I’m utterly fascinated by Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan’s new show, Pluribus. I’ve watched all 6 available episodes, with 3 more to go in the first season (hopefully the first of many).
The premise of Pluribus–as revealed in the first episode–is that the impact of a worldwide virus is that everyone on Earth is connected and in sync, kind of like a hive mind. No sense of individuality remains. There’s also a strong similarity to AI, as all knowledge is shared all at once, and there are rules (no lying, no killing, etc).
I said “everyone,” but that isn’t entirely true: The virus did not affect 13 people. It’s 1 of those people that the show most often follows, and she is furious. This character choice raises some great questions, because the show presents some ways that the world is better due to the hive mind. There’s no crime, no violence, no lying, no cheating, no racism, no sexism, etc. Yet no one was given the choice to join the hive mind.
The show includes many interesting angles, reveals, and mysteries. Where does everyone sleep? Do they have a master plan? Why do they care about making the 13 people happy? And so on.
The only part of Pluribus I struggle with is the main character’s constant anger. It’s entirely justified, but it’s tough to watch 6 hours of someone’s unrelenting anger. I genuinely want her to find some resolution and peace in her future, even if it’s a struggle.
What do you think of Pluribus? Feel free to share spoiler ponderings in the comments.
We really like it. I gave up on Breaking Bad because it became too slow at some point. I hope that doesn’t happen here, it didn’t yet, mostly because the premise is so fascinating. This is not the best show I watched this year. but it’s really good and I’m looking forward to the season.
Side note, two recent shows I recommend: All Her Fault (new and excellent) and Shrinking (two season so far).
I hear you about the Breaking Bad pacing–I used to watch it on 1.3x speed. 🙂 So far I think Pluribus has moved at a great pace, and I love that it doesn’t hold back the mysteries (while still retaining mysteries for all the things they haven’t been asked yet).
I love Shrinking, and I’ll check out All Her Fault. Thanks!
Carol is for sure cantankerous. It’s hard to root for her and I think that’s kind of the point. The “They” are likable. They’re at peace. Carol is neither of these things. So rooting for her is complicated, but we’re kind of compelled to do so. But why?
I think one of the major underlying themes of the show is the conditions of human happiness: what does it mean to be happy and what is required to achieve happiness? The various characters represent different approaches to happiness. Diabaté embraces hedonism. The They embrace a collectivism, a loss of individuality that appears to bring a state of bliss. Carol clings to individual human identity, but does it make her happy?
Carol suffers from Schopenhauer’s “hedgehog dilemma.” Hedgehogs want to gather close for warmth, comfort and affection. But closeness comes with the consequences of having spines. The They have lost their spines and seem quite content. Carol feels the sting of her isolation but giving up the individuality that keeps her isolated is unthinkable.
So do we root for Carol to return the world to what it was? Would that be better? We’d get individuality back but the world would regain the prickliness Carol represents.
Carol is a tough character to like and root for, but I think that’s part of what gives the show this sort of thematic depth.
“Cantankerous” is a great word for Carol. 🙂 I really like your analysis of why we root for Carol (and yet also question the level of her anger). In listening to the Pluribus podcast (which is excellent), they talk about how at one point Diabate was the main character, but they realized that he didn’t offer the tension and debates that Carol does. I like that the show has these other characters to visit and learn more about over the run of the show.