Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

2.0k Excellent
  1. It's just you. It's also unnecessarily unkind to the child actor. What is gained by calling her ugly?
  2. Now I'm more confused. If the wedding was in 2007 and Dani had been gone for 7 years, that means Dani died in about 2000. So how could Dani and Jamie have had a civil union in Vermont and still have been together for years after that? I'm definitely not a math person, so maybe I am just miscalculating.
  3. FWIW, I believe they date the wedding as 2007 in episode one. Thanks, I missed that. At least now Flora's age at the wedding makes sense.
  4. Minority opinion here, but I was disappointed in this story, especially in comparison to Hill House. The problem wasn't the horror elements--there were plenty of jump scares for me in Bly Manor. But I was annoyed with the pacing, the repetition (especially in Viola's story), the insufficient character development in most cases (or the attempt to develop character by monologue, like Jamie), and especially the "explanation" in the final episode. I understand that they couldn't use the same adult actors aged up in the opening present-day wedding scene because it would spoil the mystery of who was narrating and who survived, but they could have omitted the opening present-day scene and instead just have the voice-over by the narrator, then end the last episode with the wedding scene with the adult actors from the story aged up. Even if Jamie was the narrator from the beginning (with the same actor's voice), it wouldn't necessarily have spoiled the ending. The other problem my husband and I had with the final scene is that if it took place in present day or close to it, that would make it at least 30 years later than the events at the manor when Dani was there--1987--and would mean that Flora would have to be around 40 years old at the wedding. Obviously this does not match up with the age of the actress playing the bride. At first my husband thought that none of the people at the wedding were the actual characters from the story--that present-day Jamie was just imagining their faces superimposed on others. But everything I have read about the ending says that his interpretation is wrong and that the people at the wedding were the actual characters: Flora, Miles, Owen, and Henry. Also, if Jamie was invited to the wedding, why wouldn't Flora and Miles know her as someone who worked at Bly Manor? I know they were supposed to have forgotten the details of what happened at Bly Manor, but Owen said they did recognize Hannah in the portrait as someone who was there with them. And even if Jamie and Owen were invited by Henry rather than by Flora and her groom, it would be unusual for a couple planning a wedding to not know at least the names of who their parents invited, and usually the bride would ask who the people were if she didn't know them personally. Overall the framing of this story as one told by Jamie at the wedding of Flora without Flora or Miles having any recognition that this story was about them and their family does not make sense. I'm pretty sure the narrator used names, but even if she didn't the grown-up kids should have recognized the broad outlines of their story (not least the loss of their parents and their uncle being guardian).
  5. I was really confused by this episode but some of your comments have helped a bit. So has Hannah been a ghost the entire time that Dani has been there, as a result of Miles pushing her into the well just before Dani arrived? If so, how can Dani, Owen, and Jamie talk to her? I could understand the kids being able to see her and talk to her, since they see other ghosts, but it doesn't make sense to me that the adults can interact with her, unless they are all "sensitives" and think she is alive. Or are all the interactions that we see Hannah have with the other adults after her death actually all in her ghost's imagination?
  6. My husband and I thought she was a ghost in the first episode because she didn't eat and also because of her odd behavior (acting kind of spaced out, especially when Dani found her in the chapel at night). But now I'm not so sure because this episode showed Hannah acting quite normally and having a sense of humor with the other characters. It could be that at this point the writers are just trying to make us wonder about Hannah with the not eating and drinking when she is with others, but we don't know if she is eating and drinking privately. The only other thing odd about her that I noticed this episode was that she saw a crack in the kitchen wall, but the gardener did not see it later--but that could be attributed to the house being haunted rather than Hannah being a ghost. That image in the mirror makes me jump and let out a little scream every time I see it. I feel like this easy scare tactic is being overused (or maybe I am just more easily scared than most), and in general I feel like this season relies more on scary setting and images than on characters and relationships than season 1 did. So I'm having a harder time getting into this season. Also, I know that darkness and shadows are a big part of what makes this show and horror movies scary, but it does sometimes take me and my husband out of the story when Dani is wandering around in the dark and doesn't think to turn on any lights. (We know that there are lights in at least the upstairs hall because a couple of them came on at one point when she was looking for the kids--presumably she turned them on.) We were also yelling "Get a flashlight!" when she was going to the cellar to retrieve the doll and the light switch at the top of the steps did not work.
  7. Paloma


    Interesting series, but it's annoying that it ends on a cliffhanger. At least there will be a second season, but it will likely be a long wait.
  8. I'm not spoiler tagging, but be warned that there are many spoilers for season 4 ahead. Although I was intrigued by the concept and impressed with the visuals in all 4 seasons, ultimately I was disappointed. I may have been expecting too much detail in the world building, but there were important questions that were not addressed. In an earlier comment I mentioned one of them: who was doing all the necessary menial jobs such as cleaning the facilities? In the Process building, everything looked brand-new and perfectly clean (except for the basement where the prisoners were kept). Similarly, everyone in the Offshore seemed to be doing nothing but enjoying leisure time, except for those who had executive and professional responsibilities. Which leads to another important question: How did the Offshore residents get the education or skills needed for the executive and professional responsibilities? It seemed clear that the Inland had no formal schooling, not even intact books (Natalia was excited to see complete books in the Offshore house), and no computer technology for online schooling. So where did the Offshore get, for example, doctors and engineers? Maybe the first generation (with the Founders) had the necessary education and skills because they came from the elite class Inland, but there was no indication that in subsequent generations those who passed the Process and came to the Offshore were given the education and training they would need to do these professional jobs. Maybe we were supposed to assume that happened, but at least in the case of Elisa she seemed to become a doctor on the Offshore with only her informal experience helping an old woman treat people Inland. If there was extensive training provided on the Offshore, it would have been nice if they gave us a glimpse of it or even referred to it. This is why I was so disappointed in the ending. Not only was it hard to believe that all the factions who were ready to kill each other the night before would not attack during the night and would wake up the next morning all Kumbaya and walking happily together to the Process building, but it was even harder to believe that when they got there they would agree to a fair division of resources, especially considering that there were now fewer resources than ever and more people in one place than ever. There will be no more clean water or fresh food coming from the Offshore, so where will these essentials come from? (Not to mention clothing and other essentials that the pandemic has reminded us about, like toilet tissue.) And assuming they can obtain these essentials, who will decide how they are allocated? It's easy to say, as Joana did, that we will all decide together, but with hundreds or thousands of people that is not practical. Someone, or a small group of people, has to at least initially figure out the options and lead the meeting(s) to decide what to do. For example, they could pick a couple of people from each faction (the Offshore, the Cause, and Inland regular people against the Cause) to serve as the initial planners and leaders, with teams of people working with them. Once the essential decisions are made, they could set up a democratic society where everyone gets a vote and the leaders have set terms. Another thing about the ending that disappointed me is that there were no consequences for Gloria, who switched loyalties so often that I had whiplash but should not have been so easily forgiven for burning down the Shell. There were also no consequences for Pedro and his fellow Process group members, who willingly (in Pedro's case, eagerly) committed murder in the final test and who would happily have killed Joana and more people during the Inland confrontation in order for Andre to win. When forming a new and better society, I don't think you can give a pass to those who are obvious dangers to the society and can't be trusted to change. The same is probably true for other Inland people such as the violent gangs that Joana and Marco encountered in previous seasons, who seemed to take pleasure in stealing and killing. There is a difference between those who reluctantly commit crimes out of necessity and those who do it because they enjoy the power or take pleasure in hurting people, and there should be consequences, such as prison or exile, for the latter. I put Gloria in the latter category because she did not need to destroy the Shell in order to survive--it's just that her desire to live in the Offshore outweighed her loyalty to the Shell group. She and her baby could have had a decent life in the Shell, but it would not have been as idyllic as the Offshore.
  9. I'm not sure when she would have had the opportunity to play an instrument while living on the farm, but that doesn't bother me much. Your "kvetch" actually reminded me of a question I had about what the White Violin represented. From the end of season 1, it apparently was an instrument that had been played by Reginald's beloved wife, and (if I remember correctly) she told him to give it to someone who would love or appreciate it like she did (I don't remember the exact words). Then there was a scene in season 2 where Vanya as a child saw the violin and expressed interest, and Reginald rather casually told her she could use it. We know that she was devoted to playing the violin, and it became the instrument of the apocalypse at the end of season 1. But was the violin itself endowed with some sort of power, or did it give whoever loved it power? If there wasn't any power associated with it, what was the significance of the scene with Reginald's wife and the scene when Reginald gave the violin to Vanya?
  10. he could have made an educated guess that young Five would go to 1963 to try to fix the timeline.
  11. I actually saw this as fairly realistic, and it's why people can miss depression and suicidal thoughts in people they're close to. It's a keeping up appearances thing. I was terribly depressed senior year of high school, and an acquaintance made this comment to me about how I'm always smiling (she didn't know about the depression). And I got a 4.0 GPA first semester of freshman year of college (20-some years ago), when I attempted suicide. People can cover up depression pretty well if they want to. Sort of a "Tracks of my Tears" effect, smiling, trying to hide the sadness. So I think it could be helpful in the show in the sense of, it's not just the ones wearing all black and listening to Joy Division (OK I listened to them) and crying in the corner that you have to worry about. I think a big point of the show was how people missed what was going on with Hannah. Sure, some of that was potentially on her for not really reaching out and confiding in them (though she got burned a few times when she tried to be open, so it made sense that she withdrew). But I think a message could be to check in with people you care about, make sure they're OK, even if they seem fine on the outside. (Ugh, I sound a bit like a PSA there...) You're right, keeping up appearances and/or "happy face" can be a good way to hide what's really going on inside. And I should know better, because I have struggled with depression for decades (going back to high school or earlier), though I have never attempted suicide. There have certainly been many times when I let my appearance go (not that I have ever been someone who is fashionable and nicely styled). But whenever I have been in social situations I have been outwardly "happy," friendly and smiling a lot, even when I am miserable inside. And yet, despite knowing this about myself, I failed to recognize my daughter's unhappiness in high school because she had so many friends and social activities. So I think it's worth emphasizing that we need to check on the people who seem fine outwardly, not just the ones who fit the stereotype or DSM symptoms of depression. Sometimes PSAs are valuable!
  12. Agree with everything you wrote, and especially this in regard to Vanya. I mentioned reactive attachment disorder in an earlier comment, and although the writers may not have thought of this, this disorder has often been seen in Russian and Eastern European babies and young children who were taken from their mothers at an early age and kept in an orphanage that barely met their minimum survival needs. They learn subconsciously that it is dangerous to attach and thus do not show affection or try to connect with their adoptive parents. Although all the siblings were taken from their mothers as babies, Vanya may have been more susceptible to this disorder or it may have been aggravated by the way she was treated by Reginald and the siblings.
  13. I don't buy this - even if she wasn't old enough to understand death - most children would not react with zero emotion the way she did. They would react with a laugh if they thought it was funny and then possibly screams of terror when they saw what happened - like the crash as the nanny fell and broke stuff would scare them and they'd freak out crying. THAT is normal. Her just sitting there staring off into space as she killed with no reaction... not normal. Because of the lack of emotion she showed - even her lack of reaction at all when she killed the nannies - I do think the writers were trying to paint her as a sociopath. https://www.looper.com/197313/umbrella-academy-the-disturbing-detail-everyone-ignored-about-vanya/#:~:text=Vanya is basically a sociopath&text=Sure%2C her family%2C especially her,might imagine could be frustrating. Although I have been sympathetic to Vanya and arguing against labeling her a sociopath or psychopath, I admit that this lack of emotion with the nannies does not seem normal. And the Looper link does make a valid argument about the way Vanya vs. her siblings (and other emotionally abused children) reacted to their treatment, although it's not true that she is the only one who became a murderer or committed violence--the other siblings did so because they were ordered to (or in self-defense), rather than impulsively, but their actions were still violent and lethal. So while I am willing to admit that Vanya may have had some mental illness issues that amplified her violent reactions to the emotional abuse, I am still sympathetic to her and feel that she would have turned out OK if she had been loved and had therapy as a child. It's also important to note that the terms sociopath and psychopath are used inaccurately by many people (not just people commenting on this show). The terms really refer to the DSM diagnosis antisocial personality order, with the traits shown in this link; I don't feel that Vanya fits most of those traits:https://psychcentral.com/blog/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/ In fact, her lack of affect and her behavior more closely fit reactive attachment disorder (https://www.cebc4cw.org/search/topic-areas/dsm-5-criteria-for-reactive-attachment-disorder-rad/) or possibly autism (I'm not a psychiatrist, but I have edited psychiatric textbooks for several decades).
  14. It wasn't so much that whites couldn't go to the black part of town as that they usually didn't want to go there. But in a situation like the one shown with Allison, especially in the South, the outnumbered white guys could come back with an armed mob to get revenge.
  15. Thank you! This is a perfect response to those trying to justify Carl's feelings and behavior on the basis of cheating and/or the time and place in which he lived.
  • Create New...

Customize font-size