Flash Forward - season 1 - Page 3

Fiennes is too cold to play the lead.  Not connecting with any of the other characters either though.

 Saw this diagram posted on trekweb which they found at Sci Fi Wire. This was intended to convey humor about the lack of similarity between Flash Forward and Lost.

I have to say that this series has got me hooked. I hope the producers and directors don't lose the momentum like they did with Lost. 

They would have to create the same momentum that Lost built before they could lose it. I think this show has a really cool premise but there hasn't been anything else that has made excited about or interested in this show. Like Lou said above, I'm not connecting with any of the characters (whereas with Lost, I was interested in almost all of them as soon as they had a full scene). In all fairness, there's been two episodes and in a week, I could be absolutely in love with it but as of now, I'm surprised that people seem to enjoy it so much.

Did you stop watching Lost at some point, because the last two seasons have been incredible.

The Lost and FF comparisons are inevitable but right now FF has very big shoes to fill to stand along Lost.

Just heard about this show.  Hopefully I can watch the
first two episodes online and then join the discussion
in progress.

 

Worth it thus far? 

Yes.

^ chart, who is the sexy female prisoner on FF?

First episode, they're doing a surveillance on a mystery woman. They have a car chase, then the blackout. After the blackout, they haul her ouf of her rolled van, and initially accuse her of having something to do with the blackout.

We've not heard from her since.

Yeah, a dangling plot thread or a seed for a future episode?  Time will tell.

I could be wrong but I would think that if the character wasn't intended to play a part in more episodes, the people in the SUV would have been anonymous drug dealers or something like that and they would have been killed in a wreck during the blackout so they didn't need to deal with them at all anymore.

I think she'll be back in the story. Only that that the preliminary thread has been dropped (for now?).

I've got $5 that says Sulu is one of the bad guys.
One major character has t be on the other side, and I'm picking him.
He doesn't have a 'flash' because he was awake the whole time.

Sulu, really?

really?

Alright, after re-watching the second episode, I noticed that in one (very brief) part of Lloyd's flash, where Olivia was in the bedroom, future-Lloyd states that he has to go make a phone call, and there is a quick shot of him glancing over his shoulder or turning around, or something similar.

Two things: first, is this evidence that he did see Olivia, and thus he is perhaps lying about recognizing her?  Second, his phone call must have been very brief, as he is downstairs, on the couch, seemingly done with his call.  Could there be a connection between the calls between D. Gibons and Suspect Zero?  Lloyd is a physicist, which usually spells "I know more than I am letting on," in shows like this :)

Well boys and girls, I spent my morning watching the first
two episodes of FLASH FORWARD.  

Got a little mixed up about the daughter saying "D Gibbons
is a bad man" when I thought D Gibbons was the cupcake
lady.  However, someone suggested stolen identity here.

Really like this show.  Have been reading your comments
with interest, and I look forward with sharing future discussions
with all of you.

Now to add the series to my Tivo so I don't miss this week's
episode. 

I understand the confusion about D Gibbons.  Here's how I see it (and I very possibly could be wrong...in fact, I usually am).

• The real D Gibbons is the cupcake lady.
• The investigators (still don't know any of the character's names) were also calling the fella who blew himself up in Utah "D gibbons" because he apparently used a clone of the real D Gibbons' credit card.
• At the time of the flash forward, 6 months hence, the real D Gibbons is on the phone, apparently to her credit card company, complaining bitterly about something (presumably charges that she doesn't think she owes).
• 6 months seems to me like a long time for the credit card company to still be maintaining that she owes (I have had only one instance of a spurious charge and my company fixed it immediately)
• On the other hand, in her flash forward, she ranted about "pigeon" which was the name of the Utah town wher the blown up guy used her cloned card a few days before the flash forward.
• I didn't see who got zipped into the body bag in Pigeom, the D Gibbons clone or the sheriff, but I can't see how he survived the explosion.
• The inference I drew from all of the above is that 6 months out there is another clone of D Gibbons card being used by another baddie (assuming the people who are moving about on the flash forward a) caused it, and b) are baddies).  I believe that the little girl was describing this person, possibly also in Pigeon, Utah, as a "bad man".

It was the cop who told Harold that she didn't have a vision of the future.  I don't know if she was the sheriff or not.

Right.  Because his surviving the explosion would be implausible - unlike the whole, "All of humanity passed out for exactly 2:17 at the same instant and all have visions of where they will be exactly six months later" premise of the show. 

I think if we can accept that - and accept that "D. Gibbons" is one of at least two people who was up and walking around while the rest of the human race enjoyed nap time - I think we can also buy the he survived - or escaped - the explosion.  (My money is on a blast-proof tunnel running under the place.)  Strictly in terms of story-telling it is much less likely that there is yet another D. Gibbons running around in six month's time than that the first one didn't die in the blast.   The fact that there is no sign that they found his body also points in that direction.  (Agent Noh specifically references the death of the woman who told him she had no vision of April 29th, and nobody says something like, "Gee, wonder why that name is still on your board six months from now since we just saw D. Gibbons die and have the stiff down at the morgue.") 

Regards,

Joe

And it was definitely the female peace office (a deputy sheriff I think) who was zipped up in the body bag. 

You got me, Joseph.  Here I was stringing together a a series of illogical occurrences to draw a conclusion, and I came to logical conclusion.

What was I thinking?

I can't resist a further tiny nitpick.  This isn't aimed at you in particular, but you've hit one of my hot buttons when it comes to English usage.

There is nothing inherently illogical about any of the occurances in the show that I can recall.  Thanks to Mr. Spock people tend to use "illogical" when they mean, "unlikely", "unbelievable" or "contrary to known fact", but illogical only properly applies when something defies the laws of logic - not those of physics, biology or poetics.

 

Major premise:  All men are mortal

Minor premise:  Socrates is a man

Minor premise:  Scorates is mortal

 

We use two pieces of information to deduce a third based on their logically necessary connections.

 

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

All men are Socrates

 

THIS is illogical.  The third statement does not follow from the first two.

 

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Socrates likes cheese

 

Also illogical since neither of the first two statements has anything to do with cheese. 

 

All men like cheese

Socrates is a man

Socrates likes cheese

 

THIS is a piece of unassailable logic, even though all men do not, as a matter of fact, like cheese.  Logic doesn't deal in fact.  Logic deals in the intellectual relation between propositions.  (I am using the simplest possible syllogisms, but the principle applies to more complicated areas as well.)

 

All pink elephants can dance the cha-cha

Jumbo is a pink elephant

Jumbo can dance the cha-cha

 

This is as logical a string of statements as those about Socrates and mortality, and therefore is perfectly logical.  If the first and second propositions are true, the third necessarily follows.  The fact that pink elephants do not actually exist, and would be very unlikely to do the cha-cha if they did, doesn't affect the logic. 

None of which is to say that TV and movie plots can't be illogical.  If the rules of a particular fictional world establish that it always takes six shots to kill one of the mud monsters and in the climax the hero kills one with the last bullet in his gun, that's illogical.  Either the exception has to be explained or the creators have violated the interal logic of their own story and that's cheating.   But it isn't illogical because mud monsters don't exist.  And don't let Mr. Spock try to tell you otherwise. 

Here endeth the rant.

Regards,

Joe

Becasue they know the cupcake woman is D.Gibbons.

They were also referring to guy who blew up the factory as D. Gibbons.  There is no reason for D. Gibbons the cupcake lady to be on the FBI's board six months in the future because, as you point out, they know who she is.   With her identified and a fried "D. Gibbons" in the morgue it still would have made sense for someone to reference the fact that they had just killed their best lead. 

Regards,

Joe

 I rather enjoyed your post on logic Joseph!

Maybe it's still on the board 6 months later due to it being 6 months later and they currently don't know why it's still on the board.

There is apparently something going on with that woman since we saw her odd flashforward, so couldn't they be thinking  the D. still on the board is the woman?

Her odd flashforward may be the first example of changing the future.  She was upset in the original timeline because she found out someone had stolen her identity in Pigeon and was having a hard time sorting it out.  She took matters into her own hands in the now and went to the FBI, and they now know all about the identity theft.  Other than her name still being used by a man--which was a cliffhanger so we shouldn't have any idea what that means--she may very well be ready to pass out of the story, never to be seen again.

I just started tonight's episode (after the baseball game), and it reminded me... I had a thought during the last episode that I meant to mention.  What if the daughter gets kidnapped by D. Gibbons, and then that is what drives a wedge in the marriage?  Might be that she goes to the kid's father because she needs sympathy from someone who thought they might lose their child.

Still, it'd be a pretty surreal experience to have seen a future that says you'll be with a man who isn't your husband in 6 months, when you have no intention of that happening, then to actively traverse that exact course. So much so that even though she'll recognize that her path has changed from what she expected, events will occur that'll be so significant, that she'll continue anyway.

I'll continue reading and watching, but I'm not convinced yet we've seen anyone change their vision.