I'm surprised they'd change the time period from the book. It seems to me to limit the show to a 6 month or slightly longer life, no?Originally Posted by Mike'sgirl;3654214;
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Eh... probably not. Look at the premise of "Prison Break".. we would have thought that the show would be over once they broke out... but they made do.
What was the timeframe in the book?
About 20 or 21 years I think.
I agree, each episode could be a type of 24Hrs thing.
Here is what wiki says:
"The show Flash Forward is based loosely on the book, and differs from the novel by following non-scientists, including lead character Mark Benford (Joseph Fiennes), and changing the "flash forward" from 21 years to six months. A character named Lloyd Simcoe (played by Jack Davenport) will appear, however. Other cast members include Courtney B. Vance, John Cho, Sonya Walger, Zachary Knighton, Dominic Monaghan, and Christine Woods."
I haven't read the book, but I'd think they could not do 21 years on a TV series because they couldn't age the actors enough and still have what I assume will be a denouement at the end of the series. The only tv scripted show I can think of that last 20 years is Gunsmoke. Even assuming a great run for this show, it would probably last somewhere between 5 and 10 years at the outside.
Well, the 20 year gap led to some interesting things--e.g., which stocks you never heard of were doing well, inventions and changes in society that were now commonplace that you wouldn't have expected, and sex with your now aged wife, to whom you'd obviously been married for years, who was NOT the person you currently thought was the love of your life. Plus a lot more people saw nothing, which meant they were dead, but you didn't know when in quite a long period that would happen usually. I think they could do that with make up. 95% of the book at least was in the here and now...or at least within a 5 year period....based on the repercussions now of what people saw then, as I recall.
This article about the show in the New York Times online is pretty interesting--
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/ar....html?_r=1&hpw
I just want to know why they had to air it on Thursday nights across from both Survivor and Bones. I may have to abandon Survivor this year. That show is getting a bit stale anyway.
Whew! The article brings a lot of heavy weight to the show, but as a SyFy fan, though not a Lost fan, I've really been looking forward to the premiere tonight. It could lapse into soap opera or cryptic postings of impending doom; but the main theme of the article is that it brings the question of fate vs. determination front and center. Do we want to change what we saw or let it ride?
I'm glad you said something...I was assuming it was going to be aired after Survivor. Thank goodness for the DVR.
I know, you would think they would place a new show that a network wants to succeed, in an easy time slot. But, it is not about winning the easy slots, they want to come out fierce and win against the competitors, BIG. They want to blast the bigger, established shows and put them out to pasture.
Sad, but that is the measure of success for new shows. How much they capture/corner the viewers/18-49 households, is what it is all about.
I've read that reviewers and critics that have already watched the pilot have all been impressed. I hate to get my hopes up, but will be needing a replacement for "Lost" since January 2010 marks the end of that series; and am hoping this show will be it. Finger crossed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote