# For scifi fans



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

One new show on a broadcast network this year based on a _*science fiction*_ premise is doing very well this year using the only standard that matters - ratings. (No matter what you think, ratings pay for shows on broadcast networks, not cult-like enthusiasm from less than 5% of the viewing audience nor the production value quality of the show.)

If you can name this show, apparently you are in a minority. This one show's producers and network have studiously avoided any labeling as scifi genre.

And yet on IMDb which also doesn't place it in the scifi genre, a Danish reviewer said: "All in all, I can only recommend this show. If you have seen Lost and Fringe, you know what you are in for." Perhaps that is because it is produced by the same company that produced "Lost" and produces "Fringe."

In fact, the show has another key element in common with "Lost." And yet the show's only thread here has just two posts.

The show is:



Spoiler



Person of Interest


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

I'm recording it but haven't watched any yet.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

I'm recording it as well, I have not watched as yet, but my oldest daughter says it is quite good.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

I guess I'm in the minority (report). I knew this was Sci-Fi from the write up before there was even a preview. I have to admit though I'm not watching it yet. I'm only recording episodes for now. I don't want to get screwed if the show gets cancelled like I have in the past.

I still think it would be better if it was Terry O'Quinn instead of Jim Caviezel. :lol:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

While it might be based upon a a science fiction *premise*, that does not translate necessarily into a science fiction show. And the show being discussed isn't really a science fiction show in my mind.

The show exists in contemporary time. The characters are ordinary action characters, not enhanced by science fictive elements. (Albeit one is very amazing, but action characters often are.)  The "science fiction premise" is conceivable with present technology. And the premise is not really a primary plot element of the episodes.

So this is really a nice action/drama/mystery show. Yes, we're watching and have enjoyed the episodes.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> I guess I'm in the minority (report). I knew this was Sci-Fi from the write up before there was even a preview. I have to admit though I'm not watching it yet. I'm only recording episodes for now. I don't want to get screwed if the show gets cancelled like I have in the past.
> 
> I still think it would be better if it was Terry O'Quinn instead of Jim Caviezel. :lol:


I think Terry is too old for this particular character. I think 15 years ago he would have been an excellent choice, even 10 years ago. And I think he has many excellent roles ahead of him. 

I also think Jim is doing a great job as a different type of action star. Then again, we like his work a lot. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think Terry is too old for this particular character. I think 15 years ago he would have been an excellent choice, even 10 years ago. And I think he has many excellent roles ahead of him.
> 
> I also think Jim is doing a great job as a different type of action star. Then again, we like his work a lot.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you're right (since I haven't watched it I have no opinion) but I just thought it would be nice to have Locke and Ben still together. :lol:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I guess I'm in the minority (report). I knew this was Sci-Fi from the write up before there was even a preview. I have to admit though I'm not watching it yet. I'm only recording episodes for now. I don't want to get screwed if the show gets cancelled like I have in the past.
> 
> I still think it would be better if it was Terry O'Quinn instead of Jim Caviezel. :lol:


At this point, it's ratings would have to really, really slump to get cancelled. Could happen, but probably not.


Tom Robertson said:


> While it might be based upon a a science fiction *premise*, that does not translate necessarily into a science fiction show. And the show being discussed isn't really a science fiction show in my mind.
> 
> The show exists in contemporary time. The characters are ordinary action characters, not enhanced by science fictive elements. (Albeit one is very amazing, but action characters often are.)  The "science fiction premise" is conceivable with present technology. And the premise is not really a primary plot element of the episodes.
> 
> ...


Obviously, the network is offering it as kind of a crime fighting procedural. Like "X-Files" it is in contemporary time and the characters are not directly physically or mentally enhanced. I know it doesn't have the fantasy element that show had but it does have the paranoid appeal of Orwell's _1984_ through hinting that technologically we're there and beyond.

I would argue that elements of the premise backstory have been elaborated upon through flashbacks because it is central to the story and that while it is "conceivable" with present technology I see it as fitting within the parameters of the Wikipedia entry first paragraph:


> Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginary but more or less plausible (or at least non-supernatural) content such as future settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, aliens, and paranormal abilities. Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".


I guess what we all know is that no one entity has put _*all*_ the data about us and photos and video that captures our image into a single place ... yet.

The moral issue here is should that information only be used to protect the state from harm when it could protect individuals from harm? Or should it be used by anyone at all for any purpose? It is the same argument that has developed about DNA information.

IMHO it is science fiction.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Maybe not science fiction at all:


> US Department of Homeland Security developing system to predict criminal intent.


 http://m.engadget.com/default/artic...ystem-to-predict/&category=classic&postPage=1

http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml?nid=20117058&cid=null&bcid=&bid=-281


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> Maybe not science fiction at all:
> 
> http://m.engadget.com/default/artic...ystem-to-predict/&category=classic&postPage=1
> 
> ...


The critical word is "developing" and IMHO the last sentence I quoted in the Wikipedia entry is what makes it science fiction:


> Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".


The CNET article update at the bottom contains this quote which should make everyone edgy whether your politics are center, left, or right:


> A Homeland Security spokesman has just provided this additional statement to CNET: "The FAST program is entirely voluntary and does not store any personally-identifiable information (PII) from participants once the experiment is completed. The system is not designed to capture or store PII. Any information that is gathered is stored under an anonymous identifier and is only available to DHS as aggregated performance data. It is only used for laboratory protocol as we are doing research and development. It is gathered when people sign up as volunteers, not by the FAST system. If it were ever to be deployed, there would be no PII captured from people going through the system." (The DHS Privacy Office has said that the system does contain personally-identifiable information and that FAST "is a privacy sensitive system." DHS defines a privacy sensitive system as "any system that collects, uses, disseminates, or maintains" personally-identifiable information.)


It's one of those explanations that falls into the category of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." And in my mind it makes this show the best type of science fiction.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

phrelin said:


> At this point, it's ratings would have to really, really slump to get cancelled. Could happen, but probably not.Obviously, the network is offering it as kind of a crime fighting procedural. Like "X-Files" it is in contemporary time and the characters are not directly physically or mentally enhanced. I know it doesn't have the fantasy element that show had but it does have the paranoid appeal of Orwell's _1984_ through hinting that technologically we're there and beyond.
> 
> I would argue that elements of the premise backstory have been elaborated upon through flashbacks because it is central to the story and that while it is "conceivable" with present technology I see it as fitting within the parameters of the Wikipedia entry first paragraph: I guess what we all know is that no one entity has put _*all*_ the data about us and photos and video that captures our image into a single place ... yet.
> 
> ...


I think of this as "it could have been" science fiction. But the focus and plot elements are not the science fiction. So I don't add that label to the mix. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

phrelin said:


> At this point, it's ratings would have to really, really slump to get cancelled. Could happen, but probably not.


I'm sure you're right but I'm just hesitant these days. I've been burned too many times in the past for watching a new show from the get go.

Has it been given a full season order yet?


----------



## russ9 (Jan 28, 2004)

I've been really trying to like this show, but the last episode was just lame. The basic (non sci-fi) premise - someone 'of interest' and they have to figure out if its the criminal or victim - or both, wears thin. And, the cop who will always be one step behind. 
On the other hand, it's better than pretty much everything else put up this season.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

phrelin said:


> If you can name this show, apparently you are in a minority. This one show's producers and network have studiously avoided any labeling as scifi genre.


I knew what it was right away 

I think Person of Interest is going to hold a lot of interest with a lot of people. That being said, it's a little bit of a stretch to call it Sci-Fi, IMHO. There are certainly elements there, but the show is probably more Crime Drama (not forensic) than Sci-Fi.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think Terry is too old for this particular character. I think 15 years ago he would have been an excellent choice, even 10 years ago. And I think he has many excellent roles ahead of him.
> 
> I also think Jim is doing a great job as a different type of action star. Then again, we like his work a lot.
> 
> ...





RunnerFL said:


> I'm sure you're right (since I haven't watched it I have no opinion) but I just thought it would be nice to have Locke and Ben still together. :lol:


Jim Caviezel and Michael Emerson are perfectly cast. In fact, the minor regular characters are also cast quiet well. Between the excellent cast and the nearly self-writing premise, I can see this show sticking around for a nice run.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

BubblePuppy said:


> Maybe not science fiction at all:
> 
> http://m.engadget.com/default/artic...ystem-to-predict/&category=classic&postPage=1
> 
> http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml?nid=20117058&cid=null&bcid=&bid=-281


As I stated on another thread science fiction is predictive history.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Jim Caviezel and Michael Emerson are perfectly cast. In fact, the minor regular characters are also cast quiet well. Between the excellent cast and the nearly self-writing premise, I can see this show sticking around for a nice run.


Michael Emerson is the one that really, really impresses us as actor and character. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Nighthawk68 (Oct 14, 2004)

I have sen all 3 episodes so far, and I am most impressed with this show. I like it alot.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Jim Caviezel's big break came in another sorta-sci-fi production, FREQUENCY where he talked to his figher fighter father (Dennis Quaid) in the past via short wave radio.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

mreposter said:


> Jim Caviezel's big break came in another sorta-sci-fi production, FREQUENCY where he talked to his figher fighter father (Dennis Quaid) in the past via short wave radio.


I think you are underestimating the huge power _Murder She Wrote_ had in making careers. 

_Frequency_ was the movie we first remember him too. Excellent job.

(and that was a science fiction movie.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## LOCODUDE (Aug 8, 2007)

Yep, I like this show quite a lot also. Hope it sticks around....


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think you are underestimating the huge power _Murder She Wrote_ had in making careers.


speaking of JB Fletcher, she can be seen twice daily on Hailmark Movie Channel HD - 560. Set your DVRs!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I think Person of Interest is going to hold a lot of interest with a lot of people.


If that's what you're talking about, it was a non-starter from the first promo for me. Just another run-of-the-mill CSI/L&O/Profiler/Closer drone. Definitely not of interest.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> If that's what you're talking about, it was a non-starter from the first promo for me. Just another run-of-the-mill CSI/L&O/Profiler/Closer drone. Definitely not of interest.


All shows that lasted a long time .. This is a different way to look at similar storylines. There's really only 2 actors to pay big money and only two others to pay moderately big money to so that will help.

CSI is way more forensic that POI. L&O is way more rigid in it's structure than POI. I didn't watch either of the Profiler or the Closer, so I have no reason to compare them with POI (from my personal point of view).

Hey, I've been wrong before, but I suspect this show will garner a nice following. It's just enough SciFi to taste it but not really be SciFi and it's just enough cop drama to taste it but not really be a cop drama. It will draw people from all walks of life, but just like any show .. It's not for everyone.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I guess I'm in the minority (report). I knew this was Sci-Fi from the write up before there was even a preview. I have to admit though I'm not watching it yet. I'm only recording episodes for now. I don't want to get screwed if the show gets cancelled like I have in the past.
> 
> I still think it would be better if it was Terry O'Quinn instead of *Jim Caviezel*. :lol:


He always seems to be kinda depressed to me. Don't know how else to explain it. I'm just recording the show, haven't seen it yet. I do like T. O'Quinn, but never having seen the show, I can't understand the reference...

Rich


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Nitehawk^ said:


> I have sen all 3 episodes so far, and I am most impressed with this show. I like it alot.


Agreed, great show


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

I am looking forward to find out more on what happened to Mr. Finch. They flashbacks we have seen so far shows him without the stiffness he now exhibits. Also that plaque in the building where he was working I think showed his partner when they were working on the spying system.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> He always seems to be kinda depressed to me. Don't know how else to explain it. I'm just recording the show, haven't seen it yet. I do like T. O'Quinn, but never having seen the show, I can't understand the reference...


Yeah, Jim always seems like he's bummed out. Like someone kicked his dog or something.

Terry worked with Michael Emerson on Lost.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

I look forward to this show each week, and it's the only "new" show I feel strongly about. I didn't know it was doing well in the ratings, though since I like it so much, I would have guessed it wasn't rating highly. It's nice to be wrong on some things! 

I wouldn't label it as "sci fi," but I agree with the opening quote that it is _based_ on a sci-fi premise.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Ok, so apparently we all agree that "Person of Interest" is based on a *science fiction premise*. I started this thread because I've been surprised at how little "buzz" (even here) this show has stirred.

Created by screenwriter Jonathan Nolan (_The Dark Knight_ and _The Prestige_ both directed by his older brother Christopher Nolan), this show is not _1984_ or _Brave New World_ partly because of it's written in a contemporary time context. Indeed, when almost everything about the show seems ...ordinary(?)... it is difficult to consider it scifi. But...

If you were to reread or read for the first time _Brave New World_ and _1984_, most of the underlying key scientific/technological premises will feel contemporary today. What will make them still seem scifi is the social/political/economics story. And, in fact, both stories, to paraphrase Wikipedia, explore the consequences of scientific innovations.

As BubblePuppy was quick to point out, the scientific innovation underlying "Person of Interest" isn't that far from being developed. The show is exploring the potential consequences of the choices that could face the developers of that technology, something we all should be discussing.

I believe CBS picked up "Person of Interest" partly because Bad Robot (J. J. Abrams) is the production company, but mostly because the network understands that except for the occasional fluke like "Lost" (also a Bad Robot production) science fiction cannot succeed in the broadcast network arena. The week-to-week story arc in "Person of Interest" tightly follows the "crime/police procedural" model.

CBS seeks to maintain its status as the leader in total viewers which means financial success. Of 19 hours of prime time network TV, 11 hours of the CBS schedule follows that procedural model including "Person of Interest." Of the remainder, 3 hours are popular comedies, 2 hours are established and award winning reality shows, 2 hours are other drama ("A Gifted Man" and "The Good Wife"), and 1 hour of news - the venerable "60 Minutes."

IMHO it is unlikely you'll see CBS gamble on a show overtly called science fiction. CBS likes to have more than 5% of the viewing audience watching their shows.

For instance, Bad Robot's only other show right now is "Fringe." I think it's a good show. But it's ratings were never very good and now are in the toilet waiting to be flushed by Fox, where the network execs are stressing over the possible huge financial failure of "Terra Nova."

At some point, Fox is going to have to face the truth of its last decade of scifi programming - scifi _*generally*_ isn't viable on broadcast television. Yes, there is the occasional fluke like "Lost" but that was a fluke.

That's the reality we scifi fans are facing when it comes to network TV. That Bad Robot chose to produce a subtly scifi show and CBS picked it up deserves to be noticed by the scifi community. It's a show with strong writing, acting, directing, etc. Yes, it's really a crime/police procedural, but it's premise and backstory are scifi.

By sandwiching this show in between the "Big Bang Theory" led comedy hour and the highly rated police procedural "The Mentalist", plus hiding from the press its scifi story element, CBS hopes it will be ratings "ok" at 11-12 million viewers and around a 2.5/x demo or better. I believe we scifi fans need to create buzz about "Person of Interest" so that CBS might consider something slightly more overtly scifi.

When I discovered the Person of Interest thread was languishing, I figured that we needed to talk about this show and that more scifi fans should watch it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

phrelin said:


> I guess what we all know is that no one entity has put _*all*_ the data about us and photos and video that captures our image into a single place ... yet.


That's one heck of a leap of faith...

Remember, the public in POI could say the same thing! 

I disagree with you saying this is a sci-fi show. I don't get that at all...

I just started catching up with this show in the last week and have caught up with all the episodes now. Though I get a kick out of the Six Degrees of Separation between me and Michael Emerson, I was mainly interested in this show due to Jim Caviezel... been a big fan of his ever since "Frequency." 

~Alan


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Looking back to 1967 the first season of Manix was a scifi like show. The lead character worked worked for a agency called "Intertect" which used computers to solve crimes. Something unheard of back then.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Looking back to 1967 the first season of Manix was a scifi like show. The lead character worked worked for a agency called "Intertect" which used computers to solve crimes. Something unheard of back then.


Wow, you have a good memory! If I remember right Mannix also used car phones. It was a good show.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

phrelin said:


> Wow, you have a good memory! If I remember right Mannix also used car phones. It was a good show.


Yes it was. But the novel idea of a high tech corporation using computers to solve crimes didn't continue with the series. It was quickly converted into a independent private eye series.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Yes it was. But the novel idea of a high tech corporation using computers to solve crimes didn't continue with the series. It was quickly converted into a independent private eye series.


I remember being kinda disappointed in that when the next season started. Guess I was a computer nerd even back then.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I asked Mrs. Tibber what genre(s) she would ascribe to _Person of Interest_ and science fiction did not come up. So I then asked if she would consider it scifi and she did not. She also mentioned that the show is set in our current reality. The computer drawing the numbers is just the device to set up the stories, not a major plot element in itself.

And as we watched _CSI_ tonight, we realized the CSI's have more science fiction elements than _Person of Interest_. The magic video enhancements that can clean up any picture (including reflections), bulletproof suits, video walls, etc.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

The CSIs aren't even fiction, they're pure fantasy along the lines of "Space Precinct".


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> And as we watched _CSI_ tonight, we realized the CSI's have more science fiction elements than _Person of Interest_. The magic video enhancements that can clean up any picture (including reflections), bulletproof suits, video walls, etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Ok, I concede that the technology unreality is pandemic in many of the current crime procedurals. I admit I've often thought "what universe are these cops in?"

With the budget cuts in California, I think the cops will soon be bringing their kids computers from home to do Google searches on perps addresses.

So I guess "Person of Interest" is using technology only slightly beyond what Homeland Security is doing now just like the technology in "CSI: Miami."


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Ok, so I've now started watching the show. The first thing I have to say is that CBS grossly mis-advertised this show. The previews led me to believe this would be something like Minority Report and that's what I based my earlier belief that this was Sci-Fi on. After watching the show I can see it is definitely not Sci-Fi. 

It's a good show, one that I'm enjoying, but it's not one that I see myself having to watch urgently.


----------

