Proclone

I'm sure that the actual truth about how close Tony and Dr. Shirley were lies somewhere in the middle. That being said, it sounds surprisingly convenient that Dr. Shirley would agree to have the film made only after his death, and only tell Vallelonga that. It also is more than a little tacky (IMO) to make a movie about some and not at least give his living family members a heads up. Producers claim that they didn't know they existed, but I can't imagine an even cursory search didn't find some of them. So that statement feels really disingenuous to me. Also, I think in part, why BlacKkKlansman hasn't garnered the same ire, is that I don't think Lee has ever claimed that it was super accurate to what actually happened (please correct me if I'm wrong). And to be fair to him, there would have had to be embellishments to that story to make into an interesting film, because the KKK members the real Stallworth came in contact with were too stupid to ever come close to figuring anything out. It also personally bothers me less, because at least there is a source to go back to and a real living person that can still, say, "No, this is what happened." Ron Stallworth told his story in his book and the movie has probably sent more people to look for the real story in that book. Dr. Shirley didn't write a book, we just have to accept what Nic Vallelonga, which is also then filtered through Tony Vallelonga, says about him because there is no other source. I tend to agree. It's not what Green Book is about, it's how it's told and who it's told by that's the real sticking point. At some point, minorities need to stop being supporting characters in their own stories. I think that's why many people have said Green Book seems like a Best Picture winner circa 1992. I think there was a time that movies that told stories in that fashion were needed to at least open people into accepting minorities. But we've seen those movies. It's time to move on from that. Not even just pertaining to race. Philadelphia is a great film, that also happens to tell a gay man's story through the eyes of a straight man. And I wouldn't be happy if a movie made today did that either. The academy had at least three movies that dealt heavily with race and privilege to choose from. Both BlacKkKlansman and Black Panther were about black people and were also told by black filmmakers. They both also seem to have more interesting things to say about racism and when the onus to act on behalf of others exists when you happen to be a minority in a position of privilege. From what I've heard (and I once again fully admit to not seeing it) Green Book's message was, "Racism is bad." Not a bad message, but perhaps not the most subtle one either. Green Book is probably a fine film. It's probably well made, and I believe the performances were good. That being said, I thought BlacKkKlansman was excellent, and while I don't think Black Panther deserved Best Picture, I think you can say it's a well-made film with good performances also. So, it just seems so strange that out of those three movies the academy would pick Green Book. A well-made movie with the least to say. I'm not saying any of those movies were actually deserving of Best Picture. From what I've heard (also haven't seen it, probably won't see it) Roma deserved the title. But it seems like the academy picked the film that challenged them the least but made them feel like they were choosing a progressive choice. "Look, we picked the movie that said, racism is bad. Aren't we hip now?"

I totally agree. I don't want to stray too far off topic, but to be honest, I find any speculation about co-stars dating/hooking up in real life, to be super unsavory, especially if one or more of them are married or in a relationship. I think it's super disrespectful to the spouses/partners involved. I think this is even more common in TV than movies (which makes sense you see the relationships over a longer period of time) and I've noticed it in some fandoms of shows I enjoy. I find it super uncomfortable to read comments on how in love a married straight woman seems with her female co-star anytime they are interviewed together. And I can't help but put myself in her husband's shoes if he happened to stumble on them. I get that people see chemistry between two actors, but they are not their characters and we should separate them. Slightly more on topic, I saw quite a few tweets/posts about how Bradley's girlfriend shouldn't have been sat between him and Gaga and I found that ridiculous. She's his GIRLFRIEND, she has the right to sit next to him. I do think Bradley and Gaga have chemistry which means one of two things, one they are good actors or two they probably really do like each other. Neither one of those things necessarily means they are into each other in a romantic way.

Full disclosure I have not seen Green Book. I really have no desire to. It may be a well-made movie, but it does seem to be (to quote Honest Trailers) taking the controversial stance that...gasp...racism...is...wrong. And it says it without saying anything else, like say BlackKlansman did on a similar topic. I will agree that Crashes message of "everyone's a little racist/we often don't realize our own racism" is actually a more nuanced message. It does not seem like a movie that is made to make us question our prejudices or connect to issues facing us today. It seems like a movie made to make us feel good that we are not mouth breathing racists, and it's great things aren't segregated anymore. Which doesn't make it a bad film, but these surface level things aren't things I think the academy should be rewarding in this day and age, YMMV. I also think when a Marvel movie (which was also nominated) has more subtle and interesting themes about race and privilege (BP definitely asks the question at which point are those that have privilege required to act on behalf of those that don't), you're probably picking the wrong movie for Best Picture in Green Book. I have read a few articles on the topic, and one of the biggest issues I find is that the Shirley family claims Tony and Dr. Shirley were not friends at all. That while Tony did work for Dr. Shirley they had an employee/employer relationship and that Dr. Shirley actually fired Tony for being less than professional. There's a difference in taking liberties and making a story up whole cloth. In that case, just write an original story. And the family was also not contacted to let them know the movie was even being made. Producers claim they didn't think there was any family, but Dr. Shirley had several brothers, one of whom is still living, and several nieces and nephews. I can't imagine they'd be that hard to find. The family also claims Nic Vallelonga approached Dr. Shirley about making the film while Dr. Shirley was still living and he turned him down. It seems more than a little tacky to wait until someone dies to make a film about them because they wouldn't consent to it while they were living. If anyone is interested in reading.

To be fair I have not seen Green Book. That being said, I would have been happy with pretty much any of the other nominees winning over it, after reading about it. Not only did it manipulate the actual history (which isn't really uncommon), but it did it without the family's consent. The producers claim they couldn't find Dr. Shirley's relatives (which is what they told Mahershala Ali, who honestly thought there was no family to talk to), but Don Shirley had several brothers, one of whom is still living, and quite a few nieces and nephews from what it seems. It couldn't have been that hard to find them. Not to mention Nic Vallelonga (Tony's son) wanted to make this movie while Dr. Shirley was still alive and Shirley told him no, in no uncertain terms according to the article I read. Don Shirley didn't want this movie made at all, I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted this version of it made. And even if it was a well-made movie, it seems wrong to celebrate it for those reasons alone.

I think you're totally right. A movie focusing on Maggie actually figuring out who she is would have been an interesting choice. Especially since I don't think the whole copying what your partner likes thing is actually that uncommon. I had a friend who every time she had a new boyfriend she would change her tastes to match his. Suddenly she'd like music she'd never liked before, she would know everything about a sport she never watched before, or she'd suddenly be into some obscure hobby, that all coincidently coincided with what the new boyfriend liked. It drove me crazy, as her friend, for years. Thankfully she's outgrown thinking that you have to like everything your partner likes, but it was a real problem for a while. I think it would actually make for a really interesting un-romantic comedy or a dramedy about a woman finding herself.

I haven't read the book, but it really bothered me that the kids weren't named as I watched the film. Malorie, I could buy not naming them, but Tom seemed like he would insist on calling them something other than "boy" and "girl," so it makes so much sense that he wasn't present during the five-year time jump in the book (I assume the book also cuts back and forth between time periods). Calling them "boy" and "girl" seems like a way of Malorie distancing herself from them to avoid a connection with them so it wouldn't be as painful if she lost them. But that only really makes sense if she doesn't have a connection with anyone else either. In the movie she had what seemed like a fairly healthy relationship (at least as healthy as a relationship during the apocalypse can be) with Tom, so she's certainly capable of relatively normal human relationships. If they really wanted to keep Tom alive, they could have gotten away with something like the kids having names, but Malorie not using them after Tom's death as a screwed up coping mechanism. I really would have loved the little girl (who was an excellent actor BTW), not wanting to respond to "girl" and challenging Malorie to use her name. Then finally after the ordeal of the river and realizing how much she loves and is connected to the kids she is, she can finally call them by their names again. Then I think the end of Malorie introducing the kids by their names would have been actually poignant instead of what I thought was slightly hokey and a little too precious.

A little late to the party, but I'd also like to add, while this show certainly hasn't destroyed the CO$, it may very well be keeping people from joining. I was pretty well versed in how crazy CO$ teachings and practices were when Going Clear came out, but when I mentioned the documentary to co-workers none of them knew anything about Scientology other than that's what Tom Cruise practices. And I mean nothing. They thought it was maybe kind of "hippy-dippy" but they knew nothing about the Sea Org, nothing about the abuse, nothing about Xenu or thetans or the amount of money you spend on courses. So at the very least the fact that this show is showing that the CO$ isn't just this largely benign if not hippy-dippy religion is helping. Twenty years ago I would have described myself as looking for spiritual fulfillment, luckily I wasn't in an area where the CO$ is prevalent, but if I had, I might have gotten sucked in. I remember seeing Dianetics commercials when I was a kid, and thinking that looks kind of interesting, I could use a "handbook for the mind," (which is what I believe was the slogan at the time). So having a show like this that people talk about and makes the general public aware of the bull that CO$ does and teaches, is invaluable. It may have saved countless young people, who might have gotten sucked into the CO$ rabbit hole otherwise. As a side note still boggles my mind that LRH somehow not only got people to believe his delusional ramblings but also managed to make schizophrenic behavior policy. Following people around accusing of random often vague crimes comes across as very schizophrenic-like behavior. And I don't say that to stigmatize people with mental illness, but having seen LRH on film and read snippets of his writings leads me to believe without a doubt that he suffered from schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder. And to an extent, I think that LRH was less some sort of diabolic mastermind and more of a very mentally ill man who really needed help, who was instead indulged and used by those around him (especially towards the end of his life). That's not to say that I absolve him totally of the sins of Scientology. But either case the policies of dealing with SPs seem very much like something a very mentally ill person would come up with and other (supposedly) sane people have looked at them and said, "Yep, this sounds totally normal," it just baffles my mind.

But I do agree with your point. Mary Queen of Scots is certainly very historically inaccurate in general. It moves events around, compresses time (Mary has not aged a day when she's seen being executed despite over 25 years passing), and gives certain characters very modern attitudes towards sex and sexuality (Mary tells her male homosexual personal secretary something to the effect of that's how God made him). But a black guy being there, that's way too historically inaccurate.

"Beyond the Pale" is an expression that means beyond normal limits or what's generally acceptable. I wasn't using it in reference to the actors' skin tones and the expression has nothing to do with skin color at all. I wasn't implying you (or anyone else) would only accept pale actors. The phrase comes from 17th century Ireland when the area controlled by English law was called "The Pale." Anything outside or beyond "The Pale" was considered uncivilized. My point was simply to question why skin color is something that is more important than any other physical trait when determining historical accuracy. And as I said it was more a rhetorical question than anything else. Mary's acceptance of David Rizzio as being gay with hardly a shrug, I agree is completely anachronistic. Also, it's somewhat common to give the heroes of period pieces more modern enlightened views of social issues to make them more palatable to the audience. Now in some cases, I see why filmmakers do this. But they could have avoided this problem by not including the Darnley/Rizzio subplot. Mary most likely wouldn't be completely cool with Rizzio being openly gay going so far as to imply it was the way he was made, let alone banging her husband. Even if they had made Rizzio ambiguously gay (I don't think that it would be unrealistic for Mary to simply ignore rumors about one of her favorites) but didn't have him have a sexual relationship with Darnley (at least not one Mary was aware of) I think it could have worked. Like I said I think it's more important to be historically accurate to the spirit of a character than what they actually looked like.

I recently saw Mary Queen of Scots, and while I was disappointed overall one did I did like was that POC were actually cast in a period piece. There were several minor roles that were played by people of color. Some people seem to be really put of by it, citing historical accuracy. But I tend to think that if we accept an actor playing a historical figures that don't resemble that figure in the slightest to begin with, that skin color isn't more important than height or hair color. The film isn't a documentary and the characters are never presented in a way that implies the filmmakers think they characters would have been poc in real life, so I don't see why it's inherently more historically inaccurate than an Irish woman and an Aussie playing a Scottish and English queen.

I've read that the filmmakers casted the movie (at least the smaller parts) similarly to how most Shakespeare's adaptations are casted (now) ignoring the race of the actors. As I said I don't think we are meant to think the people those characters are based on were POC. And this more a rhetorical question, but something to think about, why is different skin tone more of a historical inaccuracy than a different height, or eye color or attractiveness? We accept people playing historical figures who look nothing like those historical figures all the time, why is skin color beyond the pale in terms of what we will accept?

That's my biggest problem with a film called, "Mary Queen of Scots," that Elizabeth was the more interesting, more well-rounded character with the biggest arc. Mary herself doesn't really have a character arc. And as much as I liked Robbie in the role, the presence of Elizabeth in the film only highlights how little character development they wrote for Mary. If the movie had been called "Elizabeth Queen of England" or even "The Two Queens," I would have liked it a lot more. I think Ronan would have been excellent if she had something to work with from with the script. That actually didn't bother me. Robbie doesn't particularly look like Elizabeth and it's only a coincidence that Ronan does kind of resemble Mary. I don't think the film was trying to imply that those characters were actually black or Asian, but rather they just casted actors for parts. People in movies rarely look like the historical person they are playing, in the grand scheme of things does it matter if the reason they don't resemble them is that they're taller, or blonder or have a different eye color...or that their skin is darker? I actually think unless race is integral to the plot (it wouldn't work with say a Confederate General being played by a black man), what they did in this film should be done in more period pieces. Just cast good actors regardless of closely they resemble the characters they're playing. While I value historical accuracy, I think it's more important to be true to who the people are rather than what they looked like. So casting a POC for a character who was white IRL doesn't much matter to me as long as they can be true to the spirit of that person.

I actually haven't seen the one with Redgrave, so I can't comment on how it compares to this one. I'd say this film is about average in terms of historical accuracy. There is a meeting towards the end between Mary and Elizabeth that certainly didn't happen, but I can't really blame the filmmakers for having the two come together from a storytelling perspective. Like I said time is compressed in the movie, and there are some historical inaccuracies. My biggest problem is that the film moves from one event to another and even while each event might be historically accurate, the film doesn't do a good job of giving build-up to them or explaining their context. One of the earliest (and most minor) is Darnley arriving in Scotland. The beginning of the film has his father asking Elizabeth permission to travel to Scotland and she brushes him off. Then suddenly they're there with no explanation about how or why Elizabeth changed her mind. The film also implies Darnley and Mary had never met when in truth they had while Mary was mourning Francis. The fact that they had met before could have been used by the filmmakers to show why Mary is so immediately taken with him, but they instead give us this rather silly scene of Darnley guessing correctly which women is Mary (she's sitting with her ladies) when his father could not. In real life I imagine it would have been hard to mistake Mary from any other woman in court, she was 5'11". That's tall by today's standards for a woman, she would have been practically a giant by Elizabethian ones. So the idea that Darnley or his father might not have recognized her seems beyond silly. Another example, the Earl of Bothwell did essentially force Mary to marry him and probably did rape her which is depicted on screen. However, the film doesn't give Bothwell any motivation for this other than wanting power...which I suppose would work if he hadn't been depicted as devoted and completely loyal to Mary up until moments before he tells her she has to marry him and rapes her. His betrayal of her could have really been built up with her having a real trusted relationship him prior to his betrayal, but instead, he's mostly just there in the film standing around until his turn to screw over Mary comes up. The film skips over her ridding to his side days after giving birth because he's grievously wounded, which helped feed the rumors that she had him kill Darnley. He and Mary obviously had some sort of relationship (romantic or otherwise), but the film glosses over it. I also still have no idea what the movie was trying to say about Mary. Was she smart capable ruler who got screwed by fate and the men around her? Was she too young and idealistic? I don't know. I think that they want me to think the former, but there's really no evidence for it on screen. Like I said Mary only reacts to events in the film. She doesn't plan or even reflect on them, so she doesn't come across as particularly smart. Her relationship with Darnley does her no favors in this regard as the film makes it completely transparent that he's using Mary to get a crown. She doesn't come out looking very bright for swallowing his lies.

Mary Queen of Scots I didn't see a topic for this one, so I thought I'd start one. I'm not sure how widely it's being shown yet, though it has made to my little corner of the world. I saw it last night and I have to say I'm a little disappointed. The performances are generally good. Margot Robbie as Elizabeth is especially good, but overall I found the movie lacking. Most of the problems are with the script and the pacing. I also don't think it did a particularly good job setting up who was who and how they related to one another and their motivations. I honestly think people who aren't familiar with the time period or Mary's history will have a hard time following what's going on. There is also no sense of the passage of time either. Until Elizabeth comments that it's been 25 years at the end there is little evidence that everything hadn't occurred over the course of a few months. Soairse Ronan doesn't age at all as Mary over the film. Certainly, all historical biopics compress time and combine events, but this movie didn't seem to do in a particularly deft fashion. There are other smaller timeline problems including Robert Dudley looking like he's twelve through most of the film when he was about the same age as Elizabeth. The movie also glosses over how Darnley gets permission to travel to Scotland and when in reality Elizabeth's advisors sent him there and Dudley (who really didn't want to marry Mary) help position him as a suitor to Mary's hand. The movie also seriously shortchanges Darnley's fall. I'm not sure why showing him slowly grasping for more power and being jealous of Mary's relationship with Rizzio wouldn't have worked. I think it would have been far more interesting than what we got, which is one moment a charming courtier and the next an easily swayed buffoon. The movie also makes him gay and in a relationship with David Rizzio (Mary's personal secretary) for some reason. The murder of Rizzio was fairly accurate to historical accounts, but the lead up to it is rushed and a little nonsensical. The biggest sin of the movie I thought, however, is despite being the title character we don't really get a look inside Mary's head. Ronan gives a good performance (as always) but the script really only has her reacting to events, never planning. Hell, she doesn't really even reflect on them very much. Elizabeth, on the other hand, is given an entire inner world so you understand and sympathize with her motivations. I felt like I could never connect with Mary though. Mary's characterization gets very much shortchanged in this, which is a pity. I was very interested to see this as I'm a big fan of Ronan, Robbie and this time period, so perhaps I went in with too high expectations. But for a movie called "Mary Queen of Scots," I found not enough about Mary. I think much of this is caused by the poor pacing of the movie. It's a real pity too because I think Ronan could have been great as Mary if she had been given something to work with.

I just got back from seeing it. I enjoyed it. It's not a perfect movie, but it is generally an enjoyable one. It's probably the best or at least most fun of the DC movies, save Wonder Women. Momoa is thoroughly charming as Arthur and he and Heard have good chemistry. I also liked the character of Mera on her own. She's smart and capable and never made the damsel (the one time she almost is, she's not saved by Arthur but rather another woman). The visuals are also pretty good and I thought the creature designs were pretty interesting. The CGI seemed to be better than in Justice League as well, where Steppenwolf seemed like he was out of a video game cut scene. I do second that the deaging was a little distracting on Morrison at the beginning and we started to tread into uncanny valley. The main plot was pretty coherent and Patrick Wilson was a pretty compelling villain with actual motivations besides being evil. Though he could not make the line declaring himself "Ocean Master" not sound super hammy, I suppose no one could. To be perfectly honest I'm not sure how he ever said it with a straight face. That being said, it did have its share of problems. I found the inclusion of Black Manta to be unnecessary at best and is obviously just there to set up the sequel. I think the introduction of the character was way too long and felt tacked on. There were also several strange music cues during the set-piece on the sub. It repeatedly places this weird little guitar riff to introduce Arthur doing something cool. It might have worked if they had done it once, but it seems like they had several spots where they thought it might work and instead of picking one, they decided to put in all of them. It was oddly distracting. I think the movie would have worked just as well, if not better without Black Manta and been slightly shorter and a tighter story. Also while only in one scene I did find the guy who played teenage Arthur to be painfully bad. The entire theater I was in laughed at his line readings (the lines themselves weren't supposed to be funny). And I wasn't really a fan of the flashbacks to Arthur's time with Defoe's character in general. They don't explain when or how he started to show up to teach Arthur (or how he hid for all those years) and I think it was just another thing that sidetracked from the more interesting main plot. I think the concept could have worked but I didn't feel like it was integrated into the plot very well. When Arthur first mentioned Defoe's character name I almost said, "Am I supposed to know who that is?" out loud. All in all, I found it enjoyable. Unlike many of DC's movies, it is undoubtedly fun. The action is pretty good and Momoa is likable and really the whole thing rides on that. In the hands of a less charismatic actor, this could have been awful. But you just want to like Mamoa's Arthur. I still don't think it's as good as most of the Marvel movies, even the lesser ones, but I enjoyed myself for a couple of hours.

To be sure. Which why I think a movie told from a character in her position might be more interesting. Or least I think it would be more interesting to see her stand up for her partner, but then maybe have that little voice in her head that said: "But could he have lied though?" Watching someone who clearly loves their partner deal with balancing their family's expectations just seems more interesting to me, than watching a grown man embarrass himself. YMMV. Not to get off topic, but I think it's both good and bad. It's great that Greg is super dedicated to his career. On the other hand, the movie doesn't treat it seriously. The very fact that they make a big deal about him taking the MCATS has shades of "Well, he's a nurse, but he could have been a doctor." Doctors are not inherently smarter than anyone else (I've known plenty that are dumb as rocks), nor are nurses doctor wannabes who couldn't cut med school. Doctors treat diseases, nurses treat patients. There are different focuses to the different professions. Despite what TV shows you, your doctor is not going to be around 24/7 to ambulate you to the bathroom. Your nurse is. And when you don't look quite right at 2 am, it's the nurse's word the doctor is going to take (and probably take our suggestion on what test should be ordered) on that, so you don't drop dead. I have no desire to be a doctor, never have. I didn' even really want to be a nurse until I work as a secretary in an ICU and saw what nurses really do.

Not to be that person, but Greg was a nurse in the movie. You don't have to take the MCATs to be a nurse (I am a nurse and I certainly never took them). They're the placement test to get into medical school. To become a nurse (an RN) you need an undergraduate degree (either an A.A.S in nursing or a BS in nursing), not a graduate degree like to become an MD. So he certainly could have lied about taking the MCATs and still have been a nurse. I believe Greg says that he took the MCATs because he originally wanted to be a doctor and then decided he actually wanted to spend more time with patients so he became a nurse instead which is actually pretty cool. I truly wish they hadn't made Greg being a nurse the punchline to several jokes. There's nothing inherently funny about being a male nurse and it just reinforces the idea that becoming a nurse is what you become if you can't cut it in medical school. Which isn't remotely true. I find the couples in these sorts of movies always kind of distasteful. It always seems that the member of the couple with the family throws their partner under the bus, so to speak. It also seems like the fish out of water is always the point of view character of these sorts of stories. And while I understand that to a certain extent, I think a more interesting (or at least fresher) story could be told about the conflict between sincerely wanting to support your (maybe a little kooky) partner and wanting your family's approval, by making the other partner the point of view character. I think a Meet the Parents could work if told from the Pam-esq character's point of view examing the obvious daddy issues involved there. Maybe it wouldn't be the straight up comedy that Meet the Parents was, but I think it could work as a dramedy.

Since it was brought up in another thread (apparently a sequel is in the works) I thought I would mention how utterly unsatisfying I found the ending of Penny Dreadful to be. The third season was pretty lackluster in general and suffered from storytelling problems. But I had enjoyed the first two seasons immensely and hoped that it would at least come together for a satisfying conclusion...It did not. For those that never watched the very cliff notes version of the show is taking different gothic horror (Penny Dreadfuls) stories and putting them together. It centers on Vanessa, who was the best friend of Mina Harker nee Murray (yes, that Mina) and who was also intermittently possessed. The show also includes Victor Frankenstein and two of this "monsters." An Alan Quatermain-esq character in the form of Sir Malcolm Murray, Dorian Gray, and a werewolf named Ethan, for good measure. The show was very much an ensemble piece but Vanessa was the only character that interacts with all the other characters and is really the glue that holds the show together as one narrative. Throughout the series, Vanessa is stalked by supernatural beings and we eventually learn she is essentially the reincarnation of a death goddess who both Dracula and Lucifer (in the show they are brothers) want to use to destroy the world. In the third season, Vanessa is separated by the plot from all her friends and allies. She is first literally and then figuratively seduced by Dracula. And as a side note, it annoyed me immensely that the only good enjoyable sex Vanessa ever had was with the villain. All the other times she has sex in the show she becomes possessed. I'm not sure what they were trying to say about female sexuality with that, but I'm not sure I like it. In the finale episode, all her friends gather to try and save Vanessa and defeat Dracula, who has used Vanessa to cast a fog over London killing hundreds if not thousands of people. I assumed a good percentage of the characters were going to die in some sort of epic finale battle and I was cool with that. I had always assumed that it was going to be a fairly tragic story. But that's not what happens. The majority of the characters live. The only one who dies is Vanessa. Which is not itself what bothers me, it's how she does it. Ethan manages to find her and she begs him to kill her so she can't be used by Dracula or Lucifer anymore. He eventually agrees and shoots her and she dies in his arms. Then the forces of darkness seem to shrug and wander off. Now even that doesn't bother me in isolation. What pissed me off is that almost the exact same thing happened in the first season while Vanessa was possessed and Ethan refused to shoot her then. If he had shot her then, thousands of people's lives would have been saved! The entire story is rendered ultimately pointless. It even wouldn't have bothered me that much if the scene in the first season have been framed in a way that implied it was foreshadowing Vanessa's ultimate fate, but it isn't. It's framed in a way to imply Ethan is the only one who can reach her and the only one who can save her. There's a lot foreshadowed about Ethan that's not paid off. Not the least of which is that he is going to be the one to die. He's also frequently hinted at to be Vanessa's protector and that him being a werewolf will somehow play into that (there are prophecies about the Wolf of God). But him being a werewolf ultimately plays very little into the plot. He's not even in wolf form when he finds Vanessa at the end. All him being a werewolf amounted to in the end was three seasons whining about being cursed. Another huge problem with the ending is that entirety of Frankenstein's story isn't really paid off. No one ever finds out he's been making people out of spare parts in his basement. He even used Ethan's dead girlfriend from the first season to make a "bride" for his original "monster" and Ethan never finds out. How do you not pay that off? Why have Victor use Ethan's girlfriend when Ethan is never going to know? Just have him use some random chick then. That's super crappy storytelling right there. The shoot the shaggy dogness of the story would bother less if I thought it was trying to say something. It didn't seem to be saying you can't fight fate. Ethan whines about being cursed by fate and bound for a tragic end for three seasons but winds up being hunky dory (if not sad) at the end. It didn't even seem to be saying something super dark like you can't fight, you should just lay down and die because, in the end, all the other characters seem to express a desire to keep fighting evil. There was so much of in this show that was foreshadowed or hinted at but never paid off. There were a lot of Chekhov's guns left unfired in that show. Now I'm not saying that everything in a work should be telegraphed or that twists shouldn't happen. I'm not even saying don't off main characters (kill off all the characters). What I am saying is that a work should be thematically coherent. It should say trying to say something. Have everything that happens in a work serve to further what you are trying to say. And when you say one thing for three seasons, and then say something else in the last possible moment then people are going to be unsatisfied. You don't say, fight darkness, fight what people think about you and the boxes they put you in (which was a major theme IMO of the show) and then at the last second have the main character say, "I'm tired of fighting, just shoot me now." It's poor storytelling. And I think that's why Penny Dreadful annoys me more than almost any other show's ending that I've disliked. It had so much potential, cool characters, an interesting world, a potentially interesting plot and it just wasted it all. And it blew it by not being able to use the very fundamental concept of set up and pay off very well at all. Don't set up all this cool stuff up and then pay none of it off. Don't hint at things that are never going to happen.

Ah Farscape, such a quotable show. I've actully used Aeryn's "Frell me dead." And Frell in general when trying not to curse.

I'm of two minds about this. I really liked the first season of Penny Dreadful and downright loved the second season. The third season was a hot mess, in my opinion, and had one of the least satisfying conclusions to a show that I have ever watched. Now I partially forgave it, because of the supposed abrupt cancellation (I did bitch fairly extensively in the forums though). But if it really was John Logan's intention to end the show when it did and on that note, when to be perfectly honest it makes question his ability as a storyteller. Because there were instances of pretty bad fundamental storytelling in the final season. Things that were foreshadowed about the characters were never paid off. And the story essentially became a shoot the shaggy dog story. Now sometimes those kinds of stories work. The Hunger Games trilogy is a shoot the shaggy dog story. Katniss volunteers for the Hunger Games to save her sister, but in the end, the rebellion Katniss helped spawn ultimately kills her sister. I think those kinds stories only work if the ultimate pointlessness of the characters actions winds up saying something about the world we (or at least the characters live in) or the characters learn something they couldn't have learned any other way. The Hunger Games has something to say about how no one ever really wins in war and that sometimes the line between the good guys and the bad guys is blurry. Penny Dreadful's ending didn't say anything about the world. It didn't teach the characters anything they couldn't have learned in another way. It was simply pointless. So if Logan has similar plans for interesting characters, but poor plotting and bad storytelling I'm going to have to pass.

I can see where Shirley is coming from and I think it's kind of crappy on her husband's part to take the money knowing how she felt about it. I wouldn't take money from a sibling that I thought was not only exploiting our childhoods but also my mother's mental illness and suicide. That being said, she did widely overreact and no matter how she personally felt about taking the money she shouldn't project that on her siblings. If Theo was ok with taking the money, I can understand Shirley not being enthused about it, but she was acting if Theo had personally attacked her or something. They did actually bring up whether having the booze out around Luke was appropriate. Shirley's husband asks if Luke is going to be ok with the alcohol being around and Shirley says something to the effect that he'll have to suck it up because the rest of them need to drink. Also, Shirley's home is attached to the funeral home. There's a business side and a personal side to the building. The kids aren't toddlers they don't need an adult watching them every second. The adults were on the business side, the older brother could have kept an eye out for the younger one (who was probably in bed by the time Hugh and Luke showed up). If there was some kind of emergency their parents are literally on the other side of the building.

I didn't mind the ending either. Part of my dislike of horror movies, in general, is that they typically wind up as shaggy dog stories at best, and shoot the shaggy dog stories at worst. I don't, by in large, hate tragic endings but endings in the horror genre are often nihilistic and cruel IMO, just for the sake of getting one last jump scare. And quite frankly I don't want to get invested in the character(s) and their growth only to have it all snuffed out at the last moment, so the filmmakers can have a "shocking" ending. I also would have liked a little more history on the ghosts, but I did like that by in large they seemed benign. There's the Del Toro movie, Crimson Peak where the main character says something to the effect of "It's not a ghost story, it's a story with ghosts." I feel like this is similar. It's more a story of the Craine Family then it was about the ghosts. The house seems to collect souls, but the souls themselves, save Poppy and the thing in the basement, don't seem to want to hurt anyone. The tall man was just looking for his hat and most the others seem to be milling around. I also assumed he was the William Hill that was found bricked up in the wall. Poppy says something to the effect of him wanting to feel tall and now he is, so I assume he both looks stretched out and levitates for that reason. I wouldn't be surprised if Poppy did kill her own children, as she was apparently mentally ill even prior to Hill House. And I took the old woman who took Abigail's hand to be Hazel(?) the member of the Hill family that Mrs. Dudley took care of. It made sense to me that woman who was taken care of by Clara would want to take care of her daughter, YMMV. The Dudley also explained that the used to stay in the house at night, but after their first child was stillborn (she probably died when Clara was in the house but wasn't born until later) they heard the baby crying and decided to no longer go there at night. I don't think Oliva was crazy, per say, prior to Hill House. I think that like her daughters she was sensitive, but unlike her daughters was perhaps not grounded enough to realize what was going on. The house worked on cutting her connection to Hugh who was always busy and that allowed her to fly away. I also don't think it helped that Poppy seemed to take a particular interest in Oliva, because as I said Poppy seemed like one of the few truly malevolent spirits in the house. As for Steve's wife being pregnant, either he reversed the vasectomy (doesn't always work, but not impossible) or they decided to use a sperm donor. I'm not really interested in a season two unless it's Theo the psychic child psychologist (because I would watch the heck out of that show) or prequel with other characters. I think the Crain family story is over.

It's not super uncommon for young kids to outgrow needing glasses. It depends on the reason for the glasses. Farsightedness isn't unusual in kids, especially younger kids (Luke is only five) and it tends to get better with age. If he was nearsighted then he would probably need glasses for the rest of his life. There are other eye problems that glasses can treat that kids can grow out of as well.

Seriously, adult Steven is a huge d-bag. This is especially true since there is no reason he has to pass on his "messed up" genes in order to have children. I actually don't fault him for having the concern of passing on mental illness with an apparent suicide and a drug addict in the family, but I know a couple that chose to use a sperm donor even though there was nothing wrong with the man's sperm, because he had a potentially inheritable condition they didn't want to risk passing on. There is no reason for him not to tell Leigh that he's infertile (even if he fibbed about the reason why it would be bad but forgivable) and suggest either using a sperm donor or adoption if the passing on his genes is his only hesitation in having kids. If he doesn't want kids at all that's fine, but it seems Leigh made it clear she wanted kids before they were married and if he didn't he should have told her that. To allow someone to try and get pregnant for over two years and play along up to the point of going to doctors is beyond cruel. And even if he had his reasons, I'm not sure that's something that could be forgiven. *Edited to add* It seems funny to me but Steve might actually be the most messed up of the kids besides Luke, despite supposedly seeing the least. Shirley may be wound up tighter than a drum, but she lives a relatively normal life. And seemed to be happily married. Theo is probably the most well adjusted as she is at least aware of how screwed up she is, even if causal sex isn't the healthiest way to cope. And until her husband death Nell seemed to be a functional member of society whose only issue was sleep paralysis and night terrors. And even Luke despite picking possibly the worst coping mechanism in drugs at least was trying to cope. Steve insists on keeping everything bundled up and pushing people away to the point of lying to his wife about his fertility. I think he might be the only legitimately crazy member of the Crain family.

I know Is that Alright? isn't in the actual movie, it was played over the credits, but it was my favorite of the soundtrack, even more than Shallow (which is probably going to be the one nominated for an Oscar). It's just such a powerful expression of how you feel about someone you want to marry...and it's so tragic in the light of what actually happens. Seriously thinking about to Ally singing about wanting to have family dinners and kids with Jackson, actually made me tear up more than watching her sing I'll Never Love Again. To be perfectly honest I've had the soundtrack on repeat since I saw the movie, all the songs are great...except the one talking about a guys ass, which is appropriately terrible.