Schweedie
-
Posts
543 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Schweedie
-
-
There are so many little details in Society of the Snow that will stand out to those of us who are familiar with the source material, but my absolute favourite thing is that when the boy who has been collecting belongings and tokens from everyone who died is packing them up in a suitcase towards the end, one of the things in the bag is a silver cross with a broken arm. It's a nod to a real cross that he speaks about in the book, that he found in the snow up there and has kept since then. He says it's his most valued keepsake from the mountain because he feels it represents them and what they went through - broken, abused, but still recognisably what they were before. I practically burst into tears when I noticed it on the screen.
-
1
-
-
It's weird - the Andes plane crash has been a special interest of mine ever since I first saw Alive back when it was new, and I've been saying for ages that there needed to be a proper, more authentic retelling, yet I had no idea this movie was in the works. I'm really, really glad it exists now, though, because it's everything Alive should have been.
Cinematically I thought it was stunning, and the acting was strong (and also a huge improvement on Alive). And having Numa Turcatti be the narrator is a really interesting choice, for obvious reasons. My heart broke for him when reading the book.
-
2 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:
would think Tamerlane was literally the story of Narcissis. The dude who fell in love with his own image. Bill was a pretty thing for her to win. But Tam only really loved herself.
I don't know about that, I don't get the impression that Tammy loved herself all that much, either. Especially given what Verna said to her in the end - "No one can take being shot down, scorned, and attacked 24/7 like you do to yourself."
-
5
-
-
6 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:
What surprises me is that Verna's image appeared on the video recordings from the Masque of the Red Death.
I think I assumed she wanted them (Roderick and Madeleine) to see her, that she wanted them to know she was there.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, HelloooKitty said:
Most of what we see him do is sit around his house and occasionally play a video game. There’s an inertia there. He has no agency bc he takes no action.
That's a great point right there. I guess you could say Verna forces him to take action, to see what that action will be.
It's interesting how she basically taunts him throughout the episode, though, seemingly enjoying it. She never points out that he had a chance to do things differently, change his outcome, the way she did with Perry and Camille. I wonder if that means she believes (or knows?) that in his core, he's worse than they were.
-
4
-
-
14 hours ago, Dani said:
It’s interesting to me that Leo’s death was entirely set in motion by Verna while Perry and Camille appeared to have more agency in their own deaths.
I thought that, too. With Perry and Camille, Verna just kind of let things happen that they set in motion themselves, but she really screwed with Leo, seeming much more mean-spirited. He didn't kill Pluto, but she -- made him think so? So I suppose it was a test, to see how he'd handle it, and the fact that he chose to try to trick his boyfriend meant he failed that test and would be punished. If he'd chosen one of the other cats that needed a home, he would've been given a kinder death.
But setting a guy up to think he's killed his boyfriend's cat, in a horribly way, and then driving him insane because he decides to keep that from said boyfriend... That's pretty heavy entrapment and a harsh punishment.
-
4
-
3
-
-
Up until now I've felt *some* sympathy for every kid as they got theirs, but man, Freddie? That was plain poetic justice, honestly. What a sadistic psychopath he turned out to be.
Lenore is awesome. She's got heart and she's got courage.
-
7
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TexasGal said:
I loved Juno's reactions during the presentation, of course she thought Tamerlane was directing it all at her! Poor thing.
"I'm -- I'm just here to support you." Seriously, I love her.
-
10
-
1
-
-
Oh, this was definitely my favourite episode so far, which surprised me. I didn't think I'd be much invested in a Tamerlane episode, since she hasn't really been given a lot of character development outside of being plain awful even with five previous episodes, but I ended up actually feeling -- quite bad for her? I guess it helps that Samantha Sloyan is a terrific actress. I loved the scene with her and Juno - you could see her face softening while Juno talked about wanting to be part of a family.
Speaking of which, poor, sweet Juno! Is she okay? I really want her to come out of everything here in one piece. And she's not connected to the Ushers by blood, so she *shouldn't* be affected by whatever deal they made with Verna back then, right? C'mon, just give Juno a break.
-
10
-
-
18 hours ago, Bastet said:
I've never seen anything else of his, but if the fantastic humor in this series is typical of him, I may have to check out more. There are so many wickedly funny lines!
I do think this series is darkly funnier than his previous Netflix ones. I cracked up at how the mention of Frederick being called "sweaty Freddy" in the first or second episode because of his being afraid of elevators and always taking the stairs paid off in the previous ep, with him outside Leo's door all out of breath. Gave me a good giggle.
-
6
-
-
I was rewatching Ready Or Not, and I keep thinking that maybe they didn't need to have that intro scene right at the start. Because that way we basically know what's going to happen when it's time for Grace to draw her card, and it might've been more effective if we didn't know for sure. We could guess, but we wouldn't have *seen* it. The intro scene is definitely still needed, I think, but I feel like maybe they could've moved it and put it as a flashback - maybe have Daniel look at that closet when he hid Alex and flash back to 30 years ago after the "Run, run run!" song ends, before they head out to find Grace.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, QuantumMechanic said:
Re: Rebecca vs Nate
I think the big difference is that with 1st season Rebecca it was "it's not personal, it's just business". With the attempted fake sex scandal thing she wasn't doing it with the goal of hurting Ted per se. She wanted to hurt the team and Ted was just collateral damage. Whereas Nate was very specifically trying to hurt Ted.
Right, but - does that make it better? That she was happy to cause problems in two, as far as she knew, happy relationships in order to hurt the team and by extension Rupert? I just don't see it being business and not personal as a "big difference". My issue with Nate's redemption arc has never been that he deserved it less than Rebecca, just that they handled it very poorly.
-
8 hours ago, Girl in a Cardigan said:
But that's not what happens in that scene. Jamie starts to share his trauma relating to his first visit to Amsterdam and Roy replies with sympathy, "That must have been traumatizing." Jamie replies glibly, "Nah, she loved it" and you can feel his dad coming through in that moment.
No, I agree, hence my "almost", heh. But since it clearly *was* traumatising, it's another thing that a victim shouldn't be expected to forgive.
7 hours ago, Haleth said:I think the message is that forgiveness is to help the victim. Jamie can let go of the pain/resentment/anger. Whether or not his father continues on a path toward sobriety Jamie is in control of the relationship. He can reach out or walk away and be at peace.
Which is my problem - as I think someone else said before in this thread, there is *so* much ground between forgiveness and letting go of pain/resentment/anger. And the show *chose* the former, combined with reaching out, which is the standard in media - and if you're someone living with that, and that's what you keep seeing, how are you supposed to not feel like that's what you're expected to do, what you should be doing? The walking away at peace is something a lot of people could do with seeing more of, and exactly what I really wish they had given us instead.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, AngieBee1 said:
There are people who while in the moment are pained by someone who rides them hard the way Jamie's father did him or how many couches/bosses do but an individual can also appreciate how that experience shaped them. I have had horrible bosses whose behaviour could have been viewed as abusive but I can appreciate the tools and fortitude that experience gave me.
There seems to be an insistence that media be aspirational and be virtuous instead of a reflection of the human condition and experience which isn't cut and dry and is filled with contradiction. And people transfer their ideals and worldview on this show and others and unfairly ding it when it doesn't line up with how they feel things should be.
Okay, but -- there is a very big difference between a father/coach/boss "riding someone hard" and what the show portrayed James Tartt as doing. (And not only to Jamie - we saw him literally about to beat Beard with a crowbar, which might well/would probably have killed him before that one guy intervened.)
So no, I don't think criticising a show for sending the message that victims of abuse should in fact be grateful because it made them successful is unfairly dinging it.
4 hours ago, AD55 said:All of this, especially the bolded part. I wanted to throw something when Ted said that. The substitution of "tough" for "abusive" and the notion that abuse leads some people to do great things are appalling messages. Further, they are inconsistent with what we've learned about Ted. I'm thinking about Ted's "Way to make the extra pass" note to Jamie and the fact that witnessing his father's abuse and contrasting that with how Sam's father relates to his son motivate Ted's decision to let Jamie return to Richmond. Even if we accept the idea that Jamie became a skilled player only because his dad abused him (which I don't), Ted knows that Jamie became "great" when he learned how to be a team player, which meant rejecting the lessons he learned from an abusive parent. I have no problem with Jamie forgiving his father, but if the show wanted to portray their reconciliation (and I don't see how that scene at the rehab facility can be read any other way), they could have borrowed some of the time they wasted on the KJPR storyline, or one of the other pointless arcs that went nowhere this year.
Completely agreed. Especially the part about Jamie only becoming *truly* great after he left his dad's "lessons" behind. He had the skills on his own, what's to say he wouldn't have been even better earlier on if his dad hadn't been involved? ETA - not to mention the fact that Jamie literally left his club to go do reality TV to get away from his dad, nearly ending his football career because no one wanted him after that. But sure, he should say "thank you".
And yeah, if they wanted to do a Jamie-forgives-his-dad storyline, fine. But throwing it in the way they did just does not work, especially not with the background it has.
-
3
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, AngieBee1 said:
No one said it is a catch-all for every situation but some people do decide that what works for *them* is forgiveness.
Right, but a lot of the time, if not most of the time, that's exactly what media chooses to portray, because forgiveness is meant to be good and heartwarming. And constantly seeing that is tiring, and it can be damaging. The show had the chance to show something different, like a shot of -- I don't know, Jamie texting his dad 'Good luck, goodbye", then blocking the number and deleting the contact and looking relieved, and yet they went with what they did.
5 hours ago, AngieBee1 said:Ted didn't say mend fences. That isn't necessarily what forgiveness is about. It can also look like just laying that hurt aside. Jamie choose the next step to visit his dad. Phil Dunster doesn't even feel that Jamie reconciled with his father and everything is hunky-dory.
Exactly - you can lay that hurt aside without without necessarily forgiving and mending fences, but the show *chose* to show the second part. Whether the actor thinks they really reconciled doesn't really affect what we see on the show. We see them smiling together as if everything *is* hunky-dory.
The way I see it, if you're going to portray abuse, you have a responsibility about how you handle it, and the show kept almost downplaying it. They turned Jamie's story about what happened in Amsterdam into a joke, almost ("No, she loved it"), they had Ted say that "sometimes having a tough dad is exactly what drives certain men to become great at what they do", they had the "I'd say thank you" as if he should be grateful for it. No one ever even brought up what went down at Wembley afterwards. When you take all that and then end it they way they did in the finale, with forgiveness, for me that is a really poor message to send.
-
2
-
1
-
-
It's been almost three weeks, and I'm aware that I'm probably taking the football comedy too seriously, but I'm still quite upset about how they ended things with Jamie's dad.
For me it's a really, really hurtful message to have Ted, the moral and emotional centre of the show, give the victim of abuse the advice to forgive his abuser, and then apparently follow through on that given that montage moment at the end - not to mention the "thank you" part, as if Jamie should somehow be *grateful* for the abuse because it got him to where he is, or something? That's a horrible thing to suggest. And I don't even mean just in-universe for these particular characters, but for actual real life situations like it. Like, we're talking about a character who exposed his kid to statutory rape, but it's okay, because the victim became successful and now the abuser is going to rehab? That's the message the show wants to leave us with?
Yeah. Three weeks later and I'm possibly more pissed off now than I was then.
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, mledawn said:
And they won!
They did! I messed up, though - it wasn't actually the Europa League but the Conference League, meaning that they'll play in the Europa next year. And they finished 14th in the Premier League this season.
So why couldn't they have let Richmond win SOMETHING? 😭 I'm more upset than I probably should be that they pushed the "They remain a club without a major trophy" last season, making it sound like they'd for sure win something next year, and then nothing. I wanted to see them lift a trophy.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Jeddah said:
I know the show is not real, but there is an irrational side of me that will hate West Ham and Man City forever because of Ted Lasso.
Yeah, I disliked City enough before the show - they're the reason why my team lost the title twice over the past few years - but the show definitely hasn't exactly made me like them more, heh. (Actually, City played my team in this episode, so when they said "City have taken the lead against Liverpool" I was like, yeah, this is realistic.)
-
1
-
3
-
-
Fun fact: ironically, West Ham are playing in the Europa League final tonight - if they win, they secure a spot in the Champions League next year.
-
3
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Uncle JUICE said:
Edit: any idea why Richmond is somehow worth 2B$? Because it isn't in the stadium, it isn't on the pitch (who's they're highest paid player?), it isn't in the broadcast rights, it's not the Ted factor as he's leaving, what exactly is worth $2B?
ETA AGAIN: Zero chance Isaac takes the PK. Not in a million million years. The fans would have burned the stadium to the ground if it wasn't Tartt, Dani, or Sam taking that shot, and rightfully so. But the show can't just let that absurdity live on its own, instead they add that he KICKED IT THROUGH THE NET. I've seen Ronaldo hit balls 60MPH that don't break the net, it's the premier league, not a kids rec league for pete's sake. And the ref would never have been confused, there'd have been no "Wait a minute, let me take a closer look." The ref's watch would have buzzed thanks to the goal line tech, AND the ball would have slowed down. Please, future sports shows, RESPECT your sport.
For the bolded, I'm gonna guess that the Champions League spot plays a big part in that. That generates a LOT of money.
As for all the rest of the implausible football stuff in this episode and the ones before... As a longtime football fan, I'm honestly completely fine with it. There have been times when inaccuracies have annoyed me, for sure, but at its heart this show is still a comedy and a fantasy. (Ted getting the job at all to begin with is essentially impossible since you need to have your coaching badges to be a Premier League manager - it's really not something an owner of a club can just decide to wave, as far as I know. Same goes for Roy and Nate.) I love the whimsy parts of the show, because as much as I love the football aspect of it I can get my reality from the real Premier League. So yeah, I'm fine with silly things like the kangaroo court and the Sound of Music performance and Isaac's penalty shenanigans. My only real complaint about the footballing fantasy part is that they didn't take it all the way and let Richmond win the whole fucking thing.
-
7
-
2
-
1
-
-
The one thing I did appreciate about Brendan Hunt's Q&A was the response to the question about how Sam got to play for Nigeria in spite of Edwin Akufo - "public outcry", simple as that. And that makes enough sense for me. Sam would be hugely popular in Nigeria, a star player in a team that came second in the Premier League, and keeping him out of that squad would cause so much outrage after snubbing him a couple of times.
-
10
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Makai said:
I don’t think that was a factor. I never thought of Rebecca as substantial older than Ted. Ted’s only romantic interest on the show was the exact same age as Rebecca and Rebecca’s pilot is younger than Jason Sudeikis.
I just never saw their interactions as anything other than really good friends. I did not see them framing the relationship as will they/or won’t they. I felt Ted’s interactions with Rebecca were on par with his interactions with the male characters and that Rebecca’s with Ted were on par with her interactions with Keeley and Higgins.
Yup. Simple as that for me. I just never saw any will they/won't they about their interactions.
-
13
-
-
6 hours ago, dovegrey said:
I saw that as growth and that counseling with Doc Sharon helped Ted forgive his father for “quitting.” Ted can now quit without feeling resentment.
As a general comment, I think it’s a lot to expect someone to permanently move to a different country, and ask their kid and ex-wife (?!?) to move there too, when it’s arguably well-established that said someone never attached to that different country or even the sport he was hired to coach. It’s okay to want to go home to Kansas; it’s okay to want to go home. But I’m someone who doesn’t see work as family, doesn’t link work with personal fulfilment, would not sacrifice my happiness/family/home for $24 million, and enjoys visiting other countries but sure loves her home in the boring ol’Midwest. As it is, Ted was likely already well-paid enough and seems frugal enough that more money isn’t and has never appeared to be a significant motivation. Ted’s journey rang entirely true to me.
I hadn't thought of the bolded part, but that's great.
3 hours ago, Jeddah said:I’ve been so surprised by the comments that thought Rebecca’s idea was a good one. Moving for an ex-husband’s job? That’s not a reasonable to expect someone to do. I thought Ted didn’t even consider it because it was a bad idea. How would that conversation go? “I know you didn’t even want to move here when we were actually married, but you’ll move here for me now that we’re divorced, right? My boss who knows absolutely nothing about the teaching profession thinks you can be a department head someday! What do you say?”
I’m with you in on the home thing! Some people like where they’re from. Some people like to go on big adventures, and then return home. Not being someone who quits on things doesn’t mean you can’t ever leave a job to spend time with your family.
You both said it better than I could. This is exactly my take.
-
5
-
-
26 minutes ago, iMonrey said:
I think that might be the whole problem. From the very start they may have decided Ted going home was the end-game. But by the time they got there it didn't make a whole lot of sense. They didn't really send Ted in that direction this season. Hell, they didn't really send him in any direction, he was barely there. They just sort of yada-yada'd it and focused on other characters instead. Odd choice.
For me it did still make sense, though.
But I still agree that they absolutely should've spent more time on him than on the unnecessary stuff they did spend time on.
-
4
-
Rule 32: Enjoy the Little Things
in Everything Else Movies
So Toni Collette is amazing throughout Hereditary, but I've found that my absolute favourite moment is from her dream conversation with Peter, when she suddenly says "I never wanted to be your mother". She says it so nonchalantly, almost tauntingly, and then the moment she finishes the sentence her whole face changes with the horror of what she just said out loud and she claps her hand over her mouth. I love that moment so bloody much.