Utopia (TV Series) Respect Your Purpose (2020) User Reviews

I Have To Tell The World That They Have To Keep A Close Eye......

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 6/10 · 6 October 2020]

Start here with ARBY back at home hating on his stash of RAISINS. NEVER EVER EVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I BEEEN SO APPALLED AT THE MISTREATMENT OF RAISINS!!!!

HYDE and Grant return to the HIDEOUT along with this, Alice, whose mom was just killed. HYDE starts going thru these new pages of UTOPIA!!!

THE TEAM, they lay out the pages of UTOPIA for review. Ian and Becky make out. Wilsonns walks in on IAN AND BECKY doin it.

-1 Star for a sex scene with no nudity +1 Star for WILSONNS line on 'This is why Hyde said 'no f#$#%$g'!

Wilsonns has concluded that DR. STERNS is MR. RABBIT. STERNS IS A SUPERVILLAIN!!! But Becky says that STERNS IS THE LLAMA THAT MR. RABBIT rides. That Sterns is being controlled by MR. RABBIT!. I guess that means we know that Dr. Christie, is MR. RABBIT.

ARBY returnes to DR. CHRISTIE, and CHRISTIE is not pleased. ARBY has looked at UTOPIA. ARBY was told not to look at UTOPIA. ARBY IS NOW curious about his own origins, where he was not curious about this before. CHRISTIE threatens ARBY WITH destruction if he does not follow the purpose that CHRISTIE has set for him.

DALE WARWICK is also having second thoughts about his own purpose. His own family is now totally in the limelight of the FLU PANDEMIC. Oh dear did he just walk in front of a truck??? Well that's terrible isn't it??? Oh dear, he did. He suicided by truck.

+1 Star for Dale Warwick suiciding by truck. What a moron.

Haha I love TOM mobilizing his TEAM to create a background / narrative FOR DALE WARWICK.

At the house, Wilsonns continues to push his case that Dr. Sterns is MR. RABBIT. Becky has some sort of seizure and HYDE performs a very interesting procedure which....fails?? Oh nevermind, it was one of those time lapse procedures lol.

And at the end, Sterns own wife cold cocks him. Apparently she's a plant also in his life. Something about Stern's whole life seems contrived.

Okay this EP...6/10

Really doesn't work.

[W011y4m5 · 4/10 · 26 September 2020]

When helming his version of the show, Dennis Kelly - outstanding writer & creator of the original series of "UTOPIA" - understood that in order to eventually redeem Arby's character, he had to be somewhat unaware of the seriousness of his crimes - deliberately ensuring that mentally, his character remained incapacitated & in a constant state of regression as he began the story, affiliating himself with the Network - so that when he finally became conscious of his past later on, he would therefore simultaneously gain context explaining why he felt an emotional detachment from people & his humanity, which is why he was also able to commit the crimes that he did. That revelation taught him how he was just another messed up victim of the Network - manipulated & recruited in to becoming the perpetrator of the very crimes that moulded him in to the monster he tragically became. This vital lesson & double blow to his perception of reality added depth by triggering his first sense of self-awareness, fuelling the change we then subsequently saw throughout S2 - sparking the redemptive arc which was a natural progression for his character.

Unfortunately, Gillian Flynn hasn't been as conscientious when crafting her screenplays & thus, has made the major mistake of taking her iteration of Arby's character in the same direction - despite him being fully aware of what he was doing beforehand. This prevents the redemptive arc from working as effectively - as one character's journey involves an involuntarily inhuman individual reconnecting with their humanity by coming to terms with what they've done, endeavouring to reconcile with their past & accepting the consequences of their harmful actions... Whereas her intended redemptive arc is uncharacteristic because his inhumanity is a considered & conscious decision.

Neil Maskell's was given instructions & obeyed orders like a subservient, indoctrinated child - with no control over his behaviour; the choices were made on his behalf - whereas Christopher Denham's proactively partakes in the planning processes of his own grisly missions. Ergo, one had diminished responsibility & as a result could be redeemed; the other had responsibility from the beginning & as a consequence, can not - so taking their stories down the same path seems inconsistent.