Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon The Originals - Episode 1.22 - From a Cradle to a Grave (Season Finale) - Promo
Sign Up


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Get In Touch
 Join SpoilerTV
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

The Originals - Episode 1.22 - From a Cradle to a Grave (Season Finale) - Promo

May 7, 2014

Share on Reddit
-
Sign Up for the SpoilerTV Newsletter where we talk all things TV!

61 comments:

  1. Bertha StrongarmMay 7, 2014 at 3:01 AM

    This is going to be awesome!

    Yet again Marcel lives.

    I can't believe the double cross. No humans?

    nutty just nutty.

    I hope Klaus is ok though! He is my favorite character!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 3:08 AM

    The CD's picked a good actress to portray crazy Monique. She is doing a good job of rallying "hatred" from the fans towards the character.

    ReplyDelete
  3. lorepottterMay 7, 2014 at 3:08 AM

    And Davina will try to bring back Michael, i just hope she knows that if Klaus dies, his off-spring will too, including Marcel and Josh

    ReplyDelete
  4. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 3:11 AM

    Good point and I have a feeling that is going to the HUGE factor for her changing her mind and not siding with Mikael. Even is she succeeds in returning him; once she realizes that huge fact she will change her mind so quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SaraMay 7, 2014 at 3:55 AM

    Do we know who turned Josh? Klaus dying would kill Marcel (and it seems like most of the vampires in NOLA were turned by him) but I don't know who actually turned Josh. My guess is Davina had no idea. Mikael is a vampire hunter though - so he'd probably happily kill them all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. SaraMay 7, 2014 at 3:56 AM

    It's be karmic though. Hayley lead 12 hybrids to their deaths in order for Klaus to kill them because Hayley & Shane were working to complete the Expression Triangle for Silas.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SaraMay 7, 2014 at 3:57 AM

    Isn't Marcel dying from Klaus' werewolf bite?

    ReplyDelete
  8. johnMay 7, 2014 at 4:13 AM

    I don't think it was stated explicitly, but I assume he is a part of Klaus' bloodline. I'm not sure the chances of Mikael returning, as now that Klaus has been significantly weakened. But they do seem do be dragging that out for something so idk.

    ReplyDelete
  9. K.R.MMay 7, 2014 at 5:22 AM

    No. It would not be karmic though IT'S AN INNOCENT BABY .YOUR WAY OF THINKING IS RIDICULOUS.

    ReplyDelete
  10. K.R.MMay 7, 2014 at 5:39 AM

    AGREE. It would make no sense for the baby to die after months of building towards klaus redemption ,so i'm guessing no matter how much danger the baby is in , that baby will never die. i also agree about klaus sending the baby off into hiding to keep her safe from the witches. PLUS that baby is to strong and powerful to be killed so easily.

    ReplyDelete
  11. tauiMay 7, 2014 at 7:34 AM

    It would be a nice twist if Michael does come back, now that the werewolves have the power and majority of vampires gone. Also, knowing that Michael despises werewolves... it'll be a nice twist to see Michael against werewolves, and save killing klaus for later. Oh well, just a thought! And I hope the baby stays in the show! The climax would be all waste if she wasn't and I don't think I'd watch this show anymore because this was all I waited for!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. SaraMay 7, 2014 at 8:27 AM

    I think the first think Mikael would do is kill the baby. Mikael had the chance in 1919 to kill Klaus but instead chose to taunt him and Klaus got away. He may be more vindictive now that Klaus killed him - but I think he would kill the baby (and anyone he believed that Klaus cared about) first to destroy Klaus on an emotional level and then maybe kill him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. SaraMay 7, 2014 at 8:28 AM

    Not for the baby - but for Klaus & Hayley. The baby is innocent so far and doesn't deserve to die but Klaus & Hayley don't actually deserve to be happy and have the baby.

    ReplyDelete
  14. АлександарMay 7, 2014 at 10:35 AM

    Rebekah is coming to the rescue! She is starring in the last episode!

    ReplyDelete
  15. 01landerMay 7, 2014 at 11:56 AM

    How do we know Rekebah is coming back?

    ReplyDelete
  16. ShannonMay 7, 2014 at 5:20 PM

    Dude, I'm gonna chuck that up to your speculation. I don't do spoilers with Season Finales. But I highly doubt she's coming back so soon. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but Idt she's coming back, not this early.

    ReplyDelete
  17. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 5:54 PM

    You to say the baby is innocent so far. When will "so far" cross the line for you? When she is 5 years old and kills a few supernatural beings for trying to get at her? or when she outsmarts the supernatural beings and kills them before they kill her? I guess in your book then she would be evil.
    I might be wrong on this, correct me if I am, but I am pretty sure that everyone on this show has killed someone. These characters are supernatural beings. We have Davina killing witches through Marcel, we have the witches killing witches and we know they are into baby sacrificing-and using teenagers (per Marcel she is still a child) performing the baby sacrifices, and wolves killing humans; therefore, resulting in Marcel having a witch put a curse on them as they were out of control, vampires killing humans, it goes on and on and on and on.
    Not one of these fractions are innocent. So whoever you are rooting for on this show, they most likely killed someone for some selfish reason such as I don't know, SURVIVAL of their supernatural state?
    And as for Hayley leading 12 hybrids to their death-well before the wolves became human, I imagine they killed humans before. Maybe it was carma that Hayley was dealing out.

    ReplyDelete
  18. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM

    Marcel turned Josh. But even if he didn't , then that means he had his vampire guys do it, who we know were turned by Marcel, so yeah Josh would die because it is all from Klaus bloodline.

    ReplyDelete
  19. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM

    I hope so. Do you think she takes the baby on behalf of Klaus and Hayley?

    ReplyDelete
  20. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 6:14 PM

    Davina's boyfriend was pretty innocent and Klaus slaughtered him.

    ReplyDelete
  21. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 6:17 PM

    As I mentioned above, not sure how a baby sacrifice is any worse than Klaus killing a kid (Davina's boyfriend). Everyone on the show does evil things, not sure any character except maybe Cami (possibly Josh) can take the moral high ground.

    ReplyDelete
  22. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 6:32 PM

    I am not disagreeing that they all have made poor moral choices. Heck if at least some didn't, it would not be an interesting show.


    I just can't get up in arms about baby sacrifice, though, when the protagonists has done many things at least that evil. This is not a story with heroes (it it not Buffy), it is a story about villains.


    To be more charitable, it is a story about people who would do anything and cross most any moral horizon to survive and have power. I don't really react with sympathy when bad things happens to the protagonist, he (they) pretty much deserves all the bad that happens to them. On the other hand, I can still enjoy when they dish it back out.

    ReplyDelete
  23. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 6:38 PM

    I can't even believe you are justifying witches who perform newborn baby sacrifices on the same level as Klaus killing a 17 year old teenager. A baby in innocent in mind and soul and helpless. Davina's friend was innocent bystander as were all the other humans killed by the witches, wolves, vampires, etc. He is in that category. The baby is an entirely different category.

    ReplyDelete
  24. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 6:49 PM

    Why? Is killing an innocent 17-year old less reprehensible than killing an innocent baby. What about killing an innocent 14-year old, maybe a 12-year old. Is an 8-year old the moral horizon where it becomes truly diabolical. Is killing a year old more or less evil than killing a baby? How was the 17-year old boyfriend really any less helpless than the baby. Klaus could mind control him, could kill him (and did) any time Klaus desires. He was no less helpless than the baby.


    What about the all innocent people Marcel had the vampires kill during the Witch's party. I am sure they had kids who now are fatherless/motherless. How was that any less worse than sacrificing a baby. They didn't ask to be in the vampire war, they were innocent bystanders. Most of them were also basically helpless.


    All these people do horribly evil things. Baby sacrifice is just one more. I am not making the argument that baby sacrifice not horrific. I am making the argument that they have all done horrific things and are evil people.


    It is hard to pick a moral horizon the main characters have not completely blown through. This is fine, it is the point of the show, bad people that are hot doing bad things and acting all romantic on the debris of their destructive impulses.

    ReplyDelete
  25. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 6:51 PM

    These are not even people. They are supernatural beings. Their state of mind is entirely different. It is based on survival of the fittest. Not moral high grounds. So in our minds as viewers we need to see them as the writers of the show do, supernatural beings who are surviving and using some of their old human morals as some sort of guidance. I am fine with that. It makes me laugh when the viewers freak out as the writers play out their storytelling. The writers are using the fact that these characters are in a supernatural world with these complex characters who are trying not to get killed. The characters created do not hold to the morals that you and I do in our real non-television world. Some fans freak out. This is show has obviously inspired passion among the complainers because the complainers keep on watching the show despite their complaining and they use our real life moral of accepted society as a compass to guide what they feel should be shown on a fictionalized story about wolves and vampires and witches should behave like. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  26. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 6:58 PM

    Baby is innocent in mind and soul. Simple as that. It is a heinous crime.

    ReplyDelete
  27. SaraMay 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM

    I have not seen that anywhere. I don't think Claire Holt is coming back to the show. Mikael will be in the episode, but Rebekah is not listed amongst the cast. If she was coming back I think they'd promote it in hopes more people would tune in.

    ReplyDelete
  28. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM

    Frankly, I don't think the writers are that good or insightful to accomplish what you suggest. It is an entertaining show, but i find the idea that the writers are writing them with some insight to an alien culture (in this case supernatural creatures) to be silly.


    The writers are writing a story to have hot guys and girls and put them in some cool scenes that seem over the top. To do this they have them do morally outrageous things and then sometimes tug on the heartstrings so that we care about the characters.


    But to follow your track, the characters have to have some behaviors that we can relate to, otherwise we can't care about the characters. In this show they generally pick romance, hotness, and loyalty (when it doesn't interfere with the first 2).


    But if you make the argument that these character don't hold the same moral views as us, why should baby sacrifice be a big deal? Nothing should really be off limits. They don't have our morals, so why hold them to any our morality. They do what they want and we get to see the results. I know they have no morals except for of course when the writers change the mind and give them some on occasions.


    Truthfully,not having a better moral standard is what somewhat weakens the show. Strong moral choices in the environment of horribly tough circumstances is what really drives a strong narrative. Look at GOT people make some poor moral choices all the time but the narrative sets up a moral standard (that many people fail to live up to) at the same time paradoxically saying, morality is a very gray issue and one man's good is another man's evil. But GOT is frankly way better written than the Originals. Originals is more of a fun show that entertains with over the top scenes and hot people doing horrible things.

    ReplyDelete
  29. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 7:11 PM

    I don't think Josh has not killed anyone. Who helped him about turning off his new born vampire urges? He didn't have Caroline or Stefan. I am sure he killed. We just didn't need to see it as he is not a major character. I am sure he has now gotten over the newborn urges. So he can compel people and drink and send them on their way. I don't understand his role on the series. How does he keep on surviving? Eventually he will have to die. He is not a major character. When we hear major death in the near future, we can guess that he will be on that ship. Just like on Vampire Diaries, we know what major death mean, LOL

    ReplyDelete
  30. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 7:16 PM

    So is it less of a crime to kill a 3-year old? what about a 2-year old.
    What about a dog (it is also innocent in mind and soul) (that was me being throwing out hyperbole).
    Many of their crimes are heinous. You have already said we cant use our moral compass to judge the actions of the characters, so not sure why baby sacrifice all of sudden means we get to reclaim the compass.


    You said earlier we shouldn't be judging supernatural characters by our morality standards. But now you are. Either we are supposed to judge the actions of the characters by our moral standards, or we aren't. You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  31. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 7:21 PM

    Disagree with you about the hot people, as the only hot people I see are the men. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  32. EuphemiaWonderlandMay 7, 2014 at 7:24 PM

    I agree I think the actress is really good. You are supposed to hate Monique.

    ReplyDelete
  33. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 7:26 PM

    I don't think we can just assume he killed someone off screen. That doesn't make any sense to me. That seems like you just want him to have killed someone so he won't be innocent.


    You have to have major characters that don't die. They give actual context and substance to the overall story and make the locale and environment real.The huge problem with VD (and probably will be a problem with the Originals) is that they kill off pretty much everyone and their non main characters are basically disposable (and Julie Plec said as much; it is just something that shows her limitations in storytelling).


    If you do this continually, there is no stability to the narrative world. Frankly it the example of poor writing I was talking about earlier. A good writer makes his world both living and for the audience to care about it. That means imparting real substance to the secondary characters and making the audience interested in them. Once again look at GOT, even the tertiary characters have lots of substance.


    If a character you don't care about dies, then who cares. The death is meaningless in the story. If your story is about a bunch of meaningless deaths, that is really poor storytelling. As a writer, their job is to make us care about characters. Love them, hate them whatever, but instill some emotion to us.


    Additionally, they may became more important characters later on. That is also the hallmark of good writing is when you can elevate a secondary or tertiary character to a position of narrative prominence and it feels organic to the story.

    ReplyDelete
  34. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM

    Ok. On that I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM

    I never said killing a 3-year old is less or a 2-year old or dog. You need to calm down there.
    And I said these supernatural characters are using some of their old human moral as a guidance. So Yeah I imagine newborn babies fits right up there as being heinous. You said that you didn't see the difference between newborn sacrifices and killing Davina's 17 year old teenager.

    ReplyDelete
  36. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 7:36 PM

    No, I don't want Josh to have killed anyone so that he won't be innocent. The only person on the show I believe to be innocent is Cami. But looks like that is gonna change in the next episode as she attempts to kill. Everyone on this show gets their hands dirty one way or another. Each character justifies it as do the fans based on who their favorite character is. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  37. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 7:42 PM

    I am totally calm. I would never get riled up over a show (unless it was really good then started to suck and wasted my time) and especially over commentary over a show.


    I think both sacrificing a newborn and sacrificing a 17-year old are both heinous. I thought sacrificing over a dozen innocent band members is also really heinous.


    It is just a fictional show, so I don't have moral outrage over any of those things. But I find it strange that people would have outrage over killing a baby but not an innocent 17-year old or over a dozen innocent band members. I understand the case you are making, I just don't agree that baby sacrifice is my moral horizon. It is way before that.


    Let me change the analogy. Would 2 baby sacrifices be 2x more morally repugnant than 1, or did they already cross that moral horizon with 1 baby sacrifice. For me they crossed it long before they got to a baby sacrifice. So killing a 17-year old ruthlessly makes them horrible people.


    That the witches sacrificed a baby makes them potentially slightly worse than Klaus if comparing the 2 crimes, but then again my moral line in the sand would have already been crossed. Klaus has been doing this for centuries so in the scheme of things, his morality scale is so overweight that the witches would have to sacrifice dozens and dozens of babies to catch up. But that would not really matter, they both are already heinous creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  38. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM

    But all their actions are not all morally equal.


    Killing someone in self defense does not make you equal to murdering someone in cold blood.


    While this may seem to contradict my moral horizon argument, it does not, it just means that morality can be very complex. The point of a good narrative is to bring out that complexity and see how characters deal with it.


    Killing an innocent person someone to save your baby. A horrible act, but less horrible than killing an innocent person because they have something you want or because you are angry at them.


    Moral complexities in a story are good. But to broad brush everyone as guilty as a way to justify a favorite characters action is not something I personally like to engage in. You favorite character might just be a bad person. I can like my favorite character who is evil, I just don't have any sympathy for them when bad things happen to them (they aren't real).

    ReplyDelete
  39. sarahMay 7, 2014 at 8:27 PM

    my dear love Klaus ....I wish Rebekah come and does some kind of miracles get Klaus s power back and kick their asses especially francheska and saves the baby and her mom but I don't get something. what does the mean of this
    ; Klaus will get a heartbreaking decision? please someone answer meeeee

    ReplyDelete
  40. fan2000May 7, 2014 at 8:56 PM

    Had fun discussing this. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 9:01 PM

    I come across more acerbic than it should sound, as I tend to write too fast (the old saying, I don't have enough time to write a short letter so I wrote a long one). I find discussions on shows as entertaining as the show.


    Hannibal is on my DVR, just haven't had time to watch. That is what summer is for (catch-up on all the shows i didn't watch yet).

    ReplyDelete
  42. theurgist5May 7, 2014 at 9:05 PM

    I find Charles Manson the concept unusual.


    He was such the boogey man when I was a child (he was the definition of evil it seemed) and now he seems to be much more impotent and not particularly scary. I can't tell if it is because he is old or that we have so much information now and can see atrocities all over the world on a daily basis that he is no longer the definition of evil. Or maybe because I am older and have a better understanding of human nature as a kid.


    On the other hand, if I shared a cell with him, I would be downright petrified.

    ReplyDelete
  43. ReozenMay 8, 2014 at 12:11 AM

    I believe that's speculation because it was never confirmed not even by a spoiler I'm sure she hasn't even been back on set but she might be back in Season 2.

    ReplyDelete
  44. ShannonMay 8, 2014 at 12:39 AM

    I could see her making a guest appearance in season 2.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ReozenMay 8, 2014 at 3:14 AM

    No, I meant returning full time because the hiatus was just to visit her family she hasn't seen them I believe since she first was cast in season 3 of The Vampire Diaries I'm sure it's hard for them to get to see their family a lot when they live in a different country.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ShannonMay 8, 2014 at 3:28 AM

    Sooo, you're saying for 4 yrs she didn't have a permanent contract b/c she planned to see her family again?? Lol that sounds pretty sketchy. Hell she has money, I would've just bought them plane tickets. Hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  47. fan2000May 8, 2014 at 3:35 PM

    I have a question for you. Did you notice how Marcel was up and about after his bite? Then when he saw Elijah he said that Klaus "had tried" to kill him. I think when Klaus bit Marcel it was in his vampire form not in his wolf state. Which would explain why Marcel in the next episode that he is able to work with Cami and Davina to attempt and take down Klaus. Did you see if Klaus' eyes were yellow when he bit Marcel? After he bit Marcel when the witches magic began, is when his eyes turned yellow and Marcel took off. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  48. ShannonMay 8, 2014 at 5:58 PM

    IDT he got up quickly. I mean we don't know how long time actually passed but it seemed about right to me. I mean he had the fight then what? about 3 Scenes happened after that? I have to look again. Idk what you're talking about with the whole Davina and Cami thing. So I'm going to erase that from my memory, b/c it sounds like some type of spoiler, that I don't want to know about. Haha But i'd have to disagree with that immunity thing. Would be a nice theory iI just don't see it. And if anything Marcel could've put a spell on himself to furlong the process.I mean he had everything planned out. He KNEW Klaus would go after him he was ready for that. Which means he knew Klaus would bite him, especially since Marcel kept urging him to kill him. I think Marcel definitely had something up his sleeve.

    ReplyDelete
  49. fan2000May 8, 2014 at 6:33 PM

    Maybe Marcel did have some kind of spell put on him. After all; Davina did provide a cloaking spell for him already. She also could have provided some protection spell that would prolong a wolf bite. I like that idea vs. him being immune to Klaus' bite. Otherwise, it would be a drag to see Marcel always come after Klaus thinking he was invincible. I mean at that point Klaus would just have to rip his heart out. I like your theories. I remember a few episodes Marcel was prepared when Klaus went after Davina and her friend. He had some witch cast a protection spell. He could have done the same thing again. Marcel got up quickly; then entered the compound and implied to Elijah that Klaus "tried to kill him". Which means that, Marcel knew he was gonna live, right? Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  50. ShannonMay 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM

    Now if Klaus actually turned someone else other than Marcel before his hybrid state, then I wouldn't completely rule out the immunity thing. As far as the spell, that was exactly my point. He did it for Davina, he easily could've done it for himself. I give him credit for having a few tricks up his sleeves with that. But I hate when he drags EVERYBODY in it. (Rolls eyes). I remember Marcel getting up and going to the compound, what I meant was, it wasn't liKe 5 min later he just strolled over there. I honhonestly think it was a good hour later. B/c remember that was also the time Elijah was bitten by 3 wolves. Original or Not, he still needed some time to get up from that. Idt Marcel knew he was going to live. I simply think he was just stating the obvious. But idt there was a hidden meaning about it. I'm actually thinking, Marcel could've been prepared with all this, but in HIS personally situation, idIdt he thought it would work unless he actually had to try it out and see for himself, ya know?

    ReplyDelete
  51. fan2000May 8, 2014 at 7:48 PM

    Yeah because when Elijah asked him where Klaus was, Marcel replied, "I left him out on the street and he tried to kill me." So that implies to me that Marcel knows he is gonna survive the bite. When he asked Cami to leave; it was so his guys wouldn't attack her. He didn't seem to worried that he would attack Cami due to his own wolf bite. I mean even Elijah asked Hayley to leave him alone when he was bitten by the Klaus. Marcel didn't seem to concern about his wolf bite. I think Marcel did have something up his sleeve.

    ReplyDelete
  52. АлександарMay 8, 2014 at 11:13 PM

    Shannon, please check the last episode on imdb.com.
    She's starring in it. I'm not sure if it's for real though.. But to be honest, it's the only explanation for the whole situation. Klaus in weak, Elijah is bitten..

    ReplyDelete
  53. ShannonMay 8, 2014 at 11:51 PM

    No thank you sweetie. I'd rather stay in suspense and be surprised about it. I don't want any type of confirmation or otherwise. Like I said...season finales, I don't bother with spoilers. I just like to be surprised 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Bertha StrongarmMay 9, 2014 at 1:35 AM

    I think it would be morally corrupt to kill the baby. The writers would lose me as a viewer if they did so.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Bertha StrongarmMay 9, 2014 at 1:38 AM

    I believe Klaus turned Josh. Remember Rebekah killed all those vamps, Marcel had to replenish his vampire thugs, so Klaus turned him in the car.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Bertha StrongarmMay 9, 2014 at 1:46 AM

    I am kinda pissed with the writers of the show, the power imbalances are unfair. The Originals need a witch on their side that is not tied to the ancestral magic of New Orleans or most especially the French Quarter. I hate that the brothers have been tricked, deceived and lied to, to the point of there seemingly being no way for them to come back from. Klaus in his infinite wisdom has alienated everyone and anyone who would or could help. At this point it feels like they need a miracle. More so then the baby, unless the baby has infinite powers. The show has kinda really pissed me off. I wish more thought had gone into making the new Vampire Universe that the powers that be have created make more sense. I don't get what powers trump who or whom. It is frustrating. At least in TVD, we knew that the Originals were the top dog, and that witches in some ways could get the better of them....but only sometimes....the power balances were more equitable. On this show, it is completely not! It seems that the Originals lost some of their significance and power when they moved to New Orleans. If this is the case I say they should move back to Mystic Falls.

    Hopefully, the baby will come out being all powerful and knowing and will be able to avert any crisis that comes its way. It would kinda be cool if the baby meant the destabilizing of power in the French Quarter...hence the reason why the witches want to kill it so bad. Dunno....but I am getting fired up over this, as there are too many gaps in the Vampire/Supernatural Verse that the show is recreating.

    I say more answers are needed and pronto.

    ReplyDelete
  57. SaraMay 9, 2014 at 7:33 PM

    "Klaus in his infinite wisdom has alienated everyone and anyone who would or could help."
    He had nobody on his side from the beginning though. His only sometime-ally amongst the witches had been Sophie (who was killed by the ancestors). Marcel and the vampires have been against Klaus from the pilot. Klaus has never had anyone on his side to begin with - everyone has been working against him or sometimes trying to use him to achieve their goals from the start. I don't know who you think he could have gotten to help him but I don't remember seeing any character on the show who would have so he didn't have anyone to alienate.

    ReplyDelete
  58. SaraMay 9, 2014 at 7:34 PM

    Klaus killed him (snapped his neck), but he didn't give him any blood. Klaus killed him because he had vampire blood in his system already because one of Marcel's vampires had feed off him and healed him up with some vampire blood.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Bertha StrongarmMay 10, 2014 at 3:10 AM

    I dunno, I think Klaus had strategic alliances and/or manipulations that served to help his objectives. I think I chose my words carefully, in that I believe the show is far more complex and non-linear then simple essentialist power reductions. I think of the power struggles as ones that are more akin to Foucault notion and sensibilities - is dynamic and spherical in nature and not lateral (linear). So, yes I will maintain that Klaus alienated everyone (allies depending on the power stuggle being fought) and anyone (folks who felt their struggles in the moment could be strategically aligned with his). I think this is demonstrated in each episode.

    I do think the Marcel/Klaus relationship is not so easily reduced to saying that Marcel was always trying to get rid of Klaus. Marcel reminds me of a teenager with his parent. He is struggling to find and shape his own identity, away from that of his maker and surrogate father. Its simply put complex. Sophie's relationship with Klaus was equally complex, given that Klaus/Baby/Hayley and Elijah represented a means to an end - the recovery and saving of her niece. Sophie represented a strategic alliance as the aims of the Originals helped and aided her cause of saving her niece (ultimate goal), but mostly thwarting Marcel, so that she could get the final Harvest girl. Cami's relationship with Klaus was equally complex, as he used her to help delve/heal his mind, so that he could deal with his relationship with his siblings and father/mother issues - all with the purpose of becoming a worthy father for his child. As well, Cami strategically used Klaus to further her own aims - to save her uncle. Yes, Klaus owed her and probably helped her because he felt beholden to her. But at the end of the day his alliance with her and her with him was all about strategy and moving himself further along the line of redemption.

    I guess my overall point is that yes if he had not alienated all of the players on the board, he would have been able to maintain some of his strategic alliances. He got outmaneuvered, which did not have to be the case had he been a better steward of his alliances.

    Thinking about this in terms of strategic alliances makes me think that the wolves have to be stopped, as they apparently will hold the power. It is way to imbalanced right now. Don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  60. SaraMay 10, 2014 at 6:35 AM

    Re: Marcel
    When kids grown up they move away from home. Marcel didn't do that at all. He instead had the Originals kicked out of their own house so he could claim it as his own.

    Cami would have been of no use to Klaus though. I don't really think that she could have helped him and she was pretty clear the other week that she was trying to stay out of it all and dealing with her Uncle's death - Klaus & Cami didn't interact this week but in the most recent episode they were on friendly terms so I'm not sure what he did to alienate her other than not dragging her into his alliance with the Crescent werewolves which wasn't something that involved her.

    Klaus allied himself with the werewolves by making a deal with their leader - Jackson. I don't think that Klaus alienating the werewolves, in fact it seemed to be the opposite and that a lot of the werewolves didn't want to accept Klaus as being one of them because he also happens to be a vampire. Oliver was even refusing to accept Hayley (who's a regular werewolf).

    What Klaus needed was a witch ally - and there weren't really any other possibilities for him. The only witches we have now are Genevieve and the Harvest girls. I don't think Klaus could have allied with Monique or Abigail so Genevieve seemed to be his only option.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Bertha StrongarmMay 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM

    I am in total agreement with you about the witch scenario. I ranted in another thread about this. Right now everyone is powerful other then the Originals.



    The wolves IMO were never allied to Klaus. I mean, clearly, given that they uber double crossed him in the end. Jackson may have been allied to Klaus, but I am not so sure if he was the leader of the pack. I actually despise the wolves, and how they played the game. They cheated and played dishonorably. By the accounts of all the other factions when the wolves ran the town they were evil, and probably acted as Marcel did. I hope they get their just desserts.



    I am also not fond of the witches. They act in a very pious way, when in fact they are just as evil as everyone else. There is nothing redeemable about their characters. Nothing. Cripes, they are about to sacrifice a baby. Gross!


    Its interesting that they all have the Get Klaus mentality, because he is evil and yada yada...when in fact they are all the same, just sitting on different piles.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.