Talk:Bryce Larkin

Contradictions

Okay, I need someone to explain all this to me. Bryce got Chuck kicked out of Stanford to protect him from the CIA, then he sent the intersect to Chuck knowing the CIA would obviously go after him. How is this logical, Bryce always seems to be protecting Chuck and then saying he could be a good spy.

Also, (note this doesn't really matter due to Intersect 2.0) how come the CIA put Chuck in training after he got upgrading and had strength and skill. When he first started why didn't they give him some basic training or at least show him how to shoot a gun. Thus allowing him some initial defense allowing Casey and Sarah to have time to save him, as opposed to Chuck running into missions unarmed and being nabbed by the terrorists/ring agent/Fulcrum agent. It just seems this would be the simplest way to protect the "asset". Mattkickbox (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bryce explained in Versus the Nemesis: He was desperate. Fulcrum was about to steal the Intersect and Casey just shot him. He needed to do SOMETHING with the Intersect to keep it safe, and Chuck was the only person he knew could both handle it AND who he knew for certain he could trust to do the right thing with it.

As for training, part of it may have to do with the fact they still saw Chuck as a civilian. It wasn't until later in Season 2 that Beckman acknowledged that Chuck would become a spy (Versus the Predator). Ambaryer (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Clipping of Bryce's Obituary: Info and Issues

Some new and conflicting info in the show, if the newspaper clipping is canon. (The one at NBC.com is the same as the one in "Helicopter.") First, an internal error: the headline says "Bank Executive Dies in Robbery," but the text of the article says he died in an automobile crash while on a fishing expedition. So in "Chuck's Chart" on the website they clip off the "in Robbery" part of the headline. Also, the obituary starts over toward the bottom of the page. All of this may mean they just did a quick mockup and we shouldn't take it too seriously.
If we do take it seriously, there are some continuity issues:

• Chuck objects to Bryce calling him a kid in "Break-Up," saying that they were born in the same year, implying that Bryce is older but only slightly.
• Chuck's flash on his own Stanford ID card in "Alma Mater" says he was born 9/18/1981.
• The newspaper clipping says that he was 25 when he died, and that he died on September 23 (in 2007).

Obviously the date on the official news story could have been fudged by the CIA, but it would be strange for them to fudge his age. That implies that Bryce's birthday might be later than Chuck's, rather than earlier as Chuck implied.
The supposed date of his death also seemingly conflicts with Chuck's birthday as shown in the "Alma Mater" flash. In the timeline for the first 2 episodes, assuming the flash is correct, is:

• Chuck's birthday (9/18): We know it's actually on his birthday because Morgan remarks that Bryce "remembered your birthday."
• Next day (9/19): Sarah approaches Chuck, she leaves her card, tries to steal his computer.
• Next day (9/20): Sarah returns, sets up date for that night. Chuck defuses bomb.
• Seemingly next day (9/21): Casey starts at Buy More.
• 24 hours later (9/22): Casey chases down shoplifter (Morgan: "Guy's been here 24 hours"), Chuck sees Sarah at Wienerlicious, Sarah sets up "date" at Buy More for that night, Ellie insists on dinner at home the next night.
• Next day (9/23): Ellie has newspaper with Bryce's obituary, saying Bryce died on the 23rd. Dinner.

Interestingly, the clipping also says his parents' names are Wanda and Bill, and that he has a sister named Penelope. It looks to me like he was born in Newtown, CT, which is an hour away from Hartford, where Chuck was born according to his Stanford ID flash. And at Stanford, Bryce was an honors graduate who studied not only engineering but business administration and political science.
So should we include the info from the clipping in this article? It has internal contradictions and other issues that suggest it was assembled without too much attention to detail. It also seems to contradict other info in the show. Or should we doubt the birthdate in the "Alma Mater" flash, which was only on screen for a fraction of a second? Could I be wrong about the timeline, and Chuck took a day off before going back to the Buy More? DurandalsFate (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the date of death, I'm sure that could be chalked up to the government fudging the details to help protect his identity. As for the text of the obit. itself, I'm not sure that's noteworthy enough to include in the main bio. A separate note under the Development section highlighting these inconsistencies might work best, rather than working them into the bio itself. Ambaryer (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)