Maximum Taco

The biggest problem I have with the cloning theory is that why would they replace anyone who died with new people? Why bother saying they "retired" at all when they could just clone another one and shove him into the old guys place? It would be unbelievably easy, especially if they could replicate the deceased's memories in the new clone. Why replace Pope as Sheriff with Ethan when they could just clone another Pope who would know exactly what the old Pope knew? That would be a lot easier then training a new Sheriff to follow and enforce the rules. The fact that we haven't seen any of the dead "come back" throws water on them being clones IMO.

Called it! Hibernation/Cryogenics. It really was the only explanation as to how multiple people thought it was a different year and more time had passed inside Wayward Pines for some people but less had passed for others. Still how the hell did Pilcher predict what was going to happen over 2000 years into the future? I mean civilization was obviously still going along ok in 2095, how did he know in 1990's (when Beverly and Arlene were frozen) what was going to happen after 2095?

I'd agree, if the show cared at all about making sense. All they care about is hitting their plot points. Kevan dying is a plot point, and I believe they will hit it, with no regard as to how much sense it makes.

I want things to get more interesting not less. Letting all the villains die at this point would be boring. So who's deaths will excite things a bit? Roose Bolton, but not Ramsay. I'd like to see him be crazy in charge for a while before dying. Robin Arryn, but I suspect we might just be done with him in this show. But getting rid of Sweetrobin would dent Baelish's power considerably, which would be interesting. Loras Tyrell, he's a caricature, worse he's a boring stupid caricature, so just get rid of him. Tommen Baratheon, I am bored of this kid. Let's see what Myrcella does in charge, especially since she's obviously under Trystane's sway. The Dornish need to get relevant here and get relevant quick. One of the dragons, not Drogon. Let's say... Rhaegal. Dany seriously needs something to not go her way. Even the mini collapse of Meereen is furthering her eventual goal of getting to Westeros. She needs a seriously debilitating blow, if one of the dragons dies, that'll be a shock to the system. Stannis. We're pretty much done with him. He's crossed his moral event horizon, he's no longer morally grey, he's just morally black, and he's not the threatening sort of morally black like Joffrey or Ramsay, so he has no purpose. He just needs to find out he's not the Lord's Chosen, and die. Jon Snow. I know it won't happen. But it would be a shock. I need a shock.

They've mentioned his name a ton though. I think we'll get his death in the finale. More than just the name drops though, it makes more financial sense to kill in the finale instead of in the next premiere. Because then you don't have to get them to come back or sign another deal or whatever.

Very optimistic. I went the opposite route. It's A Dream of Spring, so i always figured we'd leave our surviving heroes in the throes of Winter, left with only the dreams of Spring. Or perhaps the Winter will stretch on and on and finally Bran would have a prophetic dream that Spring is finally coming to end the series. Winter will probably arrive this season, I don't expect it to lift until late in season 7, if at all.

I guess this is what Marcie's dad meant when he called Gunter the most evil thing he had ever encountered. That was fun I guess. Still wondering what's going on with that comet though.

I was wondering about the first one as well. I'm waiting for a line from Ben, maybe next episode about how he's been going to school for 6 days in a row or something. They clearly have seasons though because Peter was counting winters, and the hypno-teacher (ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNO-TEACHER!) says that every summer the school hosts a battle of the bands. No idea about the appointments, but maybe it's not necessary to make appointments more than a day in advance? It's a small town, it probably wouldn't be difficult to call the day before and get an appointment for something. It probably wouldn't be difficult to drop in the day of and still be seen. ETA: And for stuff like bi-annual/annual checkups they could just use the seasons "see me next winter/spring/summer/fall"

I agree. It's some kind of far flung future the people in WP are living in. The only way I can wrap my head around the time discrepancies is some manner of cryogenics. This way anyone can be frozen or defrosted at any point in time, and therefore everyone can have a different idea of what year it is, and how many years they have spent in Wayward Pines. For instance Kate could be frozen in 2014, defrosted at some point in the future, age normally for 12 years. Meanwhile Ethan is also frozen in 2014 but is defrosted 12 years after Kate is. To him it would seem as if no time passed, to her 12 years would have. She'd think it 2026, he'd think it's 2014. In truth it could be anytime, the only thing we know for certain is it must be past 2026, cause Kate has lived there for 12 years. But if the hairless pale canabalistic Morlock-esque humanoids are our future evolution, it must be hundreds or thousands of years in the future. The question I have now is why defrost some of the people and leave the others in stasis? Unless they keep a bunch of people with similar backgrounds in stasis in case they need a replacement due to someone getting reckoned? Maybe when Evans died they defrosted Ethan to take his place?

Clocks are necessary for day-to-day business. People get up, people go to sleep, stores open and close, school starts and ends. You need to know the time for these things. If everyday is the same though (as it seems in WP) there's really no need for a calendar. Do we know that Jenkins has left WP? I don't think it's been proven. Sure he talks to Ethan's boss about taking Ethan, but he doesn't need to be in the town to talk about it. He could just be giving the orders from outside, and then at a certain point he entered the town. We are left to assume that he's entering and leaving because the scenes are ordered that way, but we've already seen characters who think it's 2001 or 2010, so we can't really trust anyone's perceptions of time, not even Ethan. It could actually be 2083 or 2200, and in that case the scenes that happen in the outside world are happening in 2014, but the scenes that happen inside Wayward Pines could be happening at any time in the future. It's the only way I can think to explain away the rapid aging is some manner of cryostasis. For example Peter says Pam aged overnight, but what if it wasn't overnight? What if he was just ignorant to the passage of time? What if both of them were frozen in 2001, Pam was defrosted some time later, then many years passed and then Peter was defrosted? To him it would seem as if she aged overnight. This is the same way we can look at Ethan. If Jenkins had Ethan frozen I think that conversation between Ethan's boss and Jenkins still makes sense. So Jenkins has him frozen, then Jenkins enters WP (or even has himself frozen and later defrosted) and then Ethan is defrosted. Pope would also have to do the same thing, since he confronted Theresa and Ben outside of WP. Ugh I'm confused. This is worse than a time travel paradox.

Dany's a huge hypocrite. She always has been. That "break the wheel" speech stands to be her greatest hypocrisy. Is she gonna install a democracy in Westeros? I highly doubt it, she has shown absolutely no willingness to cede her own power, and also no real willingness to bow to the people's will until there is no other option left to her. If she means to be the Queen she is going to need the support of the aristocracy. Tyrion is right, it is impossible for a monarch to rule without the rich on her side. And the sinple fact is if she does remain a Queen with absolute power and doesn't reform the government in Westeros it's all going to go back to the same way it's been for the last couple hundred years, after she dies. She can't stop or break the wheel, unless she gives up her own right to rule.

I agree.with your choice for traitor.

I feel like a jerk after this one. I think I might have to replay it, which I usually don't. I think I find more enjoyment in this game than the actual show this season, I don't know at all what's going to happen and even though it seems like the choices don't matter, as early as the next episode, when I'm making the decisions they all feel crucial.

They put out a tweet yesterday that episode 4 is coming "soon" https://twitter.com/telltalegames/status/600063231239979008 Get hyped!

I didn't like him on the Office, it was already too dry, but I actually think it'd be really funny if it's James Spader. Replace Robot Captain (meep morp!) with Ultron! But he's probably too busy to do a guest stint since he's killing it on the Black List. Since I'm guessing Holt will probably be in his new job for a few episodes.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing only my excuse was "He's my squire, and has dressed me for battle on several occaisions, I'm sure he's had the opportunity to see my birthmark many times. Although I am shocked and appalled that he would pay that much attention!" They seem to be going out of their way now to make Loras an idiot. I have always contended he's never been portrayed as particularily sharp, but this was just mind numbingly stupid.

1) Eh. Maybe. But the Boltons also know winter is coming. If they can hold the North via a Stark marriage, they can easily defend it against the Lannisters in winter. In fact it's probably more important to shore up against angry Northmen who might try and avenge Ned and Robb then worry about the Lannisters down in King's Landing. 2) Who the fuck knows what Littlefinger is planning? After the last episode I think he might be fine with everyone there including Sansa dying, and him just swooping in and becoming Warden of the North and East. 3) Sure it does, she trusts Littlefinger, kinda. And he's already laid out the plan. Endure until Stannis comes. After the wedding night though she'll probably decide she can't endure and make her break for freedom. 4) They already explained away #4. Littlefinger already introduced the fact that marriages that are not consummated are not legal. Another change from the books apparently.

That comparison is once again not apt. If Dany was killing them for the crime of owning slaves, she should kill all of them. And I actually would be more ok with that, because at least the logic works out. They are guilty of owning slaves, everyone who is guilty of said crime dies. The problem is that Dany isn't killing them for being slave owners. She is killing them for crucifying children, and for supporting terrorism. But she isn't actually bothering to investigate who did order the children killed, and who did support the terrorists. She's just killing masters randomly because she knows some of the masters supported the crucifixion and some of the masters are supporting the terrorists. Slave ownership is not the crime Dany is prosecuting, it is an attribute that the criminals have. This would be the same as if a police officer saw a man in a white hat commit a crime, and then started randomly shooting men in white hats, hoping that he got the right one. Wearing the hat is not the crime, it's just an attribute that the criminal had. It can be used to narrow the search, but it can't (by itself) be used to prove guilt.

Seems like it's pretty simple. Comes back from Hardhome with even more wildlings, decides to let them though the wall and then everyone stabs him. All they are writing out is Jon's intent to march south. The wildlings are the more hot button issue for the Brothers anyway.

There's 8, but most of them are still children. Even in the books the only ones that take part in the plot are Obara, Nym and Tyene. Sarella is old enough, but she's away from Dorne (suspected to be in Oldtown masquerading as a novice of the Citadel), Elia is 14, so she could also maybe play a part, but she's also young enough that she can be controlled, and Obella, Dorea and Loreza are all too young (I think they are all younger than 10.)

Any time Holt uses his cellphone it's awesome. Holt: I don't always understand Peralta's texts. He says they're still waiting on the lab and 'its allz good,' allz with a z, then a box with a question mark inside, another box with a question mark, another box with a question mark, another box with a question mark, another box with a question mark, and yet another box with a question mark, then a box with a question mark. What does that mean? Terry: It means you don't have emojis on your phone.

Me too. It's actually somewhat ironic. This is the case the Vulture didnt poach, but by actual NYPD guidelines this is the only case we've seen so far on Brooklyn Nine-Nine that Major Crimes should have taken from a normal precinct. Major Crimes pervue is pretty much exclusively bank and armoured car robberies.

My mind went to the same place. I don't believe it can work by actual NYC heirarchy. IIRC the Vulture is just a Detective. He's a detective in the MCU, but still just a detective. Typically he would have become a Sergeant, then become a Lieutenant, and then become a Captain. And most police officers spend years between promotions, it's not like he could fast track. He could probably be an acting Captain though if he was atleast a Lieutenant. But Brooklyn 9-9 (and really almost every cop show) isn't too concerned with how things actually work. For instance in 9-9 the MCU can pretty much poach any case they want, when in real life the NYPD MCU typically only handles kidnappings, bank robbery, and thefts of over $100,000 that target commercial entities or financial institutions. Ironically the case that got Holt promoted would have automatically gone to Major Crimes in the real NYPD. So it probably could be the Vulture who is the new Captain, since they don't really care if things are accurate to the real NYPD.

Just because something is fair, doesn't mean it's just or right or good. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

It's not the death that bothers me. It's the inconsistency in judgment as well as the unnecessary cruelty of the deaths. If she wants to put all of the slave masters to death for the crime of being slave masters, fair enough, she should do that. But that's not what she's doing, she's putting random people to death for random crimes that she has no proof they committed of not. And she's not simply killing them, she is killing them in horrific ways, and I can't see any reason to do that, other then she delights in it. She takes pleasure from the terrible pain she inflicts upon these bad people. Your analogy is flawed, Dany didn't come into Meereen and tell the slave owners to treat their charges better, she just killed them. There was no ultimatum to treat people better, or change their ways. She just killed them, and horrifically, and delighted in it. Think about it this way. The Starks are part of the alliance that slaughtered Dany's family, they are, at the very least, part of the reason that her father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and neice and nephew were killed. They may not have done the deed themselves, but they are at least partly the reason it happened, because they were one of the main proponents in Robert's Rebellion. They might have spoken against it, they might have denounced it as a crime, but they didn't actually stop it, and they didn't punish anyone who did it. It can thusly be said that the Starks probably had a similar hand in the murder of the royal children that the zo Loraq family had in the slaughter of the slave children. If Ned was still alive I think it would be fair for Dany to kill him for the crime of treason, he is definitely a traitor. But would it have been alright for Dany to crucify him for the crime of murdering children, taking her time to make sure his suffering was long and extended? Would it therefore be ok for Dany to burn Sansa, Bran, Arya and Rickon alive for the crime of murdering children or for treason? Are they child murderers or traitors or are they just Starks?