Entry tags:
Quick comment on Continuum
We watched episodes 1-3 of Continuum tonight and ... I am CONFUSE.
So, when I watched the first episode, I thought it was playing with expectation in a really cool and different way: rather than the little band of time-traveling rebels being the protagonists, we were following the cop from the dystopic future surveillance state as she went back in time to try to stop the rebels before they "fix" the future. There didn't really seem to be good guys and bad guys so much as a bunch of characters who were a blend of both.
After 2 more episodes, though, now I'm just plain confused as to what on earth the show thinks it's doing. We seem to have gone from a setup that's full of cool & interesting moral ambiguity to "The government wants what's best for you! The only people who would question the government's actions are TERRORISTS and EVIL HIPPIES!" This despite the fact that, among other things, the heroine comes from a surveillance state, freely ignores/abuses/circumvents the laws of the present time whenever it's convenient, and tortured a guy in the first episode. And her little computer-geek buddy spies freely on everybody (including her in her underwear) and is building Skynet. But the people she's trying to catch are TEH EVIL so that makes it okay?
I don't want any major spoilers, but I'm wondering if I'm the only one who reacted this way, and whether the show is a little more self-aware of its own moral grayness later on.
So, when I watched the first episode, I thought it was playing with expectation in a really cool and different way: rather than the little band of time-traveling rebels being the protagonists, we were following the cop from the dystopic future surveillance state as she went back in time to try to stop the rebels before they "fix" the future. There didn't really seem to be good guys and bad guys so much as a bunch of characters who were a blend of both.
After 2 more episodes, though, now I'm just plain confused as to what on earth the show thinks it's doing. We seem to have gone from a setup that's full of cool & interesting moral ambiguity to "The government wants what's best for you! The only people who would question the government's actions are TERRORISTS and EVIL HIPPIES!" This despite the fact that, among other things, the heroine comes from a surveillance state, freely ignores/abuses/circumvents the laws of the present time whenever it's convenient, and tortured a guy in the first episode. And her little computer-geek buddy spies freely on everybody (including her in her underwear) and is building Skynet. But the people she's trying to catch are TEH EVIL so that makes it okay?
I don't want any major spoilers, but I'm wondering if I'm the only one who reacted this way, and whether the show is a little more self-aware of its own moral grayness later on.
no subject
Always interested in your opinions, though, if you keep watching.
no subject
no subject
It makes for kind of a fascinating perspective, really.
no subject
no subject
eta: don't know if 'unreliable narrator' is the proper technical term here, but in any case she's the POV character so we're getting a biased view of things.
no subject
no subject
But I think they are very aware, bc the show gets more ambiguous and complex...
no subject
Yeah, I think the writers are 100% aware of all that, and it becomes clearer and clearer over time, not least through the flashbacks to the future we get in each ep.
I find the show really gripping; I can't believe some people find it boring. That kind of bums me a little. I mean, take the S1 finale... I was on the edge of my seat!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But, yeah, the terrorists both seem on the side of right and yet...are too vested in the means justifying the end.
I vaguely remember feeling like the main character was going to end up deciding the police state of the future is bad. *shrugs*
no subject
I'd love to know if you think it gets any better.
no subject