Originally, this was supposed to be a review of only the first season, but I got so excited that I decided to also cover the 2nd and 3rd seasons. Sorry for the slight chaos.
[Entry]
On September 11, 2001, the two WTC towers, the symbol of New York, were destroyed by terrorists. This is the official version, which I doubt. Now, I don't remember the details of most conspiracy theories, except for a few points, but even if I did, it would be easy to disprove most of my points. I don't speak English fluently, I'm not a physicist, chemist, mathematician, expert in anything related to construction, and I'm too stupid to be an engineer. That's why I won't argue whether it's true or not, because it doesn't matter. This is due to one simple reason - EVEN if I were right (a separate issue is what theory we take into account - whether the Americans "gave a free hand" to the terrorists or carried out the attack themselves, I believe in version 1 or some modified version of it ), so what does this mean? Nothing. As in many matters, where I can only wipe the "truth" after a visit to the toilet, but at least there I can tickle my vanity by saying "I'm right!" or something like that. Not here - most people would laugh at me, and even if I managed to prove it to a large group of people (say, 15-20% of citizens) and somehow convince them that this matter should be solved, so what? I will say this using the example of politics - enough people believe the fairy tale that democrats and republicans or their equivalents from Hungary, Poland, etc. vary. These are mostly fake people, tools to achieve goals, colleagues who drink the same vodka and fuck the same prostitutes, pretending to be a conflict in the media so that the lemmings can have their own gladiator fight, emotions and believe in the existence of an artificially created dispute. These people carry out someone else's interests and orders, and what you see on TV and other media is just theater. If these interests are violated, the principals will move the appropriate threads, remind politicians about their problems, which are unknown to the public opinion and nothing will defend a person who cares about the truth. Of course, they won't do anything to an ordinary random person, but it works the same way as in the case of controlling ingredients used to create drugs - appropriate people guard key areas, because there are very, very, very rare people there. Such a person always knows what he is looking for or at least it is important to him. And if someone steps in there or just knows too much, they will lose their life. Because why waste resources on keeping an eye on non-essential components if they are useless without the most important components?
Evidence? Epstein is the best proof, every time I doubt (due to the propaganda and the attitude of the left) conspiracy theories, I remember how many people died so that the truth would not come to light. I won't talk about small local scams, so I'll talk about a more universal topic - gambling. About a decade ago, in Poland there was (still is) quite a large market that "temporarily lost its owner". One of the MPs wanted to check it and it ended up that he disappeared overnight in strange circumstances, during an unusual car accident, and MP Robert Winnicki (an embarrassing nationalist, a clown who differs from the left only in his attitude towards God, although for a few things) has minimal respect from me, and this is one of them) along with Paweł Kukiz, were literally terrified. It was obvious from their reaction during the briefing that they were saying between their fingers: "We did everything we could. The problem is too big to touch." It was similar in the case of the largest Polish company, KGHM, which also has some dirty and bloody secrets - the MP's brother dealt with it and was hanged because he touched on a topic he shouldn't have touched. Another example that I remembered while revising this review - the construction of the A4 high-way in Poland. First, I will be the devil's advocate - Mother Teresa, a woman with a big heart, did not always get her money from a legal source. It was not a civilized (in our understanding of the word) state that operated efficiently and could organize quick help, and as you probably know, when saving people, what counts is often the here and now, not what will happen tomorrow. This is not good, it carries some risks, but it is necessary for the good of those in need. When it comes to the highway in Poland, at that time we were the Mexico of Europe and we had to create a road for fast transport that would meet, at least theoretically, the minimum requirements of Western Europe. Poland was not able to build it 100% legally, so it had to use illegally obtained financial resources. A contract was signed then, which he cannot touch to this day (if you don't believe it, read it, when this information comes out in a dozen or so years, I will proudly say again - "I told you so?"). Do you know who was involved in this case? The Kulczyk family, and Jan Kulczyk was one of the richest post-communist oligarchs in Poland. This contract has not been declassified to this day, I know because recently this topic surfaced again and disappeared just as quickly. Jan Kulczyk allegedly died in 2015, but there were several aspects surrounding his death that gave real reasons to doubt it. His daughter partied like she was the happiest person in the world, she said a few too many words a few times during his funeral, and there were a few other questions. Of course, it doesn't have to mean anything, but then again, it's too much IMO not to ask these questions.
Coming back to my question from the first paragraph - nothing. Because the public cannot know about these matters. They cannot know that there is someone independent from the government, because it would discredit the US on every level - they would lose the trust of voters, countries would stop being afraid of them in terms of the economy or military aspects. If it's deep-state, then... everything's fine. Every country must have an elite that operates regardless of the results of democratic elections to always take care of the state's interests (in a similar way to installing a basic operating system such as MS-DOS + leaving the disk entries on every important military machine - because if all fails, it must be the Z variant, which provides at least minimal controllability. Some equipment simply has to work 24/7, and any necessary breaks cannot be unplanned.), that's why Poland is in such a place and no other. This is one of several reasons why the condition of our country is so poor. It's worse when these are people for whom Bill Gates is a random person and are higher in the hierarchy than him. Alternatively, those who have great opportunities, because it does not necessarily have to involve enormous wealth. People who care about silence and don't want to be known to the whole world. What do I think happened on September 9? I don't know, I don't have an opinion on it, but in general terms, I don't believe in the official explanation or the most extreme conspiracy theories. If too many people know about such things, the risk of the truth leaking increases dramatically. I believe in conspiratorial activities, similar to what is shown in this series. I believe that the creators of this series think similarly to me and my colleagues who also doubt the official version. There were too many subtle references clearly showing that "they know" which IMO simply cannot be ignored
Sorry for this long introduction, but it's hard for me to imagine another, more fitting one. I wanted to show you why I am a skeptic, while distancing myself from those ignorant people who claim that the Earth is flat or chemtrails are true. "Designated Survivor" couldn't be very real for obvious reasons, because such things shouldn't be bragged about. They're not likely to be shotgunned in their home like some of the people involved in the Epstein case who were "too little" and knew too much to get 100% protection, but there are other ways to ruin someone's life. Digging through the biography to find a reason (I assume that most of us have done some things that we would like to forget), planting pedophile materials (which could be done in Poland when I was still a teenager, and apparently the Israeli Pegasus system still has greater opportunities), you can also find a woman who will accuse us of molestation, and her principals will prepare everything so that we will not be able to defend ourselves in court. And if you think that such things are only done in authoritarian countries, such as Russia, or excessively dependent countries, such as Poland, you are gravely mistaken. In the USA and Western Europe, exactly the same is done, but in the so-called "white gloves". Therefore, the creators of DS had to be clever by showing events that they did not want to talk about directly.
[Plot & Real World References]
Let me start with the title itself, the term "Designated Survivor" is true (or at least it was, when I was reading about US politics, I came across information about it) - it is about the chain of command. If the President is unaware (e.g. he is undergoing surgery or is not even theoretically able to make decisions for other reasons), he is replaced by the person then acting as President. It is the same in Poland, using the example of the USA - the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Senate, Secretary of State, other Secretaries/Ministers depending on the degree of importance of the office they hold. DS is at the bottom, Democrats and Republicans appoint one representative each. The plot of the series tells the story of a Democratic representative who was lucky enough not to participate in the congress where an attack was organized and all the people who were there died. Tom Kirkman was fired from his job the same day because he did what he did, which was to help them win the election. This is quite a common practice, people who have no real strength behind them are eliminated, often giving them some insignificant position to wipe their tears. This decision was not officially approved, so Kirkman was offered the position of President. As you can easily guess, he is not treated as a person who earned this position during the election campaign. And since Americans have a slightly different approach than ours (they pay more attention to such things, they also demand more from their Head of State), everyone makes him understand this. From citizens, through journalists and his own employees, to political rivals and representatives of other countries. Besides, they don't have to be just rivals - less important countries act in the same way as in our country - because the Americans are involved in the war in Ukraine, other countries take advantage of the opportunity to pursue their interests. Example - Armenia vs. Azerbaijan conflict. In the case of the series, one of the Arab countries took advantage of the temporary weakness of the USA. Therefore, Kirkman must "put his eggs on the table", and if someone objects, he will make a demonstration of his power - after all, it does not matter whether it is the real President or his successor, this office offers great opportunities. Being soft in such a position, or even hesitating, is a sign of weakness, as one realizes quite quickly.
With each subsequent episode, we see that the creators took proper care of the script. This is visible in the numerous references to the events of 9/11 (some are even literal, e.g. the President's visit to the site of the attack, where there were the same shots as in the case of the same scene with George Bush against the background of the ruins of the New York symbol, or other references to the theory conspiracy - e.g. that there must have been someone who would be able to kill any survivors, and therefore, the group of Americans who may have organized this attack had unrestricted access to various things, which is only visible when one has access to various data or at least comes across a strong lead - as in the case of the President's personal agent or this brazen, non-mainstream journalist) or showing the President's work or procedures in specific situations. For example, when there was an attack on him, Secret Service agents protected him in accordance with all procedures - I know this because I once saw a documentary where they literally showed it like that. Or sending at least two planes during the visit of the President and other important people (this is about the risk of an attack, it is not known until the last moment, and sometimes until the landing, which vehicle the VIP will exit from). Or the fact that in the event of a risky situation, the head of the SS takes control over the President and for the duration of the crisis, he is subordinate to his highest-ranking bodyguard. Exactly the same as in the case of the Ship's Captain, who ALWAYS has the last word, no matter who he transports with him while working. Before someone says that I'm exaggerating a bit and the creators simplified it a bit - yes, you're right, they could have shown more such examples, especially since they had so many episodes, but this is not a documentary. They just need to outline it strongly enough, showing us "we know it and we don't ignore it". There were some simplifications, I even noticed them a few times, but they weren't major mistakes. This level of "House of Cards", where there were also some simplifications, sometimes even going a bit too far, but as long as the creators do not cross this invisible border, there is no reason to be angry. As Sapkowski said in "Story is the Queen" - the plot should simply move forward, and not excessively focus on the individual aspects that build it.
The second season shows us the first year of Kirkman's presidency and focuses on external and internal threats, some of these problems are the result of Russians, Muslims and inhabitants of fictional Asian countries (a procedure often used by the creators of series or games in order not to antagonize certain nations - supposedly everyone we know who it is, but it is not explicitly stated). There are also other "problematic" countries. I won't lie to you, the second season was a bit sleepy, which I explained a little later, but all (or almost all) of the events that Asia told me about + everything else that I saw with my own eyes really happened. Not always with the same results, but I thought for 30 minutes and if memory serves, I've heard about every one of them. In the case of the third season, we also got another conspiracy theory - a virus. I won't tell you how it works, because the characters (and the show) showed it to us quite quickly. From what Karol told me, it's a total lie, just like the alleged impact of Chemtrails on nature, but if it's a series, who will stop them from having fun? For the same reason, I don't see anything wrong with the main plot of S3, but I will write about it in another paragraph. So, going back to the mid-season, the writers did a very good job of quite sensibly using real events combined with conspiracy theories and TV fiction to give us an alternate "what if..." world. Kirkman must not only face the threats of hostile countries, but also convince his allies who look at him with a critical eye, wondering how much they can trust the "Sheriff of the world". I smiled ironically when the topic of Arabs that Americans used to eliminate unfavorable groups appeared - this is nothing new, large countries (or influential people) have been doing it since the times of the Romans or even longer. I mention this because quite a lot of people forget about it, and we shouldn't! This brutality, which took the lives of many innocent people, deepened the divisions between them and made both groups even more hostile towards each other. Let's add to this the fact that once they helped them, and then they took that help away, condemning them to brutal death at the hands of avengers representing another faction. And there was even more, and I am absolutely not surprised that Arabs hate them. The Kurds can also confirm this.
[Pacing, Story & Real World References]
Referring to the end of the penultimate paragraph, the only major flaw that caught my eye was pacing. I don't know if it's due to the excess of plots, characters (which are not bad!), the large number of episodes (which is also not bad! At least I don't have the impression, which accompanies me with 95% of new series, that we have a main plot, max 3 side plots, 8-10 episodes and that's it) or other factors. Probably each of the reasons contributes to the slow pace to some extent. There is no tragedy in this matter... Well, at least in season 1, although season 2 is also not that bad, even though there are more episodes that made me fall asleep from boredom. The problem here isn't that nothing happens or that the conversations, threads, or events go nowhere, but that there are too many of them. I would compare it to the anime "Hunter x Hunter or "One Piece", where we also have a lot of conversations, translations, generally a lot going on. They could have focused more on intriguing events that happen faster and more easily, like in HoC (which is why some people criticize this series for too little realism, where they are only half right - simplification is not the same as lack of realism), but it would not help, because each of them emphasizes something different. The first season does not require corrections, because it is difficult for me point out some extremely unnecessary threads or those that were spent too much time. If all the slightly too long fragments were cut out, the saving would not be so noticeable - maybe 1, max 1.5 episodes.
It's different in the case of the second season, here I already see several threads that could be shortened and some of them thrown out without much loss. I suspect that here S2 could have been slimmed down by more episodes - maybe more, but it's hard to say - I fell asleep too often because of the excess information to absorb and then Asia had to tell me what happened... The plot is still intriguing because it continues the conspiratorial theme and shows the work of the President and his people in an interesting way. The main difference, in my opinion, is that the plot of S1 was more compact, the characters did not have so many individual threads, which meant that we were focused on him the whole time. It was also more complex, so more time had to be devoted to it so that it would not suffer from a similar problem as the antagonists in Marvel movies (they look like a big threat, but only when the scriptwriters need it)... Or "Stranger Things" - a big threat , which isn't that scary when you stare it in the face in the final episodes. Btw. It doesn't bother me in this type of series, but it's different when I watch something that is supposed to be 100% serious. This has pissed me off since I was a child, which is why I appreciate works in which the plot armor is not so strong. The threat in S2 is still real, but its form is already vague - we know who is evil (well, at least partially), the atmosphere of mutual distrust is less noticeable. I am omitting here some opponents who work for the mysterious group and try to harm the President and his people, because they do not have such strong destructive power and, as the series shows, they can be dealt with more easily. And because of the revelation of their conspiracy in the Season 1 finale, they have to keep quiet so as not to provoke the agents who are still waiting for them to make a mistake and say or do something that will allow them to be tracked down.
The third season has twice as many episodes... It's so good that it was done. Of course, we probably lost some promising threads thanks to this (these are just my guesses, resulting from the fact that Netflix canceled the series after 10 episodes... Although, on the other hand, Netflix canceled many series after the 3rd season when they had too big drops in viewership), but we got great pace for it. And this is all I can say about S3 pacing. The beginning is equally successful, the second season ended very optimistically. The finale was so nice that for a moment I was carried away by my fantasy and believed that it could work! I.e. that an independent candidate can succeed in the elections. Unfortunately, an independent candidate does not work for more or less the same reasons as the independent media, which provide only dry information - people often do not know what they really want, they often only think so. And this problem affects each of us, but with varying degrees of intensity. For example, for years I thought that I wanted this, and then I got Infopiguła (a website created by Drago, where he posts pure information every day, providing only data, without his own comments), and not even a month has passed since I stopped following them. We want emotions, action, sensations... We are also lazy, so lazy that we often do not want to learn about things that interest us too little or do not evoke any emotions. It's the same with a political candidate - apart from the fact that a Democrat/Republican has peace of mind from "his people" (apart from individual individuals), people instinctively think that in elections we only have 1 or 2 options, and the 3rd does not exist. Honesty day, even I find myself thinking this way sometimes. And I'm a political scientist who apparently understands it quite well in terms of practice and theory, so... I don't entirely blame people, because it's a deliberate action of politicians to ensure their life as long and as light as possible. Moreover, they do not want too many new people to join their mafia - this will disturb the system, make it more difficult for them to steal or obtain other resources, reduce laziness, and worst of all - they will start solving problems effectively, and voters will see that the country can be managed differently. Of course, we voters allow this, but it's not like it's only our fault. Oh yes, the beginning and later episodes of S3 perfectly showed that a non-partisan candidate is an idea that looks beautiful only on paper, after all, we all want to solve our problems... And fill our pockets with money or make our lives much easier and more pleasant, with the help of money or without it.
[Characters]
As for the characters, I don't like them as much as those from the above-mentioned HoC or "Yellowstone", I also think that they are slightly simpler creations (not to be confused with "weaker", unless the level of complexity of the characters is for you). disadvantage... not really for me anymore, I used to pay more attention to this factor), but I would have to think very seriously about my objections to them. The only thing I can fault them is that they could have had a more developed character, but on the other hand, there was not much room for nuance. Apart from that, I have no reason to complain. Sometimes certain fragments or threads annoyed me, but generally every actor and actress got at least one scene in which they could express themselves. And they presented a higher level than some of the competition, both in terms of script and actor guidance.
I'll start with President Kirkman as he learns this function along with us, the viewers. At the beginning, he was a calm, lower-level official; fate decided that he would become the President, and not DS, who belonged to the opposition. Because he was the first. Voters are roughly the same everywhere, as are basically all people in our cultural circle (more precisely - apart from the nuances that I will write about in a moment - it is about the characteristics of workers - mechanics, corporate employees, policemen. Those from Asia, South America, Muslims are different from us more. And yes, I know I'm simplifying, but I don't think I'm telling the truth.) but in each country/each group, there are some nuances that introduce some subtle changes. In this case, the point is that Americans like it when someone apologizes for past or recent mistakes, abuse of power, and bad behavior. However, they do not like people who did not win their position (by showing that they have a good team and thus proving their first success - winning the elections), but received it as a gift.
For this reason, Kirkman has an extremely difficult situation - not only does he have to perform his duties, of which the President has a lot (his schedule is packed, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year - even when visiting the toilet, he cannot experience comfort of silence, he just has to act), not only does he have to endure the sometimes idiotic criticism of his rivals, but he also has to build and organize his election committee. What's more, the media doesn't leave him alone, they point out every mistake, they fuel the anti-Kirkman atmosphere... that is, they do something they should do. It's not always fair and just, but life isn't and never will be, but it is what it is and you have to accept it. Our columnist, Ziemkiewicz, explained it perfectly - "If a politician takes part in an election campaign and complains, he behaves like a boxer who goes into the ring and complains that the other one beat his face." Even though he sometimes complains about it, he can clench his fists and hold his nerve, and it's devilishly difficult. Especially when he encounters a situation for the first time that none of his predecessors have experienced, so he doesn't know how to deal with it... Well, the rule "fake it till make it" applies here. I don't always agree with him, especially when he says that politics should always be fair and transparent... Well, not in a democracy, as I already explained. I.e. Anyway, I agree that there should be as many of these features in politics as possible, but this is wishful thinking of someone who doesn't know it. And every candidate realized it, it's all about money! However, you can feel that in other aspects he is doing really well! He can be decisive, his decisions are often based on logic and honesty, and he tries not to be guided by his own egoism. And he is certainly genuine, he lies only when he really has to, and it is still difficult to accuse him of lying to the same extent as many "our politicians". The actor was chosen very well, not only does he match his appearance and voice, but he also has enough experience, thanks to which I see the President, and not an actor who only pretends to be him for the needs of the show.
As the saying goes, "Behind every great man's success there is a special woman." Sometimes it is abused, sometimes unfairly ridiculed, but in certain situations it is true and this case is one of them. Natascha McElhone was very well cast in this role, she fits it as well as Sutherland. The reasons are the same - she behaves very tenderly, supports her husband and, like every housewife, she is the soul of their family. Her face expresses the same, and in addition, she is pretty, elegant and has a very good presence, which means she meets all the conditions to be a good First Lady. Although it is difficult for her at first, she adapts to her new responsibilities quite quickly. It's hard for me to write anything more about her without spoilers, it's just a decent role as a First Lady.
And speaking about his wife, let me write a few sentences about her transsexual sister. I remember how shortly after the premiere of season 3 of "Stranger Things", a scandal broke out on the Internet (one of many), because some frustrated, mainly right-wing boys were outraged about the forced insertion of homosexual themes into the series. I myself am an enemy of such action, unless it is well-thought-out and not included only to artificially add the LGBT symbol, as is the case in many modern series. Ok, the boys I made fun of often lie, but sometimes they are right, I mentioned several times that I was watching a pretty good series with Asia, and suddenly, for no reason, two boys appeared and, after a short foreplay, they had sex or there is another thread that was completely forced (without being justified by the script). However, both ST and DS do not fall into this case. In both series, this thread appeared naturally and was conducted that way. We didn't have any strange actions (which, contrary to the right-wing narrative, are not that common. Many homosexuals or transsexuals look like most heterosexuals - mainly because they want to be left alone, just like most of us, regardless of sexual orientation), and the characters they didn't say any strange things or have surprising threads (in the negative sense of the word).
Well, apart from one of them, although I can understand both sides, although I will not hide it, I am more critical of the leftist perspective. It's about the toilet, in my opinion women, men and people of non-binary, unspecified gender etc. they should have their own. Why? For the same reason that men are banned - not to provoke problematic situations, not to put women with petite bodies or simply weaker ones at risk, so that women and girls can feel comfortable in the toilet. I fully understand Sasha Booker, because she really looks and behaves like a woman (unlike, for example, Margot, a Polish fraudster who harms the transsexual community). Unfortunately, many people take advantage of the naivety / good will of others, so for peace of mind, it is better if the law is strict. Apart from that, I will try to watch other films and series with Jamie Clayton. You can see that he has talent and skills. I really liked that she showed this environment from a better side. I often criticize them myself, but mainly because of their loud part, which takes the discourse for itself. The quieter part is more empathetic, they genuinely want to help others and, above all, they know how to do it. This can be seen in the scenes when the First Lady's sister supports her family in difficult situations, when the daughter needs a woman's support and understanding (which even the best man or father cannot give). In all these scenes, I perfectly felt her unfeigned tenderness and genuine empathy. I saw it in her gestures, her look, her words. I hope that as soon as the fashion for tokenizing sexual minorities passes, the next fashion in cinema will not reject what we managed to do - to present a worthy representation, thanks to which the opponents of these groups will understand that they are people just like us. And that they are different from us in some aspects? Well, most people often forget that heterosexual people also have better and worse groups, which can be noticed by various statistics showing pathologies. And here they are not better or worse than those who prefer their own gender - and if any of you point out the cases I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph or in the previous one, I will answer like this... You know that when you look at the statistics, you can see that the problem concerns people with specific characteristics, which does not mean that it concerns sexual issues, but only disorders in this area. And this is a big difference that various, cynical people often ignore or pretend does not exist.
In the first and second seasons, my favorite character was the man played by LaMonica Garrett. What I liked about the President's security chief is the fact that he is convincing in his role. He is authentic, decisive, and I find it difficult to fault his actions. I am not an expert in national security or the protection of political VIPs (no matter whether we are talking about Poland or the USA), so I may be wrong in my assessment, but apart from 1 or 2 "dangerous scenes" that can be it was better to show them, they behaved correctly in each such situation. Anyway, it's not the actor's fault, but the creators', but I mentioned it because it fits the context. He may not be a shining example in this field, but I think he shows quite well the responsibilities that come with this task. To finish the topic of this gentleman, he is played by one of my favorite actors from "1883", whom I highly praised in that review.
The White House spokesman is slightly better (in his portrayal of his duties, not as an actor, which is why it is not my favorite role in this series). Again, I'm not an expert on this topic, so I can't fully honestly judge whether this is actually the case, but I think so. Daily briefings are another element typical of the USA (or the Western world, I don't remember the exact material from my political science studies). It is so important to them that they issue statements even when nothing important is happening, or at least that's how it looked when I was still studying a little over 10 years ago. Spokespeople often work on the "front line", which quite often involves throwing verbal feces (because every opportunity to criticize opponents is good) and verbal gymnastics when they have to explain a controversial decision of the White House, while usually maintaining a calm face. Or in other words, as Ziemkiewicz once said, when he was the spokesman for Korwin's first party - "This position effectively improves IQ, I had to think a lot about how to change the boss's message and pretend that his statement was not so controversial." For a long time I didn't like him, even though he had some cool or very cool threads (he was introduced very well, I really like this type of scenes, especially people reacting like the President), because I don't like this type of characters in TV series, but I have to admit - he was able to convince me that I was wrong. And it's not just about his part of the script, because it's not his fault, it's just for some reason, his character and appearance irritated me (there's no reason for these features either, but you know what I mean - sometimes you don't like someone for no reason) . This does not change the fact that he managed to present this job in a good style - he balanced between his good name and the reputation of his boss. He also showed a feature that eliminates most people from this type of work - you have to be very careful about what you say and what you don't say. Many people often do not pay attention to the latter, thus making the mistake that politicians often use in this case to hide their lies or secret interests.
I really liked the heroine of the third season, the head of Kirkman's election campaign. You can dislike her, Lorraine has given us many reasons to do so, but that's life, there will always be someone who doesn't like us. This is not the only rule that this lady follows - "Everything is a commodity, especially during an election campaign." This is extreme, harmful and toxic materialism, which is why we don't follow it that much anymore, but it was worth taking this lesson because most people are guided by it subconsciously. To clarify, so that I can be understood correctly - her attitude is extreme, and in addition it is determined by this profession, but it is worth getting this into your head and looking at how people act, we are driven by selfishness, which makes everything automatically become a potential commodity. I liked her for her absolute honesty and sobriety - she is ruthless, but not without reasons, which does not mean that she treats people unfairly. When someone shows a good idea, he gives him a reward or at least appreciates him. When it comes to sobriety of mind, he can distinguish his private life from work very well. And before you call me a hypocrite, A) she wasn't the one who started the attack and B) there is no room for mercy during the election campaign. The media and the opposition will do anything for their purposes to make money or gain support points from your every mistake. This is how business works.
I left Agent Hannah Wells for last. I won't lie, I liked her plot the most in season 1 (the later ones are also interesting, but it seems to me that the creators worked on season 1 as a whole the longest) and how, among others, through her eyes, we learned more about the puzzle pieces. Some may complain that this is another example of political correctness and pretending that women are equal to men in these aspects. And I'll tell you - none of these things. I.e. Sure, I agree that the actress could be a little bigger, like Gal Gadot, but we can pretend that she has a little more mass, because everything else explains it well. The girl comes from an Asian family, she also had her own problems, and if such problems happen to hard enough people who are able to turn it into a trampoline, they can jump very high thanks to it. She is also exceptionally stubborn, which, combined with better mental strength than men, gives good results. Especially since he can get hit in the head hard and then get up and hit back with a vengeance. I have met several such girls and I have seen such a situation twice with my own eyes. The actress played it very convincingly, and I felt the familiar "vibes" from Miss Wells. It's a pity that in later seasons they didn't develop her role enough and it's hard for me to praise her for anything. It wasn't her fault, I followed her storylines most pleasantly after Kirkman's work. She simply has a limited role (what should a secret agent who likes emotions and risk do? Change her career?) and IMO it was difficult for her to come up with an equally engaging plot. Well, at least they tried. And at the end of the section about actors and actresses, if after the 3rd part of "Guardians of the Galaxy" you want to see more scenes from High Evolutionary, this actor got his storyline in the 3rd season.
[Summary]
I wrote this text a few months ago and I don't remember most of this series anymore. Apart from the general plot, the events that stuck in my memory, the well-created characters and the consistency with which it was implemented. Personally, I think that HoC is better in every aspect - the script is more compact, there are fewer threads that would actually be better to cut because they would improve pacing, but that doesn't mean that DS is much worse. This is a solid production that shows American politics from a slightly different side. I highly recommend it, especially the first season.