Demented Daisy

I think his publicity machine did him a real disservice with Mr. Mercedes. On his Facebook page, Stephen King posted a bunch of videos from his other characters (Pennywise, Carrie, Annie Wilkes, Danny Torrance, Andy Dufresne) talking about Mr. Mercedes. It generated a lot of excitement, but then the book was published. IMO, your best characters shouldn't be introducing a character that could be from pretty much any episode of Criminal Minds.

I thought it was a construct because Dean didn't learn what Zachariah wanted him to learn -- namely, that Sam was going to say yes no matter what Dean does, so Dean better say yes to Michael. (How many times did future Dean say that he wished he had said yes to Michael, that he called for the angels, wanting to say yes, but that they had left the planet?) Instead, Dean took away from it that he and Sam are actually stronger together and that without each other, one or both would definitely say yes. At least if they were together, they could fight together. But like you said, who knows?

I wasn't a fan of Insomnia, either. He's not an easy read and, like all authors, has his really, really good books and some clunkers. Dr. Sleep, I thought, was incredible. Mr. Mercedes was oddly flat. It started well, but lost a lot of steam as it went on. Had he kept it a short story or novella, I think he would have written a much better story. ETA I mentioned those because they are his most recent -- an example that, even though they were written around the same time, his stories can vary wildly, IMO.

About 100 pages into Mr. Mercedes -- so far, so good.

Like you, I'll take that with a big, fat grain of salt. I was talking about The End being a construct. But that, like everything else on this show, is open to interpretation. I was referring only to Joshua's statement about God not thinking that the Apocalypse is his problem. ITA. The whole Apocalypse storyline doesn't make sense at all because angels don't have free will. So the idea that a group of them could break away and start the Apocalypse is ridiculous, IMO. I don't think that Kripke's original intention was that Chuck be God. But everything changed when they got the renewal.

Because he's God and didn't want to be found. I thought that was all a construct by Zachariah, not an actual vision of the future. Zach didn't know Chuck was God, so he included Chuck in the vision. Kripke said that God would be a character in season 5. Because that particular Apocalypse was not of his making -- it was the angels. As I always interpreted it, God wanted Sam and Dean to stop the Apocalypse, so he used reverse psychology on them. He could have made a big speech about Sam and Dean representing humanity and proving to the angels that they are worthy of God's love; he could have said that he believed in Sam and Dean, that he knew they could stop it all; he could have said a dozen different things, but he needed Sam and Dean to stay angry. So he told them exactly what they needed to hear, but in the opposite way they wanted. But, like I said, that's my interpretation and YMMV. I could accept that, except that it's the exact opposite of the position of the show re: humanity and the Apocalypse.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I really am curious. So... who was he? At the 2011 Jus in Bello Con, Rob Benedict said that after Swan Song, Kripke called him and asked how it felt to be God. Sarah Gamble later said that they left it ambiguous on purpose, but I think she said that just so people would stop asking her when God was going to show up again. *shrug*

IMO, Chuck was pulling a long con; he knew exactly who they were, and what was going on, but couldn't let on that he knew too much, lest he give away his true identity. ;-)

http://www.vulture.com/2014/06/josh-boone-interview-fault-in-our-stars-shailene-woodley-the-stand.html Relevant SK bit about directing The Stand:

Well, if they went to Edinburgh, they could tour the Scotch Whiskey Experience, learning about the history and production. It's a fun tour! (Or it was when I took the tour a dozen or so years ago.)

I am so looking forward to that episode. Is it the 16th yet?

Or Shetland sheepdog, since they seem to be fond of the herding tasks -- and dogs. Back to lurking.

Osric Chau (Kevin) was on an episode of The 100 a couple of weeks ago. I thought I recognized him in the ad for the episode, but couldn't find anything at the time to confirm (without actually watching the show, which I have no interest in doing). ETA Felicia Day was on The Wil Wheaton Project last night. Just before, Misha and Jensen were featured in a gag called "Christian Bale's Reverse Lozenges for Actors". I think you can probably figure out what the gag was about.

Link to Misha's FB page on his appearance on Whose Line: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=757489564273053&set=a.757489740939702.1073741826.127138843974798&type=1&theater

Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion, but just because it was written in fan fiction, doesn't mean it was written well. ;-)

http://tvline.com/2014/06/03/nashville-season-3-spoilers-juliette-pregnant-hayden-panettiere/ Hannibal related content: Question: I’m still reeling from Hannibal‘s Season 2 finale, but I’ve got to ask: Was I the only person who wasn’t sure until the last second whether Hannibal was going to try to kiss or kill Will Graham in that final bloodbath of a scene? –Peter Ausiello: Good grief, you’ve got a twisted mind, Peter! (Just like me.) So let’s ask showrunner Bryan Fuller about the homoerotic undertones between killer and profiler that ramped up over the course of the season. “I don’t think they wanted to get it on at all!” exclaims Fuller. “But sure, the homoeroticism was absolutely intentional. If you could’ve heard me cackling in the editing room, you would take it with the naughty wink with which it was intended for a certain portion of the audience.” Putting it another way, “Will Graham’s heterosexual,” Fuller adds. “Hannibal Lecter, though, is the devil, so I think he’s turned on by anything that’s alive, and he can find a sensuality and a sexuality in all manner of things — because he has an awareness and a view of the world that is truly unique. So, no, I wouldn’t put it past him.” Question: I know it’s early, but any intel on Season 3 of Hannibal would be appreciated. –Kayla Ausiello: Bloody well, then! Fuller promises a “very ambitious” slate of episodes that will focus on Will Graham’s quest to find and capture Dr. Lecter, a quest that will begin with Hugh Dancy’s addled profiler “getting to the roots of what makes this cannibal who he is.” Expect some plot points to be drawn from Thomas Harris’ Hannibal Rising origin story — or at least some ” impressions of who Hannibal was before [he began to interact with] any of [the show's] characters,” Fuller adds. That said, just because the sociopath is out of the bag (so to speak), don’t expect Hannibal to press pause on his extrakillricular activities. “Oh, I don’t think he worries about such things,” Fuller says, with a laugh, when asked if our titular cannibal will put away his knives now that the FBI is openly pursuing him. ETA Because, out of habit, I put it in spoiler tags.

Thank you, WertherEffekt. It's not on page 189 of the copy I'm reading, which is not surprising. I assume I haven't gotten to that part of the book, as I said. I agree that Will's behavior doesn't reflect "pure empathy". Perhaps Will is suffering from PTSD after Hannibal's attack, which could mess with his ability to be empathetic. *shrug* Long story short, movie and tv versions of Will Graham are interpretations of the book character, but none are invalid, IMO.

I didn't make it through the first season of Under the Dome. The book was an excellent slow burn, but the show was just slow. Anyone started on Mr. Mercedes yet?

Okay, then, so this thread is only to set up the re-watch, not to actually discuss the episodes? The episodes will be discussed in episode-specific threads?

So far, in my re-read, no one has described Will as being empathetic or possessing "pure empathy". Crawford says that Will is able to "see things" that others can't, but I interpreted that as Will being one of the original profilers. He saw patterns in behavior that made him able to understand why the killer did the things he did, or he's able to see things that others have missed. Cops and agents can't do those things, so he's ascribed "gifts" that may not actually be there. I haven't seen Manhunter or Red Dragon in years, so it's possible that the idea of Will being empathetic may have come from one of them as opposed to from the book. In fact, his failure to understand his wife and stepson are evidence, in my mind, that Thomas Harris never intended Will to be in possession of "pure empathy". I also object to the idea that the tv show has "fixed" the characterization of Will Graham. I think that the character has been updated to fit the current timeline (i.e. he's a product of the now, as opposed to the 70's), but I wouldn't call him "fixed". But miles vary, of course. And I concede that just because I haven't found it in the book yet doesn't mean it's not there. (Will possessing "pure empathy".)

I'm confused about the spoiler policy in this thread. This is the re-watch discussion -- which means we've seen the episodes previously and are watching them again. How are spoilers even possible? And how do we know what's a spoiler and what's not, since the discussion is going to be rather loose? I watched 3 episodes from season 8 today on TNT -- if others are discussing various season 1 episodes, does that mean I have to wait until others get to season 8? I'm so confused.

. I showed that scene to my daughter as an example of what a season finale should be but turned it off as soon as the song started playing. No "Bad Moon Rising"? Not interested.

I don't remember Will ignoring what anyone was going through. I'll re-read before continuing the conversation, if that's all right.

One of the problems with reading Red Dragon is that it was published in 1981 -- which means it falls in line with certain viewpoints at the time. Margot was changed because Bryan Fuller didn't want to portray her in the same way that Thomas Harris did in Hannibal (again, when Harris created Margot as an adult, her characterization fell in line with certain viewpoints). Only because that's the way the killer viewed them, IMO. But mileage varies.

Half the time, when I'm thinking of him and analyzing the show, I catch myself mentally calling him 'Anniba! Oh, I disagree, but miles vary, of course. Indeed. I also disagree with the idea that Hannibal in an underdeveloped character. But I concede that my viewpoint may be tainted by my knowledge from the books.