TiVo Community Forums Archives - Alias 3/21

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

Alias 3/21 - Spoilers
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: loubob57

There are just so many things wrong with this show. So why must I watch it? :)

The director's kids get kidnapped. Have they never thought this might happen? Wouldn't they have some contingency plans? Would he still be allowed to be in charge? I guess it was necessary to further the plot.

And the people on this show (except for Jack) don't seem to be able to control their emotions. Their training should take over for the most part. Arvin Sloane was the only one that showed any kind of logical reasoning this week. "What does Dixon have access to that the Covenant might want?" Geez, how come nobody else wondered about that?

OK, I know its just a show. And I'll keep watching in spite of all of these illogical shortcomings. They actually make it kind of fun in a way.

Posted by: cmontyburns

The show has always been a bit of a fantasy, but it was a smart one, and it is a lot dumber now -- and I don't just mean the somewhat simplified plotting. Even the major details strain credulity most of the time, and as a result I just can't enjoy the show nearly as much as I used to. But I still enjoy it. This episode was a welcome return to a few long-lost elements: Sydney out on a mission without five other people (and in a throwback development, with Dixon), Sloane actually integrated into the plot, the Rambaldi prophecy, etc. Of course Sark proved as ridiculously elusive as ever, any computer anywhere can still access any other computer anywhere (even on a helicopter), and people still spend far too much time hugging than they do getting after the bad guy (could Sark even have been out of sight when Jack got the collar off of Sydney?), among other problems. So a mixed bag, although thumbs up overall. I'm pleased to see that it looks like we are finally about to get to the "outing" of Lauren -- although it took me a moment to clue in to where Jack had heard what he heard at the end previously. But that makes me look forward to next week.

Posted by: aadam101

Has Lauren's accent ever been explained? Her father is certainly not British and being a Senator I would assume he has spent a good number of years in the U.S. So how exactly does that make Lauren British?

Despite her being a bad guy, I still feel compelled to like her. She did seem to feel a little remorse for what was going on. I wonder if maybe she has her own agenda. Could she really be trying to take down The Covenant? It's not so far fetched. Sydney was in almost the same position not too long ago. I'm not giving up on her yet!

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

Lauren was raised when her father was stationed in England.

I agree that the show is getting dumber in how it violates reality. The trap for Dixon, e.g., was possibly the worst trap ever. You rig a complex to blow up, and then lure the Good Guys in. But you use bombs placed out in the open. With a timer, instead of just monitoring the site remotely and blowing it the moment they're inside. And a timer that's visible (what's up with that in movies, anyway?), so the Good Guys know how much time they have to escape. WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL THEM ANYWAY! (The plan was to get Dixon to get the Rambaldi artifact, and he was the only one with access, so killing him would kind of a waste of a good plan. Well, a truly sucky plan...) So what was the point of the exercise from The Covenant's point of view?

Y'know, I stood by the show when it had its post-time-jump doldrums, and celebrated when it clicked back into form mid-season. But they've REALLY got to do better than this; it's like when they plotted this episode, they weren't even trying to PRETEND to make sense!

Posted by: cptodd

I have not seen this episode yet but in general I am becoming less and less excited about seeing the new episodes. Even up to earlier in the season I would come home and it would be the first show I would watch. NOW. . . . let's just say that I kind of get around to it on Wednesday or Thursday. I guess I chalk it up to the sort of raggedness of this season. It just does not seem as if they are trying when they write these episodes. I hope to get more excited soon.

Posted by: loubob57

Did they explain how the plane landed after Sark and his accomplice killed everybody on it and parachuted away? Or did I miss something?

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by loubob57
Did they explain how the plane landed after Sark and his accomplice killed everybody on it and parachuted away? Or did I miss something?

Yes.

It was on auto-pilot.

(Apparently, the CIA has some REALLY advanced auto-pilot technology...)

Posted by: jwjody

I cannot remember where Jack had heard, "not if you see me first love." Where is it from?

J

Posted by: loubob57

quote:
Originally posted by jwjody
I cannot remember where Jack had heard, "not if you see me first love." Where is it from?

J

In the recording of Sark's phone call on the plane. After he killed everybody he made a call arranging his pick up. He used a similar phrase.

Posted by: loubob57

That last post also reminded me ...

These people are always using their cell phones to discuss highly classified stuff. They even use them from inside their headquarters. Cell phones can be easily intercepted, so why doesn't the CIA know who the mole is? A workplace like that wouldn't allow cell phones to be brought in much less used on site.

This also bothered me in 24. Why didn't Jack Bauer just glue the phone to his ear? He was always on it!

Posted by: Knative

quote:
Originally posted by cptodd
I have not seen this episode yet but in general I am becoming less and less excited about seeing the new episodes. Even up to earlier in the season I would come home and it would be the first show I would watch. NOW. . . . let's just say that I kind of get around to it on Wednesday or Thursday.

Same here. Thanks for saving me the typing. :D

Posted by: hughvh

quote:
Originally posted by loubob57
That last post also reminded me ...

These people are always using their cell phones to discuss highly classified stuff. They even use them from inside their headquarters. Cell phones can be easily intercepted, so why doesn't the CIA know who the mole is? A workplace like that wouldn't allow cell phones to be brought in much less used on site.

I remember reading somewhere that government officials use special cell phones capabile of encryption. I also remember a Joan London "Behind Closed Doors" special on the CIA. Command Centers and classified areas have material in the walls and ceilings that stop all wireless transmissions. Even the doors have man traps so a stray wireless signal can't get through.

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by aadam101
She did seem to feel a little remorse for what was going on. I wonder if maybe she has her own agenda.

Don't get your hopes up. She helped Vaughn fool the helicopters into going to the wrong location. Why? Because she wanted Sark to have a successful exchange with Dixon, not for the girl, but so Sark could get the Rambaldi artifact. Nothing there but Covenant loyalty.

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
(Apparently, the CIA has some REALLY advanced auto-pilot technology...)

I have a friend who flys left seat for Airborn Express. We've talked about this before, and I thought he said most landings on certain larger planes are done by computer these days.

I'm not positive, he may have said sometimes. But he just finished training up, something like 6 months, to one of their larger aircraft. I'll double check with him.

But it's completely possible for the plane to have done what it did.

Now if you want to talk about Sark and his 'assistant' successfully jumping from a large plane at 20,000 plus feet, crusing at say 400 knots... :rolleyes:

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by hughvh
Command Centers and classified areas have material in the walls and ceilings that stop all wireless transmissions. Even the doors have man traps so a stray wireless signal can't get through.

It's not even too unique. I used to drive by a building called "The Blue Cube" down near Mountain View. No windows in a smallish but 4 story or so building. Completely impenetrable. Although I think the intent there was to keep eaves dropping devices from determining what went on inside, I'm pretty sure it'd work both ways.

Posted by: cpalma

Come on folks, don't we all suspend disbelief while watching this show week after week. After all, it's not a documentary, it's a made-for-television program.

There are plenty of what-ifs on this show, even when some of you said you were enjoying it. My biggest beef has always been how does Syd & Co., (example: 298 degree farenheit heated tube) make it out of these situations. And who else laughed out loud when Syd played "dodge the robotic arms"! LMAO

Regardless, it's mindless television. Half the fun in watching it is to pick it apart! LOL

Posted by: TreborPugly

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
The trap for Dixon, e.g., was possibly the worst trap ever.

You don't give them enough credit for convoluted plans. They needed to try to take out the team, so they would have an excuse to escalate their demands, forcing the CIA into hyperdrive, so the real request to Dixon could go unnoticed.

And, by putting Dixon under extra stress, making the death of his kids seem imminent, they lit a fire under him to just do as they ask rather than attempting to find the kids himself.

So they needed the trap, and they needed it to fail, but come close. All the open timer business was just show biz however. A bomb without a timer doesn't work for TV or Movies. Those are only used when you are in negotiations with a bad guy with his finger on the button.

PUG.

Posted by: landrumdh

I agree the plot was a little thin when Sloane had to point out what does Dixon have access too and they go 'ohhhhhh'.

I will coniue watching it though, I find it somewhat entertaining and the eye candy isn't bad either ;)

Posted by: Graymalkin

Apparently no one noticed that Dr. Barnett's ID led directly to Sloane? But no one is supposed to know she's there, much less having an affair with Sloane? Sounds like she's working for the Covenant, as well. I'm hoping someone will notice this Barnett-Sloane connection in the next episode.

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by Graymalkin
Apparently no one noticed that Dr. Barnett's ID led directly to Sloane? But no one is supposed to know she's there, much less having an affair with Sloane? Sounds like she's working for the Covenant, as well. I'm hoping someone will notice this Barnett-Sloane connection in the next episode.

It doesn't necessarily have to happen that way. Then knew it was her user-id, and may well just write it off as a compromised user-id.

When Lauren said she had a sucker for the mole, I first thought it would be the Dr. I was a little surprised to see them jump on Sloan. Once they start to think about it, I think they'll realize he couldn't have accomplished everything the mole has likely done.

That's probably not going to happen now that Jack, everyone's current favorite character, is suspicious of Lauren. I don't watch the previews for this show, so I don't know what they teased with. But if Jack is worth anything, he'll have a trap set for her by the next episode.

The Dr. is in the clear. Ok, having said that, it occurs to me that she could be part of Jack's plan to trap Lauren, possibly by using her to fool Lauren into a false sense of security.

Remember now, I was the first one to say Sark would never make it into their custody. ;)

Posted by: devdogaz

I can understand a plane being able to land on auto pilot at an airport where the runways and tower and elevation and everything else is programmed into the computer. But to land a 747 in the middle of the desert on auto pilot? Especially when no one had been aboard for at least 400-500 miles prior to the landing. C'mon...

CIA did know that Dr. Barnett was in Zurich to interview Sloane. When her user ID had been accessed from Sloane's office, it was an easy jump to assume that he was the mole, since he is the one with a history of being a bad guy. I don't think it will take long to clear him though.

Posted by: jwjody

At the end of last season it was said that Syd is the chosen one and not Irina. But now we see a shot of that cube and it has Irina's name on it.

Could that be another twist and that work they were doing with Syd (the cloning or whatever) didn't work because she's not the one?

And they talked about a program with the artifact. Black something...is that new or am I not recalling what it's about?

J

Posted by: devdogaz

It was Project Back Hole and that brings up another inconsistency. After Lauren and Vaughn and Marshall threw off the helicopter that was trying to capture Dixon, and the exchange was successful, why didn't the senator continue to pursue Dixon? It seems that if Dixon was put on the Federal Watch List and a Senator told them to apprehend him, they wouldn't stop trying to get him after only one attempt.

Posted by: hughvh

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
It was Project Back Hole and that brings up another inconsistency. After Lauren and Vaughn and Marshall threw off the helicopter that was trying to capture Dixon, and the exchange was successful, why didn't the senator continue to pursue Dixon? It seems that if Dixon was put on the Federal Watch List and a Senator told them to apprehend him, they wouldn't stop trying to get him after only one attempt.

Agreed. If for nothing else, to fire him. Dixon has shown that he can be compromised. What's to stop them from using his kids against him again?

Posted by: DreadPirateRob

I'm usually impervious to gaping plotholes in this show (I just ignore them), but this episode was particularly bad.

Would there not be 24 hour security for a CIA deputy director's family?
Is the LA field office so short-staffed that they could only send 4 agents - one of which was the DD in charge - to Arizona on a tactical mission?
Shouldn't field agents (ahem...Weiss)be in some modicum of physical condition? (I swear I could hear Greg Grunberg panting when they running on the mission)
Are we ever going to see Lauren in a black bra again?

Posted by: Smiles

I'm waiting for the Lauren arc to play out and then I'm canceling my SP. Or at least moving it to only-if-nothing-else-is-being-recorded status. If it doesn't happen at the end of this season I won't care anyway.

Posted by: ScottE22

quote:
Originally posted by DreadPirateRob
Are we ever going to see Lauren in a black bra again?

Apparently that's the only thing keeping some people watching the show from week to week :D

Looks like all the inconsistencies have been mentioned so I'll bring up something else.........

Seeing Syd in the silver "heat-proof" suit would ordinarily have made my evening, but does anyone else think that she's getting too skinny? I liked Ripped Sydney more than I like Skinny Sydney.

Don't get me wrong -- she's still gorgeous -- but I'm disappointed to see her withering away like that!!

Posted by: Graymalkin

quote:
Originally posted by ScottE22
Seeing Syd in the silver "heat-proof" suit would ordinarily have made my evening, but does anyone else think that she's getting too skinny? I liked Ripped Sydney more than I like Skinny Sydney.

Don't get me wrong -- she's still gorgeous -- but I'm disappointed to see her withering away like that!!

H'mm, I hadn't noticed, but it's not surprising. The workload is so strenuous and the pressure to remain fit so powerful that eating habits often go awry. Terri Hatcher lost a LOT of weight during the run of "Lois & Clark." Delta Burke went the opposite way and gained a lot of weight during "Designing Women." And it's not just women -- look at how Matthew Perry's weight yoyoed dramatically from one "Friends" season to the next.

Posted by: lew

quote:
Originally posted by Smiles
I'm waiting for the Lauren arc to play out and then I'm canceling my SP. Or at least moving it to only-if-nothing-else-is-being-recorded status. If it doesn't happen at the end of this season I won't care anyway.

The ratings are not very good. I'd be surprised if the show is renewed. Shows with similar ratings have already been cancelled.

Posted by: loubob57

quote:
Originally posted by ScottE22
Apparently that's the only thing keeping some people watching the show from week to week :D

OK, I'll admit that the cute babes are a big reason I keep watching. :D

Posted by: ScottE22

quote:
Originally posted by Graymalkin
H'mm, I hadn't noticed, but it's not surprising. The workload is so strenuous and the pressure to remain fit so powerful that eating habits often go awry. Terri Hatcher lost a LOT of weight during the run of "Lois & Clark." Delta Burke went the opposite way and gained a lot of weight during "Designing Women." And it's not just women -- look at how Matthew Perry's weight yoyoed dramatically from one "Friends" season to the next.

I know it goes without saying, but teaching high school and seeing these girls idolize these stick-thin celebrities is disturbing. I actually had one girl (a senior - probably a size 0 and 90 pounds soaking wet) comment to a guy that Britney Spears was a little chubby... "but not as chubby as Jessica Simpson." :confused:

I try to reason with them -- "These are not 'real' people! They have personal trainers every day and someone to prepare their meals for them 24/7!"

Since you mentioned my favorite show, the females on the Friends cast are a prime example! I TiVo all the re-runs to watch when things get slow (like right before May sweeps :rolleyes: ) and the contrast between 1994 Monica and Rachel and 2004 Monica and Rachel are striking.

Posted by: jennstall

quote:
Originally posted by ScottE22
Apparently that's the only thing keeping some people watching the show from week to week :D

I watch to see Jack hit people, kill people and give Vaughn lots of frigid disapproving looks before issuing a verbal bitch-slapping.

I swear if it wasn't for Victor Garber I would have stopped watching this show long ago. It's just too silly.

Posted by: Family

Did anyone see the overnite ratings for this episode of Alias? IMO real real bad. The Practice's ratings soared at 10:00 and its been canceled.

Is this show going to get the ax?

Posted by: cwoody222

Get the axe? Unlikely. Reruns rights were sold to TNT (I think) thru the next year or two pretty much guaranteeing the show's return.

Posted by: jwjody

quote:
Originally posted by jennstall
I watch to see Jack hit people, kill people and give Vaughn lots of frigid disapproving looks before issuing a verbal bitch-slapping.

I swear if it wasn't for Victor Garber I would have stopped watching this show long ago. It's just too silly.

YES!!

Exactly!!

And Jennifer Garner

J

Posted by: jeff125va

Yeah, Jennifer Garner just signed a huge multi-(5 IIRC?)year contract around the beginning of this season.

I think this episode was particularly silly. Suspension of disbelief is fine, but glaring plot holes and technological inconsistencies are getting so glaring as to be a distraction. Are we supposed to just not notice that getting from L.A. to Zurich and back actually takes time?

I remember when they sorta "reset" this show by getting rid of SD-6 so that people could jump in without needing to know a whole season's worth of plot. I think they've gone too far in that direction now. It's just like a new mission every week, not a whole lot of long buildup of big mystery sorta stuff. I still enjoy it, although I also used to watch it on Sundays, now it can usually wait a couple of days. But I doubt I'd *start* watching it now if I hadn't been from the beginning.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by jeff125va
Yeah, Jennifer Garner just signed a huge multi-(5 IIRC?)year contract around the beginning of this season.

Well, that means absolutely nothing in terms of how long the show will last. All it means is that she's committed for a certain period, IF the network keeps the show on the air. But they could cancel it tomorrow if they wanted to.

About 20 years ago, a network signed a two-year deal with Stephen Spielberg guaranteeing that his show Amazing Stories would air for two full seasons. The show tanked, and the network was stuck with airing something on which they were losing a ton of money for a long, long time. Since then, it has been VERY rare for a show to be cancel-proof; even if a network orders a full season, usually they can still pull the plug in the middle.

If Alias continues, it won't be because of the ratings; it will be to generate syndication and DVD revenue. I don't know how DVD sales have been and I don't know the terms of the syndication contract, but they may be enough to keep the show going even if it doesn't make money on first-run (and my understanding is that it roughly breaks even).

Posted by: lew

quote:
Originally posted by cwoody222
Get the axe? Unlikely. Reruns rights were sold to TNT (I think) thru the next year or two pretty much guaranteeing the show's return.

They were hoping to get a million dollars per episode and settled for $200,000. I agree this may increase the chances of renewal but the ratings are signficantly below what is normally required for renewal.

Posted by: grecorj

Quick, name the top 5 dramas on ABC.

<pause>

Yes, that's why Alias is coming back. If it was on any other network -- other than Fox, that is -- it would have been canceled long ago.

Plus, The Practice *is* coming back, but as a James Spade spin-off/sequel.

From what I've read, Alias, the reincarnated Practice and NYPD Blue are the only ABC dramas guaranteed a spot on next year's schedule.

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
If Alias continues, it won't be because of the ratings; it will be to generate syndication and DVD revenue. I don't know how DVD sales have been and I don't know the terms of the syndication contract, but they may be enough to keep the show going even if it doesn't make money on first-run (and my understanding is that it roughly breaks even).

It is very common for TV shows to not break even on their first run. This is why the networks used to rely so heavily on reruns. It was when the show ran a second and third time that the network made a profit. However, the ratings for reruns over the last few years have tanked and because of that, network executives have a very itchy trigger finger. If a show isn't even going to be around long enough to make it to the first round of reruns, there is no reason to air it at all. This is why reality TV has become such a phenomenon. It's relatively cheap to produce and it makes a profit the first time around. The network doesn't have to worry about making up the deficit on the back end.

I think a show like Alias, with it's relatively strong cult following and built-in syndication and DVD deals will not be cancelled. It may not get the ratings that ABC wishes it would, but based on their performance over the last few years, it's unlikely they would be able to replace it with anything that would draw more viewers.

Posted by: Rcrew

Back to the show...

I watched this again last night, and had another thought about the plane landing on auto pilot. I don't think Sark really cared if it landed or not. Everyone was already dead. He probably just didn't want it to crash into a populated area, so he took a chance re-programing the auto pilot landing for a relatively flat desert area. Another concern would have been having a plane auto pilot land at an airport where other traffic could have been an issue.

I'm sure he took extra pleasure making sure they knew he was alive, and that was likely his motivation to try and guarantee an intact plane.

Posted by: Mike20878

Were there previews for next week? I don't remember seeing any. If you post information about them, please use spoiler tags.

Thanks,
Mike

Posted by: devdogaz

Yes, there were previews for next week. I don't remember what they showed, but there were previews. I remember because I commented that the show and the previews were over by 56 minutes past the hour. This has been happening a lot lately with Alias. They cram so much stuff into the show that it becomes unbelievable because they can't explain it all, and then they end the show with 2-3 minutes to spare. Maybe they are just not taking as many commercial breaks during ths show, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Rcrew

There were some previews. I only watched them once, last night. They mentioned a name but it didn't click with me. No spoiler tags needed to say there'll be some gun play, some costumes including wigs, and some intensely emotional scenes involving Syd, Lauren, Vaughn, and Jack, not necessarily in that order or interaction pairs... :D :D :D :D

Posted by: tivospav

I believe the auto-pilot thing was crap. Airports have ILS (Instrument Landing Systems) that I believe give data to the craft's instruments regarding altitude and relative position of the plane to the ground. Which assists in near to zero visibility but not land the plane. I can see a device to remote control the plane, but they said auto-pilot. Since ILS requires an airport I don't think this can help in a desert. Maybe jsmeeker can shed some more light on this.

I can suspend disbelief better than most, but I almost cancelled the season pass after that comment, count me in on finding out what happens with Lauren then leaving unless something great happens.

The issue I have with the show is that since Sidney lost two years, I just don't care about her anymore. Also it doesn't seem that I really care for much anyone else anymore either. Dixon's done nothing but bark orders all season, and I'm supposed to start caring now? Marshall is a one note gag anymore, and he was my favorite comic relief. Vaughn and his relationship with the obvious villain was no surprise. What time do I have invested in these people. Except for Jack of course. Yep, his furled brow is just one great acting tool.

I don't mean to sound bitter, but this show has gotten a lot more chances than other things more deserving, just because it happened to not be on FOX. They've gotten two basic rewrites, getting rid of SD-6 and then the lost 2 years. More chances than some have ever had, but it's good that ABC has decided to stick with it and try and get an audience, again better than most networks with shaky knees.

Posted by: DreadPirateRob

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think a show like Alias, with it's relatively strong cult following and built-in syndication and DVD deals will not be cancelled. It may not get the ratings that ABC wishes it would, but based on their performance over the last few years, it's unlikely they would be able to replace it with anything that would draw more viewers.

Especially since they are so close (2 seasons away) from the golden goose of syndication rights (100 eps). I thought I read somewhere that the DVD sales have gone well, so imagine the 2 factors together - plus ABC's putrid schedule - will keep Alias on the air at least 2 more seasons.

Posted by: smak

I don't think 100 episodes means anything with a drama. Sitcoms need 100 episodes since they are going to air every day in a market (Seinfeld, Friends, Simpsons etc...)

Dramas are more than likely not going to air every day, they are going to air once or twice a week, and maybe also get a showing on a cable station like Buffy or X-Files...

100 is great, but i think one season less is fine.

-smak-

Posted by: Rcrew

quote:
Originally posted by tivospav
I believe the auto-pilot thing was crap.

I e-mailed my friend who has recently completed his training to upgrade to the larger planes Air Born Express uses. I asked him the question, and here's his reply:

quote:
...once programed the aircraft will fly, descend and land themselves. The are some limitations, the aircraft won't lower the flaps or gear. They will descent, maintain speed, flare, land, and apply autobrakes while tracking down the runway centerline all on auto pilot to a complete stop.

So, that seems to be a definitive... maybe. Although getting the flaps and gear down before leaving is something Sark could have done, I would think that would change the flight profile enough to be noticed.

However, I would say there's enough accurate science there that just a little suspension of disbelief gets me home! :D

Posted by: devdogaz

quote:
...while tracking down the runway centerline...

This is the key phrase in your friends statement. The exact location of the airport, its altitude and the runway position are all built in to the computer system that helps the auto pilot land the plane. None of that information would be available to the computer when landing in the middle of the desert.

Not to mention, there aren't very many patches of dirt where a 747 could touch down and not immediately dig itself into the ground, causing the landing gear to break off or something similar.

Posted by: Rcrew

Didn't say it was completely unflawed. But it's close enough for me that I needn't take more than my usual dose of SODB pills.

Most of the original complaints stated it was impossible for a plane to auto-pilot land, period. That's just incorrect.

Posted by: ronsch

To me, the final scene with Jack overhearing Lauren use the same phrase as Sark was worth all the silliness in the episode.

Posted by: cmontyburns

quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
Quick, name the top 5 dramas on ABC.

<pause>

Yes, that's why Alias is coming back. If it was on any other network -- other than Fox, that is -- it would have been canceled long ago.

I think that's spot-on. Alias still has buzz (although not as much as before), ABC has a genuine TV star in JG, and they have so many worse problems on their schedule that actually creating a scheduling hole seems downright ridiculous. Plus this is a very competitive time slot (versus L&O Whatever, and SATC and Sopranos on HBO; subject to frequent pre-emptions; and with no lead-in to speak of) so having an even tenuously-entrenched show there seems like it would be a bit of a blessing for ABC. Of course, this was the network that had another dynamic female-lead show, with similar critical plaudits, and against similar (L&O) competition in Karen Sisco, and they yanked that show, promised to re-launch it, said many times how much they loved it and wanted it to have every chance, and then decided not to bring it back after all, explaining that they didn't like they way the show was developing. So I'll never be truly comfortable with ABC/Disney's ability to behave rationally.

Posted by: rasheed

ABC announced this past week that they are planning to focus on more female-driven dramas. Alias fits into this, but so does Karen Sisco which is gone.

Rasheed

Posted by: cwoody222

Alias was already sold to TNT for syndication starting in the Fall of 2005. That fact, plus that they agreed to deliver to TNT at least 88 episodes, pretty much ensures that it will return for the 2004 - 2005 season.

Posted by: Dawghows

quote:
Originally posted by Rcrew
... there'll be some gun play, some costumes including wigs, and some intensely emotional scenes involving Syd, Lauren, Vaughn, and Jack, not necessarily in that order or interaction pairs... :D :D :D :D

Precisely the reason I'll be there watching.

I agree the plotlines are not as tight and intricate as they were in the beginning, but for me (and my wife) plot has always been secondary on this show. Even at it's best, this is just a really cool 45-minute chase scene every week. I've said it here before, and I'll say it again:

The more gadgets, costumes changes and running, the better the episode. Why she's in costume and running, and who she's running from (or to) is very nearly meaningless.

Posted by: faerie

I'm still loving Alias. It's a shame that a lot of you guys seemed to have given up on it, but I rarely catch these plot holes (admittedly, lately there have been quite a few that are glaring) because I'm simply enjoying the show. I can't wait for tonight's ep to see what Jack does with Lauren! this should be fun!

Posted by: dwells

quote:
Originally posted by faerie
I'm still loving Alias. It's a shame that a lot of you guys seemed to have given up on it, but I rarely catch these plot holes (admittedly, lately there have been quite a few that are glaring) because I'm simply enjoying the show. I can't wait for tonight's ep to see what Jack does with Lauren! this should be fun!

(Just getting caught up on watching this episode)
I am with you 100%, faerie........ Are there plot holes in this show? Absolutely. Is it as good as it was during the first terrific season (or even the second for that matter?) Absolutely not. But for me, this is still one of the most entertaining shows on television, and I just can't understand someone saying that they are going to stop watching completely based on a couple of comments or plot inconsistencies. I've been watching, and loving, this show since day 1, and I will be watching until the day it is cancelled, no matter what. As some others have mentioned, this is not the show to dissect with a fine tooth comb- it just sucks all the fun out of it....
I think the last 3 or 4 episodes have been some of the most fun of the season....

And as far as the future of the show, another big reason why it may stick around for awhile despite the mediocre ratings is that Jennifer Garner is poised to become a big-time movie star- she has a starring role in a comedy coming out next month and an Elektra feature film is coming as well.......

Dennis

Posted by: whitson77

quote:
Originally posted by dwells
And as far as the future of the show, another big reason why it may stick around for awhile despite the mediocre ratings is that Jennifer Garner is poised to become a big-time movie star- she has a starring role in a comedy coming out next month and an Elektra feature film is coming as well.......

Dennis

You might want to scale back the big-time movie star comment. She isn't that good of an actress. She will probably be B-list for life. When those looks start to go, she will disappear.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by whitson77
You might want to scale back the big-time movie star comment. She isn't that good of an actress. She will probably be B-list for life. When those looks start to go, she will disappear.

I agree--this is the role of a lifetime for her. The part is clearly built to her exact specifications, but I've never seen her be very good or even notable in anything else.

(Kind of like Geller on Buffy, although I often get nearly lynched for suggesting it...)

Posted by: cmontyburns

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
I agree--this is the role of a lifetime for her. The part is clearly built to her exact specifications, but I've never seen her be very good or even notable in anything else.

Well... there really isn't anything else. Except for Daredevil, in which she did exactly what the role and the movie called for. Or were you talking about Dude, Where's My Car? ;) But really, everything besides Daredevil has been bit, bit parts. We'll really start seeing what she's got when 13 Going on 30 comes out.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004950/

Posted by: jwjody

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
I agree--this is the role of a lifetime for her. The part is clearly built to her exact specifications, but I've never seen her be very good or even notable in anything else.

(Kind of like Geller on Buffy, although I often get nearly lynched for suggesting it...)

HEY! Gellar had an Oscar-worthy performance in Scooby Doo 1 and 2!!

J

Posted by: Dafaso

quote:
Originally posted by cmontyburns
Well... there really isn't anything else. Except for Daredevil, in which she did exactly what the role and the movie called for. Or were you talking about Dude, Where's My Car? ;) But really, everything besides Daredevil has been bit, bit parts. We'll really start seeing what she's got when 13 Going on 30 comes out.

You didn't enjoy her performance as a hooker in Catch Me If You Can? ;)

Posted by: cmontyburns

quote:
Originally posted by Dafaso
You didn't enjoy her performance as a hooker in Catch Me If You Can? ;)

Actually yes. But see where I said "bit part"? :)

Posted by: cptodd

quote:
Originally posted by whitson77
You might want to scale back the big-time movie star comment. She isn't that good of an actress. She will probably be B-list for life. When those looks start to go, she will disappear.

Since when (these days) do you have to be good or particularly talented to be a movie star? I think she is quite good enough to be a movie star. She was good in Daredevil (granted the movie was TERRIBLE). She is a personality and pretty and good enough. She will be a star (though I am not going to stake my life on that statement).