I haven’t got much to add, as this is really very comprehensive, and all very interesting and useful, especially as I am trying to write a number of AUs where Helen is slightly different in various ways. I find it hard enough writing her as her
( ... )
I'm coming to the conclusion that she is pretty much a sociopath - that she is completely without empathy, and all her head-messing is done on the intellectual and sexual levels. She is also, apparently, the complete egoist - and yet she is fascinating, because she is also intelligent, brave, and has a wicked sense of humour. You can see why Nick and Stephen fell for her.
I think she is a sociopath - which is where the horrified fascination comes in. And the egotism, oh my.
Also, something occurred to me yesterday - you may have already thought of this and be intending to use it in s2 meta if you're doing that - in the s2 timeline, Claudia didn't exist, so therefore Helen doesn't get to do her one good deed and save her. So that gives the s2 versions of everyone even *less* reason to trust her, surely, because there's no mitigating circumstances (or if there were, nobody mentions them).
I can see why they fell for her, but not why Stephen went back...
Now there you raise an interesting point: everyone except Nick will react to Helen on the basis of things we haven't seen (save the tag on 1.06.)
What's more, there's a hellish time paradox in there, and I can see why the writers don't want to face up to the consequences.
Neither Helen nor Nick (nor Ryan) experienced the events that Lester, Stephen, Abby and Connor did. We know that because Claudia wasn't there, and the ARC was established, and there was Leek, and probably other things too. Yet a Nick and a Helen were part of those events. That Nick and Helen also went into the anomaly to the Permian, with Ryan.
What happened to that Nick and that Helen? On one hand they never existed. On the other hand, for everyone else they existed and they vanished, to be replaced with our Nick and Helen, the ones who had experienced first series.
Alternate time-lines don't start from scratch - they happen on the same time scale and in the same sort of order, only differently.
The Helen of 1-05 is the most problematic aspect of her characterisation, especially viewed in the light of what comes in S2. Why *does* she save Claudia
( ... )
There are potential problems with his existence before the altered timeline but there are problems with the conspiracy between Helen and Leek, anyway. When did it start? Helen is like Cutter and would have no knowledge of the history of the altered timeline so how did she hook up with Leek before 2-01? The creepy!soldiercleanerguy in the shopping centre suggests something is going on then - and he and his clones seem to be Helen's not Leek's.
It seems like they got things organised very fast if Leek didn't exist prior to 2-01. Bu it's quite possible.
1. clones are impossible, and there is no evidence to the contrary. (however, there are several sci-fi books in which one individual is woven through past and future so much that it appears to be clones, when its really just one person)
2. the assumption in your argument is that its the same Helen from Series 1, like its the same Nick; rather than a slightly different Helen - like Lester or Abby.
no worries about lateness; glad to see you're okayrodloxMarch 26 2008, 18:09:22 UTC
>Also, an interestingly, if the predators are so damn dangerous, and they are, why is Helen delaying contact with Cutter and Lester until the next day? Assuming Helen's showing up linearly (ep6 follows ep 3, not the other way around - as an example), then she's being cautious: she doesn't want to walk up to the Home Office or wherever, and get arrested before she can put two words in.
(and unless those bats have the metabolism of a shrew, a single day won't make the death count skyrocket)
>where is she getting the newspaper? well, assuming the UK is like the US, she could've gotten it from a McDonalds or similar food place, from a bookstore (some folks buy a paper, but don't take it home with them), or from a park bench.
>Helen, as usual, dodges a question she does not want answer by ignoring it and going off at a tangent. well if she told him what kind of Creature it was, that would negate the need for a meeting with Nick and Lester, wouldn't it?
>Why has she held off?a) she thought she could stop the bats herself
( ... )
Re: no worries about lateness; glad to see you're okaysteamshovelmamaMarch 26 2008, 19:01:07 UTC
"if Superman stops a building from collapsing, he saves a hundred people -- do we care that he only stopped the building to save Lois Lane?"
I think we do.
Okay, if you're one of the rescued you're going to be pretty damn' glad whatever his motive on that occasion, but it indicates something about his character. It says quite plainly that he cannot be trusted to save people when Lois Lane isn't in danger and in fact may happily watch a hundred people die and not give a damn *because* Lois isn't one of them.
Re: no worries about lateness; glad to see you're okayrodloxMarch 26 2008, 19:17:56 UTC
>>"if Superman stops a building from collapsing, he saves a hundred people -- do we care that he only stopped the building to save Lois Lane?" >I think we do. >Okay, if you're one of the rescued you're going to be pretty damn' glad whatever his motive on that occasion, but it indicates something about his character. It says quite plainly that he cannot be trusted to save people when Lois Lane isn't in danger and in fact may happily watch a hundred people die and not give a damn *because* Lois isn't one of them.
true. but what about when Superman (or Helen) only shows up at a time when Lois (or Nick) is in danger...rather moots it, doesn't that?
and Helen's lie in ep 4 (about the sabertooths) kept the worms from spreading throughout the populace. (and potentially into Nick) so wouldn't that be 2-1 in favor of her?
Re: no worries about lateness; glad to see you're okaysteamshovelmamaMarch 26 2008, 19:49:51 UTC
"but what about when Superman (or Helen) only shows up at a time when Lois (or Nick) is in danger...rather moots it, doesn't that?"
Depends on whether he or she could have turned up at other times to save people.
Having knowledge that could prevent or predict collpse of buildings but refusing to share it counts against you, too.
"Helen's lie in ep 4 (about the sabertooths) kept the worms from spreading throughout the populace"
Assuming she knew about them. I interpreted that as Helen cleverly manipulating Nick and Lester into taking her to an anomaly site so she could escape. For me it doesn't count for or against her.
Which are the 2 points in her favour? Rescuing Claudia is 1 - no arguments, there. What's the other?
>Of course we will go extinct - all species do, in the end - but it hardly matters how. Why is Helen so obsessive about it? maybe because of what Nick told her - that it doesn't matter that humans eventually go extinct, because people are dying currently. Helen's trying to brain them into thinking longer term.
>CUTTER: It would be more helpful if you could tell us how to catch it. except that, if she could catch it, don't you think she would have?
>Stephen, however, comes to her rescue again with diversionary tactics. ...or keeps it from transforming from Primeval into The Helen and Nick argue hour. ;)
>It is very noticeable that, apart from those comments, Helen stays out of the fight to kill the future predator. I'd have to re-watch...but I'm pretty sure they don't trust Helen with any sort of weapons.
>In fact, when they enter, she goes straight for the babies, and this is a bad thing?
>Her expression when she first sees them is interesting too - a quick smile of pleasure.the babies' shape triggers the same feelings as
( ... )
Helen isn't trying to stop humans going extinct! She keeps telling everyone that it's inevitable. Indeed, she seems to relish the idea. In what way is her so-called longer-term thinking going to help? All that seems to consist of is her going off on a Cook's tour of the past and future, with or without Nick, leaving the rest of the team to cope as best they can.
>Helen isn't trying to stop humans going extinct! I didn't say she was trying to stop that extinction.
>She keeps telling everyone that it's inevitable. Indeed, she seems to relish the idea. In what way is her so-called longer-term thinking going to help? well, one could hope that Nick and the others would stop trying to piss on the flames & try extinguishing the burning skyscraper. (one can hope) ;)
But in what way has Helen suggested this? Where is the evidence that she has even thought about it? Even cares? Even wants it to happen?
In fact, my personal speculation, which at least fits what happens and what Helen says, is that one of the reasons she wants Nick to go with her is that she is scared he might be effective in discovering what is causing the anomalies and in closing them.
Comments 64
Reply
Reply
Also, something occurred to me yesterday - you may have already thought of this and be intending to use it in s2 meta if you're doing that - in the s2 timeline, Claudia didn't exist, so therefore Helen doesn't get to do her one good deed and save her. So that gives the s2 versions of everyone even *less* reason to trust her, surely, because there's no mitigating circumstances (or if there were, nobody mentions them).
I can see why they fell for her, but not why Stephen went back...
Reply
What's more, there's a hellish time paradox in there, and I can see why the writers don't want to face up to the consequences.
Neither Helen nor Nick (nor Ryan) experienced the events that Lester, Stephen, Abby and Connor did. We know that because Claudia wasn't there, and the ARC was established, and there was Leek, and probably other things too. Yet a Nick and a Helen were part of those events. That Nick and Helen also went into the anomaly to the Permian, with Ryan.
What happened to that Nick and that Helen? On one hand they never existed. On the other hand, for everyone else they existed and they vanished, to be replaced with our Nick and Helen, the ones who had experienced first series.
Alternate time-lines don't start from scratch - they happen on the same time scale and in the same sort of order, only differently.
Reply
Reply
Reply
but that's just my suspicion/hunch.
Reply
It seems like they got things organised very fast if Leek didn't exist prior to 2-01. Bu it's quite possible.
Reply
2. the assumption in your argument is that its the same Helen from Series 1, like its the same Nick; rather than a slightly different Helen - like Lester or Abby.
Reply
Assuming Helen's showing up linearly (ep6 follows ep 3, not the other way around - as an example), then she's being cautious: she doesn't want to walk up to the Home Office or wherever, and get arrested before she can put two words in.
(and unless those bats have the metabolism of a shrew, a single day won't make the death count skyrocket)
>where is she getting the newspaper?
well, assuming the UK is like the US, she could've gotten it from a McDonalds or similar food place, from a bookstore (some folks buy a paper, but don't take it home with them), or from a park bench.
>Helen, as usual, dodges a question she does not want answer by ignoring it and going off at a tangent.
well if she told him what kind of Creature it was, that would negate the need for a meeting with Nick and Lester, wouldn't it?
>Why has she held off?a) she thought she could stop the bats herself ( ... )
Reply
I think we do.
Okay, if you're one of the rescued you're going to be pretty damn' glad whatever his motive on that occasion, but it indicates something about his character. It says quite plainly that he cannot be trusted to save people when Lois Lane isn't in danger and in fact may happily watch a hundred people die and not give a damn *because* Lois isn't one of them.
Reply
>I think we do.
>Okay, if you're one of the rescued you're going to be pretty damn' glad whatever his motive on that occasion, but it indicates something about his character. It says quite plainly that he cannot be trusted to save people when Lois Lane isn't in danger and in fact may happily watch a hundred people die and not give a damn *because* Lois isn't one of them.
true. but what about when Superman (or Helen) only shows up at a time when Lois (or Nick) is in danger...rather moots it, doesn't that?
and Helen's lie in ep 4 (about the sabertooths) kept the worms from spreading throughout the populace. (and potentially into Nick)
so wouldn't that be 2-1 in favor of her?
(yeah, the 1 is the Underground)
Reply
Depends on whether he or she could have turned up at other times to save people.
Having knowledge that could prevent or predict collpse of buildings but refusing to share it counts against you, too.
"Helen's lie in ep 4 (about the sabertooths) kept the worms from spreading throughout the populace"
Assuming she knew about them. I interpreted that as Helen cleverly manipulating Nick and Lester into taking her to an anomaly site so she could escape. For me it doesn't count for or against her.
Which are the 2 points in her favour? Rescuing Claudia is 1 - no arguments, there. What's the other?
Reply
>Of course we will go extinct - all species do, in the end - but it hardly matters how. Why is Helen so obsessive about it?
maybe because of what Nick told her - that it doesn't matter that humans eventually go extinct, because people are dying currently. Helen's trying to brain them into thinking longer term.
>CUTTER: It would be more helpful if you could tell us how to catch it.
except that, if she could catch it, don't you think she would have?
>Stephen, however, comes to her rescue again with diversionary tactics.
...or keeps it from transforming from Primeval into The Helen and Nick argue hour. ;)
>It is very noticeable that, apart from those comments, Helen stays out of the fight to kill the future predator.
I'd have to re-watch...but I'm pretty sure they don't trust Helen with any sort of weapons.
>In fact, when they enter, she goes straight for the babies,
and this is a bad thing?
>Her expression when she first sees them is interesting too - a quick smile of pleasure.the babies' shape triggers the same feelings as ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I didn't say she was trying to stop that extinction.
>She keeps telling everyone that it's inevitable. Indeed, she seems to relish the idea. In what way is her so-called longer-term thinking going to help?
well, one could hope that Nick and the others would stop trying to piss on the flames & try extinguishing the burning skyscraper.
(one can hope) ;)
Cook's tour?
Reply
In fact, my personal speculation, which at least fits what happens and what Helen says, is that one of the reasons she wants Nick to go with her is that she is scared he might be effective in discovering what is causing the anomalies and in closing them.
Reply
Leave a comment