# Orphan Black 6/1/13 "Endless Forms Most Beautiful"



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Only ten more months! 

So does the death of Psycho Clone and Soccer Clone embracing her psycho side mean that we have a new Psycho Clone? Psycho Clone is dead, long live Psycho Clone?

And I guess Mrs. S. was one of the scientists in charge of the original experiment? Clearly, my theory that Mystery Maslany from last week was the original from which the clones were cloned is wrong...unless make-up did a horrible job at making her look older, which would be uncharacteristic. So she's, what, Insider Clone?

It's interesting how ambiguous many of the characters are...not good, not evil, just...complicated. And I love love LOVE how this show lets its characters figure stuff out, instead of everybody just being a bunch of morons who never think to ask questions. They got deeper into things in ten episodes than Lost did in two seasons...and I loved the first two seasons of Lost.

It's gonna be a long ten months...

Oh, and I was specifically watching the camera work when there were multiple Maslanys on-screen. Awesome! There were times when three of them were interacting, and the CAMERA WAS MOVING! And it all looked perfectly natural! We've come a long time from the days when "twin" effects were done by keeping each character on one side of the screen with the camera locked into position.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Insider clone got named "proclone" I liked it..
and we also have Cosima dying (noooo...she's a fav)

By far this has been one of the biggest surprise winner shows in my book in a long time, it just gets so much right that other shows get wrong, as with your Lost example


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Great episode. Great season. One of the best first seasons any series has had lately. And yeah, ten more months.

And we have a new clone, PROCLONE!

And Mrs. S. "isn't what she says she is."

Nice review here...
http://www.avclub.com/articles/endless-forms-most-beautiful,98081/

edit: or what dianebrat said better, quicker.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

That stupid revelation made this the worst episode of the season. 

"They patented our genetic material and put a 'property of' code in our DNA, oh no! Now they own us and our children!"  

Come on, I thought Cosima was supposed to be smart. Oh, and she is coughing up blood like the German, aha, let's keep that a secret from the other clones! That's the obvious thing to do!

It seemed like Sarah and Alison's intelligence went down the drain, too. First, Alison even states that the contract is absurd since everything they have done is illegal, then she promptly forgets about that and signs the damn thing anyway, as if the contract means anything or could actually be enforced. Then Sarah goes to meet psycho clone, alone, even though Sarah knows she is a psychotic killer, and then when she finds yet more proof (dying woman Helena stabbed), instead of pulling her gun immediately and shooting her, Sarah lets her have a chance to beat her up and kill her before she finally draws the gun and shoots her. Then Sarah sends an FU message to Proclone before she even makes sure that Kira is safe, even though Sarah now knows that Mrs. S is not who she has claimed to be. Is stupidity sequenced into the clones' DNA?

The whole nosy neighbor suspected monitor is moving out and gets strangled by a scarf in the garbage disposal subplot was absurd. Couldn't the writers have come up with a better way to keep Alison from finding out that her husband is her monitor? Or better yet, let her find out and dispense with the ridiculous stuff. After all, now that Mrs. S is known to be a liar, and Cosima found out that Leeky is a liar, it should not take long to deduce who Alison's monitor really is.

So disappointing. After nine good episodes, they have to go and ruin the entire season with all this foolishness.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

john4200 said:


> That stupid revelation made this the worst episode of the season.
> 
> "They patented our genetic material and put a 'property of' code in our DNA, oh no! Now they own us and our children!"


While I don't think I disliked the episode as much as you did, I agree that 'Oh no, they have a patent on us. We'll never be free' was really weak.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

The patent stuff is technically true, if you follow the Monsanto stuff in real life.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

robojerk said:


> The patent stuff is technically true, if you follow the Monsanto stuff in real life.


What, exactly, do you think is true?

You do know that there is no legal basis for owning people (even in Canada), right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#Canada



> Canadian law prohibits the following: cloning humans, cloning stem cells, growing human embryos for research purposes, sex selection, and buying or selling of embryos, sperm, eggs or other human reproductive material. It also bans making changes to human DNA that would pass from one generation to the next, including use of animal DNA in humans.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I enjoyed every moment of this season -- even parts that saddened me. I don't want "Ivory Tower" to die so I hope they figure something out. I was ready for Psycho-clone to go though. Soccer/Psychomom was hilarious and I understood why she signed the contract. She loves her family and is a tad gullible.

Now this did bug me:


john4200 said:


> Then Sarah sends an FU message to Proclone before she even makes sure that Kira is safe, even though Sarah now knows that Mrs. S is not who she has claimed to be.


This is as stupid as the characters who tell bad guys holding a gun on them, "I know what you did and I'm going to tell." I expected better from Sarah.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Sarah the character has always had problems with impulse control so texting the clone witch was in character. 

Cosima just found out that she's "sick" so it's not unexpected that she needed a few hours to process the emotions before fessing up to Frenchie.

And yes their reaction to the patent copyright revelation in their DNA sequence should have just been, "Bite me!"


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

All they had was a picture of Mrs S from decades ago. Sure she could have had something to do with it at one time but it doesn't necessarily mean that she is working against Sarah. Kind of hard to raise someone and their child without getting attached to them. At least for someone that has emotions.

And even more so because they made it look like Mrs. S did something, my guess is things will not look like they made it appear. At least that is typical with TV shows.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

aaronwt said:


> All they had was a picture of Mrs S from decades ago. Sure she could have had something to do with it at one time but it doesn't necessarily mean that she is working against Sarah.


What we know for certain is that Mrs. S lied to Sarah for her entire life. Even worse, she continued to lie to Sarah once Sarah revealed her knowledge of being a clone. I don't actually think Mrs. S helped to kidnap Kira, but even so, if I were Kira's mother, the second I found out about S's lies, I would have made a beeline there and taken Kira out of there ASAP, no stop offs to sign a contract with Proclone or send her a nasty email. Getting Kira is priority one.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

The cops were also particularly dumb this episode.

Sarah gets taken out of their custody and released for no good reason. The obvious thing to do would be to investigate the bribes or blackmail that occurred, and the source of that, to cause Sarah to be released. Instead, they go looking for Sarah's ex-boyfriend? Really?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

john4200 said:


> The cops were also particularly dumb this episode.
> Sarah gets taken out of their custody and released for no good reason. The obvious thing to do would be to investigate the bribes or blackmail that occurred, and the source of that, to cause Sarah to be released. Instead, they go looking for Sarah's ex-boyfriend? Really?


I don't see that as problematic. Investigating the powerful is full of obstacles and can be very career damaging. Investigating the people her life to get a better idea of what is going on is a logical step to take.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> All they had was a picture of Mrs S from decades ago. Sure she could have had something to do with it at one time but it doesn't necessarily mean that she is working against Sarah. Kind of hard to raise someone and their child without getting attached to them. At least for someone that has emotions.
> 
> And even more so because they made it look like Mrs. S did something, my guess is things will not look like they made it appear. At least that is typical with TV shows.


Yah, I see the pic as possibly a a red herring that they'll later explain away. Mrs S could have scrammed with the daughter as she'd previously indicated to Sarah that she would do so were the child to be endangered. Maybe next season they'll find an old pic of Mrs S singing with a soul band or something.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

philw1776 said:


> Maybe next season they'll find an old pic of Mrs S singing with a soul band or something.


I'm not sure why people are dismissing this so lightly. Sarah's surrogate mother knew there was something fishy about Mrs. S, she waited to tell Sarah in private, she had a picture to help prove it, Mrs. S actually saw the picture and knew that Amelia was going to tell Sarah something about S's past, and instead of coming clean to Sarah, S. just warned Sarah to be suspicious of Amelia.

That is the behavior of someone who is covering up something from their past that they feel guilty about. It is not something small, otherwise Mrs. S would have told Sarah about it herself. It is likely something that Mrs. S feels guilty about and has since tried to make up for, but whatever it is, it must be serious. Add that to the fact that Mrs. S "ran" with Sarah straight to a city that had several other clones in it, as well as Neolution offices and people. Mrs. S certainly has some dark secret and cannot be trusted, at least until she comes up with a very good explanation. She is much too good a liar to fully trust even then. Compare her to Alison's husband.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Perhaps so but until VERY recently there were serious trust issues between the show's opening self-absorbed rebellious slacker Sarah and Mrs S. Remember that Sarah was not forthcoming to Mrs S about her clone aspect, even after their relationship improved. Sarah is a good liar too. These characters are complexly written and portrayed to the show's credit. Few if any one dimensional types so common on network TV.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Poor Aynsley. Allison be crazy.

Is there some meaning behind the word "proclone" that I'm not getting?

I didn't dislike the episode but there were some things that didn't make sense like Krazy Klone being able to impersonate Sarah and how/why she carried Clone Mama so far. And Sarah, piss off Proclone after you get your daughter out of harm's way.

I kept yelling in my head "Get to the point! Hurry up! Get to the point, you silly woman!" when Sarah began to confess to Art. I knew, I just knew that she was going to be interrupted before she spilled the clone beans because that's the way tv works but she should have told Art.

We all knew there was something shady about Mrs. S. Then we found out that there wasn't anything shady about Mrs. S. Now we know there really is something shady about Mrs. S. Well, until next season's curve balls.

Hot Clone better not die or one of the other ones had better start wearing braids and glasses. For some reason, she's sexier to me than the other clones.

I still don't get why Kira's face is still bruised up if her body healed so fast.

How old are these clones supposed to be? Are they different ages?

Tatiana Maslany deserves an Emmy nomination at the very least.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> Hot Clone better not die or one of the other ones had better start wearing braids and glasses. For some reason, she's sexier to me than the other clones.


Watching suburban clone working out was hot, almost worthy to forget she's cray cray.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I don't remember--why did soccer mom decide her husband was innocent in the first place? Just because she met him years back? And Felix said so?

It seemed out of character for her to let the girl die, even if she was a monitor. We never really saw it, but there was supposed to be a huge bond between them, and she knows that Sarah's monitor was blackmailed into doing it, and came to care for Sarah. After all, she was just an average soccer mom a few weeks ago. 

Were the patent rights supposed to be on the girls themselves, or just the cloning process? That makes no sense. 

Can't wait for next season.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> How old are these clones supposed to be? Are they different ages?


According to their IDs, they're all within a few days of each other...


stellie93 said:


> We never really saw it, but there was supposed to be a huge bond between them, and she knows that Sarah's monitor was blackmailed into doing it, and came to care for Sarah.


I assume you mean Beth's monitor, who came to care for Sarah? Sarah never had a monitor, as far as we know, did she? Except maybe Mrs S, depending on whether she really did run away with Sarah and Felix or whether that was sanctioned...it kinda seems to me that she really did run away, and that she only lied about how much she knew, and that Sarah was off the clone-people's radar until she resurfaced as Beth.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> Were the patent rights supposed to be on the girls themselves, or just the cloning process? That makes no sense.


If human cloning were legalized, you could probably patent the process but there is no way you could claim ownership of a person that resulted from that process even if you did put a tag that says "This clones belongs to..." in their DNA.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Azlen said:


> If human cloning were legalized, you could probably patent the process but there is no way you could claim ownership of a person that resulted from that process even if you did put a tag that says "This clones belongs to..." in their DNA.


Yes, and we actually don't know what CloneCorp is laying claim to...only what Cosima assumes they're laying claim to. So either Cosima or the writers are terribly wrong.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Slavery, Release 2.0 for the 21st century?


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I assume you mean Beth's monitor, who came to care for Sarah?


Duh, right. The guy who was blackmailed because of the friendly fire incident. At least, she has seen monitors as less than evil ogres who deserve to be strangled by their sink. Although, what her "husband" has done to her is the worst of the lot since they've been together so long. Unless Mrs. S is one. And her husband may care for her and be protecting her from someone new coming in. We don't really know much about him.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

philw1776 said:


> Sarah is a good liar too. These characters are complexly written and portrayed to the show's credit. Few if any one dimensional types so common on network TV.


No argument from me. My point was not Sarah=good / Mrs. S = bad. Rather, my point was that Mrs. S has some dark secret, and it is not a minor thing. She should not be trusted unless a very good explanation is forthcoming.

It is amazing how good most of the Neolution people (and associates) are at lying. All three clones had someone who was very important in their life (in two cases, arguably the most important person in their life) lie to them about their association with Neolution, and in the case of Alison and Cosima, even when they had good reason to distrust that person, the clones still fell for the lies. I guess we could add Beth to the list, too, although it is not clear how much she knew about her monitor.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yes, and we actually don't know what CloneCorp is laying claim to...


Actually, we do know what CloneCorp claims:



> This organism and derivative genetic material is restricted intellectual property


They make the outrageous claim that "this organism" is property. If the organism is a mouse, that may be reasonable, but "this organism" is a human being. I suppose you could argue that it was just boilerplate text that they use in all their lab animal experiments and mistakenly copied to the human clones, but really, it hardly seems likely that they would make a mistake like that. Of course, it is such an outrageous claim it is hard to credit it as serious either. That problem is largely responsible for why this episode was so bad.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

cheesesteak said:


> Is there some meaning behind the word "proclone" that I'm not getting?


I don't know. She is a professional woman (and looks like it) and a clone, hence Proclone. Also, you might say that she is pro cloning (rather than anti cloning) since she works for an organization that clones people. If there is any more meaning than that, I don't see it.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> I don't remember--why did soccer mom decide her husband was innocent in the first place? Just because she met him years back? And Felix said so?
> 
> It seemed out of character for her to let the girl die, even if she was a monitor. We never really saw it, but there was supposed to be a huge bond between them, and she knows that Sarah's monitor was blackmailed into doing it, and came to care for Sarah. After all, she was just an average soccer mom a few weeks ago.
> 
> ...


It looked like she was indecisive. Like she wanted to force her to tell her she was the monitor. But it took her so long to decide that it didn't matter any more because she had expired.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> I don't remember--why did soccer mom decide her husband was innocent in the first place? Just because she met him years back? And Felix said so?


IIRC, I think she met him in high school or something.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

This is another show that makes it evident that a season of 10 or 12 episodes is much better than a 22 episode season. All of the creative energy goes toward moving the plot forward instead of mostly meaningless stand alone, monster of the week episodes.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

What got to me was the implication that they weren't real people. At least twice they made reference to helping them become self-aware, or that they were surprised that one of them had become self-aware. That's what you would say about an artificial intelligence experiment, not a person.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

stellie93 said:


> It seemed out of character for her to let the girl die, even if she was a monitor. We never really saw it, but there was supposed to be a huge bond between them, and she knows that Sarah's monitor was blackmailed into doing it, and came to care for Sarah. After all, she was just an average soccer mom a few weeks ago.


She hit soccer mom below the belt with the "barren" comment. She might have been both mad and hurt.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> What got to me was the implication that they weren't real people. At least twice they made reference to helping them become self-aware, or that they were surprised that one of them had become self-aware. That's what you would say about an artificial intelligence experiment, not a person.


I thought they were talking about them being clones.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I thought they were talking about them being clones.


I took it to mean the same thing, they couldn't mention the c-word until they figured it out themselves.
And as far as their genetic code being copyrighted, I thought that was a wonderful touch, it really brings home the whole "measure of a man" aspect of the discussion to have regarding where the science ends.

For me it was an amazing ending episode to an amazing season of a show I had no idea about, this is how scripted drama should be done, the characters actually talk to each other!


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Tatiana Maslany really deserves to have her named repeated multiple times in the opening credits, instead of just once. 

So the show lost Helena but gained Rachel; she's still netting the same number of parts. No rest for her. 

I was struck by her brief "Insider" interview during the commercial - she looked and spoke like none of the existing clones; not a single one of them is her phoning it in, playing herself.

This was a fantastic first season. 

We're all the episodes already shot before the show was picked up for season 2? Because this would not have functioned too well as a satisfying ending for the series.

The garbage disposal death reminded me a lot of a certain much-debated scene in Breaking Bad (that had nothing to do with a garbage disposal).


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Two things bugged me. The aforementioned contract which would have no legal grounds, and the garbage disposal death. Why would having something pull on the _back_ of her neck choke her to death?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

scooterboy said:


> ...and the garbage disposal death. Why would having something pull on the _back_ of her neck choke her to death?


The scarf was wrapped completely around her neck one and a half times (540 degrees), with the two ends in front, and apparently both ends got caught in the disposer and tightened the noose.

Not that it would have actually happened that way. I'm pretty sure the spindle of a garbage disposal motor is inaccessible from the top, so it I don't see how the scarf could get wound up on something. Even if it did, when she pulled back on the scarf the breaker on the motor would surely trigger -- disposers are not made to pull that kind of torque.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It's TV. It seems like at least 9 out of 10 things they show on TV don't occur in the real world.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> It's TV. It seems like at least 9 out of 10 things they show on TV don't occur in the real world.


Like patentable clones.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I'm trying to be generous and interpret the clones' horror at discovering the "intellectual property" notice as being just "wow, they don't even think of us as people," rather than actual (stupid) concern that it had legal meaning. But, I thought they already knew that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> I'm trying to be generous and interpret the clones' horror at discovering the "intellectual property" notice as being just "wow, they don't even think of us as people," rather than actual (stupid) concern that it had legal meaning. But, I thought they already knew that.


They knew the religious fanatics who are trying to kill them don't think of them as people. But I don't think there's been much indication of what the clone-masters think of them, except that they "monitor" them rather aggressively , and that their public figurehead thinks genetic engineering is the future of the human race.

And I repeat, the clones' horror is the clones' horror; it does not have to be grounded in the show's reality (although given the show's sadly lax attitude towards science at times, it wouldn't shock me if it were). They have jumped to a conclusion as to what the "intellectual property" notice refers to, but that conclusion may or may not be correct.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They have jumped to a conclusion as to what the "intellectual property" notice refers to, but that conclusion may or may not be correct.


Huh? What conclusion did they "jump to"? The notice is quite clear. No jumping necessary. It says they and their "derivative genetic material" are intellectual property.

And you keep saying that about "lax science", but the science has actually been pretty good. What are you talking about, exactly?


----------



## awsnyde (May 11, 2007)

john4200 said:


> Huh? What conclusion did they "jump to"? The notice is quite clear.


They, and at least some people watching, have jumped to a specific conclusion that is at odds with what "intellectual property" actually means. It wouldn't mean they own the clones themselves. IANAL, so the wikipedia entry on intellectual property describes it better: Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of _intangible assets_, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.

Basically, the clone makers don't want other companies profiting by using the technologies they developed to create the clones, or any derivative product/drugs/methods that result.

The statement itself doesn't imply that the clones themselves are property, because of the specific meaning of that phrase (and assuming, of course, that the writers understand it), and that's all in addition to the fact that ownership of people--no matter how they were created--would not be held up in any court in North America, which is presumably where the show is set.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

awsnyde said:


> The statement itself doesn't imply that the clones themselves are property, because of the specific meaning of that phrase (and assuming, of course, that the writers understand it), and that's all in addition to the fact that ownership of people--no matter how they were created--would not be held up in any court in North America, which is presumably where the show is set.


For all we know, half the Canadian Supreme Court justices could be behind the scenes investors in the Dyad Institute in this show's universe. Ownership of people should be illegal but who would have thought that corporations could legally be considered people in the real world USA ten years ago. Plus, it's a tv show.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

I loved the whole season, finale included. I was just as happy with the DNA "reveal" as the rest of the storylines. I agree with what this reviewer says about that part of the story:

As for the reveal that the genetic barcode in the clones' DNA was essentially a serial number and a patent that claimed the clones as Dyad's intellectual property, it's the kind of season-finale revelation that falls comfortably between over-the-top shocker and predictable secret. And that's what makes it work so well. It's not flailing for something to blow our minds just for the sake of blowing our minds, it simply fits so well into the overall story and opens the doors to Season 2 wide open while never diminishing the mystery.​


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Saddest part of the whole series so far. "Watch for new episodes in Spring 2014" I SOO didn't want this to end. This has become one of my favorite series (yeah, I know, I say this every week). For all of the stuff that's silly, there is SO much that is fantastic. I agree, this actress better get at least an Emmy nomination. I kind of think of it in the same vein as the actress in the United States of Tara (who's name escapes me) who was nominated after the first season for an Emmy.

It's interesting that the whole DNA being patented thing is actually something that's going to be decided by the Surpreme Court:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/01/will-supreme-court-decide-companies-can-own-human-genes/


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

awsnyde said:


> They, and at least some people watching, have jumped to a specific conclusion that is at odds with what "intellectual property" actually means. It wouldn't mean they own the clones themselves....The statement itself doesn't imply that the clones themselves are property...


Actually, that *is* what it says (no implication necessary). It reads "this organism" is intellectual property. Not some process involved in creating the organism. Not some specific sequence in the DNA. It claims "this organism" (and "derivative genetic material") as intellectual property. Which is ridiculous. How can an organism be *intellectual* property? Especially when that organism is a human being? Even if human cloning were legal, they could not patent the entire DNA sequence, since the vast majority of it was just, uh, cloned. At most they could patent some processes involved in the cloning, possibly including some specific DNA sequences that they invented and modified from the donor DNA for the clones.

What the statement embedded in the DNA means is quite clear. It just does not make any sense. The statement "two plus two equals five" is perfectly clear, but nonsense.

And it seems like the writers are planning to make the corporation kidnapping Kira somehow justified by the "derivative genetic material" claim. I hope they do not follow that absurd story line. Maybe the writers will wise up before season 2.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

john4200 said:


> Which is ridiculous. How can an organism be *intellectual* property? Especially when that organism is a human being?.


Man made soy beans, corn, wheat, RNA, viruses have all been patented and are IP (intellectual property). this has been a d debate for some time now on how life itself can be patented, and where does it stop. also there are no laws to protect human clones.

Real companies like Monsanto sell soy beans but retain over ship of the soy beans. and their derivative work ( seeds from their IP protected strain of soy).

What happened in the episode is a leap, but not outside of how I view what a greedy corp can/would view their IP, and it matches how they've been treating the clones (drug and kidnap at night).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Also, just because it SAYS what it says, doesn't make it LEGAL. I could type This Forum is owned by steveknj, but that doesn't make it so. So, in the real world, there would probably be a huge fight in court. On an entertaining TV show there's going to be runaway clones, murder, suicide and all kinds of other crazy stuff.

As I always say, stop thinking about it and go along for the ride


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

robojerk said:


> Man made soy beans, corn, wheat, RNA, viruses have all been patented and are IP (intellectual property). this has been a d debate for some time now on how life itself can be patented, and where does it stop.


That is a huge exaggeration. All of those things are specific inventions, and the patents are limited to the specific part that was invented. For example, the Monsanto patents are on specific genetic modifications they made, not existing genes, and certainly not an entire genome. Myriad's patents on the BRCA genes are on actual human genes, but I think it is likely that will be turned over in the Supreme Court case, since it clearly violates the Patent Act of 1952 which stipulates that "products of nature" cannot be patented.

In any case, even if human cloning were legal, and even if patenting certain human genes in specific cases holds up in the Supreme Court (very unlikely), it is a huge jump from there to patenting an entire human genome, and an even larger jump from there to patenting a human organism, which is (ahem) patently absurd.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

I feel like maybe they could have worded it a bit more artfully, but I get the intent. I think it was simply:

"This organism and any derivative lifeforms are the property of..."

Things got confused because they added the word "intellectual," which has opened the door to a discussion of IP law and what precisely constitutes IP. But I don't believe it was the show's intent to have us go down that path - the intent was just to have the clones realize "oh no! We've discovered that the mystery organization doesn't even view us as human - to them, we are nothing more than their property!" 

Like a dog discovering its collar names an owner.

Whether the company actually has a colorable claim to them as its property is beside the point - the issue for the show is that that's how the company sees it, and now the clones know.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> That is a huge exaggeration. All of those things are specific inventions, and the patents are limited to the specific part that was invented. For example, the Monsanto patents are on specific genetic modifications they made, not existing genes, and certainly not an entire genome. Myriad's patents on the BRCA genes are on actual human genes, but I think it is likely that will be turned over in the Supreme Court case, since it clearly violates the Patent Act of 1952 which stipulates that "products of nature" cannot be patented.
> 
> In any case, even if human cloning were legal, and even if patenting certain human genes in specific cases holds up in the Supreme Court (very unlikely), it is a huge jump from there to patenting an entire human genome, and an even larger jump from there to patenting a human organism, which is (ahem) patently absurd.


Nah, it's a TV show. The whole human cloning thing is a HUGE leap. I don't think it's any more absurd than something shutting down the entirre power grid (Revolution) or a space vehicle on a 5 year mission where not one character ever ages (Star Trek), or a Smoke Monstor terrorizing human beings on an island that can move locations (Lost). I mean, really, THIS bothers you?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> Nah, it's a TV show. The whole human cloning thing is a HUGE leap. I don't think it's any more absurd than something shutting down the entirre power grid (Revolution) or a space vehicle on a 5 year mission where not one character ever ages (Star Trek), or a Smoke Monstor terrorizing human beings on an island that can move locations (Lost). I mean, really, THIS bothers you?


It is a *science fiction* television show. Good science fiction should make sense. It is fiction, but it should be as realistic as possible, with only a few scientifically plausible leaps that are invented to make a good story.

Human cloning is certainly not a "HUGE leap", except perhaps the timeframe implied (the human clones would have predated the first cloned sheep).

As for Revolution and Lost...Revolution is absolutely horrendous. Lost is not really science fiction, more fantasy, and even giving it more leeway because of that, I do not give it high marks for being consistent.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> It is a *science fiction* television show. Good science fiction should make sense. It is fiction, but it should be as realistic as possible, with only a few scientifically plausible leaps that are invented to make a good story.
> 
> Human cloning is certainly not a "HUGE leap", except perhaps the timeframe implied (the human clones would have predated the first cloned sheep).
> 
> As for Revolution and Lost...Revolution is absolutely horrendous. Lost is not really science fiction, more fantasy, and even giving it more leeway because of that, I do not give it high marks for being consistent.


I think you're stuck on one point that we don't even know if that's what was intended, and might just be worded wrong.

I don't get this whole SCIENCE FICTION has to make sense. Why? Is that like in the laws of good science fiction? Did HG Wells make a lot of sense in the era he wrote those books? Or Jules Verne? What about EVERY Sci Fi book written before the dawn of space travel that had life on mars or any other planet for that matter? From a scientific perspective, what we know NOW about the planets in our solar system life as we know it could not be sustained. Does that make that all BAD science fiction?

I like this description of Science Fiction:

http://www.findmeanauthor.com/science_fiction_genre_definition.htm

Today, based on what we know about the laws of cloaning, what was portrayed here, is not legally right. But does that not make it plausable based on some logic used by the bad guys in the story? It doesn't always matter if we the audience think it's plausable, if the characters think it is.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> I don't get this whole SCIENCE FICTION has to make sense. Why? Is that like in the laws of good science fiction? Did HG Wells make a lot of sense in the era he wrote those books? Or Jules Verne? What about EVERY Sci Fi book written before the dawn of space travel that had life on mars or any other planet for that matter? From a scientific perspective, what we know NOW about the planets in our solar system life as we know it could not be sustained. Does that make that all BAD science fiction?


Science makes sense of the world. So should science fiction.

Yes, H.G. Wells and Jules Verne wrote some good science fiction. They also got some things wrong. But that does not necessarily mean it did not make sense at the time. Speculating on something that is not well understood scientifically and being wrong is not the same as being inconsistent or not making sense.

Any science fiction that has life on Mars that is at all similar to earth life, that was written after we had a good idea of the conditions of Mars, is not good science fiction. Kim Stanley Robinson's tales about Mars are good science fiction. Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom series, not so good, although perhaps some of the errors can be forgiven since they were written well before the first Mars probe flyby.

But I am not sure why we are even discussing that, since getting science right was not the issue with this episode. It was actually getting property and IP law confused that was the biggest issue in this episode.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Science makes sense of the world. So should science fiction.
> 
> Yes, H.G. Wells and Jules Verne wrote some good science fiction. They also got some things wrong. But that does not necessarily mean it did not make sense at the time. Speculating on something that is not well understood scientifically and being wrong is not the same as being inconsistent or not making sense.
> 
> ...


Agreed, but it's not a law show either, now is it?  Seriously, outside of that, perhaps minor, mistake, I don't see how it's not plausbile. You were the one who said because it's science fiction it has to make sense. Well the rest of it is plausible if you buy into that human cloning is possible. We will have to see where this goes and how they justify the intellectual property issue next season. I don't think that alone is enough to ruin that last episode for me. In fact, I could buy into the fact that the bad buy thinks it SHOULD be intellectual property, and that the clones are going to rebel from that notion. Are the big baddies going to sue in court? I think it's more of a conceptual thing to get them to rebel next season from being considered property, instead of real humans.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> Agreed, but it's not a law show either, now is it?


The problem is that the whole statement was completely ridiculous -- it makes no sense. You don't have to have a "mathematics show" to say that it is absurd for a character to claim that two plus two equals five.

You are welcome to dismiss everything that is wrong with any TV show with "it is only TV". But I expect better from TV shows. As a minimum standard, they should never have something that makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

My only disappointment with the show is that with all the clones, not one featured has a career in the "Canadian ballet"? Season 2 please!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> The problem is that the whole statement was completely ridiculous -- it makes no sense. You don't have to have a "mathematics show" to say that it is absurd for a character to claim that two plus two equals five.
> 
> You are welcome to dismiss everything that is wrong with any TV show with "it is only TV". But I expect better from TV shows. As a minimum standard, they should never have something that makes absolutely no sense.


But you were complaining that this was a Science Fiction show, and that it made no sense, but the part that made no sense was not a science fiction issue but a legal one. That's my point, is it bad SciFi because of a legal point? THAT makes no sense.

This is a terrific show. This keeps me entertainined, has terrific acting and all the things I enjoy in a TV show. One little point that may have just been a silly error in legalize is enough to ruin this show for you? If that's the case, you take your TV WAY too seriously. M*A*S*H was a terrific comedy, but the contiuity errors in that show were SO egregious that it makes this look piddly. Does that make M*A*S*H a horrible show?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

john4200 said:


> But I am not sure why we are even discussing that, since getting science right was not the issue with this episode. It was actually getting property and IP law confused that was the biggest issue in this episode.


Actually what Rob has been saying is correct. All we have now is Cosima's interpretation of what she found. The clone company has not tried to exercise any claims. No court has decided that the clones were property of the corporation. Nothing. The message in their DNA is essentially meaningless until the corporation tries to act on it, regardless of Cosima's interpretation.
If the courts or the police decide that the clones are the property of the corporation in season 2 then I will grab a pitchfork and join you.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> The message in their DNA is essentially meaningless until the corporation tries to act on it, regardless of Cosima's interpretation.


Actually, what Rob has been saying is incorrect. He said that we do not know what the corporation claims. He did not say we do not know what the corporation will do.

We know exactly what was claimed. I already quoted it in this thread. It is nonsense.

You are incorrect when you claim all we have is Cosima's interpretation. We actually have the exact words that are coded in the clones' DNA. It is nonsense.

We also know that the corporation cannot possibly act on that claim, since it is utter nonsense. The message is not "essentially meaningless until the corporation tries to act on it". The message is complete nonsense regardless of whether the corporation tries to act on it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> One little point that may have just been a silly error in legalize is enough to ruin this show for you? If that's the case, you take your TV WAY too seriously.


1) It is not one little point -- it was portrayed as *the* huge revelation for the season finale.

2) I did not say it ruined the show for me, I said it ruined the episode. It could ruin the show if they continue in a similar vein next season.

3) I also cited other problems with this episode

4) Your standards for TV are way too low


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Actually, what Rob has been saying is incorrect. He said that we do not know what the corporation claims. He did not say we do not know what the corporation will do.
> 
> We know exactly what was claimed. I already quoted it in this thread. It is nonsense.
> 
> ...


We know what the corporation claimed ~30 years ago, we don't know what they claim today because they haven't acted on it.
It was a dumb revelation because they can't do anything credible with it, but they haven't taken it there yet. All they've done so far is find an old message that means nothing.


----------



## jgickler (Apr 7, 2000)

I think the big horror of the patent isn't necessarily that the clones are the property of a corporation, it is that the corporation views the clones as their property, regardless of the legality of it. 

If the corporation views the clones as property, then the moral or ethical dilemma are minimal. 

Is it wrong to lie to your property? How about cause pain, secretly test, or even kill? 

Whether or not a court agrees or not, the fact that they feel justified in treating the clones as property is what really is scary. The clones have been treated as if they were property since the show began, now they just have confirmation in their own DNA that in the eyes of their creators, they are not individuals, just property.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

john4200 said:


> But I expect better from TV shows. As a minimum standard, they should never have something that makes absolutely no sense.


In every single TV show where they use computers or related tech there is always something that makes no sense at all to me since I know quite a bit about the subject.

I am sure that everyone who has a certain level of knowledge about any subject feels the same when TV shows try to use their field of expertise in their stories.

TV show writers are TV show writers, not (computer) scientists, sure they have people around they can ask questions but if they don't ask the right questions they won't get the right answers either.

I am also quite sure that if you name one or more TV shows that are up to your standards that someone on these boards can shoot holes into one or more things they do...


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They knew the religious fanatics who are trying to kill them don't think of them as people. But I don't think there's been much indication of what the clone-masters think of them, except that they "monitor" them rather aggressively , and that their public figurehead thinks genetic engineering is the future of the human race.
> 
> And I repeat, the clones' horror is the clones' horror; it does not have to be grounded in the show's reality (although given the show's sadly lax attitude towards science at times, it wouldn't shock me if it were). *They have jumped to a conclusion as to what the "intellectual property" notice refers to, but that conclusion may or may not be correct.*





john4200 said:


> Huh? What conclusion did they "jump to"? The notice is quite clear. No jumping necessary. It says they and their "derivative genetic material" are intellectual property.
> 
> And you keep saying that about "lax science", but the science has actually been pretty good. What are you talking about, exactly?





john4200 said:


> That is a huge exaggeration. All of those things are specific inventions, and the patents are limited to the specific part that was invented. For example, the Monsanto patents are on specific genetic modifications they made, not existing genes, and certainly not an entire genome. Myriad's patents on the BRCA genes are on actual human genes, but I think it is likely that will be turned over in the Supreme Court case, since it clearly violates the Patent Act of 1952 which stipulates that "products of nature" cannot be patented.
> 
> In any case, even if human cloning were legal, and even if patenting certain human genes in specific cases holds up in the Supreme Court (very unlikely), it is a huge jump from there to patenting an entire human genome, and an even larger jump from there to patenting a human organism, which is (ahem) patently absurd.


I assumed that they intent, regardless of the legal limitations, is like the statement made in the first Robocop movie:



> What did you think? That you were an ordinary police officer person? You're our product and we can't very well have our products turning against us, can we?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jgickler said:


> I think the big horror of the patent isn't necessarily that the clones are the property of a corporation, it is that the corporation views the clones as their property, regardless of the legality of it.
> 
> If the corporation views the clones as property, then the moral or ethical dilemma are minimal.
> 
> ...


Excellent points. Also consider that 30 years ago, this was all a new fronteir. Maybe the "corporation" involved was just claiming this, because they could. Had the courts even considered human cloaning 30 years ago? If so, did they understand the reprocussions? Let's not say this whole thing is stupid until we know where they are heading with this.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

AeneaGames said:


> In every single TV show where they use computers or related tech there is always something that makes no sense at all to me since I know quite a bit about the subject.
> 
> I am sure that everyone who has a certain level of knowledge about any subject feels the same when TV shows try to use their field of expertise in their stories.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Find me the TV show that got everything right and I'll bet someone will say they got it wrong and have "proof" that it's wrong too. I think we expect too much from our TV writers. If they researched EVERY think, no show would ever get written. Now, John's point is this is a major plot development, and I agree. But I think it's too soon to say it's dumb until we see where they are taking it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Excellent points. Also consider that 30 years ago, this was all a new frontier. Maybe the "corporation" involved was just claiming this, because they could. Had the courts even considered human cloning 30 years ago? If so, did they understand the repercussions? Let's not say this whole thing is stupid until we know where they are heading with this.


And again, we don't know what they're claiming. Certain people's certainty notwithstanding, the "notice" is vague. As has been said a couple of times, human beings are not in any sense intellectual property. It likely refers to the genetic material in the human beings.

Which makes some sense. If they are trying to develop some kind of super-soldier (and Kyra's abilities would certainly be useful in that context), then what CloneCorp owns is the ability to make people with those characteristics. Such "intellectual property" would only be useful if it could not be freely replicated, and everybody seems surprised to the point of freak-out that Sarah had a child. It stands to reason that they would make their super-soldiers sterile, so that the only way to get super-soldiers would be to pay CloneCorp; otherwise, super-soldiers would beget other super-soldiers and dilute the value of the brand. Sarah represents a pretty serious flaw in their business plan.

So to CloneCorp, the clones are not literally property; they are containers for property (i.e., the genetic material CloneCorp has developed).

Of course, this isn't necessarily the way they're going. It could be that all the silly things that people in the show have said about clones and cloning are true, and the show just doesn't care about the science. I hope that's not the direction they're headed, but it wouldn't ruin the show for me (unless they really botch it)...just make me roll my eyes a little more often than I'd like.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Excellent points. Also consider that 30 years ago, this was all a new fronteir. Maybe the "corporation" involved was just claiming this, because they could. Had the courts even considered human cloaning 30 years ago? If so, did they understand the reprocussions? Let's not say this whole thing is stupid until we know where they are heading with this.


The concept that humans can't be property was not new thirty years ago.

In the unlikely event of a court case, Neolution (or whoever) would have to argue that the clones aren't human. I think this would be laughed out immediately. Just put one of them on the stand for five minutes -- she passes the Turing Test. The only people who'd agree that they weren't human would be, ironically, the religious nuts -- but even then, the more rational religious types would point out that no, they're really not much different from identical twins, and nobody says _they_ don't have souls.

Neolution would have a stronger case -- though still not much of one, IMO -- if they could show that, in fundamental ways, the clones _weren't_ human -- if the human-seeming traits were all reverse-engineered, and had completely different gene sequences behind them than in a normal human. This could explain why all the clones except Sarah appear to be sterile (and we can suppose that Kira was the product of more experiments, rather than natural conception), as well as why they seem to be breaking down (Katya and Cosima so far). But, I think this is contradicted by the fact that, IIRC, the cops have already looked at some clone DNA (for identification purposes), and we didn't hear them saying things like "Hey, this isn't human DNA." Oh, and Cosima did, too. Also I think this would've been way beyond 1983 capabilities (basic cloning is just barely plausible).


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And again, we don't know what they're claiming. Certain people's certainty notwithstanding, the "notice" is vague. As has been said a couple of times, human beings are not in any sense intellectual property. It likely refers to the genetic material in the human beings.
> 
> Which makes some sense. If they are trying to develop some kind of super-soldier (and Kyra's abilities would certainly be useful in that context), then what CloneCorp owns is the ability to make people with those characteristics. Such "intellectual property" would only be useful if it could not be freely replicated, and everybody seems surprised to the point of freak-out that Sarah had a child. It stands to reason that they would make their super-soldiers sterile, so that the only way to get super-soldiers would be to pay CloneCorp; otherwise, super-soldiers would beget other super-soldiers and dilute the value of the brand. Sarah represents a pretty serious flaw in their business plan.
> 
> ...


By the way, speaking of Sarah being unexpected and all, and no knowledge of her abilities inherited from the cloning process, did anyone else get a vib off of Sarah in the last episode that she might be clairvoyant? It was the off hand way she said matter-of-factly that something bad was going to happen, and another time, that I forget just now.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> By the way, speaking of Sarah being unexpected and all, and no knowledge of her abilities inherited from the cloning process, did anyone else get a vib off of Sarah in the last episode that she might be clairvoyant? It was the off hand way she said matter-of-factly that something bad was going to happen, and another time, that I forget just now.


I got more of a feeling the Kira was clairvoyant, not Sarah. Who I think you meant. Sarah is Kira's mom (at least we "think"  )


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Sarah is Kira's mom (at least we "think"  )


Kind of hard to trick a woman into thinking she gave birth. Are you suggesting that Kira is the result of a clandestine baby swap? Since Leekie's organization didn't even know about Kira, who could have done it?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

tivogurl said:


> Kind of hard to trick a woman into thinking she gave birth. Are you suggesting that Kira is the result of a clandestine baby swap? Since Leekie's organization didn't even know about Kira, who could have done it?


Could be. Has a father even been mentioned for Kira? I don't recall how Sarah came to having Kira. Maybe whoever the father is, could be part of the conspiracy. Thinking outloud at outlandish possibilties, perhaps the father tricked Sarah into thinking she was naturally pregnant and gave her some invetro injection while she was sleeping. Yeah, outlandish for sure, but you never know with this show.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I got more of a feeling the Kira was clairvoyant, not Sarah. Who I think you meant. Sarah is Kira's mom (at least we "think"  )


Yes, you are correct. I got that backward. Hey, it was about midnight when I wrote it... um, it's 1:30AM now.  I gotta get some sleep!


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

One thing the clones haven't thought about is how they now have some pretty damning evidence if they wanted to go public, and they could have Neolution over a barrel and squealing if they did. Of course, at the price of having their own lives become a media nightmare forever, but even so, it's leverage.

I wonder who Mrs. S can turn out to be, given that Neolution didn't know about Kira all this time, so it seems she can't be someone associated with them, even if that's what we're being led to think.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Did they know about Sarah before this? Did they know that they had "lost" one of the clones? And they didn't know about Kira because they had lost Sarah? Unless Mrs. S just didn't tell them about Kira because she loved her. French girl didn't tell them about her either, but she was still working for them at the time. I wonder if she still is?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

cheesesteak said:


> Is there some meaning behind the word "proclone" that I'm not getting?


Because proclone is obviously older, I took it to mean prototype.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

scandia101 said:


> Because proclone is obviously older, I took it to mean prototype.


What made her obviously older? I took 'proclone' to mean she's a professional clone. Big office, has some power, works for their creators.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> Because proclone is obviously older


Not obvious to me. At first I assumed she was, but that was because I thought (after the last episode) that she was The Original. Once that no longer seemed to be the case, I couldn't really see any signs that she was older.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> Not obvious to me. At first I assumed she was, but that was because I thought (after the last episode) that she was The Original. Once that no longer seemed to be the case, I couldn't really see any signs that she was older.


Right, and they did so little (i.e., nothing) to make her look older, that given how good they've been at distinguishing the different characters, I would have to assume that if she were older, she would have looked older.

She was just dressed nicer.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Just finished the whole season.

I watched it based on popping in to a couple of series threads and finding generally positive reviews, however overall I found it pretty disappointing. It was watchable and enjoyable enough but at times it was farcical and unrealistic, with lots of cliche style TV show flaws. The fact that it really didn't resolve properly didn't help my feeling.

Ultimately disappointing.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

"unrealistic"? it's a Tv show. Why would it be realistic? And it's a TV show about clones. Nothing screams realistic about it. Just like the vast majority of other shows on TV.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> Just finished the whole season.
> 
> I watched it based on popping in to a couple of series threads and finding generally positive reviews, however overall I found it pretty disappointing. It was watchable and enjoyable enough but at times it was farcical and unrealistic, with lots of cliche style TV show flaws. *The fact that it really didn't resolve properly didn't help my feeling.*
> 
> Ultimately disappointing.


Really? so every show should just wrap everything up at the end of the season, pack it up and go home? One season and we're done? Great idea but that's not the way shows work very often, only the Brits seem to be able to pull that off.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> Just finished the whole season.
> 
> I watched it based on popping in to a couple of series threads and finding generally positive reviews, however overall I found it pretty disappointing. It was watchable and enjoyable enough but at times it was farcical and unrealistic, with lots of cliche style TV show flaws. The fact that it really didn't resolve properly didn't help my feeling.
> 
> Ultimately disappointing.


You do realize that this show is not a one and done series. There will be a S2 coming next year. So why would they wrap it up?

It's fiction and it's about clones, what do you want that's realistic? Heck, the case of the week, TV police procedural is probably less realistic than this.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> Just finished the whole season.
> 
> I watched it based on popping in to a couple of series threads and finding generally positive reviews, however overall I found it pretty disappointing. It was watchable and enjoyable enough but at times it was farcical and unrealistic, with lots of cliche style TV show flaws. The fact that it really didn't resolve properly didn't help my feeling.
> 
> Ultimately disappointing.


Tastes differ. What some see as farce I see as a show poking fun at itself especially with the soccer mom from hell clone. Person of Interest is another sci-fi aspect show that often pokes fun at its main characters. I like this when it's done well and intelligently as in OB and POI.

Again, OB is sci-fi. Understandable that some can't accept sic-fi premises, even those as current and close to reality as OB. We're not talking faster than light spaceships here.

I don't know many TV "drama" series that resolve at season's end.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

philw1776 said:


> Tastes differ. What some see as farce I see as a show poking fun at itself especially with the soccer mom from hell clone. Person of Interest is another sci-fi aspect show that often pokes fun at its main characters. I like this when it's done well and intelligently as in OB and POI.
> 
> Again, OB is sci-fi. Understandable that some can't accept sic-fi premises, even those as current and close to reality as OB. We're not talking faster than light spaceships here.
> 
> I don't know many TV "drama" series that resolve at season's end.


Well there are some who don't see this as "real" sci-fi either, because they feel the premise is unrealistic. Honestly, I don't care what genre it's in. It's entertaining, mostly well written, and the characters are intriguing.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Well there are some who don't see this as "real" sci-fi either, because they feel the premise is unrealistic. *Honestly, I don't care what genre it's in. It's entertaining, mostly well written, and the characters are intriguing.*


A million times this. My wife, who runs the other way when she sees SyFy appear on-screen, loves this show. She doesn't give two hoots about DNA markers or how legit the clones are or whatever, it's simply well-written and incredibly well acted. Strangely enough pw1776, this and POI are two of the few shows we watch together.

I have a feeling Tatiana Maslany may get an Emmy nom for being in one of the more obscure shows on TV today.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> A million times this. My wife, who runs the other way when she sees SyFy appear on-screen, loves this show. She doesn't give two hoots about DNA markers or how legit the clones are or whatever, it's simply well-written and incredibly well acted. Strangely enough pw1776, this and POI are two of the few shows we watch together.
> 
> I have a feeling Tatiana Maslany may get an Emmy nom for being in one of the more obscure shows on TV today.


I hope she does. I can't tell you how many times I forget that it's the same actress playing all those parts.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I hope she does. I can't tell you how many times I forget that it's the same actress playing all those parts.


Is it just me, or is Allison somehow thinner than the others?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> Is it just me, or is Allison somehow thinner than the others?


She looks shorter too. Must be the yoga pants


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

Front page of today's L.A. Times (actually a 4-page ad wrapped around the front section):










The back showed all 7 characters.

Okay, so if she doesn't get an Emmy nomination, it's not BBC America's fault.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dang, that's dedication!

Hope it pays off...

(I really can't see much chance that she'll win, given Hollywood's genre allergies when it comes to awards, but I'd sure like to see a nom!)


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

The actress who plays Sarah is pretty phenomenal, but the actress who plays Allison is even better.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I still say the one who plays Cosima beats them both, hands down.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

I really, really miss this show.

Trying to stay safe from psycho suburban soccer moms over the summer


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

And on the topic here's an interview with the show's creators with mild spoiler hints of where they're going with Season 2. I'm pleased (and RH will be too) to read that they thought thru a 3 season arc and denouement, although leaving it open for expansion.

http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/your-orphan-black-questions-answered.html?mid=vulture_newsletter


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Good for BBCA! More TOMA awareness can only help.:up:



philw1776 said:


> I really, really miss this show.


I changed the SP to record all, and when the reruns finally start airing again, I'm going to bug the hell out of my TV friends to watch this show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> I changed the SP to record all, and when the reruns finally start airing again, I'm going to bug the hell out of my TV friends to watch this show.


I actually kept all ten, at least until the blu-rays come out, in case I want a summer marathon. Never done that before...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

It wasn't so much to rewatch. I just needed a way to know when they're airing again. Once they show up in the To-Do List, I'll start the "you gotta watch this show" process with a few friends.

The only series I have saved is all 30 GoT. Having said that... I've been recording every Veronica Mars, so I can watch the entire series. Never watched it. I think I have almost all of them. Some network shows two eps a day, and I'm just a few days from having them all. Then I can binge watch.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> Well there are some who don't see this as "real" sci-fi either, because they feel the premise is unrealistic. Honestly, I don't care what genre it's in. It's entertaining, mostly well written, and the characters are intriguing.


Seems I have hurt your feelings. 

I pretty much watch nothing but SciFi, I just thought this was not a great show. I had to force myself through the last couple of episodes. It gave me that feeling that quite a few lower budget, thrown together, shows do. I thought the idea was great but it was not well executed.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Recorded, removed commercials, and placed in my Plex library. Ready for Season 2.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Well if you insist on removing commercials they'll stop making the shows !!!!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> Well if you insist on removing commercials they'll stop making the shows !!!!


And if you stop watching, they'll stop making the show!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> Seems I have hurt your feelings.
> 
> I pretty much watch nothing but SciFi, I just thought this was not a great show. I had to force myself through the last couple of episodes. It gave me that feeling that quite a few lower budget, thrown together, shows do. I thought the idea was great but it was not well executed.


I never got any of that. i thought it was well written and interesting throughout.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

No Emmy nom for Tatiana. Travesty!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cherry ghost said:


> No Emmy nom for Tatiana. Travesty!


To be expected, though. Too close to science fiction. If they nominated somebody for a performance in a science fiction show, people might think they were validating the notion that science fiction can be as good as real television.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Oh well. Guess I won't be watching the Emmys this year. Then again, I never watch the Emmys but this year I'll be actively boycotting the show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I never watch the Emmys, but I agree, a travesty. But I expected it.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Wow!

I just got done watching this, and am sorry I ignored it before. For some reason, I was under the impression that this was more of a soap opera type of drama than sci-fi. I think at one point while watching a slightly time-shifted Doctor Who, I happened to pop out right when Allison was posing as Sarah to meet Kira. And I also remember seeing the "previously on" scenes of when Sarah first met the clones in the padding of one or more of my Doctor Who recordings.

But even though I knew that there was cloning involved, I was thinking of it more in terms of the soap opera "I found my long lost sister who was separated at birth" motif rather than the "evil corporation created us, and is experimenting on us" one. Although, after realizing how wrong I was upon watching the first few episodes, I did get a kick out of the fact that they did end up throwing that in at the end anyway.  But it did provide a good explanation for why nobody knew about Sarah, or even thought to look for her. And it also explains why Leekie thought she was Helena.



wmcbrine said:


> I'm trying to be generous and interpret the clones' horror at discovering the "intellectual property" notice as being just "wow, they don't even think of us as people," rather than actual (stupid) concern that it had legal meaning. But, I thought they already knew that.


That's how I took it. If Cosima actually thought she was owned, she would have said, "Well, you might as well sign the contract since they own us anyway." The fact that she told Sarah not to sign the contract demonstrates that this is an issue of trust, not property rights.

The whole promise behind the contract was, "We care about you, we want you to be able to live your own lives, and we want to protect you." But their "branding" indicates that the company is really only concerned with protecting them as property, not as people. I'm sure they all suspected this already to some degree, especially Sarah. But they also held out hope that maybe the company really was only concerned with studying their behavior and health from a distance. The fact that it went so far as to tag their DNA is clear evidence to indicate otherwise. Perhaps Leekie might try to argue that it was all in the past, but then he would have to explain why he didn't admit it before, and why he tried to cover it up in the sequencing he gave to Cosima.

Even as extreme as Leekie's company is, however, I highly doubt that they would try to make a legal claim that they owned a living person. It makes more sense that the "copyright" was on the individual embryonic cells to prevent others from taking those cells, and making their own clones. This, of course, does not prevent Leekie's company from trying to claim them in other ways, living or dead. Perhaps some have unwittingly signed over their bodies to be studied by the Dyad Institute postmortem. And the world can be a dangerous place...


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I finally watched like the last 5 episodes of the show. Really loving the show!!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Just finished S01, and the this last ep certainly had a lot of WTF moments....now to start on S02

Thoroughly enjoyed the entire season despite the naysayers (whom EVERYONE knows unfortunately -- thank goodness they're on my IL)...


----------

