Anonymous wrote:I’m curious whether people have not watched the finale or if people are disappointed with the sci-fi turn Paradise took. It seems like discussion has really fallen off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep getting stuck on stuff that doesn’t make sense, and there’s lots of it.

But a big one is, if the rest of the world is liveable, why don’t they come out of the dome?

This show has so many plots holes. Xavier and his wife meeting in a shared hospital room particularly irritates me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep getting stuck on stuff that doesn’t make sense, and there’s lots of it.

But a big one is, if the rest of the world is liveable, why don’t they come out of the dome?

This show has so many plots holes. Xavier and his wife meeting in a shared hospital room particularly irritates me.

Anonymous wrote:I keep getting stuck on stuff that doesn’t make sense, and there’s lots of it.

But a big one is, if the rest of the world is liveable, why don’t they come out of the dome?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me of what sinatra’s son died of? I guess the plot is something like she went back in time to try to change something and part of it was to take Dylan and put him someplace else so he grew up without her and I guess was saved from whatever he had? I don’t really get how that works because sinatras husband and daughter clearly remember Dylan dying so if someone went back in time to save him, wouldn’t that change their memories?

And there was the message telling Jane’s mother she’s a killer, but it seems like that message is a big part of making her a killer … so is that circular, or was it intentional?

I sort of hate it when tv shows depend on time travel because it almost never makes sense. Captain Janeway in Star Trek once said time travel was her least favorite class at the academy because with all the paradoxes, it just never made any sense.

There was a British show with time travel that made a bit more sense because the premise was that you could only go back so far, and only to a predetermined jump spot. and it was a full reset of time from that jump spot on. Once the jump spot reset, you wouldn’t be able to go back again and that was just set in stone.

Voyager always did a good job with time travel, so did Harry Potter, it can be a great plot device with a good writing team. I'm really liking Paradise but I'm not sure they are going to pull this off.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me of what sinatra’s son died of? I guess the plot is something like she went back in time to try to change something and part of it was to take Dylan and put him someplace else so he grew up without her and I guess was saved from whatever he had? I don’t really get how that works because sinatras husband and daughter clearly remember Dylan dying so if someone went back in time to save him, wouldn’t that change their memories?

And there was the message telling Jane’s mother she’s a killer, but it seems like that message is a big part of making her a killer … so is that circular, or was it intentional?

I sort of hate it when tv shows depend on time travel because it almost never makes sense. Captain Janeway in Star Trek once said time travel was her least favorite class at the academy because with all the paradoxes, it just never made any sense.

There was a British show with time travel that made a bit more sense because the premise was that you could only go back so far, and only to a predetermined jump spot. and it was a full reset of time from that jump spot on. Once the jump spot reset, you wouldn’t be able to go back again and that was just set in stone.

Anonymous wrote:I think the time travel aspect is too much with this storyline - it doesn't need it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Gary is your typical "basement dweller incel video game player" stereotype, masquerading as a nice guy.

He went out of his way to save the kid, pretty nice of him.

+1
I think when we are first introduced to Gary, we're supposed to think he's that stereotype, but he very clearly isn't. He is uncomfortable when Enis starts speaking in a vulgar way about the nurse. He's clearly attuned to the fact that Bean is neglected, probably abused, and starving. He never does anything creepy and in fact, when it's time to run for shelter, he ASKS Bean if he'd like to come with him, never forces him to at all. He's also a real gentleman to everyone in the bunker. So he's clearly *not* the stereotype the PP suggests. He's just a lonely soul who has finally found a purpose.

In that respect, while yes - he did kill Enis - I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Enis was not the nicest of guys.

I agree that Gary is sort of a nice guy and a deeply sad character. He said something that made me think he was neglected or abused as a child. I think the takeaway from this is that the disaster and living in a hole for years can do messed up things to your brain. He developed a really unhealthy attachment to Terri that was effectively like an addiction, and like many addicts, when someone threatened to take it away from him, he acted violently. I think the Gary thing is really sad. If he was just a really bad guy, I don’t think Terri would have been so set on saying goodbye in a nice way. She understands how sad it is that he never had a happy day in his life until she came into it. She was basically his lifeline, and she knows that. She had the memory of her husband and kids to get her through. He only had her.

She did that to safely extract Bean

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Gary is your typical "basement dweller incel video game player" stereotype, masquerading as a nice guy.

He went out of his way to save the kid, pretty nice of him.

+1
I think when we are first introduced to Gary, we're supposed to think he's that stereotype, but he very clearly isn't. He is uncomfortable when Enis starts speaking in a vulgar way about the nurse. He's clearly attuned to the fact that Bean is neglected, probably abused, and starving. He never does anything creepy and in fact, when it's time to run for shelter, he ASKS Bean if he'd like to come with him, never forces him to at all. He's also a real gentleman to everyone in the bunker. So he's clearly *not* the stereotype the PP suggests. He's just a lonely soul who has finally found a purpose.

In that respect, while yes - he did kill Enis - I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Enis was not the nicest of guys.

I agree that Gary is sort of a nice guy and a deeply sad character. He said something that made me think he was neglected or abused as a child. I think the takeaway from this is that the disaster and living in a hole for years can do messed up things to your brain. He developed a really unhealthy attachment to Terri that was effectively like an addiction, and like many addicts, when someone threatened to take it away from him, he acted violently. I think the Gary thing is really sad. If he was just a really bad guy, I don’t think Terri would have been so set on saying goodbye in a nice way. She understands how sad it is that he never had a happy day in his life until she came into it. She was basically his lifeline, and she knows that. She had the memory of her husband and kids to get her through. He only had her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite parts of this show take place outside of the bunker. I like dystopian adventures like The Walking Dead, The Road, etc. and that's what it's vaguely reminiscent of. Much more exciting than the sterile world of the bunker.

The bunker reminds me a little of a classic twilight zone episode from the 1960s where there is a false alarm fo nuclear war. A family goes into the bunker they built and their best friends/neighbors are banging on the door begging to be let in. Then it turns out it’s all a false alarm and they have to come out and face the best friends they were willing to let die a horrible death. It’s such a great episode because it sticks with you.