sasskit

The next episode can't come fast enough.

April7739

I had a feeling this episode would have no problem getting to a second thread.

crimson100

I have to admit ... that i'm biased towards the Ark people. These guys had their birthright denied to them for over a century ... no sun, no fresh air and water, food, not being able to have more than one kid, a sibling, being floated into space for the pettiest crimes ... the Ark wasn't a life-boat as much as it was a prison.

The Grounders on the other hand ... had everything ... and they didn't deserve it ... they did nothing with it, except killing each other. I cannot relate with them and i cannot root for them and their little game of thrones they have there.

If the Grounders made this thing about ... us or them ... or only one clan survive ... i really don't understand why do you root for the grounders so much? And use Clarke ... as a bashing valve! You really think that the Skycrew would had accepted any other decision that didn't included their survival? If so ... they would had remained with Jasper in the first place.

Perhaps ... the writers will make some miracle happen and save everyone ... but that's not the point ... we discuss what we have so far. Why the Grounders? Do you think that the Earth belong to them? Do you see Ark people as outsiders, intruders ... is this some thing about natives vs invaders? Because they are not ... Earth is the legacy of their ancestors! They had no part in destroying the atmosphere in the first place ... they were scientists on research stations ... powerless to stop anything.

So i'm intrigued ... do you prefer the grounder culture? Death penalty spiced with cruel torture, revenge as a prime directive, 'blood for blood', survival of the strongest? Instead of 6000 years of cultural and ideological evolution?

Why did you see the protagonists of the show as antagonists and vice versa? This show may not have black and white heroes and villains ... but it certainly has protagonists and antagonists.

Why do you think that ... Skycrew wanting to survive ... is a crime ... and Grounders ... killing, torturing, betraying ... is culturally acceptable? Why does the Sky people should save everyone ... and if the can't (because the grounders screw thing every time) ... they should sacrifice themselves to save the grounders ... while the Grounders ... are excused just fine for wanting to save themselves alone? I don't get it! Why do the Sky people should share the bunker which they discovered with 13 clans (and this provided they win some ritual match) ... and proved worthy ... to actually share the bunker or what? Why the double standard? Why the Sky people cannot fight to protect their own interests and culture for a change?

Ania, Lincoln, Lexa, Indra, Roan, Luna, Echo ... don't you understand ... this is not their storyline ... they are merely recurring characters ... they come and go ... producing some level of drama and antagonists ... this show is not about them ... is about the 100 and their survival odyssey. And for the god sake ... it is a sci-fi ... is not game of thrones or hunger games or confessions of a teenage drama queen!

the1marie

Thanks for the new thread, Paula!

Love that parallel, Laura

April7739

crimson100, I'm a bit confused. Whom are you directing your post towards? Because I don't see anyone here using Clarke as a "bashing-valve," but I do see people analyzing and critiquing this storyline, as they should. And while some people here may find it easy to root for and sympathize with the grounders, that isn't the case for everyone.

There are plenty of people here, myself included, who have openly admitted to not being the biggest fans of grounders. (In all reality, I really only like Lincoln, Ilian, and Emori). It's a personal preference. I think Skaikru are better-crafted, more well-developed characters, by and large, and I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the fact that, yes, we do tend to see the show from their point of view. But others feel differently, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's what creates a lot of discussion.

Honestly, to label either side as simply "good" or "bad" or perhaps "right" or "wrong" does a disservice, I feel, to a storyline that is far more complex and thought-provoking than that.

Having said all that . . . I'm still not the most pro-grounder girl, and that probably won't change. But even with characters I don't really gravitate towards, I can usually find certain moments or scenes that I'm able to appreciate. (Case in point, Indra in the last episode, when she smiled and said, "Octavia's doing well," to Kane, even after Trikru lost the conclave. Great moment from her. )

destroyer of worlds

TFTNT!

True, I think her plan was not quite well thought out ... it's just her vs. so many Arkers/Grounders. They could easily overpower her and take the bunker anyway.

Well said, April. Again, neither side are angels and they've all done horrible, horrible things so it's not so easy to paint one side as "good" and the other side as "bad". And that's what makes the show a compelling watch (for me at least) and initiates interesting/thought provoking discussions about culture, attitudes, what is right/wrong, questions on morality/ethics etc.

crimson100, I'm sorry if you feel that way but I honestly don't see any Clarke bashing in here, just people sharing their thoughts/opinions on an upsetting turn of events in this episode. Lisa and I try our hardest and do pride ourselves on not censoring people's thoughts on the board, while making sure that everyone remains respectful while sharing those thoughts so that other people who might not feel the same way still feel comfortable posting on the board/threads.

And I think that we have a great group of people here who keep to the rules, bring up excellent points whilst having fun at the same time. On that subject actually, I do not agree with your comments that Clarke was Lexa's sex toy (in the previous thread). I do not hide the fact that I was less than pleased with that character/the CL relationship but that is just taking it one step too far, IMO and is disrespectful to both characters I feel. So I would kindly ask if that kind of comments not be brought up in this thread/rest of the board again, thanks.

And there's nothing wrong with preferring Arkers over Grounders, I am more pro Arker myself though I acknowledge that Grounders have their own culture and belief system, even if I don't agree with it all the time. And on the flipside, Arkers have done a lot of dumb things in the past too (this season in particular, TBH). Others might not share the same views as you on the Arker/Grounder dynamics and that's okay too ... as long as we all share our views in a respectful manner.

Karma Police

And yeah, the plan just seemed rushed and not well thought out.

sasskit

I think Abby said something about some of the girls coming to her to have the contraceptive implants removed but I could have dreamt that part, not entirely sure...

Karma Police

Yeah, I edited my post because I found an old interview with Sachin where the interviewer mentions a scene in which Jackson tells Abby women are coming to get their implants removed.

sasskit

Sorry, I never noticed you edited your post, but there you go, although I was wrong, it was Jackson who said it, not Abby.

Karma Police

No need to apologize. I only wondered about this bc it would have made no sense for them to get the bunker and have no perspectives to reproduce.

sasskit

That has crossed my minds as well, but with Abby and Jackson in the bunker, it would be no problem. Not that I believe it is possible to repopulate the world with only 1200 people.

It's like with animals about to go extinct, once they reach that low critical number, it's all over.

the1marie

Well currently with only skaikru in there it's only 400 or 500. Does anyone remember their most recent population count?

destroyer of worlds

I think it was mentioned as 400 at last count, when the Ark was still a viable shelter. We can discount the people who decided not to be rescued though so that least 300 plus Arkers?

sasskit

Considering also, that humans are slow growers and take a long time to mature before they can have kids of their own, so the rate between deaths (old age) and births has to lean more toward births. What happens if the increasing levels of radiation lately has screwed with their chances to reproduce, then they're basically done for?