The 100 - Season 3
Apr. 24th, 2016 10:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell, I'm all caught up on The 100 now. And...this shows writers really like to kill off characters in sadistic ways. Granted it is a dark post-apocalyptic series, so sort of goes with the territory. Star Trek, it ain't. More similar to Walking Dead, sans the zombies and horror show gore.
It's gory, just in a different way. What I don't understand is why I have no difficulty binge-watching this series, but the violence in The Americans, American Horror Story, The Walking Dead and the Blacklist bothers me?
At any rate, there were a lot of character deaths in the last six episodes. I think someone died, sometimes two people, in each episode. It got to the point in which, I was starting to yell at the tv. "Noooo, don't kill off that character, I like that character, you dimwit, kill off that other character instead. Stop it with the killing of the characters already...seriously this is getting annoying. Okay, are you going to kill off all the characters, because than we'll have no tv show?"
I think they killed off ten characters. I lost count. Actually, maybe not ten. Anyhow, we're back down to a small rag-tag team of fairly young traumatized heroes. (Seriously, who wouldn't be?). I do find it interesting that they only kill off the supporting characters that the writers apparently have grown tired of, and whose death seemingly serves to further the other characters arcs and plot better than their continued existence. It makes it easier for me to predict their deaths.
I'm hoping last week's episode wasn't the season finale. I don't think it was. I think that's in MAY.
I'll be annoyed if it was the Season Finale. [It's not, I checked, theres at least four more episodes to go. Next one is entitled Join or Die. Yay!]
I actually liked the last six episodes more than I expected.
1. LEXA's DEATH: It's worth to keep in mind that I was not emotionally invested in the character of LEXA and knew they were going to kill her off. Bellamy/Clark is clearly the end game. So Lexa pretty much had to die. Just as Gina had to die. Also, her death was foreshadowed by Gina's death. The writers were killing off, systematically, the lover or person each of the main characters loved the most. I figured out they were going to do that, when the tone was set with Jasper's grief over Maia. Also, Lexa's death shakes everything up. Note - that's how you can figure out a character death - who will shake things up the most? And who is the most mature and doesn't require more story? I actually was surprised by how they killed her off -- that was well done. She dies by accident. Her advisor accidentally kills her attempting to kill Clark. And it reveals Ali 2, and what Bettany had down with the second AI device.
2. LINCOLN's DEATH: Wasn't surprised by Lincoln's death either. That worked within the plot arc. Actually, I've been waiting for them to kill Lincoln off for two seasons -- surprised he survived this long. How they killed him off worked -- because it pissed a couple of key characters off, and flipped the switch on Octavia and Bellamy. And ...well, Pike had been aiming for it for a while.
So those worked.
3. THE OTHER DEATHS - MONTY's Mom, PIKE, and The Advisor/Flame-keeper (none of which I cared about and was sort of hoping they'd kill off eventually): Monty's mother's death also worked, saw that coming a mile away. He was clearly going to end up killing his mother. And I knew Lexa's advisor would kill himself and make Clarke the new keeper of the flame. I thought Bellamy was going to be the one who killed Pike, but instead he just gives him over to the Grounders, who shoot him in the chest with arrows -- so sort of the same thing.
4. SINCLAIRE's DEATH: Did not expect them to kill off Sinclair. Okay, not true. I did. I just kept hoping they wouldn't. I liked Sinclair and felt that the character hadn't gotten enough exploration. Also, we needed at least one older Arcadian with the twenty-thirtysomethings (sorry teenagers being portrayed by twenty-thirtysomethings. I wish they would stop casting teens with twenty-somethings, and twenty-somethings with thirty-somethings...it confuses me.) So, I don't see why they had to kill him off. His death didn't forward the action all that much. Also, it seemed sort of anti-climatic. I know they were trying to heighten the tension, but considering I thought they'd already killed Jasper, Harper, and the homosexual guard couple whose names I can't remember...
At the time, I thought I can't believe they just killed off Jasper, Harper and the homosexual guard couple (who I adored but can't remember their names). In fact, I thought, whoa, that's a lot of characters you killed off all at once, show. WTF? Please stop. I like these characters. No, not Sinclair too. Wait, are we killing off all the characters? Ugh.
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Emerson had popped up again. He was the nasty Mount Weather Guard who plotted the attack on the Arcadians in Mount Weather at the beginning of the season in retribution for what Monty, Bellamy and Clarke had done, or really just Clark, they merely followed her call. Lexa had caught him and was going to kill him for Mount Weather, but Clarke plead to have him live and banished him. Big mistake. In this world, you don't let people like that live.
Poor Clarke, she pleads for the guy's life, tries to do the right thing -- only to have it come back and bite her. Oh well, he died horribly. Ali 2 is really nasty if you aren't genetically compatible and have black blood.
Anyhow, it was a nice mislead, and I was relieved they all survived. Still annoyed by Sinclair's death, a waste of a character.
5. As an aside? Are the writers afraid of showing sex? We don't really see much of it. Okay, we did see Clark and Lexa, and Clark and the innkeeper, sort of. So, not afraid of Lesbian sex scenes. Also Bellamy and Raven, sort of, in S1. But that's it. We do however get the violence up close and personal. I personally would prefer watching people have sex to watching them torture each other, but that's just me. Maybe the writers find sex scenes to be boring? They are admittedly boring. Not a lot happens. Also uncomfortable for actors. But at least I don't cringe through them and want to leave the room. (I want a Abby/Kane sex scene. Also the homosexual couple. If we get lesbian sex, it's only fair to get homosexual and heterosexual sex too, and with the adults not just the alleged teens.)
6. Overall, though? I liked the episodes. Yes, it's uneven in places but..the pacing was great. Held my attention. And it's rather clever in places. The episode where they guard Raven, prior to removing her chip, and she attacks each of them - was well written. It was an opportunity for the writers to explore in depth various characters emotional baggage and guilt. Both Bellamy and Clarke are carrying a lot of guilt for past decisions.
Neither is blameless.
As Bellamy states to Clark: "What do you do when you realize that maybe you aren't the good guy?"
Clarke: "I don't think there are any good guys."
Both have lost their innocence and their sense of righteousness. That was a good episode. As was the one that followed it, Demons. Both dug deep into Clark and Bellamy's demons, along with the other members of the troop. Who have been paired off in an interesting manner. Clark and Bellamy, Octavia and Jasper, Monty and Raven. They've killed off the significants for each. Disappointing that, but predictable.
7. I rather like the Abby/Kane relationship. Not at all pleased with Abby being forced to take the key. That was a brutal episode. The whole key/chip storyline reminds me a little of Angel's Shiny Happy People and HAL in 2001. It's very 1980s. Also reminds me a bit of Battlestar Galatica v.2. Why do sci-fi writers repeat old themes? Maybe because there are no new ones?
Abby/Kane parallels Clark/Bellamy...so curious if the writers will go that route. Could get some major fandom backlash if they do. Fans aren't accepting of bisexuality, they have a tendency to think you are either gay or straight, when the reality is that most people are bisexual or there's a spectrum. Why people don't get that, I've no clue. Seems sort of obvious to me. I'm hoping the writers are smart and brave enough to go the bisexual route with Clarke, considering Clarke loved Finn and Lexa, and doesn't seem to define herself one way or another. That's one thing I love about the series - the characters and world have evolved past things like sexual orientation and sexual identity. They are too busy surviving, so just don't care. First sci-fi series I've seen that embraced that. Actually, that was a weakness of Battlestar Galatica and Star Trek, both of those series should have embraced it.
8. The anti-vengeance theme impresses me. It goes hand in hand with the anti-violence theme. That solving your problems with violence, gets you nowhere. Except dead. And removing pain along with all memories of pain -- doesn't resolve anything either. As Abby put it - the death of one man's mother motivated him to become a doctor. Pain can motivate us to survive, to learn, to change. Sometimes in a good way. You can't just bury it or forget it.
9. And...the AI key as a pain-reliever that makes you numb to pain, and anything that causes it -- with the afterlife being a painless safe existence with no anger, no feelings...reminds me actually of the film "Firefly" and Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. Although I like how they are exploring it here a tad better.
So, yes, all in all, The 100 continues to be the best science fiction series on at the moment. Or the only one who seems to have much to say. And its themes, overall, are relevant to our own political climate. Just do yourselves a favor and don't ship any of the supporting characters. The only one's guaranteed to survive are Clark, Bellamy, Octavia, Raven, Monty, Jasper, Murphy (I've decided he's unkillable), Joha, Abby, and Kane. Everyone else...is disposable.
It's gory, just in a different way. What I don't understand is why I have no difficulty binge-watching this series, but the violence in The Americans, American Horror Story, The Walking Dead and the Blacklist bothers me?
At any rate, there were a lot of character deaths in the last six episodes. I think someone died, sometimes two people, in each episode. It got to the point in which, I was starting to yell at the tv. "Noooo, don't kill off that character, I like that character, you dimwit, kill off that other character instead. Stop it with the killing of the characters already...seriously this is getting annoying. Okay, are you going to kill off all the characters, because than we'll have no tv show?"
I think they killed off ten characters. I lost count. Actually, maybe not ten. Anyhow, we're back down to a small rag-tag team of fairly young traumatized heroes. (Seriously, who wouldn't be?). I do find it interesting that they only kill off the supporting characters that the writers apparently have grown tired of, and whose death seemingly serves to further the other characters arcs and plot better than their continued existence. It makes it easier for me to predict their deaths.
I'm hoping last week's episode wasn't the season finale. I don't think it was. I think that's in MAY.
I'll be annoyed if it was the Season Finale. [It's not, I checked, theres at least four more episodes to go. Next one is entitled Join or Die. Yay!]
I actually liked the last six episodes more than I expected.
1. LEXA's DEATH: It's worth to keep in mind that I was not emotionally invested in the character of LEXA and knew they were going to kill her off. Bellamy/Clark is clearly the end game. So Lexa pretty much had to die. Just as Gina had to die. Also, her death was foreshadowed by Gina's death. The writers were killing off, systematically, the lover or person each of the main characters loved the most. I figured out they were going to do that, when the tone was set with Jasper's grief over Maia. Also, Lexa's death shakes everything up. Note - that's how you can figure out a character death - who will shake things up the most? And who is the most mature and doesn't require more story? I actually was surprised by how they killed her off -- that was well done. She dies by accident. Her advisor accidentally kills her attempting to kill Clark. And it reveals Ali 2, and what Bettany had down with the second AI device.
2. LINCOLN's DEATH: Wasn't surprised by Lincoln's death either. That worked within the plot arc. Actually, I've been waiting for them to kill Lincoln off for two seasons -- surprised he survived this long. How they killed him off worked -- because it pissed a couple of key characters off, and flipped the switch on Octavia and Bellamy. And ...well, Pike had been aiming for it for a while.
So those worked.
3. THE OTHER DEATHS - MONTY's Mom, PIKE, and The Advisor/Flame-keeper (none of which I cared about and was sort of hoping they'd kill off eventually): Monty's mother's death also worked, saw that coming a mile away. He was clearly going to end up killing his mother. And I knew Lexa's advisor would kill himself and make Clarke the new keeper of the flame. I thought Bellamy was going to be the one who killed Pike, but instead he just gives him over to the Grounders, who shoot him in the chest with arrows -- so sort of the same thing.
4. SINCLAIRE's DEATH: Did not expect them to kill off Sinclair. Okay, not true. I did. I just kept hoping they wouldn't. I liked Sinclair and felt that the character hadn't gotten enough exploration. Also, we needed at least one older Arcadian with the twenty-thirtysomethings (sorry teenagers being portrayed by twenty-thirtysomethings. I wish they would stop casting teens with twenty-somethings, and twenty-somethings with thirty-somethings...it confuses me.) So, I don't see why they had to kill him off. His death didn't forward the action all that much. Also, it seemed sort of anti-climatic. I know they were trying to heighten the tension, but considering I thought they'd already killed Jasper, Harper, and the homosexual guard couple whose names I can't remember...
At the time, I thought I can't believe they just killed off Jasper, Harper and the homosexual guard couple (who I adored but can't remember their names). In fact, I thought, whoa, that's a lot of characters you killed off all at once, show. WTF? Please stop. I like these characters. No, not Sinclair too. Wait, are we killing off all the characters? Ugh.
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Emerson had popped up again. He was the nasty Mount Weather Guard who plotted the attack on the Arcadians in Mount Weather at the beginning of the season in retribution for what Monty, Bellamy and Clarke had done, or really just Clark, they merely followed her call. Lexa had caught him and was going to kill him for Mount Weather, but Clarke plead to have him live and banished him. Big mistake. In this world, you don't let people like that live.
Poor Clarke, she pleads for the guy's life, tries to do the right thing -- only to have it come back and bite her. Oh well, he died horribly. Ali 2 is really nasty if you aren't genetically compatible and have black blood.
Anyhow, it was a nice mislead, and I was relieved they all survived. Still annoyed by Sinclair's death, a waste of a character.
5. As an aside? Are the writers afraid of showing sex? We don't really see much of it. Okay, we did see Clark and Lexa, and Clark and the innkeeper, sort of. So, not afraid of Lesbian sex scenes. Also Bellamy and Raven, sort of, in S1. But that's it. We do however get the violence up close and personal. I personally would prefer watching people have sex to watching them torture each other, but that's just me. Maybe the writers find sex scenes to be boring? They are admittedly boring. Not a lot happens. Also uncomfortable for actors. But at least I don't cringe through them and want to leave the room. (I want a Abby/Kane sex scene. Also the homosexual couple. If we get lesbian sex, it's only fair to get homosexual and heterosexual sex too, and with the adults not just the alleged teens.)
6. Overall, though? I liked the episodes. Yes, it's uneven in places but..the pacing was great. Held my attention. And it's rather clever in places. The episode where they guard Raven, prior to removing her chip, and she attacks each of them - was well written. It was an opportunity for the writers to explore in depth various characters emotional baggage and guilt. Both Bellamy and Clarke are carrying a lot of guilt for past decisions.
Neither is blameless.
As Bellamy states to Clark: "What do you do when you realize that maybe you aren't the good guy?"
Clarke: "I don't think there are any good guys."
Both have lost their innocence and their sense of righteousness. That was a good episode. As was the one that followed it, Demons. Both dug deep into Clark and Bellamy's demons, along with the other members of the troop. Who have been paired off in an interesting manner. Clark and Bellamy, Octavia and Jasper, Monty and Raven. They've killed off the significants for each. Disappointing that, but predictable.
7. I rather like the Abby/Kane relationship. Not at all pleased with Abby being forced to take the key. That was a brutal episode. The whole key/chip storyline reminds me a little of Angel's Shiny Happy People and HAL in 2001. It's very 1980s. Also reminds me a bit of Battlestar Galatica v.2. Why do sci-fi writers repeat old themes? Maybe because there are no new ones?
Abby/Kane parallels Clark/Bellamy...so curious if the writers will go that route. Could get some major fandom backlash if they do. Fans aren't accepting of bisexuality, they have a tendency to think you are either gay or straight, when the reality is that most people are bisexual or there's a spectrum. Why people don't get that, I've no clue. Seems sort of obvious to me. I'm hoping the writers are smart and brave enough to go the bisexual route with Clarke, considering Clarke loved Finn and Lexa, and doesn't seem to define herself one way or another. That's one thing I love about the series - the characters and world have evolved past things like sexual orientation and sexual identity. They are too busy surviving, so just don't care. First sci-fi series I've seen that embraced that. Actually, that was a weakness of Battlestar Galatica and Star Trek, both of those series should have embraced it.
8. The anti-vengeance theme impresses me. It goes hand in hand with the anti-violence theme. That solving your problems with violence, gets you nowhere. Except dead. And removing pain along with all memories of pain -- doesn't resolve anything either. As Abby put it - the death of one man's mother motivated him to become a doctor. Pain can motivate us to survive, to learn, to change. Sometimes in a good way. You can't just bury it or forget it.
9. And...the AI key as a pain-reliever that makes you numb to pain, and anything that causes it -- with the afterlife being a painless safe existence with no anger, no feelings...reminds me actually of the film "Firefly" and Joss Whedon's Dollhouse. Although I like how they are exploring it here a tad better.
So, yes, all in all, The 100 continues to be the best science fiction series on at the moment. Or the only one who seems to have much to say. And its themes, overall, are relevant to our own political climate. Just do yourselves a favor and don't ship any of the supporting characters. The only one's guaranteed to survive are Clark, Bellamy, Octavia, Raven, Monty, Jasper, Murphy (I've decided he's unkillable), Joha, Abby, and Kane. Everyone else...is disposable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-04-26 11:18 pm (UTC)True, but it's a matter of Clarke walking the walk after insisting to Lexa that blood must not have blood, that all this leads to is everybody eventually ending up dead. It's easy to insist that you turn the other cheek when someone strikes you, but that's damn near impossible to do in practice, and the sad part is that many people-- Emerson, certainly-- sees such an action not as moral rectitude but weakness.
I actually found the various deaths and the theme, blood will have blood interesting...because it should how it isn't something that can be decided generally, but on a case by case basis. For example, there are individuals in our own world, who I'm sorry, you just can't ever let out of prison and probably should execute just to protect the rest of us.
(ie. Serial Killers and Dedicated Terrorists, who are pretty much the same thing.)
Here, same deal. Emerson had made it clear that he was not going to stop until he destroyed Clarke as she destroyed him, regardless of who got in his way. He'd in effect killed a whole mountain full of people just to hurt Clark and as vengeance. Clarke in contrast had killed the people in Mt. Weather to rescue her own people, her motivation wasn't revenge. The motivation here is important.
If there are mitigating circumstances, and the death was caused by accident, self-defense or to rescue someone else, or to save a large group of people. Blood will have blood is wrong.
However, if the death was a deliberate act of vengeance or to steal, maim, control in order to unjusty benefit just yourself --- blood will have blood makes sense. Or if you have taken things to extremes and decided, I know, I'll just get rid of everyone who isn't like my people, regardless of who they are. Then...you sort have to execute the person for the general good. Finn's execution, while unfortunate, does makes sense -- because he went insane and killed an entire village for no reason -- there's no way of knowing he wouldn't do it again, and if they let him live - that would condone it. Pike--- turning him over was necessary, because he was a threat to everyone as well due to his view that anyone who didn't fit his world-view, must die. Monty's Mom -- self-defense. Emerson -- has gone insane, like Finn - danger to everyone around him.
It's not really a matter of being redeemable, so much as...are you a danger to everyone around you? It's not like they have prisons or places that they can put these people.
I think Clark is beginning to figure out that things aren't quite so black and white. As she tells Bellamy, there are no good guys. Bellamy more or less figures out the same thing...it's not so clear cut.
And the pattern of the deaths...each one felt accidental, or unintentional...or brought on by the victim. Monty's Mom -- who just blindly followed whomever was leader, regardless of who they were or what they told her. Even to the extent that she turned in her own son. It's small wonder, he ends up killing her in self-defense. Pike --- who was so intent on killing to keep people safe, to the point that he alienated Bellamy, who took him to the other side. Lexa -- who turned a blind eye on her advisor, who disagreed with her at every turn, often violently so, and made it clear that Clark should die or leave...it wasn't surprising she ended up the accidental recipient of his bullet - inadvertently taking the bullet meant for Clark. And Lincoln, who ran from his people, was at odds with his people, and declared a traitor to them ends up sacrificing himself for them. Finally Sinclair, the Chief Engineer of Skaycrue -- who fights to protect Raven, the only person he has left, his protegee, as he gets sliced open by the Chief Engineer of Mount Weather.
From a metaphorical perspective and a plot perspective -- that's rather well-done.
no subject
Date: 2016-04-26 11:19 pm (UTC)There are indeed very few truly new themes, IMO. So 90% of what you produce as a writer comes down to how cleverly or innovatively you can massage the older themes.
Have to admit, I find their twist on the AI bit, rather interesting. It adds to the over-arching theme of power and control.
Also it is interesting how each of these characters has changed and evolved since S1, and how their solutions to the problem of their species survival has changed.
In particular Kane, Pike, Abby and Johra.
Kane thinks working with the others, as a thirteenth clan, and uniting with them in their society is the best approach.
Abby agrees with him. As does Clarke. (Remember, Kane was originally about floating people and survival at any cost or of the fittest. Also on the Arc, he believed in martial law and force. Not free will. Now, Kane, sees that is a really bad idea. That survival at any cost --- will cost them their lives, their souls, and repeat what happened before. And people should be permitted to choose.)
Johra thinks that everyone needs to evolve beyond themselves and go to the City of Light, where there is not pain, no hunger, no fear...no power games, you are taken care of by Ali 1. (Reminds me a lot of Jasmine and Connor in Shiny Happy People, Angel S4). If you aren't going to go along, he'll force you or kill you. (Johra no longer believes that people should freely choose, that they should be forced to choose and manipulated into making the choice he knows is absolutely right.)
Pike thinks we should kill the others (everyone who isn't Arcadian/Skaycrue) and build a fortress. And is survival at any cost.(Pike on Arcadia was a farmer and about peace and cohabitation.)
They've explored the options from various perspectives, and flipped the characters -- so the characters now find themselves, ironically, on the opposite side of the argument.
no subject
Date: 2016-04-27 08:22 am (UTC)Yes, I've think you've sussed it pretty well. I would add that from my perspective, as to Clarke's ( previously her mother's) statement of "Maybe there are no good guys", a primary aspect that defines a "good guy" is to not simply make a hard decision and then rationalize away the negative, or even tragic results that may occur from said decision, but to accept that in some way, you will always be responsible for the bad results, and live with that knowledge. Then, if you are fortunate, that knowledge,
if it doesn't drive you into depression or insanity, may help you to make better moral choices in future. Kane is an excellent example of this.
Now Jaha seems to have flipped from the perspective he held on the Ark, and for the early period of time he was on the ground. I've wondered about how that came about, and since in the past several weeks I've been replaying the series from Season One on (I'm about half-way through Season 2 currently), it's started to make more sense. The beginnings of the reversal started when he was a captive along with Kane, and Lexa had given them a knife and instructed that one of them must be sacrificed to make uo for (Finn's) attack on the village. Kane was willing to kill himself if it would bring peace, Jaha was not. Things went downhill for Jaha pretty much from then on, until he ran into ALIE.
no subject
Date: 2016-04-27 08:39 am (UTC)This, by the way, is not a new concept (nor was the Matrix). I recall reading a science fiction story well over 30 years ago where a similar technology was used to punish criminals. For example, a serial killer could be sentenced to relive the horrific deaths of all the people he had killed, and as far as he was concerned, it was all absolutely real-- even though (in the story) his body was gone, and he was only a "brain in a beaker" connected to a massively powerful computer.
I find this potential technology both fascinating and terrifying, because (A) it is perfectly technically possible to do it-- it doesn't violate any laws of physics, chemistry, whatever, and (B) yes, you could use this to create a real, literal "heaven" that people could inhabit, but you could just as easily create a hell, or hells. And as long as you could keep the brain alive-- years, centuries, millenia? -- that heaven, or hell could continue.
no subject
Date: 2016-04-28 01:50 am (UTC)It is rather frightening and plausible.
I can't fault them for retreading old ground, at this point literally everyone is. But at least they are being innovative in how they go about it.
no subject
Date: 2016-04-28 01:57 am (UTC)Meanwhile Kane and Abby are like -- there isn't a new promised land. This is it. We need to find a way to make this work, not keep hunting something new.
So he goes on a pilgrimage and finds Ali 1 -- who basically hands him his promised land. He's basically the wise, caring, mislead messiah, who thinks...if we all embrace the Rapture, we'll find the promised land. With it's nice neat rules and structure. Keep in mind -- as chancellor on the arc, he pushed rules and structure. The Arc wasn't necessarily that much better than Mount Weather in that regard.
I think you are right -- it's examining what happens under the two extremes - "back to nature tribalism" and "technological dogmatic rules and order". Clark and her crew are hunting the happy medium.