S02.E08: eps2.6_succ3ss0r.p12

[Neurochick]

49 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

Exactly! This! Why is it ok that Elliot killed Tyrell in cold blood for what appears to be no real reason at all? Why does this lawyer have the right to live at all, let alone live so incredibly extravagantly, when she is sitting on a heap of dead bodies whose murderers she cleared of all charges? Lawyer lady had it coming, actually. Darlene is a mess, but I don't judge her for this particular murder. I get bored with her "little miss badass" act though.

Well, people are allowed to live even if you don't' agree with what they did.  Darlene had no right to be judge, jury and executioner.  It's not like that lawyer was going to kill Darlene, it wasn't self defense.  This woman was probably a junior lawyer and Darlene chose her, rather than the senior ones who actually did whatever they did.  

What I also find interesting is the parallel between Darlene and Angela.  Both of them lost parents to E Corp bullshit, yet both have taken different paths.  Darlene will probably crash and burn, or get herself killed, while Angela will get her way in the end.

[scrb]

I believe in the present, Susan Jacobs is the general counsel for E-corp.

You don't get a home like that in Manhattan being just a junior lawyer.

Hell that pool had more square footage than Tyrell's home.

[Bama]

Susan Jacobs may have been a junior lawyer at E-Corp at the time of Darlene's father's death but now? She is the Head General Counsel for E-Corp - that's a pretty big fucking fish.  She was in the meeting with Price and Knowles when they were deciding how to handle the ransom for the hack in the beginning of the season.  I can totally see how Darlene's hatred could have grown out of control over 20 years of watching this woman - who laughed when the people who murdered her father got away with it - rise in power, wealth, and prestige.

Now, is all that deserving of murder?  No.  But I can see how in Darlene's head this woman's current position as the Head General Counsel of E-Corp started with a callous chuckle at the expense of her dead father.  Darlene may not have other people living inside her head like Elliot but I think she needs Krista's help just as much as Elliot does.

[tankgirl73]

The point isn't whether it was wrong for Darlene to arbitrarily decide to kill Susan. Duh, obviously it's wrong to murder, even to murder a 'bad guy'. But there's not the same shock being expressed about Elliot (potentially) having killed Wellick. It's just, "ooh I wonder if he did it", not "omg I can't believe he would do such a terrible thing, what a horrible person he is and I can't stand the character."

And there isn't the same outrage about E-Corp's passive killing of Elliot and Darlene's dad, Angela's mom, and who knows how many more, and then afterwards having utterly no guilt, shame, or regrets about it at all. When it could easily be argued that their rationale is morally worse. Darlene and Elliot killed 'bad' people, for reasons of revenge/justice, freedom, and revolution. E-Corp killed innocent regular people, for reasons of profit.

It's shocking because we expect a 'faceless' multinational corp to do bad things for the sake of profit with no remorse, but we expect our freedom fighters battling the evil corporations to hold to a higher standard. We forgive (or at least handwave) the evil corp because it's what we expect them to do, but we're dismayed and hateful when our 'hero' turns out to be flawed.

Especially... dare I say... when that 'hero' is a 'heroine'. I don't know for sure, but I wonder. If a male character had done exactly what Darlene did, would the general reaction instead be "hell yeah! bitch had it coming!!" We certainly have our share of male action heroes on TV and in film who take down the bad guy in a final act of well-deserved vengeance, and we cheer.  It's less common for the women to get the same sort of action - we expect our female figures to be thoughtful, kind, matronly, compassionate. Now of course, in many cases we cheer just as loudly when they do get in on the killing -- like River taking down the room full of Reavers. But I wonder if, in general, there's still some of this unconscious bias in our cultural mindset that makes us more likely to judge negatively, a woman who kills for revenge as opposed to a man doing the same.

[Kalliste]

When the episode finished I turned to my partner and said "you know what I liked about this? There was no Elliott!" I'm glad we got to focus on the fsociety side and how they're slowly imploding.

I hope this isn't the end for Mobley and Trenton as they're interesting characters and I'd like to see more of them, especially Trenton. Was she only doing it to help her family get out of debt they can't cope with or did she have other motives? And when/why did she start getting interested in hacking. I also loved how she set up Mobley in the flash back.. could he really have been that stupid?

I think what Angela said to her Dad's friend was justified. He could have been civilised and she would have been in return but he was the one that made it snarky and should have expected her to do it in return. I know someone up thread mentioned how he would have been making a similar amount of money to Angela but I thought her point was that even though she has been in the workforce a much shorter time than him she was already succeeding and she was only beginning but he was at the end of his career and how much more did he have to show for it?

I wonder if she had any idea the guy she was on a date with was working for the FBI, and why did she go home with the older guy?

I'm not sure why Darlene didn't just leave the body in the pool. It seemed to be a good outcome. Susan comes up, something happens with her heart, she hits her head and falls in the pool and dies. easy. They clean down the house and get the hell out. I know she said she was concerned about the others coming back but, so what? It's unlikely they would have said anything if they did.

[AliShibaz]

2 hours ago, Kalliste said:

I hope this isn't the end for Mobley and Trenton as they're interesting characters and I'd like to see more of them, especially Trenton. Was she only doing it to help her family get out of debt they can't cope with or did she have other motives? And when/why did she start getting interested in hacking. I also loved how she set up Mobley in the flash back.. could he really have been that stupid?

 

It's a stupid guy thing. He was excited at the prospect of meeting a girl and he stopped thinking with this big head and ....

[loki567]

It's either a good sign or a bad sign that the episode without Elliot was the best one of the season, IMO. Good that the other characters can handle the weight. Bad that the show's central dynamic of Elliot and Mr. Robot is actually getting boring to me. I think we've gotten past the point of Elliot's alter ego really adding anything to the show or saying anything that special about Elliot's character.

Literally you take Elliot out and suddenly the plot and suspense kicked into high gear. This is the show I want.

I go with the idea that Darlene decided to camp at the Madam Executioner's house specifically to provoke a confrontation where she could kill her. Dark, but I think it's been established that she's a fanatic in the church of Elliot.  

[possibilities]

8 hours ago, tankgirl73 said:

there's not the same shock being expressed about Elliot (potentially) having killed Wellick.

Exactly! And Wellick murdered that woman on the rooftop-- still, people want to know where he is, what happened, etc. I think the problem is that Darlene is not a rich, glamorous player who uses her sexuality to make herself acceptable. Likewise, a lot of people find Elliot boring because he's not a rich, glamorous player who uses his sexuality to generate frission. Both characters are ordinary, everyday people, not trading on charisma, who have mundane appearance and motives, identify with the masses, and don't trade on sexuality or excitement or win anyone over with charm. I find them both very interesting, especially Elliot. But I am interested in his internal struggle-- I know multiples, and I think that is an exciting and interesting reality to explore, not a boring stagnant nothing happening plot doldrums, but way more interesting than whatever happens in the board room of ECorps, which is old news and I've seen a million times. Suits trying to exploit their power for more wealth, at the expense of the masses? All that stuff, and Dom with her lollipop, seems like a cliche to me. How many cop shows and corporate corruption scandals do we need to see before we get used to what they look like? Joanna with her sexcapades is just a replay of every 60 Shades knock off. I don't care about any of that.

But fsociety struggling to figure out what the hell they are doing and how to fix what they've done? Elliot trying to reconcile with Mr Robot and figure out how to create a functional internal system, and dealing with the lapses in memory and the confusion and disorientation that result? Suspenseful and interesting. Darlene realizing that she doesn't feel regret or remorse, that she thought she was above killing but realized she isn't, that the depths of her own anger over what happened to her dad have brought her to this place of absolutely no return? Chilling!

As for Angela, I think we did see her father. Last week she warned him that he should take the settlement and give up on justice, and when he expressed horror and confusion about her seeming to have drunk the ECorps KoolAid, she was very cold to him, and acted like she was totally dead inside and no longer gave a shit about anything. When her dad's friend told her how upsetting her new embrace of ECorps was to her dad, I didn't think he was out of line at all. I didn't catch the bit about her fucking her way to the top (I watch with the captions on because half the lines on this show are mumbled, but the captions often miss things or I may have looked away and missed the line)-- I'd agree if he said that it was rude, but on the other hand, as has been said, there's pretty much no way she got up the ranks on her resume alone. And there is ZERO dishonorable or suspicious about being a plumber. The next time your pipes back up or you have no running water, for sure you'll be glad plumbers exist. So I still don't think Angela striking back on that basis is valid. She could have said: I love my father, but I need this job. Or: don't judge me, you don't know what I've been through. Or: pretty much anything that rejected his insult, while acknowledging that her choices do look strange. I don't think it's a superhuman request that she acknowledge this. It's like she's had a complete personality change, and embraced everything she and her family were ever hurt by, while rejecting him and everything they've stood for in the past. She may be playing a role, but they don't know that and they have a right to call her on it, and she had other ways of staying in character without resorting to that level of insult. Of course, maybe she wanted to be as obnoxious as possible, in hopes that both her dad and his friend would write her off and leave her alone. She may think her mission is a suicide mission and they're better off at a distance. But on the comment itself, I still hated it and don't think it was ok because the guy was ruder or insulted her first.

I like that this show is challenging, though. It's full of questions and moral complexity and I find that to be very stimulating. We can get action-based drama any number of other places. How many opportunities do we have to examine class, race, culture, gender, sexuality, prejudice, dissociation, morality, and issues of justice/injustice in this many layers?

[Neurochick]

9 hours ago, tankgirl73 said:

Especially... dare I say... when that 'hero' is a 'heroine'. I don't know for sure, but I wonder. If a male character had done exactly what Darlene did, would the general reaction instead be "hell yeah! bitch had it coming!!" We certainly have our share of male action heroes on TV and in film who take down the bad guy in a final act of well-deserved vengeance, and we cheer.  It's less common for the women to get the same sort of action - we expect our female figures to be thoughtful, kind, matronly, compassionate. Now of course, in many cases we cheer just as loudly when they do get in on the killing -- like River taking down the room full of Reavers. But I wonder if, in general, there's still some of this unconscious bias in our cultural mindset that makes us more likely to judge negatively, a woman who kills for revenge as opposed to a man doing the same.

It's not that she killed her, it's the WAY she killed her.  When it's two men fighting, usually there's a physical confrontation, man to man combat or something.  What Darlene did was just dirty, hit her in the pacemaker and then take her body to be burned; at least her father got a funeral and a gravestone.  Why couldn't both of them just fight fair and then Darlene kills her.  I just see Darlene as a punk, sorry.  

Then again, E Corp are punks too, so Darlene is now on their level.

I watched the scene with Angela and the plumber again.  I'm on Angela's side.  When the man insults her, she starts to walk away, and then she stop, turns around and says what she said.  IMO what she said was really sad, because I would have said, "for someone who makes all that money, you look like a sad sack."  Angela, to me is my favorite character now, she's a smart woman, but has never been given the chance to shine, she's not as brilliant as Elliot and Darlene but she's not as damaged.  When she and Elliot worked together, I think there was a scene when she was asked to leave the room because they wanted Elliot.  Now, for the first time she sees someone recognizing her worth. (and remember the affirmations she listens to)  So what she really said to her father's friend was, "I AM a worthwhile person, I have value."

And to me, the show works best when Elliot is interacting with the other characters, when Elliot is in the main story.  The problem with the beginning of this season was that Elliot was separate from everybody else, save Mr. Robot, Leon and Ray, he was separate from the main story.  

Edited August 27, 2016 by Neurochick

[green]

8 hours ago, possibilities said:

Exactly! And Wellick murdered that woman on the rooftop-- still, people want to know where he is, what happened, etc. I think the problem is that Darlene is not a rich, glamorous player who uses her sexuality to make herself acceptable. Likewise, a lot of people find Elliot boring because he's not a rich, glamorous player who uses his sexuality to generate frission. Both characters are ordinary, everyday people, not trading on charisma, who have mundane appearance and motives, identify with the masses, and don't trade on sexuality or excitement or win anyone over with charm. I find them both very interesting, especially Elliot. But I am interested in his internal struggle-- I know multiples, and I think that is an exciting and interesting reality to explore, not a boring stagnant nothing happening plot doldrums, but way more interesting than whatever happens in the board room of ECorps, which is old news and I've seen a million times. Suits trying to exploit their power for more wealth, at the expense of the masses? All that stuff, and Dom with her lollipop, seems like a cliche to me. How many cop shows and corporate corruption scandals do we need to see before we get used to what they look like? Joanna with her sexcapades is just a replay of every 60 Shades knock off. I don't care about any of that.

But fsociety struggling to figure out what the hell they are doing and how to fix what they've done? Elliot trying to reconcile with Mr Robot and figure out how to create a functional internal system, and dealing with the lapses in memory and the confusion and disorientation that result? Suspenseful and interesting. Darlene realizing that she doesn't feel regret or remorse, that she thought she was above killing but realized she isn't, that the depths of her own anger over what happened to her dad have brought her to this place of absolutely no return? Chilling!

As for Angela, I think we did see her father. Last week she warned him that he should take the settlement and give up on justice, and when he expressed horror and confusion about her seeming to have drunk the ECorps KoolAid, she was very cold to him, and acted like she was totally dead inside and no longer gave a shit about anything. When her dad's friend told her how upsetting her new embrace of ECorps was to her dad, I didn't think he was out of line at all. I didn't catch the bit about her fucking her way to the top (I watch with the captions on because half the lines on this show are mumbled, but the captions often miss things or I may have looked away and missed the line)-- I'd agree if he said that it was rude, but on the other hand, as has been said, there's pretty much no way she got up the ranks on her resume alone. And there is ZERO dishonorable or suspicious about being a plumber. The next time your pipes back up or you have no running water, for sure you'll be glad plumbers exist. So I still don't think Angela striking back on that basis is valid. She could have said: I love my father, but I need this job. Or: don't judge me, you don't know what I've been through. Or: pretty much anything that rejected his insult, while acknowledging that her choices do look strange. I don't think it's a superhuman request that she acknowledge this. It's like she's had a complete personality change, and embraced everything she and her family were ever hurt by, while rejecting him and everything they've stood for in the past. She may be playing a role, but they don't know that and they have a right to call her on it, and she had other ways of staying in character without resorting to that level of insult. Of course, maybe she wanted to be as obnoxious as possible, in hopes that both her dad and his friend would write her off and leave her alone. She may think her mission is a suicide mission and they're better off at a distance. But on the comment itself, I still hated it and don't think it was ok because the guy was ruder or insulted her first.

I like that this show is challenging, though. It's full of questions and moral complexity and I find that to be very stimulating. We can get action-based drama any number of other places. How many opportunities do we have to examine class, race, culture, gender, sexuality, prejudice, dissociation, morality, and issues of justice/injustice in this many layers?

I agree with a lot of what you said though I still want evil corps being the bad guys.  I never want to not see them portrayed for the mass murders they really are.  Do you realize every decade and a half tobacco companies kill more people in America alone than died in the Holocaust?  Never let those guys off the hook ever.  Just because it isn't "visceral" doesn't mean it isn't just as murderous.  Worse because there have been no Nuremberg Trials for these people.  No justice at all.

The reason I keep thinking Tyrell isn't dead and ask about him is not because I love the guy.  On the contrary he is a little pile of burning you know what.  But I do think he is alive and possibly the key to this season.

But I totally agree Angela did interact with her dad and she did indeed treat her dad like crap when he refused to sell out his principles.  He is probably the most likeable character on the whole show at this point.  A man of principles who can't be bought.  But not so much Angela.  Add in to how she treated the plummer and the shoe salesman and to me she the pits.  Given she is a major character and Elliot has always had a secret crush on her I'm sure she will get a redemptive story arc.  But too late for me.  Anyone who thinks cubicle people are smarter and better than blue collars just by definition and the money they earn is dead to me.

8 hours ago, Neurochick said:

It's not that she killed her, it's the WAY she killed her.  When it's two men fighting, usually there's a physical confrontation, man to man combat or something.  What Darlene did was just dirty, hit her in the pacemaker and then take her body to be burned; at least her father got a funeral and a gravestone.  Why couldn't both of them j

...

Men do that?  Where?  When?  If you mean in fictional shows (which I hope you do, heh)  the last time I remember a fair physical fight between men is from some 1950's King Arthur type of fare.  Usually they are shooting unarmed people or shooting someone who also has a gun but hiding behind something in ambush instead of High Noon stuff.  Or garroting someone from behind or running over them in cars or sticking a knife in their back or whatever. 

What Darlene did is wrong in real life of course.  And fictionally too but it was a clever way story-wise.  She found out the woman had a pacemaker via her hacking and then acted upon that information.  Darlene is a hacker.  She should kill -- if the script calls for it -- using her wits and skill set.  And she did.  Not dirty.  Clever.  If she was a martial arts enthusiast I'm sure she would have killed that way.  A gun nut and she would have used a gun.  A medal winning archer, with a bow.  Etc.  Why can't she use her skill set like a skilled shooter on shows gets to use his/her shooting strengths?

Edited August 27, 2016 by green

[shapeshifter]

On August 25, 2016 at 9:16 AM, morgankobi said:

Cisco's reply of something like, "I have her/she's here" actually struck me as a possible mis-direct. Perhaps Whiterose is having Cisco watch over Darlene as Leon was watching over Elliot. 

I thought it was interesting that they mentioned there was another Ron's Coffee nearby in the flashback. I wonder if maybe either Mobley or Trenton is at the wrong one at the end of the episode.

I hadn't considered that Cisco could be observing Darlene for benign reasons, but, if true, it would fit with my opinion of her character throughout the show: that she sees others as enemies or at least tools for her agenda of revenge -- never as trustworthy friends.

 

On August 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, PreviouslyTV said:

Sarah D. Bunting is not a crackpot....

Quote

 ...Released, Mobley wipes his phone and ditches it, then advises Trenton to blow town while she still can (or does he?)....

...[Angela]'s a puppy in a shark Halloween costume, and eventually the real sharks will get hungry....

View the full article

Did Mobley sell out Trenton to the fibbies? It would bookend the "previously on..." in which Trenton ensnares Mobley.

Maybe Angela will turn out to be more of a shark in a puppy's costume. I think she already has, to some degree. Now I'm thinking about the character's name. Is she an avenging angel, or a messenger from heaven (where her mother could be said to exist as an innocent victim)? Of course, there's nothing "darling" about Darlene.

Edited August 27, 2016 by shapeshifter

[possibilities]

green, I actually agree with you about corporations. I'm totally on board for them being shown to be the evildoers they are. I just wouldn't call it more exciting or suspenseful or unusual to see, and definitely not as morally complex, compared to the other stuff. Maybe I'm jaded because I watch too many documentaries. I think it's an important plot, though, anyway.

If Cisco was actually observing her for benign/protective reasons, I would take Darlene's reaction as paranoid, much like Mobley's and Trenton's. I'm not saying she wouldn't use someone for her purposes, but I also think there's a degree to which everyone in fsociety is freaking out and paranoid right now.

We did see Cisco cares about "his people" (last week) and I think that included Darlene. But this show loves to subvert expectations, so we won't know for sure what's going on til it's all over, and maybe not even then.

I also don't know yet what I think happened with Mobley and Trenton not meeting up at the end of the episode. Clearly Something Is Up, but I'm not sure if Mobley sold her out -- we did see Dom's boss telling her to let him go because she had nothing on him-- or if it's something else. I think the jury is still out on Angela, as well.

Has anyone seen the movie "The Conversation"? Stars Gene Hackman. He plays a private investigator who discovers a secret and freaks out. I don't want to give the ending away, but the paranoia that seeps into people who live with secrets or make their living sneaking around can be truly debilitating, regardless of who they were before.

[Avaleigh]

42 minutes ago, green said:

I agree with a lot of what you said though I still want evil corps being the bad guys.  I never want to not see them portrayed for the mass murders they really are.  Do you realize every decade and a half tobacco companies kill more people in America alone than died in the Holocaust?  Never let those guys off the hook ever.  Just because it isn't "visceral" doesn't mean it isn't just as murderous.  Worse because there have been no Nuremberg Trials for these people.  No justice at all.

The reason I keep thinking Tyrell isn't dead and ask about him is not because I love the guy.  On the contrary he is a little pile of burning you know what.  But I do think he is alive and possibly the key to this season.

But I totally agree Darlene did interact with her dad and she did indeed treat her dad like crap when he refused to sell out his principles.  He is probably the most likeable character on the whole show at this point.  A man of principles who can't be bought.  But not so much Darlene.  Add in to how she treated the plummer and the shoe salesman and to me she the pits.  Given she is a major character and Elliot has always had a secret crush on her I'm sure she will get a redemptive story arc.  But too late for me.  Anyone who thinks cubicle people are smarter and better than blue collars just by definition and the money they earn is dead to me.

Men do that?  Where?  When?  If you mean in fictional shows (which I hope you do, heh)  the last time I remember a fair physical fight between men is from some 1950's King Arthur type of fare.  Usually they are shooting unarmed people or shooting someone who also has a gun but hiding behind something in ambush instead of High Noon stuff.  Or garroting someone from behind or running over them in cars or sticking a knife in their back or whatever. 

What Darlene did is wrong in real life of course.  And fictionally too but it was a clever way story-wise.  She found out the woman had a pacemaker via her hacking and then acted upon that information.  Darlene is a hacker.  She should kill -- if the script calls for it -- using her wits and skill set.  And she did.  Not dirty.  Clever.  If she was a martial arts enthusiast I'm sure she would have killed that way.  A gun nut and she would have used a gun.  A medal winning archer, with a bow.  Etc.  Why can't she use her skill set like a skilled shooter on shows gets to use his/her shooting strengths?

ITA with all of this. The idea that Darlene is a 'punk' because she used her brain as opposed to doing something like clawing the woman's throat out or bashing her skull in during some long physical struggle makes no sense to me. If it's okay for her to kill under certain circumstances (hand to hand combat) then I don't understand why it isn't okay for her to use her wits as opposed to her physical strength. It's wrong either way so I disagree with the idea that hand to hand combat would have somehow made Darlene's killing of the E Corp lawyer more honorable. 

In all honesty if the tables were turned, I have no problem imagining that the E Corp lawyer would be capable of using a stun gun on Darlene to kill her. These are both women who are going to do whatever it takes to survive. The lawyer woman decided that she didn't care about destroying people's lives and unexpectedly found herself in a situation where she (finally) had to suffer for her actions. It doesn't mean that she deserves to die, it just shows that sometimes what goes around comes around. If she hadn't been the sort of person who laughs at the grave misfortune of others, she might not have been the first big dog at E Corp to be taken down.  

So far I haven't seen anything to suggest that Darlene doesn't want to continue going after the people at E Corp so I don't understand the idea that this woman has been singled out for her race or her sex. 

There's been nothing on the show to indicate that this woman was a junior lawyer who just happened to be there and was innocent to everything that was going on at E Corp in terms of them being responsible for destroying people's lives. There hasn't been one line to suggest that she was just following orders. I don't think Darlene's murder of this woman would come off as better or more justified if Darlene had chosen to strangle the woman or beat her to death with her own two hands. If Darlene had sweetly given her a cup of poisoned chocolate or menacingly cut her head off with a chainsaw it's wrong either way IMO. 

There also isn't anything to suggest that Darlene isn't going to go after the big bad white guys who were also involved. She isn't stopping her involvement in the situation just because this one woman is finally dead. 

[green]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

If Cisco was actually observing her for benign/protective reasons, I would take Darlene's reaction as paranoid, much like Mobley's and Trenton's. I'm not saying she wouldn't use someone for her purposes, but I also think there's a degree to which everyone in fsociety is freaking out and paranoid right now.

We did see Cisco cares about "his people" (last week) and I think that included Darlene. But this show loves to subvert expectations, so we won't know for sure what's going on til it's all over, and maybe not even then.

I also don't know yet what I think happened with Mobley and Trenton not meeting up at the end of the episode. Clearly Something Is Up, but I'm not sure if Mobley sold her out -- we did see Dom's boss telling her to let him go because she had nothing on him-- or if it's something else. I think the jury is still out on Angela, as well.

Has anyone seen the movie "The Conversation"? Stars Gene Hackman. He plays a private investigator who discovers a secret and freaks out. I don't want to give the ending away, but the paranoia that seeps into people who live with secrets or make their living sneaking around can be truly debilitating, regardless of who they were before.

You know what they say that it isn't paranoia if people are actually out to get you, heh.  Just had to add that.

I assumed Cisco both has come to have some feelings towards Darlene and is also under orders to try and protect her.  Not protect as in a benign sense regards White Rose so much as (1) Darlene and f.society are still assets to be used and/or fall guys for him regards the hack, and, (2) if the FBI got their hands on Darlene well she knows about The Dark Army and White Rose being involved in all this.  The Dark Army is known to be involved but White Rose is still hidden I should say.  So she can't fall into the FBI's hands no matter what.

I also assumed that Darlene didn't kill Cisco since the episode ended with the "swing batter" moment but not the contact from same.  Cisco will either have a really bad headache or have taken a bad shot to his guts and will be none to happy.  But I assume he is alive and still tasked with keeping Darlene away from the FBI.  And will be greatly conflicted as to what to do if White Rose decides it is necessary to kill Darlene if the FBI starts to close in on her big time.

Of course if White Rose orders Darlene done in it means Cisco is next since he is the bridge from f.society to White Rose as well.

And yeah Mobley didn't sell out Trenton.  He called her to warn her then quickly did the factory reset on his Android which wipes clean all data (phone numbers included) and aps and even the ability to access any cellular phone company until their ID stuff is entered by hand by the new owner of the used cell phone.  But the data is all gone so the record of the previous owner can't be retrieved no how no way. 

He then dropped it off into a non-suspecting bicycle courier's pouch.  The courier will probably be all "cool look at this awesome phone I just found for free" and will have no idea where it came from if the FBI ever could track it down.  But the factory re-set makes that pretty much a mute point.  So Mobley did everything possible to protect Trenton with the warning and the instrument of said warning "deleted" in essence.  He now is the only one that is a danger to her if he is trailed and seen with her.  Which may be the reason he didn't show up at the cafe.

Edited August 27, 2016 by green

[AliShibaz]

Possibilities,

The Conversation was one of the first movies I saw as an adult. As I recall it was released in 1974.

Since that was 42 years ago, I don't think that it would do any harm to tell the story. But, just to be safe, I will state what I remember in the following spoiler box:

Spoiler

As I recall, Gene Hackman was listening to a conversation and heard something that he thought was true but was not. He relied upon that information and thought someone was about to suffer great harm. So he swung into action and did what he felt was right to prevent that. As it turned out, the only harm done was caused by his action based on a mistake. The plot was supposed to show the danger of relying on information obtained surreptitiously.

[possibilities]

I saw it ages ago, but what I was referring to was the end where he was tearing up the floorboards and destroying the walls of his home because he was sure it was bugged. The paranoia of a person who is obsessing about hidden info now feeling that boomerang on himself... and everything he thought and did through the entire movie was filtered through the lens of a person who is anxiety-plagued and over-reacting due to the culture of secrecy he lived in, which made him unable to trust and eventually completely paranoid-- all that plus of course the "hero complex" where he felt he alone should "save the day"-- also applies to Darlene and fsociety, i.e. people living in the shadows, people who live with secrets (true or false) become paranoid and sometimes vigilantes. Whether the rest of the movie was about false conclusions or not, I still think that it says something about how people go nuts when living in a culture of secrecy, for whatever reason. I remember my girlfriend, who I saw it with, saying as the lights came up in the theater: "Well, that was poetic justice."

[scrb]

Are spoilers necessary for a 40-year old movie?

Gene Hackman is a spy, who specializes in wiretapping, though in this case, he records a conversation of a couple walking through a public space.

The end is that he thinks he himself has been bugged but can't find the bug.  Did he get trumped in his profession or is he paranoid?

[Hecate7]

4 hours ago, green said:

I agree with a lot of what you said though I still want evil corps being the bad guys.  I never want to not see them portrayed for the mass murders they really are.  Do you realize every decade and a half tobacco companies kill more people in America alone than died in the Holocaust?  Never let those guys off the hook ever.  Just because it isn't "visceral" doesn't mean it isn't just as murderous.  Worse because there have been no Nuremberg Trials for these people.  No justice at all.

The reason I keep thinking Tyrell isn't dead and ask about him is not because I love the guy.  On the contrary he is a little pile of burning you know what.  But I do think he is alive and possibly the key to this season.

But I totally agree Darlene did interact with her dad and she did indeed treat her dad like crap when he refused to sell out his principles.  He is probably the most likeable character on the whole show at this point.  A man of principles who can't be bought.  But not so much Darlene.  Add in to how she treated the plummer and the shoe salesman and to me she the pits.  Given she is a major character and Elliot has always had a secret crush on her I'm sure she will get a redemptive story arc.  But too late for me.  Anyone who thinks cubicle people are smarter and better than blue collars just by definition and the money they earn is dead to me.

Men do that?  Where?  When?  If you mean in fictional shows (which I hope you do, heh)  the last time I remember a fair physical fight between men is from some 1950's King Arthur type of fare.  Usually they are shooting unarmed people or shooting someone who also has a gun but hiding behind something in ambush instead of High Noon stuff.  Or garroting someone from behind or running over them in cars or sticking a knife in their back or whatever. 

What Darlene did is wrong in real life of course.  And fictionally too but it was a clever way story-wise.  She found out the woman had a pacemaker via her hacking and then acted upon that information.  Darlene is a hacker.  She should kill -- if the script calls for it -- using her wits and skill set.  And she did.  Not dirty.  Clever.  If she was a martial arts enthusiast I'm sure she would have killed that way.  A gun nut and she would have used a gun.  A medal winning archer, with a bow.  Etc.  Why can't she use her skill set like a skilled shooter on shows gets to use his/her shooting strengths?

Darlene is the brunette with big lips who looks exactly like Elliott with big lips and false eyelashes. Angela is the blonde whose mother died. Darlene is Elliott's sister. Angela is Elliott's crush. They are two different characters.

Angela didn't believe that what she said was right or true, she believed it would hurt the asshole plumber in the same way that his statements about her "swallowing" had hurt her. He wasn't out for truth, justice, and Angela's Dad when he called her a whore and slammed her for swallowing. It seemed clear to me that he more resented the sexual protection afforded Angela by being "friend's daughter," than anything Angela had actually done, or he'd have chosen another way to hurt her, or focused more on her Dad and less on his sexual fantasies about her.

[green]

Thanks for pointing out my pretty obvious typo of Darlene for Angela.  I went back and corrected it now.

Disagree totally that the plummer has some sexual fantasies about Angela.  No evidence whatsoever. 

Honestly I think most people given that one month from a junior management nobody to super big wig six figure exec jump she made would probably assume the same thing he did.  How could it happen otherwise?  Certainly not by merit and hard work.  We've seen she is being played but no one else would see that since they don't know the inner workings of Evil Corp and the games Price is playing regards the hack etc.

So something fishy certainly was going on with her promotion(s) to anyone looking in from the outside.  Or anyone inside but not Price himself for that matter.  To jump from that pretty logical assumption he (and probably her father) made to instead assuming the poor guy is some sexual pervert I just don't see.

[Neurochick]

5 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

In all honesty if the tables were turned, I have no problem imagining that the E Corp lawyer would be capable of using a stun gun on Darlene to kill her. These are both women who are going to do whatever it takes to survive. The lawyer woman decided that she didn't care about destroying people's lives and unexpectedly found herself in a situation where she (finally) had to suffer for her actions. It doesn't mean that she deserves to die, it just shows that sometimes what goes around comes around. If she hadn't been the sort of person who laughs at the grave misfortune of others, she might not have been the first big dog at E Corp to be taken down.  

Good point, and Darlene really is no better than Susan.  

The problem with corporations is that they are only about the bottom line and don't care who they hurt, they don't think of the implications; but that too is the problem with some idealists.  Elliot got Shayla killed because he thought he was doing the right thing, he didn't consider that maybe Vera could connect his arrest back to him.  Darlene took a bat to Cisco just because she thought he'd betrayed her, maybe he had, but she doesn't know that.  F.society did this hack and now it seems people might be worse off than they were before.  

Maybe what's happening to Darlene, Angela and Elliot is that they are becoming the things they hate.  

[Hecate7]

On 8/26/2016 at 8:20 PM, Neurochick said:

Well, people are allowed to live even if you don't' agree with what they did.  Darlene had no right to be judge, jury and executioner.  It's not like that lawyer was going to kill Darlene, it wasn't self defense.  This woman was probably a junior lawyer and Darlene chose her, rather than the senior ones who actually did whatever they did.  

What I also find interesting is the parallel between Darlene and Angela.  Both of them lost parents to E Corp bullshit, yet both have taken different paths.  Darlene will probably crash and burn, or get herself killed, while Angela will get her way in the end.

At least the woman Darlene killed, had actually killed people. She had actually done bad things specifically to Darlene's family. But the people this woman helped kill, had done nothing to anyone. That puts Darlene a little above her in my book. Darlene at least had revenge as a motive. The woman she killed only had ambition.

Susan is not as good as Darlene--the people she killed could not defend themselves, had never hurt her, and had done nothing to deserve being killed.

 

8 hours ago, green said:

Disagree totally that the plummer has some sexual fantasies about Angela.  No evidence whatsoever. 

Honestly I think most people given that one month from a junior management nobody to super big wig six figure exec jump she made would probably assume the same thing he did. 

To tell your best friend's little girl that she's never had any problem swallowing, suggests an entire BOATLOAD of sexual fantasies Mr. Plumber didn't act on. At least I hope he didn't. He deserved way worse than what Angela said to him.

What he did was creepy, and defending him is almost as creepy. There was absolutely no reason to get explicit about what sexual favors he fantasizes she's performed in the boardroom. Most people would assume that either a) she's done sexual favors, which in fact she has NOT, or b) she's blackmailing these people, which she is.  But assuming that, isn't the same thing as taunting her obscenely or demeaning her with sex. That he leaped at the chance to verbally sexually abuse his friend's child makes him a giant pervert and misogynist in my book. Yes, I would have wondered about sexual favors, too, but I would NEVER have spoken to the child of a friend that way, no matter what I thought she'd done. I'd have asked questions, not just shoved my projections down her throat so obscenely.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Hecate7

[Neurochick]

37 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

At least the woman Darlene killed, had actually killed people. She had actually done bad things specifically to Darlene's family. But the people this woman helped kill, had done nothing to anyone. That puts Darlene a little above her in my book. Darlene at least had revenge as a motive. The woman she killed only had ambition.

Here's my problem.  These people broke into a woman's house and Darlene murdered her.  I'm having a problem with people here thinking that's okay.

33 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

What he did was creepy, and defending him is almost as creepy. There was absolutely no reason to get explicit about what sexual favors he fantasizes she's performed in the boardroom.

I agree, I mean this man was Angela's father's friend and he said something about how Angela knows how to swallow?  That was low on a lot of levels.  

I was talking to someone today about this episode and they didn't think Darlene was going to kill Susan initially, but what changed was what Susan said to her when Darlene told her, when she was a child, that she remembered Susan laughing.  Notice Susan never says how sorry she was, or admits to anything, what she said to Darlene was "maybe we can work something out" i.e. buying her off.  She said that's why Darlene killed her, because everything with Susan was a deal, was about throwing money at the problem, without ever admitting wrongdoing.  

But I still don't think it's okay to break into a person's home, murder them and then burn their body, not okay at all.

[Cardie]

18 hours ago, loki567 said:

It's either a good sign or a bad sign that the episode without Elliot was the best one of the season

And that it's one of a very few that Esmail didn't write.

[Cthulhudrew]

On 8/25/2016 at 0:57 AM, scrb said:

Yeah Darlene seems to have crossed the rubicon...

Was this a deliberate Michael Cristofer reference, there?

I miss that show, even if it became a bit more unrealistic/fictional by the end after they canned the original showrunner.

[green]

12 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

What he did was creepy, and defending him is almost as creepy. There was absolutely no reason to get explicit about what sexual favors he fantasizes she's performed in the boardroom. Most people would assume that either a) she's done sexual favors, which in fact she has NOT, or b) she's blackmailing these people, which she is.  But assuming that, isn't the same thing as taunting her obscenely or demeaning her with sex. That he leaped at the chance to verbally sexually abuse his friend's child makes him a giant pervert and misogynist in my book. Yes, I would have wondered about sexual favors, too, but I would NEVER have spoken to the child of a friend that way, no matter what I thought she'd done. I'd have asked questions, not just shoved my projections down her throat so obscenely.

Then I'm a creep.  Because I don't like even a fictional character let alone a real person accused of being a sexual pervert without concrete proof. 

Reminds me of a long time ago when we had the very first case of some day care center people being accused of being pedophiles.  I believe they were found guilty too.  But then suddenly everyone working in one was being accused left and right and the news was filled with this and that arrest on a daily basis.  It was everywhere.  And it turned out that 99% of those poor people were entirely innocent.  Why did this happen?  Because people began to read into their every actions something that wasn't there and it all started to snowball out of control.  Reading too much into things causes witch hunts.  And I hate witch hunts.  All those innocent day care workers who had their lives totally destroyed over something they didn't do makes me wary of any accusation about anyone for anything without concrete evidence. 

Some people speak more "rough" compared to what other people think they should speak for sure.  It's part of the cultural divide in the country maybe.  And had he worked at the same company that statement would be concrete grounds of dismissal for sure.  Not that anyone actually ever gets fired in these cases in the real world but he should have been.

But it was a bar and he had been drinking and he hated what she did to his best buddy.  He sees her all dressed up fancy living the high life and he let his anger get the better of him.  So did she but hers was calculated after thinking it over first plus, as I said, she was the one who hurt her father first. 

Was the plummer a knight in shining armor?  Of course not.  But he was a guy who was seeing his best friend suffering so I cut him slack anytime for that.  Especially after the far worse treatment I saw her give her father face to face in the previous episode.  Pot meet kettle.  I call it a draw except she struck first so 49% against the plummer; 51% against the Angela who humiliated her own father.

[Avaleigh]

16 hours ago, Neurochick said:

Here's my problem.  These people broke into a woman's house and Darlene murdered her.  I'm having a problem with people here thinking that's okay.

Nobody has said that they think what Darlene did was okay though. In fact, people including myself have made a point to say the opposite. 

It also seems like the character of Darlene is being held to a different standard than characters like Elliot or Tyrell. 

3 hours ago, green said:

But it was a bar and he had been drinking and he hated what she did to his best buddy.  He sees her all dressed up fancy living the high life and he let his anger get the better of him.  So did she but hers was calculated after thinking it over first plus, as I said, she was the one who hurt her father first. 

Was the plummer a knight in shining armor?  Of course not.  But he was a guy who was seeing his best friend suffering so I cut him slack anytime for that.  Especially after the far worse treatment I saw her give her father face to face in the previous episode.  Pot meet kettle.  I call it a draw except she struck first so 49% against the plummer; 51% against the Angela who humiliated her own father.

Angela had been drinking too and she at least started off the conversation by being friendly. The guy chose not to be friendly back. I feel like if the plumber can get a pass for his anger because he was drinking and because he was defending his friend that Angela should get a pass too for angrily defending herself from his attack.  

That being said, I'm not convinced that the conversation between Angela and her father's friend even happened. The guy's reaction was so OTT that I suspect it was a hallucination of Angela's and that this is actually how she feels about herself. The comment about swallowing--I feel like it's possible that Angela is dealing with issues of self loathing among other things. She wants to feel that she has value and that people value her but I think some part of her fears that everyone sees her the way her father's friend appears to see her. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we end up finding out that this scene only happened in her mind. 

I think that the old guy Angela's date was telling Dom about was Mark Moses character. 

[Hecate7]

4 hours ago, green said:

Then I'm a creep.  Because I don't like even a fictional character let alone a real person accused of being a sexual pervert without concrete proof. 

Reminds me of a long time ago when we had the very first case of some day care center people being accused of being pedophiles.  I believe they were found guilty too.  But then suddenly everyone working in one was being accused left and right and the news was filled with this and that arrest on a daily basis.  It was everywhere.  And it turned out that 99% of those poor people were entirely innocent.  Why did this happen?  Because people began to read into their every actions something that wasn't there and it all started to snowball out of control.  Reading too much into things causes witch hunts.  And I hate witch hunts.  All those innocent day care workers who had their lives totally destroyed over something they didn't do makes me wary of any accusation about anyone for anything without concrete evidence. 

Some people speak more "rough" compared to what other people think they should speak for sure.  It's part of the cultural divide in the country maybe.  And had he worked at the same company that statement would be concrete grounds of dismissal for sure.  Not that anyone actually ever gets fired in these cases in the real world but he should have been.

But it was a bar and he had been drinking and he hated what she did to his best buddy.  He sees her all dressed up fancy living the high life and he let his anger get the better of him.  So did she but hers was calculated after thinking it over first plus, as I said, she was the one who hurt her father first. 

Was the plummer a knight in shining armor?  Of course not.  But he was a guy who was seeing his best friend suffering so I cut him slack anytime for that.  Especially after the far worse treatment I saw her give her father face to face in the previous episode.  Pot meet kettle.  I call it a draw except she struck first so 49% against the plummer; 51% against the Angela who humiliated her own father.

If someone accused the kids of "never having any problem swallowing," to their faces, then they WERE guilty. That is sexual abuse. Of course they didn't--only a drunk misogynist in a bar says stuff like that.

It's not a cultural divide, it's a man demeaning a woman with sex because he can. It's a man sharing his sexual fantasies of what this girl must have done to get ahead, because now he has an excuse, and it's gross and it's supposed to be. However, the fact that he said she "never had any problem" does bring up the question, how does he know what her PAST history of swallowing, prior to working for e-corp, was? It does imply she's swallowed HIM, or that on some obscure level he's angry that she didn't.

Quote

That being said, I'm not convinced that the conversation between Angela and her father's friend even happened. The guy's reaction was so OTT that I suspect it was a hallucination of Angela's and that this is actually how she feels about herself. The comment about swallowing--I feel like it's possible that Angela is dealing with issues of self loathing among other things.

I agree. I wondered at the time, if his attack, and her response, were both inside her head, because it was just so OTT and so out of keeping with the beginning of the exchange.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Hecate7

[AliShibaz]

I saw something recently while I was looking thru the net that I thought might interest some of you.  In this episode as well as several previous episodes,  Dom (the FBI agent) is shown sucking on a purple lollipop.  I've always been intrigued by that and I posted some thoughts about it.  But, take a look at the following link and see if you can make anything out of it:

http://www.narconon.org/drug-abuse/fentanyl-signs-symptoms.html

The above link is a news story that discusses the illegal use and manufacture of Fentanyl in China.  It is said to be a huge (and growing) problem (akin to an epidemic now) as many people are dying from overdoses.  There is a lot more to this story but I have not as of yet dug any further into it. I'm just wondering if any of you may have seen anything else related to this story or have any other ideas that might explain more about those Furshlugginer (obscure Mad Magazine reference) lollipops. I can't help but wonder after showing us how Dom loves those lollipops and how she gets them from a source who comes from Iran and how the link to China is so prevalent in this show,  I just wonder if there may be any more to this story - more than meets the eye?

I'm not trying to be funny or to laugh at the show. I'm genuinely curious if anyone else might think that maybe this may something more than just co-incidence?

Edited August 28, 2016 by AliShibaz

[Rinaldo]

Sometimes a lollipop is just a lollipop.

[formerlyfreedom]

Just a reminder to continue being civil please - interpretations may very and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Thanks.

[AliShibaz]

2 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Sometimes a lollipop is just a lollipop.

Yes. I must admit to that and I must admit to the possibility that may well be the case here.  But, as it has been said in the show, "Sometimes the best place to hide is in plain sight". Maybe someone with a drug habbit might like to find a way to indulge without appearing to be doing drugs. Someone sucking on a lollipop would never be thought of as being a junkie and indulging in their habbit in public. I just remembered that there is another obvious link to Elliot and his morphine addiction. If he should turn up sucking on a lollipop, I would seriously question whether that lollipop was anything more than just a lollipop.

But I would guess the odds are about 75-25 you are correct and Dom's lollipop is just some candy and has no further connection to this story line.

[shapeshifter]

I initially wondered if it was a medical marijuana lollipop, but I'm pretty sure the federal government doesn't make medical allowances for employees to use drugs that are in certain classes. Maybe she recently quit smoking? That was why Kojak adopted the lollipop (although I don't recall if it was the actor or the character who quit). If that's the case here, it seems like the smoking should have some plot significance, which I can't imagine.
So, yeah:

40 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Sometimes a lollipop is just a lollipop.

[ganesh]

The lollipop is annoying. If Dom was my partner, I'd ask her to stop, or request another partner. 

Since *everything* is something on this show, I tend to think the lollipop probably has some significance. It's actually more jarring to me if it's just a lollipop. There's no way the actor just decided that Dom eats lollipops all the time. I mean, the big deal for me was Angela's hair was down. That's not random on this show. 

[AliShibaz]

Ganesh,

I keep flip flopping. When I read your post, I felt that I strongly agreed with you. But then, when I read a post expressing the opposite opinion, I felt that I strongly agreed with them.  It is so rare that something like that happens.

I keep going back and forth on this issue. But, how in the world could Dom's lollipops be insignificant?  They are so prevalent and so intrusive. It just wouldn't make any sense if they had no meaning. I must admit.  Often times, this show just drives me crazy (or maybe I should say, "crazier").

Edited August 28, 2016 by AliShibaz

[scrb]

Someone should tell Dom Kojak did the lollipop thing decades ago.

[ganesh]

It seems like it would be difficult as an actor to have use the lollipop as part of the performance. You can't really talk with it in your mouth because you'd probably have to loop all the dialogue. 

I don't understand how sucking on a lollipop on the job would be considered professional behavior anyway. I mean, you're banging out reports at your desk ok, but actually interacting with other people as part of your job is something else. 

[AliShibaz]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

It seems like it would be difficult as an actor to have use the lollipop as part of the performance. You can't really talk with it in your mouth because you'd probably have to loop all the dialogue. 

I don't understand how sucking on a lollipop on the job would be considered professional behavior anyway. I mean, you're banging out reports at your desk ok, but actually interacting with other people as part of your job is something else. 

It seems to me that something like that would be considered highly disrespectful to co-workers and hugely insulting to the FBI's senior management.  I strikes me as highly unacceptable, and I would guess that if this was RL, someone would have taken her aside almost as soon as she started sucking on those lollipops and told her to just, "knock that shit off!" or, "find another job!"

Edited August 28, 2016 by AliShibaz

[possibilities]

I agree the lollipop is way over the top, and on this show they don't usually have "quirky characters" just for the sake of being cute. I also agree it's weird how her coworkers tolerate it. They seem to treat Dom as kind of a special agent, in that she swoops in, criticizes everyone, and swoops out. Everyone knows her, and they allow her to be rude at a meeting with top Chinese officials, and run around making her own rules, it seems. She's kind of a wildcard in an agency where everyone else is coming across very square. So whatever is going on, I think there's something about it that's not been clarified for us yet.

It's possible the show is just messing with us because it has us trained to go looking for hidden meaning. But it's a lot of work for everyone, to make Dom and her infernal lollipop so much of a sore thumb if it's not leading to some kind of aha! for the audience later.

So far, NOTHING has been straightforward on the show, so I don't think it's unreasonable to think the lollipop is there for some reason other than to make Dom seem annoying and ridiculous.

[Lucelu]

On 8/27/2016 at 9:09 AM, Neurochick said:

It's not that she killed her, it's the WAY she killed her.  When it's two men fighting, usually there's a physical confrontation, man to man combat or something.  What Darlene did was just dirty, hit her in the pacemaker and then take her body to be burned; at least her father got a funeral and a gravestone.  Why couldn't both of them just fight fair and then Darlene kills her.  I just see Darlene as a punk, sorry.  

 

Tasing someone on their pacemaker will not kill them. They have tested this on animals--pigs. Even if the pacemaker had an ICD --taser shocks don't adversely affect it. The taser in this case is like any other weapon, it temporarily knocked the woman out who then fell in the pool and drowned--she could have punched her and done the same thing. I think Darlene did go to the pool room with the intent to kill the lawyer. In this drama series however, it is a recurring situation, it seems everyone is a murderer or an accessory to murder; if they are not, they are a victim. In the last scene of Season One wasn't the CEO of EvilCorp being chummy with the White Rose? Somebody is making bank from FSociety's action.  As cynical as Darlene and Elliot are, I am sure they will be profoundly upset to discover they had been manipulated to be useful idiots. I don't know if there are enough therapy hours to help them cope.

Angela's response to the plumber family friend/neighbor was really assholey. She could have just walked away. She is drinking the coolaid because he is right, she did sell her soul. I guess the truth hurts. She talks about him cleaning shit for a living but that is exactly what she does every day as PR for those scumbags-- at best she is a collaborator. She knows it too: note the dead eyes and picking up the married daddy figure.

[rozen]

On 8/25/2016 at 1:28 PM, Neurochick said:

Yes, Darlene is all about ME, ME, ME.  But Elliot, I think really thought he was saving the world.  To me Darlene is just annoying, smug and self centered.

I like Darlene just as much, because she actually seems honest with herself about why she's doing what she's doing. Elliott has wrapped himself up in layers upon layers of bullshit obfuscation so as not to deal with his daddy issues, mommy issues, sister issues, and latent rage at the world. Just because Elliott has carefully cloistered off the nasty and vindictive parts of himself so he can coast through life in this naive pursuit of "right reasons" doesn't mean it's not there. Darlene is the anchor needed to actually get shit done, and I wouldn't be surprised if she hasn't been cleaning up Elliott's messes their entire childhood. Grifterism != Shiftlessness. 

That lawyer would happily have dropped all of them in a shark pool, made some popcorn, thrown a blanket in the dryer, and cuddled up to watch. The minute they goofed not watching her on GPS it was either 1 dead body or 4. FSociety has killed plenty of people already, they're all monsters at this point. Let her go and run for it? Seriously Tronson and Mobley? Seriously?

Uh, Darlene knows one of their members was killed and Cicsco is texting Dark Army pictures of her sleeping. I would have gone to town with a baseball bat as well. She's been the one ranting on and on about how Dark Army are basically the most dangerous organization on earth, why would she be like "hey baby, want to explain why you're sending my deets to people I'm pretty sure kill loose ends with no mercy?" That is literally one of the smartest things any member of the fsociety clowncrew has done so far.

Wouldn't be surprised if White Rose already knows Elliott is more fragile, and hence easier to manipulate, than Darlene. And she would almost certainly come for Elliott and remind them that they are Team Vengeance First, so she needs to go if WR wants to use Elliott for another purpose.

Wow, Angela carefully made sure she measured it back out pound for pound didn't she? He went for the historical low shot, impugning a woman's chastity as a surrogate for her morality and she came back with insulting his earning potential as a surrogate for his masculinity. I shouldn't be surprised, but still am, that the expectation is still on Angela to put kid gloves on for a 63 year old authority figure who told her she was a whore who liked to swallow for not making her dad's bbq. Not, "oh your dad goes to chemo alone every day and has to wait 2 hrs to catch the bus home" or "oh, your father underwent this intensive medical procedure and we had to come pick him up and take him home because you couldn't be bothered." Was that man paying her father's bills? Because she sure as hell is. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by rozen

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

So far, NOTHING has been straightforward on the show, so I don't think it's unreasonable to think the lollipop is there for some reason other than to make Dom seem annoying and ridiculous. 

So whatever is going on, I think there's something about it that's not been clarified for us yet.

If that's the case, which I can buy, then there's some meaning to make Dom annoying and ridiculous then. But yes, the straightforward explanation of course if that it's something that hasn't been clarified yet. It just seems like it's such an egregious thing LOOK AT DOM. It's just so weird.

[Ottis]

Quote

Yeah Darlene seems to have crossed the rubicon but if you think about it, the chaos unleashed by 5/9 probably caused misery and early deaths for a lot of people.  Maybe not to the extent that E-corp has but it sure doesn't seem like they liberated people from debt.

This has been my question since ep one, season one. What did f society think was going to happen? You can't get to their end goal without a revolution, and in a revolution lots of people are hurt - most of them are not the ones you are trying to bring down. Either f society was naïve, had an awful plan or had no plan. I can't tell which, though it feels like 1 and 3. As a result, Darlene always seems kind of clownish to me, someone who is angry and has no idea what to do with it. And everyone else is a follower. Meanwhile, Elliott is crazy and his crazy genius made it happen.

[Rinaldo]

1 hour ago, Ottis said:

Darlene always seems kind of clownish to me, someone who is angry and has no idea what to do with it. And everyone else is a follower. Meanwhile, Elliott is crazy and his crazy genius made it happen.

Yes indeed. All of this seemed like a "given" to me, right from the beginning. I've been watching to see how these very messed-up intentions will play out.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Does The Appearance Of Mark Moses Bode Well For Mr. Robot's Second-Season Homestretch?

Sarah D. Bunting is not a crackpot. She just thinks casting the former Duck Phillips is a reason to believe.

[scrb]

I dunno, Duck Phillips didn't do much for the Homeland season in which he appeared.

[benteen]

As pointed out, Susan was the general counsel for E Corp.  The season premiere made it clear that she's considered one of the top dogs with the corporation (though not THE top dog).  Given the look on her face when Darlene recalled her laughing during the trial 20 years ago, I would say that was indeed her reaction when E Corp won the case.  It doesn't excuse what Darlene did to her.  I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Susan but what Darlene did was murder.

On the subject of the plumber friend, I have no issue with him questioning Angela about why she is working for E Corp.  My reaction would probably be "Why the hell are you doing this?"  But he took it way too far but implying that Angela basically blew slept her way into a job.  He made it personal so I don't have a problem with Angela making it personal.  Even last season, I got the shoe salesman's reaction to Angela being there after witnessing her boss blow his brains out but if I were Angela, I wouldn't have wanted to have heard about that either.

[Hanahope]

The one thing I hate about Angela is that she always looks like she's on the verge of tears.

[hells bells]

On August 28, 2016 at 7:51 AM, green said:

Was the plummer a knight in shining armor?  Of course not.  But he was a guy who was seeing his best friend suffering so I cut him slack anytime for that.  Especially after the far worse treatment I saw her give her father face to face in the previous episode.  Pot meet kettle.  I call it a draw except she struck first so 49% against the plummer; 51% against the Angela who humiliated her own father.

I think if the first place you go is to is "You  must suck a lot of cock!" then you are a misogynist.  Scummy guy

 

Does that mean Angela should have attacked him?  No.  2 wrongs don't make a right.  We learned that when we were 4.

 

As for Darlene, I think her actions are shocking because we identify with her and Elliot and the injustice done with them.  We root for them.  We want them to succeed.  Then she murders someone in cold blood, with memories from 4 years old as a primary factor.  It makes us questions our beliefs in their justifications.  

 

And Tyrell's murder doesn't make me upset at all because I truly believe that he's one of the many personalities that Elliott is suppressing.  

 

And the bad guys murder doesn't get anger because they are bad guys.  They murder and do bad things.  That's why we are rooting for the Elliots and the Darlenes and the Angelas.  So when the three heroes start doing bad things, we start questioning our preconceptions about good and bad..  

Edited October 24, 2016 by hells bells