[Official] Dexter Season 4


Recommended Posts

Yeah I definitely get where you're coming from. No doubt either way S5 will be excellent.

-Spenser

Yes, I can't wait. It really sucks that we have to wait, what, 9 months before S5 starts? The time between S3 and 4 didn't see that big of a deal, but this time, with that finale, it seems to far away :|

:p And they really can go in a lot of different directions. My biggest fear, though, is them pulling the "it was all a dream" stunt. I hope they don't do that. As long as they don't do that, I'll be okay with most everything else I can think of...

Yes, I can't wait. It really sucks that we have to wait, what, 9 months before S5 starts? The time between S3 and 4 didn't see that big of a deal, but this time, with that finale, it seems to far away :|

:p And they really can go in a lot of different directions. My biggest fear, though, is them pulling the "it was all a dream" stunt. I hope they don't do that. As long as they don't do that, I'll be okay with most everything else I can think of...

I don't think dexter's writers would ever stoop even close to that low lol. there's a lot of stuff they can do.

Yes, I can't wait. It really sucks that we have to wait, what, 9 months before S5 starts? The time between S3 and 4 didn't see that big of a deal, but this time, with that finale, it seems to far away :|

:p And they really can go in a lot of different directions. My biggest fear, though, is them pulling the "it was all a dream" stunt. I hope they don't do that. As long as they don't do that, I'll be okay with most everything else I can think of...

I don't think dexter's writers would ever stoop even close to that low lol. there's a lot of stuff they can do.

They already confirmed it wasnt a dream

It happened :)

confirmed ealier in this thread I think

They already confirmed it wasnt a dream

It happened :)

confirmed ealier in this thread I think

That's what they say now, but they have also said they haven't even started talking about next season. They won't start until Feb 2010. When they start trying to figure out how to get Dexter out of this mess, it could still end up being on the table.

"[The events of the finale being a dream is] not something we're contemplating at the moment," show runner Clyde Phillips tells me: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with...hgow_julie.html

That tells me that while it isn't something they are looking at now, it is still a possibility, even a slim chance is still a chance. I'm just simply voicing my opposition to that even being a slim possibility.

I'm torn on how I want the next season. While I'd love for it to happen right after so I can see what happened with the fallout. I'd also like it to be a year or so later because I want to see Harrison do more than just cry. I want to see him as a toddler and do something like strangler a pet. Anything that will cause Dexter to worry about his son's future. I'd love to see him teaching his son the code in the later seasons. If he's a baby still it won't be as good. Going to be real hard to cast another villain after Trinity. He set the bar a little too high. I'd be happier if they went with Quinn or something with the police starting to target Dexter like in Season 2. Bring back that Dexter on the run, hiding, trying to evade the police. I loved that about Season 2.

In the book "Dearly Devoted Dexter" Cody starts showing signs of having a dark passenger. I think the writers are gonna explore a similar route with Harrison.

But that won't be for a while, unless they fast-forward pretty far in time. Cody is like 8 or something in the book when he starts showing signs of having a Dark Passenger.

So I'm halfway through the first novel (darkly dreaming dexter) and so far it's exactly like the first season. I understand there are 4 books out, do they all just represent a season? seeing as the writers of the show haven't even thought of what to do with SE5 will it be like the next book that will release sometime next year?

I never expected them to kill of Julie Benz. Killing off a major cast member is typical of the show, though. (Rudy, Doakes, Lundy, Christine).

I am really excited about Season 5.

How are some of those "major cast members"? Rudy was only in a few episodes, Christine was only in a few. Doakes was only in two seasons and Lundy was in under a season and a half. Hardly major cast members.

How are some of those "major cast members"? Rudy was only in a few episodes, Christine was only in a few. Doakes was only in two seasons and Lundy was in under a season and a half. Hardly major cast members.

Doakes had a major role. He was a supporting cast member. And during the second season became a huge antagonist to Dexter. Maybe not so much the others, but killing characters is kinda typical.

Julie Benz Dishes on Dexter Finale

Many Dexter fans are still struggling to come to terms with what was possibly the most shocking death we've ever seen on television last Sunday.

As Jennifer Carpenter (Deb) advised, you will need therapy after this finale, and really, who better to get it from than Julie Benz herself? Especially when she hints that—stop the presses—one option for next season may be to jump forward in time? Hmmmm...!

Read on for a scoopy little one-on-one therapy session with Julie, as she takes you through the five stages of grief...

CREDENTIALS:

"I've been living with news of [Rita's death] a lot longer than everybody else, so I'm in a different place in the grieving process over Rita than everyone else. I really have been grieving Rita, and what she stands for for Dexter, but I do have acceptance."

STAGE 1, DENIAL: Is there any chance Rita is alive? Was it a dream? That she'll be back as a ghost?

"There has been no talk of me coming back to the series in any way. A lot of people have been begging me to tell them that I'm going to come back, and I'm like, 'Rita's dead!' Rita is dead and Trinity killed her. There's all these theories that Dexter did it, or Deb snuck in and did it, but I don't think it could get any more obvious that Trinity killed Rita. Rita is dead. And there has been no talk of Rita being a ghost. No one's approached me about coming back."

STAGE 2, ANGER: Why, why, why? Why Rita? And why did her death have to be so horrifying? She deserved better! What were the writers thinking?

"It is tough, and my first reaction was, 'You're killing the mother of the show! You're killing the woman who's suffered more violence than anybody!' She suffered more violence than Dexter ever suffered. Dexter witnessed the death of his mother, but he didn't suffer any physical violence. Rita was beaten and raped by an ex-husband on a regular basis, and yet she still has this innocence and sweetness about her.

"And the death was such a graphic image. I think that's why everyone has such a physical reaction to it. When they first told me I was dying, they didn't tell me how I was dying, and I thought I was going to be the jumper off the building, which for some reason isn't as graphic. I did feel anger about them taking this innocent, sweet woman in such a violent and terrifying way—which we know from the woman in the bathtub in the first episode.

"And with the baby. All of us were on the set, and we know we're making a TV show, but you see a little baby and fake blood, and it was still a very disturbing image. But it's a poetic way to go, poetic of course, because it's a direct reflection of Dexter as a child and there's poetry in that if you can get past that, which I think is what they were going for."

STAGE 3, BARGAINING: If we don't get more Julie Benz on this show, can we get her on another awesome TV show?

"That's the question, isn't it? There are rumors out there that I left Dexter for a film career—I did not leave Dexter. I don't know anybody in their right mind that would choose to leave Dexter. I did not choose to leave. I love being on television, especially a show like Dexter. I love FlashForward, Grey's Anatomy, Mad Man, 30 Rock. I'd love to be a part of a show where they don't think it's cool to kill me!"

STAGE 4, DEPRESSION: How did the cast react to the news you were leaving?

"There were a lot of tears the whole last week. When I found out, I called Jennifer [Carpenter] right as I was leaving the offices, and she thought I was playing a joke. She couldn't believe it. She was shocked. And then the producers told the rest of the cast because after telling Jennifer I just said I can't do it. It's too hard. I get really emotional thinking about it. It was my family and my favorite place to go every day.

"I relate it to Cinderella and she's at the ball and she's having the time of her life. But it's midnight and she has to leave even though the ball is still going on. It doesn't change her experience because she enjoyed every minute of it but it is time to go home and that is sad."

STAGE 5, ACCEPTANCE: How do you feel about Rita's death now? Do you think it will serve a greater purpose?

"When you make a bold move to kill off a main character, and a bold move to kill off the mother of a newborn, it's a fifty-fifty shot, and kudos to them for taking that risk. So many other shows, so many other networks would have shied away from it. I really hope that it pays off, because I would really hate to see Rita's death be in vain and to lose viewers. I hope it catapults the show to a whole other level. I hope it opens the story up to so much more drama. I hope it opens Dexter up to finally releasing the Dark Passenger within him—let's see the monster that he really is.

"So I have acceptance. In the long run of Dexter, I think it's opening up season five for amazing stuff. As sad as it is that Rita's gone, it's just going to catapult the show into a whole other area. Creatively, it's a brilliant decision."

Final thoughts? And what will happen to Harrison?

"It's been such a great four-year run. I know there are a lot of people saying they won't watch this show anymore, but please just watch. I will be tuning in because I am deeply concerned for my children.

"I assume Astor and Cody will go with their grandparents, but what about Harrison? I know that one option is to have them jump ahead in time. They have the option of taking the story creatively wherever they want. But of course I worry about Harrison. The first thing I said when they told me about Rita's death was, 'What about the children?!' I felt like a real mother, and I will be tuning in to make sure that Harrison is taken care of."

Source

Edited by Rappy

am I the only one who is glad they killed her off? I always thought her character was annoying, I've seen a lot of people saying Deb is an annoying but I found Rita more annoying. She always seem to be moaning at Dexter about something or another.

I don't think some of you are thinking about what Rita went through as Dex's wife. Imagine being married to someone who was hardly ever home, kept tons of secrets, and was relatively closed off from the family. I think Rita had every right to be "whiny". She was a very realistic character IMO.

I don't think some of you are thinking about what Rita went through as Dex's wife. Imagine being married to someone who was hardly ever home, kept tons of secrets, and was relatively closed off from the family. I think Rita had every right to be "whiny". She was a very realistic character IMO.

Damn right!

Cant believe you other people, whiny my ass :p

Dexter is not home 90% of the time

Im surprised she didnt 'whine' more

I don't think some of you are thinking about what Rita went through as Dex's wife. Imagine being married to someone who was hardly ever home, kept tons of secrets, and was relatively closed off from the family. I think Rita had every right to be "whiny". She was a very realistic character IMO.

Totally agree with you. Rita was whiny. But, then she had a right to be. Dexter was caught lying many times. Everytime he said a flimsy lie and in the end Rita bought it because she trusted him. But, you can be lied to only so many times. This season we saw that her trust was waverin. But, even then she never stopped loving dexter. She was worried and even a bit scared, due to her past. She just didn't want to get hurt anymore. Rita was actually one of the more realistic characters.

I guess, now that Rita has gone, Deb will take over. Next season it will be Deb, who will be asking the questions.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!