myril

Think even these writers would have written the episode differently as stand alone. I disagree, the episode was not weak per se, the writing was average OUaT level of okay. I see the problem more in the lack of connection to the rest of the show and this season and what likely most still watching are interested in. Anyone interested in the core lore, in Dark Emma, Captain Swan, RumBelle or Regina and her adjuncts must have been rather been bored by it. While the episode on the other hand was too isolated and not good with continuity to get back viewers or keep them interested in the show, who always had a liking for these supporting characters from season 1 and season 2. And if it was meant to set up a love story like any other love story on OUaT for Mulan and Red, then it failed with that as well, I think. Still not sure if there is a romance meant to be between them or not.

Now that we have a thread for The Bear King episode to discuss on its own, moving my commentary from the other thread here. Once Upon a time... the story of crossover fan fiction turned into a (more or less successful) TV series. Or so. Paid little attention to the first episode of this Sunday eve unlike I guess the majority of viewers, was more interested in the Bear King, merely for Mulan and Red. The Bear King could have been a nice story. As usually with this show there was potential in the ideas they had, but what they made of it was mostly only bearable if someone is capable of viewing every episode and character moment as isolated from the rest of things. Unfortunately the story line suffered the same fate as so many things on this show, lack of coherence and continuity. Characters are not allowed to evolve, they are driven by the writers "brilliant" twists and ideas. So Mulan turned heartbrocken into a cynic mercenary giving up on her believe in the code of honor pretty much out of the blue just because. Not saying a broken heart can't change people quite a lot, but it didn't make sense for Mulan, not without some more explanation. I mean, I can get there, code of honor getting in the way of just a chance on happiness, the Merry Men turning out to be just some gang of bigmouthed thugs using honor as smoke screen to justify everything, seeing that the honorable nobility with their wicked true luuv dramas does so much harm to innocent people, but still, it takes some work and guessing. I did miss them, always liked these characters. And there were some calls over the past 2 seasons wondering what happened to them. For me these two were half of the reasons why I still am hanging around, curious what they would do with them now. No high expectations, luckily not. Another magic bean magically contrived, uhm conjured to magically shut up pesky geeks looking for boring story details and elaborate world building. The subtle message to the geeky fans: Chill, people, have some chili beans and enjoy the crazy ride. Or in other words: Stop making sense of things that never were meant to make sense and no one should care about. Like never growing up teenagers: Every crush is life changing and never ending drama. But disagree with it being a jerk move, it would have been honest. The problem is though less Mulan, it's the writing for her. Can't make sense of inner character reasoning if the writers have little patience for character development. There is just so much one can fanwank. The writing on this show doesn't show mastership of subtext, despite some oneliner sassines and occasional ambiguous meanings. The writing lacks a sense of subtlety and depth for that IMO. Whatever subtext showed up on the show over the years happened more by accident, thanks to the actors mostly, not intentional by the writers, at least not for the first 2 seasons. Agree, there was a bit of eye sex going on in this episode, the kind of thing easy to miss if not trained to pay attention to, trained by necessity due to lack of representation. The kind of thing making it way too easy to ignore if one chooses to ignore to be able to insist, that it was all about friendship and nothing but. It's so eerie and like from a different century to look at what this show is doing while you can find on Netflix a show like Sense8, or take just The Fosters on ABC family. I see OUaT close to dark 50s TV prudery - which could be fun if played out as hilarious retro mockery, but that is not this show, think they're just that prude or maybe angsty about viewer reactions. Somehow it's never as repelling to some to show some blood, violence and questionable ethics than it is to show gay or lesbian love. Maybe that is what they meant, exploring it without exploring it? If I am not mistaken, they never said it would be Mulan with someone, that was media and fan assumption so far, but fan theory with good reasons. But it is possible Mulan and Red might not be it. It's frustrating and rather obstructive particular in this matter, that A&E keep playing their usual, "psssst.... we have a surprise" card. They should be frank about it. This goes beyond teasing and keeping things interesting by keeping people guessing, it becomes destructive and means feeding trolls and frustration in the fandom even more. Won't silence some folks, think even it shouldn't, but please, let's now stop this obnoxious guessing game, they behave like it's just some kindergarten trivia. At least they avoided the Sweeps Week Lesbian Kiss trope. Congratulations. . This episode left things so wide open they could drop and forget it all along again, which would be no surprise at all, given the attention deficit the show has anyway. Sorry for being a pessimist, but this was was more frustrating than awarding any stamina rooting in faint hope. It's due time for this show to at least go boldly where other shows have boldly gone a long long time ago and not dance around it like some Rumplestiltskin. As there is (magical) power in names there is power in making something clearly visible. Disagree with it being superior. Because of sounding so close to Moulin Rouge it makes me think of can-can dance and of sexualization of women for entertainment (claimed occasionally to mix with art) and of prostitution. Might fit this show, might fit as well a show going for on male gaze based state of excitement of watching two women interact sexually. I don't think of Moulin Rouge as scandalous but neither do I romanticize the show business it was. But okay, that might all just be my warped sensitivities. Use what you like. I will stick to Red Warrior, or maybe Wolf Warrior. Not great, but IMO still better. Or look for something different, Ruby Sword, Red Flower, Red Magnolia, Ruby Magnolia ... At least Red Warrior makes me think among other things of Hans Zimmer's soundtrack for Last Samurai and more importantly the Nightwish song "Dark Chest of Wonders", prefer that in this case over Can-Can-Dance. Okay, guess I better go now wolfing out ;-

The Holy Grail might have some Celtic elements and roots but it became a Christian myth, mingled with the legend of the Holy Chalice. The Arthurian tales are interwoven with as much as creating ideals of Christian knighthood and courtly love. One theory of origin is the myth of a magical cauldron able to give life back to fallen warriors, though eventually without giving them souls (thus turning them into zombies, walking dead), which is said to be Celtic mythology. That is the cauldron you mentioned Disney referenced to in the film Black Cauldron. Thing with Celtic mythology is, that it itself has become myth, we don't know that much about the Celts from the Celts themselves, there is a lot of second hand sources in play. And as often when looking into mythology and folktales can find similar elements in different cultures and stories, sometimes might be coincidence sometimes they copied or influenced each other. We by now have mingled and mixed in our narration these stories and reused them as templates for our own modern fantasies and fairy tales. Christian lore and mythology is full of elements of other, older mythology, they haven't invented story telling and creation of legends, that is likely as old as human self awareness. As I see it the Holy Grail has become much associated with Christian legends and symbolism. While the Holy Grail has strong references in general to Christian tales, the Holy Grail on the show doesn't have to have any kind of that reference though. Just because it shows up on the show doesn't mean there had to be a Jesus in the OUaT worlds, or anyone comparable to it. That myth and the connection of the Grail to the Holy Chalice could be very well even in the OUaT universe a narrative of "our" world, (which once was called the world without magic), while the grail we get to see, the one Merlin and Nimue drank from could have a different story of origin. That always has been an implication of the show's universe IMO, that the narrative we have in books, as myth, legend, fiction, are not one and the same with the events that happened in the OUaT worlds. Think what can happen easily, but that is more an interesting matter for discussing audience reception of the show less the episode in itself, is that we mix in our perception our own interpretation of imagery, possible ideas the writers might have had and the meaning or use of something inside of the OUaT world, what it means for the characters, their action, how something came into existence inside the OUaT world. So because we are used to see the Holy Grail in connection with Christian myths of salvation we conclude that it has to be the same inside the OUaT story world. It wasn't said though it is, nothing is said about how the Holy Grail came to be, if I am not mistaken. It though looked less to be about the myth of a cauldron bringing fallen warriors back (maybe the cauldron Arthur worked with was a potshot), but more about a miracle tool which showed up right in time to someone hoping for the gods (whatever gods he believes in) to take care of him and his companion - that scene was full of Christian imagery even if the Holy Grail in OUaT likely has little to do with the Holy Chalice legend in our world. Was anyone else thinking during that scene of some 1940s and 1950s biblical epic Hollywood Golden Age Technicolor movies with Charlton Heston (which could have inspired some Star Wars design)? As I see it the show doesn't need to explicitly bring up religion as subject per se to use tons of religiously charged imagery as in this or other episodes. The Grimm Brothers narrations of fairy tales are full of Christian imagery, so IMO it would be more of a surprise if the show wouldn't be as well. And certainly the Arthurian tales have been mixed over time with plenty of Christian imagery too, so no surprise either if it shows on the show. Likely that is something more for an academic analyse (anyone looking for a master theses subject in anthropology, history, literature, film arts?) and less for simply enjoying the fun of Sunday eve distraction entertainment. The writers are playing with themes and imagery that can work on many levels of meaning, not always sure how much of it is implied or noticed by the writers themselves though. I don't think they are scampering away from religion of any kind as if it's too hot of a subject to touch, it just doesn't matter to their narrative, despite that they are using plenty of religiously charged imagery. I might think it's a pity, I like fantasy stories with elaborate world building in the background, and it can add dimension to a fictional world, but the show can go without showing us the likely many religions of the OUaT universe. Agreed. Power corrupts, or it often does. Magic is power, the Holy Grail offered power. While the Dark One is certainly a personification of evil I don't see it as an entity in itself. Emma asked Merlin, if it is possible that someone could ever use that darkness or power of it in a good way, which he first denies, then says, maybe, one day someone might be strong enough and not loose their soul to the darkness while using the immense power. It was one of those moments which often get buried in plot rush hour and throwing more gadgets and characters into the story. Wonder if something will come out of it. When making a power visible as they do with the Dark One and its darkness on the show, it tempts us viewers to see it as an entity in itself, on its own, but maybe we shouldn't take everything shown on the show that literally. When the characters talk what we get to hear what is their interpretation of events, but that doesn't meant that is the only way to look at what happened nor that it is what happened. Meanwhile magic is something they have to make visible for us to see, as a process and not just as result (the downside of screen story telling, you have to be visual not wordy), be it these colorful light rays and smoke clouds or some goo looking whirling something and a person showing dark snake or lizard like greenish skin (ah, they symbolism of snakes as representation of evil, more Christian imagery included). Although at times think they should give the audience a bit more credit for being likely imaginative and having some smarts to get something without having to see comic like CGI representation.On the other hand often enough see audiences not getting some things because of the way they are made visible on screen.

That or maybe at best a reaction to the promotion of the episode, it hardly ever can be a reaction to the episode before it aired. Always find that argument funny, particular seeing how much promotion often differ from what actually is shown in an episode. Unless you're extensively spoiled about an episode you can easily be mislead about it by the promotion done, and I doubt that much of the audience is that spoiled. But with thick fan and shipping googles on reason and facts tend to take a break.

They like shiny toys, be it characters or some magical gadget, don't they? ;-) It's kinda funny seeing that there are some prejudices about U.S. culture and especially entertainment saying it is superficial, shallow, rash, into things for the thrill, action crazy, fixed on materialistic values - and it sometimes sounds as if this show seems to aspire to become one of the new icons to prove such prejudices right. Occasionally I wonder though if it is not a huge troll attack on the whole Disney and hero fluff (including Marvel, star Wars), as such it could turn out as brilliant. A big joke on all middle-classy and suburban-romantically fairy tale interpretations since the 1940s, a witty revenge on Disney's imperium. Of course the show runners could never admit that while the show is running, or maybe even never. But when I watch the show that way I begin to enjoy it a bit again. Playing around with all the religious motives as they are makes me only wonder, why no zealotic Christian group is already campaigning for banning the show from mainstream broadcast and asking for it to be locked up in the depth of a deep, deep vault far out of reach of any child and teenager. Savior, resurrection, evil and good, the last battle, battling the dragon(s), burning tree (instead of bush), the words of the prophets, chosen writers giving testament of events of the magical realms in books (good thing they didn't name Henry Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) the Holy grail now (to name just a few things coming right to my mind) - the show is full of it. I found it rather an interesting idea to turn the grail into Excalibur. Although wish they wouldn't have done it with such boring CGI magic and used a blacksmith instead - not the least because Rumple's father had been sold to a blacksmith as kid and blacksmiths have been believed to have some connection with magic in mythology. They could have set up just another connection to the Greek olymp with it. But that are the moments when I notice the show lacks some deeper thirst for and fun with background stories and mythology. They go for the shiny toy for it being shiny. So, while I might consider the show as a big troll attack on the Disney Imperium, it likely is not. Although would have been a time issue eventually to bring a blacksmith in. Stripping the episode from all related to the main cast, exception Emma, concentrating on the Merlin and Nimue/Emma Dark One I could see some potential in it. As usual though expect nothing interesting to come out of it. I forwarded through most of the Mills-Charmings quest, because, sorry, not interested in them anymore, not at all, wouldn't mind if the magic dragon puffs them away with just one deep breather. And Arthur - kinda interesting although having a feeling here too, they will scrap only the surface as well. He is so obsessed with the idea of glory. Guess Excalibur had not much of a good influence on him, being in a different way as poisonous as the Dark One dagger is on its own. A tool of life, the grail, turned into a tool of might, the sword, which split up has become two poisonous thorns in the sides of people, feeding and bringing out the darkness in them, turning them into tools of destruction while they keep on reasoning, they do all for good reasons. And in some way the root of (this) evil had been love. Ironic. One thing I got out of this episode: Think should keep an eye on Caroline Ford. Hope she'll get some interesting roles.

It might be justifiable to stop them, but a different thing could be to do it for revenge. Think that is what they are trying to play on here. Of course one can argue, seeing that Vortigan likely wanted to use the sword for doing more evil, he had to be stopped. Considering that it was Excalibur in his hands could even speculate, that he could have been able to kill Merlin, so all Nimue did was to stop a killer in the act. But was that what she was doing? Where is the line to draw between justifiable taking action to protect from taking revenge? I know, some people think its even fully okay to execute people for murder, but that is something I don't agree on, because to me doing that is about taking revenge and not about protection or preventing an immediate threat. Justice can be ambiguous, not just because of the question of whose justice it is or for whom justice is done. That is why things usually are so complicate for the good guys and so easy for the bad ones. Take revenge - no big deal, nothing to be hesitant about. Take the enemy down and kill - they have to be stopped, it's perfectly okay to do it. Someone killed then kill them for it. Someone gets in the way of my personal happiness, the happiness of my family - get them out of the way by all means. No doubts, all seems clear and straight. Having all the answers just need the means to do it. For the evil guys that's it, little reflection, no doubts, they just know what is right and wrong, they can give a clear answer to that. Evil is evil and good is good, it is just a matter of who is the one writing the story. That is the easy way, the road the (more or less) bad guys use to take. Given the show is not good in telling the grey, which showed early with the dumb "reason" for Regina to go after Snow. If they had given a far more nuanced reason it might have worked, one we as audience could have felt ambiguous about, and not something as non-evil as that Snow was coerced into telling Cora about Daniel, just that Regina was too much of a spoiled and naive and for motherly love craving twenty something brat to see anything but life shattering betrayal by the one who got it all in her view. They made the biggest mistake concerning morality and interesting story telling on the show with that detail - the biggest writing mistake of the show, one that can't be undone and is burdening everything else. The story of Merlin and Nimue and the beginning of the Dark One has a lot to it in theory, so to speak, but not with the wacky "morality" they started with Regina's "reason" for going after Snow. Free Merlin's and Nimue's story they served us from the core of the show as it is and we could have a rather decent story about the many sides and nuances of good and evil. Maybe she isn't different from Percival and that is the point. As it that Vortigan had no magical powers, was "just" some powerful ruthless warlord trying to gain more power, aka immortality, looking for the grail. He was no match to someone with magic. Maybe the point is, that "the evil" is not an entity, a power, but more of an attitude? Maybe it's more of a myth inside the universe of OUaT, told over time in all the realms and places, that the Dark One was created by Merlin when he bound the evil to a soul and through it to the dagger to control it? It's a folktale inside the worlds of Once Upon a Time. A folktale with a grain of what did happen, but changed with every storyteller and bard retelling it.

You don't need to celebrate a kill to be okay with doing it. So no, Henry might have felt not the same way back in the day flying around in his fighter. It's interesting how Jason went from wannabe anarchist to high fiving a drone kill. Will certainly voiced some of what can be heard sometimes from people against drone strikes or calling for more and immediate humanitarian engagement in Syria and other places. Have had such discussions. And had such discussions particular inside my family, with siblings, which made that fight between Will and Elizabeth something I can relate with in real. Maybe not just a funny thing about religion but about being human, I think. It is something I like about this show, it does play in politics but shows the people behind it, with their feelings. Henry doesn't come across as someone liking what he is doing, or simply justifying it and not talk about it again. He is hesitant about it, aware of that he is putting a young man even more in harms way than he might be anyway, he still does it, and though he might have good reasons, I don't get from the show the feeling, that he is necessarily right about doing it. The same with some of the things Bess is doing, like how she jumped at the information her brother served her despite that she likely really meant this little fishing trip to be something else. Indeed, sometimes he seems kinda close to perfect, and seen people complain about it, rightly, but he is not perfect.

Finaly scanned the episode. Think I can even understand why someone might have thought that it would get people talking. There were interesting ideas and moments in it, the dynamic between Emma and Henry offered something, but as usual with the show the question is, will anything of what they're setting up ever pay off, will we actually see lasting impact and consequences. And as usual it feels to me like the writers had good aim, might have had even some pull, but missed the mark by maybe an inch. They're great at that. First true love is pure, the beauty of a teenager crush, untainted by all the adult lies and drama and past broken hearts... The strong and unbearable pain of the first time our heart was broken by love is the one we never forget ;-) Hearing Yazoo's (or Yaz as known in the U.S.) "Only you" and seeing the movie list I so felt taken back straight to my own drama teenager crush first love years. I was about Henry's age when the Yazoo song came out. Ah, Alison's Moyet's voice, smoky dancefloor, raunchy loveseats on the sides, the first kisses ... And as teenager and young adult the movie Harold and Maude was one of my favs, a morbid, dark romantic comedy, some timid goth phase. Saw it at the sweet age of 13/14 the first time, but at that age I was as well reading already existentialist literature, so probably was not the average teenager. No, the scene at the diner was not written for those being teenagers now, more for those sentimentally looking back to their glorious teenager magic and their teenager dreams of some 30 years ago, all in time crushed by harsh reality of adult life and the new millenium. Think it's more for the sentimental fools going into midlife crisis at the moment aka Generation X. Oh, right, that happens to be the age of the two show runner as well. Nevertheless guess seeing Henry in crushing young love pains is something present teenagers might find something to swoon over, regardless of Henry being stuck in some 80s popculture loop. By the way: Being stuck in that 80s popculture loop is the true curse of Storybrooke. When that will be finally broken, then they will all get a happy ending. Always had the impression, and think it was discussed before in the fandom, that Henry pretty much might be an avatar of A&E. But seldom was so obvious an idea as in this episode. Shallow note: Hello there, Henry Foss the werewolf from Sanctuary, uhm Ryan Robbins playing Sir Morgan. Always nice to see Ryan on screen. :D

I haven't watched the most recent episode, just read the commentaries in the forum about it, and it made me giggle. This show starts to sound more and more like a less than mediocre fan fiction, a fan fic series as if written by die hard fans of a mediocre YA prime time fantasy show long overdue to get cancelled, with romance shipping and character worshipping galore, filled with stories lacking imagination by people inserting own biographical moments without much of a sense as character moments into their OTP fanwank fiction. Couldn't help but picture the cliche of a nerdy 30- or 40-something guy struggling with a mild (early) midlife crisis while bored by job and family, having too much time at hand, who decided to show all those bullying fan girls who "friendzoned" him in his teenager years, how to write fan fiction. The long-term revenge plan: Let's slaughter their beloved Disney princess fluff. Alias that writer might use: B. F. George. They should apply for a fan fiction award, for most popular prosaic ff series, they might win that one. And for writing worst caricature of Mary Sue and Gary Stu characters. If that were all much more campy and taken a lot less serious it could gain some cult show status for bombastic fantasy show with silliest moral ever. Genius.

I disagree. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. I like her. And think Joana Metrass didn't had to sleep with anyone of the people in charge on the show or anywhere else to get the job.

Sure, but at I am not talking here about the show and business view on things, it's about fans and understanding fandom and issues inside the fandom for me, and maybe find ideas, ways how to handle things differently when people are reacting so strongly and passionate and sometimes overboard. All I am saying is to understand fan reactions and why some fans pester with negative views and attacks in commentaries and social media can't be answered by reflecting on marketing strategy of the show, that the perspective given in the link gives little about the "SQ penchant" IMO because is is a take on the business and not on the fandom. I disagree that business is the only view that matters, maybe to the show people, cast, crew, production companies, some other people and you but not to everyone.

Interesting read, but that perspective is IMO from the company/business point of view, marketing, telling why ABC and the show might not care about such negative reactions or the marketing of them seem to even cater somewhat to the SQ fans (they don't need to, they are no threat so far, talk of a few but driving a bit of attention and increasing social media quantitative numbers) not something explaining, why a small group of people, fans, non-professionals, seem to obsess about tearing down one fictional pairing (or two) they likely perceive as an obstacle to their fictional dream OTP. Don't think that applying strategical marketing thinking to understand the minds of a set of fans acting not rational would get anyone any far, it implies the presence of rational choice - a by now even in economics debated concept of human behavior.

Think it was not a problem of availability of Meghan Ory, it was more of a writing decision. Sometimes during season 2 they had a change of ideas and Red turned into an afterthought. Meghan was looking for opportunities to do more, understandably I think, not for everyone career, work is just about good money, and they thankfully let her go when she got a chance for more. Intelligence, the show Meghan went to, lasted though just 13 episodes and got no second season. Don't see what recasting should have changed - unless to cast someone fully content to show up for a few seconds every now and then in the background and have one or two pivotal moments of a minute of dialogue every half season. Aside of the time she was tied up with Intelligence, that was during season 3, didn't see that Meghan was tons of busy with other projects, at least not film projects. The prospect of Mulan and Red being back on the show for some moments, maybe for some episodes even, is the one thing that keeps me hanging around for a bit, aside of my interest in studying fandoms. I care by now zilch about the adventures or troubles of the Mills-Rumpelstiltskin-Snowing-Swan clan or family, the past season finally killed that for me. And at best it amuses me somewhat to randomly take a look at how they fail with making good use of the Arthurian tales or probably will mess up more Greek mythology, it doesn't seriously whet my interest. The story of Red was for me the landmark, when curiosity and enjoying watching a (more or less) new take on fairy tales turned into fan love (which by now is gone, after a nearly 2 seasons cooling off period). As Mulan's character gave hope for more diversity on the show. So it sounds like Mulan, Red and Merida will have some nice side story, adventure in the two hour sweeps week episode. I'll gladly take that. Might make it easier for me to ignore the rest of the season, when they focus their story on this double episode. Although if Mulan is or will get involved romantically with either Red or Merida in that time, that could be taken as Sweep Week Lesbian Kiss trope, but IMO the show runners are so ignorant in such matters, that they even might do it. I wouldn't mind to see Mulan and Red ride at the end of the episode into the sunset to go (back) on their own happy adventures and leave the Mills-Rumpelstiltskin-Snowing-Swan mess behind once and for all.

Some of the fandom and audience showing their true colors, again. Not new that some in the audience have homophobic views, we had that discussion about Mulan before. And the threats of some stopping to watch the moment a LGBTQI character might be shown on the show, because all that fairy tale gruesomeness is so family friendly compared to going against some people's antiquated and fundamental world view. Not to mention those not viewing the show but feeling entitled to judge it when doing something they don't approve. As it was to be expected that some rush to exclaim that it's tokenism (to judge if that is wrong or right I will wait for what will be shown on the show) and that it won't stop them pushing for SwanQueen. EW seems particular to attract an audience preferring to stay in their old fashioned pink 50s world soap bubble. At least that's one way to try to explain the number of commentaries on their Facebook site reacting negative and hostile to the news. Time for some bingo card preparation maybe, looks like this will become a season full of "fun" discussions.

I love Red, she was one of the reasons I got deep into the show in the first place. But I very much disliked how little they made of her. I am at a point where I'd rather prefer them to let her fade to into oblivion, seeing what they did with other characters, especially past season with Maleficent, it was uninspired. Going to voice something maybe unpopular: Bring her back for audience to warm up with her again and then let her get killed, and be it in a more accidentally way, or herself sacrificing to prevent Emma from doing real evil or something, let her die a hero if you prefer (I very well could think of a much darker story but that's nothing for this show). Being selfish: They would do me a great favor cutting the very last thin string connecting me with their show. Guess she will come later in the half season or season, right, because as far as what I've seen here there was no report about her being seen filming so far?

At least they couldn't ruin her then further. It's not like they've proven so far to make finally good use of a character when they bring them back, although no guarantee there, still can ruin things in hindsight.. Glad for Meghan Ory to get some screentime though.

It's somewhat ambiguous what Jonas is telling. He lets it open if the sensates were the first or if non-senate or if both existed from the beginning, he doesn't know, likely no one knows or could tell. Agree with what he says, that it's not that important, who was first, it's important that they (sensates) will be still there in the future. Jonas speculates, assumes, draws his conclusions, but there are other possible views. Whatever was in the past, for the present for sure we can tell, sensates kill, and seems they can do that even without some remorse for those they kill. Being connected the way they are makes the cluster itself a form of discrete allegiance, after all they are able to know about each other and communicate with each other in ways that can stay hidden from many others (if they don't talk to air in all public). Keeping no secrets - that would be only possible if there were only one big cluster including every single human being. Maybe that was in the past, I have my doubts, but sure it's not anymore. Something different. A question: Did you notice that the stories are mostly told from the point of view of the 8 main characters?

Here is the press release, telling a bit more about the story for the three-part 5th series: http://www.itv.com/presscentre/press-releases/itv-commissions-new-episodes-scott-bailey

The misunderstandings of the use of the word tribe in this case. Not sure if those who wrote that letter were blatant ignorant to certain discourse or just uninformed. I think a lot of people know little about discussions about neotribalism or postmodern tribalism, where tribe is used in a somewhat different meaning than most of us still might think of when hearing the word, and certainly it's not used in the rather racist meaning of colonialistic times. As I guess not many are aware of the use of tribe or digital tribe in internet context. In short in these discussions tribe is understood as a group or a network of people who share common interests and connect over these interests. To be clear, interest is not necessarily something all voluntary, something you like or find thrilling, it can be about things you hardly have a choice to be interested in, like your ethnicity, your gender, sexual orientation or even social economical status. It is a way to look at how societies organize, trying a different approach than classical views of socio-economical class structures or ethnicity, national structures so far offered. It seems like the latter have lost some coherence in the increasing global connectivity and changes of economy and work structure, and some say we need new ways to look at and to think and organize society. The Wachowski seem to have read Baudrillard, you can see his book "Simulacra and Simulation" in the movie Matrix (Neo uses it as hidding place for things). Baudrillard's work has some influence on discussions of postmodern and postructural views, Lana obviously knows about debates of postmodern tribalism. Lana was provocative in the speech, although after hearing it now, say, she made some good points. Still Lana's wording was not the best and sometimes tough to follow , but as much some might have misunderstood, not having the background of those discussions or not agreeing with the approach. Instead of the Black liberation movement could have as much brought up feminism, similar problems there, see episode 1 of the show, flashback to Nominita's first pride together. For more info two links: A different view on Lana's speech at the Trans100 and a short introduction to (post-) modern tribalism. And for everyone to hear for themselves, Lana's speech at the Trans100: By the way, she talks a little about Sense8 at the beginning, that it's the first time she wrote a transgender character, has "intense autobographical scenes" and that it was a joy to work with Jamie Clayton, made it easier. As I think that the speech tells a lot about the core themes of the show.

Just sit back, take some popcorn, maybe a tequila shot and enjoy. Don't take this serious.

Disagree on trans rights movement being relatively new. What is new is an increase of visibility in mainstream media. But I agree that it sounded like Lana messed up, seemed it was poorly worded.

Love these guide books selling so well to tell how we should sell ourselves better. Great if that has you given some positive ideas. Social science research suggests a more complicate picture. Right, dress for the job you want. The tricky situation for women is, that to get hired at all in office jobs, like law firms for example, the advice indeed is good to wear a suit skirt to job interview, because it's still what is expected, the appropriate dress code for women is skirt suit. That has little to do though with power position. Interestingly, the more masculine a woman dresses, even when wearing skirt suits, the more likely she might get recommended for a management job, being eventually perceived as more competent. At least that was the result of a study though by now over 20 years old. But politics are still a quite masculine, male dominated field, and unfortunately it means for women squaring the circle. Look feminine, then you might be taken less serious, look more masculine, then you're criticize to copy men and perceived as a threat. Is Beth applying for any job? She has the job. What she needs to show is self-confidence, competence, that she owns the job. Whatever suits her to do that. As anecdote a little look back into history concerning skirts, at the power suite, and that women had not much of a choice what to wear for some time, see the "Pantsuite Rebellion of 1993".

How does it some people sometimes phrase... ah. Keep watching. ;-)

That's debatable IMO. How many times have you seen one of the most powerful people and most powerful women in the world, Angela Merkel, wearing a skirt suit? Some media have made fun about her "masculine" style, that she's wearing pants all the time and pretty much the same jacket just in different colors. The important question is though not what the public, news outlet and fashion magazines think, find attractive and fashionable and fitting to a woman in power, but that people take that woman in power serious and that other heads of state see her as equal in power. The debate is not suit or sweater but skirt or pants. Secretaries wore sweaters and skirts to work, it was expected of decent women to wear skirts not pants, and when women became executives they still were expected to behave like decent women - that has nothing to do with being perceived as being in power. Skirt suits only scream power in comparison to sweaters. Thankfully things have changed a little, and wearing skirts doesn't speak against emitting power that much anymore. So women have more of a choice eventually. Aside that in official context and particular in international relations there are situations where you still have to observe etiquette, in daily work situation it is more about feeling comfortable, and if a woman feels more comfortable in that daily work in pants than she wears pants. When you feel constantly uncomfortable you will not show much of self-confident manner - and that is a little more important than being pleasing on the eye and fashionable.

It would have been even easier for Metzger if Nomi had stayed unconscious. Scary thought, isn't it? That it could be that easy eventually if someone really wants to and as doctor is in the position to do it. Stuff of nightmare for some people. As it was Metzger had to make believable, that Nomi was a threat to herself and others and not competent at the time to to make decisions, get an evaluation by a psychologist, psychiatrist. I am not sure what licensure he had, but likely he had some loyal person at hand anyway. At worst a lawyer called by Amanita afterwards could have proved he lied, rushed things, didn't fully do things as they should have been done, and lobotomized Nomi could then have sued the doctor and the hospital.