or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › "Covert Affairs" on USA HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Covert Affairs" on USA HD - Page 2

post #31 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanSaysYo View Post

Kept thinking "why don't they give her a gun?" throughout the entire pilot.

Yes, me too. Wonder if she has to graduate from training first?

DGK
post #32 of 375
I'll tune in for more...
But here's some NitPicks:

1) - The CIA needs that fone she forgot in the hotel room, ( Which is Now under Dc police control), & simply couldn't make a call & get that fone back, there IN Washington DC ?!?
1a) - They are swarming with experienced agents at CIA HQ, but send her to retrieve the fone??
2) - Also was saying thru the episode, Where the heck is her Gun??


This Show NEEDS a crossover with "Chuck" ...
post #33 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatChicken View Post

I'll tune in for more...
But here's some NitPicks:

1) - The CIA needs that fone she forgot in the hotel room, ( Which is Now under Dc police control), & simply couldn't make a call & get that fone back, there IN Washington DC ?!?
1a) - They are swarming with experienced agents at CIA HQ, but send her to retrieve the fone??
2) - Also was saying thru the episode, Where the heck is her Gun??


This Show NEEDS a crossover with "Chuck" ...

I bet casey would just love her
post #34 of 375
The first thing I thought was how could she fight anyone with a tight skirt. Then when she was fighting in the subway where is her d*** gun?
post #35 of 375
Love hearing all the feedback! What did you all thing of that car chase? And did you like all the CIA information? There was a lot of true details in that episode, for instance, the CIA does actually have a Starbucks in it.
post #36 of 375
both piper and her milf boss are eye candy
i will be tuning in for round two
post #37 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAnetwork View Post

Love hearing all the feedback! What did you all thing of that car chase? And did you like all the CIA information? There was a lot of true details in that episode, for instance, the CIA does actually have a Starbucks in it.

I used to work for one of those agencies, and the lie detector scene brought back memories. However, as I recall it, the subject normally faces away from the examiner, and is only supposed to answer yes or no to all questions. Yes, there were stores in the public areas, where uncleared people were allowed. Starbucks would be a no-brainer these days.
post #38 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatChicken View Post

I'll tune in for more...
But here's some NitPicks:

1) - The CIA needs that fone she forgot in the hotel room, ( Which is Now under Dc police control), & simply couldn't make a call & get that fone back, there IN Washington DC ?!?
1a) - They are swarming with experienced agents at CIA HQ, but send her to retrieve the fone??
2) - Also was saying thru the episode, Where the heck is her Gun??

For #1: At that point they were trying to keep the local law enforcement out of the loop. Officially asking for the phone would have called attention to a covert operation. They only intervened when their agents got arrested to keep things from getting more out of hand.

For #1a: Two plausible scenarios come to mind:

A. They thought this was a routine mission that should be "easy" and decided to use it as a test mission for the new recruit. You wouldn't send a newbie knowingly into a screwed up situation, which is what ultimately occurred.

B. By the end of the episode, we see that the CIA is clearly aware of her past relationship with the guy they are looking for. He is either a rogue agent, a double-agent, or a foreign spy that they want to attract and capture... so bringing her up and putting her in the field probably made sense to get his attention... which it did.

For #2: You have me there... I have no answer for that one.
post #39 of 375
Ummmm. About her not carrying a gun.

Isn't the CIA supposed to be "working" outside the USA and the FBI "inside". By the charter or "terms of reference" or whatever, doesn't this mean that the CIA agents don't have any official status inside the USA?

This would mean that CIA agents inside the USA would have to have gun licenses to carry guns like ordinary citizens as they are not "officially" law enforcement.

It, also, would have been a lot worse if she was carrying a gun when she was arrested, with the blind guy, in the mortuary. As well as breaking and entering she would have been charged with carrying a concealed, "unlicensed", weapon.

Finally, a general point. Isn't it a bit sad that everyone was expecting her to have a gun? Wasn't it "better" that she had to use her brains, intelligence, training to close out the situation rather than just simply shooting away like a dumb blond bimbo?
post #40 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcc View Post

why does everything have to have a multi episode arc now?

Now?

Series have been doing that for decades. That sort of thing really came on strong in the 80s with series like Dallas, Hill Street Blues, etc. and continued into the 90's with shows like the X-Files.

It wasn't until we got closer to the millennium that the arcs started to be restrict to just back story cannon as people stopped being as committed to weekly shows.

So, in fact, it's only in the last decade that procedurals started reducing the amount of carry-over from episode to episode.

The fact that shows are starting to get back to the short arc (as opposed to the true serialized show) is nothing new.
post #41 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Now?

Series have been doing that for decades. That sort of thing really came on strong in the 80s with series like Dallas, Hill Street Blues, etc. and continued into the 90's with shows like the X-Files.

It wasn't until we got closer to the millennium that the arcs started to be restrict to just back story cannon as people stopped being as committed to weekly shows.

So, in fact, it's only in the last decade that procedurals started reducing the amount of carry-over from episode to episode.

The fact that shows are starting to get back to the short arc (as opposed to the true serialized show) is nothing new.

so yes, it's a trend that is recurring recently.

it's dumb, and it makes shows far too predictable. they can't ever finish a problem in an episode because it has to run the whole season, so someone gets away at the last minute, or dies suddenly etc.
post #42 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcc View Post

it's dumb, and it makes shows far too predictable. they can't ever finish a problem in an episode because it has to run the whole season, so someone gets away at the last minute, or dies suddenly etc.

I see it exactly the opposite. Take a show like 24 which certainly had a season long story arc but at the same time virtually every episode had its own arc which at times even redefined the season's arc. The season's arc frames the episodes which adds importance.
post #43 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

I see it exactly the opposite. Take a show like 24 which certainly had a season long story arc but at the same time virtually every episode had its own arc which at times even redefined the season's arc. The season's arc frames the episodes which adds importance.

but you just said it there. they continuously redefined the arc. this show won't, white collar doesn't, leverage won't, etc.

24s only arc was that jack bauer was going to try to save the day by killing a lot of people, and that was really interesting to watch.

this show's arc is that this girl will never shut up and has a weird ex boyfriend.
post #44 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcc View Post

but you just said it there. they continuously redefined the arc. this show won't, white collar doesn't, leverage won't, etc.

24s only arc was that jack bauer was going to try to save the day by killing a lot of people, and that was really interesting to watch.

this show's arc is that this girl will never shut up and has a weird ex boyfriend.

Regarding 24 I would call that the show's theme not the arc. During the season his goal was redirected several times - enough to alter the story arc itself. Which served nicely to allow the story to hit hills and valleys. I would also call your description of Covert Affairs a theme. Having aired only one episode I think it's rather difficult to define (or complain) about its arc. I was really addressing your comment...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcc View Post

why does everything have to have a multi episode arc now?

I believe it can greatly increase the relationships you have with the characters as you follow their (defined) adventure. Allowing you to become additionally vested in their lives.
post #45 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

Regarding 24 I would call that the show's theme not the arc. During the season his goal was redirected several times - enough to alter the story arc itself. Which served nicely to allow the story to hit hills and valleys. I would also call your description of Covert Affairs a theme. Having aired only one episode I think it's rather difficult to define (or complain) about its arc. I was really addressing your comment...



I believe it can greatly increase the relationships you have with the characters as you follow their (defined) adventure. Allowing you to become additionally vested in their lives.

the problem is I specifically don't get invested in their lives, because we know all too well how it's going to go.

her boyfriend was an agent, he turned somehow or wanted out, he'll eventually make real contact later on this season and get killed off but not really be dead, again. it's just like chuck, minus the intercept.

there's no danger and no drama, because you can already see the climax is the moment when he really jumps back into her life and that's probably 10 episodes away. this show will need to be much better in the little things like dialogue and character interaction to make watching the filler until then worthwhile, like burn notice.
post #46 of 375
Better a multi-episode arc than playing fast and loose with the timeline. I just watched an episode of CSI: Miami where there was an anniversary party with alcohol being served and it was presumably in the afternoon. The mother was killed, and the whole thing was solved before quitting time. There was too much that happened, too many trips outside the lab, etc., for the murder to have been solved in an hour or two. That kind of thing upsets me more.
post #47 of 375
I finally watched the pilot and, if 'Alias' was the varsity, this show is the JV's. The sheen of an expensive broadcast show vs. a cablenet - the rough edges really show. Kind of like a kid brother, or sister in this case, wanting to emulate their flashy, older sibling but just not ready for the big time. Some really painful dialog and plotlines (the jealousy angle between the two bosses was glossed over too quickly to even register). And Piper is no Jennifer Garner, who really sold every fight scene. When Sidney Bristow was scared, you believed it and Garner was athletic enough to make you buy into her feats of derring-do. I might watch another episode or two but it's going to have to get better quickly to keep me tuned in, and that's probably not in the cards.

Oh, and I don't know if anybody's mentioned it, but Auggie, the blind techno-wiz, played the lead in last summer's guilty pleasure midiseries, 'Harper's Island'. I enjoyed that one.
post #48 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcc View Post

the problem is I specifically don't get invested in their lives, because we know all too well how it's going to go.

her boyfriend was an agent, he turned somehow or wanted out, he'll eventually make real contact later on this season and get killed off but not really be dead, again. it's just like chuck, minus the intercept.

there's no danger and no drama, because you can already see the climax is the moment when he really jumps back into her life and that's probably 10 episodes away. this show will need to be much better in the little things like dialogue and character interaction to make watching the filler until then worthwhile, like burn notice.

With that cynical point of view, you're never going to enjoy any show. Some shows take the easy and predictable road. Others don't. It's too early to tell on this particular show what will happen. My guess is that the you're probably right, but that the execution of the plot will likely be entertaining anyway. Sometimes a show can thrive despite predictability because it does other things well.
post #49 of 375
I agree that maybe we need to watch more than one episode before burying the show! I loved Alias and do see the similarities, but let's give it a chance.
post #50 of 375
Watched the pilot from a recording, and will give it a few episodes worth of a chance.

The Good:
CIA details, like the Clinton-era hiring freeze, no cellphones inside the building, and lack of cooperation with other agencies.
The chase scenes were handled fairly well.

The Bad:
Casually letting a suspected call-girl ("I don't like that term" was a nice line) stroll through an FBI crime scene was a pretty dumb plot element.
Some of the lighter banter is WAY too cute; it actually derails the story.

The Ugly:
Sorry, but I'm just not sold on the idea that Piper's such a pretty gal... (But she looks like she could work in the CIA as a trainee.)
post #51 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeewing View Post

I agree that maybe we need to watch more than one episode before burying the show! I loved Alias and do see the similarities, but let's give it a chance.

That's part of the problem. If I had never seen 'Alias', I'd probably like this show a lot more. The deficiencies are just too glaring. It's like that old line from WWI - once they've seen "gay Par-ee" (using the original vernacular), how you gonna' get 'em back to the farm?
post #52 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

Watched the pilot from a recording, and will give it a few episodes worth of a chance.

The Good:
CIA details, like the Clinton-era hiring freeze, no cellphones inside the building

If only CTU had followed that recommendation. 24 would have been a lot shorter and with a much smaller body count.
post #53 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

If only CTU had followed that recommendation. 24 would have been a lot shorter and with a much smaller body count.

LOL! that's a good one.
post #54 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

That's part of the problem. If I had never seen 'Alias', I'd probably like this show a lot more. The deficiencies are just too glaring. It's like that old line from WWI - once they've seen "gay Par-ee" (using the original vernacular), how you gonna' get 'em back to the farm?

Not only does Piper Perabo look a somewhat like Jennifer Garner, in some scenes she also SOUNDS like Jennifer Garner. Halfway through the pilot I said to my wife "that's Jennifer Garner's original Alias haricut." I hope the next episodes distance this show from Alias a bit, because the more similar they are, the worse Covert Affairs will look. Alias already took this concept and executed too well to have a copycat so soon. I'm already wishing I could have Alias on Blu-ray.
post #55 of 375
I can now see WHY she doesn't carry a gun. It's so that they can say "she's a 'good' girl and doesn't kill people. Only 'bad' people kill people. Oh, and in this episode it was a British agent who killed someone, not an American. In the last episode it was a Russian killer.

A not so subtle storyline. American agents don't kill Americans only foreign agents.
post #56 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_man View Post

I can now see WHY she doesn't carry a gun. It's so that they can say "she's a 'good' girl and doesn't kill people. Only 'bad' people kill people. Oh, and in this episode it was a British agent who killed someone, not an American. In the last episode it was a Russian killer.

A not so subtle storyline. American agents don't kill Americans only foreign agents.

That's a typical problem you see on shows like this, and it hampers the authenticity. But it's probably USA network policy based on the general theme they're tying to convey with their series. Michael Weston ('Burn Notice') never kills anyone either, with the exception of one really, really bad guy a couple of seasons ago in the season finale, I believe. And that guy basically goaded Michael into it and was so evil Mother Teresa would have pulled the trigger.
post #57 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_man View Post

I can now see WHY she doesn't carry a gun. It's so that they can say "she's a 'good' girl and doesn't kill people. Only 'bad' people kill people.

Really? I think she doesn't carry a gun because she'll probably shoot herself in the foot.

It's good they addressed the fact that she really does suck at hand-to-hand because combined with everything else she seems like a liability and the worst person to put in the field. What we've seen so far she's a complete klutz, forgets to grab evidence, can't handle a car chase, gets beaten up a lot and she sounds extremely naive ...

I'm still not sold on this show yet. I don't think the characters are very interesting and the plots are nothing to write home about - introducing the "kid in trouble" in the second episode? I think the title sequence is pretty horrible too. I'll give it a few more episodes to see if it ramps up the action quota or makes Perabo less of a school girl klutz.
post #58 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Michael Weston ('Burn Notice') never kills anyone either, with the exception of one really, really bad guy a couple of seasons ago in the season finale, I believe. And that guy basically goaded Michael into it and was so evil Mother Teresa would have pulled the trigger.

Weston has a valid excuse in that everything he does is completely illegal and every solution hinges on him being able to operate without drawing attention from the cops.

In Covert Affairs they have the government behind them and can manipulate any event to keep their agents in the clear should they so choose. At least in the latest episode there was a hint of that with the detective giving them an out.
post #59 of 375
Appreciate all the discussion surrounding the past episode. What did you think of Sendhil Ramamurthy addition to the cast?
post #60 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAnetwork View Post

Love hearing all the feedback! What did you all thing of that car chase? And did you like all the CIA information? There was a lot of true details in that episode, for instance, the CIA does actually have a Starbucks in it.

We're really enjoying the show. The picture quality is outstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAnetwork View Post

What did you think of Sendhil Ramamurthy addition to the cast?

Haven't seen enough of him yet to decide. You could have done worse for sure. He was good on Heroes when we watched it (1st season).

Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post

It's good they addressed the fact that she really does suck at hand-to-hand because combined with everything else she seems like a liability and the worst person to put in the field. What we've seen so far she's a complete klutz, forgets to grab evidence, can't handle a car chase, gets beaten up a lot and she sounds extremely naive ...

It is a distracting that Annie is so terrible at the basics, but she's not really qualified to be there yet. They told us in the pilot that she's being used. Kind of a cheap out, but it is what it is I guess. Hopefully her learning curve is steep.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › "Covert Affairs" on USA HD