CRYISME wrote:Lurker wrote:I'm still curious as to why everyone's saying Alex set them up and betrayed them. I've watched this video several times for various reasons, and during repeated viewings, I didn't see any of that.
Anyone interested in fielding this one?
Everyone is just getting upset. Alex is a tool for the order and always will be! She only befriends them to give messages from the order. That is the though process about Alex and betral
Thanks for making the attempt, but I don't think that really makes sense. If she was just there to deliver a message, she didn't have to live with them for a week or go hang out with them at the beach.
She didn't seem happy about this either.
Letal89 wrote:ericski wrote:anyone else think that it was strange for db to be wearing a u.s. penitentiary t-shirt. it's a pennsylvannia location so not like he picked it up at a roadside stop during their recent wanderings. famous lewiston residents include leonard peltier and wilheim reich. my money's on reich if it does mean anything. real wierdo with connections to einstein, psychology, and an alan moore comic.
too obscure?
I saw that too. I actually live only 20mins away from the penitentiary (Lewisburg, PA). TAAG has never even been near PA so I don't know how he got it.
I mentioned earlier that this isn't the first time he's worn it (he had it on way back in "I Listened To Daniel"). I highly doubt that the Creators tell the actors what to wear.
Their clothing has never really had anything to do with the story. Yousef and Jessica wore something different every day when their characters were homeless and only had two tiny duffel bags that couldn't have possibly held that many clothes. Jessica's wore something different from one video to the next when they were supposed to take place on the same day. The clothes are just the actors' clothes.
If we really need an explanation, though, maybe Daniel got it at a flea market.
Renegade wrote:As my mother says: The tone makes the music. It sounds threatening.
The notion that how something is said is more important than what's said isn't always true.
In any event, I didn't see it as threatening. It sounded
bitter to me, but not threatening - and the words themselves weren't a threat anyway.
Renegade wrote:In addition, the words themselves can be interpreted just as threatening: How many movies have you seen where the villain notes he doesn't need an underling anymore, and then just shoots him?
If they were going to do that, they had the perfect opportunity. They had them outnumbered and in the middle of nowhere, with only a very shaky, seemingly insane Jonas - with a pistol he probably can't aim straight - as their opponent.
Renegade wrote:"Where was the betrayal"? They are running from the Order, have to move to a new safehouse whenever they are discovered, and what does Alex do? Not only tell the Order where to find them, but also makes sure they're actually there!
According to her, it wasn't about them; it was about her. Who's to say she said anything about where to find
them? If she knew they were coming to take her, maybe she just wanted to enjoy herself for a little while first?
Renegade wrote:You argue they didn't touch Bree, they only took Alex, so it was no betrayal. I say: It's the same as with the Watcher just standing around in front of Jonas's house. They are not allowed to touch Bree for some reason, so just constantly being there is their kind of aggression.
Yet before now they've never said anything to the effect of Bree being off the hook. If they're still trying to intimidate or otherwise manipulate her into this, then that's a poor move.
Also, if Alex was just trying to trick them for some reason ... why blow her cover to no effective end? Why not have her try turning DB against Bree to try breaking her down or something? It makes zero sense.
Renegade wrote:Not to mention that neither Daniel nor Jonas are the chosen girl (no matter Jonas's sexual orientation) - so there's nothing protecting them from getting killed when the Men in Black show up.
Again, however, they weren't harmed. So where's the betrayal?
Renegade wrote:And, after all, no matter if anyone was ever put in danger of any kind:
Betrayal: "to deliver to an enemy by treachery"
Treachery: "violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence"
Both by working for the Order rather than for/with the TAAG, and by exploiting trust BD&J had in her, she, by definition, committed treachery. She then set everything up to have BD&J at a specified location for the Order, the location which she had disclosed to the Order by that same treachery, thereby delivering BD&J to the enemy.
Yet no such delivery was made. You've
really got to twist what happened around, play off semantics, and put BD&J at the center of the event - when Alex even said it was about her - to make it out that she did something heinous.
CaptainAwesome wrote:CRYISME wrote:She was in the last video. The whole thing was about Bree and Jonas. I belive the creators had no choice as to put Bree behind the camera. Jonas couldn't b/c he pulled out a gun, and Daniel couldn't b/c we had to see that Daniels first instict was to prtect Alex NOT Bree. It would have ruined the story to put anyone else behiend the camera.
And they couldn't have her talk? Or show her in a montage on the beach? No, it is quite clear to me that Rose just wasn't there, most likely due to prior agreement. Just makes sense. Lets not rationalize away the reality of her going stardom and the impact it has on the show.
I don't know if she was physically there or not, but you do hear Jessica speak at 1:55. It could have been edited into the video without her actually being there, though.
I kind of do feel inclined to think she wasn't there since she did
all of the filming, and since she didn't seem more hysterical at the end.