# Alcatraz - Series Premier Jan. 16, 2012



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

New series on Fox starts tonight and the previews Look great. Don't forget to set up your series link.
http://www.fox.com/programming/shows/?sh=alcatraz


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

It premieres tonight, the 16th, not the 26th.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Thanks Mark, I fixed it. Fat fingers. :grin:


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Looking forward to it.


----------



## renbutler (Oct 17, 2008)

My wife and I enjoyed the first hour (we barely started the second hour before the baby woke up). I noticed that it moved very fast in terms of plot development -- almost like an anti-Lost. We learned a lot quickly, but there are obviously still some mysteries that will be revealed over time.

I enjoyed the characters and their interactions. Jumping from time period to time period wasn't too distracting as it can be on some shows. There were some plot holes (and I'm not talking about the mysteries that will be revealed), so I hope the series isn't quite so sloppy as the pilot.

But overall, I can see this being something we can both continue to enjoy.


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

I liked it, definitely a keeper.

...Asking for a ticket on the return from Alcatraz, how silly was that (I know, the point was he actually had one in his pocket -mystery!- but really?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Definitely a keeper here as well, though I keep thinking Hurley. Hard to separate that character for me.

I'm really curious on how the ratings will be, not necessarily last nights since it was so heavily promo'd, but after next week.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Enjoyed it.

Ratings: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/01/17/tv-ratings-monday-alcatraz-premiere-tops-terra-nova


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

While I think it is a much better show than "Terra Nova", don't get too excited about the ratings as there were more demo viewers watching live TV last night (and more older viewers watching "Betty White"). Plus CBS walked away with the demo ratings for the first two hours.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I think next week will be more telling.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

We had every intention of watching it last night and more important things came up, hopefully tonight.


----------



## NiTruS (Feb 7, 2008)

45 mins in, I deleted it..not good enuf..just barely average..


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Wow, if I did that I'd have missed some excellent episodes of Star Trek Next Gen.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

I watched both episodes today, loved them both. I'm intrigued.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I have no idea what this show is about. It appears to be rather senseless.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

I like senseless. Makes it interesting. 

Especially anything with time travel.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> I have no idea what this show is about.


Then you must not have been paying attention. :lol: They made it perfectly clear what the show is about.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> I have no idea what this show is about. It appears to be rather senseless.


 Simple. It's another crime procedural with a scifi twist where each week in the 2012 Winter TV season some mysterious science allows a genius cabal or individual (we can't know who until Fox cancels the show) to "reconstitute" (or maybe its time travel or not) in San Francisco one of the criminals among those who were in Alcatraz Federal Prison in 1963, maybe gives him an assignment; and the team played by...

Sarah Jones (who was Gretchen in the 2010 failed Fox series "Lone Star") who plays Detective Rebecca Madsen a too-young-to-be-a-SFPD-detective-but-she-was-smart,
Parminder Nagra (who was Dr. Neela Rasgotra in "ER") who plays Lucy Banerjee who may not be what she seems but then again we don't even know what that is,
Jorge Garcia (who was Hurley in "Lost") who plays Dr. Diego Soto, a geeky expert on the history of Alcatraz Prison,
Sam Neill (the Sam Neill) who plays Emerson Hauser, a mean old federal agent who is team leader but a whole lot more we don't yet understand,
...who chase down and capture the weekly reconstituted prisoner.

Whether it's senseless or not compared to other crime procedural with a scifi twist on Fox beginning with "X-Files" is also a mystery to me.:sure:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

No space aliens?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> No space aliens?


Could be they are the ones "reconstituting" the prisoners, or not. We don't know yet.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> I have no idea what this show is about. It appears to be rather senseless.


Did you watch it?


----------



## rrdirectsr (Jan 30, 2011)

I enjoyed the show and oddly enough my mother, who HATES anything sci-fi, enjoyed it as well. I'll keep the series rolling on my dvr.

I'm just waiting to see if dinosaurs are guarding the outer perimeter of the new prison they are in and it would also be cool to see a time machine in the form of an electric chair. Just an idea.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Scott Kocourek said:


> Did you watch it?


Yep. Live too!

But it looks like a show I'll DVR for awhile before I watch again. This way, I won't forget most of it as they present a wacky plot over months of shows.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> Yep. Live too!
> 
> But it looks like a show I'll DVR for awhile before I watch again. This way, I won't forget most of it as they present a wacky plot over months of shows.


We watched American Horror Story that way. It was a fun way to watch a show.


----------



## Jimmy 440 (Nov 17, 2007)

It's okay'I'll give it a whirl a few more times.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

We got throught the second episode last night. I think it will be a keeper, although there are a few things that concern me like why these people come back after 50 years and are not completely freaked out at the changes. How the guy in the second episode looked at a modern mini security camera and knew that someone was watching him. The little things may get to me.

Time will tell.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Scott Kocourek said:


> We got throught the second episode last night. I think it will be a keeper, although there are a few things that concern me like why these people come back after 50 years and are not completely freaked out at the changes. How the guy in the second episode looked at a modern mini security camera and knew that someone was watching him. The little things may get to me.


I wondered that too at first but then thought there's probably an explanation for that. Since we don't know how they are coming back, or how they even left, yet it's possible they already somehow know stuff like that.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> I wondered that too at first but then thought there's probably an explanation for that. Since we don't know how they are coming back, or how they even left, yet it's possible they already somehow know stuff like that.


Well if the goal of the show, in order to keep you coming back for more, is to leave a ton of unanswered questions? Then the show is very successful.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

I liked it. I thought it was very good for a premier. Very few shows have really good first episodes (Lost is an obvious exception). Most shows take a few episodes to find their way, and get better as they go along.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Well if the goal of the show, in order to keep you coming back for more, is to leave a ton of unanswered questions? Then the show is very successful.


The goal of pretty much every show out there is to get you to come back next week because of unanswered questions...


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> We got throught the second episode last night. I think it will be a keeper, although there are a few things that concern me like why these people come back after 50 years and are not completely freaked out at the changes. How the guy in the second episode looked at a modern mini security camera and knew that someone was watching him. The little things may get to me.
> 
> Time will tell.


I also looked at it that with the second episode we weren't following him around from the time he showed up. He could have already had his "shock and awe" moment, but it wasn't shown to us.

- Merg


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

russ9 said:


> I liked it, definitely a keeper.
> 
> ...Asking for a ticket on the return from Alcatraz, how silly was that (I know, the point was he actually had one in his pocket -mystery!- but really?


Yeah, that stuck out a bit! 
Also, being sent on an errand- to the gun shop for example- Bam! they're off the rock and in the shop with no boat, car or walking, instantly (yes, I know cuts are a part of movie/show making!) whereas the actual would take at least a half hour.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

@Phrelin- Loved your synopsis! 

Perhaps we'll find out that for the last 50 years these "gents" have been playing in Zombie movies, thus learning about modern day SF. The big secret will be how they got upgraded from zombiedom to their physical selves from 50 years back.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Yeah, that stuck out a bit!
> Also, being sent on an errand- to the gun shop for example- Bam! they're off the rock and in the shop with no boat, car or walking, instantly (yes, I know cuts are a part of movie/show making!) whereas the actual would take at least a half hour.


If we had to see them go from the island to the mainland every time they do the show would get VERY boring. Same with going to the hidden location where they are keeping the re-captured. For that they established that it was way out in the woods somewhere once, that's good enough for me.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Under Alcatraz seems to be a very inconvenient place for their headquarters. Its got to take at least 30 minutes to get to the boat, back to the dock, and into a car. That seems like a lot of wasted time.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Under Alcatraz seems to be a very inconvenient place for their headquarters. Its got to take at least 30 minutes to get to the boat, back to the dock, and into a car. That seems like a lot of wasted time.


Yeah, but it sounds cool to have a hidden "bat cave" under Alcatraz.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hilmar2k said:


> Under Alcatraz seems to be a very inconvenient place for their headquarters. Its got to take at least 30 minutes to get to the boat, back to the dock, and into a car. That seems like a lot of wasted time.


Thank Heavens for cuts! 

I bet, though, that a few times we'll see some operation getting to or from the island in heavy seas, including the dark and stormy night bits, where the urgency to get there is high.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I bet, though, that a few times we'll see some operation getting to or from the island in heavy seas, including the dark and stormy night bits, where the urgency to get there is high.


And when they need some time to "discuss the case". :lol:


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> We got throught the second episode last night. I think it will be a keeper, although there are a few things that concern me like why these people come back after 50 years and are not completely freaked out at the changes. How the guy in the second episode looked at a modern mini security camera and knew that someone was watching him. The little things may get to me.
> 
> Time will tell.


I thought of this too, but then I realized that they showed a close-up of the camera, then they showed him looking at the camera, then he addressed it directly. Clearly they were sending the audience a message about these people. It's something that they will have to explain the future, but for now we are expected to accept it. After all, if the camera would have thrown them, then "modern" money would look like Monopoly dollars to them, but it doesn't. Somehow, they HAVE been brought up to date. The sniper still used the gun he was the most confortable with though. They each, so far, seem to have come back with a mission, but are allowed leeway to do their own personal business along the way.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

There have been surveillance cameras in the US since the early 1960's. It is certainly not incenceivable that he figured out that it was just a smaller, shinier version of what he knew to exist in 1963.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I finally caught up on the pilot and the next episode, haven't seen the episode from 1/23 yet.

I liked what I saw, but clearly see the hand behind "Lost" at the wheel, feeding out some information, leaving clues, again showing us numbers... but it's enough to keep me coming back.

So far we've seen two prisoners return, but no guards. We also saw that the doctor is from 1963, which was a nice surprise I did NOT expect, but answers Hurley's question about why she was so nonplussed about everything.

I wasn't bothered by the '63 cons not being concerned about the changes over the last 48 years - I'm sure there will be some explanation for it. To me it's apparent that something changed with the first con: he was arrested for robbing a "post office" and went to federal prison, got involved in a fight and someone else died, went to Alcatraz. By Hurley's accounts, he was NOT a violent person when he went in to Alcatraz. But when he came out in 2012, he was very comfortable attacking and killing. So ... what was done to him between '63 and now that changed him? 

Will be fun to find out...


----------



## renbutler (Oct 17, 2008)

Hurley? :lol:

I know, it's really hard to separate him from that character.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Easier to use the names I know than the new names I'm learning!


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

On the wall of the '63s room they have pictures of 256 prisoners and 46 guards. But as Hurley pointed out when he and Rebecca went down to the room under the barracks, the guards lived on the rock with their families. With the kids going back and forth to school in San Francisco by boat every day. So there should have been 20 to 30 wives and an unknown number of children taken as well.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

frederic1943 said:


> On the wall of the '63s room they have pictures of 256 prisoners and 46 guards. But as Hurley pointed out when he and Rebecca went down to the room under the barracks, the guards lived on the rock with their families. With the kids going back and forth to school in San Francisco by boat every day. So there should have been 20 to 30 wives and an unknown number of children taken as well.


Since it was in the process of closing, it's feasible that the wives and kids had been removed already, making new homes on the mainland. 
But it's up to the writers. 
I hope folks can use the name of today's characters; some of us don't know Hurley from Ben Hur.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

"Laxguy" said:


> Since it was in the process of closing, it's feasible that the wives and kids had been removed already, making new homes on the mainland.
> But it's up to the writers.


I think that is the most logical scenario.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Since it was in the process of closing, it's feasible that the wives and kids had been removed already, making new homes on the mainland.
> But it's up to the writers.
> I hope folks can use the name of today's characters; some of us don't know Hurley from Ben Hur.


I thought that the 'authorities" in 1963 decided to announce the closing only AFTER everyone had disappeared... in other words, a cover up. In that case, I guess there should be some family members on the wall, along with maintenance and medical staffs for that matter.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Drew2k said:


> I thought that the 'authorities" in 1963 decided to announce the closing only AFTER everyone had disappeared... in other words, a cover up. In that case, I guess there should be some family members on the wall, along with maintenance and medical staffs for that matter.


Either scenario works fine; we'll see what the writers come up with! I missed the coverup dialog, but like the idea!

Heh: Wonder if all living creatures were so transmutated.... so we'd have dogs, rats, fleas and cockroaches in the mix!


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Unless all these guards came from extremely small families, relatives are going to raise questions.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I thought that the 'authorities" in 1963 decided to announce the closing only AFTER everyone had disappeared... in other words, a cover up. In that case, I guess there should be some family members on the wall, along with maintenance and medical staffs for that matter.


No, it was closing anyways. In the opening scene the boat is coming back to get more prisoners for transfer.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

This weeks episode did give us another non-prisoner returnee. One of my favorite actors.



Spoiler



Leon Rippy as the prison doctor. I hope he appears frequently but since he isn't listed a a cast member on Fox or IMDB I can only hope the character becomes more involved.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

olguy said:


> This weeks episode did give us another non-prisoner returnee. One of my favorite actors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I might be wrong but wasn't he in the previous episode back treating one of the prisoners.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

yosoyellobo said:


> I might be wrong but wasn't he in the previous episode back treating one of the prisoners.


Yes, he was in the pilot.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Yes, he was in the pilot.


I remember seeing him previously in the then but I don't remember if he was shown in the now. But at my age I'm doing good to remember what I had for breakfast this morning.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

olguy said:


> This weeks episode did give us another non-prisoner returnee. One of my favorite actors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting that. I've always enjoyed his work, but didn't know his name. I probably spent 2 hours this week googling trying to figure out his name since he isn't listed in the credits.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Actually, he was in the credits of the pilot. And IMDb now has his "Alcatraz" pilot credit on his page and on the episode page.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Actually, he was in the credits of the pilot. And IMDb now has his "Alcatraz" pilot credit on his page and on the episode page.


Thanks. I had only checked the main page on IMDB. And I vaguely recall him listed on the credits in the last episode. I wonder when Fox will include him on the Alcatraz site?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> No, it was closing anyways. In the opening scene the boat is coming back to get more prisoners for transfer.


Thanks. I was trying to pay attention, but I must have missed a line in the opening dialog...


----------

