Rhetorica March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 There is nothing on Earth I love more than my son and daughter and I would sacrifice anyone for them. (hopefully I'll never be forced to do so) That said however, Ramses just desserts his child to avenge his mother, putting himself in danger, and possibly leaving his son an orphan? Just too much wrong with this. Instead of turning paternal after he found out he had a child, he became militaristic. I'm not sure his motives are as pure as he claims. 2 Link to comment
MizArk March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 Was rewatching with my husband and our son, who'd missed this episode, and my husband said, "So nothing happened when the two pendants were put together except an explosion?" Didn't realize until then that he hadn't been seeing the plants turn red. Not such a dramatic scene for viewers who are red-green colorblind! From now on, I'll have to remember to tell him, The plants are turning red again. 3 Link to comment
Cthulhudrew March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 I wonder what Jones is going to do when she finally realizes that the whole plague is really the result of her sending Cole back in time in the first place? Aside from the knowledge that her daughter's death is her fault, there is her whole continued insistence that everything will be reset and all sins will be forgiven once she "sets right what once went wrong." They should have a Scott Bakula cameo in this show for laughs. 1 Link to comment
OakGoblinFly March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 It isn't just one life though is it. I mean it is one life Ramse might be focused on but if his son would cease to exist as a result of stopping the plague there would have to be others wouldn't there. It may be only be hundreds or thousands or even millions vs billions, but the reality isn't 1 vs billions like is being portrayed. Granted he might not give a crap about anything more than that 1 but why should he. Why should the billions he has never met mean more to him than those he has already met. Jones isn't doing what she is doing for the billions she is just doing it for 1, why is she a good guy for wanting to kill however many would cease to exist to bring back 1 while Ramse is a bad guy for wanting to leave billions dead so the 1 can continue to live. So yeah great question and tough to answer because it isn't really all that black and white. But does he? What's to say that in the alternate timeline that - one without a plague that Sam still exists, just born into a better world. We already saw one timeline where things were a bit skewed. To me, the biggest flaw is assuming that everything & everyone that happened after 2017 will be erased if the plague doesn't happen. Link to comment
OakGoblinFly March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 A couple of reasons. First, as we witnessed when Cole 'convinced' Goines to buy the specimen as well as other times where Cole seemed to be jump starting the plague rather than foiling it, Cole's interference is absolutely necessary for the plague to happen. Events being both cause and effect. Also Ramse believed that Cole was killed in 1987 so everything would need to happen exactly as it already had in order for them to both end up in 1987 when they did. Any change might not just allow Cole to live but might also lead to Ramse not having come back to the past. 2043 only happens because everything that occurs happens exactly the way it has and the reason we know this is that other than the time that Cassie died prematurely every splinter back to 2043 was to the exact same 2043. Changing anything regarding what Cole did prior to him and Ramse going back to 1987 runs the risk of preventing that from happening which runs the risk of preventing the plague. Cole and Ramse in 1987 are both necessary to the plague being released so they cannot run the risk of those things not happening. Cause and effect. Cole going back in time and mucking about with things is what caused the plague to happen. Cole going back in time and mucking about with things is the effect of the plague happening. But that still doesn't make sense ... they knew about Cole going back to 1987 and giving Goines the idea that the specimen was the key to a virus, if they knew that, then why did the even need Cole to go back? They knew from whatever history they're drawing on that the virus' birth lies in the specimen; is that history Ramse? Is the effect Cole or is it Ramse interfering with Cole? Are they subscribing to the idea that time is fixed (though we know it isn't because we've already seen one alternate timeline) or can time be re-written (TM Doctor Who)? Link to comment
Recommended Posts