Besides he and his counselors asserting this?

Him and his counsellors asserting what? His counsellors are asserting somewhat conflicting scenarios, so obviously the explanation could trivially be something that neither of them understand.

I mean, take Life on Mars. People in the past scenario asserted that they were real--does that mean they were? Turns out, it didn't. And then look how Ashes to Ashes ended. I'm not sure why this show suddenly has reliably informed narrators.

The more I talk about it, the less I like the show, I think. That's no good.

Take, for instance, Wilmer Valderama's character. Britten knew nothing about him before the crash, right? So if that isn't the correct reality, does he really exist? Take the perps--they're new people to him since the crash, so one of them doesn't exist, right? There are tons of people that are going to be new to him in either reality every week, so there are tons of people that don't exist, not just his wife or son, not just the relevant counsellor and his wife or son.

I don't know enough about "Life on Mars" to discuss it, but isn't it the case that in "Awake", both of the counselors agree that he is "dreaming" one scenario and that the other is real? I did not hear another explanation besides this posed by either counselor or the patient.

That's what I am referring to.

This is NBC, not Fox, so I think they've laid their cards on the table.

As far as the perp - didn't the perp appear in red and green-land? I think Wilmer was in both as well, just not his partner in the other.

Dr. Evans said it "wasn't that simple' re: one being real and the other not when she had him read the Constitution. Fwtw.

I like that he is choosing to believe they are both real. Time is clearly not flowing concurrently between the realities - he closes his eyes at night in one and opens them in the morning in the other - so I don't see any reason to postulate that the amount of time he spends awake in one correlates to the amount of time he spends asleep in the other. That just seems like a non-issue to me.

I love that the premise is complicated enough that it alone generates lots of discussion.

I feel like I don't know enough yet to make a decision about what is going on.

Different perp in each reality. If Wilmer was in both, I missed it in my confusion, but it was definitely a different perp. Different actors. I assume he's going to continue to encounter different people since he's going to keep doing different things--it doesn't make any practical sense otherwise--how could he *only* see the same people if he's going to be on different cases with different victims, etc?

I only recall one psychiatrist doing a test to prove that they were real, but my point is that since they're both saying they're real, the fact that their words are the same is kinda irrelevant, since they both can't be right *all the way through*. As in, I guess, if they were on Fox, they could both be real, but that would mean the other person wouldn't be unreal, like they do also say.

Okay, the language for this is difficult to type, so I'm going to assume it's difficult to understand.

It's still on my TiVo. I think I'm going to watch it again. And if what you're saying is true, I'll probably drop it, because that's uninteresting to me. It's in conflicty time slot, and it wouldn't be worth the effort to track it down.

Wilmer was in the beginning of the green reality, still in uniform.

Wilmer was in uniform at the crime scene where the partner is the other guy. I think. It was only a couple of seconds.

t, okay I missed that. thanks.

Oh, okay. Missed that.

I may have to rewatch too. It seems that the details may matter.

So if I was going to be pretty simplistic about it, I'd say the fact that he saw Wilmer for the first time in the Red universe and *then* for the first time in Green, would give ammunition to Reg being real, if one is real and the other is false. But Green has the constitution test.

They're not doing the mechanics any favours for the OCD by intercutting between the sessions that way, because it makes it harder to be sure about the hows and whens of every transition. Because that's for narrative impact, as opposed to being in the sequence that he experienced it.

But the Wilmer thing was clearly in sequence, because he was surprised to see him the second time.