Chuck vs. The Ex (2.06)

Another episode with Chuck starting in a funk.  And while this episode is quite funny in places, Chuck saves the day again, and “B” plot plays well; for obvious reasons this manages to be one of my least favorite episodes of season two.  After the jump, we’ll discuss “Chuck vs The Ex.”

I do not mean to suggest this episode is awful.  When it first ran, it was clearly my least favorite Chuck episode to date.

This looks like trouble!

But I have never skipped it when doing full re-watches, and I do still find it funny is several places.  Sarah/Yvonne remains an effective dramatic “heavy”, and in some ways this episode (and the whole arc!) is all hers.  I think my favorite moments would be Sarah’s scenes in the van, both with Casey, then later with Chuck.  Her volunteering to do the dangerous presentation (which is really an obvious thing for her to do, even if Chuck did act like a jerk in getting her to do it!), the presentation itself (gee, Sarah can do Australian, who’d o’ thunk it…), Sarah’s chase down of the Fulcrum agent, then her reaction to Chuck and Jill’s kiss and subsequent phone call are all stand out moments.

Chuck kissing Casey may be the funniest moment of the episode, in a very uncomfortable sort of way.


But I think my favorite laugh out loud moment is Jeffster’s amazing diversion so Morgan can steal the test answers.  Rabies and panties are both very funny moments.

But really I don’t have much more to say this week. I have a strong bias against love triangles regardless, and those on Chuck always particularly rub me wrong.  Why do we want to see the star of the show get involved with a guest star?

A true highlight

This is the very definition of pointless and doomed to me.  The highlights I mentioned are more about trying to salvage something than actual enjoyment.  This is clearly an episode I would rank as weak, and I’ll leave more involved comments for others.

~ Dave

Cat Fight!

Awww. Really, Dave? Don’t you remember how excited we were? The ‘net and the NBC boards were abuzz for a week about that great cat-fight between Sarah and Jill in the Buy More and…

Oh wait. That was between the dummies. And we certainly were (dummies, that is)! I think that rumor was the last time I took spoilers seriously at all. To paraphrase Roger Dultrey, I won’t get fooled again!


I don’t think we knew it at the time, but there was a lot riding on Chuck vs. The Ex. If I may recap, Chuck and Sarah were in a good place, and had been for a few weeks. Well, yes, at Chuck’s insistence (and with a minor shove from Bryce), Chuck had officially “broken up” with Sarah, and for real this time. That wasn’t easy, not because they had been a couple for so long, but precisely because they were just getting started.

Especially, as far as Sarah was concerned, they were just getting started. Somewhere between “He’s my guy!” and Heather’s unintentional taunt that she would never fall in love with a dorky guy, Sarah realized that she liked this dork uh, guy, who offered her hamburgers with extra pickles and didn’t pry too much into her past.

Then the dork went and proved that he’s a hero. Repeatedly. Somehow, Sarah thought she could pretend that she could put all that aside and just be a spy. So Chuck and Sarah mutually agreed to be “just friends.” Sure. That’ll work.

Actually, it did. For a couple of adventures, Chuck and Sarah actually did work together very nicely as friends. They even saved the world by their good work (or, at least they saved a few thousand people in the greater Los Angeles area). Maybe this LJBF‘ing isn’t so bad. In fact, we the viewers could easily believe that C&S were destined to stay that way for a long time.

But no. Chuck has a bad habit of pulling the rug out from under Sarah’s feet. If he’s not telling her point blank that life with her would never be normal, Chuck actively looks for someone to have that normal life with. First Lou the sandwich girl and then this Jill character. I told you there was a lot riding on this episode. Sarah’s wheels should have been turning! She certainly did not want to pretend any longer. If I were a gambling man, I would bet that as we open this episode, Sarah is on the verge of deciding that being “just friends” isn’t good enough.

Enter Jill Roberts, played by Jordana Brewster, and Sarah’s worst nightmare. She’s more than a blast from the past. She’s Chuck’s first love, which is always important. Worse, this is the second piece of the Bryce puzzle. He took her away from Chuck, which is treachery. Even if Bryce has been acquitted of the charge getting Chuck kicked out of Stanford for cheating, he’s still guilty of that treachery.

Doesn’t that make her Chuck’s worst nightmare? No. It means Chuck needs closure, and Sarah will certainly fail in her attempts to dissuade him from seeking that closure. So will Casey and Ellie. It’s a hopeless quest. Chuck is getting involved (again) with Jill and there’s nothing Sarah can do about it. As far as Sarah is concerned, she’s just learned that Chuck is no longer there for the asking.

So Dave, I ask you. Is that so bad???

Heh! Really. I mean, Jill is bright, accomplished (PhD in microbiology), exactly Chuck’s “type” (cute, petite, brunette) and before The Ex is over, we can see that she is just as taken with Chuck as he is with her. She should be. Chuck is charming when…

When he lies to her? When he tells her that he owns a chain of 16 (or 17, he can never remember which) computer stores and a Ferrari? Or does he charm Jill when he tells her he’s just a nobody who still cares? Clearly, both work, but telling the truth work better in her hotel room. We can see that The Truth ™ works better on Sarah too, because she’s listening in and can’t help but react to Chuck’s sincere apology.

The funny thing is, Jill finally persuaded completely when Chuck tells her the one thing that’s unbelievable; that he works for the CIA and that Sarah is (just) his partner. Chuck can’t even bring himself to tell Ellie that story; it’s so outrageous. There is only one other woman in Chuck’s life who understands, and Sarah’s not going to stand in his way.

Or will she? We may not like all the geometric shapes we see, Dave. But at this point in our story, I can’t imagine a better way to convince a Sarah Walker that a Chuck Bartowski is worth the effort.

While I can agree wholeheartedly that The Ex ultimately does not have the emotional impact of the episodes we’re going to see later in the season, I suspect that it’s only because it is not finished in these first 42 minutes. We know that what comes next contains a major emotional punch to the gut, a punch that makes all of “The Jill Trilogy” memorable. Jordana Brewster, with a performance that relies on equal parts sweetness, sexiness, intelligence and treachery, rises above all but the very best guest stars in the coming hours.

And what I love about it, is that Zac’s performance is equal to Brewster’s. Despite his obvious chemistry with Yvonne, I believe that their characters had a relationship in the past and are in the process of rekindling it. I believe that Sarah Walker is fighting jealousy. I believe she is affected to the core by what she sees in front of her.

And that cat-fight about which we heard rumors? I believe we saw that too, just in a much more subtle and dramatic way than any of us dummies ever expected.

But my absolute favorite thing about Chuck vs. The Ex is that we get to hear Yvonne’s native Aussie accent. I only wish we could have heard more!

– joe

Dave Again

Well Joe I agree, it was good to hear Yvonne speak Aussie for one brief scene.  Other than that…

I can’t really argue with any of your analysis.  I even would agree with saying I’m pretty happy with how this story plays out over the next couple weeks, and by the end of Gravitron I’m very happy with things.  But “The Ex” is not good entertainment to me.  It simply fails the fun test.  And of course that completely means Charah.  Although I can easily enjoy an episode where the romance isn’t front and center (Tom Sawyer and Murrrrder come to mind), I just don’t ever enjoy an episode where they are in such a bad place.  “Just friends” is an appealing story, but for me that story is all Chuck and Sarah, interlopers are not welcome.  I can’t argue with any of the creative decisions made on this one, the Jill story was obviously going to be told (man, I’d love to see a show though where the obvious triangle is not told, THAT would be brave story telling), and I even mostly enjoy the next two episodes.  But this episode just falls flat for me.  Rabies and a cute Aussie accent can’t save it.


About atcDave

I'm 54 years old and live in Ypsilanti, Michigan. I'm happily married to Jodie. I've been an air traffic controller for 31 years; grew up in the Chicago area, and am still a fanatic for pizza and the Chicago Bears. My main interest is military history, and my related hobbies include scale model building and strategy games.
This entry was posted in Season 2. Bookmark the permalink.

145 Responses to Chuck vs. The Ex (2.06)

  1. uplink2 says:

    This was the episode I started my Chuck journey with. What a long great ride it has been.

    • joe says:

      That puts you in a unique place, Uplink. You came in on one of the weaker episodes of a very strong season. At least, from standpoint of just these 42 min. plus commercials, you still found something to bring you back.

      Pretty cool.

    • anthropocene says:

      This was my first Chuck episode too! I’d been aware of the show, but for whatever reason, all the commercials for it I’d seen up to that point gave me the false impression that it was some sort of slapstick sitcom somehow related to spies. I stumbled into 2.06 while channel surfing, and the first thing I see is Jordana Brewster portraying a PhD biochemist. OK, worth staying for a while…then appears a beautiful and uber-competent blonde a**-kicking secret agent…and Chuck proves not to be the buffoon I misread from the 30-second sound bites—but an interesting and likable character with whom I immediately identified. So like uplink2 I was in…and it only got better as the season progressed! In hindsight I can agree “vs. the Ex” was not a signature S2 episode—but it was good enough.

    • Mel says:

      Heh, this was also the first episode that I saw! Even when I had no idea about the whole backstory, I could tell Jill was only going to be a small distraction. I remember feeling sorry for Chuck when Jeff and Lester embarrassed him during his date with Jill.

      After watching this I quickly downloaded (yes, evil me) the episodes I had missed and continued watching the show.

    • atcDave says:

      Wow, very interesting you guys. It’s funny both that it was the first for three of you, and that you all seem to agree its not one of the best. I’m just glad it was good enough you all stuck around!

      • Mel says:

        It’s not one of the best, that’s for sure. I don’t hate the Jill arc either, maybe that’s because it was the first thing I saw and I kinda just accepted it. Had I been following the show from the beginning, I would have probably reacted differently.

        Funny that anthropocene mentioned “slapstick sitcom somehow related to spies”, that’s exactly what I thought Chuck was too, before I actually started watching and discovered it was so much more.

      • anthropocene says:

        I guess I’d say that although I enjoyed S2 throughout, I wasn’t really committed to regular viewing until “take off your watch” sealed the deal for me for good and all.

      • atcDave says:

        “Take off your watch” is one of the all-time great television moments.

  2. FSL says:

    I really enjoyed that Chuck was growing as a proper hero on his own. But given that my main interest is in his relationship with Sarah, this relationship is doomed to fail anyway. The fact that Jill is Fulcrum adds little to the mix, just like Shaw.

  3. resaw says:

    Was it a weak episode? I agree that it was not my favourite. In particular, I almost stopped my re-watch last night so that I wouldn’t have to see Sarah’s reaction to the kiss Jill planted on Chuck after they saved the day with the antidote. This episode was again an Yvonne Strahovski tour-de-force, in my view. She just kills at the nuanced facial expressions throughout the show. Originally, I was using the word “jealousy” in mind to describe what she was feeling, but I think that what we saw from Sarah was sadness and heartbreak. Most heartbreaking of all, for me, was to see her lose that big smile; she sees Chuck come out safe and sound and then she sees “the kiss.” The positive side to this is that all of Sarah’s reactions to Jill are proving to her and to us that she does have “real feelings” for Chuck, even though, at the moment, Chuck has real feelings for Jill. This “just friends” thing is nonsense.

    Dave, I get that the love triangle thing is a silly cliched trope that will not last, but I’m thinking now that the Jill arc gives Chuck the closure he needs to move onto the next level of maturity in his life. He’s gotten his Stanford degree. That closed one source of misery we learned of from the pilot. Now, he’s dealing with Jill, which was the other major legacy of misery introduced in the pilot and highlighted once again at the top of this episode.

    It’s probably been talked about it in commentary of this episode from other times, but it’s fun to hear that Jill’s boss is none other than Guy Lafleur, the name of one of the outstanding players for the Montreal Canadiens, who led the team to five Stanley Cups during his career with them.

    When Chuck is startled by Jill’s presence, he pops up from under the table and shouts something about the “flange.” Would that be a Back to the Future reference?

    Jeff, Lester and Morgan: the B story was crazy. Morgan’s denial of “pervery” but confession of thievery was outstandingly funny. Are we to assume, by the way, that Jeff’s sacrificial swallow of the pen cap, which allows Lester and Morgan to pass the test, means that Jeff has to redo the test on his own time?

    Also really liked:
    Devon: Come on guys. What’s the matter with you?
    Jeff: I drink too much.
    Lester: My parents had impossible standards.

    Finally, how come, when Chuck flashes on “Wolf den” as a baddie, he did not recognize at that time that he was also Barry Rommell, CIA agent? Is this one of those “plot holes of the week”?

    • I agree. Of all the triangle arcs, this one was easily the best. I believed Chuck and Jill, and I was honestly suprised at how it turned out. But more than that, it’s a great arc for Sarah, as Dave mentioned.

      The reason I’ve always hated the triangle arcs was because of how badly Chuck handled them – especially when Sarah’s in one of the triangles. But Sarah handled this one with an incredible amount of maturity and consideration. Think about how hard this must be for her, and yet, she does nothing but aid Chuck’s relationship, because she’d rather he be happy than she be happy. It’s the ultimate sacrifice.

      The Buy More plot was so good here because they bounced it off the main storyline. Chuck goes to get into Jill’s room while Morgan sneaks into Ellie’s. Then they take the test for saving lives in a crisis while Chuck is actually saving lives in a crisis. I always prefer the B plots when they’re a warped version of the main plot.

      And of course, Chuck kissing Casey is an all-time favorite. Let me die with dignity!

    • joe says:


      I get that the love triangle thing is a silly cliched trope that will not last, but I’m thinking now that the Jill arc gives Chuck the closure he needs to move onto the next level of maturity in his life.

      That’s my take too. For me, that’s exactly why the episode, middling at best for a Chuck episode, still rises above most of what it available from other shows.

      I thought that I was the only one who might have remembered the original Guy LaFleur, Resew. I should have known better 😉

    • atcDave says:

      Funny Resaw that you admit to not liking this episode much then say it isn’t weak? For me that’s the very definition. Weak/strong like/dislike are completely parallel measures. I don’t really care about some writer’s need to close a story, what I choose to watch and enjoy is all about what I want to see. I think that’s the essence of entertainment. That’s not to say stories can’t take the occasional ugly turn, but that should always be carefully paced and adequately paid off. As I tried to say above; I think this arc IS well conceived, but this EPISODE is the weak link. Yvonne’s performance and the B plot are the highlights, but I still find this episode weak.

      • authorguy says:

        For me, I don’t care how well the relationships are constructed and paid off, if the story logic is incomplete I can’t take it. If the logic works I can see see what was meant and appreciate it, even if I think the logic should have gone a different way.

      • atcDave says:

        Marc I gather a lot of people feel exactly as you do. But to me the emotional component, liking/respecting the characters, and just all around fun; all are more important than story logic or continuity. Which DOES NOT mean those things don’t matter to me, they do. They just aren’t the main determinants in if I will like or dislike a particular show or episode.

      • authorguy says:

        It’s not the determining factor in whether I will like an episode, but it is in whether I will dislike it, like art depending on craft. Provided the story is complete, the characters and the relationships are what matter to me.

      • atcDave says:

        I’m not entirely sure what you mean; but if its just that construction, continuity and completeness all matter, just not as primary issues; then I agree.

        I recently re-watched all of Get Smart. It’s a fun show, but in the dumb slapstick sort of way. I could laugh and enjoy myself most episodes. But there is no real story or even consistent characters there. So there is virtually no emotional investment; partly because there is no reality to it, and partly because the characters are just caricatures. I was able to invest in Chuck first and foremost because the characters were real and likable. I wasn’t watching for story issues, but the story did need to be real enough to serve the characters and make a mostly consistent reality.

      • Robert says:

        Some of the things I wanted to say have been posted, but I’ll mention some again.

        I’m not crazy about that episode (I’m a Chuck and Sarah fan, and in fact, I prefer much more the next two), but I understand why TPTB did it. Before getting serious with Sarah, Chuck needed to have closure with his past. Sarah helped him with getting his diploma from Stanford, but since he “broke up” with her, he thought he might have a chance with a “normal” girl (mistake he’ll make again in Season 3.0). And then he tried to rekindle things with Jill.

        But it was bound to fail, because Sarah is in Chuck’s life to stay. And she will never let anyone hurt him, like she told Jill, he’s a good guy, and if she dares to hurt him, Sarah will end her. And you can see that Sarah is dead serious about that.

        There’s one little thing I really like; we can clearly see that Sarah really loves Chuck (even if she wouldn’t call it that way yet). See her smile at seeing Chuck being happy metamorphosing into a jealous, and heartbroken face. But she loved him so much that she kind of sacrificed herself for his happiness.

        As for the episode (or the show’s) faults, what I loved the most is the (character-driven) interactions between the characters, especially Chuck and Sarah. This is the best thing of the show, and quite frankly, I couldn’t care less about the “Mythology” (which is family related anyways), or the “perfect” (or less than perfect) continuity. Not that it’s not important, but it’s not all important. I mean, I don’t give a damn if Steven Bartowski did the first Intersect for Chuck in 1994 or 1995. Why? Because it’s not what is important. What is important is what is the effect on Chuck and his entourage.

        It really annoys me when some people are strongly implying that the show erred, or “that it didn’t reach it’s potential”; simply because the storyline wasn’t to their tastes, or not written tightly enough to their tastes; and not because it wasn’t good anymore…

      • atcDave says:

        I agree with most of that Robert, especially the relative importance of the mythology. I do prefer when the reality and continuity are tighter, but I know from a lifetime of watching television that time and resources often are in short supply. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a show that lasted more than a single season that didn’t have at least a few plot holes emerge. But as long as I can believe in the characters that only bothers me a little. And I’m sure by now everyone knows I think Chuck did a very good job of this except for one LONG arc…

        But I do take issue with one part of your comment Robert. I disagree about the “need” for such a story. I mean its all well and good that a point was made and a lesson learned. But sometimes life has such unresolved gaps. I had one very serious girlfriend before my wife, and a few briefer relationships. Does every one of those experiences need to be important or a revelation? Did I always get the “closure” I needed? Well no. Sometimes that’s just life.
        I actually find it tiresome sometimes when we see something set up for us like Jill. Usually when the idea/character is first introduced my thought is “I hope they get distracted before they come back to that…” And really that’s how I think life is. Not every hanging loose end gets returned to. Sometimes great lessons are learned by less predictable ways; like maybe Chuck could just fall in love with Sarah and realize she believes in him, and is better for him than Jill ever was. Then they could still introduce Jill at some point, and Chuck could honestly just wish her well with no particular need to get anything from her (and it still could have been quite dramatic if Chuck had to cultivate her trust, even though he never had any interest in doing so). I know I would have liked that story more than what we saw.
        Now I don’t want to make too big a thing of that. I really do like how the rest of the arc plays out, and we will really get some dynamite Yvonne scenes here. But I don’t buy into the “need” of it all. There is a writer’s need to return to the seeds they’ve planted. But I don’t believe that’s the same thing as a character’s actual needs.

      • I definitely think Chuck needed this arc, just like he needed Truth and Nemesis, neither of which I liked. We’ve got to return to context. In the Pilot, Chuck was a guy stuck in a rut because of Jill, Bryce and Stanford. He was literally stuck in place because he couldn’t move on.

        The spy life is forced on him, but look at where he stands in his real life – back in the exact same rut. It’s like Ellie said both here and in Truth: he needed to go back to his past to bury it. and realize what he had in Sarah.

        This whole time, he’s turned his “real life” into this idyllic vision with no lies, no deceit and no danger. But in reality, his normal life was just as screwed up, he just couldn’t see it. The only person who really treated him that way was Sarah, but Chuck had turned his past into a refuge.

        Sarah also needed this, but we’ll get to that later.

      • Ah, Robert. You’re a joy to read.

      • uplink2 says:

        Robert I will take on that comment about the show not reaching it’s potential in relation to the show not telling a storyline to their tastes or not written tightly enough etc. For me that wasn’t the case at all and it bothers me when folks try to characterize my criticism of S3 in particular simply because it wasn’t a story I wanted to see because Chuck and Sarah were not together. It wasn’t certainly but that was never my major issue. It was how it was done, traipsing back to TV troupe 101 with pointless LI’s to create false, forced and contrived drama and then doing it poorly with bad writing, bad casting and sweeping major plot developments and plot holes swept under the rug with matador style writing. It wasn’t a story I wanted to see but what made it truly the misery arc was it was done so poorly with much of the joy and potential of the show from season 1 and 2 thrown out the window. I enjoy some angst and character tension but it needs to be done well, in character, and not so contrived that you scream at the TV saying why and I still watching this garbage (hello Fake Name)?

        But in the case of the Finale though it wasn’t a story I wanted to see in the least, it was done extremely well with great in character performances, lots of true honest tension and edge of your seat drama. It was just 30 seconds too short for me. Eventually I will come to terms with that. I would have been ok with 12 and a half episodes of dark, angsty honest character growth and tension played by actors who can actually act. Real drama about the massive changes the 2.0 would force on our beloved show. There was huge potential there that was sadly disregarded and unrealized because they chose a more traditional TV troupe of another trip to the long since dry PLI well with actors cast based more on stunt casting than actual talent.

        The two big differences between season 2 and 3 were first, money and second the unavailability of Matt Bomer. Neither of those is an acceptable excuse for weak, plot hole ridden, writing where the great story elements that need to be shown are lost under the stench of the cliched trip back to the PLI well. The lack of money should not have had that big an impact on the writing. The special effects, the number of takes, the prep time certainly would be impacted. But the story shouldn’t have been and yet when TPTB discuss things the first thing they point to is money as it is the excuse they hide behind to cover their bad lazy writing, casting and execution of that story. Bomer was a loss certainly but remember he only was in basically 2 episodes in season 2 and it is still regarded by most as the best they ever did. Weak or average episodes like the one we are discussing here are much better than most of the first 13 of S3. The negatives about this episode pale against the weaknesses of about 8-10 episodes of S3 and a few from season 4.

        So for me it was never really about a story I didn’t want but about a story I didn’t want done poorly. The finale was a story I didn’t want but one done extremely well. It’s biggest weakness for me and for many I have talked with is that it took away much if not all of our desire to retake their journey again.

      • Robert says:

        Dave, I didn’t like that arc either.

        After it ended, I was just hoping it was the last bout of PLI’s we would see.

        You can imagine how “disappointed”, shall we say, I was when we got another round with Cole Barker’s appearance.

        As for the Jill arc, I was not very happy to watch it, though I loved the end of it (You tried to kill Sarah; You’re under arrest, Jill, and I’m breaking up with you.). Now don’t misunderstand me; I agree with you, it would’ve been so fun to see Chuck and Sarah sailing together, calmly, without a scratch and problems. But real live isn’t always like this, you know that. And it has never been like this between Chuck and Sarah, since Day 1.

        And, as Arthur said, Chuck is stuck. He cannot move on, as long as Jill’s stuff is still in the way as a stumbling block. Just watch how repressed and stuck in the past Chuck is in 1.01. That part of himself is still there. And as long as Chuck hasn’t got rid of that block, he cannot move on and get closer to Sarah. Just see how assertive and mature he becomes right after the Jill arc. He has risen to a new level of maturity.

        The Jill arc, while being difficult to watch, WAS necessary. The show was not just a romance, it was also a drama. It cannot just be puppies and rainbows! And if they always get through things without any problems, it’s just not interesting in the end. So I respectfully disagree with you. Where I completely agree with you, though, is the Hannah arc. Irrelevant, especially because of the Jill arc.

        Chuck doesn’t see yet that going out with Jill is regressing (something that Ellie, Morgan, and Sarah, for obvious reasons, saw); it’s difficult for us to watch, and even more difficult for Sarah. It’s her guy; she loves him, and she sees him cavorting with another girl. But even when it was so difficult for her, she was still there for him.

      • Robert says:

        Uplink, I wasn’t aiming at you at all, or Season 3.

        I was talking about people saying that the show became crap because the characters took over the missions or the tightness of the script, already during Season 2.

        I agree that season 3.0 was not very well done. I understand what they were trying to do, not what they did. I’ll say no more about season 3.0.

        As for the Finale, I understand your need to hear without ambiguity that Chuck and Sarah would be ok, but it was clear, in the beach scene that it was so; Sarah would never have asked Chuck to kiss her had she not felt something like love for him. She was committing to him again because she wanted to. And the entire series has shown us that they always overcame the obstacles to their relationship. It’s a matter of faith in the characters that they would do so in the Finale.

        The ending WAS hopeful. I just hope you’ll see it someday.

      • atcDave says:

        Robert again, I mostly agree with your assessment. I just don’t ever buy “needed” or necessary. It’s fiction, there’s a million ways to tell a story, just as there’s a million ways for real life problems to resolve themselves. If things are “needed” the story becomes predictable and dull. I think when you, Arthur, and others are saying “needed” the proper word is “obvious”. And I don’t mean that in a completely critical way. Often the obvious “needs” to happen just so the world feels real and natural. But occasionally what is obvious “needs” to be upended to keep the story telling fresh.
        I think I’ve made it clear I’m mostly okay with how this particular story plays out. We will talk about story telling failures more in a few months. This wasn’t one of those. But I refuse to call it needed. It could have been written very differently, and often different is good, too.

      • resaw says:

        Dave, I’ve struggled for several minutes to try to respond to your comment above. I guess all I can say is that I find Sarah a very sympathetic character and it is not fun to see her heart broken, but for me, this episode was a compelling story.

  4. I find my starting point on this episode aligns with Dave-Ex and Sensei being my two least favourites in season 2.Whilst I appreciate the concept of “first love”,it has always seemed to me that Chuck allowed Jill back into his life far too easily and willingly,bearing in mind both Ellie’s and Morgan’s comments about the depths of despair to which she had previously taken him?
    Joe and Resaw are right to remind us,however,that in every Chuck episode there are always great moments to enjoy.Thanks!!!
    And there is no doubt the 2 subsequent episodes of the arc were much better with some real gems,although I may have been influenced by the fact we knew Jill was Fulcrum by the end of Fat Lady and that all would therefore turn out well!!!

  5. authorguy says:

    I heard somewhere that the Aussie accent was not her real accent, but her doing an American version of an Aussie accent.

    • Wilf says:

      Actually, that’s what it sounded like to me. If you listen to YS in interviews, etc,, her accent is very different.

      • joe says:

        Yeah, I hear that too. But I’m no expert on accents, and there’s no way I could distinguish between Sydney and Melbourne. So I just accepted it was her own, or at least, as her version of an actress from East Texas doing a Bronx accent.

    • atcDave says:

      She did comment in an interview after the fact that she had punched it up a bit. I think she had already been in the US long enough (a year and a half when this episode was shot) that her actual Aussie accent had started to fade a lot.

      • joe says:

        Oh nosssss! That would be a crime against humanity!

        Save the Aussie Accents! 😉

      • atcDave says:

        I know! Its a tragedy that in her most recent interviews the Aussie is very understated.

      • Wilf says:

        Help! You Americans are even taking away our accents 😉

      • joe says:

        Never that, Wilf! I had a friend from Liverpool who once made the same complaint. I told her to please keep the accent, because no one here knew what a lorry was anyway! (Well, that, and because it reminded me of old interviews with Paul McCartney…)

      • atcDave says:

        It is funny since I think most Americans find accents (English accents, including English, Irish, Scottish, Australian, even American Southern) hugely appealing. I don’t believe that applies to foreign language accents as much which are often much harder to understand. But I love most of the English language accents/dialects.

      • joe says:

        Of course, I have no accent at all.
        Hum… Maybe only Dave knows what I mean when I ask for “pop?” 😉

      • Wilf says:

        Well, I’ve lived in London (England) for forty years and my Belfast accent, while muted, is still very apparent.

      • atcDave says:

        “Pop” isn’t quite I had in mind! But yeah that’s very much a mid-west/north-east sort of thing. A “soda” or “Coke” is something far more specific!

        The one I like is “bubbler” (drinking fountain). Wisconsin only? That’s the only place I’ve heard it.

      • resaw says:

        Re “pop”: that’s the common term in most of English Canada, I would say. I didn’t know it was understandable in the US, unless the word “soda” was placed in front of it, i.e., “soda pop.”

        As for the Australian accents, in my elementary school days, two of my teachers were from Australia. More recently, when I was a resident of Japan, we had some Australian neighbours. My impression was that Yvonne was seeking a thoroughgoing Aussie accent but the precision of her speech suggested higher education. Another Australian that I knew in Japan said that those who went to the higher-end private schools had an accent that sounded closer to a posh English accent when compared to the harsher “Strine” speech. Of course, Ms. Strahovski is a master (mistress?) of accents. Those with more direct knowledge, feel free to correct me on any or all points….

      • atcDave says:

        Resaw I think in most of the US “soda pop” or “soft drink” is the common term. But places I’ve lived (Chicago area and southern Michigan mostly) pop is the most common usage. Some parts of the country will just say “soda”, but to me that just means sparkling water, not all pop. I’ve also noticed in much of the American south “coke” is used for any soft drink. I find THAT very confusing!

        Very interesting observations on Yvonne’s Aussie accent in this episode; so it actually sounded like an educated accent? remarkable.

      • Some people who say Coke (like me) actually want Coca-cola, not Pepsi.

      • joe says:

        I always heard that “pop” was used around the Great Lakes region. I know that when I first went to Philadelphia as a college freshman and reflexively asked for pop, I got some very strange looks. When my sister, who went to SUNYaB(uffalo), met people from New York City who asked for soda or Coke, she corrected them by saying “When in Rome…” 😉

        Added: Cool map, Jeff!

      • atcDave says:

        Yeah very interesting map. Pop is far more widespread than I thought. Interesting that soda seems more dominant in the St. Louis area, but is otherwise surrounded by “pop”. Also funny, while growing up in Chicago, Kansas City was always sort of my “ancestral” home. Well, Chicago and KC are both “pop” areas, but much of what’s in between is “soda” country. That explains my odd experience growing up that “pop” was always understood at home, but less normal “on the road”.

        I would add though, no matter what is most common locally, the “pop” and “soda” terms are understood almost everywhere in the US. Although I’ll never understand on a practical level, how “coke” functions as a generic. I mean, strange as it seems, I’ve heard rumors of people who prefer Pepsi (don’t believe I’ve met one however…) For myself, I’m mostly a Diet Coke drinker (although I will settle for less if they only carry the other brand), so its fairly easy to just say “diet”, and be understood in most cases (most restaurants will carry diet cola as their only diet drink).

      • anthropocene says:

        In Bahston, soda is tonic (pronounced twoh-nik).

      • uplink2 says:

        Yes it is. It is the only part of the country I have ever heard it called that. When I first went to college in the midwest and asked for tonic, I got tonic water. I hate tonic water!! lol

    • Bob says:

      It’s not a real “Strayan” accent, not even a “posh” one as suggested in other comments. And definitely not Yvonne’s “real” accent. It’s just an overdone fake version of one. I say all of that as an Australian 🙂

      I suspect the director just thought it needed to be overdone to ensure the audience got it – no disrespect to Americans intended, I just base that opinion on most Americans thinking my Australian accent is English when I’m stateside.

  6. I enjoyed the episode and the Jill arc quite a bit except for the transition from the end of the second episode to the third. Such a great opportunity to have Sarah and Casey frantically trying to locate Chuck.

    And it was wasted.

    Instead they found him with no effort at the beginning of the third one. One of the first instances where the show started to burn through story telling opportunities by setting something up and failing to follow through an interesting dramatic opportunity.

    Enjoyed the irony – and naivete – of Sarah prodding Chuck to face Jill and conquer his past demons without considering the possibility that Chuck and Jill could hook up again.

    Really disliked the moment atcDave mentioned too where Sarah stepped in to take Jill’s place with no protestation from Chuck. Also, the first instance of OOC behaviour with character serving plot instead of vice-versa. Never bought Chuck keeping quiet when Sarah volunteered.

    Still don’t.

    • Sarah is a trained agent who puts her life on the line in every mission, and is fully aware of the risks. Jill is (as far as he knows) an unarmed, untrained, and unaware civilian who Casey was going to let walk blind into a deadly situation. It’s the difference between a trap and a human meat shield. The idea of using a civilian that way is profoundly unethical.

      • I agree with your pointy but my issue is with Chuck not Sarah or Casey.

        His non-reaction, based on his character, to Sarah volunteering is totally OOC. He would at least talk to her about it instead of keeping quiet.

      • er point, sorry. The lack of an edit function strikes again.

      • atcDave says:

        Arthur, as I said above, it is indeed Sarah’s rightful duty to put herself in that position. The problem was the scene itself. It seemed false the way Chuck “guilted” her into doing it, and then had a very understated reaction her doing so. There really should have been no drama on Sarah’s part, and Chuck still wouldn’t have liked it.

      • That’s a pretty cynical way to look at Chuck – which would be particularly out of character. From his point of view, Casey brings up the idea, and Chuck just flat out rejects it because of the reasons above. I don’t think he thought it through as a way to manipulate Sarah; that’s just not how Chuck behaves. Look at his face in the brief moment after she volunteers. He reacts with surprise and guilt, not satisfaction. It’s not the reaction of a person who just succeeded in something he was trying to do.

        But at the same time, it makes sense for Sarah to do it, so he doesn’t say anything. After all, if they had huge conversations every time Sarah put her life on the line for him, there wouldn’t be any show left.

      • ‘But at the same time, it makes sense for Sarah to do it, so he doesn’t say anything. After all, if they had huge conversations every time Sarah put her life on the line for him, there wouldn’t be any show left.’

        Yes it makes sense for Sarah to step forward to do it as it is her job. It also makes sense for Chuck to speak to her more about her decision is because that has been established as his character behaves.

        My interpretation as to why he did not, was to pump up the artificial angst.

      • PS – I agree Arthur that Chuck did not guilt Sarah into it. His focus was on Jill up until Sarah stepped forward – only then did he realize the consequences of what he had done. Which makes his silence afterwards even more puzzling.

      • atcDave says:

        I think I see it exactly like Lou. That doesn’t happen often!

  7. uplink2 says:

    Well I’m going to focus my comments here on this paragraph from Joe’s part of the blog.

    Enter Jill Roberts, played by Jordana Brewster, and Sarah’s worst nightmare. She’s more than a blast from the past. She’s Chuck’s first love, which is always important. Worse, this is the second piece of the Bryce puzzle. He took her away from Chuck, which is treachery. Even if Bryce has been acquitted of the charge getting Chuck kicked out of Stanford for cheating, he’s still guilty of that treachery.

    Though as I stated earlier this was my first Chuck episode and I didn’t really understand the players at the time. There are some things you mention there that lead for me to a greater discussion in light of what we learn later on. Jill is different than any other of the LI’s the show had for Chuck and I agree completely with others who have stated that he had never fully gotten past her betrayal so this exorcising of that demon was necessary. Lou was necessary because if showed Chuck clearly that his involvement in the spy life precluded any chance at a normal relationship with a civilian. That fact is why Hannah was so pointless. He had already learned that lesson along with the lessons that the spy life was a threat to all around him as well. Lessons learned but unfortunately they chose to be redundant with Hannah. But Jill was an open wound for Chuck and needed to be tended to or it would always taint his life. So though maybe this ep was not a top episode but the story it tells is important.

    Surprise surprise I really don’t agree with you word choice here about Bryce, Joe. Bryce wasn’t acquitted at all about what happened at Stanford. Certainly not with me. If anything he was pardoned and there is a huge difference between being acquitted and being pardoned. I have learned that Chuck is a more forgiving soul than I am as Bryce actions are simply not forgivable under any circumstances to me. No matter what his motive was, and I sincerely question it was simply to protect Chuck as that fact is completely negated by him sending the Intersect to Chuck, taking away someone’s freedom to make their own choices about their future and hiding that fact from them because you think you know better and have the right to do it is simply unforgivable for me. It’s beyond reprehensible especially in light of how he endangered not only Chuck but all around him ultimately by his sending him the Intersect. That was far from “protecting Chuck”. Emmett was killed because of Bryce’s actions. Ellie was poisoned and Morgan was almost blown up twice. It is an important driving force to the story but it is not an act that he should ever have been acquitted for. Maybe like Nixon the pardon was appropriate but an acquittal, certainly not.

    How this relates to this part of the story is I have trouble with their need to in some respects try to redeem Jill and Bryce by the use of the lie detector which based on C vs The Truth has no real firm grasp on being completely believable. What was the point to it? She is/was Fulcrum and a traitor so why was it necessary to remove that part of the story they had been telling for so long? To me it makes a better story if they had left it and had her admit it. Having them sleep together makes their betrayal richer and shows, especially if Jill was ordered to do it, a harsher view of what the spy world expects someone to do for a mission. I see no real point in redeeming Jill here as she is already pretty despicable in that she was going to shoot Sarah and deliver Chuck to Fulcrum. What is the point of reducing the betrayals of both her and Bryce? Have them both admit that they did it to sell the betrayal at Stanford. But having her “say” on the lie detector that it didn’t happen I don’t think changes things positively for the story. But creating a point where the viewer thinks, “Even though she was a traitor, tried to kill Sarah, deliver Chuck to Fulcrum, at least she didn’t sleep with Bryce.” like that matters more is something that I have great difficulty with. Sometimes the world and the people we love in it do ugly things, especially when it comes to sex, and it wasn’t necessary to retcon or redeem Jill and Bryce for that. Let the ugliness show for both of them.

    Overall though this in light of what I had missed and what was to come this was a good enough episode to get me to come back the next week. But my obsession really began with DeLorean and that remains probably my #2 episode of season 2 behind Colonel. Ring 1 is close behind it but will always be tainted behind the missteps and thrown away potential of what was to follow.

    • I think it makes the situation more complex and the character more human. Leaving Bryce out of it, having Jill as a lying, manipulative, cheater makes her fairly cartoonish. At that point, she’s just a typical Jezebel reincarnation with no redeeming values.

      But Jill isn’t just that. She’s also a person who in her own way, cared about Chuck once. She’s the person who, without suspecting Chuck was in the CIA, went on a date with him and had a really good time in this episode. But she’s also somebody who would betray Chuck in a heartbeat if it means saving her own skin. Perhaps even just to enhance her status within Fulcrum.

      It also makes me emphasize with Chuck’s final decisions regarding Jill, in this arc and season 3. In the pure evil alternative you imagine, the decision to turn her in and let her rot in jail is a no-brainer. But when it’s a person who was originally trying to protect Chuck and got warped by her surroundings, it’s a lot easier to understand how hard his decision to put her away is. I don’t want to get too much into that, or we’ll have nothing to talk about for the next two weeks, but that’s the concept behind it.

      It’s also important that Chuck not have been completely duped here: the idea that she was playing off a real connection that used to exist gives the story a lot more depth.

      It’s kind of ironic that in the date here, Jill might have been looking for exactly the same thing Chuck was: a real relationship outside of her convoluted spy life and web of lies.

      • uplink2 says:

        See the problem with that is it contradicts the story we are seeing. We never fully understand Jill’s mission. They are trying to convey she has redeeming qualities but yet she was a Fulcrum agent, working with someone who is developing WMD who when he finds out it will be sold and tries to stop them he is killed by Fulcrum. Had she been given that assignment I fully believe she would have killed him and continued his research. They are trying to paint too much grey here. What was her assignment with LeFleur? To me it was to guarantee he built that weapon. She was a terrorist who would have killed Sarah, turned Chuck into Fulcrum, and aided in the development of a weapon to kill millions. What does it matter if she slept with Bryce or not? It doesn’t make her more human. It makes her a bigger liar and more pathological. That somehow what both she and Bryce did was ok because he wanted to protect Chuck and she didn’t actually have sex with him. She put Chuck second to protect her own skin, just like Bryce put Chuck second to complete his mission. They are both hugely flawed and saying they didn’t have sex using a method that she clearly could have deceived, really doesn’t make a hell of a lot of difference.

  8. Bill says:

    Ah, the Jill arc. Chuck’s second PLI in two seasons. I didn’t mind it upon first viewing, because, as others here have stated, Chuck needed to get closure with Jill, and this arc served that purpose (among others) very well. So, while it was at times painful to watch Chuck’s behavior in this episode and throughout this arc, I do think it served the overall maturation of the character.

    One episode-specific comment: I really enjoy the restaurant scene, from the CIA plants all over the place to Chuck’s little slaps of his man Casey to Sarah calling Chuck over to the counter to stop him from whining so much — a great scene through and through.

    One big picture comment: there’s been some discussion in recent weeks about whose point of view people watch(ed) the show from. I would have to say that I looked at it from Chuck’s perspective. Having now read some of the commentary from those of you who watched it from Sarah’s point of view, I’ve been trying to take a fresh look. The more I focus on Sarah, the more I appreciate the work YS did on the show. What a talented actress she is.

  9. atcDave says:

    Okay, odd tidbit of the day. My wife and I are having several friends over tonight, the women in the group are Sarah and Hanna. Do you think they can be trusted to play nice together?

    • joe says:

      Hum. Wife’s formal name, Sara. Granddaughter’s name, Hannah. No explosions yet, but that may be for other reasons…

      Ultimately, It works, especially at Christmas. 😉

    • As in Hannah McKay? You should be careful.

      (I thought you’d be blocking out S3.0 more than a show you don’t watch.)

      • atcDave says:

        That hadn’t even occurred to me! No Jeff, a season I’m trying to forget has a stronger presence in my mind than a show I’ve never watched…

        And I can happily report all went well, There was no bloodshed at our Bible study group!

  10. ref51907 says:

    I like this episode and the next few. It really sets up Sarah’s up and coming decisions, both with Cole Barker and with the beginning of season 3, or 3.0 as I guess it is referred to around here.

    -Yvonne portrayal of Sarah’s emotions with just her facial expressions spoke volumes here. She was proud that Chuck didn’t back down but helped Casey and the room when the contaminant was released. The next look we get is when Chuck and Jill kiss and what we see is an amalgamation of hurt, jealousy, and disappoint. Then factor in the part when Sarah is listening in on the Jill and Chuck phone conversation and I can hear Sarah’s own dreams/wishes for them come crashing down. I believe that she now is fully aware that she in fact does love his man, that these feelings are real, genuine and true. Jill almost forces her to come to grips with what exactly she feels for him. This, for my money, is when she finally admits to herself that she does love him. She still will not say it out loud yet, not even to herself, but she now knows. Though tempted by Cole, when he comes along she had already made up her mind. It’s a pretty easy rejection for her to give.
    -Seeing Chuck’s acceptance of Jill, she might have viewed it as a complete rejection of her. Which is why when we see Sarah at the beginning of Season 3 dead set against Chuck. We understand why. She withstood all the CIA/NSA handling only have would be considered her worst fear, rejection, come true. No wonder she ran. It was what she did. Sarah for all her strength, is at her core, a very broken little girl, who just wants someone to love her completely, without the fear of them leaving. Her dad left. Bryce left. And probably other men left too. She thought she found that man in Chuck.
    But for now we aren’t to that point.
    -Chuck did what he does best in this episode. He protects the ones he loves. His knee jerk reaction to putting Jill’s life in harms way was very much in character. I interpret his silence when Sarah volunteers as Chuck seeing and understanding that someone has got to do it. Sarah is a professional spy. Jill is a civilian. Sarah is trained for those situations. It’s the very definition of being between a rock and a hard place. A can’t win situation. I know we aren’t shown it and it is not in the deleted scenes but I can envision a scenario where Chuck goes to Sarah before the mission and asks her if there is another way, or at least, to be careful.
    -I love the uneasiness of Morgan and Ellie. They are shouting, screaming, pleading, begging Chuck not to do what he is doing. The two that were there for this dark period say the same thing. I guess some people have to learn the hard way.

    This is already getting to long, so I will stop now..


    • ‘ I can envision a scenario where Chuck goes to Sarah before the mission and asks her if there is another way, or at least, to be careful.’

      I can too but if it is not shown then it never happened. Our ability to envision becomes a rationalization for something that rings false because we were not shown it.

      • Robert says:


        So, if I understand you correctly, if you don’t see it, it didn’t happen.

        If I go all the way with your reasoning, then in the Finale, because we didn’t see Chuck and Sarah leave the beach together, it never happened? And they’re not together again?

        You never use your imagination to supply to what was not shown? You quickly blame it then to “the show not being well written, or that it didn’t reach the potential?”

        And don’t you think that, because of a lack of time, TPTB simply couldn’t show everything, or even had to kind of take a shortcut to make things happen more quickly because of that?

        There are some things worth criticizing in the “Chuck” series, but when I hear that, I’m always tempted to say: “How would you do it, then? What should’ve happened, then?”

        OD, I get what you’re trying to say, but sometimes the way you say it sounds so opiniated…

      • atcDave says:

        I think it’s often perfectly reasonable to assume or infer events we don’t actually see. It does put some burdon on the viewer, which depending on circumstance is not always appreciated or appropriate; especially since the gaps we fill in occasionally turn out to be wrong later. And then the challenge is to make sense of new data, and know what we previously inferred may now need to be discarded. But the thing is, virtually every television show, movie and book ever written relies on this to some extent. Some of it is pure time constraint; a 43 minute show simply WILL NOT show us every single detail in the lives of our characters. Some of it is clever construct to surprise us by upending reasonable inferences previously made (anyone ever see “The Sixth Sense?”); and that brings with it risks of its own, like twisting those inferences so extremely as to cause viewers to scream “Retcon!”
        But I see absolutely no harm in constructing missing scenes that help us understand or process what we saw on screen, as long as we remember that those constructs are not canon. With a now completed story like Chuck, there is little risk of such scenes ever being contradicted by canon, the worst of it just that other viewers may disagree with the interpretation.

      • “OD, I get what you’re trying to say, but sometimes the way you say it sounds so opiniated…’

        Well this is a place for posting opinions. 😀 There is no right or wrong here. My statements reflect my viewpoint.

        I can handle filling in certain details like in order for a character to get from point A or B, they must have walked or drove etc without being shown it but not to when it comes to filling in character motivations/revelations unless the necessary spade work has been done.

        I would like to think Chuck did in fact talk to Sarah about her taking Jill’s place but the way the scene was shot and Chuck’s reaction, nothing leads me to be able to infer that.

        My subjective test for when the writing is working is, does what is happening feel honest? When it does not then the writing has failed. Usually the failure involves bending the character to fit the story instead of vice-versa because it is the quick and easy way.

        Chuck not talking to Sarah at the moment strikes me that way. Is my evaluation correct? For me the answer is yes but my response is a subjective and emotional one. All I can respond feel to it is how I feel. And to me that moment of Chuck keeping silent feels false.

        Others have different interpretations of the characters and such moments and may have no problem with Chuck’s silence.

        Robert, your beach example is actually a good one because yes we can infer that Chuck and Sarah have left the beach but that does not preclude the possibility that if the show was ever picked up again in some form, that it could continue from the very moment where it has currently ended. Highly unlikely but still possible and all the inferences we all have built up would end up being incorrect.

        I believe part of good writing is knowing what to shortcut on. Unfortunately the shortcuts often come at the expense of characters too often.

      • atcDave says:

        Lou I completely agree with most of that. Although I am somewhat “okay” with just saying Chuck was a jerk at that time, and letting it drop. It does lead to me just not liking this episode so much. In fact, I think that’s a huge part of the Chuck episodes I like less, is just not liking Chuck’s behavior in many of them. I’m not normally interested in getting into OOC arguments however, even the most admirable of people sometimes act like jerks or petulant children. But OOC or not, it’s something I hate to see, and I typically respond by not watching those episodes very often.

      • Robert says:

        “Robert, your beach example is actually a good one because yes we can infer that Chuck and Sarah have left the beach but that does not preclude the possibility that if the show was ever picked up again in some form, that it could continue from the very moment where it has currently ended. Highly unlikely but still possible and all the inferences we all have built up would end up being incorrect.”

        Like you said, it is higly unlikely, but alas, it’s not 100% impossible.

        And it would go completely against everything the show established from the start; that even against terrible odds and probabilities, Chuck and Sarah always come back to each other. THAT at least we saw at the beach, without ambiguity. And even Fedak explained that’s how he sees Chuck and Sarah’s future; together, with their computer security firm, and planning a family.

        But you know what? I almost hope we won’t have a movie reunion, because I can’t help but think that it’s probably what the eventual writers will do; separate them, or break them up, even temporarily; or in your own words, bending the characters to fit the story. And if they do, I will be very disappointed.

        So, you see? I get what you mean! 😉

      • atcDave says:

        Robert that is exactly my fear too about a reunion project. I have no doubt, if one ever happens, I will be very excited about it. But at the same time, I really do fear they would do something stupid I don’t want to see. Although the good news is, Zach and Yvonne both clearly get what their fans want at this point. But as years pass, the chance of an ill-conceived reunion become more likely, not less.

      • joe says:

        Like usual for this group, this is an amazing discussion.

        I’d like to add only one thing, tangential to Dave’s comment about Chuck’s acting like a jerk.; I’ve noticed that, whether or not it “serves the story,” that has been one of two things that determined the fan reaction (the other was how the show treated Sarah).

        Simply, when Chuck was whiny, stupid or out on a date with someone else, the episode was rated more harshly by the fans. There’s lots of examples of Chuck’s being whiny – 3-D, Beefcake and First Class come to mind. None of them are in most-loved group. There’s more examples of Chuck being stupid – Three Words and Am. Hero (IIRC). Of course, Chuck with another girl, other than Sarah, is hateful to the fans, especially in The Mask (but also in this episode, The Ex).

        We can take our own temperatures and state how much we loved or hated any episode for technical, emotional or personal reasons. But there’s just no getting around it. The fans wanted Chuck to be a winner, and for Sarah to be with him. Anything that thwarted that was either agony or delicious agony, depending on the viewer’s outlook.

        “Pain is inevitable; the suffering, optional.”

      • Robert says:

        “Although the good news is, Zach and Yvonne both clearly get what their fans want at this point. ”

        Yep. And they want the same things than the fans; just remember what they were saying 4 months ago, on the DVD’s extras, and at Comic-Con 2012; “Together, babies”. I just hope that the eventual writers will remember that. What I like to think is that both have now an interesting amount of power over an eventual reunion; if one of them, or both object to the treatment of the characters, it simply wont happen, because there is no “Chuck” project without Zach AND Yvonne. And it was clear that both Zach and Yvonne weren’t overly thrilled with how TPTB did the Finale, they wanted a complete happy ending, more overt than what they had to do. Even at Comic-Con, when they asked Zach, so I guess they simply won’t want to do something similarly “poetic”, “ambiguous” or even “tragic” in the reunion project.

        “We can take our own temperatures and state how much we loved or hated any episode for technical, emotional or personal reasons. But there’s just no getting around it. The fans wanted Chuck to be a winner, and for Sarah to be with him. Anything that thwarted that was either agony or delicious agony, depending on the viewer’s outlook.”

        Joe, I couldn’t have said better myself! And let us hope TPTB or the writers WB will use for the project will remember that!

      • atcDave says:

        Robert it seems normally when reunion projects do happen one or more of the stars are executive producing. And as you observed, I think Zach and and Yvonne are unlikely to sign on for something that they know their fans won’t go for. I also think I trust Yvonne’s judgement on these things, she seemed unenthusiastic about the end from the outset and has clearly indicated she would like something overtly happy for Sarah. Zach on the other hand, did seem to be drinking Fedak’s Kool Ade. He was pretty enthused in his comments leading up to the finale. But I do think, after the fact, he got why so many viewers were less enthused. So for now, I would trust him. The problem is, I think time has a way letting lessons be forgot. If it takes 10 years for such a project to be made, I could imagine them buying off on something I wouldn’t like as much (gee, let’s tell the story of how Chuck and Sarah get back together 10 years after their divorce… dumber things have happened!).
        Another issue could be how their careers go in the meantime. If 5 or 10 years from now their careers are going nowhere they might be easily induced to do any poorly crafted script that has them working again. While if either of them is more than moderately successful (right now it looks like Yvonne may be poised to be very big) they are more likely to be discerning about such things. But of course big success could be a mixed blessing; if neither of them feels like they “need” Chuck or Chuck fans the whole project becomes less likely.

        Sorry if I’m rambling, I spend WAY too much time watching television!

      • uplink2 says:

        Some very interesting points here. I agree with a lot of what all of you have said. On the point about inferring scenes I would say that we as viewers can infer things but it is most definitely not canon. Even the deleted scenes are not canon. About the only thing that we didn’t see air on NBC that is canon is the extended cut on the DVD but even though I would have absolutely loved to have had the Sarah not trusting Shaw scene that was deleted or the pizza date after the end of Seduction, sadly they are not canon and neither is anything the viewer implies. But I do agree that you have to imply a few things.

        I have found sometimes in writing FF I get too obsessed with actually showing something and it can drag the story down with too much detail. So some of it is needed to keep the action moving. As far as the finale goes though I absolutely wanted more I think they had implied enough in the prior 13 episodes to show that they did leave the beach together which is why I have a lot of trouble with stories where they don’t.

        But I have always felt that Yvonne “gets” the show like I do. She certainly has to follow the company line in order to maintain her employment but she came as close to saying she did not like the ending for Sarah as she possibly could. Zach seems to have been far more in line with Fedak up until it actually aired. Part of that was his image of what he thought the show was as he specifically said they end up together because that was what the show was all about. But when he saw it through the eyes of fans that were aghast at it he showed great empathy for them. Fedak on the other hand didn’t. He showed no empathy whatsoever and though Mel tried to get him to talk about it as best she could he was never going to have an honest discussion with that group as they had always been completely in step with whatever he said. Perish the thought a real probing followup question was ever asked by those who were more concerned with access than actually speaking for the fans and their honest concerns. So we got what we got and that was no empathy or even acknowledgement that many found their “artistic” ending lacking. If you have to spend every post finale interview saying they move forward together then you should have shown it on screen.

        The longer we get from the series the less likely it is we will ever see anything more I believe. I put much of that on a couple of things. No Netflix, no syndication and lackluster DVD sales. I have said it quite a few times but the biggest failing of the finale for me and many others is it took away my desire to rewatch and retake their journey knowing the final destination was so unsatisfying for me. If dedicated fans like me who survived the misery arc and decided to give the show one more chance after I very seriously considered leaving it forever after 3.08 aired have no real driving interest to rewatch then the likelihood of a reunion is minute at best. I think Yvonne knows that and gets why I felt that way. She adores the friends and fans she made on the show but I have a strong feeling if there was anything but an absolutely strong vindication and clear picture of a happy, evolved Sarah she would never sign up for anything more. She loves Sarah even more than I do if that’s possible and I just have a feeling her disappointment with the ending would have a strong impact on whether she decided to return to the role. And you folks are right, without Zach AND Yvonne there is no interest on my part for anything more.

      • atcDave says:

        Some good comments Uplink. The one thing I would add about the likelihood of a reunion project though; IF Zach and/or Yvonne become reasonably big names, and IF they remain close their old Chuck fans (and those are NOT completely unreasonable ifs!) they may decide a Chuck project has commercial potential just because of their association with it. Or to put it more specifically; assuming Yvonne becomes a fairly well known actor she (and WB) could decide such a project could be both fun and profitable. Right now, I think that is actually a more likely scenario than anyone deciding the Chuck property has any value in its own right. I think that is also a scenario that would give us a pretty good product.

      • uplink2 says:

        Good point Dave. I have seen a few tweets where folks have seen her on Dexter and decided to check out Chuck. I do see Zach going back to TV more than movies. However I was surprised he took that pilot. Especially seeing what Fox did pick up was was some really bad sitcoms I’m afraid of just how bad his was. I also thought it was too soon to come back but I guess you go where the work is. But I have always said I would love to see Zach and Yvonne in a Nora Efron style romcom.

        We’ll see if it ever happens I don’t think it will happen for a while if ever. But if it does I don’t want Fedak anywhere near it.

      • atcDave says:

        Me neither! But I’m pretty sure we won’t have to worry about that.

      • Robert says:

        Very good points all. Quite frankly, I don’t see a “Chuck” reunion project being made anytime soon. First, it’s waaay too early (only a year since it ended), second, I don’t think WB will see it as a profitable project. Let us be honest here; as much as I (we)love the show, and as much a quality product it was, it wasn’t extremely popular (it is called a “cult” series), compared to many other (mediocre and overrated) TV shows. This is the main argument: can money be made? Will the old fans follow? The cast availabilty/interest comes second to that.

        Also, if the “Chuck” reunion project is to be mediocre, or something like that, I prefer if it’s not being made. I want Zach AND Yvonne in it, and them being happy with the script, even executive producing it. I don’t think Fedak is really interested to write for “Chuck” (Schwartz is clearly not interested), but I could see him being some kind of consultant, a bit like George Lucas will be for the next Star Wars trilogy; after all, it’s his creation. But I hope he will not make the script all by himself.

        But Zach’s and Yvonne’s stardom could also be a double-edged sword for that project. If their career goes to the sewers, they can get desperate and be ready to accept anything (at the risk of having them doing their lines without any conviction), like Dave said. On the other hand, if they are very successful, will they really want to do one last hurrah of “Chuck”?

        See for example Sean Connery, or Harrison Ford. They both said they would never play their respective iconic roles ever again (James Bond and Han Solo). Connery did play it again (although it was during a very slow part of his career), and now Harrison Ford is apparently negociating to play old Han Solo again (but his career is also on a all-time low these days).

        What I mean is this; if Zach and Yvonne are playing Chuck and Sarah just to play them and get their paycheck, I’m not very interested. If they have a good script, that they’re happy with it, and that they are really enthusiastic to play Chuck and Sarah again, then I’ll join the ride with delight.

        Yeah; I would be very happy to see the spy life catching up with them after a few years working in their spied-up tech firm, and having to beat the bad guy while protecting their kids, you can count me in. If they are going for silly drama (like a break-up and having them win each other back, I think I will stick to the series. Although the Finale could’ve ended better (everyone can agree with that), I’m satisfied if it’s really the end of “Chuck”.

      • joe says:

        And you continue to make excellent points in this thread.

        I’m sure that it’ll be a generation before anyone will be interested is seeing Chuck without Zac or Yvonne (or Adam, Josh and Bonita, for that matter). Until then, the fans motto is going to be “accept no substitutes”, I’m sure.

        A movie is definitely a multi-edged sword. You’re right about the $ being the prime motivation, but it may be even more subtle than you said for the actors. After all, movies are, in general, big budget projects compared to weekly series TV, so they generally can afford to do more (and if they can’t, they won’t do it at all). I’m sure that means it won’t happen without a top-notch script to justify the budget, as well as SFX and just details as music (which has always been an important part of the show).

        So the only question is, who decides it’s top notch? I have a hunch that Zac would have enough say that it amounts to a veto on that.

        Would Yvonne be interested in doing a movie? She is doing movies (and Broadway), so I think the only question is does she want to tie herself so deeply to Sarah. If her career continues to go well, then it may not be a worry for her AND a studio would be well motivated to entice her with big $, which she didn’t get from the TV show (ah, if only they could have been compensated the way the cast of Friends and Seinfeld were!).

        Zac’s another story. He may be totally typecast as Chuck, but isn’t he already? I’ve only seen him in that semi-automated “Chipmunks” movie, and although the character was distinct, it wasn’t all that different. If Zac was to direct a movie, though, that would put him solidly in a whole new career, one in which I thought he had some interest. AND it would pay better than Chuck did.

        I guess what I’m trying to say is that they may not do it at all. But if they do, there’s every chance that it would be great. My biggest fear is that the secondary cast wouldn’t be available or interested, Adam, Bonita, Sarah and Ryan. I don’t think Zac would do it without them.

      • jam says:

        “However I was surprised he took that pilot. Especially seeing what Fox did pick up was was some really bad sitcoms I’m afraid of just how bad his was.”

        I’m not sure that can be taken as a sign of it being really bad. Given how many terrible shows draw good audiences and how great, fun shows seem to suffer, I don’t exactly trust the wisdom of TPTB, or the tastes of American audiences. “Two and a Half Men” has survived 10(?) seasons… I think that says enough.

        “Would Yvonne be interested in doing a movie? She is doing movies (and Broadway), so I think the only question is does she want to tie herself so deeply to Sarah.”

        She has already said that she’s interested. I actually believe the cast when they say they’re like a family. No contract forced them to get back together at the last Comic-Con yet they did it anyway. I’m sure they’ll do it again next year.

        “Zac’s another story. He may be totally typecast as Chuck, but isn’t he already?.”

        I think that’s a pretty unfair thing to say at this point, I don’t think Fandral is anything like Chuck. Or Flynn. He should be finished with Thor in December, curious to see how long it’ll take before we hear about his next project.

        My own fear for the movie is the same others have mentioned… that they’ll decide it needs some “Will they or Won’t they” and open the movie with C&S separated. In which case I’d rather keep my head canon and never see it.

      • authorguy says:

        The last thing I want is to keep my head 100% canon. I’m brain-bleaching the awful parts of canon out of my head as fast as I can write. They could try a movie somewhat like the Dead Like Me movie, a trial balloon for a possible new series, or a proper capstone for the old one, if need be. That’s another series with a lot of potential that went unrealized.

      • Robert says:

        “My own fear for the movie is the same others have mentioned… that they’ll decide it needs some “Will they or Won’t they” and open the movie with C&S separated. In which case I’d rather keep my head canon and never see it.”

        I agree. And they certainly could be tempted to do that, especially since it happened a few times during the show; having them in a good place, then having internal angst crapping everything. But TPTB stopped using internal angst since 3.13, so I hope they stick to that in an eventual movie reunion project.

        Just a little precision, though; I’m okay with something threatening their relationship/marriage (external angst), IF it comes from the outside (dramatic situation, spy life catching up with them, Intersect project related things, etc.) a la Season 4 and 5. If it comes from the inside (Chuck and Sarah having irreconcilable differences and having divorced, that kind of crap), that’s where I draw the line, and that’s what I’m not interested to watch.

        After all, like Joe said; the fans wants to see Chuck as a winner, and Sarah be with him. I fervently hope TPTB will remember that IF they do a movie reunion at some point.

      • joe says:


        I think that’s a pretty unfair thing to say at this point, I don’t think Fandral is anything like Chuck.

        Ack! You’re quite right. What I should have said (and honestly, what I meant to say) was that Zac may think that he’d be typecast… which is different from what came out, a statement that he is being typecast.

        Pardon me my inaccurate writing!

        Is Fandral the character for which he did the voice-over in Tangled? I sort-a discount that for purposes of this discussion, as I do ME-3 for Yvonne. Those efforts just seem to have a different meaning for their careers.

        I wonder how actors see those kinds of roles?

      • authorguy says:

        Fandral is his character in Thor 2, Flynn Rider is the character from Tangled.

    • jam says:

      I think Flynn and Fandral as characters are closer to each other than to Chuck.

      “I sort-a discount that for purposes of this discussion, as I do ME-3 for Yvonne. Those efforts just seem to have a different meaning for their careers.

      I wonder how actors see those kinds of roles?”

      I have no idea what Yvonne actually thinks of her role as Miranda in ME 2 and ME 3, but in the last 10+ years video games have seen more and more legitimate actors starring in them.

      Tangled was a Disney movie, I’m sure that was one dream come true for Zac.

      • Yeah, Yvonne was far from the most famous actor in ME3… Also, if there’s ever a Chuck movie, I’ll swallow a broomstick. It’s never happening.

      • aerox says:

        I doubt there’s going to be a Chuck movie too, but I’ll take you up on that bet, Arthur. If only for the logistics involved if a film does roll around.

      • Robert says:

        Yeah, I’ll send you the broomstick myself, Arthur! 😉

        I’d like a “Chuck” movie, but I don’t think it will be made. And I want a “made for TV” movie, not for movie theaters; I don’t want them to repeat the same mistakes they did for “Serenity” regarding Firefly.

      • atcDave says:

        Robert I agree about the made for TV part! It is unlikely, but that is not the same thing as impossible.

      • jam says:


        I’d even settle for a couple of webisodes or a web movie.

      • joe says:

        Heh! That clip is funny, Jam.

        Webisodes, for sure! I have a sneaking suspicion that Zac would really, really love to be in “on the ground floor” of something more cutting edge like that. It’s the geek in him.

        Of course, the problem for something so experimental is financing. If a movie would be a “large scale” version of Chuck, then a Webisode would be a small scale version. Each would have an audience that included major portions of the current fan base, but also an additional audience that differed radically.

      • atcDave says:

        Given that Zach has actually mentioned the webisode idea I think it has to be considered. But for now, I think it’s even less likely than a TV movie. Of course 5+ years from now the economy of such things may be different enough that anything could happen (or not…)

  11. garnet says:

    As we have a Very Brady Christmas, we could have a CHUCK reunion movie!

  12. olddarth says:

    As tempted as I may be to say a followup Chuck project will never happen – I’ll take a page from Sean Connery and say – never say never. As someone who grew up with the original Trek, and was stunned when the show was cancelled, never in a million years did I expect things to turn out the way they did.

    Here we here in 2012, with 6 original cast member movies, 5 TNG movies, a handful of Trek series, and the second rebooted original Trek movie set to launch next year. It is not logical!

    Chuck’s 2-3 million viewers would not seem to be a large enough fan base, especially when the original Trek audience of 20-30 million viewers would be a monster TV hit today, but with the ever increasing market fragmentation and new project startup streams such as Neflix and Kickstarter who knows what the major production studios will embrace going forward?

    Some form of a viewer subscription pledging paid up front could give shows with small fan bases a shot at being revived.

    Using the original Trek as a marker, if something does not happen within 10 years after a series has last shot new footage, that would be the product end date. Any longer than that then the actors have become too old.

    The time for a Chuck revival is far too soon. The most pressing issue Chuck faces right now is the lack of any revenue being generated through syndication. That does not auger well for the future.

    But even the rules around syndication and the profit it generates are changing too……

    • atcDave says:

      Very well put Lou. I would add though, Star Trek may be a directly opposite scenario from Chuck in that the property itself grew in value, while the cast went on to do virtually nothing. So the economics of it made good sense.
      With Chuck we may have an opposite situation. I think 5+ years from now the cast (especially Yvonne, maybe Zach too) will have more market value than the property. Now that still COULD work out well for Chuck fans, established names being marketed in an inexpensive property. But the dynamic will be very different, it is just so hard to make a good guess on what will happen.

      • olddarth says:

        Agreed. Always changing, the future is.

        The rules on entertainment are sure changing. Shatner and Nimoy went on to do other works, much as Levi and Strahovski likely will. The rest of both casts, probably not so much.

        There also seems to be less typecasting going on today which actors are certain to be very happy about.

        The property value issue is the Achilles Heel for Chuck. It needs to grow but with a small fanbase and no syndication deals the opportunities to do so seem limited.

      • garnet says:

        What I see as the problem with a reunion if either Zach or Yvonne are bigger stars might be the budget. They would likely be in a position to ask for a bigger salary or precentage, and that would be a problem. We can hope that they would do it “for the fans” but they are actors and expect to be paid too.

      • jam says:

        Heh, I don’t think that salary demands will be an issue with either of them.

      • atcDave says:

        Yeah I suspect, no matter how big they get, both could be persuaded to work fairly cheaply. The actual production cost (and maybe schedules if either of them does get very big) will likely be the biggest hurdle

      • CaptMediocre says:

        I think fans, or lack thereof, will be a bigger issue as to whether a movie is made or not.

        The finale did many things, but rapidly snuffing out the fanbase’s investment might be its legacy.

      • Robert says:

        Speak for yourself, Capt.

        It did for some, but not for all (even if I personally think the Finale wasn’t perfect), but it’s true that as time will pass by, the eventuality of a “Chuck” reunion will be less and less likely.

    • aerox says:

      But how much stories are really left to tell with the mythology that Chuck is based on? I mean, there’s only so much nefarious organizations and with the Intersect, I doubt a ‘new’ hero could be as appealing as Chuck.

      • atcDave says:

        Chuck and Sarah can fight crime forever. There’s always another baddie in the world. Just like a modern update of Thin Man or Hart to Hart, there’s no need for any set ending to the story.

        And it’s highly unlikely to ever return as a series at any rate; a few TV movies or webisodes don’t require any further grand conspiracies; besides, Chuck always did better with the baddie of the week anyway.

      • anthropocene says:

        Agreed! They can at least keep busy in fan fiction while we wait for the movie.

      • Robert says:

        Dave is right; after all, Sarah’s plan was to have Carmichael Industries fight cyber-terrorism. One complication I can see is someone (terrorist of government related) learning or discovering that Chuck still has the Intersect. Or (as in a few fan fictions) the CIA may try to revive the Intersect Project; so Chuck, Sarah (and their kids?) will be in danger and could be used as pressure points on Chuck. And this time, Chuck might face the same dilemma than Orion, for real this time, and not in his imagination.

        He might be tempted to leave to protect them, but I think Chuck and Sarah will fight together this time. That could really be a “Chuck and Sarah vs. the World” scenario.

        That doesn’t even have to be related to the spy game anymore. Maybe they won’t have to dodge bullets, but fighting cyber-terrorism still has an element of danger.

        Nah, it won’t come back as a series, but tv movies and webisodes could work.

      • Exactly, aerox. The difference between Chuck and Firefly is that Chuck finished its story. Even if you think Goodbye was the worst ending in the history of literature, it was an ending. That creates two problems: Aside from fatherhood, the protagonist of the story has pretty much completed himself. Sarah could reset, but it would involve rehashing the wt/wt stuff that got so tiresome. That would be the most compelling story for a movie, but I can’t see the bad guys alone being enough of a hook; that’s just not what Chuck was about. And since we pretty much know the resolution of any Chuck/Sarah conflict, I just don’t see the wheels for it.

        The other problem is a lack of demand. Because Chuck ended, it doesn’t have the impetus of Firefly or Pretender (if y’all remember that far back) to tell us what happens. If the show had ended after The Ring, there probably would’ve been a movie. Now? With a shrunken audience and a resolution, I just can’t see a wide enough demand.

        That said, I’d pretty much donate all of my expendable organs to see it happen.

      • atcDave says:

        Projects that get made rarely have anything to do with “story”. It’s usually about the interest level of involved parties (cast, producer, writer) and potential audience. And Arthur regardless of what YOU think about the ending we saw, Zach and Yvonne have both expressed interest in doing more Chuck.

        The current reality is, it’s unlikely for anything to happen. But things change with time. There’s a story I’ve heard, possibly apocryphal, that when James Cameron was a young film maker he approached 20th Century Fox saying he really wanted to make a sequel to Alien. The studio described Alien as only a “modest success” and said “no thanks”. Cameron then made Terminator and wrote the script for Rambo II, then returned to Fox and said he really wanted to make a sequel to Alien. The studio said “whatever you want is yours”.
        I don’t know if there’s any truth to the tale. But it’s a good illustration of how things change in time. What looks like an unappealing or unlikely scenario now could change for reasons we can’t even guess at. If Zach makes a modest name for himself and decides he’s willing to self produce a Chuck movie the studio may part with the rights for very cheap. Or if Yvonne makes it very big and agrees to do a Chuck movie WB may jump at the chance to have her work for them again. Or if some writer/Chuck fan none of us have even heard of decides a Chuck epilogue is his dream project and he’s willing to pay his own money to get it done… Well, never say never.

      • authorguy says:

        ” Or if some writer/Chuck fan none of us have even heard of decides a Chuck epilogue is his dream project and he’s willing to pay his own money to get it done…”
        Dave, I am wiling, and I wrote the damn epilog already. All I need is the money.A small hiccup.

      • aerox says:

        Dave, the same argument can be made that, regardless of what Zac and Yvonne want, if there is no viable story to tell, they can’t really make a film. It’s not up to them, unless they either A: pitch an incredible story and can back up this story with figures that show the execs will make money, or B: self fund the entire project.

        Also, despite the fact that Chuck did well with the baddie of the week, it was almost always interconnected to a larger story. If said larger story is the same old regurgitated bile, then it’ll quickly fade out. Same goes with a film imo. I’d love a Chuck movie, I just have no clue as to how they’re going to make it viable.

      • atcDave says:

        Aerox all it takes is a single story. Anyone could have an idea. You know that is full of them.
        Are you really claiming that no one could come up with another good Chuck story? I’d expect far more imagination from a writer. And TV movies are often 90 minutes or less of content. I have no difficulty imagining that new stories of that length could be crafted. Of all the obstacles facing a potential reunion project I think this is by far the least of them.

      • jam says:

        “Projects that get made rarely have anything to do with “story”. It’s usually about the interest level of involved parties (cast, producer, writer) and potential audience. ”

        Totally true. And it’s not like they’d have to invent an all new mythology, or a full season of stories. All they need is one idea, and there’s still plenty of stuff you can do with Chuck. Goodbye was the last episode, but it certainly didn’t finish the story in any way.

      • atcDave says:

        Marc the money is the biggest hiccup for all of us!

      • authorguy says:

        All it takes is one of those half-billion dollar Powerballs and I’ll be right there!

      • Robert says:

        Jam, you’re right!

        The Finale just ended the past 5 years phase and opened a totally wide and new spectrum for a story; a new phase has begun; Chuck & Sarah are together (again), they are out of the spy game, they are fighting cyber-terrorrism with Carmichael Industries, and are planning to start a family in a near future.

        So what happens next? Anything is possible, and I hope it’ll be a compelling, fun, heartwarming and witty story of Chuck and Sarah!

  13. SarahSam says:

    Why not jam ? Interesting comments all and I totally agree with uplink about Yvonne “getting” the show. It showed in her performance. Not sure about Zac though and a movie? I would be surprised if it ever happened because I think Yvonne is gonna be huge. Doe’s anyone recall a reasonably successful actor or actress reprising a tv role besides Star Trek?

    • atcDave says:

      You mean apart from James Garner, Andy Griffith, Clint Eastwood, Don Adams, Larry Hagman, Sean Connery, or Cate Blanchett? (Not to be glib, but they all reprised popular roles after an initial obligation ended).

      • authorguy says:

        What TV roles did they reprise? Garner was a western star who came back to TV in the Rockford files.Andy Griffith became Matlock, but I have no idea what TV roles the others had to return to.

      • atcDave says:

        Garner did follow up movies both as Maverick and Rockford. Griffith did an Andy Griffith Show reunion, and several Matlock movies after their series ended. Everyone listed returned to either a movie or television show playing a character they had previously stopped playing, either television or movie.

      • joe says:

        Actually, there’s a bit more than that. Andy Griffith was in a short lived series as a junk yard owner who built his own rocketship and went to the moon (I kid you not). Garner was in 8 Simple Rules after Ritter died. Another actor in that category was M*A*S*H’s B.J. Hunicutt, Mike Ferrell, who also had his own series, short lived, as a veterinarian, IIRC (with Rick Nelson’s daughter).

      • atcDave says:

        I was just thinking of those who returned to previous roles. Forgot a good one, Fred Dryer reprised Hunter first in a TV movie, then an attempted reboot of the series (six episodes or so? About 10 years after the show was canceled).

    • jam says:

      Because they both actually want to do it… and making a Chuck movie will always be more of a labor love than something profitable, at least for the actors.

      As for Yvonne getting huge.. I hope so, but I remember thinking Gillian Anderson would be a big name after the X-Files, but that never really happened. And the same goes for many other tv-stars. Even if she never gets big movie roles it doesn’t mean she has failed somehow, for all we know she could prefer doing smaller productions.

      I’d guess Zac will remain in the spotlight more, he has such a wide range of interests that his name will probably keep popping up in various projects.

      • atcDave says:

        It is nearly impossible to predict who will actually be big. The best I can say is that both possibly could, and Yvonne currently seems more likely to.

      • They’re in different situations. I could see Zac having a more prolific, but under-the-radar career. Not somebody with huge name recognition, but somebody highly involved in a lot of projects in many different capacities. Yvonne, I think, has the biggest chance at being a name star.

  14. SarahSam says:

    Good answer Dave. I guess I phrased my question incorrectly. Can anyone remember an actor/actress having success in features and reprising a television role? Connery reprised Bond for features. Are you referencing Blanchett playing the Queen and Eastwood’s Dirty Harry? Certainly Garner and Griffith had feature successes, but they are iconic for television characters, as is the late, great Larry Hagman. I also remember Don Adams actually doing a Get Smart feature ( The Nude Bomb) after that show ended. I’ve got a decent entertainment memory and I can’t recall an actor becoming popular in features and during that popularity reprising a television role for a show that has ended. Anyone? I would certainly love to see it happen. The bigger Zac or Yvonne become, the more stroke they can have in making projects happen.

    • atcDave says:

      Very good memory SarahSam! Some of my picks were pretty obscure. But I think James Garner qualifies for exactly what you’re asking. He had significant success as a movie actor after Maverick, then came back for the series reboot (“the New Maverick”; although his part on that was only “recurring”, he was not the star) and Rockford. He had more theatrical success before coming back to do Rockford Files movies (6 or 8, I don’t recall exactly)

      • atcDave says:

        I just did some research on “Maverick” and it is far more convoluted than I remembered. “The New Maverick” was a TV movie intended to launch a new series with a new star; but Garner did appear in it, reprising his Bret Maverick role. The series never happened. But another series called “Bret Maverick” was launched shortly after after Rockford Files ended, staring Garner in the title role. It only ran about a dozen episodes.

        An even better irony is that in the original series Garner played “Pappy” Maverick in a duel role. So when the Maverick movie was made staring Mel Gibson as Bret, Garner was once again reprising a role as Pappy Maverick! So although two actors have played Bret, only Garner has played Pappy. Too funny.

        And of course Garner was active in movies all during this time. His filmography is vast!

        And for the record, the Rockford Files movies are dynamite. The later Maverick stuff not so much (but I do like the Mel Gibson movie!)

  15. candm3407 says:

    ok, I am going to open a pandora box with this one, but I am one of those that would call the whole Bryce/Sarah/Jill/Chuck fiasco a trapezoid with different results than the one we got in season 3. I recently took a look at the Break up/Nemiss and the Jill arc and start to wonder. Now I ask you this was Chuck and Sarah paying attention to each other. Shouldn’t Sarah notice how Chuck felt during the whole Bryce situation and than we throw in Jill for Chuck and Sarah still gets jealous. Her reaction to Chuck’s jealous was quite the same when Jill comes to town I understand that Sarah took a back step in this one, and well done by her, but did she really? of all the episodes up until this episode we see Casey listening in on Chuck’s conversations and in the final scene we see Sarah listening in on this occasion and heard that she was just a cover girlfriend.

    Difference here and why I find what Sarah did in the Delorean to be significant. She introduced Chuck to her father as her Boyfriend. She didn’t have to do that. Her father didn’t know that she was
    working for the CIA.Her father also would leave town and be not seen or heard from Then two other times in the delorean she claimed him as her boyfriend. This to me shows where the two characters are at this point.

    Chuck comes into the van after being up in Jill’s hotel room and than acts like Sarah is invincible. He flashes a smile and than says something that stuck with me for awhile.

    Chuck: She kissed me, no spy stuff no lies just me…..

    No spy stuff no lies, the kiss didn’t bother Sarah its no spy stuff no lies that bothers her. its like a blow to the stomach. When Bryce came back in her life she had a choice to leave or stay, and she stayed, she had a choice between helping Bryce go after Hayes, but elected to save Chuck. Every decision Sarah did was with Chuck in mind. She could of left with Cole, but she said that she is not the type of girl that cheats on her cover boyfriend.

    Chuck did do great things too. He was there for her in cougars, the Delorean, and saved her life in the seduction. he was teaching her how to live a normal life which is very important to Sarah, but what makes Jill such a problem for Sarah. is how Jill thinks like Chuck.

    Chuck is in his element with Jill, even Casey noticed what the “Boy sees in her” He snaps at at Sarah on the his date with JIll, but he doesn’t notice her sorrow when she glances at them. Sarah really is a strong woman. The ability to stand by Chuck even when he acts like a buffoon tells you the kind of character Sarah had.

  16. First Impression says:

    I know I’m in the minority, but I loved this episode.  The story, the action, and the comedy seemed flawless.  I know it’s probably sacrilegious in the Chuckverse, but I kind of liked Jill.  However, she did seem to bounce around in her opinion of Chuck (from great guy to jerk to great guy) where I don’t recall Sarah ever doing that. 

    And yes, I hated that Sarah had to take a back seat to Jill, but I believe Chuck still thinks he won’t have anything but friendship with Sarah.  You can see it when he makes the comment to Sarah about turning her emotions on and off at will.  Yes, he apologizes, but still he was telling her what he was seeing and feeling.  

    The Chuck/Casey banter is always fun.  Casey seemed to get the upper hand with the mojo quip and the pat on Chuck’s cheek, only to have Chuck pat him on the cheek a few scenes later while Casey was wearing that outrageous beatnik wig at the restaurant.  

    I also found it absolutely hilarious that Casey was playing the part of a germaphobe, spraying and cleaning the table of Jill’s used tissues. He was later exposed to the deadly virus only to end up having Chuck plant a wet one on him.  Casey really took a beating in this one – no dying with dignity for him.  🙂  (And regardless of what Jill said, I don’t believe for a second that Chuck flunked BioChem.)

    I get the feeling that Jill was Chuck’s first love.  Often when current relationships (C&S) are not going well, it’s easy for anyone who is presented the opportunity to fall back in step with their first love and rekindle that old flame.  It’s easy, it’s comfortable and it probably won’t last.  It’s just painful having to watch Sarah’s reactions to Chuck talking about Jill or kissing Jill.  Btw, those kisses don’t seem nearly a passionate as the ones he has shared with Sarah. 

    • atcDave says:

      Yeah that definitely puts you in a minority. Our master poll has it among the bottom four of S2 (along with Sensei, Third Dimension and Beekcake) and I would call all four of those weak.

      • First Impression says:

        That makes sense since I’ve only seem 6 of the 22 S2s. I’m sure my opinion will change as I view more episodes.

  17. Christopher says:

    First Impressions,

    What is nice about the Ex is we see Sarah in the reverse role of Chuck when dealing with the presence of Bryce. I will be the only one that would say that I did not like Sarah kissing Bryce in Chuck’s bedroom and I did not like Chuck kissing Jill in front of Sarah. maybe it is just my personal taste and respect for others, but what really was telling was the exchange between Chuck and Sarah when Chuck goes up to Jill hotel room to apologize and plant the bug.

    When he gets back into the van, Sarah’s tone in “what happened” was misinterpreted by casey because that was not a what happened about the bug, especially when Chuck just said I am not over you Jill. than we get the gut blow I like to call it.

    Sarah: Why are you smiling like that?

    Chuck: She kissed me, just me…NO SPY STuFF, NO LIES…He forgot who he was speaking to and you see Sarah’s face turn into a pale and hurt face……especially when Chuck continues to smile….

    than we get to the final scene which to me also is telling about Sarah’s jealousy and concern with this rekindle . in the first two years Casey was the only one who would listen in on Chuck’s conversations or watch him through the surveillance camera, but this time its Sarah and she hears chuck for the first time proclaim their relationship has just a cover girlfriend when speaking to jill.

    It is a nice episode and the only way I watch it is with the next two included. it would not be a stand alone episode.

    • First Impression says:

      Thanks Christopher. I did get the feeling that Chuck forgot who he was talking to when he returned to the van. It’s a lot like in S1 when he would ramble on without really thinking about who was listening. Looking forward to seeing the next two episodes.

  18. Pingback: Episode of the Week: Chuck vs the Ex (2.06) | Chuck This

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s