# The EVENT



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Saw the initial episode of The EVENT last night.

While in a number of places I needed bread crumbs through the plot changes back and forth...overall, it showed some promise. You can tell J J Abrams leads this production.

Anyone else see it and have thoughts?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Saw the initial episode of The EVENT last night.
> 
> While in a number of places I needed bread crumbs through the plot changes back and forth...overall, it showed some promise. You can tell J J Abrams leads this production.
> 
> Anyone else see it and have thoughts?


Except for the fact Abrams has nothing to do with it. His new show is Undercovers. Has that feel though.


----------



## iceturkee (Apr 1, 2007)

didn't care for the timeline jumping back and forth. but i'll give a watch to anything laura innes is in.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

I almost gave up before it started getting good. I really had no idea what it was about because the previews never really said.

Maybe a Lost knockoff?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Except for the fact Abrams has nothing to do with it. His new show is Undercovers. Has that feel though.


I thought I read somewhere that he collaborated on this one too.

My mistake then.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

The Event may be my first casualty of new shows, I loved LOST and don’t want to live through a similar show again. With all this hype the Event has gotten from NBC I expected a lot more answers right of the bat. Lets see what they give us next week, but the previews they showed for up coming episodes made me think about how much time will be needed to be invested by myself in this story. And I’m not feeling it….


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

oldschoolecw said:


> The Event may be my first casualty of new shows, I loved LOST and don't want to live through a similar show again. With all this hype the Event has gotten from NBC I expected a lot more answers right of the bat. Lets see what they give us next week, but the previews they showed for up coming episodes made me think about how much time will be needed to be invested by myself in this story. *And I'm not feeling it&#8230;.*


Me either. I won't waste my time next week. The hype got me to watch once, but now I know better.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

iceturkee said:


> didn't care for the timeline jumping back and forth. but i'll give a watch to anything laura innes is in.


The constant timeline hoping was driving me crazy at first but I thought it established some flow eventually. I'm going to give it a couple more weeks but not because of Laura Innes, in fact I almost didn't watch the pilot because of her - I never liked her in ER or anything else I've seen her in.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I brought in to the story line. While in real life I am not much for conspiracy theory I love them in books and films.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

I understand it may be awhile before we find out what the event was, but I was expecting to see some consequences that would lead to drama. I'm left to guess it must have been a discovery that made the final scene possible, but the lead-up was lacking. I'll stick with it awhile.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

iceturkee said:


> didn't care for the timeline jumping back and forth.


The flow took some getting used to ... the overlap helped some to "bring you back to speed" as to what was happening at the moment they cut away.

All of the disturbance before the plane crash threw me off.

But I did like the twists and how they mixed up the good guys and the bad guys enough to inspire some questions. And the episode ended well. It will do as a new Monday night show.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

James Long said:


> The flow took some getting used to ... the overlap helped some to "bring you back to speed" as to what was happening at the moment they cut away.
> 
> All of the disturbance before the plane crash threw me off.
> 
> But I did like the twists and how they mixed up the good guys and the bad guys enough to inspire some questions. And the episode ended well. It will do as a new Monday night show.


The plane disappeared, not crash. I want to know more about all those people being held in Alaska and why the President released one of them. (Does anyone see the Gitmo connection here?) I am totally confused with the time line of events because I was not expecting all the jumping around.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Hollywood franchising again. Another "Lost" type drama.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lwilli201 said:


> The plane disappeared, not crash.


It was a crash until it ceased to crash. The immediate moment that the anomaly appeared seemed plausible to have an effect on the ground (perhaps caused by the anomaly) but there was too much shaking going on for too long before the crash for my tastes.



> I want to know more about all those people being held in Alaska and why the President released one of them. (Does anyone see the Gitmo connection here?) I am totally confused with the time line of events because I was not expecting all the jumping around.


I hope it settles down some but the order of presentation of the facts allowed us to be surprised as to the character of the characters instead of forming opinions about who they were chronologically. I do admit that 20 minutes in I was wondering if I should take the recording of the show and re-edit it in order to see if it made more sense.

As for the detainees ... the first presidential references seemed to be Gitmo, and it was made clear that these people were being held for not talking to the authorities. They know something the government goons (in the show) want to know. But in contrast to Gitmo I hope that the information the Alaskan prisoners are withholding is not about potential negative events that we need to be warned of. I hope "The Event" is a more positive event than an attack.

Obviously there is a power at work greater than we understand that protected the leader of the Alaskans (for lack of a better term) along with the president. Wouldn't it be nice if the power was working for our best interests?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> Hollywood franchising again. Another "Lost" type drama.


Maybe they should have called it LOST II.


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

James Long said:


> As for the detainees ... the first presidential references seemed to be Gitmo, and it was made clear that these people were being held for not talking to the authorities. They know something the government goons (in the show) want to know. But in contrast to Gitmo I hope that the information the Alaskan prisoners are withholding is not about potential negative events that we need to be warned of. I hope "The Event" is a more positive event than an attack.


Not Gitmo but more like the Manhatten Project/Los Alamos in WWII. In the beginning Simon and Sophia Were talking about one of the detainees being returned and he had threatened to tell people about the Event. It looks like the detainees are those who know about the Event and are being held to ensure no one says anything. Even Sophia who acted quite friendly with Simon was chained to the table.

My theory on The Event was it was the finding of an intact flying saucer. The detainees are the scientists who investigated it. When the President visited one of the things he wanted to see was the research labs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Maybe they should have called it LOST II.


Or 2lost2follow?



frederic1943 said:


> Not Gitmo but more like the Manhatten Project/Los Alamos in WWII. In the beginning Simon and Sophia Were talking about one of the detainees being returned and he had threatened to tell people about the Event. It looks like the detainees are those who know about the Event and are being held to ensure no one says anything. Even Sophia who acted quite friendly with Simon was chained to the table.
> 
> My theory on The Event was it was the finding of an intact flying saucer. The detainees are the scientists who investigated it. When the President visited one of the things he wanted to see was the research labs.


Is "the event" something that happened or something that will happen?

This could be a coverup of something that happened a long time ago or a buildup to a season ending event (with the promise of a next season ending event, a la "FlashForward").


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

James Long said:


> Or 2lost2follow?


Perhaps.

Or....

ScriptMaze II.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

iceturkee said:


> but i'll give a watch to anything laura innes is in.


-1


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I'll give it one more shot, but the pilot was, at most, a C-. Didn't like it.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

James Long said:


> Obviously there is a power at work greater than we understand that protected the leader of the Alaskans (for lack of a better term) along with the president. Wouldn't it be nice if the power was working for our best interests?


There also must be some unknown power at work that convinced the pilot to do what he did too.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

pfp said:


> There also must be some unknown power at work that convinced the pilot to do what he did too.


That power is less unknown. Note who wanted to cancel the press conference and had left the complex well in advance of the attack.

It is some powerful coercion that can convince a person to give up their own life and kill many others to save the life of a loved one (as the pilot apparently did). How many people would you kill for someone you loved? (Rhetorical question.) It is a tough question. Killing for a cause seems to be the norm ... but the pilot didn't seem to be part of a cause. He seemed to be under pressure to perform.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

James Long said:


> That power is less unknown. Note who wanted to cancel the press conference and had left the complex well in advance of the attack.
> 
> It is some powerful coercion that can convince a person to give up their own life and kill many others to save the life of a loved one (as the pilot apparently did). How many people would you kill for someone you loved? (Rhetorical question.) It is a tough question. Killing for a cause seems to be the norm ... but the pilot didn't seem to be part of a cause. He seemed to be under pressure to perform.


I think the pilot was trying to save more than a loved one. He was probably told that is wife, daughter, and grand-daughter would die if he did not do this. You'd be surprised what people will do for their family.

- Merg


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The Merg said:


> I think the pilot was trying to save more than a loved one. He was probably told that is wife, daughter, and grand-daughter would die if he did not do this. You'd be surprised what people will do for their family.


"We'll find her." "Leila"?

I need to watch the episode again ... hopefully it won't be so complicated that one needs to take detailed notes to follow the action.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I've decided to treat this one like I did Lost. If it survives a whole season and is renewed for a second season i'll catch up over next summer and start watching the new eps starting season 2. If no season 2 then i'll never watch. I'm still feeling burned from the cancellation of Flash Forward, so i'm little cynical and bitter regarding new shows now!


----------



## the_batman (Sep 20, 2007)

Way to much time line jumping


----------



## Indiana627 (Nov 18, 2005)

I agree with others: way too much time line jumping. And since they are upfront about going the sci-fi route (what with the ending of the pilot), I'm sure a lot of viewer will jump ship simply for that reason.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

I thought it was good


----------



## BenJF3 (Sep 12, 2008)

scottandregan said:


> I almost gave up before it started getting good. I really had no idea what it was about because the previews never really said.
> 
> Maybe a Lost knockoff?


Not Lost, think Flash Forward.

I hate when they use time shifting as a plot device when it doesn't need it. STOP jumping all over the place. This could have been presented in chronological order. It seems like this TV season is all knockoffs of other shows or re-makes. Chase = In Plain Sight, Hawaii Five-O, etc

I'm going to give this show a shot to piece together from the pilot but it's not looking good.


Spoiler



I was ready to write it off when the plane vanished into the ball of light.



I hate when quality shows like The Unit get scrapped because of terrible programming/time slots and recycled junk gets dished out. I wish they gave Journeyman a fair shot to build an audience. :nono2:


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

I actually really enjoyed the show.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It's one of those science fiction books I'd like to read cover-to-cover in a very few days.

The problem with "The Event" is that the NBC suits are hoping to entice the scifi and mysticism crowds to carry along a lot of others by using "clever" jumbled flashbacks.

Instead of a linear approach to each of the flashbacks allowing the story to develop logically in its own time ...well, you know what they did. Then they did a reveal. In a one hour pilot.:nono2:

This pilot episode was carefully designed to leave many comparing it to "Lost" or "FlashForward" or even "V" or some other show (though it appears these are negative comparisons). No, it is going to be its own story and like all such stories it will have to use some elements common to TV shows of its genre. But creating all these comparisons by jumbling up the pilot was supposed to get people hooked.

The problem is that NBC can't do anything without suits and bean counters. Consider "Kings," a canceled NBC show with a potentially controversial premise that belonged on HBO where the creative types get to create.

Once the clammy hands of the fumbling NBC suits are removed, maybe it will be ok scifi TV. My understanding is that the second episode helps get it together so that folks will actually have a TV show to watch.



Spoiler



According to Michael Ausiello: In addition to learning what happened to the plane and its inhabitants, we find out what turned Scott Patterson into the pilot from hell and who exactly The Others (a.k.a. Laura Innes & Co.) are. Bonus scoops: A rather pivotal character from the premiere is murdered and someone else is not who he/she claims to be.


But if no quality creative-type show runner, as opposed to the suits, is clearly in control by the third episode, then I'll record it and put it on an external hard drive along with hundreds of hours of other stuff I'll not live long enough to watch. like "Kings."


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

The previews didn't interest me, so I decided not to set to Series Link. I guessed from the previews that this show would be an early casualty. We'll see in a month.


----------



## srfrdan (Feb 24, 2010)

horribly jumping around at first but woven gradually into something watchable. kinda wanna see exactly what powers that group has but if it turns into the 4400 forget it. ill watch one or two more eps to see. dan


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Watching it again helps ... (It will be on again on Saturday for those who need a second look.)

It needs to settle down. Giving an hour a week (45 minutes DVR) to a show is one thing. Needing to spend a couple of hours pouring over details isn't why I watch TV.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

James Long said:


> Watching it again helps ... (It will be on again on Saturday for those who need a second look.)
> 
> It needs to settle down. Giving an hour a week (45 minutes DVR) to a show is one thing. Needing to spend a couple of hours pouring over details isn't why I watch TV.


I wasn't terribly impressed the first time (and the jumping around was REALLY annoying) so I definitely won't watch that same episode again. I'll give a new episode a shot but unless it gets better quick it will likely be dropped by me.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

While the hour started out bad it developed into a story I could follow, the timeline jumping while annoying was really the only way they could fill in the story in the time allotted. I think it could develop into something good, I will definitely give it a few more episodes


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Watching it again helps ... (It will be on again on Saturday for those who need a second look.)
> 
> It needs to settle down. Giving an hour a week (45 minutes DVR) to a show is one thing. Needing to spend a couple of hours pouring over details isn't why I watch TV.


Bingo, We have a winner!


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

According to the interview I read, it was originally supposed to have NO sci-fi elements at all. They were added after NBC requested them. The comment was, that the addition of the sci-fi parts did not alter the story at all.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I have mixed reviews on this so far, but there is no way you can miss seeing. It's appears to be on every channel - Chill, SciFy, USA and probably mo'.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

The Merg said:


> I think the pilot was trying to save more than a loved one. He was probably told that is wife, daughter, and grand-daughter would die if he did not do this. You'd be surprised what people will do for their family.
> 
> - Merg


His wife was already dead... Grand-daughter? If they said the little girl was a grand daughter I missed it. I don't think the oldest daughter is old enough to have a kid that age.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> His wife was already dead...


Or not.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Finally watched this and based on other things I've read, I was pleasantly surprised. It kept me involved and interested and I'm looking forward to the next episode.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I really enjoyed this and hope it sticks around for a while. It will hold my craving for these types of shows since the rest of them are now gone.

As for Laura Innes? I think this type of show suits her just nicely. She's just creepy enough to play this part I think.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I really enjoyed this and hope it sticks around for a while. It will hold my craving for these types of shows since the rest of them are now gone.
> 
> As for Laura Innes? I think this type of show suits her just nicely. She's just creepy enough to play this part I think.


Yup - she's creepy alright. :lol:

I suspect tonight's episode will tell alot more...

If they try milking the cow to the extent they did in the first show...the number of farmers may dry up pretty soon from moving along the program too slowly...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Or not.


We saw her dead body.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> We saw her dead body.


Yeah, we did. But if the show were like some other shows, that doesn't mean anything. Not that I'm predicting anything. I don't know anything about this show.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Well the 2nd episode was better then the first.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Well the 2nd episode was better then the first.


agreed


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

To me this show screams "Hey look at me I'm the new LOST" for 45 minutes. They are just trying WAY too hard. 

There are also more than a few moments when I feel like I'm watching a cheesy 80's show.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Yeah, we did. But if the show were like some other shows, that doesn't mean anything. Not that I'm predicting anything. I don't know anything about this show.


2nd episode confirms her death.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jul 9, 2007)

When he got off the plane, the pilot's shoulder boards has the stripes.

I guess the president is now on-line for keeping the prisoner's IN the prison. When he was told that they are not being entirely truthful, the pres looked skeptical, not so much since she said, "We didn't tell you everything," after the plane disappeared.


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

Iike it kinda. HATE the time shifting thing. I'll give it a few more episodes. I didn't watch lost. If this heads the same way I won't watch this.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

xmguy said:


> Iike it kinda. HATE the time shifting thing. I'll give it a few more episodes. I didn't watch lost. If this heads the same way I won't watch this.


Ditto on all counts.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmm. Well, they do overuse the cinematic "flashback" to provide backstory and to help reinforce what's going on. I think about a third of vewers and readers dislike this tool if its overused. Generally, I don't think "Lost" overused it. I do think it is being overused here in the sense that they piecemeal the backstory to the point its so fragmented its difficult to reassemble.

I assume now that we have what I think of as a "pilot" (the first two episodes which should have been one) out of the way, we won't see so much of it.

And as I noted in an earlier post, there is way too much comparison with "Lost" or "FlashForward" or "V", though apparently it may have a minor parallel to the latter and probably no parallel to the first two.


----------



## Virginian (Jun 14, 2006)

For those of you who don't have Russian friends or coworkers, the mount "Inostranka" translates into Russian as female "Foreigner".

In Russian, as with many other languages, each noun is assigned a gender. "a" in the end indicates female gender.


----------

