Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-98.231.46.205-20151112031449

I will do one topic at a time. If I list everything that bothers me about this show, it would become a very long post because I would also discuss each point, so I will start with one topic. Clarke and Lexa, completely unrealistic. I have nothing against a female leader, and in fact, my favorite leader on Game of Thrones is Daenerys Targaryen. If it were a real place and I was there, I would want her as my leader. But this brings up why Lexa is not realistic. Khal Drogo is a perfect example of what the leader of the Outlanders should have looked like. Big, strong, vicious, but also smarter than you might expect at first. Natural selection is used in a warrior race like the Outlanders where all they respect is strength. So as a warrior, you move up to being a sergeant by being strong and vicious in battle, which allows you to win. Then you move up to being a Lieutenant the same way but also by producing results leading small groups of warriors. Then you would move up to being the Commander by being the best at everything, and winning many victories. This is not something a woman, let alone a teenage girl is going to do. She could be a warrior for sure, but size, strength, reach, the strength to weild a bigger sword, etc... wins in combat of that nature. In a warrior race like that, where they respect strength, it would be a very strong and skilled man that would win the title of Commander, not a young girl, or a woman that is not a physical freak, and this is simply not debatable. It's simple, could Ronda Rousey beat some men in her weight class? Sure...some, and as most experts agree, that is if she can withstand the much harder punches thrown by the men. Would she beat any man in the upper weight classes? No, not even close.

Next is Clarke. I didn't have any problem with her emerging as a leader in the first season. But when the adults, and the soldiers came to Earth, in no way would they allow her to be the leader. And, the leader of a realistic Outlander army would not recognize her as the leader either. You have to remember, it would be like going back to the dark ages where big burly men were the warriors, and warlords. Throughout season two, all of the leaders were female. Why? Realistic? No. Already covered. The only realistic leader is Clarke's mother because the people of the ARK are not a warrior clan, they are a technological/scientific clan.

But this highlights another problem with the show. This is like a Disney show for kids that grew up watching Disney shows. On those shows, the adults were basically just a backdrop for the kids, and they were usually idiots. Well, this is dumb Disney adults 2.0. Not quite as stupid, and less comical, but still just a secondary thought, a backdrop for the kids. Is that realistic? No. The ARK would have been filled with the best and brightest minds available. These people would have passed on their knowledge to their children, who pass it on to their children, who pass it on to their children, etc... Thus, there would be very capable adults among the ARK, that make it to the surface. Yet the only people doing anything, the only people making a difference are the kids. The adults outside of the three Chancellors seem to be buffoons, and have no real job. Where is Raven and her new boyfriend's mentor? He/she should be a Ph.D level genius who helps them figure out problems. In short, this show is not aimed at a wide audience. It is aimed at very young adults and teens, who seem not to care about a complete lack of realism. 