|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 22, 2014 23:33:05 GMT
I have faith she'll become a profiler yet. Just you wait and see. Once she's kicked out of the election campaign, for whatever reason, she'll go back to solving crimes with her husband. I really hope she realizes how women's suffrage turned from equality and natural rights to "we need white women to vote to maintain white supremacy". I'm not sure MM is going to be able to cover this, though, since Margaret Haile was a socialist. Or maybe Margaret Haile is just willing to stick with it after Julia gets disgusted. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Nov 22, 2014 23:45:07 GMT
I have faith she'll become a profiler yet. Just you wait and see. Once she's kicked out of the election campaign, for whatever reason, she'll go back to solving crimes with her husband. I really hope she realizes how women's suffrage turned from equality and natural rights to "we need white women to vote to maintain white supremacy". I'm not sure MM is going to be able to cover this, though, since Margaret Haile was a socialist. Or maybe Margaret Haile is just willing to stick with it after Julia gets disgusted. Or, they had to take the opening wherever they saw it. Remember, women's suffrage came off of the abolition movement, and as soon as that group got abolition, they dropped the women like yesterday's trash-they did not "thank" them for their help. That betrayal is also going to play a part as well. I don't condone it, but it's also easier to argue for change from a position of strength (female enfranchisement) than not. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Nov 22, 2014 23:49:26 GMT
Oh, it's definitely cra, but I've seen it happen on multiple occasions. Writers often try to be edgy by killing off a popular character. It concerns me that the writers have written themselves into such a corner with Julia however-and that I think they don't know what to do with her. However, I'm more than happy to be wrong. However, the tweet about it being "a real killer" and mm's tendency towards angsty cliffhangers makes me think it's a possibility that someone's gonna die. Or that multiple murderess Sally Pendrick's gonna make a return. Or something completely different. I think a far more likely scenario would be Helene needing/deciding to walk away for some reason - then the writers would have to step up to that scenario. I really hope that if that happens the writers don't play the "burn all bridges" card. I do agree that the writers aren't sure what they are doing with Julia, though - especially after the suffragette arc is over. They will have a problem on their hands. I'd like to see Julia get into serious neuroscience, please.  Which is what concerns me-she might leave if they don't give her more of a role than the little missus to William. They've written themselves into a corner with her character-and it remains to be seen how they'll get themselves out. I'll trust them for now, but I might see this coming. Which might be why we got the wedding.  |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 23, 2014 0:02:25 GMT
Which is what concerns me-she might leave if they don't give her more of a role than the little missus to William. They've written themselves into a corner with her character-and it remains to be seen how they'll get themselves out. I'll trust them for now, but I might see this coming. Which might be why we got the wedding. Grr, that's what I've been saying. That's why I've been talking about the possibility of Julia being "disappeared" for a while after the marriage to recreate the angst of will they/won't they. There is nothing for Julia to do as a psychologist, and I think the "wife of the detective" can only last a season at most. I would seriously like to be proven wrong on this, and I hope the writers are more creative than I am. I think a lot of problems would be solved if Julia had a more active "crime solving" role in a "science" setting - perhaps her own crime lab or something. Or perhaps William and Julia start the world's first private crime lab together and take business from the Pinkertons, other private detectives, the government, as well as the Constabulary. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 23, 2014 0:24:59 GMT
Or, they had to take the opening wherever they saw it. Remember, women's suffrage came off of the abolition movement, and as soon as that group got abolition, they dropped the women like yesterday's trash-they did not "thank" them for their help. That betrayal is also going to play a part as well. I don't condone it, but it's also easier to argue for change from a position of strength (female enfranchisement) than not. I would have to read up on the Abolition side of things to understand that angle, but from the reading that I'm doing it seems like that in the U.S. they originally had no success at all getting the vote since they had to ask men for it. But after black men won the right to vote, and there was a great wave of immigration, there was an opening where where women could actually be given the vote in order to preserve the rule of "educated, rational" classes. So there's not question the strategy worked. But it still sucked, and when the Southern representatives came to the national convention with their successes and suggested inserting "white women only" clauses into the national amendment, the old abolitionists were horrified. But they were elderly at this point: the White Supremacists were the ones ruling the roost by the time Julia was active. In the North, women were more worried about immigrants (Catholics!) getting the vote or their votes being bought by wealthy employers. This is interesting because these "illiterate" immigrants were being viewed as dependents who would sway the election without voting for themselves: one of the reasons women had been denied the vote (i.e. they would just vote as their husband's wished). I have to say I have very conflicted feelings about this at the second with our own U.S. Supreme Court so heavy on the Catholic influence and handing down rulings that favor religion over individual - particularly women's - rights. |
|
|
|
Post by randomkiwibirds on Nov 23, 2014 0:52:51 GMT
Yannick wouldn't be crude enough to phrase it that way. I really don't think MM will do the miscarriage plot without a big lead in of Julia pursuing how she can possibly get pregnant in the first place, too. No sign of that yet. I think this is a card in the pocket for future seasons. TBH-I really don't want a Jilliam baby this season. I might revise this next season but right now I really am not 100% cool with the baby idea. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 1:44:33 GMT
Couldn't they write a random ep, and then write a note: to be filmed when snow falls...  We don't usually get snow until late December early January when filming is well and truly over. I'm sure they wouldn't predict snow so soon in the season so wouldn't think to write a specific ep to take place in snow. Of course you are right. Unless they were going to "create" snow, but instead got the real thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Nov 23, 2014 4:43:04 GMT
Or, they had to take the opening wherever they saw it. Remember, women's suffrage came off of the abolition movement, and as soon as that group got abolition, they dropped the women like yesterday's trash-they did not "thank" them for their help. That betrayal is also going to play a part as well. I don't condone it, but it's also easier to argue for change from a position of strength (female enfranchisement) than not. I would have to read up on the Abolition side of things to understand that angle, but from the reading that I'm doing it seems like that in the U.S. they originally had no success at all getting the vote since they had to ask men for it. But after black men won the right to vote, and there was a great wave of immigration, there was an opening where where women could actually be given the vote in order to preserve the rule of "educated, rational" classes. So there's not question the strategy worked. But it still sucked, and when the Southern representatives came to the national convention with their successes and suggested inserting "white women only" clauses into the national amendment, the old abolitionists were horrified. But they were elderly at this point: the White Supremacists were the ones ruling the roost by the time Julia was active. Women's suffrage came from the abolition movement-Mott and Stanton and other women were abolitionists until they realized their brethren wouldn't allow them to speak or campaign for abolition at various conferences (worldwide-not just the US) that they realized they had even fewer rights and privileges than those they were seeking to help. I don't like it, but idealism often fails in the real world and you often have to make deals with the devil in order to advance your own cause. Since the abolitionists and former slaves didn't acknowledge their contributions after they got what they wanted, they had to try a different tack. They may have pushed for suffrage on an anti-immigration, conservative platform, but they got pretty progressive once they did finally get the vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Anna herself on Nov 23, 2014 5:54:35 GMT
Yannick wouldn't be crude enough to phrase it that way. I really don't think MM will do the miscarriage plot without a big lead in of Julia pursuing how she can possibly get pregnant in the first place, too. No sign of that yet. I think this is a card in the pocket for future seasons. (SORRY for the late reply  ) I see what you mean, perhaps a teasing tweet is the wrong way to hint at an upcoming tragedy such as a miscarriage. But I have to admit that when I read, "season.... killer" in the tweet, I immediately felt a sinking feeling in my chest. My first instinct was that there would be a great death of some sort, either of a major character or major relationship or even a major character trait. After reconsidering the miscarriage, my second thought was that maybe Dr. Grace would be killed (random and awful, I know. I suppose I have a horrible habit of assuming the worst all the time). Again, just following my instincts. I also agree about the pregnancy details. But I still cannot get over the phrase "season..... killer". |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 23, 2014 6:03:39 GMT
Women's suffrage came from the abolition movement-Mott and Stanton and other women were abolitionists until they realized their brethren wouldn't allow them to speak or campaign for abolition at various conferences (worldwide-not just the US) that they realized they had even fewer rights and privileges than those they were seeking to help. I don't like it, but idealism often fails in the real world and you often have to make deals with the devil in order to advance your own cause. Since the abolitionists and former slaves didn't acknowledge their contributions after they got what they wanted, they had to try a different tack. They may have pushed for suffrage on an anti-immigration, conservative platform, but they got pretty progressive once they did finally get the vote. What have you been reading that shows the abolition movement shutting the door behind them once they got 15th amendment? The book I'm reading (The Ideas of the Woman's Suffrage Movement - Aileen Kraditor) does show that women were outraged at not being able to vote while their former slaves could. But that book doesn't give the impression that they were ever abandoned by the champions for human rights (at least not in the same way feminists were ditched in the 60s after other civil rights advances were made): instead it makes it seem like women's suffrage was wallowing as a mere philosophical good until it met the cause of white supremacy - then when those two causes merged, women finally got the vote in the U.S. And the same may have been true in Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 23, 2014 6:10:02 GMT
(SORRY for the late reply ) I see what you mean, perhaps a teasing tweet is the wrong way to hint at an upcoming tragedy such as a miscarriage. But I have to admit that when I read, "season.... killer" in the tweet, I immediately felt a sinking feeling in my chest. My first instinct was that there would be a great death of some sort, either of a major character or major relationship or even a major character trait. After reconsidering the miscarriage, my second thought was that maybe Dr. Grace would be killed (random and awful, I know. I suppose I have a horrible habit of assuming the worst all the time). Again, just following my instincts. I also agree about the pregnancy details. But I still cannot get over the phrase "season..... killer". If this was a previous season, I might consider Emily a candidate for being killed off: the MM writers were doing a very poor job of developing her. Almost no job. And it would have gotten Julia back into the morgue, where I'd rather see her! But now I'm seeing some writerly investment in Emily's character, and there should be more than one female main character on the show. I don't see why she would be killed now. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Nov 23, 2014 6:49:31 GMT
Yannick wouldn't be crude enough to phrase it that way. I really don't think MM will do the miscarriage plot without a big lead in of Julia pursuing how she can possibly get pregnant in the first place, too. No sign of that yet. I think this is a card in the pocket for future seasons. (SORRY for the late reply ) I see what you mean, perhaps a teasing tweet is the wrong way to hint at an upcoming tragedy such as a miscarriage. But I have to admit that when I read, "season.... killer" in the tweet, I immediately felt a sinking feeling in my chest. My first instinct was that there would be a great death of some sort, either of a major character or major relationship or even a major character trait. After reconsidering the miscarriage, my second thought was that maybe Dr. Grace would be killed (random and awful, I know. I suppose I have a horrible habit of assuming the worst all the time). Again, just following my instincts. I also agree about the pregnancy details. But I still cannot get over the phrase "season..... killer". I'm with you...I'm starting to suspect that someone's gonna get killed off as well. I don't want it to be Julia, but in many aspects, the writers have marginalized her character already, so unless they pull out something pretty big, I wouldn't blame the actress for wanting to leave. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 23, 2014 7:19:39 GMT
I'm with you...I'm starting to suspect that someone's gonna get killed off as well. I don't want it to be Julia, but in many aspects, the writers have marginalized her character already, so unless they pull out something pretty big, I wouldn't blame the actress for wanting to leave. Well since that would be the ruin of the show after all the effort that has gone into courting shippers, I'm pretty sure all hands would be on deck to make sure that doesn't happen. I'm sort of glad that William Murdoch is the clear lead here though. The X-Files used to pull the stupidest crap with Gillian Anderson. They'd make her sweat and play hardball, but then she'd come out thinking she had a decent deal...and then she would find out David Duchovny got twice the deal plus stock options. It was a recipe for underlying tension on the set and "phoning it in". It seems really hard for actors to assert their value - what their contribution is in generating the profits of the show for everyone - without being put through some great personal trauma. I hope the process is more fair in Canada. (Though it seems that actors there are being denied across the board their fair share of what tv shows earn once distributed). Regarding Julia and/or Emily: private crime lab!!!! The MM cast is tight-knit, and they have been working together for years. I seriously doubt YB would make such a light-hearted comment about losing someone he's worked with for so long. There may be one or more characters placed at risk of death, but I doubt a regular will actually die. My money is on trolling the fans. As for killers: maybe it's...GILLIES~  |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Nov 23, 2014 7:24:44 GMT
I'm with you...I'm starting to suspect that someone's gonna get killed off as well. I don't want it to be Julia, but in many aspects, the writers have marginalized her character already, so unless they pull out something pretty big, I wouldn't blame the actress for wanting to leave. Well since that would be the ruin of the show after all the effort that has gone into courting shippers, I'm pretty sure all hands would be on deck to make sure that doesn't happen. I'm sort of glad that William Murdoch is the clear lead here though. The X-Files used to pull the stupidest crap with Gillian Anderson. They'd make her sweat and play hardball, but then she'd come out thinking she had a decent deal...and then she would find out David Duchovny got twice the deal plus stock options. It was a recipe for underlying tension on the set and "phoning it in". It seems really hard for actors to assert their value - what their contribution is in generating the profits of the show for everyone - without being put through some great personal trauma. I hope the process is more fair in Canada. (Though it seems that actors there are being denied across the board their fair share of what tv shows earn once distributed). Regarding Julia and/or Emily: private crime lab!!!! The MM cast is tight-knit, and they have been working together for years. I seriously doubt YB would make such a light-hearted comment about losing someone he's worked with for so long. There may be one or more characters placed at risk of death, but I doubt a regular will actually die. My money is on trolling the fans. As for killers: maybe it's...GILLIES~ If it's Gillies, the show has jumped the shark. That's why I said the writers are going to have to do something big to reintegrate Julia-they can, but will they? That remains to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Nov 23, 2014 7:37:15 GMT
If it's Gillies, the show has jumped the shark. That's why I said the writers are going to have to do something big to reintegrate Julia-they can, but will they? That remains to be seen. I've felt that ever since Julia went into psychiatry. I never felt "profiling" was enough. But what do you think of this private forensics lab idea? That could get Julia back into a science setting at least, and she could do a wide variety of things to help solve cases from psychological profiling to dabbling with chemistry sets to autopsies. |
|
)
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT