# Zero Hour



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

> ABC to Encore Tonight's Premiere of "*Zero Hour*" on Sunday Night.
> 
> Said rebroadcast will replace the special "*Revenge for Real: Rocky Mountain Retribution*" at 10:00/9:00c . . . .


*READ MORE*

Hopefully, the encore wont somehow cancel tonight's recording on my STB


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

Thanks Drew! I am going to double check my To Do List.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I wish they wouldn't reuse titles. I thought this was about the 50s B&W movie.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

I'm set to record the show.

Here is an interview with the creator and executive producer.

I like this part: 


> "This is one of those reverse-engineered series where, unlike a lot of the other serialized shows, we know exactly what the last frames are. We know exactly what the end of the story is. And so, really, I built up an architecture on the front end of it, this idea of a man getting drawn into a large conspiracy, to get to the endgame that I wanted to get to," said Scheuring.


Assuming all 13 episodes are broadcast, we get a complete story.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I wish they wouldn't reuse titles. I thought this was about the 50s B&W movie.


Hollywood hasn't been original in decades


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ Pathetic isn't it. All the money they take from us and none of them can buy a brain to think up something original.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ Pathetic isn't it. All the money they take from us and none of them can buy a brain to think up something original.


If you watched the show last night, you would know the reason for the title. Then, too, young writers of today probably never heard of the 50's movie.

The show seems to show promise. I've set up timers to record the series.
The rebroadcast of the premiere will be at 10 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday.


----------



## Galaxie6411 (Aug 26, 2007)

good news, I missed it.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

I really liked the pilot. But then I really liked the pilot for _The Americans _also, and I am not too jazzed about where it has gone since.

There are a lot of good things to be said about the show. Anthony Edwards is no matinee idol (matinee idols all have chins), but that might be a strength in trying to portray an "Everyman". This is a Jimmy Stewart made-for-Hitch**** character, and he has had years of honing his chops on _ER _to get pretty good at this portrayal.

Also, the others in his little Scooby Gang are good and believable, likable and charismatic (of course you can't flesh them out much in a conspiracy pilot; I wonder if the casting company is the same one for _Californication _since both supporting characters were on that show. And Addison Timlin is hiding a lot of her talents in this show that were visibly on display there.)

But the show also seems well thought out, and well produced. The first hour moved along pretty good, and kept me entertained all the way through. Without giving much away, there is a dramatic reveal at the end of the pilot that really underlines how serious this conspiracy just might be, and expands the possibilities to potentially include time travel, cloning, reincarnation, the supernatural, and who can guess what else.

Here is where I think there may be an issue, and that is that the entire focus in a conspiracy-based theme is the conspiracy. And referencing Nazis and the Rosicrucians is sort of a gimme, and by now, tired, derivative, low-hanging fruit. In _X-Files _there was a conspiracy, but the show was more than that, and they could move between self-contained episodes that never mentioned the conspiracy and episodes that mentioned not much else other than the conspiracy, with a lot of ease. Of course any time they went to the conspiracy I started to yawn, but that's not the point. In _Lost _there was an overarching series of nefarious conspiracy-like questions that drove a lot of the series, but they could also use that as a platform to give us really entertaining stories about the characters.

I think if they are smart, the producers will learn from that and try to build out these characters on their own in spite of the conspiracy story. That can help support the conspiracy itself, especially if there are weak points there. It also is a hedge against being too popular; if the show is lucky enough to get picked up, they would otherwise need a brand-new conspiracy for year two, and if they begin to merge personal stories in with the current conspiracy, that will lay the groundwork for that.

But _Zero Hour _as currently envisioned is forced to hang its hat on the conspiracy alone, and that means as a viewer you have to pay attention, show up each week, and do the hard work of following (and remembering over a minimum 13-week span) every moment of the story, something you don't have to do when casually tuning in to _The Mentalist _or _CSI_, which is one of the reasons those shows are successful; you can drop in and out whenever, and still not be missing anything.

The conspiracy genre can work in movies like _National Treasure _or _The Davinci Code_, because you only have to show up once; you get beginning setup, middle, and end resolution all in one sitting. You just paid 12 bucks, and you're already invested. To stay involved in a conspiracy-based series, you have to show up every week, and remember and keep track of what passed before. That's not easy, and a lot of folks will drop off along the way because of that. Their only hope is to run all eps in a row, or sell this show to Netflix who will post them all at once.

The best thing you can do as a viewer is record all eps, and then watch them in a marathon next summer; that relieves the burden of remembering and keeps the energy level up. After all, you don't read Robert Ludlum by reading one chapter once a week, separated by reading other chapters of other books, do you? And that points out the flaw of the conventional delivery system, at least for serialized stories. Netflix is probably on to something.

But then this show also has Paul Scheuring as its show runner and visionary, and the first season of _Prison Break _was about as good as writing for TV gets. Second year, not as good, third year, hard to watch due to it being all violence and not much else, 4th year, ridiculous if still somewhat entertaining. Based on that, I would like to predict that at least the first 13 of this one, assuming we will be treated to all 13, will hold up pretty good. Time will tell.

On another note, earlier I referenced a notable movie director, Alfred Hitch****, who was a master of suspense, and possibly the best and most famous director ever. In reviewing my post, it appears the forum does not approve of the last four letters of his name. I'm sure you can all fill in the blanks, *but this points out the ridiculousness of the nanny state we live in.* I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about that. Even more oddly, _Californication _seems to go through unscathed.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Drucifer said:


> ...Hopefully, the encore wont somehow cancel tonight's recording on my STB


Well, you can fret about that, or simply set a manual recording for it, twice. Manual recordings are not affected by what else the unit does (assuming you have tuners available), so the odds are stacked pretty much with you.

The encore does indicate that the network is well-invested in this show being a success, and that can only be a good thing for the show's health.


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

One for the record books:
On ABC, the premiere of Zero Hour earned a 1.3, the lowest for an ABC in-season scripted premiere ever.

That's pretty close to Zero!


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I liked it. It's good for a few more weeks unless it bombs.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Tvbythenumbers has it as certain cancellation.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Tvbythenumbers has it as certain cancellation.


In any other case but ABC at 8:00 pm on Thursday that would be a certainty. But anyone remember "Missing" which in March and April of 2012 had demo ratings like 1.4/4? And "Last Resort" had demo ratings of 1.2/3. They both ended up being mini-series, apparently a new trend at ABC.

ABC is giving the pilot another shot tonight. The network has ordered 13 episodes. They could probably cut it to an 8 episode mini-series order without causing any plot holes.

Casting and writing in this show and "Missing" does not seem to be emphasized. But running towards and away does seem to be a constant.:sure:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

If it ends at 13 or 8, so be it, but this show rocks.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

I had a hard time staying engaged with it. I kinda knew what was going to happen after about 5 minutes in regards to what happened with Laila and whatnot. Hopefully next week will be better.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I very much like the premise, but I thought the acting/directing was terrible.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

spartanstew;3182522 said:


> I very much like the premise, but I thought the acting/directing was terrible.


Yeah, I think they tried to put too much into a 1 hour premier.

And the line by the FBI agent at...


Spoiler



...the airport that she has a gun and is able to travel with it... And then she goes off to Canada.... Yeah, not quite...



- Merg


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I thought the show was OK and it kept my attention throughout. Have it set to record all new episodes. We'll see what happens.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

phrelin said:


> ...ABC is giving the pilot another shot tonight. The network has ordered 13 episodes. They could probably cut it to an 8 episode mini-series order without causing any plot holes.





Doug Brott said:


> If it ends at 13 or 8, so be it, but this show rocks.


Since they have already said that thre are twelve clocks with maps (How did they inscribe diamonds on 1939?) I would assume that there are twelve shows, one per clock, and a finale to wrap up the conspiracy. Shortening it to eight might be difficult give the premise of the twelve new apostles.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

The Merg said:


> ...I think they tried to put too much into a 1 hour premier...


Maybe that explains why they didn't have much left in the tank for ep 2.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

TomCat said:


> Maybe that explains why they didn't have much left in the tank for ep 2.


Must agree. I'll keep watching it because the 8 o'clock slot is weak.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I hate to say it, but we couldn't get through the second episode.


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

phrelin said:


> I hate to say it, but we couldn't get through the second episode.


I struggled to. I was tempted more than once to pick up the remote and end it all. One more week for me. If it doesn't get better I'm cancelling it.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

The FBI agent is terrible. Not sure where she even came from as an actress? I don't recognize her.

I like the kids, but she and the actor playing the bad guy don't do it for me.


----------



## Galaxie6411 (Aug 26, 2007)

Watched second ep today, just a so so. Another show with annoyingly stupid characters. Lets stand and talk over the guy we just shot and leave our very important clue all by herself. I also get sick of the heroes always taking the bad guy hostage, which ALWAYS bites them in the ass. Just shoot him in the head and be done with it. Guess that would make the writers work a little though. 

It has a "The Librarian" feel to it but Anthony Edwards makes an even worse hero than Noah Wyle. Interesting with 2 Californiction actors in it.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Yeah the FBI agent is bad...

She had another great line about how...


Spoiler



Anthony Edwards's character made her have sympathy and not be professional and the next time she sees the bad guy she's just going to kill him. Last I checked, that would be pretty unprofessional.



- Merg


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Supramom2000 said:


> The FBI agent is terrible...


I think her acting is OK; she just doesn't have much to work with. The character seems wishy-washy; like she doesn't even know why she is there. _WE _sure don't.

Just another indicator that the story-telling ability of the writers/directors/producers is below par; with a high-concept story that is so forcefully driving everything, you need to be able to tell that story in a compelling way. They can't.

_National Treasure_ and _The DaVinci Code _are examples of this sort of story that were told much better, and kept people entertained and captivated. _National Treasure _also had a cast that was very likeable, and _Zero Ratings_, er _Hour_, has a likeable cast, just not as much. We all know that Tom Hanks is as likeable as it gets, but his character in TDC, with that 70's bad SuperCuts haircut, was pretty weak. But that story was told well.

If I were calling the shots I would have written a 2-hour pilot, and spent the first 45 minutes getting the viewer into the day-to-day of the characters, only hinting at the kidnap to come. As it stands, we don't know enough about these characters to really care; I could not pick his wife out of a lineup. We can't be asked to care if the writers did not give us an opportunity to become invested.

Jumping into the kidnap before the first commercial was a mistake. This is the exact same problem that plagued them when they did _The River_, and apparently if a writer/producer can't learn from that sort of mistake, that probably indicates they can never learn enough to get any better at writing and producing, which is the definition of "hack". If they had proven that they could write entertaining slice-of-life interplay between the characters as they live their normal lives first, at least if we found the kidnap scenario tiresome, we could hang in during that knowing that the quality in upcoming eps would include good character interplay between characters we then had become accustomed to.

_Scandal _is a good example of how to do that and still start strong. In the first ep they started the story like they were shot out of a cannon just like _Zero Hour_ did, and while Shonda Rhimes does seem to lean on fast and loose dialog as an artificial way to goose the drama, by the time the story was really underway, we knew who all the characters were and we knew how we felt about them. And we knew because Shonda Rhimes knows how to tell a story in a captivating manner.

By 20 minutes in, we already loved Huck. We were already invested in the back story of Quinn Perkins. We already understood who Olivia and Cyrus were and how formidable and flawed they were. We had context. If you have not watched _Scandal_, then you don't know what I am talking about when I refer to these characters, because you have not had the opportunity to meet them. You don't have context. We never really got a good opportunity to meet the characters in _Zero Hour _even when we _did _watch, which is why we can't really care about their troubles.

Context is everything. No conventional TV show starts with a close-up (unless you are trying to go against the grain for the sake of drama). You start with an establishing wide shot. Only after that do the close-ups even make sense, because by then we understand the larger context. Story telling has to be done the same way. You have to come out of the first eps thinking "I like these people and I find them interesting". You can't come out thinking "who are these people and why should I care about them if I don't even know them?".


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I think her acting is OK; she just doesn't have much to work with. The character seems wishy-washy; like she doesn't even know why she is there. _WE _sure don't.


They made it very clear why she was there. She joined the FBI after being in the Peace Corps and her fiance was killed by a bomb built by the villain in the show so that she could track down his killer.

What I'm curious to know is that the main villain's sole aim is to find these clocks, so what did bombing and airplane have to do with that. I wonder if the writers even thought about that.

- Merg


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

The Merg said:


> They made it very clear why she was there. She joined the FBI after being in the Peace Corps and her fiance was killed by a bomb built by the villain in the show so that she could track down his killer.
> 
> What I'm curious to know is that the main villain's sole aim is to find these clocks, so what did bombing and airplane have to do with that. I wonder if the writers even thought about that.
> 
> - Merg


Well, there's clear, and then there's clear. Stating something and then not following through on supporting it unclarifies what should be clear, and then it no longer is. You buy the premise; you buy the bit, but not if the bit does not support the premise.

And your confusion regarding the clocks, the bombing, etc. is probably universal.

And yes, they did delineate that back story, but again, in a way that makes you go "huh?" instead of "OK, I get it". If that were real life, she would be the last person that would be assigned to that task, because the FBI, just like every other law-enforcement agency, can't take the chance of being seen as having a vendetta or personal ax to grind, which heightens the temptation to break the rules (which stalls the boss's upward mobilty in management), and which also legally sets the groundwork for an automatic reversal on appeal. I can suspend disbelief, but not to that degree.

That is almost the same old dramatic trick found in every Dirty Harry movie; Harry is too close to the case, is told not to do X, defies the suits and does X anyway, gets suspended, eventually catches the crook in spite of that and saves the day. That works. But the difference here is we are supposed to believe that she caught the case or lobbied to be on the case because she has an agenda, and the bosses simply caved and went along with it. Nuh-uh.

But for the sake of argument let's accept that she has this strong motivation. If she were that motivated, you would expect a clear plan of attack, some sort of dogged pursuit, some sort of Moby Dick drive. I don't see that; I see a confused and ineffectual agent who is not up to the task, and who can't figure out what to do next.

She may think she knows why she is there, but you couldn't prove it by the way her character is written. The drama and execution has to match and support the back story, and in this case it seems that she doesn't know why she's there or what she's doing, regardless of what the back story tells us. That character is a dramatic element there to create dialog between her and the lead that serves as exposition to let the viewer know what's going on, and to cause dramatic tension as a foil to give the lead an establishment-face to deal with and to go against. It's not enough, and it's an opportunity wasted.

Her character would be better written as a strong ally to the lead character, as a tool he can use to help rescue his beloved wife, even if they don't always agree on methods. What made _Starsky and Hutch _work was a team targeting the same goals but each with slightly different methods contrasting their personalities and styles, which allowed them to have dramatic tension between them and still get the job done. Maybe that is what they are trying to do here. If so, epic fail so far from my POV.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

The minute my husband (both an ex Army MP and ex State Trooper) heard her little Peace Corps story, he said "she'd never make it into the FBI."

I can't pin it down the way you do TomCat, but she is not believable as an agent. And the bombing back story doesn't wash and she would never be allowed near the case even if she magically made it into the FBI.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

mrro82 said:


> I struggled to. I was tempted more than once to pick up the remote and end it all. One more week for me. If it doesn't get better I'm cancelling it.


Pretty much my opinion. Anthony Edwards is a better actor than the script offers him. The FBI agent is just all wrong -- a nod to those who feel the need for a cute young woman in a major role. The second episode had me feeling that things are going downhill fast.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Yanked from the schedule.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I am still watching but I dont see how it will make a second season. Once they have found all the clocks what is the story line??


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

longrider said:


> I am still watching but I dont see how it will make a second season.


It won't make a first season.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

It may not make a 4th episode, unless they continue this summer.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Entertainment Weekly let us know:


> ABC is pulling the ambitious global conspiracy Nazi clone kidnapping Da Vinci clock drama-thing from its schedule.
> 
> ...ABC confirmed. Repeats of Shark Tank will take over the slot for the next two weeks, then the regular non-celebrity version of Wife Swap will return starting March 21. The remaining Zero Hour episodes might air during the summer.


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

Shame. I was enjoying it.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

pablo said:



> Shame. I was enjoying it.


+1


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

I liked the conspiracy plot, and I liked Anthony Edwards, the two reporter kids and the priest. I intensely disliked the FBI agent and somewhat disliked the bad guy.

But I was watching.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Supramom2000 said:


> I liked the conspiracy plot, and I liked Anthony Edwards, the two reporter kids and the priest. I intensely disliked the FBI agent and somewhat disliked the bad guy.
> 
> But I was watching.


That pretty much sums it up for me. Another show hits the dumpster.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

The Merg said:


> Yeah, I think they tried to put too much into a 1 hour premier.
> 
> And the line by the FBI agent at...
> 
> ...


My federal LEO son carries hls weapon (loaded) when he travels on official business - in and out of country. He checks in with TSA, signs a form and heads for his gate. Upon boarding, he identifies himself to the flight crew and reports his seating assignment.

There is more to it, of course, but suffice it to say that there are rules, regs and procedures that govern the process.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

pablo said:


> Shame. I was enjoying it.


I was on the fence, leaning towards embargoing it from viewing until I could see if it survived. Too late.

3rd ep seemed better somehow; the bad guy became more interesting, and I liked how they hilighted the kidnapped wife's ingenuity. They also added Grace Gummer who is a dead ringer for her sister Mamie to the cast (both have the Meryl Streep DNA and are significantly better looking than her), so I mark that in the plus column as Gummer is pretty talented, but I did not see exactly why they needed to do that.

No matter, it's dust. If this were a book I might like to read it; the story itself is pretty compelling, just not well mounted as a TV show, or at least not by this bunch.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

phrelin said:


> Entertainment Weekly let us know:


I wont miss it.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Just watched the third episode last night and now I do hope the run the rest of the episodes this summer. The story did improve and they did toss out a couple teasers. What is the parents involvement? They made a point to show how religious they were and then what is it about their past they wont tell their son? Then there was the comment that the FBI agents husband might have been the target of the bombing and not collateral damage


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

longrider;3189683 said:


> Just watched the third episode last night and now I do hope the run the rest of the episodes this summer. The story did improve and they did toss out a couple teasers. What is the parents involvement? They made a point to show how religious they were and then what is it about their past they wont tell their son? Then there was the comment that the FBI agents husband might have been the target of the bombing and not collateral damage


Agree! Still don't like the agent, but the plot was much better and I am interested in the outcome.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Another one I'm glad I hadn't started watching... deleted.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, I caught up with the first three episodes on Hulu all at once. With that much continuity, it started to come together for me, so I set a timer on the DVR. I think it has potential, I just need to stop playing on the laptop while I'm watching tv.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

I gave up on it after the second episode. It's just terrible. Terrible writing, terrible directing, and even worse acting (mostly thanks to Anthony Edwards). There is just so much of that show that makes zero sense (pun intended). I find myself laughing at it's ludicrousness.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Apparently the key to keep going in today's television world is not to go the brainteaser route, but to torture and kill almost everyone in your storyline.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Apparently the key to keep going in today's television world is not to go the brainteaser route, but to torture and kill almost everyone in your storyline.


That's where Zero Hour got it wrong, they tortured the audience.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

We didn't finish the first episode because we like Anthony Edwards and the lines he was trying to deliver were awful. Sometimes bad writing makes for a bad show and it is painful to see a good actor struggle with them, never mind the issue of how good is the supporting cast.

Given the story arc of the show, I just didn't see how I could pick it up at episode 5 if the writers got their act together.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

For those that were watching and would like to watch more...

They are bringing it back June 15th and burning off the last 10 episodes.

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2013/04/26/abc-to-revive-zero-hour-on-saturdays-beginning-june-15-987014/10307/


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Glad to hear it!


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

Just a reminder to check your To Do List for Zero Hour. Mine is showing that it will record on June 15th.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I almost deleted the first 3 today. Is this going to be worth the effort? I have not watched them yet.
I will add it to the calendar anyhow


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

Ooops, I did delete the first three a couple weeks ago. Forgot it was coming back. I'll watch this thread to see if it's worth picking them up on iTunes or Amazon.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Did they do an ending episode during its hiatus?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

As I understand it, the series was made to be able to be wrapped up after one season. So, with these episodes there should be a resolution.

- Merg


----------

