and I was watching this on a 
"27 SD TV. (Actually I watched the spoilers with my nose pretty close to my laptop screen.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Keen said:


> Oh man, I hate it when shows do the ENHANCE, ENHANCE, ENHANCE thing on videos, I can't believe I didn't realize how awesome it was that they didn't do that here.


They didn't?

They started with a view of an entire baseball stadium, then the zoomed all the way into a single man standing in a hallway.

Z


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I watched last week at my parents house and re-watched last night at home in hi-def. 

I have to say the cinematography in this episode was pretty amazing.

But - I didn't see that damned Oceanic Airlines billboard. Do I have to watch it again?


----------



## johnmoorejohn (Sep 13, 2001)

Why weren't the hospitals busier?


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

Hey everybody look at this!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

appleye1 said:


> Hey everybody look at this!


I know you're talking about the guys in the car, but look in the background! There's an Oceanic Airlines billboard!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

On April 29, 2010, John Cho is at White Castle. He just completely blacked out.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I know you're talking about the guys in the car, but look in the background! There's an Oceanic Airlines billboard!


Then that pic isn't a photoshop fake?

Who knew?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> I* had a feeling that I would either be hooked or ready to cancel the series, but I'm still undecided. Will definitely watch at least a few more, I'm sure. It's just a significant suspension of disbelief right from the beginning. Unlike Lost, where there was always the possibility of a non-supernatural or non-sci-fi explanation of most occurrences for a long time.*
> It appears, based on Benford's vision, assuming that it's at least mostly a true vision of the future, that April 29 is going to come and go and they really won't be close to figuring out everything about what caused the "blackouts". So in that sense, the show may have a shift in focus (i.e., we'll know whether their visions come true 100%) but presumably, they'll still be working on figuring out what happened and why/how.


Spot on. I'm undecided, a rarity for me.

I'm irked that the main characters in the flash fwd act oblivious that they're being watched (OK not the correct verb). There hopefully is a segment that 'explains' the FBI boss siting in the can at the time, etc. But the writers should have at least had the show's characters comment on this obvious situation. If the FBI characters simply just raised the question as they should have and were puzzeled, it would be an indication that the writers were savvy and had some form of explanation yet to be revealed. Having trained investigators ignore this major point really causes me agita.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Dnamertz said:


> Good show, but one thing was odd. The flash forward time for everyone seemed to be Apr 29 at 10PM (L.A. time). So why was that female detective having an ultrasound at 10PM in her flash forward? Who has an ultrasound at 10PM?


She could just be in a different time zone (IOW, in another country).

They had people in London at 6 a.m. local time in the Flash Forward. They also had people blacked out at a baseball game in Detroit. The blackout was at 10 a.m. PT. Why hell is there a baseball game at 10 a.m.? But that's 1 p.m. in Detroit.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

aindik said:


> They had people in London at 6 a.m. local time in the Flash Forward. <anip> The blackout was at 10 a.m. PT. Why hell is there a baseball game at 10 a.m.? But that's 1 p.m. in Detroit.


Your time zones don't match up properly.

Z


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

zordude said:


> Your time zones don't match up properly.
> 
> Z


I think they do. I'm talking about two events. There's a) the blackout itself, and b) the time in the future that everybody saw.

Event A took place on [date unknown] at 10 a.m. for 2 minutes and 17 seconds. Event B took place on April 29, 2010 at 10 p.m. PT (6 a.m. GMT).

The two people in London were talking about what they saw, IOW, event B. The people at the baseball game was actual footage of event A.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

aindik said:


> She could just be in a different time zone (IOW, in another country).
> 
> They had people in London at 6 a.m. local time in the Flash Forward. They also had people blacked out at a baseball game in Detroit. The blackout was at 10 a.m. PT. Why hell is there a baseball game at 10 a.m.? But that's 1 p.m. in Detroit.


Just went back and rewatched the bit that refers to the distance in time. When referring to April 29, 2010 (i.e., the date of the flash forward), it was referred to as "about half a year from now" and "six months from now". That implies that the date of the blackout was sometime around October 29th. This implies that the baseball game shown was a postseason game, and likely either a League Champion Series game or a World Series game, which means that there's no way the game would be being played at 1 pm.

Now, I seriously doubt this has anything to do with any kind of clue or anything like that. It's just a bit of a continuity error that only the extreme baseball dorks would notice.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

philw1776 said:


> Spot on. I'm undecided, a rarity for me.
> 
> I'm irked that the main characters in the flash fwd act oblivious that they're being watched (OK not the correct verb). There hopefully is a segment that 'explains' the FBI boss siting in the can at the time, etc. But the writers should have at least had the show's characters comment on this obvious situation. If the FBI characters simply just raised the question as they should have and were puzzeled, it would be an indication that the writers were savvy and had some form of explanation yet to be revealed. Having trained investigators ignore this major point really causes me agita.


Can you explain why you find that irksome? The boss had to go to the can. He knew that was going to happen, and it was happening, so why not just go ahead and do what you knew you were going to do? I think I could put up with this sort of limited (2:17) pre-destiny.

Do you find it irksome because you think people would or should rebel against something like this? Is that a reason for not doing something -- for example the boss saying, "Hell no, I'm not going to take the Sports section in with me, I'll grab a book instead"?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

brermike said:


> What your suggesting doesn't make sense. If they have a flash to their future, then their past must contain the flash. They can't flash to a future where the flash never occurred. That wouldn't be their future, but rather an alternate time line.


Maybe the flash forward event coincides with the split-off alternate timeline. Perhaps the people in the initial timeline did not experience the flash forward -- they just blacked out; those who had visions actually experienced the future of the initial timeline.

Anyhow, the show is so-so (acting, mostly, plus that horrible slow-mo shot) but the discussion it elicits is great. I'll keep watching.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> A couple of thoughts (and I probably won't post many of these because I'm generally not smart enough to keep up). One, the girl who was getting the ultrasound probably wasn't focused on the fact that she was having an ultrasound at 10 PM because she was more shocked that she was pregnant in the first place. It'll probably be gone into as we get closer.


If you're at an ultrasound with a visibly round tummy, you've probably had a few days to get used to the idea by then.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

There could be events happening fairly soon that will indicate that the future is not set in stone. 


Spoiler



Just like in the book, people who saw a dismal future for themselves committed suicide, thereby changing the very future they dreaded.



If that happens (and I think it will) then an alternate timeline is the most likely explanation (otherwise people were having visions of events that may or may not happen -- take your pick, visions or flashes forward to a different timeline).


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> If you're at an ultrasound with a visibly round tummy, you've probably had a few days to get used to the idea by then.


Right, but one of the questions here is, "Why is she having an ultrasound at 10 pm?", and the woman describing her flash forward didn't mention that fact, whereas the woman *in *the flash forward didn't look overly concerned about it. What I'm saying is that the present day version of the woman didn't mention her having an ultrasound at 10 pm because she was more surprised by the fact that she was actually pregnant.

Does that make sense? I know what I'm trying to say but I'm not saying it well.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> Can you explain why you find that irksome? The boss had to go to the can. He knew that was going to happen, and it was happening, so why not just go ahead and do what you knew you were going to do? I think I could put up with this sort of limited (2:17) pre-destiny.
> 
> Do you find it irksome because you think people would or should rebel against something like this? Is that a reason for not doing something -- for example the boss saying, "Hell no, I'm not going to take the Sports section in with me, I'll grab a book instead"?


It's not that they don't rebel against it that puzzles me, but that they're experiencing a period of time that they had foreseen six months earlier, and acting as if this particular moment is nothing out of the ordinary. It's not as though they're doing something that has them so pre-occupied as to make them forget that this moment in time was approaching.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Since it's the central mystery of the show, maybe we should give them more than one episode to resolve it?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'm not expecting them to resolve it right away, I'm just thinking it should have occurred to one of the characters already.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Hunter Green said:


> If you're at an ultrasound with a visibly round tummy, you've probably had a few days to get used to the idea by then.


Another inconsistency. She was awfully round for the 19 weeks along she said she was.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Maybe on April 29, 2010, at 9:59, everyone in the world is suddenly and simultaneously stricken with selective amnesia and, for the next few minutes, they all forget about the fact that they had a vision of this moment six months prior.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Since it's the central mystery of the show, maybe we should give them more than one episode to resolve it?


No! I WANT TO KNOW NOW!!!!   

(seriously though, if this were on Fox, I probably _would_ want to know now since the show probably would get cancelled before the story got resolved. )


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> (seriously though, if this were on Fox, I probably _would_ want to know now since the show probably would get cancelled before the story got resolved. )


I think it's maybe time to let Fox off the hook for Firefly. After all, they renewed Sarah Connor for a full second season despite terrible ratings, and they did the same for Dollhouse despite even worse ratings. They seem to be the poster child for giving shows a good chance these days...


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think it's maybe time to let Fox off the hook for Firefly. After all, they renewed Sarah Connor for a full second season despite terrible ratings, and they did the same for Dollhouse despite even worse ratings. They seem to be the poster child for giving shows a good chance these days...


And they kept Arrested Development on the air for 3 years. I think it's time for the BIHF mantra to BIH.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

One major difference between the book and show, is that in the book none of the recording devices worked. So any video/audio that was being recorded showed noise for the period of the Flashforward. This was due to the famous quantum physics debate of observable indeterminacy (think of Schrodeinger's cat experiment).


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

jlb said:


> Speaking of which.....anyone else notice the Oceanic Airlines billboard?


Why does everyone keep mentioning this?

I assume it's a Lost reference.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

danterner said:


> Maybe on April 29, 2010, at 9:59, everyone in the world is suddenly and simultaneously stricken with selective amnesia and, for the next few minutes, they all forget about the fact that they had a vision of this moment six months prior.


Or maybe they'll experience a blackout a la "Butterfly Effect," and their consciousness from six months earlier takes over their present body. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

classicX said:


> Why does everyone keep mentioning this?
> 
> I assume it's a Lost reference.


Yes, Oceanic is the fictional airline in Lost.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> Yes, Oceanic is the fictional airline in Lost.


But why does everyone keep mentioning Oceanic in relation to FlashForward? Was there some sort of reference to it in this show? I haven't seen any mention of that.

Separate question: What is TCF spoiler policy with relation to the source material upon which shows are based? FlashForward is based on a book that some people have read. I assume plot points from the book should be spoilerized when raised in discussion on the thread?


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

classicX said:


> Or maybe they'll experience a blackout a la "Butterfly Effect," and their consciousness from six months earlier takes over their present body. If you've seen the movie, you know what I mean.


Don't know how the series will handle this yet, but that is exactly what happened in the novel.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

danterner said:


> But why does everyone keep mentioning Oceanic in relation to FlashForward? Was there some sort of reference to it in this show? I haven't seen any mention of that.
> 
> Separate question: What is TCF spoiler policy with relation to the source material upon which shows are based? FlashForward is based on a book that some people have read. I assume plot points from the book should be spoilerized when raised in discussion on the thread?


lol


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Anyone notice that Brannon Braga was one of the producers of this? He's one of the ones that F'ed up STTNG so I'm worried about this...

*edit, sorry, he F'ed up Voyager and Enterprise.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Also, wasn't David S Goyer the director of Batman Begins?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Did you see the billboard.......that.......uh .......Lost......uh......nevermind.....


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

danterner said:


> Separate question: What is TCF spoiler policy with relation to the source material upon which shows are based? FlashForward is based on a book that some people have read. I assume plot points from the book should be spoilerized when raised in discussion on the thread?


Tough call. I think people definitely should spoilerize anything that hasn't yet happened in the show. But I guess it depends also on how much the show is taking from the book. I haven't read the book, but I have heard that the show deviates greatly.


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

danterner said:


> Separate question: What is TCF spoiler policy with relation to the source material upon which shows are based? FlashForward is based on a book that some people have read. I assume plot points from the book should be spoilerized when raised in discussion on the thread?





appleye1 said:


> Tough call. I think people definitely should spoilerize anything that hasn't yet happened in the show. But I guess it depends also on how much the show is taking from the book. I haven't read the book, but I have heard that the show deviates greatly.


I wouldn't be bothered that much by discussion of the book, but I'm sure there would (will?) be some that are bothered. Why not spoilerize, just in case?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Also, wasn't David S Goyer the director of Batman Begins?


Writer. Christopher Nolan directed.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

appleye1 said:


> Tough call. I think people definitely should spoilerize anything that hasn't yet happened in the show. But I guess it depends also on how much the show is taking from the book. I haven't read the book, but I have heard that the show deviates greatly.


I think it depends. Someone mentioned, for example, that in the book, recording devices did not function during the "blackouts". Clearly, that doesn't spoil anything in the show. But I think that if something from the book seems likely or possible to occur at some point in the series, spoiler tags would be very considerate.

I had never even heard of the book, but I'm thinking that if it answers any questions that are already being discussed after this one episode, that should probably be spoilerized also. It could turn out differently of course, but something from the book that the show is based on is much different than someone's personal speculation.


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

danterner said:


> Maybe on April 29, 2010, at 9:59, everyone in the world is suddenly and simultaneously stricken with selective amnesia and, for the next few minutes, they all forget about the fact that they had a vision of this moment six months prior.


On another forum, someone suggested the Benford's note during the flash forward, "Who else knows?" could refer to such a thing. That would explain why he's the only one who is behaving as though he knows his past self is watching. Perhaps someone caused a mass amnesia event, and knew Benford was immune or was surrounded by evidence of it, so they sent the guy with the stars tattoo to take care of him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Seems to me, given TCF practices, that the fact the show is base don a book should be considered a spoiler.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Seems to me, given TCF practices, that the fact the show is base don a book should be considered a spoiler.


Nice, hehe

Greg


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Did anybody notice (spoilerized just in case)



Spoiler



the Oceanic Airlines billboard?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Keen said:


> On another forum, someone suggested the Benford's note during the flash forward, "Who else knows?" could refer to such a thing. That would explain why he's the only one who is behaving as though he knows his past self is watching. Perhaps someone caused a mass amnesia event, and knew Benford was immune or was surrounded by evidence of it, so they sent the guy with the stars tattoo to take care of him.


I guess you could consider the fact that he was in the room with his wall of clues at the time of the flash forward as behaving as though he was aware that it was that time. I.e., sending himself a message.


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

Like others have mentioned, I think during the flashforward, the persons consciousness from the past basically takes over. So they can't really directly pass information back to themselves. This would sort of be like amnesia for 2 minutes 17 seconds. 

We'll just have to see how it plays out. I expect it to be brought up in the show since it is brought up in the book. They can't cram everything into the pilot.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

brermike said:


> Like others have mentioned, I think during the flashforward, the persons consciousness from the past basically takes over. So they can't really directly pass information back to themselves. This would sort of be like amnesia for 2 minutes 17 seconds.


It's more than that though, it's a flashforward, like a memory but it felt like they were there at the time. Not controlling it per-se, they had whatever motivation they will have in the future to do whatever they will be doing, but no memory as to why (i.e., the guy with the corkboard, he knew what feelings he had, and knew what was on the board, but not why he put them there or what they were there for). While the consciousness was there, he certainly couldn't control what was going on.

Greg


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

brermike said:


> Like others have mentioned, I think during the flashforward, the persons consciousness from the past basically takes over. So they can't really directly pass information back to themselves. This would sort of be like amnesia for 2 minutes 17 seconds.


First, how does that matter for guy who is sitting in the men's room, for example? He still knew the flash was coming, exactly when it would be, and he decided to go have a sit with the newspaper anyway, _before_ the flash started.

Second, none of the people we saw in the FF seemed to be all-of-a-sudden shocked to be transported 6 months into the future: if they past consciousness had taken over wouldn't they be acting surprised and wondering what the heck was going on for most if not all the 2:17? Yet they all continued on normally, as if they weren't even aware that they were being "watched". And, they all had their "future" memories; for example the wife knew the name of her new boyfriend, whom she'd never even met six months ago.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

madscientist said:


> First, how does that matter for guy who is sitting in the men's room, for example? He still knew the flash was coming, exactly when it would be, and he decided to go have a sit with the newspaper anyway, _before_ the flash started.


When you gotta go, you gotta go!


----------



## SteveInNC (Jun 23, 2005)

Just speculation, but one way that many science fiction books avoid the noted causality issues is that time is thought to branch at every decision point. As such, the future for the people that did flashforward is not necessarily the future that they will now experience. That was another branch. This would also mean that they _could/can_ change their futures by making different decisions.

Their futures as such may be similar to what they saw, depending on how many different decisions are made in the interim along this path.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

aindik said:


> Another inconsistency. She was awfully round for the 19 weeks along she said she was.


Yeah, but that's common for TV, pregnancy always becomes noticeable too quick, visible too quick, labor happens too quick, and the baby is always born several months old. I wouldn't read into it _yet_.



Keen said:


> That would explain why he's the only one who is behaving as though he knows his past self is watching.


I think he would have left himself a lot more than that, a lot more overt, but it's a good thought. The more I think about it, the more I think the fact that no one (so far as we know) shows any sign during The Big Moment that they remember that they saw that moment isn't an oversight, but a plot point.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

We watched this last night. Not sure it lives up to the hype but it was interesting.

I might be smeeking as I haven't read all of the thread, but does anyone else think the flashfoward date in Europe has any significance? I'm wondering of it's significance in that is the date Hitler committed suicide, or it being Walpurgis Night (Walpurgisnacht).


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

janry said:


> We watched this last night. Not sure it lives up to the hype but it was interesting.
> 
> I might be smeeking as I haven't read all of the thread, but does anyone else think the flashfoward date in Europe has any significance? I'm wondering of it's significance in that is the date Hitler committed suicide, or it being Walpurgis Night (Walpurgisnacht).


I doubt it. I think the significance is that it will be a Thursday night near the end of the TV season.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

madscientist said:


> First, how does that matter for guy who is sitting in the men's room, for example? He still knew the flash was coming, exactly when it would be, and he decided to go have a sit with the newspaper anyway, _before_ the flash started.
> 
> Second, none of the people we saw in the FF seemed to be all-of-a-sudden shocked to be transported 6 months into the future: if they past consciousness had taken over wouldn't they be acting surprised and wondering what the heck was going on for most if not all the 2:17? Yet they all continued on normally, as if they weren't even aware that they were being "watched". And, they all had their "future" memories; for example the wife knew the name of her new boyfriend, whom she'd never even met six months ago.


Agreed. I don't think they said that it was as though they were _living_ the flashforward, just that it was much more vivid than a dream. Still, the fact that Benford made it a point that he was in the room with the wall could be interpreted as making sure that he would see all of the clues in his vision. But if he was obsessed with it and there all the time anyway, it could be seen as just going on with his wife, oblivious to the fact that it was the time of the flash.

Also, didn't the boss guy say (lying, instead of saying that he was in the can) that he was in a meeting? Would it be common to be in a meeting at 10:00 pm? I guess law enforcement type jobs aren't exactly 9-5. And I guess I associate meetings and newspapers with mornings for some reason.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

We just watched this. Enjoyed it and interested to see where it goes. It struck me as a little odd that the main character and his partner were put in charge of the three-person operation - so in a global event like this, three average FBI field agents are put in charge? 

Also, we recorded the Friday night version - at every commercial break, there were various promos saying things like "pay attention to the kangaroo - find out more at ABC.com" It was actually kind of annoying. Did they do that on Thursday as well?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

vman said:


> We just watched this. Enjoyed it and interested to see where it goes. It struck me as a little odd that the main character and his partner were put in charge of the three-person operation - so in a global event like this, three average FBI field agents are put in charge?
> 
> Also, we recorded the Friday night version - at every commercial break, there were various promos saying things like "pay attention to the kangaroo - find out more at ABC.com" It was actually kind of annoying. Did they do that on Thursday as well?


I sorta thought the same thing, but I'm guessing the same sort of thing happened all over. I didn't get the impression that they were leading this thing for the entire FBI.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

vman said:


> Also, we recorded the Friday night version - at every commercial break, there were various promos saying things like "pay attention to the kangaroo - find out more at ABC.com" It was actually kind of annoying. Did they do that on Thursday as well?


I didn't see any of that, tho there was another kangaroo shot in the upcoming previews.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

During the end credits there is a Sprint keyword, which you can text to 22288 and get bonus content. The keywords can also be unscrambled to make a sentence, blah blah.

The first episode keyword was "IF". The bonus content was


Spoiler



I saw him in my flash forward - Charlie, in ep 102


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

martinp13 said:


> The bonus content was





Spoiler



Be sure to drink your Ovaltine



FYP.


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

Hunter Green said:


> The more I think about it, the more I think the fact that no one (so far as we know) shows any sign during The Big Moment that they remember that they saw that moment isn't an oversight, but a plot point.


You have more faith in the writers than I do. Brannon Braga's been writing crap for over a decade at this point (Star Treks Voyager and Enterprise). Goyer worked on The Dark Knight, but his previous work isn't consistently good.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Keen said:


> You have more faith in the writers than I do. Brannon Braga's been writing crap for over a decade at this point (Star Treks Voyager and Enterprise). Goyer worked on The Dark Knight, but his previous work isn't consistently good.


Because of his duties on 24, on a different network, Braga's not allowed by contract to be a hands-on producer with Flashforward. That's why he gets Executive Producer credit. I believe Goyer's showrunner.

Greg


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

appleye1 said:


> Tough call. I think people definitely should spoilerize anything that hasn't yet happened in the show. But I guess it depends also on how much the show is taking from the book. I haven't read the book, but I have heard that the show deviates greatly.


I read the book several years ago and just jogged my memory the other day via the extensive Wikipedia summary. There are significant differences already, and I expect the show will only be loosly based on the book by its central theme. Major book spoilers follow...


Spoiler



In the book, the flashforward is actually 21 years and not 6 months. The main character is a physicist called Lloyd Simcoe, the same as Jack Davenport's character in the show (the father of the boy in the hospital and the man Olivia seemingly is together with in her vision).

They reveal very early on that the event was triggered by a Large Hadron Collider experiment, which they try and reproduce and it fails because they didn't replicate a neutrino pulse that happened at the same time. It takes them 21 years until they can detect the same kind of neutrino pulse and fully replicate the experiment. As it turns out, the date coincides with the flashforward vision everyone saw. The flashforward links consecutive occurrences of the experiment + the neutrino pulse.

As it turns out in the end (I kid you not), during the second flashforward, almost nobody has a vision, because the next one jumps forward a billion years and everyone is dead except for a few people involved in an immortality project.


I really think things are going to turn out a lot different in the TV show. Still, major book spoilers, so read at your own peril.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

brermike said:


> Like others have mentioned, I think during the flashforward, the persons consciousness from the past basically takes over. So they can't really directly pass information back to themselves. This would sort of be like amnesia for 2 minutes 17 seconds.
> 
> .


I don't buy the present conciousness flash fwd idea, otherwise why did the surgeon wife refer to the future lover as "Honey" where in the present she had yet to meet him. That hypothethis does not fit the facts.


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

philw1776 said:


> I don't buy the present conciousness flash fwd idea, otherwise why did the surgeon wife refer to the future lover as "Honey" where in the present she had yet to meet him. That hypothethis does not fit the facts.


True. I stand corrected.


----------



## Solver (Feb 17, 2005)

I can see some government agency testing to disprove the dreams actually represent everyone's future. All they would need to do is take some of the future dreamers and shoot them, behead them and burn the bodies. No more future for them.
Of course maybe they can't be killed.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Solver said:


> I can see some government agency testing to disprove the dreams actually represent everyone's future. All they would need to do is take some of the future dreamers and shoot them, behead them and burn the bodies. No more future for them.
> Of course maybe they can't be killed.


Given the way bureaucracy works, I doubt that will be necessary...long before the paperwork gets finished, somebody will have murdered a dreamer because of something they saw in their own dream. Or killed themself.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

busyba said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ROFL... Might as well have been!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

brermike said:


> Also, the creators have said that we will catch up to April 29, 2010 this season. Coincidence that this is a Thursday night? I think not





That Don Guy said:


> I wonder if the Flash Forward date - April 29, 2010 - is significant.
> 
> The first thing I thought was, "That's going to be the season finale date - in which case, somebody doesn't have enough confidence in the show to think ABC would want to air it in May." Also note that 4/29/10 is a Thursday.
> 
> -- Don


Thursday, April 29, 2010 is the first day of May sweeps, so they definitely have confidence that the show will be around that long and will be successful enough to be airing during May (sweeps).


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

Solver said:


> I can see some government agency testing to disprove the dreams actually represent everyone's future. All they would need to do is take some of the future dreamers and shoot them, behead them and burn the bodies. No more future for them.
> Of course maybe they can't be killed.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Given the way bureaucracy works, I doubt that will be necessary...long before the paperwork gets finished, somebody will have murdered a dreamer because of something they saw in their own dream. Or killed themself.


Now see, that's an interesting point. IF everyone that didn't have a FF dies before that date, then everyone that DID have one will be alive on that date. Surely they have to explain that over the course of the show... it's just too cut and dried to leave hanging. It makes me think that those who didn't have a FF aren't guaranteed to die, but then I don't know what "no FF" means.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Liked the show.

One observation. Maybe it's been noted already (didn't read 6 pages)...but why doesn't anyone seem conscious, in their FFs, that they are experiencing their FF?

I mean, they knew it was coming, right? All the FFs are business as usual, with no nod to fact that they are doing what they knew they would be doing for the last 6 months.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I don't think that having a sonogram at 10:00 pm is "business as usual", or having a business meeting at 6:00 am in London is "business as usual".


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

bicker said:


> I don't think that having a sonogram at 10:00 pm is "business as usual", or having a business meeting at 6:00 am in London is "business as usual".


That's not what I meant. Bad choice of words on my part.

Just that there's no recognition in their faces or actions that suggest they are experiencing what they expected for the last 6 months. i'm sure i would be all  or  and possibly even 

besides, being a global event...you'd think this date would come to be a huge spectacle on the day that it finally arrives.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> Just that there's no recognition in their faces or actions that suggest they are experiencing what they expected for the last 6 months.


What makes you think that they will be experiencing what they expected?



MonsterJoe said:


> besides, being a global event...you'd think this date would come to be a huge spectacle on the day that it finally arrives.


I think (1) we haven't seen everything yet, and (2) we don't know everything yet, and (3) there is a limit to how much time the show should waste on making points that really don't feed the story they are trying to tell.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> One observation. Maybe it's been noted already (didn't read 6 pages)...but why doesn't anyone seem conscious, in their FFs, that they are experiencing their FF?


Not only has it been observed before, I suspect it's going to be the center of most of the discussions on the threads for this show for many months to come.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> Not only has it been observed before, I suspect it's going to be the center of most of the discussions on the threads for this show for many months to come.


Unless the show addresses it sooner rather than later, which they really should since once the initial shock wears off, it's something that should very much be on the characters' minds...


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

bicker said:


> I don't think that having a sonogram at 10:00 pm is "business as usual", or having a business meeting at 6:00 am in London is "business as usual".


No, but the woman did say that she didn't know why they were meeting so early. Considering the woman was shocked by her being pregnant the 10 pm sonogram probably wasn't the biggest shock. I'm guessing they'll address the lateness of the sonogram at some point.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> No, but the woman did say that she didn't know why they were meeting so early.


That woman in the current time didn't know why; we don't know what that woman knew in the future.



Sparty99 said:


> I'm guessing they'll address the lateness of the sonogram at some point.


Maybe.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

JYoung said:


> And I almost fell down on my knees and thanked God when they didn't zoom in on the grainy video of the mystery "Suspect 0" and instantly "digitally reconstruct "a perfect picture of his face.


There's still time. 

I noticed that too, and was relieved. They zoomed a little, but didn't enhance the resolution. I'm going to be seriously dismayed if in an upcoming episode they send it to the tech department and come back with a perfect image.



cheesesteak said:


> I have a feeling that the little girl's "dream" will somehow be important.


Why...just because they named the episode after it?



firerose818 said:


> I had one at 2:30AM during my pregnancy when I had some cramping at 18 weeks. It could be a similar situation - at the emergency room.


I don't know, everyone seemed awfully calm and happy. It could be just that she's a busy FBI agent and they were willing to work her in at an odd time. Dunno.



martinp13 said:


> Trust me, if you're watching on a 27" or smaller tube, you could have easily missed it.


I was watching on a 12" laptop and saw it!



jeff125va said:


> Also, didn't the boss guy say (lying, instead of saying that he was in the can) that he was in a meeting? Would it be common to be in a meeting at 10:00 pm? I guess law enforcement type jobs aren't exactly 9-5. And I guess I associate meetings and newspapers with mornings for some reason.


He was at the *work* can, so it would seem believable that he could be in a meeting then, too. We know he was at the office.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

If it was 10 P.M. PST, then a good portion of the east coast and Europe were asleep. They need to establish what the sleepers experienced in their flash. Some should remember just a few seconds of just waking up.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Robin said:


> I noticed that too, and was relieved. They zoomed a little, but didn't enhance the resolution. I'm going to be seriously dismayed if in an upcoming episode they send it to the tech department and come back with a perfect image.


By the same token, I would be disappointed if they don't come up with a better albeit not perfect image. There are means by a video can be analyzed more fully to put together a composite image that is better than any *single *frame of the video.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Plus if the video happens to be actually analog film (unlikely but faintly plausible) you can get more resolution by going back to the original.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Unless the show addresses it sooner rather than later, which they really should since once the initial shock wears off, it's something that should very much be on the characters' minds...


I seriously hope that the characters _ask_ the question soon -- if they don't, that'll be a show-killer. But I won't blink at all if no one gets anything resembling an _answer_ until April 29th at either 9:55pm or 10:02:18pm.


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

Hunter Green said:


> Plus if the video happens to be actually analog film (unlikely but faintly plausible) you can get more resolution by going back to the original.


I assumed that it was an HD camera that was filming the game. I could see one of those having that level of detail without mucking around with much image enhancement.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Robin said:


> I was watching on a 12" laptop and saw it!


You might still have been watching the episode in a higher-than-SD resolution, which would have made the sign clearer, even if smaller.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> You might still have been watching the episode in a higher-than-SD resolution, which would have made the sign clearer, even if smaller.


And she was probably closer to the laptop than most of us are to our TVs.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> And she was probably closer to the laptop than most of us are to our TVs.


Inconceivable!


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

You keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means!

Ok, as luck would have it I'm at the laptop and (half) watching TV on a 27" CRT. By my highly scientific thumb-to-pinky measuring system I have determined that the laptop is indeed, effectively larger.

I take it back.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Robin said:


> You keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means!


I don't think YOU know what it means, in context. It's a line from "The Princess Bride." The character, Vizzini, kept saying it. Someone earlier on quoted the phrase, "So, clearly I cannot drink the wine in the glass in front of me," or something like that. This is also from that movie, and Rob was playing on it.

...And I just remembered that the "cannot drink" line wasn't even in THIS thread, it was in the thread for the next episode, "White to Play," so it is a distant reference.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> I don't think YOU know what it means, in context. It's a line from "The Princess Bride." The character, Vizzini, kept saying it. Someone earlier on quoted the phrase, "So, clearly I cannot drink the wine in the glass in front of me," or something like that. This is also from that movie, and Rob was playing on it.


She fully understands what it means, evidenced by her quoting what Westley (or in that scene, the Dread Pirate Roberts) said next in the scene. As a fan of The Princess Bride, you should have keyed onto that fact.

Greg


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

gchance said:


> She fully understands what it means, evidenced by her quoting what Westley (or in that scene, the Dread Pirate Roberts) said next in the scene. As a fan of The Princess Bride, you should have keyed onto that fact.
> 
> Greg


The line was Inigo's, not Westley's. He says it after Vizzini says that it's "inconcievable" that Westley is still scaling the cliff even after they cut the rope.

As a fan of The Princess Bride, you should have known that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

You people are all just so inconceivable!


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

You keep using that wo. . . 






The depth of that line is what makes it so hilarious.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

gchance said:


> She fully understands what it means, evidenced by her quoting what Westley (or in that scene, the Dread Pirate Roberts) said next in the scene. As a fan of The Princess Bride, you should have keyed onto that fact.


Thank you for defending my Princess Bride cred.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Anybody want a peanut?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bicker said:


> By the same token, I would be disappointed if they don't come up with a better albeit not perfect image. There are means by a video can be analyzed more fully to put together a composite image that is better than any *single *frame of the video.


From what I saw of that video, there was nothing usable. The compositing you describe needs some detail to work with - in that video, there was none. They got what they could from it (his or her height) but beyond that you couldn't even tell the body type.

I am always annoyed when on CSI they are able to take an image and get a perfect picture of someone's face reflected off of a mirror that happens to be reflected off of an eyeball.

From an ATM camera.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

gchance said:


> She fully understands what it means, evidenced by her quoting what Westley (or in that scene, the Dread Pirate Roberts) said next in the scene. As a fan of The Princess Bride, you should have keyed onto that fact.
> 
> Greg


As you wish!

(Actually, I took it at face value, NOT as a quote. Boy was I embarrassed when I realized that!) And it was Inigo that said it, but I have already proved my Princess Bride fallibility, so nevermind.

You seem a decent fellow.

I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance (gchance) happen to have six fingers on your right hand?


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

These last few posts just made me LOL...


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

busyba said:


> The line was Inigo's, not Westley's. He says it after Vizzini says that it's "inconcievable" that Westley is still scaling the cliff even after they cut the rope.
> 
> As a fan of The Princess Bride, you should have known that.


Clearly.



Church AV Guy said:


> As you wish!
> 
> (Actually, I took it at face value, NOT as a quote. Boy was I embarrassed when I realized that!) And it was Inigo that said it, but I have already proved my Princess Bride fallibility, so nevermind.
> 
> ...












I got 88% on the Facebook quiz. I lose.

Greg


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

mtnagel said:


> Guess I'm alone in feeling that this was kind of hokey/cheesy.


Nope, it was definitely a little cheesy. The daughter's acting was particularly bad and lots of the set-up (suicide averted! dead daughter returns to life! happy couple's marriage torn apart! FBI guy likely dead!) are hokey.



atrac said:


> What do you guys think? Am I on to something or just have way too much free time (or both?).


I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter! :up:



mrdazzo7 said:


> I think this is gonna be my main problem with the show--it seems immediately paradoxical.


This, a million times over. I have a very hard time turning my brain off for time travel stories and I have yet to meet a time travel story that really works. The closest seems to be the time turner from Harry Potter, but even that has some holes.



wprager said:


> Do you find it irksome because you think people would or should rebel against something like this?


Yes. I really wanted Ralph Fiennes to reject the friendship bracelet. And I think he wanted to as well. Or not. He was torn. Part of him wanted to reject it to prove that he could change the future. But, another part of him wants to solve the mystery and he is wearing the bracelet while investigating and having more knowledge. I wanted him to reject it in a "your not the boss of me" type way, giving his flashforward the finger.

All-in-all I am interested by the pilot and will watch the next episode or two in spite of the hokey. Although, if the discussion threads are just non-stop Lost references and comparisons I won't be visiting them much!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

classicX said:


> From what I saw of that video, there was nothing usable.


Look more closely; the person turned. In such cases, there is always something that can be done to interpolate some finer detail. It should definitely not end up with a perfect picture, but there should be (have been) a cleaned-up picture with a bit more detail.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Zevida said:


> Yes. I really wanted Ralph Fiennes to reject the friendship bracelet.


But you just know that's not going to happen because they could never afford Ralph Fiennes.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bicker said:


> Look more closely; the person turned. In such cases, there is always something that can be done to interpolate some finer detail. It should definitely not end up with a perfect picture, but there should be (have been) a cleaned-up picture with a bit more detail.


Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but when he / she turned, there was no detail in the face, nothing to use to interpolate.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If the detail was already there, there wouldn't be any need for interpolation. Interpolation _adds_ detail.

I've been trying to think of a good analogy for the mathematics involved, and haven't come up with anything. The best (admittedly bad) analogy I've thought of is a digital clock, with the minutes and seconds blocked. Based on the turning of the hours, you can interpolate detail about the minutes and seconds that are obscured.

Maybe someone who's better with analogies this morning can come up with one that is more on target for you.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Zevida said:


> Yes. I really wanted Ralph Fiennes to reject the friendship bracelet. And I think he wanted to as well. Or not. He was torn. Part of him wanted to reject it to prove that he could change the future. But, another part of him wants to solve the mystery and he is wearing the bracelet while investigating and having more knowledge. I wanted him to reject it in a "your not the boss of me" type way, giving his flashforward the finger.


I agree that he wanted to reject it, but not why. He couldn't reject it because his daughter would be heartbroken.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bicker said:


> If the detail was already there, there wouldn't be any need for interpolation. Interpolation _adds_ detail.
> 
> I've been trying to think of a good analogy for the mathematics involved, and haven't come up with anything. The best (admittedly bad) analogy I've thought of is a digital clock, with the minutes and seconds blocked. Based on the turning of the hours, you can interpolate detail about the minutes and seconds that are obscured.
> 
> Maybe someone who's better with analogies this morning can come up with one that is more on target for you.


I understand fully what interpolation is, but it has to be based on known data points.

It's what they used when filming the matrix with those amazing "camera moves around the action" shots, as well as animation. Your brain actually does it unconsciously. For example, when your view of an object is partially obstructed but what each eye can see overlaps, your brain not only merges the images, but uses known data to perceive the objects depth.

My point is, there has to be something there to interpolate. A shadow. A mark. In the clip I saw, there was zero data - it was as if he was wearing a flesh-toned mask. Then again, we haven't seen the whole clip.

Also, it is a TV show, so I'm sure they'll come up with something that is technically impossible, just like CSI.

I can't tell you how many calls we get at my office asking us to enhance some license plate to get a number thinking that we can do what they do on TV.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Yes. I really wanted Ralph Fiennes to reject the friendship bracelet. And I think he wanted to as well. Or not. He was torn. Part of him wanted to reject it to prove that he could change the future. But, another part of him wants to solve the mystery and he is wearing the bracelet while investigating and having more knowledge. I wanted him to reject it in a "your not the boss of me" type way, giving his flashforward the finger.





Spoiler



Which is exactly what he did by throwing the bracelet in the fire.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what he did by throwing the bracelet in the fire.


I do not remember him doing that. Did he do it in the first episode?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I do not remember him doing that. Did he do it in the first episode?


Can't remember which episode it was. Must have been the second. Sorry for the spoiler if you haven't watched it yet. Didn't realize this was the thread for the first episode until now.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

I'm REALLY confused to why people in this thread are thinking the flash forwards were viewed in the third person by the people who had them.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

How about editing it so you quit spoiling it for the rest of us?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Robin said:


> How about editing it so you quit spoiling it for the rest of us?


Done. Sorry.  Ilana needs to edit the quote in her post as well.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Thanks guys, I appreciate it!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tewcewl said:


> I'm REALLY confused to why people in this thread are thinking the flash forwards were viewed in the third person by the people who had them.


Because that's the way they showed the flashes to us. There is no evidence that the flashes were viewed differently by the characters than what was shown to us as the viewers.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Because that's the way they showed the flashes to us. There is no evidence that the flashes were viewed differently by the characters than what was shown to us as the viewers.


I can't point to anything specific, but I vaguely recollect that the dialogue gave me the impression that the FFs were seen in the first person by the people having them, as opposed to the third person as we the viewers see them.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> I can't point to anything specific, but I vaguely recollect that the dialogue gave me the impression that the FFs were seen in the first person by the people having them, as opposed to the third person as we the viewers see them.


They showed us both first person and third person camera angles during the flashes. It's possible that the third person angles are just for the viewers' benefits, but I don't remember anything in the dialogue pointing to that.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> They showed us both first person and third person camera angles during the flashes. It's possible that the third person angles are just for the viewers' benefits, but I don't remember anything in the dialogue pointing to that.


Ditto. Hence my confusion.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> They showed us both first person and third person camera angles during the flashes. It's possible that the third person angles are just for the viewers' benefits, but I don't remember anything in the dialogue pointing to that.


Why would there be anything in the dialogue about something that was just for the viewers' benefit? People normally experience events in the first person, so they wouldn't talk about that. The fact that there wasn't any dialogue regarding that is an indication that only we saw things in the third person, like we normally see things in the third person in shows.

The reason sometimes they switched to first person for short periods was to show us specifically what the character was looking at. If they did all the visions entirely in first person, or the entire show for that matter, it would be way too confusing as to who was doing what. So the default is to use third person, but first person can be used to highlight something being looked at once it is established who the first person is for by showing that person in third person.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BitbyBlit said:


> Why would there be anything in the dialogue about something that was just for the viewers' benefit?


"Huh, isn't it odd that I'm seeing this from my own perspective, yet you, the viewer, can see me as well?" There, was that so difficult? _I _should be a Hollywood writer! Better than _these _bozos, always leaving important stuff out!


----------



## firerose818 (Jul 21, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Done. Sorry.  Ilana needs to edit the quote in her post as well.


I haven't been back to this thread, but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and why I might need to edit something?


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I finally started watching this last night... it was pretty interesting. I enjoyed the Oceanic Airlines billboard in the scene with the FBI guys on the stakeout. "Perfect Safety Record"!


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

Just watched the first episode. Really liked it. 

Forget all the paradoxes that bother everyone - the one thing that bothered me was that EVERYONE seemed to have a time/date reference in their flash forward. Come on - that's silly. How often do you look at a clock? How often do you look at a calendar? 

Oh - and yeah - I too found the slow motion running to be cheese.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

firerose818 said:


> I haven't been back to this thread, but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and why I might need to edit something?


Sorry. I accidentally typed your name when I saw Zevida's avatar for some reason.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

mostman said:


> Forget all the paradoxes that bother everyone - the one thing that bothered me was that EVERYONE seemed to have a time/date reference in their flash forward. Come on - that's silly. How often do you look at a clock? How often do you look at a calendar?


It really only turns out to be a few people, and it's a handy coincidence that a few of the first people to talk about their visions are amongst those people. Most of the flashforwards don't include a time or date, but it only takes a few to confirm that the visions are from the same time.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I was SO hoping this wouldn't be a lost remake... <Sigh>


----------



## marrone (Oct 11, 2001)

I tend to look at a clock (or watch) quite often, actually. I actually feel naked if I don't have my watch on.

Considering the syfy-ness (sorry, couldn't resist) nature of the show, they have to take liberties. Having the main characters reference a clock seems to be a small one.

Besides, of the billions of people that had visions, certainly a few of them would be looking at a clock. Or start of a show at the exact time, etc.

-Mike


----------



## HoldenBanky (Oct 25, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Because that's the way they showed the flashes to us. There is no evidence that the flashes were viewed differently by the characters than what was shown to us as the viewers.


A.D.A. Vance told us he knew some sports scores. We saw him on the john from high above, if that was his view it is unlikely he could see the newsprint.

Sorry to resurrect the old thread.

Just watched the first episode last night.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But you just know that's not going to happen because they could never afford Ralph Fiennes.


Oops, I missed this! Yes, I meant Joesph of course.  Joseph is way hotter anyway.

I still haven't watched any more episodes, though I'm saving them up.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> I was SO hoping this wouldn't be a lost remake... <Sigh>


And I was so hoping it would be, so one of us is clearly destined to be disappointed. Glad that it is turning out that that won't be me.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

atrac said:


> the guy from "Glory,"





atrac said:


> So would the head agent guy from "Glory"


He wasn't in Glory.


----------

