Proclone
-
Posts
329 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Proclone
-
-
1 hour ago, Eeksquire said:
This! I keep trying to put my finger on what bothers me about this show so much (aside from the fact that it bears a very shallow resemblance to the source material), but I think it's that the showrunners are so focused on making sure that we LIKE Rowan, that they've totally missed the fact that she's not really likable for most of the book series AND THAT'S THE POINT. She's an antihero. Lean into that!
I think this is a problem a lot of shows have with female main characters. They don't understand there's a difference between likable and compelling. A character doesn't have to likable to be compelling (it's funny that they almost never seem to forget this with men). Nice doesn't automatically mean they aren't compelling, but a character should be compelling first and foremost. This isn't real life. I'll watch a show about a really unlikable person if they're compelling even though I would never associate with them IRL.
A smart, capable, arrogant, surgeon, who gets over her head with supernatural because she thinks she's smarter than everyone else, could be a really compelling story. But I don't think they wanted to tell a story about a woman who had power and was comfortable with it. In an attempt to make Rowan more likable or at least more palatable to a general audience they turned into a meek, whinny woman with no agency. Which to me is neither likable nor compelling.
-
6
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, TiffanyNichelle said:
Everything I hear about the show makes me want to stay far away. I was annoyed that they merged Michael and Aaron into one character because I actually preferred Michael in the book to Rowan. But I was thinking about checking out the series until I read a recap of the 3rd episode and I realized how much they strayed away from the books that I don't think I'd be able to enjoy it without constantly comparing unfavorably to the book.
I had the same issue with A Discovery of Witches that I dropped after the first season. For some reason when tv shows adapt books with strong female main characters from chapter 1, the shows like to have them grow into that instead of just presenting them fully formed the way they are in the books. I rarely see a show where the main male character has to grow and evolve over a season into the person he is from page 1, chapter 1 in a book. But with women they always have to be lead into that. I wasn't a fan of Rowan in the books but from the start she was a capable woman who knew her worth and her abilities. She was confident in her medical abilities, she could captain a boat out in the sea alone, and she loved hooking up with her blue collar men. No one leads her anywhere, she does the leading. She gets it all her trouble with Lasher because she believes she's the only one who knows how to handle him. And everything I see about the show seems to be the opposite.
But I'll keep checking the forums in case they right the ship, so to speak. Or at least focus more on the other 13 witches. Their history was my favorite part of the book.
The way they paint Rowan's liaisons with men also kind of annoy me in this. They sort of paint it an extension of her mommy issues or at least her issues with being adopted. And it seems almost compulsive behavior in the show. Just let her be a woman who likes picking up men from bars and screwing them! It's still this Madonna/whore dichotomy. If a woman is promiscuous it must be because of deep seated trauma. It can't possible be just because she likes sex. I think it's okay to show that Rowan has sex with anonymous guys as a byproduct of her disconnection from people in general. But I think it's important that the distinction is made her hesitancy to form real connections is the problem, not necessarily her sex drive (she and Michael go at like bunnies IIRC). And I don't think they needed to make it seem as pathologic as the show depicts it. If it was a male character I think they might hint that having random hookups wasn't the healthiest choice but I doubt they would have depicted it the way they showed it with Rowan. Show her confidently picking up men. Not basically begging her friend with benefits to sleep with her and then moving on to another random guy when he turns her down. She comes across as needy and desperate in that scene.
-
4
-
3
-
-
On 1/23/2023 at 9:33 PM, anoninrva said:
It's ironic that Aaron was the character who taught Michael how to control his powers, since they're the same person now. I guess it's understandable that Rowan and Ciprian haven't hooked up yet (although they have to at some point, or the entire plot is thrown out), but that felt like more of Rowan's agency in the book, and here, I'm just not sure that she has as much agency.
Also, Cortland, who still seems to be Rowan's father, still being alive seems like an interesting deviation that may not amount to anything either.
I think my biggest issue with this adaptation is how they've changed the character of Rowan. They absolutely have removed almost all her agency. In the books she made decisions, some of them were poor decisions, and some were implied to be supernaturally influenced decisions, but she made them. In this, things just seem to happen to Rowan and she reacts to them. The one decision she seems to have actually made in the show is to go to New Orleans, but shown as almost a spur of the moment thing with no reflection. Also the show Rowan seems to not want to take responsibility for anything. In the book Rowan also suspected she had the power to harm people, but kind of didn't feel bad about it. Of course there were only three people in the book she kills, a child who attacked her (when Rowan was also a child), someone who tried to rape her, and her adopted father (who was not only trying to leave her sick mom, but steal mom's money), instead of everyone who annoys at least getting a minor brain hemorrhage. Is that kind of dark and screwed up that she doesn't feel guilty, maybe, but I also think it's a way more interesting choice than having the main character run around looking like she's on the verge of a panic attack constantly. Making Rowan slightly morally grey makes her both more interesting and more compelling to watch, plus it's closer to the books in tone.
It's funny, I think were supposed to hate her boss at the hospital, but his assessment of Rowan is pretty spot on in the first episode. She does think she's the smartest person in the world, but demonstrates in a very passive aggressive way. She comes off as whiny, super passive aggressive, and kind of intitled, in her interactions with pretty much everyone. I mean did she have to be snippy to the concierge at the hotel because he didn't call her doctor? Her boss is also right that getting a job at a pharmaceutical company to get your mother into a drug trial is wildly unethical. But the way the show frames the interaction, I think it wants us to just see her boss as an asshole, when he's completely right...And really doesn't deserve to nearly die for telling Rowan the truth. Also are we to believe that Rowan made it to being a top neurosurgeon without dealing with asshole doctors, who are rude to her? Did she just accidently kill them all? Does she just leave dead bodies in her wake? I guess the show is implying that her powers have gotten stronger since Lasher was freed, but since they mention the incident when she was a child it muddies the water. Having her reflect to anyone about how she's always felt these sort of things but they feel stronger, would have made that clearer.
By in large I'm not going to blame Alexandra Daddario for how Rowan is being portrayed because it's mostly the writing and I'm sure she's being directed in certain ways as well...But I hate the baby voice she has for the character of Rowan (I haven't seen her in enough stuff to know if it's totally her own voice or it's a little bit of an affectation). She's constantly breathy and sounds like a child. I find it especially annoying since Rowan was described as having deep voice for a woman in the books. I don't expect character to necessarily look or sound like their described in the book...But it's just another thing that sort of infantilizes Rowan and makes her seem like she has less agency, on top of being a big departure from the book.
I get that The Witching Hour is super hard to adapt. Mostly because it's two separate books that are essentially interweaved together. There's Rowan and Michael's story, where they mostly pick out paint chips and fall in love and then there's The Mayfair Witches and Lasher's story. The latter is probably more interesting. I think this show would have benefited from taking a page out the first season of The Witcher in terms of how they adapted it. I don't necessarily mean being cagey about events in different storylines not being concurrent with other events as far as timeline. But I do mean willingness to tell several different stories at once and treat them equally and then show how they ultimately connect. Yes, they've been having flashbacks to Diedre and Suzanne, but they feel very much like standard flashbacks that most shows use to hint and tease. They don't feel like fully fleshed out separate stories. And I think that's they only way to adapt the book(s). Hell, the called the show The Mayfair Witches, tell the story of the Mayfair Witches.
-
7
-
-
On 1/9/2023 at 10:13 PM, Dream Boy said:
It feels a little rushed. And I'm still not sure on the need to merge Michael and Aaron.
On 1/16/2023 at 8:43 PM, anoninrva said:I really wasn't feeling the payoff today with creepy detective bit. Rowan murdering everyone she comes across is also a bit different.
I agree on both points. After 3 episodes I still don't think I like the merging of Michael and Aaron. Nor do I love Rowan nearly killing everyone that even mildly annoys her, which isn't remotely what happened in the books. In the books it's made pretty evident that Rowan can use her powers to heal or hurt people. I don't think the show is doing a particularly good job at showing the healing part. Yes, she's a good surgeon but I really don't think anyone who isn't familiar with the source material would pick up that she's using her powers as a surgeon too.
And I do think the show is rushed. I really do think a slower burn would have been better. I think it would have been much better to stay closer to the books and have Rowan (who knew she was a Mayfair in the book IIRC) find out she's inherited the Mayfair fortune and feels and feels drawn to New Orleans without really understanding why. If you want to start the show with something exciting keep Michael and Aaron as two characters and show Rowan's rescue of Michael. Which sets her up as kind of being a badass and can also establish her healing abilities (just have a paramedic comment that this guy never should have lived). Time skip a few months and have her adopted mom die and you can even have the incident with pharmaceutical guy (or leave the soapier version where she kills her adopted dad because he's leaving her sick mother). You can still cut back and forth to Diedre and then end the first episode with either Michael showing up wanting to talk to the woman that saved him or with her getting the news about the inheritance or both.
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, BloomsburyRez said:
There is no question the royal rota needs to be abolished and stop legitimizing the tabloids. It’s very understandable that any American would be confused by their relevance as it would be like the National Enquirer having a permanent spot in the White House press room and reporting on it next to their Elvis and alien stories.
That said I did bring up the comparison headlines and most are apples/oranges comparisons. Some:
Avocados - Catherine famously has a condition that causes three months of all day “morning sickness” to the point she’s needed IV treatment for dehydration. At one of his stops William was presented with an avocado tied with a ribbon bow by a little boy who said it helped his mom. I suppose William could have chucked it back at the kid and in reality there is most likely no way Catherine ate it anymore then any royal eats food handed to them by a random member of the public but William thanked the cute kid and moved on. Even if Catherine had been sending William on midnight avocado runs during her pregnancy with George it’s pretty normal to find out something ordinary from a decade ago is problematic now.
Bump - the bump mocking wasn’t the random one hand resting on the bump that every pregnant woman has done, it was referring to the odd double arm wrap bump with both arms circling. I remember seeing that photo at an award show before any kerfuffle thinking it looked very forced and awkward. I tease a good friend of mine who watches EVERY Christmas romance movie and she teases me since I loathe them but there was a trilogy about an American woman marrying a prince and they timed with the Sussex life events. The last one had the cover photo of the actress doing the weird double circle bump cradle.
Wedding scent - Catherine had Jo Malone candles as the candles around the altar and had Jo Malone hand soap and lotion in the bathrooms at the Abbey. The Meghan headline said she wanted air freshener sprayed through the chapel right before the guests entered and was told no by the people who are in charge of the chapel. Different requests at two different churches.
Wedding flower - it was noted in a fluff article the flowers Catherine used in her bouquet including lily of the valley. Meghan used the same flower but was criticized as she also used it in the flower girl headpieces and it can be toxic to small children.
Hat - there was an article about the Queen, Camilla, and Catherine opening a jubilee tearoom in 2012 and she is not wearing a hat (but that’s not the focus of the story and is neither praised or blasted since they are dining indoors. Camilla is also not wearing a hat). At the appearance Meghan and the Queen did she was asked in advance to wear a hat as a sign of respect since at the end of the ceremony they were doing the silence for the Grenfell victims. The other women are wearing hats Meghan is not.
There are more but if you do run these side by side it does look incredibly picky unless you actually read the articles and see that they are about different circumstances.
No, even with context they still seem incredibly nitpicky to me. I don't understand the avocado thing at all, it's such a bizarre thing to write a story about. Meghan Markle is not the only person who has ever eaten avocado toast. Also apparently Charles insists on having 3 minuet eggs the second he gets back from hunting, so the staff start making batches when he's scheduled to arrive back but throw them out if he's late and just keep making them until he arrives...So how about a story about HRM Chuckles food waste?
No one should ever comment on how a pregnant women likes to stand or touch her own belly. Maybe her belly was uncomfortable and the pressure of two arms made her feel better. Maybe it's no one's business how she stands. It's ridiculous.
She made a request and it was decline...so what? I've been in old churches they are in fact musty.
Is there any indication anyone told her Lilly of the Valley was toxic to kids? The florist should have told her. Also a quick google search will show Lilly of the Valley was used at Kate and William and Charles and Camilla's wedding as well. Kids can grab flowers out of arraignments just as easily as they can pull them off their heads and stick them in their mouths. Also apparent Lilly of the Valley was used as nod to Diane, it was her favorite flower, so we might be blaming her for something Harry wanted. So blame the entire Royal family for endangering children or not, but don't single out Meghan.
Maybe it's because I'm American, but I cannot fathom what is disrespectful to the Grenfell victims about not wearing a hat. The woman raised money for them. Who cares if wore a hat. It all has shades of Obama wearing the tan suit thing. Just a load of BS to distract from actual issues. I imagine she got a talking to by the Queen if it really pissed her off that much. But it's not worthy of a news story.
It's fairly obvious Meghan suffered unfair amount of scrutiny that is no doubt based on her race. And if she did all the "horrible" things the press accused of her of...who care? They're all nothing. The worst thing she's been accused of is being rude to staffers and not being pleasant to work for. And considering we watched King Charles hiss at someone because his pen was out of place, I somehow doubt most of the BRF are joys to work for.
And quite frankly I feel like implying that things like the avocado thing had merit, is completely missing the point of the series. Do I think Harry and Meghan are angels who have never done anything wrong a day in their life? Of course not. But the level of media coverage surrounding the Royal Family is absurd and it was turn up to eleven and made all the more vicious because Meghan is mixed race. That's the point.
-
18
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Notabug said:
One of the main issues I have with the documentary is that Harry and Meghan, while presenting their grievances, essentially ignore anything that might've been positive in the experience. I find it hard to believe that there was never a single moment when his father or brother offered support or kindness to them, that every single person working within the monarchy was bent on destroying them and, especially hurting Meghan. Their story would've been a lot more compelling if they'd made any effort at balance. Sort of like Harry's take on his mother's death; the blame is completely laid on a third party. Their narrative lacks perspective and it hurts their credibility. They're both adults, they both have advocated for mental health and therapy; but, yet, they seemingly think that everyone but them has ulterior motives which shows a lack of emotional maturity on their parts, IMO.
It's funny I didn't get the impression that they had no positive experiences or that the entirety of the Royal Family was awful to Meghan at all times. They actually say very little about how the individuals within the Family treated her and when Meghan does talk about the members as individuals what she says is largely positive. Also the first couple episodes were all about how things were going well, by in large, until they just weren't.
She speaks positively about her time with the Queen. She called Charles charming. The worst thing she explicitly said about William and Kate was they weren't huggers. Which I didn't see so much as an insult as just pointing out a difference between them and herself.
About the worst thing she says about any of them as individuals is when she says to Harry like, "He's your brother...I'm not going to say anything about your brother..." When it seems obvious she would very much like to say something nasty, but doesn't.
But overall I very much took away that Harry and Meghan have serious problems with the Institution that is the Royal Family. They seem more sad than anything that they can't separate their relationship with Harry's family from the relationship to the Institution. Also it's probably not even clear to them if members of the family like Charles and William are actively giving directions to the coms teams to leak certain things or they are just turning a blind eye to it. It's easy to forget as much as Elizabeth was, and Charles now is, the monarch they were managed quite a bit by staff and PR people. The BRF is a business, and those men in grey suits Diane talked about handle a lot of it. I'm sure if someone high ranking in the family put their foot down about certain things being leaked it would stop, but it's probably unclear just how much plausible deniability they use by letting their staff handle the dirty bits mostly automatously.
But saying that Meghan never says anything positive about any members of the Family seems like one of those exaggerations you see so commonly about her. It seems like people just want to twist everything she says. Honestly she seems to speak more diplomatically about her in-laws than I would if I were in her shoes.
-
17
-
2
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:
I'm not sure how you're using the term "outranked", because in terms of the line of succession to the throne, his niece and nephews have always outranked him.
There is a very specific protocol about who takes precedence depending on their rank, when it come to who get's to walk into rooms first and stuff like that, that doesn't really have anything to do with the order of succession. It more has to do with how closely you (or your spouse) is related to the Monarch. Harry is still the son of the Monarch. I believe that means he "outranks" or is given precedence over his nephews and niece. When William becomes king that will change.
I believe the current order of Precedence is Charles (obviously), Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Meghan and then William's kids, then Charles's brothers.
If you watch the Crown, there's a scene where Margaret goes to walk into a room ahead of Phillip just after her farther died and her own mother stops her, because Phillip "outranks" her now that he is the spouse of the Monarch. But prior to her father's death Margaret would have outranked him because she was the daughter of the King and would have walked into the room before him. It's slightly more complicated in that case because it had never been established that men got their wife's precedence when marrying but special patent had to be issued establishing where they are in the order of precedence.
-
4 minutes ago, EarlGreyTea said:
Agreed. Back in the early days of Diana's first pregnancy, the queen actually stepped in and invited the royal rota for tea, asking them to back off. They did for a while. Something like that to alleviate the press attacks, even for a while, would probably have done wonders for Meghan's mental health.
I just don't understand. One word from ANY of the family about the racist attacks would have gone a long way. It is SUCH a bad look to have the one POC member of the family being constantly attacked to the point of leaving the country entirely, all while you're calling yourselves the head of the Commonwealth. Is it any wonder that more and more countries have expressed interest in leaving?
The BRF blew it so hard. All they had to do was make a show of welcoming Meghan, sending her and Harry to do work in the Commonwealth, and they would have gotten kudos for doing the bare minimum.
I agree that they seriously blew it. I get that the policy has generally been, don't complain, don't explain. But obviously it didn't work well in this case. And it may not be explaining but it's sure sneaky and underhanded to trade stories with really unethical members of the press. The Daily Mail has absolutely broken laws (and not just in stories about the BRF), the fact that the Firm lets any of their reporters or photographers within a mile radius of the royal family is ridiculous. Yes, freedom of the press, but there's a difference in putting someone in jail for what they write and giving them access to people especially at private events. If Kensington Place consistently put out statements, we support the Duchess of Sussex and we abhor the statements about her that seem to have racist undertones, it would have made huge leaps in making POC in Britain and all of the Commonwealth Nations feel like the Royals actually maybe cared about them. I mean the Queen (now King) is the head of State. Saying racism is bad shouldn't controversial statement for them to make.
-
11
-
-
10 hours ago, sadie said:
I guess I don’t understand what Harry thought the palace could do. Yes I suppose they could have sent out a notice to the press “stop being racist” but I’m guessing it wouldn’t have stopped. Then what? What the press was doing was horrible, but how many of us live perfect lives with no cross to bear? No one.
Eject anyone who posts a story with racist undertones from the Royal Rota would have been a good start. Stop giving access to papers that do illegal things to get stories. I'm not 100% sure if it's in this episode by Harry mentions that he was essentially told everyone goes through the press scrutiny, but it doesn't make it right. And he's right. Just because Diane was hounded and Fergie was called the Duchess of Pork, doesn't mean Meghan should just accept nasty things about her in the press. I think he wants the Institution to stop trading stories for their own overall gain. And stop supporting the feeding frenzy of reporters that surround the Royal family. I see the argument that because they receive tax payers money (which actually isn't really true anymore anyway) that the public deserves access to them. But the level of access is unbelievable. No you can't stop the press completely but I think he wants his family to at least not be complicit in it.
-
18
-
-
On 12/15/2022 at 3:55 PM, MsMalin said:
I got the impression after watching this episode that Charles was nothing but kind and accepting. He even put together the gospel choir. Seems to me that is not something a racist would do.
I actually don't think that most of the Royal family is explicitly racist. I doubt even ones that are clueless like Princess Michael of Kent, are evil people who think slavery should be back or similar really dark racism. I think Charles probably genuine liked Meghan and was happy his son was happy. That being said, I think they are a group of stuffy white people that have never examined their own biases, especially the older ones, but even Harry admits he didn't so it's probably similar for William. I also think Charles priority is the Institution, even if that's at the expense of his son or his son's wife. So having a Gospel choir was probably seen as good PR as showing the BRF isn't so stuffy, and so Charles was happy to help with it. But when Meghan was no longer helping the Institution as a whole or could be used to help by throwing her under the bus, he was equally willing to do that. I think people forget it is a business, a family business but a business none the less. The really damaging part is the thing they're selling is themselves.
But is the BRF cross burning racists, no by in large not. That doesn't mean that they weren't whole unhelpful in combating the racism Meghan faced and even exploited it for their own ends in some cases.
-
9
-
-
On 12/15/2022 at 4:18 AM, Kiddvideo said:
Megan said it was Portland hospital’s fault that they couldn’t do a photo call when Archie was born, but Fergie had her girls there and she managed it.
She didn't say that at all. She said the Firm told her it couldn't be done because it would block the ED entrance. It's entirely possible that the hospital has had renovations in the last 30 plus years since Fergie had the girls and now the ED entrance is the only one they could use. Also Meghan pointed out she was an older mom and might have needed a c-section. I don't blame her for not wanting to do a photo op after that.
She shouldn't be expected to change doctors or hospitals for a photo op. Hell, IMO no one has a right a picture of the baby at any point. The whole show the baby to the media before they even get to go home and is actually pretty gross IMO. Why can't we just let a family who had a new baby enjoy their baby for a couple days? Why does a woman who probably doesn't feel great be forced to parade around with her baby shortly after giving birth? It's weird. I feel the same way when people get so bent out of shape about celebrities not sharing baby pics right away. The public doesn't have a right to images of the baby.
-
11
-
5
-
-
On 12/12/2022 at 7:47 AM, Roseanna said:
Harry spoke about *men* in his family marry women who would fit their future role in the royal family rather than choosing a life companion according to their own taste. That could be a descripton only about his parents, so why did he spoke about "men"?
The simple answer might be, because he still loves his dad and isn't quite ready to so openly call him out in public. It's one thing that everyone knows it, it's another to say it about your dad out loud. Also even if you know it's true, it probably hurts to say, "My dad never loved my mum and only married because she'd look good as the Queen."
Also that description is true about men in general in the family historically, even if isn't accurate to the last generation or so. Edward VII cheated on Alexandria (one of his mistresses was Camilla's great-grandmother). It seems mostly a happy accident that George V and Victoria Mary of Teck loved each other (she was engaged to his brother first), but they probably would have been married regardless of if they liked each other or not. The same happy accident can be said of Elizabeth's parents. George VI did have more freedom to in his choice of wife because he wasn't supposed to be king, but even then Elizabeth (the Queen Mum) turned him down twice because she didn't think she fit the mold of being in the BRF. There's also been persistent rumors Philip cheated. I believe he probably loved Elizabeth but I also believe he liked the idea of one of his children being the ruler of Britain when he married her. Charles absolutely married Diane because she fit the mold, there's no debate about that. And William might love Kate, but it still seems like he specifically chose her to marry because she would do well in the role of Queen. Which you can see as a kindness or you can see as being very calculated, or both.
To be honest I agree with John Oliver in that the BRF are silly people with silly made up jobs. So the idea that they might be sublimating their own happiness for a sense of "duty" seems equally absurd to me. And quite frankly I also find people who get super emotionally involved with the family to be equally absurd. I can't fathom why people care so much about them all for an accident of birth and are so invested in who they marry as to have a strong opinion. I also didn't really care about Meghan and Harry outside of them shining a light on how racism played a huge part in how Meghan was torn apart in the press. And quite frankly the extreme level of nitpicking of everything that comes out of their (especially Meghan's) mouth only seems to highlight how the press portrayed has crept in to average people's opinions of her. Does it really matter if she Googled Harry or not? I doubt if she was anyone else people who be fact checking that offhand comment against different interviews to see if it's consistent. She is routinely coded as an angry black woman who is pushy and somehow has stolen Harry away from his family. As if he is not an adult man who is perfectly capable of making his own choices. It's both racism and misogyny rolled up into one. And watching play out has been very disturbing to me.
I have no idea what Meghan's true character is. She might be lovely. She might be unpleasant. She probably somewhere in-between like most of us. She seems like she wants to do good in the world through charities. And you might take the unkind position that she's doing that for notoriety (I don't think the BRF are doing any charity completely out the goodness of their hearts either). But I honestly don't care if she does manage to do good things.
-
10
-
3
-
3
-
-
On 10/24/2022 at 9:07 PM, Armchair Critic said:
Starting episode 2... I think from now on I will skip the intro music, that loud aaaaah during it made my cat look. 😅
Do you think Keith kept his sexual hijinks away from Nancy so she was oblivious? Or did she know what he was doing but overlooked it because she believed in their cause?
I can see how she is convincing, I want to believe she really meant well but then I remember that she is a master at manipulating people's minds.
Wasn't it actually Nippy's wife Sarah who was part of the secret group and was blackmailing them with their "collateral"? I think Mark and Sarah were sweating it because they were worried about how much they were complicit was going to come out.
Maybe Nancy should be blaming her daughter Lauren too because she was the leader of the women's secret cult. Also she was sleeping with Keith.
I think Nancy liked the money. I think she overlooked what he was doing because she was making a lot of it. You notice she still pissed at Sarah for refunding people's money. Which as a side note, I don't remember them mentioning that before and it makes me like Sarah way more. I don't think for one second Nancy actually thinks she was truly helping people. She knew she was involved in a pyramid scheme. I also don't think she was unaware of Keith's sexual proclivities. I think it's possible she wasn't aware of DOS, in that it was organized thing, but I don't for one second believe that she didn't know that Keith was manipulating vulnerable women into sleeping with him. I imagine she turned a blind eye to it, or just chalked it up to price for making obscene amounts of money.
The fact is that she's upset that Keith's "thing" DOS effected her company (or more accurately her money) and doesn't seem at all horrified that she was even tangentially connected to something that involved the systematic abuse and branding of women, speaks volumes. She wonders why the 17,000 people she's "helped" aren't standing up for her...It's because normal people don't stand up for organizations that are connected to sex crimes. Even if someone did gain something from one of the classes they took, it doesn't outweigh the harm Keith has done. And normal people realize that. She's just as bad as Keith. If not in some ways worse.
I think she's a little bit right in saying Keith is the way he is. Keith is obviously a psychopath and a predator. I also think he believes most crap he says. Nancy I'm not so sure has actually drank the Kool-Aid. I think she's smart enough and to realize it's bullshit, she just likes the money. The fact that's she doesn't seem horrified her daughter was in a sex cult that left her branded with Keith's initials says a lot to me.
I'll also fully admit that I have a pretty visceral reaction to Nancy because I'm a nurse and the idea that she took actual therapeutic techniques she learned as a nurse and was using them to manipulate people into spending thousands of dollars on BS seriously rubs me the wrong way.
-
4
-
3
-
6
-
-
12 hours ago, Black Knight said:
@Proclone, for the show, Michael and Aaron have been combined to form the character Ciprien.
That seems like an odd choice, to me. It seemed sort of integral to his story that Michael was an average guy with no connection to the supernatural before the accident that gave him psychometry. Making him a member of the Talamasca seems to negate that, even him they have him become a member after the near drowning. I'm probably biased because I remember really liking Michael's character in the books (and for that matter, Aaron's). And I'm not sure I want to see it completely changed. But I remarkably happy not to see Mona Mayfair's name listed either. I don't think I've ever disliked a book character more.
Like I said, I'm kind of torn about this. On the one hand I love The Witching Hour, on the other the sequels are hot garbage and the nature of story makes it hard to keep the plot of The Witching Hour in place while getting rid of said garbage (Rice somehow wrote and excellent book that did an excellent job setting the plots of two horrible books in motion). So on the one hand, I would love to see and pretty faithful adaptation of the first book, but on the other I realize if they're going to fix the rest of the story they are going to have to make some serious changes.
I've like what AMC has done with Interview with the Vampire so far, so I'm willing to give this a chance, even if I'm a little hesitant.
-
2
-
4
-
-
On 10/3/2022 at 1:40 PM, Linda956 said:
I read Interview With A Vampire when it first came out and have read all the subsequent Vampire Lestat novels by Anne Rice (as well as The Mayfair Witches series). I'm a huge fan, but this bears no resemblance to the book other than the names of the characters and the fact that Louis is giving an interview. The setting and time period has changed, Louis is black and not a plantation owner with slaves. Claudia is older, etc.. They have yet to portray Lestat as Anne Rice described him in an interview once ("around six feet tall, white blonde hair and androgynous looking - like David Bowie during his Ziggy Stardust period"). If I just watched this as another vampire series, I would have to say that I'm enjoying it very much, but I simply cannot identify it with the books or the characters in the books at all. This has been renewed for a second season already, but Louis is only really the main character in the first book. After that, all the stories are about Lestat. We also know Claudia's fate after the first book so how long can they drag out the story with these 3 characters? I would like to see them tackle each book with a new season, as the books do end up in modern day and they always flash back to what happened previously. But how much are they going change each successive book? I will continue to watch and enjoy this series, but not as Interview With A Vampire, just "A new Vampire series".
I respectfully disagree. Despite changing the time period, and making Louis black, I actually think this is much closer to the spirit of the book than the movie was. The show so far has been much more faithful to Louis backstory. The movie cut his brother and Paul's mental health issues. And I think both Louis and Lestat are in keeping with their characters from the book. If anything so far I like Louis better...In the show he doesn't have the whiny quality that he did in the book. I think both the actors for Louis and Lestat are doing a good job so far.
I also can't fault them for making Claudia older. The film did this too, as Claudia was five in the book and eleven in the movie. You just can't realistically use a child that young in a production for a bunch of different issues. Mostly you won't get the performance you want. You can't get a young child to act like an adult woman. Dunst did as good a job as you could possible expect, but I don't mind the show casting someone older who looks young if it means a good performance (and not scarring any children).
Don't get wrong, I actually really like the movie, but I think the series is ultimately going to do a better job telling the story closer to Rice's original tale. We've already gotten hints that they'll explore Lestat's relationships with his mother and Nikki. It's embracing how queer the books were, while the movie could only make it subtext. The show has more time to explore the really rich world Rice created.
-
9
-
-
The Witching Hour was my favorite book as a teen. But I hated Lasher and especially Taltos (and I stopped reading Rice before later books with the Mayfairs so I can't say how I feel about them) so I'm okay with the series diverging from the books...That being said, this seems like it's going to be pretty far from the books and I'm not sure how I feel about it. It looks like there is no Michael character (at least no one is listed as playing him), which seems like an odd choice. In many ways Michael was as much or even more so the main character than Rowan was. And a fairly normal guy driven crazy by his psychic abilities until he turns towards alcoholism seems like something TV writers would love to write. So the decision not to include him, seems odd. It also seems odd there is no Julien Mayfair, since he was the only male Mayfair with powers and Rowan is his descendent...along with other important characters (I'll keep it vague to avoid possible spoilers). This seems like it's just keeping the basic premise of a family of witches haunted by an entity rather than really being the story from the books. Which once again considering how awful and off putting Lasher and Taltos were, might actually be a good thing. But I still think I'm going to miss the characters I really loved, like Michael from The Witching Hour.
-
5
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
32 minutes ago, Hiyo said:Given that despite being a washed up bloated has-been of an addict, Depp is considered by most people to be the better actor between the two of them.
Just saying.
Exactly. Heard isn't a perfect victim. She's probably a deeply unpleasant toxic person, that doesn't hide particularly well...and none of that precludes her from being abused.
If you subscribe to the idea that it is possible for couples to be mutually abusive then at the least you could say that's what occurred.
If you don't believe mutual abuse is possible (which is the position many specialists in DV take) and that only one partner is the victim and anything they do to the other partner is simply reactive...then I would say it's likely Depp was the abuser in the relationship.
Abuse not only involves violence but a power differential. It seems unlikely that give the disparity in age, wealth and fame, that Heard was ever the one with the upper hand in the relationship. Couple that with Depp's history of being at least emotionally abusive with his exs...it's not exactly hard to believe his behavior escalated with Heard. Also the very fact he keeps bringing lawsuits that force her into court (even if the UK didn't name her as a plaintiff, it forced her to appear) seems like a way to further control her.
He can never have struck a previous partner and still have abused Heard. He can be a charismatic, generous man with friends and fans and still have abused her.
She can be a deeply unpleasant person and still be abused. She can have mental health issues and still have been abused.
Just because she might not be as likable doesn't mean she's not a victim or that she should be vilified the way she's being.
-
3
-
50
-
3 hours ago, tennisgurl said:
I have mixed feelings about this one honestly, I might need to watch it again. There was a lot that I really enjoyed here and a lot that I feel could have been better, and some of that might have been my high standards and for MCU properties so it could be unfair for me to put high expectation on this, but I left wishing that this was better. Probably not helped by the last super hyped Marvel multiverse movie, the recent Spider-Man, which not only lived up to my expectation, it exceeded them.
I read that Sam Raimi never watched WandaVision and it really shows. Not only is it weird that Wanda only mentions Vision once or twice and never bothers to look for a universe where the two of them are raising the boys, just focusing on her kids, but they basically had the same plot, just less interesting here. I can accept Wanda as the movies main villain, even if I don't really like it, but it felt like she just totally forgot the lesson she learned by the end of WandaVision, that she cant let her grief and trauma rule her, and I just don't buy Wanda doing the things that she did. Sure the Darkhold was influencing her, but she was still trying to murder a child, killed tons of people defending said child, and was willing to kill an innocent version of even herself for selfish versions. I just don't see Wanda, who was heartbroken about killing people by accident in Civil War and only hurt people in Westview more or less by accident, would suddenly become this murderous horror movie monster. This is a fear that I had as soon as I heard Raimi was directing, his strengths are mixing camp with horror in interesting ways, but he has always struggled with characterization. Even in Spider-Man, a series that I truly enjoy, the characterization for Peter and MJ were some of its weakest points, especially in the first and third instalments. Whereas one of the MCU's greatest strengths has always been its strong character work, and Wanda is one of their most complex characters, so with Raimi at the helm he sort of put her more interesting characterization and development and reduced her to one of his campy supervillains until the end, which is really a shame. From what I have read it sounds like Elizabeth Olsen is open to playing Wanda again, and I really hope she does. She did at least finally realize the gravity of what she did at the end and sacrificed herself to end the madness, but I would like to see her emerge as a hero again. Although after that movie and everything she did, its going to be hard going forward with her as a hero, she would have a lot to make up for.
The performances were excellent across the board, but Elizabeth Olsen was the clear standout. Whatever issues I have with the writing for Wanda, her performance was amazing, she is an absolute superstar. Her expression as she saw versions of her boys screaming in terror of her, where you can see what she has done really hitting her, was absolutely brutal, you could see it all washing over her in just her eyes. A lot of the weakness in her writing really was helped by her performance, going from terrifying to heartbreaking.
While there really was a lot to like here, it left this feeling let down. I wanted this to be so much more than it was, and while I certainly liked a lot of it and admired some of the risks it took, this is going to end up lower down my list of MCU films. Certainly not the very bottom by Iron Man 2 or Thor 2, but its certainly not going to be near the top the way I wanted it to be. I just need to chew on it.
I agree with all of this. And I'm not surprised to hear Raimi didn't watch WandaVision. This movie felt like those in charge had only read a summary of the series and not actually seen it.
I don't want to make the MCU something way deeper than it actually is. It's not Shakespeare, but then again in his day Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare either. He was entertainment for the masses too. Being entertainment for the masses doesn't mean it's not saying something (which is why often resent snooty people in the film industry automatically dismissing the MCU or other superhero movies, not all of them are good, but they aren't mutually exclusive with good or meaningful).
In any case, as someone who's experienced probably more than their fair share of grief, I found WandaVision to be a fairly moving treatise on the nature of grief. How it often effects and even hurts those around us. How it makes us retreat from the world. How it often causes us to over romanticize the ones we've lost..."What is grief, if not love preserving?" Is a pretty epic line. The show is about how it's okay to grieve, you just have to try and find healthy ways of doing. I thought WandaVision was the perfect example of why I like, scifi, fantasy and superhero movies. It took and experience that most people have, grief, and used the tropes of genre to explore that experience in a heightened way. And strangely enough that heightened reality allows people to see their own experiences with something like grief in Wanda's experience...even though I hope no one out there is enslaving any towns.
At this point there's a lot of material in the MCU. I'm not saying every filmmaker that's involved going forward should have to watch every single thing the MCU puts out. But I think when you plan to make a certain character your villain and they already have a series about them, you should be required to watch that. Then maybe you'd realize the motivations you're giving them have been explored over that series and that you're just going to do a crappy abridged version of the arc they already had...which might leave those that have seen the show frustrated that they had to watch the character learn the same lesson twice...Then maybe you can tweak the storyline to make it much more stratifying for viewers...
-
16
-
-
2 minutes ago, Hiyo said:
That tracks with how it has been presented in the comics, so I am ok with that.
I'm not a comic reader, so I can't really speak to that. But from a thematic and character point of view in the MCU it's poor storytelling. It's not great storytelling to have a character learn certain lessons and then conveniently unlearn everything just because of a McGuffin. We spent an entire series watching Wanda learn to deal with her grief. To learn she can't just create (or steal) a family...But in this, that's exactly what she's trying to do. Have the Darkhold corrupt her in some other way, if you need her to be the villain of this. Don't just say to the audience that time you spent watching Wanda grieve and learn to move on was a ultimately pointless.
-
1
-
11
-
-
I just got back from seeing this and I kind of disappointed. In a vacuum, I'd probably like it. I know other people weren't really a fan, but I didn't mind Dr. Strange as a horror movie. I actually like that several Marvel movies are other genres as well as being superhero movies. And overall I felt like the performances were strong.
What I really didn't like about it, was what they did to Wanda. It seems like the film ignores pretty much all her character growth...Especially in light of the events of WandaVision. In the series, she learned how much she was letting her grief hurt those around her and she seemed to make some level of peace in letting Vision, Billy and Tommy go. This movie just ignores all that (despite referencing the events of the show), and makes her willing to murder to get to the boys back. I also thought it was strange (no pun intended) that Vision wasn't really mentioned in all this. There has to be a universe with Billy, Tommy and Vision all together, right? I mean the obvious answer is they couldn't get or didn't want to use Paul Bettany for some reason, but his absence on screen and more importantly as a lack of motive for Wanda seemed to make little sense, since she enslaved a town over her grief for him.
The character of Wanda that we've been presented to over all these movies, does not strike me as someone who's willing to murder in cold blood, especially not murder a teenage girl who has powers she can't control and who Wanda might see herself in, for purely selfish reasons. It was even a plot point in WandaVision that she wasn't really aware of all the pain she was causing. And she did let the townspeople go when she realized it. Hell, Strange himself, points this out in the movie.
It's kind of character assignation to make her the straight up villain, even if they did keep her sympathetic. And frankly it's just poor writing. Character arcs should arc, having characters constantly revert or backslide and forget all the lessons they've learned, isn't particularly satisfying. And the funny thing is, they could have kept Wanda as the villain without it. The easiest way was to continue from the after credits of WandaVision. They show Wanda hear the boys cry for help. I can't see Wanda murdering a girl simply to make herself feel better, but to protect her children, yeah I can see Wanda doing what she did in the film. Just make it explicit that she trying to find the Billy and Tommy that were crying out for her, that she thinks are serious danger. That makes her way more sympathetic. She's not a villain who willing to sacrifice people for her own gain, she's a misguided mother out to protect her kids.
They also simply could have made this a Wanda from another universe. One that experienced Billy and Tommy but didn't learn the lessons of Westview. Perhaps this one didn't even have a Vision or something else happened to him (perhaps he's hiding the children from her) and that's why she's not gung-ho about being with him too. Simply have America accidently bring this other Wanda into our universe.
I don't follow entertainment news enough to know if this was the end of Olsen's contract with Marvel. If it was, I'm very disappointed with how they chose to end the character. Even if it's not her last appearance as Wanda or the Scarlett Witch, I'm disappointed in what they chose to do with the character and how they chose to ignore her emotional growth.
-
1
-
1
-
17
-
-
22 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:
So much this! I noticed this as well--Miranda stopped drinking and immediately adopted another addiction, Che. But the show never explored that Che was her new addiction. And Che was themselves an addict of weed. (JFC, the connnnstannnnt talk of weed.) This absolutely could and should have been explored but, of course, wasn't.
My biggest issue with the show is that they didn't explore anything. About the only storyline that wasn't given short shrift was Carrie's...and while the show has always centered around her, don't bring up other storylines if you're not planning on doing them justice.
They never explored what it meant for Miranda to explore her sexuality. I take umbrage at the comments (not here but in other places) about how since Miranda kissed one woman thirty years ago and wasn't into it; she can't possibly be attracted to anyone who isn't a man...That's absurd and quite frankly damaging. For some people, sexuality is fluid. It can't be changed by external forces (no praying the gay away), but it can evolve. Also, it's possible to be that deep in the closet that you don't understand your sexuality.
I'm not saying every story about queer people coming to terms with their sexuality has to be this angsty torturous thing...but a little introspection about it would have been lovely. Miranda doesn't even think about her attraction to Che and what it means about her; she acts on it. This might work for some characters, but not Miranda Hobbs, who thought about everything.
Also, making Miranda the least bit reflective would allow them to explore how poorly queer characters were treated in the original show. Maybe have Miranda acknowledge how nasty and judgmental she was when Samantha dated a woman. Perhaps explore how that could have been related to Miranda's own internalized homophobia. That's certainly something I struggled with and caused me to do and say some unsavory things before I accepted my sexuality (which I still struggle with). I know others that have worked with similar issues.
I also don't love how Rock's storyline was handled. It seems in character for Charlotte to make Rock's coming out as well Rock (they seemed to indicate that they don't identify as nonbinary in the last episode) as all about her. And like I said, the show is always going to center on the original characters. But we did get a pretty extensive exploration of Nya's infertility...and some of that time could have been used to explore Rock and what they thought and felt about everything. This also would have allowed for a more nuanced refusal of the ''They-Mitzvah''. Perhaps have them try to talk to their parents about their hesitancy but be shut down, leading to the outright rejection. As it was written, it made them seem lazy and unprepared and then a brat for refusing. But they could have gone deeper and explored what it means to become an adult in a religious tradition that's steeped in gender roles when you don't identify with a gender...They also could have used Rabbi Jen to talk about this with Rock and maybe share her own experiences. I wouldn't be surprised if she were forced to have a Bar Mitzvah and how that shaped her view of religion.
I also would have loved it if anyone at any point acknowledged how lucky Rock was. The parents at their school immediately use their preferred names and pronouns. The school supports them as well. They don't seem to be bullied or harassed. Sure we should strive for this to happen for every kid...but some acknowledgment that it often doesn't would be nice. Not necessarily by Rock; they are 13 and don't know another world. But by Charlotte, having her come to realize her kid is lucky would be nice.
This could have been accomplished by having Charlotte talk to Che. It would bring Che more into the plot instead of being only connected to Miranda and slightly to Carrie. It also allowed us to get more backstory and make them more a three-dimensional character.
The only times I liked Che was when they were talking about their history. Talking about their father (I believe), thinking the doctor called them a dyke. Joking about coming out to their family, and none of them caring. Including more of their story could have both opened the eyes of the other character to what it means to be nonbinary, bisexual, and poly and made the character more likable.
I might be the only one, but I did think that Che's Netflix special was funny, like the real experience of preparing to come out...only to have no one have a strong reaction. I also liked them talking about tokenism and the one trans or queer character in the background by themselves...It was also a little on the nose. And this whole show seems to be an attempt by the writers to jump up and down and wave, ''We're not doing that, we're not doing that.'' And I will give them some credit for including more POC and queer characters than were ever in the original. But they're not, for the most part writing them well. And I might be a minority, but if you're not going to do justice to these characters' storylines, then I prefer you do not do it at all.
I also think that writers have a responsibility to think about the kind of representation they are putting out there. I'm not saying that every queer or trans character has to be perfect or have no flaws. But they wrote Che as polarizing. They had to know that some people would react badly to the character. And since there aren't a lot of nonbinary characters on TV and I think it's essential to think out how they are portrayed. Because for many people, media is the only way they encounter people very different from themselves. And when these people only see nonbinary people as brash pot-smoking, not particularly funny comedians, who are okay finger banging an acquaintance in their coworker's kitchen...I'm just saying it doesn't put nonbinary people in the best light. They for the record could have made Nya NB if they wanted to have Miranda with someone who didn't identify as a woman. I know a NB college professor around her age. Showing a realistic portrayal of an intelligent successful NB person, would have been good representation. Instead we leaned into every stereotype of older people's thinking of what younger queer people are like (ignoring that Sara isn't actually that young).
I think the show was trying, but it seems evident that they didn't have anyone who had lived these experiences writing them....or at least they weren't listening to them...To paraphrase Charlotte, You're not progressive enough for this, Show.
-
13
-
-
12 hours ago, iMonrey said:
Yikes this whole series has felt like a vanity project for both Cynthia Nixon and Sara Ramirez, but this episode especially for the latter. The "stand up" was bad enough, but the singing?
I'm sorry I know this isn't woke but I don't think I will ever get used to using "they" as a pronoun for an individual. I'm far from transphobic but I'm a stickler for grammar and "they" and "them" are plural. I'm not a fan of changing the meaning of words. If "he" or "she" are not appropriate then we need to come up with a brand new pronoun, not re-define an existing one.
Now get offa my lawn.
Do you use thou instead of you? Technically you is plural. And singular they/them has been in use for about the same time you has been used as singular. Most people use they/them for people of unknown gender all the time...it's not a big leap to use it for people who don't identify as one of the binary genders.
For the record I'm not trying to be snarky, but it's a common misconception that singular they/them is grammatically incorrect when it isn't and even if it was once...language evolves.
That being said, this show has done absolutely no favors, for the nonbinary, trans, or queer community imo. And I say that as someone who would be considered pretty freaking "woke."
I'm a queer woman and I did watch SATC when I was younger (long before I was out) and I always identified mostly with Miranda, in hindsight I think because she was queer coded. So I'm not opposed to a storyline of her exploring or coming to terms with her sexuality. But I am also sick and tired of plots involving queer woman discovering their sexuality by cheating on male partners. It's a pervasive trope, and I really think it needs to stop. Cheating isn't ok just because you're exploring your sexuality. I'd be fine with Miranda's story if her and Steve were divorced prior to it's start or she and Steve has already agreed to an open marriage because they decided they loved each other but weren't sexually attracted to each other anymore. In fact I think that would have actually been a progressive storyline.
I don't particularly hate Che...Honestly we didn't learn enough about them for me to have any strong feelings. They seem to be a walking cliche. A parody of what boomers think millennials are like. Actually most of the "progressive" storylines seemed like this to me. It's what the least woke people on the planet think wokeness is. I'd super love to see a fleshed out NB character, but Che wasn't it.
I also take issue with the segway between Miranda's drinking and her relationship with Che. It made it seem like she was replacing one addiction with another. Which is super common but I don't think that's what the show wants us to think happened. I also didn’t like that the problem drinking was completely unmentioned after that comment about drinking nonalcoholic cider. They pretended that Miranda just stopped drinking without issues. Having her struggle with sobriety would have been interesting. Heck having either Che being sober as well could have been something to have them bond over...or having Che's drug use and frequenting places with alcohol be a source of conflict in their relationship could have both been interesting stories to tell.
All the storylines seemed very superficial in this, with really no stakes. And while I would have loved to see a continuation of SATC that corrected some of the issues with the original, namely the lack of diversity, and issues with how queer characters were treated (bi erasure, transphobia etc), this seemed to do it in the most lazy ham fisted way possible.
-
16
-
-
3 hours ago, NotMySekrit2Tell said:
Well, the women who actually had the experiences and brought the suit did not. It was a harassment and breach-of-contract suit, and much of the harassment was from other people on the set...which it is fair to hold Affleck culpable for, as he was the director.
As it was brought up in context of being analogous to the rape storyline of The Last Duel, I'm just cautioning against escalating terms.
To give another example, I was very disappointed a few years ago to learn of Morgan Freeman's actions toward a number of women who worked with or for him (unwanted touching, inappropriate remarks, lifting up a woman's skirt and asking if she had underwear on). I was/am a fan of his acting, but I believe the women. I also thought Freeman's damage-control statement was awful, and Visa was right to give him the boot as their spokesperson. But I'm not going to claim everyone who still watches The Shawshank Redemption is supporting an actor who "sexually assaulted at least 16 women," because that would be exaggeration.
No, saying he assaulted 16 women would be accurate...if you touch someone without their consent, you are assaulting them...in some jurisdictions verbal abuse can count as assault. But that's sort of besides the point. If you can separate art from the artist that's fine. I can do it in general when I don't feel like I'm rewarding the artist. Watching reruns of Shawshank isn't probably netting Morgan that much. But I wouldn't support new works by him.
But cast in this film (about sexual assault) are two men who are infamous for working with not only the most notorious sexual abuser in Hollywood (Weinstein), but also supported, very prominently, Casey during his Oscar run , after allegations of...use whatever term you want...surfaced.
I'm sorry but that leaves a super sour taste in my mouth about this movie.
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, NotMySekrit2Tell said:
Neither of the women in the litigation over Affleck's film I'm Still Here alleged assault. Just saying.
Um...yes the did. Neither alleged rape, but the actuations against the younger Affleck range from verbal abuse, to telling a crew member to expose himself to one of the women, to crawling into bed with the other and touching her inappropriately. I call that assault.
-
3
-
S02.E02: The Real Deal
in And Just Like That
Internalized homophobia is a pretty common phenomenon. Sexuality is complicated and feelings outside the "norm" are scary and confusing. Repressing your sexuality and even outwardly being homophobic before coming out is hardly uncommon especially amongst queer people of a certain generation.
Just because Miranda kissed one woman thirty years ago and wasn't into it, doesn't mean that she's straight. Nor does her being shitty to Samantha or Carrie. I think the show would be better if they acknowledged how this behavior could have been part of Miranda's own internalized homophobia and repression, but the behavior isn’t unheard-of.
Also Che isn't a woman. Just because Miranda wasn't into another woman 30 years ago, in no way means she can't be into a nonbinary person today.
Miranda was pretty clearly queer coded in the original show (at least IMO) and the mistaken lesbian plot was the writers lampshading it. I don't think Miranda's coming out has been handled well, but I also don’t think it came from nowhere.