Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* It was probably necessary for plot reasons not to give Carter the position in the FBI, but honestly? Just because she didn't know about the IAB investigations? That seems kinda harsh. Unless Donelly left some notes behind...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Nathan [[spoiler:was contacted at first by The Machine for "irrelevant" numbers. At what point did Finch learn about it and take up the role of Admin in his stead? And did Nathan die because he tried to be a one-man army without the skills (like Reese) to defend himself adequately?]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:
*** Not necessarily a mistake. We still don't know John's entire story and it's possible that he ''did'' know something at that point that we haven't heard about yet. Jonathan Nolan has stated that all of these character storylines connect somehow and has promised that they intend to continue exploring those connections for as long as the show runs. Due to that, I wouldn't be so quick to write this off as "just a mistake." And in response to John having a yellow box during the 2010/Matsya Nyaya flashback, the only time we saw him from the Machine's POV during that episode was when he and Stanton were in Ordos and they both had red boxes at the time (which meant they were about to commit a crime). There's no proof that he wouldn't have had a yellow box under normal circumstances.
to:
*** Not necessarily a mistake. We still don't know John's entire story and it's possible that he ''did'' know something at that point that we haven't heard about yet. [[WordOfGod Jonathan Nolan Nolan]] has stated that all of these character storylines connect somehow and has promised that they intend to continue exploring those connections for as long as the show runs. Due to that, I wouldn't be so quick to write this off as "just a mistake." And in response to John having a yellow box during the 2010/Matsya Nyaya flashback, the only time we saw him from the Machine's POV during that episode was when he and Stanton were in Ordos and they both had red boxes at the time (which meant they were about to commit a crime). There's no proof that he wouldn't have had a yellow box under normal circumstances.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25 (click to see context) from:
* In "Number Crunch", Finch mentions that one of the four numbers the Machine gave him came first, if only by milliseconds. How would he know this? The method the Machine uses to give Finch the numbers doesn't include a timestamp, and is too slow to have such precision.
to:
* In "Number Crunch", Finch mentions that one of the four numbers the Machine gave him came first, if only by milliseconds. How would he know this? The method the Machine uses to give Finch the numbers doesn't include a timestamp, and is too slow to have such precision.precision.
** He's probably referring to the fact that it was the first number the Machine gave him, and the reference to milliseconds could be either hyperbole or a red herring to keep Reese from discovering how he actually receives the numbers. In all likelihood, it's doubtful that the writers had actually decided how the process worked at the time, but it could still be explained away as yet another example of Finch trying to keep Reese from learning any more about how he actually receives the irrelevant numbers.
** He's probably referring to the fact that it was the first number the Machine gave him, and the reference to milliseconds could be either hyperbole or a red herring to keep Reese from discovering how he actually receives the numbers. In all likelihood, it's doubtful that the writers had actually decided how the process worked at the time, but it could still be explained away as yet another example of Finch trying to keep Reese from learning any more about how he actually receives the irrelevant numbers.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* In "Number Crunch", Finch mentions that one of the four numbers the Machine gave him came first, if only by milliseconds. How would he know this? The method the Machine uses to give Finch the numbers doesn't include a timestamp, and is too slow to have such precision.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 23 (click to see context) from:
** Likely a production mistake. The last time that set of flashbacks came before the audience Reese (as far as can be established) did not know about the Machine.
to:
** Likely a production mistake. The last time that set of flashbacks came before the audience Reese (as far as can be established) did not know about the Machine.Machine.
*** Not necessarily a mistake. We still don't know John's entire story and it's possible that he ''did'' know something at that point that we haven't heard about yet. Jonathan Nolan has stated that all of these character storylines connect somehow and has promised that they intend to continue exploring those connections for as long as the show runs. Due to that, I wouldn't be so quick to write this off as "just a mistake." And in response to John having a yellow box during the 2010/Matsya Nyaya flashback, the only time we saw him from the Machine's POV during that episode was when he and Stanton were in Ordos and they both had red boxes at the time (which meant they were about to commit a crime). There's no proof that he wouldn't have had a yellow box under normal circumstances.
*** Not necessarily a mistake. We still don't know John's entire story and it's possible that he ''did'' know something at that point that we haven't heard about yet. Jonathan Nolan has stated that all of these character storylines connect somehow and has promised that they intend to continue exploring those connections for as long as the show runs. Due to that, I wouldn't be so quick to write this off as "just a mistake." And in response to John having a yellow box during the 2010/Matsya Nyaya flashback, the only time we saw him from the Machine's POV during that episode was when he and Stanton were in Ordos and they both had red boxes at the time (which meant they were about to commit a crime). There's no proof that he wouldn't have had a yellow box under normal circumstances.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
* "Prisoner's Dilemma" shows Reese with a yellow box in flashback scenes from 2009, long before he was sent to China to attempt to retrieve software that the WMG section has theorized was from the Machine. Since yellow box means "individual aware of the Machine", why did Reese have a yellow box back then?
to:
* "Prisoner's Dilemma" shows Reese with a yellow box in flashback scenes from 2009, long before he was sent to China to attempt to retrieve software that the WMG section has theorized was from the Machine. Since yellow box means "individual aware of the Machine", why did Reese have a yellow box back then?then?
** Likely a production mistake. The last time that set of flashbacks came before the audience Reese (as far as can be established) did not know about the Machine.
** Likely a production mistake. The last time that set of flashbacks came before the audience Reese (as far as can be established) did not know about the Machine.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21 (click to see context) from:
** He got in conflict with drug dealers, don't forget this. This is probably what Machine cared about.
to:
** He got in conflict with drug dealers, don't forget this. This is probably what Machine cared about.about.
* "Prisoner's Dilemma" shows Reese with a yellow box in flashback scenes from 2009, long before he was sent to China to attempt to retrieve software that the WMG section has theorized was from the Machine. Since yellow box means "individual aware of the Machine", why did Reese have a yellow box back then?
* "Prisoner's Dilemma" shows Reese with a yellow box in flashback scenes from 2009, long before he was sent to China to attempt to retrieve software that the WMG section has theorized was from the Machine. Since yellow box means "individual aware of the Machine", why did Reese have a yellow box back then?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:
* According to "2-Pi-R", the Machine can apparently predict premeditated suicide. What does this imply about the Machine's main objective? Suicide isn't a crime (Though attempting suicide is - humorously, at one point in history trying to kill yourself and failing could get you sentenced to death by hanging). It also isn't something that brings harm to others (At least, not by the method selected by the POI).
to:
* According to "2-Pi-R", the Machine can apparently predict premeditated suicide. What does this imply about the Machine's main objective? Suicide isn't a crime (Though attempting suicide is - humorously, at one point in history trying to kill yourself and failing could get you sentenced to death by hanging). It also isn't something that brings harm to others (At least, not by the method selected by the POI).POI).
** He got in conflict with drug dealers, don't forget this. This is probably what Machine cared about.
** He got in conflict with drug dealers, don't forget this. This is probably what Machine cared about.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
** Or the Machine could start reports about Canadian numbers with Canada, followed by the number indicators.
to:
** Or the Machine could start reports about Canadian numbers with Canada, followed by the number indicators.indicators.
* According to "2-Pi-R", the Machine can apparently predict premeditated suicide. What does this imply about the Machine's main objective? Suicide isn't a crime (Though attempting suicide is - humorously, at one point in history trying to kill yourself and failing could get you sentenced to death by hanging). It also isn't something that brings harm to others (At least, not by the method selected by the POI).
* According to "2-Pi-R", the Machine can apparently predict premeditated suicide. What does this imply about the Machine's main objective? Suicide isn't a crime (Though attempting suicide is - humorously, at one point in history trying to kill yourself and failing could get you sentenced to death by hanging). It also isn't something that brings harm to others (At least, not by the method selected by the POI).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
** I'm assuming the same I said above for the immigrant thing goes for the canadians.
to:
** I'm assuming the same I said above for the immigrant thing goes for the canadians.Canadians.
** Or the Machine could start reports about Canadian numbers with Canada, followed by the number indicators.
** Or the Machine could start reports about Canadian numbers with Canada, followed by the number indicators.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* What about Canadians? We don't have US social security numbers and we don't get assigned transient's numbers, normally. Does the machine ignore Canadian victims/perps, or worse, mix up their Social Insurance Numbers (9 digits) with US Social Security Numbers (also 9 digits)?
to:
* What about Canadians? We don't have US social security numbers and we don't get assigned transient's numbers, normally. Does the machine ignore Canadian victims/perps, or worse, mix up their Social Insurance Numbers (9 digits) with US Social Security Numbers (also 9 digits)?digits)?
** I'm assuming the same I said above for the immigrant thing goes for the canadians.
** I'm assuming the same I said above for the immigrant thing goes for the canadians.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
** Well, if the immigrants are the victims, the Machine would send the number of the perpetrators or vice-versa. In the case ''both'' are illegal immigrants, I'm assuming The Machine would send the number of an accomplice of either party (like, say, a local thug who is helping the immigrant's EvilPlan or a close american friend of the immigrant victims).
to:
** Well, if the immigrants are the victims, the Machine would send the number of the perpetrators or vice-versa. In the case ''both'' are illegal immigrants, I'm assuming The Machine would send the number of an accomplice of either party (like, say, a local thug who is helping the immigrant's EvilPlan or a close american friend of the immigrant victims).victims).
* What about Canadians? We don't have US social security numbers and we don't get assigned transient's numbers, normally. Does the machine ignore Canadian victims/perps, or worse, mix up their Social Insurance Numbers (9 digits) with US Social Security Numbers (also 9 digits)?
* What about Canadians? We don't have US social security numbers and we don't get assigned transient's numbers, normally. Does the machine ignore Canadian victims/perps, or worse, mix up their Social Insurance Numbers (9 digits) with US Social Security Numbers (also 9 digits)?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I think Machine evaluate the best person to start investigation. It case on "Number Crunch" there wasn't a single person trailing whom would expose the conspiracy, so it gave four numbers of unrelated people. But Reese and Finch simply lack resources to tail large crowds, so Machine tries not to make them do it, if possible.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It does have AI. Maybe it can fix itself? Maybe the things that it can't fix don't need specialized help? Maybe it came with a "How to fix super-computers for dummies" Book?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
* How would the Machine report a premeditated crime involving illegal immigrants, who don't have Social Security Numbers?
to:
* How would the Machine report a premeditated crime involving illegal immigrants, who don't have Social Security Numbers?Numbers?
** Well, if the immigrants are the victims, the Machine would send the number of the perpetrators or vice-versa. In the case ''both'' are illegal immigrants, I'm assuming The Machine would send the number of an accomplice of either party (like, say, a local thug who is helping the immigrant's EvilPlan or a close american friend of the immigrant victims).
** Well, if the immigrants are the victims, the Machine would send the number of the perpetrators or vice-versa. In the case ''both'' are illegal immigrants, I'm assuming The Machine would send the number of an accomplice of either party (like, say, a local thug who is helping the immigrant's EvilPlan or a close american friend of the immigrant victims).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
** Now I remember. In that case, it's possible (though this explanation seems remarkably FanWank tastic) the crime of the second person wasn't actually premeditated, but a last-moment patch up on the bad guy's plan: maybe he forgot about her and only remembered on that night (thus the crime wasn't premeditated, being out of The Machine's reach), maybe he intended to bribe her (bribing the daughter of a politician is slightly impossible, but the same can't be siad of a normal girl) but she didn't accept and resorted to murder (once more, techinically not premeditated, so out of the Machine's reach).
to:
** Now I remember. In that case, it's possible (though this explanation seems remarkably FanWank tastic) the crime of the second person wasn't actually premeditated, but a last-moment patch up on the bad guy's plan: maybe he forgot about her and only remembered on that night (thus the crime wasn't premeditated, being out of The Machine's reach), maybe he intended to bribe her (bribing the daughter of a politician is slightly impossible, but the same can't be siad said of a normal girl) but she didn't accept and resorted to murder (once more, techinically technically not premeditated, so out of the Machine's reach).reach).
* How would the Machine report a premeditated crime involving illegal immigrants, who don't have Social Security Numbers?
* How would the Machine report a premeditated crime involving illegal immigrants, who don't have Social Security Numbers?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
** No, Masquerade. The villain targeted two people for the same reason (They potentially knew too much), but the Machine only identified one of them. In previous episodes where multiple people were targeted, the Machine either named all of the targets or the person who was targeting them.
to:
** No, Masquerade. The villain targeted two people for the same reason (They potentially knew too much), but the Machine only identified one of them. In previous episodes where multiple people were targeted, the Machine either named all of the targets or the person who was targeting them.them.
** Now I remember. In that case, it's possible (though this explanation seems remarkably FanWank tastic) the crime of the second person wasn't actually premeditated, but a last-moment patch up on the bad guy's plan: maybe he forgot about her and only remembered on that night (thus the crime wasn't premeditated, being out of The Machine's reach), maybe he intended to bribe her (bribing the daughter of a politician is slightly impossible, but the same can't be siad of a normal girl) but she didn't accept and resorted to murder (once more, techinically not premeditated, so out of the Machine's reach).
** Now I remember. In that case, it's possible (though this explanation seems remarkably FanWank tastic) the crime of the second person wasn't actually premeditated, but a last-moment patch up on the bad guy's plan: maybe he forgot about her and only remembered on that night (thus the crime wasn't premeditated, being out of The Machine's reach), maybe he intended to bribe her (bribing the daughter of a politician is slightly impossible, but the same can't be siad of a normal girl) but she didn't accept and resorted to murder (once more, techinically not premeditated, so out of the Machine's reach).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
** If you're talking about Riley's episode, I think the Machine deduced him as perpetrator of Annie's would-be-murder. The Machine usually targets victim ''or'' perpetrator, not both. So it judged Riley as a would be perpetrator.
to:
** If you're talking about Riley's episode, I think the Machine deduced him as perpetrator of Annie's would-be-murder. The Machine usually targets victim ''or'' perpetrator, not both. So it judged Riley as a would be perpetrator.perpetrator.
** No, Masquerade. The villain targeted two people for the same reason (They potentially knew too much), but the Machine only identified one of them. In previous episodes where multiple people were targeted, the Machine either named all of the targets or the person who was targeting them.
** No, Masquerade. The villain targeted two people for the same reason (They potentially knew too much), but the Machine only identified one of them. In previous episodes where multiple people were targeted, the Machine either named all of the targets or the person who was targeting them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
* In a Season one episode, four people all were wanted dead by the same people for the same reason, and all of their numbers turned up. But in a season two episode, two people were targeted for death by the same person for the same reason but only one had her number come up. Why? Reese has failed to protect the intended victim of a premeditated crime on occasion, but this is the first I've seen where the Machine failed to even report that it was going to happen.
to:
* In a Season one episode, four people all were wanted dead by the same people for the same reason, and all of their numbers turned up. But in a season two episode, two people were targeted for death by the same person for the same reason but only one had her number come up. Why? Reese has failed to protect the intended victim of a premeditated crime on occasion, but this is the first I've seen where the Machine failed to even report that it was going to happen.happen.
** If you're talking about Riley's episode, I think the Machine deduced him as perpetrator of Annie's would-be-murder. The Machine usually targets victim ''or'' perpetrator, not both. So it judged Riley as a would be perpetrator.
** If you're talking about Riley's episode, I think the Machine deduced him as perpetrator of Annie's would-be-murder. The Machine usually targets victim ''or'' perpetrator, not both. So it judged Riley as a would be perpetrator.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
* Wouldn't it occur to the NSA that no matter how much they want to keep the Machine a secret, the only people capable of fixing a computer system that was deliberately shipped with no documentation whatsoever in the event of a breakdown are the people who built it?
to:
* Wouldn't it occur to the NSA that no matter how much they want to keep the Machine a secret, the only people capable of fixing a computer system that was deliberately shipped with no documentation whatsoever in the event of a breakdown are the people who built it?it?
* In a Season one episode, four people all were wanted dead by the same people for the same reason, and all of their numbers turned up. But in a season two episode, two people were targeted for death by the same person for the same reason but only one had her number come up. Why? Reese has failed to protect the intended victim of a premeditated crime on occasion, but this is the first I've seen where the Machine failed to even report that it was going to happen.
* In a Season one episode, four people all were wanted dead by the same people for the same reason, and all of their numbers turned up. But in a season two episode, two people were targeted for death by the same person for the same reason but only one had her number come up. Why? Reese has failed to protect the intended victim of a premeditated crime on occasion, but this is the first I've seen where the Machine failed to even report that it was going to happen.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
* At first I had a minor gripe with Episode 10 ("Number Crunch"): Someone has a mortgage which is bigger than their house, and the bank is foreclosing on it. But if the mortgage is for (say) $300,000 and the house is only worth $100,000 then the bank would much rather have the borrowers paying principal and interest on a $300,000 loan than foreclose and collect only $100,000 on the sale. While it's true that New York allows "recourse" mortgages where the lender can then go after the borrower's other assets, it's still usually going to be smarter for the bank to *not* foreclose.
to:
* At first I had a minor gripe with Episode 10 ("Number Crunch"): Someone has a mortgage which is bigger than their house, and the bank is foreclosing on it. But if the mortgage is for (say) $300,000 and the house is only worth $100,000 then the bank would much rather have the borrowers paying principal and interest on a $300,000 loan than foreclose and collect only $100,000 on the sale. While it's true that New York allows "recourse" mortgages where the lender can then go after the borrower's other assets, it's still usually going to be smarter for the bank to *not* foreclose.foreclose.
* Wouldn't it occur to the NSA that no matter how much they want to keep the Machine a secret, the only people capable of fixing a computer system that was deliberately shipped with no documentation whatsoever in the event of a breakdown are the people who built it?
* Wouldn't it occur to the NSA that no matter how much they want to keep the Machine a secret, the only people capable of fixing a computer system that was deliberately shipped with no documentation whatsoever in the event of a breakdown are the people who built it?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Headscratcher for Episode 10 (\"Number Crunch\").
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** Corroboration, and they've been faked out before.
to:
** Corroboration, and they've been faked out before.before.
* At first I had a minor gripe with Episode 10 ("Number Crunch"): Someone has a mortgage which is bigger than their house, and the bank is foreclosing on it. But if the mortgage is for (say) $300,000 and the house is only worth $100,000 then the bank would much rather have the borrowers paying principal and interest on a $300,000 loan than foreclose and collect only $100,000 on the sale. While it's true that New York allows "recourse" mortgages where the lender can then go after the borrower's other assets, it's still usually going to be smarter for the bank to *not* foreclose.
* At first I had a minor gripe with Episode 10 ("Number Crunch"): Someone has a mortgage which is bigger than their house, and the bank is foreclosing on it. But if the mortgage is for (say) $300,000 and the house is only worth $100,000 then the bank would much rather have the borrowers paying principal and interest on a $300,000 loan than foreclose and collect only $100,000 on the sale. While it's true that New York allows "recourse" mortgages where the lender can then go after the borrower's other assets, it's still usually going to be smarter for the bank to *not* foreclose.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* Given that a recent study has revealed that at least 25% of all people on Facebook falsify at least part of their profile (And that's just the people who do it to protect themselves from identity thieves), how does the machine know what pieces of information on social networking sites are real?
to:
* Given that a recent study has revealed that at least 25% of all people on Facebook falsify at least part of their profile (And that's just the people who do it to protect themselves from identity thieves), how does the machine know what pieces of information on social networking sites are real?real?
** Corroboration, and they've been faked out before.
** Corroboration, and they've been faked out before.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
** Elias at that point wasn't a badass chessmaster. He just wanted to earn the respect of the father he never knew and figure out who killed his mother (Not knowing that they were the same person). Then he learns that his father killed his mother simply because having a mistress who bore him an illegitimate child was an embarrassment and was now going to have him killed for the exact same reason. Him crying is understandable - he's just had his worldview shattered and his hopes of parental approval destroyed. His journey to become the man he is now started the moment he killed his two would-be executioners.
to:
** Elias at that point wasn't a badass chessmaster. He just wanted to earn the respect of the father he never knew and figure out who killed his mother (Not knowing that they were the same person). Then he learns that his father killed his mother simply because having a mistress who bore him an illegitimate child was an embarrassment and was now going to have him killed for the exact same reason. Him crying is understandable - he's just had his worldview shattered and his hopes of parental approval destroyed. His journey to become the man he is now started the moment he killed his two would-be executioners.executioners.
* Given that a recent study has revealed that at least 25% of all people on Facebook falsify at least part of their profile (And that's just the people who do it to protect themselves from identity thieves), how does the machine know what pieces of information on social networking sites are real?
* Given that a recent study has revealed that at least 25% of all people on Facebook falsify at least part of their profile (And that's just the people who do it to protect themselves from identity thieves), how does the machine know what pieces of information on social networking sites are real?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* I love the character of Elias, but the recent episode, "Flesh and Blood" nearly ruined him for me, and the entire sequence that did felt so out of character. Elias, as a young man, finds his fathers organization and quickly works his way up until his father decides he should be killed. Awesome, and totally within what we know of Elias already. Elias is tricked to going out into the woods where two goons plan to Off him. So i think, Elias, Extraordinarily Intelligent Badsass Extraordinaire has got a plan. Except that he doesn't. he was tricked by two idiot mafioso goons. he didn't have a plan, he didn't even know what THEY were planning. when they reveal that he's about to get killed, he begins to cry. seriously. He only survives due to extremely good luck and the fact that the goons were overly incompetent. I figured that Elias would have men hidden in the trees to ambush the two, or even better, he would somehow convince them to fight on his side, or kill each other, which would mark where his organization began. The only saving grace of the episode is the sheer awesomeness of the end where, despite everything up to and including being incarcerated, Elias still completely owns the shit out of the Mafia. But even that only stands to contrast the actions and capability of his younger self.
to:
* I love the character of Elias, but the recent episode, "Flesh and Blood" nearly ruined him for me, and the entire sequence that did felt so out of character. Elias, as a young man, finds his fathers organization and quickly works his way up until his father decides he should be killed. Awesome, and totally within what we know of Elias already. Elias is tricked to going out into the woods where two goons plan to Off him. So i think, Elias, Extraordinarily Intelligent Badsass Badass Extraordinaire has got a plan. Except that he doesn't. he was tricked by two idiot mafioso goons. he didn't have a plan, he didn't even know what THEY were planning. when they reveal that he's about to get killed, he begins to cry. seriously. He only survives due to extremely good luck and the fact that the goons were overly incompetent. I figured that Elias would have men hidden in the trees to ambush the two, or even better, he would somehow convince them to fight on his side, or kill each other, which would mark where his organization began. The only saving grace of the episode is the sheer awesomeness of the end where, despite everything up to and including being incarcerated, Elias still completely owns the shit out of the Mafia. But even that only stands to contrast the actions and capability of his younger self.self.
** Elias at that point wasn't a badass chessmaster. He just wanted to earn the respect of the father he never knew and figure out who killed his mother (Not knowing that they were the same person). Then he learns that his father killed his mother simply because having a mistress who bore him an illegitimate child was an embarrassment and was now going to have him killed for the exact same reason. Him crying is understandable - he's just had his worldview shattered and his hopes of parental approval destroyed. His journey to become the man he is now started the moment he killed his two would-be executioners.
** Elias at that point wasn't a badass chessmaster. He just wanted to earn the respect of the father he never knew and figure out who killed his mother (Not knowing that they were the same person). Then he learns that his father killed his mother simply because having a mistress who bore him an illegitimate child was an embarrassment and was now going to have him killed for the exact same reason. Him crying is understandable - he's just had his worldview shattered and his hopes of parental approval destroyed. His journey to become the man he is now started the moment he killed his two would-be executioners.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
** Much better than it sounds, and their surveillance rarely comes off as creepy. Once the number comes through and they know a person is in danger/may be about to cause harm, they get into their phones and their records. But they never see what made the Machine spit out the number (that's part of the suspense of the show; they never know WHY the person is a Person of Interest, and sometimes they protect the person from the wrong perceived threats). So while there is a lot of "Big Brother is Watching," their actual behavior is no more invasive than a well-funded private investigator.
to:
** Much better than it sounds, and their surveillance rarely comes off as creepy. Once the number comes through and they know a person is in danger/may be about to cause harm, they get into their phones and their records. But they never see what made the Machine spit out the number (that's part of the suspense of the show; they never know WHY the person is a Person of Interest, and sometimes they protect the person from the wrong perceived threats). So while there is a lot of "Big Brother is Watching," their actual behavior is no more invasive than a well-funded private investigator."
* I love the character of Elias, but the recent episode, "Flesh and Blood" nearly ruined him for me, and the entire sequence that did felt so out of character. Elias, as a young man, finds his fathers organization and quickly works his way up until his father decides he should be killed. Awesome, and totally within what we know of Elias already. Elias is tricked to going out into the woods where two goons plan to Off him. So i think, Elias, Extraordinarily Intelligent Badsass Extraordinaire has got a plan. Except that he doesn't. he was tricked by two idiot mafioso goons. he didn't have a plan, he didn't even know what THEY were planning. when they reveal that he's about to get killed, he begins to cry. seriously. He only survives due to extremely good luck and the fact that the goons were overly incompetent. I figured that Elias would have men hidden in the trees to ambush the two, or even better, he would somehow convince them to fight on his side, or kill each other, which would mark where his organization began. The only saving grace of the episode is the sheer awesomeness of the end where, despite everything up to and including being incarcerated, Elias still completely owns the shit out of the Mafia. But even that only stands to contrast the actions and capability of his younger self.
* I love the character of Elias, but the recent episode, "Flesh and Blood" nearly ruined him for me, and the entire sequence that did felt so out of character. Elias, as a young man, finds his fathers organization and quickly works his way up until his father decides he should be killed. Awesome, and totally within what we know of Elias already. Elias is tricked to going out into the woods where two goons plan to Off him. So i think, Elias, Extraordinarily Intelligent Badsass Extraordinaire has got a plan. Except that he doesn't. he was tricked by two idiot mafioso goons. he didn't have a plan, he didn't even know what THEY were planning. when they reveal that he's about to get killed, he begins to cry. seriously. He only survives due to extremely good luck and the fact that the goons were overly incompetent. I figured that Elias would have men hidden in the trees to ambush the two, or even better, he would somehow convince them to fight on his side, or kill each other, which would mark where his organization began. The only saving grace of the episode is the sheer awesomeness of the end where, despite everything up to and including being incarcerated, Elias still completely owns the shit out of the Mafia. But even that only stands to contrast the actions and capability of his younger self.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* I haven't watched the show yet, but I find the premise insanely creepy. The Government is watching you 24/7 to make sure you're not a terrorist? These guys use that system to spy on you and stop you if they think you're gonna commit a crime? Yeah. So question is: Is is better than it sounds? Or is it as bad as that sounds?
to:
* I haven't watched the show yet, but I find the premise insanely creepy. The Government is watching you 24/7 to make sure you're not a terrorist? These guys use that system to spy on you and stop you if they think you're gonna commit a crime? Yeah. So question is: Is is better than it sounds? Or is it as bad as that sounds?sounds?
** Much better than it sounds, and their surveillance rarely comes off as creepy. Once the number comes through and they know a person is in danger/may be about to cause harm, they get into their phones and their records. But they never see what made the Machine spit out the number (that's part of the suspense of the show; they never know WHY the person is a Person of Interest, and sometimes they protect the person from the wrong perceived threats). So while there is a lot of "Big Brother is Watching," their actual behavior is no more invasive than a well-funded private investigator.
** Much better than it sounds, and their surveillance rarely comes off as creepy. Once the number comes through and they know a person is in danger/may be about to cause harm, they get into their phones and their records. But they never see what made the Machine spit out the number (that's part of the suspense of the show; they never know WHY the person is a Person of Interest, and sometimes they protect the person from the wrong perceived threats). So while there is a lot of "Big Brother is Watching," their actual behavior is no more invasive than a well-funded private investigator.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
* I haven't watched the show yet, but I find the premise insanely creepy. The Government is watching you 24/7 to make sure you're not a terrorist? These guys use that system to spy on you and stop you if they think you're gonna commit a crime? Yeah.
So the question is: Is is better than it sounds? Or is it as bad as that sounds?
So the question is: Is is better than it sounds? Or is it as bad as that sounds?
to:
* I haven't watched the show yet, but I find the premise insanely creepy. The Government is watching you 24/7 to make sure you're not a terrorist? These guys use that system to spy on you and stop you if they think you're gonna commit a crime? Yeah.
Yeah. So the question is: Is is better than it sounds? Or is it as bad as that sounds?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* I haven't watched the show yet, but I find the premise insanely creepy. The Government is watching you 24/7 to make sure you're not a terrorist? These guys use that system to spy on you and stop you if they think you're gonna commit a crime? Yeah.
So the question is: Is is better than it sounds? Or is it as bad as that sounds?
So the question is: Is is better than it sounds? Or is it as bad as that sounds?
