|
|
Post by metroid13 on Oct 4, 2008 12:46:56 GMT -5
I'm with Roxy (allergygal) all the way on this one, for every reason given.
|
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Oct 21, 2008 0:15:46 GMT -5
Well that's a bummer. I ran through every possible scenario and John killing Sarkissian doesn't work for me at all. I really just don't get it. Why did Sarah lie to Derek (and why did John go along with it)? Why was John so angry at Sarah? I'm so confused.  |
|
|
|
Post by richardstevenhack on Oct 21, 2008 3:55:13 GMT -5
Seems clear to me. Sarah didn't actually LIE to Derek, she simply didn't tell him John did the killing. John hasn't admitted it either for reasons yet unknown - probably simply because he hasn't come to terms with it himself and is in no position to start confiding in anyone else, even Derek.
If YOU had killed someone in concert with another person, neither of you would be all that speedy about telling people, even people who you know have killed before and would likely be sympathetic as to who you killed and why.
I don't think John was all that angry with Sarah per se. What he said was that he didn't want to talk about it with her. Again, that is simply because he hadn't come to terms with it yet. And he still hasn't. He's pushed it out of his focus into his subconscious and is not dealing with it consciously.
None of this is surprising if you have any idea how soldiers feel after killing their first enemy. Humans have a great deal of psychological trauma after killing another person. Only the significantly psychopathic don't. That's built in to human nature by evolution and culture. Humans are basically chimpanzees, and chimpanzees can and do kill each other brutally, but there are variations between chimpanzee species in that regard.
Also - there's the obvious fact that it builds suspense for the show. This is TV, remember.
Most people pretty much concluded that John did the killing of Sarkissian, so it really isn't much of a surprise. In fact, given that Sarah didn't seem to be very traumatized by the death and has been functioning "normally" (or as :normally" as she gets ;D), we should have pretty much known from the beginning that it was John who did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Oct 21, 2008 12:49:42 GMT -5
Eh. Thanks for trying, but that doesn't help me. Sarah would have had to have lied to Derek for him to think she'd done it. And his "he saw it all" followed by "damn" tells us he'd been told a version of events that we now know was flipped.
And I'm wondering why the big mystery for 5 episodes. They gave us the truth right at the very beginning of the first episode but then made us question it. Until that scene where Derek says "...before you killed him" to Sarah in S&D, it was pretty clear John had done it. So why throw us that scene at all? Why show us that John did it then tell us Sarah did it? Argh. I feel like I've been jerked around this whole season now for no reason. I hate that.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothamite66 on Oct 21, 2008 13:43:41 GMT -5
Here's my line of thinking:
I don't think that Sarah intended to outright lie to Derek. My take is that he just assumed that Sarah had killed Sarkissian. Sarah didn't counter Derek by telling him what really happened because she is still protecting John plus she doesn't really trust's Derek all that much.
I mean, if for some gawd awful chance the truth got out beyond the family, then John would be labeled a murderer. Sarah already has that label tagged to her file and if ever caught she will go down for the murder of Dyson. Maybe in her mind, it's better for her to be blamed for two murders than for John to also be tagged for murder by the authorities. I think she is acting on instinct and just trying to protect John in the best way she knows.
Sarah acts on instinct when it comes to her parenting skills. Sometimes our instincts aren't always the best decision. It's hard to raise a son if you have a full support system, ie: child's father, grandparents etc. It's even harder, if you don't have additional family members to go to for advice. In addition, she was only a few years older than John is when she became a parent plus she lost her support system at the same time, so she has been operating beyond capabilities for all these years and she has nobody to help her. She admitted in season one that she didn't know how to help John and now she's just doing what she thinks is best.
I really don't think the writers are finished with this yet. We've only seen the event in broken up glimpses. I'm sure the whole story hasn't been told yet.
|
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Oct 21, 2008 15:16:53 GMT -5
Karma, Gotham. Your post makes a lot of sense - a friend (who ironically, always thought John did it and is *still* ticked about the misdirection in the podcast) also pointed out that Sarah most likely doesn't trust Derek enough to share anything personal with him (as far as we know, she doesn't know he knows about her and Kyle).
It's really the sense of having been messed with that irks me (see, oh, 453 posts on this last night), which is the problem with podcasts and the like - the view behind Oz's curtain is great but the impulse to judge what's onscreen by other than what's onscreen never goes anywhere good - which you'd think I'd have learned by now (Go away and die, Battlestar Galactica).
|
|
|
|
Post by gothamite66 on Oct 21, 2008 17:59:23 GMT -5
See, for me, the misdirection doesn't bother me. It keeps me guessing, it's part of the game, it makes the surprises all the more surprising when they happen. Then, of coarse, it could be that not minding the misdirection or lies if you want to call them that is a character flaw on my part (eeks!!  ), or I'm channeling Sarah Connor again  and not trusting anything or anyone, or I've been living in Hollywood far to long and have become far to accustomed to how things work here. (See Kacy's comments on life in LA for an accurate description of life here)  |
|
k8ie
Corporal
Posts: 1,482
|
Post by k8ie on Oct 22, 2008 16:20:57 GMT -5
^^ LOL
;D
A friend suggested I tape a message that says "this is not grad school, you will not be graded on your exegesis" to my monitor.
|
|
|
|
Post by aceplace57 on Oct 22, 2008 16:28:09 GMT -5
Did Tower close the book on the Sarkissian story?
Is there anything else they could surprise us with?
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Oct 22, 2008 16:51:50 GMT -5
They definitely did not close that story. At some point everyone involved will have to deal with it and they haven't yet, they just now perhaps realized that it'll take more effort than they thought.
As far as surprising. Maybe they'll show us that Sarah's reaction in those following moments might not have been "optimal" sort of speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Oct 25, 2008 17:48:36 GMT -5
Here's my line of thinking: I don't think that Sarah intended to outright lie to Derek. My take is that he just assumed that Sarah had killed Sarkissian. Sarah didn't counter Derek by telling him what really happened because she is still protecting John plus she doesn't really trust's Derek all that much. I mean, if for some gawd awful chance the truth got out beyond the family, then John would be labeled a murderer. Sarah already has that label tagged to her file and if ever caught she will go down for the murder of Dyson. Maybe in her mind, it's better for her to be blamed for two murders than for John to also be tagged for murder by the authorities. I think she is acting on instinct and just trying to protect John in the best way she knows. Sarah acts on instinct when it comes to her parenting skills. Sometimes our instincts aren't always the best decision. It's hard to raise a son if you have a full support system, ie: child's father, grandparents etc. It's even harder, if you don't have additional family members to go to for advice. In addition, she was only a few years older than John is when she became a parent plus she lost her support system at the same time, so she has been operating beyond capabilities for all these years and she has nobody to help her. She admitted in season one that she didn't know how to help John and now she's just doing what she thinks is best. I really don't think the writers are finished with this yet. We've only seen the event in broken up glimpses. I'm sure the whole story hasn't been told yet. Karma from me too. I still don't believe Derek would ever assume Sarah killed someone, but that's the first plausible explanation I've heard for why Sarah would have lied. I don't know who she thought he might blab to considering he's wanted for murder too, but it's a minor sticking point, so I can buy that. Uh-oh. New can of worms being opened... Now I'm wondering why she didn't just say Cameron did it. If she didn't trust Derek enough to keep it to himself, why put herself on the line for another murder wrap if Derek ever turned on them? I also still can't grasp why Sarah would have detailed what happened instead of glossing over it with a quick "I killed him." They definitely did not close that story. At some point everyone involved will have to deal with it and they haven't yet, they just now perhaps realized that it'll take more effort than they thought. As far as surprising. Maybe they'll show us that Sarah's reaction in those following moments might not have been "optimal" sort of speak. I'm pretty sure we've seen Sarah's entire reaction in the moment after. The flashback we got this past week seemed to take us right to the last bit that we saw in S&D. I hope you're right that the story isn't closed because I don't understand Sarah at all based on John having done this. I could see John being traumatized either way. I don't quite get why he was so angry at Sarah about it, but whatever - he's always angry at her anyway. What I haven't seen is any kind of dramatic shift in Sarah. I'd think seeing John kill someone would have affected her a lot more. The only thing I can figure at this point is that she's sort of living in denial and refusing to think about it. But then she just thought about it plenty in this past episode and there was no reaction. If we ever actually get a conversation between John and Sarah about it, maybe it'll all make sense. Short of that, I'm just lost. |
|
schmacky
Major
"Make yourself useful."
Posts: 522
|
Post by schmacky on Oct 25, 2008 20:10:43 GMT -5
If we ever actually get a conversation between John and Sarah about it, maybe it'll all make sense. Short of that, I'm just lost. I really REALLY want to see that. I hope they do have a scene where those two talk about it. I think it would be silly not for them to have that eventually, but ya never know.. |
|
), or I'm channeling Sarah Connor again 
and not trusting anything or anyone, or I've been living in Hollywood far to long and have become far to accustomed to how things work here. (See Kacy's comments on life in LA for an accurate description of life here) 
