Lonelygirl15

JustAnotherLonelyGirl. wrote:That girl is not cut out for acting.

Actually, I think that Jules's acting has improved greatly in the past few weeks.

ApotheosisAZ wrote:Isn't it a bit difficult to judge Jules acting skills?

The actress playing Julia's part may be attempting to portray a girl who is attempting to portray a kidnap victim who is attempting to portray someone who isn't a part of The Hymn of One.

It makes me wonder if she doesn't actually deserve a little more recognition than she is receiving here.

I agree with you here. I imagine that's it terribly hard for an actor to play someone who is acting. It's probably hard to show how much you should let them slip up and have their character be a bad actor without making the audience think that the actual person's a bad actor. It's tricky.

Renegade wrote:Who of you is ever gonna believe the whole "cute little Bree" thing again, after she kidnapped a child? Who of you is ever going to believe in Daniel's tender, caring side again, after seeing him dragging away a crying, screaming for help teenager?

She was a cute teen almost a year ago. After being kidnapped and put through everything she's been through, she's probably lost a lot of her innocence--even if she (as a character, I mean) tries to remain 'cute.' I think it's character development, not poor writing.

Then again, that remains to be seen.

ericski wrote:for a show that has free will at it's core, control and manipulation are rampant.

Exactly. See what happens when free will is taken away?

Jules is still off for me. I still don't like her much.
I still think she is cute, but that is about it.
This whole thing is rather creppy.
I am kind of just speechless about this whole thing.

Rekidk wrote:

Renegade wrote:Who of you is ever gonna believe the whole "cute little Bree" thing again, after she kidnapped a child? Who of you is ever going to believe in Daniel's tender, caring side again, after seeing him dragging away a crying, screaming for help teenager?

She was a cute teen almost a year ago. After being kidnapped and put through everything she's been through, she's probably lost a lot of her innocence--even if she (as a character, I mean) tries to remain 'cute.' I think it's character development, not poor writing.

Then again, that remains to be seen.

"Development" implies gradual change. Where's the "gradual" in being playful Bree in Out of the Bunker and Crazy Emo Chick, smrt Bree in No Trespassing, concerned Bree in We Found Julia, ...

...and then kidnapping an innocent child right out of her home?

Everything shown in the videos before was typical Bree - a little more mature than in the first vids, but there was nothing new or changed about her; even when she approached Julia on the street, she talked to her in the same way she uses when she's talking to the boys and they won't listen. Yes, she did behave quite stupid by grabbing her - but even that isn't new for her. Everything before was normal Bree. Nothing special, only a new situation. Then three days silence, then she shows us how she and her best friend kidnapped an innocent child while their rich new friend films.

If that's not a hard cut, then I don't know what it is.

As I said in complaints, the arc where Bree captured Jonas was introduced similarly - but the situation was entirely different: She had solid evidence pointing to Order-links to Jonas, and she had been betrayed by Gemma before. She thought she was defending herself, so she captured what she thought was a Watcher or something.
This is different. She just so, unprovokedly, abducted a child. There was no "character development" turning her into an abductress. There was no recent (that) traumatic experience that'd quickly turn her into Anti-Bree.

They met Taylor and Sarah. They fooled around and flirted a little. The Creators made sure D&J looked like pussies. They found Jules. And all of a sudden, Taylor and Sarah are gone and Jules is their hostage.
Now point out the significant character development in there that lead to her turning into Evil Bree, please?
'cause had she been like that before the bunker episodes, they'd have captured Alex right away, instead of just following her to Mexico.

Renegade wrote:Who of you is ever going to believe in Daniel's tender, caring side again, after seeing him dragging away a crying, screaming for help teenager?

If he was trying to save her in the only way they thought they could, how is that not his tender, caring side?

Renegade wrote:There was no "character development" turning her into an abductress. There was no recent (that) traumatic experience that'd quickly turn her into Anti-Bree.

They met Taylor and Sarah. They fooled around and flirted a little. The Creators made sure D&J looked like pussies. They found Jules. And all of a sudden, Taylor and Sarah are gone and Jules is their hostage.
Now point out the significant character development in there that lead to her turning into Evil Bree, please?

Where in here did you see her turn evil?

She's trying to help Jules, not kill her.

[quote="Rekidk

ericski wrote:for a show that has free will at it's core, control and manipulation are rampant.

Exactly. See what happens when free will is taken away?[/quote]

like the dad who smacks his kid for hitting his brother? "i toljuh not tuh be hittin him thataway"

Lurker wrote:If he was trying to save her in the only way they thought they could, how is that not his tender, caring side?

Well, I've never been kidnapped, and I did hear about Stockholm Syndrome...but I still think I wouldn't actually feel somebody cared about me if he violently removed me from my home and tied me up.

His intentions may be good...but the way this was written is just not how the character Daniel was built up so far.

Lurker wrote:Where in here did you see her turn evil?

Hmm...I don't know? Maybe the moment she devised the plan to kidnap a teenager? Or when she talked her best friend(s) into being her henchmen? Or when she was on site and commanded the execution, seeing live how scared the child was, but still not letting her go? Or when she justified herself afterwards, saying it wasn't "kidnapping" because it was for a good cause?

Lurker wrote:She's trying to help Jules, not kill her.

To fulfill Godwin's Law: Hitler thought he was working for the greater good as well. George Bush thinks he's working for the greater good. The Inquisition thought it was working for the greater good.

Everybody using extreme measures thinks he's working for a good cause. And while I sure as hell am not implying Bree is the same as Hitler, Bush or the Inquisition, the basic fact stands: Just because she thinks she's not evil doesn't change the fact that the girl she just kidnapped, and the general public, would disagree.

Intentions and actions are two different things. It doesn't matter how well she means, if she behaves like a psychotic child molester.

Hell, I bet even the Orderites think they're the good guys. I bet OpAphid thought it was fighting for the greater good. I bet Bree's parent's thought they were working for a greater good. Doesn't change the fact that we consider their detaining of Bree a Bad Thing, doesn't it?

I'm not talking about Bree's perspective of what she did. I'm talking about the actual fact of the matter: She believed the girl to be in danger where she was (for good reason), and chose to take her out of there against her will.

I call that the morally superior decision. It's not cut and dry good, but the situation didn't leave room for that. You can't force those kinds of options into a situation that doesn't allow for them.

Lurker wrote:I'm not talking about Bree's perspective of what she did. I'm talking about the actual fact of the matter: She believed the girl to be in danger where she was (for good reason), and chose to take her out of there against her will.

I call that the morally superior decision. It's not cut and dry good, but the situation didn't leave room for that. You can't force those kinds of options into a situation that doesn't allow for them.

I agree. If your choices are A) Have reasonable suspicion that someone will die and do absolutely nothing to save them, or B) Kidnap them... Well, then you have a tough decision to make.

ericski wrote:like the dad who smacks his kid for hitting his brother? "i toljuh not tuh be hittin him thataway"

I think you're taking it out of context. While your example is clearly hypocritical, literature often presents two sides of an issue to prove a point. For example, in LG15, they present free will as something which causes relief happiness, whereas manipulation (eg. kidnapping Jules) causes tension and anguish. It argues the case for free will quite strongly, in my opinion.

watermelonhead wrote:Loose ends should be tied-up, not teenage girls!

FREE JULES!

There is hope for the phorum yet!

Jules will only be missed by Order people because they need her for the ceremony.

Nobody besides BD&J care about her well being unconditionally.

voyboy wrote:Jules will only be missed by Order people because they need her for the ceremony.

Nobody besides BD&J care about her well being unconditionally.

agreed.

Rekidk wrote:

Lurker wrote:I'm not talking about Bree's perspective of what she did. I'm talking about the actual fact of the matter: She believed the girl to be in danger where she was (for good reason), and chose to take her out of there against her will.

I call that the morally superior decision. It's not cut and dry good, but the situation didn't leave room for that. You can't force those kinds of options into a situation that doesn't allow for them.

I agree. If your choices are A) Have reasonable suspicion that someone will die and do absolutely nothing to save them, or B) Kidnap them... Well, then you have a tough decision to make.

ericski wrote:like the dad who smacks his kid for hitting his brother? "i toljuh not tuh be hittin him thataway"

I think you're taking it out of context. While your example is clearly hypocritical, literature often presents two sides of an issue to prove a point. For example, in LG15, they present free will as something which causes relief happiness, whereas manipulation (eg. kidnapping Jules) causes tension and anguish. It argues the case for free will quite strongly, in my opinion.

I don't see the case for free will as all that strong. Bree opted for free will and she has been on the run ever since. She has had guns waved in her face, men in black suits stalking her-- she even has had to eat from a garbage bin. That really doesn't argue well for free will imo.

So I don't know if anyone has said this yet but does anyone else feel like this is a Big PSA about putting personal info on myspayce/youtube??

today i learned literature oftens portrays two sides of an issue to make a point.

Lurker wrote:I'm not talking about Bree's perspective of what she did. I'm talking about the actual fact of the matter: She believed the girl to be in danger where she was (for good reason), and chose to take her out of there against her will.

I call that the morally superior decision. It's not cut and dry good, but the situation didn't leave room for that. You can't force those kinds of options into a situation that doesn't allow for them.

You think kidnapping a child is morally superior to letting it make its own mistakes?

Wanting to help her may be the morally superior intention, but kidnapping an innocent child is not even morally right.

If she thinks Jules is in danger, and Jules doesn't want to listen, the right decision would have been to tail her, and protect her when the time comes. Not to scare the shit out of her and prove everything the Order told her about Bree and her boys.