Between this show, 24 and Six Feet Under, Mondays in 2005 have been good to me. I can count on one hand the number of RAW's I've watched this year live beginning to end.
I'm hooked...I think. I needs to catch the replay this Thursday (8-10p on FOX) to reassure myself. I'm not sure yet if I dig how this Michael Scofield is the smartest man alive, trying (and mostly succeeding) in manipulating the other inmates. And, for a guy who has no prior record to go out and seemingly randomly hold up a bank, you'd think they would have noticed that Scofield had some involvement in designing the prison.
The origami was cool.
Hey, Robin Tunney's looking quite fine, and - it's Stacy Keach!!
Was that the dude who played the veteran pitcher (Harris) in Major League playing the priest who got killed? And it's going to get a little getting used to seeing Robin Tunney w/ hair, after seeing her w/ the buzzcut in Empire Records.
And, for a guy who has no prior record to go out and seemingly randomly hold up a bank, you'd think they would have noticed that Scofield had some involvement in designing the prison.
I think they addressed this. The firm that had the bid to refurbish the place couldn't do it form some reason, so they sub-contracted it to Scofield's firm in an under-the-table deal. Scofield's higher-ups handed it down to him to do, which is why he said he "ghost wrote" the entire prison plans. Most likely he wasn't credited w/ the design, since his company wasn't even supposed to be doing it in the 1st place.
Is it possible to judge how good an adaptation is without having read the source material? I am not asking about judging the adaptation on its own merits, rather I am asking whether you can judge how faithful the adaptation was to the source material?