S01.E01: Pilot

[thewhiteowl]

Dr. Carolyn Tyler is hired by a terminally ill billionaire to investigate cases of life after death.

 

 

[Kromm]

Since the pilot is available on line NOW, I am surprised there's been no talk so far.

 

http://www.tntdrama.com/videos/proof/season-1/episode-1/pilot.html

 

Beals of course is the strength of it (just like she was with The Chicago Code a few years ago).  She's got the gravitas needed for a show concept that could very easily go silly.  And it's good for the show that she's a real bitch, actually. That's a hard line to toe and still have a sympathetic character--which I think she also succeeded at, despite indeed, also being a mega bitch at the same time.

 

Haven't really decided on the show overall. It spent a lot of the episode on setup. I did like the character of the African Doctor assistant though--he was an interesting foil for Beals' character.  Her separated from Husband was kind of a vanilla cliché, as was the angry daughter, but I don't suppose there was enough room to think more of them in one episode.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Kromm

[shapeshifter]

Since the pilot is available on line NOW, I am surprised there's been no talk so far...

Thanks for the heads up. Just watched it. ITA with your entire post--except I've never watched The Chicago Code because I don't generally watch doctor shows [Ooops. Not a doctor show, see Krom's post below]. I have been making an exception for Saving Hope, which has a similar scifi-supernatural element. My main complaint with doctor shows is that in order to preserve economies of cast, the doctors seem to more often than not become the patients, and this show (like Saving Hope) is starting out from the beginning with that as the premise (main character had a near death experience and lost a son). I'll give it at least another look--maybe not pretending the doctors are not the patients seems a little more honest. Yeah. I know. She's not really a patient right now. Give it time. And, no, I'm not spoiled--just watch too much TV. And I realize the whole premise is futile.

Edited June 16, 2015 by shapeshifter

[Kromm]

Thanks for the heads up. Just watched it. ITA with your entire post--except I've never watched The Chicago Code because I don't generally watch doctor shows

Well that's okay... 'cause it was a Cop show!

[shapeshifter]

Well that's okay... 'cause it was a Cop show!

Oops. But there is some Chicago doctor show from that time with a similar title, right? Anyway, I think I did watch one episode of it.

[Kromm]

Oops. But there is some Chicago doctor show from that time with a similar title, right? Anyway, I think I did watch one episode of it.

Chicago Hope?  That's from like... fifteen years earlier.

 

Although there are a pack of shows on NBC now (vs CBS, which Chicago Code and Chicago Hope were both on) with "Chicago" in the title that I personally have ignored.  One of them could be a medical show, I suppose.  I don't even know how many of them there are, they keep adding.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kromm

[alias1]

Haven't really decided on the show overall. It spent a lot of the episode on setup. I did like the character of the African Doctor assistant though--he was an interesting foil for Beals' character.  Her separated from Husband was kind of a vanilla cliché, as was the angry daughter, but I don't suppose there was enough room to think more of them in one episode.

Kromm, I agree with all of this.  I'll see where it goes from here. 

[Kromm]

I was intrigued.  Bealls was definitely the standout.

It always does surprise me that the star of "Flashdance" turned out to be a decent actress, but she is.

I also like her statement about being asked to be on Dancing With The Stars: "I am not a dancer. They asked me and I said 'no.' You could back up a truck to my door filled with cash and I wouldn't do it."  Good for you, Jennifer.  Good for you.

[Dowel Jones]

As long as Joe Morton doesn't launch into one of his Scandal speeches, I'll watch for awhile.  As for the doctor, I hope they don't rely on the OR tantrums for plot points.  I don't do arrogance well, even when it's backed up by sardonic humor, as in House.  I do look forward to some interesting perspective on what the other side might be to different people, and how the millionaire knows so much.

[Anela]

I liked it, and will keep watching. 

[thewhiteowl]

It was alright. I like Jennifer Beals and I met Matthew Modine a number of years ago so I will give it a shot. A lot of set up but that's to be expected. Interesting premise.

[Latverian Diplomat]

The show reminds me a bit of the X-Files, in that 

a) the show is clearly on the side of "the paranormal theories are all true"

b) the skeptical/scientific viewpoint is presented half-heartedly and there primarily to be knocked down

c) the definitive proof that would effectively end the show will always be elusive

 

On the other hand, it seems completely earnest and lacks the framework for humor that ultimately served the X-Files so well. Admittedly, it's early days.

 

I really like Beals as a performer, but the rest of the show is not doing a lot for me; and if the John-Edward-type character turns out not to be a cynical, cold-reading phony like the real one, that might be a deal breaker for me.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Latverian Diplomat

[Kromm]

a) the show is clearly on the side of "the paranormal theories are all true"

Can we really judge that based upon one episode?  Not only one episode but one with a specific plot intention/necessity to give Beals an actual motive to do this?

 

Plus the psychic guy was clearly a charlatan, and I don't think the show shied away from letting us know that--even if he didn't turn out to be the reason those parents didn't want the girl to have surgery. 

 

If I were writing this show, I'd follow a pattern of having at least a third of the cases end with something they can explain/prove definitively is not "supernatural" or life-after-deathy in any way.  I'd have at least a third of the cases end with something they CAN'T explain with any reasonable theory (but note that's NOT the same as proof, of course).  And a third where they wind up with competing theories.  And zero cases where they actually get "proof".  The show only works if this project is ultimately doomed to failure and Dying Rich Guy simply has to go on faith when he dies.

 

I'm up in the air on how much or little humor the show should have.  Not EVERY show needs humor.  Many benefit, but there are also ways to do a procedural (which is what this really is, supernatural subject matter or not) without mandated humor (of course in ordinary life there's usually at least a little organic humor).

[fauxphysician]

JB seems far more comfortable in this role than she ever  seemed to be in Chicago Code , and I expect Kyra Sedgwick to produce something of quality, so , here's hoping!

[walnutqueen]

I like the premise of the show, and nothing in the first episode pissed me off royally, so I guess I'm in.  It's summertime, the pickings are getting slimmer by the week, and I need something to believe in for a few escapist hours.  This fits the bill.  :-)

[topanga]

 

The show reminds me a bit of the X-Files, in that

a) the show is clearly on the side of "the paranormal theories are all true"

b) the skeptical/scientific viewpoint is presented half-heartedly and there primarily to be knocked down

c) the definitive proof that would effectively end the show will always be elusive

Actually, I can't decide what the show wants to be--a modern-day "Touched by an Angel" or "Highway to Heaven"? Another "X-files," where 'something' is out there, even if it's not God per se? A chance to prove the pure-science "when you die, you die" theory? I hope the show begins to explore the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific aspects of the different perspectives. For now, the characters follow typical clichés: the book author is a little creepy and cultish, the religious parents of the little girl seem a little crazy, and I can't decide about Matthew Modine--I don't get a sense of his character or his motivations. I know he told us about his terminal cancer and his desire to find out what happens "next," but I didn't feel invested in him as a character. But this was the pilot, and most pilots are a little weak.

 

So I'll keep watching. I've always liked Jennifer Beals, and it's nice to see her working. Some of her bitchy-surgeon yelling was over-the-top, but I'm assuming she'll settle into her character. She has a very expressive face, which helps her connect with the audience-- it doesn't look like she's had plastic surgery, which I appreciate in a woman (a little Botox maybe?).  The actress playing the daughter is screechy and annoying, but I'm also going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she'll calm down and settle into her character.

 

And I like Joe Morton, but as another poster says, I hope he doesn't have any Scandal-like shouting monologues. I actually met Joe Morton last weekend--he's a great guy in person. Very laid back and calm.

[alias1]

The main character is engaging (unlike the actress in Whispers) .  I like her brusque, efficient personality.  I think they're going to walk a fine line between science and faith.  They don't want to alienate either faction.  I will be interested to see where it goes.  They are never going to be able to prove (realistically) that the after life experiences are real so If they start to weigh heavily in that direction I will be disappointed.

[Kromm]

Beals was actually a fairly similar character on The Chicago Code (a bit more physical and less analytical maybe, and with her natural Chicago accent exaggerated), so I suppose we could pan that a bit as recycling.

 

As for how the show will position itself?  That may not go the way many of us hoped.  This article has Beals talking about her spirituality in relation to the show.

[fauxphysician]

Interesting article, Kromm, thanks for the link. Following her as I do, I know that her interest in and embrace of Buddhism has had a profound impact as well. And nice to see her given a meaty role that could be around for a while, instead of just another one-off, guest appearance.

[NeenerNeener]

I watched this with one eye while doing other things, and I seem to have missed something important. What is the flowing green scarf all about?

[Anela]

Beals was actually a fairly similar character on The Chicago Code (a bit more physical and less analytical maybe, and with her natural Chicago accent exaggerated), so I suppose we could pan that a bit as recycling.

 

As for how the show will position itself?  That may not go the way many of us hoped.  This article has Beals talking about her spirituality in relation to the show.

I read about her obsession with the possibility of life after death, and I like that, because I was obsessed for a few years, as well.

I had a family member who died on the operating table,years ago, and he was angry that they brought him back. He said that he was floating somewhere, and he'd wanted to continue on that way. His attitude about the whole subject completely turned around. He's been very much dead for a number of years now, and I hope that he got to complete that journey. 

[tvfanatic13]

I think that the scarf is the same from her near death experience.

[suzeecat]

Shame on Jennifer Bealls for not aging and being just as beautiful as she was in Flashdance. . . . I was a bit disappointed in the pilot, but it's early.  I'll keep watching.

[Kromm]

Shame on Jennifer Bealls for not aging and being just as beautiful as she was in Flashdance. . . . I was a bit disappointed in the pilot, but it's early.  I'll keep watching.

I think the nice thing is that you can see some age on her face, but she pulls off the good illusion of it being just the right amount.  She certainly wears a lot of makeup, and I'm sure if she ever posts a no-makeup shot she'd look much different.

 

It's very likely she's had botox or fillers just like every other actress her age (and most of the male actors too), but if so she's had the good sense to stay out of view when/if it impaired her ability to have normal expressions.  She's also kept her look very consistent, at least since the 90s, so if she's had stuff done it was with the sole intent to look the same (not something all of Hollywood is wise enough to aim for--look at the Renee Zellweger example).

[Clanstarling]

I think the nice thing is that you can see some age on her face, but she pulls off the good illusion of it being just the right amount.

I appreciate that someone playing a surgeon with nearly grown children is old enough to BE that character. I do get tired of very young actors trying to play people in jobs that require a lot of education, and take a lot of years to get enough respect to make it up the food chain.

 

Of course, it's the show runners (and demographics) who are to blame for that - not the actors themselves.

Edited June 23, 2015 by clanstarling

[Kromm]

I appreciate that someone playing a surgeon with nearly grown children is old enough to BE that character.

I still doubt Dr. Carolyn Tyler is Beals actual age, even if that's true. Beals is 52 and can pass for mid-30s.  This role is likely closer to that second than the first.

I'd say they've settled the role somewhere in her 40s though, just to make sure her sense of authority plays properly.

[Netfoot]

"Maybe he'll offer you a ride on his rocket!"   Gee -- ya think?

 

Mr Turing, computer whizz.  Really.  

Edited July 7, 2015 by Netfoot

[lucindabelle]

You knownwhat? Beals looks her age. I'm a half century girl and look like that. I'm just grilled finally there's eqyal time for us! Matt Dillon is 51 and bottling up wayward Punes.

Botox and filler can w done artfully and seems if Shes had it that's how it was done. And she is probably blessed with good enough genes not to be anywhere near needing a face lift yet.

I didn't recognize her, but that's just on me, I remember her with curly hair and I thought she was darker. I really enjoy her character. Brusque but not just bitchy. And yeah for an nd to have teen children she would likely be in her 50s.

I do not buy the double PhD in her early 20s though. As someone with a phd im just saying this is another one of those dumb TV yropes. She should have two solid mas. That would be believable. Or be English and have done degree programs that don't require coursework and teaching. It's imposileto get t PhDs before 30 unless you did them at the same time (which is inpissible) or were so smart toy finished high school at 12. Nothing indicates that, it's just a dumb comment from scriptwriters who don't understand academia, PhD programs Are generally at least 5 years with 3 of them coursework and 2 for dissertation and that's pushing it, I don't know anyone who finished in less than 7.