Wayward Pines

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Wayward Pines

#1 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:03 pm

Anyone else watching the limited run Wayward Pines? Time is fast running short for not having its well-concealed high concept ruined for you, but needless to say the show is, five episodes in, utterly unpredictable at every turn. I'm not kidding, I can't think of any show that completely upended all my guesses of where it was heading, offing cast members who are credited leads with a disturbing regularity and then dropping a huge game-changing reveal in the fifth episode that recasts all of the previous events in a different light and raises its own, new set of disturbing questions. The series looks at the outset like it's going to be a show like Lost, dropping crumbs in an effort to pad itself out over years' worth of TV, but this show just goes for it. It helps that talented directors like M Night Shyamalan, Zal Batmanglij, and James Foley have helmed episodes so far too. Highly recommended, especially since the show's on hiatus for two weeks and all episodes are up for free On Demand/Hulu/&c

(Please remember to use SPOILER TAGS if you want to discuss the big reveal in the last episode)

User avatar
kidc85
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: TV of 2015

#2 Post by kidc85 » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:28 pm

Caught up to episode 5 of WAYWARD PINES, I'm surprised that there's not really been much backlash against its twist. I'm sure there will be further explanations and maybe even additional twists, but their plan just seems to be incredibly inefficient. Out of every single option, this was the best one? And this is coming from someone who had no major issue with the twist to THE VILLAGE.

Incidentally, the FAQ section on IMDb is rife with spoilers. You're SOL if you visit the main page without having seen ep 5.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: TV of 2015

#3 Post by denti alligator » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:58 pm

So yes, Wayward Pines was The Prisoner meets Kafka's The Castle until episode 5. Now I don't know what it is, and I don't quite see how anything makes sense anymore.
SpoilerShow
It makes no sense to keep everyone but the kids in the dark. What need is there for the secrecy and the security apparatus?

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: Wayward Pines

#4 Post by denti alligator » Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:31 pm

SpoilerShow
Also, it now makes no sense at all to stop the wife and son from getting to Wayward Pines, since in 2014 there's nothing there but a small town. A cheap plot device. It's not as if they would have been able to uncover anything. This show's got some explaining to do, and if this (episode 5) really is the big reveal, I can't see how they will sustain the show's forward momentum.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#5 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:36 pm

Since there's only ten episodes total and only will be ten (it's based on a trilogy of books and the limited run series is it for adapting all three), I see no reason to not wait to see if the show will answer or satisfy "problems" like the above in the remainder of its time. It may not, but I've seen a lot of comments similar to yours decrying the show for a whole slew of missteps based on presumptions that the show can't possibly explain itself now without giving it time to do so. And, case in point, your questions in your first post are answered in episode six...

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: Wayward Pines

#6 Post by denti alligator » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:19 pm

domino harvey wrote:And, case in point, your questions in your first post are answered in episode six...
True, I watched it last night, and was surprised at how well they addressed this question. Not sure how convincing it is, but it was a good try. I'll continue watching.

User avatar
pzadvance
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:24 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Wayward Pines

#7 Post by pzadvance » Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:27 pm

How did everyone who stuck with it end up feeling about this show? After being pleasantly surprised by The Visit, I've been re-visiting (ugh) the early Shyamalan films I loved in high school and figured I might check this show out if it didn't manage to lose its way.

User avatar
bdsweeney
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#8 Post by bdsweeney » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:12 pm

pzadvance wrote:How did everyone who stuck with it end up feeling about this show? After being pleasantly surprised by The Visit, I've been re-visiting (ugh) the early Shyamalan films I loved in high school and figured I might check this show out if it didn't manage to lose its way.
As others have mentioned. the show changed its tone regularly from episode to episode. I know others admired this, but I kind of wish it had stuck with its 'paranoid thriller', Twilight Zone-like style.

More annoying were the plot threads that went nowhere ...
SpoilerShow
What was the purpose of the thread regarding Ethan Burke's affair with Kate Hewson that was essentially dropped by the third episode?
and the lack of consistency with characterisation.
SpoilerShow
The ultimate plot twist (at the end of the final episode) was also a real annoyance and made no logical sense. And this for a series where I was willing to go along with a lot of illogical moments.
But I did enjoy those first three or four episodes, which were a fun watch.

When I later read that the 10 episodes were based on a trilogy of books, a lot of the problems made a lot more sense. If more time was allowed to develop the character and story arcs (as I assume they were in the books), the awkward shifts would have probably been far less noticeable. Maybe they should have created a season for each book?


User avatar
ccfixx
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:37 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

Re: Wayward Pines

#10 Post by ccfixx » Tue May 24, 2016 9:10 am

Was it always known that this would be coming back for a second season? I haven't had cable for a few years, but I watched this on Hulu last year, thinking that it was a one-off series, which the previews led me to believe. However, the ending definitely left me cold and had me thinking that the show's creators were rushed to tie things up before it ended.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#11 Post by domino harvey » Tue May 24, 2016 9:45 am

It was supposed to be a one off series but it was so well-received that Fox asked for a second season. Unsurprisingly, many of the big names from the first season weren't interested in coming back for what could potentially be a recurring series. The first season felt rushed because they adapted two books' worth of material into the last five episodes, and the ending was definitely underwhelming, though I enjoyed most of the finale apart from it
SpoilerShow
as I don't really need another Children of the Corn

User avatar
HJackson
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#12 Post by HJackson » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:55 am

I went through the first season of this in the last week. It plays on the same kind of political and moral problems that drive The Walking Dead at its best, albeit without concern for the competitive tribal politics that characterise TWD from season three onwards. It also does so much more successfully by playing with the audience through frequent plot reveals that alter the situation significantly and expose the reality that reasonable political principles are utterly contingent on circumstance - much more interesting in that respect than TWD, where sane viewers can recognise the necessity of Shane's approach from the very beginning. Although I found the entire season enjoyable, the last two episodes drove me up the wall.
SpoilerShow
As above, I think the show's greatest achievement was in successfully justifying the existence of a repugnant totalitarian state by revealing new information of circumstance, placing the town as a final remnant of lawful civilisation in the midst of an unavoidable, dangerous, and chaotic Hobbesian state of nature. Pilcher is transformed in E5-6 from a petty tyrant - perfectly cast physically for the role too - into a sort of Strausian philosopher-king with esoteric knowledge that justifies elite political control through a noble lie. Burke plausibly sides with him for a couple of episodes, eventually gaining an emotional stake in the project after his son ends up the victim of the destructive terrorist gang that wants freedom in a world where we, the viewer, now know it is absolutely impossible. The problem then becomes how to refute that in the remaining episodes, but the case is so well built that the eventual resistance is characterised by complete unreason and emotional incontinence.

At first I hoped that Pilcher's exposition of an A Group that had been told the truth and had been unable to cope with it was itself a lie to justify his tyranny, but they avoided that path by having him speak privately with his then co-conspirator sister about the need for a C Group. So Burke's desire to reveal the truth to the townsfolks is totally contrary to real evidence that Pilcher had acquired through the very softer approach that Burke and the truthers start frantically pursuing in the last two episodes. Then the ingrates stand in the middle of the street and denounce a man who had the foresight to recognise an existential threat to the entire species and who devoted years of his life to conceiving and executing an unbelievable sophisticated plan of action - which judging from the scale of the operation must have been a logistical nightmare to say the least - yet still feel entitled to the resources and infastructure that he provided them without remaining open to the possibility that they might reasonably have obligations to him in order to preserve the society he's built.

The premise of the show could be written: group of idiots heroically attempt to foil evil plot to save humanity from complete extinction.

The cultish aspect with the youth is probably the most important aspect in turning Pilcher into the villain that I think the show wants him to be by the end, but again isn't this offered at least some justification by his failed experiment in openness and transparency with the A Group? By the end of the show, as viscerally disturbing as the final reveal is, it sort of seems like a good investment.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#13 Post by domino harvey » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:15 am

Interesting perspective and thoughts! I think a lot of the problem boils down to the source material-- like a lot of recent dystopian fiction trilogies, the author doesn't seem to know how to finish everything (the last two episodes are the last book), and as a result we get a bit of a mess.
SpoilerShow
Pilcher is an interesting character, especially once the twist is revealed and he is shown to be the mastermind / savior of the human race, but it's not hard to see the problem with letting any one man become God on Earth-- maybe the transition to pure villain would have been more natural with more than two episodes to adapt an entire book, but even his comic book-level moustache-twirling doesn't do enough to quell the obvious wrongness of the revolting townspeople. In a way it reminded me of Snowpiercer (and this is a spoiler within a spoiler, so feel free to stop reading here if you haven't seen it), which far more cynically showed what happens when ideological purity is held up as the ultimate metric: society fucks itself but gets to be "right"-- though at the cost of the continuance of the human race.

User avatar
HJackson
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#14 Post by HJackson » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:26 pm

I've not read the source material so I can't comment on how successfully it was translated to the screen but, strictly in terms of episodic television, the first five episodes were quite impressive and it's hard to see how they could have compressed the first novel any further to give the second and third a chance to breathe. That leaves the production in the difficult position, I guess, of choosing between cramming the remaining books into five episodes (which they did), extending the series out for another two or three episodes and asking for a greater commitment from viewers, or running them as seperate seasons - stretching out the first novel (and robbing the start of the actual season of its tremendous pace) and risking cancellation too.
SpoilerShow
If you've read these books I wonder if you could shed any light on whether or not the source material actually has the resources required to make Pilcher a more effective villain, ie plot details or character reveals that were trimmed out of the show for time, or if it's simply a matter of letting the natural repulsion at the form of government simmer away for longer? I totally agree with you about the inherent problems in Pilcher's government, which the show nonetheless fails to bring to the fore in a sufficiently credible manner. I was certainly wondering towards the end if the show was actually attempting a conscious critique of ideological purity of the kind you indicate in Snowpiercer (which definitely sounds interesting!), but it seemed to commit to drawing our sympathies towards the rebels to such an extent that I don't see such a reading as credible.

Although having asked that, I do appreciate that it must be over a year since you watched the first season!
Have you been following the second season? I'm six episodes in and it's certainly watchable, but it seems to be lacking a lot of what made the first season interesting.
SpoilerShow
There are obvious narrative problems. Yedlin isn't as compelling a lead as Burke was since the scenario doesn't fit a medical doctor as easily as it fits a secret service agent, and he's so far behind the viewer in terms of knowledge that there's not any great sense of detection and discovery. Jason Patric doesn't have the same screen presence as Matt Dillon either.

More generally there just aren't as many great discoveries to be made full stop. With Pilcher gone and the story of the founding pretty much resolved, the show has cut itself off from the big philosophical questions that made the first season so interesting to me, exploiting this naturally interesting tension between protection and obedience that echoes through western political philosophy from Plato through Hobbes to Schmitt and Agamben. Any ambiguity that the first season fostered is gone with the town government, adorned in unsubtle Nazi uniform, pushing a creepy child sex cult.

The new season does touch on some resonant political themes but they're totally under-developed. The concerns are generally much more practical, and almost seem contrived. The sense I got from the first season was that Pilcher had created a kind of arcadia where all the material needs were well cared for and people were rewarded with great comfort for their lack of questioning. Suddenly the new season introduces resource scarcity within the walls to trigger a Machiavellian and classical republican tension between domestic stability and constant expansion. The problems are a) internal disharmony seems increasingly to be reduced to minor characters sassing some uniformed First Geners and b) most of the interesting problems associated with this option of an empire for increase simply aren't available since this society is the only one on earth - there is no real threat of inter-state jealousy since there are no other states, and then it merely becomes a practical question of resource allocation to properly secure the land and eradicate the hostile species without any obvious connection to internal order. In fact it almost seems as though outward expansion is absolutely necessary to internal order in this case, collapsing the tension - consciously hinted at in discussion between Jason and Megan - into an uninteresting coherence.

Questions about personal and professional identity raised by Yedlin and his wife are immediately undermined by Yedlin's own behaviour on arrival, in which he seemed totally uninterested in his duties as a doctor and leveraged the satisfaction of his professional oath to acquire information. It's undermined further by the reveal that Yedlin's wife was involved in the planning for the town, which in some ways could be reasonably seen as the fullest possible fulfillment of her prior professional identity anyway.

This tighter dependence of the thematic material on plot and world detail actually exposes the series quite significantly. There's no longer a big picture which supports these questions, but now it's about this child who can't survive on rations or this boy who might be gay and can't perform in bed (actually one of the more intresting sub-plots so far!) Suddenly a lot of organisational questions are raised, the sort of detail that didn't cross my mind during the first season. At the outset, why are any of the adults from the B Group still around, even after leading a rebellion? Why did Pilcher encourage a personality cult around not only his name but his image, given his desire for anonymity during the first season? Why are young children being forced to have sex when there are older members of the First Generation who don't seem to have done so? Why was the architect of the entire town not unfrozen until the C Group?

I'll keep watching though. I see they're heading in a new direction with speculation on the nature of the abbies, which is interesting in an entirely different way and has a traditional sci-fi appeal.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#15 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:03 am

I just caught up with season 1 and enjoyed it for the most part. Even though this is based on separate source material, Shyamalan’s involvement is its own kind of self-reflexive gag
SpoilerShow
since the reveal midway through the first season is essentially an inverted version of The Village. Monsters are real, but not used as scare-tactics, and instead normalcy is reinforced (with socially-expected authoritarian scare-tactics!) against all obvious warning signs to hide the truth (which also indicates a disclosure about the group existing in a different era, this time in the future vs. (apparent) modern present, as opposed to modern present vs. (apparent) past.
My favorite episodes are early, embodying a continuously shifting narrative of chilling wrong-man spy-thriller action within a big question mark of to what degree this is sci-fi or fantasy. The vibe is firmly rooted in emphasizing the horror of this uprooted confusion, which is not an easy accomplishment, considering all the other shows that don’t hit such terrifying notes under similar-seeming premises. Still, the twists worked for me
SpoilerShow
especially the reveal of what happened to the first cohort, and the pitch of authoritarian government and surveillance monitoring as necessary evil is convincing under the logic of collective self-preservation, without turning the show into a giant ethical debate after the fact- although this certainly does occur, as is only fair (until the very end, which spoils that ambivalence). I appreciated how the showrunners took the Hobbesian sociopolitical principles and made a sensible conservative argument for why excessive law and order are critical for group functioning without necessitating completely violent social destruction to sell its point. The largest flaw in Jones’ ideals is his optimism in avoiding grey consequences, matching the same from the townspeople, but all evidence points to these moral compromises as fated. Dillon’s son’s teacher-influenced pushback to his father helps him make a fight/flight threat late in the series that feels imperative and only colors into the complex space of 'righteousness' further.

The brief ‘explanation’ episode (6) was enough to persuade me why Matt Dillon would completely reverse his position, because the situation he becomes sober to is so clearly life or death that we can comprehend how a realist with responsibility for self-preservation would immediately change his stance. Again, compared to so many shows or films where characters make sudden puzzling variations on their attitudes that are unearned, this one reminded me of 10 Cloverfield Lane in that Dillon’s choices felt optimal, and in step with how audiences would like to believe they would act, with the information he had at any given moment.

In fact, all the other characters’ perspectives are endorsed at various points given the information they possess at the time, and the show asks us to empathize and take their views against each other even when we have more knowledge than they do, holding contradictory ideas at once side by side. The ignorant folks missing their partners and feeling imprisoned are easiest to relate to- after all, at this point we’re just reliving a point of view already established, only with another layer added to it, which helps to flesh out the truths on either side of the ethical dilemma. Though I actually found folks in-the-know more interesting psychologically, particularly Hope Davis’ teachings for the next generation to help diffuse the problems existing with adults in the dark (there’s a great dichotomy in episode 8 between Davis and Sossamon, where each’s behavior is entirely valid within their own ethos, and not wholly vilifying Davis is a triumph in its own right). Her empowerment of the children as leaders is not only encouraging but distinctly apt for this circumstance at play... that is, until it isn't, and that's where the show starts to become unhinged in episode 9, although I respect that it's only fair to show flaws in both sides of the political line.
Still, this affection -or willingness to affirm views- for all people extends down to the small fries complicit in the plan, like the surveillance interviews when the woman gets excited over discovering “something juicy” on camera, and the shrugs of gratitude from others for the opportunity. This depiction withers the extremes of Milgrim and Zimbardo’s discoveries to more banal truths of our adaptability to power and control, as well as our relief in alleviation of these responsibilities by a superior force, as an everyday invisible form of support from our will power.

I really got a kick out of the liberal anarchist group member’s rant against Dillon to Gugino, calling him a puppet of The Man now, and acting as if they share his knowledge from their positions, considering that from my experience that’s so befitting to the caricature, and yet Dillon represents the grey reality that idealists cannot know nor comprehend the responsibility of knowing. The series is so smart at gazing at all these viewpoints as inherently flawed and yet resilient and judicious given whatever details are known; from Jones to the anarchists, and even Dillon, who does his best as a middle-ground enforcer taking a moderate position, but that still doesn’t work in practice like it seems to in theory.

The final push for self-empowerment against Jones seems to be more of a frustration born from ego-suppression ('He doesn't think we can handle knowing! How dare he!' or something like that) rather than taking issue with his leadership against the threat, which is what the uprising posits to be under self-delusion. I get that this should be 'the point', but the show seems to unequivocally devolve Jones' complex characterization into a spiteful villain as his own sister turns on him, and then him on her- and against the entire town he built spawned from his own ego-fragility. I found myself irritated with how quickly the movement formed and shifted against him as a projection of anger, with the showrunners unironically siding with this perspective. It would have been far more interesting to detach from the mob and objectively weigh this as an emotional response rather than the facade of an evenly philosophical one. After all, couldn't they have just said, 'We all know this now, and we're going to show you that we can handle it like adults'? If it was a philosophical issue, wouldn't that have been the best practice of such a collective ethical position? I mean, Dillon knows that the only reason Jones is taking said actions is that he is afraid of the very actions they are taking, and yet he decides to incite the mob anyways after people refute Jones' fears with seemingly stable reactions of acceptance.. I guess if I believed that the creators were treating this with irony, it would be a terrific ending, but I don't- so it kinda destroys the balanced impartial philosophical musings that came before it.
Since I found myself becoming less enthralled with the behind-the-scenes aspects of the show over time, I’m worried having too much information will make for a less engaging second season. For those that have seen it, is season 2 worth watching?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#16 Post by domino harvey » Mon Dec 21, 2020 12:53 am

I was just thinking about this recently for some reason and I think the problem with having a mid-season twist this incredible is that it's a bit like sitting on a million dollar check you can't cash: If you tell people the twist, they'll want to see it because it's so fucking audacious, but they'll also have the impact ruined by knowing the twist. And I wonder if the guarding of the secret is what led this to being speed-adapted into one 10 episode season rather than giving it a Game of Thrones style season per book roll-out?

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#17 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Dec 21, 2020 1:16 am

I appreciated how the show took the twist and instead of mic-dropping it with a cut to credits, decided to build on it and show the effects in all their complexity and compromise that result from a forced adaptation to circumstance. If it was kept to ~8 eps it could’ve been great, but yes, a whole half of a season left over was a mistake, and they tried to bite off more than they could chew. Reading over the comments I see you mentioned how the last book was the last two eps, so there ya go- I admire the guts to combine the first two in one season though, it flipped perspectives between and within macro/micro levels and made for an interesting melting pot of ideas before unfortunately jumping the shark and diffusing many of those previously-validated philosophies.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Wayward Pines

#18 Post by John Cope » Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:58 am

As someone who loved the books and read them first this was initially a huge disappointment for me. It is far too compressed, meaning that too much is served poorly by the adaptation, and too many liberties are taken with the text. The final book is gut wrenching, whereas the final episodes of the first season are not; they are just a brisk gloss. Having said all that, I approached season two with great trepidation but was very pleasantly surprised by it. Tough technically it would seem that all the material from the books has been used up that is not entirely accurate as so much was left out and the developments upon the text are well considered ones. The tone is also far more reflective of the books. My only disappointment now is that it did not continue as I would have loved to have seen where it went (especially as the end of season two is the end of the final book).

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#19 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:23 am

Thanks for weighing in- it’s intriguing to know the book series’ end is still to come, though I’m still not sure if it’s worth the investment as I have a hard time imagining myself enjoying
SpoilerShow
a season of sinister kids ruling a totalitarian community
if that’s how this plays out for a whole season

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Wayward Pines

#20 Post by Murdoch » Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:31 pm

It's been a few years since I binged the show, but I really enjoyed the second season and thought it kept pace with the first. Plus, the twist of the second season I think blows everything before it out of the water.
SpoilerShow
MAJOR HUGE SPOILERS

Kerry is Jason's mother.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#21 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Dec 21, 2020 8:05 pm

Thanks Murdoch, I trust your TV tastes enough to avoid that spoiler box and give it a shot!

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Wayward Pines

#22 Post by Murdoch » Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:53 pm

Glad to hear it and I appreciate that! Hopefully I don't have my rose-colored glasses on as I had low expectations going in. Still, I recall being consistently invested in this, which is big praise coming from someone who often bails on shows three episodes in.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Wayward Pines

#23 Post by John Cope » Tue Dec 22, 2020 5:24 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:23 am
Thanks for weighing in- it’s intriguing to know the book series’ end is still to come, though I’m still not sure if it’s worth the investment as I have a hard time imagining myself enjoying
SpoilerShow
a season of sinister kids ruling a totalitarian community
if that’s how this plays out for a whole season
Actually, that's one of the things I like least from that first season, in large part because it isn't in the books at all. Thankfully the second season remedies this by downplaying it dramatically or at least taking it in a direction you may not expect.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Wayward Pines

#24 Post by Murdoch » Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:47 pm

I didn't read the books but thought it worked well. It's also one of the few plot points I remember about the second season because of how unexpected I found it.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Wayward Pines

#25 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Dec 22, 2020 8:01 pm

I'm a few eps into the second season, and while I find the rhetorical questions of ethics as applied to the macro-face of political systems to be mostly muted (so far), there are enough peculiarities in mystery and alarmist agendas beneath the surface to fuel my interest. Specifically,
SpoilerShow
I'm far less bothered by the full-tilt dictatorship as I am about the slew of underage pregnancies being so bluntly championed. However, this practice raises its own ethical questions around self-preservation diluting our real-life moral codes translated through law and order about what signifies 'adulthood' and the age of consent, which is also peripherally gleaned on by the Children Are Our Future jingoistic philosophy that makes a case on either side of the argument: Do we grant our youth too much or too little power, and to what degree is that itself an unfair suppression or premature responsibility for their developmental stages? Also, the issue of food supply clashing with the need to procreate to continue civilization is setting up an interesting query of whether we attend to current needs or future ones. In these ways, the macro concerns of government strategy exist, just in the cracks of thought instead of on the grand stage of 'which power structure should we pick to rule?'

Still, the societally-imposed teenage copulation is a rancid demonstration of militarist sexual assault, and even daring to suggest a rationale for it is bold- though, so far, the characters are much less ambiguously defined this round. Hope Davis is the biggest disappointment, a character I could actually sympathize with when I squinted hard enough last season, but has since been reduced to the trope of a chauvinistic acolyte police officer whose sole purpose is to coerce and enforce rape. Worst therapist ever.

Post Reply