S01.E15: One Hundred Days

[Driad]

Quote

Still could care less about the First Family

I couldn't.

Quote

No matter how crazy this show gets, I'll stay in it for Kal Penn.

Yes. Has he or anyone said how much input he has into the writing, since he has actually worked in the White House?

[Tara Ariano]

in case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

The Designated Survivor Takes A Mulligan

Now that Kirkman has decided he would rather lead the country than react to crises, how will he ZZZzzzzzzz…

[Netfoot]

8 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Ah, so it's now time for gun control to enter into the picture.  I.... well, I can actually buy that, because that is one of those topics that would be debated no matter what.  Totally not surprised that the Kirkman's are on the more liberal side, since while Kirkman may be an Independent, I do think he leans Democratic on most views.

TPTB, just once, please, when asked for his position on "gun control", can a TV President please reach under his jacket, saying "Well, personally, I carry a Czechoslovakian CZ-75..."

[TomServo]

11 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Totally not surprised that the Kirkman's are on the more liberal side, since while Kirkman may be an Independent, I do think he leans Democratic on most views.  It is cliched that the Republican Senator ends up being a backstabber and Kirkman's new foe.  Not to mention Hookstraten, who is still kind of ally, but also a bet shady herself.

The giveaway was in the very first episode where we learned that Kirkman has a background in "urban planning."  Have you ever met a libertarian urban planner?

If they want to pretend that Kirkman is believably "independent," then they're going to have to show him engaging in more independent-style thought processes, even if his conclusions come out left-of-center.  Unfortunately, inside the Hollywood bubble, writers and showrunners tend to equate "independent" with either "moderate" or "of course an unbiased person would ultimately agree with my left-wing opinions because I have the rightthink" and that mindset shows through in the characters they write.

I did laugh at the "he's from Montana" being answer enough to understand the Congressman's gun control stance.  At least they picked somewhere other than Texas for once.  And of course these people involved in a major conspiracy that involved members of the military, the deep state, and people who were able to erase their existence from most of the usual databases would have been deterred if only we had more gun control laws!  As if the Vice President or his wife might have failed a background check for their handgun even though they didn't fail the one that let them reside at the Naval Observatory.
 

19 hours ago, secnarf said:

I thought the questions were pretty typical of a town hall, but it was a pretty cheesy scene.

I'm not American...Nor do I understand why mentioning the gender wage gap, which has been well documented, is offending people on here. It's the same with Madam Secretary - the president on that show came out and said he believes in global warming and it was earth shattering. It is science, not a partisan issue.

Since you are not American, I'll give you a pass on being unaware that it's illegal in the United States to pay different wages based on gender according to the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  A "gender wage gap" has been well-publicized, but it has not been documented well.  There is an earnings gap between the average of all men and and all women working full time.  But when the calculations take into account chosen occupation, education level, years of experience, hours worked per week, etc., then the difference in earnings between men and women is much, much smaller.  You can even find industries where using the same metrics used to politicize the "wage-gap," women out-earn men because they are in careers that tend to attract more women, notably social work, and therefore women average more experience and seniority in the field than the men.

Global Warming shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it is.  You don't get good science from garbage inputs no matter how talented you are, and among other things, too many of the weather stations that are used to analyze surface temperature trends are poorly sited.  Here's just one example in Arizona.  Instead of siting it in an uncompromised location where it ought to be, the government agency responsible for it has moved it within feet of a brick building, a parking lot, a road, air conditioning heat exchangers, and a 480V/208V transformer.  All of those things are heat sources that bias the data, and without keeping track of a lot of other little details (which they don't), there is no reliable way to correctly adjust the data coming from that particular station.  And, yes, there have been scientists who have testified before Congress about this and other problems with the officially sanctioned record of "climate science," but, you know, bureaucracy.

I know TPTB don't care for political opinions in the forums (only in their recaps!), and I'm expecting to see a mod warning any minute now, but it's difficult to avoid when you are talking about a politically-written show.

Basically I agree with everyone who has already posted about the afterschool special-style town hall scene and the way this episode looked like somebody took a half-hour cop show and an unrelated half-hour D.C.-based soap opera and randomly spliced the scenes together.  Plus now I know if you want to topple the Statue of Liberty, you put the explosives up in the torch.

And now for my unpopular(?) opinions:
Something about Aaron Shore reminds me way too much of Apprentice-era Bill Rancic, and not in a good way.  If he starts chewing his cheek, too, I'm out.

Kiefer's acting is way too mechanical.  Some seasons of 24 were better than others in this regard, but it takes me out of the show because I'm too aware that I'm watching Kiefer Sutherland and his standard database of acting moves rather than a character named Kirkman.  "I just got some unexpected information.  Time to micro-shake my head and eyes to the left!"  "I feel disappointed and/or stressed.  That's my cue to glance meaningfully at the floor..."  Plus, I understand why people find him attractive, but he and his father both have mouths that do that distracting dip in the middle like a turtle's and I just...can't.

[paigow]

7 hours ago, Netfoot said:

can a TV President please reach under his jacket, saying "Well, personally, I carry a Czechoslovakian CZ-75..."

What kind of "buy American" POTUS would do that??? 

[Netfoot]

58 minutes ago, paigow said:

What kind of "buy American" POTUS would do that??? 

Would you prefer something all-American like the Beretta?  

[marinw]

I can acknowledge the corniness of the Town Hall while still enjoying it. One moment I liked was when dude asked Kirkman how her was feeling after being shot. It sounded like a sincere question borne out of genuine concern. I found it interesting when Tom replied that he was “Grateful” without invoking any deity. His gratitude was towards his fellow Americans, or at least that’s I interpreted his response. In fact, I don't remember the Kirkmans as being religious at all. It would be awesome if Tom is an agnostic/atheist in addition to being an Independent. As always, I am asking too much of this show.

[OtterMommy]

My nitpicks...because I don't feel that this episode deserved more than nitpicks:

1- I know this show is filmed in Canada and that the town hall was not *actually* at William and Mary--but would have killed them to at least get some exterior footage?  Whatever University they showed in the sort of fly-over shot was NOT W&M.  And William and Mary is so pretty...  (Yes, I'm a proud W&M alum...)

2 - I like curly hair Aaron.  Please, for the love of all that is holy, throw out the Brylcreem!

3 - That is not how people from Southeastern Virginia speak.  That is also not how people from Montana speak.  A little research on accents, especially if they are going to use exaggerated ones, never hurts.

[Raja]

On 4/6/2017 at 5:22 AM, Princess Lucky said:

 

Definitely. I'm sad to see her go, but now I'm even more impressed with the conspiracy. This woman's father was military, as was MacLeish. Could this be an all-American paramilitary group? A conspiracy from within? Disgraced or disgruntled former soldiers and generals (and politicians? MacLeish was both), trying to take out the government in order to replace it? Rebuild the nation from the literal ashes? Using the information they were able to get by virtue of their former positions? And the moles which might still be there?

I love that there's a greater plan, and it's an awesome one, at that ("make everything go boom!" I do love a good explosion.). I don't love that we have no actual actors connected to the conspiracy anymore, and we can't put a face to our villains. That's an ongoing problem for this show. We have someone to root for, now we need someone to hate.

 

On 4/6/2017 at 6:57 AM, mwell345 said:

I

I thought the episode was a little slow, but perhaps what they're trying to do is set up next season (assuming it comes back) to be more like a West Wing type of show. The terrorism plot has to be resolved at some point before the audience gets tired of it. 

 

Taking down almost the entire US government then following it up with a sniper attack  on the next President and the Vice President's wife willingly going on a suicide mission.. This can't be some small cell that can be taken down by a President's Own Special Agent Task Force It has to be generational, something that was always there in the background and even if you get a few like someone else said two more heads grow to take its place. It has to be like Hydra of the Captain America/ Agents of SHIELD MCUniverse, or the Rittenhouse of Timeless

[TimWil]

This was a particular cringefest IMO. The town hall was awful and I'm sick of these press conferences with the blandest actors imaginable. Is it because they're Canadian? And the scene with the pizza-"Hey, don't eat my slices!" Or whatever it was he said-just godawful.

Time for my weekly "Alex is evil" prediction. Is it possible that gun remark was deliberate to undermine hubby? Has it been pointed out that her father was Russian? I wonder if this show has the balls to make Season 2 a sort of Red Dawn/Amerika with Tom as a puppet of the Russkies, thanks to his lovely wife.

[Ceindreadh]

On 8/4/2017 at 2:22 AM, marinw said:

I can acknowledge the corniness of the Town Hall while still enjoying it. One moment I liked was when dude asked Kirkman how her was feeling after being shot. It sounded like a sincere question borne out of genuine concern. I found it interesting when Tom replied that he was “Grateful” without invoking any deity. His gratitude was towards his fellow Americans, or at least that’s I interpreted his response. In fact, I don't remember the Kirkmans as being religious at all. It would be awesome if Tom is an agnostic/atheist in addition to being an Independent. As always, I am asking too much of this show.

I was expecting that questioner to follow up with a comment about how it must be good not to worry about hospital bills and how was he going to help the general public with their medical/health insurance costs.  

[marinw]

3 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

I was expecting that questioner to follow up with a comment about how it must be good not to worry about hospital bills and how was he going to help the general public with their medical/health insurance costs

Touche! 

Edited April 9, 2017 by marinw

[marinw]

The writers seems to have forgotten the part where the Vice President was killed. Is the WH still looking for a new one?

In Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister isn’t a big role, in fact, I’m not sure if we currently even have one. (Correct me if I’m wrong. Please). I suppose the US could function without one, because in the world of DS what could possibly go wrong?

[secnarf]

5 hours ago, marinw said:

The writers seems to have forgotten the part where the Vice President was killed. Is the WH still looking for a new one?

In Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister isn’t a big role, in fact, I’m not sure if we currently even have one. (Correct me if I’m wrong. Please). I suppose the US could function without one, because in the world of DS what could possibly go wrong?

You are correct - there isn't currently anyone with that title, and hasn't been in at least 10 years.

Our succession rules are different - it is based on order of seniority within the cabinet, rather than the position itself. Our current list of succession is here, and we only use this route in cases where there is no time to go through the usual channels - most recently in 1894, I think?

[KaveDweller]

8 hours ago, marinw said:

The writers seems to have forgotten the part where the Vice President was killed. Is the WH still looking for a new one?

In Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister isn’t a big role, in fact, I’m not sure if we currently even have one. (Correct me if I’m wrong. Please). I suppose the US could function without one, because in the world of DS what could possibly go wrong?

A VP doesn't really have that many official duties in the US, so it wouldn't be super noticeable if there wasn't one. The only thing would be if the senate tied in a vote, because he steps in to break ties. Some VPs have tried to take on bigger roles than others of course. 

The only problem would be if the President died or was incapacitated, which in the real world is pretty rare. We know Keifer's not leaving the show, but in the world of Designated Survivor people would probably be pretty panicked about that. I guess right now if something happened Hookstraten would step in.

[marinw]

4 hours ago, secnarf said:

You are correct - there isn't currently anyone with that title, and hasn't been in at least 10 years.

Good information to have, @secnarf. Maybe we don't worry about such thigs as much as our US neighbours. 

[secnarf]

23 minutes ago, marinw said:

Good information to have, @secnarf. Maybe we don't worry about such thigs as much as our US neighbours. 

I think deputy PM is just a pointless role - even if we had one, they wouldn't necessarily be next in the line of succession.

In the world of the show without having a VP, who would be the next in line of succession? Are there still vacant positions, or do they have the full government back?

[Raja]

37 minutes ago, secnarf said:

I think deputy PM is just a pointless role - even if we had one, they wouldn't necessarily be next in the line of succession.

In the world of the show without having a VP, who would be the next in line of succession? Are there still vacant positions, or do they have the full government back?

After the VP is the Speaker Of The House, mainly because they face election every two years and are closer to the people than Senators who were once sent by their State's and not by the direct election of the people every six years. Then Cabinet Secretaries in the order their department was added to the Federal Government In order:

The Vice President

Speaker of the House

President pro tempore of the Senate

Secretary of State 

Secretary of the Treasury 

Secretary of Defense 

Attorney General (Justice Department)

Secretary of the Interior 

Secretary of Agriculture 

Secretary of Commerce 

Secretary of Labor 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

Secretary of Transportation 

Secretary of Energy 

Secretary of Education 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

Secretary of Homeland Security 

The Postmaster General was in the line of succession until 1971, after the US Postal Worker strike the cabinet department was reorganized to a semi autonomous service.

[secnarf]

15 minutes ago, Raja said:

After the VP is the Speaker Of The House, mainly because they face election every two years and are closer to the people than Senators who were once sent by their State's and not by the direct election of the people every six years. Then Cabinet Secretaries in the order their department was added to the Federal Government In order:

...

Sorry I don't think my question was clear - in the show, who would be next? I understand how the line of succession works in terms of which positions are in which order, but I don't know which positions are filled in the show universe, and if so, have we have met these characters.

[OtterMommy]

20 minutes ago, secnarf said:

Sorry I don't think my question was clear - in the show, who would be next? I understand how the line of succession works in terms of which positions are in which order, but I don't know which positions are filled in the show universe, and if so, have we have met these characters.

Kimball Hookstraten, as the Speaker of the House, is currently next in line.

[Roseanna]

On ‎6‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 9:35 AM, Happy Harpy said:

But the self-righteous political stances and speeches, nope. The attempt at emotional manipulation was so blatant in the town hall scene (like in those Oscar bait tearjerkers) I rolled my eyes in annoyance instead. They have a Kiefer Sutherland, and they give him lines worthy of an after-school program.

I thought that the scene was phony as we had just shown how Kirkman was taught "to be personal". But it wasn't so different from how many American politicians irl seem when they speak in TV.  All is so calculated, as was shown when Alex spoke her real opinions.

Yet, I think the screenwriters should have invented a better reason for Alex to make a mistake. Even I know that the gun control is ahot issue in the USA and I believe that Alex is smart enough to know that First Lady can't say her opinion about any politically controversial issues.       

On ‎6‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 3:22 PM, Princess Lucky said:

Definitely. I'm sad to see her go, but now I'm even more impressed with the conspiracy. This woman's father was military, as was MacLeish. Could this be an all-American paramilitary group? A conspiracy from within? Disgraced or disgruntled former soldiers and generals (and politicians? MacLeish was both), trying to take out the government in order to replace it? Rebuild the nation from the literal ashes? Using the information they were able to get by virtue of their former positions? And the moles which might still be there?

I love that there's a greater plan, and it's an awesome one, at that ("make everything go boom!" I do love a good explosion.). I don't love that we have no actual actors connected to the conspiracy anymore, and we can't put a face to our villains. That's an ongoing problem for this show. We have someone to root for, now we need someone to hate.

I think that blowing up buildings is far from the master plan. Why can't they f.ex. stop heat from New York during the snow storm which would make the lives of millions people quite miserable?

On ‎6‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 9:17 PM, Mrs peel said:

I'm getting sick of the FBI response to the conspiracy.  This is a conspiracy large enough to kill most of the government, have the VP's wife kill him and herself, kill a terrorist when he's in a super-max prison under the tightest security we can imagine, abduct and kill a small child - so Hannah:

     (1) calls her old boss - who's son was killed by the conspiracy - to go after the woman who took his son;

     (2) shows up alone at night to what she thinks is the house the woman/others are in, then when no one is home takes no action to see if there are bugs/cameras/etc.  but instead, in full view of the camera focused on the front door, calls her pal to update him (those cameras were probably high resolution enough to pull the number from her phone!);

     (3) then she again, without any backup (except for Atwood who is trailing her), goes into another supposedly inhabited house.  And when they subdue dark-haired terrorist, leave her on the ground for a couple of minutes while they talk, instead of immediately checking her for more weapons.  She also, while in the basement of a suspect's house, turns her back to the door to look at the items on the desk instead of calling for backup.

I agree. There are time for the lonely hero(ine), but this kind of situation demands a group as the leader can't rush to the danger.

[Roseanna]

I wonder if the scenes about collapsing buildings which The Mysterious Lady was watching are intentended to lead astray. As she knew that Hannah would be coming anew, why would she not leave the building but instead left her computer open?

Maybe the conspiracy intends to do something else? What would they gain by blowing up buildings? To prove that the POTUS is unable to guarantee safety?      

[scarynikki12]

In the episode they mentioned a defense contracting firm that Hannah (and, by extension, the general public) had believed to be out of business.  I think they are the behind the attack on the Capitol and the motive may end up being as simple as money.  They want to profit off of the fear, uncertainty and desire for revenge that occur in the wake of a terrorist attack.  It depends on how it's played but I think a simple motive would make the most sense and play the best when all gets revealed.

I will say that, regarding policy, I think the mistake DS is making is by showing us the sausage rather than just how it gets made.  The thing that worked so well with The West Wing is that the primary focus was on the preparation for the town halls, press conferences, debates, presidential addresses, and desired laws.  They would show the result of that prep occasionally but, with the exception of CJ's daily briefings, we usually saw snippets rather than the whole thing.  If DS really wants to have the White House try to return to business as usual, contrasting with Hannah's investigation, then they should let the focus be there.  Watching Kirkman give a town hall can be interesting on paper but, in practice, it was the prep that worked much better.  I loved watching Emily, Seth, and the others giving him practice questions and working with him on his demeanor.  More of that please! 

[Danielg342]

I believe the town hall was meant to show that Kirkman was "growing into the role" and thus the show needed to show him actually mastering the town hall. It's different from Jed Bartlett whom we should at least already know he can conduct a town hall.

[paigow]

10 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I agree. There are time for the lonely hero(ine), but this kind of situation demands a group as the leader can't rush to the danger.

They cannot trust anyone else....just like Kirkman cut his wife off from classified files....

[Roseanna]

14 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

In the episode they mentioned a defense contracting firm that Hannah (and, by extension, the general public) had believed to be out of business.  I think they are the behind the attack on the Capitol and the motive may end up being as simple as money.  They want to profit off of the fear, uncertainty and desire for revenge that occur in the wake of a terrorist attack.  It depends on how it's played but I think a simple motive would make the most sense and play the best when all gets revealed.

I don't think this would explain Macleish and his wife's motives. Especially she was a fanatic of some sort as well as the mysterious lady. People who act for money don't shoot themselves rather than be caught.

Before all, if the motive would be reavealed to be money, it would be a big disappointment in the plot that began blowing up Capitol. 

[scarynikki12]

The minions don't have to have the same motivation as the leaders. So far all we've seen are minions. 

[Roseanna]

2 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

The minions don't have to have the same motivation as the leaders. So far all we've seen are minions. 

I think they do. Leaders who have ideological motivation can recruite minions whose motivation is money, but it could be very difficult o do it vice versa., or at least the minions would find out quite soon.

 Before all, that kind of plot makes no sense as it would make the enemy seem a vacuum, not powerful and dangerous.     

[Roseanna]

14 hours ago, paigow said:

They cannot trust anyone else....just like Kirkman cut his wife off from classified files....

Kirkman didn't cut his wife off because he didn't trust her, but because (as Mike warned) knowing too much could put her in danger too. If Kirkman were killed, her first responsibility would be to stay alive because of their children.

It's true as John Williams's Augustus thinks that once a man becomes a ruler, he can't fully trust anybody. 

Yet, because a ruler can't act without people who accustom his orders, so he must chose whom to trust at least partially.   

As for Hannah, it tells volumes of her that in her workplace she has only two people she trusts. Yet intelligence is essentially group work.

As I said, it's crazy of her to be both a leader and implementer. She is too valuable as an analyst to put her life in danger in situations that others can do just as well and probably better.

I know it's because of the plot, but I don't like it.  

[Miss Dee]

I'm just starting the episode but I had to pop in to say: Daaaaammn, Aaron! The rumpled look really works for you!

Edited April 13, 2017 by Miss Dee
I should know the guy's name by now....

[Roseanna]

On ‎6‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 9:35 AM, Happy Harpy said:

Way too much Alex, and why is the whole family still here? If their role is to endear Kirkman to me, it's a fail. I don't know what they're doing with him, by the way, but I'm liking him less and less which is problematic since he's the main character.

-- -

Hookstraten!!! She makes everything better. She's a true grey character, which I'm thankful for. Her association with Aaron and Hannah's investigation are why I will watch next week.

I think Kirkman's problem as a character is that he is presented too good to be true. Which is boring and, before all, I can't believe that he would get along as a POTUS.

Also other "good" characters are like glass photos. They should have weaknesses and dilemmas in order to be interesting.     

On ‎6‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 4:35 PM, waving feather said:

Does anyone else find Emily kind of snotty? She turned her nose down at Aaron when he told her about his new job. Her reaction as a friend is bad. If I were Aaron, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with her anymore.

If one is committed politically, one can't be happy if one's friend jumps to the opponent's camp. Emily can never again speak freely with Aaron.

It's another matter if one befriends somebody with different political views. 

On ‎7‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 0:11 AM, blackwing said:

I know I was supposed to feel bad for the uneducated factory worker and especially for the lady whose daughter was killed, but I didn't.  I rolled my eyes instead, especially when the lady sobbed and pleaded "how are you going to make sure this doesn't happen again".  I was yelling at her "how about you stop dating deadbeat ex-cons and choose better people to bring into the lives of your two remaining daughters".  I couldn't stand the sanctimonious attitudes of these two... it was all about "what are you going to do for meeeeeeeeeeeeee Mr. President" instead of taking a look at themselves and how and why they put themselves into the positions they were in.  

That sounds like blaming the victim. The killer alone was to blame.

Although Kirkman was adviced not to speak of himself, what else were "it broke my heart" and "as a father"? If he had really been emphatic, he would have spoken about her feelings.           

[jhlipton]

On 4/6/2017 at 5:06 AM, Dowel Jones said:

Hannah's friend is a bit light on the brains.  "Oh, yeah, the gas company was here and they said it was a leak.  No problem."  Hello?

I thought it was awfully decent of the Mad Bomber What Bombs At Midnight During The Day to give them time to smell the gas leak, realize the wrong company / agency responded and get the hell out before setting off the bomb instead blowing them up as soon as Hannah entered the apartment.

On 4/6/2017 at 5:13 AM, EthieWraston said:

Remember the Prius adverts in Warehouse 13, back in the day? Urrrgh.

The Tivo killed conventional advertising, so product placement is here to stay.  Get used to it.

 

On 4/6/2017 at 5:11 PM, blackwing said:

I was also surprised that the Town Hall questions weren't pre-approved in advance.

I was really surprised that Seth, Emily and Kirkman didn't think a gun control question would come up. They all should have expected that and had an answer ready.

[Roseanna]

On ‎17‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 0:57 AM, jhlipton said:

I was really surprised that Seth, Emily and Kirkman didn't think a gun control question would come up. They all should have expected that and had an answer ready.

Probably Kirkman had an answer ready, but he was carried away by the woman's story and he acted on Emily and Seth' advice to be personal. So he changed his course (avoid contrardictionary subjects) suddenly and solely on the basis of emotional motive. The show present that admirable but I find it frighteningly irresponsible.   

[jhlipton]

2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Probably Kirkman had an answer ready, but he was carried away by the woman's story and he acted on Emily and Seth' advice to be personal. So he changed his course (avoid contrardictionary subjects) suddenly and solely on the basis of emotional motive. The show present that admirable but I find it frighteningly irresponsible.   

There's a way to make it personal without getting carried away.  That just seems thoughtless.

Edited April 20, 2017 by jhlipton

[Roseanna]

9 hours ago, jhlipton said:

There's a way to make it personal without getting carried away.  That just seems thoughtless.

I agree, but Kirkman isn't a professional.

The problem wasn't that he changed his course, but that he did it on impulse and in public. He should have thought it through, taken counsel inside White House, contacted Kimble and others with influence to get support - and then spoken in the TV.

Kirkman's manner to make decisions is especially dangerous in foreign policy. 

[Roseanna]

Yet one thing: the former President, now Secretary of State, said to Kirkman that many succesful generals have fought in unfavorable terrain.

Actually, the successful generals in history have generally avoided to fight in unfavorable terrain, if posible. Instead, they had forced or lured the enemy to fight in terrain that is unfavorable to him. 

I can't understand why the screenwriters have written such nonsense - unless they don't understand a thing about history of war.

Before all, why on earth the former President who was so critical towards Kirkman (and he was right!), now begins to cajole him? Remember: MacLeish did just the same. 

[jhlipton]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Yet one thing: the former President, now Secretary of State, said to Kirkman that many succesful generals have fought in unfavorable terrain.

Actually, the successful generals in history have generally avoided to fight in unfavorable terrain, if posible. Instead, they had forced or lured the enemy to fight in terrain that is unfavorable to him.

A general will try to get favorable terrain but that isn't always possible.  The SoS was talking about the generals who had lost the terrain challenge but won anyway.

[Roseanna]

41 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

A general will try to get favorable terrain but that isn't always possible.  The SoS was talking about the generals who had lost the terrain challenge but won anyway.

It's possible but very, very rare. And one should have never done unless absolutely necessary, i.e. no way to retreat. 

I don't like Braveheart at all because it ignores this basic fact. Irl Wallace won the battle on Stirling bridge (which wasn't even shown in the movie!) because the English couldn't use their strenghts, cavalry and crossbow men. In Falkirk they could, and Wallace should have never fought a pitched battle there but continued guerilla tactics. 

[seacliffsal]

I think that the show and the writers have made a decision to write about politics instead of the devastation and complete disruption of life that the bombings would have caused.  I still cannot get over how there's no real attention paid to the effects of the bombing other than getting new members of Congress into place.  Also, to have about 100 members of the House of Representatives who are newly elected be independents?  How?  The National parties would still be in place, but the idea of independents without name recognition winning in such high numbers is really unbelievable.  Also, I would think that a president would always name a designated survivor of the same political party.  And then to have the president be nervous about 'powerful senators'-how did they become powerful, they've been in office for a couple of months as it would have taken time to get them appointed by the state authorities.  I know this is a bit of a rank, but the premise of the show (well, and the title) is that there was an historical devastation of the American government and yet the storylines have focused on stories other than that devastation.  

Gun control?  Yes, an important issue, but not when the entire (well, a lot of...) the federal government has been decimated-where's that story?  

[jhlipton]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

I would think that a president would always name a designated survivor of the same political party.

I agree with the rest of your post (The Designated Senator would be in charge and shouldn't be happy that this pup is dictating party policy).  The blowed-up president designated a member of his party; the Senate designated one of theirs (as they do in the Real World from time to time) and the House one of theirs (as they have not done).  All three Survivors might be from the same party but there could easily be a 2-1 split.

[secnarf]

6 minutes ago, jhlipton said:

I agree with the rest of your post (The Designated Senator would be in charge and shouldn't be happy that this pup is dictating party policy).  The blowed-up president designated a member of his party; the Senate designated one of theirs (as they do in the Real World from time to time) and the House one of theirs (as they have not done).  All three Survivors might be from the same party but there could easily be a 2-1 split.

The president didn't designate a member of his own party, though. The president was not an independent (I think he was democrat?) and Tom is an independent. Of course, it may come out that the president didn't actually designate Tom and it was instead the conspiracy.

[orza]

1 hour ago, secnarf said:

The president didn't designate a member of his own party, though. The president was not an independent (I think he was democrat?) and Tom is an independent. Of course, it may come out that the president didn't actually designate Tom and it was instead the conspiracy.

That was covered in the previous episode. Langdon told Kirkman that he initially wasn't the agreed-upon designated survivor but then Langdon got a last-minute phone call from a stranger to change the DS to Kirkman.

[secnarf]

4 minutes ago, orza said:

That was covered in the previous episode. Langdon told Kirkman that he initially wasn't the agreed-upon designated survivor but then Langdon got a last-minute phone call from a stranger to change the DS to Kirkman.

Yes I know - but we don't know if this was done with the President's approval or if they went behind his back. And you'd think the former President would realize when the original DS showed up at the Capitol while Kirkman was missing. We know there was a last minute change but we don't know what the former President's role was in this change.

[Danielg342]

4 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I think that the show and the writers have made a decision to write about politics instead of the devastation and complete disruption of life that the bombings would have caused.  I still cannot get over how there's no real attention paid to the effects of the bombing other than getting new members of Congress into place.

I agree. This episode would be better as a S2 or even a S3 episode.

Here's how I would have organized the series:

• Season 1: The Capitol bombing, its effects and the hunt for the conspirators
• Season 2: Kirkman's re-election campaign
• Season 3-onwards: "Politics of the Week", other storylines

I understand that a show is never guaranteed even a full season right off the bat, but this show could have benefited from showing some patience. It is really trying to do too much.

[Roseanna]

5 hours ago, orza said:

That was covered in the previous episode. Langdon told Kirkman that he initially wasn't the agreed-upon designated survivor but then Langdon got a last-minute phone call from a stranger to change the DS to Kirkman.

But Langdon refused and run in order to inform FBI.  We are told that it was somebody else with high security classification who gave the order.

Yet, Hannah, Kirkman and Mike doesn't try to find out who it was although there is probably yet a mole inside White House.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I agree. This episode would be better as a S2 or even a S3 episode.

Here's how I would have organized the series:

• Season 1: The Capitol bombing, its effects and the hunt for the conspirators
• Season 2: Kirkman's re-election campaign
• Season 3-onwards: "Politics of the Week", other storylines

I understand that a show is never guaranteed even a full season right off the bat, but this show could have benefited from showing some patience. It is really trying to do too much.

I don't agree as I find politics in this serie quite boring. Instead, conspiracy should have somehow continued.

For some reason I don't quite understand myself I liked this show in the fall, but now I am quite frustrated as the main characters aren't interested. They are all too nice, no depth at all.  

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, seacliffsal said:

I think that the show and the writers have made a decision to write about politics instead of the devastation and complete disruption of life that the bombings would have caused.  I still cannot get over how there's no real attention paid to the effects of the bombing other than getting new members of Congress into place.  Also, to have about 100 members of the House of Representatives who are newly elected be independents?  How?  The National parties would still be in place, but the idea of independents without name recognition winning in such high numbers is really unbelievable.  Also, I would think that a president would always name a designated survivor of the same political party.  And then to have the president be nervous about 'powerful senators'-how did they become powerful, they've been in office for a couple of months as it would have taken time to get them appointed by the state authorities.  I know this is a bit of a rank, but the premise of the show (well, and the title) is that there was an historical devastation of the American government and yet the storylines have focused on stories other than that devastation.  

I think that in principle, if the storyline is intresting, anything could be made to happen in an alternative universe. 

I think that the writers should have concentrated mainly on cospiracy. It would be interesting if Macleish could have somehow convinced Kirkman that he wasn't quilty - and then continued his scheming. 

In any case, this show needs a cunning villain.

[Netfoot]

It obviously isn't easy to decapitate a superpower state so completely as has been depicted in this series.  It's taken a lot of work by a lot of people using considerable influence in total secrecy.  They even had to redesign part of the Capitol so MacLeish would survive.

And why have they done it?

Decapitation is usually the prelude to a coup.  You destroy the government, and while the country is in shock and also leaderless, you step in to fill the void, seize control of the military, declare yourself King... or what ever the plan calls for.  Except... in this case, the decapitation appears to be a prelude to nothing! The government having successfully been destroyed, the conspirators sit back and allow a new one to be formed.  After they go to so much trouble to save MacLeish from the blast, they leave the Designated Survivor alive to backwater MacLeish into a position of little or no consequence.  Having killed hundreds (thousands?) to further their ends, they let one loose-lipped co-conspirator wander about threatening to blab until MacLeish himself has to go out in the dark to deal with him.  And when it turns to crap, they quickly kill MacLeish whose safety they earlier went to so much trouble to preserve?  And now, they are walking around Smalltown, Montana (?) brandishing their Madman Manifestos and roasting bayonet-skewered marshmallows over open flames?  (They can afford a helicopter, but they can't afford half a dozen torchlights?)

Why did they bother to kill off the original administration in the first place, if they are doing nothing to take advantage of the power-vacuum?  

And why is a country that has been the subject of such a serious attack -- perhaps the worst such attack in the history of the world?   So keenly focused on trivia?  Gun control?  Are you kidding me?  At a time like this, WGAF?  There would be some serious economic fallout to be dealt with, because you know the markets would have crashed, right?  The entire FBI would be working on nothing else, not just one Special Agent and her emotionally damaged buddy.  

I keep watching the show for something realistic to happen, or at least for KS (or anyone) to put on an enjoyable performance.  And yes, I get it:  Kirkman was out of his depth, and gets pushed around by the familiar hands. But TPTB don't get it: after 15 episodes, he's not still supposed to be out of his depth.  

To quote Pam Poovy:  His balls are made of pussy!

There are five episodes remaining in this series, and as far as I know, they are nowhere near renewal.  Probably because despite the presence of actors like Sutherland, Yoba, Q (stupid affectation, BTW), McElhone, Penn, Diamond, etc., this show is crap!  And I don't see there being much chance of a turn-around in five episodes.  Rather, the resurfacing of Catalan tells me they've lost the plot.  

I'm probably going to stick with it until the end of the season, simply because there is SFA else to watch on a Wednesday.  But I very much doubt this insipid pile of daytime-soap level of scriptwriting will pull me in for a second season.  Presupposing they even get a second season, which, if they do will be in large part due to the quality of the actors moreso than the quality of the acting or the scripts.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Netfoot

[thewhiteowl]

Episode, please. There is a thread for real world processes. Take it there. Thanks.

[Chas411]

Would we say Tom is the cheesiest president on tv. At this point every speech he makes ends the same - the audience is won around while a cheesy song plays and his staff look proudly aka smugly on. All that's missing a slow applause.