MovieChat Forums > SheHateMe > Replies
SheHateMe's Replies
Haven't watched the show in years, which is odd to say - but I'd gotten wrapped up in online stuff in 2020, and my old laptop sucks at playing DVDs (got a desktop computer to be able to watch DVDs, but never use it - this show is the main one that I've thought of watching).
Anyway, from what I recall gathering, she seemed to be meant to keep an eye on him... maybe to monitor if he were broken or otherwise compromised - maybe in part for safety. But having her as his spouse made it easier for him to live a double life without being exposed. The safety aspect is questionable, because she never saved him - but the former and latter make more sense.
I also think she was bored, and loved Edward. She knew it wasn't the same guy. I believe she was the one who killed the tech guy so that they couldn't fix Henry and Edward - because she didn't want to lose Edward.
It was like the wife was a counterpart to the therapist - another caretaker... but unlike the therapist, she previously only got to experience one personality... and everybody seemed to love Edward.
It's ridiculous that they cancelled this show.
I think they were going heavy into the cancel culture aspect, to the point where the apology just makes things worse. Towards the end, maybe around that part, it felt a little heavy-handed to me.
They did in the end. That's how they found him on the plane with the vials of the original virus in his briefcaise.
The movie hints at the loop playing out before, as Cole and Railly feel like they remember knowing each other before. In the beginning, there would be a Cole who went through his childhood having never seen himself die, and who survived the virus. Then once he went back, the loop started (I believe there's a loop for him at least).
What did you dislike about the second half?
(I literally just finished watching the movie.)
Good point. This served as an unintentional Rorshach test for the TS, who seems to be in need of a better social life. While trying to critique people's responses and argumentation skills, he's missed the points that... YES the gay Asian reporter was a POS (one of the most unlikable characters, possibly), the wife cheated, then tried to blame the husband for being a bad guy - and made a conscious choice to assume the worst about him to absolve herself of guilt, the muslim cop not-so-subtly accused his superior of being bigoted, then was, in response, called out for specific work-related reasons that he couldn't refute, most of the people who were wronged were Caucasian (Nick, the women on the internet, even the kidnapper)... there's probably more I'm not thinking of.
(This is a response to the post I'm replying to... I'm not here to go back and forth with the pedantic, delusional TS... I see no use in that.).
"You don't mess with time"?
Seems like it established how delicate time travel would be. They also established a rule or two. When they said they should go back to their time amd warn everyone, the one guy (forget his name) established that there was one timeline - and itbwas unchanged since they were still there.
Man, that basically *is* the same song!
4 years later, I watched it on Prime, also.
Huff
Only have seen the first season. The second is very rare (and apparently sunk the show by doing too much, from what I've read)
Cool review. You look pretty militant there, btw, bro. Lol.
It really does. Then it works its way up to "Wait - hold up..."
I just found that I have Entourage on Demand. Came here for a stroll down Memory Lane. Sad to see none of that hate made it here. It was deserved.
Ah, but when was he interviewed? Blade seems to be a realization of his dream he spoke of during the interview.
And look at what he did in New Jack City btw... not even an Oscar nom was bullshit.
What?
No.
The show was a guilty pleasure for me.
Around season 3 I bated Serena.
I also noticed that the show seemed to quietly become Blair-focused. I tbink it was based on the performances of actresses. Not sure why people don't seem to notice, but Blair definitely was more intgral to the story, after a certail point (around season 4, I think), imo.
She really was awful. She complained about him being a distant parent, then she went and actively withheld issues with Rosie and wouldn't even let Paul talk to her when she called. And Gina just went right along with it and actually never called her out on anything, really.
Also, honestly just testing to see if I somehow were to get notified after replying to my old IMDB post (although I know it's highly unlikely)
The reason why is that he violated basic rules of therapy. Like, mortal sin-level shit.
That Laura thing was messy. He didn't actually have sex with her, so I'm not sure exactly what would happen.
But if you don't understand what was wrong with not reporting teenage Mia's disclosure of sex with her gymnastics coach... I mean, really? That was a black-and-white situation - where he was required to make the report. How do we know that her suicide attempt didn't have anything to do with her involvement with Cy?
Alex... again, come on now. ALEX DIED! Just because he spoke as if he felt therapy was successful didn't prove that it was. Paul stirred things up in his head, watched him walk out of the door - after telling Alex that he thought he should stay in therapy - and then told the military that Alex was okay to fly. You can make an argument that Alex was quietly begging Paul to stop him - but either way, clearly Alex wasn't ready.
Paul's therapy with Alex was very problematic in so many ways. The fact that he assaulted Alex was easily enough to cost him his license - and should have.
Paul played a major role in Alex's death. He was adversarial in treatment, he physically attacked him over words, he ignored his assessment that Alex shouldn't fly and endorsed the idea of it happening when he could've easily just said he wasn't sure and the military should just evaluate him for themselves.
The first rule is "Do no harm".
This has nothing to do with being perfect or a cop or judge, or whatever else.
I'm not sure which post the above is a reply to, and don't have much to offer on the first paragraph, but regarding the second...
Yes, there is a risk of losing trust, but you have to do what you have to do. It would be difficult to predict if a client is now at risk following a therapist reporting harm for minors (or if the client poses an imminent threat to their self or others), but the therapist's responsibility is to report when mandated - and I haven't heard of a situation, that I can think of, where it led to harm coming to the client (although I'm sure it's happened before).
Imagine seeing a client who's on probation, and they tell you that they plan to kill their roommate in a "halfway house"... you want to have a good relationship with this client, in order to help them turn their life around. You opt not to report that the client disclosed intent to harm their roommate because it could ruin the relationship, and then they might stop coming - even if it meant they were violating a court order by not coming.
Then the client actually does seriously harm the roommate. Now you're under a microscope because people outside of the therapeutic relationship want to know if you were aware of this client posing a threat to someone.
Was it really worth not just reporting it?
A similar scenario would be a client tells you they're going to swallow a bunch of pills and won't back down from the threat. If they do follow through, the therapeutic relationship is the last thing that matters, pending their survival.
Also, the rules of breaking confidentiality are explained in the beginning of therapy, and clients sign a consent form to verify that they understand the requirements for reporting.