Orphan Black: Watch a Clip from the Season 2 Premiere (VIDEO)

By Kaitlin Thomas

Feb 26, 2014

Orphan Black's powers that be have heard your prayers (which sometimes sound like threats, so you might need to cool it, guys) for more advance looks at the BBC America drama. Now that the Season 2 premiere is less than two months away (obviously your calendar just has "Clone Club" written into the square for Saturday April 19), the show is gifting us with a handful of short clips from said premiere. According to EW, new teases will be posted to Orphan Black's Instagram account each day for the next eight days, and I've embedded the very first one below.

Based on what series stars Tatiana Maslany and Jordan Gavaris, and creator Graeme Manson said back in January, Season 2 is going to pick up exactly where Season 1 left off, with Sarah searching for Kira and Mrs. S, and the show has no intention of slowing down. We've already seen a still of the moment when Sarah presses a gun to Proclone Rachel's face, but now we get to see how that tense moment comes to fruition. Go on, press play!


Seriously, is it April 19 yet? Does anyone have access to a time machine so we can just skip ahead to the premiere?


  • Comments (34)
Add a Comment
In reply to :
  • MirelaPilipo Feb 27, 2014

    Why is Sarah dressed as Cosima? Can't wait to find out!

  • shae_SA Feb 27, 2014

    This is pure torture! Just when I think I'm ok with waiting for the return they throw this in my face...

  • Chocolatier Feb 27, 2014

    They can't just end it like that!! MORE i need mooooreee!

  • ddstephens Feb 27, 2014

    OMG..the wait is KILLING ME!!!!!! one of the best series on television..

  • chrols Feb 27, 2014

    Cannot freaking wait!! :D

  • TVFangirl84 Feb 27, 2014

    OMG!!!! OMG!!!! Come on April 19th!!!!

  • RealityEngineer Feb 26, 2014

    This was a great show with a minor flaw at the end of last season's finale. Unfortunately they have the line "You don't own us" in that clip. I had hoped they'd abandon that idiotic plot point. This is a science fiction alternate reality, but they give no indication that the world is majorly different than ours and allows slavery and ownership of other humans. Unless they give some indication the world is that drastically different from ours, they should realize that in the real world in modern countries slavery was outlawed long ago and only a fringe group of poorly informed anti-corporate paranoid delusional types believe that somehow magically a patent cold make people "property". It is a shame the writers seem to be among them, such idiocy doesn't bode well for the future of the show. Did some intelligent writer quit which accounts for this nonsense arising?

  • chrols Feb 27, 2014

    I hear what you're saying and I hope that you are right but some of the points already brought up I think hold true. I think the point of the show dealing with these issues is to show us the possible complications of the road we're on. Unfortunately, there are corporations with political backing (in our reality) that have started laying down the very foundation of this idea. The most obvious is Mansanto's line of Soybean. These seeds and their plants contain genetic material that makes them property of Mansanto. These are living things we are talking about. However they own them. They even own the seeds that come about accidentally as a result of cross pollination from one farm to another. These contaminated farms are then liable and can be taken to court for growing Monsanto's seeds without permission.... If this type of patenting, and 'copyright' is allowed, cloning humans raises some very difficult questions about ownership. Orphan Black is just presenting one possible outcome. Also, human rights can come and go. They are not guaranteed.

  • RealityEngineer Feb 27, 2014

    re: "is to show us possible complications of the road we're on"

    That is part of my reasoning, that this is *not* remotely a possible complication in the real world (and there are many other things that *are* this distracts from), despite the paranoia of some very poorly informed anti-corporate types. There is no realistic chance that clones like these who have had some miniscule number of genes hacked would be considered anything but human, there is no credible chance they would be considered property in the real world. The Monsanto reference is complete nonsense, no legal scholar would do anything but laugh at the absurdity of thinking such a thing could lead to ownership of a human, that is seriously out of touch with the real world. Yes, in some twisted version of reality perhaps slavery might be legal one day, but in modern democracies like Canada, the UK, the US, we aren't remotely close to that despite whatever paranoid delusions from some fringe groups on the net you might find. Paranoia unfortunately is often more interesting to some people than facing reality.

  • chrols Mar 02, 2014

    Good points. Good thing OB is science fiction ;). Personally, I admit I'm anti-corporate, particularly when the corporation in question has some questionable business practices. I think that what the show is exploring is thought provoking and doesn't need to fit into our world as it is right now. Each to their own I guess. In terms of slavery in a modern society, I think there are some scary things going on with super prisons and the inmates being used as a workforce (animal slaughter houses, to start). That topic is too controversial to discuss here, so I won't go on. Anyways, season 2! WOOOOHOOOO!

  • RealityEngineer Mar 02, 2014

    It isn't "thought provoking" to talk about a patent implying they are property, it is lazy on the part of the writers to know so little about relevant topics. There are real concerns and plot paths this could take without resorting to making up nonsense.

  • chrols Mar 02, 2014

    Oh yeah and here is a good case for your stance:
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/scotus-genes/

  • jasonpromo Feb 26, 2014

    I understand your point but the idea of cloning would raise the serious issue of how they are treated from a legal standpoint. First; are they people? (seems an obvious yes, but think about all the, seemingly obvious, political arguments that are had and you know there will be dissenters). Then, are they individual people that observe all rights that other people do? Or are they something else? I doubt current laws have clauses for clones in them...

    Then remember that the corporation that manufactured the clones is a business. A business with a lot at stake can have some scary power when you talk about lobbying and money changing hands. Enough power to keep loopholes in place.

  • Kerkesh Feb 27, 2014

    Well, tell the millions of children working in unsafe factories of the Third World, and the thousands of nubile prostitutes all over the world and the Chinese and Indian factory workers drudging under inhumane conditions that the slavery was "outlawed long ago". also, the Clones are the product, yes the product, of several patented licences owned by Dyad, Inc. ad unfortunately, if you look into the BBCA network page on Orphan Black, you will see links to articles and documents which make this issue very real in our real world.

  • RealityEngineer Feb 27, 2014

    Yes, it was outlawed long ago, those are illegal (and I referred also to modern democracies like Canada, the US, UK, etc,, even though it is outlawed those other places as well). The issue is that they saw an indication there was a patent and leaped to the absurd implication they are *legally* property. This is an entity operating outside the law, they should be concerned about that, not some absurd claim the patent makes them *legally* property. Most high school graduates should know that is nonsense, hopefully they have writers who are capable of knowing the difference between illegal and legal slavery, but unfortunately I'm suspecting they have fallen under the spell of some paranoid anti-corporate delusional rant. It is just a shame that some poorly informed people won't realize this aspect of the story is fantasy and not reality. (as some on online forums have appeared to struggle with).

  • RealityEngineer Feb 27, 2014

    Again: slavery was outlawed long ago, there isn't the slightest chance that in anything remotely approaching this real world that they would ever be considered property in any major democratic country (not Canada, the US, UK, etc, etc), , no credible legal scholar would do anything but laugh at the absurdity of the idea they could get away with it, a patent doesn't magically make someone property.

    This is an evil organization outside the law, there is no reason to act as though it were credible that they could have a legal claim, there are a vast number of plot avenues they could go without assuming this is in some world drastically different from ours. The only reason to go down this route is either lazy/bad writers, or poorly informed ones. We suspend disbelief for shows, but most adults should be aware you can't own humans so there is no excuse for such a glaring error.

  • jasonpromo Feb 27, 2014

    Your whole argument revolves around the assumption that clones will be considered a person.

  • Kerkesh Feb 28, 2014

    Cosima is her name, sorry.

  • Kerkesh Feb 28, 2014

    But there was acceptance of Citizens United, which opened the door to all craziness.Anyway, the premise of the show is that they were "created" illegally since human cloning, you will agree, is illegal , and that these clones have been hunted and murdered by some religiously fringed organization. Also, that Dyad, even if confronted with an extensive media coverage, will still sue the clones for ownership and that the given trial might take years and years of protracted legal battles ahead. Do you think that the clones can mount a similar legal defense team with their means that will equal what the Dyad legal team have been working for, for years? It will have to take the lower courts before reaching the SC, anyway and where will they file their complaint given that they, the clones , seem to be globally spread. This means the same legal battle in each and every country. All of that without counting that Dyad may have infiltrated a "killer switch gene" in the genetic framework of the clones which is what British Cassandra (?) may suffer from. They maybe don't own the clones, but probably own the patent for that genes , which they will allege is for medical research purposes.

  • RealityEngineer Feb 27, 2014

    re: "If corporations are persons according to those degenerates"

    Except of course the SC said no such thing, despite paranoid urban myths being spread around the phrase "corporate personhood" wasn't even used in the Citizens United decision. It was in the dissent, where they agreed with the concept, acknowledging it as merely a legal shorthand to refer to the rights of all the natural humans involved, that a corporation has *no* rights of its own, merely those derived from the natural humans that make up the corporation. There is no credible legal scholar that would view these clones who merely had a miniscule number of genes changed as being likely to be viewed as anything but human. (I guess there are probably some attention seekers that might argue differently to get media attention).

  • Kerkesh Feb 27, 2014

    Well, we all know that the US Supreme Court is insane, so nothing is impossible if the price is right. If corporations are persons according to those degenerates, then Clones can be ruled as non persons by the same logic of plutocratic reasoning that they promote.

  • RealityEngineer Feb 27, 2014

    Do you seriously think that the highest level of court in whatever modern country is relevant wouldn't declare her to be human even if a few genes have been flipped? Again I'd suggest no credible attorney or legal scholar in their right mind would do anything but laugh at the idea that they would be declared property, despite the paranoid rants of some anti-corporate types who think Supreme Court (or equivalent) judges are incapable of understanding modern science or are all bought and paid for to a degree that they would consider such an incredibly flawed decision, for which there isn't a shred of evidence. They make mistakes and might be biased, but they wouldn't wish to risk looking like they are blatantly bought and paid for or complete idiots.

  • jasonpromo Feb 27, 2014

    The definition of a person would have to be rewritten--and would it be "any biological homo sapiens with qualities that are attributed to personhood" or would it read, "a naturally created, and genetically unique homo sapiens..."

  • MaKTaiL Feb 26, 2014

    "Seriously, is it April 19 yet? Does anyone have access to a time machine so we can just skip ahead to the premiere?"

    Call The Doctor :)

  • Sakura_Kissu Feb 26, 2014

    Isn't it Cosima ?
    The hair & the eye liner are Cosima's

  • shae_SA Feb 27, 2014

    Most likely Sarah as Cosima?

  • Sakura_Kissu Feb 27, 2014

    Cosima posing as Sarah before dying ?

  • shae_SA Feb 28, 2014

    Why would you say that????? :(

  • Sakura_Kissu Feb 28, 2014

    oops sorry, just cause she seemed ill (the truth is I finished season 1 two days ago and I am still pretty into it)
    Don't mind me.

  • Marja Feb 26, 2014

    Yeah, I don't think that's Sarah

  • See More Comments (3)