Ravenya003

Urgh, why hasn't anyone killed Kjetill yet? He doesn't seem to be contributing anything, he's a pain in the ass to be around, and he seems addicted to pissing everyone else off. Seriously, sometimes you just gotta get rid of the bad egg. I liked that Ingrid was allowed to verbalize the situation she's in: she has no choices and is (possibly) carrying her rapist's baby. I'm still waiting for the women to conceive an assassination plan together and just take power for themselves though. Surely Erik is still up to something. Why be head bodyguard when you can be the queen's consort? Harald was holding a tooth earring that he threw in the fire. Was that Astrid's? Man this guy is the king of self-delusion.

Oh Harald, why you gotta be such a douche? I loved hearing his revisionist history regarding his relationship with Bjorn (he stabbed him in the back every chance he got) and Lagertha (she essentially raped him while he was chained up). Major creep vibes with the way he behaved towards the women: I hope to Hirst that Gunnhild gets to keep her promise to Ingrid and slit his throat, and the women take the obvious option and team up with each other to rule. That's probably not going to be the case though, for it seems yet another female character is going down the crazy path (remember Margrethe?) I always love it when characters tell the stories of their gods; in this case Torvi and the tale of Jormungandr. It's incredible that they're still told and passed on today. But... she's lost another kid?? Man, Hirst really loves killing off children. I guess we're not getting any sort of reaction from Ingrid about her father's death, though I suspect Hirst has already forgotten that she was Olaf's daughter. It would seem that Katia is indeed all-in on Ivar's plan - for the kid's sake I hope they make it out alive.

Freydis betrayed Ivar, which makes me think that Katia is genuine about wanting to overthrow Oleg. Otherwise, why just repeat the same storyline? On that note, are we ever going to get an explanation as to why the two women are identical? Maybe they just liked the actress and wanted to keep her around, or maybe it's some kind of spell (would they go that deep into the supernatural?) Perhaps it's just in Ivar's mind as he pointed out the resemblance to Hvitserk and he didn't notice anything. Whatever the case, I have serious hat/coat envy when it comes to Katia. Poor Prince Igor is having such a bad childhood - it's hard to believe that Ivar is the sane parent in that household. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out: in a fairy tale Igor would become a great king for having seen the cruelty of Oleg; in the real world he would just be too traumatized and fucked up to be anything but a basket case. This close to the finish line, perhaps he'll get a happy ending. Erik the Red: I know he's an important historical figure, but I don't find him that compelling. I like that he advocates for Gunnhild as queen, but there are clearly some mercenary motivations in there, and you could SEE the wheels in his head start turning on discovering Ingrid is pregnant. An interesting parallel in the way Erik and Ubbe are seemingly pitting two other contenders to the throne/power against one another. It's a pity the Ingrid/Gunnhild solidarity didn't last long, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. In a better world, Gunnhild would take the throne and promise to make Ingrid's child her heir in exchange for loyalty. I suppose it could still happen if Erik is found untrustworthy, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I've been dipping in and out of this forum since season three, but since it's the last hurrah I'm going to make the effort to comment on every episode. It's been (mostly) fun guys! I should have known better than to believe the fake-out that was Bjorn just dying in his bedchamber. I can't say I liked him that much, but in the Viking spirit he certainly deserved a bombastic death. Not sure what the deal was with his tomb though. How did they position his body like that? And on his horse no less? I had the bizarre thought that it was a wax sculpture before remembering what time period we were in. Good job Alexander Ludwig, and I hope you shaved off that beard post-haste. I'm not hugely interested in Ubbe's plot beyond the fact that I'm glad at least ONE of Ragnar's son has his shit together. Interesting comment he made that Odin and the Christian God were one and the same. There's certainly some eerie similarities between Norse mythology and Christianity, from the three days Odin spent hanging on a tree, to the correlations between Loki and Lucifer. I've heard that this is a theme that's explored throughout the season, so I'm looking forward to that. For all his tediousness, Olaf also went out like a boss - though has there been any indication that he was a Christian before? That he didn't scream in agony or even look particularly afraid was an interesting choice, though I noticed that Oleg was NOT impressed when that little prince looked around to get Ivar's permission to light the fire. He's definitely realized that they're in cahoots. I'm not as down on Ingrid as most people are - if memory serves, there was a scene in the first half of this season that revealed she was Olaf's daughter, and had seduced Bjorn on HIS instructions, and I definitely got the sense that she just doesn't want to be there (but has nowhere else to go). I liked her conversation with Gunnhild, and Gunnhild's promise that she would slit Harald's throat for what he did to Ingrid. Fingers crossed that she gets to keep that promise. It reminds me of Lagertha and Aslaug back in the day, before the (IMO) character assassination went down . I just like moments of female solidarity, even if the two women are rivals. You have to admit, that was a pretty cool visual of the two women on the thrones. If Gunnhild has ideas about going to join Bjorn in the afterlife, I hope Ingrid can talk her off the ledge. Also, are we going to see the Wessex crew this season? Ivar and Alfred have unfinished business.

"Dear father, enjoying Jedi Camp I am not. There's this creepy emo kid who keeps glaring at me and adjusting his lightsabre when he thinks I'm not looking. I have a bad feeling about this." (Too soon?)

Edit: sorry, talking about future. Was anyone else reminded of the ROTJ scene in which Vader asks Luke to take off his helmet so he could "see you with my own eyes"? Din taking off his helmet for Grogu was the Light Side version of that, just as Luke's arrival/Ahsoka's intro seemed to be the Light Side version of Darth's massacre in Rogue One.

That's true. These days anything can happen. (I just wish it would stop happening due to on-line fan campaigns. Man, I miss the fourth wall!)

I think shippers can ship what they like, and bloggers can make giant meta commentaries that delve into Jungian symbolism and thematic resonance and minute details to their heart's content if that's what they enjoy, but there's no way the Duffer Brothers are changing course from Eleven/Mike as the show's OTP. Not after three seasons of setup, and after making their relationship the heart of the whole show. I do however think that Will will get a "coming out of the closet" arc sooner or later. Is it just me, but is the whole shipping phenomena within fandom is getting out of hand lately? I'll give the OP you linked to the benefit of the doubt and assume she's just having fun with the material, but so often these days shippers get completely carried away with their theories and endgame predictions and subsequent meltdowns when things inevitably don't go their way. Zutarians, Johnlocks, Destials, Reylos, Merthurs, Klances, Bellarkes... if they make a loud enough on-line noise, the rest of us will inevitably have to suffer through tedious fanservice designed to appease them, but it never works out for them in the long run. In this case, the Duffer Brothers clearly have their eye on what fandom is saying/doing, and makes slight calibrations in order to cater to popular opinion, but I definitely don't think they'll remove something as central as Mike/Eleven.

"Rebecca" is sadly one of many works of fiction that have been so thoroughly misread over the years that the original purpose and meaning of them has been swept away by cultural osmosis. This adaptation seems to honestly be under the illusion that Maxim is a good guy, that the second Miss de Winter's story is one of empowerment (so then why not give her a NAME while you're at it?) and that they share a beautiful love story. The final speech has Lily James actually say: "I know I have made the right decision. To save the one thing worth walking through flames for. Love." Wow. Just wow. Here's a good breakdown of the whole thing, particularly these passages: But the most egregious choice made by the new Rebecca is the one to “empower” its heroine. I’ll say this again: the new adaptation of Rebecca, a novel that is all about its narrator’s meekness and weak character, has decided that what the story really needed was a heroine who is plucky and adventurous, who dreams of traveling abroad, and possesses esoteric knowledge on such topics as botany, forensics, and medicine. This isn’t feminism—the new version does nothing to change the story beat in which the heroine handwaves the fact that her husband murdered his first wife, and helps him evade justice. It’s some executive’s ham-handed idea of wokeness, a panicked reaction against the possibility that people might not like the second Mrs. de Winter. Well, no shit, Sherlock. We’re not supposed to like her! This is a freaking horror story! It’s quite something to watch someone pour millions of dollars trying to “fix” a story that not only wasn’t broken, but whose point they have clearly failed to comprehend. It’s particularly galling because there are no shortage of ways of empowering the second Mrs. de Winter, if that’s what you want to do (and again, you don’t have to; the original story is perfect just as it is). But all of them require you to acknowledge that her relationship with Maxim is no love story, and that she needs to leave it behind. The new Rebecca fails to realize this so completely that it even bastardizes the novel’s famous opening line into a love-conquers-all message intended to convince us that helping your husband get away with murder is the perfect way to bring spice into your marriage. It's just so depressing to see such a dark and psychologically complex book be read by idiots who take everything about it at face value and try to "improve" on the "dated" elements (they don't think Daphne du Maurier knew EXACTLY what she was doing??) I recently discovered E.L. James's latest book (of Fifty Shades of Grey fame) also has a guy called "Maxim" as its creepy, abusive, emotionally stunted romantic hero (though in her case, these qualities are what's meant to make him so appealing), but it's honestly the logical endpoint of our collective lack of reading comprehension, and the bizarre assumption that we're supposed to find relationships between controlling, violent men and vulnerable, rather stupid women desirable instead of terrifying. Here at least is an interesting article about how there's been a certain shift in how romance novels are being written, and the massive wake-up call many women writers got after the #metoo movement. I feel like that mentality might have been behind this adaptation, but in entirely the wrong direction.

I imagine the same thing happens when aging actresses get the call to play the Evil Stepmother in various Snow White and Cinderella remakes. Cate Blanchett, Julia Roberts, Diana Rigg, Miranda Richardson - there's no clearer of indicator of being a "beauty past her prime" than playing the evil stepmother. Getting back to The Witches, the original film is notorious in our extended family, as my second cousin was taken to see it as a child and was so legitimately traumatized that she started having panic attacks whenever she saw elderly women; so convinced was she that they were witches. Eventually her parents had to take her to therapy, where she was given a "high-tech witch repelling charm" (there's no point telling a kid that what they fear isn't real, they need to have a tangible tool in order to fight it). Needless to say, I was not allowed to watch this movie as a child, so I'll be interested to see if this tones down the horror elements in any way. And of course: the changed ending, which Roald Dahl famously hated, even though his conclusion was severely depressing the more you think about it.

Also, for anyone unaware, Edith Garrud was a real person who did indeed teach young women (specifically suffragettes) how to defend themselves with jujitsu. She lived all the way to 1971, dying at age 99. So when the inevitable "it's political correctness gone mad!" moaning starts (though I'm sure it has already) here are the receipts...

I loved it on the train after she realized Tewskbury was in danger, heard her mother's voice telling her not to get involved, and then holds up her finger to the audience as if to say "just wait a second" before heading back to do what she knew she had to. Just brilliant timing and communication. Also when Tewskbury gets to her lodging house and follows her up the stairs and she looks at us, like: "OMG, there's a boy in my room!" If we get a sequel, it will entirely be down to the charm of this performance. This is the advantage of children/YA films being based on pre-existing books. It's not a complete failsafe obviously, but children's writers usually know what they're doing and deliver simple-but-strong stories which adaptations can elaborate/modernize as they see fit, with the underlying plot and characterization as a solid base upon which to build. Of course it's when the screenwriters start thinking that they know BETTER that the trouble starts (*cough*Artemis Fowl*cough*)

That was cute, though definitely took its inspiration from the Guy Ritchie films (running down a narrow street while explosives go off - I almost expected to see Robert Downey Jr in there somewhere). I'm envious of Millie Bobby Brown's ability to seemingly have complete control over her life at such a young age, and she looked like she was having a great time throughout. Hopefully this means the rest of the books will be adapted in time. So nice to have a Sherlock story without the specter of Moriarty (or Irene Adler, for that matter - two characters who barely figured into the canonical stories) and always fun to play "spot the British B-listers". Mr Collins from Pride and Prejudice! Madame Maxime from Harry Potter! Caroline from Killing Eve! I haven't read the book, but the whole "every vote counts" plot-point seemed particularly pertinent in this day and age.

I mean, if there was ever an excuse to have a gross age difference between leading man and leading woman... this was it. But NOW Netflix executives decide to grow a conscience and have only three years between the two leads? The entire point of this relationship is that Maxim wants a meek, timid, young and malleable little wife - the audience/reader knows she's completely out of her depth, but the girl in question has an almost god-like reverence for her much older father-husband. Probably not helping is the fact that I recently watched Hitchcock's film, which completely nailed the casting. Joan Fontaine embodied Mrs de Winter #2 in a way that blew me away; a perfect marriage of character and performance. Lily James reminds me of Kiera Knightley - every character they've ever played is performed in exactly the same way: same mannerisms, same speech patterns, same expressions. I've never seen either of them disappear into a character, which is fine for fluff like Pirates of the Carribean or Cinderella, but the second Mrs de Winter is one of the most psychologically complex female characters of all time. Half the plot takes place entirely in her head. There is one reason for this remake to exist, and that's the pesky Hayes Code not getting in the way of the twist. Hopefully they can work with that: violent undercurrents to hide an even weaker constitution in Maxim is something Hitchcock wasn't able to get away with and which Armie Hammer can probably pull off. (But don't make him a broody Gothic hero. He's essentially a weak man, not a tortured one). And for the love of God, please resist the urge to depict Rebecca on-screen. She's like the portrait of Dorian Grey - no matter how tempting it is, do NOT show us her face.

This looks like loads of fun; hopefully it'll do well enough to greenlight the next five books in the series.

The criticism of Merida in Brave always bugged me, because when you get down to it, what exactly is she railing against? Oh right, she doesn't want to be married off to a complete stranger (with all that entails). As soon as all the obnoxious loser suitors show up, I want to grab Elinor's ear and say: "really? You want to give away your lovely daughter away to one of THESE duds?" I feel that the movie wanted to do a "both sides were wrong/both sides had a point" sort of story, but as soon as you step back and look at what Merida objected to, then the argument is over. Forcing anyone to marry against their will is bad; always has been, always will be (I know the response to this is "that's how it was back then", but c'mon, it's a DISNEY movie. No one would have respected Merida if she'd meekly given herself up to one of those losers, and I feel like the script deliberately made Merida more bratty than she needed to be in order to garner sympathy for Elinor). It's a pity, since the entire thing would have worked better if Merida was fighting against becoming a future leader/queen/heir to the throne because she was too wrapped up in her own interests and refused to take the responsibility before her. That would have been something I could sympathize with Elinor over, since we've all gotta grow up sometime. And it's worth pointing out that Merida had no idea the cake was going to turn her mother into a bear; she believed it would simply let her see Merida's side of the situation, which is not at all unreasonable. I also think that Tiana (not Merida) deserves SO MUCH credit for introducing the concept of a princess who had a very discernible FLAW that worked against her. In Tiana's case, it was her determination to run herself ragged in pursuit of a goal to the detriment of her own health and happiness, which very much paved the way for the personality flaws found in Merida, Rapunzel and Elsa, whose stories are just as much about overcoming their own internal obstacles as their external ones. That wasn't possible until Tiana came along.

I have never been bothered by a bad wig in films/TV, in fact most of the times I don't even notice it. (Apparent examples of bad wigs: Mera and Atalana in Aquaman, Cersei and Daenerys in Game of Thrones, Storm in X-Men. I honestly didn't notice or care).

It's difficult to put into words, but there are two ways to look at any given story: from a Watsonian point-of-view (that is, from within the story itself: discussing character motivation, plot development, etc) or Doylistically (from without the story, taking into account the context the writers are working in: why they made certain narrative choices, the existence of themes, symbolism, etc). For instance, let's say you see two same-sex characters on television hold hands under a rainbow. From a Watsonian point of view, it's just two characters who (for whatever reason) decide to hold hands after the rain. The characters don't know what the future holds. But from a Doylistic point of view, audiences can safely assume that the writers are trying to convey something about their relationship by positioning them under the universal symbol of the gay rights movement. It would likely be foreshadowing for the fact they'll eventually fall in love. In Finn's case, from a Watsonian POV, obviously his skin colour is largely irrelevant in the context of the galaxy in which he lives. As far as I know, there's no racism in the Republic. But from a Doylistic POV, the fact that a Black man is playing this character inevitably brings connotations to the story, whether the writers like it or not. As the article points out: In The Force Awakens, Finn seizes his freedom from the First Order by escaping from the clutches of Kylo Ren with Poe Dameron. He discovers an identity by discarding the white stormtrooper helmet that erased his skin color and dropping his slave name, FN-2187, to become “Finn.” When Han Solo, Chewbacca, and Finn capture Captain Phasma — Finn’s former commanding officer and master — he taunts her with the phrase, “I’m in charge now,” which expresses his embodiment of Black resistance. People could saying that the article's writer is reaching, or that this would have all played out the same way with a white actor in the role, but with John Boyega as Finn, that reading of the text exists whether JJ Abrams is aware of it or not. It's clear that he didn't, and we're left with a trilogy that decided to jettison the possibility of Finn leading a Stormtrooper (that is, slave) uprising in favour of yet another story about why we should all feel sorry for violent white men who murder people. Along with the bait-and-switch of the first TFA posters, and Finn's gradual sidelining into less important subplots, there's stuff like the fact that Kylo beating Finn into a coma at the end of TFA is barely a factor in the following two films; instead the tiny little scratch on Kylo's face is given huge thematic weight, while the inevitable existence of a serious wound on Finn's back is completely ignored. And the fact that Disney was clearly more comfortable in Rey kissing a space fascist that spend most of his screen-time assaulting her over the Black guy who genuinely loved and respected her speaks volumes. The optics, Doylistically speaking, are Not Good.

In the wake of current events: John Boyega is doing what Star Wars wouldn't... Discusses how Finn's race is treated as incidental to his storyline, his gradual sidelining, and the fact they got cold feet on any potential Rey/Finn romance.

I meant Smurfette in the sense that she was the only female character of note in the whole movie (and therefore couldn't have any sort of friendship with another woman), which is the fault of the writers, not the character. You can be the lead (which she clearly was) AND a Smurfette; the two terms aren't mutually exclusive.

I've always LOVED the black and white striped dress Christina Ricci wears in Sleepy Hollow, which is notable for two reasons: firstly because it is the QUINTESSENTIAL Tim Burton gown. One look at it and you know you're watching one of his films. And secondly, it only gets about six seconds of screen-time at the very end of the movie: (These were just the promo pics: she only wears it once, getting out of the carriage in New York, but so iconic!)

I'm wracking my brains here, and I honestly can't come up with anything substantial. Sabine had a friendship with Ketsu in "Rebels", though that was only showcased across a couple of episodes, and Ahsoka and Barriss Offee had a fascinating dynamic, though that wasn't exactly a "friendship" (and there's been no closure on it). Maybe Ventress and the Nightsisters? Or E.K. Johnston's YA book about Padme, which apparently focuses on her relationship with her handmaidens? But in the movies themselves, nada.

I totally forgot about: Star Wars Resistance - male protagonist (Kazuda) So that's an 8:3 male-to-female ratio of protagonists in the Star Wars Universe. (I think after the Clone Wars finale it's safe to say that it WAS in fact Ahsoka's story). I'm not going to count the Ewok films, and I've never played any of the games, though I understand the latest one is about a young male Padawan that escapes Order 66. So yeah, to reiterate a point that no one was really arguing in the first place: lots of dudes in Star Wars. What would be really great is an important and narratively-central female friendship, as we've definitely never had one of those on-screen. Rey and Rose never interacted, Padme's handmaidens were never really characters, Jyn was the Smurfette, and Leia had... Amilyn, I suppose? The most sustained relationship between two women in Star Wars is probably Hera and Sabine in "Rebels", and that was far from the focus of the series.

So apparently Rey wasn't Palpatine's granddaughter, but rather the daughter of one of his failed clones. Give it up Disney, nothing you can say at this point is going to change people's minds about how they feel about this movie.

I know that these guys are either trolls trying to profit off outrage or just plain losers, but I've always been baffled at the pushback against female leads in Star Wars given the overwhelming presence of male protagonists. I mean... Star Wars prequel trilogy - male protagonist (Anakin) Star Wars original trilogy - male protagonist (Luke) Star Wars Rebels - male protagonist (Ezra) Star Wars Solo - male protagonist (Han Solo) Star Wars The Mandalorian - male protagonist (Mandalorian) Star Wars Obi Wan series - male protagonist (Obi Wan) Star Wars Cassian Andor series - male protagonist (Cassian) Star Wars sequel trilogy - female protagonist (Rey) Star Wars Rogue One - female protagonist (Jyn) Star Wars Clone Wars - female protagonist (Ahsoka) but I'm being VERY generous with this one, as it's just as much about Anakin, Obi Wan and a larger ensemble. That's seven movies and four tv series that are male-led and four movies and one debatable tv show that's female led. Talk about Dudley Dursley screaming over having thirty-six presents instead of thirty-seven! (Plus, nearly ALL Star Wars heroines are white brunettes, so if Headland's show goes ahead, I hope she'll do something different on that front).