'Falling Skies' on TNT HD - Page 25

Isn't that counterproductive to use nuclear weapons as it makes the terrain uninhabitable, unless the aliens are radiation resistant. What will they use as food and water?

The aliens in A.I. weren't actually aliens but advanced mechas.

In an earlier episode they said the resistance in South Boston used RPG's, and the aliens responded with a nuke. I'm not saying using nukes is a good idea if you want to use the planet or it's resources. I agree using nukes on a large scale is counter productive, but can still be used in isolated situations to make a point, like if you escalate we escalate.

I'm saying that armed citizens don't stand a chance against an army that attacks from the sky or from orbit. Heck they could wipe armed citizens without them ever even facing them in combat.

They said nuke probably because humans have no frame of reference for alien technology.

Their city-annihilators look like glowing energy in the first episode. The destructive power might be the same as a conventional nuclear weapon but it's alien, it could be completely different with completely different properties. It could be neutron or plasma or a tachyon-neutrino inter-dimensional molecular disassembler that kills only humans over 4 feet tall.

Agreed they called it a nuke, but it's probably something far superior without fallout and radiation.

Its not like we don't have bombs that bombs that pack the punch of a tactical nuclear weapon.

Even with the most advanced tech you can wipe out 98 or 99% of the population. But you can't get all of it.

True, you'll never get everyone, but I'd say wiping out 98% of the population is considered a win.

Excellent point which leads to the question, if the humans develop a bullet that can stop a mech, why wouldn't the aliens resort to overwhelming force again?

Didn't they say that the bulk of the aliens had left the planet and they just left a small force behind?

You're missing the point I was making... There's a distinct difference in someone attacking you because they want to VS attacking you because they are enslaved and have no choice.

In the real world, we balk at shooting children in wars even when they are the enemy and are shooting back... IF you were attacking someone and you found out that the people you were first fighting were merely puppets and actually didn't want to be there... you would think twice.

The same instinct not to shoot the children because of the harness... would kick in once you knew there was an alien race being forced to shoot at you just like your own kids...

I'm not saying it would make you refuse to fight... but it absolutely would make you have second thoughts, a little guilt, and try to think of a way to defeat the aliens in charge instead of the innocent fodder they throw your way.

Aren't we talking about an alien race? One that looks vulgar to us. I think the vast majority of people would not think twice about killing them, even if they were being forced by another alien race. Why take a chance anyway. You would shoot the alien first, ask questions later.

You'd either quickly learn to live with the guilt or just accept dying with a clear conscious.

I don't think anybody missed the point. I just don't think there was much agreement with your point.


Not if they were an alien species. Not if the majority of humanity were destroyed in an invasion from space. Not even for a nanosecond. I'd kill any alien species, enslaved or not, without blinking an eye. As long as they are following the orders of the overloard species, they are targets. I might change my mind if they were in active revolt against the overlords, but only then.


I don't even think most people would feel bad shooting at the kids. I think enough people have seen movies like 'The Thing' and 'Body Snatchers' to understand the level of danger in keeping those kids around. Especially ones that act like Rick. Humans send women and children with bombs strapped to them to blow themselves up in public places or fly planes into enemy battleships. Humans, as a species, don't have the kind of compassion you suggest - not during desparate times of war. So I think they'd show a LOT more predjudice and hatred towards the harnessed kids than even this series shows. I think they would be treated like zombies, i.e. they were human once, but not anymore.

I spent a year in a combat situation and can tell you first hand .. when you are being attacked, by anyone, instinct is what you go with .. as provided by the training you have been given in preparation .. you do not think twice .. if you think twice, you die ..

Guilt after the fact is a whole other scenario as any Vet can tell you that served in any conflict ..

Until one is subjected to the scenario, one should not postulate .. apologies to any Vet I may have offended ..

When you consider that most wars that have been fought have been fought by a lot of people who didn't want to be there, I don't think there would be any hesitation in shooting aliens in the face even humans knew they were forced into it.

Soldiers still shoot other soldiers even when they know the other side didn't volunteer. Otherwise they shoot you first. Particularly if there is someone behind you forcing you at gunpoint (or alien death ray) to advance.

I didn't say they wouldn't do it... I just said they would think about it, and perhaps try not to.

In a kill-or-be-killed situation, yes... you would shoot to save yourself. The guilt comes later.

But...

When planning to takedown the enemy... if you know there are unwilling participants, you might try a different strategy.

In the real world, for example, our troops drop fliers and food and things into hot zones hoping that if the people see that we don't hate all of them... some might not fight us, so we can get to the ones in charge easier.

In this show... IF they now know the Skitters are enslaved in a similar way as their own children... they might consider a path that leads them to a new ally in the war. Instead of killing the Skitters... they now know there is a bigger/badder enemy that they need to take down... and IF they found a way to set the Skitters free, perhaps they have more allies to win the war against the real enemy.

IF you don't at least consider that... you'd be a fool. You might waste time and ammo killing Skitters that could have been an ally to you... and still you haven't actually made a dent in the actual enemy alien.

It just seems to me that smart strategy would be to make allies with someone (or something) that has a common enemy and your chances of success are higher.

When they thought the Skitters were in charge, it made sense to attack them... but knowing they are the grunts... it makes less sense. In a war you do have to take out whomever is in your way, but your target is the bigger fish.

To use old VietNam vernacular: Kill 'em all, sort it out later.....

Except in the real world no country has eliminated the majority of the world's population.

In any previous engagement which involved a widespread offensive by an opposing country even the non-combatants didn't get a second thought. See the bombing of Dresden, Iraqs Highway of Death or Hiroshima for example.

There are no nice skitter towns full of skitter kids and dissenters who might want to be friends to drop leaflets on. There are just skitter warriors who arrived in big spaceships and wiped out civilization.

And even super nice Moon Bloodgood is pissed to the point where she'll ram her fist in a skitter's mouth and stab it in the throat! If she's that mad I don't think there'll be much compassion from anyone else. Especially if they had their families wiped out.

On a smaller scale then...

If a kid is coming at you with a weapon, you defend/kill first and sort it later.

But if you see a guy behind the kid operating a remote control and you see the kid has an exoskeleton and you conclude he can't control his own actions...

Do you still try and kill the kid? OR do you perhaps consider if you could restrain him or knock him out, then try and kill the guy with the remote.. and see if the kid becomes non-hostile after that?

That's all I'm saying... now that they know more... there will be some who will ask these kinds of questions.

You kill any threat to you or your people.

Those that are asking those questions and hesitate on the battlefield are called casualties. I'm sure there are some who couldn't kill anything regardless of the threat. Let those with questions hang back and make clothing, cook food, provide medical care, etc.

... but the majority of the fighting force won't hesitate to kill any threat - especially a threat that has already decimated (technically, probably about 8 times worse than "decimated") the world's population including many of their family and friends.

Exactly as I mentioned in my earlier post .. combat troops are trained, at least they were when I went thru it .. not to mention your buddies expect you to help protect them as well ..

Anyone that has not been in the scenario in real life has no right to speculate what one would or would not do ..

Lastly, the military does a fairly good job weeding out those that won't do what's necessary ..

This is not what happens in real life though... because if it was... then we wouldn't have been in Iraq or Afghanistan for 8+ years.

We would just go in and shoot at anybody that moves and blow up everything... and the wars would end pretty quickly.

But, in fact, we actually don't do this... We plan and think about targets... and we try not to take out people that aren't (or don't want to be) part of the fight... and we allow for people that want to surrender or turn themselves in.

So... real life actually tends to support my thoughts about what would happen in the series.

Our military doesn't want mindless drones out there shooting at everything that moves. That isn't productive. Yes, you want people that follow orders (mostly without question) but you also want smart soldiers who know why those orders are given... and are able to adapt when the situation on the ground changes.

On a less touchy-feely note... you wouldn't want to just be firing at Skitters and wasting ammo now that you know there is a bigger enemy in charge... you would redirect your efforts at the real enemy, and let some Skitters go... because if you waste your ammo on them, then the big grey guys will just walk over you.

IF, however, you can take those big guys out... you might find some allies in the Skitters OR at least you wouldn't have to fight them once you take down the guys really in charge.

You aren't comparing apples to apples.

Rooting out hostiles among a civilian population that we hope to develop a relationship with is not at all like attacking an alien race hell bent on destroying us. Look at Gulf War I to see how we take care of business when the enemy is all in one place and we can unload.

Even better example is when the entire country is an enemy. Look at Japan in WWII. We obliterated Tokyo with fire bombs (killed more with our firebomb raid of Tokyo than both A-Bombs combined) without batting an eyelash.

Nobody in their right mind is going to refrain from killing any aliens because of the remote possibility that one may want to be a friendly alien - like ALF.

You are confusing a war for politics with a war for ultimate survival. They aren't the same thing.

Although it brings up a good point. We are trying to minimize casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, because we are waging a political war. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are blowing up innocent people and schools filled with girls, because in their mind, it is a war for survival. Similarly, in World War II, we randomly fire-bombed whole cities in Germany and Japan without regard to civilian causualties, because our survival was at stake.

I don't think we would be in a 'political war' with invading aliens.

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode (prob. a Haloween episode) where it was revealed that both Presidential candidates were actually Kang & Kodos (sp?) under Clinton/Gore disguises. When someone suggested that they'll just vote for a 3rd party candidate, they said "Go ahead and waste your vote".

It all comes down to what something like 90% of the population has been wiped out by alien invaders? when facing something like that you don't really care if the invaders are harnessed humans or aliens transformed into skitter. All you care about is survival and that means blowing them away no matter what they use to be human or alien. Heck with 90% of the population eliminated does anyone really think the survivors would be thinking about how to fight the enemy without hurting the transformed humans or aliens? Heck it would be shoot early and often and save what little of the human race is left. Destroying the the transformed aliens that have all but exterminated us wouldn't even be an after thought.

I'm hearing bad things about the 2 hour finale...the fact that TNT is burning off both hours in 1 sitting is a bad sign by itself...10 hours in 8 weeks shows they are trying to burn off the show (and a lack of trust in the quality of the show) instead of milk it for the full 10 weeks

I can't speak for the 2 hour finale(haven't heard anything about it). Ratings wise they pulled a 1.5 in the 18-49 demo last week which was up a tenth from the previous week and had 4.3 million viewers. It's currently TNT's highest rated show. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...t-demos/99450/

the ratings bar at TNT is not set very high...I'm not surprised Falling Skies is their highest rated show...it also doesn't mean that the show is high quality/caliber...the only thing they got out of the ratings was a Season 2 order (having Spielberg as an EP didn't hurt either)...I'm not sure if maintaining their current ratings is enough to get them a Season 3 unless the quality improves greatly

Can't speak to that either. No matter what caliber you think it is it's still pulling 4.3 million and their #1 show.