s07e02 — Bête Noire

@Laedde: and the second one is to give new series that have been cut off from the most interesting ones))
Finally, a universe where there is a second season of Flash Forward.

@Mr_Knight: Oh my God, I'd like to watch the second season too. All kinds of shit are extended

@Mr_Knight: Finally, a universe where the Firefly was not closed!

@Moi_Lolita_: the most painful closure.. such a great, original series, and only 1 season(

It's been so long since I've seen anyone who remembers this wonderful series!

@krook: and I still couldn't solve it with concrete or resin

@krook: Yours would be nice too.

@krook: Go sleep it off, did you come to watch the series or whine in the comments? I'm so tired of you already....

@krook: Another episode called Their war. Wake up, Taras, people are discussing movies here, not your puberty dreams.

@big_aspid: Wish for a reality where it won't fly out

@Laedde: I agree, none of them is a positive heroine) but my respect to Blondie for inventing this cool thing, I wish it could still fall into the right hands x)

@Sen13: The most interesting thing is that it doesn't really matter or make sense. Since the principle of its operation is to choose from a parallel infinite number of universes necessary for the owner. So there are parallel universes where this pendant does not exist at all, or exists for everyone.
This means that all parallel universes are mixed up and this pendant exists simultaneously in the right and wrong hands. Heh, that's such a fool it turns out)))

@Sen13: I have very correct hands)

@Sen13: Why? Maria is quite a positive heroine. She didn't want to do anything specifically bad to her, and she didn't actively support direct bullying. She has adequate self-esteem, reflection, conscience, she didn't even want to meet and work with her because she felt guilty. And she won't abuse the pendant, just play a little bit and bring everything back to normal, she won't cause any destruction or death.

@Lennyface25: if it were that simple, violence wouldn't exist x)

@Lennyface25: the main character also needed to see a psychologist, and not humiliate the antagonist for years.

@ksander92: Should I at least apologize?

@Lennyface25: If she had gone to a psychologist, she would not have invented a quantum gaslighting machine.

@ksander92: you were inconsiderate, she didn't humiliate you, she just blurted out about the teacher because of the pressure of another, really bad girl. As it was, she didn't care about her. What can you accuse her of? That she didn't pull her into the main group? Well, if that's the only way. But
that's weird, because it's none of her business.

@Lennyface25: my first thought)

@densto: Maria even voiced this gossip to her boyfriend, although she knew perfectly well that she had invented it herself. What she told Verity under threat of death was probably just another lie: Maria was the conscious buller. They didn't show us any flashback, you just take the word of the main character, who lied so much that she had nothing to do with slander at all.
That's how the pendant works!))

@milanajager: I didn't write that I was justifying her, but like Verity, Maria is also not a positive character in this story, and I just personally find her the more unpleasant of the two.

@milanajager: Well said

@GreenSky: it is impossible to put a person in a superposition in the conditions that were in this series. This is not even close to a semi-scientific approach. Moreover, it is impossible to create such a thing alone, huge resources are needed.

@andreypershin: I watched it. Nothing has changed. Gg is disgusting. Even the way she communicates with her boyfriend and boss. It doesn't matter what (spoiler alert), because in these circumstances it is she, with her own character and behavioral characteristics.

@andreypershin: the man wrote that he was watching in parallel. Perhaps we are referring to a parallel reality.

@ksander92: A perfect example of what a child's brain is, even if you're a teenager, a brain that doesn't think about what will happen if it reaches its goal and what the consequences might be.

@analemma: Well, then let's deprive teenagers of legal (criminal) responsibility for their actions. They're kids. As for the "kids" who "don't understand anything," you can read a novel that once made a splash in the United States, namely, "Let's Go Play at the Addams."

@ksander92: Don't make it absurd.
If you don't understand the difference between trial and lynching, then you probably shouldn't explain it.

@analemma: Don't twist it. You write that children (meaning children and teenagers) cannot think about what the consequences of their actions might be. I'm saying that a person's criminal responsibility begins at the age of 16. For an exhaustive list of criminal offenses, responsibility should be established from the age of 14. Judging by the photos, the "children" in the series have long since passed the age of 14, or rather 16. Thus, it is implied that a person at this age should understand the essence of his actions and responsibility for them. It can't, but it should. Otherwise, responsibility ensues. That is, your statement that "children" do not understand what they are doing is neither legally nor psychologically objective. The fact that these "children" hide behind their ignorance of the essence of what is being done does not protect them in any way. In my post, God forbid, there is no agreement with lynching and there cannot be. You won't find a single comment here (and I'm actively commenting on this series) where I would even indirectly justify this. Moreover, I clearly state that the antagonist's position is not the way out of the current situation. The essence of my complaints about this series is that the screenwriter suggests that we, as viewers, support and sympathize with the abuser and moral scoundrel, without forcing this character to at least think about the horrors she creates. If the screenwriter had acted this way, and the main character had repented of what had happened through the action, but the antagonist would have continued her path of revenge, after which the series finale would have appeared as it is now, there would not have been a gram of complaints about the script. Now, the narrative of the series is not just hacky, but also frankly socially dangerous.

@ksander92: >>> Your statement that "children" do not understand what they are doing,

You're twisting this, I haven't written that anywhere.
Should we be responsible? Definitely. In childhood and at the age when this action is performed. According to the law.
After 10 years of lynching, no. Even uncomplicated murders have a statute of limitations of only 15 years, that is, at 18 he killed, at 35 he can no longer be afraid (maybe there are other dates, too lazy to Google in detail). And in your eyes, 14 called names among other schoolchildren, pay at 30+.

The screenwriter suggests that we, as viewers, support and sympathize with the abuser.
No, Verity Verity's abuser, Maria Bully, was the one who did it many years ago. Bully is not always an abuser. And Verity is a person who has received unlimited power and uses it to satisfy sadistic tendencies.
Maria did not enjoy Verity's worries. She was jealous or afraid of her. And Verity enjoys Maria's suffering.

>> without making this hero at least think about the horrors she creates.
You didn't look very closely.

They didn't tell us much about bullying at school, only in smears - they came up with a gossip that a friend spread, called us an insulting nickname, which the whole school called. Maybe there was something else, but that doesn't answer the question of why no one was friends with Verity.
But we were shown in detail how Verity is bullying, namely abusing another person now. The whole episode was shown.

@analemma: a keyword in the present. She had done it before, and it came back to her like a boomerang. You need to be able to take responsibility for your actions, and not shift the blame onto someone else.

@alexsomar: I consider the blame for the ongoing bullying of adults to be teachers, school management, parents (bullies or victims). And the shown method of buling was so terrible? The fact that the fiction about sex with a teacher was picked up and spread is not a good thing, but it has never been a crime. She didn't prove what she saw. She did not provide false evidence. And she didn't tell the whole school, just her friend.
You probably made something up at school too, it's just that your fiction didn't become popular and you forgot. But whether she brought pain to someone, you don't know and you won't remember.

@analemma: I suspect you've been spared the fate of being a part of someone's constant ridicule, so it looks like nothing from the outside.
If your classmates make fun of you every day. In this case, they call you a milkmaid and say that you had sex with a teacher, these are not small things.
The child is quiet and withdrawn, she might be ashamed to admit to her parents and just waited for it to pass.
And all these name-calling and teasing from day to day.
Imagine your boss telling you every day at work that you're a piece of shit, relatively speaking.

I wasn't a bully to actively joke and mock anyone.

@alexsomar: I am genuinely bombed by the behavior of such "I don't understand what the problem is" in the context of various cases and situations. But over time, I came to the conclusion that some people lack empathy, and it's not their fault that they were born that way. Are they potentially dangerous to society? Yes rather than no, because lack of empathy is the first sign of a psychopath. But since there may even be a majority of them, you just need to accept the fact that there are such people. Alas.

@alexsomar: Once again, 1) it wasn't the main character who did this, but a crowd of children. Crowd psychology, alas, is different. Gg is not even said to have been the instigator.
2) if the adults didn't stop it, the adults are to blame, at least one teacher knew. I didn't help her - I'm terribly sorry for her, but then she should take revenge on the teacher, shouldn't she?
3) she took revenge after coming out of a traumatic situation. What you have described is a terrible experience, and if a person living in this vicious circle of abuse and violence has lost his temper, I will understand him very well! But it's a completely different assessment if both are no longer in an abusive-victim relationship. It hasn't been a day, but years. She enjoyed the suffering of her victims and killed. No abuse years ago is an excuse or mitigating circumstance for this, it is her adult choice to become a murderer.

I'm not going to talk about my childhood, but I'm ready to give one example - that in elementary school we had a teacher who was engaged in severe abuse and physical abuse towards a couple of children, I realized somewhere after 30. Not because I didn't remember, but because my brain worked so hard that I decided to put it on the back burner.

@ksander92: you know, male abusers who beat women often try to justify a difficult childhood - their father beat them, they were bullied at school, and their psyche is probably not OK, I understand. But all this has secondary importance in relation to the fact that as an adult, abusing victims is their adult choice, their current one.
The heroine gained strength, became physically stronger than the abusers, and used it for abuse, not to sort out the past or save someone. Strange, yes, why is there no empathy for her? )) But it's strange to me that someone feels empathy for her.

@analemma: 1. Responsibility is personal. If a crowd beats up a person, everyone in the crowd is responsible. There is no such option of release from punishment as "well, everyone was beaten, and so was I." The same situation applies to bullying. Will you also justify a participant in group violence with crowd psychology? But the difference is only in the types of violence! 2. The responsibility of teachers goes hand in hand with the responsibility of children. Everyone has their own responsibility. One does not deny the other and vice versa. I'm not the scriptwriter of the series, and I can't answer why the antagonist didn't complain to the teachers. 3. No one except the victim himself knows when the trauma of the incident is going away. After a serious moral injury, most do not completely leave for the rest of their lives. You have a very bad idea of human psychology! 4 I have already written several times about justifying the actions of the antagonist, and I will not repeat myself, because I have not done this and I do not intend to do it. Be able to distinguish the fact of justifying the victim's aggression from the need for responsibility or at least moral repentance for what the abuser has done!

@analemma: First of all, don't take the story in a different direction. We are talking about the moral responsibility of a particular person for a specific guilt in moral violence. Secondly, my good friend was hospitalized after one of his wife's regular seizures, which manifested itself in moral and physical violence. Abusers can be both women and men equally. I do not consider it necessary to argue with this. Thirdly, for every act of violence and abuse, each person must be personally responsible. No one has the right to justify their criminal actions with a past injury. If you're hinting at my support of the antagonist's actions in this way, I've already written a lot about it. Please do not speculate or try to substitute meanings. Fourthly, if you are so stereotypical in your examples, imagine if a wife killed her husband over the years of moral abuse against her, proved accordingly. Will you justify this woman and wish her to escape punishment? I guess not. But as a human being, you will feel more empathy towards this girl, rather than the husband who suffered at her hands. And if the moral of the series does not imply the need for the abuser to repent for what he has done, and moreover, the aggressor is rewarded, then this is a socially harmful message, which makes this story bad not only from the scenario, but also from the social side. I'm sorry, but I'm surprised to have to explain this to an adult.

@ksander92: what if the wife killed her watermelon ex-husband after a dozen years without a single intersection, having specifically tracked him down and previously cruelly mocked him? Oh yes, even before that she found and killed all his mistresses, also with maximum cruelty and sadism? Would any sympathy for her be appropriate? This analogy is closer to the pattern of this plot))).

@Hidji: for some, yes. Well, a fairly large audience watches films where, after a while, the victim of violence takes revenge on the offenders as harshly and thoughtfully as possible. Some people experience catharsis from watching the retaliation from the main character. So in different cases, different people will show empathy in different ways or not at all. I can't speak for everyone. The example you gave is no different from mine. There are a few differences in the context, but the essence does not change. I saw the thesis about mistresses in your message after. It has nothing to do with the example from the series. A mistress a priori cannot be an aggressor simply because of the fact of her husband's infidelity with her. In the series, the antagonist takes revenge specifically on those who participated in the abuse.

@ksander92: Well, don't tell me, the difference in context is enormous. In one case, murder in self-defense during domestic violence, plus very likely passion, and in the other, premeditated murder. Serial, violent, and cold-blooded. A man with whom there has been no contact for many years. Didn't you also write about the law in your arguments? In one case, you can even get off with probation, and in the other - life or death penalty, depending on the state). The difference is the same. Yes, in the first case there may be the same intent, but at least it can be put in the form described by me, there would be a good lawyer).

@Hidji: one more time. What are we talking about? About responsibility? It comes and should come in any case upon its presence. At the same time, there have been, are, and will be many cases of violations of the law in which a part of society shows relative sympathy for the criminal (I'm not talking about those cases where those who have gone ask for the release of maniacs and other completely marginalized individuals). And this sympathy is based on the path experienced by this person, connected directly with the victim. And I'm sorry, I have no desire to enter the legal jungle, and my head is full of it at work. To discuss the issues of this series, diving into these wilds is not necessary. This is talking for the sake of talking. Once again, my main and main complaint about the script of this series is that neither the screenwriter nor the director are trying to show the moral ordeal, remorse and other similar things from the main character. Moreover, this main character, whom we should sympathize with, has not changed since graduation, because her communication with her boyfriend and colleagues speaks volumes. By the way, you can hear that one of the employees of their company calls her "boss", although she is an ordinary cog in the system of their company. Through this moment, we see that the heroine is smug, pompous, and still as unpleasant a person as she was before. Well, that's not how the plot of the work is built. It just so happens that I'm on good terms with a famous American writer. By chance, life brought us together. We talk a lot about literature and screenwriting. I'm not appealing to authority, it shouldn't have weight in our discussion. That's just not how the script is written. If you have raised the topic of abuse on the part of the main character, then whether there is an antagonist in the plot, or not, the hero must go through one of the ways: either repent for what he has done in any of the possible forms, or follow the "path of the villain." For example, as in the second one (I'm sorry if I'm wrong) This season, the heroine was a prisoner of the cycle of punishment for what she had done, and despite her remorse, she could not change anything.

@ksander92: this is how the plot works, no matter what the antagonist is, you worry about her, you sympathize with her, because no one should go through eternal torture, repenting for what they did. I can also recommend a very unusual, but interesting and, as they say, themed novel "The Seven Deaths of Evelina Hardcastle" by Stuart Turton. By the way, I advise all fans of "Black Mirror" to get acquainted with it.

@ksander92: it seems that all this watermelon growing plays an exclusively background, background role here. And it doesn't matter in the development of the plot, just an explanation of the reason for the actions of the villainess, nothing more. And intentionally for a reason that most viewers would consider insufficiently weighty for such revenge (and she ended up killing all the previous victims after much bullying, the last month held out). By the way, the time factor plays a very significant role here, alas and ah. Because even John Wick and his dog would have caused a lesser emotional response from the viewer if he had found and punished that asshole a dozen years later. Right? But in general, I was just interested in the depth of the difference in views))). Your opponent's line is straighter and clearer, but I decided to study yours in more detail. The result has already been noted above: I think you are digging too deep into the script, it is more superficial here.

@Hidji: Maybe you're partly right. I also admit the opinion that the actress for the role of the main character is a miskast and does not play exactly the character that the director needs. Well, she's too antipathetic. Well, no matter who I am, no matter what life experience I have, I cannot empathize with a heroine who is an unpleasant person, has a bad background, and in the course of the story she only acts selfishly and aggressively towards others, even the antagonist. Well, why feel antipathy towards her just by the fact of her being next to you?! This factor demonstrates that the story of abuse has not been forgotten or "experienced" not only by the antagonist, but also by the main character. If she saw the antagonist, she would treat her in the style of: "oh, I remember this girl, it's so awkward, the girls and I ruined her life so much at school that it would be uncomfortable for me to interact with her, remembering that experience." But there isn't. She is a priori aggressive. I don't know if this is a flaw in the script, a miscast, or some other factor, but because of this, the whole mechanism does not work. I have complaints about episode 3, but there, despite my, as I believe, objective quibbles, the plot works. Yes, from my point of view, it's worse than it could be, but it works. And then there's a complete collapse. Well, finally, I will say that, for the most part, it was not so much the series that prompted me to conduct all these discussions, but rather the superficial and frivolous attitude of some to the topic of bullying. It's right now to discuss domestic violence, violence against girls, and men for a long time (no one really discusses this, however, but this is a topic for another conversation), but bullying has a strange attitude. And it didn't excite me so much because of my own experience, I've been through it for a long time, but I'm just surprised by people's attitude to the issue. Well, just think, it was and it was. Well, that's a lot to say.

@ksander92: Well, if you want to immerse yourself in the topic of billing, then this is for you in Korean dramas about schoolchildren. There's plenty of that. And the audience reacts properly). Or about their army. They like to expand on this topic. And in the CHZ, the viewer focuses on something else because of their expectations of the format. That's why the attitude is like that.

@Hidji: You misunderstood me. I'm not really interested in delving into this topic. I like the style of "Black Mirror" since the release of season 2. It's just that since the screenwriter raised this topic in a novel, we're discussing it here. I would have given up on this case a long time ago, but there are people like above who seriously declare that if a crowd commits a crime, then if you are part of this crowd, you can be acquitted because a person simply followed herd instincts. Well, that's... the guy's still the one.

@ksander92: "There is no such option of release from punishment" - well, actually, in reality there is. But first, the crime must be proven / recognized, then there may be options, a conditional replacement (for age or good behavior or recognition). If the statute of limitations is limited, they won't even initiate a case.
But bullying is not a criminal offense, to be honest. And there didn't seem to be any abuse. Judging from the movie.


>> You have a very bad idea of human psychology!
Can I regard this as bullying? You didn't understand what I was writing about at all, but you're giving me a negative assessment. Getting out of a traumatic situation is not equal to healing the injury. Don't lump everything together.
Okay, I'll sign it. For example, a victim kills an abuser. Situation 1) kills during a beating - self-defense. 2) he beat her, she lies on the kitchen floor for an hour, takes a knife, kills - murder in a traumatic situation, the abuser has not disappeared from the victim's life and she knows that the abuse will happen again (for example, the Khachaturian sisters, this factor was not taken into account by the Russian court, that they remained in a traumatic situation in another country they would have been acquitted) 3) the wife left the abuser, lived by herself for a year, then took a knife, came and killed - murder outside of a traumatic situation, outside of abuse, there is little chance of justification, despite the unequivocal presence of injury, only if recognized as insane. You can sympathize with her. Unfortunately, it is impossible to justify it (if there were no additional triggers).
The series shows a typical situation number 3.

@ksander92: "There are people like above who seriously declare that if a crowd commits a crime, then if you are part of this crowd, you can be acquitted because a person simply followed herd instincts.


I am amazed at how you yourself come up with such statements for your interlocutors, and then brand them.
That's it, I'm stopping, it's very exhausting to deny what I didn't write.

@ksander92: If she saw the antagonist, she would treat her like, "Oh, I remember this girl, it's so embarrassing, the girls and I ruined her life so much at school that it would be uncomfortable for me to interact with her, remembering that experience." But there isn't. She is a priori aggressive.

I think this is a pretty vital reaction, because after a while, seeing a person you've offended or done something dirty and not worked through it (and not apologized) can also be very difficult. GG said the first time she saw her, "Oh, she's changed." That was the first dissonance-she's not a geek anymore, but an ordinary woman.
And then gg tried with all her might to prove to the guy and the boss that she was weird, she was crazy to justify her school behavior somehow. Because it's very difficult to admit that you poisoned a person just like that. The brain needs to find a reason in the style of "I did it because she herself was somehow different." Hence the automatic negative attitude towards Variety.
It is quite natural that it can be psychologically very difficult for a person to communicate with someone whom he offended and did not find the strength to apologize. An untreated sense of guilt can also be quite overwhelming.

If gg had reacted so lightly to Varaiti's arrival, it would mean that she does not feel any guilt, she never thought at all that she had done something wrong and did not consider it a problem. And here it is just shown that she remembers it and it also makes her uncomfortable.

@ksander92: For you, empathy is to support revenge in the form of murder without trial?

@alexsomar: And gg was not actively joking or mocking, others were already talking about the milkmaid and the teacher all the time in order to humiliate. Gg didn't do anything with such intent.

@albinka_: so no one invited the blonde to the tasting, she was not on the list, she came uninvited and gg understood this.

@m1stake: I don't think gg checks all the taster lists before, they all looked like random people. Well, Verity was late on purpose to attract attention.

@ksander92: "I also admit the opinion that the actress for the role of the main character is a miskast and does not play exactly the character that the director needs. "

And I think the actress' (black) appearance is the factor that makes someone else sympathize with her. Tolerance does not allow us to think that Maria is also negative, plus Verity has a more sinister vibe and unpleasant facial expressions.
In fact and by design, there is simply NO positive heroine here. The audience wants to sympathize with someone, and they choose according to their life experience (Verity) or the idea that the main / black heroine is always better (Maria). But in fact, they are both obviously disgusting (like all/most people, according to the authors) and, having gained power, they inevitably had to turn into tyrants.

@an_khv: Well, it's unlikely, although I rewound the episode myself to check whether it was Barnis or Bernice at the beginning. But in general, make the episode a little longer and move the denouement back to the authors - it would be better, I think.

@albina_albus: I don't think the writers thought that way. Of course, this is just my guess. The message you have seen is correct, and I would also like to see it woven harmoniously into the plot. But what we see on the screen. From the first seconds, the main character, who communicates aggressively and nervously with everyone around her, can no longer sit with indignation and anger only after seeing the antagonist. No "Mandela effects" had started in the frame yet, but she was already as aggressive as possible towards the antagonist. After a short gaslighting, she decides to defend her life, breaks into the antagonist's house, kills her and takes control of the entire pocket Universe. You noticed, in this short retelling, I didn't even make a plot-important footnote about her being an abuser of the antagonist. Because there were no moral dilemmas, remorse, well, at least rethinking her life and a couple of pleasant words to her boyfriend or boss (whom she simply sent in the last sentence), none of this was done by her. We have nothing to conclude that she learned anything from this story, except for her smug and contemptuous expression at the very end. Well, that is, there is no point in it.

@grishazaretskiy: nope. Firstly, they are unable to demolish the skull LIKE THAT and generally have low penetrating power. So bones are a problem for them. And secondly, ordinary cops don't use them, only police special forces, aiming at body parts that are not protected by body armor (these bullets don't take them at all). Ordinary cops are trained to almost automatically shoot at the body, and it is often protected. Therefore, such bullets were abandoned.

@Hidji: But Verity has a pendant. You can program a bullet to take off half of your face and Maria, who has never fired like a professional, got where she needed to with one shot.

@keyo1sha: can you clarify the comment, please? there, at the beginning, we see Barnice on the cap, and after a dispute between colleagues, it turns into Bernice. how does it work differently on netflix?

@kira_anyutina: I started reading the comments further and saw the answer to my question)

@Greenwatergun: yup, I've been plowing wildly since then :D

@albinka_: He had orders to shoot her, at least in the translation I was looking at, maybe in the original or another translation.

@musicliveinus: Well, it would make a little more sense if the boomerang came back to you as a payback. And as a result, she teased her at school, and ended up on the throne with the slaves.

@Choly_Cavel: I get what you mean. Yes, she was lucky, but it's fantastic, the results of the whole mess have been raised to the absolute, if you go down a little to the ground, then everything becomes obvious how bad it is to bully someone and how it can turn out.

@Choly_Cavel: So "Black Mirror" was almost never about optimism and good endings. Oh (with the exception of a couple of episodes). Evil almost always won here, everyone died, complete hopelessness.

@Mr_Knight: Well, technically, whoever won, that evil won.

@driveshaft: именно так

@Choly_Cavel: So if Maria had died, would that have been a sound message? Encouraging murder?

@albina_albus: The past shapes your present, so you don't have to forget it, but accept it.

@ansi-kino: It's from another reality

@ansi-kino: This is Hugh Everett, the author of the concept of a multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics. It takes its place, actually :D

@musicliveinus: if you love fiction, then you must, well, there's a multigenre procedural, based on fantastic plots from more, even now some series look great even now

@Freeman_FDC: I understand you're talking about the late 50s TV series?) I was referring to the 2019 TV series.

@musicliveinus: I don't know about 2019, you probably know, I'm in favor of the original, usually with rare exceptions.

@musicliveinus: There are good episodes, there are weak ones, there are so-so ones. the good ones are probably still a minority, and almost all of them are in the second season, but if you like the format and atmosphere of the CHZ, then it's worth a try, although it's weaker, of course. but it's even comparable with the late seasons)

@analemma: then how did the pendant switch to a new owner? For the print, the brunette still used the blonde's fingerprint, and then said, "Now I'm the owner." But who am I for the pendant if it's still the same old owner's fingerprint and the voice can't be identified in any way? The pendant is not a wizard, it's a program, a new fingerprint must be registered.

@Willful: when pressed with the desired fingerprint, the pendant fulfills the desire expressed at that moment, changing reality to suit it. Apparently, that's what happened. In this reality, the car is originally hers, no authorization change is needed.

@Hidji: Oh, I haven't considered this option, thank you.

@Willful: You're welcome, I didn't immediately draw such a conclusion myself. I had to think about it).

@Lighthouse012: then she hits it for a moment anyway. In any case, as you noted, the infrastructure for this is nowhere near shown in the series, and the possibility is not technically justified. After the TV series where there is a semi-scientific justification for this, it looks ridiculous.

@densto: That's right, but there's only one episode. In general, as a concept, in my opinion, it still turned out cool. And it takes a whole season to explain.

@Lighthouse012: they have no explanation other than an extremely superficial one, it's a one-episode attraction in the style of Everything everywhere at once, no more

@arahant: Well, okay, whatever you want) I called it that because it seemed closer to me.

@stantinkin: So what's the point of stretching it? I would have found out who started the rumors first, and then I would have ruined my life and beaten out a confession.