# Man In The High Castle Season 1 Thread Spoilers



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I have not read the book, think the concept is great, enjoyed the pilot.

However, by the end of episode 3 I am starting to struggle. It's very slow and the acting style seems off to me. In particular the main woman just seems like a huge wet blanket, so lacking in personality. With so many other things to watch these days I find it annoying that I'm going to force myself through it


----------



## SoupMan (Mar 1, 2001)

Episode 3 question -



Spoiler



How/why did they end up in the cave where the found the dead person and the list of names? I was on the treadmill when I watched it and my mind apparently wandered during that part.


----------



## Jolt (Jan 9, 2006)

Spoiler



The man they killed had a map on him and he had marked an X on the cave so they went there.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Title didn't specifically say it but as a season thread I don't think spoiler tags are required.


----------



## Jolt (Jan 9, 2006)

I wasnt going to chance it lol


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> I have not read the book, think the concept is great, enjoyed the pilot.
> 
> However, by the end of episode 3 I am starting to struggle. It's very slow and the acting style seems off to me. In particular the main woman just seems like a huge wet blanket, so lacking in personality. With so many other things to watch these days I find it annoying that I'm going to force myself through it


I agree. It's odd. She had little reaction to her sister's death. I think it's intentional; they're trying to show how the German's/Japanese victory has effected Americans.


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

Cringe-worthy dialog and ludicrous plot devices. Gotta love it when Joe Blake conks The Marshal and then doesn't bother to finish him off or even relieve him of the shotgun.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> Title didn't specifically say it but as a season thread I don't think spoiler tags are required.


The title has to specifically say spoilers, or it must be a per-episode thread with an episode air date, title, etc., otherwise spoilers must be tagged. For per-episode threads the "spoiler" in the title is optional.

It seems simple enough to me, but to make it even simpler: if you want your thread to allow spoilers, ALWAYS put "spoilers" in the title. That's never wrong.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

Assuming this thread is modded to allow spoilers, season long threads are one thing for paced out shows with on air dates. it's a little dangerous for shows like this that are available all at once.

You can safely assume that for example, Heroes Reborn, spoilers will be there for the most recently aired episode. But for this show, i have no idea how many episodes others have watched. I got through Ep 9 last night, but i'm afraid to talk about it because who hasn't gotten that far and may be reading this?

I'm guessing others are the same and won't come in here until they finish the season. and by then, some of us will have forgotten what we were thinking and will probably not participate as much.

But then again, i don't know how much participation there'd be on individual episode threads either... sigh...

My one thought is - leave spoiler NOT allowed and tag up to which episode you've watched and are referencing before your spoiler tag. For example-

up to Ep 9


Spoiler



i'm really curious if this season is based on the entirety of the book, or if this is only a first part of the book. Because after 9 episodes i'm not seeing a lot of potential payoff. Still a WTF are the films supposed to be, who the Man in the High Castle is, all those questions the resistance people have. I assume these would be revealed over seasons. But what did the book do? anyway...

and those films are interestingly short. and i have no idea wtf that last one was supposed to be. While the first one we saw was an alternate universe ending, this last one was seemingly another alternate universe (or this universe's future if Germany and Japan go to war) ending but with SF getting a-bombed? was that what that bridge was supposed to show?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

madscientist said:


> The title has to specifically say spoilers, or it must be a per-episode thread with an episode air date, title, etc., otherwise spoilers must be tagged. For per-episode threads the "spoiler" in the title is optional.
> 
> It seems simple enough to me, but to make it even simpler: if you want your thread to allow spoilers, ALWAYS put "spoilers" in the title. That's never wrong.


Easy to say perhaps, harder to remember when creating a season thread for, perhaps, the first time.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I really liked the show. The world they have created here is very impressive and overshadows some of the transient issues I had with the writing. There were some situations and dialogue that was overly contrived or convenient, but I was able to forgive its sins. There was more focus on the Pacific States setting than I expected, but it didn't turn out to be a bad thing.

The Trade Minister character was a nice sort of antidote to the Obergruppenführer. The primary character I thought was not so great was Frank, who was whiny and seemed all over the place emotionally. What the heck was Juliana doing putting up with that?



Spoiler



I felt the stuff in the neutral zone was the weakest part of the program, especially with that magical Marshal guy who showed up.

I'm not entirely pleased about Joe sailing away in the end... I would've rather seen him get a bullet in the skull. One second he's self-serving, the next he's playing the "I'm a changed Nazi!" card.

Frank's ability to evade capture and then his friend/co-worker taking the fall for the gun/assassination, also seemed totally ridiculous.



I'm really interested in seeing a second season!


----------



## Barmat (Jun 1, 2001)

After watching episode 10


Spoiler



After finishing episode 10 and reading some on line reviews of the book here is my take.
Hitler is the Man in the High Castle. Some one is travelling between many different alternate realities, some where Germany won and some where they lost. For some reason this person or persons is bringing back news reels and getting them to Hitler. The Trade minister has traveled to one alternate reality, it might be ours it might not.



The series has reached the point in the story that the book ended.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

So Amazon's ad campaign for the show has raised a few eyebrows.... who knew that bedecking an NYC subway car with Nazi and Japanese imagery might be problematic? Lol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uters-angry-Nazi-decorated-subway-trains.html

(At least they were smart enough to avoid using any actual swastikas )


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I guess just that one woman sides with the Nazis... 
[edit]Heh, from the article:


> 'Half the seats in my car had Nazi insignias inside an American flag, while the other half had the Japanese flag in a style like the World War II design,' passenger Ann Toback told Gothamist.
> 
> 'So I had a choice, and I chose to sit on the Nazi insignia because I really didn't want to stare at it.'


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I guess just that one woman sides with the Nazis...


Or it was her preferred option of flag against which to place her ass.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

busyba said:


> So Amazon's ad campaign for the show has raised a few eyebrows.... who knew that bedecking an NYC subway car with Nazi and Japanese imagery might be problematic? Lol.
> (At least they were smart enough to avoid using any actual swastikas )


Yeah, but that eagle symbol really doesn't exist without the swastika. Replacing it with the Iron Cross (still used today) just makes everyone assume the Cross is Nazi too. I get that Amazon is trying to be shocking, just like the first episode is. Damned if you do/don't.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> Yeah, but that eagle symbol really doesn't exist without the swastika. Replacing it with the Iron Cross (still used today) just makes everyone assume the Cross is Nazi too. I get that Amazon is trying to be shocking, just like the first episode is. Damned if you do/don't.


Oh yeah, they were absolutely screwed from the minute they decided this was a good idea.

But this story would have gone absolutely nuclear if there were proper swastikas involved.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I just finished episode 4 and I am getting close to bored. I rarely care too much about acting or plot holes but, in particular, the acting and the actors are terrible. I have always disliked the guy who plays The Marshall, the women has zero personality and guy is totally wooden. You're in trouble when Rick Worthy is your best actor.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

busyba said:


> So Amazon's ad campaign for the show has raised a few eyebrows.... who knew that bedecking an NYC subway car with Nazi and Japanese imagery might be problematic? Lol.


I was wondering about the print shops and other businesses that printed up signs and made flags for the show..."Uhh, yeah, I want two dozen American flags where the stars are replaced by a swastika. Thanks much!"


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

I just finished watching the 10th ep



Spoiler



I'm so confused. So was Hitler the man in the high castle? So the resistance was working for him? So what was the point of it all?

And no questions answered as to who or how the movies were made.

And wtf was the ending? Trade minister just transports to the timeline we know?

If thats all the book had, that'd be one disappointing read. It also makes me wonder what season 2 will be.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Didn't read the spoiler but 10 episode, ughhh, for some reason I thought it was 8. Not sure I can make it


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

milo99 said:


> I just finished watching the 10th ep
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Hitler had quite a library of films there, I assume all are of the same kind we've seen on display, so I think believing him to be The Man is an acceptable conclusion. The fact we saw him hiding out in a castle I guess was to further bang it home.

Perhaps the Trade Minister was somehow meditating himself to a different reality than the one on display in the show? Given the show has these films showing alternative realities or the future, this didn't seem _too_ crazy to me...


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

ElJay said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the Trade Minister was somehow meditating himself to a different reality than the one on display in the show?


Or maybe the whole thing was a dream sequence?


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

Just binged watched the final eight episodes in a couple days. I really enjoyed it. The world building of this alternate reality where the Axis Powers won WW2 was really well done. They obviously left a lot of things unanswered in the story including where they are getting the films and how it's all possible. There were a few annoying things that happened or that were confusing but I was willing to forgive all that because I found the subject interesting. The ending with the Japanese Trade Minister transporting to a different reality was unexpected but I figure it will be addressed in the second season. 

I haven't read much Phillip K. Dick, but I get the impression that the great many successful tv & movie adaptations of his short stories and novels are usually much better than the original prose, as compared to Harlan Ellison's many short stories and novels which have been made into tv shows & movies and which are usually better in the original form in my opinion.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

OK, finished. I thought it improved as it went on but the main actress was infuriating to me with her sad sack face and constant actorly "emoting".

Regarding milo99's conclusions



Spoiler



Pretty clear to me that Hitler was the man in the high castle, but the point, to me, was that the resistance didn't know they were working for him, were not supposed to watch the films and the films are prove of this alternative reality. The films were clearly not mainstream and needed someone from the underground to find them.



Can someone answer, probably in spoiler, approximately how much of the book did the series cover?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

JohnB1000 said:


> Can someone answer, probably in spoiler, approximately how much of the book did the series cover?


That's complicated, since the series is as true to the book as Blade Runner is to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. There are grand-canyon sized differences. The antagonists, Smith and Hido, don't exist in the novel.



Spoiler



In the book, the man in the high castle refers to the actual author of the novel "The Grasshoper Lies Heavy", Hawthorne Abendsen. The novel does the same thing as the *first* newsreel does, showing a world where America wins WW2. As for the end of the novel...



Spoiler



Wegener returns to Berlin but his fate is uncertain. Tagomi has his vision of the alternate San Francisco, and frees Frank- captured as a fugitive Jew. Joe is killed by Juliana. Those two have vastly different characterizations in the novel. The novel ends with Juliana meeting Abdensen and finding out how his book came to be.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

milo99 said:


> Assuming this thread is modded to allow spoilers, season long threads are one thing for paced out shows with on air dates. it's a little dangerous for shows like this that are available all at once.
> 
> You can safely assume that for example, Heroes Reborn, spoilers will be there for the most recently aired episode. But for this show, i have no idea how many episodes others have watched. I got through Ep 9 last night, but i'm afraid to talk about it because who hasn't gotten that far and may be reading this?
> 
> ...


I agree... When a show releases all episodes at once, I think it is too dangerous to participate in an all-season thread unless you've already watched all the episodes...

I think with Daredevil, we had episode specific threads... I'd prefer that for future series like this... Even if the threads do not get heavy participation...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

It's been said many times but people are free to start the episode threads. I prefer the season thread. People were using the pilot thread to discuss the season so a season thread seemed worthwhile. There has been zero attempts at episode threads for this show.

I like the approach used here where it's a season thread but people spoiler there comments with an episode tag clearly shown.


----------



## TiVotion (Dec 6, 2002)

I just binge watched the entire season in two days. I purposely stayed out of here until I was done because I knew this was based on a book, and someone always spoils something with comparisons to the book. 

I enjoyed it. It did have wooden acting and dialogue at times but overall it was interesting. Going in I had no idea what this was about other than the basic premise, so the reveals in the last couple episodes and the ending especially really surprised me. I'm left wanting explanations.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

Like I mentioned above, I enjoyed the series. But one thing I didn't understand: Rufus Sewell playing Obergruppenführer John Smith, was portrayed as being American born and who didn't speak German, which nonetheless didn't hold back his career in the SS according to one of the other characters. How did an American born man in his late forties (in real life, presumably on the show too) end up as a high ranking Nazi officer? 

It was made mention that he participated in genocide of Semites in the Cincinnati death camps during or immediately after the war fifteen years or so earlier, which would make sense if he was a German man who was living and working in the American Reich territories after the war. But an American man born around 1914 and who was in his twenties during the alternate history WW2 surely would have fought on the American side, no? I understand that many younger people growing up in a post-war world of the alternate history 1960s where the U.S. has been conquered for nearly a generation might be enthusiastic Nazi supporters, but someone like Smith who well remembers a free United States, how could he had gotten recruited by the German military back in the 1940s or earlier as a young man?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jim_TV said:


> I understand that many younger people growing up in a post-war world of the alternate history 1960s where the U.S. has been conquered for nearly a generation might be enthusiastic Nazi supporters, but someone like Smith who well remembers a free United States, how could he had gotten recruited by the German military back in the 1940s or earlier as a young man?


He wouldn't have had to. There were Nazi sympathizers here.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I sorta liked it, but mostly because I liked the premise, but I felt it was all over the place and the payoff to me was very disappointing, with both the Joe plotline and the reveal of who the man in the high castle was. In fact, it kind of made Hitler a sympathetic figure in a way, which really annoyed me. But I'll watch S2


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He wouldn't have had to. There were Nazi sympathizers here.


Smith was most likely Volksdeutsche too, ethnic German but not a German citizen. It wouldn't matter to the Reich if Smith was born American- if he was Volkesdeutsche. And he would've never risen to such a high rank (three-star general) unless he was ethnically pure in the eyes of the Reich. And those Volks were instrumental to the Reich in running all those countries the Nazis conquered.

The only disappointing part of the series to me was all the Neutral Zone stuff.



Spoiler



Still think the Hitler is TMITHC is a big red herring. Unless Hitler's using the info from the Grasshopper films as a guide to win his war. (hope that's not the direction they're headed)

Very interested to see if Trudy #2 comes back


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It frankly never occurred to me that Hitler is the Man in the High Castle. Although that may be because


Spoiler



I read the book.


It is surprising, and a little daring, that Hitler is portrayed relatively sympathetically. But that fits in with the overall tone of the show, where ultimately it's hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys are. Ultimately there are good Germans and bad Germans; good Japanese and bad Japanese; and I suppose good Americans and bad Americans, although the Americans turn out to be largely irrelevant in the big picture.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Damn my post didn't submit and don't want to type it all out again, so going short

-I hope TMITHC isn't Hitler, just seems like he has a fascination with the films and/or doesn't want them to get out as propaganda 

-I hope it isn't an alternate reality thing ala Fringe (Don't really want a Sci-Fi show)

-Show started strong, kinda went weak eps 3-6 or so (neutral zone) and last few eps were great, really looking forward to season 2


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MikeMar said:


> -I hope it isn't an alternate reality thing ala Fringe (Don't really want a Sci-Fi show)


Hmmm, I don't know where you went to school, but in Minnesota they taught that the Allies won World War II, and thus that this is already an alternate reality thing...


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Hmmm, I don't know where you went to school, but in Minnesota they taught that the Allies won World War II, and thus that this is already an alternate reality thing...


haha well it's not science fiction now, just FICTION, I don't want a science aspect added in


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

When it looked like Hitler is TMITHC, i took it as, he was a puppet master. He gave the american resistance something to fruitlessly occupy themselves with, giving them false hope, rewarding their efforts by killing off a "pawn" or 2 here and there after they gave him his films. And had the SS chasing them as a way to keep them from getting ahead of themselves, as well as offer legitimacy in the resistance's eyes of what they're doing. 

The resistance has no idea whats in the films, doesn't know what they're for, why the The Man wants them, and then "stuff happens" after every film is delivered. wtf?

the curious thing is who Lem was giving the films to. Was he actually giving them directly to The Man, or was that a ruse to get Joe in no man's land to kill him?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MikeMar said:


> haha well it's not science fiction now, just FICTION, I don't want a science aspect added in


Well, alternate worlds is a long-established sci-fi sub-genre, and this is clearly set in an alternate world, so I'm afraid you're stuck with it.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, alternate worlds is a long-established sci-fi sub-genre, and this is clearly set in an alternate world, so I'm afraid you're stuck with it.


haha, well there are different types

I forget the book, but there are a lot of fictional historic books that just alter history and everything is 100% grounded by what could realistically happen.

That's all I want


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

milo99 said:


> When it looked like Hitler is TMITHC, i took it as, he was a puppet master. He gave the american resistance something to fruitlessly occupy themselves with, giving them false hope, rewarding their efforts by killing off a "pawn" or 2 here and there after they gave him his films. And had the SS chasing them as a way to keep them from getting ahead of themselves, as well as offer legitimacy in the resistance's eyes of what they're doing.
> 
> The resistance has no idea whats in the films, doesn't know what they're for, why the The Man wants them, and then "stuff happens" after every film is delivered. wtf?
> 
> the curious thing is who Lem was giving the films to. Was he actually giving them directly to The Man, or was that a ruse to get Joe in no man's land to kill him?


This is exactly what I thought. Hitler was playing all sides, and used it also as a way to root out "traitors" in his own ranks and possibly on the Japanese side of the country.

So one other thing bugged me. Why did they use "semite" instead of Jews? Also, did they allow Jews to live in America or try and exterminate them as well?


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> This is exactly what I thought. Hitler was playing all sides, and used it also as a way to root out "traitors" in his own ranks and possibly on the Japanese side of the country.
> 
> So one other thing bugged me. Why did they use "semite" instead of Jews? Also, did they allow Jews to live in America or try and exterminate them as well?


Semite is another word for Jews. That's where you get the phrase anti-Semitic from. Did you watch the whole series yet? There was ample mention made multiple times about almost all of the Jews having been killed in American death camps including one in Cincinnati years earlier and there was an ongoing hunt to rout out any remaining Semites in hiding years later. Even the Japanese in the Pacific States cooperated with their German allies by gassing descendants of Jews like Frank's sister and children. Even the Neutral Zone wasn't safe as The Marshall was hunting Jews who escaped concentration camps years earlier like the bookstore owner.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Jim_TV said:


> Semite is another word for Jews. That's where you get the phrase anti-Semitic from. Did you watch the whole series yet? There was ample mention made multiple times about almost all of the Jews having been killed in American death camps including one in Cincinnati years earlier and there was an ongoing hunt to rout out any remaining Semites in hiding years later. Even the Japanese in the Pacific States cooperated with their German allies by gassing descendants of Jews like Frank's sister and children. Even the Neutral Zone wasn't safe as The Marshall was hunting Jews who escaped concentration camps years earlier like the bookstore owner.


Being Jewish I know what Semite means, but I found it odd that they referred to Jews as Semites rather than Jews, which was the term the Nazis used much more often. It just seemed a bit odd.

I didn't remember the stuff about them being exterminated, but I did think I remembered hearing that they were allowed to live in America, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

I usually don't read spoilers from books and such but I had to this time because I like the series but the ending was just too bizarre, even though I figured all along there was some scif-fi/fantasy element to it because of the films.

Thanks for the explanations.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Are they going to do another season? Do we know that?



MikeMar said:


> -I hope TMITHC isn't Hitler, just seems like he has a fascination with the films and/or doesn't want them to get out as propaganda


 I think it's pretty clear that Hitler is TMITHC.



milo99 said:


> When it looked like Hitler is TMITHC, i took it as, he was a puppet master. He gave the american resistance something to fruitlessly occupy themselves with, giving them false hope, rewarding their efforts by killing off a "pawn" or 2 here and there after they gave him his films.


 This part I don't believe. I think the films are genuine not some forgery that Hitler is creating himself. He discovered them and is collecting them because they show alternate futures and he wants that knowledge. I doubt he knows where they come from but he set up TMITHC to trick the resistance, etc. into finding and funnelling as many of the films as possible to him.



Steveknj said:


> I didn't remember the stuff about them being exterminated, but I did think I remembered hearing that they were allowed to live in America, but maybe I'm wrong.


 Nope. In the East they are all killed unless they're hiding their background. Even in the Pacific States, the Japanese government has an agreement with the Reich for the same thing. The Japanese don't spend much effort on this as they don't care very much, but that is the law that they used to threaten Frank and to kill his sister and her kids.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

madscientist said:


> Are they going to do another season? Do we know that?


We haven't heard yet. Clearly that's their hope!


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

madscientist said:


> .
> 
> This part I don't believe. I think the films are genuine not some forgery that Hitler is creating himself. He discovered them and is collecting them because they show alternate futures and he wants that knowledge. I doubt he knows where they come from but he set up TMITHC to trick the resistance, etc. into finding and funnelling as many of the films as possible to him.


I wasn't suggesting that the films were fake. I was just saying that Hitler was apparently manipulating both sides.

It's an open question for me as to what the films are supposed to be (why are some "hopeful" alternate universe and the last one seemingly a future one.. or what WAS that one supposed to be?) or how they were made.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

madscientist said:


> The title has to specifically say spoilers, or it must be a per-episode thread with an episode air date, title, etc., otherwise spoilers must be tagged. For per-episode threads the "spoiler" in the title is optional.


I think you are making that rule up. 
I just read this same comment in the Madam Secretary season show thread from you.

I just finished the series last night and deliberately did not click on the link for the season because I assumed there would be spoilers.
As someone else said, what else are you going to talk about in a season thread except things that happened during that season???

and NOW back to the show...

I enjoyed it and thought the creation of this world was magnificently done.
I do agree that the actors playing Juliana and Frank were pretty wooden.

On the other side Rufus Sewell as Obergruppenführer John Smith was amazing.
It seems like I haven't seem him in anything recently (and can't even recall what his first claim to fame is)...

Most of the actors playing the Japanese cast members were also great.

I will say in agreement that the whole tone of the show is very slow and subdued. I had a hard time finishing the last 4 episodes because I KEPT FALLING ASLEEP, but episode 10 was very well done.



Jim_TV said:


> Rufus Sewell playing Obergruppenführer John Smith, was portrayed as being American born and who didn't speak German, which nonetheless didn't hold back his career in the SS according to one of the other characters. How did an American born man in his late forties (in real life, presumably on the show too) end up as a high ranking Nazi officer?


I didn't really stop to think about that and somehow might have missed that he is actually American born. The scene where they are talking about the death camps, I didn't catch anything about them being in the US. But in an alternate world of what _might have happened_ anything is possible.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> I think you are making that rule up.
> I just read this same comment in the Madam Secretary season show thread from you.


Why would I make it up? There is exactly one place to look for forum rules, and that post was made over 10 years ago and hasn't changed since: forum rules. It talks about episode threads, which are assumed to contain spoilers, and it talks about adding "spoilers" to titles of non-episode threads which contain untagged spoilers.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

madscientist said:


> Why would I make it up? There is exactly one place to look for forum rules, and that post was made over 10 years ago and hasn't changed since: forum rules. It talks about episode threads, which are assumed to contain spoilers, and it talks about adding "spoilers" to titles of non-episode threads which contain untagged spoilers.


That's kind of like saying it's not illegal to own nuclear weapons because the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid it.

Back when those rules were written, there was no such thing as season threads. Now there are, and it is commonly accepted that a season thread is an episode thread for the entire season to date.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Somebody added Spoilers to this thread title without my knowledge, so a mod must agree somewhere.

Almost impossible to manage but I like the season threads where discussion of shows is kept in spoiler tags with a clear indicator which episode it's about.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

madscientist said:


> Why would I make it up? There is exactly one place to look for forum rules, and that post was made over 10 years ago and hasn't changed since: forum rules. It talks about episode threads, which are assumed to contain spoilers, and it talks about adding "spoilers" to titles of non-episode threads which contain untagged spoilers.


OK not making it up but being kindof literal about it (and vocal considering you are trying to make the same point in multiple season threads).

I would read that to mean a "episode" thread may contain spoilers and logically that would extend to a "season" thread as well.

I would infer that "non-episode" refers to anything else.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I think we need a thread to just discuss why we need separate threads. I am so sick or reading the same comments in every whole season thread ever created. Instead of complaining about it, how about go create the Episode threads? I see that is exactly what happened for the Jessica Jones streaming series. Can we get back to discussing the show?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That's kind of like saying it's not illegal to own nuclear weapons because the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid it.


 Err, no. Sorry but it's absolutely NOTHING like that . It's more like "hey the first amendment doesn't mention the internet specifically, but we don't need a new amendment to cover that: the first amendment protections can apply online as well".



Cainebj said:


> OK not making it up but being kindof literal about it (and vocal considering you are trying to make the same point in multiple season threads).


 In this thread I made one post (going on 2 weeks ago) answering a specific uncertainty raised by JohnB1000: "I don't think spoiler tags are required". In the Madame Secretary thread it seemed things were getting spoilery so I mentioned it in passing. As always it's not the one post pointing out the issue that derails the conversation, it's the 10 subsequent posts arguing that the first post was wrong.



Cainebj said:


> I would read that to mean a "episode" thread may contain spoilers and logically that would extend to a "season" thread as well.


 The rules are not clear about everything, but they're extremely clear about what constitutes an episode thread. Season threads don't qualify.

If we want to say that it's "general knowledge" that any thread with the word "season" in it is a season thread and spoilers are automatically allowed irrespective of the forum rules then let's just say that. No need to contort the rules to try to make them apply where they clearly don't.

Personally I don't see what's so horrible about putting the word "spoilers" in the title if you intend to allow untagged spoilers, or asking a mod to fix it after the fact if you forget. But apparently, thread titles are akin to the Mona Lisa and "spoilers" is just adding a moustache


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Just finished last night and overall enjoyed the season, although so many unanswered questions.

I think Hitler is TMITHC. He had one line while watching a film to the effect of "...what might have been...". And i agree, he appears too tame and almost sympathetic for what I would have expected.

I don't see how this can't turn into some sci-fi thing what with Joe shooting Frank in that one film and just the question of how the films came to exist to begin with.

I kind of like John Smith having to live with the new rules when it comes to "treating" his son's disease. I wonder if they'll circle back to this if there's a 2nd season.

As far as Juliana and Frank's persistent sullen or gloomy appearance - how happy would any of us look in that reality?!

And wtf was that at the end of episode 10? Meditation? Dreaming? Waking from a dream which covered everything to that point?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

jr461 said:


> I don't see how this can't turn into some sci-fi thing what with Joe shooting Frank in that one film and just the question of how the films came to exist to begin with.


Isn't that sci-fi? Films depicting things that haven't happened - or alternate versions of what happened and an ending where one of the characters...


Spoiler



suddenly finds himself in a different reality that is the world as we know it?


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Finally finished it. I really like the fact that the episodes are a full 55 minutes of show per hour.

Compelling drama, I hope they do another season.
The films add a clear SF element to an otherwise straightforward alternate history story.
Juliana is an idiot for letting Joe go.
Frank is an idiot for going to the Kempetai.
That factory manager is an ass for turning in Ed.
I hope "this was all a dream" isn't the point of this story.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

opus472 said:


> Cringe-worthy dialog and ludicrous plot devices. Gotta love it when Joe Blake conks The Marshal and then doesn't bother to finish him off or even relieve him of the shotgun.


Tv people do this all the time. It's nuts. If you're not going to kill him, which you should, at least take his weapon.

I can't remember Frank's friend's name but I need a (dumbass) friend like that. Him taking the fall for Frank was stupid.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Just finished


Oy...


So, it's some sort of parallel universe thing? People can travel between them?


arghhh...


I was hoping it wouldn't be like this.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just finished last night. Not sure what to think. If that's the end of the show and they never make further seasons, then I'd have to say it was disappointing. But if they make more and build on the alternate realities and flesh out a little more of what's going on, then I'm definitely on board.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

If there is a season two and it involves the characters moving between multiple parallel/alternate universes, I think I am out.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> If there is a season two and it involves the characters moving between multiple parallel/alternate universes, I think I am out.


I don't understand that attitude. If this show were simply a historical fiction show about what would have happened if the Axis powers won WWII, then I could see that. But this show introduced the alternate reality stuff in the pilot, with the existence of the film showing the traditional images that we recognize from the reality where the Allies won the war. So if you watched all ten episodes and you're not curious about the alternate reality/sci-fi possibilities of the show and instead just want a straight fictional period piece, then I guess I'm confused why you bothered to watch past the pilot.

(Note this isn't directed specifically at Smeek. There have been others in the thread expressing the fact that they're not interested in the potential sci-fi aspects of the show.)


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

To me, it wasn't introduced as parallel reality. Rather, just an unusual film that people didn't understand. Really, to me, it looked like it was something cobbled together as propoganda. Using real and "faked" footage. Those images are known to the viewer of the TV show as actual history. But to the characters in the show, they aren't. They are mysterious. Hence, the reason I was thinking it was propganda. But then there was teh final film. Where we see Joe executing people. Including Juliana's boyfriend. 

But I didn't read the book. So, I didn't know it was supposed to be a sci fi show. And to be honest, I think I would like to see a show like this without needed a sci fi angle.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I agree that a show with this same basic premise but no sci-fi elements would be very interesting. But that's not what this show is and it was made clear from the start. So that's why I'm confused about people not wanting the show to include sci-fi elements.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So Kido was willing to do the honorable thing and sacrifice himself to protect his country from getting manipulated into a war it couldn't win. But then he turns around and does the dishonorable thing and pins the shooting on Frank's buddy when he knows full well that (a) that gun was not used to shoot the Prince, and (b) it definitely wasn't used by the buddy. 

Doing something so dishonest and scummy seems so out of character for him. That would have been much more acceptable if we had ever see him do anything even the least bit shady.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> So Kido was willing to do the honorable thing and sacrifice himself to protect his country from getting manipulated into a war it couldn't win. But then he turns around and does the dishonorable thing and pins the shooting on Frank's buddy when he knows full well that (a) that gun was not used to shoot the Prince, and (b) it definitely wasn't used by the buddy.
> 
> Doing something so dishonest and scummy seems so out of character for him. That would have been much more acceptable if we had ever see him do anything even the least bit shady.


He knows Frank didn't do it either, so from his point of view it doesn't matter what person takes the blame.

He decided to compromise on his moral code a few episodes back when he made the deal with the Japanese mob guy (to get the name of the real shooter), and then (in order to prevent a war with Germany) killed the shooter in his apartment. He decided to cover up the truth about the shooting to save the empire, even at the expense of an innocent person (Frank or Frank's buddy), and to kill himself if that didn't happen.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> He knows Frank didn't do it either, so from his point of view it doesn't matter what person takes the blame.
> 
> He decided to compromise on his moral code a few episodes back when he made the deal with the Japanese mob guy (to get the name of the real shooter), and then (in order to prevent a war with Germany) killed the shooter in his apartment. He decided to cover up the truth about the shooting to save the empire, even at the expense of an innocent person (Frank or Frank's buddy), and to kill himself if that didn't happen.


He compromised his moral code to protect Japan from war, knowing that he'd have to sacrifice himself. That was honorable. But then he took the cowards way out by arresting someone he knew didn't commit the crime just to save himself. That seems out of character to me. Unless he was never really willing to go through with the honor suicide, but if that's the case, it certainly wasn't shown to us.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> He compromised his moral code to protect Japan from war, knowing that he'd have to sacrifice himself. That was honorable. But then he took the cowards way out by arresting someone he knew didn't commit the crime just to save himself. That seems out of character to me. Unless he was never really willing to go through with the honor suicide, but if that's the case, it certainly wasn't shown to us.


i see your point, but my thinking was, when he decided to cover up the true killer to save Japan from war, if he were to kill himself with nobody brought to justice, what would happen when his replacement took over? If nobody was blamed for it, who knows what the end result would have been? Maybe they'd still go to war.

So he needed a patsy to ensure the issue was put to rest. So i can see that in his mind, it was still honorable.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

milo99 said:


> i see your point, but my thinking was, when he decided to cover up the true killer to save Japan from war, if he were to kill himself with nobody brought to justice, what would happen when his replacement took over? If nobody was blamed for it, who knows what the end result would have been? Maybe they'd still go to war.
> 
> So he needed a patsy to ensure the issue was put to rest. So i can see that in his mind, it was still honorable.


That line of thinking makes sense. But in the context of a TV show, they have to provide clues to the audience that this is what the character was thinking. Since he was virtually seconds/minutes away from killing himself without the show ever giving us any indication that he was worried about the investigation by his replacement, it just makes his actions seem cowardly.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I think he was worried about the investigation after he was dead, and made a seemingly convincing appeal to his assistant who would have taken his place why it was important to hide the identity of the shooter and to find a scapegoat.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> To me, it wasn't introduced as parallel reality. Rather, just an unusual film that people didn't understand. Really, to me, it looked like it was something cobbled together as propoganda. Using real and "faked" footage. Those images are known to the viewer of the TV show as actual history. But to the characters in the show, they aren't. They are mysterious. Hence, the reason I was thinking it was propganda. But then there was teh final film. Where we see Joe executing people. Including Juliana's boyfriend.
> 
> But I didn't read the book. So, I didn't know it was supposed to be a sci fi show. And to be honest, I think I would like to see a show like this without needed a sci fi angle.





DevdogAZ said:


> I agree that a show with this same basic premise but no sci-fi elements would be very interesting. But that's not what this show is and it was made clear from the start. So that's why I'm confused about people not wanting the show to include sci-fi elements.


Was it clear from the beginning? I saw it just as Smeek did, where it was a propaganda film of some sort. It wasn't clear to me what it was until the end. I'm in the wait and see camp. I didn't see it as a Sci Fi show until the end and wasn't expecting that and it kind of disappointed me. But I'd be willing to see how they handle it before I pass judgement for another season.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Was it clear from the beginning? I saw it just as Smeek did, where it was a propaganda film of some sort. It wasn't clear to me what it was until the end. I'm in the wait and see camp. I didn't see it as a Sci Fi show until the end and wasn't expecting that and it kind of disappointed me. But I'd be willing to see how they handle it before I pass judgement for another season.


Exactly

Maybe it was clear to people who read the book or knew about the show. But I really knew NOTHING other than what I saw.

I kept waiting and waiting for us to see an alternate time line after seeing the characters watch the strange film. An alternate within the actual Man in High Castle universe. Like a worm whole. Or scenes from a different USA. Episode after episode past by. Nothing. We never really saw any of that until the very end.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It was pretty obvious to me, recognizing the footage as coming from a world in which the Axis did not win WWII (i.e., ours)...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was pretty obvious to me, recognizing the footage as coming from a world in which the Axis did not win WWII (i.e., ours)...


well, YOU recognize it the footage. And I do too. But the characters don't. I've seen lots of movies that use real world footage to tell a different tale, but it doesn't mean the movie or TV show is some SciFi thing with paraellel universes going on for the people in the show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was pretty obvious to me, recognizing the footage as coming from a world in which the Axis did not win WWII (i.e., ours)...





jsmeeker said:


> well, YOU recognize it the footage. And I do too. But the characters don't. I've seen lots of movies that use real world footage to tell a different tale, but it doesn't mean the movie or TV show is some SciFi thing with paraellel universes going on for the people in the show.


When you think about it, that footage could have come from a movie showing the Allies winning (kind of a polar opposite of US watching THIS show). The fact that the films were underground leads some credence to that while watching (the idea is that the underground could show this footage and start a revolution). That's where I thought this was going. Guess I was wrong.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> When you think about it, that footage could have come from a movie showing the Allies winning (kind of a polar opposite of US watching THIS show). The fact that the films were underground leads some credence to that while watching (the idea is that the underground could show this footage and start a revolution). That's where I thought this was going. Guess I was wrong.


exactly.

you and I saw it the same way.

but we were wrong.

oh well.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Was it clear from the beginning? I saw it just as Smeek did, where it was a propaganda film of some sort. It wasn't clear to me what it was until the end. I'm in the wait and see camp. I didn't see it as a Sci Fi show until the end and wasn't expecting that and it kind of disappointed me. But I'd be willing to see how they handle it before I pass judgement for another season.


I think the fact that they used real footage from the actual newsreels that we know from our own reality is what made it clear to me that there was some kind of sci-fi element to the show. And it's important that this was in the pilot episode and was the first film we saw. If it were simply a film showing the Allies winning, that could be faked. If it were the one where Joe kills Frank, that's strange but could be explained. But the fact that they specifically used footage that we as the viewers would recognize as actual footage from the end of WWII tells me that they were intending to telegraph to the audience that these films weren't just some crafty filmmaker creating some interesting films, but that there was actually something legitimate about the alternate reality depicted in the films.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the fact that they used real footage from the actual newsreels that we know from our own reality is what made it clear to me that there was some kind of sci-fi element to the show. And it's important that this was in the pilot episode and was the first film we saw. If it were simply a film showing the Allies winning, that could be faked. If it were the one where Joe kills Frank, that's strange but could be explained. But the fact that they specifically used footage that we as the viewers would recognize as actual footage from the end of WWII tells me that they were intending to telegraph to the audience that these films weren't just some crafty filmmaker creating some interesting films, but that there was actually something legitimate about the alternate reality depicted in the films.


Perhaps, but to be honest, I never saw it that way, seems like I wasn't the only one.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the fact that they used real footage from the actual newsreels that we know from our own reality is what made it clear to me that there was some kind of sci-fi element to the show. And it's important that this was in the pilot episode and was the first film we saw. If it were simply a film showing the Allies winning, that could be faked. If it were the one where Joe kills Frank, that's strange but could be explained. But the fact that they specifically used footage that we as the viewers would recognize as actual footage from the end of WWII tells me that they were intending to telegraph to the audience that these films weren't just some crafty filmmaker creating some interesting films, but that there was actually something legitimate about the alternate reality depicted in the films.


so wait, what are you saying the last film was supposed to be- the alternate reality? because in that one it looked like San Fran was burned down.

that last film is what confused the crap out of me. are we seeing a 3rd reality? the future of their first reality? or what?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

milo99 said:


> so wait, what are you saying the last film was supposed to be- the alternate reality? because in that one it looked like San Fran was burned down.
> 
> that last film is what confused the crap out of me. are we seeing a 3rd reality? the future of their first reality? or what?


I think the use of the actual newsreels from our reality in the pilot established that there are alternate realities, because we know those images didn't come from some inventive filmmaker within the world of the show. So any other films we see will almost certainly be images of other realities.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

jr461 said:


> !
> 
> And wtf was that at the end of episode 10? Meditation? Dreaming? Waking from a dream which covered everything to that point?


I don't think it was just meditation.
With the focus on the necklace, I think it has properties that allowed to travel between realities.



jsmeeker said:


> Just finished
> 
> Oy...
> 
> ...


I warned you.




Steveknj said:


> When you think about it, that footage could have come from a movie showing the Allies winning (kind of a polar opposite of US watching THIS show). The fact that the films were underground leads some credence to that while watching (the idea is that the underground could show this footage and start a revolution). That's where I thought this was going. Guess I was wrong.


I'm surprised that this is even a question.
We are introduced to a reality where the Allies lost WWII and are dominated by the Third Reich or the Japanese Empire.

We then see them watching a film which shows The Allies defeating the Axis.
That just screams alternate reality.

(It couldn't have been from some other film. Do you think that the Reich or the Japanese would have allowed Americans to make a film showing an Allied Victory? It's not like the First Amendment was still in effect. )

I did not expect that Hitler was the Man in the High Castle. And yes, he was oddly sympathetic (and better at playing the long game than his counterpart in our reality).

Still have a number of Geo-political questions that I need to mull over though.

Sign me up for Season 2!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The more I think about it, the more disappointed I am that there wasn't more sci-fi/alternate reality stuff this season, and I really hope they ramp it up next season. 

If you're just going to do a historical period piece, that's great. But if you introduce the SF elements in the first episode, don't then wait nine more episodes before that stuff pays off.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I'm surprised that this is even a question.
> We are introduced to a reality where the Allies lost WWII and are dominated by the Third Reich or the Japanese Empire.
> 
> We then see them watching a film which shows The Allies defeating the Axis.
> ...


So imagine that in reality the Axis did win. Now someone splices together bits and pieces of film that show the Allies winning the war? This is done by the Underground to start a revolution. WE (meaning the audience watching the show) already know that it's in OUR reality, but would the people in the show itself actually KNOW this? To them it's just propaganda used by the underground. The show runner could just be using existing footage like that because, well it exists, and it's cheaper than creating their own film.

I haven't read the book, but is it clear from the beginning of the book that there's alternate realities involved?


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> WE (meaning the audience watching the show) already know that it's in OUR reality, but would the people in the show itself actually KNOW this? To them it's just propaganda used by the underground. The show runner could just be using existing footage like that because, well it exists, and it's cheaper than creating their own film.


The film showing Joe executing people can't be explained that way.

If that's the explanation the showrunners were being lazy, since the films show large scale action which would be difficult to create on a nothing budget. It's pretty much impossible to hide the production of a film on that scale, German or Japanese spies would have easily detected it. To top it off, the films show wholesale destruction that didn't happen (viewers would know that Berlin wasn't destroyed by the Allies) and which 1940s film special effects can't replicate.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

JYoung said:


> I don't think it was just meditation.
> With the focus on the necklace, I think it has properties that allowed to travel between realities.


We didn't see Juliana travel between realities when she wore it.

There was also point when hitler was watching one of the films when the guy (Wagoner?) went to kill him when I thought he uttered something like "..what might have been..." Thought this was interesting, as if one of the realities was disappointing to him.

I guess we'll have to see - has a 2nd season been confirmed? I am looking forward to it.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I haven't read the book, but is it clear from the beginning of the book that there's alternate realities involved?


It's never even suggested in the PK Dick novel. Either the existence of alternate realities or cross-over into alternate realities.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Saturn_V said:


> It's never even suggested in the PK Dick novel. Either the existence of alternate realities or cross-over into alternate realities.


???

Tagomi does the same thing in the book...travels to our world


Spoiler



and then comes back


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

jr461 said:


> We didn't see Juliana travel between realities when she wore it.


Was Jules ever seen meditating as intensely with it as Tagomi was at the end? 

The producers have made a point to show it quite a bit since Frank lost it and Tagomi picked it up and especially during the scenes when Tagomi was meditating at the end of episode 10.

That's what makes me think there's some meaning attached.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> ???
> 
> Tagomi does the same thing in the book...travels to our world
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I read that more as a vision than actually travelling. He's walking around lost in downtown SF- but ends up exactly where he was, looking for pedicabs. It's more plausible to me that the jewelry would allow him briefly glimpse the "Inner Truth" of another universe- than to simply transport him to it. Just like the scene at the end with the I Ching stalks. A glimpse that their world is not true, but another world is.

But the OPs question was whether alternate realities were suggested in the book's beginning. Which it doesn't. Grasshopper is just a curiosity, no one is wondering about alternate universes at the onset.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

JYoung said:


> Was Jules ever seen meditating as intensely with it as Tagomi was at the end?
> 
> The producers have made a point to show it quite a bit since Frank lost it and Tagomi picked it up and especially during the scenes when Tagomi was meditating at the end of episode 10.
> 
> That's what makes me think there's some meaning attached.


Now that you mention it, there was repeated and particular attention paid to it once Tagomi found it so I'm thinking you're right in that there's some relationship there.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

randian said:


> *The film showing Joe executing people can't be explained that way.*
> 
> If that's the explanation the showrunners were being lazy, since the films show large scale action which would be difficult to create on a nothing budget. It's pretty much impossible to hide the production of a film on that scale, German or Japanese spies would have easily detected it. To top it off, the films show wholesale destruction that didn't happen (viewers would know that Berlin wasn't destroyed by the Allies) and which 1940s film special effects can't replicate.


And that's true, but that bit of film was what, episode 9 or 10? The point that was being made that from the beginning it was obvious that those films are showing a sci-fi type alternate reality, and up until that one, it could be explained without a sci-fi explanation. Of course that film could also be some sort of doctored film for underground purposes, but that's much less plausible and as you said. The Joe film was the first one that made me wonder what reality this was (I thought perhaps there's something like LSD involved, which I think was mentioned in a different episode).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Do you think that the TV writers took that and ran with it? That Dick didn't intend that to be an alternate reality? If that's the case, then I'm even MORE disappointed in the ending.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that the TV writers took that and ran with it? That Dick didn't intend that to be an alternate reality? If that's the case, then I'm even MORE disappointed in the ending.





Spoiler



I believe the showrunners left room for either interpretation. But the series will probably go with the alternate reality, since we saw another Trudy show up. But explaining how the films and people are crossing over can't be done with necklaces.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> And that's true, but that bit of film was what, episode 9 or 10? The point that was being made that from the beginning it was obvious that those films are showing a sci-fi type alternate reality, and up until that one, it could be explained without a sci-fi explanation. Of course that film could also be some sort of doctored film for underground purposes, but that's much less plausible and as you said. The Joe film was the first one that made me wonder what reality this was (I thought perhaps there's something like LSD involved, which I think was mentioned in a different episode).


But how do you explain that the first film (shown in the pilot) included footage from the reality that we all know and are familiar with? That's not something made by an underground filmmaker in the fictional world of the show. That's the actual footage from what we know is a completely different reality. Thus, there had to be something sci-fi going on from the beginning.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> When you think about it, that footage could have come from a movie showing the Allies winning (kind of a polar opposite of US watching THIS show). The fact that the films were underground leads some credence to that while watching (the idea is that the underground could show this footage and start a revolution). That's where I thought this was going. Guess I was wrong.


Go back and watch it again. The characters knew it wasn't just a movie. They knew it was something different. Putting that spin on it was projecting.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It never occurred to me watching the show that the footage was anything other than an artifact from another world, and it never occurred to me that there might be any ambiguity intended. To my mind, they were spelling it out.

Then again, I've been in enough Lost threads to realize that what one person knows to be true isn't necessarily what other people know to be true.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But how do you explain that the first film (shown in the pilot) included footage from the reality that we all know and are familiar with? That's not something made by an underground filmmaker in the fictional world of the show. That's the actual footage from what we know is a completely different reality. Thus, there had to be something sci-fi going on from the beginning.


Easy. Because in Nazi/Japanese win war reality that the show takes place in, those characters have no idea that these films are actual footage of real events. You're watching in our reality, but this whole thing, from the beginning was a "what if". So you have to look at it from the reality that the characters were looking at it in (and as I said, it was easy/convenient for the director of the show to use the real footage rather than create new film). THEN, toward the end, they introduce the Joe footage, and THEN it's obvious something else is going on.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

??? But we ARE watching it from our world, and we DO know that that footage is from our world, and that thus our world must have some form of existence to them..

We have information that the characters don't. That happens all the time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Easy. Because in Nazi/Japanese win war reality that the show takes place in, those characters have no idea that these films are actual footage of real events. You're watching in our reality, but this whole thing, from the beginning was a "what if". So you have to look at it from the reality that the characters were looking at it in (and as I said, it was easy/convenient for the director of the show to use the real footage rather than create new film). THEN, toward the end, they introduce the Joe footage, and THEN it's obvious something else is going on.


If the creator and director of the pilot wanted to convey that this film was just the product of an underground, creative filmmaker, they would have created a "in-story" fake film that would appear to the viewing audience as such. But instead they used very iconic newsreel footage from our reality where we know the Allies won the war.

If you think they chose that specific footage because it already existed and they were just being lazy, I can't help you. But frankly, I think you're just trying to defend the fact that you didn't recognize the film for what it was and therefore you watched all the episodes up until Ep 9 with a completely wrong idea about the nature of the show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> If the creator and director of the pilot wanted to convey that this film was just the product of an underground, creative filmmaker, they would have created a "in-story" fake film that would appear to the viewing audience as such. But instead they used very iconic newsreel footage from our reality where we know the Allies won the war. If you think they chose that specific footage because it already existed and they were just being lazy, I can't help you. But frankly, I think you're just trying to defend the fact that you didn't recognize the film for what it was and therefore you watched all the episodes up until Ep 9 with a completely wrong idea about the nature of the show.


In with you on this. It was telegraphed.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Picked up for Season 2

Variety


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

lambertman said:


> Picked up for Season 2 Variety


Not sure I am thrilled about that.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Not sure I am thrilled about that.


 You don't have to watch.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> If the creator and director of the pilot wanted to convey that this film was just the product of an underground, creative filmmaker, they would have created a "in-story" fake film that would appear to the viewing audience as such. But instead they used very iconic newsreel footage from our reality where we know the Allies won the war.
> 
> If you think they chose that specific footage because it already existed and they were just being lazy, I can't help you. But frankly, I think you're just trying to defend the fact that you didn't recognize the film for what it was and therefore you watched all the episodes up until Ep 9 with a completely wrong idea about the nature of the show.


I'm not the only one apparently. In this NYT review he speculates it could go either way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/a...agines-america-ruled-by-2-foreign-powers.html



> Is the Grasshopper film, for instance, simply technically adept propaganda or is it somehow an actual glimpse of an alternative universe?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I'm not the only one apparently. In this NYT review he speculates it could go either way:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/a...agines-america-ruled-by-2-foreign-powers.html


I have no problem with someone wondering whether that's a hint to an alternate reality but not knowing for sure. That's why we watch the show. But you seemed to be arguing that the film in the pilot doesn't even hint at the possibility of an alternate reality.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

I just finished the first season a couple of days ago. I liked it, despite the weak acting, and other nits. Like some others, I didn't consider the films were from an alternate reality until the last episode. I wasn't sure if they were made in that timeline or what.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

I enjoyed the series. There was tension in the episodes even if the acting was subdued. On the films I thought they showed different realities and where "found" when the realities shifted. In the reality of the show the man in the high castle was Hitler collecting these different reality films. Interested to see how this show plays out. I like the what if reality aspect of the film. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

pendragn said:


> I just finished the first season a couple of days ago. I liked it, despite the weak acting, and other nits. Like some others, I didn't consider the films were from an alternate reality until the last episode. I wasn't sure if they were made in that timeline or what.


This isn't toward you specifically but every synopsis I saw for the show stated that it was set in an alternate reality.

If you're already starting off in an alternate reality, I don't think that it's too big a leap to make to consider that the first film is from another reality.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

JYoung said:


> This isn't toward you specifically but every synopsis I saw for the show stated that it was set in an alternate reality.
> 
> If you're already starting off in an alternate reality, I don't think that it's too big a leap to make to consider that the first film is from another reality.


By that logic, any TV show or movie that varies at all from our reality would be completely open to multiple universes. I don't think that's the case.

I'm not saying I have a problem with there being multiple realities. I'm just saying it wasn't obvious to me until they spelled it out.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

pendragn said:


> By that logic, any TV show or movie that varies at all from our reality would be completely open to multiple universes. I don't think that's the case.
> 
> I'm not saying I have a problem with there being multiple realities. I'm just saying it wasn't obvious to me until they spelled it out.


I wouldn't say that all TV realities that have variance qualify.
(Scorpion for one.)

But this was an alternate reality in which the film showed something completely different, which looked a lot like our reality.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

The Man in the High Castle is Amazon's most streamed original series.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I have no problem with someone wondering whether that's a hint to an alternate reality but not knowing for sure. That's why we watch the show. But you seemed to be arguing that the film in the pilot doesn't even hint at the possibility of an alternate reality.


Nah, I was just arguing that it wasn't necessarily OBVIOUS from the first episode that you have been saying. Oh well, it's just TV 

Go Sun Devils (Class of '82)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JYoung said:


> This isn't toward you specifically but every synopsis I saw for the show stated that it was set in an alternate reality.
> 
> If you're already starting off in an alternate reality, I don't think that it's too big a leap to make to consider that the first film is from another reality.





pendragn said:


> By that logic, any TV show or movie that varies at all from our reality would be completely open to multiple universes. I don't think that's the case.
> 
> I'm not saying I have a problem with there being multiple realities. I'm just saying it wasn't obvious to me until they spelled it out.





JYoung said:


> I wouldn't say that all TV realities that have variance qualify.
> (Scorpion for one.)
> 
> But this was an alternate reality in which the film showed something completely different, which looked a lot like our reality.


I think there's a difference between what pendragn and I are saying and what you are. Any TV show that has a "What if this happened.." is an alternate reality. Obviously the Nazis/Japanese didn't win WWII so that's an alternate reality. We we are saying is that it wasn't obvious to us that within the confines of the story that the Japanese guy was traveling through alternate realities, that the films were showing alternate realities and so forth. Only at the end, the big reveal shows that the Japanese guy was reality hopping.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think there's a difference between what pendragn and I are saying and what you are. Any TV show that has a "What if this happened.." is an alternate reality. Obviously the Nazis/Japanese didn't win WWII so that's an alternate reality. We we are saying is that it wasn't obvious to us that within the confines of the story that the Japanese guy was traveling through alternate realities, that the films were showing alternate realities and so forth. Only at the end, the big reveal shows that the Japanese guy was reality hopping.


Wait, what?
Trade Minister Tagomi wasn't reality hopping until the very end of episode 10.

And his clear surprise at being in "American San Francisco" would indicate that was his first time crossing realities.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Wait, what?
> Trade Minister Tagomi wasn't reality hopping until the very end of episode 10.
> 
> And his clear surprise at being in "American San Francisco" would indicate that was his first time crossing realities.


No, I never said that. I said it wasn't CLEAR he was hopping (obviously with the reveal at the end he was throughout).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> No, I never said that. I said it wasn't CLEAR he was hopping (obviously with the reveal at the end he was throughout).


Wait, what?

That was obviously (from his reaction) the first time he had shifted to another world.

I'm beginning to think that you watched a version of this from another universe...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm confused about what steveknj is talking about as well. Maybe the proposal for legal weed in Atlantic City got approved.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> No, I never said that. I said it wasn't CLEAR he was hopping (obviously with the reveal at the end he was throughout).




Buuuuttttt, he wasn't hopping at all until the end of episode 10.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

If the trade minister had a camera with him, it would have explained the films!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think there's a difference between what pendragn and I are saying and what you are. Any TV show that has a "What if this happened.." is an alternate reality. Obviously the Nazis/Japanese didn't win WWII so that's an alternate reality. We we are saying is that it wasn't obvious to us that within the confines of the story that the Japanese guy was traveling through alternate realities, that the films were showing alternate realities and so forth. Only at the end, the big reveal shows that the Japanese guy was reality hopping.


No. It was obvious the films were from an alternate reality. What wasn't understood (and still isn't explained) is how they showed up. We saw Trade Minister hopping once but we don't know if others hopped or if the films hopped or they just transmitted.


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> If the trade minister had a camera with him, it would have explained the films!


You put a smilie in your post but my money's on the idea that the Trade Minister is the MITHC. If not maybe he's the one gathering the films from the alternate realities.

About the necklace: Wasn't the necklace that Juliana left behind in Ep 1 silver? The necklace that the Trade Minister has is gold. Either I'm mis-remembering the path of that necklace through the episodes or it's color... or it's color is meaningful.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RickStrobel said:


> You put a smilie in your post but my money's on the idea that the Trade Minister is the MITHC. If not maybe he's the one gathering the films from the alternate realities.


Then why did he look so surprised to find himself in another world at the end?


----------



## RickStrobel (Jan 19, 2000)

Hard to say. Maybe the other world was different when he arrived this time, last time he was there it was a wasteland that had been wiped out by an A-bomb like we saw in the film where Joe shot Frank. And now we see evidence that history or time really is fluid. That world had been changed. That's why he was surprised.

Or, maybe jumping between worlds isn't too easy and he has that look on his face every time he does it. Or maybe it's the first time he's made the jump.


----------



## billyd88 (Aug 6, 2003)

Thoroughly enjoyed the series after binge watching in two days. Looking forward to season 2!!


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

I finally finished watching this. I actually rather enjoyed it. While the acting was, at times, a bit weak, I thought they particularly did a pretty good job overall, with a particularly good job of set decorations, and of making Vancouver look like New York and San Francisco.

Having actually read the book, it's quite a different take on several overlapping concepts and plot points.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

FYI Season 2 starts friday.

Have no idea where they will be going, but I'll watch


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> FYI Season 2 starts friday.
> 
> Have no idea where they will be going, but I'll watch


Thanks for the heads up! For some reason I thought it was not back until early 2017.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

I'm looking forward to this premiere more than the newSW movie. But I'm a little nervous. There hasn't been a lot of buzz/press/information regarding Season 2.

At least they're not plastering fascist-inspired artwork on subway trains again.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Finally finished today. I like the story, but it was a struggle due the horrible performances from the Juliana and Joe actors.


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

Just finished season 1. And I see there will be a season 4. Is it worth continuing that long? I'm afraid it's going to turn into another Lost which I liked in the beginning but stopped watching after a few seasons, it just kept going and going without anything ever being resolved (although I assume it was in the end).


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Mabes said:


> Just finished season 1. And I see there will be a season 4. Is it worth continuing that long? I'm afraid it's going to turn into another Lost which I liked in the beginning but stopped watching after a few seasons, it just kept going and going without anything ever being resolved (although I assume it was in the end).


For "The Man in the High Castle" the central mystery is pretty much wrapped up by the end of season one, which season corresponds to the conclusion of the story in Philip K. Dick's novel. After that the writers are exploring new ground, not desperately trying to write themselves out of a hole like "Lost".


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Mabes said:


> Just finished season 1. And I see there will be a season 4. Is it worth continuing that long? I'm afraid it's going to turn into another Lost which I liked in the beginning but stopped watching after a few seasons, it just kept going and going without anything ever being resolved (although I assume it was in the end).


I had similar thoughts in terms of where it might go after season 1 but it's not like Lost. I would (and did!) stay with it, although I did like season 3 better than season 2.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

I thought season 1 was interesting and watched season 2 which wasn’t as good imho. Haven’t watched season 3 yet and probably won’t...


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

markymark_ctown said:


> I thought season 1 was interesting and watched season 2 which wasn't as good imho. Haven't watched season 3 yet and probably won't...


Just finished Season 3 and really enjoyed it, really curious where it goes from here but really enjoying the characters. I feel like you get to really know them in S3


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

ej42137 said:


> For "The Man in the High Castle" the central mystery is pretty much wrapped up by the end of season one, which season corresponds to the conclusion of the story in Philip K. Dick's novel. After that the writers are exploring new ground, not desperately trying to write themselves out of a hole like "Lost".


So now I can read the novel. I have a book that has 4 of his stories, haven't read that one or Three Stigmata


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> Just finished Season 3 and really enjoyed it, really curious where it goes from here but really enjoying the characters. I feel like you get to really know them in S3


Thanks! I have every intention of watching season 3 (and have been looking forward to it) but I just didn't have the time until recently.

Last night, I restarted Amazon Prime (they're apparently willing to give me a free 30 day trial again) when ordering something. Today, I finished the S1 and S2 recap, which was helpful.

If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'm thinking of starting threads covering 2 or 3 eps a piece for season 3 eps. I'm avoiding the season 3 thread for fear of spoilers. I'd rather not wait until I'm done w/all S3 eps to discuss...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

markymark_ctown said:


> I thought season 1 was interesting and watched season 2 which wasn't as good imho. Haven't watched season 3 yet and probably won't...


I have only watched Ep 1 of S3 so far, but I've heard a few critics talking about how S3 really elevates the show and it's much better than S2.


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I have only watched Ep 1 of S3 so far, but I've heard a few critics talking about how S3 really elevates the show and it's much better than S2.


I would agree 100% with this.


----------

