THT Spoilers

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

3 hours ago, AllyB said:

Perhaps June, like me, was just slow on the uptake and realised that Nicole is a feminine version of the baby's father's name right at that last moment. And she saw a dark humour in sending the baby to Canada where she correctly guesses Luke will raise her and unknowingly call the baby by the name of her lover.

Not according to post - season interviews. It was because of Serena. 

Sorry

[AllyB]

It was a joke.I don't really think June is quite so messed in the head to do that. But I do think it was so very, very weird for Serena to call the child Nicole and for Fred to not react incredibly badly to it.

[greekmom]

On 6/2/2019 at 4:47 AM, AllyB said:

It was a joke.I don't really think June is quite so messed in the head to do that. But I do think it was so very, very weird for Serena to call the child Nicole and for Fred to not react incredibly badly to it.

I don't think Fred really gives a crap about wanting a kid except for the status it will bring to him.

As for June, I think she's in it for the long con.  Do not think for a second that if the United States was able to take power back from Giled that she accuse both Fred and Serena of rape, torture and what else they have done to her?  

[LordOfLotion]

https://www.etonline.com/the-handmaids-tale-the-cast-breaks-down-whats-to-come-on-season-3-exclusive-126577

The big one is Lydia's backstory:

Episode eight, Littlefield reveals, will be a big one for Lydia, who finally gets a flashback this season. “It’s pretty substantial,” he says. “It’s the beginning of an understanding of who she was before Gilead.” Audiences will see her life as a teacher and single mom and the conflict that comes out of her bond with her son. “It begins to open a door into this complex character and where she began to adopt some of the principles of Gilead," he adds.” 

[AnswersWanted]

Oh ffs, the Wsterford's marriage will "heal"? Right, show, let's just keep making those two a thing, it's working so well obviously. They pulled the plot for season 3 out of their asses, I am convinced.

Bruce is a fool. His track record of ruining promising shows is still completely intact looks like.

They didn't even mention Rita at all, so I guess that's how much of a backstory she'll finally be getting after 3 seasons...pathetic. 

The promo for episode 4 makes me roll my eyes. June and Serena plotting together, Fred is still breathing, and we're right back to unstable Janine losing it around her baby. 

So, which season are we supposed to be in again? They might as well have listed this as an unaired episode from season 2. 

The repetitive bullshit is neverending. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by AnswersWanted
Had to add my rage concerning Rita.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

Did they say anything about Emily? I can’t view the interview right now 

[LordOfLotion]

29 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

Did they say anything about Emily? I can’t view the interview right now 

Episodes 1-3: After a daring journey across the border, Emily and Nichole are greeted by a border patrol agent and are granted asylum in Canada. Now a refugee, Emily is taken to the hospital for a physical examination before being released into the care of Moira and Luke, to whom she hands over Nichole. She then reaches out to her wife, Sylvia, whom she last saw when they were separated at the airport and Emily was forced to stay in Gilead.  

What’s Next: Learning to navigate life as a refugee, Emily will eventually have to atone for her past life in Gilead. “What we quickly see is just because you’re free doesn’t mean you carry the scars of Gilead with you,” Littlefield says. “Physically, [she’s good]. Emotionally, that’s a journey.” But more immediately for Emily is her reunion with Sylvia and their child.

[AnswersWanted]

I really hope Emily's scenes reconnecting with her family get the run time and attention that they deserve. 

If this show wants to keep the viewer drowning in a sea of June and Waterford's angst, then the least they can do is give a character like Emily her due.

I am still side eyeing his claims about Moira and Luke's future scenes. I already know that Luke is told by June to let Serena have access to the baby in Canada which...I still can't believe such a sentence would ever exist. 

The lack of any real reasoning behind it is almost painful. 

Also, the idea that after everything that happened last time in Canada, somehow the magical Serena, she who is untouchable, would be permitted to head back there? I don't care if Lawrence chartered her a plane himself, that would never happen. 

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

59 minutes ago, LordOfLotion said:

Episodes 1-3: After a daring journey across the border, Emily and Nichole are greeted by a border patrol agent and are granted asylum in Canada. Now a refugee, Emily is taken to the hospital for a physical examination before being released into the care of Moira and Luke, to whom she hands over Nichole. She then reaches out to her wife, Sylvia, whom she last saw when they were separated at the airport and Emily was forced to stay in Gilead.  

What’s Next: Learning to navigate life as a refugee, Emily will eventually have to atone for her past life in Gilead. “What we quickly see is just because you’re free doesn’t mean you carry the scars of Gilead with you,” Littlefield says. “Physically, [she’s good]. Emotionally, that’s a journey.” But more immediately for Emily is her reunion with Sylvia and their child.

Thank you!

Post Gilead life is a treasure trove if the writers are willing to explore that aspect of a Handmaid's life.

But I don't trust this team to do it justice given their track record.

[kieyra]

1 hour ago, LordOfLotion said:

Emily will eventually have to atone for her past life in Gilead

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

[LordOfLotion]

4 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

Yeah I saw that too. I don't know what they were thinking there.

[AnswersWanted]

15 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

For real. But Serena gets a healed marriage...my brain just can't, it won't. 

I mean honestly, Emily is 2,000% a victim of Gilead but somehow she is gong to have to “atone” or some dumb shit? The fuckary never ends with this show. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by AnswersWanted
Had to rage a little longer.

[BellyLaughter]

50 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

I was just about to ask the same question...

[Anela]

3 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

Also, the idea that after everything that happened last time in Canada, somehow the magical Serena, she who is untouchable, would be permitted to head back there? I don't care if Lawrence chartered her a plane himself, that would never happen. 

Maybe as well as see the baby, she wants to contact that man who approached her, and suggested that she write a book, that he could help her to get away. 

3 hours ago, kieyra said:

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

I was going to ask the same thing. None of it was her fault, and that wording is weird. Even if they're talking about the woman she let die, and the man she hit with the car, it was still all understandable. 

[alexvillage]

10 hours ago, kieyra said:

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

In a male dominated world writer's room, apparently it is. You see, "there are good people on both sides" is the perfect way to keep the bad people - really bad people, not flawed humans - doing bad things. It is also the "she asked for it" trope. I don't think they are put their feet in their mouths when they use the word "atone" as the way for a victim to heal. It is what they believe, how they see the way forward for the victim. Unconscionable. 

The show has some perfect analogies for what is happening in real life, and not only Margaret Atwood vision, which is superb. It is also, unfortunately, how the writers seem to be on the side I want to see gone. All the apologies, second, third, chances, victims needing to do all the work while the abusers get to claim persecution...

[Umbelina]

21 hours ago, kieyra said:

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

The ONLY thing I can think of is that she didn't leave when she was first aware that her country was changing into something horrifying.  Maybe a scene with her child asking why she left him?  Sort of like June with Hannah?

17 hours ago, Anela said:

Maybe as well as see the baby, she wants to contact that man who approached her, and suggested that she write a book, that he could help her to get away. 

I was going to ask the same thing. None of it was her fault, and that wording is weird. Even if they're talking about the woman she let die, and the man she hit with the car, it was still all understandable. 

Yes, I think the wording is strange, and they damn well better just mean something like survivors guilt, or as I said above, that she didn't leave immediately when the signs were there, for example the student interaction she had about her homosexuality.

If so, there are real world implications to that, at what point does someone say "I don't want to be a part of this country anymore."  ?

I seriously doubt, and fervently hope, it's not about the guy she hit with the car, who was one of her armed captors. 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

Oh, and I don't want her writing a damn book!

I want her to go on speaking tours, all over the world, and drag Moira with her as the voice of someone who worked at Jezebels!  I want Emily to be the voice of the resistance, speaking out to the world about the radiation camps, the handmaid horrors, while Moira exposes this "puritan" society for what it really is, a country of slavery and Oligarchy where the "rules" are only for slaves, not for the powerful and rich.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Umbelina

[Anela]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Oh, and I don't want her writing a damn book!

I want her to go on speaking tours, all over the world, and drag Moira with her as the voice of someone who worked at Jezebels!  I want Emily to be the voice of the resistance, speaking out to the world about the radiation camps, the handmaid horrors, while Moira exposes this "puritan" society for what it really is, a country of slavery and Oligarchy where the "rules" are only for slaves, not for the powerful and rich.

Oh, the book was in regards to Serena. 🙂 I don't think her last interaction with that guy was a good one, though.

[Brn2bwild]

I have this terror now that in the last episode of the season, there will be some official offer to swap Emily and Nicole for June and Hanna... Nicole because she "belongs" to the Commander, and Emily because she needs to face "justice."  And I fear Emily would go for it -- for herself, not for Nicole -- being driven by guilt and persistent feelings that she can never have a normal life again.  That would be an awful ending for her.

[AnswersWanted]

I don’t want to sound bitter, but I seriously think this show has become so dominated by male reasoning it’s killing the whole purpose behind the subject material. 

It’s like the writers’ room right now is reflecting the ending of the book, a bunch of people merely giving lip service to Gilead and what its’ functions were, but they seem to also be dumbing down its’ true horrific nature and speak of its’ victims with a blasé attitude. 

I am glad that they finally cut back on the explicit rape and torture porn scenes, but they seem to be lost on what to film instead of those scenes when it comes to the most tortured characters. Emily has escaped so she no longer can face those atrocities, so now she gets to “atone”? The fuck?

How could the word “atone” seriously be attached to a handmaid, unless they are speaking of the so called rules in Gilead that imply enslaved women are “atoning” for their past sins serving as handmaids. 

I just feel like the more and more I hear from Bruce or the head executive, the mansplaining keeps hitting me over the head.

They aren’t able to get how Gilead really would impact women outside of being viewed through a man’s perspective. I do know women are involved but it doesn’t read as if they’re making much of an impact.

 I really wish Atwood was the head writer, not just because this was based on her original work and vision, but also her female viewpoint would be invaluable.

[alexvillage]

6 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

I don’t want to sound bitter, but I seriously think this show has become so dominated by male reasoning it’s killing the whole purpose behind the subject material. 

It’s like the writers’ room right now is reflecting the ending of the book, a bunch of people merely giving lip service to Gilead and what its’ functions were, but they seem to also be dumbing down its’ true horrific nature and speak of its’ victims with a blasé attitude. 

I am glad that they finally cut back on the explicit rape and torture porn scenes, but they seem to be lost on what to film instead of those scenes when it comes to the most tortured characters. Emily has escaped so she no longer can face those atrocities, so now she gets to “atone”? The fuck?

How could the word “atone” seriously be attached to a handmaid, unless they are speaking of the so called rules in Gilead that imply enslaved women are “atoning” for their past sins serving as handmaids. 

I just feel like the more and more I hear from Bruce or the head executive, the mansplaining keeps hitting me over the head.

They aren’t able to get how Gilead really would impact women outside of being viewed through a man’s perspective. I do know women are involved but it doesn’t read as if they’re making much of an impact.

 I really wish Atwood was the head writer, not just because this was based on her original work and vision, but also her female viewpoint would be invaluable.

Agree with you 1000%. The parts I highlighted is what I think is sending the show into a fatal dive. The last highlighted part: I hope the new book gives us some alternative for this shit show. Then I will stop watching it because hate watch is a waste of time - I do like coming here to vent though.

[nodorothyparker]

I often find with spoilers, preview articles, etc., that the wording isn't exact or that things don't exactly play out as being described.  All context is missing.  Sure, as is the case with the recently ended GOT, what appears on screen is as fully idiotic as what the spoilers warned it would be, but nearly as often it's not as bad as I feared.   I put off watching least season's finale for more than a week because I couldn't imagine in what context the show would be able to sell me June purposely deciding to stay behind in Gilead when she finally had a way out.  But when I did get around to seeing it, I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would.  It actually made a fair bit of sense to me.  It still had its problems, yes, but I could see how they got to that ending.  So I'm willing to wait and see on this. 

"Atone" is definitely a shitty choice of words for a former handmaid who's been systematically raped and bred like cattle and then left to die, but I'm wondering if it's a badly worded allusion to the kind of feelings of survivor's guilt and PTSD that Emily and all of these women who made it out have to be carrying around.  The Canada side of the story has been given somewhat short shrift thus far and now we've got a couple of heavy-weight characters/actresses there who are definitely up to telling the story of what it's like to try to have to pick up the pieces and go on living after surviving this kind of thing.  I mean, how on earth do you even begin to attempt to live a normal life after that with dentist appointments, car pools, and working a 9 to 5?  At least that's where I hope they'll be going.

[Empress1]

On 6/9/2019 at 8:47 AM, nodorothyparker said:

The Canada side of the story has been given somewhat short shrift thus far and now we've got a couple of heavy-weight characters/actresses there who are definitely up to telling the story of what it's like to try to have to pick up the pieces and go on living after surviving this kind of thing.

They really dropped the ball by not giving Samira Wiley this arc, IMO.

[kieyra]

6 hours ago, Empress1 said:

They really dropped the ball by not giving Samira Wiley this arc, IMO.

Furthermore, I don’t think they’ll ever take the camera off Elisabeth Moss and/or Yvonne S. long enough to show us much of Canada. Except for Luke sulking and drinking.

Edited June 11, 2019 by kieyra

[Umbelina]

13 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Furthermore, I don’t think they’ll ever take the camera off Elisabeth Moss and/or Yvonne S. long enough to show us much of Canada. Except for Luke sulking and drinking.

Oh, I don't know.  For the "best friend" role, I'd say Samira has had plenty of screen time and story.  She had two long escapes, one involving assaulting an Aunt, and trying to navigate the streets and trains posing as an Aunt.  We saw her lover, and we saw her when she found her lover's death photo, and paid homage at the shrine.  We saw her in handmaid school, and a couple of times at Ruby's. 

We saw her touching arrival in Canada, and watched her adjust, and watched her become a counselor and help others and react to their stories as well.  We see her at home with Luke and the formerly mute girl.  We saw her confront Fred, and protest.  We saw her reading the letters from the still trapped handmaids, and decide to publish them, with the help of the mute one. 

We saw her pregnancy for sale, and watched her in birthing classes and bonding with the baby and giving the baby away.  We saw her at the protests in what was still the USA.  We've seen her fight with Luke several times, and also bond with him later.  We saw her at the coffee shop being called a slut (with June) and being afraid to walk home.  She's talked with June many times about everything from being in Gilead to their love lives, to babies, sometimes fighting with her, for example when she called June's life "easy" and perfect, expression her own frustration at finding what she looked at as perfection.

I know I'm forgetting shit, but she's certainly not being ignored, especially when it's not a story about her journey (although it certainly has been as well.)

I want to see everyone in Canada actually showing us the world view of Gilead, not just Canada's.  Why aren't they talking to people in what's left of the USA?  Why aren't British and French and Chinese etc. reporters interviewing them about Gilead?   Why aren't they researching how the resistance is doing, and trying to organize supplies for them?

That, IMO, is the "waste" of the whole Canadian side plot.  We still don't know anything about how the rest of the world is dealing with Gilead, are there protests?  Is anyone considering/debating action on a human rights side?  WHAT is going on. 

We are as blind as June is stuck in Gilead for all the Canadian story's been worth.

[ferjy]

On 6/7/2019 at 7:52 PM, kieyra said:

Is “atone” really the word they meant to use here? Jesus. 

It's as if they looked up the word in a thesaurus and picked a word. Atone is an obsolete word that used to also mean "reconcile". Snort. They need a better editor.

[AnswersWanted]

Episode 5 is already making me angry.

Just the idea June is going to bargain with the Waterford’s using access to Luke and the baby, potentially exposing them to danger? WTF? 

What is June’s motive supposed to even be at this point, why would she ever agree to allow this untrustworthy bunch of war criminals around her escaped, and vulnerable, family?? Come on, writers, you’re insulting our intelligence now, imho. 

And I swear if they go all “but Hannah” as her reason for doing something this goddamn stupid...

[AnswersWanted]

Something just popped up in my head and I wonder if the “atone” quote about Emily might be the, incredibly clumsy, way they’re going to bring up the relationship she had with the Martha in Gilead, the one that they murdered by hanging. 

She might end up harboring feelings of guilt about it, especially if her wife has been waiting for her without finding comfort with another. It also might be revealed if she explains her surgery to her, talking about the reason why they mutilated her. 

Perhaps that’s the “atoning” she will attempt to do, feeling she needs to earn her wife’s forgiveness (which better be dealt with appropriately), but even still they should have used different wording to indicate her struggle.

[Brn2bwild]

This is an interesting and somewhat spoilery interview with Alexis Bledel about what Emily goes through this season.  It puts a little more context around the idea of "atone," and also hints ("meet up"?) that she connects with Moira a couple of times.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

46 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

Something just popped up in my head and I wonder if the “atone” quote about Emily might be the, incredibly clumsy, way they’re going to bring up the relationship she had with the Martha in Gilead, the one that they murdered by hanging. 

She might end up harboring feelings of guilt about it, especially if her wife has been waiting for her without finding comfort with another. It also might be revealed if she explains her surgery to her, talking about the reason why they mutilated her. 

Perhaps that’s the “atoning” she will attempt to do, feeling she needs to earn her wife’s forgiveness (which better be dealt with appropriately), but even still they should have used different wording to indicate her struggle.

I am not convinced she had an affair with that Martha. That was the accusation made by Gilead. And since they had them muzzled, they literally couldn't defend themselves. I am not inclined to take Gilead's words over muted women. For all we know, the Martha touched Emily's shoulder in a moment of comfort and was seen by an Eye. Some of those guys are assholes as we already know

[AnswersWanted]

46 minutes ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

I am not convinced she had an affair with that Martha. That was the accusation made by Gilead. And since they had them muzzled, they literally couldn't defend themselves. I am not inclined to take Gilead's words over muted women. For all we know, the Martha touched Emily's shoulder in a moment of comfort and was seen by an Eye. Some of those guys are assholes as we already know

Well they did share that intimate scene in the back of the van, when the Martha, I hate that we never got her name, takes Emily's hands in hers and presses her forehead to them, causing Emily to start crying. Then as they both start sobbing, Emily touches her face.

That was one of many scenes during season 1 that completely gutted me, especially as a queer woman myself. I definitely got the impression that they did care for one another, maybe even loved each other. 

Emily probably never thought escape could ever be possible, so I could see her wanting to find someone to bond with, to share her true self with again. 

But then again with how the writing has been this season especially, the writers probably forgot all about that as well and will focus on something totally different. 

[alexvillage]

5 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

Something just popped up in my head and I wonder if the “atone” quote about Emily might be the, incredibly clumsy, way they’re going to bring up the relationship she had with the Martha in Gilead, the one that they murdered by hanging. 

It would be incredibly clumsy and inconsistent, considering the tJune send her daughter with another man to Luke. It would be almost like "lesbians: need to be forgiven because how could them seek pleasure in a terrible situation? Straight people: OMG, it was a terrible situation, forgive them!"

We know that consistency is not the writer's quality so...

[alexvillage]

4 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

This is an interesting and somewhat spoilery interview with Alexis Bledel about what Emily goes through this season.  It puts a little more context around the idea of "atone," and also hints ("meet up"?) that she connects with Moira a couple of times.

It does make sense when she says it, and in the context of PTSD.

[AnswersWanted]

1 hour ago, alexvillage said:

It would be incredibly clumsy and inconsistent, considering the tJune send her daughter with another man to Luke. It would be almost like "lesbians: need to be forgiven because how could them seek pleasure in a terrible situation? Straight people: OMG, it was a terrible situation, forgive them!"

We know that consistency is not the writer's quality so...

That's my thinking as well. I really wouldn't put it past a guy like Miller at this point to go there. 

I normally like to be spoiled so I can figure out what parts of the show I can look forward to. But now with THT I do it just so I can try and brace myself for whatever nonsense is incoming. 

I just want coherent and cohesive writing, they started off with it in spades, but now it's barely detectable. 

[DuckyinKy]

I hope it is okay to ask here, I rarely post in the spoiler threads but everyone on the Facebook groups are talking about the next episode in DC. The Waterfords decide to make an "example" of June but it's an ill conceived plot by Fred and Serena. Whatever happens gains national attention and does not end the way they hoped and it makes them look terrible. Are they any spoilers relating to it? I can't find anything but small hints here and there. I am dying to know.  

[Anela]

4 hours ago, DuckyinKy said:

I hope it is okay to ask here, I rarely post in the spoiler threads but everyone on the Facebook groups are talking about the next episode in DC. The Waterfords decide to make an "example" of June but it's an ill conceived plot by Fred and Serena. Whatever happens gains national attention and does not end the way they hoped and it makes them look terrible. Are they any spoilers relating to it? I can't find anything but small hints here and there. I am dying to know.  

I googled, but can only find the video preview, that looks like Serena meeting Luke in Canada (I haven't watched this latest episode, so I don't know). It didn't look like DC, unless Luke travelled there with the baby.

Not at all surprised that they try to hurt June again. I've just seen something from Moss, saying that the middle of the season is a huge game-changer, and that she gets to do more with the character.

[alexvillage]

5 hours ago, DuckyinKy said:

I hope it is okay to ask here, I rarely post in the spoiler threads but everyone on the Facebook groups are talking about the next episode in DC. The Waterfords decide to make an "example" of June but it's an ill conceived plot by Fred and Serena. Whatever happens gains national attention and does not end the way they hoped and it makes them look terrible. Are they any spoilers relating to it? I can't find anything but small hints here and there. I am dying to know.  

What confuses me about this is the "national attention" part. Are they in Gilead? How would the attention affect the Waterfords negatively if Gilead doesn't have a free press, and Fred and Serena have already done things that would get negative attention of the other commanders? 

[AnswersWanted]

I don’t think even these writers would try to spin Luke ever daring to step foot back onto Gilead soil for any reason. He’d be dead within minutes, if he was lucky.

Some of the spoiler reviews of the first six episodes have mentioned the trip to DC, June is among a large group of handmaids that visit what was once the capital but has been totally overtaken by Gilead. 

Apparently there will be a muzzling scene involving June, the same horrendous face muzzle they put on Emily in season 1. I believe they aired a shot of that during one of the season 3 trailers or pictures they released. 

Definitely things have been way too smooth sailing between the Waterford’s and June, so I am expecting things to take a turn, and it would make sense for it happen during or after the trip to DC. Especially if it’s right after she arranged Serena's visit with the baby.

June may think she’s earned herself a big favor, they seem to imply she bargains the visit for something in the episode 5 promo, but could end up double crossed, or worse.

[LordOfLotion]

I'm surprised nobody has posted this yet. They're saying that in the finale, there is supposed to be a plane that leaves Gilead with a bunch of children on board. This has been posted on the Facebook groups as well as on Reddit. Everybody is assuming that they make it out. 

If I were a totalitarian dictator, I would shoot the plane down, because if I can't have the children no one can. But these are the same writers that gave us Luke and run June in circles, so I was just wondering where you all think this will go.

[Umbelina]

Gilead leaders still have to eventually negotiate with the rest of the world, they are trying to get sanctions lifted, etc.  They can't really proclaim themselves a religious group with a primary purpose of saving the planet and having healthy babies, and then turn around and shoot down a plane full of children.

IF they pulled that?  All hope of getting out of their economic hole is gone.

[AnswersWanted]

Seeing that plane finale info makes me think that this show hasn't just jumped the shark, they're flying a goddamn plane over it. 

These writers clearly had no clue where to take Gilead after they stopped using the book as direct reference material.

They are all over the place, and the mental gymnastics it would take for such an event to make sense, all other things considered, I just cannot be bothered. 

This article sums up my thinking about season 3 pretty perfectly. 

The Handmaid’s Tale Season Three Only Works When It Leaves Gilead

I think this season has been a huge missed opportunity for the show to develop outside of Gilead so that such an ending could actually be believable and credible. 

I have no doubt these writers will "make a way" regardless because how else could they squeeze out 10 seasons, as if. 

The more I am spoiled the more disappointed I become. 

[Umbelina]

On 7/13/2018 at 1:43 PM, Umbelina said:

I'm going to put this clear copy of the map in this thread, so we can talk about book spoilers (such as they are) openly.

You can easily blow it up and read the whole thing.

• Dots are military bases
• red are resistance zones
• grey barrier zones with fighting
• green nuclear accident zones
• the wavy lines around them are contamination zones

The Rocky Mountains had strong resistance in the books, so?  The show mentioned strawberries from California and Oranges from Florida, so the map doesn't quite jive with that.  I originally found it through a link here:  https://www.postapocalypticmedia.com/handmaids-tale-map-gilead/

That link has other map screen shots as well as maps made from readers of the book.

Just bumping the map, since it looks like we may finally get more news about the resistance, what with Martha's escaping to join them and Nick heading off to fight them.  I hope he deserts and takes weapons with him to give to the Americans.

[alexvillage]

10 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Gilead leaders still have to eventually negotiate with the rest of the world, they are trying to get sanctions lifted, etc.  They can't really proclaim themselves a religious group with a primary purpose of saving the planet and having healthy babies, and then turn around and shoot down a plane full of children.

IF they pulled that?  All hope of getting out of their economic hole is gone.

Oh yes, they can. It is something that actually happens in real life, just read the news. People who are extremely religious - and even some who are simply faithful followers -  can justify any atrocity they or their leaders commit. And I mean all major religions, and some minor. They already do in so many cases, it is just a matter of the intensity of the act, not the act itself. It is the slippery slope. Just the fact that they already sponsor rape, that in a short period of time it is normal, I have no problems believing that they would have an explanation for it, and convince their followers too. Since the rest of the world doesn't seem to be resisting the cult, things get easier and more acceptable.

But the writers might just allow the children to leave, maybe get some concessions, and the writers will then literally give a super hero cape to June because OF COURSE it was her doing, since it is her daughter who left - never mind that officially Emily was the one doing the whole escaping thing. June will be known as June of Arc, or something.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

They are going to spin their wheels in Gilead over the course the season and appease viewers by sending off those kids.

Let's see how they go about keeping Hannah in Gilead so June could wipe away Serena's tears some more in Gilead.

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, alexvillage said:

Oh yes, they can. It is something that actually happens in real life, just read the news. People who are extremely religious - and even some who are simply faithful followers -  can justify any atrocity they or their leaders commit. And I mean all major religions, and some minor. They already do in so many cases, it is just a matter of the intensity of the act, not the act itself. It is the slippery slope. Just the fact that they already sponsor rape, that in a short period of time it is normal, I have no problems believing that they would have an explanation for it, and convince their followers too. Since the rest of the world doesn't seem to be resisting the cult, things get easier and more acceptable.

But the writers might just allow the children to leave, maybe get some concessions, and the writers will then literally give a super hero cape to June because OF COURSE it was her doing, since it is her daughter who left - never mind that officially Emily was the one doing the whole escaping thing. June will be known as June of Arc, or something.

Except, as we have seen, many of these guys ARE NOT really religious at all.  They did this for power, and money.  Well, they have the power, but the money is tight, because the entire world has boycotted Gilead.  No trade, no money.

They have been talking about this on the show since the beginning.  Fred's been fretting about economic woes of Gilead forever.  Store shelves are barely stocked.  It's something to remark on when canned tomatoes are available at the store.  Etc.

Sure, some of the men were religious and believed all this crap, but as we've seen?  Many don't.  Fred doesn't, all those leaders who frequent Jezebel's don't.  Open joking about "giving wives a ceremony to dress up fucking handmaids" and about the looks of various handmaids, or "women can be fun!"

What they do agree on, opportunists or religious fanatics?  Is that the human race is dying, so killing a planeload of children?  Exposes them not only to the world, but to the wives.  It, in my opinion, would never happen with this group.

In the books of course,

Spoiler

it's only the white race that is dying out, birthrates in the POC or at least third world countries are normal or near normal.

which would make it even less likely that they would shoot down a plane full of precious kids that

Spoiler

are the right color.  I wish they had followed the books, and the realistic racist Gilead, but I guess that would have been problematic.  Still, I can't really ignore that part of the story, since that was, to me, so realistic and horrifying. 

[Empress1]

The lack of racism makes no sense to me, @Umbelina. It's very explicit in the book and I don't believe that a country as stringently, virulently sexist as Gilead wouldn't also be racist - it goes against literally all of human history. I think you'd see striations appearing within the classes, particularly within the lower classes because you'd be trying to grab whatever power you could.

19 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Fred doesn't, all those leaders who frequent Jezebel's don't.

I think Fred might have, at the beginning, but as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. His only goal now is to remain in power (and has anyone addressed what his demotion actually means? Because it doesn't appear to mean much). There's always been hypocrisy in people in power - I'm thinking about lawmakers who have spoken against homosexuality and abortion who have been caught in same-sex trysts, or who have been caught urging their mistresses to get abortions. 

I think Fred is just straight power-hungry at this point. Serena is the kind of person who believes that the system works because before, it worked for her and she believed she'd be the exception - she's the "I never thought leopards would eat my face!" woman. Now that she's seen the cracks in the system, she doesn't know what to do. Her inclination is still to believe in the system - her sympathy was for Naomi having her party ruined, not for Jeanine receiving a brutal beating.

[LordOfLotion]

1 hour ago, Empress1 said:

The lack of racism makes no sense to me, @Umbelina. It's very explicit in the book and I don't believe that a country as stringently, virulently sexist as Gilead wouldn't also be racist - it goes against literally all of human history. I think you'd see striations appearing within the classes, particularly within the lower classes because you'd be trying to grab whatever power you could.

When I look at quotes from Bruce Miller from back in 2017 when this show was getting started, he's kind of putting it off on the audience saying that we can't handle seeing only white people on TV. “That was a very big discussion with Margaret [Atwood] about what the difference was between reading the words ‘There are no people of colour in this world’ and seeing an all-white world on your television,” he told Time magazine. “What’s the difference between making a TV show about racists and making a racist TV show where you don’t hire any actors of colour? So that was part of it.” 

So they couldn't possibly have shown minorities who had fled to Canada and Alaska, or showing what actually happened in the book. The only way to do this was to pretend racism doesn't exist. The problem is that the way it worked out, I still hardly ever see these minorities, especially in positions of power. If you blink, you'll miss them. I have to slow it down and freeze frame it in a show where they are constantly doing close-ups and slow motion shots.

[LordOfLotion]

Promo photos for 03X05:

https://images.spoilertv.com/The Handmaid's Tale/Season 3/Promotional Episode Photos/Episode 3.05 - Unknown Caller/THT_305_ED-_0224RT_f.jpg.php?fbclid=IwAR3Q9RKxzXKvtsPNrSTDWrsZiJNvLjXy-UMF38wM7HWQFGpPP4apFZo3ZGQ

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, LordOfLotion said:

When I look at quotes from Bruce Miller from back in 2017 when this show was getting started, he's kind of putting it off on the audience saying that we can't handle seeing only white people on TV. “That was a very big discussion with Margaret [Atwood] about what the difference was between reading the words ‘There are no people of colour in this world’ and seeing an all-white world on your television,” he told Time magazine. “What’s the difference between making a TV show about racists and making a racist TV show where you don’t hire any actors of colour? So that was part of it.” 

So they couldn't possibly have shown minorities who had fled to Canada and Alaska, or showing what actually happened in the book. The only way to do this was to pretend racism doesn't exist. The problem is that the way it worked out, I still hardly ever see these minorities, especially in positions of power. If you blink, you'll miss them. I have to slow it down and freeze frame it in a show where they are constantly doing close-ups and slow motion shots.

Maybe not in positions of power, but there certainly are a great many POC in prominent featured positions on the show.  (We have had a couple of black commanders, including that guy that impregnated his wife and was promoted for it.)  Honestly, we haven't "known" any Commanders really, except Fred, until this season with the introduction of Lawrence.

Luke and Moira of course, Nick too, but the new handmaid June walks with, the guy that rescued June and died for it, and many others.  It's a pretty integrated cast.

My problem is that it really fucked up the actual story Atwood told.  It lessened the whole environmental thing that the 3rd world countries were NOT having birth rate issues (less industrialization, less pollution, less tech, etc.)  It dramatically lessened the real world implications of a White's Only "religious fundamentalist" country.

I think they could have included strong POC characters without fucking up the story.  For example, Moira could have still been sent to Jezebels, as an "exotic treat" for the white male hypocrites, and Luke's been in Canada for almost all of the series anyway.  The flashback scenes of June and Luke would still have existed, and, if anything, it would add a "reason" that they ran, since Luke was black. 

BUT, if Luke was black?  He wouldn't have poopoo'd June's concerns, because they would have impact on his life as well, not just hers.  There is also, of course, the issue of Hannah.  The Gilead leaders could have all the children of color they wanted, just adopt from Africa, India, some South Sea islands. 

They didn't want that though.  Their primary goal was preservation of the white race, which was dying out.

Still, the show could have shown more of the resistance (which would certainly have included POC) and is already showing refugees in Canada.  In addition, many POC were sent to the "colonies" to pick crops, and clean up nuke accidents, so again, there would be a POC presence on screen.

I get it, but the story is far less powerful without Atwood's intent.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Umbelina

[Anela]

I visited the HT reddit forum just now, and found these few spoilers for episode 7.

* Still looking for Hannah. Confusing, I wonder if they moved.

* Serena and Fred contemplate their future in Washington.

* Emily faces her past crimes - something about the ongoing diplomatic crisis. Of course they can't leave her alone. Damn it.