Posted Apr 30, 2012 @ 3:06 PM
One of the things that bugs me about this show and Once Upon A Time, the similarities... Both are set in mystical Maine towns where weird things happen... both have a smart-ass blonde cop trying to figure things out... but Audrey is so much smarter than Emma. Wish Haven had the good attention OUAT is getting, and OUAT had a smarter hero!
Posted May 1, 2012 @ 3:40 AM
She may well still get memory wiped, but personally I don't think she actually knew how the Troubles started or how to end them. I got the impression that Haven Lucy told Real Lucy that she (Haven Lucy) knew that stuff, but didn't actually get into specifics, and if Audrey had learned how to end the troubles, her behaviour after this and in the following episode seems weirdly underwhelmed by that information, like you said.
Lucy tells her that Haven Lucy said she knew how the Troubles started and how to stop them for good. It doesn't sound like Audrey has yet told anyone about this, and it's pretty much a Rule of Television that if you learn something important and don't immediately tell anyone, something will happen to make sure the information is lost.
Edited by furrylump, May 1, 2012 @ 3:41 AM.
Posted May 1, 2012 @ 10:13 AM
Audrey is so much smarter than Emma. Wish Haven had the good attention OUAT is getting, and OUAT had a smarter hero!
So, I wasn't the only one watching OUAT this week and thinking, "When it comes to small Maine towns under a curse, Storybrooke really drew the short straw for which snarky blond cop with a mysterious background who seems to be immune to the curse and who may be the town's savior it got." If Audrey had been in Storybrooke, OUAT would have been a miniseries because she'd have noticed that everyone in town seemed to correspond to a fairy tale character before anyone even started trying to convince her. She'd also have shot Regina ages ago, which means that her handsome cop partner who's numb to everything but her would have still been alive. (Seriously, the number of parallels between the shows gets dizzying.) Meanwhile, if Emma had shown up in Haven, the Chief would have pretty quickly sent her back to fake Howard and asked if he could get her a different personality, or else he and Nathan would have to muddle through with dealing with the Troubles on their own this time around. By the second episode, instead of waiting to finally confirm what she already knew, Nathan would have been saying, "So, you didn't notice anything odd about how the weather changed based on that one woman's moods? How about you being wrapped up in a cocoon? Does that happen to people a lot where you're from? Because I grew up in Haven, where weird is normal, and that was weird to me. Do you not notice anything strange about this town?"
On a Haven in the media note, Lucas Bryant was listed among the fantasy casting ideas for a movie of the Dark Tower series at the tor.com blog. He was considered the relative unknown up against people like Javier Bardem, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Viggo Mortensen. I would quibble with their characterization of Nathan as "stone-faced" unless that's a key attribute of this character they're casting for (I haven't read these books), since Nathan is really only stone-faced if you're not paying attention. Once you get used to him, you learn that you really can read his thoughts from his face. There was some support for him in one of the comments, saying that he carries himself with "a sort of badass Old West cowboy vibe" on Haven.
And something I forgot to mention about "Business as Usual" (yes, with as much as I said, I still forgot something, but hey, I practically transcribe the episodes, so I notice a lot of stuff): there's an interesting symmetry at work. For one thing, in the next-to-last episode of the first season, Audrey discovered that she was also Lucy. In the next-to-last episode of the second season, Audrey meets the real Lucy and discovers that she was also someone else before that. Plus, in the episode where Duke is discovering the clues and information left for him by his father, Audrey is discovering the clues and information she left for herself.
I got the impression that Haven Lucy told Real Lucy that she (Haven Lucy) knew that stuff, but didn't actually get into specifics
That would fit the way Audrey was acting, but then you have to wonder why she didn't tell anyone if she discovered it, even if it was leaving secret messages for herself with her memory twin. Unless what she discovered was so horrible that she didn't want anyone to know, and that's part of why she fled. Which would fit my fear/theory that it might have something to do with something Nathan has to do -- if she learned that it involved her partner's little boy she might want to keep people from learning what she knew.
Posted May 1, 2012 @ 12:52 PM
I have s3 stuff.
People who follow Haven on Twitter might be aware that there's a new character this season. Mostly because the actress kind of kamikazi-ed herself into the group.
The Zuckerman sisters gave a blog interview on Sunday night, where they spilled the beans on some things that we can expect in season 3. The good stuff starts about halfway through.
Interview (with spoilers)
The connection tends to crap out at times, so for people who do have lives and can't listen to the whole thing:
The long and short of it (again with spoilers)
Edited by bella1013, May 1, 2012 @ 12:56 PM.
Posted May 3, 2012 @ 4:53 PM
One last thing about "Business As Usual" that just occurred to me:
The headline on the newspaper issue about the Rev's death says something like "Haven Mourns." That doesn't sound to me like the article tells anything resembling the real story. If they were reporting on the Rev being shot to keep him from stabbing a girl, they'd have a totally different headline rather than acting like the Rev's loss was something to mourn. I also don't think they'd have hung Audrey out to dry by writing about her shooting him without giving the reason why, or else she'd have been mad for a lot more than them not admitting they knew her, and there would also be a totally different headline. So I wonder what the story was -- the Rev died in a hunting accident? But then it seems like a lot of people are well aware of what really happened.
Which brings up another issue: how are they keeping some of the crazier things quiet to the outside world? The national and international media love freaky small-town stuff. A couple of summers ago, the mayor in my town that's a little bigger than Haven (given the population listed in the Christmas episode, though that doesn't fit what we see or what's likely in that region) shot her daughter and herself, and friends from as far away as Australia had heard of the incident. A local clergyman shot to stop him from stabbing a teenage girl because he thought she was a cannibal would certainly make national news. Then again, my town is part of a major metropolitan area and in a top-ten media market, so all the network affiliates and a major daily newspaper are right there. I somehow doubt Vince and Dave are feeding articles to the Associated Press. And I suppose Dwight does some heavy-duty cleaning so that no one's likely to spread the word about some of the more outrageous incidents. But, still, people do talk, and a mass kidnapping like in the finale is bound to get out.
I want to rewatch the finale before doing much commenting on it, though there is a continuity issue within the episode. Duke mentions that he hasn't seen his father in 27 years, and yet later his father tells him about an incident that took place 26 years ago, his role in it, and how he felt in the aftermath, referring to how he felt every time he saw the parents of the dead kids. In the season premiere, Duke established that he was there when his father died -- unless maybe what he meant was that he was around and knew what happened rather than that he was physically present to watch it happen. Meanwhile, Lucy supposedly disappeared soon after the Colorado Kid murder 27 years ago, and yet Simon claims Lucy killed him, and the Chief says she beat him to it. So if Lucy disappeared 27 years ago and killed Simon, how was he around 26 years ago? Unless maybe she was only in hiding or on the run but hadn't actually gone away for good. The way Duke talks about his father and their relationship, it does seem to me like he would have had to be older than seven when his father died. At any rate, I think they need to post a timeline on the wall in the writers' room because they have some consistency issues there.
Posted May 5, 2012 @ 3:51 AM
I've been thinking that the promise Duke made his father was probably a non verbal one. Maybe Simon stated it in his will or a letter to be opened after he died.
Posted May 6, 2012 @ 5:04 PM
That and Simons headstone clearly says he died in May of 1983.
Oops. I guess they need to keep three things prominently displayed on the wall of the writers' room: A timeline of all the major events in the backstory, a 2010 calendar with series events written on the appropriate dates, and a big sign reminding them that it's still 2010 in Haven.
As for the episode, one of the best things about it is that the Nathan Adorableness Factor is pretty much off the charts, with his nerves at seeing Audrey again for the first time since the kiss, the whole scene where he asks her out, the "b-br-breakfast" bit, the scene with his dad, the coat and tie, etc., but one I didn't notice until watching for the recap was when he and Audrey were talking about why the girl who'd been raped came back from the dead. Her guess was revenge, but his was "the truth." And that pretty much sums up Nathan. Deep down inside, he's an idealistic optimist, and that may be his biggest difference from Audrey, who's more of a cynical realist. He tries to see the good side and hopes for the best in people -- like he really did seem to think he could remind the ghost of the Rev about preaching forgiveness and have it affect him. I guess that shows just how much Duke hurt him if he can't trust or believe in Duke anymore. But then after all that adorableness, he became truly scary at the end. He joins Nick from Grimm as possibly the sweetest, most adorable, scariest badass on TV. I think even Duke was terrified of him, even before he saw the tattoo.
I'm more convinced that Audrey's abduction wasn't about Audrey, because that was definitely a staged crime scene. If what they wanted was to kidnap her, they didn't need to trash the place because they had her as soon as she opened the door. But was the set-up to get Nathan to kill Duke, to force Nathan into accepting his "destiny" like the Rev was trying to do for Duke, or what? I'd joked that it would turn out that the gunshot was Audrey, who'd already escaped her captors and who fired a round in the air to get Nathan and Duke's attention, but that may not be so crazy.
I'd been pretty sure that the Chief was using reverse psychology on Nathan with all the stuff about how he couldn't be in love with Audrey, but watching this time, he really convinced me that he was sincere. Then again, he really convinced me that he was sincere when he acted like he had no idea who Audrey was or who Lucy was and when he acted like he thought Audrey's Troubles theories were insane, so maybe he's just that good. If the issue is that she can't be in love with Nathan, though, then he's talking to the wrong person. Nathan doesn't really have any control over Audrey's feelings, and anything he did to persuade her not to love him would affect their ability to work together. Besides, she was already taking risks for him even before things started turning romantic.
It occurred to me that the Rev needed an Evil Scheming Consultant because he missed a golden opportunity back when Max was in town and alive and none of the current generation knew about Duke's Trouble and Nathan didn't know the truth about his parentage. What the Rev should have done was hold a very public prayer service and get his people to pray for Nathan to be healed because he's a good man who deserves to have the burden of his curse lifted from him. Meanwhile, he should have set up a situation where Duke would feel threatened enough by Max to have to kill him, but probably in an ambush-type situation for Max, so that it's pretty much guaranteed Duke would win. Duke kills Max, which would end the Trouble in his son, so Nathan would be cured, but since Nathan wouldn't have known Max was his father or about Duke's Trouble slaying ability, he wouldn't make the connection and it would look like the Rev's prayers worked. That would have made the Rev look truly legitimate, and even Nathan might have started believing in him. Audrey might have been more cynical, but if she questioned his cure, it might have damaged her relationship with Nathan. Of course, the Chief would have known what happened, but he's in a no-win situation because if he doesn't tell Nathan the truth, he might end up on opposite sides of the struggle from his son, but if he does tell, then that would still turn Nathan against him, even if Nathan did believe him (and since it's possible the adoption wasn't entirely legal, there may not even be paperwork proof). For the Rev, it's a no-lose situation because if it doesn't work, then he can just say that God sees into the hearts of men, and although Nathan seems to be kind, honest and fair, the Lord must have seen something in his heart that meant he deserved the curse and was unworthy of a cure.
And the fact that I came up with that makes me understand why even my friends who like me are a wee bit afraid of me.
Posted May 7, 2012 @ 4:43 AM
I'm not sure the Rev is quite the schemer he thinks he is. I've lived in small towns, and it would be child's play to get one group to turn against another, even in a place far less divided than Haven*. I think the Rev, for all his dramatic zealotry, is really quite conflicted. He knows what he wants to achieve, but is also aware that he'll have to compromise his beliefs - severely - to achieve it. We see several scenes that suggest he's struggling with the whole "does the end justify the means?" aspect of his mission.
*As others have said, it's surprising that we don't see any other churches in Haven. I've seen towns less than half its size have more than you can count. And, realistically, when one church - the Rev's - comes out in fervent support of anything - ridding the town of the Troubled, in this case - it's almost inevitable that its nearest rival would resist, fiercely. But I guess that might get a bit intense of a TV show. Heck, I'd be the first in line to hate any sign that it was turning into religious warfare. But it is a tad unrealistic in a town that size, even somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Incidentally, this brings me close to something I've been almost mentioning for a while. My husband finds it difficult to watch this show with me, because he's Scottish and has relatives in Belfast and grew up in the seventies and eighties, and for him "the troubles" means something else entirely. As a name for a period of regional upheaval, it is pretty loaded.
Edited by Spirit of 74, May 7, 2012 @ 4:45 AM.
Posted May 7, 2012 @ 12:30 PM
I think the Rev, for all his dramatic zealotry, is really quite conflicted. He knows what he wants to achieve, but is also aware that he'll have to compromise his beliefs - severely - to achieve it. We see several scenes that suggest he's struggling with the whole "does the end justify the means?" aspect of his mission.
Also, while the Rev was a bigot and full of hate, I think he was also an honest man. He really did seem to believe the things he said. He strung Duke along, but I don't recall him ever outright lying. He might not have been willing to win by lying, and he seemed to think he could win honestly, so I guess he wasn't willing to win by deception. He might have seen tricking people into thinking he'd cured Nathan with prayer as dishonest.
As others have said, it's surprising that we don't see any other churches in Haven.
We see lots of churches in Haven -- the establishing shots of the town are full of steeples, and they often drive by churches other than the Rev's when going around town. We just haven't had much mention of these other congregations or seen any effect of them. The Chief mentioned going to church as one of his attempts to deal with his Trouble, and I'd assume he didn't go to the Rev's. Then in this episode they mentioned funerals being held in two different churches, with one of them being Catholic. Otherwise, there's no sign that anyone in town attends any church other than the Rev's. I wouldn't want to see a Haven holy war, but it would just be nice to get a hint that the Rev's church doesn't represent all religion in town. They might not actively oppose him, but there should be a sign that they're not all on the same page.
My husband finds it difficult to watch this show with me, because he's Scottish and has relatives in Belfast and grew up in the seventies and eighties, and for him "the troubles" means something else entirely. As a name for a period of regional upheaval, it is pretty loaded.
I wonder if that's deliberate to evoke that kind of baggage because I suppose the effects are similar in that it's a deep rift between two groups based on something that really shouldn't matter (though I suppose in Haven the fact that your neighbor could kill you with his emotions makes the hatred a little less senseless). There's even the element of "outsiders" -- the Troubled people who came to Haven because their problems usually didn't manifest there -- messing things up for the group that felt they had a claim to the place. But it's hard for me to judge. I'm mostly Scots-Irish of Ulster descent, but my family's been in the States for too many generations for me to grasp the impact of that conflict.
I have wondered why the non-Troubled don't just leave and find a different town up or down the coast where they don't have to worry about their neighbors' emotions killing them. That's apparently the only place that's safe for the Troubled in non-Troubled times, so they can't really leave, and it sounds like there have been Troubled people there for centuries, so they have as much claim to the place as anyone else. I suppose there's some degree of "my family's been here for ages and I'm not going" stubbornness, but the way Penny described the Rev's background, it doesn't sound like he was a multi-generation resident. What was keeping him there?
Posted May 8, 2012 @ 3:37 PM
Posted May 9, 2012 @ 12:29 PM
I'm pretty disappointed that the DVD/BD won't be out until September.
September?!!! No!! Fortunately, I have the season on tape, but I want to see it in Blu-Ray. (whine)
It does look like SyFy still has the finale as one of the full episodes online, and you can buy episodes to download from Amazon (and probably iTunes). And I'm sure SyFy will do a marathon before the season premiere.
Another thought on the finale: I wonder if the Chief has blown up before and been reassembled because that's not the kind of thing you'd expect Vince to think would be possible unless he somehow knew it was possible. I mean, if your friend turns to stone and blows up, you're probably not thinking you can just get some super glue and put him back together like a broken vase. I also wonder if that's why the Chief was attempting to kill himself, so he'd be dead before he blew up and they wouldn't be able to bring him back. Or was that whole bit just to provide a loophole and an excuse to have Ghost Chief be there?
The scene where Nathan is trying to get Audrey to talk about Duke ditching her and Audrey's trying to get Nathan to tell him what his dad's ghost said cracks me up because those two trying to get each other to talk about things they don't want to talk about is like a Robocop vs. Rambo showdown (Robocop can't miss, Rambo can't be hit -- a friend of mine used to do this whole comedy bit about that). On the one hand, Nathan might have the edge because when he doesn't want to talk, he just clams up and doesn't talk, but then on the other hand, Audrey is more verbal and capable of deflecting from having to talk about her own stuff by questioning him persistently, while him clamming up keeps him from being able to ask her questions.
Posted May 12, 2012 @ 12:08 PM
And because this is driving me nuts, I'm still working out what the deal was with the Chief coming back from the dead to tell Nathan he couldn't be in love with Audrey. So, it's pro/con list time!
Why the Chief might have been using reverse psychology:
- It's the way the Chief rolls. His entire plan to get Audrey to decide to stay in town was based on trying to make it look like she shouldn't. We also know now that he knew Lucy, while he pretended to have no idea about her, and that he wanted Audrey in town and working with Nathan, while he initially acted like he didn't want her there and told her she was wasting Nathan's time.
- The Chief knows Nathan well enough to know that him telling Nathan not to do something is as good as giving him a direct order to do it.
- The Chief seemed way too savvy not to have seen it coming -- you take two attractive, unattached young people who hit it off almost instantly and get along well and throw them into a situation where they spend nearly every waking hour together in often intense circumstances that require total trust and what do you think is going to happen? Add in that he knew about Audrey's Trouble immunity, so he likely had to have known Nathan would be able to feel her, and it would have been way too inevitable for him to be surprised. If them getting together was really that bad, you'd think he'd have already been taking steps to make sure it didn't happen (like suggesting to Nathan that he ask her out).
- If the reason he gave Nathan was true -- that it's dangerous for her to love him because she'd take risks for him -- then that's not just a risk with romantic love, and that was already a possibility even before the Chief died. She already showed signs of caring deeply for Nathan in the way she defended and supported him to the Chief and in the way she stood by Nathan when he was going through difficult things. Not to mention that on the day they met, she threw herself in front of a truck to save Nathan's life.
- Vince and Dave were practically frantic for Nathan to get together with Audrey and were very worried to learn she was with Chris. Since they worked with the Chief on the Troubles, that could mean they had the same goals but were using different methods.
- If it really is a problem for Audrey to take risks out of love, then Nathan's not the person to talk to. Even if Nathan backs away, she could still love someone else.
- His "take care of our girl" at the end sounded like a blessing of sorts, like he was acknowledging that Nathan was going to do what he wanted him to do.
Reasons why the Chief might have been sincere and serious:
- Is he really going to come back from the dead to play mind games with his son or would that be when he finally became more direct?
- On a related note, would he come back from the dead to play mind games to spur on something that was already happening anyway?
- Because of his relationship with Lucy, there may have been a reason he never thought Audrey and Nathan would fall in love, and his relationship with Lucy could also have something to do with why he thinks it's a bad idea for that to happen.
- The problem with Audrey taking risks for love may not be about her, but rather about Nathan, only the Chief can't really tell him that Audrey may at some point need to let something bad happen to him in order to save the town.
- The "take care of our girl" at the end may be an acknowledgement that Nathan's going to do what he wants, but if he does, he needs to keep this in mind.
I would have to say that the arguments for reverse psychology seem to mostly rely on events that have actually already happened, while the arguments for sincerity rely mostly on speculation about the future and about things we don't know yet. So either has just as much a chance of being right.
Posted May 12, 2012 @ 3:51 PM
Unless there's a historic precedent of a past-Audrey and some crucially important Havenite falling in love and it leading to disaster. Then it might seem as if this development would be crossing a serious line.
Something else that occurred to me, that relates to your Reverse Psychology Argument Number Six is that, yeah, she could easily have fallen in love with someone else, creating the same risks to her safety and, by association, the safety of the town. Warning Nathan off can't prevent that. But what if, in the hypothetical past scenario, it wasn't pre-Audrey who got hurt, endangering the town, but the person she loved? If the Chief wants to protect Nathan, he knows that he wouldn't mind risking himself, but might hesitate to risk Audrey's safety, and the town itself.
The Chief can't prevent a risk to Audrey, but he could prevent one to Nathan. And Nathan won't act to protect himself, but he might to protect Audrey.
Of course, all this is rendered - temporarily? - irrelevant if her memory's wiped. I like your theory that her disappearance is more to provoke a confrontation between Nathan and Duke than it is related to Lucy's experience.
Posted May 13, 2012 @ 6:40 AM
I think the difference is that Audrey is so well thought out. From the pilot episode, you know who she is and why she does the things she does. Because the writers have been working on her for years, and they've actually found an actress who puts in an effort to constantly build on that.
Emma, not so much. Also, in a series where you're supposed to know everyone it's much harder to portray the non fairy tale character. I don't think Emma is necessarily a bad character or badly portrayed, but there's no connection or consistency there. Compare it to someone throwing darts blindfolded because at this point, I'm pretty sure Emma has no clue what she wants or how to get it. She's just so all over the place, it annoys me.
Posted May 13, 2012 @ 4:09 PM
And this gets me in the same state at film, literature, and particularly music these days: the mediocre-at-best stuff is adored, while the interesting, original, really good stuff is ignored. Haven is so good, and the "I don't like genre stuff" doesn't cut it these days. I'm aware that not all these shows have been successful, but this season has seen Once Upon a Time, Grimm, Supernatural, The Vampire Diaries, The Secret Circle, Alcatraz, Terra Nova, Awake, True Blood, Fringe and others. And yet when I tell people about Haven, they're all "Oh, but it's on Syfy."
Then I calm down and remind myself that we got a third season.
Posted May 13, 2012 @ 7:12 PM
Posted May 14, 2012 @ 12:55 PM
Then I calm down and remind myself that we got a third season
And who knows, we might go five seasons and a tv movie and we'll still think it's the best thing ever.
Posted May 14, 2012 @ 5:09 PM
But what if, in the hypothetical past scenario, it wasn't pre-Audrey who got hurt, endangering the town, but the person she loved? If the Chief wants to protect Nathan, he knows that he wouldn't mind risking himself, but might hesitate to risk Audrey's safety, and the town itself.
I suppose that would be reverse psychology with a different aim, but it would fall into the "he's sincere about warning Nathan not to go there" side of things. And then we get into the issues of seeing it coming and that their bond was already pretty deep even before he died. I guess there's also what Audrey herself had come to think, that bad things happen when she loses her focus and allows herself to have a personal life. Nathan is about her only option since he's the one she ends up being around when there is a crisis. So, if Nathan backs off and keeps things as just friends, her chances of really being in love with anyone get slimmer.
Penny mentioned that the only time anyone saw Lucy cry was when the Colorado Kid died. I wonder if he was the person Lucy loved, where things went to hell because of that relationship, with him getting killed and Lucy fleeing soon afterward, and the Troubles continuing for a couple more years without their Troubles whisperer being around. This time, the Troubles had been around for a couple of years before Audrey got there, and Nathan says they're getting worse, so it seems as though last time, she wasn't there for the worst of it.
It would be easier to parse the Chief's ghost's final words to Nathan -- a blessing of sorts, or "well, if you're gonna do it anyway, be careful about it"? -- if Nathan or Audrey had actually done anything in his presence that might have changed or confirmed his view. But neither of them took risks for each other or pointedly didn't take risks for each other. Neither of them had to make any tough choices. They were mostly spectators to the whole scene. I don't even think that the fact that Simon calling Audrey a liar was what ultimately turned Duke against him counted for much with the Chief, since the Chief went on to brag that Audrey would kill Duke and would have Nathan as backup.
it seems to be that when they were creating Emma, they were so fixated on what she is that they forgot to spend much time deciding who she is.
I think that has a lot to do with it. Emma is more plot device than character. I also think that Haven's trope and stereotype busting comes into play here. We've got the woman who grew up in foster homes and orphanages, never knew her parents and never even knew who her parents were. The stereotype is that she would be tough and self-reliant, not good at making connections, not wanting others to rely on her, getting in trouble, possibly becoming an unwed teen mother and ending up in jail at least once. Statistically, the odds are pretty good of that happening, but it doesn't happen in every case. With Emma, they went with the stereotype. With Audrey, they took a different approach -- she's still tough and self-reliant, but she's the type who looked after her foster siblings and decided that going into a field where she could help people would be a good way to connect to people. She didn't follow the seemingly inevitable route into trouble but worked multiple jobs to put herself through school. She didn't even seem to feel all that scarred by her background. When she first brings up the fact that she's an orphan who was a ward of the state, it's as a positive comparison to Nathan's situation with a father who treats him dismissively. After seeing how the Chief treated Nathan, she was saying, "Boy, was I lucky!" She only gets into the search for her identity when she has that very intriguing photo shoved into her face and she becomes curious. The Haven writers created a three-dimensional character who happened to have that particular backstory. The OUAT writers pretty much stopped at the backstory and ticked off the expected items from the backstory checklist.
Posted May 15, 2012 @ 1:40 PM
Posted May 15, 2012 @ 1:55 PM
Also, banging my head here.
Who's going to twitterbomb Craig at Syfy to ask?
Edited by bella1013, May 15, 2012 @ 1:55 PM.
Posted May 16, 2012 @ 4:20 PM
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 1:30 AM
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 3:43 AM
Also, from the twitter coverage, I saw that there's a lot of warm clothing so it might be set in fall/winter as opposed to the eternal summer of 2010.
Edited by bella1013, May 17, 2012 @ 3:44 AM.
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 11:41 AM
My real point of pain is the premiere date, as that's the weekend of our big local convention, and since I'm both a guest and on the convention committee, I kind of have to be there (plus, being involved in this convention gets me out of having to go out of town to my brother's second wedding). Last year, I did slip out a little early and go home (I live too close to the con hotel to bother with a hotel room) and watch Haven, but since the episode on that weekend was "Business as Usual," that meant I spent the rest of the weekend practically vibrating from dying to talk about it, except none of the Haven fans who were there had seen the episode since the hotel doesn't have SyFy. It was agony having a Haven discussion without blurting out that Nathan and Audrey had kissed and that Duke's father had left him instructions to kill Audrey. So, my dilemma this year will be whether to sneak out on Friday night to watch the premiere (or maybe record it and watch when I get up in the morning) and then spend the whole weekend dying to talk about it but unable to or to wait a couple more days and watch it after the convention. I suppose I could host a viewing party at my house, since it is close to the hotel, for my friends who are fans, but I don't know how many people would want to leave the convention.
Gee, this is like my dilemma when the last Harry Potter book came out the weekend of a convention and I forced myself to wait to buy the book on my way home Sunday evening so I could really get into it instead of having it but not having time to read it.
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 2:08 PM
My personal concern is what this will mean for the air date outside the US. Syfy UK already don't start showing it until it's finished in the States. At this rate, it could be January before I get to see it. Which may actually kill me.
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 2:25 PM
Posted May 17, 2012 @ 2:59 PM
God, I hope they don't gloss over the whole kidnapping plot and leave us to figure out what happened without showing it.