Charlemagne

I think it was Rip's friend - the one who had the wife and baby and the Cancer (I think it was Cancer.)

You're the dealer in this game. I simply played the card that you placed on the table of your own volition.

Perhaps try watching all those movies - as well as others - again. And maybe pay extra attention. Like to the physics-defying raft scene at the beginning of Temple of Doom. So many movies and shows are filled with unbelievable acts of survival that to single this out as some sort of outlier seems odd. Also, try to extrapolate instead of trying to focus on a 1:1 comparison. Like when the hero gets shot - sometimes multiple times - and can still participate in a full-on fight scene afterward. The point - which you seem to be deliberately trying to handwave - is that film has a long history of male protagonists taking unbelievable amounts of punishment and then still being able to function. I get it. You don't want to give female protagonists the same leeway. Okie dokie.

This never seemed to be a problem for the likes of John McClane, James Bond, Ethan Hunt, Indiana Jones, and a host of other male protagonists who get knocked around. But it seems to be a problem here, I guess.

She does make a deep dive and, mysteriously, her air supply hose is cut off at the source and she has to resurface quickly. She tries to pull herself up slowly via the tether but, as air is running out in her lungs, she eventually starts swimming to the surface as fast as she can - thereby risking the bends. The episode ends as she makes it to the surface and makes a startling discovery.

Came here to post something similar. #BeatenToThePunch So... showing the consequences of the thing about which you complained that there were no consequences has no story advancement? Then, why were you complaining that she didn't get the bends in the previous episode? If you didn't think that addressing that issue was worth addressing it... then why were you mad when you thought that they didn't address it? Let's cut to the core of this whole debate: This show is also a story about survival under dire circumstances. As a result... they are going to show them trying to survive under dire circumstances. That's part of its DNA.

In light of the subsequent episode, you may want to revisit your thoughts on the matter.

None of that is really true though, is it? About her having "super powers." She seems to be operating under the same conventions as when a guy punches another guy in a fight scene... and doesn't break his hand. Which is one of the more realistic outcomes. But doesn't happen every time. And when it doesn't happen, that doesn't mean that the person has somehow acquired super powers. It just means that it didn't happen that particular time.

At the end of the day, when it comes to fictional narratives, it boils down to two things: Plausibility and Believability. Some things may be plausible but not believable and other things may be believable but not plausible. These thresholds exist on a sliding scale and can be different from person to person. Some people find it plausible and believable that The Force can be a thing, that Indiana Jones can make it through all of those scrapes, and that Superman can fly. And others cannot find it plausible and believable that a woman can swim to the surface without getting the bends. Such is the nature of storytelling. Everyone has their own limits.

From what I have read, a person can be 130 - 140 feet underwater and swim to the surface without getting the bends. 130 feet is roughly 11 stories. Duration spent below that depth is also a factor, from what I understand. So, we clearly witnessed her ascending slowly using the rope to pull herself up and then, at a certain depth, she went full-bore swimming to the surface. Whatever other issues with the show, this particular point seems plausible. Especially since the episode ended before she could exhibit symptoms. But, even if she doesn't exhibit symptoms in the next episode, I think that there is more than enough room to let it slide that she just didn't get the bends. Plus, there's also this: Solo's information about it all lacked nuance. He was probably going off of whatever cursory information that he read and may not be a 100% reliable "narrator" on the issue.

My take on that was that it wasn't a kidnapping at all - faked or otherwise. It's been known that journalists might sometimes have to travel to an undisclosed location blindfolded or hooded in order to interview a very high-profile fugitive or high-value target. It's just that Tan saw this and assumed that it was a kidnapping.

The whole point of Silo - as a story - is as an allegory/commentary on our real world. That's its purpose as a work of art. It's just another iteration of Plato's Cave. Like The Matrix was - which also featured periodic cullings. It is 100% meant to be a microcosm of not just our current society but our past and our future societies because that's how Human Nature works... in cycles. The Silo = Society. It's a literary stand-in And you can absolutely blame and punish people you desperately need if A) the people in power fear them and worry about them getting too organized and b) if the people in power feel that those they desperately need can reasonably be replaced in a reasonable amount of time. If people who are desperately needed were never blamed or punished... there would never have been things like Slavery. Or a need for things like Unions. It's a very old tale. And Silo is simply re-telling it in a slightly different package.

It makes perfect sense in the context of the Silo. The mistake you seem to be making is taking an "all or none" approach to it when that's not the intent in the Silo game plan. It's a periodic culling. Like when people do controlled burns in the woods. The goal is not to get rid of the entire forest... just a part of it. The whole fabric of the Silo's hierarchy relies on fear. Including the fear of the uprising/rebellion. They use it as a tool to control the population. "Remember the stories of the uprising? Yeah, well, if you don't want that to happen again... you had best follow our laws." But, the thing with such threats - a Boogie Man, if you will - is that if the Boogie Man never actually appears, the power of the threats diminishes. Therefore, every 140-150 years (depending upon how many Silo members get too curious and start to question too much), an uprising is orchestrated. And every time, Mechanical is chosen as the Boogie Man who appears. For reasons I already stated. They are the easiest to get people to turn against them. Think about how Immigrants are a target every US election cycle. And then, after the election, no one seems to talk about invading caravans. Replace "Immigrants," with "Mechanical," and there you have it.

But, the thing is that - in the context of Silo - if the goal is to foment war by demonizing a group of people... it pretty much *has* to be Mechanical. It's why they are specifically chosen every time. Precisely because they are so critical. It is easier to turn all the others against them because needing someone that much breeds resentment. As does Mechanical having specialized skills. It's an age-old story that goes like this: Those who we need and who are able to do or provide what we cannot, we learn to fear - for what happens if they take their stuff/skills away? And what we fear, we come to resent. And what we resent, we come to hate. And what we hate, we want to destroy. All it takes is a spark from someone who wants to burn things down.

Perhaps, but I am willing to bet that they are gambling on achieving the longevity of shows like The Mentalist and Psych.