or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Last Resort on ABC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Last Resort on ABC - Page 19

post #541 of 581
I'm afraid that prime time broadcast TV will be nothing but reality shows and sitcoms. eek.gif
post #542 of 581
^^
there's still Revolution wink.gif

a 2 hr finale would have been great. it is too bad the suits didn't go that way; it would have been a much better way to end the series.

the character that held my attention the most was Chaplain just due to the actor's portrayal. Lt Shepherd & Cob were also very good but I thought XO's angst caught between wanting to go home & his loyalty to Chaplain was a bit overplayed or overacted. Cob was perfect smile.gif

at least the networks try bold ideas but unfortunately the masses don't want to think too much. wonder how 24 went as long as it did.
post #543 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 
at least the networks try bold ideas but unfortunately the masses don't want to think too much. wonder how 24 went as long as it did.

Several reasons, I think. First, '24' essentially re-booted every season, unlike most serialized dramas that - by definition - shed attention-span-limited viewers as they go along. Secondly, it became an "it" show with a lot of buzz which swelled its audience. Thirdly, and I realize this might be a bit controversial, there was the jingoistic "American might makes right" and "us against the world's evildoers" attitude that prevailed after 9/11 that the producers recognized and of which they took full advantage. Absent that awful event which occurred literally days before the pilot aired, the show may not have made it.

And finally - the Kiefster was just a super-cool, bad-ass hero-for-the-ages who would do, literally, whatever it took to protect the Homeland no matter the personal cost. It was the role of a lifetime for him, which he's freely admitted. The fast, unrelenting pace and water-cooler buzz made it must-see TV. It was a special show and fit its time perfectly, no doubt about it.
post #544 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

the character that held my attention the most was Chaplain just due to the actor's portrayal. Lt Shepherd & Cob were also very good but I thought XO's angst caught between wanting to go home & his loyalty to Chaplain was a bit overplayed or overacted. Cob was perfect smile.gif

Agreed. I thought both Andre Braugher, as CAPT Chaplain, and Robert Patrick, as the COB, were terrific and much more compelling than Scott Speedman, as the ambivalent XO. Both Braugher and Patrick have long histories of distinguished work while I remember Speedman as never much more than a routine Hollywood pretty boy. In fairness to Speedman, though, he had a lot less to work with as the XO than Braugher and Patrick did as the the CO and COB, respectively.
Edited by gwsat - 1/27/13 at 9:19am
post #545 of 581
I quit watching about half way through because the actor depicting the Captain had a choppy, stacato cadence to his speech, which was a huge turn-off to me. I don't know if it was my own aversion to that speech pattern or if he was just hard to understand, but I only caught about every third phrase he uttered.

The concept that there could be some island strongman constantly defying the machine guns and sailors of the Navy also was too absurd to merit believability.

I tuned in to the final episode just to see how they brought it all together, or not. I also asked my wife who watched it all, and I never got the story of why the President went rogue and ordered the attack on Pakistan. Anyone?
post #546 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distorted View Post

I tuned in to the final episode just to see how they brought it all together, or not. I also asked my wife who watched it all, and I never got the story of why the President went rogue and ordered the attack on Pakistan. Anyone?

It had something to do with the Seal team, the inspector and suitcase nukes. But I got lost in what was information and what was disinformation. We never got a clear explanation (or it was obtuse to me).

But either the President is a whack job, or the incident was MUCH more serious than we were led to believe. The President's reasoning was never shared. Unclear if he was a madman (likely) or world savior (unlikely).
post #547 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

It would be nice to hear Shawn Ryan talk about how they pitched the whole season and what their original plotline was. That doesn't happen very often and probably won't here but it would be interesting, to me at least.

Not Shawn, but some info from Karl: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/25/last-resort-co-creator-discusses-the-finale-and-where-the-series-would-have-gone-had-it-continued
post #548 of 581
Great insight. Thanks for the link. smile.gif
post #549 of 581
Regarding that interview, maybe I'm just imagining it, but I thought I remembered the COB saying at one point early in the series that he was going to kiss the ground the moment he got back to U.S. soil, whereas the interview says Robert Patrick improvised that touch after asking for a second take of that scene. I was all ready to provide kudos for the writers' attention to detail, but I guess either the COB never actually made that statement, or Robert Patrick was the only person who remembered it.
post #550 of 581
I guess they wrapped it up fairly well given the constraints they had.......wish they showed the island "mob boss" killed somehow......always hated him (guess he played his part well).
post #551 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhall1 View Post

I guess they wrapped it up fairly well given the constraints they had.......wish they showed the island "mob boss" killed somehow......always hated him (guess he played his part well).

He reminded me of Ellis on Smash. I just wanted him gone. I realize what was said in the interview but it really made no sense for the captain to keep him around as a loose cannon. It's not like he kept the island in check.
post #552 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalusky View Post

He reminded me of Ellis on Smash. I just wanted him gone. I realize what was said in the interview but it really made no sense for the captain to keep him around as a loose cannon. It's not like he kept the island in check.

If you read the interview with the producer above, the direction the show was going to go had it survived was in Chaplin and the Colorado crew essentially creating their own fiefdom there on the island after a sort of detente was reached with the rest of the world. My guess is Serrat would likely have been the Captain's chief antagonist, a necessary foil, so they needed to keep him around. There were a number of plotlines that were planned that they obviously never got to develop.
post #553 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

If you read the interview with the producer above, the direction the show was going to go had it survived was in Chaplin and the Colorado crew essentially creating their own fiefdom there on the island after a sort of detente was reached with the rest of the world. My guess is Serrat would likely have been the Captain's chief antagonist, a necessary foil, so they needed to keep him around. There were a number of plotlines that were planned that they obviously never got to develop.

I did read it and considered it bad character development. There are plenty of necessary foils to be had. Serrat just did not make sense even if the captain thought he could make use of him. It was too risky given all the other stuff going on.
All in all I get tired of that Gilligan's Island concept. Maguffin's should only last for the season and maybe shorter. But I supposed they wanted give Kauai some more business.
post #554 of 581
The editing in the final few episodes was absolutely atrocious. I know they were trying to shoehorn things in, and had limited time, but events were happening without any clear explanation for how or why. The wife was rescued out of nowhere, the Speaker of the House feels he needs to Budd Dwyer himself with NO explanation, Autumn Reeser's boyfriend (not sure, it seemed like she banged at least three dudes in this show) kills himself in the hotel room for no reason... was Autumn Reeser's dad good or bad? Did he want the President killed or saved? So convoluted.

Why did Chaplain stay on the boat if the F-18s were coming to blow it up anyway? He said something about blowing it up with dry missiles, but the jets fired on it, too. He could have escaped with everyone else. Why are all these people perfectly willing to kill themselves?

On the flip side, why does the SEAL not kill the Chinese dude at the end? Just because the Sierra Doll tells him not to kill? That Chinese guy was bad. And as mentioned earlier in the thread, Serratt should have been killed back in episode one.

Even simple things were edited poorly: like when the ship hit the sandbar, we do not see a reaction shot of the bridge like we do of the Captain and XO. But we do later see the people on the bridge, and they're all bloodied and bruised. That's a rookie mistake by an editor.
post #555 of 581
The captain explained his decision to stay on the boat: he was suspicious that a last-minute deal would get struck to call off the planes, and he didn't want to risk somebody else taking over the sub if it was empty.
post #556 of 581
One final commentary on the show from this week's TMQ at ESPN.com column. It's near the bottom.

http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8891027/tmq-really-lurking-psyche-harbaughs
post #557 of 581
^^^ You know, that's a really great column. I'm going to add it to my regular reading list! smile.gif

He makes a lot of valid criticisms of the show but he made at least one mistake I caught:
"Viewers never found out why the sinister United States president wanted to fake evidence of nuclear terrorism in Pakistan; why most of the military went along with an obviously crazy plan to stage a nuclear first strike on Pakistan, then immediately destroy the American submarine that launched the missiles;..."

Actually, the Colorado didn't launch their nuclear missiles at Pakistan. That's why the sinister President and his evil minions wanted to destroy the sub and its heroic captain -- kinda' the major kick-off plot point of the show.
post #558 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

^^^ You know, that's a really great column. I'm going to add it to my regular reading list! smile.gif

He makes a lot of valid criticisms of the show but he made at least one mistake I caught:
"Viewers never found out why the sinister United States president wanted to fake evidence of nuclear terrorism in Pakistan; why most of the military went along with an obviously crazy plan to stage a nuclear first strike on Pakistan, then immediately destroy the American submarine that launched the missiles;..."

Actually, the Colorado didn't launch their nuclear missiles at Pakistan. That's why the sinister President and his evil minions wanted to destroy the sub and its heroic captain -- kinda' the major kick-off plot point of the show.

No, but wasn't that the "crazy plan?" The Colorado would launch the missiles, then be destroyed?
post #559 of 581
I can't help but feel the show would have greatly benefited from a second submarine and captain who was at odds with Chaplain; perhaps an old rival. This guy would have basically been the figurehead of the American forces attempting to sink the Colorado. Instead, we got that one episode with the destroyer captain, but having an actual nemesis would have been good.
post #560 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

I can't help but feel the show would have greatly benefited from a second submarine and captain who was at odds with Chaplain; perhaps an old rival. This guy would have basically been the figurehead of the American forces attempting to sink the Colorado. Instead, we got that one episode with the destroyer captain, but having an actual nemesis would have been good.

They called that Hunt for Red October. wink.gif
post #561 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

No, but wasn't that the "crazy plan?" The Colorado would launch the missiles, then be destroyed?

I'm not sure...confused.gif Did they ever get that far in terms of explaining the whole dastardly plan?

It sort of makes sense, though. That way the sinister President could blame the attack on a "rogue sub captain" or some such, thereby giving him political cover. So the Colorado may have been designated the sacrificial lamb from the get-go. So many stillborn plot points that eventually would have been revealed, expanded, and developed had the show survived. frown.gif
post #562 of 581
Or "Run Silent, Run Deep"

Or "Balance of Terror" Star Trek TOS
post #563 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

The editing in the final few episodes was absolutely atrocious. I know they were trying to shoehorn things in, and had limited time, but events were happening without any clear explanation for how or why. The wife was rescued out of nowhere, the Speaker of the House feels he needs to Budd Dwyer himself with NO explanation, Autumn Reeser's boyfriend (not sure, it seemed like she banged at least three dudes in this show) kills himself in the hotel room for no reason... was Autumn Reeser's dad good or bad? Did he want the President killed or saved? So convoluted.

Why did Chaplain stay on the boat if the F-18s were coming to blow it up anyway? He said something about blowing it up with dry missiles, but the jets fired on it, too. He could have escaped with everyone else. Why are all these people perfectly willing to kill themselves?

On the flip side, why does the SEAL not kill the Chinese dude at the end? Just because the Sierra Doll tells him not to kill? That Chinese guy was bad. And as mentioned earlier in the thread, Serratt should have been killed back in episode one.

Even simple things were edited poorly: like when the ship hit the sandbar, we do not see a reaction shot of the bridge like we do of the Captain and XO. But we do later see the people on the bridge, and they're all bloodied and bruised. That's a rookie mistake by an editor.

I thought most of your questions were pretty obviously answered, even if not precisely in dialogue. These are all my take on what I saw, but to me they all seem obvious.

Speaker of the House killed himself because he was informed that the plot had been foiled. Someone flipped and told the president about the plot. The Speaker was given the opportunity to "fix" things (and save his co-conspirators that were still unknown) by committing suicide. And no, this wasn't all spelled out with clear precise dialogue in the show, but sometimes you gotta fill in the blanks given what else you see and hear on the show. If he had been arrested, I'd guess he'd be tortured in ways that would make Gitmo look like summer camp to ferret out all the names of the co-conspirators.

Reeser's lover was clearly explained. The President wanted her to kill him as a sign of commitment to the cause. She couldn't do it, so he did it for her - probably in order for her to survive (likely she'd be killed if he didn't die). What I didn't get a clear understanding of was the first part of the scene when she came in and he was explaining something about someone getting killed, and then the killer putting the weapon in his hands - I assume they set him up as a murderer?

Reeser's dad - well, clearly in bed with the president. He owns a weapons company. By manipulating a crazy president into attacking Pakistan, he gets to sell a lot more weapons. He is also a loving father, and wanted to save "daddy's girl", hence why treated he Reeser's character the way he did. Did he know she'd try to kill the president. Not sure. At that point, the president had served his purpose, so perhaps he wanted him dead. But at the likely cost of his daughter's life? I tend to believe that he didn't know what she'd do, and assumed she had joined the dark side.

Chaplin has been explained above.

Um, "Sierra" (nice reference, loved that show) told him explicitly she didn't want him killing any more. And then he takes off to take out the Chinese guy. Why did he stop? Love!!! It makes all of us males do really stupid things sometimes (like not taking out a very vicious criminal just because your girlfriend tells you not to)
post #564 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

^^^ You know, that's a really great column. I'm going to add it to my regular reading list! smile.gif

He makes a lot of valid criticisms of the show but he made at least one mistake I caught:
"Viewers never found out why the sinister United States president wanted to fake evidence of nuclear terrorism in Pakistan; why most of the military went along with an obviously crazy plan to stage a nuclear first strike on Pakistan, then immediately destroy the American submarine that launched the missiles;..."

Actually, the Colorado didn't launch their nuclear missiles at Pakistan. That's why the sinister President and his evil minions wanted to destroy the sub and its heroic captain -- kinda' the major kick-off plot point of the show.
I always assumed that was the "crazy plan." I believe that the Colorado was going to be destroyed whether or not they launched. That is why the launch order came from Antarctica rather than through normal channels, so the evidence of the official order could be burried. The destruction of the Colorado was always going to be blamed on Pakistan. We will never know the exact details on how the POTUS and the government would spin the facts if the Colorado complied with the order.
post #565 of 581
The problem I had was none of the reasons why the POTUS was doing this to begin with were never revealed! Plus the corrupt Washington side of it was all over the place with this supposed intrigue we didn't know which side was which. Nor the reasons behind such drastic measures to launch us into a World War. No sub captain in his right mind would have just launched especially when they knew the order was not given properly through the correct channels. If I want a mystery I'll read a good book that can go into detail. Just tell the damn story! We were continually stuck on Gilligan's Island.
post #566 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

The problem I had was none of the reasons why the POTUS was doing this to begin with were never revealed! Plus the corrupt Washington side of it was all over the place with this supposed intrigue we didn't know which side was which. Nor the reasons behind such drastic measures to launch us into a World War. No sub captain in his right mind would have just launched especially when they knew the order was not given properly through the correct channels. If I want a mystery I'll read a good book that can go into detail. Just tell the damn story! We were continually stuck on Gilligan's Island.

I believe all of those points would eventually have been addressed. It's a little unfair to blame the show's writers and producers for not answering questions that likely would have been answered in due course. You can't give all the goodies to a big conspiracy story away at once. Every great novel parcels them out over the course of the entire book as well.

As we saw with the COB and the destroyer captain, there are a lot of people in the military who would have carried out the orders as long as they seemed official. Marcus Chaplin wasn't one of them, much to the conspirators' dismay. They picked the wrong patsy.
post #567 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1812 View Post

I thought most of your questions were pretty obviously answered, even if not precisely in dialogue. These are all my take on what I saw, but to me they all seem obvious.

Speaker of the House killed himself because he was informed that the plot had been foiled. Someone flipped and told the president about the plot. The Speaker was given the opportunity to "fix" things (and save his co-conspirators that were still unknown) by committing suicide. And no, this wasn't all spelled out with clear precise dialogue in the show, but sometimes you gotta fill in the blanks given what else you see and hear on the show. If he had been arrested, I'd guess he'd be tortured in ways that would make Gitmo look like summer camp to ferret out all the names of the co-conspirators.

Reeser's lover was clearly explained. The President wanted her to kill him as a sign of commitment to the cause. She couldn't do it, so he did it for her - probably in order for her to survive (likely she'd be killed if he didn't die). What I didn't get a clear understanding of was the first part of the scene when she came in and he was explaining something about someone getting killed, and then the killer putting the weapon in his hands - I assume they set him up as a murderer?

Reeser's dad - well, clearly in bed with the president. He owns a weapons company. By manipulating a crazy president into attacking Pakistan, he gets to sell a lot more weapons. He is also a loving father, and wanted to save "daddy's girl", hence why treated he Reeser's character the way he did. Did he know she'd try to kill the president. Not sure. At that point, the president had served his purpose, so perhaps he wanted him dead. But at the likely cost of his daughter's life? I tend to believe that he didn't know what she'd do, and assumed she had joined the dark side.

Chaplin has been explained above.

Um, "Sierra" (nice reference, loved that show) told him explicitly she didn't want him killing any more. And then he takes off to take out the Chinese guy. Why did he stop? Love!!! It makes all of us males do really stupid things sometimes (like not taking out a very vicious criminal just because your girlfriend tells you not to)

I agree with your analysis. Because of how quickly the writers had to wrap-up the series, some inferences are required to have what went down make sense. I think the way you put it all together was more than plausible. Your explanation of why Kylie's (played by Autumn Reeser) lover had to die, seemingly but not really at her hands, was as clear to me as it was to you. It was clear that if her lover didn't die at Kylie's hands, she would die instead. I also agree that the reason the surviving SEAL (Daniel Lissing) acceded to his island lover's wishes and didn't kill the manipulative Chinese bad guy was love.
post #568 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viventis View Post

The destruction of the Colorado was always going to be blamed on Pakistan. We will never know the exact details on how the POTUS and the government would spin the facts if the Colorado complied with the order.

Headline: Rogue boomer CO nukes Pakistan because his son was killed by rebels that Pakistan gave sanctuary to. Was relieved of command and put on administrative leave. wink.gif


[MOD NOTE: Racial slurs removed]
post #569 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post

No sub captain in his right mind would have just launched especially when they knew the order was not given properly through the correct channels.
On this point, I talked to a few ex-Navy guys I work with who happened to serve the majority of their career on subs. Both said that no questions would be asked, and that the Captain would have acted on the orders immediately and without hesitation.

Apparently, the process of arming and firing the nukes is practiced so frequently on those subs that everyone on board becomes numb to the nature of the drill. I even asked if this would be different because its not a drill but its real, and they said it wasn't because when it comes down to it, its not the responsibility of anyone on that ship; the orders came in.
post #570 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by tighr View Post

On this point, I talked to a few ex-Navy guys I work with who happened to serve the majority of their career on subs. Both said that no questions would be asked, and that the Captain would have acted on the orders immediately and without hesitation.

Apparently, the process of arming and firing the nukes is practiced so frequently on those subs that everyone on board becomes numb to the nature of the drill. I even asked if this would be different because its not a drill but its real, and they said it wasn't because when it comes down to it, its not the responsibility of anyone on that ship; the orders came in.

Tighr,

What triggered this whole fiasco was the way the orders came in. I'm wondering if you asked them specifically if their Captain would launch on orders not thru the proper channels? These "ex-Navy" guys were not Captain of the submarine. Not being argumentative but they are stating their opinion and not the sub Captain's. That was the whole premise of the show at the start, he was asking as to why it was not sent properly. Chaplain was following protocol, they were not following it. I am ex military and worked as a Firefighter for 29 years of service. For the record yes you follow orders even shaking your head at times.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Last Resort on ABC