Chuck series 1 thought was a cute post OC piece merging nerdworld with yer classic catch bad guys formula… but :
The second half of Chuck S2 is the much better part (just as with Fringe’ Massive Dynamics meta-plot (parent company details ere) and The transnational beyond escorting Dollhouse Rossum Corporation conspiracy - more interesting background ere), is the larger Fulcrum Conspiracy.
It’s just kept escalating in a good way, the show, with Chuck finding out his Dad is Orion, who planted The Intersect in his head, and that father/son are the major chess pieces in the world’s survival.
Anyway, Chuck has been raising the roof, and also like many other series, the penultimate series episode is the one with all the reveals, drama etc as the last one is often used as a setup/bridge for episode 1 of the next series +/or to clean things up with characters…
Or even worse, create new total changes, and leave cliffhangers for next time - If there is a next time with Chuck. Could this be the end ?
Let’s hope not, firstly that they save the show and it isn’t cancelled, even if Chuck does have to put the Intersect back in his head… why would Sarah stay with him if he wasn’t the Intersect, and how do u make a TV show out of it : “Hi Dear, how was your day ?”
Anyway once u have watched chuck S2E20 well this is what I do, I read Sepinwall’s review which really is, as it is every week fn excellent. His commenters are fantastic too. Why I read them at 230am when trying to sleep I’m not sure of the Freudian analysis there… or just watch Gossip/Girl and Castle together to get an East Coast establishment hit.
Alternatively again, read New York Magazine’s Rage of the Rich : “Everyone on Wall Street is prepared to lose money. Bankers have expressions for disastrous losses: clusterfuck, Chernobyl, blowing up … But no one was prepared to lose money this way. This felt like getting mugged.”
So you can read this gr8 rant over at theawl : “Sherman’s piece is generously bedecked with self-pitying anonymous quotes from indignant traders and bankers to bear out this clinical view. (They are also, one surmises, the link bait that has made Sherman’s story the most frequently emailed on the magazine’s site; it turns out that the preppy magazine class, no less than “canny politicians” can make with the strategically leveraged “populist rage.”) But really, these clueless whingeing sentiments are the pulpy B-roll footage here; yes, these are hypocrites who seem to have forgotten that their “industry” owes its continued existence to a titanic government bailout; yes, it’s easy to hate on the going-Galt rhetoric of Sherman’s nameless Spartacuses of the are-not revolt (“JP Morgan and all these guys should go on strike,” one fumes, “see what happens to the country without Wall Street”; “The government wants me to be a slave,” another laments, contemplating the horror of the return of Clinton-era tax rates).”