MovieChat Forums > Martindo > Replies
Martindo's Replies
https://martinschell.substack.com/p/if-robots-get-more-human-will-people-get-robotic
and you might want to read my essay on Season 1, too:
https://martinschell.substack.com/p/can-a-solid-foundation-lead-to-a-weak-firststory
Regarding the PC complaints, I discovered between these two posts that some of the component stories of Foundation that Asimov originally published in magazines had illustrations of various characters as white men. However, readers of the novels can adapt the races of characters to fit their own imaginations.
https://martinschell.substack.com/p/is-the-star-trek-reboot-racist
Actually Dune is worse: a true hodge-podge of cultures with tons of pseudo-mysticism. And when the books got really popular and they started talking movie, suddenly Frank Herbert recanted on his old interview that the point of the series was to show that absolute power corrupts.
Don't forget that Tolkien rode on a lot of old legends about dwarves (miners in Snow White, etc.) and elves. Saying he created backstory is like saying True Blood did it with werewolves and vampires.
Right. It works both ways: the defeated side can receive its counterparts from the other world and then try to win that way. But I don't think the story is going that way, based on hints I read.
It was rushed, I agree. I felt as surprised as Jon was about ringing the bell.
I'm just saying there is clear motivation to make a big surprise, so they didn't want to have an obvious progression/descent.
This video posted on another thread shows some of the hints along the way. It's too long IMO and has an ad buried in the middle, but it's a good refresher that might show how some viewers overlooked all the warning signs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUcT1XWn6sE
Part 2 sounds way too much like an academic lecture and has even more ads.
And what's the glib "we all know that" comment around 4:30 about Sansa being "unfairly passed over" for the throne? She reluctantly became Lady of the North, mirroring Stark humility, never asked for more. Somebody who wrote this youtube lecture apparently wasn't satisfied by the tons of women in leadership roles (both good and bad) throughout the series: "more is always better". Give us a break.
The comparison of Lannister/Lancaster and Stark/York is a good insight regarding War of the Roses in actual Brit history, so I think that was an insight into a clear hint by George Martin.
I agree with Renovatio about Jon's slow maturation, which I attributed to being told he was "only a bastard" from infancy and had tentative status. Sansa's rise to a "savvy" politician seems rather sudden but also started late, especially in light of how she trusted Little Finger early on.
Part 1 is seriously repetitive and preachy, about 3 times too long and has 2 ads as well.
But don't miss the overlay at 10:47 about millennials naming their babies Khaleesi. Big whoops LOL.
Nah, anyone who has seen those interminably long movies knows what Bored of the Rings means.
Good point about obsessive. I saw her as a fanatic shortly after her rise to power and that's how I viewed her through the later seasons. She started by claiming she was doing everything for other people as "liberator", with lots of evidence at the beginning, but then increasing selfishness and autocracy. And in later seasons she started to focus more on the throne in her explanations.
But I didn't see her as mad, only stubborn. I think the reason the writer/producer didn't included "intermediary" steps of madness is that they wanted a big surprise.
For sure, the last laugh is on all those millennials who named their babies Khaleesi.
Agree with atomicx. It was obviously politics. It looked to me like Jon was at least ignoring the outmoded vow of chastity, walking beyond the wall with a group to start a new community (and find a third lover).
Greyworm kinda got the middle finger, but the self-appointed committee only laughed at Tarly -- for suggesting they try something novel, like asking the governed whom they want as a leader.
I also agree Night King is dead forever. The writer is already old enough that there were worries he'd die before finishing the books, and several movie reporter sites said he had outlined the end of the story to the director/producer a couple years ago.
I don't see evidence that the Children of the Forest are gone.
One problem (IMO) with modern TV series is that they can't really sustain a single plot line for a whole episode, due to audience inattention and/or the "need" to have tons of characters. So, you get slow development in pieces over the course of a whole season.
I think that Tagomi and Smith are complex characters who become 3 dimensional as season 1 moves on, so that you really get a sense of their complexity by season 3. Even Kido starts to show more than one side by the end of season 3. And of course Juliana always in search of herself while on the run, begging assistance from various men, is multidimensional even though not the ideal heroine IMO.
My guess: she got blown up when she smoked a cigarette while Wyatt was siphoning gas from the jeep of the guys they shot. Jeez, incessant cigarette smoking sort of fits the 1950s mentality (though not that many women smoked in public then), but are the writers that stupid that they had Juliana smoking right next to the jeep while its gasoline was being siphoned?
I have no problem with the weird nose guy coming out as gay, nor meeting a cowboy type who was previously not in the plot. Works OK in the story, especially regarding neutral zone.
I do agree that Simon Pegg (Scotty in reboot) making Sulu gay when it was his turn to write a plot is PC. George Takei (Sulu in TOS) who actually is gay in real life was *against* making his old character gay because it wasn't the original writer's intent.
I suppose they could backpedal and pretend that the guy presented as Sulu's life partner is actually his brother or something, after all they're both ethnic Asians. (BTW, Sulu was itself an odd name for a character of Japanese descent because Japanese has no L in its language.)