Also, as far as the sexism stuff - would the author of this be as comfortable or cheerful about a male TV critic, reviewing a show with the opposite politics, loving a character's nickname being Big Ass Sally?

RIP John Pinette

That's a complete non sequitur, if you intended it to be to me. I agree with you and it's in support of my general point of view. You're preaching to the choir. Tell it to the showrunners and to the feminists on this board who hated my comments.

That is not what the books are at all. The books are nothing like the TV show in tone or emphasis or even in general nature. The sex and the horror are all played up on the TV show.

I'd been with the show, more or less, through 3 seasons, but I can't watch anymore. I'd forgiven it everything, its missing the point of the books (the stars of the books are the Starks, not the Lannisters - the important part of the story isn't the Game of the title), its cutting out Bran and the North almost…

She'd have made them cartoonish and broad if they were ideological targets of the showrunners - see her awful Rachel Duncan character (caricature, really). When Maslany plays an ideological enemy of the people making the show - a ruthless capitalist who is part of the fight against women having ownership of their own…

To the 19 likes of 1derer's comment, and to 1derer: there is currently an article on Slate by a young woman (who could be a mean parody of a shrill, ugly feminist) that is a cheerfully, openly, explicitly man-hating celebration of Orphan Black's being - in the feminist bigot's opinion - cheerfully, openly, explicitly…

But since she didn't die - again, she never died, was never revived, but you keep referring to it as her death and her revival - there is no way to tell it later. She would just appear whole and well several episodes down the line. You'd either get an exposition scene of her going on about how she survived (which…

That doesn't make her a killer or a murderer. Killing has to include the act of killing. Murder has to include the act of murder. If I can easily save you but I don't, that doesn't mean I killed you, it means I let you be killed. But whatever killed you is the killer. It's not just semantics in this case even if it…

Serenity isn't a great example. It's actually in part an example of why the jump to a movie doesn't work out. Due to the needs of movies, and the one-off, walking-in-with-no-prior-knowledge element, Whedon had to basically create contrived drama in the beginning of Serenity and ruin his character arcs. The whole point…

She's under contract for a long time supposedly. And I wonder what people mean by "hot commodity". There's nothing she's done on the show that lends itself at all to her becoming a big TV or movie star. Everything she's done lends itself to her continuing to do the kind of character films she's said she wants to do,…

They're not the same
thing. http://saskromancewriters.c…

People tend to revive quickly when they never die to begin with.

Except she doesn't kill any such people. If they'd wanted her to be a villain they'd have had her hurt and kill at least one supporting character we like. But she never does. She kills a morally ambiguous implausible latecomer interloper of a character in the surrogate mother, and a bunch of non-character clones. She…

Rachel's certainly more dangerous to the show's quality.

If they're searching your trunk on a traffic stop, you're in trouble already.

It was basically like a wrestling introduction. The music gets the applause.

Rachel is a disaster, and the first involving Maslany.

Hottest to look at but not once they start speaking and behaving. She's actually least attractive of the main 4 once they start talking.

"I thought the New Testament was ambitious until they brought Jesus back. Lazy writing."