#snowpiercer theories

[icebreaker01]

Predictions for S4E10

So here we sit, fellow Snowpiercer fans. On the eve of the last episode of our beloved show. I am practically already sitting in my chair, a blanket, a bowl of popcorn, and a bottle of horse tranquilizers in my lap……..W….A….I….T….I….N….G………..!

HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK I WOULD NOT DO PREDICTIONS FOR THIS???????????????????? Also, it give me something to do beside go to Utube and watch all the Episode 10 reviews there. (This should not be allowed, UTube!)

So let’s get into it.

First off, a moment of silence for Hula Girl. (Pause…………) Her passing was as senseless as the rest have been. Well, except. Millus……I kinda enjoyed that one. Shame on you, Snowpiercer writers!!!!!!!!! What did Hula Girl ever do to you?!

Also, just to start this out on a positive note (because heaven knows there are not a lot to follow), in an interview Jennifer Connelly did state very clearly, and with a lot of room open for interpretation, that the fandom would be ‘satisfied’ with the ending. Well, I do not know what ruler you use for measuring ‘satisfaction’ Ms. Connelly, but mine looks like this; No more characters I actually give a *&$^% about are ‘put off the train’. Snowpiercer happily keeps running around the globe looking for lost colonies of people and brings them happily back to New Eden, without them trying to take over the train in the process. The people who we saw standing next to the tracks as the train pulled out of New Eden going “WWWHHHHAAAAATTTTTTT??????” are all safe and sound and the colony survived despite that it’s power source just left town. And regarding New Eden….., WHY are there mud puddles everywhere? It is still below the freezing point. The rocket, with adjustments made in the chemical agent by Melanie, manages to do what it is suppose to do, NOT rip the atmosphere off the planet (which, just as a side note, folks, could happen to us at any given moment in time due to a long ago, distance star exploding. Did you know that?). Due to said rocket doing what it should do (NOT killing us all), it starts the chain reaction around the world, the planet starts to warm up, and that is the epilog for the series.

Should these things not come to pass, Ms. Connelly, I can promise one very angry letter from a disappointed fan. Now, not the ‘I know where you live’ sort of letter. More the ‘How could you lie to us?’ letter.

Anywho; Predictions time! Did anyone else catch what I think was the biggest give away in episode 9 in foreshadowing E10? Alex asked her mother if, to distract Nima, they didn’t just bring him down to the retrofit chamber to look around……or whatever. Melanie responded “No. The last thing we want is him coming down here.” One question. Why? So here’s the theory; Crazy mad scientist Nima has been foolishly allowing Melanie to work on the retrofitting project alone. Unsupervised. Now we all know by now, four seasons into this series, that allowing Melanie to do anything, especially anything involving science, unsupervised, just flies in the face of “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!?!?!”

Onetrainsnowpiercer put a post up once that went like this: Bennett (moment of silence): I left instructions for everyone while I’m gone. Melanie: Mine just says “Melanie no.” Bennett (moment of silence): I want you to apply it to every possible situation.

And THAT, folks, is how you handle an engineer. Not handing them a screwdriver and saying “Have fun!”.

Next, a little something I like to call ‘The writers yanking our chain’. If you were still in a mind enough to watch the preview for E10, AND focus on anything after that little whirlwind of an episode, you would have caught the scene (possibly) of the Tailies standing around and Ruth in the back. In that little three second clip, Ruth clearly says “Layton’s dead?” Now, I heard it as a question, not a statement. Do I give it any credibility? No. Why? Folks, they already put Zarah off the train (so to speak), are they seriously going to leave poor little Liana an orphan? I mean, the writers got to put Hula Girl off the train in a senseless, shocking, explosive manner. WASN’T THAT ENOUGH TO SATISFY YOUR INNATE BLOODLUST, YOU FILTHY, INSENSITIVE, HACK-WRITING BASTARDS!!!????????

(There will be a brief pause while the tranquilizer dart takes effect.)

Several reasons I believe this.

You bastards already had your shot at Layton. You missed. Hahaha.

See above.

Layton is shown in practically every clip of the preview. That man gets around! Hard to hit a moving target.

Ms. Connelly promised us a ’satisfying’ ending. If Layton is ‘put off the train‘, Ms. Connelly, I am not satisfied!

If Layton is ’put off the train’ how can my Laytonie ship ever keep sailing?

This man is surely not out of stupid ideas yet.

Who will Ruth bully around for his stupid ideas if Layton is ’put off the train’? Do I think there is a small possibility? Yes. Why?

Layton asked Roche to look after Liana if anything happens to him. Too much foreshadowing for my liking there.

Daveed Digg’s costs a lot of money. Writers wanted to get rid of him, if even for just a few minutes of screen time at the end.

Shock value. Need I say more for this season?

With that said; Who do I think will survive? Melanie - Duh. Why? Because she’s made it this far. ‘Putting her off the train’ at this point is…….pointless. Also, humanity will clearly be ‘put off the train’ without her. Especially when you look at what is left of humanity in this series. Also, Alex deserves to have her mother. They can tie her father to the rocket for all I care. Melanie as been through enough, lets let the character have a happy ending. And lastly, Jennifer Connelly promised us a ‘satisfying’ ending. Alex - why have her mother survive and not her…..and vice-versa. Roche (and his lunchbox) - they had their shot at him….twice. Done. Boki - he’s just too darned cute to ‘put off the train’ now that he‘s sane and talking again. Javi - You need engineers to survive. Plus, somehow in this season he managed to grow a backbone and some character….all in one season! Sykes - Javi needs someone to love, too. Till - See my last post for rules about killing off the last gay couple on the planet. Audry - See above. Everyone left in the Silo - Because why wouldn’t they? They’ve survived for seven years, after all. (Unless this is where the show ‘Silo’ picks up, then it just plain gets weird.) Ruth - because she’s Ruth. And someone needs to keep Layton and his pervasively dumb ideas in line. Melanie will be on the train, after all, looking for other survivors. That leash can only be yanked from so far away. Oz - if that little &%^$&^$^$&#&()^$^&*&%^# could survive this long, I don’t see much hope for him being ‘put off the train’ in the near future. Wilford - Hope springs eternal! Josie - Because she actually got interesting in this season. Miles - I’ve said it a hundred times, you don’t kill kids. Tristan - Because he’s just too dang boring to bother with. Lights - Because she showed up every now and then with a good idea and deserves a mention, if not to survive. Dr. Pelton - You need doctors. Polar bears - I believe showing a polar bear at the end would be a lovely head-nod to the movie.

Who do I not care if they ‘put off the train’ or not: Dr. Headwood - good riddance, you weird little ^$%$&%&.

Who do they need to ‘put off the train’ for me to call this a ‘satisfying’ ending: Nima (And just a little side comment here, folks. Did anyone ever take a look at the actor that plays the insane little mad scientist? WOW! That’s one heck of a makeup job!)

And it’s too bad they didn’t start running Season 4 in place of season 3. If they had, this show might have survived. Because season 4, with the sole exception we got Melanie back in season 3, blew that one right out of the frozen water.

So, happy viewing, folks………………………we can only hope.

[redsolon]

Proudhon said exactly this shit.

"The spirit of rapine and greed is the true characteristic of the modern epoch: the poor exploit the rich, the workers their employers, the tenant his landlord, the company promoter his shareholders, no less than the capitalist exploits and puts pressure on the industrialist, the industrialist his workers and the landlord his tenants."

-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works by E Hyams

This is what no class analysis does to a motherfucker. Vague criticism of "the system" but no analysis of its logic, and no plan for confrontation. Any time I run into a self-proclaimed "radical" squeamish about confrontation, thinking the bourgeois state can be ignored because they're just smol beans--any time I run into someone with a purely critical, vague "anti-authoritarian" ideology--I think, "Ah, Proudhon yet lives!" It was insufficient for the Paris Commune, and it's insufficient now. Anarchism becoming a primarily communistic and syndicalist movement is the only reason it still has any influence today at all. Marx saved them from Proudhon.

Kay and Skittles did a video on Bong Joon-Ho's politics, and he gets at the heart of the problem with his worldview. (Kay and Skittles has perfected the art of using media analysis for actual, solid political education. All his stuff is great.)

if i had to materialize the epitome of petite bourgeoise intellectual's high horse attitude when it comes to class struggle it would be bong joon-ho talking about parasite (and his film itself)

[thezombieprostitute]

Tech Tuesday: Curtis

Summary: Curtis decides to take the next step and ask if you're willing to meet offline.

A/N: Reader is female. No physical descriptors used.

Warnings: Meeting someone from online, Mentions of past bad experiences. Please let me know if I missed any.

Part 1

Series Masterlist

It's 2 o'clock and you're at the library. Your friend, Cassandra, works the reference desk here so she's holding onto your computer, and you'll have an escape if things with Snowpiercer/Curtis go south. You've also packed your mace and Cassandra was nice enough to let you park in her usual spot in the library lot so you could sneak out the back if needed.

Part of you feels ridiculous for being so cautious about someone you've been talking to online for a couple years now, but you can't let go of the "what if". You're genuinely hoping it goes well, you really are, but it never hurts to be careful. Especially after last time.

You shake your head. No, you're not going to think about Chase again. He doesn't deserve the time and energy involved in thinking about him. And already Curtis was showing himself to be not like him. He suggested going to a public space for a first meeting. He didn't pressure you to say "yes" to this meeting. And he didn't argue with you, at all, about the time and place.

He also didn't argue when you asked him to send a photo of himself without sending one of yourself to him. You're fairly certain the photo is really him, but those eyes look too beautiful to not be touched up a bit. At least the rest of him lined up with things he'd told you about himself previously. Pierced lip, beard, buzzcut. Maybe the lighting just really highlighted the eyes.

Curtis had arrived at the cafe a half hour early. He'd parked as close as he could in case he needed to take the computer home. He was hopeful he could fix it here with his laptop, but it would be nice to have an excuse to meet you again.

He was worried you wouldn't show up at all. He tried to acquiesce to your requirements for meeting up but that doesn't guarantee you'll be here. For all he knows, he's the one being catfished. But with how long the two of you have been talking, the gradual building of trust on both sides, he's hopeful. He's not usually the type to give in to hope, but you changed that.

Curtis can't help but continue looking around as people come and go, wondering if one of them is you. You'd told him you'd be wearing your scrubs but maybe you were scouting him out first, making sure he was who he said he was. You'd told him that you'd had bad experiences meeting in person before. It was a big part of why he was going so far out of his way to accommodate your requests. He'd had to clock out of work early, though it also saved him from having to argue with Bucky about the legacy code. He'd driven all the way across town to the main branch of the library. He just really wanted this all to go well.

A beautiful woman in scrubs walks up to the counter and orders a drink. Curtis wants to go up and ask if it's you but he stays put. He doesn't need you to walk in on him trying to talk to someone else. His knee starts bouncing because of his nerves. The woman gets her coffee and walks over to his table.

"Hello, Curtis," you say.

"Hello, Heart," he smiles.

Part 1

Series Masterlist

Tagging @alicedopey; @delicatebarness; @ellethespaceunicorn; @icefrozendeadlyqueen; @jaqui-has-a-conspiracy-theory; @late-to-the-party-81; @lokislady82 ; @peyton-warren @ronearoundblindly; @stellar-solar-flare

[thekenobee]

Me listening to Snowpiercer theories for the next month-

[melcavills]

theory time

(i’ve not watched the entirety of season 4, i’m kinda following the airing schedule so i’m on 4.08, so if you do know how it ends please don’t leave any spoilers or hints in the comments or tags)

we know the gemini compound is gonna practically make the earth radioactive, and the goal is to prevent nima from launching it in the atmosphere.

from some promos we do know that one rocket does appear to be launched (which is the type of too-spoilery thing that really shouldn’t be included in any promotional material, as visually cool as it may look, but whatever atp it’s the least we can expect from this season).

i’m pretty sure though the whole point about the soldiers stealing snowpiercer was so that they could launch multiple rockets across the earth.

so here’s the point: in episode 4.08, while talking to alex, nima refers to it as the rocket, singular, which is kinda confusing considering the whole premise of it all.

all this to say i’m gonna be really fucking pissed if they actually make it so that that one single rocket is gonna be everyone’s doom. also because they could’ve had nima finish the compound and launch it from the silo without any need for the train if it’s so powerful that only one’s gonna be enough to cover the whole atmosphere.

not to mention that if they took my perfect happy s3 series finale away just to give me some kind of moralizing tragic “everyone dies because of humanity’s carelessness about climate change and its hubris thinking they could cheat their way into fixing it somehow”-bullshit istg… i don’t even have the words to express how cheap it would be, so tragically so that it could go all the way around and be hilarious to watch honestly.

if they were smarter than i think they are they would probably make it so that new eden won’t be inhabitable anymore so they’ll all have to go off on the trains again, facing the uncertainty of an increasingly damaged train and tracks (which could have also been a viable ending point if they thought they were gonna have more seasons like i’ve been told they did, but idk if they went back and rewrote a definitive ending upon learning that it was actually the final season).

[pupkinpumpkin]

Bro I was rewatching the Tim Burton Willy Wonka movie (just to get it out here and now, Tim Burton's is my favorite Wonka movie cause I grew up with it, but Gene Wilder is the best Wonka in my eyes followed closely by Christian Borle) and I was thinking of how utterly disappointed I am going to be with the new Wonka movie

Now you may think I'm going to be disappointed because of Timothée Chalamet being Wonka and because it's a cheap cash grab, and you're sort of right about that

Timothée Chalamet is a good actor, but he's not insane enough to play the iconic role as other Tumblr users have put it, and it is most likely a story that has no heart in it, but that's not the main reason I'm upset with it

The original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie is about Charlie, while the 2005 remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is about Wonka, so I think it is incredibly insulting that they do not continue this joke and make the new Willy Wonka movie all about Charlie

You think I'm joking but I'm not

I mean, the movie probably has no heart whatsoever, so why not at least make it a shitty sequel and let us keep joking about the mix up? The movie could be about Charlie trying to live up to Willy Wonka's image, balancing work and home life, the stresses of OSHA violations, building a gigantic classist train for when the world freezes over and starting to use kids from the poorest and most overpopulated part of the train to keep it running after all the needed tools have been used throughout the years (go see the Snowpiercer theories on YouTube for that last one)

One could argue that Timothée Chalamet could make a much better older Charlie than a Wonka and he looks slightly like that kid in the Tim Burton version.

Kinda.

Im actually not all that good at recognizing facial features, so someone can correct me on that if they look literally nothing alike

But the point is, it's a better option, at least to me, than what they have now and will try and do after they (hopefully) give writers and actors what they deserve if they aren't that big of assholes

Literally all they need to do is strike it and reverse it

I'm not saying I want an older Charlie movie, but I at least want to keep the joke running, and the fact it's gonna get ruined for a movie that has a high possibility of being shit is really annoying to me

Anyway, night

[spearxwind]

Actually my favorite conspiracy theory is the one that was like "charlie and the chocolate factory takes place in the same universe as snowpiercer"

[must-be-mythtaken]

sure I'll buy that

[nancydrewwouldnever]

NYT Magazine - March 2018

“Chris Evans Comes Back Down to Earth”

March 22, 2018

Chris Evans has a theory about tap dancing. “Tap is waiting to have its day,” he said one recent afternoon, sitting in a TriBeCa hotel clubhouse around the corner from an apartment he’s been renting since last month. Mr. Evans, or Captain America, as he’s been known in omnipresent Marvel movies for the better part of a decade, tapped as a child and still has sincere reverence for the form. His theory is that tap dancing today, like competitive hip-hop dancing in the early 2000s, is generally undervalued and ripe for a comeback.

“If you walk down the street and you see someone tapping,” you stop in your tracks, he said, using an unprintable word, “because it’s awesome.”

Twice a week since he’s been living in New York, Mr. Evans, who ordinarily splits his time between his native Boston and Los Angeles, has taken refuge in tap, clearing his mind and working up a sweat in private lessons taught by a friend. The lessons aren’t preparation for any role in particular, although Mr. Evans is hard at work on a pivotal one: his Broadway debut, as a charming but manipulative cop in Kenneth Lonergan’s "Lobby Hero" which is now in previews and opens March 26 at the Helen Hayes Theater.

The dancing, rather, is just a low-pressure new hobby (“It makes me feel like I’m a part of the music,” Mr. Evans said.) Along with the play, and the move to a new city, it’s one component in an ad hoc but inevitable process — not quite a rebirth, more like a re-orientation — designed to help the 36-year-old actor answer a nagging question: What do you do with your life after walking away from the role of a lifetime?

Since 2011, the year “Captain America: The First Avenger” was released, Mr. Evans’s face (and torso, and biceps) has signified a marketable mix of principled strength and rank-and-file virtue as reliably as any in Hollywood. He was a working-class revolutionary in the dystopic thriller “Snowpiercer,” a stoic defender of the public school system in the indie family drama “Gifted,” a cunning spy who risks everything to save a persecuted minority in the soon-to-be-released “The Red Sea Diving Resort.”

And then there are the Avengers movies, in which the nobility of Mr. Evans’s character is so unimpeachable that entire plotlines turn on the ticks of his moral compass. In the TriBeCa lounge, Mr. Evans volunteered his own stereotype: “Taciturn men who are leaders, selfless and magnanimous.”

Last year, he filmed back-to-back the final two Marvel movies for which he is under contract — “Avengers: Infinity War,” due in April, and a sequel planned for next year. For now, he has no plans to return to the franchise (“You want to get off the train before they push you off,” he said), and expects that planned reshoots in the fall will mark the end of his tenure in the familiar red, white and blue super suit.

It was in the midst of shooting “Infinity War” that Mr. Evans signed on for “Lobby Hero.” Also starring Michael Cera, Brian Tyree Henry and Bel Powley, it inaugurates the nonprofit Second Stage Theater’s recently remodeled Broadway venue. The choice will give those wondering about Mr. Evans’s frame of mind plenty to chew on: His character, known only as Bill, is essentially a narcissistic creep, with a vision of protecting the innocent that lifts a warped mirror to the actor’s usual procession of do-gooders.

The play’s director, Trip Cullman, sent the script to Mr. Evans betting that the potential to subvert his image would be too enticing to pass up.

“I had this inkling that he may not have had the opportunity to show what he can really do as an actor,” Mr. Cullman said. “A lot of actors are afraid to play someone unlikable, but I think he really has an egoless desire to serve the work.”

Though “Lobby Hero” is his Broadway debut, Mr. Evans is not a total stranger to the theater. He grew up in Sudbury, Mass., outside of Boston, in a family of performers: His mother was a dancer who later ran a children’s theater, his elder sister Carly studied drama at New York University and his younger brother Scott is a television actor who recently appeared on the Netflix comedy “Grace and Frankie.”

In high school, Mr. Evans balanced wrestling and lacrosse practice with Shakespeare, and was voted “most theatrical” after appearing in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and “The Winter’s Tale.” The summer before his senior year, he moved to New York to intern for a casting company and went back to Sudbury with his first agent. By graduation, he’d landed a role on television, as one of three boys in a former all-girls’ school on the short-lived Fox drama “Opposite Sex.”

He spent the next several years playing a series of clean-cut hunks with an ambivalent relationship to their shirts: There was the shirtless jock in “Not Another Teen Movie,” the shirtless musician in “What’s Your Number?” and the shirtless flame-throwing superhero in two “Fantastic Four” movies, which put him in Marvel’s orbit.

In conversation, Mr. Evans is more thoughtful and grounded than his filmography might suggest. He is animated by the challenge of playing against type, but has no regrets over his previous roles and surprisingly little anxiety about future prospects.

“I used to have thoughts of wanting to climb to the top of something, or wanting to be somebody,” he said. “But when you get the thing that you think you want and then you wake up and realize that you still have pockets of sadness, and that your struggle will reinvent itself, you stop chasing after those things and it’s liberating, because you realize that right here, right now, is exactly all I need.”

Mr. Evans was wearing the urban camouflage of a black NASA baseball cap with a cuffed brim pulled low. At around 6 feet tall, he is much less physically imposing in person than he appears onscreen, with the unassuming athleticism of the friend you forget does CrossFit until beach season comes around.

For the play, he recently grew a formidable mustache — a mighty rust-flecked horseshoe — and gained a super power of a different sort. “People don’t recognize me at all,” he said. “I can look them right in the eye — it’s like I’m invisible.”

“Lobby Hero,” which ran Off Broadway in 2001, follows several nights in the lives of four workers on the graveyard shift who are stratified by professional and social class. A pair of male security guards, one black and one white, have a series of run-ins with a swaggering cop and his young female partner in the lobby of a nondescript Manhattan apartment building.

A queasy drama, replete with abuses of power and sexual coercion, unfolds between the male officer, played by Mr. Evans, and his partner Dawn (Ms. Powley). In the #MeToo era, when sensitivities to the plight of women in male-dominated institutions are especially raw, Mr. Evans’s scenes add live wires to the play’s emotional and political circuitry.

In an interview, Mr. Lonergan, the playwright, dismissed the notion that he had been prescient 17 years ago. (He has since gone on to a successful film career, writing and directing “Manchester by the Sea” most recently.) The play’s fresh resonance, he said, was an indictment of how little has changed in society.

“This isn’t new,” Mr. Lonergan said. “Anyone who’s shocked by these issues — I don’t know where they’ve been.”

Mr. Cullman, the director, said he hoped “Lobby Hero” would further “expose toxic masculinity.”

“Kenny has given voice to Dawn’s predicament in such a compassionate and powerful way,” he said.

Mr. Evans’s newfound appetite for morally challenged characters has already been tested by Broadway’s eight-show-a-week routine. Two weeks into previews for “Lobby Hero,” he said it had felt more like two months.

But he’s prepared for the part with the fervor of the newly indoctrinated. Mr. Evans’s character is charismatic and often funny, and the actor devoted much of his rehearsal time to exploring how a man who is well liked can shade into reprehensible.

“He has the right instrument to bring the character to life,” said Mr. Cera, who worked with Mr. Evans on the 2010 film “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.”

Mr. Cera pointed to one scene in which Bill threatens his partner. “The words on the page are menacing, but Chris made the choice to deliver them as if he himself is spinning out, which is much more frightening,” he said. “It reduced Bel to tears one night because it was so unexpected.”

The role has unexpectedly submerged Mr. Evans in questions of gender inequality and the distribution of power just as those same questions are roiling his industry.

The actor, who said he didn’t base his performance on anyone in particular (“It’s awful to admit, but I know plenty of guys who fit this mold”), has been studying how to better conduct himself as an ally to women in his profession.

One book he found eye-opening was Rebecca Solnit’s “The Mother of All Questions.” Mr. Evans read it while dating the actress Jenny Slate (their on-again, off-again relationship, beloved by the internet, recently ended) and decided that he needed to listen more and speak less.

“The hardest thing to reconcile is that just because you have good intentions, doesn’t mean it’s your time to have a voice,” he said.

As has become the norm for star-driven plays on Broadway, “Lobby Hero” has a limited run, through May 13. And while the show is as substantial a leap as any Mr. Evans has made professionally, it remains a kind of riff on his existing résumé. When it’s over, he’ll discover what it really means to be a film actor with Captain America’s face (and bank account), but without the job.

The last time he experienced anything similar was in 2016, when he took a year off from acting after wrapping the third Captain America film. Mr. Evans spent the time remodeling his house in Boston and bonding with his family. He visited his mother or sister every other day and marked the seasons with his nieces and nephews — apple picking, pumpkin carving, decorating a Christmas tree. He raised an adopted puppy — a regal mixed breed named Dodger — and became a regular at his local grocery store.

Mr. Evans said it was those slice-of-life domestic moments, rather than notions of any particular career path, that have most influenced his vision board.

“When I think about the times that I’m happiest, it’s not on a movie set,” he said, adding that he no longer wishes to make more than one film per year. “I’ve stopped thinking about my trajectory, or my oeuvre, or whatever pretentious word you want to use. I’m just following whatever I feel creatively hungry for.”

He wants to direct (his directorial debut “Before We Go” screened at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2014) and to start a family of his own. And, when he’s had his fill of tap dancing, he envisions many more hobbies, including sculpting and carpentry.

“I’m not afraid to take my foot off the gas,” he said. ”If someone said tomorrow, ‘You’re done, you can’t do anything else,’ I’d be O.K.”

For all those who couldn't read it through the NYT link.

[icebreaker01]

S4E8 Predictions

Again, I can not stress this enough! I have a shovel! It is a very BIG shovel! I use it to go digging for things on the internet about Snowpiercer! Sometimes I find fun things, some times I find things I do not want to find, and sometimes I find things that strongly hint on what is to come by simple logical thought. Therefore: If you do not want to know what is coming, it is STRONGLY suggested you not read this. Does it contain SPOILERS? Not directly. But it does contain, again, extremely well thought out logical conclusions from previews. Am I always right? No. But sometimes better safe than sorry, hey?

So, lets get into the next episode. In the previews, several things are shown. One that makes me happy is that poor little Javi, though appearing unconscious, is still in one piece. Now this is not all good as that ONE, he is unconscious, meaning he was still close enough to the bomb when it went off to catch some of the discharge, and TWO; he is not laying on tracks. It looks more like solid ground, suggesting he may have been thrown off the train trestle by the force of the explosion. Lets face this down, folks. We have already lost two engineers. Without engineers, the people left on earth, especially our intrepid little group, stand a zero chance of survival. (Remember this when your children are considering a career. Earth needs engineers!) Now, with it clearly pointed out engineers are the most endangered species currently on the show, allow me to put a theory out there that flies in the face of everything I have read on this subject. Is Javi yet another casualty of the insane writers vendetta against engineers? (Goes searching for a coin to flip.) Is Wilford really gone? My theory is ‘No’. Why? Because Sean Bean is well past the ‘I am sick of not being invited to the wrap party because my character died halfway through the show’ stage. Also, the blunt he smoked was laced with a Headwood concoction. As fanatically dedicated as that lunatic was to Wilford, I do not see her providing him with a way to end his life. More likely I would suggest that blunt was laced with something that gave the appearance of shucking the mortal coil, and the person would revive later. Why do I think this? If I remember things right, Wilford was in the last cars with Layton and Josie that got disconnected. Now those two, while good fighters, are no electronic wizards. And yet, Layton was able to find (or MAKE) a radio device to call for help as shown in the preview. My theory for this goes like this: Wilford, in the second car left behind, wakes up, comes forward, and tells Layton and Josie if they want to survive they will not kill him again, and he manages to either contact Snowpiercer (which honestly at this point I have lost track of exactly where which train is) to rescue them, or somehow manages to make those two train cars move on their own. And quite frankly, having FINALLY been allowed to see ‘Wilford the engineer’ at work, I firmly believe this man could make an engine out of three bobby pins and some bellybutton lint.

Do I think Layton et all are dead? No. Why? First off, you do NOT kill babies on shows. That is just a solid no-no. Next, previews of episodes going forward clearly show Layton in New Eden when the Rat Squad arrives. How do I think he survived?

(The author stopped here because she foolishly found a recap of episode 8 and even more foolishly watched it. She is now going off to sit in a corner for while to contemplate just how wrong her predictions in this installment are and keep telling herself that Wilford is not dead.)

If by chance you do want to check out the episode 8 recap by Weeping Cross Breakdown, I highly recommend it. He makes some excellent points about what happens in E8 and the inconsistencies in other characters exits from the show that just don’t make sense.

Also, I’m not saying anything about the attack on New Eden because A) I have prior knowledge about that scene, B) I think what they do is a loving head nod to the original movie, and C) it makes no sense.

And did I NOT tell you we needed to kill little weasel Nima? DIDN‘T I!?!

[sol1loqu1st]

unfortunately i've given too much context for this train of thought (was thinking about the tim burton stuff i actually liked, remembered his terrible charlie and the chocolate factory adaptation, etc) but sometimes i think about the "snowpiercer is a sequel to charlie and the chocolate factory" theory and lose my mind again. did you guys watch that video or am i alone in my insanity

[bitethebullets]

my two favorite movie theories gotta be the saw/home alone and the willy wonka/snowpiercer ones

[hexabeast]

Nothing will top Rhino Stew's crack theory that Snowpiercer is a Willy Wonka sequel and quite frankly that makes the former so much more enjoyable to me as a result.

[hanavesinauttija]

If you have one, would you go on a dump about 2013 Snowpiercer? I've seen so much abt it but since you brought it up I'm curious if you have any thoughts

I don't have any enlightening takes on the movie that you won't find from people better qualified to analyze movies. It presents the train being a metaphor for capitalism and class structure damn near explicitly.

Spoilers for Snowpiercer (2013) below; watch the movie first, it's good.

The unwashed masses are consigned to the end of the train, where the upper class woman makes sure to remind them of their place. She claims that the idea of them being treated better to being as ridiculous as a boot being worn on the head. Compare the scene where she places the boot on the punished man's head to the classic iconography of upper classes treading on the working class.

A hero of the people leads the masses on a coup, which results in a huge amount of death. Throughout their journey, the lead character never considers whether his mission is good and right; he never questions whether the train itself is necessary. The only people who do are the engineer and his daughter, to whom the engineer teaches about life before the train.

In the end, the lead character is posed to become the conductor, or the highest authority in the train. He's going to become a new leader, instead of breaking the system that necessitates the cruelty he's had to live through. His view is always the front of the train vs the back of the train. But, the engineer knows there is another option; he blows up the side of the train and derails it.

Throughout the movie, there are constant reminders that there is no life outside the train. Despite this, the engineer and his daughter see a polar bear when they step out. It will be difficult, but it is possible to live outside the train (capitalism) despite what the conductor (the elite class) have told the people at the back of the train (the proletariat).

There's also a fan theory that the movie is a sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It's surprisingly convincing.

[alicewhimzy]

This. All of this.

Me being fed up with stupid pointless edgy Wonka headcanons 😠😒

(rant and disturbing subject matter underneath) 🍫🎩🏭

It's not the jokes and playing around I hate, it's the fact that some idiots actually take those fan theories seriously. I hate it.

From assuming he planned everything like it's saw, to assuming the kids died when we see in the book they live and in almost every adaptation (every good one for sure) it's plausible they lived, to laser-focusing on the lost chapters and overblowing them out of proportion, to bringing up Dahl's original stupid design for the Oompa-loompas, as if modern adaptations didn't already fix this and future adaptations can't do even better, to venting frustrations about insert-asshole-who-happens-to-be-rich-here and just painting Wonka's name on top, even though without him Charlie and his family would have starved to death, and also he was impoverished and tricked into indentured servitude in the prequel, to claiming that FUCKING SNOWPIERCER IS A SEQUEL, cause it's not like the book already has a sequel, besides Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium fits much better, to straight up lying about characters and events, to pretty much piling on as much shocking shit as possible with murder and cannibalism and pedophilia and then acting like that's canon and condemning the story and characters for what they made up, to claiming that Wonka is literally Satan, no really someone actually did that, and way too much more! I HATE IT!

wtf. What is wrong with them? I am so angry about this.

At this point I'm convinced that to idiots like that, Wonka as a whole is a bitch-eating-crackers™, and nothing that's actually good will satisfy them because their standards are warped. The kind of idiots who hated the Wonka prequel because it was more accurate to Wonka's actual persona. The character that they want and are taking seriously, a homicidal maniac who murders and eats children and god only knows what else, has had so many changes that at this point they're looking at a completely different character, one who's nothing like Willy Wonka at all. god I'm tired.

AAAARGH!