Vampire cure: more ranty ranting [BH-centric]
I think I miiiight have mentioned before how much I hate the idea of a cure for supernatural conditions? Yes, I think I might have mentioned that.
Back then I had concerns about where The Vampires Diaries storyline was going and how Being Human might end. The difference between these shows is mostly that I watch the former for fun and have little feels about it and the latter is one of my top fav shows in the history of TV-watching. And yet, the former has been brilliant lately while the latter failed me in ways I couldn't have imagined.
Let me tell you how much I love Damon fucking Salvatore. Wanna know why? Because he keeps saying wonderful things that I wish someone had told the Being Human people. Like this:
(c) kathypetrovas
Do you really want the cure? I mean, really? Look, let me give you a little bit of advice. See these girls? They look happy now. In five years they're gonna settle for a mediocre starter husband and mind-numbing career and about that time they're gonna realize something you're never gonna have to learn. [...] Life sucks when you're ordinary. And what makes you exactly not like them? You're a vampire. You take that cure and become human, well, you're no one, nothing. Trust me, losing this cure is the best damn thing that's ever happened to you.
Damon's speech to Rebekah, TVD 4x16, "Bring It On".
Damon didn't even want to be a vampire. It's been a long time since I watched the first season but from what I remember, he was pretty much ready to die during the transition period. It was Stefan who coaxed him into surviving. Stefan who went off the deep end and became Ripper. Damon is broken in so many ways and he does have the capacity to be a monster, but when it comes to being a vampire, I'd say he's the most well-adjusted of them all. He kills when he wants to and he knows how and when to stop. And he also says wise things like the above.
There are currently three main theories about what really happened at the end of Being Human. Personally I prefer the bleakest one of them and absolutely hate the happiest one. Not because I'm such an evil person and want everybody to suffer (if anything, Hal hardly needs more angst after the woobie mess he's been throughout series 5). Not even because I hate the cure. I hate the happiest theory because it's implausible and negates the whole point of Being Human, that is, you don't have to physically be human to possess the best and the worst qualities of humanity. Human in BH was never literal; it was sort of this transcendent quality that set people like George and Mitchell and Leo and Tom apart from monsters like Herrick or Mr Snow.
And then suddenly we've got THIS.
(c) janeconnor
Yay, they're human. Hugs, kisses, tears are in order.
The way I see it, this is not a happy ending. At least not for Hal. For Alex, sure, she's only been a ghost for a few months and her condition is arguably the worst because she can't interact with anyone but other supernaturals, which means her social circle is basically limited to Hal and Tom and occasional random nutters like Lady Mary. For Tom, maybe, because he can finally focus on making a career, getting a family and stop fearing that he'd eat his children. But Hal? The guy is 500 years old, his immune system is totally not equipped to deal with modern viruses, he has no ID and more memories than a human brain can handle. Not to mention that he hasn't got that neat excuse of having split personalities anymore. I hate that thing too, but suppose he and Lord Harry really were different people. Now he apparently has both of them inside, so is he, like, Hal # 3 now? A completely different person once again? Pretty sure that's not healthy.
Honestly: does anyone see Hal as a husband? a father? a grandfather? an old man? Because I don't. Being human doesn't absolve a murderer of his past. Now that he has both sides of himself reconciled, he can't turn his back on the actions of Lord Harry, so eventually it's all going to catch up with him. Basically, it's the same angsty existence without the neat option to drown that guilt in blood. As for his progeny, it's almost like being the offspring of a Nazi criminal. Lovely thought.
I could maybe see Mitchell becoming human. He wasn't that old and he didn't have any "dark passengers" inside him. But Hal is an Old One - and shouldn't that mean something? We were never given a proper explanation for what an Old One is, but the way I see it, it's someone who has enough baggage to not be able to go back to being human so easily. Hal has got a considerable ego and occasional world-dominating ambition as his evil self. It's still inside him, and this is where Damon's speech is really very applicable: how does one go from being a powerful 500-year-old vampire to being an ordinary human? Hal is all about routines, but then, he is also all about crutches and excuses as it turned out, so how will he cope without them?
Another thing that bothers me is the thought of Hal in a relationship. I'd rather they didn't tackle this matter at all, but of course they couldn't resist Mitchellizing him a bit more. I ranted before about Mitchell being in constant search of someone (a woman preferably) to pull him back from the brink. Apparently, most of Hal's relationships turned out the same way (at least what we know of Sylvie and Mary).
(c) halyorkeshire
I get it, maybe it was Sylvie's idea but he still went along with it. And he kept going along with it (Leo does say in the prequel that Hal is testing him to see if he would make a good guide to lead him into the light; it would have been cute if Leo had been the first person to make that guide, but - haha). And people died. But the thing is that if all of his relationships were based on personal gain, what does he have going for Alex and him? They are extremely different people. I mean, they couldn't make a worse match. I love them both (or at least loved them both), but I want to yell at Alex to get away from him while she still can because I don't think his selfishness is going anywhere, fangs or no fangs. To be honest, without their respective curses, they have no connection at all. I could see them having a one-night-stand as Alex had originally planned, but that's it.
And pray tell me: where does this epic love come from? I'm not hating on the ship (after series 4 I was pretty much ready to see them together, but... you know, 6 seasons and a movie later!), but I don't understand the epic squee that goes on around it. How does a girl get over a guy having had her killed within the span of two or three months and how does she suddenly respect him right after he's been exposed as a liar for the 1927348478523th time (yes, I mean his BS to Lady Mary about having been clean for 250 years)? Alex is a smart, insightful person who takes none of anyone's BS - and yet, she makes an almost complete turnaround between 5x03 and 5x04. I love it that she still gives him a piece of mind in 5x05 and 5x06 and I actually appreciate her reluctance to kill him even when he's evil (as opposed to Annie's strange reaction to Mitchell's desire to die in 3x08 - she has known him far longer than Alex has known Hal and she doesn't even try to talk him out of it?), but the fact that she is still pretty relationship-focused in the finale is something I can't wrap my mind around. Hal is all: Sorry our thing didn't work out. Dude, you've just killed a whole pub of people! And for some reason, Alex doesn't call him out on that. She just stands there, obviously regretting that her object of desire is a mass murderer. How sad.
But then - unexpected fix-it! He is human now, so yay, they can have a thing! And babies and whatever! Who cares that he "killed entire phonebooks of people"? He's human now (humans obviously don't kill phonebooks of people, mind you; serial killers, what are those?).
Basically, I think that the "reality" theory being the right one is a disaster of epic proportions because:
- It makes no sense. There has never been a cure for supernatural conditions within this verse. The closest to that was Kemp and Lucy's machine but it didn't work.
- It butchers the trio's characterization. WHY would Tom and Alex conveniently ignore all of Hal's past sins, especially if he explicitly states that he is not both good Hal and bad Hal, i.e. he still has the person who did terrible things inside him?
- The whole killing the devil thing makes no sense either. First of all, he made it genuinely easy to do - he just stood there and screamed for, like, no sane reason whatsoever. Secondly, how convenient it is that everyone's curse is suddenly focused on the devil. Why would his death cancel them anyone? If you're a vampire and the person who turned you dies, you don't revert to being human. So would the death of the source of vampirism cancel it? This is what I hate above all else in series 5: it took certain elements of the in-verse mythos and steered them away from science towards magic. Lucy and Kemp attempted to cure lycanthropy through science: that was innovative and cool. And it made sense at the time! If you kill the virus outside the body that's already infected, that body will still remain infected, will it not? (Forgive me, I suck at science.) So why does killing the devil lift their curses (and how does being a ghost a curse?)
- There have been some disputes about whether all supernaturals were cured or only the trio. If it's only the trio, then it makes even less because who was it that cured them? The only one I can think of is God, but Hatch specifically told us that God didn't care. That's actually something that for once ties into the in-verse mythology quite well. Given what the afterlife looks like, it's very believable. Even if God had made humans, he got bored and skipped off. So why would he reward the illustrious trio with humanity? And if it wasn't God, then it makes even less sense because HOW?
- The whole idea of a reward for their actions rubs me the wrong way. They were never promised a Shanshu, so why did they get it? Moreover, it once again negates the point that being human transcends physical humanity. Given the proximity of the event to Hal's little speech, it renders the whole idea of the show utterly pointless.
(c) ameliatully
Let's not talk about how evil Hal delivering these lines is both stupid and ironic. In this context, it doesn't matter who says it. What matters is that someone does (the same way George tells Herrick that his actions prove his humanity instead of destroying it) - and then we get this completely illogical ending that tells us: sure, inner qualities matter, but here, have some physical humanity too. A dubious reward if you ask me: grow old and die. Personally I see them having identity crises, lots of RL issues, major falling-outs - and then they'll all die. Great. Happy ending.
I'm not sure this has a point really. Maybe I just have a bleak outlook on things, but at the same time, not subscribing to the "reality" theory helps me deal with major logic!fail present in the finale.
As for the third theory, the one where they're all dead and gone to heaven, let me refer you to this wonderful meta by chevronnine, which I agree with because it's logical.
Back then I had concerns about where The Vampires Diaries storyline was going and how Being Human might end. The difference between these shows is mostly that I watch the former for fun and have little feels about it and the latter is one of my top fav shows in the history of TV-watching. And yet, the former has been brilliant lately while the latter failed me in ways I couldn't have imagined.
Let me tell you how much I love Damon fucking Salvatore. Wanna know why? Because he keeps saying wonderful things that I wish someone had told the Being Human people. Like this:
(c) kathypetrovas
Do you really want the cure? I mean, really? Look, let me give you a little bit of advice. See these girls? They look happy now. In five years they're gonna settle for a mediocre starter husband and mind-numbing career and about that time they're gonna realize something you're never gonna have to learn. [...] Life sucks when you're ordinary. And what makes you exactly not like them? You're a vampire. You take that cure and become human, well, you're no one, nothing. Trust me, losing this cure is the best damn thing that's ever happened to you.
Damon's speech to Rebekah, TVD 4x16, "Bring It On".
Damon didn't even want to be a vampire. It's been a long time since I watched the first season but from what I remember, he was pretty much ready to die during the transition period. It was Stefan who coaxed him into surviving. Stefan who went off the deep end and became Ripper. Damon is broken in so many ways and he does have the capacity to be a monster, but when it comes to being a vampire, I'd say he's the most well-adjusted of them all. He kills when he wants to and he knows how and when to stop. And he also says wise things like the above.
There are currently three main theories about what really happened at the end of Being Human. Personally I prefer the bleakest one of them and absolutely hate the happiest one. Not because I'm such an evil person and want everybody to suffer (if anything, Hal hardly needs more angst after the woobie mess he's been throughout series 5). Not even because I hate the cure. I hate the happiest theory because it's implausible and negates the whole point of Being Human, that is, you don't have to physically be human to possess the best and the worst qualities of humanity. Human in BH was never literal; it was sort of this transcendent quality that set people like George and Mitchell and Leo and Tom apart from monsters like Herrick or Mr Snow.
And then suddenly we've got THIS.
(c) janeconnor
Yay, they're human. Hugs, kisses, tears are in order.
The way I see it, this is not a happy ending. At least not for Hal. For Alex, sure, she's only been a ghost for a few months and her condition is arguably the worst because she can't interact with anyone but other supernaturals, which means her social circle is basically limited to Hal and Tom and occasional random nutters like Lady Mary. For Tom, maybe, because he can finally focus on making a career, getting a family and stop fearing that he'd eat his children. But Hal? The guy is 500 years old, his immune system is totally not equipped to deal with modern viruses, he has no ID and more memories than a human brain can handle. Not to mention that he hasn't got that neat excuse of having split personalities anymore. I hate that thing too, but suppose he and Lord Harry really were different people. Now he apparently has both of them inside, so is he, like, Hal # 3 now? A completely different person once again? Pretty sure that's not healthy.
Honestly: does anyone see Hal as a husband? a father? a grandfather? an old man? Because I don't. Being human doesn't absolve a murderer of his past. Now that he has both sides of himself reconciled, he can't turn his back on the actions of Lord Harry, so eventually it's all going to catch up with him. Basically, it's the same angsty existence without the neat option to drown that guilt in blood. As for his progeny, it's almost like being the offspring of a Nazi criminal. Lovely thought.
I could maybe see Mitchell becoming human. He wasn't that old and he didn't have any "dark passengers" inside him. But Hal is an Old One - and shouldn't that mean something? We were never given a proper explanation for what an Old One is, but the way I see it, it's someone who has enough baggage to not be able to go back to being human so easily. Hal has got a considerable ego and occasional world-dominating ambition as his evil self. It's still inside him, and this is where Damon's speech is really very applicable: how does one go from being a powerful 500-year-old vampire to being an ordinary human? Hal is all about routines, but then, he is also all about crutches and excuses as it turned out, so how will he cope without them?
Another thing that bothers me is the thought of Hal in a relationship. I'd rather they didn't tackle this matter at all, but of course they couldn't resist Mitchellizing him a bit more. I ranted before about Mitchell being in constant search of someone (a woman preferably) to pull him back from the brink. Apparently, most of Hal's relationships turned out the same way (at least what we know of Sylvie and Mary).
(c) halyorkeshire
I get it, maybe it was Sylvie's idea but he still went along with it. And he kept going along with it (Leo does say in the prequel that Hal is testing him to see if he would make a good guide to lead him into the light; it would have been cute if Leo had been the first person to make that guide, but - haha). And people died. But the thing is that if all of his relationships were based on personal gain, what does he have going for Alex and him? They are extremely different people. I mean, they couldn't make a worse match. I love them both (or at least loved them both), but I want to yell at Alex to get away from him while she still can because I don't think his selfishness is going anywhere, fangs or no fangs. To be honest, without their respective curses, they have no connection at all. I could see them having a one-night-stand as Alex had originally planned, but that's it.
And pray tell me: where does this epic love come from? I'm not hating on the ship (after series 4 I was pretty much ready to see them together, but... you know, 6 seasons and a movie later!), but I don't understand the epic squee that goes on around it. How does a girl get over a guy having had her killed within the span of two or three months and how does she suddenly respect him right after he's been exposed as a liar for the 1927348478523th time (yes, I mean his BS to Lady Mary about having been clean for 250 years)? Alex is a smart, insightful person who takes none of anyone's BS - and yet, she makes an almost complete turnaround between 5x03 and 5x04. I love it that she still gives him a piece of mind in 5x05 and 5x06 and I actually appreciate her reluctance to kill him even when he's evil (as opposed to Annie's strange reaction to Mitchell's desire to die in 3x08 - she has known him far longer than Alex has known Hal and she doesn't even try to talk him out of it?), but the fact that she is still pretty relationship-focused in the finale is something I can't wrap my mind around. Hal is all: Sorry our thing didn't work out. Dude, you've just killed a whole pub of people! And for some reason, Alex doesn't call him out on that. She just stands there, obviously regretting that her object of desire is a mass murderer. How sad.
But then - unexpected fix-it! He is human now, so yay, they can have a thing! And babies and whatever! Who cares that he "killed entire phonebooks of people"? He's human now (humans obviously don't kill phonebooks of people, mind you; serial killers, what are those?).
Basically, I think that the "reality" theory being the right one is a disaster of epic proportions because:
- It makes no sense. There has never been a cure for supernatural conditions within this verse. The closest to that was Kemp and Lucy's machine but it didn't work.
- It butchers the trio's characterization. WHY would Tom and Alex conveniently ignore all of Hal's past sins, especially if he explicitly states that he is not both good Hal and bad Hal, i.e. he still has the person who did terrible things inside him?
- The whole killing the devil thing makes no sense either. First of all, he made it genuinely easy to do - he just stood there and screamed for, like, no sane reason whatsoever. Secondly, how convenient it is that everyone's curse is suddenly focused on the devil. Why would his death cancel them anyone? If you're a vampire and the person who turned you dies, you don't revert to being human. So would the death of the source of vampirism cancel it? This is what I hate above all else in series 5: it took certain elements of the in-verse mythos and steered them away from science towards magic. Lucy and Kemp attempted to cure lycanthropy through science: that was innovative and cool. And it made sense at the time! If you kill the virus outside the body that's already infected, that body will still remain infected, will it not? (Forgive me, I suck at science.) So why does killing the devil lift their curses (and how does being a ghost a curse?)
- There have been some disputes about whether all supernaturals were cured or only the trio. If it's only the trio, then it makes even less because who was it that cured them? The only one I can think of is God, but Hatch specifically told us that God didn't care. That's actually something that for once ties into the in-verse mythology quite well. Given what the afterlife looks like, it's very believable. Even if God had made humans, he got bored and skipped off. So why would he reward the illustrious trio with humanity? And if it wasn't God, then it makes even less sense because HOW?
- The whole idea of a reward for their actions rubs me the wrong way. They were never promised a Shanshu, so why did they get it? Moreover, it once again negates the point that being human transcends physical humanity. Given the proximity of the event to Hal's little speech, it renders the whole idea of the show utterly pointless.
(c) ameliatully
Let's not talk about how evil Hal delivering these lines is both stupid and ironic. In this context, it doesn't matter who says it. What matters is that someone does (the same way George tells Herrick that his actions prove his humanity instead of destroying it) - and then we get this completely illogical ending that tells us: sure, inner qualities matter, but here, have some physical humanity too. A dubious reward if you ask me: grow old and die. Personally I see them having identity crises, lots of RL issues, major falling-outs - and then they'll all die. Great. Happy ending.
I'm not sure this has a point really. Maybe I just have a bleak outlook on things, but at the same time, not subscribing to the "reality" theory helps me deal with major logic!fail present in the finale.
As for the third theory, the one where they're all dead and gone to heaven, let me refer you to this wonderful meta by chevronnine, which I agree with because it's logical.