• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Orphan Black - Season 2 Discussion

A bomb of some kind? I don't know how hard it is to make a bomb or something similar but Dyad surely has a fully stocked lab somewhere in that building, if their own lab wasn't sufficient. Or have Mrs S help them, she mentioned a bomb earlier in the episode anyway.

That would be risky, because they wouldn't know for sure what innocent people might be in the room when the device was set off. I'm more comfortable with the use of a weapon that Sarah can choose when and whether to fire.


Or, heck, just have Scott set off the fire alarm or another alarm manually.

Hmm, maybe. I can see how that could've worked, but I don't think it would've been dramatic enough for the climax of the season. So in that sense I can see your point about the writers contriving it for its impact, although I still think you were a little harsh in how you expressed it.


The flamethrower was more of a joke. But that link said that the risk of fire in such a situation is still extremely small. So while it justifies the presence of a fire extinguisher, I don't think that this miniscule risk would have that much influence on a plan meant to save Sarah from a much much higher risk. So I don't think that the taser can be skipped.

Well, I think it would've been a lot harder to get that past security than a fire extinguisher. As for getting it from Alison, the writers seemed to prefer to keep Alison off in her own storyline this year.


I still think you're underestimating Scott's resolve or capability to overcome his inner blocks in order to save Sarah. But we've already been over that and I did mean for the needle to be used by Sarah when I mentioned that idea.

I just think that people who have no real-life experience with violence tend to overestimate how easy it is to engage in it, because a lifetime of fiction has given us the impression that anyone can turn into an action hero at a moment's notice. I've read articles and quotes from people who have real experience with violence, and they've talked about how much harder it is than you'd think from TV and movies.


Scott already freed one of Sarah's arms by almost completely loosening that restraint. That's the only reason she was even able to use the pencil-launcher. It's not much of a stretch that he could have done the same thing with the other arm too.

It's a question of where the threshold of detectability is. Loosening one restraint enough that she can work her own wrist out of it is subtle enough that there's a good chance it could be overlooked. Completely releasing a restraint, or repeating the action on both arms, would be more likely to get noticed. Any action taken before the distraction kicked in had to be kept to a minimum.


(Though I see another even simpler solution. Just have Scott distract Rachel's attention in some conventional manner, long enough for Sarah to free herself and knock Rachel out)

Except it doesn't seem that Scott was supposed to be there, given that he was hiding behind a mask. And Rachel has met him, I'm pretty sure, so she might've recognized him and known that something was wrong, which is the last thing they wanted.



It's not like the pencil-launcher is any more useful in that regard, it's still a blink-of-an-eye single-shot weapon that can only take out one person and the only distraction it creates is in doing that. I don't think a person falling down because of getting hit by a pencil would create much more distraction than a person falling down because of getting stabbed with a needle.

But the former is more loud, abrupt, and shocking. And again, I think TV conditions us to assume that everyone would react to violence calmly like a trained soldier or police officer would. Realistically, there'd be a lot more confusion and panic and shouting and "What the hell was that" and it would be a real mess.


And if we're going to use those priorities, a taser - which can be used multiple times - or, again, a smoke bomb (or a noise bomb or a flash bomb) - which would have created way more distraction - seem like much better options to me.

A taser needs to be reloaded after each use, doesn't it? Well, I guess I have seen one (Alison's?) that was loaded with two cartridges with separate triggers.

And I still think a smoke or flash bomb would've impaired both sides equally and thus not been much of an advantage. Not much of an escape if you can't orient yourself to find the door.



The writers set the timing whatever way they want.

Yes, and again, they wanted to make it difficult and dramatic, not smooth and easy.


And since we've now really gone hugely into detail, I feel like I have to make clear that I don't really care that much about the exact specifics of the mechanics of the plan (neither is it even my main criticism anymore, actually). I just care that it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief. It's not always a purely logical thing, it's a feeling.

I think we're both getting tired of this at this point. Of course there's always more than one way to put a scene or an episode together, and sometimes the reason for doing a scene a certain way is ineffable. Sometimes it's just that that's the way they happened to go instead of doing something else. I just don't think it's fair to assume there was a negative motivation behind anything you don't personally agree with.
 
And Rachel has met him, I'm pretty sure, so she might've recognized him and known that something was wrong, which is the last thing they wanted.
Heh, well in a sense that might have been just the distraction they needed.

A taser needs to be reloaded after each use, doesn't it?
Hmm, I honestly don't know. For using it at a distance, yeah, you have to expend the cartridge, but just shocking someone at point blank range?

I think we're both getting tired of this at this point.
Yeah. But thanks for an interesting discussion!

I just don't think it's fair to assume there was a negative motivation behind anything you don't personally agree with.
I agree, I was probably too harsh at the start. But just so it doesn't seem like my assertions were completely unfounded (and because it has some interesting implications for Rachel's future) I found this response from the writers in the interview linked earlier interesting:

TVLINE | Moving on to Rachel, did she survive that pencil to the eye? Was that lethal?
MANSON | That’s a pretty nasty-looking pencil. The pencil looks like it went pretty deep. I don’t know — she was twitching on the ground there. Regardless of what Rachel’s future is, we liked some startling, horrifying yet slightly absurd kind of ending to that character and the war between Rachel and Sarah. So that’s our version of a conclusion to that. If she continues on, obviously, she’s going to be a little f—cked up, and we kind of wrecked her face a little bit. And it’s kind of nice to wreck people’s face once in a while, don’t you think? Certainly Rachel’s.
Perhaps that's more of the reason I didn't enjoy the scene. I totally understand it on a gut level and of course, TV is not real life - in fact, it's the opposite and is meant to enable you to experience what you couldn't or shouldn't in real life - but I find myself pretty uncomfortable with this sense of almost-glee at the villain (no matter how horrible, and I think Rachell is much more sympatethic than a lot of people give her credit for) being deliberately brutalized expressed by the writers and a lot of people commenting about the show on the Internet. Yeah, it's a trope, and what Helena did to Henrik was horrible too, but at least you know Helena is an unhinged murderer (a cute and redeemable one, but still). At least it wasn't expressed by the characters themselves. Maybe I'm just too squeamish.

But, disregarding that, it's interesting that they're apparently leaving it somewhat open as to whether Rachel will return at all. Of course, writers love to be secretive and non-committal, but might they be thinking about actually killing her off? It didn't seem lethal to me. (No eye-patch in that case!) Though it was deep; deep enough to cause brain damage?
 
Okay, maybe there was some shock value intent to it, then. Somehow it just didn't seem that way to me this time. Perhaps it would've seemed more so if we hadn't just had Leekie's head blown apart a few weeks ago. Maybe that numbed me to further shocks.

And it doesn't seem as violent on the characters' part as Helena's torture of Henrik, because I don't think either Cosima or Sarah intended it to play out that way. So it was more an awful fluke than an act of malice on the characters' part -- though I'm sure Sarah would've used any necessary force to get her daughter back.
 
From TVLine.com

Question: When will we know if Orphan Black has been renewed for a third season? —R. Downey
Ausiello: I hear a pick-up is imminent. Here’s a little tidbit to tide you over: Helena may have torched the Proletheans’ farm, but, remember, Henrik’s wife was not home at the time. “Bonnie is still at large, that is true,” confirms cocreator Graeme Manson. “And we do like Kristin Booth, who plays Bonnie.” In other words, don’t be surprised if the Prolethean threat resurfaces. “They’re much reduced,” notes the EP, “but an angry Prolethean is a scary thing,”
 
To nobody's surprise and everybody's disappointment, the Emmys failed to nominate Tatiana Maslany again.
 
I stopped taking the Emmys (and awards in general) seriously a long time ago. They're not about quality, they're just about what the limited pool of voters is familiar with and fond of.
 
We already discussed this... The show "technically" doesn't qualify for an Emmy because it isn't received terrestrially by at least %50 of America, and it seems to be mostly Canadian.

However?

Is BBCAmerica's Original programming capable of getting a BAFTA?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top