Paloma

Wow, this information really changes my view of this story! I had been sympathetic to Betty (except for the murders) and put most of the blame on Dan for gaslighting her and being cruel. I thought that she was basically a good, loving wife and mother until his behavior started driving her crazy (not actually insane, but just in the sense of her not being able to trust reality or her own perceptions). I still think he was cruel and a gaslighter (in addition to being a selfish cheater), but if all the details in your post are true, then it's harder to sympathize with her as a symbol of wronged wives.

How do you know this? I didn't see anything like that in the show.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your total disagreement. Probably no one is following this discussion anymore, but I still want to set the record straight based on my experience. I apologize in advance for the long post, but I think it will explain a lot about why Betty felt as she did. I wasn't sure about the timeline until just now when I looked up when Betty was born, when they got married, and when Ms. Magazine was first published (hold on, I'll explain). Now that I have the dates, I believe Betty's and Dan's expectations and behavior were consistent with my memory of the culture in the 1950s-1970s. Betty was born in 1947 (3 years before me) and got married at age 21 (1 year older than me). I and other girls growing up in the 1950s-60s mostly had the traditional expectations of marriage, keeping house, and raising children. Many of us were expected to go to college, but in part to find a good husband and provider. Some girls (and I use that term intentionally because that is how we thought of ourselves then) might plan to have a traditional female job such as teaching, nursing, secretary, or flight attendant (that we might quit after we had kids). But not many of us dreamed of becoming doctors, lawyers, engineers, or other well-paying and prestigious jobs--those were the jobs that our husbands would hold. Of course there was some variation depending on your personal family background. Things started changing in the late 1960s, although there was still sexism and traditional gender expectations even in the antiwar protest movements and radical leftist groups of that period--I saw that firsthand when I was in college in Washington, DC, from 1968 to 1970. The first issue of Ms. Magazine was in July 1972 (technically it first appeared in December 1971 as a preview in New York Magazine). Although some girls and women started having their consciousness raised at the beginning of second-wave feminism (which was roughly considered 1960s-1980s), plenty of others did not want to be associated with "bra burners," "man haters," and the other insulting labels for feminists of that era. And some of us may have been interested in the feminist ideas but took longer to get involved because of our life situations (such as my early marriage to an alcoholic that led me to drop out of college and consumed all my emotional energy; other women my age already had young children, as Betty did, and may not been able to focus on feminist issues). Let's also not forget the religious factor (with both of them being Catholic, contraception and abortion were out of the question) and the parental influence factor (Betty's parents thought of her as a slut when boys showed interest by calling the house; marrying a Catholic boy with a promising future would probably make them proud). Equally important as the expectations of those growing up in the 1950s-60s and as young adults in the 1970s were the expectations for wives of professionals, especially lawyers, in an upper-middle-class or wealthy society. Although more women wanted to have careers and independence in the 1970s into 1980s, these wives were expected to keep up their looks, maintain all responsibility for household and children matters, entertain their husbands' colleagues and clients, and never complain about the husbands' long hours and lack of involvement in the family life. Living up to these expectations was no guarantee that the husband would not cheat, but not living up to any one of these expectations increased the likelihood of being cheated on and being divorced--traded in for a younger and more compliant girlfriend/wife. (I did not personally experience this, but I saw plenty of it.) @cameron I don't doubt that you would not have put up with it and that there are many women of our age who did become assertive and refuse to be doormats. But in Betty's story we are seeing a particular part of society and a woman who was raised with the pre-feminist traditional expectations. She was far from the only one who bought into the expectations and then saw her life fall apart when her spouse violated those expectations.

So true. I'm over 70 and live in the US, and my daughter is 40 is a very independent and competent adult who lives in Israel--but if I thought she was in danger and that there was anything I could possibly do to protect her, I'd catch the first flight over there. I do think Debra had/has protective feelings toward her daughters, but her need for a man's love was apparently stronger than those feelings.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was his plan, but was he also planning to kill several other people? Because when they showed him digging a grave in the dessert, the camera rose higher and showed that there were multiple graves already dug--maybe as many as 10. I thought his plan might be to kill one person and bury them in one of those graves, but having multiple graves would make it hard to find their body. It doesn't really make sense.

Wow, the most amazing thing in that news report is the bravery of the 14-year-old witness who ran to help Terra vs. the cowardice or indifference of the other witnesses (what used to be called the Kitty Genovese bystander effect).

I just searched for the title on that site but am not sure if I found the right episodes. There are 7 episodes under the overall title Real Crime Profile, which include 4 episodes dated Jan-Feb 2019 called Surviving Dirty John: Tonia Bales; Life After Dirty John: Tonia Bales; Surviving Dirty John: Debra Newell; Surviving Dirty John: Debra Newell Part 2. Then there are 3 bonus episodes dated October 2017 (I don't know how the bonus episodes can be dated 2 years earlier than the regular episodes); the bonus episodes are Profiling Dirty John, More With Dirty John Creator Christoffer Goffard, and Coercive Control. Are these the all the episodes you are referring to, and should they be watched in the order I listed them?

I haven't read all the comments on this episode yet, so someone else may have already said this, but I think these friends were shitty about the situation because of the Bro Code: https://www.drshawnandrews.com/blogs/bro-code-decoded#:~:text=In popular culture%2C the Bro,wife or direct family member). Even if they personally liked Tonia, they were not her friends or family so felt no need to protect her or even be honest with her. If Tonia had female friends who knew about John, I'm sure one or more of them would have tried to talk to her about it and advise her not to marry him. And if the situation were reversed and his friends thought that Tonia was a scam artist and slept around with men, they would warn John. I'm not saying that all female friends will be protective of their friends or that all men put the Bro Code over protecting women they know, but over several decades of life I've seen these patterns play out among men and women.

Similar points have been made by a few posters, and I agree with you and them, but the observation that her daughters have watched her make bad relationship choices their entire lives raised a question for me: Who was/were the daughters' father(s)? I wasn't sure if they had the same father since there seemed to be a big age difference (maybe because Julia Garner played Tessa like someone in her mid-teens while Juno Temple played Veronica like someone in her 20s). But presumably at least one of the husbands, and maybe two, fathered them. Were those husbands/fathers crappy men? Or were the bad relationship choices they kept seeing just the people Debra dated and had long-term relationships with, including maybe the most recent husband or two?

Just watched the first episode--loved Mavis and enjoyed the story, visuals, and music overall. I'm a white old lady so didn't get all the hip dialogue, but as a thick girl myself I am happy to see such a positive character in the lead role. And I'm glad she has such a loyal friend in Khalil. I also liked that the story was realistic about Mavis not getting the lead stylist job if it was a choice between her and Jacques. It would have been too much of a fairytale if she got it and they fired Jacques. It will be interesting to see how she gets good stylist jobs on her own. Stupid questions, but why did Mavis have to throw up right after she kissed Camden, and what was wrong with the tub? Was she just sick from drinking, or was there something about Camden's mouth?

Like most posters here, I was overall satisfied with the finale even though I struggled to get through the last few episodes. It's increasingly rare to get answers and closure in TV and streaming series, so I appreciated that the writers were able to do that. I generally don't like plotlines that are overtly religious or mumbo-jumbo symbolic, so I was annoyed as the show increasingly got into those aspects. But I did like the idea of the passengers who deserved it being given a second chance. I think the passengers were in limbo (I guess that would be purgatory in religious terms) for the entire show except for the very beginning pre-flight. But instead of going to heaven, they were returned to their loved ones and given a second chance at a normal life--which could be thought of as the equivalent of heaven after the misery they went through. Even if all the 828ers remember everything from the last 5 years, it won't necessarily affect their future or the future of others because (IMHO) what happened in those 5 years was an alternate reality. It's what happened to them and others in a reality where they came back after 5 years, were hated and detained, lost some loved ones and gained other new loved ones (romantic partners or children), and had other significant and traumatic events. But now that they have been returned to the original timeline/reality, their lives will play out in different ways. In some cases they may end up with the romantic partners or children that they had in the alternate reality, but even if they do those people and relationships will not be exactly the same because they will be affected by different experiences in the current reality. In other words, the future that they will have going forward from the finale will be different from the 5 years they experienced in the show, so knowing about the future from the alternate reality will not make much difference in how things unfold, EXCEPT: I think the main lesson the passengers took from this was to try to be better human beings and to know that they can overcome challenges if they keep connected to the good people in their lives. Remembering what they went through in limbo, or the alternate reality, will help them put this lesson into practice.

Agree with everything you said except that I've totally forgotten who Danny was. I think Lourdes was Mick's best friend and the one Jared was married to when Mick came back? If so, and if Lourdes shows up in the finale with pregnant Drea, that will be awkward.

Maybe it's not so much that she needs to die if she leaves (after all, Angelina says that everyone in the world except the chosen 8 will die) as that, like any crazy cult leader, Angelina needs Autumn to prove her loyalty by poisoning the pills of the passenger with anxiety (who was her friend, so it's even more of a test of loyalty). If I wasn't so close to the end of the series, I would quit now. I don't think there is any character I care about anymore, in contrast to the beginning of the series when I was pretty invested in several of them.

Well, it looks like Mick managed to bring all her makeup and hair care supplies, so bringing the meds should have been no problem. I don't know why I even ask questions about this increasingly ridiculous plot, but where are Jared, Mick, and her father staying? I think they said it was Tarik's place and referred to something bad happening there that was blamed on the 828ers, but I don't remember who Tarik was and what happened there. Also, where is it located geographically, and how did Cal and Vance just happen to go by there (luckily when Mick was being attacked by the 828 hater) when they were tracking a van that was supposedly heading to the DC, which I assume is supposed to be in NYC (not sure which borough). I guess we're supposed to assume that it's OK for them to sleep together now because Zeke told her she needs to move forward (or something like that) and then faded away. And maybe the whole Zeke-Mick arc was supposed to show Jared how Mick felt when the passengers first came back and he was married to her best friend, while Mick felt like no time had gone by. Now they are sort of on the same emotional timeline, or something. But I really never bought into the whole Zeke-Mick love story anyway. He always felt more like a plot device than a real character--the devoted and compassionate man who could heal Mick and help her deal with the crazy situation.

Also, isn't Saanvi gay? I think I remember way back when they teased references to her lover/partner by omitting pronouns and using the name Alex, and then it turned out Alex was female. I suppose Saanvi could be bisexual and that Ben and Saanvi could be end game in the same way that Michaela and Jared are. It was good that they found the son but, come on, him being the victim of a child trafficker hiding kids behind a false wall of a shop was pretty out there plotwise--it would have been more believable if they found him in one of the crappy foster homes where he was treated badly because he was an 828 kid. But the despair of the father being separated from his child was very realistic and upsetting, and it was moving to see him and his father together (or as together as they could get with the plastic or glass wall between them) and having the hope of future visits. Was Jared's brother the new foster dad? When Michaela and Jared went to see the brother earlier in the episode, I didn't remember seeing him in earlier seasons. I wonder if they introduced the character in this episode just so he could end up as the new foster dad.

I stuck it out until the end because I like spy/family dramas and this had a good cast, but it got more ridiculous in each episode--especially: Similarly, his wife can apparently just stroll in to a high-level government meeting with no guard at the door. I guess this was filmed during pandemic restrictions, or else they cleared outdoor areas for filming, because it was hard to believe that there were no random pedestrians walking around the scenic London locations where the characters were hanging out or meeting with people. I don't think it's necessary to put this in spoilers since there are no separate episode threads, but if you haven't finished the series, don't read the next sentence. I was surprised that the writers actually killed off the main character, but seeing the way his wife and ex-girlfriend bonded, I was wondering if there would be a second season with the spy adventures of Kara and Maddy (not that I would watch it).

My husband and I just finished bingeing this show, and we are recommending it to everyone. There were times, especially in the earlier episodes, when I was screaming with laughter because it was so ridiculous. Yet I could see why someone unfamiliar with real jury trials (as opposed to TV trials) could think it was real. We had some of the same questions that other posters here, but after watching the final episode and reading some articles about how it was made, it's clear that absolutely everyone on the show was an actor (or an extra) except for Ronald, and that none of them were actually summoned to jury duty the normal way. The actors and extras were hired by casting, and Ronald was one of thousands of people who replied to a Craigslist ad looking for people to participate in a documentary about jury duty. This article answers some of the questions about how they did it. https://www.vulture.com/article/jury-duty-interview.html Since this took place in the LA area, it's not so surprising to find an actor in a jury pool. I think James Marsden was a good casting choice because he is recognizable but not such a big star that Ronald might have been suspicious.

We knew it was creepy because we saw her wearing the mask on the tape, but without that knowledge anyone (including her son) might have just thought it was an interesting decoration picked up in some shop. I've had a mask from our trip to Venice on the wall of our foyer for 3 decades, and I assure you I am not a murderer!

Although David was probably at least somewhat attracted to Lana, I'm sure that he was trying to recreate his old life. I did notice (and didn't like) that he did the same dance and style of seduction with Lana as he had done with his wife, but it wasn't until I read your comment that I realized why he did that.

I'm about a decade older than McEnroe and was very aware of his tantrums during his career, so I really appreciated his being Devi's narrator. But I didn't really follow his life after his divorce from Tatum O'Neal, so I read your link to the article on his personal life with great interest. He's a much more complex guy than I thought!

Excellent article. In some ways things have changed for the better with the Me Too movement etc., but there's also now a backlash to Me Too and female empowerment.

I didn't hate her and thought she was trying to be polite to the mom, but I didn't like that she initiated sex in his mom's house when they were only going to be there one night and the house was old and/or small enough that it was likely to carry sound. I guess it's prudish, but I wouldn't want to make a parent feel uncomfortable by having sex in their house. Obviously it would be different if it was going to be a longer stay, but when they arrived I thought the plan was to stay just one night and then move on (to the egg man?). I did notice a couple of subtly racist remarks made by the mom, so I couldn't really blame Pia for not being overly warm toward her.

Thanks for clarifying the characters. Obviously I was too tired when I watched this episode, unable to recognize the difference between characters or to remember what happened in the final scene.

Oh, you are right, I don't know how I forgot that Bo put the gun in Mazey's hand! I guess I was just thinking that Bo wanted to give Mazey the mercy of death but could not pull the trigger herself because she (Bo) could not murder someone. But now that you have reminded me of how it went down, with Bo taking the photo of Mazey killing herself, that puts Bo in a worse light--which sounds odd, but when I thought of Bo killing Mazey, I thought Bo was being compassionate. But letting Mazey kill herself while Bo takes and later sells the ultimate exploitative photo(s) shows that Bo was not redeemed at all. I'll see if I can correct my original post.

When Davis and Pia spent the night in his mother's house, and Pia playfully started using the videocamera to film their sexual activity, I kept waiting for that footage to be seen by the mother and play a part in the plot. I know that Pia said there wasn't a tape in the camera, but I thought it would turn out to be filming anyway through some technological glitch. Otherwise I didn't see the point of including that scene.