MacGyver Online Forums [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

MacGyver Online Forums > Episode Discussions > 1-12 Screwdriver

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 3 January 2017 - 03:02 AM

1-12 Screwdriver

Airdate: Jan. 6, 2017
Writer: Peter Lenkov, Craig O’Neill and David Slack
Director: Craig Siebels
Guest Cast:Tracy Spiridakos (Nikki Carpenter) , Amy Acker (Sarah Adler) , David Dastmalchian (Murdoc)
Preston James Hillier (Jeff) , Sammi Rotibi (Hasan) , Bob Bost (Priest) , Dheeaba Donghrer (Snooty Clerk/Charles)
John Atwood (Preacher)

MacGyver must find the U.S. government mole who is leaking classified intel to the organization that is trying to take down The Phoenix Foundation as Nikki makes a reappearance leaving MacGyver wondering which side she is on.

Posted by: Miasma 6 January 2017 - 06:04 PM

Wow, so I was right about Patricia Thornton when I predicted that plot twist several episodes ago! (it's rare for me to be right about things, so yes, I'm enjoying the moment. haha.)

Overall, not one of my favorite episodes tonight, but at least it moved the overarching story forward in a significant way.

One thing that seemed particularly stupid: When they're in the church, Mac says "Secure the perimeter," but then Nikki is able to run away with no resistance at all. Great job securing the perimeter, guys.

Posted by: Joe SAKic 6 January 2017 - 06:06 PM

Bit too profound a plot for my liking, and lacking again in the set, prop, and lighting department - big time generic cc of the last several eps .... and again too heavy on the soapy relationship dialogue. Just don't care about Jack's lost litters and that Mac got laid last night. Don't get me wrong, it's needed .... just about 5 minutes less of it would suffice. The ending was the absolute best part of this episode, and I don't mean Jack sniffling in church at another missed op , I mean .......

Posted by: Macgyver12186 6 January 2017 - 06:20 PM

Best episode ever!!!!!!!!!

So wait if Patricia is the villain who is giving Mac orders

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 6 January 2017 - 07:21 PM

QUOTE (Miasma @ 7 January 2017 - 03:04 PM)

One thing that seemed particularly stupid: When they're in the church, Mac says "Secure the perimeter," but then Nikki is able to run away with no resistance at all. Great job securing the perimeter, guys.

They thought he meant don't let any one in...

A couple of things to consider here.....

a) Securing the perimeter usually means prevent people coming in, not out. Most security systems will let you leave without question.. it's the getting back in that requires authentication.

b) She's a known agent to them. ( I assume) and was in the church with the others so was a "known friendly".

Posted by: aicarrie1 6 January 2017 - 08:40 PM

I really enjoyed Jack mentioning the Cubs winning the World Series at the start of the episode since I am a Cubs fan. However, I have a gripe about the scene where Macgyver was trying to access Nikki's phone at the convenience store. Macgyver had used cheese puffs to make Nikki's fingerprints appear, but Jack said that Macgyver would still have to guess the order. This is wrong. Our hands are covered by oil which is why we leave fingerprints. The more buttons we push, the more oil wears off. This would make the fingerprints lighter. Therefore, the darkest fingerprint would signify the first button pressed and the lightest fingerprint would signify the last button pressed.

Posted by: MacGyver85 6 January 2017 - 08:47 PM

QUOTE

Wow, so I was right about Patricia Thornton when I predicted that plot twist several episodes ago! (it's rare for me to be right about things, so yes, I'm enjoying the moment. haha.)

I didn't watch; is she the mole?

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 6 January 2017 - 09:37 PM

QUOTE (MacGyver85 @ 7 January 2017 - 05:47 PM)

QUOTE

Wow, so I was right about Patricia Thornton when I predicted that plot twist several episodes ago! (it's rare for me to be right about things, so yes, I'm enjoying the moment. haha.)

I didn't watch; is she the mole?

Go watch it and find out.

I haven't watched it yet either... gonna have to wait until tomorrow now.

Sounds like it's a good'n though.

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 7 January 2017 - 04:08 AM

Hm. Hm.

I've seen this coming. And I'm not that happy about it. But I have to sort out my thoughts first before I can comment on it.

Just... It made me think again about what part exactly they had first offered to RDA. I used to think it was either the part of his father (or maybe grandfather in flashbacks). Now I'm not so sure about that anymore.

Posted by: DXS 7 January 2017 - 04:19 AM

Whoa! Almost didn't know there would be a show! I thought it was going into temporary reruns, which is what the past practice of the networks has been.

Ok, I think we all knew we would see Nikki again. But I didn't see this coming.

Loved the opening scene with Jack Dalton! And wow, didn't expect to see Murdock. But then again, Murdock shouldn't be in jail, he should have fallen down a crevice shouting MAC-GY-VAH!!!!!! and then just reappear.

Patricia Thornton is the mole? Holy crap! I think this has to be a deep undercover thing. And we don't know WHO is bad!!!

To me, this was Lost Love X 2. Jack Dalton has an ex get married? And MacGyver and Nikki may be together again?

Nice touch with the Warren Zevon song at the end.

This show is rumored to be in cancellation. I hope this show reversed that.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 7 January 2017 - 04:34 AM

QUOTE (DXS @ 8 January 2017 - 01:19 AM)

This show is rumored to be in cancellation.

Where did you hear that rumor? It's been top of the heap for ratings every week. Seems odd that a top rating show would be marked for death.

Posted by: Joe SAKic 7 January 2017 - 04:53 AM

Oh Murdoc, that's who that was suppose to be..... thought it was Lecter. Enough main characters in this reboot to make their own ball team, now.

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 7 January 2017 - 06:50 AM

Nikki. Blech. I still don't trust her.

Also, there was a serious lack of MacGyverisms in this show, no?

Not all of my thoughts sorted yet, but: I saw this coming for a while now (especially after Nikki's hint in Episode 8: Corkscrew), but I was only sure about it a few days ago when I realized Sandrine's Stand-In (Briana Lamb) wasn't working on the show anymore.

Patricia as the mole... If this was planned from the beginning, it certainly would explain RDA's rather harsh reaction statement on his website.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure if this was initially planned. The character of Thornton stayed rather one-dimensional and bland while they always tried really hard to make us like the other members of "Team MacGyver". I couldn't really "feel" her (besides that scene in Episode 4 in the end when she went to deceased Agent Bannister's family's house).

But who knows. There might be another plot twist coming in the Season Finale? Like I said: I still don't trust Nikki. Do we have MacGyver pining now for her until she comes back, turning his brain to mush and destroying potential relationships with other women? Ugh, I don't want a "bad-romance"-theme for the rest of the season; then I'd rather prefer they bring back that cute girl from the opening scene of the Escape Room in "Corkscrew". Or him having a different girl every other episode

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 7 January 2017 - 07:00 AM

I have to say this again: George Eads is a great actor. I don't like what they did to the character of Jack Dalton, but I tend to see George as "Lincoln" (of the Unaired Pilot Script) anyway. I think of all the actors, he has the best and biggest range of emotions.

I thought the opening sequence was hilarious, yet: I think the focus was too big on Jack. The show is still called "MacGyver". The idea of Sarah finding Nikki was brilliant, but the show should have either focused on Mac's broken heart or on Jack's broken heart. Adding the wedding on top along with two Exes AND Murdoc; it was just too much.

Posted by: Jediferret 7 January 2017 - 07:33 AM

Though it was a very well done episode. I felt they utilized Riley and Bozer very well. But they really like having Mac have three other people with him regardless. =P

Patricia as the mole I kinda saw coming though. There were some hints a while back about there being some big twists and something about Patricia, and I thought to myself... I bet she's actually the bad guy. Or maybe... she's just misunderstood? XD

I suppose we'll find out next episode what other twists they have in store.

I kinda miss old school Murdoc. Maybe it's nothing, but I would think the book he requested would be something used later to either escape or hatch some sort of plan.

The only thing about Patricia being the bad guy that bothers me is that Pete was MacGyver's best friend in the original. :/ I assumed they realized nobody liked her, so they got rid of her? The idea isn't a bad one, but I just wish they had stayed true to the Mac/Pete friendship.

But, what can ya do?

All in all, same... 4 out of 5, and a good job!

Posted by: Joe SAKic 7 January 2017 - 08:38 AM

I'm probably one of the few 'drawn' hook-line-sinker by the tech/outdoor/sportif/cinematography aspect of the original series and this last episode hit rock bottom in this respect. The touchy-feely relationship stuff has it's place and definite fanbase ... but it severely undermines and detracts from the original series and in the minutes that have been allocated to it ..... so far. Let's hope that this trend doesn't continue any further, and that we get back to the more definitive features and strong points of this character and the natural (light) world around him.

Posted by: denizen 7 January 2017 - 10:18 AM

Totally agree Joe. I don't like the new series and despite whatever Lenkov promises to address there's been no change.

Dalton continued to be the thorn in my side & Macs supposed friend is now his enemy? Uh huh.

There's only one MacGyver and he was around 30 years ago

Posted by: Jediferret 7 January 2017 - 01:10 PM

I think we all have different visions of Mac, to some degree.

If I had it my way, I would have sold the franchise to Disney, commissioned a CGI 30min show based off the original with as many of the original cast/crew as possible, then made a movie based off the origin events of Partners staring Jared Padalecki.

But, that's just me... XD

Posted by: Miasma 7 January 2017 - 06:35 PM

I still feel that I don't NEED this show to perfectly replicate the original series (I mean, if it was just going to be a carbon copy, what's the point? I might just as well watch the original, right?) So in that sense, I'm fine with new interpretations of the characters, new plot twists, etc. But, at the same time, a show needs to be good at whatever it attempts to do, and I feel this show often misses the mark.

For example, making Patricia a mole could have been a really cool twist, but the way this show handled it just didn't really do much for me. They revealed it, and instead of being shocked or intrigued, I just thought, "Oh, okay, that's what I thought."

Another example: I like the fact that they're attempting to make Nikki a more intriguing character than she was in the original series, but something about her just doesn't appeal to me, and I don't just mean because she seems a bit shady. (then again, to be fair, the original Nikki often wasn't appealing, either.)

And before the show started, I was in favor of giving Mac more supporting cast since I figured it would lead to more interesting storylines if there were more characters we cared about (I mean, I loved the original series when we had more episodes with Mac, Jack, Pete, Nikki, Penny, etc.), and I still think having a supporting cast is a good thing IF it's handled properly. But the way it's handled here often just makes the show feel overly crowded, like the writers are being forced to contrive situations in which they can include everybody, even if an episode might work better with fewer characters.

Posted by: Joe SAKic 7 January 2017 - 08:05 PM

An exact replica would be almost impossible and sure to fail.

However, there are certain elements of the original series that gave it it's own special 'air', placed it on a pedestal, and, for better or worse, made it very distinct and gave it a definite touch of pixy sprinkled chemistry. Alternatively, there were very commonly used series' characteristics that were avoided, rarely used and equally contributed to it's uniqueness the first time around. These are no so easy to nail down and articulate, but I believe most have been mentioned on this forum at some point and ,,,, unfortunately ,,,, the ball has been well dropped with respect to these traits in this reboot.

Don't get me wrong, I think Mac is very good in this one but the plots, supporting characters, and their collective lives obscures and shadows his je ne sais quoi a bit too much and somehow undermines (not enhances) that all important macgyverism urgency factor.

Posted by: Agent MacGyver! 7 January 2017 - 09:34 PM

If the writers didn't hint that a big twist was coming, Pat's betrayal would have caught me by surprise. That's what I get for visiting discussion forums!

And I feel like all those fan-girls in '88 - I don't like Nikki! Keep Mac alone. I don't want to see the character tied down in a relationship.

My hope is that Bruce McGill comes on as "Pete Thorton - no relation"

Posted by: DXS 8 January 2017 - 04:13 AM

QUOTE (MacGyverOnline @ 7 January 2017 - 04:34 AM)

QUOTE (DXS @ 8 January 2017 - 01:19 AM)

This show is rumored to be in cancellation.

Where did you hear that rumor? It's been top of the heap for ratings every week. Seems odd that a top rating show would be marked for death.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/14-tv-shows-likely-get-axed-season.html/?a=viewall

Posted by: denizen 8 January 2017 - 06:01 AM

I doubt it will get cancelled. But I can't stand his lackeys.

I haven't seen a single episode that made me smile. I was just. Mmhmm.

The original thrilled me at times. They refer to the Phoenix Foundation as a think tank but they are all operatives taking out enemies posing some form of international threat. No different to the FBI or CIA.

Posted by: tvero 8 January 2017 - 06:07 AM

The latest ratings (last Friday ) were great ...so .... Still, I must confess I gave it up , BECAUSE this isn't MacGyver...

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 8 January 2017 - 06:12 AM

QUOTE (denizen @ 8 January 2017 - 04:01 PM)

They refer to the Phoenix Foundation as a think tank but they are all operatives taking out enemies posing some form of international threat. No different to the FBI or CIA.

The way I understand it, the Phoenix Foundation just pretends to be a Think Tank while being an organisation not unlike the CIA.

But it's possible they still do Think-Tank-like stuff to keep up their cover?

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 8 January 2017 - 06:35 AM

QUOTE (DXS @ 8 January 2017 - 02:13 PM)

QUOTE (MacGyverOnline @ 7 January 2017 - 04:34 AM)

QUOTE (DXS @ 8 January 2017 - 01:19 AM)

This show is rumored to be in cancellation.

Where did you hear that rumor? It's been top of the heap for ratings every week. Seems odd that a top rating show would be marked for death.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/14-tv-shows-likely-get-axed-season.html/?a=viewall

Hm... but the article says something like "if the ratings continue to drop".

Yes, the show has lost viewers since the pilot, but the decline from pilot to the first few episodes happens to almost every show. The Total Viewers Ratings have been steady since Episode 4 and the show has the highest ratings at 8pm every Friday, so I think there is a good chance for another Season.

(Chart via SpoilerTV)

Posted by: Frog 8 January 2017 - 06:36 AM

Not a bad episode. But Bozers disguise was pretty poor. I thought he was was supposed to be good at that. The beard and wig looked really bad. Rileys disguise was not as bad though.
I had a good chuckle at that scene.

Posted by: Joe SAKic 8 January 2017 - 08:53 AM

It's MacGyver in name only. They've taken some aspects and especially in the intro for bait, and then turned into a soapy drama with really generic settings. If it makes 7 years then I'll eat a big pot of crow soup and stream it live. But let's see if it makes 7 months, first.

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 8 January 2017 - 10:06 AM

QUOTE (Frog @ 8 January 2017 - 04:36 PM)

But Bozers disguise was pretty poor. I thought he was was supposed to be good at that. The beard and wig looked really bad. Rileys disguise was not as bad though.

It did look a bit cheap, yes. But Bozer's still learning his trade, I guess.

It might have more to do with the show's budget, though. There have been comments that the reboot looks cheaper than the original sometimes. But I think that could actually work in its favor when it comes to season renewals. (If CBS has too many shows with good ratings to choose from for another season, it is more likely that a show with a too high budget gets cancelled.)

Posted by: Joe SAKic 8 January 2017 - 10:27 AM

RDA said that they'd shot the original from every possible angle and thus after 7 long years, it was time to quit. Their extra effort really showed - each show was like a fresh, puffy snowball in the face on a subzero evening. This series has already exhausted their angle quota, and just keep repeating the same, show after show. Even the drone shots are the same 'slide' technique clip after clip. Zero ingenuity in this series, so far. They try to compensate by baffling the younger audience with a more complex script .... but it was the pure, fresh, vivid, simplicity of the original series that made it what it so endearing and allowed the viewer to transport themselves through the screen each and every episode.

Posted by: Miasma 9 January 2017 - 10:18 AM

QUOTE (Joe SAKic @ 9 January 2017 - 06:27 AM)

Their extra effort really showed - each show was like a fresh, puffy snowball in the face on a subzero evening. This series has already exhausted their angle quota, and just keep repeating the same, show after show.

It's not just the shots, either.
I just don't get the sense that anybody involved in making this show is feeling particularly inspired. It's more like they have a list of things that must be included in each episode, and the writers simply plug the required ingredients into each script. It all feels very "paint by numbers."

I imagine the list of required elements looks something like this:

1. Open the episode with a mini adventure. Make sure Jack and Mac exchange a few humorous quips.
2. Be sure to include a scene at Mac's house. If possible, include Bozer in this scene, even if he's not really vital to episode. This scene should be light-hearted (light whimsical music will be played in the background throughout this scene.)
3. Provide mission exposition at the Phoenix Foundation. Make sure to use the large computer screens to provide some of the exposition (the audience will find these screens very exciting!)
4. Send everyone out on the mission. Please be sure to structure it so that ALL key players are involved (Mac, Jack and Riley.) If possible, find something for Bozer to do.
5. Mission should be set in another country, but please write it so that most of the action takes place in a generic environment (inside a building, for example), so that we do not have to worry about trying to make the location look like the other country. If you must include outdoor locations, again please try to choose something generic, such as woods, etc.
6. Be sure to incorporate 2 MacGyverisms per act.
etc.

There have been a few variations occasionally, but for most part, this is what every episode looks like. I'd like to see them step away from this.

By contrast, in the original series, I never felt there was too much of a formula. Sometimes we saw the Phoenix Foundation, sometimes we didn't. Sometimes Mac worked alone, sometimes he had a sidekick. Sometimes he was on an assignment, sometimes he was just helping a friend. Some episodes were comedic, others were preachy, others were just straught-up adventures, etc. And I'm not saying the variety always worked in the original. Some episodes misfired completely. But I appreciated the fact that they didn't feel tied down so much.

Posted by: denizen 9 January 2017 - 07:54 PM

Thats it in a nutshell.

Posted by: Barry Rowland 10 January 2017 - 04:44 AM

I agree too!

Posted by: Joe SAKic 10 January 2017 - 04:47 AM

QUOTE (Miasma @ 9 January 2017 - 02:18 PM)

QUOTE (Joe SAKic @ 9 January 2017 - 06:27 AM)

Yes, bang on. This is the antique rug / contemporary rug scenario that I've mentioned before. Peasants weaving rugs 200 years ago didn't have anything to go by, just a sketching, muscle memory, and fellow villager collaboration....and they turned out the best rugs in history. The slight weaving, loom, and dye flaws that they all inevitably had only served to give them a more special identity, character, and uniqueness that has stood the test of time.

Today, by comparison, they're all computerized and machine woven, one the same as the other - cookie cutter with the push of a button, and, accordingly, boring as hell. Seems when the human element gets taken out of things, be it natural vs synthetic dyes, computerized vs hand renderings (example: my avatar is composed of actual hand sketches off production paper from the Survivors Episode - would they still do this brain scheming exercise in today's series?), hands on vs mechanical ..... things can get cold, flat, and 'rigid' very quickly.

But now let me play the devil ('s advocate). Who the hell cares in this computerized, ADHD, computerized, video game, digital gadget dominated world? Can today's generation notice and/or really care about those/any production subtleties? ( I'm betting < 25%).

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 11 January 2017 - 02:49 AM

I can't believe no-one's mentioned Mac hurting his hand when he punched that guy at the start of the episode.

I found this episode quite enjoyable. Can't say I noticed any of the criticisms mentioned by anyone else... just kinda sat back turned my brain off and enjoyed it.

Posted by: Joe SAKic 11 January 2017 - 05:30 AM

QUOTE (MacGyverOnline @ 11 January 2017 - 06:49 AM)

I can't believe no-one's mentioned Mac hurting his hand when he punched that guy at the start of the episode.

........ that charade was getting old already in the first series.

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 11 January 2017 - 10:24 AM

QUOTE (Joe SAKic @ 11 January 2017 - 03:30 PM)

........ that charade was getting old already in the first series.

Noooo, I like that

Posted by: Joe SAKic 11 January 2017 - 11:00 AM

It was getting old on The Rockford Files .... then MacGyver (1) 'borrowed it', now MacGyver(2) is using it to mollify the old school fans a bit ,,,,, while they slowly bastardize the bulk of it all.

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 11 January 2017 - 04:26 PM

QUOTE (MacGyverOnline @ 11 January 2017 - 12:49 PM)

I found this episode quite enjoyable. Can't say I noticed any of the criticisms mentioned by anyone else... just kinda sat back turned my brain off and enjoyed it.

I have to say as long as I turn my brain off or treat the reboot like a patient to analyze

, I can quite enjoy it.

But I'm still very unhappy about so many missed opportunities.

The idea of Thornton being set up and having to leave is quite brilliant (and happened also in the original) - but her actually being the mole and being arrested without any explanation? It seems too sudden, was lazy writing and should have happened over a longer story arc. Also, all that touchy-feely-stuff alongside two exes plus Murdoc and the plot twist in the end was too much for a single episode.

It seems like they still don't know where they want to go - it's not just an action show, but a little action with many drama and a little comedy alongside a OMG-Moment occasionally thrown in. I think that's not necessary since they seem to do mostly "single-story-episodes" like the original did. So why not make one episode mostly action, another mostly drama, another mostly comedic?

Also, they're still not writing enough scenes for Lucas to shine in. As I said before, I think George Eads is a great actor, but why is he the one doing all the emotional work and the confrontational scenes? He's not the titular character after all and I know Lucas could do it just as easily. I watched "Bravetown" recently (an indie movie filmed in 2013, but released in 2015) and was quite surprised what he can do if given the right material. He actually made me cry in a scene (and I don't cry easily while watching TV).

Posted by: Joe SAKic 11 January 2017 - 05:16 PM

Till is very good. An overall better actor than RDA imo. But RDA was more natural and his expressions more varied and appropriate, and this somehow helped to create a special warmth and magic in that series. A knock against Till is that, to me, he comes across as being a bit too flippant-aloof to be a 'Mac'.

Posted by: denizen 11 January 2017 - 08:08 PM

For me, i just dont feel it. Whenever i watch the show i just sit there with a blank expression and i feel the same throughout. Yes i noticed the punch and actually mentioned it to everyone while we were watching that RDA used to do the same thing.

The twist for me was meh. I guess not being too inspired by the reboot leaves little space to be excited. She could have been killed off and it would have meant nothing to me.

Thats the thing i guess. Had Peter Thornton been in that situation i would have been

But the new?

Have i mentioned how much i hat George Eads?

(Like a thousand times)

Posted by: Miasma 12 January 2017 - 09:14 AM

QUOTE (Joe SAKic @ 12 January 2017 - 01:16 PM)

RDA started out pretty bad in season 1, but I think over time, he got better than Till currently is. Or maybe his acting ability was eventually the same as Till's, but RDA had more charisma/personality, which ultimately made him more enjoyable to watch.

QUOTE

A knock against Till is that, to me, he comes across as being a bit too flippant-aloof to be a 'Mac'.

Yeah, I agree. RDA's Mac was passionate about things (helping people, the environment, fighting against bigotry and guns, etc), and we never see any passion from Till's Mac. I'm not sure, though, if that's really Till's fault, or the writers' fault.

Posted by: MacGyver85 12 January 2017 - 08:10 PM

QUOTE (MacGyverOnline @ 7 January 2017 - 12:37 AM)

QUOTE (MacGyver85 @ 7 January 2017 - 05:47 PM)

QUOTE

Wow, so I was right about Patricia Thornton when I predicted that plot twist several episodes ago! (it's rare for me to be right about things, so yes, I'm enjoying the moment. haha.)

I didn't watch; is she the mole?

Go watch it and find out.

I haven't watched it yet either... gonna have to wait until tomorrow now.

Sounds like it's a good'n though.

Haha! I watched it a few days ago...

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 13 January 2017 - 01:27 AM

QUOTE (Miasma @ 12 January 2017 - 07:14 PM)

In my opinion, it's the producer's fault. They created "Team MacGyver" and demand scripts that make us get to know and - more important - get to LIKE all the other members. That means revealing backstories and writing team-bonding story arcs. This takes screentime over many episodes .- screentime that can't be used for MacGyverisms and MacGyver-centered scenes.

And that's the reason why the show isn't "balanced" (not sure what the right English word is for what I want to say); especially because the subplots don't lead anywhere.

They established this whole backstory about Bozer making films. They even filmed a quite expensive scene with lots of Extras and a real Tank for the Pilot Episode. The scene got dropped, but they continued to use this plot to get us to know Bozer and to "sell" us his character and how they want us to see him (ambitious, creative, funny).

They made us watch all these scenes between Bozer and Riley. He got the full telephone number by Episode 11 and now? Nothing. Are they dating now? Did he lose interest; now the "chase" for her digits is done? There's no tension between them so it seems like it never happened. They could have used it for another story-arc or at least to give us conclusion (e.g. Riley being interested in Bozer but not wanting to date him because they're working together now and it would complicate everything). Or for accentuating the MacGyver-Bozer-Relationship (e.g. Mac comforting him because Riley turned Bozer down). Whatever. They just dropped it and might take it up in the least convenient situation for some more emotional drama during an action scene (probably a chase or a shootout; they love to do that

).

There was bonding between Jack and "Patty", between Bozer and Riley, Bozer and MacGyver, MacGyver and Riley, Jack and Sarah, Jack and Diane... but no real bonding between Nikki and MacGyver. The only time they're bonding is when they're... "occupied"

. Did they ever do anything else in these two years besides visiting a wine cellar, working and having naked shenanigans??? Why should we like her? Why should we believe she's one of the good guys now?

There are too many players in here. Players that are being thrown in without real purpose for scenes with no real purpose. Penny Parker, anyone? (If you're not going to bring her back, you could have left her out of this intervention scene. Or drop the scene entirely.)

I think they should have concentrated on Lucas more or at least on the bromance between "Mac and Jack" as they promoted it before the pilot premiere.

Because they're already bringing in new recurring cast members that we'll have to get to know and get to like for the residual episodes. We'll have scenes between "New Boss" and Jack, "New Boss" and MacGyver, "New Boss" and XY... you get the drift. There will be new agents and I'm pretty sure Murdoc, Sarah, Nikki and probably Thornton will come back as well. It's too much.

Dear showmakers: You hired Lucas for a reason. He's the main character. The show is named after his character. He's talented. Just start using him already. (Rant Over. And Sorry for ranting.)

Posted by: Yrouel 29 January 2017 - 05:55 PM

QUOTE (DashboardOnFire @ 13 January 2017 - 01:27 AM)

I agree 100%. So far I'm really liking Lucas Till and the plots where pretty good. What I'm not liking is exactly what you're saying, too many people thrown into the mission while the original Mac worked primarily alone.
In my opinion they should start thinning the herd and killing Bozer seems a good start, after all the original Mac lost a friend pretty much every time it was introduced (or it got mentioned exactly because it died). It would be a perfect excuse to have a major character development and an excuse for Mac to refuse to have people around so much to not put them in danger thus enabling a shift in the episode formula.

Anyway, the mole reveal wasn't a surprise at all even if I liked the episode overall.

Posted by: cirubit 17 February 2017 - 01:02 PM

I watched this episode today.
The twist about Patricia Thornton, at half season, is nonsense for me.
Why to create a (great) character like that and get it off in this way?
The female version of Thornton was my favorite character of this reboot so why don't put her in action next to Mac?

This tv show is funny and has a lot of action scenes, but it's not Mac Gyver.

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 14 December 2017 - 03:06 PM

If you missed this episode, there will be a rerun on Friday, December 29 (9pm): https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Scoop-Coming-Up-on-MACGYVER-on-CBS-Friday-December-29-2017-20171214

Posted by: Dragondog 14 December 2017 - 03:22 PM

That's 9/8 Central Time right? Isn't Ruler playing that night too? So it's one right after the other?

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 30 December 2017 - 03:34 AM

QUOTE (Dragondog @ 15 December 2017 - 01:22 AM)

That's 9/8 Central Time right? Isn't Ruler playing that night too? So it's one right after the other?

oh, sorry Dragondog. looks like I missed your post earlier

Yes, initially there were two episodes scheduled (1x17, then 1x12 instead of H50). But when I checked again yesterday morning, they had scheduled "48 hours" instead of 1x17.

Not sure why they decided to give it the usual MacGyver slot at 8pm ET/PT (since they never had planned to air an episode of H50 anyway).

Posted by: Dragondog 30 December 2017 - 02:31 PM

QUOTE (DashboardOnFire @ 30 December 2017 - 05:34 AM)

QUOTE (Dragondog @ 15 December 2017 - 01:22 AM)

That's 9/8 Central Time right? Isn't Ruler playing that night too? So it's one right after the other?

oh, sorry Dragondog. looks like I missed your post earlier

No problem, Dash.

It would have been nice if they had aired them both last night. Maybe they'll air "Ruler" again some other time?

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 13 June 2018 - 04:04 AM

Final ratings via Showbuzz. Of Season 1, this Episode has the third-highest audience numbers and the third-highest demo-rating (along with Episode 1x15).

Posted by: MacGyverGod 9 October 2018 - 05:36 AM

I feel like quoting the first two lines of my review of Corkscrew here. I'm not sure if I should bother.

OK, Bozer has finally got Riley's phone number but it hasn't been acknowledged whether or not they're in a relationship. So? Is that necessary after only 1 episode? Maybe that's meant for later? Lots of the critique here is aimed at stuff that couldn't have been possibily known at the time. Might be a little late to say that since I'm only catching up but give it a little time to develop.

The episode itself was exciting even though the hint from Corkscrew was pretty obvious. And actually I kinda liked Patricia despite her coldness. Just imagine if Pete was a traitor. In the original this would've only worked if it was a set-up and MacGyver was in on it the whole time. But Pete making a 180° turn and actually turning his back on Mac... *whistle* it would've been outrageous.

It was also great to see Murdoc again, even though it was briefly. I get the idea David Mastalchian is really trying to do his best with it and to have fun in playing the role. And of course Nikki as well. They sure can twist it around. Instead of making her simply a traitor, keep her switching sides. Nice touch.

Did you also notice that this MacGyver's birthday is also March 23 as he pushed on Nikki's cellphone: 0323? 03/23? And since MacGyver earlier stated that the KGB was disbanded before he was born would make this MacGyver's birthday March 23 1992.

I for one am very interested how the series will progress from here on.

When it comes to Mac's passions whether or not this is the producers or writers faults... Despite Henry Winkler and Lee David Zlotoff are on board you might wonder how much say they have in this and I don't think it's much since Peter Lenkov is in charge. Yet Zlotoff created the original and Henry Winkler was in charge of that one. Maybe they seem all to agree that the adjustments are necessary to fit with the new generation instead of maybe the slower paced original.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 9 October 2018 - 01:01 PM

Well I know for a fact that Zlotoff has no input to the show, other than the 2 episodes he's written. He's a producer in name only.

Henry Winkler is heavily involved in the editing process, so he's clearly on board and approves of most, if not all, changes going on.

Posted by: MacGyverGod 9 October 2018 - 02:40 PM

That is interesting though. Well, times change, yet I would be interested in what Stephen Downing would have to say about these changes. But currently I have no problems with the changes so far.

Posted by: MacGyverOnline 9 October 2018 - 06:24 PM

QUOTE (MacGyverGod @ 10 October 2018 - 02:36 AM)

I for one am very interested how the series will progress from here on.

Well we're into season 3 now so I can tell you exactly how it progresses if you like.

Posted by: MacGyverGod 10 October 2018 - 02:39 AM

If you do, I'll turn into Murdoc. But even as Murdoc, I'm nice. Take your pick.

Blown up?

Or...
user posted image

Burned down?

Posted by: DashboardOnFire 30 January 2019 - 07:18 AM

Here's the blog post by Rhett Allain - Technical Consultant for the Reboot - about the "MacHacks" used in this episode:
https://rhettallain.com/2019/01/28/macgyver-season-1-episode-12-science-notes-scissors/

Only 2 MacGyverisms he talks about:
> Stove Bomb
> Cheese puffs to get past phone lock screen