Last Series Watched

Damien said:
Wait... what?
That's a fuckin' WILD take. I love you but... like.. what?

Most of medieval Italy would like to have a word with you. So would the medieval Swiss. And the ancient Athenians and like.. sometimes the Romans but not always. And medieval Russia (well, Novgorod). And medieval Iceland. And ancient Carthage. And the Hanseatic League. And the Dithmarschen...? Yeah, I think that's right, in medieval Germany... Germany? Sweden? I forget.

A lot of those examples are a LOT closer to democracy (or at least the type of representative government suggested by the ending of GoT) than people seem to realize. Much as it may claim to be so in Texan schoolbooks, America didn't invent representative communal governance.
Click to expand...
As I said, it's not outside the realm of possibility. There are some historical parallels, but it strikes me as fantastical to see a hereditary monarchy transition straight into democracy.
 
Most fantasy cultures are lifting from Charlemagne's Frankish period, methinks. Going from that sort of culture directly to a democracy without any explanation for where these people *soaked* in monarchy to the point they literally believe in the divine right of kings is indeed unrealistic. I don't know that I can think of any filmed medieval cultures that aren't riffing off the Franks, except maybe that episode of Dr Who with the Venetian Vampires. I think the Braavosi were riffing the Venetians but all we got to see of them was like one scene of Stannis negotiating with the merchant's guild.
 
TheSameIdiot said:
As I said, it's not outside the realm of possibility. There are some historical parallels, but it strikes me as fantastical to see a hereditary monarchy transition straight into democracy.
Click to expand...
I think it's overly dismissive to say there are 'some parallels.' There were collectively thousands of years of history of non-monarchal governments most of which sprang from monarchies (all of which? I'd have to double check).
Also, I rewatched the scene to make sure I wasn't insane here: Sam suggests leaving it to 'everyone' and gets laughed at.
Bran, the child of one of the great lords, is set up as king by a council of a dozen of the highest-titled people in the country. And it's set down that the new king will always be chosen "on this spot" by the 'lords and ladies of Westeros' -- i.e. the highborn. And those highborn lords, for the record, are still hereditary titles and are not elected positions.
I.E. non-elected nobility gets to elect a king from their number. It is 100% not a democracy. It's functionally the exact government that dozens of places in medieval Europe actually did have.



adrienveidt said:
Most fantasy cultures are lifting from Charlemagne's Frankish period, methinks. Going from that sort of culture directly to a democracy without any explanation for where these people *soaked* in monarchy to the point they literally believe in the divine right of kings is indeed unrealistic.
Click to expand...
None of that's true, though.

Charlemagne's Carolingian Empire was late 700s to early 800s and would probably be unrecognizable as a 'medieval kingdom' to most fantasy fans. Speaking specifically about GOT; Westeros is 100% based on the War of the Roses period of English history. A totally different country, a very different style of government and culture, and about 700 years later.
In either case, both cultures existed side-by-side with non-monarchal governments. The 'divine right of kings' was an excuse, not a truism that everyone bought into. Trump can do the same thing - call himself a King and say he's ALLOWED to do all the things he's doing because of his position. Doesn't mean all of us peasants just agree that's true and can't possibly fathom another way.

And again, this wasn't even a peasant uprising into a fledgling democracy. This was a cabal of powerful lords deciding that THEY should get to choose who is king. There's LOADS of precedent for that. Hell, they tried it in England with King John and made a terrible Robin Hood movie all about it.
 
Damien said:
Also, I rewatched the scene to make sure I wasn't insane here: Sam suggests leaving it to 'everyone' and gets laughed at.
Bran, the child of one of the great lords, is set up as king by a council of a dozen of the highest-titled people in the country. And it's set down that the new king will always be chosen "on this spot" by the 'lords and ladies of Westeros' -- i.e. the highborn. And those highborn lords, for the record, are still hereditary titles and are not elected positions.
I.E. non-elected nobility gets to elect a king from their number. It is 100% not a democracy. It's functionally the exact government that dozens of places in medieval Europe actually did have.
Click to expand...
FWIW, my post was not specifically about GoT. Who knows if literally and metaphorically destroying the Iron Throne is what GRRM has in mind.
 
Bit of a detour but also not - I saw Wicked: For Good and have many thoughts but seeing it while also reading this thread the last couple of days connected something.

Wicked's first act is some of the greatest storytelling there is. Act Two has always been a mess. Timelines, character motivations, character endings - ugh.

I *really* had hope the second act getting to stand-alone would give them the opportunity to finesse, add and make it make sense. It does not. In fact, it kinda does the opposite - more time, less depth. Once Act Three of this movie kicks in, it's all characters being yanked to pre-existing character beats that make NO SENSE for these characters as already established in this story.

So the ending of Wicked is a lot like the ending of Game of Thrones. The plot is there but the storytelling is missing, in favor of a quick shove-it-all-in mentality that disservices the characters we've come to love (not to mention the audience).

This connection helped me process my feelings on the new movie. I was so excited for these storytellers to fix it and I'm so disappointed they didn't.
 
Seeing For Good tonight, so we shall see.

I have a complex relationship with Wicked, as I hardcore identify with Elphaba and she is one of my favorite characters ever in musical theatre (and I take musical theatre VERY seriously, like it’s-my-job-and-passion seriously), but I fucking despise Glinda. I know, I know: she’s supposed to have “growth” and shit throughout the story, but fuck mother fuck I fucking can’t with her. Pasting over your insecurities with a “popular person” persona does absolutely nothing to endear anyone to me. Zero sympathy for the love triangle angle: Fiyero just figured out that Glinda is an empty fucking vessel who only has humanity when Elphaba literally carries her. Honestly I fucking hate Glinda in the original Wizard of Oz too. Not a fan of Dorothy, either. I’ve always been rooting for the Wicked Witch of the West, even before the character rehabilitation.

Anyway: I fucking love Wicked, I love it when (rarely) movies based on musicals are actually good*, so I am hoping for the best.

*I’m still smarting for 2012’s Les Miserables, which I generally loved but which was poisoned by my favorite character and my literal favorite song to sing in all of musical theatre (“Stars”, which has been my audition signature for like thirty years now) absolutely fucking ruined by Russell Crowe. Like people were calling me nonstop after the premiere asking me how pissed off I was. And I was certainly pissed.
 
I've hated Dorothy since I saw Wicked for the first time in 2006 and it completely rewrote my original programming. My grandmother had close to first editions of most of the Oz books that she gifted me and I devoured, so I loved the world.

Wicked changed all of that and I can't stand that ho bag murderer.

Anyway.
 
AceofKnaves said:
I love it when (rarely) movies based on musicals are actually good*, so I am hoping for the best.
Click to expand...
I thought the first film was OK but a bit too long - not as great as I was hoping for. I was not pleased with how Defying Gravity was cut up in the film to be stretched out so kind of left the theater on a bad note (for me) - it killed the momentum that song has....
 
fac said:
I will not accept this Dorothy slander, she was just trying to save the Scarecrow's life.
Click to expand...
I should probably not say that I find Judy Garland totally underwhelming and overblown in general, should I?

Darn, I said it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fac
We finished our rewatch of Stranger Things last night, since my kids timed it impeccably, and now we are ready for the new ones. Though I know my son is really going to force us to do only one a week.
 
Someone said the new season of Stranger Things dialogue feels like AI wrote it, and fuck me man, if you've read the paint by numbers shit AI churns out, it REALLY sounds like ChatGPT gave them a first draft. I mean, it's watchable second screen stuff, but the dialogue, specifically, feels like a robot wrote it. It's fucking AWFUL, which is so strange because so much of the show up until now has really shone when the cast breathed life into the dialogue.

Like, I might not have picked up on it if I hadn't seen someone mention it but I had to read a lot of ChatGPT scripts for a research project to show why they do not work for quality output and this dialogue sounds JUST like those scripts. I half the time the cast feels like they know it, too.

It may just be that they churned out a robotic script because they, like 99% of TV shows ever written, did not plan a fucking ending and are just throwing noodles at the wall and hoping it sticks, but if we find out in a year that the Duffer Brothers asked Claude to give them a first draft I will not be surprised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top