The Testaments (sequel)

[mamadrama]

1 hour ago, revbfc said:

I really don’t care if Testaments lines up with the TV show.  They’re allowed to be different, and I can enjoy both.

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. 

[EllaWycliffe]

20 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

'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. 

This.

Plus, sometimes it allows the exploration of ideas the author had no need to pursue in the written work. 

For example - the longer the show runs, the more intrigued I am at the idea that Hannah just might be a shining star of a Wife in Gilead, a real convert, much to June's chagrin

[ReganX]

15 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

For example - the longer the show runs, the more intrigued I am at the idea that Hannah just might be a shining star of a Wife in Gilead, a real convert, much to June's chagrin

I'd have thought that this would be something that Gilead would want, and that Hannah's future spouse would be chosen accordingly. Better optics to parade her on the arm of a handsome young Commander whose rise will be carefully orchestrated, and to have her present the image of a blissfully content Wife and (hopefully) mother, than to marry her off to the old fart with a history of his Wives dying sudden, tragic deaths whenever he wants a younger model.

[anna0852]

Do you really think Gilead has that much good sense?

[Umbelina]

Obviously, in the sequel, Hannah/Agnes does not become a wife, so why on earth would you want the show to do that?  She has good reasons not to, and the conflict between being rah rah Gilead and nah nah I don't wanna be a wife is compelling.

Also she is brave for a girl raised in Gilead, and outwits her parents to join the Aunts, which is much more interesting and cinematic that watching another brain dead Stepford wife.  Not to mention even more insight to the Aunts, and especially closeness to Lydia while the major plot twist of the book unfurls.

I really don't get it.

[EllaWycliffe]

Because the show does not have to follow the book and its an interesting direction to go with June and her child.

The plot in the Testaments surrounding Agnes's escape is interesting but there's currently no set up and it would need to be happening now. Mrs. Mckenzie didn't look ill, the dad by all reports is loving and the whole story around the mom dying, of Kyle dying, the dad remarriage to the evil murdering stepmother, and then the forced marriage to Judd, who is unlikely to be Lawrence if the marriage is supposed to inspire fear. That's pretty much enough plot for a whole sequel show.

Meanwhile showcasing June's daughter as a happily married and on board with Gilead wife would be an awesome slap down of June's efforts. But we'll see.

[Umbelina]

30 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Because the show does not have to follow the book and its an interesting direction to go with June and her child.

The plot in the Testaments surrounding Agnes's escape is interesting but there's currently no set up and it would need to be happening now. Mrs. Mckenzie didn't look ill, the dad by all reports is loving and the whole story around the mom dying, of Kyle dying, the dad remarriage to the evil murdering stepmother, and then the forced marriage to Judd, who is unlikely to be Lawrence if the marriage is supposed to inspire fear. That's pretty much enough plot for a whole sequel show.

Meanwhile showcasing June's daughter as a happily married and on board with Gilead wife would be an awesome slap down of June's efforts. But we'll see.

Because of the time differences in the book, Hannah's story could start pretty soon.

I'm pretty over seeing the wives and all of that crap, I'd much rather they follow the author's tale, and show things like Hannah trying to learn to read, and making her discoveries, and learning about the Aunts.  It would be a perfect time for Lydia flashbacks as well.

There are plenty of her friends they could use for "now married" crap.  Hannah getting away from that, and the way she does it, shows her to still be June's child, even if she doesn't know it.

Also, where would Hannah meet up with her sister if she was just another wife?  Down the line, true, but still, that whole thing was one of my favorite parts of the book.

The ending of the book is them together, pretending to be Pearl Girl's as well, so Hannah being a "wife" would make no sense at all.

I know they will change some things, mostly add some things to Testaments, but I seriously can't see this show runner telling Margaret Atwood, "Nah, I didn't like your book, so Hannah will be a wife, and Nicole will be a Handmaid or something, or maybe the Aunt in charge of Hannah, or training to be that."

The things that will change, IMO of course, are Nick, Luke, Janine, Serena, Fred, and Moira's stories being bumped up.  I hope they keep Emily as Ada though, and think they will.

Fred should be executed soon though, but the afterword of both books wasn't clear that it was Fred, right?  Just pretty sure?

ETA

It might be cool to have Janine raising Nicole though, along with some wonderful guy she loves.  Alternately, they may give the Ada role to Moira, and have Emily raising Nicole.  Nah, that wouldn't make sense, since both Moira and Emily are gay.  I mean of course they could pretend to be married, but Janine kind of fits that slot a bit better, especially if she heals all the way into sanity.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Umbelina

[EllaWycliffe]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Because of the time differences in the book, Hannah's story could start pretty soon.

It could... but it would involve shifting the storyline to Hannah

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I'm pretty over seeing the wives and all of that crap,

But... the wives in Hannah's story are a significant part of the story in how and why she escapes to the Aunts. (plus, TV Hannah already has some inkling she's a handmaid baby, whereas Book Hannah didn't remember her old name or her biological mother at all which makes for differences)

 

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I know they will change some things, mostly add some things to Testaments, but I seriously can't see this show runner telling Margaret Atwood, "Nah, I didn't like your book, so Hannah will be a wife, and Nicole will be a Handmaid or something, or maybe the Aunt in charge of Hannah, or training to be that."

I mean, the show runners clearly do respect Margaret Atwood, but there's already significant changes to the source material and thats just how Hollywood is. Frankly, in order to follow the Testaments, June has to go into hiding and not be seen for 16+ years and I really don't think Elizabeth Moss is going to be told "Well, you're kind of the star and a producer but we have to follow Atwood's vision so here's your check and we'll call you when the story catches up." Likewise any number of other members of the cast who don't have roles - even shifting them into roles that they might kinda sorta vaguely fit if we squint and ignore a lot still means losing Nick, Serena, Fred, Luke, Moira (if you assign Luke and Moira as Nicole's parents, which is awkward, they go underground and live grey quiet lives until they are murdered) and yes, June.  I can't see that happening.

Mind you, I can't see them going with the "Gilead collapses into itself when all the terrible deeds of the Commanders are released to the world but we don't see it because the book ends with June meeting her two daughters after their escape" either - thats just not enough flash and boom from a show that showed us speeding trains wiping out handmaids. 

[Umbelina]

22 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Because of the time differences in the book, Hannah's story could start pretty soon.

It could... but it would involve shifting the storyline to Hannah

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I'm pretty over seeing the wives and all of that crap,

But... the wives in Hannah's story are a significant part of the story in how and why she escapes to the Aunts. (plus, TV Hannah already has some inkling she's a handmaid baby, whereas Book Hannah didn't remember her old name or her biological mother at all which makes for differences)

 

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I know they will change some things, mostly add some things to Testaments, but I seriously can't see this sh

26 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Likewise any number of other members of the cast who don't have roles - even shifting them into roles that they might kinda sorta vaguely fit if we squint and ignore a lot still means losing Nick, Serena, Fred, Luke, Moira (if you assign Luke and Moira as Nicole's parents, which is awkward, they go underground and live grey quiet lives until they are murdered) and yes, June.  I can't see that happening.

ow runner telling Margaret Atwood, "Nah, I didn't like your book, so Hannah will be a wife, and Nicole will be a Handmaid or something, or maybe the Aunt in charge of Hannah, or training to be that."

I mean, the show runners clearly do respect Margaret Atwood, but there's already significant changes to the source material and thats just how Hollywood is. Frankly, in order to follow the Testaments, June has to go into hiding and not be seen for 16+ years and I really don't think Elizabeth Moss is going to be told "Well, you're kind of the star and a producer but we have to follow Atwood's vision so here's your check and we'll call you when the story catches up."

Damnit, I quoted the whole thing, just meant to quote the last bit.

It doesn't involve shifting the story to Hannah and Lydia only.  June is mentioned multiple times in the book, she's just not a first person character anymore.  It's, for example, mentioned that she goes in and out of Canada and meets with various Mayday people.  It's also mentioned that she's still fighting, even Chicago is mentioned.  So June is still active, the book just focuses on the girls and Lydia.  We will still SEE June, but the girls and Lydia won't.  Luke sees her, Nick probably sees her, other rebels see her.  The war is a huge part of Testaments, even though we aren't watching it, we are hearing about it, and June's involvement with it.

We don't need to see Hannah as a wife, we'll see her friends and step mother though.  It's honestly ridiculous because it throws the entire meat of the story out.  June's daughters and Lydia are together, and everything unfolds because of that.

OK, now the formatting is completely messed up.  So sorry.

About the rest of the cast paragraph.  Yes, those people, except for Nick, Luke, and Emily don't even really exist in either book as they on the show.  I can't see them casting two randoms though, and leaving nothing for the rest to do.  They might use Janine, they might use Emily that way, and let Moira be the badass Ada.  It doesn't really matter because it won't change the story in the sequel.

31 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Mind you, I can't see them going with the "Gilead collapses into itself when all the terrible deeds of the Commanders are released to the world but we don't see it because the book ends with June meeting her two daughters after their escape" either - thats just not enough flash and boom from a show that showed us speeding trains wiping out handmaids. 

It's said pretty clearly that the rebels bring down Gilead, obviously there will be more to it than that, the economic boycotts for example, will crush them financially, but the rebels/Mayday WIN the war and crush Gilead.

---

I am wondering if/when we will see Canada returning kids and other refugees, my guess is soon, because it's time for Nicole to go into hiding.  They may start with trying to return Nicole, and then the threat of everyone being returned will cause many to hide, and some to join the fight I assume.

--

Again sorry for the formatting issues, I've never had this kind of problem before.

I do strongly believe that certain things will NOT be changed from Atwood's vision, the other fill in stuff will, but will not impact the overall story.  What I don't know is if they will just continue to blend the two books, now that they know the ending, or if they will end this show and start Testaments.  I think the former.

1. June will continue to fight as Mayday, but will come and go from Canada to share information, etc.  We won't hear about it, we will see it.
2. Nicole will be in hiding, then Ada (played by Emily or Moira) will give her the mission to sneak into Gilead as a convert.
3. Hannah will cleverly and bravely escape marriage, and be working on becoming an Aunt.
4. Lydia's entire story will unfold as in the book, except she was never a judge.  The blackmail and jockeying for power is already happening on the show.  That will increase, and we will see her tortured in flashbacks.
5. Nicole and Hannah will complete Lydia's mission, but we will probably see the reaction to that in Canada, Gilead, and the world.
6. Gilead falls, the rebels/USA/Mayday groups around the country are the main factor in this, they win the war.  Economic issues contribute, ala Lawrence.
7. (this one I'm less sure of, but it seems like a nice ending so probably?)  The entire family reunites and gets that statue built.  

Other than all that?  Minor things will change, and I think the current cast will all have rolls in the above.

[EllaWycliffe]

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

It doesn't involve shifting the story to Hannah and Lydia only.  June is mentioned multiple times in the book, she's just not a first person character anymore.  It's, for example, mentioned that she goes in and out of Canada and meets with various Mayday people.  It's also mentioned that she's still fighting, even Chicago is mentioned.  So June is still active, the book just focuses on the girls and Lydia. 

Please don't overstate. June isn't even mentioned by name in The Testaments. She's very much a background character, and Nicole isn't even aware of her as a public figure - which is unlikely considering the very public TV stuff shown on the show where Baby Nicole's Gilead parents plead for her with the handmaid who bore her visible in the background. Unlike the book, TV June Osborne is a well documented figure. She's been interviewed by diplomats. The Swiss keep records. 

 

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I can't see them casting two randoms though,

Which makes for significant plot problems since these characters can't match the characters in the show and therefore shouldn't be subbed in. Moira and Luke aren't Book Nicole's mom and dad and it shows in how Book Nicole reacts to Gilead. 

 

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

June will continue to fight as Mayday, but will come and go from Canada to share information, etc.  We won't hear about it, we will see it.

This doesn't follow the book at all where June is unnamed and unseen until the very end. 

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Nicole will be in hiding, then Ada (played by Emily or Moira) will give her the mission to sneak into Gilead as a convert.

Neither Emily nor Moira (Moira in particular because as a book character Moira never made it out of Gilead) are an easy match for Ada in character. I can't see either sending a 16 year old into Gilead. I also seriously question whether Nicole could disappear as depicted on the show.

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Hannah will cleverly and bravely escape marriage, and be working on becoming an Aunt.

Maybe but if we're ignoring the entire Commander Judd is a pedofile murderer and her stepmom who also likes to murder her wants her dead storyline  - and this is a pretty significant book storyline - why would Hannah want to be an Aunt when she can be a Wife?

4 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Lydia's entire story will unfold as in the book, except she was never a judge. 

But that is a SIGNIFICANT reason why Lydia in the book has torn loyalties. TV Lydia was on board with Gilead. Book Lydia was torn, until broken under torture. Book Lydia always felt guilty for her betrayal. TV Lydia was betraying people before Gilead's rise to power.

These aren't minor changes to the plot of the book

[Umbelina]

6 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Please don't overstate. June isn't even mentioned by name in The Testaments. She's very much a background character, and Nicole isn't even aware of her as a public figure - which is unlikely considering the very public TV stuff shown on the show where Baby Nicole's Gilead parents plead for her with the handmaid who bore her visible in the background. Unlike the book, TV June Osborne is a well documented figure. She's been interviewed by diplomats. The Swiss keep records. 

 

Which makes for significant plot problems since these characters can't match the characters in the show and therefore shouldn't be subbed in. Moira and Luke aren't Book Nicole's mom and dad and it shows in how Book Nicole reacts to Gilead. 

 

This doesn't follow the book at all where June is unnamed and unseen until the very end. 

Neither Emily nor Moira (Moira in particular because as a book character Moira never made it out of Gilead) are an easy match for Ada in character. I can't see either sending a 16 year old into Gilead. I also seriously question whether Nicole could disappear as depicted on the show.

Maybe but if we're ignoring the entire Commander Judd is a pedofile murderer and her stepmom who also likes to murder her wants her dead storyline  - and this is a pretty significant book storyline - why would Hannah want to be an Aunt when she can be a Wife?

But that is a SIGNIFICANT reason why Lydia in the book has torn loyalties. TV Lydia was on board with Gilead. Book Lydia was torn, until broken under torture. Book Lydia always felt guilty for her betrayal. TV Lydia was betraying people before Gilead's rise to power.

These aren't minor changes to the plot of the book

Nicole and Hannah's MOTHER is mentioned numerous times, including what she is doing and where.  It's completely irrelevant that she's not called June.  Just as in the first person adaptation of the first book?  June never saw commanders meeting, but we did.  Most commanders weren't named, but they were in the show.  

I think we've only seen Lydia's façade until the last episode, when we finally saw her threatened and wheeling and dealing.  We completely disagree about Lydia's plot/story folding in neatly to what we've already seen on the show.  The only significant change is that she was never a judge, which honestly does not matter to the resolve Atwood wrote for this story.

As far as who pretends to be Nicole's parents?  I don't really care, they will be dead soon, but it seems to me they would want to keep the actors they have on screen.

The Ada character fits the actress playing Moira slightly better than Emily, so they could go either way.  Ada escaped Gilead carrying Nicole though.

The reasons Hannah doesn't want to be a wife are well detailed in the book, and a compelling story, showing her first signs of not being in the Stepford mode, even though she's all in on Gilead except for that, because she's been so sheltered, and kept away from reading or even thinking for most of her life.  As I said above, Nicole and Hannah meeting up is the heart and soul of this book, and also the major plot line resolve.

We shall see.  I think with minor changes (more of the cast on screen) the showrunner will follow the book, with additional roles for the rest of the cast, either bundled in, or separate from the 3 different POV's.  

POV books are rarely adapted to POV only, it's too limiting.

[EllaWycliffe]

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The only significant change is that she was never a judge, which honestly does not matter to the resolve Atwood wrote for this story.

I really disagree with this and you saying it's irrelevant does not make it true.  Book Lydia did not buy into Gilead until she was tortured into submission. Its a significant lengthy part of the book. TV Lydia embraced Gilead's philosophy and very much endorses it. 

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Nicole and Hannah's MOTHER is mentioned numerous times, including what she is doing and where.  It's completely irrelevant that she's not called June

It's mentioned vaguely and there are no details. All the significance is on how Baby Nicole was stolen from Gilead and how Gilead wants her back. June only appears at the end and isn't named. 

Book Hannah doesn't remember her biological mother at all which is completely at odds with almost old enough to marry TV Hannah recoiling in horror at the Handmaid calling herself her mom. 

 

17 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

As far as who pretends to be Nicole's parents?  I don't really care, they will be dead soon, but it seems to me they would want to keep the actors they have on screen.

Yeah, this actually has significant plot problems if you're insisting Luke and Moira are going to go into hiding as Nicole's parents. For the TV SHOW, yes it does matter who pretends to be Nicole's parents. I think this might be an understanding issue. I don't consider Ada to be interchangeable with Moira or with Emily, because they are different characters with different pasts and experiences. To me, it does matter. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by EllaWycliffe

[Umbelina]

4 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I really disagree with this and you saying it's irrelevant does not make it true.  Book Lydia did not buy into Gilead until she was tortured into submission. Its a significant lengthy part of the book. TV Lydia embraced Gilead's philosophy and very much endorses it. 

It's mentioned vaguely and there are no details. All the significance is on how Baby Nicole was stolen from Gilead and how Gilead wants her back. June only appears at the end and isn't named. 

Book Hannah doesn't remember her biological mother at all which is completely at odds with almost old enough to marry TV Hannah recoiling in horror at the Handmaid calling herself her mom. 

 

Yeah, this actually has significant plot problems if you're insisting Luke and Moira are going to go into hiding as Nicole's parents. For the TV SHOW, yes it does matter who pretends to be Nicole's parents. I think this might be an understanding issue. I don't consider Ada to be interchangeable with Moira or with Emily, because they are different characters with different pasts and experiences. To me, it does matter. 

I'm not "insisting" it would be Luke and Moira.  I've also suggested Janine or Emily.  It makes sense to me that they will use current cast members, but they may not.

We haven't seen Lydia becoming an Aunt.  We've seen her LOOK like she's all in with Gilead, that doesn't mean she is.  So once we finally see her backstory at the time Gilead actually took control?  We should see the torture, and the decision she makes to survive, and more importantly, to get even.

Every time the girl's mother (June) is referred to in the book, she's either going back and forth to Canada, or on the front lines of the battles that will eventually bring Gilead down, or on a poster as 'most wanted."  Showing June do all that stuff referred to makes perfect sense, because there is no way the show will limit the POV to just three people.  We will see Luke and his thought, and the rest of them as well, the same way we've done all along with this show.  It has never been only June's POV, so I don't think Testaments will be only Hannah, Lydia, or Nicole's POV.

As I said, we shall see.

I feel strong though, that the essence of Atwood's award winning sequel, and especially the resolve between the sisters and Lydia, and the way Gilead falls, troops like June fighting, will be maintained.   I also feel strongly that the 3 POV characters will demand that they are "together" and the Aunt's lodgings are the only way that could happen.

Hannah will not be a wife, she'll trick her way into Aunt school.  

 

[mamadrama]

On 5/13/2021 at 3:24 PM, EllaWycliffe said:

This.

Plus, sometimes it allows the exploration of ideas the author had no need to pursue in the written work. 

For example - the longer the show runs, the more intrigued I am at the idea that Hannah just might be a shining star of a Wife in Gilead, a real convert, much to June's chagrin

That's a really interesting idea. I'd watch it! 

[EllaWycliffe]

21 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

That's a really interesting idea. I'd watch it! 

I would too. Without the impetus of "Mom dies, Dad marries a new, more murdery Wife who wants me out of the family so fast, she'll happily marry me to the super murdery pedofile who everyone knows kills his wives" Hannah would have a different perspective. Frankly, she's spent her young life being told how she's going to be a wife and how thats what good girls want.

Brainwashing works. If she's given a decent husband and not a murdering pedofile, its entirely possible that she could be happy with her life. That would utterly destroy June.

Not that the show is about torturing June but.... we've got an opportunity here, show runners! And it doesn't leave marks!

[mamadrama]

22 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I would too. Without the impetus of "Mom dies, Dad marries a new, more murdery Wife who wants me out of the family so fast, she'll happily marry me to the super murdery pedofile who everyone knows kills his wives" Hannah would have a different perspective. Frankly, she's spent her young life being told how she's going to be a wife and how thats what good girls want.

Brainwashing works. If she's given a decent husband and not a murdering pedofile, its entirely possible that she could be happy with her life. That would utterly destroy June.

Not that the show is about torturing June but.... we've got an opportunity here, show runners! And it doesn't leave marks!

I miss a lot of the emotional torture that we saw in S1. They're not big on subtlety and that's too bad. The scary things aren't always the physical torture. Gilead is wasting an opportunity not to hoist Agnes up as a lead member of The Real Housewives of Gilead.  It would absolutely crush June if one of her kids was actually happy and thriving there. (Or had the appearance of that. I don't think anyone is actually happy there.) It would be great propaganda. Not only would it help boost morale in Gilead,  but it would help undermine June's message. 

I just finished The Testaments. I just felt kind of meh about it. I enjoyed the continuation of the story, but I wasn't blown away by the plot or writing. Doesn't it start 16 years later? If the show is going to follow the book (which I'm not seeing yet) is it going to hop a decade into the future? Is Elisabeth Moss going to be okay with that? Her character becomes anecdotal. 

[EllaWycliffe]

20 hours ago, mamadrama said:

Gilead is wasting an opportunity not to hoist Agnes up as a lead member of The Real Housewives of Gilead.  It would absolutely crush June if one of her kids was actually happy and thriving there. (Or had the appearance of that. I don't think anyone is actually happy there.) It would be great propaganda. Not only would it help boost morale in Gilead,  but it would help undermine June's message. 

As much as I love it being June's daughter that leads the Real Housewives of Gilead - frankly this would devastate Luke as well, a obstinate protester of all things Gilead - I'm just surprised Gilead isn't parading happy show couples to the media at all. The whole "this is working, people are happy!" thing should be tempting.

20 hours ago, mamadrama said:

I just finished The Testaments. I just felt kind of meh about it.

It was a good sequel but it WAS a sequel and I feel some of it - Nicole named Nicole. the emphasis on Lydia, and the Baby Nicole concept - shows the show's influence on Atwood. I also found Daisy/Jade/Nicole to be irritating and a little unrealistic. I did like Hannah/Agnes's progression from child to adult. Book Lydia's backstory was compelling, as was her motivation to fall in line with Gilead, and her ultimate decision to betray Gilead.

That said - the actual plot was kind of ridiculous. So, for the non readers, for years, Aunt Lydia has been sending information via microdot out of Gilead and into Canada with Aunt recruiters of Gilead called "Pearl Girls". The important point is that she's been doing this for actual years. HOWEVER the link - with Baby Nicole's adoptive parents  who have spent 16 years hiding Nicole and living gray dreary lives but are also the receivers of all of these microdot data drops - and btw maybe if the point is to hide Nicole, maybe not hide her with active operatives - gets killed. (on Nicole's 16th birthday of course) So the entire structure of getting the microdots is still intact except for the drop off. So rather than prep Becka and Agnes to take the last microdot out with ALL of the info that Lydia has and just hasn't sent - and go to the nearest US Embassy, well, see, Baby Nicole has to be smuggled into Gilead so the microdot can be inserted into her arm via a cheap tattoo that later goes septic for added drama and then Nicole and Agnes have to follow a convoluted plan across the border.

Its fun and exciting, don't get me wrong. It's just totally unnecessary.

I had some minor problems with it as well - I can't believe the men allow the women to have Ardua Hall off limits to all men and all monitoring. I also honestly didn't get the whole "these are the founding Aunts who we all worship" routine - All the founding aunts live in Boston and there's only one Aunt school and Aunt Lydia is in charge of every Aunt in Gilead? It didn't work for me. I did love Hannah/Agnes's backstory with the murderous step mom. I also loved Becka's story and I was sad she was the chosen sacrifice.

20 hours ago, mamadrama said:

Doesn't it start 16 years later? If the show is going to follow the book (which I'm not seeing yet) is it going to hop a decade into the future? Is Elisabeth Moss going to be okay with that? Her character becomes anecdotal. 

Technically the set up to Agnes/Hannah becoming an aunt should be starting soon - Mom dying, Dad marrying Murderous Stepmom who wants Agnes married off. However Agnes was fourteen and no matter how I play with the math on the show, Hannah is at best eleven so the actual story isn't likely to start soon. By the timed Agnes was getting married, three years from now or sooner if the producers want to be gross - Show Lydia has to go from not terribly competant to One of the Four Revered Founding Aunts and thats got some issues attached.

And yes, the whole escape Gilead with the microdot with all the info that couldn't possibly have been sent sooner even though it was a stable info drop for Mayday for actual years takes place when Baby Nicole is 16. So there would need to be a massive time jump, Elizabeth Moss wouldn't be onscreen at all until the end and most of the cast would have to be dumped. 

[ReganX]

10 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

As much as I love it being June's daughter that leads the Real Housewives of Gilead - frankly this would devastate Luke as well, a obstinate protester of all things Gilead - I'm just surprised Gilead isn't parading happy show couples to the media at all. The whole "this is working, people are happy!" thing should be tempting.

Good point.

It's rather surprising that they don't have a concerted campaign to lure young, fertile women to Gilead with the promise of marriage to a Commander. They could showcase the beautiful homes, the lives of leisure led by Wives, happy, cherished children playing, etc.

[mamadrama]

4 hours ago, ReganX said:

Good point.

It's rather surprising that they don't have a concerted campaign to lure young, fertile women to Gilead with the promise of marriage to a Commander. They could showcase the beautiful homes, the lives of leisure led by Wives, happy, cherished children playing, etc.

For people who overthrew the American government they sure don't seem to have a good long-term plan. Most of their Handmaids aren't reproducing. They don't have a lot of kids. How do they plan to keep the country going when the current generation dies out? They're definitely going to need to outsource at some point, and that's something they should be working on now. The Nazis had crazy good propaganda. Even North Korea tries. 

[EllaWycliffe]

If only *we* ran Gilead... ;)

They're also eventually going to have a problem finding/recruiting Handmaids. Like, not to bag on Elizabeth Moss's age, she's younger than me, but she's what they used to call a "geriatric mother". Now sure, a fertile 14 year old can be found guilty of looking directly at a man and therefore being a whore adulterer but thats going to start pissing off the lower classes (you're not going to see a commander's daughter hijacked to the handmaids, When you go this draconian, it eventually collapses on itself.

[circumvent]

My problem with the book is that I was extremely disappointed with the writing. It didn't feel like reading a Margaret Atwood book. It was weak, it felt a mix of Atwood wanting to regain control of the narrative after the show writers butchered the whole concept of Gilead, and her desire to make sure it doesn't move to far from the butchered version, so they can pick it up and adapt for TV (butchering it again) and she can make some extra money. It sounds awful, but money corrupts and the quality of the writing was subpar. Therefore, I agree with "meh"

[Umbelina]

I really liked Testaments.

Admittedly, it's mostly because I've wondered what happened to the narrator of The Handmaid's Tale for decades now, and I was thrilled when Atwood decided to tell the "rest of the story."  

I think it will work well for the show, and no, I don't think that means we will never see June (Moss/Offred) on the show.  Hardly!  She becomes a major part of the effort to overthrow Gilead and reinstate the USA as a country.  In the book we hear about here several times, but on the show, or any show, it's a given that "see not hear" is much better.  June remains active, as do the people in Canada, for example Ada, at trying to bring down Gilead throughout the book.  

Lydia, Hannah, and eventually Nicole will take on large rolls though.

Why Margaret Atwood waited more than 30 years to write The Testaments  (more at link of course)

 

"I was no, no, no, no, no for awhile, but then No. 1: history changed," Atwood told The Current's interim host Laura Lynch.

"Instead of going away from Gilead, we turned around and started coming back towards Gilead." 

-----

Atwood said she had notes about a sequel that date back to the early 1990s, but didn't notify her publishers until 2017.

For those intervening decades, she wrestled with the idea. Readers wanted to know whether Offred escaped Gilead, an answer the 79-year-old said she couldn't deliver.

"I've been thinking about it off and on in a negative way ever since I published the first book, because readers kept saying: 'What happens next, and tell us whether Offred gets out.' And I said: 'Well, I can't tell you. I don't know,' " she said.

Atwood told Lynch that she didn't feel she could continue Offred's story "because you can't recreate a voice like that."

Who are the 3 female narrators?

Instead, Atwood said she focused on exploring what happened to Offred's two daughters: the one who was taken before Gilead was created, whose name was never revealed in the book, and the other she was pregnant with in the last chapter.

The third narrator in The Testaments, Atwood said, is Aunt Lydia.

"I've always wondered about Lydia." 

Looking back over totalitarianism, they do ultimately fall apart.- Margaret Atwood

In The Handmaid's Tale, Lydia is given the title of Aunt to signify women who are assigned to indoctrinate the handmaids with the beliefs of Gilead society. At the Red Centre, or re-education facility, they learn to renounce their previous identities and accept their assigned fate.     

"In the original novel, she's seen completely from the outside. We know nothing about her except her speechifying and her bad behaviour," said Atwood. "But we don't know how she got into that position, [and] what she actually thinks."

In The Testaments, Aunt Lydia's character "collects secrets," and this knowledge is the source of her power, said Atwood. This differs from The Handmaid's Tale where Offred "can't know a lot of things" because she is the sole narrator and therefore the reader only sees Gilead through one lens. 

----

"We find quite a lot out about how the Aunts' operation actually runs, what they're really doing … and the origin story about Lydia," Atwood said. 

The author said Aunt Lydia also serves as an allegory for how people's behaviour can be influenced by totalitarianism when they're faced with a near-impossible dilemma of whether to join the resistance and face death or play along and wait for opportunities.  

She says she started The Testaments before the show.

[EllaWycliffe]

2 hours ago, circumvent said:

It didn't feel like reading a Margaret Atwood book. It was weak, it felt a mix of Atwood wanting to regain control of the narrative after the show writers butchered the whole concept of Gilead, and her desire to make sure it doesn't move to far from the butchered version, so they can pick it up and adapt for TV (butchering it again) and she can make some extra money.

I mean, money is always a motivator - there's any number of Stephen King books that got the go-ahead that from a quality point really shouldn't have. But The Testaments isn't badly written. Its a fun exciting read if you don't think too hard about the world building. I do agree it didn't feel like Atwood's usual style, it really read, especially in the Nicole parts, like a YA action adventure, which isn't the vibe  I get from her other books.

I dont think the show "butchered" her concept - I do wish the show had included the racism, its an element that I don't think would be so easily winked out of the story - but I get why they moved away from it. Personally I find the show gets a little too torture porny without considering the consequences - how exactly does the Washington DC Handmaid face piercing routine - scary and creepy - really make for a better Handmaid experience? How do they eat? The show also sometimes brings things up and drops them... is the high council of Gilead back in Boston? Because in Season three its established that Washington is the seat of power with Commander Rapist Elliot Stabler as head baddy.

I do think it was written to reclaim the ending. And for the record, Atwood can easily say she "started" writing the book before the tv show, because I am sure she toyed with it since Handmaid's Tale was and is a very popular book. That doesn't mean she can't possibly have been influenced by the show.

[Umbelina]

This whole interview is very good, but at the 51 minute mark she starts to talk about why she wrote testaments.

She said it was inspired by various political events that were/are taking place (she gets specific.)  She further talks about always wanting to end the tale, and working on it on and off for many years, but political things happening in the USA spurred her on to get it done.  She sites several example that are relevant to both the original Handmaid's Tale, and Testaments.

She says Lydia was the easiest to write, and Nicole the most difficult.  

She also says that eventually most totalitarian regimes fail, and she has always been playing with the idea that Gilead would fail, so she wanted to write it failing.

 

[Umbelina]

44 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I dont think the show "butchered" her concept - I do wish the show had included the racism, its an element that I don't think would be so easily winked out of the story - but I get why they moved away from it. Personally I find the show gets a little too torture porny without considering the consequences - how exactly does the Washington DC Handmaid face piercing routine - scary and creepy - really make for a better Handmaid experience? How do they eat? The show also sometimes brings things up and drops them... is the high council of Gilead back in Boston? Because in Season three its established that Washington is the seat of power with Commander Rapist Elliot Stabler as head baddy.

I so agree that when they eliminated the racism, it nearly ruins this story.

For one thing, it's all about white male supremacy.  For another, killing or shipping off all people of color decimated their population.  It wasn't just black people, it was Jewish people "sent back to Israel" on leaky boats that sunk.  It was a blood bath among professors, the educated, Catholics.  Rewriting the Bible, and denying females the right to read, partly because things in the Bible tend to invite uprisings/revolutions is kind of in the show, but enough?

They also only touched on climate change barely, and the "poisoning of the earth" with pesticides, nuclear power, dirty air and water, while referenced in the show, are not really examined.

I'm really hoping that since they are moving into Testaments territory, they now know exactly what happens, and can incorporate all of that into the story, though I think racism will be left out.

I am also looking forward to Canada "covering it's ass" by no longer accepting refugees, and indeed, working to try to send them back to Gilead, will inspire them, and the people still fighting Gilead will have new recruits, and inspiration to up the fighting, since everyone's main "out" Canada is no longer an option.  It would be fight or submit to Gilead.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

What prompted Margaret Atwood to write the book?  She says she's been thinking of it for years, but sent something to her publisher outlining the  sequel in February of 2017.  The TV show first aired April 26, 2017.

 

[EllaWycliffe]

Filming began in September 2016, with Atwood as a consulting producer, and ended in February 2017. So all of season one would have been under her belt. 

I have no doubt she considered writing a sequel prior to the show, the book has been very successful over the years. But... the real push came after the show. 

Frankly, it reads a bit rushed. It's not a bad book at all, I like it better than Oryx and Crake, but it definitely has some plot problems, in my opinion. 

[Umbelina]

Just now, EllaWycliffe said:

Filming began in September 2016, with Atwood as a consulting producer, and ended in February 2017. So all of season one would have been under her belt. 

I have no doubt she considered writing a sequel prior to the show, the book has been very successful over the years. But... the real push came after the show. 

Frankly, it reads a bit rushed. It's not a bad book at all, I like it better than Oryx and Crake, but it definitely has some plot problems, in my opinion. 

Yes, but I've been listening to several interviews today, while trying to get neglected chores done, and so far, in every single one, she's talked about having this sequel "percolating" for many years, and that she's always wanted to finish the tale, but had a block about using Offred's voice again.

Then, she continually sites political happenings in the USA spurring her on to the realizations that indeed, it was time for a sequel.  Not once has she mentioned the TV show as it relates to her writing inspiration.  (can't get into politics here, but I think it's self evident.)

Also, the first season, minus the racism, followed the original book pretty closely.  Also, it's certainly possible, but not mentioned, that the publicity around the show made it a given that Testaments would sell well.  (Honestly, I kind of doubt that, or her worrying about sales.)

I do wonder if she shared her "outline" paragraph with the show writers.  My guess is yes, since they were planning ahead, and at the very least, June as freedom fighter, rebel was something they needed to know.

Back to the voice thing, I can also see the show prompting some of that, although, June's kids were in the first book anyway, so using them (while June is off still fighting) and Lydia make a great deal of sense.  My biggest "wonder" is if Ann Dowd's remarkable performance as Lydia gave her that 3rd voice she needed.

It reminds me of a question asked JK Rowling, if she ever wrote for any of the actors playing her roles on screen, at first she says no, but then says yes.  The actress playing Luna Lovegood was so good, that JKR found herself writing in that voice.

I wonder if the same thing happened to Margaret Atwood when watching Ann Dowd's performance.  (just a hunch, haven't see her say anything about that.)

[EllaWycliffe]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Yes, but I've been listening to several interviews today, while trying to get neglected chores done, and so far, in every single one, she's talked about having this sequel "percolating" for many years, and that she's always wanted to finish the tale, but had a block about using Offred's voice again.

Then, she continually sites political happenings in the USA spurring her on to the realizations that indeed, it was time for a sequel.  Not once has she mentioned the TV show as it relates to her writing inspiration.  (can't get into politics here, but I think it's self evident.)

Not to be blunt but "I figured the tv show would mean instant sales" isn't something a lot of writers will admit (except maybe James Patterson). Again - the idea percolating is something I totally buy because I can remember hearing the question asked way back in the 80s and 90s when Handmaid's Tale was controversial in schools. 

Nothing she is saying sounds like a lie - but she's a bright woman and likely understands that "I realized after watching filming that this was going to blow up and I wanted my version of how the story ends out there so I control the narrative" just might not sound so great. 

And really, the right time just happens to be when the tv adaption is a hit? I mean really, in the original novel, its not even established that June is pregnant, but the second book even has the baby have the same name?

I wish it didn't feel so rushed.

[circumvent]

12 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Its a fun exciting read if you don't think too hard about the world building.

But that is exactly what I like about her books, how she master the usage of words and phrases.

 

12 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

And for the record, Atwood can easily say she "started" writing the book before the tv show, because I am sure she toyed with it since Handmaid's Tale was and is a very popular book.

I was going to say the same as others already said, that she did not started to write a sequel before the show started, so already said.

[Hathaway]

18 hours ago, circumvent said:

But that is exactly what I like about her books, how she master the usage of words and phrases.

 

I was going to say the same as others already said, that she did not started to write a sequel before the show started, so already said.

She seems too cool to lie about her work.  

[EllaWycliffe]

8 hours ago, Hathaway said:

She seems too cool to lie about her work.  

In fairness - as long as she considered doing a sequel in the 1980s and 1990s, she's not lying.

I don't think she's lying when she says it was something she considered. But the show clearly pushed her forward.

[Umbelina]

I believe Margaret Atwood too, she's got no reason to lie, especially at her age.

Meanwhile!  I think we just saw the creation/confirmation of Emily becoming Ada in the last episode, aptly called Testimony.  The bad assed Ada is ready to begin the fight, before helping to destroy Gilead completely.

[EllaWycliffe]

Except that Ada was not a Handmaid, she was a member of a family of Quebecois who had a long running history of assisting refugees across the US border. Also no wife and kid. 

[Umbelina]

1 minute ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Except that Ada was not a Handmaid, she was a member of a family of Quebecois who had a long running history of assisting refugees across the US border. Also no wife and kid. 

Ada is the one who got Emily out of Gilead.

We don't know Ada's past, other than she was Mayday.  I honestly don't remember her being from Canada, what chapter?  https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-testaments/characters/ada

Either way, this would be an easy and prudent minor change in the character's bio, and keep a talented actress we know and love on screen.  Emily IS the one who got Nicole out of Gilead, as Ada does in the book.

[EllaWycliffe]

14 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Ada is the one who got Emily out of Gilead.

Which does not mean she's a handmaid. 

14 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

We don't know Ada's past, other than she was Mayday.  I honestly don't remember her being from Canada, what chapter?

Ada talking to Daisy/Nicole:

"Not everything is because of you. Anyway this is what happened. Your mother gave you to some trusted friends; they took you north up the highway, and through the woods into Vermont."

"Were you one of the trusted friends?"

"We said we were deer hunting. I used to be a guide around there, I knew people. We had you in a backpack; we gave you a pill so you wouldn't scream."

"You drugged a baby. You could have killed me," I said indignantly.

"But we didn't," said Ada. "We took you over the mountains then down into Canada at Three Rivers. Trois-Rivieres. That was a prime people smuggling route back in the day."

"Back in what day?"

"Oh around 1740," she said. "They used to catch girls from New England, hold them hostage, trade them for money or else marry them off. Once the girls had kids, they wouldn't want to go back. That's how I got my mixed heritage."

"Mixed like what?"

"Part stealer part stolen," she said. "I'm ambidextrous."

XII - Carpitz

Do I need to cite a page number? Because I am on Kindle and thats awk. 

24 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Either way, this would be an easy and prudent minor change in the character's bio, and keep a talented actress we know and love on screen. 

Well, there's also the problem that Emily would need to be 15 years older. But I stand by the contention that Ada is not interchangeable with Emily and lovely actress or not, its not really a good fit. 

[Umbelina]

Thanks for that quote!  I wish I'd bought mine on Kindle, but I got the soft cover version.

Nah, Emily is still a great fit for that role, and as I said, a minor change in background.  Both are fighters, both want Gilead eliminated, and both brought Nicole over the border.

It works.

We shall see, but I think this actress would make a great Ada, and frankly, her scenes last night confirmed that for me.

ETA

I don't think this show will get into the details of the sequel show, I do think they will be separate, but connected.  

So, breadcrumbs being dropped now, that will lead, in the sequel, to the end of Gilead.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Umbelina

[greekmom]

They might just even have June & Luke change their names and bring up Nichole all on their own (changing her name to Holly as most viewers want).

No one said that they have to follow the book. After season 1 they have even skewed from the Handmaid's Tale book.  Heck, even True Blood didn't follow the Sookie Stackhouse books.

[EllaWycliffe]

1 minute ago, greekmom said:

Heck, even True Blood didn't follow the Sookie Stackhouse books.

Which is a good example of how you don't have to follow the books - admittedly I wasn't taken with the last two seasons or so, but the show took the concept and ran in a different yet fun direction.

To use a different more on point example - there's problems with Hannah being an Aunt because lets not kid ourselves, while the book pretty bluntly ignored Aunt duties beyond reading, I have to assume Hannah would know the fine art of tazaring Handmaids at some point. 

[Umbelina]

Hannah was just learning to be an aunt though, never became one.

You don't mess with classic books, award winning books by revered, prize winning, living authors.  Changing True Blood around is quite different from completely changing Atwood's Handmaid Tale books.

Anyway, apparently the sequel series will happen, so for now, I think we'll just get the breadcrumbs, before June becomes an even more famous warrior/leader/rebel.  

In the series, I expect June to be off camera (maybe with a cameo at the end?)

Edited June 3, 2021 by Umbelina

[EllaWycliffe]

4 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Hannah was just learning to be an aunt though, never became one.

She was 22 and had been an Aunt since 14. (I mean her name was changed to the Aunt appelation) I can believe she might not work unsupervised but she has to be intimately of her job duties. 

 

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

You don't mess with classic books, award winning books by revered, prize winning, living authors.  Changing True Blood around is quite different from completely changing Atwood's Handmaid Tale books.

I would say thats your opinion. And honestly there's already significant differences between the show and the books.

 

10 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Anyway, apparently the sequel series will happen, so for now, I think we'll just get the breadcrumbs, before June becomes an even more famous warrior/leader/rebel.  

The only mention I have seen is that Hulu was "in talks' about it and that was from 2019. Meanwhile they're approved for season five of the mothership show. 

[greekmom]

28 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

You don't mess with classic books, award winning books by revered, prize winning, living authors.  Changing True Blood around is quite different from completely changing Atwood's Handmaid Tale books.

Happens all the time.

Wizard of Oz.  Great Expectations. The Devil Wears Prada. Thorn Birds (god one of my favourites!). North and South.  Goodfellas. Children of a Lesser God. Outlander. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by greekmom
spelling of Thorn

[EllaWycliffe]

I'd add Poldark, the Hannibal Lector series and The Walking Dead. Source material is different from movies and shows but it all works. 

[Umbelina]

Hulu, having optioned The Testaments to use as the basis of a new show, is now able to sprinkle some of the new book's characters, settings, and ideas into Season 4 of The Handmaid's Tale, which premieres on April 28, as well as Season 5, which is now in the works. Apr 27, 2021

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/handmaids-tale-season-4-margaret-atwood-the-testaments#:~:text=Hulu%2C having optioned The Testaments,is now in the works.

(Of course it's my opinion, that's what posts are unless citing someone else.)

I do not believe they will significantly change Atwood's outcome.  Characters?  Of course!  The over all plot?  No.

Quote

 

The Handmaid's Tale started out as the tale of one handmaid — June, who became Offred — and gradually widened its view to include more of the people in her orbit. Eventually, we learned more about the other characters — the Marthas, the Aunts, the Wives, the Commanders — as well as what their lives had been like pre-Gilead. This showed us how the theocratic state came to be, and what events had shaped the main characters' assigned roles within it.

For the first few seasons, the Hulu series had only one of Margaret Atwood's books to use as a guide. But the author's 2019 sequel, The Testaments, brought with it a wealth of new material to draw from. Hulu, having optioned The Testaments to use as the basis of a new show, is now able to sprinkle some of the new book's characters, settings, and ideas into Season 4 of The Handmaid's Tale, which premieres on April 28, as well as Season 5, which is now in the works

 

More at link of course.  Most of the ideas here are very good I think, in THEIR opinion of course.

https://www.slashfilm.com/the-testaments-series/

Quote

 

The Handmaid’s Tale producer Warren Littlefield was at the Television Critics Association winter press tour for a Fargo season four panel. As Hulu and MGM recently acquired the rights to adapt author Margaret Atwood’s recently published sequel The Testaments, we asked Littlefield if the two shows could run concurrently on Hulu, but it sounds like the sequel will actually follow the end of the other.

---

“I think we would transition from Handmaid’s, and we’re not there yet. In March we start year four. We would transition to it’s 15 years later in The Testament. I think it would be a wonderful symmetry to conclude Handmaid’s and then transition right in.”

Littlefield’s idea makes more sense. That’s why he’s Warren Littlefield, the former NBC executive responsible for classics like Seinfeld.

 

Again, more at link.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-handmaids-tale-june-story-continue-the-testaments-spinoff.html/  (Several articles about the sequel production at this link.)

Quote

 

‘The Handmaid’s Tale’: June’s Story Could Continue in ‘The Testaments’ Spinoff, Executive Producer Says.'

May 3, 2021

The Handmaid’s Tale has been renewed through season 5. And while it could have more than five seasons before June Osborne’s story is complete, showrunner Bruce Miller says her story could continue in the upcoming spinoff series, The Testaments.

 

Quote

 

Will there be a sequel to ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’?

Those seasons could feature more in depth stories about supporting characters. As Miller said:

“Certainly, as you do research into what a life turns into after all kinds of trauma, all of that is really interesting to explore. I really do feel like now I’m starting to think about a wider world and what other people would be doing; what other interesting stories might be happening to Marthas, to wives, to girls and boys.”

Season 4 is largely focused on June’s story. But the season also shows more sides of June’s husband, Luke, than viewers have gotten to see in the past. And Janine’s backstory gets more explanation as well. Overall, the season makes more fully realized characters out of its supporting cast.

The story of Gilead won’t end with The Handmaid’s Tale, though. Hulu has already acquired the rights to adapt Margaret Atwood’s The Testaments into a TV series

 

. ,

Quote

 

The Hulu series has been creating its own story ever since running out of book material in season 1. But Atwood’s new novel gives them even more opportunity to expand the world they’ve created. According to Miller, June will likely be involved in the spinoff.

“I’m hoping that we move onto The Testaments,” he said. “But that it isn’t as much of a numbers game of, ‘When do you want to end this?’ Because now I do feel like this is just the beginning of a bunch of interesting threads, so June will probably be part of those stories as well.

I like his last sentence here.

Quote

“So, June’s story may not completely wrap up with The Handmaid’s Tale,” he continued. “I don’t know. I have an ending for June’s story; whether that comes in The Handmaid’s Tale or comes when we’re in another show may be a question. But, I read the novel; I know how it ends.”

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Umbelina

[EllaWycliffe]

Thanks for the newer articles, I couldn't find them. 

However, as a writer friend of mine says "optioned doesn't mean anything" - essentially what it means is that Hulu has called dibs. This way they dont have "The Testaments" appearing on Netflix as competition for The Handmaid's Tale. They aren't producing or planning anything and even say so in the articles that they aren't moving until after Handmaid's Tale completes.

[mamadrama]

1 hour ago, greekmom said:

Happens all the time.

Wizard of Oz.  Great Expectations. The Devil Wears Prada. Thorn Birds (god one of my favourites!). North and South.  Goodfellas. Children of a Lesser God. Outlander. 

 

1 hour ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I'd add Poldark, the Hannibal Lector series and The Walking Dead. Source material is different from movies and shows but it all works. 

I'll add Roots, Anne with an E, The Haunting of Hill House (considered one of the best horror novels of all time AND award winning), Bones, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Call the Midwife & Orange is the New Black (both true memoirs that highly deviate from the true story), Little House on the Prairie, The Queen's Gambit...Even Atwood's other book, Alias Grace, had changes for the series.

What's considered good, and even a classic, is highly subjective. At the end of the day this is a dystopian science fiction novel. A good one, but still fiction. 

This is a television show, not an audio book. It's a completely different form of storytelling.  They can change whatever the hell they want, and if they think they have an idea that will keep people watching and subscribing then they will. Once you sign that contract it's no longer just your book; it also belongs to the network executives, the showrunners,  the producers, the directors, the actors...

Millions of books have been optioned and have never seen the light of day again. I've had 3 and they've sat in developmental hell for years. All optioned means is that nobody else can touch them.  With other streaming apps gaining popularity it's no wonder they'd want a head start. 

[Umbelina]

I think they will change some things, for example, I think Emily (not much of a change) will be Ada.

I do think the sequel will go though, probably mostly because it's on a relatively small streaming service, and Handmaid's Tale basically put them on the map.

This book was such a landmark warning call, that's why it won so many awards, and for decades afterwards people were asking how the tale ended.

I think it ended pretty well with the sequel, and so, no, I really doubt June or Lydia dies, or June's two children don't play a huge part in the downfall of Gilead.  I also think, and the current show certainly supports that, that June will continue to fight Gilead any way possible, including on the ground missions in Chicago and elsewhere, and being "the face" of the revolution.  Even though she didn't start it, she keeps it going in that role.

I'm super ready for Fred to be executed by Gilead though.

[Hathaway]

I think they are setting things up for Testaments too.  Maybe that means next season will be the last?  

I wonder how they will end this one then?  I just watched a You Tube reviewer say that it would be awesome to just change the title and continue on.  It would be a first.

 

[EllaWycliffe]

On 6/2/2021 at 10:10 PM, Hathaway said:

I think they are setting things up for Testaments too.  Maybe that means next season will be the last?  

I wonder how they will end this one then?  I just watched a You Tube reviewer say that it would be awesome to just change the title and continue on.  It would be a first.

I remember the joke from the Simpsons, something like "This incredible tv will continue forever.. or until the network decides its no longer profitable". I'm probably misquoting Troy McClure but...if the show is making money, its going to continue. Hulu has The Testaments optioned so no one will horn in.

Now I think its possible they're trying to set up for Testaments because to a certain extent, why not? Fans will like it and its not like they have to follow the books exactly - they already haven't in so many ways - Moira never escaped and was basically broken by Gilead, Luke never made it to Canada, OfGlen never makes it to Canada... 

But here's the thing. The show has veered off in a very significant way that is hard to ignore. In both books, June was historically unknown. The Handmaid in the first book does call herself June but her story is only known because its found on a series of cassette tapes somewhere in Maine long long after the fall of Gilead. Even in the Testaments, future historians are unclear if the Handmaid who did the tapes was really the mother of the girls in The Testaments. Yes, there is a small homage to this in June sending Luke a cassette tape with some of her story recorded, but June Osborne, on the show, is a figure who has entered history as a known figure. Her backstory is known to the public, she is known as "June Osborne of the Angel Flight". She's been on TV as the Waterfords Handmaid in a special plea to return Nicole so she is already a much different character than the book character. 

I also can't see the show wrapping up with the whimper that is "June goes into hiding alone, Nicole is handed to foster parents to raise her to never know her past." They also have to get Gilead back on track establishing Baby Nicole as an object of worship and obsession, but Gilead so far has little to no interest in even trying to get Nicole back now that there's an Angel Flight and Fred and Serena kinda sorta defecting.

[Umbelina]

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

They are so close to the sequel now.

A good place to end might be when Canada decides to start sending back refugees.  Now that would be a hell of a cliff hanger to get people to watch the next series.  (I'm not saying they will, just spitballing here.)

I think the early show veered off for several reasons, first reason, they didn't have the sequel.  Second reason, the obvious elimination of the race issue, which I still think was a horrid mistake.  Third reason?  To keep good actors on screen, for example, Moira's story.

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.  

Right now that character is all over the board, will they begin to reign it in?