When I started watching this series yesterday, I expected to find myself wading through a nonsensical, disconnected narrative that would make my head spin, judging by all the negative reviews. That hasn't been the case. Sure, there are a few minor issues (e.g. how does a 'Boise, Idaho' sign survive in humid pine forest conditions for 2000 years, only acquiring a bit of rust?). But many of the other parts that people are complaining about actually have explanations for them, if you pay attention.
Here are my thought about the 'problems' in the story line that some of the negative reviewers have cited:
1) Executing humans to maintain order (even though humans are endangered) is ridiculous/ doesn't make sense.
That may be, but it's realistic. The Stasi executed and tortured its own people to death, even when the GDR's population had been reduced to just a few million; and even when the people they executed tended to be healthy, active and intelligent members of society. For those who really believe that control is necessary for society's 'survival', sacrificing life to maintain order seems less dangerous than allowing people to go crazy. I see something sinister behind the founder's repeated statement, "We must keep them calm". He feels uncomfortable with disorder as a person, like many fascists do.
Of course, the town leaders' logic is a fallacy, but no more so than is the logic of any of the millions of people who have taken part in fascist organizations (including some modern ones, like Guantanomo Bay). The people running Wayward Pines are people of TODAY... who have moved to the future. Why shouldn't they hold some of the twisted views that modern humans clearly do?
These executions seem to exist to throw the idealistic rationalizations of the town's ruling class into stark relief. They show us that the people working behind the scenes have totalitarian beliefs lurking in their subconscious... just like so many people alive today, do. The leaders gloss over that fact by claiming they're protecting the future (like say, Donald Trump) because they are unaware of their own motivations. Before long, we start to see signs that it's the blonde hypnotherapist, with her 'clear and severe' philosophy of social control, who is driving the totalitarian rhetoric.
Another thing: humans who are alive *right now* are chopping down the world's LAST great forests to make matchsticks, cattle feed, palm oil and cocaine crops; they are dumping mercury into the ONLY oceans that we will ever have; driving cars and flying in planes that are destroying the ONE atmosphere we all breathe. If the majority of humans can do all that without feeling guilty, why shouldn't they kill a few 'endangered' people, too? Another point here, is that the head honchos of the town keep repeating that the kids are the future... making it easy to justify getting rid of adults who are 'getting in the way' of their vision.
2) If the first group of people who were awoken in the town rebelled, escaped and/or killed themselves, why haven't the 200 people in the leaders' complex done the same thing?
Simple - the 200 peeps in the complex were volunteers who knew what they were getting into, unlike the abductees. This was explained already. The only thing I'd add is that it would stretch credulity to say that every person who learned the truth offed themselves. But that isn't what was shown in the show, anyway - we were shown a handful of suicides, plus a lot of people running away because (presumably) they didn't believe what the town leaders told them... Well, but who would?
What would you say to these people, if you were the leader, to avoid sounding nuts? And if people in your town were rebelling against you, what would you do to put the rebellion down, if not execute them? Jail them? Well, guess what - that's a totalitarian response, as well.
Basically, the town's founders had a supposedly perfect survival plan but, like hundreds of leaders in similar situations, they had no clue how to manage people's expectations, whilst protecting their lifelong project.
But perhaps the moral of the story: that no single person should ever get to say that society and/or its machinations, are 'their' lifelong project. All the people living in such machinations need to have a say, too.
3) Why tell the kids but not the adults?
Kids are easier to condition and control because their expectations are still plastic. Plus, kids naturally hide a lot from their parents. Witness the amount of grown-ups who were abused as children and never told teachers or friends about the abuse. And with a hypnotherapist in charge, too... a hypnotherapist who treats you like little kings and queens... manipulation's even easier.
Also, not ALL the kids know 'The Truth' - only 110 of them do, and they were hand-picked for their suggestibility. Sure, it's a potentially weak system of maintaining order but, given the alternatives (e.g. totalitarian society with executions) hypnotizing the kids probably seems like a pretty safe option.
I agree with the technical criticisms however: how did they manage to store all the necessities, and keep the electrics running for 2000 years? More thought should have gone into this side of things. But since I'm only really watching this for the human factor, it doesn't bother me so much.
On the human front, I'm satisfied with what I've seen so far. Maybe that's just because I've spent a lot of time trawling through horrific accounts of idealistic societies that have gone wrong in our own time. I just wish the characters would reveal more of their personal flaws, so we could learn more about where they've gone wrong as *people*.
Here are my thought about the 'problems' in the story line that some of the negative reviewers have cited:
1) Executing humans to maintain order (even though humans are endangered) is ridiculous/ doesn't make sense.
That may be, but it's realistic. The Stasi executed and tortured its own people to death, even when the GDR's population had been reduced to just a few million; and even when the people they executed tended to be healthy, active and intelligent members of society. For those who really believe that control is necessary for society's 'survival', sacrificing life to maintain order seems less dangerous than allowing people to go crazy. I see something sinister behind the founder's repeated statement, "We must keep them calm". He feels uncomfortable with disorder as a person, like many fascists do.
Of course, the town leaders' logic is a fallacy, but no more so than is the logic of any of the millions of people who have taken part in fascist organizations (including some modern ones, like Guantanomo Bay). The people running Wayward Pines are people of TODAY... who have moved to the future. Why shouldn't they hold some of the twisted views that modern humans clearly do?
These executions seem to exist to throw the idealistic rationalizations of the town's ruling class into stark relief. They show us that the people working behind the scenes have totalitarian beliefs lurking in their subconscious... just like so many people alive today, do. The leaders gloss over that fact by claiming they're protecting the future (like say, Donald Trump) because they are unaware of their own motivations. Before long, we start to see signs that it's the blonde hypnotherapist, with her 'clear and severe' philosophy of social control, who is driving the totalitarian rhetoric.
Another thing: humans who are alive *right now* are chopping down the world's LAST great forests to make matchsticks, cattle feed, palm oil and cocaine crops; they are dumping mercury into the ONLY oceans that we will ever have; driving cars and flying in planes that are destroying the ONE atmosphere we all breathe. If the majority of humans can do all that without feeling guilty, why shouldn't they kill a few 'endangered' people, too? Another point here, is that the head honchos of the town keep repeating that the kids are the future... making it easy to justify getting rid of adults who are 'getting in the way' of their vision.
2) If the first group of people who were awoken in the town rebelled, escaped and/or killed themselves, why haven't the 200 people in the leaders' complex done the same thing?
Simple - the 200 peeps in the complex were volunteers who knew what they were getting into, unlike the abductees. This was explained already. The only thing I'd add is that it would stretch credulity to say that every person who learned the truth offed themselves. But that isn't what was shown in the show, anyway - we were shown a handful of suicides, plus a lot of people running away because (presumably) they didn't believe what the town leaders told them... Well, but who would?
What would you say to these people, if you were the leader, to avoid sounding nuts? And if people in your town were rebelling against you, what would you do to put the rebellion down, if not execute them? Jail them? Well, guess what - that's a totalitarian response, as well.
Basically, the town's founders had a supposedly perfect survival plan but, like hundreds of leaders in similar situations, they had no clue how to manage people's expectations, whilst protecting their lifelong project.
But perhaps the moral of the story: that no single person should ever get to say that society and/or its machinations, are 'their' lifelong project. All the people living in such machinations need to have a say, too.
3) Why tell the kids but not the adults?
Kids are easier to condition and control because their expectations are still plastic. Plus, kids naturally hide a lot from their parents. Witness the amount of grown-ups who were abused as children and never told teachers or friends about the abuse. And with a hypnotherapist in charge, too... a hypnotherapist who treats you like little kings and queens... manipulation's even easier.
Also, not ALL the kids know 'The Truth' - only 110 of them do, and they were hand-picked for their suggestibility. Sure, it's a potentially weak system of maintaining order but, given the alternatives (e.g. totalitarian society with executions) hypnotizing the kids probably seems like a pretty safe option.
I agree with the technical criticisms however: how did they manage to store all the necessities, and keep the electrics running for 2000 years? More thought should have gone into this side of things. But since I'm only really watching this for the human factor, it doesn't bother me so much.
On the human front, I'm satisfied with what I've seen so far. Maybe that's just because I've spent a lot of time trawling through horrific accounts of idealistic societies that have gone wrong in our own time. I just wish the characters would reveal more of their personal flaws, so we could learn more about where they've gone wrong as *people*.