Jump to content

massofspikes

Millennium Group Candidates
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About massofspikes

  • Rank
    'Small Town Sherriff'

Millennium Group Database

  • Name
    Joe

Me on Millennium

  • Favorite Millennium Seasons
    3
  • Favorite Millennium Writers
    I'm not sure!
  • Favorite Millennium Directors
    I'm not sure!
  1. massofspikes

    Untraceable WTF

    Boy, I knew THAT would get a response. My point was this: there's no way to know exactly whence came the idea for Untraceable. I suppose a major motion-picture studio might have used a plot device from a decade-old episode of a relatively obscure television show as a springboard, but--esp. if I were some kind of huge Profiler fan--I could have, at one time, just as well pointed out the specific premiere dates of the two programs in question and implied some sort of...well, just about anything. So I view the speculation surrounding Untraceable to be futile, more or less. (Although, of course, anyone's welcome to openly speculate about whatever s/he wishes; the above is just my opinion.)
  2. I presented this question as a related aside to a post made within the thread about the Polaroid Stalker's connection to Dion the Woodsman, and nobody bit, so I'm turning it into its own thread in the hope that some discussion can be generated, as I'm still unsure of the answer, myself. I'll quote it verbatim, with an extra bit tacked on: "Incidentally, does it speak of a weakness in the show that even these most important-to-the-canon plot points [in this instance, the PS/Dion connection. --J] can be interpreted and 'understood' in so many varying fashions--some wildly diverging from one another--that the viewer is almost tempted to throw up his/her hands sometimes and say, 'Forget it!', the whole thing having long devolved into a sort of slurry of vague possibilities and inferences and maybe-so's when, as far as I'm concerned, the situation in question called for less ambiguity? (See "The Innocents/Exegesis" for the ultimate in obfuscation, intentional or otherwise.) I consider MillenniuM a fantastic show, don't get me wrong, but I'm also a bright guy (or would like to think of myself that way) and yet grow frustrated having to refer to the Abyss website after watching every third episode to discern what in the world I just witnessed, exactly. [Or, rather, how I should be considering what I just witnessed. In any case, it doesn't occur so often anymore, as I seem to be more cognizant of what to expect from the program in terms of unanswered questions; or maybe I've become inculcated (or is it jaded?) to what was MMs tenuous presentation.--J]"
  3. massofspikes

    Untraceable WTF

    Similar situation: inventively-entitled television-show Profiler--about a forensic profiler who can "see into the minds" of violent offenders"--debuts on NBC in September of 1996; in October of 1996, television-show MillenniuM--about a forensic profiler who can "see into the minds" of violent offenders--debuts on FOX. Hmmmm....... So, can we stop with all of this Untraceable is a "Mikado" rip-off stuff?
  4. "[A] red-herring"? To distract him from what? To make him believe that Dion was the Polaroid Stalker and that, by apprehending him, he'd rid the community of the individual taking pics of Catherine and Jordan? Or to misdirect his profiling powers while the Poloroid Stalker made preperations to abduct Catherine? Incidentally, does it speak of a weakness in the show that even these most important-to-the-canon plot points can be interpreted and "understood" in so many varying fashions--some wildly diverging from one another--that the viewer is almost tempted to throw up his/her hands sometimes and says, "Forget it!", the whole thing having long devolved into a sort of slurry of vague possibilities and inferences and maybe-so's when, as far as I'm concerned, the situation in question called for less ambiguity? (See "The Innocents/Exegesis" for the ultimate in obfuscation, intentional or otherwise.) I think MillenniuM is a fantastic show, don't get me wrong, but I'm also a bright guy (or would like to think of myself that way) and yet grow frustrated having to refer to the Abyss website after watching every third episode to discern what in the world I just witnessed exactly.
  5. ...Dion, "The Burly Woodsman," and the Polaroid Stalker? Who was taking pictures for whom, and to what end? (Both had walls covered in Polaroid pictures.) Was the Stalker taking pictures of potential victims for Dion? Even if that were the case, what's the use of a picture of some random person w/o some information on where that person lived, etc.? And, my God, I couldn't last fifteen minutes listening to Dion's mother's voice and off-putting mannerisms and cloying behavior, let alone...however many years he managed to pull it off. No wonder he went apeshit. Edit: Changed "if that WAS the case" to "if that WERE the case." Gotta' remember the subjunctive!
  6. massofspikes

    Looks Like A Mikado Rip-off

    Don't know if this show has any fans 'round these parts, but, even considering MillenniuM's quality--and I apologize in advance for this--I still believe Homicide: Life on the Street to be/have been the greatest drama in network television history. (I've heard that The Wire--sort of Homicide's non-network, foul-mouthed, even uglier [if that's possible] brother--to be better, but I don't get HBO...or any television channel, for that matter. Yes, I'm one of those TV snobs. ) In any case, during Homicide's last season, they aired an ep entitled "Homicide.com," in which a serial killer was broadcasting his murders over the 'Net, too, hacking/cracking into pre-existing websites and doing his deeds via video-feed. Granted, HLOTS had a year's worth of experience with the still-new-to-many medium in order to more realistically portray 'Net-based goings-on than MM did. (There was nothing as goofy as a hit-count-meter that advanced in real time, and the vid-cam footage wasn't depicted as being as terrible, resolution-wise, as on MM, but--thank goodness--not as good as on some programs and movies during those days, when the events on one side of the lens came through to the other end, broadcasting as smoothly as one of those picture-in-picture features televisions used to offer.) Unlike both "The Mikado" and Untraceable (which is so far garnering terrible reviews), the killer's decision to do so was never predicated on website attendence. He would merely use spoofed email addresses to send invitations among college campuses to witness what most believed initially were staged performances. Again unlike on MM, the killer was eventually apprehended. What's interesting about this is how such similar plot devices can "work" on two different dramatic formats. I get the tentative impression that most MM fans thought "Mikado" was, if not great, than at least good, while most HLOTS fans consider(d) "Homicide.com" one of its lowest moments--pandering, too sleek, too hi-tech, too sexy for a show that was more adept at depicting the soul-eroding nature of investigating homicides in the second most murderous city in America, a blighted metropolis where 90% of its slayings are as complex and exciting, motive-wise, as Doper A got sold baking-soda instead of heroin by Slinger B, so A came back on him...and not with a receipt, either. And then hundreds of variations on that theme. You have to say this--Frank Black may work with sick and dangerous criminals, but there's never a dull moment in *his* universe. (Well, actually, the two fictional universes intertwined thanks to the workhorse efforts of Richard Belzer, who played his Homicide character, Detective Munch [now with one of the many Law & Order spin-offs], in an episode of the X-Files, which crossed with MM, as we all know. Hmmm...Peter Watts must have a twin, then, too, because a man looking JUST like him played a grieving father on a 4th-season episode of Homicide.) Now, as for who got what idea from whom, it's impossible to tell. Something interesting, though, coincidence-wise: "The Mikado" aired 2-6-98, "Homicide.com," 2-5-99.
  7. Another thing about the episode in question. Is this a flub? Catherine, stowed in the mesh undercarriage beneath the Stalker's car, with her face pinned downward toward the street, sees broken yellow stripes whizzing past her vision. How would this be possible unless the Stalker were driving in the middle of a two-lane, two-way road?
  8. The whole point of the Frank/Stalker confrontation was to provoke in Frank an emotion we as viewers felt he never had in him: a certain viciousness, if you will, that would disjoin his connection with Catherine. In this sense, I feel like the scene failed for the reasons I addressed in the OP--I'm sure he was feeling anger as he stabbed away, but who wouldn't have been? And I'm sure it was, in part, the sudden coalescing of that rage that produced the adrenaline needed to overpower a man decades his junior. A scenario I believe that would have better realized the intended outcome, and done so in a more troubling and thus dramatic fashion--one that would have thrown into some real disarray both Catherine and the audience's opinion of Frank and revealed the slowly depleting ability of his to compartmentalize his heretofore hidden ability to commit violence like any of the other monsters he'd squared off against in the past--would have featured him killing a surrendering (or injured beyond the point of his presenting an imminent threat) Poloroid Stalker.
  9. massofspikes

    Borrowed Time

    If the subject weren't "taboo," believe me, I'd be asking for citations right about now. ;)
  10. Admittedly, I wasn't being completely serious when I made reference to Frank using his "abilities" to help himself in wooing Catherine. I was in part thinking of a Stephen King short story found in the collection Night Shift entitled "I Know What You Need." It's about a loner-ish misfit who, since grade school, has been in love with a girl. (Both names escape me at the moment.) As the story begins, we discover that they attend the same college and that she has no recollection of him despite their attendance at various schools together throughout their lives, let alone his infatuation with her. In any case, as the story continues, we find that, in every situation, he "know(s) what (she) needs," so to speak. Despite his unappealing appearance and her beauty, she falls in love with him. As it turns out, he's spent a lifetime mastering some sort of b*******ization of voodoo and has been using this supernatural power to forsee her every desire. Once she finds out, horrified, she cuts off all ties to him. What's haunting is his declaration to her as she leaves, that she'll always be unsatisfied with every man she'll ever be with, because nobody will ever know her the way he does, by paranormal means or otherwise. The inevitable question is, of course--if ignorance is bliss, and she never discovered his clandestine machinations, could their love for one another really be considered "true"?
  11. Well, you have to remember that he never chose the timing of his "visions." Say you were Frank, and you had a vision of Catherine eating a strawberry ice-cream cone or something, how would you deal with the question of whether or not to use this information to your advantage, esp. considering the fact that you didn't ask for it?
  12. Speaking of Catherine (now I'm spelling it correctly) and Frank's marriage and these very issues, I think it would have been a fascinating conceit for an episode to go back in time and, in some sort of flashback form, explore their meeting, their courtship, and eventually their union. (Would s3 be a good time for this, or would it have been too much coupled with "Sound of Snow"?) I mean, just how much did Catherine know about Frank's life, his job, his mission back in those days? Granted, Frank had yet to be placed center-stage as a leading character in The Battle Between Good and Evil , but why was she okay with things then? (Of course, a lot of partners in a marriage are "okay" with some shortcoming involving the other partner, at least initially, because s/he's in love with him/her; eventually, though, whatever the problem is can become wearisome.) I've also always been very curious about Catherine and Frank's apparent dismissal of the vast age difference between the two as a hinderance. Did Frank ever surreptitiously use his "gift" to gain an edge over other suitors when it came to knowing what Catherine wanted, perhaps? The episode could even feature a Terminator-like angle in which some form of evil spirit (unrecognized as such by even Frank at this time) tries to either sabotage the marriage (which provides this future warrior of light stability and strength) or prohibit the birth of Jordan (Frank called her a "miracle child," after all), which would provide even further evidence that, one day, Jordan will be faced with the choice of maybe taking daddy's place in The Fight.
  13. massofspikes

    Borrowed Time

    Your theory about angels acting upon the decree of God is one I never considered. Of course, this portrays a (G)od whose actions in this circumstance are, if nothing else, morally ambiguous: He would have let a little girl die (Jordan) had not Frank blurted out his "prayer"? (Boy, if that's the way it worked, there'd be a lot less tragedy in the world.) I'd always assumed that Sammiel was merely swayed by Frank's plea for Jordan's life and hence made the decision to give his own (in whatever way an "angel" can); in addition, I believe that anyone could see him if he chose to be visible, and being visible was perhaps a requisite if he were going to perform actions upon physical objects in the material world (for example, quietly reaching for the keys in the engineer's room; if the engineer had turned around, would he have merely seen keys floating in the air out the room? And if the engineer couldn't have seen him, why did Sammiel act with deliberate stealth in collecting said keys?) So is the consensus among the fans, then, that Sammiel was not expecting to drown, that, as God's puppet, he'd no idea that the strings had gone ahead and been severed? If so, I guess that blows my theory out of the water...no pun intended.
  14. massofspikes

    Borrowed Time

    Was there any significance at all to the man who stormed out of the cabin in a huff because the train had been delayed? I've always had the feeling that there was, but that I couldn't quite place a finger on it. You'll notice that 3/4ths of the roster making up those who drowned on land was demographically similar to those within the cabin: two adult women and an adult male. Two adult women and an adult male were similarly saved by Sammiel's locking of the cabin. Had the man who left the cabin remained, there would have been two adult males, a young girl, and an adult woman, and THAT would have matched exactly the characteristics of those who were having their "borrowed time" revoked: two adult males (let's assume Sammiel to be one, then the "shut-in"), a young girl (Jordan), and an adult woman (the one in the park). Ultimately, what this "means"--so to speak--I don't know, if anything at all. Regardless, I feel the scene was included for some purpose, but perhaps it was merely for irony's sake: if the guy hadn't been so impatient (he mentions "time being wasted," I think; hint, hint), he'd have survived the wreck.
  15. Something that really stunned me after watching the s2 premiere was the way in which Kathy asked Frank to leave, chiding him for perhaps going too far in his slaying of the Polaroid Stalker, and Frank himself wondering the very same thing. As a viewer watching the scene in question, from first knife blow to last, the kill seemed completely within the realm of what would be considered by most reasonable people to be justified self-defense. The Stalker did attack first, mind you, and Frank only survived by wresting away the knife and retaliating. Wouldn't you (i.e. whoever might be reading this) stab an attacker in such a situation more than one time, just to make sure he were dead? Now, what I think would have been very interesting, more disturbing, and a more appropriate lead-in to Frank's St. Augustine-style tortured ruminations of culpability and the-potential-for-sin-within-us-all, as well as Kathy's guarded reaction would have been if Frank had achieved hold of the knife and The Stalker had thus unconditionally surrendered, hands up...only to have Frank kill him then. To summarize, what Frank did never struck me as an act of rage unleashed, but simple self-defense.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.