shapeshifter

Quick question: What was Datak's motivation to kill the spy/night porter? No surprise that Irisa quickly forgets about Kenya and the silly humans in New York. Every time I see it, I wish, for just once, the threatened character would say something like, "Go ahead and kill him/her. You don't know how many times I wanted to do it myself. Mom always loved him/her best," and mean it. Same for a parent or child. I mean, aren't most murders committed by family members? Writers, you are so missing an opportunity here for interesting plot development. Big plan to manipulate character by kidnapping family member fails because family members can't stand each other's guts. Even better: Family member plans the whole kidnapping thing to get the family member murdered. Actually, that one might have been done. But y'all know what I mean. Interesting theory. Would that mean he's not human? Or is he doing it for "family"? So say we all. Er, at least you and me. The wig.

It sure looked like that to me. Weird. Seriously. What was the point of showing Jane cutting the power and then showing the elevator still running?

Like a stash of cash?

Yes, the psychiatrist did make his first appearance in the previous episode.I can't recall: What happened between Donnie and Kate in that one? Was that the one where they discussed babies? Was it definitely post-cheating? If so, that would kill my theory. Also, the appearances of the psychiatrist in that episode would have to have been such that they could have occurred only in Daniel's mind. Probably not, huh?

He's the CLEO CEO.

Surely in no time at all they could have forged a giant drill bit in a furnace (which they would quickly build) and have easily attached it to the windmill to drill down to the exact location where Barbie and Sam were trapped, right? I am now convinced that this show is supposed to be TV's version of Sharknado. Silly Show. You should have had giant squid rain down on the town instead of butterflies.

My sister and I are pretty opposite. For example, I was living in a hippy commune while she was working in a bank, and even now, I'm struggling to work through chronic pain so I don't become a bag lady while she's comfortably retired and was able to buy a house for her daughter. And my 3 daughters are all opposites--although I suppose that's not theoretically possible.

The title of the episode is Prologue. Is it possible this whole episode is supposed to take place before the series started? Like maybe we haven't seen the psychiatrist before because he was locked up for his crimes? And maybe this was a glimpse of Donnie's past cheating??? 'Cause that would actually make more sense.

About the episode title, didn't Sam say a line to Molly during their confrontation about the trouble being "on earth" or something? Anyone catch it? I thought Sam was trying to telegraph to Molly that she couldn't say more. Sam also said something about getting far away, didn't she? Which would be like when she told Molly to get out of the car.

This could very well be the first show that has viewers complaining: Where's the flashbacks? I wanna see some frickin' flashbacks, and I want to see them yesterday!! Heh. Having observed a church split many years ago over whether the "tribulation" (read my lips: "apocalypse") would come post or pre-rapture, I was familiar with the oft-quoted verses used, and with my good friend Google, quickly found 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17: But, yeah, none of the original Greek, AFAIK, would be translated by the exact word, "rapture." FWIW, I always figured if there was a rapture and an apocalypse, they'd overlap. Given that many cult-like groups unwittingly annoy (Hari Krishnas in airports, Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door at inopportune times, etc.) I think it's kind of brilliant to create a fictional cult that deliberately seeks to annoy people.

Wait, why are we talking about planes vs. cars? Anyway, @Jordan27 , Under the Dome seems like they're going for the Sharknado effect, whereas this show is more like Jaws. Does that make sense?

My money's still on wormholes to alternate universe(s), but I won't be too terribly disappointed if we never catch a glimpse of someone holding forth on that theory.

It was a quick exchange, so you might have missed it, but the medic was alarmed and said he couldn't get a heartbeat, then John pushed him away and popped open Ethan's back door, much to the shock of the medics.Hey, everyone, I'm feeling a little bit like Molly here, when nobody believed her. Was this thread locked last night during the episode and for a bit after it first aired?

I'm generally pretty forgiving with backstory reveals, but this was a bridge too far. Season 3, episodes 7 & 8, and we are just now meeting his psychiatrist?

We could sort of do that here by starting a topic "The Survey" (but more clever/descriptive) and use the poll option. Now that you mention it, maybe that is a point they are trying to make. Divorce is right near the top of life events that cause degrees of stress. And divorce is someone leaving for whom one rarely gets closure, unlike many deaths. Of course some people never get over the death of a loved one, and some people happily get divorced, but in general, both divorce and the disappearances on this show cause never-ending grief--which is why it's going to be hard to keep an audience.I like the show because it makes me think--especially after I read the posts here.

This was posted in the IMDb forums: Twitter is hiccuping right now, so I can't post the original link. Thank you, @SilverStormm , for the creative thread titles!

From the Under the Dome thread: Only on TV does someone who realizes they are in a small space with a killer (who is pretending to be a good guy) between them and the exit say, "You are a killer, aren't you!"

If they come up with a logical, believable resolution to the Mystery of the Dome that does not involve hallucinogenics or dreams...well, then, I will be dreaming or under the influence myself while watching.

Not entirely. Answering yes, that you believe your lost ones are in better place, is the answer most people who believe in a hereafter would give, and most of them would likely believe in God (except for maybe someone who believes an abusive family member is rotting in hell). I think the opposite is likely too--that someone who does not believe in a hereafter and/or God would say no (except for those whose lost ones were suffering with a terminal illness, etc.). So the question's purpose could have been to cross-check for validity another question that more overtly asked if the respondent believes in God. I almost wonder if someone working on props or a writer designed a mock survey that would actually be useful in such an event to gather statistics.

To me, it means the violence is inserted into the story to excite the viewer's lust for violence--a lust I have not acquired and do not want to acquire. Since I am not good at definitions: The definition from the Oxford English Dictionary Online that best fits this use of gratuitous is "Done, made, adopted, or assumed without any good ground or reason; not required or warranted by the circumstances of the case; uncalled-for; unjustifiable." "Gratuitous violence" or "gratuitous sex," when referring to a TV show or movie or book, is slightly different. From Urban Dictionary: "Usually associated with low budget movies and cult video games. Given without need, often unrealistic." Even though Marco did inflict pain on Tate, I do not see him as having a lust for violence like Fausto or Tate. I was wondering about this too, and pretty much agree with this. At the moment it became clear that he was not going to kill Tate "for now," I imagined Marco heard Sonya telling him that he was better than Tate, that he was not a murderer. I also imagined him thinking that so long as he did not kill Tate, Fausto could not demand Marco's complete allegiance--at least in Marco's mind, meaning that if Marco can get away with not serving Fausto, he will not feel like has reneged on the deal.

With sharks, right?

If this didn't really happen, I'm sure he was thinking it during that scene. I recognized him from CSI NY, but did not realize he also played Tag in Friends. So I guess I can thank the Dome for making me aware of that factoid.

There was an entire plot of an episode of Monk based on the killer being seen on the Jumbotron. He hacked into the power grid more than once to make sure nobody would see and recognize him. When they take a trope and use it that way in a dramedy, it is completely appropriate in my book.

Responses below based on having watched this episode-- Yes, but not as elegantly or with as much continuity as the way Vince Gilligan wove together plot threads on Breaking Bad. Speaking of which--interesting contrast between the innocent boy on the bike in BB who wandered into a drug manufacturing transport and the boy gang on bicycles who overtook a drug transport. I wonder what will happen with the one who survived and how he might fit into the plot(s). I could imagine that she finds out he was involved with her sister's killing, but that could go several different ways. Like maybe he knows he should kill her to protect himself, but chooses to save her instead. I know! Seriously!!!!This is the second cremation I've seen this week on a current TV episode. Not sure that being eaten by worms wouldn't be better. Both, but it didn't seem gratuitously done, to me. I recently stopped watching Longmire for it's use of what I consider gratuitous violence. This show hasn't crossed that line for me yet, because it always seems to serve a purpose and have "socially redeeming value."I also dropped The Strain because the gore seemed to be the plot. Daniel didn't bat an eye at being surrounded by stacks and stacks of drugs. Is that a retcon on his substance abuse issue? Similarly, Sonya's Aspergers seems to have almost faded away.

The question was philosophically loaded as it fit within the episode, but if we look at it as a "real" question on a "real" survey being given to people after such an event, it would likely be coded to measure how the respondents felt about the departed and also whether the respondent was religious. Then they could determine what percentage of the goners came from homes with religious leanings and/or had positive relationships with their household members. I'm simplifying this, of course. Where's that damn stats thread, anyway? just kidding.