Why did Kovac insist on sending her to prison or killing her?

Because she had become a monster. Not just a meth - the exact thing that Quellcrist was fighting to prevent - but also a human trafficker and murderer. She was selling real death executions for pleasure to other meths. That's what the whole subplot about religious coding on stacks was about - she developed it as a way to cover up her crimes. You can still love someone unconditionally and demand that they be accountable for their actions.

but when he showed that he was why did she continue to insist on finding her?

Because Ortega didn't believe he was safe. Not only was he obviously acting squirrely when he chased her off, but she explicitly said to her hacker friend that she thinks he is in trouble after that conversation.

@Dali Parton said:

Yeah, they didn't even try to make the 2 Taks speak the same way. It doesn't help that Kinnamon's got a very distinct way of speaking too, so the differences from Lee stand out. Meanwhile Matt Beidel, who played the grandmother sleeved into a gang member, was incredible at changing his speech patterns and movements to match his characters.

I agree. I think the two actors should have worked to sync up their mannerisms and speak patterns to give the audience that sense that they were the same person. The director could have done more to film the actors and splice them together to give the illusion that the men were the same person. Instead, it was like watching two parallels stories about two different people.

@Dali Parton said:

Dali Parton - The gay son and his lover were such bad actors - that is what drew my attention !!!

Ah, no wonder I couldn't tell who you were talking about - their gayness was of no particular consequence so it didn't leave much of an impression.

lol same here, I had to think hard about what gayness people were talking about and assumed it was the hacker wife. Are people still getting triggered by the mere appearance of a gay character? My God.

Look I'm hetero and it's not like seeing gay characters is something I look forward to, but there are plenty of gay people in real life so I totally get why they are shown. People seem to forget that in the 30s, 40s, and 50s blacks, mexicans and asians didn't exist in American movies unless it was in a negative light.

When they finally started showing positive portrayals of those groups in movies and tv it wasn't exactly met with fanfare and a parade. It is only after getting used to seeing them over decades that people didn't make a big deal about it. As recent as the 90s it was still very taboo to even show interracial couples (unless the guy was white). Today? Interracial couples in movies and TV are no big deal and only trigger a small number of people.

Now it's the gay and trans people's turn. When I see two men kiss it doesn't disgust me because I am not threatened by it, I look at it the same way I look at two old hetero grandparents kiss.

@cswood said:

@Dali Parton said:

Dali Parton - The gay son and his lover were such bad actors - that is what drew my attention !!!

Ah, no wonder I couldn't tell who you were talking about - their gayness was of no particular consequence so it didn't leave much of an impression.

lol same here, I had to think hard about what gayness people were talking about and assumed it was the hacker wife. Are people still getting triggered by the mere appearance of a gay character? My God.

Look I'm hetero and it's not like seeing gay characters is something I look forward to, but there are plenty of gay people in real life so I totally get why they are shown. People seem to forget that in the 30s, 40s, and 50s blacks, mexicans and asians didn't exist in American movies unless it was in a negative light.

When they finally started showing positive portrayals of those groups in movies and tv it wasn't exactly met with fanfare and a parade. It is only after getting used to seeing them over decades that people didn't make a big deal about it. As recent as the 90s it was still very taboo to even show interracial couples (unless the guy was white). Today? Interracial couples in movies and TV are no big deal and only trigger a small number of people.

Now it's the gay and trans people's turn. When I see two men kiss it doesn't disgust me because I am not threatened by it, I look at it the same way I look at two old hetero grandparents kiss.

I don't recall the gay people in this show either. My reaction to two gay men kissing has nothing to do with feeling threatened by them. It is a non-conscious visceral repulsion. I try to hide it or look away when in the company of other people so I don't trigger someone else's homophobia-phobia. I don't care about gay people being in shows per se. What I notice and don't care for is when the gay people in the show are used to promote some agenda, or stereotype. I hate agenda television, TV used to push a viewpoint which social engineers seek to instill. The trite theme of a gay character who is just a great guy, and faces discrimination, is treated unfairly, etc. is done over and over and over again. It is so commonplace that you can guess the plot long before it is developed. Just as commonplace are the people who discriminate against them. Frequently the writers seek to imply that Christians or Republicans or Southerners or gun owners or some other targeted group is maliciously out to get the saintly gay guy. It is the agenda which so often goes along with the gay character that irritates me. But if there is just a gay character in the movie, without an agenda being pushed, I might not even take notice. And I don't care that they're gay.

But it seems that Hollywood these days requires scripts to push a gay agenda theme of some sort or other. It is just one of those things, like the way they used to hyperventilate about Ronald Reagan, and could not mention him without taking a cheap shot at him. It was almost like actors and script writers were showing their bona fides by taking cheap shots at him. You get used to it, overlook it as much as possible, and try to enjoy the creative part of the show.

@cswood said:

@Dali Parton said:

Dali Parton - The gay son and his lover were such bad actors - that is what drew my attention !!!

Ah, no wonder I couldn't tell who you were talking about - their gayness was of no particular consequence so it didn't leave much of an impression.

lol same here, I had to think hard about what gayness people were talking about and assumed it was the hacker wife. Are people still getting triggered by the mere appearance of a gay character? My God.

Look I'm hetero and it's not like seeing gay characters is something I look forward to, but there are plenty of gay people in real life so I totally get why they are shown. People seem to forget that in the 30s, 40s, and 50s blacks, mexicans and asians didn't exist in American movies unless it was in a negative light.

When they finally started showing positive portrayals of those groups in movies and tv it wasn't exactly met with fanfare and a parade. It is only after getting used to seeing them over decades that people didn't make a big deal about it. As recent as the 90s it was still very taboo to even show interracial couples (unless the guy was white). Today? Interracial couples in movies and TV are no big deal and only trigger a small number of people.

Now it's the gay and trans people's turn. When I see two men kiss it doesn't disgust me because I am not threatened by it, I look at it the same way I look at two old hetero grandparents kiss.

I grew up in Northern California (near San Francisco), so seeing two guys or girls kiss has long left any kind of reaction from me. It does trip me out when I go outside of California and see people freak out when they see a couple like this kissing. I find them hilarious, and go out of my way to make them more uncomfortable about it, by saying "awww, they're so in love. That's so cute."

I have a story. I was at a major party event, and I was asked by a guy in a Sailor Moon outfit for a cigarette so I gave him one and lit it for him. We talked for a bit (mostly him saying thanks and me saying no problem), he was pretty drunk and he held me and kissed me. I went with it, though I'm not gay, but I didn't think of it as a big deal, and I said "thanks" and we both parted ways. However, some guys I went to the party with freaked out, and was like "why did you let him kiss you?" I said, "I didn't think anything of it, and what did you want me to do, deck him and get us all kicked out of the party?" They thought about it for a second, and said "ok, just don't start singing Katie Perry songs on the way home." I cracked up.

@write2topcat said:

I don't care about gay people being in shows per se. What I notice and don't care for is when the gay people in the show are used to promote some agenda, or stereotype. I hate agenda television, TV used to push a viewpoint which social engineers seek to instill.

But to be fair, all story telling is based on some kind of accepted agenda or stereotype.

For example I'm not religious, so I can't help but notice how belief in God specifically Christianity is constantly being shoved down my throat. Need to kill a vampire? Hit him with a cross or some holy water. Need to fight a demon possessed person? Chant bible verses at them. Have a character who doesn't believe in God? Well they will by the end.

People who are atheists or simply non-religious are acceptable punching bags in movies, tv shows and mainstream media. You can't even run for office in some areas if you are a non-believer in the US, and in other countries you can be killed, but no one ever cares or talks about that. Same thing goes for gays in a lot of places, so I can relate.

There are a lot of gay people that work in movies and entertainment, many of which are still in the closet or haven't been out for long. It kind of makes sense to me that the less taboo gay subjects become that we are going to see more instances of gay subjects.

The trite theme of a gay character who is just a great guy, and faces discrimination, is treated unfairly, etc. is done over and over and over again. It is so commonplace that you can guess the plot long before it is developed. Just as commonplace are the people who discriminate against them. Frequently the writers seek to imply that Christians or Republicans or Southerners or gun owners or some other targeted group is maliciously out to get the saintly gay guy. It is the agenda which so often goes along with the gay character that irritates me.

Well... can you blame them? Again, I'm not gay myself so I have no dog in this fight, but if someone is going on about how evil the gays are it's religious people (not just Christians, Muslims too), or Republicans. Just look up Republican VP Mike Pence's views on gays are, or the 700 Club guy, or Republican Pat McCrory who pushed the transgender bathroom ban.

This is not to say there aren't republican/christian/southern/conservative people are or ok with gay people, but if you're openly anti-gay and running for office you're not going to last in the Democratic party. Fyi I don't like either party at the moment so the Dems have huge problems too, but at least they don't tolerate bigotry.

But it seems that Hollywood these days requires scripts to push a gay agenda theme of some sort or other. It is just one of those things, like the way they used to hyperventilate about Ronald Reagan, and could not mention him without taking a cheap shot at him. It was almost like actors and script writers were showing their bona fides by taking cheap shots at him. You get used to it, overlook it as much as possible, and try to enjoy the creative part of the show.

I dunno, in most cases the gay characters are either background or minor supporting characters, it never really feels like a big deal to me. It's like the token "funny fat guy" they used to add in a lot of casts, it feels about the same. And Ronald Reagan gets reamed about as much as Bill Clinton gets reamed for his womanizing, but in Reagan's case in relation to gays he would not acknowledge the AIDS crisis in the 80s and his actions (or rather inactions) most likely led to many gay people dying, so yeah, I can see why the gays might hate his guts.

Perhaps we are talking about a matter of degree then. I suppose you can find a hidden agenda in any story if you look for it. What is the agenda in the story Treasure Island? To me it is just a story, but perhaps others see some agenda being pushed there which I don't find. But you could make a modernized version of Treasure Island and add in elements to push an agenda, maybe some kind of social commentary. And even then, if it is done well, not preachy, not pejorative against some group, I don't get torked off over it, and might hardly notice it.
Some of the religious references you mentioned were parts of the original stories, like the cross against vampires thing. So I see that instance of the film maker just following the story the author laid out more so than trying to push religion. On a side note, I've seen a few vampire genre shows in which the cross has no effect, so I am not sure what that says, if anything. Perhaps the writer is just trying to put a new twist on the story, to innovate some, to offer a fresh perspective or surprise for the audiences. I don't necessarily read anything into that. Sometimes religion in stories is just a reflection of the culture, other times there may be an agenda where a religion is being treated sympathetically, or pejoratively. It is the pejorative stuff I don't like. Especially when it is largely untrue but designed to support a meme for political purposes. I don't watch entertainment for political commentary or propaganda. Intolerance? There is plenty of that in both parties, but the meme that Dems are tolerant and Republicans not is pretty effectively pushed and accepted as fact. But there are plenty of intolerant Democrats, plenty of violent Democrats, etc.
But that's not anything I want to see in movies either. I am watching entertainment to escape from all the contentious, divisive, crap. I know there will be some of it slipped into film and TV shows, and I generally just try to overlook it. But I prefer the stories where the story is all the production is trying to get across.

@cswood said:

For example I'm not religious, so I can't help but notice how belief in God specifically Christianity is constantly being shoved down my throat. Need to kill a vampire? Hit him with a cross or some holy water. Need to fight a demon possessed person? Chant bible verses at them. Have a character who doesn't believe in God? Well they will by the end.

To be fair, all of those are primarily christian-based myths (various pre-christian european vampire folkore being assimilated into local christian traditions like the christian Vlad Dracul in the 1400s). So it makes sense that they would require not just religious, but christian rituals to defeat.

You almost never see anyone using religion to fight zombies, werewolves, aliens or super-villians because those aren't rooted in religion. Personally I'd like to see monsters from other religious traditions become more commonplace because vampires, demons and werewolves are sooo played out. We almost never see golems (jewish tradition), ifrits (islamic tradition), loa (west african & haitian voodoo tradition), aswang (filipino catholic syncretic vampire-ish), nine-tailed foxes (east asian tricksters) etc.

@Dali Parton said:

@cswood said:

For example I'm not religious, so I can't help but notice how belief in God specifically Christianity is constantly being shoved down my throat. Need to kill a vampire? Hit him with a cross or some holy water. Need to fight a demon possessed person? Chant bible verses at them. Have a character who doesn't believe in God? Well they will by the end.

To be fair, all of those are primarily christian-based myths (various pre-christian european vampire folkore being assimilated into local christian traditions like the christian Vlad Dracul in the 1400s). So it makes sense that they would require not just religious, but christian rituals to defeat.

But folklore isn't set in stone. I've seen movies where Christian crosses and holy water don't kill vampires, but I've never (as far as I can remember) remember a Jewish person or Muslim being turned into one and being thwarted by symbols of those religions. Same goes for exorcisms, it's always a Christian being posses by satan and the Vatican being called in to deal with it.

But we are going way off topic. The point being, there are various levels of agenda in movies, but people seem to accept the ones that line up with their beliefs while decrying the ones that conflict with their beliefs, like showing gay people in a positive non-judgmental light. I also hear people complaining when terrorists are portrayed as something other than Muslim, like there are no non-Muslim terrorists or something.

Or if a woman beats up a man in a movie, that's pushing an agenda, but John McClane being able to kill a building full of terrorists in a wife beater and no shoes is somehow more plausible. It's snowflakeism at its most basic.

After two episodes I am struggling to get involved in this show. I usually love cyper punk films but for some reason this show is not gripping me like some other netflix shows.

@nolesjs17 said:

After two episodes I am struggling to get involved in this show. I usually love cyper punk films but for some reason this show is not gripping me like some other netflix shows.

I know. They could have done this better. I like the plot, but they are a bit too sloppy somehow, like Kinnamon's elocution.

But folklore isn't set in stone. I've seen movies where Christian crosses and holy water don't kill vampires, but I've never (as far as I can remember) remember a Jewish person or Muslim being turned into one and being thwarted by symbols of those religions.

It is not much of an agenda to stick within the parameters of the original folklore. It might demonstrate a lack of imagination and make for boring, seen-it-a-million-times storytelling but it takes a lot more effort to conceive a mythology that is outside of the traditionalist box. Your other examples aren't quite the same, muslims as terrorists isn't a tradition, its a recent stereotype. And women beating up men has been happening in pop culture for decades now. 1970s TVs shows had it frequently - Wonder Woman, The Bionic Woman, Charlie's Angels and movies like Terminator, the Alien series, etc.

As for non-christians being turned into vampires, the reason it doesn't happen in western films is probably because minorities just don't get much screen time regardless of genre, and horror is a pretty small niche to begin with. A girl walks home alone at night might qualify, its a persian film shot in california with no significant christian symbology.

"As for non-christians being turned into vampires, the reason it doesn't happen in western films is probably because minorities just don't get much screen time regardless of genre, and horror is a pretty small niche to begin with."

And there are other factors I think. The biggest market for these films is the USA, and in the US the most populous religion has always been Christianity. The films which appeal to the largest part of the population will make the most money. As the nation has become less religious you see this reflected in films. The old vampire films showed them repelled by the cross, but more and more modern vampire films show vampires which crosses seem to have no effect upon. A reflection of the market? I think probably so. Perhaps there is some agenda, but if so, it isn't obvious to me what it is in this case.

Also, in the Bram Stoker vampire tale the vampire was repelled by the cross. When the story was first translated to film the film maker simply followed the story. So there was no agenda being pushed there; it was just an effort to tell the original story in film.

Enough about the gay stuff or lack thereof and lets discuss the women of the show.

My list goes as follows:

1) Ortega (OMG*- the bathtub scene when Rei resleeved as her) I think I watched that scene 9 times. 2) Reileen ( I've liked her since Dollhouse) 3) Miriam ( incredible body for her age ) 4) Prescott ( I've liked her since her Bones days ) 5) Quellcrist ( something about her leadership makes her sexy) 6) Lizzy ( beautiful eyes)

@mrmoovee said:

Enough about the gay stuff or lack thereof and lets discuss the women of the show.

My list goes as follows:

1) Ortega (OMG*- the bathtub scene when Rei resleeved as her) I think I watched that scene 9 times. 2) Reileen ( I've liked her since Dollhouse) 3) Miriam ( incredible body for her age ) 4) Prescott ( I've liked her since her Bones days ) 5) Quellcrist ( something about her leadership makes her sexy) 6) Lizzy ( beautiful eyes)

OK, now I have to go back and check that bathtub scene. lol