FlashForward: "Gimmie Some Truth" 10/22 - Grading & Discussion

[DevilEyes]

The show is interesting but has its problems... but really, some of the complaints in this thread are really weird.

So what are you saying, that no genre show should be allowed to have lesbians in it?

No, but next time a mainstream show does this sort of thing, it should be two guys.

I'm not sure what the next time has to do with the show being discussed. Unless ya all really think they could have done the same storyline with Janice being a gay male whose flashforward was about being pregnant... oh wait...

Come to think of it, we should not allow any heterosexual love/sex/makeout scenes, for the same reason.

The difference is that hetero scenes are less likely to come off as crassly exploitative.

Oh really? Care to elaborate?

Funny how every time a show has a gay storyline, a bunch of people cry out that it is either oh so exploitative, or oh so sensationalist and done for ratings or "shock value" or "trying to be PC" (which people would be saying if it were two men - still remember the Skiffy forum outrage over the BSG "Face of the Enemy" webisodes). In same cases they have a point, but EVERY.SINGLE.TIME?

BTW, that was another thing. They couldn't get a black guy to be the president?

Why would they do that? So it would look like the president is supposed to represent Obama and the show is really about trashing Obama?

They mention Sarah Palin but they have to get a white scruffy looking guy (Who kinda looks like GW Bush) as the president instead. Talk about unrealistic.

It felt like an episode of West Wing for dummies. It's a weird reality where Clinton and Palin exist, along with Katrina and September 11th, but all the main politicians are different. Feh.

Well duh. Haven't you ever seen a fictional president in movies/TV before? How is this different from The West Wing, 24, Deep Impact, Independence Day, and a host of other movies and TV shows? Of course it is some sort of AU - unless the whole population of the world soon blacks out for 137 seconds and has a flashforward to 6 months time. And still those fictional worlds are always very similar to our world - if they didn't mention Palin or Clinton, they'd probably still mention something else, whether it is JFK or World War II or "Casablanca" or "Jurassic Park".. or "Star Trek" or "Lost". Heck, you might also ask how can they show Washington D.C. and FBI and CIA and talk about Somalia and China and Germany, and generally Earth in 2009, while presenting events that are not actually happening on Earth in the real world. It is not a different planet or far future, but people usually don't have trouble with suspending disbelief. I wonder if people had the same problem when 24 mentioned Milosevic and Kosovo in its first season, in connection with a ridiculous storyline that didn't make much sense in relation to the real world events and begged the question when season 1 was supposed to take place. And I don't remember David Palmer becoming the US president, either...

Anyway, this episode was much more interesting than the previous two. The relative lack of Mark/Olivia/Lloyd angst was very refreshing, it was good to see Wedeck's darker side, and, aside from the unrealistic escape from the gunmen (well, it is TV, what does anyone expect ), it had some action and introduced new mystery bad guys. I also liked it when they finally addressed the fact that the event would not have the same consequences all over the world due to the time difference.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, the presence of a fictional president doesn't bother me. That's pretty much standard procedure for movies and tv shows, dating at least as far back as movies like FAIL-SAFE, DR. STRANGELOVE, THE BEST MAN, SUPERMAN II . . . .

Unless you're doing some sort of topical political drama, you just have some generic president deal with the alien invasion, killer robots, or whatever . . . .

 

[Aragorn]

Anyway, this episode was much more interesting than the previous two. The relative lack of Mark/Olivia/Lloyd angst was very refreshing, it was good to see Wedeck's darker side, and, aside from the unrealistic escape from the gunmen (well, it is TV, what does anyone expect ), it had some action and introduced new mystery bad guys. I also liked it when they finally addressed the fact that the event would not have the same consequences all over the world due to the time difference.

When the gunmen attacked, I expected the one actor who isn't listed in the main credits to bite the dust. Oh well.

 

[Trent Roman]

Good episode. The main mystery itself doesn't move forward much, but it deals at length with the consequences of the blackout and flashforward, which was something we'd been lacking. Scope has been a problem for this show; an event of earth-shattering proportions has occured, and I want a suitably large, preferably global canvas on which to paint the aftermath. The sheer scale of devastation/paradigm shift makes it hard to care about petty things like adultery (I realized it's done to 'humanize' the issues, but I just can't give two figs about such things when events of such proportions are unfolding elsewhere). I will say this, however; they seem to be getting better at integrating the personal storylines into the larger arc; we already know that the Lone Scientist dragged into the adultery plot has something to do with larger events, and now Mark's alcoholism has become relevant to broader issues as well. Speaking of which, another thing that made me happy was finally addressing things like why Mark's blurry vision, the damage discrepancies occasioned by night/day patterns, and what the rest of the government outside one FBI field office is doing about this massive event.

Politics in these shows can often drag things down, but here actually uplifted the tone which had strayed into the irrelevant and irreverent in the last two episodes. The questions raised, and background antagonisms, kept everything interesting. The President actually reminded me of Mitt Romney more than Kerry (though all three have the same kind of lanky physique), although in part because he seemed antagonistic to someone (Clemente) who really reminded me of Pelosi or a Democrat like her. With Clemente the new Veep, however, I'm confused about the party politics at work; either they're rivals in the same party or the President made an (unremarked) bipartisan gesture (anybody else annoyed that these shows always seem to pussyfoot around political affiliations?) Curious about their rival flashforwards: true, a former president is still referred to as Mr. President and gets briefings, so it is possible that Clemente is telling the truth about being in charge six months hence despite what we saw of the current President's vision; but that would also mean that he gets forced out, through resignation or impeachment, during the rest of this season. I'm intrigued.

Like some others mentioned, I found the Reservoir Dogs-style shoutout at the end a bit silly; though I suppose all four may still be convinced that today was not their day to die, thanks to the flashforward. I'm wondering, now, if Janis' shooting will finally introduce evidence that the future shown in the flashforwards can (as, logically, they must) be changed; I don't expect them to kill off a lead so soon, and I kind of like her besides, but if the shooting leaves her barren, it will be a form of proof (which, by now, we should already have, but this show is intent on taking things slowly).

When the gunmen attacked, I expected the one actor who isn't listed in the main credits to bite the dust. Oh well.

I'm glad he didn't, since I kind of like him too (something of a grandfatherly vibe); but I suspect the real reason is because he still has a role to play in broader events. Two questions, to me, seemed to dovetail in this episode: how did masked gunmen with Kalashnikovs penetrate so far into an FBI building; and why did gramps leave via the security exit, which, by his own admission, is unusual? I think his future-self might have known they would be there, possibly even let them in.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Aragorn]

Well here's a minor problem about this show... will anyone who saw a flashforward of April 2010 ever die before then?

What will it mean if someone dies before his/her flashforward takes place? Would that be a game-changing moment on the show?

Were the FBI agents feeling pretty confident they wouldn't die in the shootout? Did any of the gunmen who went into the ambush without having seen a flashforward wonder about their own fate?

 

[Greg Cox]

Well here's a minor problem about this show... will anyone who saw a flashforward of April 2010 ever die before then?

What will it mean if someone dies before his/her flashforward takes place? Would that be a game-changing moment on the show?

Were the FBI agents feeling pretty confident they wouldn't die in the shootout? Did any of the gunmen who went into the ambush without having seen a flashforward wonder about their own fate?

Good point. You could have fun with certain characters behaving recklessly because they "know" it's not their time yet.

(Granted, the show kind of touched on this with that hospital patient who was unworried by his upcoming, life-threatening surgery because he had already seen his future.)

 

[firehawk12]

They mention Sarah Palin but they have to get a white scruffy looking guy (Who kinda looks like GW Bush) as the president instead. Talk about unrealistic.

It felt like an episode of West Wing for dummies. It's a weird reality where Clinton and Palin exist, along with Katrina and September 11th, but all the main politicians are different. Feh.

Well duh. Haven't you ever seen a fictional president in movies/TV before? How is this different from The West Wing, 24, Deep Impact, Independence Day, and a host of other movies and TV shows? Of course it is some sort of AU - unless the whole population of the world soon blacks out for 137 seconds and has a flashforward to 6 months time. And still those fictional worlds are always very similar to our world - if they didn't mention Palin or Clinton, they'd probably still mention something else, whether it is JFK or World War II or "Casablanca" or "Jurassic Park".. or "Star Trek" or "Lost". Heck, you might also ask how can they show Washington D.C. and FBI and CIA and talk about Somalia and China and Germany, and generally Earth in 2009, while presenting events that are not actually happening on Earth in the real world. It is not a different planet or far future, but people usually don't have trouble with suspending disbelief. I wonder if people had the same problem when 24 mentioned Milosevic and Kosovo in its first season, in connection with a ridiculous storyline that didn't make much sense in relation to the real world events and begged the question when season 1 was supposed to take place. And I don't remember David Palmer becoming the US president, either...

The difference being that other shows create their own mythology. With The West Wing, the last "real" president is Ford and then it branches. I'm sure other shows are like that as well.

Here it's a show that exists within our time frame but with an alternate reality... fine. But for some reason these major political figures exist but aren't actually seen in the show?

Then you start getting into nitpicking. Is Clinton still a senator? What about Obama, Biden and McCain? Is Pelosi in the house? How many fake senators are there? Is this dude a democrat or republican?
I don't know, it's just a pointless reference that seemed rather unnecessary and raised countless questions. I suppose it was supposed to be cute, but why not just use random celebrities instead?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Well here's a minor problem about this show... will anyone who saw a flashforward of April 2010 ever die before then?

What will it mean if someone dies before his/her flashforward takes place? Would that be a game-changing moment on the show?

Were the FBI agents feeling pretty confident they wouldn't die in the shootout? Did any of the gunmen who went into the ambush without having seen a flashforward wonder about their own fate?

Good point. You could have fun with certain characters behaving recklessly because they "know" it's not their time yet.

(Granted, the show kind of touched on this with that hospital patient who was unworried by his upcoming, life-threatening surgery because he had already seen his future.)

Hmm. Here's a possibility: What if the characters are seeing *potential* futures from, say, parallel realities?

It's the only explanation I can come up with for the differing flashforward visions folks are having; for example, Dmitri doesn't have one because, allegedly, he's killed by gunmen in five months' time (three shots to the chest). Yet his fiance sees *both* of them at their wedding on the beach. Who's right? Who's wrong? Perhaps, just perhaps, they're seeing futures from realities other than their own. If so, that'd be really freaky.

On a closing note, I sure as hell hope Janice (sp) isn't dead. I like the character.

Gatekeeper

 

[DarKush]

I don't mind the fake president. If anything that might give the show more creative freedom to roll with a fake president (s), similar to 24. It did seem odd though to be so explicit about Palin and Clinton though. If you make a fake president, and a powerful Senator like Clemente, why not just keep it all fake, at least with the contemporary references?

 

[Spot's Meow]

This episode was horrible! I really liked the first few episodes, but this one felt like I was watching a completely different show. All of a sudden they throw all this politics at us when the show hasn't been about that at all so far. Hopefully future episodes get back to the normal flow of things, but this one was just weird. The pacing was off, the characters weren't acting like themselves at all, suddenly we're supposed to care about this President and his political problems that we've never seen before...it's just so out of left field and doesn't fit in at all to what we've been watching before. The main character was acting weird too, towards the end of the episode he was acting like he was drunk, slurring his words and having a weird angry look on his face. It was just bizarre!!

This episode almost makes me not want to watch the show anymore, but I will give them another chance next week.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The show is interesting but has its problems... but really, some of the complaints in this thread are really weird.

So what are you saying, that no genre show should be allowed to have lesbians in it?

No, but next time a mainstream show does this sort of thing, it should be two guys.

I'm not sure what the next time has to do with the show being discussed. Unless ya all really think they could have done the same storyline with Janice being a gay male whose flashforward was about being pregnant... oh wait...


Oh really? Care to elaborate?

Because it's for straight guys to drool over! Cmon, you can't be that naive! Just read the comments in this thread and in the Heroes thread for that recent episode. I know exactly why stuff like this ends up in shows and it sure ain't to support gay rights.

And it also explains why we don't see it happen with two guys - wouldn't have the same ratings-grabbing potential. Or rather I should say, it takes a different form - Wincest and Petrellicest - which is both less literal and more freaky. I guess girls like things differently than guys?

What if the characters are seeing *potential* futures from, say, parallel realities?

Mosaic should be tracking folks to check if anyone who reported a vision dies between now and then. Just one case would remove the predestination issue.

But I think the writers will stick to predestination because it amps up the dramatic tension.

 

[DevilEyes]

The show is interesting but has its problems... but really, some of the complaints in this thread are really weird.

No, but next time a mainstream show does this sort of thing, it should be two guys.

I'm not sure what the next time has to do with the show being discussed. Unless ya all really think they could have done the same storyline with Janice being a gay male whose flashforward was about being pregnant... oh wait...


Oh really? Care to elaborate?

Because it's for straight guys to drool over! Cmon, you can't be that naive!

Um, I know that many straight guys drool over lesbian scenes but are you saying that nobody drools over heterosexual sex scenes between two hot people? Please. You cannot be that naive.

And BTW, straight women watch TV, too.

 

[Star Wolf]

The show is interesting but has its problems... but really, some of the complaints in this thread are really weird.


I'm not sure what the next time has to do with the show being discussed. Unless ya all really think they could have done the same storyline with Janice being a gay male whose flashforward was about being pregnant... oh wait...


Oh really? Care to elaborate?

Because it's for straight guys to drool over! Cmon, you can't be that naive!

Um, I know that many straight guys drool over lesbian scenes but are you saying that nobody drools over heterosexual sex scenes between two hot people? Please. You cannot be that naive.

And BTW, straight women watch TV, too.

Sure but straight women don't drool over two men together. Meanwhile in porno aimed at men every second scene is showing two lesbians together.

 

[DevilEyes]

Because it's for straight guys to drool over! Cmon, you can't be that naive!

Um, I know that many straight guys drool over lesbian scenes but are you saying that nobody drools over heterosexual sex scenes between two hot people? Please. You cannot be that naive.

And BTW, straight women watch TV, too.

Sure but straight women don't drool over two men together. Meanwhile in porno aimed at men every second scene is showing two lesbians together.

1) Some obviously do, or there wouldn't be so much slash written by women.

2) Straight women don't drool over hetero sex scenes either? What do they drool over, then?

Inserting lesbian scenes only for straight men to drool over, is lame. Saying that you can't have a lesbian storyline on TV because it will come off as exploitative because straight men will drool (even when such a storyline actually has a purpose in the story), is a very lame and crappy reason to be against lesbian storylines on TV. How about we stopped thinking of everything from the perspective of what straight men want, mkay?

 

[Bad Bishop]

... And the MOST PATHETIC CHARACTER AWARD goes to Assistant Director Stanford Wedeck (played by Courtney B.Vance).

In the episode, we note that Wedeck is consumed with the issue of funding for Mosaic and holding on to his lead role in the investigation of the blackouts. He fears losing control of the investigation, so what does he do? He blackmails the President of the United States, of course. This President, by the way, is supposed to be his old buddy.

Let's back up for a moment and look at this. National security is the collective responsibility of various agencies--FBI, CIA, NRO, NSA, DHS, etc. Agencies still compete with each other for funding, resources and responsibility, but in the post-9/11 age there is more cooperation between them than ever (or at least there is supposed to be).

I can appreciate Wedeck's desire to stay in charge of the blackout investigation, when responsibilty could have gone to another FBI office or another agency entirely. But if the President or the FBI Director tells Wedeck that the investigation will be assigned elsewhere, then it is his job to say "Yes, Sir" and move on. If Wedeck's superiors don't think he should be in charge then the matter is closed.

This viewer believes that blackmailing the President is an utterly insane way of gaming an intra-agency turf war for personal gain (but don't take my word for it; I've never tried this myself). Wedeck should have been able to convince his superiors that the project was worthwhile. It should be all about the merits. If his bosses disagree, too damn bad for him.

I have serious concerns about Wedeck's temperament. We observed him storming out of the Senate hearing. Did this behavior appear to be very professional? Should he get a pass for blackmailing the President? Of course not, yet no one is talking about this.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to Wedeck. Among all the characters, this poor guy does bear the stigma of being on the toilet on that fateful day in April 2010. How humiliating is that? Is this why he's so desperate to control the investigation?

In regards to the gunmen at the end of the episode, I think it is unlikely that they were taking orders from the President. In the U.S., such violence usually doesn't follow a big reveal of adultery.

 

[Trent Roman]

. It should be all about the merits.

Excerpting this point, just to point out that the project was being threatened not on the grounds of merit (although Clemente did raise some good points), but because Clemente had a grudge against Wedeck, based on Wedeck apparently covering the President's ass a number of years ago (likely related to the adultery). So it's not so much that Wedeck went off the beaten path to save his project, as he redirected the same practices that were being used to threaten it in the first place to save it.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The show is interesting but has its problems... but really, some of the complaints in this thread are really weird.


I'm not sure what the next time has to do with the show being discussed. Unless ya all really think they could have done the same storyline with Janice being a gay male whose flashforward was about being pregnant... oh wait...


Oh really? Care to elaborate?

Because it's for straight guys to drool over! Cmon, you can't be that naive!

Um, I know that many straight guys drool over lesbian scenes but are you saying that nobody drools over heterosexual sex scenes between two hot people? Please. You cannot be that naive.

And BTW, straight women watch TV, too.

I'm countering the naive assumption that showing homosexual pairings has anything to do with the producers caring about gay rights, in case anyone might be so deluded. It's completely self-interested and crass, not unlike some depictions of straight relationships on TV, especially those on the CW.

But on TV, many if not most straight relationships serve the needs of the story. Joseph Fiennes and his wife, for instance - that has very little to do with sex and everything to do with creating an angst-ridden plotline for the story.

The way you can tell the true agenda behind the lesbian relationships is to see the nonexistence of plotlines with two gay male characters. If promoting gay rights were the motive, why this odd discrepency?

And sure, straight women watch TV, but the male-dominated TV industry doesn't give a flip about serving their interests, especially when it's guaranteed to offend straight males and send them scrambling for the remote.

How about we stopped thinking of everything from the perspective of what straight men want, mkay?

Because the TV industry only cares about what straight men want. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand if you insist, but some of us are capable of seeing this shit for exactly what it is.

Sure but straight women don't drool over two men together. Meanwhile in porno aimed at men every second scene is showing two lesbians together.

Straight women DO drool over two men together. The male-dominated porn industry doesn't give a flip about serving the interests of straight women any more than ABC does, particularly at the expense of losing the straight male audience.

 

[DevilEyes]

I'm countering the naive assumption that showing homosexual pairings has anything to do with the producers caring about gay rights, in case anyone might be so deluded. It's completely self-interested and crass, not unlike some depictions of straight relationships on TV, especially those on the CW.

I'm countering the naive assumption that showing homosexual pairings has anything to do with the producers caring about gay rights, in case anyone might be so deluded.

Whaaat? You mean the TV producers and networks are not working only out of idealism and a desire to spread deep ethical messages? You mean they might have MONEY on their mind? Noooooo! Next you'll tell me Santa isn't real!

Really, if you think that lesbian scenes are the only thing that they put in TV shows to get ratings, and therefore more money, and everything else is there just because of artistic intent - you are being incredibly naive.

Or do you only have a problem with it when it comes to lesbians on TV - everything else is OK, even though everything else is there to get ratings as well? Since it is established that producers always have money rather than gay rights at heart, the solution is... what? That the best way to promote gay rights is not to have any gay storylines on TV?

But on TV, many if not most straight relationships serve the needs of the story. Joseph Fiennes and his wife, for instance - that has very little to do with sex and everything to do with creating an angst-ridden plotline for the story.

And that is different from the purpose of Janice's storyline... how exactly? Remember that we're talking about the story now, so please let's put aside your established "Every lesbian storyline on TV has to suck by default, because the producers want ratings and it's there just to titillate the straight males".

 

[Australis]

Sorry, new to the threads on FF, new to this thread...

...but did anyone notice...

... as the bus plunges into the lake, a bright light, like a small sun, suddenly appears over the city?

It may have been in other eps, but if so I didn't notice it.

Anyone?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Really, if you think that lesbian scenes are the only thing that they put in TV shows to get ratings, and therefore more money, and everything else is there just because of artistic intent - you are being incredibly naive.

Everything in TV is motivated by money, and the lesbian scenes are among those things. So you agree with me. Good.

Or do you only have a problem with it when it comes to lesbians on TV

Other than that they bore me and I'd rather have two hot guys slobberin' over each other? Not really.

That the best way to promote gay rights is not to have any gay storylines on TV?

Howsabout that they not be obviously sleazy ratings grabs? What FastForward is doing cannot be called "promoting gay rights." That's silly. When they risk having guys change the channel by having two hot guys slobberin' over each other, then I'll admit that their motives might be pure.

And that is different from the purpose of Janice's storyline... how exactly? Remember that we're talking about the story now, so please let's put aside your established "Every lesbian storyline on TV has to suck by default, because the producers want ratings and it's there just to titillate the straight males".

After seeing that last episode, all the soap opera plotlines suck. But having an angst-ridden hetero couple with a marriage on the ropes cannot be called a ratings grab, since it's far to common on TV shows to be anything other than business as usual.

And I truly doubt you know the first thing about my attitudes. Your random rants and "interesting" logic are very amusing but the sun has set here in Cali and I'm missing my trick or treating! See ya in the funny pages!

Oh wait...

... as the bus plunges into the lake, a bright light, like a small sun, suddenly appears over the city?

Wow, someone with something intelligent to add to the discussion. Yeah I totally missed that one - that's probably a parallel to the strange thing looming over the site in Africa with the pylons.