MovieChat Forums > Mikester > Replies
Mikester's Replies
I think it's kinda typical - that the masterminds behind all live more normal - the powerful have more freedoms.
I like very much that they did not cast a hot girl in this role.
But a normal woman. Not super-attractive.
Men liking her is logical for me because Nick never had sex and then had sex with her. Also Commander had sex with her. If there is basically nearly only one person you have sex with, there is easy emotional attachment.
June saying 'After my baby shower we ended up giving away half our presents..' was making everybody remember
- that there was a normal life before Gilead
- that June is fertile, Serena is not
- that June already had a baby, that Gilead took that baby away from her and forced her to be raped so Commander's wife can pretend to have a baby by stealing June's
- that this is all unjust
Serena did not like to be remembered about that.
They all do like the wifes are the mothers. They call her mothers. They do birth preparations with them. They sit her behind the maid when she gets the baby and immediately give it to her.
They don't wanna hear 'you know it's not your baby'. They very much don't wanna hear that.
Martha said something to distract everybody from what June said, that's why the anger was released on her.
It was pretty similar to the
Serena to other wifes 'Soon the baby will be felt through'
June 'Actually i felt the baby kicking in my tummy last night'
I think having sex to induce labor is a common 'knowledge' (or myth, anyway even i heard it)
That they are raping her, the nuts didn't totally see it that way, well, Serena commanders wife actually agreed that it's rape; June saying no no no over and over again made it pretty clear for everybody.
Totally.
Great stuff
See also my reply more downward
Gilead is based on right-wing ideas, not left wing ideas:
- Men's place is as the king of his household, and doing all the jobs
- Women's place is to be obedient to the man, not work, not even to be taught to read
- cracily anti-abortion (well, it makes sense in their universe; but free market would also solve this, when eg women get 250k for a baby like Moira did..)
- anti-gayness
- over the top punishments -> like cutting off fingers, death by drowning... for religous sins like reading and adultery
Religions have been guilty of this bs, left wing nutters have not been guilty of these things.
It is not an anti-religious fantasy. It's a religious fantasy.
If you don't like women being non-religious, dressing like whores and whoring around and then getting pregnant and aborting it, and yearning for the good old days when men just do their job and be boss of their household - then you perhaps would invent such a thing as Gilead if you would be the dictator.
While if you are a philosophical humanist, you would make something different.
Second half of Season 3 was cracily good for me... damn!
- I don't think of someone looking jewish, i don't see them in my everyday life, i guess i picked up by media that they have a bigger longer nose or something?
Anyway, i think it's not about jewish but: it's about attractiveness.
Basically: he is not a hunk. He is a smaller, non-muscular, non-attractive man with a receding hairline.
(While will bowman is the ultimate Hunk)
And it's innately human.
Fairy tales: the good handsome prince or princess vs the old ugly bad witch or monster.
You and we all unconsciously discriminate eg men for their shortness (when they are assertive it seems 'tryhard') or their uglyness. Beautiful people get judged massively more favorably by juries in the court, they are seen as more intelligent, more social, more friendly, more moral - just from their photos alone.
So i guess it's just 'logical' to have a more negative character be played by a more unattractive person.
There are many other stereotypes, eg 'the beautiful mean woman', the 'attractive muscular asshole bully in high school'. 95% of hollywood heroes are one thing: attractive
- I think the series was great
- I think Season 3 was just great, although i could understand the first few camp episodes could feel it does not really go somewhere (although there was the gauntlet suspense),
with seattle it really picked up for me. Season 1 was also good, i find the premise of earth becoming an alien colony very very interesting, also the aspect of different blocs. Season 2 was also 'very good' for me.
The show for me was never much about aliens, but about humans (how they react to it, big topic of resistance or acceptance/being complicit)
- Why was this not so successful as Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad?
I think it was not much worse than them- for me only just a little bit.
I am just thinking it did not create so much hype as them. I think the plot point 'some science fiction' is not as good as 'Loser physics teacher becomes druglord'
or 'Dragons and supercool'.
- Also: Perhaps the 'big picture' overall storyline should exist and be moved forward a bit every couple of episodes. (ok i just read some of you already wrote something like this)
I like that the main characters are thrown into new situations, instead of always eg staying in the same colony, that keeps it fresh, but there should be some over-arching storyline like
'secret of the aliens' that should be an overall storyline coming into play every few episodes.
Else the story seems to not move forward but we just see the same characters in different locations (colony one, working camp, colony two...).
Season 3 did a great job of moving the big storyline (alien war, Tynese plan) forward, that's one thing that made it so great.
Funnily enough Walking dead seems to be very audience-successful, and they don't bring the zombie-storyline forward *at all*. There was some little attempt once in earlier seasons on finding some possible cure or something,
but nothing since then, and it will not change. I think this is a drawback of walking dead.
For me it became a better version of West Wing.
I liked survivor well enough to watch it, while i stopped watching west wing.
"The ridiculous office romance crap, the frog naming, plots that go nowhere.."
Interesting. For me it was ok. I thought West wing had much much much more mundane stuff that didn't interest me (frog naming thing would take 3x as much screentime on west wing i think), while i thought Designated survivor had fast-paced coherent single episode plots and interesting longer term plots (hannah fbi stuff eg).
First that comes to mind is in the beginning of the series, her arresting 200 guys in the beginning and holding them for 2 months in a cell; second thing her firing all the guys in her cabinet she thought are perhaps against her (and could vote her out)
Sorry, Dante Allen (fbi guy carry slept with)
You are right, evil is an exaggeration.
But for me it was like showing a flaw in her character more, being a bit hateful, not forgiving - just a *tiny* bit of 'evil cruel dictator' - instead of a hero-like character that is always doing the right thing.
How did you perceive her?
Fox news?? She is the power-hungry democrat in the story, who was innocent but still did some dictator-moves -> and then in the end she resigns and gives the more partisan vice president the go
I liked it, it painted her as a kinda evil person who likes power, which made her a more interesting character to me; also the caressing of the oval office table characterized her to me of liking power - this made it more suspenseful what she will say in the impromptu last speech, and it made it more surprising to me. And i liked the drive around the monuments beforehand.
Didn't read.
Make paragraphs :)
I found Saul to be very sharp, eg recognizing it was Ante -> edit: Dante immediately
Great points!