Episode of the Week: Chuck vs the Gravitron (2.08)

NBC Synopsis: BETRAY ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME—JORDANA BREWSTER GUEST STARS –Chuck (Zachary Levi), Sarah (Yvonne Strahovski) and Casey (Adam Baldwin) make a shocking discovery about Jill (guest star Jordana Brewster). In the wake of his disbelief, Chuck is asked to find an agent called Leader and he willingly agrees. Meanwhile, Captain Awesome’s (Ryan McPartlin) parents are coming for Thanksgiving and Ellie (Sarah Lancaster) is determined to have the perfect Thanksgiving dinner. To make sure everything goes smoothly, she tells Morgan (Joshua Gomez) that he cannot come to dinner this year. Without any holiday plans to fall back on, Morgan is recruited by Big Mike (Mark Christopher Lawrence) to stand guard at the Buy More with Lester (Vik Sahay) and Jeff (Scott Krinsky)

Chuck This Ranking58
Dave’s Ranking: I Agree

Full Write Up:  Chuck vs the Gravitron (2.08)  by Dave and Joe


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 Re-watch, Season 2. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Episode of the Week: Chuck vs the Gravitron (2.08)

  1. Dave what is your opinion on the writers strike and its effect on Chuck’s potential? I’ve never really heard people’s views about it and was curious?

    • atcDave says:

      Actually I think it worked out pretty well for us.

      Of course at the time, S1 ended pretty abruptly in Jan 2008, and it was eight months with no new Chuck, I was moderately grumpy about it. But we’ve heard some comments about what the rest of S1 was going to do; Devon exposed as a spy and being killed off, Sarah shooting a prisoner (The Santa Claus end for a season finale; possibly Devon!?), plus the Jill arc, all in a back nine. Geez, I’m glad they didn’t do that. I seriously might have quit the show if they’d ended the way they’ve hinted. I wasn’t all THAT invested yet.

      The longer break did give them time to look some at what was working (like Devon) and what wasn’t (Morgan, they decided to tone him down). And I think it worked out to be a terrific new season as a result. Darn shame they weren’t able to do so well with the next long break (after S2).

      • The lack of on point scheduling is definitely NBC’s fault which is a real shame and I was shocked that ratings fell so much between S1 and 2 (I read the “don’t freak out” article from the end of the 2010-11 season that’s still on this site) some of that is bad timing but the shame is that NBC’s been trying to revive Thursday’s for ages and pilot after pilot has tanked there…to the point that its been a curse for NBC and it makes me wish they were more like The CW because they treat their shows with loyal fan bases like gold and don’t hesitate with renewal and scheduling decisions…not putting CHUCK’S fate totally on the network but I do blame them for the show’s decline more than JS and CF…especially because they haven’t done much since which just makes it hurt so much more, You can count their successful scripted shows on one hand and maybe a finger (6 in 5 years is pathetic and only two comedies from that) and there about to doom The Blacklist by moving it to Thursday…yet another poor choice by this stupid network…but I digress…maybe syndication is all we can hope for nowadays…

      • atcDave says:

        To be fair, it is painfully difficult for NBC to get traction; when no one is watching, how do people even see your previews?!
        I think many of us found Chuck through previews run during Sunday Night Football (that and Grimm are still the only things I watch on NBC), which is their only seriously successful program. But they scheduled Chuck opposite ESPN’s Monday Night Football, which ensures a certain portion of the football crown wouldn’t even consider it (honestly, I watched the first season entirely via DVR on Tuesday nights. It was only when S2 started that I was invested enough to start choosing Chuck over football).

        I think NBC’s reluctance to air re-runs hurt us too. Many viewers watch based on consistency (Its Monday night, Chuck is on), so when the show is often moved from its slot for no particular reason it my suggest the show is done or gone. I know so many of my friends thought Chuck ended at S4. I was shocked to discover after the series ended, how many of them didn’t even know it had been on (I know, shame on me for not pushing it better! But these were people I thought I’d already won).
        And there were a lot of little things that conspired against us; like getting great ratings for the terrible Third Dimension the night after the Super Bowl, then a presidential speech pre-empting Chuck the following week. So even those viewers who might have wanted to try the show again after 3-D likely had it slip their mind after another long break. BTW, I blame the show runners more for the terrible episode than the network for the pre-emption. Every show has those sort of things come up, but CF wrote a very weak episode for the big night.
        I’d also mention the S3 kick-off event was a beautiful gift from NBC. We got two episodes in a high profile Sunday night slot, then one on our slot the next night. But S3 got of to such a dreary start we started shedding viewers immediately. Even the second half hour of 3.01 showed a loss of viewers. The best opportunity we had apart from 3-D (lots of good publicity following the “save the show” campaign) and it was flushed by the decision to take the show dark. Seriously, I know four viewers who had quit before 3.02 even started, that same night! That’s all on the show runner.

        So I guess on balance I would say that the network schedule hurt us some. Dumb luck hurt us some. But the show runners shot themselves in the foot, and that was the biggest harm of them all.

      • duckman says:

        I never understood why they didn’t start over with the pilot and run s1 again during the writers strike. I nearly forgot about the show completely, It’s not like they had anything better to air. By the time I remembered the show, I had s1 on dvd and s2 was so far along I was lost. I remember tuning in during the deintersect scene and just saying “screw it, I’ll try again next season”. By the end of s3 I was so tired of playing tv roulette, I just said “screw it” altogether. That’s nbc there, I hadn’t seen enough of the show to realize I didn’t even like it anymore.
        I didn’t get really invested untill I had the discs and could watch regularly, I think it’s just that kind of show. My buddy actually agreed that it felt like nbc was delideratly tanking the show.

      • atcDave says:

        Well I do agree not re-running S1, or really anything, was a big mistake. And it did seem at times that NBC was less committed, possibly because Chuck was not an NBC property. I doubt they actually were trying to sabotage anything. But NBC may have wondered if the show runners were with 3-D and Pink Slip as the two big event/opportunity episodes!

      • DKD says:

        The writer’s strike didn’t just impact Chuck. It impacted every scripted TV show. So, it wasn’t like Chuck was some unique instance.

        Networks began to weed out running repeats when repeats started getting much lower ratings than originals. Chuck was not singled out in this regard.

        Regardless, they DID RUN REPEATS OF CHUCK.

        They ran them on the Syfy Channel in February and March of 2008 to expose the show beyond NBC. They also began to repeat the show on NBC as the new season was approaching, starting on August 30th. Full disclosure: the repeats ran on Saturday night.

        I know you will only say, “that’s not enough”, but they did run them.

        Also, year-on-year ratings declines are what 90% of TV shows go through as the TV universe has become fragmented and DVR penetration grew during the time Chuck was starting.

        Regardless of that, Chuck’s ratings didn’t drop a horrendous amount after the hiatus. The Live + 7 A18-49 rating of the last episode aired for season one was a 3.4. The premiere of Season 2 was a 3.1. A drop of about 10%. To compare the Season 2 premiere to the Season 1 premiere doesn’t acknowledge that the show lost viewers during Season 1.

        Chuck was probably not NBC’s top priority going into the 2008 season. Understandably, the higher rated “Heroes” was more important to them at the time. It was their flagship show. It should be noted, however, that Heroes got fewer repeats during its hiatus than Chuck did. They didn’t repeat it on Syfy like they did Chuck.

      • atcDave says:

        A few stray repeats, or Saturday nights on Sci Fi truly don’t count. I think for so many viewers the point is getting used to a show being on a certain time, and a certain channel. Pre-empting that slot suggests that the show is gone.
        Now I do understand that this sort of thing is changing; more and more, networks are running replacement shows, specials, summer series, whatever to have more new content. But NBC is so aggressive in this regard it makes it very difficult to know if a show is still active. At least for the majority portion of the viewership who don’t really pay attention to entertainment news or scheduling announcements it is. It looks like so much of what’s done with schedules and planning is done for just the fraction of the audience that wants to fully engage, not the bulk who just wants to be entertained. Now I’m not saying that’s all bad, but I think it is part of why NBC’s numbers were so far down for many years. They made their scheduling and programming too complex. And it hurt Chuck in particular, as a show that appealed to an older more traditional sort of audience.

        I don’t believe anyone claimed the writer’s strike impacted Chuck’s ratings disproportionately, but it did impact some creative elements. As far as that goes, I think the strike made Chuck a better show.

      • oldresorter says:

        I first saw Chuck on SciFy – Lol

      • atcDave says:

        Thanks for undercutting me there buddy…

      • Ernie Davis says:

        If you want to discuss what NBC did wrong when it came to promoting Chuck I’d say that virtually anything you can bring up applied across the entire network prime-time lineup. As far as what impacted Chuck the most out of NBC’s programming it was undoubtedly the Leno debacle.

        The decision to cut 5 hours from their prime-time programming and give it to Jay Leno meant that NBC was canceling shows that were, by normal ratings standards, successful enough to otherwise be renewed. That is what lead to the Chuck team absorbing nearly crippling budget and production cuts to make the show attractive enough for renewal by NBC.

        It is also what probably got the show another 2 seasons after the Leno decision blew up in their faces and NBC had 5 hours of prime-time to fill and 2 disastrous pilot seasons.

      • atcDave says:

        The ultimate mixed blessing!

      • DKD says:

        All this “NBC shoulda done this, NBC shoulda done that” talk is denial of one clear reality.

        A show like Chuck was never going to be a blockbuster hit. No way. No how. NBC could have rerun it thousands of times, devoted every minute of promotional time to it–ignoring every other show they also had to promote–and it still wouldn’t have been much more popular.

        It wasn’t designed to appeal to the masses.

        A lot of viewers tried Chuck out. A lot of viewers abandoned it. It wasn’t their cup of tea.

        Given Chuck managed to last five seasons, it’s kind of a weird lament. What does it matter that Chuck was never NBC’s top-rated show. It kept getting renewed. Five seasons is a damn good run for any TV show.

        The underlying reason ALL the networks didn’t repeat more of their scripted shows during the writer’s strike was their upfront commitments to advertisers. If advertisers don’t get the ratings points they were guaranteed, they are owed makegoods. That comes off the network’s bottom lines. So, you aren’t going to put a repeat of your scripted show on that gets, say, a 2 rating, if you could put on a reality show that gets a 3. And that’s what most of the networks did.

        The only network who’s repeats don’t do THAT bad are CBS’s procedurals. Their’s something about the nature of those highly episodic shows like NCIS and CSI that their repeats don’t do that badly.

        I know from some Season 3 repeat ratings, repeats of Chuck didn 30-40% of the rating of a new episode.

      • atcDave says:

        Yeah we all get that Chuck was a niche show. And although we can all be glad we got five seasons instead of two; six or seven or fifteen would have been even better.
        And seriously its not my place to care what NBC’s problems were. As a viewer, its easy enough to see some of what they did wrong. Like any business, their success or failure will come from fixing what’s wrong and finding their audience. Internal problems are not really my concern; well, maybe a little to see what their challenges are. But when we can see substandard results its fair game to speculate on the fix.

      • Ernie Davis says:

        Though I have indulged in the coulda, shoulda, woulda game I’m one who thinks that on balance we got about the best we could expect from network TV at the time. On balance I would have liked to see a season 3 where adjusting to the new budget and production schedule wasn’t a factor, but we at least got a season 3 plus back-order, a season 4, plus back-order and a season 5.

        I know many here would have liked more seasons, but I think they wrapped things up at just about the right time. The story they were telling was coming to an end. The next chapter could be interesting, and I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but overall I’m very happy with and for what we got.

      • atcDave says:

        If we’re not going to play the woulda, coulda, shoulda game what’s the point of even commenting here?

        I would agree, with a few more qualifications than Ernie (!), that things mostly worked out well for us. But I think it’s a shame we didn’t get at least one more episode! The end strikes me as one of the greatest television tragedies ever, and I remain POed that it was the end. I think that alone is the animas for soooo much of the push we see from so many people for more.

      • DKD says:

        I think I’m misunderstood. I have no problem with Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda discussion. It’s the fun thing about forums like this.

        My point was that I honestly don’t think anything would have made Chuck a blockbuster hit. It just doesn’t have elements of one.

        They got more promotion going into the 3rd Season than any time during the show’s history. It was a 4.8 Live + 7. That was a big bump in the ratings, but those viewers just didn’t stick around. If this is a cue for people to roll out their storyline-based theories on why that happened, that also proves the point that promotion can get people to tune in, but it’s the show itself that keeps them or chases them away.

        As for the show having five seasons, I honestly thought that was enough for the kind of show this is. None of the shows I consider great TV last much more than that and, if they do, they lose what made them great. I start to drift off from shows about that point if they keep going.

        Having one more episode would not have changed the ending because that’s ending the authors wanted. There might have been more padding leading up to it, but that’s the ending you would have gotten. They didn’t end it that way because they ran out of time.

      • DKD says:

        I forgot to add something else.

        It’s interesting that when complete control for what to do with Chuck reverted to WB, they didn’t choose broad syndication, but to sell it to Netflix. Even the WB execs saw Chuck as more fitting to a “cult-ish” venue in its syndication phase. It’s gathered more fans in this phase, of course, but since Netflix doesn’t reveal viewer figures, it’s hard to say how many.

        The next time you encounter one of the new fans, ask them why they didn’t watch Chuck “back in the day”. I asked a guy who has started a site called Chuckaholics and he said he just didn’t watch anything but sports back then. Now, his tastes changed.

      • DKD says:

        Correction above, because there is no edit function. The “4.8” rating was a household rating. I looked at the wrong column. 3.7 was the A18-49 Live + 7 rating for the Season 3 premiere. (oops)

      • atcDave says:

        DKD I don’t disagree with any of that; well except thinking the show was due to end. And I understand completely that we saw the intended end, “one more episode” is purely the very tired contempt I feel for that ending. Ideally that “one more episode” should have been ordered after 5.13 aired… (And please don’t tell me about the contractual and logistical difficulties in doing that, I don’t feel any compulsion to be reasonable!)

        I believe we’ve mentioned several times the ratings bump we got from excellent promotion both for 2.12 and 3.01. Those were the occasions when the show running failed us, not the network. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

      • Ernie Davis says:

        DKD, I don’t think I misunderstood, I was just saying as much as we like the woulda, shoulda, coulda game I think Chuck lived a blessed existence to a certain degree. Things that should have killed lesser shows drove the Chuck team forward in to what most shows would consider risky areas, areas and story lines that I think overall worked out well. It was never going to be a big time hit, and I don’t think any of us want Chuck to be The Big Bang Theory, but it’s run was a trying one for those involved in it’s production based on some NBC decisions.

        Also, the multi-genre nature of Chuck basically guaranteed a split fan base based on how various parts of the fandom perceived the show.

      • atcDave says:

        Yeah Ernie that’s something we actually agree on 100%; the format of the show guaranteed eventual fractures in the fan base. What you wanted and I wanted were markedly not the same, and seem to be mutually exclusive. And we even find much to agree on for four of the five seasons; but we hear from viewers every week who simply all wanted very different things from each other.
        All things considered, its remarkable how unified we mostly were for two seasons, and then how contentious those differences became after.

        And although I don’t think big ratings phenomina like Big Bang Theory was either achievable or entirely desirable, I sure wouldn’t have complained with a run to rival Simpsons…

      • DKD says:

        My preference is for shows that have a beginning, middle, and end. Anything that goes on and on and on wearies me. I quit Castle a few seasons ago and could not give you a real reason why other then it wasn’t fresh anymore. It was no doubt replaced in my DVR by something newer.

        “Also, the multi-genre nature of Chuck basically guaranteed a split fan base based on how various parts of the fandom perceived the show.”

        Absolutely agree with that. I always remember one of the TV critics I follow (Ryan?) mentioning that the critic from TV Guide just could not stand anything about the Buy More.

        For me, It’s odd that everyone mentions the first two seasons as being unified for the fans. I wouldn’t know. I didn’t get caught up in online Chuck fandom until Season 3 was about to start. Until then, I was just watching it by myself and discussing it with no one.

      • atcDave says:

        What you look for in a show seems to be common among those who prefer serialized stories. I do not. I prefer a story that (mostly) is complete every week. I like stability and consistency, and very much enjoy shows that deliver a constant quality product every week for years on end. NCIS, Castle, SG-1; all get high marks for me. Chuck usually managed the serialized elements well enough for my taste, but of course, among my complaints with S3 is that it was just way too long of an arc.

        The first two seasons this site did not exist. But Joe, Amy and I started this site through the friendship we’d developed at the NBC Chuck forum. There were disputes; but nothing like we saw in the later seasons. And when the show was on the brink after s2, we were all pretty unified and focused about getting the renewal. It really was a very different feel from anything we’ve seen since. There was optimism about the show, characters and story; and we came to feel the show runners could do no wrong. The split and disappointment that came with S3 (actually started at ComicCon, but honestly I had thought the show returning would heal the split) was deep and permanent.

  2. Martin Traynor says:

    Happy post Thanksgiving everyone. I love the entire cast and a boatload of guest stars…but if you had to remove one of the major players, who could you do without and still maintain the most “Chuckness”? The question then becomes…who is a major player? I’m thinking of the original band-Chuck, Sarah, Casey. But you could throw in Morgan, Ellie, and Devon as well. (This question comes from the series finale when nearly everyone goes their separate ways.). I’d be hard pressed to find one, but think the removal of Casey might leave the smallest hole (ironic, as he’s the biggest member of the cast!)

    • resaw says:

      An interesting question, Martin. Over the years, I’ve read several comments saying that they could have done without Morgan, mostly because of his early grating personality, and perhaps in the final season when I think for at least some there was a feeling that he played a larger role than necessary. As for Casey, in some sense his major contributions were grunts and quips. But he was also a darker character, Chuck’s almost assassin. I would be inclined to say that we could have gotten along without Ellie and Devon, although I think that they would have needed to be around for the first couple of seasons. We all grow up and leave home eventually, so our parents and siblings have less direct influence on our daily lives. It would be a natural development for Ellie and Devon to fade into the background.

    • atcDave says:

      If we’re talking about a Chuck reboot I tend to think Chuck and Sarah are the only essential characters. We could follow the case files of Carmichael Industries, and no one else is that big of a deal. Although with the way the show ended, it would make perfect sense to keep Morgan and Alex around as staff. Then we’d just see Devon, Ellie and Casey as occasional guest stars. This is much like Anthro’s hypothetical S6, and I think it’s an excellent format for a new Chuck series.
      If we’re talking more about the original series, well, I often wished Morgan’s part was smaller. I’m not a Morgan hater, and I don’t wish to do away with the little bearded guy, but right from the Pilot I thought his part was often bigger than it needed to be. I would have loved if Sarah got more of Morgan’s time in the first three seasons; and Devon and Ellie in the last two.

      • oldresorter says:

        Interesting discussion. If Fedak called me up and said I just got on order going forward, what would you like to see?, here is how I’d answer. Home base used to be Ellie’s house, that now needs to be Chuck and Sarah’s red doored place.

        Casey shouldn’t be working in the private sector, give him Beckman’s job. Chuck and Sarah are retired from the official spy life and work in civilian life (anything works, it won’t be part of the show), but secretly take on missions that the government won’t, reporting directly to Casey, who could even be a voice over like Charlie on Charlie’s angels. The Awesomes are gone. Alex and Morgan are Chuck and Sarah’s next door neighbors, and Alex is the triplet’s babysitters when duty calls.

        Chuck is a more serious (not completely serious, just more, esp on missions and when around Morgan) character now, the comedy runs through Morgan (much like season one, with the babies replacing the morons). Morgan runs the ops and goes along on missions with chuck and sarah. Chuck is ‘always’ the smartest guy in the room, and still has the intersect, but somehow it again is 1.0, data only. That’s all I got, probably too much, eh?

      • anthropocene says:

        Thanks for the nod, Dave, and my thoughts on a “Chuck” reboot match yours. As much as I love the character of Casey, it’s been easier to write him as an occasional guest star. I don’t find his skills too useful in a post-CIA Carmichael Industries, though the continued shadowy presence of the spy world gives him a key role offstage alongside Ellie and Devon in Chicago. And I think Morgan and Alex fit C. I. well, and their regular presence affords them the opportunity for some growth as a couple, like an earlier Sarah and Chuck.

      • atcDave says:

        That sounds like an excellent set up for the new show OR!

      • atcDave says:

        Yeah Anthro I think that’s exactly the issue with Casey; he’s a little too dark and dangerous for where Chuck and Sarah are trying to go. Not that they don’t still end up in that world and need his help on occasion; but Casey isn’t so much the “taco night” sort of guy.

  3. resaw says:

    With respect to this episode, for some reason it doesn’t quite have the impact as the previous one, even though it brings the Jill arc to a climactic conclusion. Even so, I think there were a lot of great snippets of dialogue sprinkled throughout.

    I’ll even credit one to Jill: “Chuck, there is a problem. You talk way way too much.” (The flashback scene. Jill then kisses Chuck on the ferris wheel.)

    Ellie: “The Very Awesomes are coming here.” (Love the use of the intensifier “very.”)

    Morgan: “You know, help you with your addiction to really attractive women.”

    And then there’s that whole scene with Sarah coaching Chuck on how to handle Jill. Sarah just about had Chuck kissing her and she was just about to respond in kind, but then pulled out of it to resume the professional spy/handler role. It’s funny when Casey comes in, they both lean against the table, putting on a “casual” position to cover up their almost intimate moment. I noticed how Sarah looks at Chuck after he walks away toward his rendezvous.

    Throughout this episode, once Chuck learned that Jill was Fulcrum, even though he spoke with firm resolve that he was willing to take Jill down, he continued with a desperate desire to make Jill a better person than she really was. And Jill, for her part, kept on apologizing, but also kept on betraying Chuck time after time.

    I enjoyed Morgan a lot in this episode. The whole turkey-Ellie almost-dream sequence; the rooting around in the garbage can for the turkey that Ellie had thrown out. This little bit of dialogue:
    Morgan: “This Chuck and Jill thing.”
    Ellie: “What Chuck and Jill thing?!”

    “Unleash the Casey” (on the screen in the room in which Sarah and Casey were locked).

    Chuck: You should know I wanted to help you. I was going to let you get away. But, when you were about to kill Sarah, you made the decision for me. You’re under arrest Jill, and I’m breaking up with you.” (Is that one of the best breakup lines in history, or what? All this while Sarah watches.)

    Chuck: “I’m glad I have you,” and he reaches out to take Sarah’s hand.
    Sarah: “Yeah, we’re better as a team.”
    It could be interpreted in professional terms, but we know and they know (even if they can’t say it) that there’s more to those words than a spy handler-asset relationship.

    • atcDave says:

      Yeah I agree with all of that Resaw. Although I think I rate this and Fat Lady as pretty equal. Fat Lady had more drama to it, but Gravitron is more loopy fun.

  4. Martin Traynor says:

    One of my favorite Chuck attributes is that he always wants/ tries to see the best in people and give them another chance at redemption. That said, I’m glad it was her almost shooting of Sarah that set Chuck right again with regards to Jill. Sarah is Chuck’s compass as much as he is hers.

    I love Casey and wouldn’t mind seeing him in Beckman ‘s chair, but I would certainly miss her. I like the idea of Carmichael industries, but something about Team Bartowski working for the CIA/NSA was very fulfilling for me. It felt right and complete. Like they had a boss that they would sometimes work around, but whose rules they ultimately were in answer to. Guess I like boundaries.

    • atcDave says:

      I definitely like that about Chuck too. It makes him an appealing character. I agree about how things ended with Jill.

      As far as working for the CIA, I was pleased in the end “they were free”. I would never want the story to end with them still in government service. I’m certainly okay with them doing contract work for the government, but in the Chuck-verse the government seemed so corrupt and disfunctional I would hate for them to be trapped that way again.

      • Justin says:

        I agree, atcDave. Chuck, Sarah, and Casey needed to be free from government service to fully grow as people. I just wished it happened sooner than Season 5. Going back to the Buy More and the CIA in Season 4 just felt like one big step backwards to me. Do you agree?

      • atcDave says:

        Yeah Justin, I think my favorite scenario would be Sarah quitting the CIA when Chuck did after S3. Of course I’m mostly okay with how things played out, but I like the idea of growing together, apart from the old jobs.

  5. DKD

    I agree CF was always enticed by “the nerd getting the girl again” but I think had there been more he would have added more to the finale in terms of Sarah and Chuck’s relationship and where it will be eventually

    • DKD says:

      If you examine all the potential endings to the show that Chuck had because they were never quite sure of coming back, they all have some level of ambiguity in them. I can pretty much come to the conclusion that that’s the kind of ending Fedak likes to write.

      As an aside, I came across something today that reminded me of reactions to the Chuck ending. I’m addicted to a podcast called “Serial” which is following a real-world murder case. We don’t know how it’s going to end, but different attitudes are starting to emerge about what people want from the ending. Some are saying they will be pissed if the show doesn’t provide a clear answer to the question of who committed the murder. Others are fine if they don’t.

      Anyway, someone wrote an article about this and, apparently, there is a psychological thing called NFC (Need for Cognitive Closure). Some people are high on that need. Others aren’t.

      I find it interesting because I didn’t have a problem with Chuck’s ending. I’m fine with the ambiguity of it. I don’t even think it’s THAT ambiguous. I’m also fine with the prospect that Serial isn’t going to tie its case up with a pretty bow. The intellectual engagement I’ve had getting into the case is enough for me. I guess I have a low NFC.

      Here’s the article:


  6. Dave

    Ultimately that is true and that’s why its so hard to accept only 5 seasons…S2 is one of the best seasons of TV ever but for whatever reason the masses did not latch on to the show so the question is why: was CHUCK’s versatility a double edged sword or did people find it too silly?

    If its the latter then that doesn’t explain how The Office lasted 9 seasons because had the same kind of comedy Chuck did…i don’t really get it (I love The Office BTW)

    • atcDave says:

      Chuck was just too different for most viewers I think. Any kind of Sci-Fi is a gamble. And there were a lot of promotion and story issues that contributed (starting with the name “Chuck”. I think its a terrible name for the series!). I wish very much we had a longer run, especially now, I miss the show every week. But it was always going to be a niche show, and we probably did as well as we could expect.

  7. resaw says:

    This should be a snap for the Chuck This crowd, but via Facebook, I came across a Buzzfeed quiz on Chuck. Will the URL show in this forum:
    If not, search for Buzzfeed and the phrase “The Hardest Chuck Quiz You’ll Ever Take”
    I got 16/16, BTW

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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