feverfew
-
Posts
369 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by feverfew
-
-
On 11/11/2018 at 9:54 PM, Smad said:
Only if you think the complete absence of a believable story arc or incompetent writing or inconsistent character development is a good thing. I don't ever see GRRM messing the Sansa story up so completely.
While I love your optimism, the fact of the matter is that George RR Martin, like most of the readers and viewers of this universe, is much, much more interested in the "spunky anti-establishment tomboy" than the girl who adhere to fairytale tropes. In this fan's eye Martin already messed up: Sansa stopped being a main character in his books after A Storm of Swords, and the so-called "Vale-arc"? Non-existent save for a proto-chapter from the
maybe, perhaps, if he can be botheredupcoming book Winds of Winter. Sansa hasn't been seen since A Feast for Crows (3 pitiful chapters in all of that), published in 2005, so most talk about her development is pure speculation. Also, potential spoiler for WoW:Spoilershe sounds like she's buying what Littlefinger is selling;
which if that's true, makes her dumber than a box of hair, and also not what I've been waiting 13 years for. And I say that as a massive (disapppointed) book-Sansa fan.
As for "incompetent writing and inconsistent characters" I present to you: A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons.
-
5
-
-
Yeah, you're probably right, it's just ... the headlines got my hackles up: "‘Game of Thrones’ Creator George R.R. Martin’s ‘Who Fears Death?’ Adds Michael Lombardo, Selwyn Seyfu Hinds". Martin actually sounds quite reasonable in the piece.
-
2
-
-
Oh, that's good to hear. But now I'm angry at Variety for centering the story around a white man* (again).
*I sort of get it; Martin is the more well-known name, and GoT is the biggest show on Earth right now. But still.
-
2
-
-
@jhlipton have you seen this? *squees*
HBO closes development deal with for adaption of Nnedi Okorafor's Who Fears Death.
However, George R.R. Martin (Game of Thrones) is executing producer on that one, which makes me go 'hmmm'.
-
3 hours ago, aradia22 said:
Ah, OK. Thanks @feverfew. The way it's been phrased in articles and on wikipedia, I was getting the impression that Pennywise was causing the evil. Bringing out and facilitating someone's inherent evil is a more interesting story to me. Not that I'm planning to see the book or read the movie because again... I can't deal with horror. As for Mike and Ben, I watched a video that implied that the changes would continue into the second movie
I hope that doesn't happen and that they flesh out the Mike character in the second movie. It's always just a little disappointing when you already have a breakdown where out of 7 characters, you only have 1 representing a racial minority and 1 representing women (who are not a minority except in the popular imagination) unless you count Stan for being Jewish and in the adaptation, you give important responsibilities that mean screen time/relevance but also show positive qualities like intelligence, heroism, etc. to one of your white, male characters. I get the necessity of condensing the story line and other practical concerns but I do also think artists have to consider the implications of these kinds of changes. Speaking more in the abstract, why is it easier to take something from a character like Mike instead of inserting him into the love triangle and making him one of the characters who gets more fleshed out? Arguably, they're both changes from the book. I'm not mad at this specific movie and I'm glad to hear that things are mostly handled well. Hollywood just has a bad habit of minimizing the roles of its non-white and/or non-male characters.
While I enjoy King for what he is, he has some serious blindspots when it comes to minorities. I will say, however,
Spoilerthat the choice of swapping Ben and Mike's stories somewhat is something I'm okay with. I don't know how much you know about the novel, but all the children who leave Derry becomes wildly succesful at whatever they do - as a sort of incentive from Pennywise to stay away from Derry. It never sat well with me that Mike was the only one who stayed: His life up untill the rest of the Losers return is sad and lonely and there's some uncomfortable connotations when the minority character is the only one not to have (monetary) success. I think I'd rather see him leave Derry and its horrors than become the sad historian with a loveless life, as he were in the book - in fact, I hope all the kids leave ;) I do miss his dad though; Will Hanlon is basically the only good parent in town.
You're right about relevance and screen time - it sucks when it happens, and it happens too often. Mike do have a great scene though, which showcases his empathy and his bravery.
Btw, I think both Stanley and Ritchie are Jewish in the new movie - Richie is in the Synagogue when Stanley has his Bar Mitzvah.
-
11 hours ago, aradia22 said:
I'm 100% not a horror movie person and I have no plans to see "It." But I was curious if anyone else in the thread has seen the movie or read any thinkpieces about the changes from the book. I've read a few articles and by now I've gathered that the source material had issues with the female characters (notably Beverly but also the stereotypes in the sequel). In this thread I'm curious about the changes to Mike. Apparently they took out his parents and gave some of his characters' responsibilities in the book to one of the five white boys in the movie. I'm also interested to hear any thoughts on the concept of It in general. It's kind of interesting to ground this evil entity in the real world and yet having this alien thing influence people to racially motivated violence, sexual abuse, etc. feels like it's taking away their agency and the systemic and individual evil rooted in humanity (as opposed to some external force). I don't know, it's just sparking my spidey senses in a bad way so I'm curious if anyone is mounting particular arguments one way or the other.
Slightly spoilery:
SpoilerThe books deal with two timelines: One in the 60s with the children and one 27 years later. Grown-up Mike, "the only Black kid in town" (plot point), is sort of the historian of Derry, the small town of the story. In the new movie (moved up to the 1980s), child-Ben (a pudgy outsider, who has recently moved there) takes on that part. In a way it makes sense, because Ben is a newcomer, and he is bookish in the book too. Also, since the movie decided to do away with flashbacks (the childrens' story are told in flashbacks), we needed to be introduced to the fact that this Evil has been here since before Derry existed. I think they probably thought it would dilute the storyline they're driving at with Mike: His grandfather tells him something in the vein of 'people like them has to fight all the time, because otherwise they become prey' which, yeah. Derry has a bad, bad history with the Black community. Which is also a plot point, and one, I hope they'll continue in Part 2. I am sorry they took away one key aspect of grown-up-Mike's life, and I'm even more sorry that his family's antagonistic relationship with the Bowers (the human villains of the piece) got cut - on the other hand, the fact that the most racist piece of shit in this town is the sheriff makes a lot of horrible sense (Bowers was a deadbeat drunk in the book - someone with no authority whatsoever. This is a change I really liked).
Hopefully they'll flesh Mike out more in Part 2, especially since he's the only one who stays in Derry after the events of this movie (The same goes for Stan, Richie and to a lesser degree Eddie: Of the kids, we only really get to know Ben, Beverly and Billy).
As for IT "taking away [people's] agency and the systemic and individual evil rooted in humanity" I never got that from either the novel, the 1991 miniseries or this movie. There's this horrible scene in the beginning of the book, where a young gay guy gets beaten to death, and it's quite obvious, I think, that this horror would have happened despite Pennywise's presence. What King did, I think, is to extrapolate that sort of insidious, latent evil you'll find in small towns (closed off societies) and make Pennywise a symbol of it, rather than the root cause. In the book, Pennywise feeds off of people's inherent evil; he* doesn't cause it per se, although he might exaggerate it.
-
3
-
-
And speaking of IT, some of those kids were marvellous! I thought Jaeden Lieberher was one to watch after Midnight Special, and he really cements it here. Sophia Lillis (Beverly) and Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben) was quite perfect too.
-
On 25/8/2017 at 8:57 PM, 2727 said:
How could those huge puffed sleeves on the newsprint dress go unremarked by the judges? They were ridiculous. Shirtwaist dresses with full skirts should be banned from the show, anyway, just for being so unimaginative. Unless the designer yearns to work for ModCloth, of course. [...]
I don't know if it's got anything to do with it, but I was in Tanzania and Kenya last winter, and puffed sleeves were allll the rage there. The bigger, the better:
-
2
-
-
On 23/8/2017 at 9:59 PM, Danny Franks said:
Giving Good Omens another reread, after the news of Crowley and Aziraphale being cast for the TV adaptation. It's such a great little book.
After that, I feel like going for something more highbrow, but don't know what.
Oh, I love Good Omens! If you're looking for something a bit more serious, I would suggest The Nix by Nathan Hill. It's a cracking good read, superbly written - there's a bit Michael Chabon in there, some bildungsroman, humor and tragedy in equal measures. It might be the best book I've read this year.
-
21 hours ago, CoderLady said:
And yet more books I'm going to have to read. Thanks!
If you're not afraid of speculative fiction (think sf/fantasy etc) there's beautifully written, socially aware fiction from especially wocs' emerging right now: Nnedi Okorafor, N.K. Jemisin, Nalo Hopkinson. Octavia Butler, of course, is the godmother of Black Sci-Fi. And Helen Oyeyemi is an absolutely stunning writer (I wrote my master thesis on dual identity in first generation immigrants, as seen through her writing - White is for Witching and The Icarus Girl are painful and awesome and beautiful and necessary reads).
I've just finished my second book by Lila Bowen (Wake of Vultures). She's white, but writes about a gender-queer, half Black/half Native girl in the 19th century and so far, she's done an okay good job of it, I think. The second one was a bit of a disappointment, but that's mainly for plot reasons, not character development.
-
6
-
-
4 hours ago, Katy M said:
Do you think my dad would like them? the only author he really likes is Danielle Steele and he's read all of her books. He also kind of likes Kat Martin. We're looking for "new" authors for him to read since he has such a narrow interest.
They really are awefully sweet. Like, you'll need dentistry afterwards-sweet. But they're relatively harmless - although perhaps not if you're a princess-to-be and it's the only literature you read. The only Cartland I ever really liked (I got an entire packing box full of her books when I was 14, so I've read a lot) was "A Virgin in Mayfair" which apparently is sort of autofiction. Your father has to like Regency style romance, though - and if he does, Georgette Heyer is a better bet (try something like "The Grand Sophy" or "Friday's Child"). Think Austen, but without the biting social commentary.
For contemporary romance (aka more in the vein of Steel) I'd suggest either Nora Roberts or Debbie Macomber. Or perhaps Rosamund Pilcher and Elizabeth Jane Howard. Again it's mainly popcorn fiction, but none of them will embarass you with either explicit sex scenes or 50s morality ;)
-
3
-
-
22 hours ago, GinnyMars said:
I just finished The Halcyon and absolutely loved it!
The summaries mentioned spies, but that only comes into play in a handful of episodes. The show focuses on the relationships between the characters much in the same way as Downton... Except it moves much faster!
I think it was the closest thing to Downton I've watched actually, and I've seen quite a few of the shows referenced here... including:
Tons of great recs in your post, but I wouldn't call South Riding a love story! Even if it is indeed sold as one. I watched it expecting romance and was sorely disappointed!
The show's made of three one-hour episodes. At the end of the first episode, you find out...
... that Sarah's (pretty insufferable) love interest is actually married! His wife is locked away in some institution.
So you already start feeling a bit uncertain about the romance...
Then halfway through the second episode, you find out...... that the reason why the male lead lost his wife is that he RAPED her,
1) leading to her losing her mind and spending the rest of her life in a mental institution
2) leading to his daughter losing her mom and becoming quite a bit unstable as well!After those reveals, I couldn't root for the character or the romance - in fact, I considered dropping the show right then and there, but since there was only one and a half hour left, I stuck it out... Anyway, apparently, the show couldn't root for any of this either: in hour three, the male lead falls off a cliff and dies, leaving the female lead as unattached as she was at the very beginning! First time I rejoiced over a love interest dying in a so-called "love story"... Felt pretty weird!
So in summary, as much as Anna Maxwell Martin is a treasure, I personally do not recommend South Riding AT ALL!
I'm so sorry about that; there's nothing worse than expecting one sort of story and getting another! I should probably have put the emphasis on "bitter". (It happened to me too when I watched Jude the Obscure. Put me off Hardy for years).
But it made me think about the concept of "love stories". Is it only a love story, if it has a happy ending or protagonists worth rooting for? I would never call South Riding a romance, true, but love story? I'll still maintain that it is. Wide Sargossa Sea, the 'fanfic' written by Jean Rhys about Rochester's (of Jane Eyre fame) fatal meeting with his wife - that is a love story, even if we know from the beginning how terrible it'll end for Barbara. Same goes for Jude the Obscure, Tess D'Uberville, The Great Gatsby or The Age of Innocence. They're not only love stories -writers like Hardy and Wharton were way into social injustice etc, but they are love stories. My fault was in not making sure people would know that South Riding is a tragedy too, and I am truly sorry for that.
Apology-kitten:
-
2
-
-
-
3 hours ago, Blonde Gator said:
Arya is now trained in lying and detecting lies, and she saw right through Sansa's lies in that scene. Sansa may even be lying to herself about what she wants at this point, but her fealty to Jon's rule is just so much hot air, because manners, etc. Arya's not playing games with Sansa, and certainly not the game of faces. But she IS testing Sansa, to determine Sansa's loyalty to the family, rather than to herself.
Little sister has always been and will always be the smarter sister. She sees life as it is, and not how she wishes it to be.
I keep seeing this and I'm confused (and too lazy to go through Arya's training scenes again): Is it cannon that Arya now ALWAYS will know if she's being lied to? As far as I remember, she was in the process of learning how to detect lies/how to succesfully lie herself, but a) she ran away from the Faceless Men before she finished her training and b) I didn't think it was a magical ability like the face-hanging, but more ...mundane. Like reading body language. And bias will throw that (non-magical) ability right out of the window, I should think.
So if I'm right, and it's not magic, why are we taking Arya's words as gospel? Isn't it far more likely that Arya is blinded by old biases - that she has a blindspot when it comes to her sister?
-
3
-
-
I had this whole tirade planned; how much I disliked both plot and all characters; how nothing made sense; how storytelling disappeared under a preachy, screetching mess of a message, but I'm just too tired. Also, @George B. took the words right out of my mouth.
-
2
-
-
Yay! My favourite sci-fi show is back! I love The Expanse for its politics, its wonderful production values and its seriousness, but Killjoys just make me so gosh darn happy. I love all the regulars (some more than others, true, but there's not one character who makes me wanna spoon out my eyes). I do miss Clara/Stephanie Leonidas, and so far TPTB are laying it on a bit thick with pseudo-Clara (OllyOlleanna) and replacementJohnny, but I trust the writers, and hopefully I'll learn to love them at least as much as I love Fancy, Pree and Alvis (and TURIN!)
I think its rather clever of the show to have Johnny stumble upon another side to the Hullen. While a worthy subject, him fightling for mods' rights would feel too isolated - this way even if he doesn't join up with the rest of the crew in the next few episodes, he'll still feel part of the action. Also clever to have both him and Dutch react to the holographic messages; made him feel less ... displaced in the story.
But speaking of those messages, if TPTB don't intent for the show to end up endgame Dutch/Johnny, they need to tell Hannah and Aron to lay off with the chemistry. It's no secret that I've been a shipper from day one, but I had totally resigned myself to the "platonic life-partners"-thing. And I was fine with it, really. I *do* enjoy a good boy-girl friendship. But this here, those eyes, those heartfelt sighs? Turns me into a squeeing 14-year old.
Interestingly, it feels like its coming on stronger from Dutch. Maybe her sadness feels heavier, because John still hurts (so bad) over Pewter; also probably because this separation is his choice.
On 2/7/2017 at 4:52 AM, iRarelyWatchTV36 said:That was also my original - and most sense-making - take on it. He didn't exactly look or act all 'skulking around behind my friends' backs' about it.
It just seemed really weird because it was in the middle of the final montage, where the "whoa, better keep an eye on that developing situation" stuff is placed.
I think we were meant to question that ending scene; but I also think it'll turn out D'avin isn't sleeper agenting all over the place.
-
2
-
-
Ooof. That wasn't good. And that team-thing worries me; every other reality show I've watched with teams has eliminated a team member from the winning team next time to keep the numbers even - often eliminating a better artist in the proces. Also, how did Face Off chose the teams? Surely the disparity between the teams can't all be on account of Foreman Six's bad leader skills.
I watch Face Off for great make-ups, the lovable judges and the camaraderie between the contestants. The promos seems to say I'm only gonna get my judges, which makes me nervous...
-
9
-
-
10 hours ago, iRarelyWatchTV36 said:
Some news about Clara (& Alice). Not really unexpected, but seemingly confirmed...
Buh! I had high hopes they'd managed to lock Stephanie Leonidas down for a proper arc.
-
1
-
-
No. Nononono. This hurts more than when they cancelled Agent Carter and that one broke my heart!
-
3
-
-
It had a soft start, @ursula. according to tvbythenumbers. 0.5 in adults 18-49 and 3.44 million viewers. If it stays there, it'll be okay for summer, I think...
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:
Color-blind casting is one thing. Deliberately mixing genres and eras is something else altogether. Hell, why not have Julius Caesar stop by? He lived in Italy, too, after all. So what if it was some 1300 years before Romeo and Juliet were even born? Or how about bringing in the characters from The Canterbury Tales or Dante's Commedia? Or, hell, bring in Lucrezia Borgia or even Mussolini to show Lady Capulet how it's REALLY done.
Well, first of all, there's nothing vis-a-vis costuming or set pieces that suggest this takes place in the 14th century. In fact, the women's dresses all look to be taking most of their cues from late 15th fashion - or 1980s in case of Lady Capulet. My guess is they're going for a Renaissance (14th to 17th century) feel. Or just don't care. So anything set during the Renaissance could be considered fair game.
Second, I'm pretty sure the de Medicis and the Borgias will show up if the show goes on for more than a season. I mean, why not? This is pure fantasy after all.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:
Wrong century and wrong genre. The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (and this show, which is both sequel and spin-off to the play) is firmly set in 14th-Century Verona. The characters you mention, with the exception of Othello and Iago, are all from comedies that are set in the 16th Century -- in other words, "contemporary" comedies to the audiences of Shakespeare's time. And although it is not a comedy, Othello is also set in the 16th Century, so it would be a ridiculous anachronism to have Othello and Iago suddenly show up in a Verona that existed 200 years before they were born.
In a show where Rosalind is a POC and the costumes looks like something that came out of Reign's closet, I don't think tragedy -> comedy and anachronisms are a problem. Just fire up some handwavium and you're good to go ;)
-
2
-
-
I like to fancy the Doctor just a little bit. But attraction is such a weird and subjective thing: I never, ever fancied David Tennant in that role ("Jarvis Cocker in space", thank you, Dead Ringers) and would put Eccleston, then McGann, then Arthur Darvil in my top three of NuWho men. So *shrugs*.
I don't know how I'll feel about a female Doctor - in a way the character feels inherently male, if that makes sense? It would have to be some very clever writing; as well as a very brave actress.
-
4
-
-
I'm guessing Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) is an officer aboard USS Shenzhou when something happens to the ship - probably something to do with what they're doing "out there on the edge of space". She probably gets transfered to USS Discovery at some point early on in the show. So I'm already tempering my attactment to any characters onboard Shenzhou....
S05.E01: Run, Yala, Run
in Killjoys
And herein lies the issue - at least for me. While a show with a straight up platonic lifepartner love story is a welcome sight; this is not it, if even non-shippers are picking up on clues that Johnny might feel more for Dutch than she does for him - as you yourself points out by suggesting that The Lady is picking out this fantasy from Johnny's mind and by talking about "fallout". This then, feels more like an unrequited love story about a woman who'll use one man for all her emotional needs then turn around and screw the 'hot one'. Lovretta can talk as much as she wants about platonic love, but she's the author of this story - if she wanted to tell that story she shouldn't even tease the possibility of J/D by making it look like Johnny feels more. Unless of course she's straight up shipper-baiting for eyeballs, in which case I'll feel justified in thinking she's a bit of a well, cow. Sorry. I have very strong feelings on shipper-baiters - especially the ones who hide behind lofty interviews, but still use the old tricks.
I like D'av and Dutch a lot, but I'm a Johnny fan first and foremost (I loved Pawter). If he's happy, I'm happy*. But the thought of him forever playing third wheel to Dav/Dutch icks me the f out. The trajectory for that possibility is what made me quit Killjoys several times.
*unless the showrunners play "match-the-spares" and put him and Zeph together. That would feel like creative bankruptcy. Bring back Clara (either face) or even better - bring Pawter back out of the green/clear.