Let’s go sci-fi grave digging and autopsy the 2005 dead-before-its-time CBS thriller Threshold, starring Peter Dinklage as a lecherous genius (before Game of Thrones). But first, listen as our hosts lament the loss of Mindhunter and explore the programming strategies streaming platforms use to build their brand - or maybe the lack thereof?
Let’s go sci-fi grave digging and autopsy the 2005 dead-before-its-time CBS thriller Threshold, starring Peter Dinklage as a lecherous genius (before Game of Thrones). But first, listen as our hosts lament the loss of Mindhunter and explore the programming strategies streaming platforms use to build their brand - or maybe the lack thereof?
Reach the pod at DontEncourage@gmail.com
Stop by and discourage us on Instagram, X, TikTok, Discord, YouTube, and Threads
Jason: I, you know, I think, as I said, the show capitalized really well on the vulnerability that people were feeling at that time. You got to update that. If you're going to do anything with that presently, you need to sit down and think about what makes people feel insecure. Now, what do they worry about? What are the things, the points of vulnerability that they perceive, and then work that into your story in a typical elevated sci fi way.
And I think that could be really cool. Welcome to Don't Encourage Us, the show where we talk about the big ideas behind fiction projects of all different kinds. Books, movies, TV shows, video games, nothing's off limits. Today we're going to discuss the 2005 CBS sci fi show, Threshold. But first, what's been on your list this week?
Um,
Steve: I got back into Wheel of Time. I know in a previous episode I said I was gonna, I had left it behind forever. And, uh, this time I just couldn't find anything else to, to watch. And I thought, why not try that Wheel of Time show again? And it got better. But of course, it gets better right toward the end of the season.
So there's so much build up, so, build up, build up, and there's gonna be some big cliffhanger. I'm just waiting for it. Um, on the last episode of the season, there's like six, I think, total episodes, so these really short seasons. And then it's just build up, build up, build up, and then action. And then I know it's going to be cliffhanger until season three rolls around.
Jason: And then a year.
Steve: Exactly. I'm not super impressed with the show. I think it's still kind of convoluted. The way, like, I think it's too many books that they're basing this off of and they're trying to cram too many things in. Oh, why? And just, and then just kind of assuming that the audience knows all of this elaborate backstory or can really readily understand it, you know.
They're describing places, types of magic, characters you haven't seen yet. So there's a whole, you know, a whole history behind the show that they're trying to explain while they're also talking about what's going on currently.
Jason: That is so hard to do well. I mean, it's great that it has such a rich background to draw from, but it sounds like they're really not taking the time to settle in and, you know, sort of live in that world and explore it fully.
Steve: The season probably could be double the amount of episodes in order to do it correctly and you could add a lot more action to break up this kind of expository. Sequence style that they have now,
Jason: do you think they think that there's some sort of like six to 10 episodes, sweet spot these days, like, you know, for a long time it was 22 to 24 episodes a season and then they started shaving off of that and then they kind of bounced down to like 10 or 12 and then they kind of dropped the six.
Do you think they do like a calculation? Like the bean counters have added up and decided that 6 to 10 or 6 to 12 is just Perfect for people's attention and maintaining viewership. Absolutely. I
Steve: think there's probably a lot more going on behind the scenes. So maybe with a shorter season, you can then allocate budget to another show.
So it's a lot of testing that you're doing with these series instead of committing yourself to, let's say, a 12 episode season or the 22 episode season you were talking about. Um, now you can just test more and I think that's what they do, you know, just based on on data.
Jason: So I think before with, uh, episodic TV being the primary thing when there were 24 episodes per season, I think they invested in a lot of, uh, pilots and a lot of, you know, a few episodes of shows here and there.
And then they didn't really get much data back until the show had been running for a while in some cases, and then they would make a decision about go, no go, but for shows that they kept running for the full, you know, 24 episodes, it was probably cheaper in terms of production costs, because you don't have to hire all new people.
You don't have to make new sets. You don't have to, you know, write or hire writers to do completely different scripts. You're just or for a different show. You're just. Just kind of producing more of the same, which I guess was a better deal when you didn't get information as quickly as maybe Amazon does now.
Yeah. And I think
Steve: the, just these algorithms being so complex and being able to analyze so many different data points. That they couldn't analyze before, like specific actors, what types of scenes they're in, which make them more popular, keep a person viewing for longer. I mean, things that you could just never do in the past.
Now you can pretty much put together a show that's nearly guaranteed to work. In a lot of respects because you have all the elements kind of figured out beforehand, you know,
Jason: yeah, he reminds me a lot of Uh one of these trends in video games so a while back, uh, I talked to a friend of mine about rocket league and we settled on this idea that You know, the success in part was driven by this philosophy the creator had, which is chase the fun, right?
So he just kept iterating the game until he recognized that people were really loving it. And he leaned more and more into what people loved and just restructured the entire game around that concept. But the trend I'm referring to now is more along the lines of. Behavioral psychology, right? What keeps a human being, you know, clicking, touching the screen, logged in longer, like what keeps them essentially engaged.
And while, for example, with our podcast, I think it would be great if people listened. You know, if we had all this data that said, boy, you know, people across different ages, different types of people all over the world are tuning in every week, they're listening to the entire episode, right? That's great.
And it may encourage us to do more of what we're doing, but if they're not getting something out of it, if they're not enjoying it, they're not having fun or feel like they're learning something. If it doesn't seem like time well spent to them, then is that really useful data? Right. Is that a good thing?
So I think maybe Amazon and some of these other show, uh, production companies or networks, I think maybe the data they're getting isn't about like, for example, the future, you know, so they cancel a show that in the future would have ended up being a really big, um, draw for their particular streaming channel.
Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah,
Steve: it's like the old, uh, Seinfeld example, how they were going to cancel Seinfeld because the initial episodes were not big draws. It wasn't, it wasn't a hit right out of the gate. Right. And then they had, uh, an executive, I forget his name, but he really pushed. To keep the show going because he really believed in it and then it becomes what the biggest sitcom of all time,
Jason: right?
Well, and you look at shows like Mindhunter Which you know, it's a phenomenal show and it was really I think getting better and then they just abandon it
Steve: Has there been talk of bringing it back?
Jason: I thought there was no they Officially came out and said they're not gonna Yeah, I know exactly, but I mean, if you think about it, if you know, Netflix probably looked at a lot of numbers and maybe they were right to decide based on these numbers, like, Hey, this is a kind of a go nowhere series for us.
It's not worth the investment, but I find that so hard to believe because what metric can capture this potential for a show to be network defining, you know, like Netflix, right? It's the show, it's the streaming channel you go to for teen dramas. You know, where high school is the most important thing ever, or, you know, fast forward five years, maybe Netflix is a place where if you're in high school, you do that or middle school, you go watch shows about high school.
But if you're over 18, you think of Netflix as the channel where you get really awesome dramas that are intriguing and interesting, like a mind hunter. So I don't think you can see that in the data necessarily. Let me ask you
Steve: this. Do you think Netflix has. It's defining show that everyone thinks of Netflix for, or do you think
Jason: it's just a great question?
I think they they did for a while and then those shows kind of ended For example, I know for certain fan bases the Marvel Uh, you know, Daredevil shows like that were really like when they, when people thought Netflix, they thought about like Daredevil, you know, that was great. But then they lost that deal with Disney and that got canceled.
Um, I think Mindhunter was on the cusp of becoming a network defining show. I don't know. What do you think? Does anything come to mind for you?
Steve: You know, I, I would say the answer to that right now is no. I mean, there's, there's squid game. Right, so it seems like there's these global phenomenon shows that come out.
Money Heist, Squid Game, those are ones that come to mind. Um, and then these short crime documentaries, or there's short limited series like Ted Bundy, etc. And then Jeffrey Dahmer. But I think they're kind of like, um, Shows that fizzle out quickly, I think in the public's mind, and they quickly replace it with something else.
Like, not like Showtime, right? Showtime has, what, succession right now? Or is that HBO Max? I think it's Showtime. I don't watch that
Don't Encourage Us - Threshold - ken 3rd pass intro and music: show.
Steve: But I'm thinking about shows that come to mind that people consistently talk about, like they become like a water cooler talk type of show, and I think it seems like Netflix Doesn't really have that because they have so much content and they've invested so much in their content that I think for smaller groups There's a defining show like you said like the Marvel Universe stuff But in terms of the society at large there isn't that one show that everyone says.
Oh, I have to subscribe to Netflix because of this one show
Jason: They also don't have a clear theme, like, um, like HBO, you know, it's being rebranded. So HBO is not the best example sometimes because it's, you know, it's bought and changed the name and all that kind of stuff repeatedly. Game of thrones and some of their other shows that sort of define HBO might be quite different from each other But they they are popular with the same age group or similar demographics and they have sort of thematically some consistent elements Right.
Like they're high production value. The acting is emphasized, you know, very talented actors. The writing is complex. There's a, there's a maturity to it. There can be some real issues, some real violence, real sex, right? Like it's, you know, adult and sophisticated. Uh, whereas Netflix very much is just, it's almost like someone different.
Is deciding their programming thrust every year. It's like comedy specials, you know, it's going to be nonstop reality shows. It's nonstop reality shows. Okay. Uh, complicated dramas, mature drama. Oh no, those are gone. High school stuff, high school stuff, uh, anime, anime. Now it's all about anime, right? It, whatever defines Netflix changes almost, it's, it's almost quarterly.
Really? It's about every six months. Um, so you're right. And I, I wonder if that's a bad longterm investment. Or if it'll work,
Steve: that's a good question because what you see on Netflix and what I see on Netflix are two totally different home screens. That's the other big X factor with Netflix. True. That the customization, according to viewers, so granular that I think for them, maybe their longterm play is just that being able to target you specifically over a long period of time.
And then there's a defining genre. Or set of shows that define Netflix for you as an individual. But in terms of us talking about the same shows, that's not there. Maybe that's not what they're going for, for the long, the long term. They're just betting on being able to target. individuals better. As opposed to having a defining show that's kind of universal per country let's say.
And they also have all the foreign shows that they have on there as well. So there's just tons and tons of content
Jason: that you can choose from. See, that's interesting. Because it's an example potentially of what I'm talking about, right? So you log in, you look at your Netflix screen. For you, Netflix is defined by, you know, anime, high school anime.
And I log in to Netflix and for me it's, you know, old, uh, terrible horror films or something. And then when you and I have a conversation, it dies. Like we, we don't have a shared experience of Netflix. We can't recommend it to each other. We can't even have a reinforcing, like a brand reinforcing conversation.
And we have a podcast. So we talk about Netflix. We can't really come to any kind of useful points or sort of interesting things to agree or even debate. And then when our moms listen. They're not going to walk away thinking that they should listen or look at Netflix. So, you know, Netflix doesn't get that, uh, what, there's a really common phrase for this, but that like word of mouth, there it is.
They don't, they don't get that word of mouth reinforcement because they don't have the subgroup, you know, crossing defining show. Like we can't say, Oh, Netflix. Oh man, Mindhunter. Yes, absolutely. And I also saw this cheesy old horror movie. Or this cheesy horror movie that was made in the Middle East or something.
And you could be like, really, that's interesting. We don't even have that point of commonality when we talk about Netflix.
Steve: That's true. I mean, it makes me think a lot of NBC Thursdays. The Thursday night lineup. I see TV. I mean,
Jason: it
Steve: was universal. Everyone watched, you know, Friends, or they watched Seinfeld, or they watched whatever show and everyone had that commonality, that common ground, but now that doesn't seem to exist anymore.
Jason: Well, and with that reinforcement, then people were, I assume, more likely to say, Hey, what's on NBC? Right. What's on that channel? Um, because I like these other shows, I've been talking to someone about it. Let's see what they have on Sunday. Same thing with Fox, right? Around the same time Fox was like, we're going to do X Files.
We're going to do Millennium. We're going to, we're going to lean into some of these popular, uh, TV shows with this demographic. So when they talk about it, they talk about us and then people can find similar things on other nights that at least appeal to the same. Demographic, even if it's a very different show.
Um, so yeah, that's definitely not the strategy that I'm sensing or that I get, you know, it's not working on me if they're trying to do it, that Amazon stands like, what is what's on Amazon? I don't know, just different stuff all the time. They have some science fiction, Lord of the Rings, wheel of time. They have a bunch of these shows that are kind of about a man on fire, you know, like a one guy against the conspiracy and he's kicking butt.
Um, But then when we talk about Amazon, it doesn't really, Amazon Prime, it doesn't really, um, I don't know. There's just, there isn't that point of connection to start a conversation. And Amazon's better than Netflix on that front. Yeah,
Steve: and it's an entirely different business model that they're working off of than a network, right?
A network was catering to advertisers, right? You get as many eyeballs on those 30 second or one minute ads, and now you're on a subscription model. Or you're getting that individual paying you consistently over time, month after month, you know. So it's just a different way of attacking the same, the same issue.
But I think at the end of the day, it's a completely different result. And I think you're, you're missing that society shifting impact that television used to have. Right, which I think those days are just gone now. Yeah.
Jason: Well, and I would assume that branding characterizing your streaming network in the minds of people and fans using really high quality broadly popular shows Or you know really super popular niche penetrating shows Would be that much more important than ever because it's not just about staying on a channel When you've got 130 choices like cable, it's about subscribing and staying subscribed when nobody's committed it's month to month.
So if Netflix is not well defined in your mind and they raise their price, you're gone. Like, what do you care? Right? You saw one show squid game was good, but. That was just kind of the exception. It's not typical of Netflix. So I don't know, but I assume they've calculated all this and they have good reasons.
Maybe people listening can explain why that isn't important, or maybe it's the kind of thing that people will learn. The show we're going to talk about today, I think actually is a victim of a similar. Transition in TV. So it might be interesting to talk about it in the context of that. But before we move on anything else about Wheel of Time or the other stuff on your list?
Steve: No, I think in terms of Wheel of Time, I'm still not over. I'm still not done with the show. Mm hmm. So I'll have a little more to talk about on the next episode. What have you
Jason: been watching or reading? You know, I have been quite busy. So I put as much time as I could into I think I got through about nine episodes of Threshold.
Uh, so maybe a good time to talk about that Threshold 2005 CBS series. Uh, 13 episodes total. I don't think they all ran on the network. I think, uh, they, they stopped. So if you want to watch all 13, you've got to look online. Of course you have to have to do that now anyway. Uh, it was produced by, uh, Brandon Braga.
David S. Goyer and David Heyman. So three really well known producers who'd done a lot of different stuff. It was on CBS. Notable actors, uh, Carla Guccino played Molly, main character. Uh, Brent Spiner, uh, played, uh, one of the scientists. He was Data on The Next Generation and recently on the hit... Star Trek Picard, that was a massive success and they're looking at spinoffs now, probably with Brent Spiner as well.
Uh, Peter Dinklage from Game of Thrones. This was, I think his project before Game of Thrones. And then, uh, another actor most people would recognize, Charles Dutton, who played Rock on a sitcom. He had his own sitcom prior to this. I think that was in the 90s, uh, so very successful. Uh, so this, as I said, was cancelled after three years.
13 episodes, primarily due to a ratings drop. There was some pretty stiff ratings competition at the time, and the numbers went down and CBS pulled the plug. I was talking a minute ago about transitions in TV, and this show came out in the middle of a really important transition, especially for science fiction shows, and that was from the episodic to the more serialized.
So if you're not, if you don't remember what that means, you don't know what that means for a long time, uh, science fiction, especially, but a lot of TV shows were just sort of a challenge of the week and by the end of the episode, whatever problem they faced was wrapped up, right? This is pretty standard format and a lot of shows still use it today.
Uh, I think law and order. Is a good example of that. A lot of those, sometimes they do two parters, but basically there's a case. And by the end of the episode, they solve it. This particular show was trying to move in the direction of a serialized drama, which would be more like lost where yes, episodes of lost.
There were issues that were. Partially resolved maybe by the end of the episode, but really it's a, uh, a longer mystery. You have to watch the whole season or even really the whole show to get a, the complete story. And there are of course, presently tons and tons of shows like that, where they do six to 12 episodes.
It's just one story and there's not really any kind of definitive end at the end of any episode. Um, so, uh, you know, looking back, the critics didn't like the show casual TV viewers really do not fall in love with it, but sci fi fans really do still love it and rate it extremely highly. It's presently sitting on 94 percent on the Google rating system for TV shows.
Uh, any thoughts so far on any of that stuff?
Steve: Yeah, I think that's the idea of this Mark Schiff. I hadn't thought about that to the serialized. Series, because I, it was something that seemed to transition pretty smoothly, but I'm wondering if this transition was all that smooth in terms of the audience's mind, you know, where they so used to episodic TV, like X Files is another example, you know, it seems like.
We were talking about Netflix, that Netflix was, uh, has been pushing that concepts recently so much in terms of what they really push you to watch. They really want you to watch those types of, um, series as opposed to movies, which I always find pretty interesting
Jason: when I log in. One of the reasons why I picked this series is because I think, and I don't think I recognized it at the time, but I think janky mix.
Like it's such a clear, it's like a, what do you call it? Transitional fossil, you know, between, especially in science fiction, which has gone very boldly into serialized, not all of it that, you know, like, uh, what are the Orville still kind of makes fun of a little bit of the episodic stuff, but it's really a, I mean, okay.
Star Trek, next generation for Star Trek, Picard, great example, Star Trek, next generation. Every week there's an issue. Oh, here come these aliens up now. We've got it under control. No problem. Next week's kind of like a reset. There were some serialized elements, but it was very episodic. Star Trek Picard. It is just one long episode, basically one long story that runs through the whole season.
So it was this show came out on the heels of lost. Interestingly, and lost is very Transcribed Very serialized, but the shows like law and order were doing really well. So I think CBS kept pushing for this to stay episodic. Like we want the team to be presented with a challenge. We want them to kind of wrap it up by the end.
And it's okay if there's a background mystery, but that's really what we want. And we want 20 something episodes, right? It was probably what they were aiming for, for the season. But you can feel the story, like trying to build and maintain momentum, trying to leave. Things open at the end. It's like, yes, we stopped this, but that's kind of irrelevant because now it introduces new problems and up, we've got to wrap it up with a cute little back and forth and make it feel like it's a happy ending.
Uh, and it just didn't work. And I don't think it's their fault. I think they just came out at exactly the wrong time, or they just had the wrong cooks, uh, sticking their spoons into the pot. Yeah,
Steve: it's, it's a show. I, I feel that is, it has a hard time understanding what it is. Like, it's, it's quirky at points, it's trying to be serious at points, but I don't think those quirky parts kind of work for whatever reason, it's kind of, it pulls you out of the action.
I also thought the soundtrack, especially in the beginning, was really... Really pulled you out of, of what was happening. It didn't seem to fit the action. Mmm. I don't know if you noticed the
Jason: same thing. Are you talking about the pop songs they used or are you talking about the, uh, the, the like, uh, incidental?
The
Steve: pop songs. Okay. That they used. So I
Jason: They seemed very out of place. Yes. I ignore that. It doesn't bother me because it's of its time.
You know, like that's that kind of music that they pulled that pop culture stuff that they slapped on. That was a sign of a good show because they could afford actual popular songs and it was engaging. So I think that was just sort of a of its time. Issue, but you're absolutely right there. This show does have it wanted to be something else like the a good example of what you're saying is there's a lot of body horror stuff in there and it's, it's pretty creepy, but then they have those like sort of silly moments as well.
And it's like, pick a lane. Yeah. And their
Steve: banter about their private lives, right? Right. I found, like, very distracting, I don't know, because it wasn't really engaging, you know? Right. Um, yeah, I don't know. It's, it's a show that doesn't really, I don't know, I, I love the concept. So conceptually, I think it's a show that That really works, but I just don't find the execution so engaging that I would want to watch season two.
Jason: Yeah, I think that's where a lot of typical TV fans at the time landed. I think initially they were like, this could go somewhere, this could be good. And then it. Just didn't they landed where you landed. So how about a brief summary for the the stuff you watched you watch? I think the pilot right like the first two so yeah the first two so
Steve: Yeah, naval ship comes across an alien kind of like an what we call that an alien craft or alien shape that keeps shifting The government quickly discovers this They put together a team led by Carla Gugino, and the team involves, you know, engineering, astrophysics, your typical squad of experts to investigate this, and they call it Project Threshold.
As the story continues, it becomes, they keep unraveling the mystery behind what this shape might mean. They're trying to figure out whether it's a threat or whether it's not a threat, and quickly we discover that there's been murders, or the ship's crew. Has been murdered except for one kind of mysterious character that escapes as the show continues.
We also realize that this core core members of the team have been infected kind of like a say like a DNA shifting or their cells are shifting like the DNA within them that is shifting somehow, but we're not really sure how and that's simply because they watched a video that was taken by one of the ship's crew.
who are on board. So it really centers about around this team investigating this alien ship and this mysterious character that runs, that escapes from the ship. And, um, yeah, that's, that's basically it without giving too much away.
Jason: Yeah, that was good. All right. So we're introduced at the beginning of the first episode to Molly McCaffrey.
She's a contingency analyst who develops a disaster response plans for the government. She works at a think tank. She's an independent contractor and she's written a lot of plans. She's initially giving a lecture, I think about one of them. When this UFO appears next to this Naval vessel off the East coast of the United States and the Atlantic ocean, the government quickly calls in.
Molly, because she's the one who wrote the contingency plan for a first contact scenario with aliens that may or may not be hostile. We find out when the team arrives that the alien UFO emitted a signal and that signal resulted in the death of most of the crew pretty horribly. Right? And the one of the crew members had a video camera, so they have visual evidence of the alien probe and the signal itself.
So you mentioned that some of the threshold, the assembled team, the government team that's assembled to respond to this, led by Molly, they are exposed to the signal. That's how. They watch that videotape and as soon as they start having headaches and, uh, you know, I think nosebleeds or whatever from this, from watching it on a VHS, they stop the tape.
But to some extent the damage is done and they're now partially altered by this signal. They're also the team responsible for stopping the spread of the signal, and it's visually represented by this cool fractal pattern that pops up in multiple places throughout the series. Uh, and it represents, I think, not just the alien signal, but also its impact on how, uh, or how, I guess, its impact on technology and biological lives and, uh, you know, electricity, things like that.
So, um, any other thoughts about the pilot? What was your reaction? Anything else about it that stood out to you?
Steve: Um, I think I thought the concept of just what would happen. In an alien encounter, how would this work, you know, I, I was asking myself, what is the contingency plan for this? Is there one that exists?
Jason: Right? There's gotta be. Yeah. But what,
Steve: what would it be? Right? Would it be similar to this? Is this based off of real life or is this pure science fiction, the way they, they would handle this? Because a lot of the, the points they make in the beginning of the show are that, you know, it could cause chaos. If society knew about it, which makes a lot of sense, there is also this idea that they don't want the North Koreans knowing about this, right?
So there's the geopolitical aspect of it. Yeah. And what team would be assembled? And why? So there were a lot of questions that I had, but I thought the, the idea behind it was, was a good one. It's nothing that we haven't really seen before, but that's many years later, right? Like, I don't, I didn't really have good reference between like, that, that show.
And what came before it besides, I guess, close encounters of the third kind.
Jason: Uh, so, uh, just as an example, uh, World War Z talks about contingency planning a lot. Uh, there's a novel by Michael Crichton called Sphere, which is a similar setup. Dustin Hoffman starred in the, uh, film. And it's a contingency planning for first contact with aliens.
You know, they assemble a team, they keep it secret, military involvement, top secret, et cetera, et cetera. So yeah, I mean, that is, it's not so much a trope, but it does pop up often enough that it's not, I mean, it's a cool setup. It's an excuse to do extreme things. Yeah. And
Steve: it makes me think about, you know, how would we communicate or would, you know, would an alien life form be able to communicate with humans?
Right. And maybe the planning around
Jason: that. Yeah. Yeah. I think the arrival did that well recently. Yeah. And kind of interpreting
Steve: that conversation. And also, what was it? Hail Mary was another one.
Jason: Yeah. Hail Mary is a great example there. Yeah. Which
Steve: I think is going to be a movie sometime soon. Right? Should be.
I would assume. Yeah. It was a great novel. Oh yeah. For sure. But yeah, what were your thoughts about the pilot? I
Jason: think there's a lot that's really good about this show and a lot that, that only kind of works. The thing that drew me to this really to, to talk about it here is that there was an awesome momentum.
Initially, like there there's it's a race against time for those of you who haven't seen it. The signal is essentially bioforming Earth and bioforming life on Earth, not terraforming. It may be doing that that pops up later in the series, but the initial focus is that. The signal emitted by this object alters living things.
It changes their DNA so that they slowly change into this alien life. And it's essentially their way of creating a colony. They don't just kill all the humans, right. And wipe out all the indigenous life on a planet. They send a probe that changes the life. Into more of them, so it seems like it might change the animals and the plants into the kinds of animals and plants, presumably from their home world, and it changes the sentient life into sentient life from their home world.
We don't know that for sure, but that seems like, like, that's kind of the theory of the threshold team, so I think that's a really cool, interesting idea, and I also really like how this signal can infect. Life using all these different mechanisms, right? It can use technology. It can use sound. It can, I mean, it can use, um, like a biological substrates like it can all these different vectors and avenues.
It's almost impossible to contain. And as an audience member, I was very aware that these people, as smart as they are, as capable as they are, And all the resources at their disposal, they just don't know what they're dealing with and they're fighting a losing battle. They're getting worn out. They're getting tired and they're discovering every episode that there are more ways in which this thing is seeping through their net, like through the cracks and spreading further and.
And the stakes are getting higher and higher. As the episodes go on, they have to take more and more dramatic action to try to slow it down, only to find out later that it didn't work, or it only partially worked. Uh, so, I really love that. Uh, about the pilot and about the first few episodes, but it, it loses that momentum.
The series slows down, uh, time starts to pass, like instead of it being the first few episodes are like a week, right? Suddenly it's two weeks and then it's several weeks and you know, people are living their lives on the team. They're, they're going off and doing other things. And I just think that was a major mistake.
They should have kept the timeline a lot tighter. Yeah, I
Steve: agree that whole idea of a probe being sent is a very unique, unique concept I think in in sci fi or at least sci fi series that I've ever seen because it's always the alien invasion, right? It's never never a probe that would come and basically change earth to fit the mold of this alien Alien race.
Yeah. The other part that I found kind of interesting was the dynamics between the team and the Charles Dutton character. He seemed very out of the loop to me for someone who was put in charge of Threshold. Did you get that, that feeling? Yeah. Like the core group was involved in the researching and investigating, but he asked a lot of questions that he should, he should just know, you know, it almost seems like he's like the second one or the last one to ever know.
What's happening? I don't know if you
Jason: noticed that. No, I I took him as the like representation of bureaucracy So he's kind of the like old school like I guess I've got a run another project You know, so he doesn't really understand stuff and it was an opportunity for exposition But I sort of took that as like a government thing like that would make sense that somebody who really is not an expert would Be in charge, you know,
Steve: I think what you yeah I think what you just said is is what I was getting at before The show seemed like everything was just an opportunity for exposition, whether it was necessary
Jason: or not.
Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think some of that exposition probably really interested me, and we'll talk about why in a minute, but I imagine for a casual TV viewer, it was not that interesting, and it made the show feel slower or less interesting or maybe boring.
Steve: Especially with their home
Jason: lives. You've mentioned that a couple times.
Yeah. Um, I, I think that was an attempt to really round out and humanize the characters instead of just making them experts, you know, competent experts to give them quirks and challenges and conflicts. Um, but I don't know. I imagine you're thinking specifically about Rob Benedict's, uh, pending wedding. Is that one of the things?
Yeah, that was one of the things and
Steve: making like Peter Dinklage kind of like this, like pervy. Yeah. Okay. Character. Seem kind of unnecessary and kind of dated, like something you wouldn't really see now. For no apparent reason, it seemed like to me, like it was just, I mean, maybe the reason being that it was like, they thought they were just having humor, but to me it was just kind of, I don't know.
It was kind of a letdown in terms of creating such a like a sophisticated character in every other area of his life But then having him be kind of kind of a base
Jason: Character. Yeah, let's talk about that for a second. So Peter Dinklage plays the resident expert in what is it? Mathematics and computers and languages.
I think yeah, right. So he's genius level intellect and incredibly knowledgeable in all three things On the personality side, they created a character who is pretty lecherous, like gambling, you know, prostitutes, um, a little bit immature regarding, you know, sexual attraction, kind of adolescent boy commentary there from him, um, but a decent person, seems like he cares about his teammates, uh, maybe he's been a little isolated in his life, uh, I think that pretty much sums him up.
Anything you would add to that character?
Steve: Um. No, I mean, I'd say super, super intelligent, but just, you know, in his private life, not so, not so great a, a character, even though he, he really cares about the team and eventually the mission that he's on.
Jason: So this sort of lecherous genius is not fundamentally different from his Game of Thrones character.
It's a good point. Yeah, so do you feel like this character did not work for you? Is that kind of what you're saying there?
Steve: I think the way that character was drawn in Game of Thrones It made him feel much more well rounded and complex and I guess because he could see his behavior On both sides that really really added to his to his well rounded portrayal, but with this it's kind of just Random commentary here and there so you're not seeing him do what he's talking about, which I think just falls kind of flat.
Jason: Yeah. So this is a really unusual opportunity to separate out character actor and writing. Or like performance, I guess, verse writing. So Peter Dinklage having done, having played two characters that are very similar in a lot of ways, uh, in two roles around the same time in his career, uh, one right after the other, you can take a look at where the problem might be.
Right. I don't think it's in choosing. An actor for that role. I think he was a good fit for both roles. I don't think it was, um, in his acting. I think, I think the problem here was that the, the writing for the character didn't really work in this show. And I think that's what you're saying. And I hadn't really thought of it that way, but listening to you now, I think that's really clear, right?
Yeah. I think it was a
Steve: writing issue for sure. Cause I think he is, you. You can really see in Game of Thrones how phenomenal an actor he is. Truly.
Jason: So I agree. With a very similar character.
Steve: Very similar character, but much better writing. In Game of Thrones that gave him, you know, that, I mean, the best way to say it is really made him extremely well
Jason: rounded.
Yeah, it gave the actor a stage to perform on. It gave him a meaty role to show his, you know, strengths, um, and his ability as talent. Threshold did not. I liked him in Threshold, and I really, it didn't occur to me to criticize that too much, but you're right, the character is flatter, uh, less well written, for sure, and I think that is a, it's, it's probably a good thing this was cancelled, certainly for him, so that he could move on.
To a better role. In fact, if, if I were the producers of game of thrones and I saw this performance, I'd be like, you know what? I know he can play this role. I think we can write it better. Or I think it's written better in the novels. So let's cast him and see what happens. Or at least bring him in, you know, to try it.
And then he. Probably killed it. So yeah, really interesting. Very rare. I don't know how often you get an opportunity to compare things so directly. Yeah.
Steve: Yeah, for sure. I mean, I think, you know, the actors are all are all talented in this show. Was there any actor that took you out of? Out of the show, or you thought that wasn't as strong as the other characters?
Mmm,
Jason: I don't know if I would blame the acting, um, I thought Brian Van Holt's character, the uh, Kavanaugh, the like, paramilitary guy, I I think some... Of the direction for him was probably too wooden or stiff. Uh, and I think he was supposed to be implied as a romantic potential romantic, uh, partner for the lead for Molly.
Um, and I just don't think he was given the vulnerability or like written. The right way, but I don't know if it was the actor. I know he's done a lot of other stuff, so I'm assuming he's pretty talented, but I think that character felt particularly wooden to me. And I think Rob Benedict's, uh, Lucas Pegg, the, the sort of a neurotic engineer.
I think there were times when he was kind of whiny that I felt like was a little bit much. Um, but I think that's just a matter of personal preference. I really don't think that's a problem necessarily with the characters or the actors. What do you think? I think
Steve: with the Kavanaugh character especially, I think with those types of CIA, paramilitary characters in these shows, they always seem to play by the same rule book, you know?
Or they always have, they're always basically the same character put in a different show. You basically know all about them. Before they say one word, you know, they're always, and they're not, they never seem very well fleshed out to me. They seem very cookie cutter. Sure. Stereotypically
Jason: so. Yeah, and I just don't think you can do that in a show like this.
Right off the bat, that character needs to have some interesting mysteries in the past or quirks or, you know, an unexpected vulnerability or something about them that that draws you in as a viewer and keeps you interested in that character. And it just wasn't there. It starts to creep in later, but I don't know, maybe they were just too focused on building the other characters in the story.
to really work on him too much. What I really
Steve: did like about the show, though, was this idea that the investigators also have their, have also been infected. Yes. Yeah. I thought that was very unique. You know, a lot of times, especially with a show like this, the investigators, once they've established their personality types and, and what their main motivations are, That's it.
It becomes a straight mystery. They're investigating the case, but infecting them, I thought was a really, really good twist on the
Jason: genre. Yeah, it was interesting because they sort of tried to play it as a bit of a strength, but I was surprised that the, uh, the government didn't replace them because they've presumably been compromised.
And they're open about it, like they admit like, Oh yeah, I'm having these dreams and these, you know, infected humans can visit me in dream and, you know, ruin my sleep and they can track me down. They can sense my presence, like, well then replace them, you know, but I guess the idea of being, she's the only one, right?
She's the it girl, she's, uh, she can only, the only one can run the show. So if they replace her, it'll fall apart. I don't know how realistic that is, but again, this is not a realistic scenario, so maybe it doesn't matter.
Steve: Do you think that infection should have come later in the show to add another bit of, of drama or, or just make, I guess, more climatic moments later on in the
Jason: show?
I think there are more interesting ways to do it. And I'm very aware that this is a Monday night quarterback situation. So if I was in the writer's room before this came out, I think I might have left it the way it was, or I wouldn't have fought too hard. But looking back now, uh, I think, yeah, it would have been a lot better to have that be revealed later, maybe more slowly, uh, and maybe lead to more significant problems once it's revealed.
Steve: Yeah, I like the idea of it leading to more significant problems with the bureaucratic part of the government, you know, because it gives you the opportunity for the side investigation that's not sanctioned by the government.
Jason: Oh, yeah, yeah. Right. And also someone within the government investigating the team.
So you have those kind of layers of espionage and spying that could be really interesting too. And
Steve: in fighting within within the team
Jason: itself, right? And the audience adds another layer, the audience not being sure about people's motivations and how influenced they are since they've been exposed. Right.
Steve: Exactly. But, you know, since we're, we weren't hired for this show, we're, uh, We're going to have to make up our own, our own script
Jason: to the series. Well, and we should talk a little bit about what we would do with this intellectual property or with these ideas and dress them up in new intellectual property at the end.
Uh, I did want to mention briefly, this is a post 9 11 show and not so much. In the pilot, but throughout the 13 episodes, it really shows for sure. Like they talk a lot about the new government agency, Homeland Security. A lot of the, um, people they run into are, they mentioned terrorism a lot. It comes up.
Uh, you know, even the criminals are willing to cooperate with Homeland at times, because there's sort of the spirit of America versus terrorists. So it doesn't matter if you stole some stuff, like terrorism so much worse, you'll cooperate, admit to stealing if it helps Homeland, you know, that sentiment was pretty strong.
For years after nine 11. Um, so it was interesting to see that woven into a show and it made sense to do that because this show is very much about the fears that people had at the time. Like Americans felt at times vulnerable in a lot of different ways, not necessarily due to a plane hitting a building.
Like people, as I recall, didn't worry about that as much, but this show just one by one hits on all the things that did scare them. Like genetic, genetically modified organisms, uh, you know, attacks on the power grid or the water supply, um, pandemic, new technology, viruses, yeah, pandemics, all that kind of stuff.
It just pops up episode after episode, and I think the show did a great job capitalizing on those fears and presenting them in a way that was entertaining. It makes me think
Steve: of another movie that came out around the same year, Red Eye, with, uh, Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy. Yeah. And how that was really a movie of its time, after 9 11, with an extremely simplistic plot, very much driven by some pretty good acting, in a pretty tight,
Jason: tight script.
Yeah, there were a lot of shows like that, or this, this theme or this element popped up in a lot of movies and TV shows. And it was, uh, it was interesting, uh, to watch it and not be in the middle of it like I was last time, but instead to have a little bit of a retrospective percept, uh, perspective on it.
Um, so. Yeah, interesting there too. And again, it's in all the episodes pretty much. I mean, it comes up a lot, a lot, a lot, right. So I also wanted to touch briefly on something I really enjoyed that probably you didn't as much but The episodes have some pretty cool science in them And they do I think a good job handling it with appropriate brevity like they don't Say things that are just really obviously wrong that much, at least not by the standards of the science at that time.
And they don't spend a ton of time saying stuff until they hit something that's wrong. You know, they just sort of reference it or show it and give you just enough that you can go learn some more if you're interested. So the original probe, for example. is a four dimensional object. That's why, when they look at it, it appears, like it appears next to the, uh, naval vessel.
It looks like it's moving, but in a way that's sort of folding in and out of itself. That's because it exists in four dimensions, but we can only perceive three dimensions. So, even though it exists as a solid shape, it's moving. In four dimensions, and we only see the parts of it that appear in the third dimension or the three dimensions when it, when it crosses with that plane.
So it's sort of like a two dimensional being would perceive a three dimensional object and only see part of it at a time. So I thought that was really interesting and it comes up a few times. Um, there's also talk about fractals and chaos theory, which had been popularized by, uh, Jurassic Park. In Michael Crichton, and they don't beat that concept to death, but there's some interesting, you know, math and science involved in that.
And of course, another major feature is the triple helix, uh, where they talk about our DNA as a double helix. And this particular alien signal, uh, I guess, adds or reconfigures DNA into, you know, a third strand and, um, affects people, you know, can, um, Kill them horribly, mutate them, distort their bodies. Um, and in some rare cases, it just starts the process to change them into these alien beings.
Steve: So no, I really enjoyed the science in this one. I really enjoyed how, um, a primetime show handled it. How they didn't go too deep into the concepts, but they talked about it enough that you understood that these were professionals and specialists in their fields. The one question that I, that I had while I was watching it, I wasn't really familiar with all of the terms.
Yeah. Right. Fractals, yes. Chaos theory, yes. And four dimensional objects, et cetera. But I was wondering if some of the science was just thrown in there. Some of the, some of the scientific jargon that they were using was just thrown in there for effect. Right. In that part, I, I wasn't a hundred percent sure on and I think a casual viewer.
Yeah. Would definitely have those questions. Yeah.
Jason: And I'm not an expert in everything. I can tell you that it, I didn't have that reaction. None of it seemed like just thrown in. Um, but I imagine a lot of people to that, you know, that might help explain in part why it's so popular with people who like science fiction.
Uh, and it's just not. I don't think, I mean, maybe there's a growing popular, you know, phenomenon here that I'm not aware of, but to my knowledge, you know, the average viewer isn't going to watch all 13 episodes even today, even though it's free on YouTube, by the way. So, yeah, yeah. I, I, it's, it sucks because if this was on the right network.
Restructured the show is restructured as more serialized. I think I think it really could have drawn a pretty rabid audience Yeah, and you could go into
Steve: those scientific concepts a little bit more. Mm hmm, which I would have appreciated Yeah, because there's such you know Complicated concepts that it would be nice if they could get into it a little bit more show some examples of it Maybe just have more exposition around it.
Yeah, I think that would create a much more rounded well rounded show Yeah from a scientific standpoint or from the investigative side of the
Jason: of the plot. Absolutely Yeah, so I think this show has great bones. It just needs a modern retelling and on that note What would what changes would you make? I think you've mentioned a few but if if you were gonna Maybe, maybe you change, like maybe it's not an alien invasion.
Uh, maybe it's a different kind of setting, but you want to keep a lot of the really cool mythology, like juicy, you know, potential for more storytelling, the science and some of the other great elements, or maybe you just want to reboot this for a streaming network. What would you change? What would you focus on?
What would you develop more of and less of?
Steve: I think for the key group of characters, after this discovery is made, I would delve more into each one of those characters to show more of their backstory, to show more of their specializations and how that fits within the story. The, the bigger scheme of the plot.
So when they are interacting with each other, you get this feeling that you really do already know them. Yeah. Which I think would make a, for a much richer show. That's a great idea. I think in terms of the plot, I think the way it was structured in terms of this mystery, I think he could lengthen out the mystery.
Mm. And have more of these twists coming in later, like we were talking about, having more intrigue later on in the series to kind of give it those emotional spikes. The infighting within the team itself, a different course of action, maybe, you know, kind of a coup against the, uh, Carlo Gugino character who's running the show.
Mm hmm. So I think there, there are different ways I think you could tweak this, but I think in all the scenarios I can think of, it would have to be a much longer show. In order to, in order to really make it work, because I think I like, there are things that I do like about this show in terms of what you said earlier about the pacing, how it was rapid fire in the beginning, and we jump right into it, but I think for a topic this complex, I think there is a lot of, a lot to say.
When it comes to developing the characters more fully, who are going into this, this larger scale investigation, because I think it leaves you with a lot of different directions to move the plot forward. You have a lot more choice, you know, especially if you want to make it a, you know, a multi season series.
That's what I would do. I think
Jason: overall, yeah, that's great. And you hit on one of the things I wanted to say as well. The mystery. I think initially there's great mystery, but then as it settles into more of an episodic format, the mysteries sort of feel. Um, like they're in a place where it's okay for now, like we don't really know, but you know, we can operate based on these assumptions and then there are little mysteries, but I think it would be a lot better to keep bigger mystery.
Like, what are the aliens doing? Why are they doing this? Uh, you know. Uh, just lots and lots of mysteries, um, like more modern sci fi shows do like every week. Like, I think Lost was a good example of this up to a point, maybe they overdid it, but splitting the difference I think would be really good. I'm interested in what you said about characters and backstory.
Could you pick a character and give me a little bit of an idea of what you could hypothetically have done or do with that character to enrich the plot going forward? I
Steve: think with the Peter Dinklage character, that would be one I would just, just picking off the top of my head. I think you could develop him and his vices a little bit more, kind of showing that portion of him, because I think I alluded to that, to that before about, His Game of Thrones character, you see his vice, but you also see his brilliance and in this show, it leaves out the vice part and just kind of quickly, quickly alludes to it in the beginning and kind of just his random comments.
So it makes his character a little one dimensional. So, so his backstory. I mean, I. I could see him like getting in trouble academically with his peers, et cetera, doing some controversial things, maybe giving a speech which goes viral on, on the internet where he kind of gets canceled and I mean, just off the top of my head, things like that I think would add a lot more nuance to his character
Jason: overall.
So you're making them a little less, um, you're making them a little more, I don't know, extreme, less likable. I don't know how to put that because like is so subjective, but okay. So the characters are sequestered to work on this issue. How are you showing that? And what are you showing
Steve: when, when they're
Jason: sequestered?
Right. So is this flashbacks? Uh, is this interviews dialogue? Like, I mean,
Steve: in the, in the version that I was thinking, it was actually linear. So the beginning of the show was, was going into the lives of these different scientists. And then we get to this point when there's an emergency, but yeah, I could see it happening as a flashback.
There's a movie that I think of, I mean, such a, a popular movie, but like in the first Indiana Jones, I think does a great job of balancing. I've heard of it. It's a good one. Balancing the adventure portion of Indiana Jones and having his backstory as a professor play, interplay so well. So the beginning is showing his life as a professor and his motivations for what he's, for trying to find these artifacts and his, his obsession with it.
And then we go into the action and it just, there's so much to draw from. So that's what I was thinking of the model I was thinking of when I was thinking of improving the show.
Jason: Yeah, yeah, I can. So my brain is kind of lighting up with ways that like, for example, if he was a college professor was fired for sleeping with one of his students, then fast forward to he's now part of the threshold team.
And he's secretly because he's a computer genius and a language genius and a math genius. He's secretly still communicating with this grad student. And maybe he actually arranges. To meet up with her while he's chasing this alien virus in Boston. Right. And he sort of disappears after they resolve or in the middle of it, when there's nothing for him to do.
Then they find him in a hotel room with this woman because he's got a sex addiction or he doesn't really, you know, his. Problems are just more serious than they were portrayed here. Um, so yeah, I think that that would add some interesting Elements for uh, different audience members to grab hold of I like that
Steve: That's really good.
It could kind of drive the plot forward. Let's say he tells her a little bit too much about the project For whatever reason. Oh, sure. You know? And then there's that loose end that needs to be tied up or plot, plotline that needs to be followed. So, I think by setting up a show that really enriches the characters and shows them as more well rounded, I think it just gives you a lot more, and flawed, it gives you a lot more opportunity to go on smaller tangents away from that main plot when that main plot gets kind of bogged down.
In itself. Yeah.
Jason: Sure. Yeah. I like that. And it creates this sort of contrast, uh, between this, uh, sort of perfect threat, which is just marching along and leading to an apocalypse, like building slowly all around them. And it's clever or it's, um, hard to understand it. It's almost like developing and evolving versus these M the imperfections of humanity, right?
Right. Even well meaning, even brilliant, even determined, they, they're still human and their failures, their weaknesses can, you know, lead to tragedy. The original concept, as I read online for this was season one or the first two seasons were going to be threshold, then they were going to rename the series.
To foothold, um, because in that section or in that season or seasons, the aliens now had a foothold. There were parts of the world where they were established, uh, and then the last season or the last chunk was going to be called stranglehold where humans were going to be oppressed. By the aliens. And it was going to be like freedom fighters trying to get the earth back.
So they were really going to escalate this to apocalyptic levels. And that may be one of the things that drew me to it. But I think if you redid a series like this and you made one of the themes, these sort of like, it's like human faults, you know, uh, like, you know, pointing out that we're not so great and maybe these aliens are better.
In some ways, we've got to deal with our own faults in order to like combat them. And maybe some characters don't really believe in humanity so much, especially when you get to the stranglehold part of the story. But yeah, so I like that. And the mystery, I'm sorry. Do you know if these scripts were written?
No, I don't think so. I think they just did. They had like a show Bible and probably sketched out. Broadly what they would do but um, I don't know if they actually wrote scripts probably not I would think I think they probably have Scripts or had scripts in some form or another through one full season and then after that I imagine they they just have notes But I don't know maybe maybe somebody wasted a ton of time or recycled it into other shows possibly who knows So yeah, those are all really good changes I, you know, again, I've said this, but the maintaining the momentum, I think would be really, really key.
It's just, it's got to be a race against time. It's got to feel like every time they have a win, there's a setback. We learn more and more about this bioforming infection that just keeps escalating the audience members fear and tension. You know, as an audience member for this, I was very aware that even though we're focused on a...
A window of what's happening in this world. There were other things happening in the ocean and other parts of the country and maybe in other countries where it was getting out of control. So that, that really, for me was kind of creepy and increased the, the tension of it. I, you know, I think, as I said, the show capitalized really well on the vulnerability that people were feeling at that time.
You got to update that. If you're going to do anything with that presently, you need to sit down and think about what makes people feel insecure now, what do they worry about, what are the things, the points of vulnerability that they perceive, and then work that into your story in a typical elevated sci fi way.
And I think that could be really cool. Yeah, definitely. Gotta weave them in. Yeah. Alright, anything else about Threshold, the TV series? No, I think that's it. All right. Uh, I really enjoyed this. Uh, you know, it's, it's great to go back and do an autopsy on a short run sci fi TV series. I have a feeling this will not be our most popular episode because it doesn't have a lot of name recognition.
But it was a lot of fun for me and I appreciate you putting the time in to, to dig this body up and go over it in detail. I really enjoyed it too.
Steve: Going grave, grave digging was, was a lot
Jason: of fun while we did this. Sci fi grave digging. That's, I think, a great way to put it. Uh, so for the audience, uh, any questions come to mind, anything you'd want to hear
Steve: from them into a movie and if they did, would they keep the exact plot or how, what would they, uh, what would they change
Jason: and what would they keep?
Yeah, this could be a good film, you know, really fast paced, really high intensity, good mystery. Maybe they'd rather see it as a series, maybe a limited series, you know, just a few episodes, uh, five, two hour episodes or something like that. Uh, I don't know. Yeah. I'd love to hear what people think about that.
And I also would like to hear what anyone who's listening thought worked about this show and what didn't. So if you watched it and you remember it, uh, or even just listening to us, like what appealed to you, what do you think would work or did work? And what really didn't, what fell flat? Like there was a lot of cheesy dialogue.
There were a lot of really bad lines. You know, that were sort of painful to listen to. Maybe that stood out to you. So as always, thank you to the people who made this project that we talked about today. Thank you to the listeners. Please don't bother to like subscribe or any of that stuff. See you next week, everybody.