I will say that the instant "oh, he must be trans" and not "oh ****, he's a dude" response from EVERYONE that meets yorick is a bit much.

Agreed. I'd like to think all that sh*t would go out the window in a situation like that. Otherwise, it just comes across as petty, since there really isn't much to debate, and the way forward is pretty cut and dry. "Survival" is the only real goal/answer. Then again, maybe it would just exasperate the partisan divide, and I do at least understand the power-grab conflict at the very top.

I don't know about that. I don't have a problem imagining that if all the women died in a day, multiple 16chan posters would blame the libs and start hunting down any RINOs?

All bets are indeed off when it comes to 16chan...

Also keep in mind the two conservative caricatures that have been shown are 1) the president's daughter (who doesn't seem to have any reason behind her beliefs other than that is how she was raise. And 2)the secretary that just got back from Israel, who is a Dominionist. And if Dominionist don't scare you, you aren't paying attention.

Had never heard the term "Dominionist" before, and just looked it up. Yeah, screw that. I must have missed that reference in the show itself.

Yeah, they should have had the Israelis drop her into the Atlantic. 355 would have been happy to help arrange it.

The DC storyline is lazy crap that drags the show to a glacial pace. Shouldn't have taken this long to get to Dr Mann. That part of the story is the best by far and the DC stuff is largely adapted/filler junk anyway.

I don't see this making it to conclusion unless they pick up the pace.

Just FYI, this isn't a limited series. They apparently have multiple seasons planned.

Do they have a set run planned? Or is this going to be like the Lost or the walking dead, where they will keep going until the audience gets tired of it?

I heard someone on a podcast not associated with the show say that they have a five-season arc planned. No idea how accurate that is, though.

Yes I know, I mentioned the 5 seasons plan a while back. The slow pace and focusing on the wrong storyline is liable to kill it before we see the conclusion is my fear.

When did they say she was a Dominionist?

Weird that there were no parts about Hero in this episode.

They mentioned in passing that she was added to the ticket to win over the radical right of the party and they mentioned the KKK at one point as well. I don't think they ever said the word "dominionism."

Combined with her being in Israel, these are the lines I was thinking about when I said she was a Dominionist. It might be wrong but I based on they way they are portraying the other conservatives as caricatures I'd be shocked if they didn't go this route.

That's fair. We will just have to see where they go with her character.

Wiki says this season only has 9 episodes. Can anyone confirm that?

9 is what I've read.

TCTTS said:

---

jeffk said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Read the description of the show on Hulu and immediate eye roll when you see "cisgendered" in it. You automatically know they've applied an additional leftist filter that will make it way too on the nose vs what it was in the books.

---

Saw the same terminology used in the show description and attributed it to Hulu attempting to head off any questions about whether the deaths affected all men or all cisgender men. Haven't watched episode one yet but will tonight. I've read the graphic novels and I'm definitely interested to see how they port over all the storylines to a series.

---

Exactly. It's a way of saying that the virus or whatever affects all individuals born biologically male/with a Y chromosome. And that it didn't effect men who were born as women. I have zero issue with that aspect, I believe it's worth noting in the description, and I actually find the prospect compelling of potentially following characters in this world who were born women but are now living as men. But yeah, that particular aspect has nothing to do with a "leftist filter."

My only real complaint is the portrayal of the short-lived male president, who's basically the laziest caricature of a Republican president you can imagine, played by the most vanilla/networky white guy actor ever. Luckily, though, because of the nature of the premise, we don't have to deal with him for long.

Overall, bottom line, there was no way that a version of this show, in 2021, could focus primarily on the last man on earth in world full of women, as I understand the comic did. So they've simply amped up the focus on the female characters as well. Now, one could certainly argue that in that case, they shouldn't have bothered even adapting it, which is a fair point. That said, while I have my minor issues with the pilot, the show really is incredibly well done so far, and worth at least giving it shot. I'm diving into episode two and maybe three tonight, and am genuinely looking forward to it...

---

As with any story, the author/writer/director/producer/etc should always be asking, "Am I using stereotypical caricatures and tired tropes that lack depth so I can build a sad strawman as a foil to the characters I like and want to create or to pander to someone?"

If the answer is no, then they need to ask someone they despise or vehemently disagree with, and go with that answer. If the answer is yes, then they need to take step back and either abandon the idea or project, or have some self-reflection time to develop something more balanced, nuanced, and realistic. Otherwise, the most likely outcome is they just make a mockery of whatever character or point they're trying to make and create a cheap, shallow product. It's not going to win anyone over, it's only going to distract, and it's only going to appeal to those in the choir already.



And there's a certain irony in the use of the term "cisgendered" men here. On the one hand, it validates the idea of trans people physically being the gender they identify with through its use, so anyone on the opposite side of the aisle is immediately put off based on the description alone. On the other, the real world consequences in the story show that even though those trans people identify as a gender, it doesn't matter because they're not fundamentally and biologically what they purport to be. There may be plenty of trans men in this fictional world, but they're still women incapable of reproducing. And all the trans women are dead. All that really mattered was the Y chromosome, feelings be damned (You're right about that being a potentially interesting plot point because they'd be forced to come to terms with that, but there's no way in Hell that whining mame it on screen). So anyone who would complain about not specifying that this is only "cisgender" men should really be offended by the story because it, intentionally or not, points out that trans women are in fact not women and trans men are in fact not men. Maybe the fact they don't explore that aspect is their way of tap dancing around the whole thing.

Yeah, the DC storyline is a problem to me. In the comics, it's such a miniscule part of the story and the power struggle is resolved fairly quickly. In the show they have added lazy caricatures to act as the antagonist to Diane Lane's character. If it was to be short lived like the comic it would be one thing but this is all essentially filler that is delaying the development of the important characters (355, Yorick & Mann). There really isn't anything interesting happening in that storyline for me.

I'm not a "source material purist" by any means but I just don't see how this fits within the original themes and it feels like a distraction from the main story. The choice of making a DC political drama in the middle of this story is just so weird to me and I wonder if they decided to make it a bigger part before or after hiring Diane Lane (considering she is the biggest name actor) or if when they recast Yorick did they lose footage and need something to fill the gap?

I think it's an attempted gender and social commentary thing. It's an inescapable aspect of a storyline line like this, but any kind of social commentary has to be intentionally and fairly two sided, otherwise it's inevitably self defeating and hurts the storytelling.

Take the, "She's got help," scene from End Game as the perfect example. It's clearly only for social commentary. There is one camp that doesn't care that it's cheesy, makes no plot sense, and is as on the nose as you can get. They WANT that in your face messaging and intentionality of female equality and empowerment. Then there's the other camp that views it as distracting, cheesy, needless, and nonsensical in a movie that is already playing on some tired plotlines and breaks its own rules. They don't want that kind of messaging because they feel it's unnecessary and distracting and makes the story that much messier.

The problem is that the former camp already believes in female equality and empowerment. They're just looking for reinforcement, and you're not really gaining anything here. The latter camp may or may not believe in female equality and empowerment, but adding that kind of scene isn't going to win anyone there over or make them suddenly see the light. So the scene, on the whole, really adds nothing.

And it's even somewhat detrimental. If Captain Marvel, and by extension every female character and all women, are so powerful in their own right, then she, and they, shouldn't need such a cheesy and on the nose scene to make the point to begin with. Truly strong female characters should be strong in their own right and not compared to men, and especially weakened male caricatures. If women's accomplishments are always thought of in comparison to men's or if they specifically need a scene like this to be empowered, then they're really not powerful and independent. They're defined by their own insecurities about how they measure up to men, not by how they define themselves or how they are defined on their own merits in a vacuum, and that's not only unfair, but sexist and wrong. They have no real agency as a character because they are bounded by the needless comparison, and all the comparison does is reinforce the fact that some perceived gap between the sexes actually exists instead of eliminating it by acting (no pun intended) as if it wasn't there in the first place. So all that scene ultimately does is fluff everyone already on the bandwagon and tell everyone else that a terrible scene had to be added to an already convoluted movie so women can keep trying to measure up. Thank God for The Boys and, "Girl's get it done."

And back to the story at hand, if the male characters are shallow strawmen, what does that make the women who now exist in a world that is crumbling because they're no longer in it? If there is an attempt here to develop strong female characters or make some kind of gender commentary, they're not really helping themselves. If they're also going for political or social commentary, all of the same issues apply. The only people you'll appeal to are the ones who view the sad tropes you're using as foils as realistic already, and they aren't getting anything new from your commentary. Everyone else is going to look at the attempt and either view it as offensive to them personally or just another example of poor writing and character development. Either way, you're just getting in your own way and not accomplishing what you set out to do. IMO,there's some needless crap here and ideological self high fiving that hurts the overall storytelling.

LOL.

As a non-book reader (or graphic novel or comic or whatever), the DC plot line itself doesn't feel at all out of place to me. I would 100% expect a show dealing with this subject matter to focus on that aspect. Mainly, it's just the cliched, caricature nature of it at times that causes some of us to roll our eyes.

Part of the problem is that I have a very analytical mindset. When I watch or read something, it's difficult to suspend disbelief. If something in the plot doesn't make sense or a character feels like a cardboard cutout, it's very distracting. Another is that this kind of thing has become so pervasive and mainstream it's really hard not to see it or think about it in a wider context. I could say much the same about several books, moves, or TV shows because they all suffer from the same fatal flaw, IMO.

If a creator is going to go through the trouble of making a theme lurid and obvious through their plot and character choices, they want you to think about it. If they try to make the messaging conspicuous or exaggerate it through character and plot choices, that's what is going to draw my focus and thought. The more conspicuous the message, the deeper the critique.

The problem is when creators try to be subtle without actually being subtle, like when they have strawman foils or nonsensical, borderline overt dialogue or scenes. It's like a poorly performed magic trick that makes you stop looking at the assistant and focus on the magician and the mechanics. Once you do, the magic is gone. You can see the deception and know it for what it is, and once it's been seen, it can't be unseen. As soon as I see a cheap stereotype or nonsensical scene, I'm going to question the motivation behind it and the framing and motivation of everything else.

It's bad filler material so far and that's problematic. If it expanded on the themes of the material in an intelligent manner it would be one thing.

I'm curious how the larger deviations from source material so far impact the overall story.

Holy hell you know how to kill a buzz.

Episode 5 was dope.
I can't recall a positively GOOD decision that Yorick has made. 355 Gives zero ****s. Can you think of a possibly worst post apocalyptic animal to have than a monkey? He's noisy as hell.

I haven't read the comics so I'm only speculating on




There's this woman that activated all these agents and then just ghosted. I think her red tag in the duffel meant she iced blonde. No room for two bad *****es in this show. I dont remember when 355 got that napkin note with the address?

Note was in her personal box that she retrieved in an earlier episode.

355 is such an awesome character. Recency bias is probably playing some factor but she's quickly rising in the ranks of badass fictional characters for me. Ashley Romans is a big part of it - obviously the confidence and charm she brings, but also that hint of doubt really makes for a compelling performance.

Well, that's a group of feminazis

Wow. We got Karma Police in both this and Ted Lasso in the same week.

That was a large quantity of boobs. Not just a large number of them

I don't disagree that virtue signaling (like End Game)
takes away if you make that the overarching theme. Bridgerton just inserted Black people but didn't reach and try to make some point that wasn't there so most people DGAF.

I'm overwhelmingly conservative and hate SJW stuff but Y triggers almost nothing in me in that regard. The lady that was in line for the presidency laughs at her mom's belief that "if women ruled, everything would be better," and she was right. The whole show shows how petty the world would be without painting anybody in a great light. There's some ham handed Republican comments but nothing worse than typical Hollywood.

And I also love 355 as well.

ETA: I'm used to some F bombs from FX, USA, and TNT but I don't know that I've ever seen full frontal nudity before on those channels. I know they're fine to do it FCCwise but i don't ever remember seeing it before.