# Kiefer Sutherland, accidental president in "Designated Survivor"



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) - If there's a clear-cut hit on broadcast TV's fall lineup, it's likely to be ABC's political thriller "Designated Survivor."
> 
> Sutherland stars (as) a bottom-level Cabinet member who is suddenly appointed President of the United States after a catastrophic attack kills the incumbent chief executive and most of his administration.
> 
> ...


Full story: http://my.xfinity.com/articles/entertainment/20160804/US--TV-Kiefer.Sutherland/?mid=20160815_AdHoc_CM_WTW&rid=14161035


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

That looks interesting and as I was saying to a friend of mine he goes from protecting the President to being the President lol and who knew all Jack Bauer had to do was put on a pair of glasses to hide lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I like the concept. Hope it's well written.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

We'll see if Kiefer can escape the shadow of Jack Bauer.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

I was disappointed.

But it is easy to be disappointed when a high-concept show is made. They start with a premise that may be rich in possibility, but the mistake for the writers is being seduced by a desire to write the 'low-hanging fruit'.

This is also the mistake with medical dramas, often. There is significant human drama in life and death stories, so it is pretty easy to mine that without really doing any really difficult writing. The end result is weak writing because little effort is expended. It doesn't have to be that way, it just usually is. This show has that same problem. Weak writing.

The cast is bland. Including Kiefer. I don't want to bash him, but as beloved as Jack Bauer was, he was sort of a one-note character. Well, maybe one and a quarter. There were moments when he used the 'soft voice', just not many.

Here, we get the 'soft voice' all the time. Tom Kirkman is indeed a one-note character. And Kiefer's 'soft voice' is pretty annoying, because it is all fake technique. What I mean by that is that first, no one in reality actually speaks like that. It is an 'actor affectation' that passes for talent. Usually, when there is no other talent available to them. To muse on tsmacro's thought, it appears that a pair of nerdy glasses like I wore in fourth grade are not enough to escape the shadow of Jack Bauer, and not enough to get us to believe in Tom Kirkman. It worked for Clark Kent. Sort of. But not here.

Sorry, but Kiefer has never been a great actor, and I think a great actor is needed for this part. You sort of have to go all the way back to 'Flatlners' or 'The Lost Boys' to see any real spark from him. It seems like someone who did 12 seasons of drama might have seasoned a little better. But no. He just never got better.

And that's sad. A guy like a David Duchovny started out weak, but by season 3 of_ X Files _he was just killing it, and he still even really brings it in weak material like _Aquarius_. He got a lot better, and quickly.

Kiefer reached his top level of competence at age 25 and he's been stuck there as a workmanlike, minimally-talented actor ever since. This time, he's just phoning it in. If they wanted a real actor for this, they should have got Donald Sutherland. Now there's an actor. When he first appeared in 'The Dirty Dozen' it was immediately evident that this guy had it.

And Kiefer is tasked with carrying this project. He handled Jack Bauer just fine, but this is different, and I just don't buy it. They needed a Timothy Olyphant, someone who is chameleon-like and really, really talented. Chris Pratt would have just CRUSHED this role. But Kiefer has star power, in TV, at least, so once they got him, they just stopped looking for someone who was really, really talented, I guess.

Natasha McElhone is as boring as ever. Coincidentally, she actually nearly killed David Duchovny's _Californication_. By season 4 we were all screaming "Dump her already, Hank! Even a turd like Hank Kingsley can do better!"

The supporting cast shows little promise. The most interesting people in this show are the two kids. Now there's a backhanded compliment for you. The little girl is precious beyond words, and I don't want to bash a seven year old for not being a great actor, but she is not yet. Not at all. No crime there; the crime is that the director didn't know how to get a performance out of her. That shows incompetence, and not on the part of this little girl.

The second-ep promo sort of telegraphs that they will be going for the low-hanging fruit a lot. It appears that it will be very melodramatic, with a lot of click-bait level dramatic touches shoehorned in. And the pilot had nothing surprising in it.

I think the real problem here is weak writing. The show begins with a graphic explaining the basic concept. That's weak; it should have been done in dialog. And it is hard to believe that a cabinet-level appointee would ask the question 'what's a designated survivor?' He should know that as well as anyone. We all learned that in ninth grade Civics. All of us. Addressing that in dialog between the son and mother would have been more realistic.

So I just don't see a lot of care taken here, nor do I see any real brilliance. The show is an assembly-line ABC drama, and not a very strong one. Shonda can't write them all, I guess.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Debt of Honor/Executive Orders. Tom Clancy 20 years ago. 

As with all political shows, drama or comedy, eventually Hollywood is going to just turn it into a preach fest. It is what they do, and in doing so, no matter what you preach, you break Carson's First Rule, which is "don't p*** off half your audience".


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Well, that would really be disappointing. They already have a turkey, here, but that would make it not even fit for dinner.

I wonder...have our candidates ever heard of that rule? And is that what happened on _Madame President_? Which is the CBS functional equivalent of this? (the auto-correct just tried to turn that into 'Madman President', so maybe auto-correct is prescient). I think I stopped watching that one mid-way into the pilot because it seemed like that is where it was headed.

Actually,_ Designated Survivor _seems more like the functional equivalent of 'the lowest bid'.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I thought it picked up as it went along. A show like this, I think it'll take a few episodes to get going. It's likely this one did its first episode last spring and the rest since July. So without giving it time you just don't know how it's going to really head... and there are soft spoken people in the world.. not a lot but some..


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

No, you are correct. I did not give it four eps. There is too much better TV out there, so I feel we have the luxury of seeing if it can reach that higher bar pretty quickly. I grade on a curve. This would have been an A in 1987, but it's a C- in 2016.

Lots of shows take a few eps to get going. Some of my favorite shows were not great at first, including _BuffyTVS, X Files, TNG, _even. Arguably the best show ever, according to some, _The Sopranos_, took time for me to get on board. But the competition is fierce now, and you need to grab me quick, or I'm off. I'd rather go binge _The Sopranos_ all over again before watching a C-.

That said, I think I can now detect pretty early on whether a show will actually turn out to be good, and there are warning signs pretty immediately if it won't. If someone puts something in the pilot that a skilled writer or producer would realize is a mistake, such as Tom Kirkman's boneheaded cluelessness as to what the title of his show even meant, then, the writing and producing will not become more skilled over time. It just won't. That is not just an 'oops'; it's a glowing red flag that these guys are probably hacks.

Writing is non-destructive, meaning you can always go back in and fix what doesn't work and what is wrong. Except that you can only do that if you know what doesn't work and what is wrong, in the first place. It's called editing, and has been around since before Gutenberg.

And the thing is, if a show is a turkey for three eps and then magically gets brilliant, I will be blissfully ignorant of that anyway, because I will be somewhere else watching something else brilliant. As brilliant as this show might become, why would I even ever need it? There's plenty brilliant out there already. That said, name me a show that was this mediocre and then got terrific. I can't think of one.

I have a theory why Kiefer just never got better as an actor. He refuses to watch and review his own work. He is quoted as saying he never watched a single episode of 24, or a single daily. He is apparently arrogant enough to think that a paycheck and nepotism are enough to validate his greatness. Well, I have news for Kiefer, which is the best people in every field get good at what they do primarily by having the courage to question their own process and their talent, and are never content to rest on their laurels.

I'm sure he is a very nice person, and I am not saying he is untalented. I watched every ep of 24 and Jack Bauer was just fine. I'm just saying he could have had an approach that would have helped him become really good at this, rather than one that never allowed him to flourish. Mediocrity is not something to be rewarded, but in TV, it happens all the time.

Conversely, great shows get cancelled too soon all the time. Don't even get me started. But drek like this needs to stop breathing our air, and get the heck out of the way for shows that are better.

And oh, you are also right that some people are soft-spoken. My mother says I am soft-spoken (she isn't). Can you believe that? Shocking.

But no one, no one in real life talks with the 'actor affectation'. No one. It is just not realistic, and actually pretty stupid. It's almost as stupid as the 'vocal fry' that dumb girls think makes them sound smart. It really doesn't. It's a 'fake' technique that is not based on skill or ability, and is the exact opposite of intelligent. I hope Hollywood realizes that actors whispering like they're voicing a perfume ad and are one-inch away from a $2000 Neuman mic in an isolation booth just doesn't translate to what people sound like talking in the real world, and finally gets over themselves some day. Not exactly holding my breath on that one.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

We must live in a different universe as I enjoy the show and thought it was well done.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

I am honestly happy that it brings you joy. It's OK to live in different universes, right?

And I enjoyed it, too. I just have limited tube time, and I would enjoy many other things a lot more. It's not a terrible show. It's fine. Just not that great, IMHHHHO.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I enjoyed the first episode, good story line, acting was fine. Lots of room to develop going forward.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I also enjoyed it and agree it could develop into something really good


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I never had any interest in "24"... never... just wasn't my thing... but I gave this a spin. It held my interest and didn't feel like it moved slowly... so I'll keep watching to see what's up.

There is definitely a vibe going where they almost make you want to think it's an inside job and perhaps even Kiefer has something to do with it. Think about it... He was fired that day and yet gets picked to be the Designated Survivor? Would that really happen in real life? What are the odds? Wouldn't the President have a say in who gets picked? And why wouldn't the person getting picked know about the duty? Also, he went tough on the Iranian Ambassador to the surprise of the other guy in the room. Too bad military dude didn't witness that, he wouldn't be so quick to want to get rid of Kiefer.

It feels like one of those "more stuff is going on that we haven't shown you yet" shows... and with them making a point of saying it seemed "odd" and no terrorist groups taking responsibility or chatter about it... feels like an inside job to me. Maybe frustrated Kiefer sets it all up to get control so he can do all the things he has wanted to do.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I never had any interest in "24"... never... just wasn't my thing... but I gave this a spin. It held my interest and didn't feel like it moved slowly... so I'll keep watching to see what's up.
> 
> Wouldn't the President have a say in who gets picked?* And why wouldn't the person getting picked know about the duty?...*
> 
> It feels like one of those "more stuff is going on that we haven't shown you yet" shows...


And I just will have to kick myself for not being there to find out, I guess.

My guess would be the Prez is the one with the ultimate say on who stays home that day. And it appears that he didn't want KS in his cabinet and wanted to fire him, so if I was Prez, that would be the guy I made stay home. Mostly because he won't stop talking in that perfume ad voice.

I saw every ep of 24, and loved every ep. Even the internet-reviled cougar ep. But the reboot, I only made it three eps. It either ran its course and got stale, or I outgrew it. Maybe a little of both.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Think about it... He was fired that day and yet gets picked to be the Designated Survivor? Would that really happen in real life? What are the odds? Wouldn't the President have a say in who gets picked?


In real life ... nobody expects the entire government to be wiped out. Sure, we have a "designated survivor" when the "entire government" is in one place - but I doubt if there is serious consideration of "handing over the keys to the country" to that person. It does seem like an honor - but a minor one. (Can you name the "designated survivor" from the last State of the Union without looking it up?)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Huuge Hefner said:


> My guess would be the Prez is the one with the ultimate say on who stays home that day. And it appears that he didn't want KS in his cabinet and wanted to fire him, so if I was Prez, that would be the guy I made stay home. Mostly because he won't stop talking in that perfume ad voice.


But that doesn't make sense... If you're firing the guy at the end of the day, you wouldn't want him to have potentially the most important position, right? I mean, yeah you never think it's going to happen... but surely you don't pick the person you think the least of to be "safe" just in case? That'd be like if I became a doomsday prepper and only stocked mushrooms and other foods I don't like to eat, because I don't want to eat them now... but if the world ended tomorrow, I'd be pretty pissed I didn't stock better food!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But that doesn't make sense... If you're firing the guy at the end of the day, you wouldn't want him to have potentially the most important position, right? I mean, yeah you never think it's going to happen... but surely you don't pick the person you think the least of to be "safe" just in case? * That'd be like if I became a doomsday prepper and only stocked mushrooms and other foods I don't like to eat, because I don't want to eat them now... but if the world ended tomorrow, I'd be pretty pissed I didn't stock better food!*


Well, that depends... on what _kind_ of mushrooms they are! :grin:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> If you're firing the guy at the end of the day, you wouldn't want him to have potentially the most important position, right?


Fired in anger? Perhaps the president just wanted him out of his sight and not visible during the address.

Sure 20x20 hindsight he handed over the keys to the White House ... but it wasn't a conscious decision.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I have been thinking about this and while I can certainly see both sides i see it more as the adult equivalent of sanding a bad kid to sit in the corner. While the Designated Survivor protocol exists for a very valid reason nobody ever thinks it will really happen so the thought of handing over the White House to somebody you are about to fire just doesn't come up.

I just saw the second episode last night and one thing hit me. Does the other party really appoint a Designated Survivor to keep both sides represented in the new government?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

longrider said:


> I just saw the second episode last night and one thing hit me. Does the other party really appoint a Designated Survivor to keep both sides represented in the new government?


Per Wikipedia:



> Since 2005, members of Congress have also served as designated survivors. In addition to serving as a rump legislature in the event that all of their colleagues were killed, a surviving Representative and Senator could ascend to the offices of Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, offices that immediately follow the Vice President in the line of succession. If such a legislative survivor were the sitting Speaker or President Pro Tempore - as for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 State of the Union addresses, in which President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) or Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) was also a designated survivor - he or she would become the acting president rather than the surviving Cabinet member. However, it is unclear whether another legislator could do so without first being elected to that leadership position by a quorum of their respective house.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Oh my lord! President Stevens? President Byrd? Kill me now.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Nick said:


> Well, that depends... on what _kind_ of mushrooms they are! :grin:


And if there were going to be mushroom *clouds* forcing a designated survivor, I as the president would not really care how good at the job that guy would be, because I would not be in a position to even know that happened. So, I pick the guy I don't think is performing well in the cabinet position anymore, as a signal to everyone else in my employ.

That, may be the only thing realistic about this story.

Reviews on the second ep are pretty harsh, apparently.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Huuge Hefner said:


> Reviews on the second ep are pretty harsh, apparently.


I just checked some reviews and while it is not the greatest show ever the reviews are generally positive, 70 - 80% range


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

OK, that it true. But check reviews of the second ep. I was not speaking about overall reviews, which are positive.

At the risk of getting in trouble for being political again, we have candidates folks both love and really hate. They are polarizing, is about the kindest way to put that. Even if 80% say they like something, if 20% say they smell a rat, then they probably do.

Episode two was apparently polarizing, and some reviews I SAW said that this brought into question whether the writing was really very good.

You already know my opinion about the writing, which is that it's OK but there are a a lot of better shows out there to choose from. Which is why I am not curious enough to watch the second ep to see what they were complaining about.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Arguing real-life for a moment... Seriously, if you aren't picking a qualified person to be the designated survivor, then I'd want to impeach you on the spot. That's very irresponsible. Sure, you don't think it will happen, but the protocol exists for a reason... just in case... and if you don't respect that, you aren't doing your job. Period. I can accept it a whole lot more in the fictional show that this is than I could in real life. I hope I don't find out that the real-life survivors are picked just as haphazardly. IF you're going to do that, you might as well not even do it. Just let people draw straws or something, if you're not concerned with having a qualified person in the position.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

No one is qualified to be president except the person who happens to be in office at the moment. At least that is what each person who has served has thought until their term limit is up. Then as they near the end of the term they begin to accept that someone else could do the job. That is the ego of being president and presiding over the government of a nation. Each person runs for office believing (and stating) that they are the best person for the job. Those without that ego do not get far.

(That being said, I would hope that all people near the top of the line of succession would be capable and able to do the job.)

BTW: Here is an example from Wikipedia -
"For the 2010 State of the Union Address, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan was the designated survivor. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also absent from the address. However, Secret Service rules prevented Clinton from being named the designated survivor since it was public knowledge that she was at a conference in London during the event. Had a calamity occurred in Washington, Clinton (not Donovan) would have become Acting President, as her office was higher in the line of succession."

Donovan would have been 13th in line (assuming all above him were eligible and capable). Secretary of State is fourth in line.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Arguing real-life for a moment... Seriously, if you aren't picking a qualified person to be the designated survivor, then I'd want to impeach you on the spot. That's very irresponsible. Sure, you don't think it will happen, but the protocol exists for a reason... just in case... and if you don't respect that, you aren't doing your job. Period. I can accept it a whole lot more in the fictional show that this is than I could in real life. I hope I don't find out that the real-life survivors are picked just as haphazardly. IF you're going to do that, you might as well not even do it. Just let people draw straws or something, if you're not concerned with having a qualified person in the position.


Ouch!

Let me rethink that. I think of course I would not be so cavalier.

So maybe this was a vote of confidence on the part of that fictional president. Tom Kirkman was not doing the job to his satisfaction in that cabinet position, but possibly he felt he was the best person to assume the throne, or maybe he knew he had been harsh with the guy, and wanted to make sure he was still on board and let him know he was still a valuable member of the administration.

Better?

Of course if he had heard Tom Kirkman ask 'what's a designated survivor', he probably would have chosen anyone else. If the writers think that is a good way to position Tom Kirkman as unprepared and that his evolution to being a good president will be then underlined as a difficult one, that to me means that the writers are grossly unprepared to helm a major TV drama. Maybe the bomb that dropped should have fell on the writer's room, instead. No, of course not. They could have an evolution of their own, and become good writers. They just aren't, right now, and I don't have the patience to wait for them to get ready.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

All our discourse aside... and I haven't watched last night's episode yet... but I feel like there is more to the story. Perhaps there was a conspiracy going on... there seems to be hints that perhaps this was an "inside job" of some sort, with the one FBI woman suspecting that clues are being left to make them think one group is guilty, when they actually are not. That makes me wonder if we might at some point find out that the President actually respected Kiefer even if he thought he was a thorn in his side... and maybe, just maybe, the President saw this coming and purposefully put Kiefer in that seat, knowing he would handle things. Or maybe I'm just too far in the forest and seeing trees everywhere!


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Maybe. But those are interesting musings. Certainly better than what has been delivered so far.

Maybe they need YOU in he writer's room. As the designated writer.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

They've definitely been hyping the conspiracy theory with the last couple of episodes and that one survivor they found... also Kiefer has been chewing a little less gum and kicking a little more butt... they've got to watch that, part of the "charm" of the show is him being a fish out of water. The more he handles things properly, the less this becomes that which I thought was the show's initial appeal.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> They've definitely been hyping the conspiracy theory with the last couple of episodes and that one survivor they found... also Kiefer has been chewing a little less gum and kicking a little more butt... they've got to watch that, part of the "charm" of the show is him being a fish out of water. The more he handles things properly, the less this becomes that which I thought was the show's initial appeal.


It is hard not to let Jack Bauer out of the box.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Having watched _every_ episode of "24" and owning all eight seasons'
boxed set DVDs, I am 'imprinted' on Keifer Sutherland still being Jack
Bauer. So, although I like his new series, it's difficult for me to not see
Bauer as the new president, almost as a continuation or sequel of 24.

If you'll recall, Jack Bauer defended and saved the White House from
terrorists so it's only right that he become president, even if accidentally.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Stewart Vernon said:


> They've definitely been hyping the conspiracy theory with the last couple of episodes and that one survivor they found... also Kiefer has been chewing a little less gum and kicking a little more butt... they've got to watch that, part of the "charm" of the show is him being a fish out of water. The more he handles things properly, the less this becomes that which I thought was the show's initial appeal.


Again, you have proven to have more insight than many of us.

As for 'Jack', I think there are a lot of ways besides being 'Jack' for a person to be formidable and courageous. I am no longer watching, but it would be really nice if they found a way for Tom Kirkman to be as formidable as 'Jack', but in more of a 'Captain Picard' way, than in a 'James Tiberius Kirk' way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I binged the first four shows on Saturday. They dealt with some of the theoretical issues raised in this thread. Of course, one does have to suspend belief to watch these sort of shows.

They mentioned 9-11 so apparently the show is set in a universe where 9-11 happened. But having lived through 9-11, it just gave me more reality to suspend. This isn't "24 hours" but the typical compressed timeline flaws are in play. Problems come to resolution too quickly.

Art imitating life: The president going to the site and standing on the rubble and preparing to launch an attack on a compound similar to Bin Laden. And then sneaking around in a baseball cap. I thought they were nice touches of reality.

But I kept seeing things that would never happen. For example, a nice establishing shot of the destruction from across the river west of the Lincoln Memorial. Traffic on bridges within days of an attack? I was not in DC for 9-11 but I'd expect downtown DC to be closed so close to the attack, not normal traffic on bridges.

But with belief suspended, I'll watch the next few episodes and give it a continuing chance.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Nice analysis, James, but for me to get into a show like DS, I'm
never quite sure whether I should suspend belief or _disbelief! _:scratch:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> I binged the first four shows on Saturday. They dealt with some of the theoretical issues raised in this thread. Of course, one does have to suspend belief to watch these sort of shows.
> 
> They mentioned 9-11 so apparently the show is set in a universe where 9-11 happened. But having lived through 9-11, it just gave me more reality to suspend. This isn't "24 hours" but the typical compressed timeline flaws are in play. Problems come to resolution too quickly.
> 
> ...





Nick said:


> Nice analysis, James, but for me to get into a show like DS, I'm
> never quite sure whether I should suspend belief or _disbelief! _ :scratch:


I've seen this "suspend [dis]belief" phrase in these threads and grimaced. I've even held my nose and used it myself. So since I feel comfortable discussing stuff like this with both of you, here it goes....

This show is in the classification of "fiction" as opposed to "non-fiction" and "documentary." The Wikipedia basic explanation for fiction is as follows (_*emphasis*_ added):



> *Fiction* is the classification for any story _*created by the imagination*_ and, therefore, _*not based strictly on history or fact*_. Fiction can be expressed in a variety of formats, including writings, live performances, films, television programs, animated cartoons, stop motions, video games, and role-playing games, though the term originally and most commonly refers to the major narrative forms of literature, including the novel, novella, short story, and play. Fiction constitutes an _*act of creative invention*_, so that _*faithfulness to reality is not typically assumed*_; in other words, fiction is _*not expected to present only characters who are actual people or descriptions that are factually true*_. The context of fiction is generally open to interpretation, due to fiction's _*freedom from any necessary embedding in reality*_; however, some fictional works are claimed to be, or marketed as, historically or factually accurate, complicating the traditional distinction between fiction and non-fiction. Fiction is a classification or category, rather than a specific mode or genre, unless used in a narrower sense as a synonym for a particular literary fiction form.


Documentaries are the non-fiction TV shows that contrast with fiction. About non-fiction ccording to Wikipedia...



> Nonfiction or non-fiction is content (often, in the form of a story) whose creator, in good faith, assumes responsibility for the truth or accuracy of the events, people, and/or information presented....
> 
> Nonfiction's specific factual assertions and descriptions may or may not be accurate, and can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question. However, authors of such accounts genuinely believe or claim them to be truthful at the time of their composition or, at least, pose them to a convinced audience as historically or empirically factual. Reporting the beliefs of others in a nonfiction format is not necessarily an endorsement of the ultimate veracity of those beliefs, it is simply saying it is true that people believe them (for such topics as mythology). Nonfiction can also be written about fiction, typically known as literary criticism, giving information and analysis on these other works. Nonfiction need not necessarily be written text, since pictures and film can also purport to present a factual account of a subject.


...which is important because "non-fiction" is the critical element in Wkipedia's explanation of the "documentary" as follows:



> A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record. Such films were originally shot on film stock-the only medium available-but now include video and digital productions that can be either direct-to-video, made into a TV show, or released for screening in cinemas. "Documentary" has been described as a "filmmaking practice, a cinematic tradition, and mode of audience reception" that is continually evolving and is without clear boundaries.


So, IMHO the "belief/disbelief" issue is irrelevant to "fiction" as I see because...

in the case of the genre "fantasy" the relationship to reality need only be enough for purposes of _comprehension_ of the story,
in the case of the genre "science fiction" the relationship to reality need only be enough to _suggest_ that what you're seeing is not completely impossible in the real world,
in the case of other drama and comedy the relationship to reality need only be enough to evoke within the viewer - meaning to call up or produce (memories, feelings, etc.) - the real world, albeit we judge it in terms of how well it produces or suggests through artistry and imagination a vivid impression of reality - even if sometimes the theme is a better or darker reality than the real world.
In the case of this show, the designated survivor position based on the Presidential Succession Act exists in the real world and traditionally it is some cabinet member we hardly know, such as in 2015 it was Anthony Foxx, Secretary of ...uh ... oh yeah ... Transportation. In 2016 there was formally designated a designated survivor from Congress Orrin Hatch, Republican President Pro Tempore of the Senate, which was clever because the order of succession is Vice-President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then the Cabinet members listed in a specific order in the Act.

To me, everything else in this show adequately "evokes" an imaginary impression of reality while taking what we call artistic license. Thus, as James notes the "standing on the rubble" and "baseball cap" scenes evoked emotional memories. And I would say that his observation of "a nice establishing shot of the destruction from across the river west of the Lincoln Memorial. Traffic on bridges within days of an attack" is correctly judging that scene "in terms of how well it produces or suggests through artistry and imagination a vivid impression of reality."

But in my mind if a fiction drama show offers dramatic tension in the acting and dialog within an interesting overall story arc, I can "believe" in the series if it only "evokes" in my mind the real world.

If I needed literal accuracy in my fiction, having been around law enforcement and courts most of my adult life, I simply could not watch a police procedural or attorney show on TV.

Hence, when watching _fiction_ I don't "suspend" belief/disbelief, it is more that I either can or cannot "relate" to memories, feelings, and/or emotions from what is being presented on the screen.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

What Phrelin said. :thats:


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

Slow day at the Phrenlin house today ??


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd rather discuss the show than skim past 1000 word essays on grammar. But I guess I get the people we've got here. Nit picking and dissertations abound. Hopefully this post will be read for content, not for a demonstration of how anal one can be while proofreading.

I got it right once in my post ... suspend reality. Or perhaps suspend my belief in reality.

I can live with the "everything wraps up with a bow in 46 minutes plus commercials" of most procedurals. Some shows are intended to be more fantasy than reality. I didn't watch Braindead expecting them to get anything right about the actual operations of government. I expected more accuracy when I was watching West Wing.

But obvious flaws are distracting and with an explosion that threw glass a half mile away (which is probably an understatement considering the force needed to cause that much damage to a stone building) I do not expect to see the city operating anywhere near normal.

It reminds me of the Dukes of Hazzard car wrecks where people crawl out and walk away and somehow the General Lee is never damaged. If I wanted to watch a farce I'd watch a farce. MacGyver is back. I was expecting less farce from Designated Survivor.

Their first error was the text shown on the screen at the beginning of the first show. It ignored the order of succession. For a show based on the order of succession I groaned at that error. Fortunately I have been able to overlook most of the groaning level errors.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I do wince at errors and continuity problems. When I said "I've even held my nose and used it myself" about "suspend [dis]belief" at those times I did so because the term does communicate the source of irritation. "They" should do a better job. (I use "they" to be fully inclusive of all the people involved in the production.)

With that said, I was feeling the need to defend watching shows that sometimes err but do pull from me memories, feelings, and/or emotions because of what is being presented on the screen.

In this case, I fully expected to not watch this show. Indeed it is frequently inaccurate, but for some reason I find the Tom Kirkman character played by Kiefer Sutherland somehow "relatable" because of the situation in which he supposedly finds himself. So I have continued to watch it.

Unfortunately it took me over 1000 words to explain why I watch this show where, irritatingly, "they" failed to give any thought about filming shots of normal DC traffic after such an attack - among other problems. Sorry about being so verbose.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Why am I singing "Grammar got ran over by a reindeer..." 

Meanwhile... suspension of disbelief is a tricky thing. To me, it often gets used when it doesn't apply. For example... To enjoy Supergirl, you have to suspend disbelief in aliens, people who can fly, people who can shoot lasers from their eyes, and so forth. IF you can't suspend that disbelief, then you can't enjoy the show. You have to accept the core premise in order to enjoy the narrative.

BUT

If you have a show like Dukes of Hazzard, since James brought it up... you can suspend disbelief in people not getting MAJOR injuries from those car crashes... as long as they NEVER show you an episode that centers the plot around someone getting hurt in a car crash! That wouldn't be suspension of disbelief anymore... that would be a show violating the rules of its own universe.

You establish that people can jump over canyons and the car and people are ok... and can have high-speed collisions without injury... then you can't suddenly do a story and someone being hurt in a crash. You've established a world and asked the viewer to accept that car crashes don't hurt people, you can't walk that back.

Nitpicking Supergirl... you establish that outside of her being alien and having super powers, that the rest of the laws of physics seem to apply... then you have to be careful having her pick up a car by its bumper and supporting the entire weight of the car without the bumper basically ripping off! This is a nitpick they often get wrong in shows... then say "you have to suspend disbelief" as an excuse for poor writing.

So, back to this show... The early episodes have to setup the world the show is set within... what the "rules" are and how it might differ from reality... but if they establish that it is mostly the real-world but with some fictional changes like the killing of the President and congress, etc... they have to keep the rest of the show realistic within that world. Suspension of disbelief is not meant to cover plotholes.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

phrelin said:


> ...So, IMHO the "belief/disbelief" issue is irrelevant to "fiction" as I see because...
> 
> in the case of the genre "fantasy" the relationship to reality need only be enough for purposes of _comprehension_ of the story,
> in the case of the genre "science fiction" the relationship to reality need only be enough to _suggest_ that what you're seeing is not completely impossible in the real world,
> ...


There. I edited your post for you. You are entirely welcome. (said the guy who just posted 800 words on a show he hates)

FIrst, this is not fantasy. Nor is it comedy or science fiction. A drama like this is supposed to be realistic. It is supposed to be believable, to work on any level. It's not. _BuffyTVS_ was a fantasy. It was easy to suspend disbelief there, and they knocked it right out of the park for many seasons.

Second, artistic license is malleable. What I mean by that is that Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen rarely got called for fouls, because they were so good at playing the game. If you give me a compelling story and execute it brilliantly, you get _a whole lot more _artistic license. Give me drek, and 'Traveling--number forty-two! Raise your hand up!'

Third, Webster's has very simple clear definitions of what 'suspend' means, and what 'disbelief' means. It is not too hard to put those together to create an easily understandable concept. We suspend disbelief every time we look at the light from pixels and see characters, people, stories, instead of pixels.

I write fiction. But one of the hard and fast rules I have is to make the story believable. It has to be a story that could have happened, to be any good.

Suspending belief is something different than suspending disbelief. The ability to suspend disbelief to a certain level only enhances the story. The inability takes you out of the story. Once I can't suspend my disbelief, I begin to suspend my belief that I will be tuning in for the next episode.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart, I like the way you put that ... setting the rules for the universe then sticking to those rules (instead of violating them for no good reason).

I suppose the terror of 9-11 is still too fresh in my mind. The irrational fear that I felt on that day that they were coming after me even though I was nowhere near a major city. As my mind settled down to thinking rationally the "next city" to be targeted kept getting bigger. I stopped worrying about the small major city near me and worried more about the bigger major city of Chicago, where people were trying to get out of town as fast as they could (including commuter rail running "load and go" services to get people out of the city and back to their homes). 9-11 had too big of an influence on me ... it is hard to suspend that reality.

There is just too much of a "life goes on" feel about this show. With the level of destruction shown the reaction should be more than what we are seeing in this show.

The show is handling the political and interpersonal relationships ... so once I get past the errors in disaster recovery and reaction I'll watch to see how Jack saves the day again. Oops. It isn't Jack this time. Gotta overlook the typecasting too.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Jack, er, Kiefer is not typecast. George Reeves was typecast. And a thousand SAG card holders could do either role better, including George Reeves (and he's dead).


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

James Long said:


> Stewart, I like the way you put that ... setting the rules for the universe then sticking to those rules (instead of violating them for no good reason).
> ...


Hmmm. Is that meant sarcastically? Where's the smiley?

I'm gonna assume not, since that makes perfect sense to me. I never make the rules. I just follow them.

(sometimes)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I wasn't talking about you (or even to you, specifically). I was talking about the show.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> There is just too much of a "life goes on" feel about this show. With the level of destruction shown the reaction should be more than what we are seeing in this show.


Now I understand your problem with the show. You've identified a troubling aspect of the initial episodes of the show that I didn't realize was bothering me.

Today we're not Londoner's in the Blitz, head down getting through intensive nightly bombings. We have become more like Londoner's during The Troubles. We've learned that if a criminal terrorist act isn't at the shocking 9-11 level but somewhere towards the individual shooter level, we pause but don't let "them" win by stopping our society.

Fundamentally, the show's story is that someone used a bomb in the Capitol Building to kill the President, almost all members of Congress, all but one member of the Cabinet, all members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc.

The truth of the matter is that the state governments would not be impacted and that outside D.C. the routines of the federal bureaucracy and the military would go on. Nonetheless...

Personal shock and grief notwithstanding, the D.C. government and the States of Virginia and Maryland would shut down everything inside the beltway, only slowly restoring freedom of movement in phases. Folks employed by the Smithsonian edifices might not be allowed to go back to work for weeks while FBI employees at the J. Edgar Hoover Building might be allowed back to work the next day. There would be no reason for lobbyists and many other workers in D.C. to go back to work any time soon.

Instead many shots look like the center of D.C. at 10 am today.

You are right, it is troublesome and they could have had some interesting stories about how to restore "normal" not just some random cop hassling the guy of Middle Eastern descent.

The show runners deserve negative judgements about this. And I've had problems with some lessor story arcs. I guess, in the end, the characters and maybe the actors have pulled me into a show I might have otherwise rejected. It's weird because I am now aware consciously of _all_ these criticisms and yet I haven't "suspended" anything other than choosing to change the channel.

Now I'm wondering what this show has to offer as drama. Do I need to reevaluate?


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

James Long said:


> I wasn't talking about you (or even to you, specifically). I was talking about the show.


Well,* you started with the word 'Stewart'*, so I'm not sure how anyone could have even dreamed that you might be talking to me.

But I am in this conversation. Whether you like it or not. That's how this works.

I'm glad you are talking about the show. That is also how this is supposed to work.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James hit one aspect of the weirdness... the only character on the show that seems to be thinking about other things is that one FBI agent... can't remember her name... but she's the one questioning their findings and asking "what if there is more to come" and it seems like if she was in charge, maybe they would be doing more sensible things... As it is, it kind of seems like they are trying to get back to business-as-usual really quickly and not even considering that other attacks might be coming... which is what you should be wondering about. There's no way someone would hit us THAT hard and then say and do nothing else... the whole point of that attack would be to weaken us for the next things. Those next things would have to come soon, while we were still scrambling.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

OK, so maybe that is a clever comment by them on female empowerment (you go, girl) and possibly a dig at the thoughtless mentality of how the machine is supposed to work. Tryina see the glass half full here.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

After binge watching the first five episodes it became obvious the writers got the idea from Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor". In that novel the character Jack Ryan becomes President of the United States under similar conditions.


----------



## Huuge Hefner (Aug 16, 2016)

Yeah. Tom Clancy is the showrunner here.









Not.


----------

