You saved the cheerleader so we could save the world. Is that one of the things Nathan said to Peter before they flew off? I blocked a lot of that out and yes put that way it's all about making Peter feel good and while brotherly not strictly true.
I'm happier with the idea of Claire being needed for her brains than her ability but even the original "save the cheerleader" line while catchy is kinda problematic, this was the best I could do with it. There's a lot of playing devil's advocate here, the ending, while it could have been worse didn't feel nearly as good as what preceded it. But I still *like* the show for trying.
Nathan being the ultimate hero, I didn't express very well but it's more because he's the last to get a clue not because he's the only one to succeed in doing so. Also and in the same vein it's about him because he's the old guy not because he's the white guy. Which still begs the question of why make the old person white and male. I think the show has succeeded in creating vibrant and believable female and of color heroes and it does still surprise me as with Jessica refusing to be defined by Linderman. It's better maybe at slipping critique of traditional family values (the Bennet picket fence idyll being based on a lie) under the radar and it's noticeable that both executive players in the Company are old white guys, Angela is still quite a maverick figure, Charles and Mr. Nakamura seem to be against the whole bomb thing. I also appreciated the rebuttal of the conservative idea of war/disaster being worth it for the improved moral fibre it brings in Five years Gone.
In the way characters like Hiro and Claire are shown as the hopeful ones there's a touch of the attitude Europe used to have towards America in the early-mid twentieth century. We were done but maybe the newer more vigorous culture could do better. Which is problematic in its own way and I'm really just babbling now.
no subject
Is that one of the things Nathan said to Peter before they flew off? I blocked a lot of that out and yes put that way it's all about making Peter feel good and while brotherly not strictly true.
I'm happier with the idea of Claire being needed for her brains than her ability but even the original "save the cheerleader" line while catchy is kinda problematic, this was the best I could do with it. There's a lot of playing devil's advocate here, the ending, while it could have been worse didn't feel nearly as good as what preceded it. But I still *like* the show for trying.
Nathan being the ultimate hero, I didn't express very well but it's more because he's the last to get a clue not because he's the only one to succeed in doing so. Also and in the same vein it's about him because he's the old guy not because he's the white guy. Which still begs the question of why make the old person white and male. I think the show has succeeded in creating vibrant and believable female and of color heroes and it does still surprise me as with Jessica refusing to be defined by Linderman. It's better maybe at slipping critique of traditional family values (the Bennet picket fence idyll being based on a lie) under the radar and it's noticeable that both executive players in the Company are old white guys, Angela is still quite a maverick figure, Charles and Mr. Nakamura seem to be against the whole bomb thing. I also appreciated the rebuttal of the conservative idea of war/disaster being worth it for the improved moral fibre it brings in Five years Gone.
In the way characters like Hiro and Claire are shown as the hopeful ones there's a touch of the attitude Europe used to have towards America in the early-mid twentieth century. We were done but maybe the newer more vigorous culture could do better. Which is problematic in its own way and I'm really just babbling now.