Paul and Madeline
Mar. 14th, 2004 10:40 pmSince we were talking about harshness - are we, the Michael/Nikita fans, too harsh when it comes to Paul and Madeline? Even those of us who actually like and admire them (including myself)? We're always going on about their cruelty and how Michael or Nikita (Nikita for me *g*) would've done a better job as Operations - why is that so? Now that we know all about Oversight and Centre, wasn't what Paul and Madeline did for their own survival, just like the way Michael and Nikita fought to survive in Section? And what is the guarantee that Michael and Nikita wouldn't do the exact same things when they got the power? Your thoughts here. *g*
Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.
Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.
Re: Reply part II
Date: 2004-03-17 05:14 pm (UTC)Nell: Rene was a child-murdering shit who said the most hurtful thing he could think of, regardless of how true it was. Once he recognized he was going to die – he choose to die spitefully. I would check for myself if Rene Dion told me it was raining in the middle of a thunderstorm.
This exchanged cracked me up. *g*
Cyanide has a good point here. I've always believed that Michael really and truly believes in Section's goals, therefore he toes Section's lines. Whether he believes in stopping the problem of 'terrorism' or just the terrorists is of course entirely another question. But for a man who had once wanted to overhaul the system and create a new society (in their own misguided way), Michael's submission to Section's faulty system seems rather tame. You'd think he'd actually think more about changing the system, much more than Nikita at least. And that leaves me a with whole new set of questions. Yes, I'm fickle. *g*
Swatkat