The Testaments (sequel)

[EllaWycliffe]

 

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I'm trying to picture the current show lasting for more than another season.  I can't.

Yeah, I never saw The Walking Dead lasting 11 seasons but there we are. Likewise Supernatural lasting 15. 

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They are so close to the sequel now.

Its fifteen years in the future and is kind of a downer over all. AND as written, they're not going to get five seasons out of one quick trip across the border.  The Testaments was a fun action read but it took place over at best, a month, maybe two, You can get maybe two seasons if you go super slow. And you still have the problem that Lydia had a perfectly viable method of getting info out of Gilead and waited years to get the good stuff out even though she was clearly sending info with her Pearl Girls for years. 

 

39 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The most difficult to reconcile will be, IMO, Lydia's story, since she's a MAJOR player, and a narrator.  The whole "she was a judge" thing isn't a biggie to me, but her secretly working all along to bring down/get even with the Gilead people?  Needs to be hinted at a bit more.  

Yeah tazaring the shit out of people doesn't make her look kindly. Remember in less than two years, she needs to establish a Cult of Nicole in Gilead  - a cult Hannah/Agnes was intimately familiar with but it currently doesn't exist. The whole reason Nicole has to be hidden and not know her past is that Gilead built this cult around Baby Nicole... but no one seems to care about Nicole's status in Canada anymore.  On either side. 

[Umbelina]

8 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

 

Yeah, I never saw The Walking Dead lasting 11 seasons but there we are. Likewise Supernatural lasting 15. 

Its fifteen years in the future and is kind of a downer over all. AND as written, they're not going to get five seasons out of one quick trip across the border.  The Testaments was a fun action read but it took place over at best, a month, maybe two, You can get maybe two seasons if you go super slow. And you still have the problem that Lydia had a perfectly viable method of getting info out of Gilead and waited years to get the good stuff out even though she was clearly sending info with her Pearl Girls for years. 

 

Yeah tazaring the shit out of people doesn't make her look kindly. Remember in less than two years, she needs to establish a Cult of Nicole in Gilead  - a cult Hannah/Agnes was intimately familiar with but it currently doesn't exist. The whole reason Nicole has to be hidden and not know her past is that Gilead built this cult around Baby Nicole... but no one seems to care about Nicole's status in Canada anymore.  On either side. 

Well, there is the whole plot in the background of Gilead being brought down by soldiers, including June, and the whole underground in Canada.

I think it would be pretty easy to stretch, especially if they start in Canada with the underground and Nicole toddling or in school at first.  Tons of characters in and out of that "thrift store" too.

I don't think they will have Moss for this one though, she's pretty busy with other projects coming up IIRC, including some directing as well as acting.  Maybe for the reunion and the end, a cameo?

[EllaWycliffe]

7 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Well, there is the whole plot in the background of Gilead being brought down by soldiers, including June, and the whole underground in Canada.

That's not in the books. June is not mentioned by name. There's no battles mentioned. Chicago is literally mentioned once in passing in the "historical lecture" part at the end. The underground considers it a very big deal to get Nicole across the border, and they weren't able to protect her parents. And its a significant point in the book that Gilead fell due to the rot within revealed by the info Lydia got out with Nicole. (that she could have gotten out at any time since she had an active successful method but waited for Nicole for some reason)

13 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think it would be pretty easy to stretch, especially if they start in Canada with the underground and Nicole toddling or in school at first.  Tons of characters in and out of that "thrift store" too.

The adoptive parents live a quiet life to protect Daisy/Nicole

 

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I don't think they will have Moss for this one though, she's pretty busy with other projects coming up IIRC, including some directing as well as acting.  Maybe for the reunion and the end, a cameo?

Moss is an executive producer at this point.... not sure she's going to take a back seat, which is also why I suspect the show will resolve differently than the books. 

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, EllaWycliffe said:

That's not in the books. June is not mentioned by name. There's no battles mentioned. Chicago is literally mentioned once in passing in the "historical lecture" part at the end. The underground considers it a very big deal to get Nicole across the border, and they weren't able to protect her parents. And its a significant point in the book that Gilead fell due to the rot within revealed by the info Lydia got out with Nicole. (that she could have gotten out at any time since she had an active successful method but waited for Nicole for some reason)

The girl's MOTHER (June, named or not named) is mentioned throughout the book, including at the end.  She's back and forth to Canada and also fighting in  Chicago and other places.

As you know.

1 hour ago, EllaWycliffe said:

The adoptive parents live a quiet life to protect Daisy/Nicole

They are on the run, and they are providing clothing to other escapee/rebels frequently.  Nicole wakes up and sees them once, and it's addressed later that they are Mayday as well, with the job of hiding Nicole.  (after their murder)

1 hour ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Moss is an executive producer at this point.... not sure she's going to take a back seat, which is also why I suspect the show will resolve differently than the books. 

She's made a couple of recent statements about it, and as I said, she is busy with upcoming and current projects.  Who knows?

As you say, June is not a POV character, though she is Mayday and a soldier, so her roll could be as large, or as small as needed.  The book would still work.

[EllaWycliffe]

44 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

She's back and forth to Canada and also fighting in  Chicago and other places.

Chicago is literally mentioned once in The Testaments, in the chapter entitled The Thirteenth Symposium. I looked it up because you keep mentioning June fighting in Chicago and that is not mentioned in the one reference. By not mentioned I mean the girls mother was not mentioned as actively fighting in Chicago the way you're suggesting. It's part of the historical lecture and Chicago is mentioned in passing. 

 

50 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The girl's MOTHER (June, named or not named) is mentioned throughout the book, including at the end. 

The girls mother is mentioned as being in hiding and doing what she can. There's no details other than she is deeply underground.

Which is at odds with the depiction on the show of June being a bit of a celebrity. 

 

51 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

They are on the run, and they are providing clothing to other escapee/rebels frequently. 

The adoptive parents are not on the run, Daisy mentions growing up in their home  and that she spent her time as a child helping out in their second hand store that they had been running for years. I agree they were undercover Mayday - they were the ones receiving the info drops from the microdots the Pearl girls were leaving from Aunt Lydia. (this is the flaw in the story line, Lydia had a way to get all the info out without putting Nicole at risk and sat on it for years)

I have read the book. 

 

[Umbelina]

Here are a couple more.  I can certainly understand that some might not care that the mother, the original manuscript woman, seemed to have a presence over everything that happened in this book.  For me, she did, as her daughters helped put the final nail in the coffin that Mayday, and Aunt Lydia, built.

One day, Agnes’s family’s genealogical record appears on her desk instead of a crime file. Agnes opens the genealogical file and finds her own record tucked in a separate file behind the rest of the family, since she is not a blood relative of any of them. She finds a picture of her birth mother, though the name is redacted, and beneath it the notations tell Agnes that she is a Mayday operative at large in Canada. Two unsuccessful assassination attempts have been made on her mother’s life. There is a picture of her father as well, his name also redacted, with notes that claim he is possibly a Mayday terrorist as well, though it is not known for sure. Agnes places her hand on her mother’s picture.

Although Agnes did love Tabitha, her first glimpse of her biological mother’s picture suggests that her absence left a hole in Agnes’s life that even Tabitha could not fill. The contrast between Agnes’s legal parents and her biological parents is striking—where once she believed she was the daughter of Gilead’s elite, now she discovers that she is the daughter of Mayday rebels, a group that is hated and feared in Gilead.

---

After their meeting, Becka returns to her work in the Reading Room while Agnes and Nicole go back to their apartment. Agnes shows Nicole the picture she stole of their mother. Nicole is thankful to see it but after gazing at it decides it is too dangerous to keep, so they tear the pages up and flush them in the toilet. 

--

Aunt Helena arrives next, also reporting that Victoria was seen reading her own genealogical file, which Helena also knows to contain dangerous information about Victoria’s mother and the fact that Baby Nicole is Victoria’s half-sister. Lydia assures her that she already knows and says that Vidala may be the one who gave Victoria access to the file. She surmises that Mayday has Baby Nicole in their possession and may be trying to reunite Baby Nicole with her infamous mother.

--

Nicole falls asleep again, but when she awakes her mother is there waiting for her, looking like an older version of the picture from the genealogical archives. She’s crying, and Nicole thinks that she looks both “sad and happy.” Nicole and Agnes’s mother leans down and hugs both of them in her arms, and Nicole thinks that she has the right smell and feel that seems nearly familiar. She doesn’t have any memories of her mother from her childhood, but now she can make them.

--

There is also the part where Elijah and Ada tell Nicole who she really is, and who her parents are.

---

a few epilogue things:

Pieixoto goes on to explain that he believes Agnes and Nicole’s mother to be Offred, the Handmaid who left behind her account of her escape from Gilead decades before, though it’s only conjecture. 

--

Lastly, and somewhat mysteriously, they discovered a statue, dated several decades after Gilead fell, of a young woman in a Pearl Girls outfit with two birds on her shoulder, and an engraving at its base dedicating the statue to Becka, Aunt Immortelle, from her sisters Agnes and Nicole, and their respective families, to honor her work and sacrifice along with that of “A.L.”

Edited June 6, 2021 by Umbelina

[Hathaway]

I think Testaments would make a great series!  Parents off fighting the war.  Spies.  Underground resistance in Canada.  Lydia does a 180  and dies in the end, happy to have her revenge at last.  Two estranged sisters together at last and forged through their shared dangers.  I think on screen that would be so powerful.

Bring it!  

Seriously though, I think the way Aunts were "born" would be riveting and horrifying all by itself.  Imagine sympathizing with Lydia?

I'm late to this party though, read both books this year, binged the show.  I can't imagine waiting decades to find out how it all turned out, so, for me?  I would want the sequel to happen soon after this one ends.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Hathaway

[Hathaway]

On 5/13/2021 at 12:00 PM, mamadrama said:

I'm treating it like I've treated every other book-to-TV show: judge it on its own merits and think of book & show as complementary yet totally different entities. 

Smart woman!

I think this one would work as a sequel though.  Or a half-assed movie, but only if there was a decent prequel movie.  I don't think the movie was very good or interesting though, and it's been so long.

Would they pad a sequel into crap though?  Maybe.  I hope not.

That said, Lydia has a story that could take up most of the first season, especially if the pad out the other Aunts tales, while giving us glimpses of the daughters.  That way when Lydia offs the other Aunts in her way we might care more.

Damn, now I more interested in the sequel than finishing Handmaid's Tale.  Not good.  

[EllaWycliffe]

7 hours ago, Umbelina said:

She finds a picture of her birth mother, though the name is redacted, and beneath it the notations tell Agnes that she is a Mayday operative at large in Canada. Two unsuccessful assassination attempts have been made on her mother’s life. There is a picture of her father as well, his name also redacted, with notes that claim he is possibly a Mayday terrorist as well, though it is not known for sure.

Yes, Agnes's mother is in hiding - you seem to be suggesting I am saying the mother isn't mentioned at all or I haven't read the book. Where I am disagreeing with you is that The Testaments makes it very clear that June is *fighting* in various actions for Mayday, including extensive operations in Chicago. By the comments in the book, she appears to be in hiding, not active, and not liberating Chicago. 

Your point about Pieixoto goes to the fact that the show and the books have diverged greatly at this point. In the books, June/The Handmaid, was NEVER a well known figure - and that was intentional. She was every victim of every regime that brutalizes women. She was every woman, just an average person who got caught up in a revolution. June Osborne of the show *started* this way but has morphed into SuperHandmaid, June Osborne of The Angel Flight, June Osborne of the Extensive Public War Crimes Trial. She's essentially a celebrity in both Gilead and Canada, which means she's useless for undercover work. In the show's world, even if Nicole was taken into hiding, she would know who June Osborne of the Angel Flight and June Osborne Mother of Baby Nicole is, because there's extensive photographic evidence. Frankly its kind of implausible at this point for Hannah, who is maybe 11, to not remember that time she was eight and met the blonde handmaid calling herself her mother, or that time she was taken from her parents, locked in a glass cage, and then saw that handmaid again, so Agnes's backstory is also already a problem. (And her mom has to die, Dad has to remarry, she has to have a scarring incident seeing her Dad's handmaid die in childbirth, and she has to be almost married to Commander "I like to kill my child brides" in a very short amount of time)

June of the show is not a figure who would fall out of history the way June of the books did. June of the books was never intended to be a famous person, she was meant to represent all women victimized. The idea was that a woman or girl reading the Handmaid's Tale could see themselves in the role. In that respect it doesn't really matter who June in the book is. The problem is that June of the show has diverged greatly from that.

Now can they jam all the current show characters into ill fitting holes left by the book  characters but they've already diverged pretty far from the books in establishing June as this super celebrity ex handmaid. She can't be an active Mayday operative because she's famous as June Osborne of the Angel Flight... and its really not what the books described anyway. 

[mamadrama]

On 6/6/2021 at 11:04 AM, EllaWycliffe said:

Yes, Agnes's mother is in hiding - you seem to be suggesting I am saying the mother isn't mentioned at all or I haven't read the book. Where I am disagreeing with you is that The Testaments makes it very clear that June is *fighting* in various actions for Mayday, including extensive operations in Chicago. By the comments in the book, she appears to be in hiding, not active, and not liberating Chicago. 

Your point about Pieixoto goes to the fact that the show and the books have diverged greatly at this point. In the books, June/The Handmaid, was NEVER a well known figure - and that was intentional. She was every victim of every regime that brutalizes women. She was every woman, just an average person who got caught up in a revolution. June Osborne of the show *started* this way but has morphed into SuperHandmaid, June Osborne of The Angel Flight, June Osborne of the Extensive Public War Crimes Trial. She's essentially a celebrity in both Gilead and Canada, which means she's useless for undercover work. In the show's world, even if Nicole was taken into hiding, she would know who June Osborne of the Angel Flight and June Osborne Mother of Baby Nicole is, because there's extensive photographic evidence. Frankly its kind of implausible at this point for Hannah, who is maybe 11, to not remember that time she was eight and met the blonde handmaid calling herself her mother, or that time she was taken from her parents, locked in a glass cage, and then saw that handmaid again, so Agnes's backstory is also already a problem. (And her mom has to die, Dad has to remarry, she has to have a scarring incident seeing her Dad's handmaid die in childbirth, and she has to be almost married to Commander "I like to kill my child brides" in a very short amount of time)

June of the show is not a figure who would fall out of history the way June of the books did. June of the books was never intended to be a famous person, she was meant to represent all women victimized. The idea was that a woman or girl reading the Handmaid's Tale could see themselves in the role. In that respect it doesn't really matter who June in the book is. The problem is that June of the show has diverged greatly from that.

Now can they jam all the current show characters into ill fitting holes left by the book  characters but they've already diverged pretty far from the books in establishing June as this super celebrity ex handmaid. She can't be an active Mayday operative because she's famous as June Osborne of the Angel Flight... and its really not what the books described anyway. 

Agree. Have an upvote! Book June was no Handmaid Hero. She was meant to represent all of them. She didn't even have a name. 

[EllaWycliffe]

Well, I do think her name was June but yes, and thank you. I totally get why the show went in the Hero June direction, they sorta have to if they want more than a movie length story and also its more exciting but its a huge divergence. 

[mamadrama]

2 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Well, I do think her name was June but yes, and thank you. I totally get why the show went in the Hero June direction, they sorta have to if they want more than a movie length story and also its more exciting but its a huge divergence. 

I should've said "she wasn't even referred to by name" in the book. 

[Umbelina]

The whole "June" name thing is simply a show thing, it was easier for viewers to give the handmaids their actual names than to keep calling them OfMathew, OfFred, etc. especially when the Of-whomever name could change at any time.  I think the show handled that correctly, especially in those moving (and dangerous, revolutionary) scenes where the handmaid's dared to introduce themselves to each other using their real names.  June, Janine, Alma, Brianna and all the rest  was clearer and nicer to hear in each episode, and much less confusing.

 

[Anela]

Are they now setting Lydia up for the storyline given to her in this book? I was thinking about the show not fitting the book, for the reasons outlined above.  

[Anela]

On 6/6/2021 at 3:54 AM, Hathaway said:

I think Testaments would make a great series!  Parents off fighting the war.  Spies.  Underground resistance in Canada.  Lydia does a 180  and dies in the end, happy to have her revenge at last.  Two estranged sisters together at last and forged through their shared dangers.  I think on screen that would be so powerful.

Bring it!  

Seriously though, I think the way Aunts were "born" would be riveting and horrifying all by itself.  Imagine sympathizing with Lydia?

I'm late to this party though, read both books this year, binged the show.  I can't imagine waiting decades to find out how it all turned out, so, for me?  I would want the sequel to happen soon after this one ends.

When they showed a certain scene with Lydia, at school, I remembered in this book, when she and the other women tried to resist at first.  Show Lydia seemed to be fine with taking children away from their mothers.  I wonder if Janine will somehow get her to help, and move in the direction of the book.  

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, Anela said:

Are they now setting Lydia up for the storyline given to her in this book? I was thinking about the show not fitting the book, for the reasons outlined above.  

I think so.

For example, the tenderness shown to Janine, and frankly, never killing June, I think it's because she does see June as a natural foe/leader and is seeing if she can use that for her ultimate goal of getting even with and destroying all those who set up Gilead.

More though?

We saw the whole blackmail thing happening already, with Commander Lawrence.  The secrets Lydia collects are her main power, and now she's actually used some to survive.  I think Lawrence may replace the murdering pedophile in the book, which would be an acceptable change to me.

[Anela]

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I think so.

For example, the tenderness shown to Janine, and frankly, never killing June, I think it's because she does see June as a natural foe/leader and is seeing if she can use that for her ultimate goal of getting even with and destroying all those who set up Gilead.

More though?

We saw the whole blackmail thing happening already, with Commander Lawrence.  The secrets Lydia collects are her main power, and now she's actually used some to survive.  I think Lawrence may replace the murdering pedophile in the book, which would be an acceptable change to me.

Yeah, I was thinking about the blackmail, but she was forced into it, because they wanted her to retire.  

[EllaWycliffe]

Without the murdering pedofile, there's no reason for Hannah to become an Aunt. 

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Without the murdering pedofile, there's no reason for Hannah to become an Aunt. 

Oh I think there are plenty of other reasons a 14 year old doesn't want to be married to a stranger.

That said, having Lawrence be Lydia's main contact wouldn't prevent a murdering pedophile from also being on screen, and chosen for Hannah.

[EllaWycliffe]

I would say Book Lydia was more inclined to "rescue" Hannah because the husband of choice was a murdering pedofile and not some relatively ok guy.

Hannah is being raised in a world where marrying at 14 is standard.

[Umbelina]

4 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I would say Book Lydia was more inclined to "rescue" Hannah because the husband of choice was a murdering pedofile and not some relatively ok guy.

Hannah is being raised in a world where marrying at 14 is standard.

and that terrified her

FLDS girls are raised in that same kind of world, and many of them try to escape when that is about to happen as well.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Umbelina

[EllaWycliffe]

I agree its not a good thing - I'm no fan of the FLDS but there are significant differences between that real world situation and the book.

Hannah wasn't thrilled but mostly because her stepmother was picking guys based on their status and Hannah only went into terrified mode when the murdery pedofile was chosen. 

The bigger issue is Lydia getting involved without the murdery pedofile in play.

Lawrence BTW doesn't strike me as giving much of a darn who Hannah marries.

 

Heh maybe Lawrence marries Hannah

 

[Umbelina]

Hannah had no idea the guy was murdering his wives, did she?

Lydia knew, but Hannah just thought he was old and icky, and she was terrified of sex from the school and from her abuse.

[EllaWycliffe]

It's Lydia who intervened - would Lydia have interfered if she didn't know Commander Judd liked to murder his child brides?

Hannah was skeeved by all of her choices because she knew her stepmother disliked her and would pick badly out of spite. Commander Judd was her stepmother's choice - for obvious child murdering reasons - and Hannah knew something ominous was being set up. 

Basically the problem is that Lydia intervenes because Hannah was in actual danger above and beyond what the average girl deals with so to put Lawrence in place of Judd, there still needs to be a plot to push that forward. 

[greekmom]

On 6/9/2021 at 12:17 PM, Umbelina said:

The whole "June" name thing is simply a show thing, it was easier for viewers to give the handmaids their actual names than to keep calling them OfMathew, OfFred, etc. especially when the Of-whomever name could change at any time.  I think the show handled that correctly, especially in those moving (and dangerous, revolutionary) scenes where the handmaid's dared to introduce themselves to each other using their real names.  June, Janine, Alma, Brianna and all the rest  was clearer and nicer to hear in each episode, and much less confusing.

 

Interesting fact. Offred was called Kate in the Handmaid's Tale movie.

[Umbelina]

As I said, they can still introduce the pedophile murderer as Hannah's intended husband, but not make him Lydia's only confederate conspirator as Lawrence is.

Lydia had more than one, they could BOTH be.

However, I think Lawrence, for show purposed, would be much more interesting/effective as the main guy.

It changes NOTHING of importance in the story.  At all.

[EllaWycliffe]

11 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

It changes NOTHING of importance in the story.  At all.

In your opinion.  To me, Judd and Lawrence don't really compare. Judd has no misgivings about Gilead. Lawrence does. One reason Book Lydia was happy to betray Judd so thoroughly was that he was genuinely a total scumbag. He'd never allow Show Lydia to have Janine as her pet. Lawrence in contrast, has some kindness and isn't likely to inspire Lydia to rebel.

[greekmom]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Hannah had no idea the guy was murdering his wives, did she?

Lydia knew, but Hannah just thought he was old and icky, and she was terrified of sex from the school and from her abuse.

Sorry, I don't recall Hannah being abused. It was Becky her friend that was abused and was terrified of sex and that's why she became an Aunt.

Hannah didn't want to marry the dude her step mother chose for her. 

Oh the sky is a beautiful blue here but slightly cooler today than it's suppose to be. Silly Ontario weather.  No wonder it's always grey when they are filming.

Edited June 24, 2021 by greekmom
LOL.

[anna0852]

2 hours ago, greekmom said:

Sorry, I don't recall Hannah being abused. It was Becky her friend that was abused and was terrified of sex and that's why she became an Aunt.

Becca's father was a pedophile denist who made Hannah jerk him off during an exam. She couldn't have been more than 12 or 13.

[ReganX]

On 6/9/2021 at 5:17 PM, Umbelina said:

The whole "June" name thing is simply a show thing

It could be argued that June is named in the book, albeit indirectly. On the first page, the Handmaids at the Red Center, including the narrator, whisper their names to one another at night. Of the list of names given, June is the only one not to subsequently be confirmed to be the name of another Handmaid.

[mamadrama]

40 minutes ago, ReganX said:

It could be argued that June is named in the book, albeit indirectly. On the first page, the Handmaids at the Red Center, including the narrator, whisper their names to one another at night. Of the list of names given, June is the only one not to subsequently be confirmed to be the name of another Handmaid.

Atwood has actually said that people called her "June" name long before the series. She'd never give them confirmation, but it doesn't seem like the showrunners pulled it out of their asses. 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by mamadrama

[ReganX]

4 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

Atwood has actually said that people figured out the "June" name long before the series. She'd never give them confirmation, but it doesn't seem like the showrunners pulled it out of their asses. 

I took it that the narrator's name was June when I read the book.

[greekmom]

I hope if they do go ahead with the Testaments tv show that they just take the basics and change it. I didn't like the Aunt Lydia storyline. It doesn't mesh with they way Aunt Lydia was previously written and portrayed on television.

It would be great if they just have Hannah become an Aunt and she takes over the Aunt Lydia role with another older Aunt that we have not met who could be there by force and working on the inside.  With Nicole being on the other side fighting with the freedom fighters to get rid of Gilead. 

Also, I am too lazy to haul out my book but did they mention in it that June was with both her husbands when she went to visit Nicole? I recall that and surprised that both men were ok with a thruple arrangement. 

[Redrum]

I don't recall June's husband being present at all in The Testaments. I do think it was strongly implied to be Nick as Atwood was following book cannon and Luke apparently died in the first book.

[circumvent]

On 9/17/2022 at 11:25 AM, Redrum said:

I don't recall June's husband being present at all in The Testaments. I do think it was strongly implied to be Nick as Atwood was following book cannon and Luke apparently died in the first book.

You are correct, Luke is not in the book. 

[circumvent]

On 9/17/2022 at 10:57 AM, greekmom said:

I hope if they do go ahead with the Testaments tv show that they just take the basics and change it. I didn't like the Aunt Lydia storyline. It doesn't mesh with they way Aunt Lydia was previously written and portrayed on television.

I didn't like the book, I felt like Atwood wrote it in part to conform with the mess she allowed/accepted they did with the show (money speaks), and in part to try to redeem herself for allowing/agreeing with that mess in the first place. Because of that, if they do go ahead with the new show, I might be able to watch it without hating it for butchering a good novel.

I started watching THT because I like the book a lot but after the first season it went downhill pretty fast. Testaments will not have this weight, because it was a very "un-Atwood" Atwood book imo. Bad book generating whatever show. Pass time, no expectations, no super!unstable!unbalanced! June close ups. It is a win already.

[Black Knight]

On 9/17/2022 at 11:25 AM, Redrum said:

I don't recall June's husband being present at all in The Testaments. I do think it was strongly implied to be Nick as Atwood was following book cannon and Luke apparently died in the first book.

He isn't present throughout the book, but he's part of the dedication for the memorial statue for Becka at the closing of The Testaments. So he did survive, along with Nick. The inscription specifically mentions "their two fathers".

I just finished watching the first two episodes of the new season, and wow. I can see The Testaments looming large. Putnam has been revealed to be the Commander of the Testaments, which is something I had been wondering since I read the book since it obviously wasn't Fred, and we see the roots for Lydia's turnaround. Even Emily's exit from the show, which seemed really stupid, makes sense if you figure that the showrunners are confident they can get Alexis Bledel back for an episode or two. The dialogue really hammered on Emily wanting to get to Aunt Lydia, so I suspect she will be a key part of Lydia turning. (I don't think they can make it so that Lydia has been against Gilead from the very start. Her TV back story is too different.)

[Redrum]

9 minutes ago, circumvent said:

I didn't like the book, I felt like Atwood wrote it in part to conform with the mess she allowed/accepted they did with the show (money speaks), and in part to try to redeem herself for allowing/agreeing with that mess in the first place.

Agreed. Its not a bad book. I enjoyed it. And it was nice to see more of the inner workings of Gilead from a different perspective but it clearly was in response to the tv show's popularity, and Atwood wanting to get in the final say. I personally have no expectation that we'll ever see a show based on the book and I strongly suspect it will be significantly different than the book if it is made. If for no other reason than the book pretty clearly takes place over a few months and doesn't end in a mystery.

15 minutes ago, circumvent said:

Testaments will not have this weight, because it was a very "un-Atwood" Atwood book imo. Bad book generating whatever show. Pass time, no expectations, no super!unstable!unbalanced! June close ups. It is a win already.

My concern with it is that its honestly not that clever of a story and Book Lydia is so significantly different than Show Lydia that putting Ann Dowd in the role will be difficult for me to accept.

And honestly, its kind of a stupid plot. Baby Nicole is some sort of worshipped god figure stolen from Gilead and sixteen years later, the Resistance grabs the kid in Canada and trains her to infiltrate Gilead so she can then escape with her older sister Hannah/Agnes back to Canada with some microdots embeded in her tatoo that Aunt Lydia gives her even though in the book its revealed that Aunt Lydia has been moving info via microdot thru her "Pearl Girls" aka Aunt initiates who Canada allows into the country  to religiously recruit women to Gilead.

Aunt Lydia in the book is a somewhat sympathetic character in that the book rather graphically details how she was a nice person, and a court judge, before she was basically tortured into submission and made an Aunt. Unlike Show Lydia whose becoming story is that she had an awkward semi sexual encounter with a coworker and decided after that slutty women deserve to have their kids ripped away.

14 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Putnam has been revealed to be the Commander of the Testaments, which is something I had been wondering since I read the book since it obviously wasn't Fred, and we see the roots for Lydia's turnaround.

While I do think Putnam is a creepy asshat, I don't think he's the murdering child raper of the book simply because he's just not that highly ranked. And Lydia as depicted on the show is just so evil, I am kind of like "Gosh Lydia, it took Esther being raped by Putnam to open your eyes? Janine being raped didn't do it for you? Or the multiple times Esther was gangbanged by her husband and his buddies? Do you regret forcibly circumcising Emily now?"

They honestly might do better by having the turned Aunt be a different face simply because a lot of the audience is going to have little ability to buy Lydia turning to the good side. 

[chocolatine]

58 minutes ago, circumvent said:

I didn't like the book, I felt like Atwood wrote it in part to conform with the mess she allowed/accepted they did with the show (money speaks), and in part to try to redeem herself for allowing/agreeing with that mess in the first place. Because of that, if they do go ahead with the new show, I might be able to watch it without hating it for butchering a good novel.

I started watching THT because I like the book a lot but after the first season it went downhill pretty fast. Testaments will not have this weight, because it was a very "un-Atwood" Atwood book imo. Bad book generating whatever show. Pass time, no expectations, no super!unstable!unbalanced! June close ups. It is a win already.

I couldn't agree more. The ending of THT was perfect in its ambiguity, in the sense that in violent regimes a lot of people disappear without anyone being able to find out what happened to them; it was realistic. The Testaments was pandering to a TV audience and its need to have a Hollywood ending with all threads tied up.

[Black Knight]

8 minutes ago, Redrum said:

While I do think Putnam is a creepy asshat, I don't think he's the murdering child raper of the book simply because he's just not that highly ranked.

Yet. There's plenty of time for him to rise. And we see the seeds being sown for the exit of his current Wife.

I agree Lydia's turning is tricky. But she's always had some lines where the Handmaids are concerned, and Putnam murdering Esther or nearly so (we'll have to see what happens in the next episode) when she hadn't done anything to "deserve" it under Gilead's warped rules is a lot even for Lydia.

I think TV Lydia and Lawrence have essentially the same arc: Both true believers in the concept, who eventually become put off enough by the reality to start working against Gilead. For Lawrence, it was the deterioration and death of his wife. Book Lydia isn't a terribly nice or moral person either: At the turning point, she still seriously considers not bringing Gilead down after all, and is actually rather flippant about which way she'll go. It's not exactly a portrayal of someone on a firm moral crusade hell-bent on overthrowing the Evil Empire, more that she has fun in setting up the possible outcomes, and then has just enough humanity left in her to choose the way she does.

[crashdown]

3 hours ago, Black Knight said:

I agree Lydia's turning is tricky. But she's always had some lines where the Handmaids are concerned, and Putnam murdering Esther or nearly so (we'll have to see what happens in the next episode) when she hadn't done anything to "deserve" it under Gilead's warped rules is a lot even for Lydia.

Putnam didn't murder Esther or nearly so--Esther poisoned herself and Janine.

[crashdown]

17 hours ago, Redrum said:

I personally have no expectation that we'll ever see a show based on the book and I strongly suspect it will be significantly different than the book if it is made.

Bruce Miller has said that they've already started on The Testaments in the preliminary writing phases I don't think there's any doubt that it's happening.

[Redrum]

25 minutes ago, crashdown said:

Bruce Miller has said that they've already started on The Testaments in the preliminary writing phases I don't think there's any doubt that it's happening.

There's been a Battlestar Galactica reboot "in the works" for years and years. Likewise Babylon 5. Dragon Riders of Pern has been periodically "in development" for actual decades.  I'm sure it may happen but until they've hired some cast, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. 

Unlike Handmaid's Tale, its also a fairly complete story - Baby Nicole goes into Gilead, finds her sister Hannah and they both escape with critical intelligence that leads to Gilead's downfall and they get to be with their mom.  Thats a nice ten episode season and then what?

[crashdown]

3 minutes ago, Redrum said:

Unlike Handmaid's Tale, its also a fairly complete story - Baby Nicole goes into Gilead, finds her sister Hannah and they both escape with critical intelligence that leads to Gilead's downfall and they get to be with their mom.  Thats a nice ten episode season and then what?

Yes, you're right. My impression is that Margaret Atwood and Bruce Miller collaborated enough so that whatever she wrote and whatever he planned wouldn't contradict each other, but not necessarily more than that. Bruce Miller has said that he's taking The Testaments "into account" in the final two seasons of THT and in the upcoming The Testaments. I don't personally think it needs to follow the plot of The Testaments slavishly, but I think it'll have its bones: the two sisters (now young adults) in different countries, ultimately fighting against Gilead together; Lydia as a lead character; June off fighting on her own, separate from both her daughters. I expect Serena to be part of this story (and she wasn't in the book), just because Yvonne is too popular an actor for them to let her go prematurely. I expect June to figure more into the story than she does in the book, because Elizabeth Moss is also pretty popular and because she seems to be having a creative say in the direction of the sequel.  A lot of how it goes is going to depend on

Spoiler

what happens with this New Bethlehem that Joseph is proposing--if it's Old Gilead versus New Gilead, that's different from Gilead versus the US and Canada.

As far as will-they-or-won't-they make it at all, I think Hulu would be crazy not to make it. The Handmaid's Tale was the making of them--it was the first streaming series to win any Emmy at all, let alone multiple Emmys.  I think they'd have tried to milk more seasons out of THT if they didn't know that The Testaments was waiting in the wings.

[Redrum]

5 minutes ago, crashdown said:

Yes, you're right. My impression is that Margaret Atwood and Bruce Miller collaborated enough so that whatever she wrote and whatever he planned wouldn't contradict each other, but not necessarily more than that. Bruce Miller has said that he's taking The Testaments "into account" in the final two seasons of THT and in the upcoming The Testaments. I don't personally think it needs to follow the plot of The Testaments slavishly, but I think it'll have its bones: the two sisters (now young adults) in different countries, ultimately fighting against Gilead together; Lydia as a lead character; June off fighting on her own, separate from both her daughters. I expect Serena to be part of this story (and she wasn't in the book), just because Yvonne is too popular an actor for them to let her go prematurely. I expect June to figure more into the story than she does in the book, because Elizabeth Moss is also pretty popular and because she seems to be having a creative say in the direction of the sequel.

I don't need it to follow the plot of The Testaments slavishly and to be honest, that horse has long left the building, in my opinion.

Because I wasn't in love with The Testaments (I enjoyed the book, its not awful, I just wasn't thrilled in the direction) taking it into account for the next two seasons of The Handmaid's Tale and a potential sequel show is disappointing. If only because Book Lydia grants Show Lydia a redemption I don't think Show Lydia has earned or deserved. It's also disappointing because in order to even reasonably "take it into account" - Hannah doesn't get rescued and spends her entire childhood in the clutches of Gilead. Any plot line surrounding rescuing Hannah or getting Hannah to Canada? It will fail. It has to. Hannah is the hingepoint of The Testaments.

I can live with June being in an active role although fifteen years down the road I really hope she's in a better place psychologically. I also kind of assume she'll be raising Serena's son as her own for some reason (amusement and spite, mostly, ;))  Thats not a spoiler btw, I just cant see the show writers resisting that piece of irony.

I think keeping Serena alive is much more problematic.... Although now I have had a flash. What if being widowed etc leads to *Serena* becoming an Aunt and takes on the role of destroying Gilead? And freeing Hannah?

Spoiler

Yeah I have seen the New Bethlehem spoilers and it sounds so dumb, I don't know why they thought it was a good idea. 

Will they won't they make it? I'm cynical  simply because I have seen the "in discussion" stuff on a lot of shows. I just don't think there's enough story to make it a completely seperate stand alone show - they might be better off calling it The Handmaid's Tale and just time jumping to events in The Testaments. 

[crashdown]

2 hours ago, Redrum said:

It's also disappointing because in order to even reasonably "take it into account" - Hannah doesn't get rescued and spends her entire childhood in the clutches of Gilead. Any plot line surrounding rescuing Hannah or getting Hannah to Canada? It will fail. It has to. Hannah is the hingepoint of The Testaments.

I agree that Hannah's not going to end up in Canada, but it's really important to the story that they're telling that June *is* reunited with Hannah. What I'm expecting to happen is that June gets Hannah back and then has to give her up because Hannah is miserable and wants to go back to her "parents" in Gilead. That will be a devastating twist and will also put Hannah back where she needs to be without harming the integrity of TV HMT. I think it's also going to be the impetus for

Spoiler

June to go with her to fight for New Bethlehem to make sure that the Gilead her daughter will be growing up in is at least a more palatable version of itself.

[circumvent]

On 9/19/2022 at 2:07 PM, crashdown said:

I expect Serena to be part of this story

Same. I also think that they will sue her son as a big part of the story. 

On 9/19/2022 at 2:49 PM, Redrum said:

If only because Book Lydia grants Show Lydia a redemption I don't think Show Lydia has earned or deserved. It's also disappointing because in order to even reasonably "take it into account" - Hannah doesn't get rescued and spends her entire childhood in the clutches of Gilead. Any plot line surrounding rescuing Hannah or getting Hannah to Canada? It will fail. It has to. Hannah is the hingepoint of The Testaments.

Right. I think they will make Lydia change in this series, doing what she did in The Testaments - getting Hannah out of marriage/rape direction and into the aunt role, then make her a full blown hero in Testaments. I would really hope that June was more of a memory int he next series because I don't need Super June to be the lead in that show.   I am also curious if they will have June never coming back to Canada, and having Nichole being raised by Moira (It would be a nice way to recover the character a little bit, since they completely forgot that she was a dissident/warrior from the beginning) instead of a foster kid that doesn't know anything about her past and her mother, or Gilead. I guess we will have more of an idea once they reveal the cast of the new show.

I also didn't like the direction of the book so I guess I can enjoy the next series a little more because the premise would be just an audience pleaser, not a bad adaptation of a great book. I am ok with the changes in what each character does

[The Mighty Peanut]

I'd like to see Janine as one of the Aunts with it being implied she was Lydia's first pet project as a triple agent. 

They've made it so clear in HMT that June can't function without exhausting every possible option to get Hannah back. So like others I see some sort of scenario where Hannah rejects June and June is finally forced to make due with Nicole and Luke.

Then Hannah could do her own mission and wind up in Canada or NB reunited with her mom who in the show would not be a stranger but would also not be a fully welcome presence. It would be somewhat clean if they ended the show with Hannah, June, Luke, and Nicole beginning the process of living as a family (I'm fanwanking Moira is somewhere experiencing everything good in life far away from The Osborne Family Shitshow). Though a more cynical way of looking at it would be everyone settles. Luke settles for June who is always half in Gilead, June settles for having Hannah back but not a Hannah that feels like her daughter, Hannah settles for parents who are strangers and continues to miss the Mackenzies, Nicole settles for being the child of a forced sexual encounter ..living under the same roof as June's golden child that June was always leaving Nicole for. Yay! 

Edited November 1, 2022 by The Mighty Peanut

[circumvent]

12 hours ago, The Mighty Peanut said:

Then Hannah could do her own mission and wind up in Canada or NB reunited with her mom who in the show would not be a stranger but would also not be a fully welcome presence. It would be somewhat clean if they ended the show with Hannah, June, Luke, and Nicole beginning the process of living as a family

That scenario is way too far from the premise of the book. Not that the writers care much about somewhat following the book's stories but in this case Margaret Atwood seems to have written The Testaments thinking about a series that can follow THT, at least in a more coherent way than THT series followed the original book. As I said many times, The Testaments is not, imo, a great sample of her work, it is written to be exclusively commercial, not for the fans of her best work.

I can speculate so many ways they can go with the adaptation, but I guess I have a chance to get it closer to their direction once we know who will be in the show, as actors. Mainly Elizabeth Moss and "Serena", and to a lesser extent "Luke" and Bradley Whitford. 

[Redrum]

Any casting announcements involving Bradley Whitford or Yvonne whatshername means they aren't following the book closely.