CTrent29

Are you against the idea that Oliver can be a monster, even when he calls himself committing violence for the "right reason"? Barry has already called him on this during the first major Arrow/Flash crossover. Oliver dismissed Barry's attitude with excuses. Why not let him face it for once? Why pretend that Oliver no longer has evil within him or pretend that he is no longer capable of monstrous behavior? Because he is a costumed hero? Or the lead character in an action-adventure television show? Heroes and heroines are also human beings. Or sentient beings. Which means that evil will always reside within them, just as it resides in everyone. Why not allow Oliver to finally face that evil within him? Once he does that, perhaps he can finally learn to TRULY control that aspect of his nature.

I believe there is a potential monster within Oliver. I believe there is a potential monster within everyone. I see nothing wrong with Oliver finally facing this aspect within himself - openly or honestly, instead of either dismissing, explaining away or dealing with it by going cold turkey. I don't need some last minute addition to this story arc that Oliver was merely tricking Adrian or that he "believes" that he is a monster. Why not have him face this aspect of himself for once? This isn't the first time that his violent tendencies have been brought up? Hell, it was brought up during the first Arrow/Flash crossover about two years ago. Why is it important to believe that deep down, Oliver isn't capable of being a monster or committing terrible or stupid acts? As for Oliver and Felicity . . . all I can say is that I never really warmed up to that romance. That's all.

I think this is a good time for Oliver to finally face a few truths about himself. Unlike Barry Allen, he didn't have the Speed Force or the Music Meister to teach him a lesson about himself. Instead, he had Adrian Chase and in an indirect way, Talia al Ghul to teach him a similar lesson. Chances are either Chase, Talia or both will be defeated or killed by Oliver. Frankly, I have no personal interest in their fates. At this point, I don't feel it is that important. But I feel that this is an important moment in Oliver's character development. I think it's time for him to face his true self. Instead of indulging in his violent tendencies, making excuses or going cold turkey (which is equally unhealthy), perhaps it is time for Oliver to absorb Adrian's lesson and learn how to control (and not suppress) his penchant for violence.

I don't think that the show is trying to sell that message either. But I suspect that a lot of human beings do like violence.

I think Oliver does like inflicting pain upon others or killing. He is a human being. It's only natural that he would feel this way. In fact, I suspect that most people revel in the idea of inflicting pain upon others . . . especially upon those whom they dislike. But a lot of people (not all) are too afraid to face the consequences of their actions, or they worry about their self image. And some excuse their violent tendencies, claiming they are using them for good. I suspect Oliver would probably adhere to the latter. Adrian Chase might be the same. It's interesting that so many don't want to believe that Oliver gets his rocks off inflicting violence. Yet, they simply cannot wait for him to inflict pain upon or kill both Adrian Chase and Talia al Ghul. They don't want to believe that Oliver gets off with a spot of violence. Yet . . . they cannot wait for him to inflict violence upon his adversaries. Very interesting.

As someone who doesn't "hate Nate", I wish the showrunners would just leave the cast alone. This constant changing every season is starting to get on my nerves.

Actually, I believe both Heida Reed and Eleanor Tomlinson are very good-looking in their own way. I find it hard to choose one over the other on who was the prettiest.

This is a problem I have with fans of either novels, movies and television shows. When a major or leading protagonist commit a truly terrible or monstrous act, a lot of fans go out of their way to excuse that protagonist behavior or try to convince themselves or others that the protagonist had done nothing wrong. Or they try to pretend that the protagonist is not really capable of such an act. Although the 70s adaptation were willing to show Ross and Elizabeth's encounter as rape on his part, producers Anthony Coburn and Morris Barry transformed Elizabeth into an ultra-Bitch in order to justify Ross' rape of her. Then, they were the ones who originally conjured the whole "riot at Trenwith" nonsense in order to restore Ross' heroic reputation. Instead of accepting Ross as the complex and ambiguous character that he truly is, a lot of fans seemed to view him as some kind of romance novel hero. And I don't recall Winston Graham being a writer of romance novels.

I'm aware of the class distinction between the Poldarks and the Warleggans. I simply wonder why Graham would portray the "old money" types as simply annoying, while the "new money" types like the Warleggans as out and out villains. They were all a pretty lousy bunch. Why not portray the landed gentry or aristocrats as out and out villains? They were just as ruthless - in their own way - about securing wealth as the "self made" types. Are we automatically supposed to despise George and his family, because they're self made, unlike the Poldarks?

The Poldarks are not members of the aristocracy. They are not part of a titled family, like the Granthams in "Downton Abbey". They're members of the upper class, but the aristocracy. They're simply part of the landed gentry. You've verified that both George and Agatha despise one another. I don't see how he would fear her. As for the Poldarks' "good name", it doesn't strike me as worth anything. I find it odd that Winston Graham's main protagonist is a member of the "Establishment" (inherited wealth), despite his limited income; and that his main villain came from a family of self made men. I wonder why he had portrayed these two in that manner.

Exactly how was Elizabeth a fool? Getting George to do what she wanted was never that easy for her.

This worship of Demelza is really getting out of hand. Considering that she was born among the working-class, Demelza could probably get a job as a servant, if she found herself widowed and with no money. The best Elizabeth could do as a member of the upper-classes, is to become a governess. And to do so would open up criticism of her role as Geoffrey Charles' mother, because no employer would tolerate her spending more time with her son, instead of their offspring. But other than becoming a servant, prostitute or shop girl for that matter; Demelza would be just as screwed as Elizabeth. THIS STORY IS NOT SET IN THE EARLY 21st CENTURY. Yet, the way fans continue to criticize Elizabeth for being "useless" and worship Demelza, many of them seemed to think that it is. They seem completely unaware of the realities of what life can offer for a woman - especially one who is not financially secure - in the 18th century.

I'll be damned if I would watch a show with only Demelza, Verity and Agatha. I'm not that interested in them.

"Elizabeth made her bed?" How? By getting raped by Ross? Because that is what it looked like to me. "His mother's mistakes?" Don't you mean Geoffrey Charles' uncle? This is all Ross' fault due to his inability to control his feelings for Elizabeth and his stupid and macho attempt to have both her and Demelza under his control. This is all on Ross. And a good number of people will suffer because of him. Have you seen how the 1975 series tried to rewrite the circumstances that led to Ross and Demelza's wedding? Winston Graham hated it. And I don't blame him.

Elizabeth's fragility was at best superficial. She was a tough person. No wonder so many characters . . . and readers underestimated her. On the other hand, I have never been impressed by how Ross and Demelza's so-called courtship and wedding was handled. Not by Graham in the 1945 novel, not by the 1975 series with that faux pre-marital pregnancy and not by the 2015 version that followed the novel. Not only that, I found how Graham handled it in the novel a bit skeevy.

I'm curious . . . will Ross ever apologize to Elizabeth for what happened between them? If not, he's a piece of real dirt. Was the only way Demelza going to forgive him was for him to make those negative comments about Elizabeth? What a disgusting scene to watch. Now that Dwight and Caroline have achieved their happy moment, how will it go wrong for them? It has to. The story isn't over yet. Or will their story be a "Verity lives happily ever after with Blamey" tale? The mob scene at Trenwith was so stupid. It was almost a remake of an equally stupid scene created by the 1975 producers who wanted to regain Ross' heroic image in the eyes of the viewers. I guess Horsfield wanted to do the same. How unimaginative. Okay. When was she supposed to know?

I'm another who tends to like Elizabeth more than I do Demelza. Elizabeth strikes me as a complex person with her share of flaws and virtues. I have no problem with that. On the other hand I have a problem with Demelza. She comes off as a bit too idealized for me. Some have claimed that Elizabeth is more idealized. Well yes . . . from the characters' viewpoints. But as a reader and a viewer, it seemed to me that Winston Graham had created a borderline ideal in Demelza. And that idealized portrayal has carried on in both the 1970s series and the current one. I once asked a few people to name the flaws she sees in Demelza. The only flaw anyone could see was Demelza's naivety. That's it. And that naivety will gradually disappear as she grows older. But what about her other flaws? Will they manifest or will Demelza end the series as a beautiful, yet middle-aged and idealized woman? I hope not. I disliked the way the current adaptation portrayed Keren Daniels. It struck me as rather shallow and one-note. However, I have a problem with the way the 1975 series had portrayed Francis Poldark in Episodes One to Eight. I found it a bit inconsistent and badly written - especially in Episodes Five to Eight.

Yes, I was annoyed by that change as well. Perhaps one day, some producer will make a third adaptation that will be a lot closer to Graham's novel than these first and second adaptations. That is because I keep encountering comments that the 1975-77 series was a lot more faithful to the novels than they actually were.

Actually, "Jeremy Poldark" is the shortest of the first four novels. I would also point out that so far, Horsfield is following the same pacing as the 1975 series. "Ross Poldark" covered four episodes in both the 1975-77 series and the current series. So did "Demelza" and "Jeremy Poldark". The big difference is that while the 1975-77 series only covered "Warleggan" in four episodes, this series will cover the same novel in six episodes. In other words, you would be probably be making similar complaints about the 70s series if you were watching it - not only the pacing, but also the lack of a truly faithful adaptation.

Reading this makes me even more disgusted with Debbie Horsfield's decision. I knew this would happen. The moment I learned that she had decided to turn Ross' rape into an act of consensual sex between him and Elizabeth, I knew fans would be slut shaming the latter. The fans will be "disappointed" in Ross, but they'll forgive him. But they'll be branding Elizabeth a whore until the end of this series. It's soooo typical of this sexist society. The woman is always to blame. Even in the eyes of other women. Winston Graham - a male writer - had the balls to show that even the "heroic" Ross was capable of a monstrous act, but Debbie Horsfield apparently isn't, because of her fear of upsetting the fanboys and fangirls, who want Ross and Demelza to be some damn ideal couple. Already that woman has undermined Graham's message about rape and sexism . . . all in the name of pleasing fans who want this story to be transfered into some romance novel. By the way, even if other people do, I don't give a damn about Ross Poldark being a British literary sex symbol

Frankly, the 1975 series isn't any better. I'm watching both series simultaneously. I read somewhere else that the actual rape would not been seen on screen . . . as it was handled in 1975. But if Horsfield really plans to transform the rape scene into consensual sex, then I'm through with this series. In doing so, she's ruining Elizabeth's character for the sake of keeping Ross heroic in the viewers' eyes. How cowardly.

Why can't Marvel allow magic to be magic? In fact, with the characters of Loki and Frigga, magic has already arrived in the MCU. What on earth are they afraid of? Will Marvel and Disney allow Fury to react to a new director for SHIELD? If not, what is the point of this storyline?

The readers of Graham's novels dealt with it. If Horsfield decides to remain somewhat faithful to "Warleggan", then I guess the viewing audiences will have to deal with Ross' actions, as well. How do you know? Have the scripts for the upcoming season been released?

Helen is simply a red-blooded woman with a healthy sex life. Like many others.

Oh my God! The thing with the suitcase reminded me of that godawful episode from "LOST" Season One called "Whatever the Case May Be".