Swansong
-
Posts
308 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Swansong
-
-
4 hours ago, Lilly77 said:
Rose is written as dense, and she's hard to empathize with.
Yeah. She isn't exactly written to be sympathetic which I guess wouldn't matter if she was written to be interesting.
QuoteLukas is just so awful for most of this episode He might have come to the realisation at the end that he had to do what was right, but being so self-absorbed since this began makes it hard to believe he is worth all this drama, and it really is too little too late. Phillip looks out for him, Lukas looks out for himself. Not the basis of a great relationship. I think your 'drama queen' tag is pretty on-point here.
I had the same thought. He's just so over the top. Not just lying about the murder, but lying about the drugs. I'm glad he came clean and I know he save Philip's life, but he really hasn't been worth all the drama and despair he seems to have put Philip through.
-
Quote
ITA that Michelle does white trash beautifully
Well she is an Essex girl at heart. lol
-
7
-
-
I remember her playing a rape victim whose younger brother was murdered on Waking the Dead and she was great in that so I've always known she had the acting chops. I really like her in this, but I'm not sure how seriously I can take a murderer lecturing someone on their failings because they killed someone.
-
Quote
This. For Alec to make such a major life decision when all they've had is a brief flirtation just holds no emotional resonance. The only reason I care at all is because I read the books. In fact, the books are the only reason I'm still hanging onto this show at all. If I didn't have that backstory from the books, all of this would mean nothing to me at all.
I haven't read the books so I don't really get why Magnus felt so entitled to feel betrayed by Alec's decision to marry Lydia. Not on the story they've told us so far anyway. Disappointed because he's obviously attracted and was hoping something might happen maybe, but beyond a bit of a flirt and a drink they didn't exactly have much of a relationship and as someone else pointed out Alec might be attracted to Magnus, but for the bulk of the season we've been led to believe that Alec is in love with Jace hence part of the reason for his weirdness with him. They actually did a much better job establishing a friendship between Lydia and Alec so their marriage of convenience actually made some sense to me considering where their heads are supposed to be at and struck me as more believable than Alec abandoning everything to be with Magnus at the alter. That moment didn't feel earned at all which is a pity because I actually like the idea of them and think the actors have nice chemistry, but the show has really failed at the show rather than tell portion of their development.
-
1
-
-
Very late to the party, but I just wanted to say I can see why they made German a murderer and a creep at the end of season 2 . Not just because as the least likely suspect it would be a "shock", but it also allows the audience to ignore what a jerk Derek actually is in the whole Derek/Ahsha/German triangle so far. I'm not Ahsah's biggest fan, but I'm definitely not rooting for her to end up permanently with German, but I'm also not rooting for her and Derek either.
I've realised I don't mind Ahsha when she's interacting with anyone not part of the triangle. The actress isn't very good outside of the dancing, but the character has the potential to be interesting if written right particularly with regards to Jelena's influence on her.
-
Quote
Hell, when Kizzy was being sold and Kunta punched a guy, I thought that realistically, that probably would have been it for Kunta Kinte.
I suspect killing someone elses 'property' because you were mad would probably be more trouble than it was worth though especially financially. I assume that's why Kunte was hobbled when he kept running away instead of being outright killed because a dead slave has no value. It reminds me of the scene where that slave woman died giving birth in the field and Waller was upset, not because she'd been treated so horribly, but because her death cost him money and then said he was taking the money out of his overseers pay check. I assume anyone who killed a slave without the blessing of the slave owner would also be risking a significant financial loss.
-
2
-
-
Quote
Jay's got dirty hands. He needs to remember all the crap he's done.
Just because he has dirty hands doesn't mean he can't have lines even he won't cross. And he had a point. She's a black contestant who likely won't get that far or even get much air time except for when they make her look like 'Angry black woman' so quitting her degree to be on the show is unlikely to be worth it if she just wants a platform for her views. I was actually surprised that she fell for Rachael's bullshit that easily. Yes Rachael is supposed to be good at her job, but her argument wasn't even that compelling especially if you've watched the show which we were supposed to believe the contestant had. So I really hope she has other motives for deciding to do the show.
-
15
-
-
Quote
Fighting back takes a lot of forms. Not just the physical altercations we saw in this one, but also in the simple act of trying to escape. Given how many slaves escaped or attempted to escape, we can figure that many were fighting in their own way. Or in small everyday little rebellions like tainting food or watching a master choke on a chicken bone and not running for help, or a judicious push down the stairs when no one is looking.
The only 'fight back' moment I had a problem with was the last one when George killed the slaveholder son and even that was more because I don't think the show did a good job of establishing that the slaveholder father had that much affection or much of a relationship with his slaves which I think they needed to do for that to pay off. I think someone said he was supposed to have some affection for Tom, but I don't remember that being established all that well or at all or maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. I mean he was nicer than his son, not hard to be, but he was also apparently willing to deny them food and then offered them that lame chicken and hog deal for them continuing to work the land. So the idea that he would help them after they killed his son, even in self-defense, even if he didn't like his son all that much and knew what an arse he was didn't really work. Plus it really wasn't a necessarily moment since the real empowering event was them getting to leave of their own free will not getting to kill a white slaveholder.
Whereas the moment with Kunte Kinte worked for me because there were no real witnesses(well except the British soldiers who stumbled upon him after the fact and had their own agenda which he then played on) and the importance of Kunte being someone still very tied to his African roots and being a warrior were treated as very integral to his character and from what I've read they were more likely to fight back so I though the circumstances fit. I also thought Tom Lea was one of the better developed white characters and that the show did a pretty good job of establishing his relationship with Kizzy and Chicken George and Mingo and the kind of man he was and how that played into their relationship with him.
I also agree it wasn't just a case of slaves being passive or going all Django, but something much more in between and complex in terms of resistance and I thought the series also did a great job of showing that not just with the rebellions and the 'killing moments', but also with the moments like slaves repeatedly trying to run away or less obvious things like the songs they sang and how they were used or trying to hold on to traditions or Kizzy learning to read and write despite the severe consequences or putting stuff in people's food or even playing up to their slave owners in the hopes of getting concessions in return.
-
1
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:
Just heard that playwright Peter Shaffer died at 90. Amadeus was one of my favorite plays/movies.
I studied his play The Royal Hunt of the Sun for O-Level and I can still quote from it. I became a big fan of his plays.
-
Quote
I'd've preferred Nat/Clint to the Nat/Bruce we got in AoU.
They probably would have made a more likely match, but I'm still glad they resisted the urge to go there. Now if only they'd handled Nat/Bruce better since they didn't resist the urge to go there.
-
2
-
-
Quote
Given the same text of all 3 Cap movies, if Bucky was Becky, there damn well would've been a romance.
I don't see their love as particularly romantic, but I have to agree. I've been actually relieved that they didn't develop Clint and Natasha or Steve and Natasha into romantic relationships because 9/10 that level of commitment to one another would be a precursor for the inevitable romantic hook-up.
-
I've been catching up on Aloe Blacc's music and a younger Miles Brown dances in his music video for the song Loving You Is Killing Me.
-
1
-
-
That's.....not what I said. I didn't say anything about oppression, I said the term 'male gaze' has a tone to it, because then you get into objectification, because of course a guy can't look at a partially-clothed woman without turning into an out-of-control sex maniac. Even if its only in his head.
Well that's an attitude largely perpetuated by men to make women responsible for men's reactions to them. If a woman goes out at night in sexy clothes she's asking for it because how can a man control his urges in those circumstances. It's probably not surprising that translates to how people respond to male and female nudity on screen. I assume most men do in fact have the ability to control themselves in the face of female nudity, but fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum and if you perpetuate a particular attitude off-screen it's not a shock that bleeds into how we address certain issues on-screen.
I don't think the idea of the 'male-gaze' is necessarily attributed to all forms of female nudity because there are obviously times when nudity exists in a text where people may find it sexy, but that's incidental to the actual intent and there are times when it's pretty clear that a female character is only naked or partially naked because the creators were thinking men needed something nice to look at. But it makes sense that people, women in particular, might be more sensitive to female nudity as opposed to male nudity because there's a long recent history of young female characters especially being used as exactly that kind of eye-candy with relatively little else to counteract that image in comparison to men and that's only slowly begun to change and a long history off screen of men feeling a certain entitlement to women and their bodies not only because of attitudes that are perpetuated off screen, but reinforced on screen which isn't really true in the reverse.
I don't know, mostly I just find it absurd that American TV takes out the sex and leaves in the violence, which in itself is inherently hypocritical. Kill 'em, but don't kiss 'em. Or maybe you can kiss 'em, just as long as too much skin isn't shown. Because then it's out there, and then I guess everything really goes to hell.
I agree it's hypocritical and I can't say I understand it, but Modern America was founded by the Puritans. lol. I guess some attitudes still linger. I don't think it's specifically tied to female nudity or at least not entirely. I guess people find sex scenes titillating in a way they don't necessarily find violence although people do tend to find it cool when female characters get to beat people up. People do tend to complain about violence, but it's usually in terms of it being glamourized so maybe it's harder for some people to separate the idea of titillation from sex in a way they can from violence. But other than that I've got nothing.
-
1
-
-
I don't think shirtless men and shirtless women are quite equal because women have been sexualized to the point that women can't nurse without people freaking the eff out. While shirtless men can be sexy, there hasn't been the same level of objectification to their torsos. Maybe it shouldn't be that way but that's the way it is.
Pretty much this. The reason why a woman couldn't walk down the street with her top off the way men do is because the reaction would be so radically different because women's bodies and by extension women's breast are so sexualized to the point where, as you say, women can't even breast feed without some people seeing it as obscene. So in theory while male nudity on soaps and say the CW pretty much serves the same function as women wearing sexy clothes or female nudity does pretty much all the time i.e nice eye candy it still doesn't carry the same weight. Not when men still feel an entitlement to a female body just based on the way she dresses (or doesn't dress).
I mean I think it's pretty silly to have a female character wearing a bra while they're having sex (and really if they're that afraid to show female breasts what happened to the strategically placed sheet) and I don't really have an issue with women being nude on screen, but I still think we're a long way from a time where even giving equal time to male and female nudity in a show would make those things truly equal.
-
5
-
-
Viewers who dislike writing choices proceed to complain on the internet? News at 11! Censorship is upon us!
I think critics might also have something to say about that. lol. Yeah it's not censorship to criticize someone else's work or wish they'd gone a different direction and even express it.
Seriously, most TV writers pander heavily to their audience. When it comes to killing characters, they aren't really at liberty of killing the characters who are perceived as cash cows. Making noise on the internet is (in addition to venting frustration, of course) is an attempt to basically say "pander to me, not to them". Sometimes it's combined with loftier goals but censorship it is not. Nobody is stopping the shows which receive the most backlash from what you called "social justice warriors" from continuing to do exactly the same. That is unless the people who give the money decide they stand to make more money if they listen to the "social justice warriors"... which is exactly what they do in regards to the opinions of every other group of fans.
Exactly. Right now creators (and advertisers) believe men (mainly white men) are where the money is at. When they decide it lies elsewhere I'm sure their artistic vision will turn in that direction. Killing off characters is what's in right now. When audiences get bored with that and start looking for something else so will creators.
-
3
-
-
Laurel floundered around for nearly 4 seasons and then they killed her off in the absolute worst way possible (unable to fight back, cheerleading for her ex to reunite with another woman). It was bad. As I said, I was never a fan of the character but she deserved much better than she got.
I liked her as a lawyer back in s1. I thought they overplayed her being the awesomest most feared lawyer in Star City and it wasn't the least bit convincing. I mean she was barely out of law school, but when they played her as the young, idealistic lawyer fighting for justice even if meant teaming up with Arrow, like in the episode about the firefighter deaths back in s1 I thought the character and even her relationship with Arrow (the fighting crime, not the romantic one) worked pretty well and I thought KC was decent in that role.
-
1
-
-
One thing the show has shown over and over is that Julia is the special-snowflake magician that Q thinks/thought he was. And she's fairly intelligent, I think there's a lot more to her plan than we know yet.
Well so are Alice and Penny. They don't have to like each other to work together (although they do have to be able to trust one another). Maybe if she'd trusted them a little bit more they could have all come together to find a way to save her friends and stop Renard without also potentially unleashing a beast back onto the world. Does Julia think she's the only one who knows how to double-cross people? Also just because she's smart about some things doesn't mean she's smart about everything. We've also seen that repeatedly.
-
5
-
-
But if you have ten white male characters in the cast and say one gay character and one poc and you kill off two white characters and the one poc and the one gay character those things aren't necessarily going to have the same impact. My issue isn't don't kill off female or non-white/hetero characters ever it's why is the only time writers insist on treating all these various character types as having equal value and weight to white male characters is when it comes to killing them off? I just don't see the same type of thought or need for "equal" treatment being considered necessary when it comes to creating these types of characters in the first place.
-
9
-
-
Let's say I want to write a tv show with lead characters. By the end of the first season 8 of them will be dead. So I don't offend or anger anyone do I make all the characters white men or do I include women, gays, and POC knowing that I will eventually kill them all.
Decades of obvious imbalances and biases are bound to make people sensitive and while things have improved somewhat they're still pretty bad for certain groups.So saying you won't include women, non-whites or gays in your shows just because people might be concerned how they get treated in relations to their white male counterparts would just seem disingenuous to me. It's not as if those things are even remotely equal so why try and act like we're talking about a level playing field when it comes to killing off characters? I mean people get upset when you kill off their favourite characters regardless of their colour or gender, but it's not that surprising it stands out more if that character is also part of the minority. Instead of getting defensive over people possibly being upset about them killing off the relatively few, usually one (fill in the blanks) characters they bother to write in in the first place I'd much rather showrunners think a bit more about why when they're creating shows they overwhelmingly feel the need to default to white males when casting leads and main characters of their show.
-
11
-
-
If she's going back in time to prevent the Free Traders dying, that's not the only thing that it would do. Julia left with Quentin after the Free Traders died. She should be creating a giant do-over.
if her plan is to go back in time before Renard was summoned and save her friends why would she need someone with the ability to kill a god?
-
3
-
-
But they are supposed to be people that matter to her and the concept of it being "selfish" is kind of a strange one to me. "Oh you cow! You're only thinking of yourself!"
I don't know. I mean deciding that you want to get back people you lost or even wanting to get revenge is one thing. But deciding you're entitled to sacrifice others to do it wouldn't exactly put you in my altruistic column. Her taking the knife and allowing them to go in and face Martin anyway pretty much guaranteed they'd be killed off and even then she only waited until he was going after Quentin again before she stepped in. And the show has already shown us, well mostly told us, that just because you can possibly go back in time and create time loops doesn't mean things can just magically be made better and that they can even end up worst.
The writers have already said they don't plan to shy away from Julia dealing with the trauma of being raped and watching all those people die, but I also hope they don't shy away from her actions in this episode either. Understanding what a character may be going through doesn't have to mean excusing everything they do.
-
10
-
-
Ugh, why are they still on the run?!
Are these set after Miracle Day? I assume the Families are after them again for vague reasons again.
-
Then at the very, very least, he should have told Fogg the brain wipe didn't work, but Quentin let Julia suffer, pretty much as punishment.
I didn't get that either really. She did all she could to make sure she would remember and then got mad at Quentin because she actually did remember and so then it was his responsibility because he didn't go out of the way to make sure she forgot? lol
-
2
-
-
Alice (though...how'd she do that without Alice even noticing? That's expert pick-pocketing right there), from the comments Martin Chatwin made, it actually sounded as if he knew that she was creeping up behind him. TBH, Julia was the only one to get the drop on him. It makes me think that had she not been there, instead of just Alice being a question mark, they all would've surely died. They weren't ready to fight The Beast.
Julia didn't know that. All she really knew was that there was something else she wanted to do instead and she was willing to leave them all completely vulnerable to achieve it so I'm not sure I'm willing to give her credit for that. Maybe they weren't ready, but they certainly weren't going to be ready if Alice didn't even have the knife once she got close to Martin.
-
4
-
Eyewitness - General Discussion
in Eyewitness
Not killing either boy also stayed true to the original. I wish they hadn't killed off Philip's mum, but I suppose the point was to establish him more firmly with Helen and Gabe. I think the ending was kind of clunky, but I bought Ryan realizing the situation was hopeless by the end once Helen (and I guess everyone else) was on to him. I mean he'd killed how many people including Bella to protect himself, tried to kill Lukas and everything had just unraveled worst instead.