what the heck reality is this supposed to take place in?
and why should I care?

Ok I am really excited about the show. I look forward to what is around the bend. However, if they try to make Jack have a homosexual relationship with David I will stop watching the show and get everyone I can to jump on board and pray that the show tanks. I read some of the ridiculous conclusions about how Prince Jonathan and David's relationship had to be more than deep friendship. Really?? King David although flawed was a man after God's own heart. He worshiped the One and Only true God. Considering that homosexuality was not and is not acceptable behavior for a Jew or a Christian the lame posting that is trying to get people to see their relationship in this light is both sad and boring. David paid for his crimes when he lusted after a woman he should not have had in is bed. He repented of that sin and asked God to forgive him. Had he lived in a continuous homosexual life style he would not have been annointed or blessed by God. Making Jonathan or aka Jack a homsexual I think was a horrible thing to do in this story if the creators wanted to make this a reflection of the biblical account of what really happen. Many people in our culture can not accept the kind of relationship that Jonathan and David had without mucking it up and dumbing it down to something other than brotherly love, the kind of friendship that was served with loyalty and honor. Most people in this day and age can not even identify or show these kinds of feelings for their families let alone a true friend.

Okay, I'm finding this show refreshing, interesting and definitely worth making time for BUT I do wish they would do something about all those close ups! Some of them are so close you can't really see what I believe they want you to see. Like the scene at the end when they do the super close up of the prince. I think it would have been much more revealing to pull back just a smidge and show his whole face. It was so close, I wasn't even sure it was him.

And the scene where the princess and David kiss for the first time - right before they kiss, all you can see is the tip of her nose, a little more of his nose, and most of the shot was the building behind them. Pull the cameras back please!

aye, I noticed the close ups may be too close too. The one I did think was needed was the one where Jack confronts his dad, and his dad tells him he "knows him". That close up I think was a good one.

You are right, that was good. There's always a place for those dramatic close ups, but I do feel it was over done last night and many of them just didn't work.

In all fairness, there was some magnificent camera work. The whole scene where David slays Goliath was beautifully shot and worked perfectly.

But they are pushing the close ups. Too much of a good thing.

I can't see David's character becoming involved with Jack... he likes Michelle for starters, and if you're not gay, you're not going to become gay just because the king's son is hot for you... they may share a close relationship, but it will be platonic, at least on David's part...

Just their view represents 76-80% (throwing in jews) of the US population

also biblical parallel stories is a very old and very GOOD literary tradition

Sorry... Guess I meant "The Gospel of John".

Strong farm boy/mechanic/soldier/Hero/Concert pianist/ rises through the ranks b/c of exceptional bravery offered high gov't postion. Really?

Rebelious educated daughter constantly at odds with King Daddy, but secretly craves approval and respect. Really? C'mon.

KING DADDY is both friend and enemy. Has shady past. Really?

Queen MOMMY does nothing to advance story. Perhaps this will change....but Really?

Trouser Snake hunter Prince Badboy - is really the only redeeming and interesting character other than his high faluting hyjinks (i.e. shooting paint at papparazzi)

Reverend Farakahn - is only cool because its Syeed f/ OZ.

Everything else is clap trap. I will prolly not watch after next week.

This concludes Really?. Discuss.

LOL no seriously the Passion is based on a book written by a polish nun after she had a bad batch of Scarlet fever

LMAO!

Queen MOMMY and Trouser Snake hunter Prince Badboy! LOL!

But, having said that, I do think it is clear I am excited by the show and the writing, as well as the imagery. But I needed that laugh!

No you dont have to love me. You are not commanded to. However, I am commanded to love you and just so you know you dont have to disrespect someone just to make your opinion known.

arent you doing exactly what you are accusing other people of doing. We are entitled to our opinions just as you are. The world would like to think that people of faith have less rights than people of non-faith. Just because its on Prime time or public view you think we dont have a right to comment. Grassroot movements are started anywhere people like to start them. As long as I live in America if I think I can help a discussion move forward on a message board like this than good for me and if you think that I am wrong well, good for you but we all have a right to free speech, YES EVEN CHRISTIANS. In fact your free speech came from our forfathers. Most of them were yes, Christians of one denomination or another. I know lots of text books would like to make you believe different but I challenge you to go to the library and peruse copies of our country's origins. All through most every single document you will see the relationship between God and our government. So come to the message boards I will. Peace

When your show's hook is a war between two countries you might want to have someone look at the script who has a clue about how modern warfare works. I almost stopped watching after seeing the opening rescue sequence where twenty or so main battle tanks were sitting still, in broad daylight, one hundred yards from enemy lines spaced about fifty feet apart. What front line outside of a specialty chessboard looks like this?

I understand the heavy handed symbolism of the goliath tank. That being said, any idiot who watches the news should by now know enough about tank tactics to know leaving a whole line of them nice and pretty in front of infantry with rocket propelled grenades isn't doing them any favors.

If this show gets a second season will someone for the love of God tell Michael Green to hire a military consultant.

Second point. Will someone exxplain how a shiny, gently edited, New York exists "a couple hours from [the front lines] which appear to be a desert. Why doesn't it look like Tel Aviv or Baghdad? The capitol of a country with the enemy a few hours away doesn't get to stay pretty. I am willing to suspend my disbelief that something so anethema to prosperity as an absolute monarch could even exist in the modern world, let alone create the ammount of wealth we see displayed in the opening episode, but someone needs to explain why there are no Gath bombers or katyusha rockets over the skies of Shiloh.

KINGS is NOT set in our universe! KINGS is not set in our universe. Suspend your disbelief and you'll be fine.


I am hopeful for this show, but the audience has to accept the concepts of alternate universe and alternative history, something science fiction fans accept without question.
KINGS also draws on Old Testament themes. So what we have is a biblical themed, Shakespearean alternative universe epic for our viewing enjoyment.
Writers of alternative history take the question “what if” very seriously. I suggest the viewers read “Guns of the South” by Harry Turtledove for a great take on the Civil War and the surprisingly outcome when racist time travelers give Robert E. Lee a supply of AK47s.
KINGS also reminds me of the Shakespearian plays that have been “time shifted” into more contemporary settings.
I recall watching an interesting take of Shakespeare’s “Richard the Third” set in an alternate universe England of the 1930s. “Kings” reminds me of the 1995 Annette Benning/Ian McKellen production of the Shakespeare historical play. The Shakespeare classic is set in the 1930s and technology of the era is presented realistically. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114279/
Kenneth Branagh produced and starred in an epic “Hamlet” time shifted into the mid to late 19th century. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116477/. This is a grueling production, running over two hours that stays true to Shakespeare’s original play.
Also in the 1990s another time shifted Shakespeare play, “Romeo + Juliet” set in an alternative universe future Los Angeles was popular with the kids who flocked to see Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes in the lead roles. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/
The viewers who said KINGS “sucked” need to read Harry Turtledove and read Shakespeare and watch the time shifted film adaptations of his plays before posting such juvenile “reviews”.
So, give KINGS a chance. This is a show that draws upon alternative history, biblical epics and Shakespeare.

wow, can we at least have one show where homosexuality is not presented as the hip new alternative lifestyle choice, i mean we cant watch anything nowadays from dance shows, modern drama, reality tv, pop music, or even the history channel without being brainwashed that homosexual living is the "cool" hip new way to live your life. At least can we keep that out of a show that is based on a biblical story. I love everyone just as god does. But that doesnt mean i agree with everything they do. Just like GOD doesn't. All im sayin is our children and people are bombarded with homosexuality from every angle these days, it would really be a shame if they had to get that from yet another show/media outlet (ESPECIALLY one based on GOD'S word.

GRIMEY

wow, can we at least have one show where homosexuality is not presented as the hip new alternative lifestyle choice, i mean we cant watch anything nowadays from dance shows, modern drama, reality tv, pop music, or even the history channel without being brainwashed that homosexual living is the "cool" hip new way to live your life. At least can we keep that out of a show that is based on a biblical story. I love everyone just as god does. But that doesnt mean i agree with everything they do. Just like GOD doesn't. All im sayin is our children and people are bombarded with homosexuality from every angle these days, it would really be a shame if they had to get that from yet another show/media outlet (ESPECIALLY one based on GOD'S word.

GRIMEY

I understand it isn't set in our universe. I also don't think it sucked. The characters are compelling and I am a fan of Ian McShane. My only point was that with the technology I saw employed and the show's explanations for it didn't jive and having a subject matter expert to sort out obvious discrepancies in small lies like these would make it easier to believe the big lies. (Monarchy, Manhattan, etc.)

I see where you're coming from though Giza. I like Branagh's work. I've seen the films you mentioned, and enjoyed them, read a couple Harry Turtledove novels and liked them as trashy sci-fi. Your argument seems to go more the direction of Anthony Hopkins' "Titus," another adaptation of Shakespeare that employed lots of anachronisms and was very well done. One must remember that there are many directors that take far too much license with shakespeare. I once sat through a stage performance of Macbeth set in 1920s Alabama that was truly painful. If you're going to create a believable universe as big and ambitious as the one set out for us in Kings, you must pay attention to detail to avoid discrepancies that would keep us from staying enmeshed in the plot.

i myself was to caught up with the people i found the premiere intriguing and i look forward to see where this goes

Based on SOME of what I have seen

The Gath forces are less military advanced then the Gilboans. Especially in High tech weapons and air weapons.

The Goliath Tank was their huge technology advance

No I call them a troll because when a new movie/book/tv project comes out the trolls come. And they come with a specific strategy

When you lived in an ocean of trolls being trolled by other trolls you know what it is you see

and also you know to liek mudkips

I don't think it IS being portrayed as a hip new alternative lifestyle in this show, Grimey. At least not in the pilot. I don't think the notion of a Homosexual being a failure in the military, despised by his father, and missing out on the opportunity to inherit his birthright BECAUSE of his Gay lifestyle is equal to glorifying Homosexuality in any way. Were there any instances in the show that portrayed Jack in a positive light? No. His character was shown to be a brooding, self-absorbed, petulant brat.

And Bluezay, get off your soapbox. You've got the right to free speech but you've also got the right to stay on topic. This board is to discuss a TV show, not to be used as a pulpit for you or me to rant about the current state of Christianity in America. There are boards located elsewhere on the net for that.

I think so yes, let me explain....



Yes and no, a big part of that is a persona to distract from his closeted self.



I recognize that Jack and Michelle grew up with great privilege, but I have not seen the excesses that that usually implies.

1. He is revealed to be a capable and brave commander , ordering support when leading an incursion into the woods. His incursion was foiled only because.... unbeknownst to him.... his father had recinded the support. Additionally, Jack is shown to display remorse at the loss of life of the men during the incident. Jack is also seen warmly greeting a Unity Hall staffer when coming down for breakfast with his family. These are not typical behaviors of a spoilt and arrogant aristocratic brat, who would normally view these men and staffers as servants.


2. Honor and Intgrity is important to Jack . He believes he has the respect of the military based on his own experiences in the military, and we have absolutely no reason so far to doubt that. He says he has the respect of everyone except his father, which is the one person he wishes to impress. He tells his father he is dishonored to have been reassigned to an intelligence desk in the wake of his kidnapping.

3. His military capability only came into doubt because of the secret actions of his father , who is revealed to have a secret disgust for his son. Silas revealed he wouldnt care what his son did if he was a second son, basically disowning him. I think it is revealed that as far as Silas is concerned, he may as well look for some other heir. Prehaps Michelle? Prehaps his illegitimate son? Or prehaps David, through marriage to Michelle, may be his heir?

4. Jack admits to his father that his Playboy Image is a public persona, "not the real him." To which his father tells his son he already knows that, and is disgusted by his son's homosexuality, and that he has to keep that secret if he wants to be king.

5. Perhaps on some level Silas can empathize with Jack's forced double life, but I do not think that Silas really equates his own infidelity with Jack's closeted romantic love life. Additionally, it has not been revealed how Jack goes about his love life. Prehaps he is faithful to one partner, prehaps dating others? The thing is, it is all closeted. Closeted behaivor also leads to risky sexual practices which would not normally be the habits of the participants. So we do not know how Jack would have conducted his love life had he the acceptance, love, and support of his father.


Is Jack somewhat spoilt? Sure, no more then his sister Michelle, whom I think will be revealed to be spoilt in her own ways too. She's too pure at the moment and I have not seen anything in her words that convey true empathy and compassion, her petition for Health Care reform notwithstanding.

Additionally, having re-watched the show I have not seen the excessive self-destructive behaviors either, other then as a "partier." He is conscientious enough to apologize to David for being late showing him around Unity Hall, and to offer David his own clothes to wear as well. Not something that a truly arrogant prince would do. These are also not traits typical of an arrogant aristocratic brat.

I think Jack seeks the approval of his father, is also disgusted with himself for his own feelings "as God made him". I think that Jack's relationship with his father will drive allot of the plotline, and also eventually Jack and David will ally.


I recognize that Silas and others may be disgusted by Jack's homosexuality, but we do not know the climate of the general Gilboan society at large towards homosexuality. It may be revealed that Gilboan attitudes towards Homosexually to be closer to the attitudes shared in America and Western Society's towards homosexuality in the 1950s.

Ahh.... It brought back the days of World War I's signature Trench Warfare. All Quiet on the Western Front anyone ??

I agree completely. Suspending disbelief to allow the writers to create an alternate universe is one thing, having a completely unrealistic war scene is another. He would have been shot at before he made it 10 feet from the foxhole, and he would have been dead before he reached the tank. The "good guys" are all scouring the enemy lines with field glasses but the enemies all have their backs turned? It was bad writing and bad directing. I knew this show was in serious trouble the second I saw that. The show's concept had promise but the execution was flawed enough that I turned it off at the 58 minute mark and won't be turning it back on. I only watch a few hours of TV a week, and to make that list it's got to be a lot smarter than this.

I agree with your first point in the sense that it seemed..... far fetched for David Sheppard to have rescued the prince as he did. I would have believed it more if David were a paratrooper and had been leading a rescue operation, and somehow had defeated a Goliath Tank.

I do like that the tanks are Goliaths. I would love to see a a real model Goliath tank, lol.

As for the second point about the front being only a few hours from Shiloh: well, in truth we do not know if that was a few hours by car or a few hours by plane. And there are many cities with skyscrapers near battlefields in the world.

I don't think Shiloh as a thriving metropolis as protrayed is necessarily out of sync with the established canon so far. In my opinion anyway.


Seoul is a prime example of just how a metropolis could be build so near an active warzone. And Soual would defineltly be closer then "a few hours" from the border.

I ment to add above (but for some reason my edit option is not working?)

url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul"]Seoul[/url] is a prime example of just how a metropolis could be built so near an active warzone. And Soual would defineltly be closer then "a few hours" from the border. Shiloh took 20 years to rebuild as a thriving metropolis, and we do not know how active that war zone where David was assigned was. How long it had been active.

Maybe Gath is a "Fourth Nation" that Silas wants to incorporate into Gilboa... and has been able to hold off occupation all this time. Only recently has the conflict been reopened?

Your right the story shouldn't have cliches you should just change everything around. Lets make the farmboy a mcdonalds janitor who becomes a military captain. Lets make King daddy a midget with two heads. Lets just change the entire story, because clearly everything is a cliche.

Of course we've seen it all before. It's the story of David, dumba$$

While Seoul is a fine example of a bustling metropolis only a few hours from a militarized zone, North Korea isn't launching assaults into South Korea either. I think a clarification of David's estimation (by air, by car?) would be much appreciated, but I wouldn't know. As such, I don't know of a place where the front is a barren desert wasteland and then the "cold" Shiloh (all the trees green?) is only a few hours away, and then the "farm" is far from the capital but not on the front.

What I don't understand is why the technically advanced Goliath tanks and Jet Aircraft were unable to drive over the flimsy wire and take it to the Gilboan troops. The aforementioned "heavy-handed symbolism" is excusable but not encouraged. Turtledove made his troops and soldiers, tactics and strategy, he made them fit into the situation and perception of military tactics. While Richard III isn't as serious about military strategy, they don't go too crazy either.

There's a lot of ways this universe could be different. Imagine a world where satellites could not be used in warfare, or maybe there is some sort of modern ethic of chivalry that made there no need to be a Geneva Convention sort of agreement. Perhaps investment and spending on architecture instead of weapons was so much more of a valued thing in this people's culture. With any of these possibilities two superpowers going to war would fight dramatically different than they do today. Why would an alternative universe have to progress ethically, or technologically just like our own has? Also, in the time of kingdoms, the nature of 'power' was completely different than it is now. Power then was more a function of land and people whereas now it is more a function of technology and material. Going by these old rules a 'total war' in the likes of WWII would make fighting in a city like Shiloh of no gain to either side in this war because it would be worth more in one piece than it would be as a pile of rubble. Especially, since we've seen capital is held within the hands of so few people, and this infrastructure is maintained by that oligarch's capital, infrastructure destruction would be a lose-lose game in this case. Maybe i'm analyzing too much though. But, I think for anyone to find this completely irrational just doesn't have a big enough imagination to get outside of their own ethnocentrism.

I'm not a tech/history buff but I know there were certain decision points in history and things like prevalence of materials in our Earth's surface that pushed technological development in certain directions. Examples are picking the cumbustion engine vs. the battery as the primary means of fuel in an engine, or AC vs. DC current, or massively subsidizing corn and soy production in the midwest to drive down food prices. All of these decisions shaped technological development and concurrently cultural development as well. A world in which our energy infrastructure skipped a heavy reliance on mobilized fuel conspumption or even the need for fossil fuels would be a completely different one, especially geopolitically. Things like highways, fast food, cars as a necessity, convenience stores, power lines, jet engines, and the internet were all developed from events and discoveries that may have not occured and therefore may not have existed.

While the possibility of other ways and methods of shaping events could occur, it doesn't fit the situation at hand.

Point 1: Soldiers have automatic rifles. Rifles went through a progression of Single-Shot Rifled Musketsto breech loaders, then they had larger magazines, but this is negated by the construction of "machine-guns". The assault rifle only came about at the end of WW1 with the Thompson or "trench-sweeper". During WW2 it was refined either into PPSh-41 weapon or the assault rifle. This revolutionized military hardware, creating the AK-47 and M-16. The weapon that the soldiers are using looks to be something like a M4 or M16A4. The automatic rifles being used should've progressed in this order. You don't go from hurling bullets with black powder to laying down tracers with smokeless powder.

Point 2: The Goliath Tank. I think it's a M-60 tank, which isn't run on a turbine like the M-1 Abrams. Tanks were created for the express purpose of crossing trenches. That the Gath scientists were able to develop the 1. Movable Turret, 2. A 100mm bore gun 3. Engine capable of sustaining such a tank, those are all big developments, skipping quite a few decades of tank development from the Mark 1 to the Panzer and Tiger tanks of WW2.

Point 3: Jet Fighters. The Gath scientists evidently have the superior knowledge to create jet aircraft that aren't challenged by any ground-defense fire that I could see. You don't just decide one day to build a jet engine, stick it into a plane, and then send it flying. It would take, again, years of creation and testing to get even the first jet fighters right, but those weren't the safest things in the air.

Point 4: Rockets used by David. Looks just like an RPG round. Why would Gilboa scientists and engineers be able to develop a missile that quickly without providing materials to recreate their own tanks to send against Gath? This without adding in the years of development required to bring a Bazooka or Panzerfaust into being.

All these things came into being through decades if not centuries of development, which led to the materials being used in the war on that day. The materials needed for that war required years of creative development, and I was only too horrified to see the Gath tanks open, with no real security, and completely susceptible to a sneak attack by any number of "Davids". That being said, I understand the writers and producers needed the extravagant symbolism, but could they be a little LESS obvious?

Looked to me to be the Russian T72 design rather than an American M60.

I once read that "Tank hunting is easy and fun". Tanks need infantry support else they are extremely vulnerable. As you point out, there didn't seem to be a whole lot of support for those tanks on the Gath side. At the same time there didn't appear to be much in the way of heavier weapons on the Gilboa side to hold them back.

I don't think it's a T-72 because the turret wasn't mushroom shaped...Hulu away!!!!

After reviewing the video (something like 14:20 minutes), I've revised my assessment. The tracks aren't American, which means it's Soviet. What it does look like is either a T-62 or T-55 tank, both of which were used by, ironically, the Syrians and Egyptians when they invaded Israel in the 1960s and '70s.

I think I am on topic and thank you for standing up with me on my soapbox!

also, so this thread is asking what we don't like about the show:

so, I think the acting is generally great, although I'm a little indifferent to jack so far... the other characters have pretty much shown enough range to make me intrigued enough, but jack is just not quite doing it for me. I just didn't feel surprised by him, or see a side of him that I didn't expect (unlike say, the queen, who had initially annoyed me going on and on about her cell, but took me aback w/ her revelation about her facade after the ballet).

perhaps, it's just that we haven't seen enough of him and his "self-absorbed brooding" yet, so I'm giving him a chance (and i hope the writers do more w/ his character!).

Hello una populi!


I'm glad for your observations but disagree with you about Jack.

Did you not see the scene where Silas tells Jack he knows he is gay, and that Jack was stricken dumb with that? And also the consternation jack feels when he has to throw Joe (his boyfriend) out of the club. Jack went into a wild rage looking for a fight at having to distance Joe from him.

I suppose its a matter of perspective. I personally felt that Jack has the most complex set of motivations tugging at him.

David however bores me to tears. I see someone who doesnt obay orders and is uppidy and petulant. For me, David seems to have secret motives himself as yet to be revealed.

Drachenfire, I did in fact see those scenes. I mean, I think jack's character has a lot of potential (and I didn't say his acting during those scenes was bad)--like I could see him in some complex political betrayals, or struggling w/ his homosexuality, ect., but his motivations, as you say, or just where he's coming from (if you get what I mean--I'm kinda tired but I'll try to explain more clearly another time if I'm being confusing), didn't really strike me.

Basically my sense is that he's struggling so hard to gain his father's approval (and I sense that he's never really had that from Silas), so he's acted out. And now, with David around, whom it seems Silas shows more respect for, I think jack realizes that in some ways david is what he is not--and he resents him for it.

I mean, I'm having a slightly difficult time explaining it right now, but desire for fatherly approval and struggling with one's sexuality did not pique my interest in the same way as other characters' backgrounds did. btw, were these what you meant by "motivations"?

But yeah, I think you're right that it is all a matter of perspective--I'm not a jack hater though, so again I'm interested to see what happens.

and about what you said about david... I think that the writers partly want us to see him as someone who feels passionately and gets driven by his emotions and beliefs to do what he believes is right. I don't quite read him as petulant and uppity--I think that perhaps the writers are trying to somehow convey this idea that he has a "destiny" to do great things w/ his dramatic actions?

I agree though that I remember thinking that he crossed the line a couple times too many (during the later eps I believe).... I mean, I can't really say that there's anything more intriguing about his character other than he's an (overall good guy and) underdog rising rapidly in a cut-throat world and I just want to see what else happens to him.

David comes off as too whiney and begging all of the time. He needs to man up more and stop crying about everything. He just keeps repeating sob stories. If he is going to be a king someday then he needs more mojo. He should also visually toughen up. Seems a little too "pretty boy". He should be more of a contrast to silus's son who is already a diva.

Hope this helps!

Kindly_critic is right on. The use of technology, and the effects of war, aren't accurately portrayed. I recognize this is an alternative reality, but unless there are indications of different physical laws than what I'm used to, I've got to assume the physical laws are identical.

For example, if the show presented that powered flight were physically impossible (say, if the rules of aerodynamics were just completely different...), I would accept it. But they haven't done that, so I've got to accept that the same physical laws apply as what we have.

So: RPGs. Tanks. Guns firing bullets. Missiles. Helicopters. Everything that goes into automobiles and electronics. Etc.

Which leads to another complaint... The atmospherics don't pull me in. I don't have a sense of the city, of the people or country. The sets all look the same, and it looks like it was shot on a set.

In the first episode, they smartly used CGI to make the city look like New York, but different. Some landmarks were erased, and some different buildings were cleverly inserted.

But this week? I didn't believe that protest rally at all. A large swath of land and at least three major cities will be handed back, and a whopping 30 or so people turn out for a rally? Right. CGI + more expansive sets to show a rally of a few thousand, I could believe that. But that measily rally was nonsense.

Kings may ultmately be cut down by cheap production values more than anything. It costs money to create atmospherics, use CGI more often, etc.

I don't like that they are adding Mecauly Culkin (Spelling). This show is great and I think they are about to jump the shark in the 6th episode. PLEASE MAKE HIS APPEARANCE A GUEST STAR ONLY. I will have to stop watching if he is a permanent member of the cast...

What shark?? I think that maybe we have to thank Culkin for bringing some notice to the show, hoping his appearence will does.

Yes, be he represents many more than you think. Most don't want to say because that would brand them closed minded and bigoted for saying what is really what they think.

Agreed, I hope that he plays the royal family too with his own adgenda- that would give his character some depth.Its not a one way street. Kinda hard to do if you are under survillance all the time.

"Jumping the Shark" is a term that describes where a TV series goes beyond what people want to watch. Where the series gets "boring", "cheesy", "cliched". I believe it references Happy Days



I didn't particularly like how
1. The writers throw in the Royal Guard's love interests - How many of these plots do we have to follow now? Seriously? They had to pull that out of the bag. It's petty and is probably a plot driver rather than a serious attempt.

2. "Black Ops Snipers" using M16 model guns to "snipe". - Is this BF2? Am I getting punk'd here? While M16s were designed for long-range firepower, it doesn't mean pinpoint accuracy. At least get some hunting rifles or something.

Re: Shiloh not getting bombed to pieces

It's entirely possible that the Gath wanted to take the city intact, and since they hadn't gotten to the urban edge of the city to fight, and didn't want to repeat Lt Gen Paulus mistake in Stalingrad, they were holding off on aerial bombardment and attempting to minimise damage. This is supported during the peace talks when the Gath leader basically says that he wants the city.

Now regarding the rest it's spot on. Why are they going to bring the crown prince to the front line, and leave him in a easily escapable fabric tent? Put the kid in a truck and drag him all day and all night back to the capital and/or regional military HQ (which won't be 5 feet from the front).

Now, if David were a SpecOps guy, and he was raiding a supply depot where they happened to have the prince while they refueled and/or got further instructions, that would have made more sense, and still worked as a photo op and given him a chance to fight a tank, and the king could take credit for ordering the rescue or whatever.

Anyways, I don't watch it for that, and military combat operations aren't really the focal point of the show, they're just thrown in for fun. I watch it because of the high court drama aspects and the idea of a modern monarchy (not Saudi) is interesting. Bible parallels are also pretty interesting. Actually, a show about the Saudi Monarchy would also probably be pretty interesting to watch as well.

back

Just go watch Southland, will you?

Subtexts are a time-honored part of drama, and seriocomic love interests on the part of minor characters are a part of that.



A good shot with a match-grade M-16/AR-15 (you know, glass-bedded forearm, thick barrel, match-grade ammo, all the sniper goodies) can reach out and touch someone in the cranial cavity reliably out to 300 meters, depending on weather conditions. The shot in "Prosperity" couldn't have been much over 50-80 meters. If it hadn't been for those pigeons (who were Providentially flushed by the fat guard's tossing a flash-bang grenade in the eaves of the Residence), David Shepherd would have been cloud walking after the first shot.

Now, you're right that for the difficult shots, like doing the Maersk Alabama pirates all at once to save the hostage's life in the life boat, you need better equipment than a Mattel gun. The illustrations on the History Channel's show on the pirate attack, Somali Pirate Takedown, on the Maersk Alabama show that the SEALS on the fantail of the USS Bainbridge were probably using match-grade bolt-action rifles such as Macmillans that have excellent linearity and accuracy over long distances to deliver simultaneous head shots to all three pirates in the Maersk Alabama's life boat in order to save the life of the captain of the Maersk Alabama - the hostage on the life boat.

THAT'S when you need specialized tools - when you have to shoot FROM a moving platform such as a destroyer TO a moving target like a life boat, and put the pill inside a target maybe six inches across. And you need a special operator who does everything but sleep with his weapon of choice to do the job. Fortunately, there were three such men (at least) on the Bainbridge - the SEALS who parachuted into the area and were picked up by a ship's boat from the Bainbridge. Thank God we have men like that.