I actually liked the way it showed the intoxicating power of love. How it blinds people until the truth is revealed and then people often overcompensate the other way, never wanting to love again. However there were many themes in season 2 which don't carry over into S3 and vice versa. Each season is fairly contained with it's themes, that don't carry over.

> I get what he was trying to going for, the fall of the hero and portraying Syd as the "true hero all along" but the way their relationship was built up for two seasons just didn't support that. Just made it through the first part, and I already think you're missing the point. I strongly believe that the show is not trying to paint Syd as a hero, at all. While David clearly raped her, the rest of the team is clearly being gaslight by Farouk at the end of Season 2, and Syd's further actions in S3 are NOT that of a hero. The show, to me, clearly seems to be trying to deconstruct the concept of "hero" and "villian" and showing you that people are not so one dimensional. There are no heroes or villians, there's just people. Just because Syd thinks she's the hero doesn't mean she's right. Just like David thinking he's the hero doesn't make it right either.

I guess so, but that line was more in reference to this quote from Noah, "*My hope is that, by the end of the second season, you’re beginning to realize that David may not be the protagonist of the show. That Syd may be the actual protagonist of the show.*"

I don't think I've head that quote before, and I'm not sure I 100% understand his point but protagonist is not the same as hero. Syd and David are both protagonists. If Noah wanted to portray Syd as a hero, he did an AWFUL job imo. If he wanted to beat in the concept that there are no heroes/villians, but rather just people, I think he did an incredible job.

Having watched the series twice now, as I introduced the series to someone else, I'm convinced that the show couldn't keep up with its thematic reputation. It was auteur to its detriment. It couldn't just be a story about mental illness, as there was growing backlash that illness shouldn't be portrayed as a super power, but it couldn't just be straightforward story about fighting bad guys due to the broad artistic strokes taken in the first season. I agree about Syd, but I think the writers failed her character. In an effort to subvert expectations, they created a one dimensional, unsympathetic character that is disconnected from how anyone would actually react in those situations.

I agree about subverting expectations. I feel like at many points, Hawley just went with the most “anti-superhero” tradition way of dealing with the story. David is in a happy relationship - He rapes her and she begins to hate him. The villain gets captured - He get sets free immediately and becomes a quasi-hero. David’s about to kill Farouk - David has to forgive him and let him go. While some of these choices may be valid, some were, in my opinion, made without consideration of the story that had been told before it and created for a artistic shock factor of wanting to be different. Sometimes matching expectations is fine.

Yeah, I think both you and the guy you're replying to are missing the point. Again, the whole show is about deconstructing the traditional superhero troupe of "good vs evil", "heroes vs villains". In season 1, we get the traditional setup. David is PORTRAYED as the hero, and clearly thinks that he is, but this isn't true. We're seeing things through the lens of traditional super hero shows. David is fighting against a literal demon, how could he be the bad guy? Then, season 2 comes along, and we begin to sow doubt. We see Farouk as a person, rather than a straight up demon. You could see this as ret-conning S1 Farouk, and maybe it was, but it makes more sense to me to see this as beginning of the transition. Throughout the season we see the human side of Farouk, and seems to at least claim to care for David. At first, this seems like some sadistic, serial killer shit, but as the season goes on, that get's less and less clear. By the season 2 finale, everything has completely turned on it's head, and now Farouk is presented as the hero (obliviously a manipulation), and David as the Villian. And while it's pretty clearly a trick at this point, it makes you start to ask the questions. Is David a good person? Does David deserve love? And then season 3 comes along, and David completes his dissent into chaos/madness. He's clearly no longer a hero, and has straight up villainous behavior. Yes, Farouk manipulated him into this position, but as we see more and more of Farouk, it becomes clear to me that Farouk really does come to see how he's destroyed David with his years of torture and manipulation, and he feels bad. He talks Syd down from killing David, because that's clearly not a good solution either. It's all very nauanced, and in the end, I don't see how you could walk away seeing any of the characters as "good" or "bad", "hero" or "villian". They're just damaged people doing their best, looking for love in all the wrong ways. To me, the whole purpose of the show was to subvert expectations. But not just to catch you off guard, but to really convincingly show that there is no such thing as a superhero.

Talking about labels, outside of Farouk and David (and possibly Syd), I'm not as sure that there is that level of nuance in applying traditional "hero" or "villain" labels. With Kery and Cary, for example, they can easily be applied a "hero" label. They believe that David is going to destroy the world, he sexually abused one of their teammates, and has brutally killed many people. None of their actions suggest a negative or "villainous" intent in any way. If the Legion audience were polled, they would probably be near the bottom of the "villains" list. >the whole purpose of the show was to subvert expectations One of my points above and in the post was that perhaps Hawley was pressured to apply this subversion to every beat of the story, regardless of characterization or pacing, in order to maintain Legion's reputation as a "different" superhero story. >We're seeing things through the lens of traditional super hero shows. I've felt that, at times, this community has been prone to decoding poor story decisions as a "deconstruction", "subversion", "a deeper, hidden meaning". Sometimes a good story is a good story. Sometimes a bad story is a bad story. If a characterization requires extreme analysis, reading between the lines, and assuming some intent from the writers that doesn't show up on the screen, maybe it wasn't written well sometimes? I feel like i'm complaining too much about a show I like but it's fun to have these discussions lol.

Yeah I'm not sure I agree with any of that either. It feels like you're putting David on a pedestal, and assuming that the show is somehow painting Syd as a hero/admirable character. She's not. She and David were both very mentally ill, met in a fucking mental hospital that they both clearly belonged in, and then created some delusional fantasy relationship where neither of them saw each other for who they really were, and both of them fed their mutual delusions. You point out all of these events as if they're somehow inconsistent/unfair/proof of something, but all they're proof of is that all of these people are flawed, damaged people, looking for love in all the wrong ways, like I said. I'd strongly suggest rewatching the show, and attempting to discard your previous notions about right and wrong/good and evil. No one is a good guy or a bad guy. They're just people. And the show isn't condoning anyone's actions. It's just showing you flawed people being flawed people. Honestly it feels like you're way overcomplicating it.

I've edited my post to add another point now but I was basically saying that you're overcomplicating it too much as well lol. Guess we just shared different opinions. (And my point about the show painting Syd as a hero was a very small line in a longer post. I'm not sure why that prompted this much discussion).

Yeah, and you're far from alone in your opinion. But it's basically like this. You're saying you don't like the show because you don't like the actions of some of the characters. I'm telling you that the actions of the characters make perfect sense when viewed through the correct lens, an opinion that many people on this subreddit seem to agree with, but obviously some don't as well. From my perspective, you just want the show to be something that it isn't, and that's hindering your enjoyment. From your perspective, you've decided what you want the show to be, and it's not that. You could see that as a fault of the show, effectively choosing not to like it, or you could try to see it from a different perspective, and find/understand the enjoyment that other's have found in it. Entirely up to you. Just don't expect anyone who has my perspective to be very receptive to you basically saying "no you're wrong, it's a bad show." I know you claim you did like the show a lot, but again, I think you're trying to fit it into a the box of a traditional super hero show. Which basically means you loved season 1 and hated most stuff after that, lol. And I think that's a huge mistake.

>I'm telling you that the actions of the characters make perfect sense when viewed through the correct lens ...then the character actions are poorly written.

I think you're taking this way too seriously >I'm telling you that the actions of the characters make perfect sense when viewed through the correct lens, Like u/gatorpower already mentioned, think about what you've said for a moment. What is the "correct" lens? The way you interpret the show? >You're saying you don't like the show because you don't like the actions of some of the characters This is not what I believe. I was basically saying that the character's actions and some story beats didn't feel right based on the way the show was written before them. But even if I did, what's wrong with that? Can a person not say - "Ah, I didn't like that movie. The X character did a bunch of annoying stuff I didn't agree with". People say this all the time. >Entirely up to you. Just don't expect anyone who has my perspective to be very receptive to you basically saying "no you're wrong, it's a bad show." It's OKAY to disagree! Maybe we don't feel the same way about some things and THAT'S FINE. It's just a TV show dude. It's not that deep. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm just expressing an opinion I hold. If you don't share that opinion, let's have a nice chat about that. Also, I've never said that the show is "bad". If the show was bad, I would have stopped watching it and not spent anytime on joining a subreddit, reading posts, and writing my own. I've enjoyed it, and if my criticisms of the show come as implying that I hated it, I didn't want to give that vibe. You're basically saying that you're opinion is "valid" and **me trying to express my opinion is trying to question your opinion's validity**. There is no right/wrong. To each their own. Let's have a fun debate/discussion, u/Nealon01. No need to take this so seriously.

Syd and David NEVER had a healthy relationship. Their dependency on each other was their ultimate downfall. Season 2 largely deals with the fact that Syd doesn't know what to do without David as he begins to separate himself from her. Her resentment for him builds throughout the entire season; it's not a sudden change after he takes advantage of her. It was the final straw that ultimately turned her love into hate.

Decent into madness is often written well but rarely translates to the screen imo. It needs to be gradual...and movies rarely are cut in such a way to provide that. I mean think about how much easier it is in a series...Game of Thrones for instance, really...yeah I can't even type it with a straight face.

My theory is that he learned at some point during season 2 that he had a million projects and the show was only getting one more season, and so condensed 2 or 3 seasons into 1.25 or so. This has the effect of each season having a wildly different tone and trajectory, such that they feel like season 1 2 and 3 of 3 different shows that coincidentally have each other as prequels

I just think that the entirety of the show ends up as a bit of a missed opportunity. I like it, I've watched it twice, at least. It feels like a combination of too much too fast and a lot of external events that aren't really necessary. I really enjoyed the whole virus arc. I thought the setup and meat of it were super cool. And then it felt like it was just over in a second. In the end, i don't know that it did a lot to advance the overall story of David. I don't know what could have been done differently or what i else i would have liked to see. I'm not a writer or even a creative, but i feel like this was a really fascinating overall tale, and it just missed slightly in the execution. I honestly believe that with the potential of the character, the sky was the limit. I think Dan Stevens is an exceptional actor, and this series could have been remembered as something really special. In the end, it's probably somewhat forgettable, but i guess we have to take what we get overall.

I agree with you that the fall of the relationship was pretty sudden, while watching S2 I remember thinking that Syd already felt pretty withdrawn from David, during the whole season there is this theme of man leaving, Melanie goes over and over it and while annoyed Syd is still there to witness her, then we have to factor in Syd's background when she did what she did to the man in the shower to give us context in how little she knows about relationships as an adult (which will be substantiated when she talks to what she believed was her younger self in S3) Finally we have Farouk/Melanie manipulating her during S2 final episodes by showing a bunch of out of context davids to her, and David "confirming" those visions when he in turns does the awful to her, so from Syd's pov I kinda get it, even tho shotgunning David at the beginning of S3 with 0 doubts still felt weird, but what didn't feel weird was how she empathetic toward him, because I think she was forcing herself to be so, as a lot of people do after bad experiences and tough breakups. Now as for David behaviour in S2 finale I agree that the shift is waay to sudden, I loved it, but yeah I have nothing to say here, as for S3 I think that whatever bad shit he was doing he thought that ultimately it didn't matter, it didn't count even because he was going to "fix" everything thanks to switch