This is an American remake of a British show shot in Canada. Its premise
involves showing regular people caught up "in extraordinary situations,
where one wrong turn leads to another, until it's too late to turn
back." The acting is standard for a Fox-type show; the stories are
varied but hardly ground breaking; the dialogue (Canadian spelling) is
ordinary. I rate this as a time-filler, better than Alert, Fire Country
and many others, but hardly even approaching "must see" quality.

First ep examines a well to do family dealing with a seemingly
psychopathic teen-aged son and accusations against the father (Michael
Chiklis) that he wanted the boy dead.

Ep 2 involves a deaf surrogate mother and the tensions over handling the
baby's eventual deafness.

In the first case the legal proceedings against the father make some
sense. In the second, it's completely ridiculous!

This is a sort of anthology series, with no regular cast of characters,
and a series of stand-alone stories. I hope things improve.
--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:06:08 AM UTC-5, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> This is an American remake of a British show shot in Canada. Its premise
> involves showing regular people caught up "in extraordinary situations,
> where one wrong turn leads to another, until it's too late to turn
> back." The acting is standard for a Fox-type show; the stories are
> varied but hardly ground breaking; the dialogue (Canadian spelling) is
> ordinary. I rate this as a time-filler

Time fillers are for folks unaware their time is limited.

------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkD2YzJoqVM

Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
> This is an American remake of a British show shot in Canada. Its premise
> involves showing regular people caught up "in extraordinary situations,
> where one wrong turn leads to another, until it's too late to turn
> back." The acting is standard for a Fox-type show; the stories are
> varied but hardly ground breaking; the dialogue (Canadian spelling) is
> ordinary. I rate this as a time-filler, better than Alert, Fire Country
> and many others, but hardly even approaching "must see" quality.
>
> First ep examines a well to do family dealing with a seemingly
> psychopathic teen-aged son and accusations against the father (Michael
> Chiklis) that he wanted the boy dead.
>
> Ep 2 involves a deaf surrogate mother and the tensions over handling the
> baby's eventual deafness.
>
> In the first case the legal proceedings against the father make some
> sense. In the second, it's completely ridiculous!

It's actually the opposite. The father was accused of being an accomplice
before the fact, which was ridiculous because he had no intent to aid his
son in being a spree murderer. The prosecution had no evidence to prove one
of the essential elements of the crime. The idea that charges would be
brought under such circumstances and that they'd get all the way to trial
on them was ridiculous.

However in the second case, there was nothing ridiculous about prosecuting
the deaf woman. She kidnapped the kid. No question about it. The whole
excuse about trying to save her from a recognized medical treatment for her
disability was nonsense. That doesn't justify kidnapping.
>
> This is a sort of anthology series, with no regular cast of characters,
> and a series of stand-alone stories. I hope things improve.

On 2023-01-26 11:30 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:
>> This is an American remake of a British show shot in Canada. Its premise
>> involves showing regular people caught up "in extraordinary situations,
>> where one wrong turn leads to another, until it's too late to turn
>> back." The acting is standard for a Fox-type show; the stories are
>> varied but hardly ground breaking; the dialogue (Canadian spelling) is
>> ordinary. I rate this as a time-filler, better than Alert, Fire Country
>> and many others, but hardly even approaching "must see" quality.
>>
>> First ep examines a well to do family dealing with a seemingly
>> psychopathic teen-aged son and accusations against the father (Michael
>> Chiklis) that he wanted the boy dead.
>>
>> Ep 2 involves a deaf surrogate mother and the tensions over handling the
>> baby's eventual deafness.
>>
>> In the first case the legal proceedings against the father make some
>> sense. In the second, it's completely ridiculous!
>
> It's actually the opposite. The father was accused of being an accomplice
> before the fact, which was ridiculous because he had no intent to aid his
> son in being a spree murderer. The prosecution had no evidence to prove one
> of the essential elements of the crime. The idea that charges would be
> brought under such circumstances and that they'd get all the way to trial
> on them was ridiculous.
>
> However in the second case, there was nothing ridiculous about prosecuting
> the deaf woman. She kidnapped the kid. No question about it. The whole
> excuse about trying to save her from a recognized medical treatment for her
> disability was nonsense. That doesn't justify kidnapping.

100%!! It was the decision to dismiss the kidnapping charge because
the baby's parents changed their minds about cochlear implants that was
ridiculous.

And, on second thought, you're right about the first case too. The dad
thinking about wishing his son was dead had absolutely nothing to do
with the kid shooting himself.
>>
>> This is a sort of anthology series, with no regular cast of characters,
>> and a series of stand-alone stories. I hope things improve.

--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:14:11 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net>
wrote:

>> However in the second case, there was nothing ridiculous about prosecuting
>> the deaf woman. She kidnapped the kid. No question about it. The whole
>> excuse about trying to save her from a recognized medical treatment for her
>> disability was nonsense. That doesn't justify kidnapping.
>
> 100%!! It was the decision to dismiss the kidnapping charge because
>the baby's parents changed their minds about cochlear implants that was
>ridiculous.
>
>And, on second thought, you're right about the first case too. The dad
>thinking about wishing his son was dead had absolutely nothing to do
>with the kid shooting himself.
>>>
>>> This is a sort of anthology series, with no regular cast of characters,
>>> and a series of stand-alone stories. I hope things improve.

Cochlear implants are a controversial subject in the deaf community
and in the hard of hearing community as well. (One of my wife's best
friends had had them and my wife (who I've said here previously was
hard of hearing) stayed away from them as she didn't like her friend's
outcome.

But no question lots of deaf people loathe the implants since they
simultaneously remove someone from the deaf community (again - deaf
people primarily communicate via sign while the hard of hearing use
English and lipreading - and they're quite separate groups) while
providing limited improvement. A lot of people think cochlear implants
provide full hearing - they don't - and it's distorted at best. (There
are websites which simulate what cochlear implants sound like)

But I agree that a plot line that included dismissal of criminal
charges because parents changed their minds about cochlear implants is
ridiculous when related to a kidnapping. When I hear stuff like that I
think "obstruction of justice"

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:23:13 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:14:11 -0700, Bill Idgerant <Non...@fake.net>
> wrote:
> >> However in the second case, there was nothing ridiculous about prosecuting
> >> the deaf woman. She kidnapped the kid. No question about it. The whole
> >> excuse about trying to save her from a recognized medical treatment for her
> >> disability was nonsense. That doesn't justify kidnapping.
> >
> > 100%!! It was the decision to dismiss the kidnapping charge because
> >the baby's parents changed their minds about cochlear implants that was
> >ridiculous.
> >
> >And, on second thought, you're right about the first case too. The dad
> >thinking about wishing his son was dead had absolutely nothing to do
> >with the kid shooting himself.
> >>>
> >>> This is a sort of anthology series, with no regular cast of characters,
> >>> and a series of stand-alone stories. I hope things improve.
> Cochlear implants are a controversial subject in the deaf community
> and in the hard of hearing community as well. (One of my wife's best
> friends had had them and my wife (who I've said here previously was
> hard of hearing) stayed away from them as she didn't like her friend's
> outcome.
>
> But no question lots of deaf people loathe the implants since they
> simultaneously remove someone from the deaf community (again - deaf
> people primarily communicate via sign while the hard of hearing use
> English and lipreading - and they're quite separate groups) while
> providing limited improvement. A lot of people think cochlear implants
> provide full hearing - they don't - and it's distorted at best. (There
> are websites which simulate what cochlear implants sound like)
>
> But I agree that a plot line that included dismissal of criminal
> charges because parents changed their minds about cochlear implants is
> ridiculous when related to a kidnapping. When I hear stuff like that I
> think "obstruction of justice"

I don't know if you noticed the director's credit on that episode but I did: Marlee Matlin, arguably the most famous deaf actress in the world (albeit in a notably small pool of deaf performers). It wouldn't shock me to discover that this episode was written specifically to champion the cause of one faction or another of the hearing-impaired community.

On 2023-01-30 7:57 a.m., Rhino2 wrote:
SNIP
>
> I don't know if you noticed the director's credit on that episode but I did: Marlee Matlin, arguably the most famous deaf actress in the world (albeit in a notably small pool of deaf performers). It wouldn't shock me to discover that this episode was written specifically to champion the cause of one faction or another of the hearing-impaired community.

This fact was loudly?! trumpeted in promos for the episode. IMDB notes
she is directing two episodes.
--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:

>This is an American remake of a British show shot in Canada. Its premise
>involves showing regular people caught up "in extraordinary situations,
>where one wrong turn leads to another, until it's too late to turn
>back." The acting is standard for a Fox-type show; the stories are
>varied but hardly ground breaking; the dialogue (Canadian spelling) is
>ordinary. I rate this as a time-filler, better than Alert, Fire Country
>and many others, but hardly even approaching "must see" quality.

>First ep examines a well to do family dealing with a seemingly
>psychopathic teen-aged son and accusations against the father (Michael
>Chiklis) that he wanted the boy dead.

>Ep 2 involves a deaf surrogate mother and the tensions over handling the
>baby's eventual deafness.

>In the first case the legal proceedings against the father make some
>sense. In the second, it's completely ridiculous!

>This is a sort of anthology series, with no regular cast of characters,
>and a series of stand-alone stories. I hope things improve.

In the first episode, the high school was called Park Ridge High School.
Park Ridge is a northwest suburb. The suburb itself was Lake Forest,
which is just north of Highland Park. I think the script was making some
reference to how out of touch the father was with his son. The real-life
father is being prosecuted. $10,000 for that round the world trip, no
questions asked? Give me a break.

What the hell did the two of them spend so much money on?

Bill Idgerant <Noname@fake.net> wrote:

>This is an American remake of a British show shot in Canada. Its premise
>involves showing regular people caught up "in extraordinary situations,
>where one wrong turn leads to another, until it's too late to turn
>back." The acting is standard for a Fox-type show; the stories are
>varied but hardly ground breaking; the dialogue (Canadian spelling) is
>ordinary. I rate this as a time-filler, better than Alert, Fire Country
>and many others, but hardly even approaching "must see" quality.

>First ep examines a well to do family dealing with a seemingly
>psychopathic teen-aged son and accusations against the father (Michael
>Chiklis) that he wanted the boy dead.

>Ep 2 involves a deaf surrogate mother and the tensions over handling the
>baby's eventual deafness.

>In the first case the legal proceedings against the father make some
>sense. In the second, it's completely ridiculous!

I finally got to the second episode. Jeeze. The defendant gets to give a
cross-culture lecture? From the witness stand?

Even worse than the courtroom scene, the mother goes all Helsinki
syndrome when she gives the lecture at their home.

I'm still confused why the implant precludes teaching the kid to sign.
Can't they do both? The implants are hardly perfected yet.

Which Ashmore brother was that?

>This is a sort of anthology series, with no regular cast of characters,
>and a series of stand-alone stories. I hope things improve.