"Flashforward" questions
D.F. Manno
this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
started before 2:30 PM EDT.
2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
that hard watching TV.
3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
caused the flash-forward?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"...the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the
dream shall never die."
Neal Eckhardt
wrote:
>3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
>get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
>caused the flash-forward?
Yea, I hated it when they did that to DRIVE.
--
Neal
Never go to a plastic surgeon whose favorite artist is Picasso.
K_S_ONeill
> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
> this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
> October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
> they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
> started before 2:30 PM EDT.
Good point. I missed that.
>
> 2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
> pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
> that hard watching TV.
Watch the show with whatever level of attention you want, see what you
see, then look at the cheater sites for fifteen minutes afterwards.
That's what I did with Lost, it worked fine. It's nice to have the
show on the DVR if you do this, so you can go back and see what they
were talking about, but you don't have to.
>
> 3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
> get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
> caused the flash-forward?
Yeah, I'm worried about that too. I mean, they canceled "Starved",
for god's sake. What's next?
Still, I liked it more than I thought I would. It's a dumb idea, but
given the dumb idea they've handled it pretty well. The guy moving
around in the baseball stadium was actually kind of creepy to me,
which means I really did buy into the story by that point.
--
Kevin
Arthur
> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
> this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
> October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
> they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
> started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
> 2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
> pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
> that hard watching TV.
Question 2 and Question 1 maybe related. The fact that they are
playing baseball in the morning tells you something is very very
wrong.
Apparently in the film "Pearl Harbor" when the Japanese attack, there
are kids playing baseball. And even kids rarely played baseball that
early in the morning.
So what does this mean for Flashforward?
It means the Japanese are going to attack LA. Possibly in revenge for
something that happened to Ichiro Suzuki.
Anyways, you probably have to pay attention to the details.
D.F. Manno
<37386326-95b2-4a22...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Arthur <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
> > this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
> > October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
> > they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
> > started before 2:30 PM EDT.
> >
> > 2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
> > pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
> > that hard watching TV.
>
> Question 2 and Question 1 maybe related. The fact that they are
> playing baseball in the morning tells you something is very very
> wrong.
They're not playing in the morning - 10 AM in L.A. is 1 PM in Detroit.
But it's still too early for postseason baseball.
Kim
> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist
> says this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's
> "now" October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens.
> So why are they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason,
> no games started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
> 2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have
> to pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want
> to work that hard watching TV.
The opening reminded me of "lost" - what with the guy laying on the ground
and his eyes snapping open.
I hope it isn't that "pay attention" kind of TV. I NEVER get all those
"pause and then fast forward frame by frame and there's a clue" kind of
things with Lost. I didn't see the Dharma symbol on the shark or the faces
in the smoke monster or Walt's pipcture on the milk carton and I didn't
notice the stereo had changed in the hatch. But, then again, I didn't even
recognize that the washing machine was anachronistic. And that wasn't
hidden.
>
> 3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
> get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
> caused the flash-forward?
I guess it depends on how many shows they have "in the can". If they have a
committment for an entire season and cancel it half way through they could
still show the remaining episodes online. Didn't they do that with the other
show I kind of liked? What was the name of it? "Daybreak"? I think so. They
kind of "wrapped it up" with online episodes.
--
Kim
www.thedarwinexception.wordpress.com
* I wish I were a spy and evil people had come to my house and torn it
apart looking for secrets. Then at least I'd have an excuse for it
looking that way.*
Greg Goss
>1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
>this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
>October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
>they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
>started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
>2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
>pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
>that hard watching TV.
>
>3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
>get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
>caused the flash-forward?
i didn't know it was on till Moria mentioned it to me. I read the
book a few years back.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Mike Williams
>1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
>this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
>October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
>they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
>started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
>2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
>pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
>that hard watching TV.
>
>3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
>get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
>caused the flash-forward?
I was stunned to find out that it airs in the UK only 4 days later than
the original US air date. That's extremely unusual, we're usually at
least far enough behind on the first episode of a series that we can run
without mid season breaks. Perhaps the powers that be already know that
it gets cancelled before the mid season break.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Kim
> "D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist
>> says this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's
>> "now" October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens.
>> So why are they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason,
>> no games started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>>
>> 2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have
>> to pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want
>> to work that hard watching TV.
>>
>> 3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it
>> could get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out
>> who/what caused the flash-forward?
>
> i didn't know it was on till Moria mentioned it to me. I read the
> book a few years back.
The first episode seems to indicate that they are going to go in an entirely
different direction than the book - although some of the characters have the
same names - but are different characters, if that makes any sense.
(The whole Lloyd Simcoe thing threw me.)
D.F. Manno
Mike Williams <nos...@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Well, sure. They flashed forward six months just like everybody else.
Kajikit
wrote:
>1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
>this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
>October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
>they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
>started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
>2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
>pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
>that hard watching TV.
>
>3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
>get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
>caused the flash-forward?
I dunno... I taped it but we haven't watched it yet because we were
out of town for the weekend.
--
My website - http://www.kajikitscorner.com
My cooking blog - http://kajikit.wordpress.com
My crafty blog - http://kajikit.blogspot.com
Richard R. Hershberger
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:09:13 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
> >this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
> >October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
> >started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
> >2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
> >pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
> >that hard watching TV.
>
> >3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
> >get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
> >caused the flash-forward?
>
> I dunno... I taped it but we haven't watched it yet because we were
> out of town for the weekend.
I find in my old age that I am unwilling to schedule my life around
the TV, even for shows I like. If it is the sort that must been seen
in order, I wait until I can Netflix it. A DVR would accomplish the
same thing, but my system also imposes a de facto triage system. I
have a sneeking suspicion that if we had a DVR we would end up with
hours and hours and hours of Top Chef and Project Runway for my wife,
to be stored indefinitely awaiting that future happy day of actual
viewing. A little inconvenience imposes a higher level of interest,
which I consider a good thing.
Richard R. Hershberger
Bob Ward
These are some of the reasons I abandoned Dish Network and TiVo - in
favor of Hulu.com, Netflix.com, and TVTorrents.com.
We download entire seasons of our favorite shows, plus weekly updates
of current TYV shows.
We not only see what we want, when we want, we watch without
commercials, and we are enjoying content from Greet Britain ad
Australia that is otherwise unavailable here.
Kajikit
wrote:
Well, we just watched it... the first ten minutes were plain confusing
but then all became clear and it's going to be fascinating viewing. I
cancelled the Survivor recordings (from the first two eps that's going
to be a really crappy season and I don't care about it anyway!) so
that we can record Flash Forward instead. I don't know how we lived
without a DVR!
Les Albert
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>I find in my old age that I am unwilling to schedule my life around
>the TV, even for shows I like. If it is the sort that must been seen
>in order, I wait until I can Netflix it. A DVR would accomplish the
>same thing, but my system also imposes a de facto triage system. I
>have a sneeking suspicion that if we had a DVR we would end up with
>hours and hours and hours of Top Chef and Project Runway for my wife,
>to be stored indefinitely awaiting that future happy day of actual
>viewing. A little inconvenience imposes a higher level of interest,
>which I consider a good thing.
Is your wife also willing to wait for Top Chef and Project Runway to
appear on Netflix?
Les
Neal Eckhardt
wrote:
>Well, we just watched it... the first ten minutes were plain confusing
>but then all became clear and it's going to be fascinating viewing. I
>cancelled the Survivor recordings (from the first two eps that's going
>to be a really crappy season and I don't care about it anyway!) so
>that we can record Flash Forward instead. I don't know how we lived
>without a DVR!
A lot of people I have talked to turned FF off after the first few
minutes. My wife even said that the show "wasn't doing it for her"
after 15 minutes of watching the show.
By the end, she admitted that "OK, it looks like it might be
interesting".
I think the beginning of the show turned many people off and they lost
a lot of potential viewers on that first episode.
Now Mercy, that really sucked. We both gave it about 20 minutes and I
removed the future recordings from my DVR, and deleted the one we were
watching.
Kajikit
I forgot to tape Mercy... sounds like I didn't miss anything! I did
record the first episode of Trauma though. We enjoy medical shows as
long as they're not just soap operas.
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
> this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
> October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
> they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
> started before 2:30 PM EDT.
Were they being clear on the time? The babysitter and her boyfriend
made it seem a bit later in the afternoon in LA. The doctor on the
pier, wasn't that afternoon (seemed the sun was visible looking toward
the horizon)?
Even if I've never seen a pier that empty in the afternoon (but it's
been years).
> 2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
> pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
> that hard watching TV.
That one I can't tell ya. Never liked Lost, so couldn't compare.
Mike Williams
>says this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
>October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why
>are they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
>started before 2:30 PM EDT.
Flashforward has now been shown here in the UK.
When he sets up the calendar pages on the wall in his office, he runs a
string from October 6 2009 to April 29 2010. The jointhemosaic.com page
(Warning: slow loading flash intensive site - not suitable for dialup -
on a 2mb broadband allow a couple of minutes) says 2PM Eastern Daylight
Time October 6 2009. I'd tend to call that a little less than seven
months, rather than a little more than six.
I don't understand baseball postseason scheduling, so I don't know if
that date changes anything.
Mark Brader
> Now Mercy, that really sucked. We both gave it about 20 minutes and I
Flash forward indeed!
--
Mark Brader | "Must undefined behavior obey *all* the laws of physics,
m...@vex.net | or is the restriction limited to time travel?"
Toronto | --Heather Downs
Kim
> On Sep 25, 12:09 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist
>> says this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's
>> "now" October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens.
>> So why are they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason,
>> no games started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
> Were they being clear on the time? The babysitter and her boyfriend
> made it seem a bit later in the afternoon in LA. The doctor on the
> pier, wasn't that afternoon (seemed the sun was visible looking toward
> the horizon)?
No - not the time they flashed from - the time they flashed TO. We didn't
see what the babysitter saw - or what the kid saw, which sounded intriguing
"I dreamt there were no more good days".
And how did the kid in the ER know the doctor's name if she doesn't hook up
with his dad?
Mike Williams
>And how did the kid in the ER know the doctor's name if she doesn't
>hook up with his dad?
She clearly does hook up with his dad. When Lloyd Simcoe finally arrives
at the hospital and tells Bryce that he'll wait for Dr. Brandon, we get
a flash from him to the part in Olivia's vision where he's the man
downstairs.
Mike Williams
>On Sep 25, 12:09�pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
>> this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
>> October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
>> they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
>> started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
>Were they being clear on the time? The babysitter and her boyfriend
>made it seem a bit later in the afternoon in LA. The doctor on the
>pier, wasn't that afternoon (seemed the sun was visible looking toward
>the horizon)?
>
>Even if I've never seen a pier that empty in the afternoon (but it's
>been years).
After the opening sequence, there's a "Four Hours Earlier" caption, and
we arrive at the Brandon house at 7am local time. So the event occurs at
11am Los Angeles time
The editing doesn't make it clear how those four hours pass. The editing
makes it seem as if Olivia tries to phone Bryce fairly shortly after
7am, but it must have actually been close to the end of the four hours,
otherwise Bryce would have been standing on the pier with the gun to his
chin for an awfully long time.
I think there's another time glitch in that the vision of Mark's boss
takes place at 6am on 30 Apr 2010, and they explain this by saying that
London time is 8 hours ahead of Los Angeles. But I reckon that in April
London will be on BST daylight savings, making it only 7 hours ahead of
PDT.
Jim Ellwanger
Mike Williams <nos...@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think there's another time glitch in that the vision of Mark's boss
> takes place at 6am on 30 Apr 2010, and they explain this by saying that
> London time is 8 hours ahead of Los Angeles. But I reckon that in April
> London will be on BST daylight savings, making it only 7 hours ahead of
> PDT.
Pacific Daylight Time is GMT -7, and I believe BST is GMT +1, so I don't
think this was an error.
--
Jim Ellwanger <use...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:10:58 -0400, Kajikit <kaji...@jagcon.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, we just watched it... the first ten minutes were plain confusing
> >but then all became clear and it's going to be fascinating viewing. I
> >cancelled the Survivor recordings (from the first two eps that's going
> >to be a really crappy season and I don't care about it anyway!) so
> >that we can record Flash Forward instead. I don't know how we lived
> >without a DVR!
>
> A lot of people I have talked to turned FF off after the first few
> minutes. My wife even said that the show "wasn't doing it for her"
> after 15 minutes of watching the show.
I did that with the first episode of Lost. I turned it off after a
jet engine that obviously had had no fuel coming to it for quite some
time spontaneously exploded. Show where stuff spontaneously explode
pretty much lost my interest about twenty or thirty years ago. I
gather from stuff I have picked up since that Lost is actually a
different sort of show, but I haven't been persuaded to go back at
watch it from the start.
Richard R. Hershberger
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> Wasn't it Smokie Darling (Annie) who wrote:
>
> >On Sep 25, 12:09 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
> >> this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
> >> October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
> >> they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
> >> started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
> >Were they being clear on the time? The babysitter and her boyfriend
> >made it seem a bit later in the afternoon in LA. The doctor on the
> >pier, wasn't that afternoon (seemed the sun was visible looking toward
> >the horizon)?
>
> >Even if I've never seen a pier that empty in the afternoon (but it's
> >been years).
>
> After the opening sequence, there's a "Four Hours Earlier" caption, and
> we arrive at the Brandon house at 7am local time. So the event occurs at
> 11am Los Angeles time
Yikes! I had completely forgotten the "4 hours earlier" thing. Am I
a maroon or what (that *is* rhetorical)?
That would make it ... what 3:00 at the ballgame in Detroit (I can
never remember where the time changes are)?
>
> The editing doesn't make it clear how those four hours pass. The editing
> makes it seem as if Olivia tries to phone Bryce fairly shortly after
> 7am, but it must have actually been close to the end of the four hours,
> otherwise Bryce would have been standing on the pier with the gun to his
> chin for an awfully long time.
He was thinking about it *really* hard
>
> I think there's another time glitch in that the vision of Mark's boss
> takes place at 6am on 30 Apr 2010, and they explain this by saying that
> London time is 8 hours ahead of Los Angeles. But I reckon that in April
> London will be on BST daylight savings, making it only 7 hours ahead of
> PDT.
I think we Spring Ahead before the end of April in 2010 (in March,
maybe?), so it's possible.
Neal Eckhardt
<Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The editing doesn't make it clear how those four hours pass. The editing
>> makes it seem as if Olivia tries to phone Bryce fairly shortly after
>> 7am, but it must have actually been close to the end of the four hours,
>> otherwise Bryce would have been standing on the pier with the gun to his
>> chin for an awfully long time.
>
>He was thinking about it *really* hard
The problem I had with the pier sequence was the balloons. If they
were asleep for over 2 minutes, those balloons would have been LONG
GONE, rather than a few dozen feet in the air when he woke up.
Kim
The engine on Lost exploded because a guy sucked into it - it didn't
spontaneously explode. Although I don't know if a guy getting sucked into
the engine would make it explode.
Kim
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:27:20 -0700 (PDT), "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
> <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> The editing doesn't make it clear how those four hours pass. The
>>> editing makes it seem as if Olivia tries to phone Bryce fairly
>>> shortly after 7am, but it must have actually been close to the end
>>> of the four hours, otherwise Bryce would have been standing on the
>>> pier with the gun to his chin for an awfully long time.
>>
>> He was thinking about it *really* hard
>
> The problem I had with the pier sequence was the balloons. If they
> were asleep for over 2 minutes, those balloons would have been LONG
> GONE, rather than a few dozen feet in the air when he woke up.
Maybe they passed out, too.
Mike Williams
In programs like ER, a few dozen people injured in a traffic pile up
causes chaos in the hospital. In FlashForward hundreds or possibly
thousands of people are injured in local traffic accidents, and they get
just one injured child brought into the hospital.
Mark hasn't picked up on the fact that Demetri was quite a long distance
from the car immediately after the event. Much too far to have go there
by being thrown out of the car by the collision. Either Demetri ran over
there after the event, while Mark was struggling to get out of the car,
or he walked over there during the event while everyone else was blacked
out.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The engine on Lost exploded because a guy sucked into it - it didn't
> spontaneously explode. Although I don't know if a guy getting sucked into
> the engine would make it explode.
It shouldn't because there's a heavy-duty containment shroud that's
there to make sure the broken pieces go out the back. Jet engines
don't explode, exactly. All the interior pieces are on disks that are
going around really really fast. When a piece of FOD (Foreign-Object
Damage, which is actually the result of a foreign object, but the term
is used more broadly) goes into an engine and impacts these rotating
parts, they come apart and, because of rotary inertia, fling their
parts outward at high speed. The parts hit the containment shroud,
bounce back, and go out the back, pushed by the air flow.
I have to point out that containment shrouds aren't perfect and there
have been cases of parts going through them and doing massive damage
(a passenger here, all the hydraulic control lines there, ...), but
it's not common. On twin-engine high-performance aircraft, like the
F-15, there's a very substantial barrier between the two engines to
prevent fratricide, particularly after battle damage. Airlines with
multiple engines rely more on distance (or the fuselage) to prevent
fratricide.
Mary "Airliners don't get that much battle damage."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/
Kim
>
> Mark hasn't picked up on the fact that Demetri was quite a long
> distance from the car immediately after the event. Much too far to
> have go there by being thrown out of the car by the collision. Either
> Demetri ran over there after the event, while Mark was struggling to
> get out of the car, or he walked over there during the event while
> everyone else was blacked out.
The "he never blacked out" thing goes quite nicely with "he didn't have a
vision".
But I still keep expecting him say to Mark "Wanna go to White Castle?"
Greg Goss
>Well, we just watched it... the first ten minutes were plain confusing
>but then all became clear and it's going to be fascinating viewing. I
>cancelled the Survivor recordings (from the first two eps that's going
>to be a really crappy season and I don't care about it anyway!) so
>that we can record Flash Forward instead. I don't know how we lived
>without a DVR!
I'm going to have to go back to tape. We've got two boxes on our
internet-fed TV signal, but only one is a PVR, and neither of us watch
TV according to the network schedule. So I'm going to have to dig out
one of the VCRs and hook it to the basement TV box. I haven't checked
whether the basement TV box includes the "autotune" feature.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Greg Goss
>The problem I had with the pier sequence was the balloons. If they
>were asleep for over 2 minutes, those balloons would have been LONG
>GONE, rather than a few dozen feet in the air when he woke up.
The helicopter bothered me. They had been wandering around in the
traffic mess for a minute or more when they looked up and saw a
helicopter strike an office tower.
How stable is a small helicopter? If the pilot is out for two
minutes, is it still in the air when he wakes up? And how recoverable
is it? If he hasn't crashed when he was out, will he still be
fighting for control (and losing) a minute later?
K_S_ONeill
Yes, and he's a mole in the investigation, that was my thought too.
The wife/MD chick was too sympathetic to the Dad/prospective lover guy
outside when she was carrying the kid out. Hot MDs like that are used
to guys falling for them in stressful situations and have well worked
out mechanisms for dealing with them, starting with a polite but firm
brushoff and keep walking at possibly intimate moments like that. I'm
nowhere near as hot as she is, but when I think there's a danger a
student is getting too attached I certainly have a brisk tone I take
on and a keep-walking attitude that gets the idea across without
hurting anyone's feelings. I would never stop and have a heartfelt
meeting of the minds like that if I were worried something I didn't
want to develop might, that's just asking for trouble. And she would
know that.
The autistic kid was too empathetic when the Dad told him his mom was
dead. I've actually been around an autistic kid when he got bad
news. The news came kind of slowly from the adult who was struggling
to find the words, and the kid in the middle of the buildup with some
sense of triumph burst in, "Rover's dead, isn't he?" (Rover was the
kid's dog (not Rover's real name (Rover's real name is too distinctive
to use here, as the kid is sometimes on usenet, I think))). He was
far too delighted with his cleverness at figuring out what was going
on to feel sad, and he loved that dog. Now, that's not every autistic
kid in the world, but it really drove home to me that an autistic kid
is at his worst when the situation calls for empathy and restraint and
waiting and listening, or at least this one was. The kid in the bed
was all full up with empathy, it rang false to me. But who knows,
maybe that's a different sort of autism, I'm not an expert.
I have to say, though, some of the images are really striking. The
shot of the guy walking around in the stadium is just perfect, very
creepy, and it's just a guy walking around.
--
Kevin
care for a cupcake?
K_S_ONeill
> Neal Eckhardt <neckha...@penntraffic.nospam.com> wrote:
> >The problem I had with the pier sequence was the balloons. If they
> >were asleep for over 2 minutes, those balloons would have been LONG
> >GONE, rather than a few dozen feet in the air when he woke up.
>
> The helicopter bothered me. They had been wandering around in the
> traffic mess for a minute or more when they looked up and saw a
> helicopter strike an office tower.
>
> How stable is a small helicopter? If the pilot is out for two
> minutes, is it still in the air when he wakes up? And how recoverable
> is it? If he hasn't crashed when he was out, will he still be
> fighting for control (and losing) a minute later?
Some helicopters have autopilots. I don't know how good they are by
now, I've been away from helicopters for a while, and I don't know why
you'd be on autopilot in the middle of a city, but I guess you could
be, with GPS navigation and all. I guess I thought the thing was on
autopilot and the guy was still out, but everyone woke up more or less
at once, didn't they? Huh, good point.
--
Kevin
D.F. Manno
> Wasn't it Smokie Darling (Annie) who wrote:
> >On Sep 25, 12:09�pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
> >> this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
> >> October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
> >> they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
> >> started before 2:30 PM EDT.
> >
> >Were they being clear on the time? The babysitter and her boyfriend
> >made it seem a bit later in the afternoon in LA. The doctor on the
> >pier, wasn't that afternoon (seemed the sun was visible looking toward
> >the horizon)?
> >
> >Even if I've never seen a pier that empty in the afternoon (but it's
> >been years).
>
> After the opening sequence, there's a "Four Hours Earlier" caption, and
> we arrive at the Brandon house at 7am local time. So the event occurs at
> 11am Los Angeles time
Yes, so the ball game would be 2pm Eastern, which would not be that
unusual for playoff baseball.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)
D.F. Manno
Neal Eckhardt <neck...@penntraffic.nospam.com> wrote:
> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> The editing doesn't make it clear how those four hours pass. The editing
> >> makes it seem as if Olivia tries to phone Bryce fairly shortly after
> >> 7am, but it must have actually been close to the end of the four hours,
> >> otherwise Bryce would have been standing on the pier with the gun to his
> >> chin for an awfully long time.
> >
> >He was thinking about it *really* hard
>
> The problem I had with the pier sequence was the balloons. If they
> were asleep for over 2 minutes, those balloons would have been LONG
> GONE, rather than a few dozen feet in the air when he woke up.
If the strings were wrapped around the holder's hand/wrist/arm without
being tied in a knot, it could take a couple of minutes for them to
unravel.
D.F. Manno
Mike Williams <nos...@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark hasn't picked up on the fact that Demetri was quite a long distance
> from the car immediately after the event. Much too far to have go there
> by being thrown out of the car by the collision. Either Demetri ran over
> there after the event, while Mark was struggling to get out of the car,
> or he walked over there during the event while everyone else was blacked
> out.
I didn't pick up on it either 'til you pointed it out.
Kim
>
> I have to say, though, some of the images are really striking. The
> shot of the guy walking around in the stadium is just perfect, very
> creepy, and it's just a guy walking around.
Ha. I'm glad I'm not the only one creeped out by that. It is weird, isn't
it? It's just a guy walking around - yet it makes the hairs on the back of
my neck stand up. I thought there was something wrong with me that it
creeped me out so.
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
> Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 9:17 am, Neal Eckhardt <neckha...@penntraffic.nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:10:58 -0400, Kajikit <kaji...@jagcon.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Well, we just watched it... the first ten minutes were plain
> >>> confusing but then all became clear and it's going to be
> >>> fascinating viewing. I cancelled the Survivor recordings (from the
> >>> first two eps that's going to be a really crappy season and I don't
> >>> care about it anyway!) so that we can record Flash Forward instead.
> >>> I don't know how we lived without a DVR!
>
> >> A lot of people I have talked to turned FF off after the first few
> >> minutes. My wife even said that the show "wasn't doing it for her"
> >> after 15 minutes of watching the show.
>
> > I did that with the first episode of Lost. I turned it off after a
> > jet engine that obviously had had no fuel coming to it for quite some
> > time spontaneously exploded. Show where stuff spontaneously explode
> > pretty much lost my interest about twenty or thirty years ago. I
> > gather from stuff I have picked up since that Lost is actually a
> > different sort of show, but I haven't been persuaded to go back at
> > watch it from the start.
>
> The engine on Lost exploded because a guy sucked into it - it didn't
> spontaneously explode. Although I don't know if a guy getting sucked into
> the engine would make it explode.
I am going from distant memory and so may well have it wrong, but as I
recall the scenario this occured long enough after the actual crash
that survivors were milling around. The engine was elevated, on a
wing or partial wing. It was still running, meaning there was still
an intact fuel source and fuel pump (or whatever the jet equivalent
is) moving that fuel into the engine, despite the plane having crashed
some substantial time earlier. It then sucked one of the (up to then)
survivors up into the engine, leading to the explosion.
I'll grant you that "spontaneously" was a poor characterization. A
better word would have been "implausibly."
Richard R. Hershberger
Kim
I would suspect that the engine exploded no more than an hour after the
crash. Survivors were still digging themselves out and regaining
consciousness.
And you are right - the engine was "whirring", I don't know if that means
"running" or if it was just "winding down". In fact, I don't even know if
engines "wind down".
>
> I'll grant you that "spontaneously" was a poor characterization. A
> better word would have been "implausibly."
Ummm....yeah, because Lost is all about plausibility. You make me laugh. The
plane comes down because a guy in a hatch on a freaky island with a smoke
monster, people that don't age and time travelling people didn't enter
numbers into a computer resulting in a magnetic anomaly that brought the
plane down, and you stop watching because it's "implausible" that the engine
was still running after it crashed.
K_S_ONeill
It's all a plot by the polar bears to move the island north. Clearly.
Richard R. Hershberger
The thing is, I never got nearly that far. There was this new show
getting a lot of hype, and which seemed interesting enough to merit my
checking it out. Within the first fifteen minutes or so of the first
episode there was an event so wildly implausible that it jarred me out
any my suspension of disbelief. It seemed likely that this sort of
thing would continue, so I changed the channel. I have never watched
the show since. That the event I found so jarring turned out to be
less implausible than more fundamental aspects of the plot seems to me
an argument that my judgment was sound. I wasted fifteen minutes of
my life to a show I didn't like, but I cut my losses early. That I
could always be so perceptive!
Richard R. Hershberger
Mark Steese
news:e6d5ba6d-9a04-4b5b...@v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 8, 8:26锟絘m, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
>> > crash that survivors were milling around. 锟絋he engine was elevated,
>> > on a wing or partial wing. 锟絀t was still running, meaning there was
>> > still an intact fuel source and fuel pump (or whatever the jet
>> > equivalent is) moving that fuel into the engine, despite the plane
>> > having crashed some substantial time earlier. 锟絀t then sucked one
>> > of the (up to then
> )
>> > survivors up into the engine, leading to the explosion.
>>
>> I would suspect that the engine exploded no more than an hour after
>> the crash. Survivors were still digging themselves out and regaining
>> consciousness.
>>
>> And you are right - the engine was "whirring", I don't know if that
>> means "running" or if it was just "winding down". In fact, I don't
>> even know if engines "wind down".
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'll grant you that "spontaneously" was a poor characterization. 锟紸
>> > better word would have been "implausibly."
>>
>> Ummm....yeah, because Lost is all about plausibility. You make me
>> laugh. The plane comes down because a guy in a hatch on a freaky
>> island with a smoke monster, people that don't age and time
>> travelling people didn't enter numbers into a computer resulting in a
>> magnetic anomaly that brought the plane down, and you stop watching
>> because it's "implausible" that the engine was still running after it
>> crashed.
>
> The thing is, I never got nearly that far. There was this new show
> getting a lot of hype, and which seemed interesting enough to merit my
> checking it out. Within the first fifteen minutes or so of the first
> episode there was an event so wildly implausible that it jarred me out
> any my suspension of disbelief. It seemed likely that this sort of
> thing would continue, so I changed the channel. I have never watched
> the show since. That the event I found so jarring turned out to be
> less implausible than more fundamental aspects of the plot seems to me
> an argument that my judgment was sound. I wasted fifteen minutes of
> my life to a show I didn't like, but I cut my losses early. That I
> could always be so perceptive!
That's nothing. I started to read this book that everybody was saying
was a 'classic', and it turned out to be about some guy who claimed he
found an island where there were people six inches tall. No, seriously.
Talk about spoiling the suspension of disbelief! I couldn't get past the
first chapter. I found out later that apparently this same guy claimed
he went to other islands and met giants and talking horses, and -- this
is great -- he visited an island that floated in the air via the use of
a magnetic rock. Glad I didn't waste any more time on *that* one.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found
the banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
Richard R. Hershberger
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote innews:e6d5ba6d-9a04-4b5b...@v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:26 am, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
> >> > on a wing or partial wing. It was still running, meaning there was
> >> > still an intact fuel source and fuel pump (or whatever the jet
> >> > equivalent is) moving that fuel into the engine, despite the plane
> >> > of the (up to then
> > )
> >> > survivors up into the engine, leading to the explosion.
>
> >> I would suspect that the engine exploded no more than an hour after
> >> the crash. Survivors were still digging themselves out and regaining
> >> consciousness.
>
> >> And you are right - the engine was "whirring", I don't know if that
> >> means "running" or if it was just "winding down". In fact, I don't
> >> even know if engines "wind down".
>
It's all about genre. I am very fond of a particular author whose
books have stuff like hobbits and dragons, but hobbits and dragons are
genre-appropriate for those books. In the first fifteen minutes of
Lost I saw a show where the laws of physics don't seem to apply to jet
engines. If the argument is that this was a subtle hint of
strangeness to come, then it would follow that I failed to pick up on
what was going on. My interpretation at the time was that this was
more akin to bad '70s cop shows where cars would explode in midair,
for no reason other than that the producers thought exploding cars
were cool. I took this as a cue to what genre this show was, and
acted accordingly. From the commentary I have read since, I am still
inclined toward the theory that the exploding jet engine was put in
because exploding shit is cool.
Richard R. Hershberger
David J. Martin
>
> It's all about genre. I am very fond of a particular author whose
> books have stuff like hobbits and dragons, but hobbits and dragons are
> genre-appropriate for those books. In the first fifteen minutes of
> Lost I saw a show where the laws of physics don't seem to apply to jet
> engines. If the argument is that this was a subtle hint of
> strangeness to come, then it would follow that I failed to pick up on
> what was going on. My interpretation at the time was that this was
> more akin to bad '70s cop shows where cars would explode in midair,
> for no reason other than that the producers thought exploding cars
> were cool. I took this as a cue to what genre this show was, and
> acted accordingly. From the commentary I have read since, I am still
> inclined toward the theory that the exploding jet engine was put in
> because exploding shit is cool.
Ooooh, that blowed up good, blowed up real good.
David
groo
> On Oct 8, 8:26锟絘m, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
>> > crash that survivors were milling around. 锟絋he engine was elevated,
>> > on a wing or partial wing. 锟絀t was still running, meaning there was
>> > still an intact fuel source and fuel pump (or whatever the jet
>> > equivalent is) moving that fuel into the engine, despite the plane
>> > having crashed some substantial time earlier. 锟絀t then sucked one
>> > of the (up to then
> )
>> > survivors up into the engine, leading to the explosion.
>>
>> I would suspect that the engine exploded no more than an hour after
>> the crash. Survivors were still digging themselves out and regaining
>> consciousness.
>>
>> And you are right - the engine was "whirring", I don't know if that
>> means "running" or if it was just "winding down". In fact, I don't
>> even know if engines "wind down".
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'll grant you that "spontaneously" was a poor characterization. 锟紸
>> > better word would have been "implausibly."
>>
>> Ummm....yeah, because Lost is all about plausibility. You make me
>> laugh.
> The
>> plane comes down because a guy in a hatch on a freaky island with a
>> smoke monster, people that don't age and time travelling people
>> didn't enter numbers into a computer resulting in a magnetic anomaly
>> that brought the plane down, and you stop watching because it's
>> "implausible" that the eng
> ine
>> was still running after it crashed.
>
> The thing is, I never got nearly that far. There was this new show
> getting a lot of hype, and which seemed interesting enough to merit my
> checking it out. Within the first fifteen minutes or so of the first
> episode there was an event so wildly implausible that it jarred me out
> any my suspension of disbelief. It seemed likely that this sort of
> thing would continue, so I changed the channel. I have never watched
> the show since. That the event I found so jarring turned out to be
> less implausible than more fundamental aspects of the plot seems to me
> an argument that my judgment was sound. I wasted fifteen minutes of
> my life to a show I didn't like, but I cut my losses early. That I
> could always be so perceptive!
I'm so pissed off that I read clear to the very end of this post. I mean,
the ending was telegraphed sooo early.
--
"He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays." - Ian Anderson
Richard R. Hershberger
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:26 am, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
> >> > on a wing or partial wing. It was still running, meaning there was
> >> > still an intact fuel source and fuel pump (or whatever the jet
> >> > equivalent is) moving that fuel into the engine, despite the plane
> >> > of the (up to then
> > )
> >> > survivors up into the engine, leading to the explosion.
>
> >> I would suspect that the engine exploded no more than an hour after
> >> the crash. Survivors were still digging themselves out and regaining
> >> consciousness.
>
> >> And you are right - the engine was "whirring", I don't know if that
> >> means "running" or if it was just "winding down". In fact, I don't
> >> even know if engines "wind down".
>
> >> > better word would have been "implausibly."
>
> >> Ummm....yeah, because Lost is all about plausibility. You make me
> >> laugh.
> > The
> >> plane comes down because a guy in a hatch on a freaky island with a
> >> smoke monster, people that don't age and time travelling people
> >> didn't enter numbers into a computer resulting in a magnetic anomaly
> >> that brought the plane down, and you stop watching because it's
> >> "implausible" that the eng
> > ine
> >> was still running after it crashed.
>
> > The thing is, I never got nearly that far. There was this new show
> > getting a lot of hype, and which seemed interesting enough to merit my
> > checking it out. Within the first fifteen minutes or so of the first
> > episode there was an event so wildly implausible that it jarred me out
> > any my suspension of disbelief. It seemed likely that this sort of
> > thing would continue, so I changed the channel. I have never watched
> > the show since. That the event I found so jarring turned out to be
> > less implausible than more fundamental aspects of the plot seems to me
> > an argument that my judgment was sound. I wasted fifteen minutes of
> > my life to a show I didn't like, but I cut my losses early. That I
> > could always be so perceptive!
>
> I'm so pissed off that I read clear to the very end of this post. I mean,
> the ending was telegraphed sooo early.
The killfile is always an option.
Charlie Pearce
wrote:
>1) OK, everybody flashed forward to April 29, 2010. The protagonist says
>this is a little more than six months in the future, so it's "now"
>October, 2009. It's also about 10 AM in L.A. when it happens. So why are
>they playing baseball in Detroit? In the 2008 postseason, no games
>started before 2:30 PM EDT.
>
>2) Is this going to be one of those "Lost" type shows where you have to
>pay attention to even seemingly irrelevant details? I don't want to work
>that hard watching TV.
>
>3) Does it make any sense to get interested in this show when it could
>get cancelled after a few weeks, meaning we'll never find out who/what
>caused the flash-forward?
4) Why, in an otherwise authentic-looking British passport, is Ian
Rutherford's nationality listed as "SCOTTISH"?
Charlie
--
Email killed by spammers - please ask for the real one.
Opus the Penguin
5) Why, in everyone's flashforward, do they have know knowledge of
having had the flashforward. If that is the future of their current
present, there's only one thing most people would be doing on April
29 at the appointed time. They'd be staring at a clock waiting for it
to happen and then thinking, "Yep. That's what I saw all right." But
no one remembers thinking that in their flashforward.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Mike Williams
Well we did get the problem with the Bryce Varley timing sorted out this
week. It was just a case of some bad editing in the earlier episode that
made it seem like Olivia phones him at about 7am. In the latest episode
we see that Bryce's watch shows 9:50 as he loads the gun, she phones
after that, and the event happens at 10:00 in his time zone.
The latest episode contains one of the worst cases of revoicing that
I've ever seen. We hear Bryce say "It's rough for a few days after
chemo, but then I bounce back", but we see him say something
considerably shorter.
Kajikit
If you have an island that moves and has invisible smoke monsters on
it, I don't think the laws of physics are your biggest problem.
--
My website - http://www.kajikitscorner.com
My cooking blog - http://kajikit.wordpress.com
My crafty blog - http://kajikit.blogspot.com