I like the filming and writing. I think that it is consistent with the first season and the rest of the second season.
Consistent in that everything is way over the top: 1) many survivors from multiple crash landings from a failing space station; 2) multiple crash landings in the same area; 3) teenagers from a space station surviving against brutal savages; 4) Mountain Men surviving on the blood of the Grounders; 5) Mountain Men rapidly degenerating when expose to the outside; 6) Mountain Men, obviously needing the space station people, but choosing to consume them (like the Grounders) instead of attempting to make some kind of deal. 7) Kane waltzing into the Grounder stronghold with the expectation of treaties, compromise, and survival. 8) Jaha on an apparently religious quest to a "City of Light", that I assume he never saw from space. 9) an artificial intelligence (I guess) that apparently destroyed the world, and apparently guided Jaha to it, that is apparently played by Erica Cerra (who's great, from Eureka, which was great), and is apparently planning some more destruction. Of course, the list goes on and on; but it's great.
But some things could be viewed as realistic: 1) the ruthlessness of the Grounders, trying to survive; 2) stupid decisions made by teenagers trying to survive; 3) ruthless decisions by Clarke, when she's trying to survive and save someone/something. I don't see where humanity and being a good person comes into play. It's like Dante said: "None of us has a choice here, Clarke". 4) and, yes, I think that Lexa's decision to betray Clarke to the Mountain Men, can be viewed as realistic. Why is this? Lexa and the Grounders definitely wanted to destroy and kill all of the Mountain Men and she probably didn't really care much about the survival of the Grounder prisoners held by the Mountain Men, so why betray Clarke? The only way it makes sense is that, since Lexa knew that Clarke did not want to kill All of the Mountain Men (Remember her, Clarke's, pre-battle speech: "this is a rescue mission, we are not here to wipe them out, there are people inside that mountain that have helped us"). Instead of going against Clarke about saving the Mountain Men, Lexa pulled out and let Clarke take care of "the rescue", leaving the strong possibility that either Clarke would win and have to destroy the Mountain Men, or lose, suffering major losses while possibly crippling the Mountain Men.
I was going to give it less than 10, but the show's great, the writing is great, and I really would like to see how the third season plays out.
Consistent in that everything is way over the top: 1) many survivors from multiple crash landings from a failing space station; 2) multiple crash landings in the same area; 3) teenagers from a space station surviving against brutal savages; 4) Mountain Men surviving on the blood of the Grounders; 5) Mountain Men rapidly degenerating when expose to the outside; 6) Mountain Men, obviously needing the space station people, but choosing to consume them (like the Grounders) instead of attempting to make some kind of deal. 7) Kane waltzing into the Grounder stronghold with the expectation of treaties, compromise, and survival. 8) Jaha on an apparently religious quest to a "City of Light", that I assume he never saw from space. 9) an artificial intelligence (I guess) that apparently destroyed the world, and apparently guided Jaha to it, that is apparently played by Erica Cerra (who's great, from Eureka, which was great), and is apparently planning some more destruction. Of course, the list goes on and on; but it's great.
But some things could be viewed as realistic: 1) the ruthlessness of the Grounders, trying to survive; 2) stupid decisions made by teenagers trying to survive; 3) ruthless decisions by Clarke, when she's trying to survive and save someone/something. I don't see where humanity and being a good person comes into play. It's like Dante said: "None of us has a choice here, Clarke". 4) and, yes, I think that Lexa's decision to betray Clarke to the Mountain Men, can be viewed as realistic. Why is this? Lexa and the Grounders definitely wanted to destroy and kill all of the Mountain Men and she probably didn't really care much about the survival of the Grounder prisoners held by the Mountain Men, so why betray Clarke? The only way it makes sense is that, since Lexa knew that Clarke did not want to kill All of the Mountain Men (Remember her, Clarke's, pre-battle speech: "this is a rescue mission, we are not here to wipe them out, there are people inside that mountain that have helped us"). Instead of going against Clarke about saving the Mountain Men, Lexa pulled out and let Clarke take care of "the rescue", leaving the strong possibility that either Clarke would win and have to destroy the Mountain Men, or lose, suffering major losses while possibly crippling the Mountain Men.
I was going to give it less than 10, but the show's great, the writing is great, and I really would like to see how the third season plays out.