MovieChat Forums > Iffy762 > Replies
Iffy762's Replies
I'm glad it was Flower, that character was really annoying and IMO did not add to the story.
Yeah, she was off-putting for sure, and very self-righteous about it, too.
Really good observation. I like your idea!
I totally agree with this.
I've never seen it before but just watched the first two episodes and actually it was great. Some of the music is a bit kitschy, and the 1980s women's suits with the huge shoulder pads are cringe, but the characters are really good and the story was interesting.
It really was! I miss shows that were just fun.
Yes, it was well done. I really enjoyed it. They also brought things back more towards the books albeit in a roundabout way, so that was good too. You could see in retrospect why they made modifications before, so they could pace things to have a particular reveal or moment at the time they wanted. For example, Matt's reveal was terrific, I thought. Very nicely done. The moment between Moraine and Lan, also very well done, beautiful. Rand killing the guards, very good, you could see how his interaction with Logaine prepared him, and also how he is more focused here because he's trying to get to Egwene. I liked that they brought Lews Therin into the prologue here because I was wondering when they were going to bring him in. I liked that they brought all the friends on to the top of the tower for the Dragon moment, that was nice.
So far, I think the best moment of the series has been the reveal of Nynaeve's power in Season 1. I was really looking to see how they did that and when they got there, I practically cheered, and I could see how they led up to it very gradually and hid it until they were ready, and why some of the showrunner choices that seemed strange, were, in retrospect, to protect and emphasize that important moment. Another terrific moment was seeing Rand get born and how he connects with his (adoptive) father. Now that I know that THEY know what the important moments are, I'm enjoying watching them lay the groundwork for those.
Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear that! I do love a good romance... or even a "not exactly a romance" as long as there's good chemistry! But I just couldn't stomach this one.
Totally agree.
Same here.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Her family were Greek Macedonian and apparently rather racist so unlikely to have accepted a black woman's children. It's not an area I know much about nor have any interest in, but Egyptian historians seem to think it's not correct to portray her as black or partially black and I would think they would know. Egyptian and black ethnicity also seem to be different, you seem to be thinking of them as the same thing? It's not that the default is white, but if the most likely position is that she was race A, then I don't think for a documentary it's quite right to present her as being possibly race B. For fiction, sure, whatever race you like. But a documentary is different, you are leading people to think that a particular thing was fact, when it was not. And, in this sort of situation, it does make a difference, because it would have impacted how she would have been received by her family, by her society, etc.
Exactly!
The problem with the movie seems to be that it's presenting itself as a documentary but historians seem to agree that Cleopatra was not ethnically black. Instead of the filmmakers admitting their filmmaking choice was ahistorical, and that it's problematic to make an ahistorical choice in such a major part of a documentary, they've doubled down with all sorts of convoluted reasons why Cleopatra... might have been black? It's very confusing. In other words, this is one of those cases where trying to shoehorn a diversity goal into a film, has negated the purpose of the film.
We can contrast this with, say, Bridgerton. In Bridgerton, various families are ethnically Black. The books were fictional and set in Regency England so they've diverged from the books in having Black families be accepted in a place and time where most likely, they weren't. However, it works because they've also done some novel worldbuilding in the series, and they've signaled this by creating a light, fluffy atmosphere that signals that this is a fantasy world. The bright colors, the unnaturally clean streets on the Bridgerton's town, etc. For example, the women's clothing is not historical but is a blend of modern with historical. Some things are done in an over-the-top way that continually reminds us that this is not meant to be real, for example Queen Charlotte's enormous hairstyles. This allows them to add racial diversity without confusing the audience, because the audience KNOWS that this a fantasy.
I think audiences are quite accepting of diversity actually. It just needs to be done in a way that works WITH the genre and purpose of the production, rather than contradicting what the production claims it's trying to accomplish.
This is a good try but pointless, as you are arguing with a true ideologue.
I think it is, but there is room for it to get much darker over time.
I've just started this show as the new shows are all sort of "samey" (all the same as each other). I'm trying hard but having a little trouble getting into it! I really like David Boreanaz's character but Brennan kind of annoys me and the other "squints" are really unappealing. I'm also not a big fan of the gross-out aspect of the various bodies. What is great about this show? I read that the love story between Brennan and Booth is legendary. So far, I'm not seeing it.
Yay! We love movies!
This is pointless. You're going to get back a lot of word salad that pretends to be scientifically literate even though in reality it is essentially nonsense. The scientific establishment is not going to back you up because at heart they are cowards and their leftism takes precedence over their scientific integrity. I cannot tell you the number of people who have earnestly told me that sex development is too complicated to know whether any individual is male or female. Scientists and doctors writing papers full of convoluted "logic" to rationalize permanently mutilating young people who have not even reached physical maturity yet (let alone psychological maturity). People actually swallow this claptrap. How can you argue with them? It's like trying to empty the ocean with a sieve.
Yep it's a bit sloooooooooowwwwwwww....