# Under the Dome S01E03 "Manhunt" 7-8-13



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

This show is really running off the rails. I agree with Alan Sepinwall's review of this episode.

http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/review-under-the-dome-manhunt-under-and-out

Episode 2 was a big misstep, but one the show could have recovered from. "Manhunt," though, continued all the stupid things from last week and added more. There's absolutely zero urgency from any of these people to figure out how they're going to survive inside this thing with limited supplies of food and water. There's barely any urgency about finding ways out, for that matter, except from characters who are crazy and/or chained underground in a bomb shelter. The dome seemingly makes people crazy  which thus far is just an excuse for contrived, clumsy melodrama designed to distract both the citizens and the audience from the actual problems created by the dome  so I suppose it's possible it's also pacified everyone into a "Don't worry, be happy, crack a joke about the dwindling bacon supply" attitude, but there's been no suggestion that's the case. The characters are either bland (Deputy Linda, Julia, Joe), cartoonishly evil (Junior, this new jerk Carter) or played by an actor who deserves much, much better material (Big Jim).


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

I'll give it one more episode.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

FFwded thru most of the Barbie/redhead/city council guy stuff. Watched the young kid and his party bit and the walk thru the tunnels. It seems the only smart ones are the kids and one is hidden in a bomb shelter. At least in the book a couple of the adults had it together too. Not sure how much more I will devote to this.


----------



## tony touch (Jul 16, 2004)

I haven't been sucked in by this, though I normally enjoy King's adaptations.

Has anyone here read the book? If so, should we stay tuned for better episodes/plotlines going forward?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Many of us have read the book. By now, in the book I was sucked in.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

tony touch said:


> Has anyone here read the book? If so, should we stay tuned for better episodes/plotlines going forward?


This is a trick, right? Someone posts an innocent answer and then the spoiler Nazis jump on us with 50 screaming posts--even if the answer is in spoiler tags.


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

I'll say this, without divulging spoilers.

There is no tangent between book and TV Show anymore. They really diverged after Episode 2. As "betts4" said, in the book, by now, "I was sucked in to the narrative".

This show has just about lost me, and next week, I am giving-up if it does not pick-up.

There is no urgency, AND the characters are acting in completely STUPID ways.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

stellie93 said:


> This is a trick, right? Someone posts an innocent answer and then the spoiler Nazis jump on us with 50 screaming posts--even if the answer is in spoiler tags.


the town is not in a dome

the rest of the world is in a hallow sphere, but the sphere has a little dent in it and then town is OUTSIDE the sphere in the dent

that's the big twist in the end


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

This show is getting worse. Pilot was up-and-down, but showed potential. Ep 2 was disappointing, Ep 3 was even more so. I'd be tempted to cut the cord on it, but what else is there to watch?


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

Agreed with everyone else.

I liked the pilot. Episode 2 wasn't great. Episode 3 was not good. 
I really like the premise, so I think unless it gets REALLY bad, i'm in it for at least the whole season. 

But, I've been watching this in the media room so far. If next week is bad, it'll get demoted to a smaller TV (unless my kids still want to watch it).


----------



## Odds Bodkins (Jun 7, 2006)

The lady who plays Julia Shumway, Rachelle Lefevre, is the worst actor on TV, perhaps ever.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I'm still enjoying it. Characters are interesting to watch. And there is still a mystery of the dome.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm on the fence about it. Yeah, the characters are stupid but so are people. People don't plan for the future. Still, there must be more than a few "preppers" in a rural Maine town like Chester's Mills, and it would be more interesting to see what they're up to. Instead we focus on a crazy deputy who runs around in the forest and then just unceremoniously dies before we understand any of the basis for his craziness.

I do hope the whole Junior/Hostage thing gets wrapped up soon since there is no reason for us to see ten minutes of the same scenes being re-enacted in every episode. She'd better stab him with those scissors next episode. 

I also think we're seeing the effects of "let's do season 2"-itis in how slowly and stupidly everything is progressing. The initial media coverage of the show acted like this was a fixed 13-episode miniseries, but apparently the show runners have mapped out two additional seasons. This does not bode well for a taut storyline.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Despite my bashing if it, I kept saying I was enjoying it so I'd keep watching. Zero enjoyment this week. 

It's been said here already. All of the adults are acting like the dome doesn't exist. They are all tied up in their soap opera dramas. The kids are reacting better. Trying to get out or having end of the world parties. 

And on top of it all, instead of exploring psychology or attacking the dome, we get a manhunt in a woods that can't possibly coexist in the same space as the town, the river and the mill. 

This show is now week to week for me.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Why would a cement plant have a labyrinth of deep tunnels underneath?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> Why would a cement plant have a labyrinth of deep tunnels underneath?


Because the steep descent into blackness is a metaphor for something. (The quality of the episodes, perhaps?)

I don't normally care for shows that start _in media res_, as I think of it as a bit of a writer's crutch, but I think this series could have benefitted from it. Show us a glimpse of where we are headed right at the start, to help make this preliminary stuff more endurable as we wonder "how did they get to that point they showed in the opening scenes?" I agree that right now the characters are not acting with the sense of urgency and panic they should be if they were more true-to-life. I assume that's because the writers are trying to establish a baseline. Problem is, baseline is boring and, in this case, frustrating for the viewer.

Other quibbles:

"How many matches do you have left?"
"Only one. Let's waste it standing around talking."
"Yeah, okay."

Plus, I can't think of anyone I know that actually carries a box of matches around with them, when they are just out and about. That was fortunate she had them.

Another frustrating moment (from the prior episode, but if I'm thread-crapping it might as well be diarrhea) - Barbie is shown as being smart enough to consider that things might get so bad that it gets to a point where cigarettes are used as currency. So he ups his request from one pack to three. Three? Yep, that should do it.


----------



## wouldworker (Sep 7, 2004)

I'm out. The first three episodes remind me of the first three seasons of Lost. The first one was good and drew you in, the second wasn't as good as the first but still showed promise, and the third was just pointless. 

I forget who got jumped all over for commenting on how in-your-face the two moms things is, but he was right. "We are a same-sex couple." "... our legitimate daughter ...". I'm all for same-sex marriage. What I'm against is bad writing.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

danterner said:


> Another frustrating moment (from the prior episode, but if I'm thread-crapping it might as well be diarrhea) - Barbie is shown as being smart enough to consider that things might get so bad that it gets to a point where cigarettes are used as currency. So he ups his request from one pack to three. Three? Yep, that should do it.


I may be giving them too much credit...almost certainly, in fact...but considering he told the clerk the cigarettes weren't for him (when obviously they were), I "read" that as him stocking up because of the impending shortage and using the "currency" bit as an excuse.

But yes, either way he should have been buying cartons, not packs.


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

I still think this is good for a summer show, I mean what else is there to do, some work around the house?


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

heySkippy said:


> Why would a cement plant have a labyrinth of deep tunnels underneath?


So that we could have a pointless scene under the town?


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Another bothersome scene...
Creepy Kid is walking fast with a backpack. Reporter lady asks him where he is going. He is mysterious and walks off. Only a total jackass wouldn't expect her to follow him. Then she wastes the last match standing still having a conversation. Please. At least we saw the dome goes far underground and that other electronics explode near it (the flashlight). Now lets see how long it takes until someone connects some wires to the dome to see if it is generating any sort of electricity.

I'm sticking with it because it is about the only new TV on right now. I look forward to reading the book once this first season is done.


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

nickels said:


> Another bothersome scene...
> Creepy Kid is walking fast with a backpack. Reporter lady asks him where he is going. He is mysterious and walks off. Only a total jackass wouldn't expect her to follow him. Then she wastes the last match standing still having a conversation. Please. At least we saw the dome goes far underground and that other electronics explode near it (the flashlight). Now lets see how long it takes until someone connects some wires to the dome to see if it is generating any sort of electricity.
> 
> I'm sticking with it because it is about the only new TV on right now. I look forward to reading the book once this first season is done.


You'll be rewarded with a much better story.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

danterner said:


> "How many matches do you have left?"
> "Only one. Let's waste it standing around talking."
> "Yeah, okay."


Yeah, that was pretty lame.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

danterner said:


> Barbie is shown as being smart enough to consider that things might get so bad that it gets to a point where cigarettes are used as currency. So he ups his request from one pack to three. Three? Yep, that should do it.


I had to smile at that comment. I was stationed on board the USS Nimitz (CVN-68). Two weeks before the ship pulled into Haifa Israel I filled up a duffel bag full of patches, hats and cigarette lighters with the USS Nimitz on them. Had a great time seeing Israel on the cheap, with no extra money out of my pocket for lodging, food, drink and entertainment in the five days I went ashore. Learned my lesson two years ago on the USS Eisenhower (CVN-69).


----------



## Timbeau (May 31, 2002)

This episode sits unwatched on my DVR and based on comments here I think I'll delete it and the season pass. There's just too much better stuff to watch.

It's really too bad, the show seemed like it could have been so good. I doubt they could have ever kept it interesting for more than 8 or 10 episodes but if the writers had focused on the dome rather than stupid behavior, it could have been a really good show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Timbeau said:


> This episode sits unwatched on my DVR and based on comments here I think I'll delete it and the season pass. There's just too much better stuff to watch.
> 
> It's really too bad, the show seemed like it could have been so good. I doubt they could have ever kept it interesting for more than 8 or 10 episodes but if the writers had focused on the dome rather than stupid behavior, it could have been a really good show.


This. We are in the third episode and the only real interaction with the dome is a nut case who went what appeared to be all of 20 feet down to find it again.

The rest of the show could be watched without any idea a dome exists.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rachelle Lefevre is one fine looking woman and the only reason for me to watch another episode. This show is full of paper thin, poorly written characters. 

I held out the slightest sliver of hope that Ms. Intrepid Reporter would ask Barbie why he beat the snot out of innocent thirty year old teenager Junior. Maybe Big Jim would ask Barbie why he beat the snot out of innocent thirty year old teenager Junior. A big "No" on both counts. They both notice bruised face and knuckles and hear a cockamamie story from Junior but don't ask Barbie anything. This is why I hate some tv shows. Real people don't act this way.

I chuckled when Big Jim and Barbie were in the woods discussing Jim's sadistic football career and crazy cop dude magically appears five feet from them. How could they miss seeing him?

Has it been two days? I'm wondering where captive girl is going to the bathroom.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

BradJW said:


> I liked the pilot. Episode 2 wasn't great. Episode 3 was not good.
> I really like the premise, so I think unless it gets REALLY bad, i'm in it for at least the whole season.


same for me, couldn't have said it any better.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Maybe Big Jim would ask Barbie why he beat the snot out of innocent thirty year old teenager Junior. A big "No" on both counts. They both notice bruised face and knuckles and hear a cockamamie story from Junior but don't ask Barbie anything.


And instead Big Jim gives Barbie a gun and hangs out alone with him out in the woods.

I also love the fact that it is the City Council's duty to lead manhunts for armed and dangerous fugitives.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

I was also a little sad to see Earl, the "Saving Grace" angel, playing the part of a small town bigot.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

danterner said:


> "How many matches do you have left?"
> "Only one. Let's waste it standing around talking."
> "Yeah, okay."


Drove me nuts. The last match literally burned out as they were talking. D'oh! No one, repeat, no one, is that stupid in real life.


wouldworker said:


> I forget who got jumped all over for commenting on how in-your-face the two moms things is, but he was right. "We are a same-sex couple." "... our legitimate daughter ...". I'm all for same-sex marriage. What I'm against is bad writing.


Yeezus, was this ever in your face. "Take you out of the moment" in your face.

It's funny, I was just reading a Ken Levine blog post on "Writing Good Dialogue". In it he gives some tips on how to make TV dialogue sound realistic, and not stilted.

The writers of UTD should read his article.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

astrohip said:


> The last match literally burned out as they were talking. D'oh!


Due to time constraints, the following dialog had been cut earlier: "Should we look for something else to burn before we run out of matches? Maybe some strips of clothing on a stick, if we can't find anything else?"

"No, don't bother, the stairway is just up ahead, right after the next commercial."


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Not enjoying the show very much, but since I'm a big fan of the book and have watched all King adaptations, I'm in it for the long haul.


----------



## Sromkie (Aug 15, 2002)

wouldworker said:


> I forget who got jumped all over for commenting on how in-your-face the two moms things is, but he was right. "We are a same-sex couple." "... our legitimate daughter ...". I'm all for same-sex marriage. What I'm against is bad writing.


If she just said that out of nowhere, I would agree, but in this circumstance, she was being bullied by other patrons of the bar. She was being direct and clear because she was defending herself and her family, not because she was being preachy. It appeared to be a realistic response to the situation IMO.

Overall, though, I'm not too thrilled with the quality of the show. It could have been a lot better than it is, and I think a big contributing factor for the level of quality we're getting is the "need" to extend the story over multiple seasons. They should have stuck with the single season approach here.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Drove me nuts. The last match literally burned out as they were talking. D'oh! No one, repeat, no one, is that stupid in real life.
> 
> Yeezus, was this ever in your face. "Take you out of the moment" in your face.
> 
> ...


Good simple article. Thanks.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

Sromkie said:


> If she just said that out of nowhere, I would agree, but in this circumstance, she was being bullied by other patrons of the bar. She was being direct and clear because she was defending herself and her family, not because she was being preachy. It appeared to be a realistic response to the situation IMO.


It was in the faces of the viewers not in the face of another character in the show.

If I want to be re-programmed, I'll just watch _Everybody Loves Hypnotoad_.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

wouldworker said:


> I'm out. The first three episodes remind me of the first three seasons of Lost. The first one was good and drew you in, the second wasn't as good as the first but still showed promise, and the third was just pointless.


Season Pass deleted after this episode. I'll stick with the book.

I'm reminded of Last Resort. Fantastic pilot and concept, second episode not as good and by the end of the third I was done. Last Resort also had better actors.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

squint said:


> It was in the faces of the viewers not in the face of another character in the show.
> 
> If I want to be re-programmed, I'll just watch Everybody Loves Hypnotoad.


Huh?


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Bob Coxner said:


> I'm reminded of Last Resort. Fantastic pilot and concept, second episode not as good and by the end of the third I was done. Last Resort also had better actors.


This! Same duration for me. 1.5 episodes.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Drove me nuts. The last match literally burned out as they were talking. D'oh! No one, repeat, no one, is that stupid in real life.
> 
> ................


Unfortunately, yes in the real world, there are many, many, many people that stupid. You hear stories about them on a daily basis. And the ones that are the worst get Darwin awards.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

I think you guys put too much emphasis on the matches. Yes, it was dark, and they were lost. But it's not like their lives were in any immediate danger. They already knew the general direction out (due to the flickering flames), so it was just a matter of time before they found the exit.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

dtle said:


> I think you guys put too much emphasis on the matches. Yes, it was dark, and they were lost. But it's not like their lives were in any immediate danger. They already knew the general direction out (due to the flickering flames), so it was just a matter of time before they found the exit.


I was just responding to the emphasis the show put on the matches. It made a point of that being the final match, presumably to manufacture drama and tension, but then immediately disregarded the drama and tension it had sought to build the moment before. That's poor writing.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

danterner said:


> I was just responding to the emphasis the show put on the matches. It made a point of that being the final match, presumably to manufacture drama and tension, but then immediately disregarded the drama and tension it had sought to build the moment before. That's poor writing.


Plus they made a big deal of the structure being unstable because of the dome slicing through it, so there was supposed immediate danger. Without any evidence of it.

We can keep waving all this off as the characters being stupid but what it really is is bad writing.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

mike_k said:


> I was also a little sad to see Earl, the "Saving Grace" angel, playing the part of a small town bigot.


You mean "country singer who's frozen when he dies and awakens in the 23rd century aboard the Enterprise?










Or perhaps the doctor from Alcatraz?










He does get around.

Greg


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

gchance said:


> You mean "country singer who's frozen when he dies and awakens in the 23rd century aboard the Enterprise?
> 
> Or perhaps the doctor from Alcatraz?
> 
> ...


Yeah - those guys. I just expected better from Earl.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

mike_k said:


> Yeah - those guys. I just expected better from Earl.


He cain't hep it. He ain't bad. He was just drawn that way.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

UTD is the first show in years that had my thinking of bailing after just 2.5 episodes. Man oh man episode 3 was boring.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I don't know, I'm still mildly entertained by it. Sure, these characters are stupid, but in an entertaining way. I guess I'm curious enough to see how they resolve the dome crisis to keep watching. I've stuck through much worse. And I'm not even a SK fan. I like the kid and the "two mommy" daughter dynamic. I think they are interesting characters. And the woman reporter who's hubby is on the other side is interesting. 

Have they said if this is a mini-series or a regular series with a S2 possibility? I think it's moving too slow for a mini-series and that's my major problem with this show.

Ratings still good?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The article I read said that they could continue on to other seasons. If the ratings stay where they are it should easily get another season. But each episode has lost viewers. It started out with around 13.5 million viewers and the third episode is now down to around 10.5 million viewers. For live + Same day ratings. But that is still much higher than anything else out there right now. But if they keep losing viewers at this rate there won't be many left by the end of Summer.


----------



## wouldworker (Sep 7, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I guess I'm curious enough to see how they resolve the dome crisis to keep watching.


They've made it clear that they will stretch it out as long as they can. This will end up like Lost or How I Met You Mother, where you don't get the resolution until the show has become so bad that it's in danger of being canceled.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know, I'm still mildly entertained by it. Sure, these characters are stupid, but in an entertaining way. I guess I'm curious enough to see how they resolve the dome crisis to keep watching. I've stuck through much worse. And I'm not even a SK fan. I like the kid and the "two mommy" daughter dynamic. I think they are interesting characters. And the woman reporter who's hubby is on the other side is interesting.
> 
> Have they said if this is a mini-series or a regular series with a S2 possibility? I think it's moving too slow for a mini-series and that's my major problem with this show.
> 
> Ratings still good?


The woman reporter who's hubby is on the other side? So I see you are watching this show very closely..................

and the 2 mommy thing is freakin terrible.

This show is horrid.


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

Fahtrim said:


> The woman reporter who's hubby is on the other side? So I see you are watching this show very closely..................
> 
> and the 2 mommy thing is freakin terrible.
> 
> This show is horrid.


that's a little harsh, both my wife and I are enjoying it. For us, a suitable summer show where our expectations are not as high as they will be in the fall.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

late for dinner said:


> that's a little harsh, both my wife and I are enjoying it. For us, a suitable summer show where our expectations are not as high as they will be in the fall.


you can still enjoy it even though it is a horrible show, that doesn't change the fact that it is terrible, I enjoy some terrible shows at times also


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Fahtrim said:


> The woman reporter who's hubby is on the other side? So I see you are watching this show very closely..................


Well, he IS on the other side.

So to speak.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

This thread needs more Rachelle Lefevre, I even watched "A Gifted Man" for her:


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

wouldworker said:


> ...I'm all for same-sex marriage. What I'm against is bad writing.


I'm against both....and I'm just about out on this show, too.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

nickels said:


> ...I'm sticking with it because it is about the _*only new TV on right now.*_..


Huh? You don't have cable/sat, then, I assume?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

late for dinner said:


> that's a little harsh, both my wife and I are enjoying it. For us, a suitable summer show where our expectations are not as high as they will be in the fall.


Exactly

And I'm bad with names. Terrible with names actually. I watch shows for years that I like and for the life of me cannot remember names. So yeah, that was harsh.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Fahtrim said:


> you can still enjoy it even though it is a horrible show, that doesn't change the fact that it is terrible, I enjoy some terrible shows at times also


If it's that terrible, why put yourself through that torture? I might stick with shows I don't enjoy as much as others, or shows that were good for many years, but turn terrible because I've invested time in it, but for a new show, if it's that terrible, I'm bailing.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

oh I'm out already  plenty of stuff on cable and netflix and movies.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Exactly
> 
> And I'm bad with names. Terrible with names actually. I watch shows for years that I like and for the life of me cannot remember names. So yeah, that was harsh.


To be fair, though, being able to remember names wasn't a factor. You referred to "the woman reporter whose hubby is on the other side"; that's not forgetting somebody's name, that's failing to understand what happened. Her hubby isn't on the other side; he was killed & buried by Barbie.

But I guess if you don't understand what's happening on the show, it can be perfectly enjoyable.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> To be fair, though, being able to remember names wasn't a factor. You referred to "the woman reporter whose hubby is on the other side"; that's not forgetting somebody's name, that's failing to understand what happened. Her hubby isn't on the other side; he was killed & buried by Barbie.
> 
> But I guess if you don't understand what's happening on the show, it can be perfectly enjoyable.


I think he confused the "woman cop whose hubby (?) is on the other side" with the "woman reporter whose hubby is on the underside."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I think he confused the "woman cop whose hubby (?) is on the other side" with the "woman reporter whose hubby is on the underside."


Boyfriend, but yes...but confusing those two is a pretty good indication that somebody hasn't been paying much if any attention. And I continue to be amused that such a person is among the biggest defenders of the show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Boyfriend, but yes...but confusing those two is a pretty good indication that somebody hasn't been paying much if any attention. And I continue to be amused that such a person is among the biggest defenders of the show.


Boyfriend. I wasn't sure.

Wasn't defending the mistake. Just tracing where it happened.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know, I'm still mildly entertained by it. Sure, these characters are stupid, but in an entertaining way.


I'm enjoying it too. I'm a book reader, so part of my enjoyment stems from enjoying the book and seeing the characters come to life. I too am curious as to how they would keep the show moving beyond one season. It doesn't feel like there's enough substance to pull it off. The audience is going to get bored week after week not knowing what the dome is and demand resolution. The only show that I've seen that could successfully pull that off was Lost, and that was by randomly flailing around introducing new and sometimes inconsistent plots.

Maybe someone needs to find a hatch, with a timer and a guy pushing a button, and we could forget about the mysterious dome and fixate on that for a season or two...



Steveknj said:


> I like the kid and the "two mommy" daughter dynamic.


It feels a bit forced to me, like it hastily thrown in to fit a demographic and not really integrated into the story. The characters should have some bit of mysterious back story to them to keep them interesting, so we can learn something more as the season progresses.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm hoping Junior gets beat up again in the next episode.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I think he confused the "woman cop whose hubby (?) is on the other side" with the "woman reporter whose hubby is on the underside."


This, you're right.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Boyfriend, but yes...but confusing those two is a pretty good indication that somebody hasn't been paying much if any attention. And I continue to be amused that such a person is among the biggest defenders of the show.


Biggest defenders of the show? It's mild summer entertainment and I'm enjoying it. If this were on during the fall up against 50 other shows I have on my DVR, I'd probably stop watching too. I have some curiosities on how they will resolve things.

I do think, I'm entitled to an opinion that is different than the majority here and am allowed to express it. But I guess not.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

smbaker said:


> It feels a bit forced to me, like it hastily thrown in to fit a demographic and not really integrated into the story. The characters should have some bit of mysterious back story to them to keep them interesting, so we can learn something more as the season progresses.


I don't even think the two mommy thing plays into it for me, I like the character. She's got a mysterious side that I'd like to see explored.

As for the rest of what you said, I agree. That's why I asked if there were plans to extend this out past this season. They need to move the story along around the dome.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I don't even think the two mommy thing plays into it for me, I like the character. She's got a mysterious side that I'd like to see explored.


So it's the daughter you find interesting? I'd agree with that, she's a much more interesting character than her parents. She's rebellious and inquisitive. I bet she'll play a part in sorting things out.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> I think he confused the "woman cop whose hubby (?) is on the other side" with the "woman reporter whose hubby is on the underside."





Steveknj said:


> This, you're right.


They're practically twins.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> They're practically twins.


That would be Juliet and Ana Lucia, with Barbie playing the part of Sawyer.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I continue to be amused..


LOL! This show is a little too goofy for pretension.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But I guess if you don't understand what's happening on the show, it can be perfectly enjoyable.


In Steve's defense, I'm probably also enjoying the show more than most people posting here.

Not that I think the show is currently great (I liked the pilot a lot but the second and third episodes have been rather meh), but the stupidity of the characters isn't bothering me as much as it is others.

For me, I think because this isn't a show about the best and the brightest or even people who have had training for this, these are supposed to be average people who are caught in this situation.

And let's face it, the average person isn't very smart....


So I expect a certain amount of stupidity from the characters.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Numb And Number2 said:


> LOL! This show is a little too goofy for pretension.


I think you are talking to the wrong person there. Many a show thread has been "Helmerichs'd" and loses all fun for me.

Sure if Barbie murdered him and he's dead then he is "on the other side".


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> Sure if Barbie murdered him and he's dead then he is "on the other side".


It wasn't murder, he was standing his ground.

/runs


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Have they said if this is a mini-series or a regular series with a S2 possibility? I think it's moving too slow for a mini-series and that's my major problem with this show.
> 
> Ratings still good?





wouldworker said:


> They've made it clear that they will stretch it out as long as they can. This will end up like Lost or How I Met You Mother, where you don't get the resolution until the show has become so bad that it's in danger of being canceled.


I think they made a strategic mistake by trying to play both sides. I remember when it was first announced, it was a summer mini-series. Then later, it was changed to "if it does well, we'll keep going". Now they have a semi-dog that doesn't belong anywhere.

They could have made a taut, crisp, fast-paced mini-series. Story would have been better, it would move, people would stay and watch because we would know that the end would bring closure.

Instead we get a show that, before three eps are done, is already dragging in places. And of course it is, they have to make it last as long as they can. Instead, they will get a sloppy story, that loses half its viewers before it's a month old, and ends up serving no master.

Why oh why don't TV execs ever learn? You don't always have to go for six seasons. A fast win beats a slow death any day.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> Why oh why don't TV execs ever learn? You don't always have to go for six seasons. A fast win beats a slow death any day.


Artistically, you're right. But in the network business model, they're making a massive investment with almost no chance of profit. If this does happen to be the one in (a thousand? Ten thousand? Whatever) that strikes gold, they don't want to limit their ability to rake it in for years to come. Almost every show ends in a slow death, and that's fine with them as long as it has a long life first, during which they can make tons of money and more than offset all the money they lose on all the shows that never make it to six seasons, or three, or one, or even ever get on the air in the first place.

They'd rather bet on a six-season long-shot than on a one-summer long-shot.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

Should have been a 4 part mini-series. This is awful.

Hate hate hate the "hey dude" teenagers.

Hate the doe eyed deputy.

The newspaper woman is annoying.

Crazy junior sucks.

Barbie is boring.

Hate Florida Evans.

They took an interesting intriguing novel and made it into a bland Days of our Lives.

I'm Out.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

Bob_Newhart said:


> Hate Florida Evans.


It's too bad that J.J. isn't with her under the dome.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

Just finished the book this week and watched all three episodes tonight.

Loved the book. The re-tooling to make this a full fledged series is a big negative in my enjoyment of the show. Changing characters motivations. Changing characteristics of the dome. May give it another week or two...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

JYoung said:


> In Steve's defense, I'm probably also enjoying the show more than most people posting here.
> 
> Not that I think the show is currently great (I liked the pilot a lot but the second and third episodes have been rather meh), but the stupidity of the characters isn't bothering me as much as it is others.
> 
> ...


I don't think stupidity is the best way to describe how most of the characters are acting. Stupidity would be taking an axe to the dome or something else that would seem panicky. These people are all too calm. There's seemingly no curiosity, no panic, no planning, nothing that would indicate that they realized they had a dome around them. It's not that they are acting stupid, they just aren't acting like real people who just got cut off from the outside world.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

wouldworker said:


> I forget who got jumped all over for commenting on how in-your-face the two moms things is, but he was right. "We are a same-sex couple." "... our legitimate daughter ...". I'm all for same-sex marriage. What I'm against is bad writing.


He wasn't right... when talking about the pilot. They didn't make a huge deal out of it in that episode. In this one, it _was_ in your face and unrealistic IMO. About par for the course in this show...



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Boyfriend


Fiance


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

madscientist said:


> He wasn't right... when talking about the pilot. They didn't make a huge deal out of it in that episode. In this one, it was in your face and unrealistic IMO. About par for the course in this show...
> 
> Fiance


It is all just bad writing. They weren't in your face at all. It was a confrontation with someone who confronted her. However, all the writing is melodramatic and bad.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

One time is one thing. They did the same "reveal" two or three times in the same episode... that's in your face.

And bad writing


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

madscientist said:


> One time is one thing. They did the same "reveal" two or three times in the same episode... that's in your face.
> 
> And bad writing


I say just bad writing because they are trying to do the "fish out of water" thing. Lets have someone who would seem totally out of place and use the resulting tension. So, what would be out of place? A lesbian couple with a teen daughter. What a great idea. In your face says there is an agenda. Given how bad their writing is, I just think it is yet another case of clumsy writing.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

ElJay said:


> I also think we're seeing the effects of "let's do season 2"-itis in *how slowly* and stupidly *everything is progressing*. The initial media coverage of the show acted like this was a fixed 13-episode miniseries, but apparently the show runners have mapped out two additional seasons. This *does not bode well for a taut storyline.*


Some of your comments describe the typical ~1,000 page Stephen King tome.

I have not read "Under the Dome" but am slogging through "11/22/63" now - it is good but goes on and on and on.

While his books are well written and researched they tend to meander all over the place. He is too big and sells too many books as-is for any editor to turn his books into a taut storyline. I believe SK is heavily involved with the adaption of UTD.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

There is a lot of bad writing and bad acting. 

I enjoyed the book, so I will likely stick with it a bit longer, but I dunno....


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I may be smeeking, but did anyone else think "well, you could burn the empty box of matches with that last match"? 

I did do a double-take when she offered crazy teenager a ride back into town as soon as they got out of the tunnel. So she followed him in her car?!


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

It's Hollywoodland where you can follow someone without ever arousing any suspicion.

In the tunnels, where it's supposedly too dark for them to navigate without light, she manages to follow him. She doesn't stumble or make any noise despite walking just a few yards behind him in tunnels that are dead quiet and where any noise would echo like crazy.


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

I can imagine if I tried to find every little item that doesn't make sense I would enjoy this show much less.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

late for dinner said:


> I can imagine if I tried to find every little item that doesn't make sense I would enjoy this show much less.


It is harder to NOT find them.


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

TonyD79 said:


> It is harder to NOT find them.


Maybe I should have said dwell on them, I noticed quite a few things but shrugged and moved on.

My wife and I went to a movie a few weeks ago, World War Z and on the way home she commented on something that was not believable. I laughed noting that at a movie about zombies you had an issue about that?


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

late for dinner said:


> Maybe I should have said dwell on them, I noticed quite a few things but shrugged and moved on.
> 
> My wife and I went to a movie a few weeks ago, World War Z and on the way home she commented on something that was not believable. I laughed noting that at a movie about zombies you had an issue about that?


But at the very least the world you are creating should make sense.

We all get that it is fiction. Even science-fiction to a certain extent.

But what sucks you into a story - even one that is not real - is the ability to make it FEEL real. When you read something like Harry Potter, for example, you KNOW it isn't real, but the author creates a world for us that we can believe.

When it comes to The Dome, King did a much better job in the book of making the situation believable. But it is difficult to believe a lot of what is going on in the TV show because they are screwing up the most obvious details - things that have NOTHING to do with the Dome. Just regular, common sense details.

It's hard to ignore...


----------



## late for dinner (May 17, 2013)

nyny523 said:


> But at the very least the world you are creating should make sense.
> 
> We all get that it is fiction. Even science-fiction to a certain extent.
> 
> ...


maybe it's easier for me since I didn't read the book??


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

late for dinner said:


> maybe it's easier for me since I didn't read the book??


I don't think so.

For example - you are in a situation where you are trapped. The only food available is what you are trapped with. Wouldn't it make LOGICAL SENSE to begin to ration what is available? Or to be worried that you might run out at some point?

No one in this scenario seems the least bit concerned about basic survival. They make a passing comment about running out of bacon. No one seems worried or panicked about anything, except the one deputy (who played it so over-the-top it was difficult to believe).

Compare this to a Zombie show like The Walking Dead. They worry about zombies, but they also worry about basic survival. There are interesting characters with real human flaws and emotions. Even though it is about Zombies, it is MUCH more believable than The Dome.

Do you get what I am saying?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I understand what's being said here we also need to remember it's only been what....three days? Maybe it all hasn't sunk in yet?


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I understand what's being said here we also need to remember it's only been what....three days? Maybe it all hasn't sunk in yet?


I dunno - if I were in that situation, and getting NO information, I would be freaking out after 3 days. I would be scared, worried, SOMETHING.

These people are barely reacting. It isn't believable.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Whoops, sorry...post deleted. (You might want to follow suit!)

But that makes Bierboy's point even more applicable...in Episode 2, they were only in the first full day under the Dome.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Whoops, sorry...post deleted. (You might want to follow suit!)
> 
> But that makes Bierboy's point even more applicable...in Episode 2, they were only in the first full day under the Dome.


No worries!

I deleted mine, too. I read the book, so no big spoilers for me...

I would still be freaking out. Maybe not about specifics, but freaking out.

No one is freaking out!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

nyny523 said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> For example - you are in a situation where you are trapped. The only food available is what you are trapped with. Wouldn't it make LOGICAL SENSE to begin to ration what is available? Or to be worried that you might run out at some point?
> 
> ...


With the most recent episode, it's only been three days since the dome appeared. Sure there might be some people who would ration right away, but the majority of people would not have been thinking about it for the first few days.

It looks like the ratings have stabilized. It got 10.8 million viewers for the most recent episode which I think is pretty even with the manhunt episode ratings. Under the Dome is easily the most watched show right now for total viewers.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> It looks like the ratings have stabilized. It got 10.8 million viewers for the most recent episode which I think is pretty even with the manhunt episode ratings. Under the Dome is easily the most watched show right now for total viewers.


With the general lack of other shows at the moment, it's kind of like we're all under a dome and have only it to watch, though.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

at least we have bacon!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

nyny523 said:


> I dunno - if I were in that situation, and getting NO information, I would be freaking out after 3 days. I would be scared, worried, SOMETHING.
> 
> These people are barely reacting. It isn't believable.


 Now it's *ME* who's all worried about the lack of food and oxygen....


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> With the most recent episode, it's only been three days since the dome appeared. Sure there might be some people who would ration right away, but the majority of people would not have been thinking about it for the first few days.
> 
> It looks like the ratings have stabilized. It got 10.8 million viewers for the most recent episode which I think is pretty even with the manhunt episode ratings. Under the Dome is easily the most watched show right now for total viewers.


Nonsense. People plan on stocking up and rationing if there is prediction of a snow storm around here. While a dome is new, planning for and being cut off from supplies happens in this country several times a year in different places.

Do you think people in Jersey didn't understand they had low gas supplies as soon as Sandy hit? Do you think it took them days?

People in hurricanes and other power outages put water in their tubs to flush toilets, etc., if they have wells.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> With the most recent episode, it's only been three days since the dome appeared. Sure there might be some people who would ration right away, but the majority of people would not have been thinking about it for the first few days.
> 
> It looks like the ratings have stabilized. It got 10.8 million viewers for the most recent episode which I think is pretty even with the manhunt episode ratings. Under the Dome is easily the most watched show right now for total viewers.


Most people start stocking up BEFORE the disaster starts. After it hits, bedlam. A significant part of all of our complaints comes down to one simple issue: None of these people are acting like a normal person would if a huge dome suddenly appeared. None of them.

I'm still watching, and I have huge issues with it. But it's mildly entertaining, and there's nothing else on. If this was Fall, the SP would be dust.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I'm not sure if anyone else said this yet, but if I have one match left, I'd light something else on fire (like the matchbox) to extend the available time I have.

This show gets one more chance from me (I haven't watched the newest episode on my TiVo yet.) If it doesn't improve, I will light the season pass on fire.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Most people start stocking up BEFORE the disaster starts. After it hits, bedlam. A significant part of all of our complaints comes down to one simple issue: None of these people are acting like a normal person would if a huge dome suddenly appeared. None of them.
> 
> I'm still watching, and I have huge issues with it. But it's mildly entertaining, and there's nothing else on. If this was Fall, the SP would be dust.


But how would people act? They would certainly not all act the same way. For instance I would not go near the edge of the dome and certainly not touch it. But I'm sure other people would.
And if people think it will be a temporary thing, why would you even consider rationing. Not until after a few days that it sinks in that the dome might last a while would certain people even think about rationing.

I would also think many people would be sure the government would find a way in quickly so there would be no worries. Only after a certain amount of time passes would that thinking change.

I would think panic would not start to set in for most people until several days have passed. And we are only on day three of the Dome with the most recent episode. Having the situation that just happened in the 07/12/2013 episode would probably get alot of people thinking about what could happen in the future.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

You should spoilerize the last sentence of your post.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> But how would people act? They would certainly not all act the same way. For instance I would not go near the edge of the dome and certainly not touch it. But I'm sure other people would.
> And if people think it will be a temporary thing, why would you even consider rationing. Not until after a few days that it sinks in that the dome might last a while would certain people even think about rationing.
> 
> I would also think many people would be sure the government would find a way in quickly so there would be no worries. Only after a certain amount of time passes would that thinking change.
> ...


The fact that NO ONE from the outside (the military, the government) is communicating with them would be the first thing that would panic me. They have repeatedly shown that the soldiers flat out ignore them - won't even make eye contact. That wouldn't freak you out???? I would be going out of my mind trying to find out WTF is going on. I would be standing at the "wall" with signs asking "WTF is going on?" I would be panicking if no one acknowledged my presence, much less my questions.

These people are NOT behaving the way people would behave in this situation. Not even REMOTELY. And that is why it isn't believable.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

nyny523 said:


> The fact that NO ONE from the outside (the military, the government) is communicating with them would be the first thing that would panic me. They have repeatedly shown that the soldiers flat out ignore them - won't even make eye contact. That wouldn't freak you out???? I would be going out of my mind trying to find out WTF is going on. I would be standing at the "wall" with signs asking "WTF is going on?" I would be panicking if no one acknowledged my presence, much less my questions.
> 
> These people are NOT behaving the way people would behave in this situation. Not even REMOTELY. And that is why it isn't believable.


I wouldn't be going near the edge of the dome. I would be keeping a healthy distance. I would be more worried about another dome coming down and slicing my arm off or worse. Or the dome shrinking and killing people in the process standing near it. At least in the first few days those would be my main concerns.

So if I had a generator with a nice supply of fuel, I would have spent the first few days mostly inside, and only gone outside to get info from other people that went to the edge of the dome. But I would not have gone with them.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I wouldn't be going near the edge of the dome. I would be keeping a healthy distance. I would be more worried about another dome coming down and slicing my arm off or worse. Or the dome shrinking and killing people in the process standing near it. At least in the first few days those would be my main concerns.
> 
> So if I had a generator with a nice supply of fuel, I would have spent the first few days mostly inside, and only gone outside to get info from other people that went to the edge of the dome. But I would not have gone with them.


OK.

But would you be eating at the local diner wondering about the bacon supply?

Or going to a party?

These people are not acting as if there is a problem!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

nyny523 said:


> OK.
> 
> But would you be eating at the local diner wondering about the bacon supply?
> 
> ...


If I was a teenager then yes, I would have gone to a party with the other teenagers. That sounds normal to me for a teenager, even with extraneous circumstances. I've seen teenagers have parties under almost any circumstance. So this sounds perfectly normal to me.

In the diner, that sounds probable too. Your average person is not initially going to be thinking this dome is going to last for weeks of years. They would think that whatever it is, the military/government would quickly find a way in, or that they caused it and it would disappear quickly. I still think that most people would not think about rationing until after a few days and then you start having the fear that the dome is not coming down quickly. And then start to realize that they could be in deep trouble with supplies running out.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, I think two things. First, it would be interesting to see if you would really be as calm and rational in a worldview-shattering experience as you think you would be. Maybe you would, who knows? No way to find out.

But I can guarantee, many (most?) people would not be. There would be all kinds of freaking out going on, along with the calm-and-rational and the in-denial. And that's what we're just not seeing.

I really think the writers are too focused on the individual people and their personal dramas to pay any attention to what would be happening to a society under these conditions.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

KyleLC said:


> You should spoilerize the last sentence of your post.


Why? It doesn't "reveal" anything....I'm pickier than most about spoilers, but that simply doesn't require it.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I think two things. First, it would be interesting to see if you would really be as calm and rational in a worldview-shattering experience as you think you would be. Maybe you would, who knows? No way to find out.
> 
> But I can guarantee, many (most?) people would not be. There would be all kinds of freaking out going on, along with the calm-and-rational and the in-denial. And that's what we're just not seeing.
> 
> I really think the writers are too focused on the individual people and their personal dramas to pay any attention to what would be happening to a society under these conditions.


This.

I know I would be freaking out. NO WAY I would remain calm. I would be terrified!!! Even the one guy they showed freaking out (that deputy guy) was so unbelievable - either bad writing or bad acting or both.

I remember several years ago - not long after 9/11 - there was a huge blackout. We experienced it in NYC, and through some battery operated radios learned that several other east coast states were also without power.

People panicked. This was a ONE DAY event, and people panicked. Many thought it was another terrorist attack. No one could explain what was happening. Gas stations were not pumping. People were stuck with no public transportation. It was NUTS. And that was just HOURS. I cannot even imagine what it would have been like after 3 days.

This show is not making me believe that these people are in a bad situation.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> If I was a teenager then yes, I would have gone to a party with the other teenagers. That sounds normal to me for a teenager, even with extraneous circumstances. I've seen teenagers have parties under almost any circumstance. So this sounds perfectly normal to me.
> 
> In the diner, that sounds probable too. Your average person is not initially going to be thinking this dome is going to last for weeks of years. They would think that whatever it is, the military/government would quickly find a way in, or that they caused it and it would disappear quickly. I still think that most people would not think about rationing until after a few days and then you start having the fear that the dome is not coming down quickly. And then start to realize that they could be in deep trouble with supplies running out.


You'd actually think the dome was temporary? Based on what?

I'm telling you, people treat snowstorms, which ARE temporary like the world is ending. But a dome, you'd just sit back and wait it out. Maybe. But you actually think it is normal to act like nothing is happening?

As for going near the dome. Most would. Recently, we had a tornado watch at my work. I work right next to BWI airport. It was serious enough that they evacuated the airport main level. We were told to get away from windows. What to most do? Go to the windows to watch.

Yes, there would be some in denial as you would be. But there would be a lot more thought, panic, planning.

To me, the teens are the only ones who acted close to normally. They held a "hurricane party" or were curious. The adults acted like there was a light breeze today.


----------



## rich (Mar 18, 2002)

nyny523 said:


> The fact that NO ONE from the outside (the military, the government) is communicating with them would be the first thing that would panic me. They have repeatedly shown that the soldiers flat out ignore them - won't even make eye contact. That wouldn't freak you out???? I would be going out of my mind trying to find out WTF is going on. I would be standing at the "wall" with signs asking "WTF is going on?" I would be panicking if no one acknowledged my presence, much less my questions.
> 
> These people are NOT behaving the way people would behave in this situation. Not even REMOTELY. And that is why it isn't believable.


Yeah, this bothers me too. In the last episode we saw that the dome is still transparent when viewed from the outside. I just don't know what to make of this.

At least the sewer pipes haven't backed up yet (and why would that be?)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

nyny523 said:


> Compare this to a Zombie show like The Walking Dead. They worry about zombies, but they also worry about basic survival. There are interesting characters with real human flaws and emotions. Even though it is about Zombies, it is MUCH more believable than The Dome.
> 
> Do you get what I am saying?


But it's about Zombies so it's stupid and it sucks  (I'm not a fan of horror) Only Zombie movie I ever liked was Shaun of the Dead, because it was a parody of Zombie movies  Even that was stupid, but it made me laugh 

Under the Dome isn't a piece of art. It's dumb summer fare. I take it for what it is. I think if you expected more, you'd be disappointed. Yeah, the characters act like self absorbed tools, but at least some of them are entertaining self absorbed fools 

Spoiler about most recent episode:



Spoiler



That said, I thought this week's episode did little to move the story along, and the story line seemed out of place for the show. I'm on the fence to keep watching....but still want to see why the dome was put there before I give up on the show.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

rich said:


> At least the sewer pipes haven't backed up yet (and why would that be?)


Wastewater treatment plants usually aren't that far outside of town, if at all.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Speaking of...

Any and all streams that were cut off by the dome would be backing up and flowing around it. Seems to me the dome would be surrounded by a moat on the outside before long. By the same token, any streams inside the dome would continue to flow downhill. Before long, there should be a sizable lake on the interior of the down slope end of the dome.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> You'd actually think the dome was temporary? Based on what?


I would. Some of the people think it's something the government did, like an experiment or whatever. If I thought that, I would not think it'd be permanent.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> Why? It doesn't "reveal" anything....I'm pickier than most about spoilers, but that simply doesn't require it.


Your opinion. It would have bothered me a little if I didn't already know about it, and I know some people are more sensitive about spoilers than me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I think any rational person would have no basis for thinking it's temporary _or _permanent.

And everybody would think it's one or the other.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> And if people think it will be a temporary thing, why would you even consider rationing. Not until after a few days that it sinks in that the dome might last a while would certain people even think about rationing.
> 
> I would also think many people would be sure the government would find a way in quickly so there would be no worries. Only after a certain amount of time passes would that thinking change.
> 
> I would think panic would not start to set in for most people until several days have passed.


I think we will have to agree to disagree. Really disagree.

All of this is just MHO of course...

* No way people think it's temporary. Nothing to make them think that. No sign of change, nothing to indicate an origin, nothing that creates a comfort level.

* The fact that people on the outside are ignoring them is a terrible sign. If I'm on the inside, that means the guv is hiding something. As someone said in one of these threads, why aren't there media tents setup, why aren't protesters everywhere, where the heck is Geraldo and the Brian Williams. The only reason they wouldn't be there is if the government is holding them back. Which means they don't know what it is.

* And finally, and again, because we're beating this one to death, people sink into a hoard & protect mentality really quickly when events like this happen. Ever been around a hurricane, flooding, gas shortage?

Nope, this ain't the way people act.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

rich said:


> At least the sewer pipes haven't backed up yet (and why would that be?)


It's a rural town - everyone probably has their own septic system.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

KyleLC said:


> Your opinion. It would have bothered me a little if I didn't already know about it, and I know some people are more sensitive about spoilers than me.


Here's the sentence....and, as I said, it reveals NOTHING. Not opinion -- fact



> _"...Having the situation that just happened in the 07/12/2013 episode would probably get alot of people thinking about what could happen in the future..."_


Please tell me what exactly is revealed? (and you can PM me if you think that would "ruin" it for others)


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> Please tell me what exactly is revealed?


What was revealed was that something happened. Some might consider that very spoilerish for this show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And not just any old something, but a full-fledged SITUATION!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

And not only that....but something COULD happen in the future!!!


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> And not only that....but something COULD happen in the future!!!


I WISH something would happen!

And that people would REACT!!!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> Speaking of...
> 
> Any and all streams that were cut off by the dome would be backing up and flowing around it. Seems to me the dome would be surrounded by a moat on the outside before long. By the same token, any streams inside the dome would continue to flow downhill. Before long, there should be a sizable lake on the interior of the down slope end of the dome.


So you're saying it's a bad idea to cross the streams?


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I'm telling you, people treat snowstorms, which ARE temporary like the world is ending. But a dome, you'd just sit back and wait it out. Maybe. But you actually think it is normal to act like nothing is happening?


Some people react to snowstorms that way, but not everyone. I'm not even sure it's the majority. Nobody I know goes into panic mode when a snowstorm hits.

About the only thing that really goes into short supply around here when a snowstorm is predicted is rock salt and other sidewalk/driveway melting compounds.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> Some people react to snowstorms that way, but not everyone. I'm not even sure it's the majority. Nobody I know goes into panic mode when a snowstorm hits.
> 
> About the only thing that really goes into short supply around here when a snowstorm is predicted is rock salt and other sidewalk/driveway melting compounds.


Come visit Maryland. Try to find bread, milk, toilet paper or bottled water. Or batteries.

People here overdo it but it is NOT panic to realize that supplies will run low and to ration.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

midas said:


> Some people react to snowstorms that way, but not everyone. I'm not even sure it's the majority. Nobody I know goes into panic mode when a snowstorm hits.


But you (and I) live in a place where major snowstorms are routine. It's the out-of-the-ordinary stuff that makes people freak out. Like a major snowstorm hitting DC, or a hurricane hitting New York City, or a dome hitting, well, anyplace.

And a dome would go beyond the panic that major weather events cause, into the realm of alien invasions, meteor strikes, and Y2K bugs...the kind of panic that happens when there's no way to know what the consequences are.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But you (and I) live in a place where major snowstorms are routine. It's the out-of-the-ordinary stuff that makes people freak out. Like a major snowstorm hitting DC, or a hurricane hitting New York City, or a dome hitting, well, anyplace.


Not trying to defend the stupidity of this show. Just pointing out that not everyone panics about a snowstorm.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> Here's the sentence....and, as I said, it reveals NOTHING. Not opinion -- fact
> 
> Please tell me what exactly is revealed? (and you can PM me if you think that would "ruin" it for others)


LOL! Now I understand your confusion. He removed the sentence I was referring to. If you look closely back at his post, you'll see:



aaronwt said:


> Last edited by aaronwt : Today at 08:13 AM. Reason: removed spoiler


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> Just pointing out that not everyone panics about a snowstorm.


You keep emphasizing "not everyone" as though someone made the claim that it was everyone.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> You keep emphasizing "not everyone" as though someone made the claim that it was everyone.


No, the exact quote I used was



> I'm telling you, people treat snowstorms, which ARE temporary like the world is ending.


People, to me, seems all encompassing. That doesn't say SOME people, it says people.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

KyleLC said:


> LOL! Now I understand your confusion. He removed the sentence I was referring to. If you look closely back at his post, you'll see:


Ack...I now see why we were at odds...neither of us had noticed that until you did. Sorry for all the confusion...


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

midas said:


> No, the exact quote I used was
> 
> People, to me, seems all encompassing. That doesn't say SOME people, it says people.


People own cars means every person owns a car?
People ride the train to work means every person rides the train to work?
People watch Under the Dome means every person watches the show?
People live in Denver means that every person lives in Denver?
People panic in a snowstorm means that everyone panics in a snowstorm?

People is simply the informal plural of person.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> People is simply the informal plural of person.


People on this forum are jerks.

Hey, I guess you're right.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

midas said:


> No, the exact quote I used was
> 
> People, to me, seems all encompassing. That doesn't say SOME people, it says people.


People understand English better.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Come visit Maryland. Try to find bread, milk, toilet paper or bottled water. Or batteries.
> 
> People here overdo it but it is NOT panic to realize that supplies will run low and to ration.


Hell, Johnny Carson started a run on toilet paper when he cracked a joke about it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

brianric said:


> Hell, Johnny Carson started a run on toilet paper when he *cracked* a joke about it.


Hahahaha....I get it.....hahahahaha....


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Odds Bodkins said:


> The lady who plays Julia Shumway, Rachelle Lefevre, is the worst actor on TV, perhaps ever.


I guess I can't tell, since she's so attractive.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

mattack said:


> I guess I can't tell, since she's so attractive.


Really....what does acting have to do with anything?


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> Hahahaha....I get it.....hahahahaha....


http://spinoff.comicbookresources.c...led-did-carson-cause-a-toilet-paper-shortage/


----------

