MovieChat Forums > Branais > Replies
Branais's Replies
I actually have some sympathy for Ruth. I have no patience for her behaviour -- either her own snottishness or the way she demeans and exploits Rose -- but she's a product of her time and circumstances, and she's trying to survive. She's been forced to play a game she's ill-equipped for.
The contrived misandrony of the script, and of Ruth's dialogue in particular, always makes me wince -- especially when you consider that, just a short while later, the women get to ride to safety in the lifeboats purely by virtue of their gender, while the oh-so-privileged men are expected to stay behind and die without complaint -- but Ruth is right in some of what she says: her choices are limited, and she's holding on to her options by her fingernails.
I don't think you need to see number 2 at all. But the first film certainly sets the context.
I think they just repeated the formula, and expected it to work again.
Oh crap, I hadn't heard about his passing. That's tough.
I have a kind of connection to him: he originated the role of Brad Majors in the stage version of The Rocky Horror Show, and I played the same role for more than two years in my own country. So I've always been keen to catch any performances of his that make it to TV here.
I'm sorry to hear the news.
I've just finished watching it. I did recognise him, but he was very young and much less bulked up than he is these days.
Amazing how many faces turned up in the early episodes, before they became names.
I don't get the "insult" angle -- how is it an insult?
From the trailer, it doesn't look like they have much interaction. They're not both in the elevator.
I couldn't stop thinking of The Stepford Wives from the moment we first saw the maid, her spotless gloves and frock and her simpering posture. Frankly, it spoiled it for me, because I didn't think this one came up to scratch in the comparison.
I don't quite agree with you about the tension. I felt it sagged badly at the start of the third act, and for me never quite recovered. The direction was generally impressive, but somewhere around the first "we've got to get out" it seemed to lose all sense of urgency or heightened opposition.
When the car with its flashing lights drove up at the end, I fully expected it to be the highway cop from early in the film -- not just because it was made me to look like that (a fake-out), but more because it felt like that was what the story needed. A jokey rescue by his jokey TSA buddy just felt like someone had slashed the film's Achilles tendon as it ran for the finishing line.
Apart from anything else, it didn't resolve anything. The TSA buddy had given the cops Chris' name and that of his girlfriend's family, so when they turned up dead Chris was going to have a lot of 'splaining to do. And with the family all murdered, the zombie servants dead, the photos of all the previous boyfriends probably hidden away again, Chris was going to be in some strife. It wasn't over.
I don't need everything in a mystery/thriller to be tied up neatly, but there were other aspects of the story that were made to seem significant but weren't handled very neatly, and should have been -- such as the deer (was it really an accident? the family didn't seem all that surprised, and the deer in the basement was made to seem more than just an ironic coincidence), the cop on the highway (was his probable-racism meant solely as foreshadowing? were we meant to think everyone in that area had attitudes like that?), and the abduction of the bloke on the street in the opening sequence (so it wasn't just the sister's carnal efforts that brought subjects into the business? was this the brother's efforts, rather than finding people to sleep with?). It did feel somewhat fragmented, and I wondered if the writer/director had thought these things through before making it. Or did they just seem like good tension-builders and red herrings? (In which case, frankly, they smelled a bit.)
They planned to, but Calvin followed Jordan into his pod and there didn't seem to be any way to get it out again. Jordan closed his hatch because he wasn't planning on heading to Earth, and one way or another he wanted to be sure Calvin didn't either.
Except ... the pods were programmed to return to Earth, and land safely, unless manually overridden, which is what Jordan intended to do. Much is made of Calvin inexplicably being smart enough to guide the pod to land, but he really didn't need to. Having just watched it again, I'm pretty sure Calvin wasn't that smart -- it worked on prey instinct -- and probably had no idea where the pod was going. It simply attacked Jordan and infested him, as the next stage of its own life-cycle. Because that stopped Jordan being able to steer the pod away from the planet manually, the thing landed, carrying Calvin with it.
Miranda's pod, however, suffered a "systems failure" after its collision, and its guidance systems were screwed up. It flew away erratically, rather than land as it was intended to.
I agree, hownos.
I was wary about watching it at first, because I thought it would just be a tag-on for a story that was essentially already finished, but had been dragged up again to justify making (and selling!) a new series. And I was wrong. It wasn't gratuitous at all.
I think some of the stuff DCI Huntley said (no spoilers!) was intentionally setting up series 5. There's clearly still more to be resolved.
Yeah, Jackpot, he was a scumbag.
In more ways than you've mentioned, in my opinion, though it was fairly subtle. Every time he was shown publicly expressing concern for his old "friend" and partner, he was also using Paul to make his own public statement of "I'm nothing like that" and "Look what a generous, understanding person I am", and making sure people didn't think to accuse him as well.
I just saw Dunkirk today, and visually I really liked it. I felt the slightly muted palette gave it an instant period feel -- as opposed to SPR, which I felt had an "arty", processed-image look throughout.
[quote]I don't understand how anybody can think he was protecting bears.[/quote]
I don't think anyone did, besides Treadwell himself. Herzog himself makes it pretty clear he separates what Treadwell claimed about himself from what Herzog saw as reality.
I definitely feel sorry for him. His delusion, his need to find a place to "belong" when he didn't feel he had a place in regular society led him and his girlfriend to horrifying deaths; can you honestly not summon any sympathy for that?
Another sad thing is that he seemed not to have achieved anything positive at all. Beyond putting himself at risk, and anyone he persuaded to accompany him, he was also a thorn in the rangers' sides, by spreading misperceptions about the bears and the danger they posed among the children he loved visiting and speaking to.
But all of that was separate from the fact that he was a lonely fish-out-of-water individual who was literally ripped apart by his delusions. Any of us could fall into a similar pit.
Can only speak for myself (obviously), but I know I really started to lose interest in the show with the onset of Matt Smith. Didn't like his performance, and it just grated on me more and more -- it seemed so calculatedly "zany", which has never appealed, and with his new companions having Gen-X firmly in their sights and speech I realised I wasn't being catered for (or even accommodated) any more.
That's fine, I guess it's the evolution of TV shows and so is Just What Happens. But I felt like a Doctor's Companion who has realised it's time to get on with his life and stop hanging around police call boxes. I think I've only watched maybe three Capaldi eps -- I do admire him as an actor, but not much in this -- and the business of the new "As a feminist I'm excited" Doctor has left me with my sails luffing.
Never mind. I've started rewatching the NuWho from the Advent of Eccleston on Netflix, and so far (halfway through series 4) am having a bloody good time with it. I'll see when/if I feel it starts to sour.
Oof. It's taken me a couple of days to get back to the thread, and my jaw hit the floor at reading some of the rancorous, abusive posts here. As another participant, my thanks to those who have tried to stay even-handed and intelligent in their comments, especially keithmovies and FordFairlane. I thought at first I may need to apologise for provoking things, but then realised of course I don't; those who wanted to be abrasive weren't provoked, but merely seized the opportunity. So I stand by what I previously said.
I think Jodie Whittaker is a fine actress, based on what I've seen of her. I felt she and Olivia Colman were the engine room of Broadchurch, especially in the first series; and if I came to detest her character and have no patience for her by the third series, then it was the writing that let her down, not her acting ability.
Frankly, I hope the Beth of Series 3 was just what Chibnall felt was the arc of her specific character, and not his idea of a strong, self-determinant woman. We'll have to see where he takes the Doctor, and keep our fingers crossed. For me, series 2 and 3 of Broadchurch suggests Chibnall had trouble sustaining a story or set of characters, at least in that context, so the litmus test will be the second Chibnall series for the Doctor.
But for the meantime, the fact that the change of gender has been presented solely as an ideological choice is for me a huge alarm bell. As I said before, I'm all for strong characters for women, but I do think it's grossly ideologically unsound to simply co-opt established male ones. And if the show becomes a constant drip of drolly anti-male statements, as I suspect it will, then that'll be it for me.
> 'She said it feels "incredible" to take on the role, saying: "It feels completely overwhelming, as a feminist ..." '
And right there is the problem. She put being a feminist ahead even of being an actress. So this is ideological, not a question of drama or inventive casting? Well they can eff right off. THIS SHOULD *NOT* BE A FEMINISM ISSUE.
But as with the fiasco of the Ghostbusters remake, this is a pathetic white-knighting gesture, and all the sneering misandronists are enjoying their crow at anyone trying to point out the pointless gesture that's being made.
One thing I don't understand: I'm genuinely supportive of the need to have strong, central characters for women, but why does this need to be achieved by co-opting existing male roles and coasting on their established brand recognition? Isn't that a bit condescending, almost suggesting women can't do it on their own? And on the reverse side of the claimed "backlash", isn't the true nature of moves like this made clear in the misandronistic snark of the people (not all of them women) being jubilant at the prospect of something being taken away from men? That in itself is puerile.
Sorry TandyMan, but I think that's a terrible idea. Doctor Who is essentially British, and it would be a loss to see that change. Besides, they tried to migrate Torchwood to the US, and it resulted in a total that finally killed the show for good.
Gender-swapping itself is a sign of desperation, I think, that in itself is probably going to quench the spark.
Kinda pointless adding the (SPOILERS) in your subject line, bmw9413, when what you'd already written gave it away. You should have replaced Miranda's name with an ellipsis.
No, after her pod collided with the solar panelling, and her systems started glitching, you could see her flight become erratic. The last shot inside her pod showed the screens flashing "controls offline". She's done and gone.