IFR

I like your list. I haven't seen Beasts of the Southern Wild, so I'll watch that. And I agree - scifi does seem to draw more prestige. I have trouble seeing anything in fantasy ever eclipsing 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Absolutely. I'm not a purist simply by convention. I applaud change when it's clever and well thought out. I simply feel that the Oz movie fails spectacularly at this. The book is by no means a work of genius, but it's substantially better than the movie. Changes can work though. I like both Jurassic Park the book and the movie, and they are quite different. Same with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Blade Runner. The sequel is even better, and that's a wholly original extension to the world. Villeneuve's Dune is a great adaptation of the book (so far), despite the changes (and sometimes because of the changes). Oppenheimer the movie is structurally very different from the book and that was a case where both forms are perfect for their respective format (though I did dislike the minor changes in the movie from the book, particularly Einstein's role). The Godfather is an excellent adaptation, although mostly in how it abridges content (otherwise a lot of it is verbatim from the book). There are lots of examples of good adaptations where many changes were made. (Speaking of which, Adaptation is a great adaptation of The Orchid Thief, though it's very different from the book.) It's all preference, of course, but such is mine.

The same reason people have been ranting about the LOTR movies. Book purist reasons. On top of that, I don't like that it is a musical (I have the same problem with most Les Miserables adaptations). I think the acting is bad, the special effects are too campy (and not in a charming way). The saccharine ersatz wholesome tone is irritating. I will admit, there was a single great joke in the movie - when Scarecrow gets a brain and then misstates the Pythagorean theorem. Funny. Other than that, the movie is an ordeal.

If people struggle to list even a few fantasy movies that are better than the LOTR trilogy, I suppose that is a commentary of fantasy movies in general, among which the trilogy, despite its numerous faults, easily reigns supreme. I personally like Pan's Labyrinth, The Princess Bride, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit better. It's hard to think of anything else. I hate The Wizard of Oz (the movie, not the books). A bit of a non sequitur, but there's joy in letting people know this.

The reviews haven't been good. 63 on metacritic and a 6.9 on imdb are mediocre. More important is what the reviews say. The most glowing review is from The Guardian. Here is the second paragraph: Reading this makes me hate everything about this reviewer and their taste, and loudly proclaims how obnoxious I'll find this movie. And reading the rest of the review further confirms this impression. I care. In a proper satire, I can get behind abusing history thoroughly. I'll cite The Great as an example of a show I think does this very well. It sounds like the tone of Napoleon is far too inconsistent to be successful as a satire though. I'm familiar enough with the details of Napoleon's life that it would annoy me to see them misrepresented as this movie apparently does.

From all accounts, this movie exhibits a complete indifference to history and any sort of remotely accurate portrayal of Napoleon. I think I'll not watch it with great enthusiasm. A shame though. Napoleon is a fascinating historical figure. Too bad Ridley Scott made this movie. His history of filmmaking is completely schizophrenic. Some movies feel like only he would be able to pull them off (Alien, and Blade Runner, and The Martian were all perfect for him). But some movies are just a poor fit. Hannibal for one. It looks like this is another one.

I know this is a heated debate and it feels like a lot of people are banding against you, but I hope you will accept that I ask this as an earnest question. Why do you think most people here don't care? My own perception is that while indeed the displacement of Israelis is a pressing concern that deserves attention, right now people in Gaza are dying by the thousands, and so this would dominate the topic. It doesn't take away from the horror of the situation the Jewish people are going through. They should be able to live their lives in peace, without fear of murder and displacement. But so should the people of Gaza who are not members of Hamas, and are essentially trapped in this war between Hamas and the government of Israel. You have two groups of innocent people - the citizens of Israel and the citizens of Palestine - who are enduring atrocities. The focus of conversation is on the people of Palestine because they are actively being butchered as we speak, which will naturally be a focus of discussion. I accept your view in this. I don't think you want the death of Palestinians, but that you believe it's an unfortunate necessary measure in securing the future safety of Israel. Can you accept that people here disagree with this assessment, and do so in good faith and still believe that Jewish lives matter and that the actions of Hamas are a complete atrocity?

I don't think anyone here will forget that tragedy. It was one of the single biggest atrocities against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It's a major incident, and an absolutely appalling act. Hamas is clearly responsible for that act. Furthermore, they are also orchestrating the deaths of their own people in the thousands - they want exactly what is occurring, to occur. That is on Hamas. And Israel is playing right into their hands. I think the frustration lies here. The death of thousands of Palestinians by Israelis would not happen without the willing involvement of Israel. Hamas has played their part, and Israel is playing their part too. One questions whether the only possible way to deal with Hamas is to kill thousands of innocent people, and maybe even commit a campaign of genocide. Hamas cannot control Israel in this. Only Israel can make this decision. And so far it appears that the loss of thousands of innocent lives is acceptable in their response. Hamas is not forcing this decision on Israel. Israel is choosing this action. And many people object that it is the right response.

I'd like more perspective on this point as well. I think we all can acknowledge that Hamas is a parasitic organ of Palestine, with the stated goal of eradicating Jews. With their existence, one can reasonably anticipate murderous atrocities prosecuted against Jews. Israel has an interest of course in eliminating this threat. But with their current approach, it is taking a toll of thousands of innocent lives, a good portion of whom are children. At what cost is it worth in innocent lives to attempt to deal with the Hamas threat? Tens of thousands of innocent lives? Hundreds of thousands? Is the genocide of the Palestinian people an acceptable cost for the security of Israel? What do people think?

It was a discussion. Your grievance against Oppenheimer was that it underrepresented the involvement of women in the development of nuclear science and the atomic bomb, particularly Lise Meitner. You brought this up as a retort to when I claimed Oppenheimer was an example of a faithful adaptation that was good. I then pointed out that the book the movie was based on didn't mention Lise Meitner, and the subject was Oppenheimer, not a general historical survey of the atomic bomb, so Meitner was not essential to the narrative. You disagreed because you conceived that Nolan intended to expand the subject of the movie to be a general historical survey of the atomic bomb (or you believe he should have, at least) and therefore Meitner in your mind deserved mention. I disagreed. It's a biography of Oppenheimer, of which the atomic bomb is only part of his narrative. The book is excellent and well regarded and it is not a flaw of the movie to keep faithfully to the book and not expand beyond it so more women of science can be mentioned. This is a discussion. We have a back and forth in our conversation. I disagree with a point you make, and indicate why, and you disagree with a point I've made, and indicate why. We carry on the discussion in the same manner. Edit: It also bears mentioning that I've never said "butthurt"...I think ever, but I'm sure not in any discussion on WoT. Another person sarcatically used "woke", I quoted them and argued that I didn't like the word but that it applied to this show. So I guess I used "woke" in the same way you did: addressing another person's use of it and whether it correctly applied to the show. I'm not sure about censorship. But is censorship considered inflammatory? You're referring to my willingness to engage with you via PM on an off-topic digression? I'm sorry you're upset that I didn't play into the spectacle you were hoping for, but the offer is still open (the window is limited, though, because I won't have much time soon). I am more than happy to discuss your views. In fact, on the above quote on Oppenheimer I think I fairly captured both of our positions in that discussion (you can correct me if I've mischaracterized yours). I'm a little skeptical that you understand my position, because you have exhibited a habit of mischaracterizing it. Case in point. I've repeatedly said that I'm enjoying the show. I do think the writers are pretty bad, and we've gone over in detail why. I never claimed that the writers take pleasure desecrating RJ's work. I've even said I believe them when they claim to love The Wheel of Time. I do think the writers are inadequate to the task of adapting this series, which is why they've made so many poor choices in the process. I don't think this is a conspiracy. A lot of people in this thread like this show and have explicitly stated they want this to be a thread of positivity for their own entertainment. For much of this thread, I've been a dissenter to this, and that has caused me to be the subject of ire for many people here. ASOIAFrelatedusername also used this thread for some cathartic venting, and many went on attack against them, so they quit this thread. You and others are indeed attempting to enforce an atmosphere in this thread that makes it entertaining to you, and are actively attempting to make it exclusionary to others who don't share your views of the show. I certainly disagree with a lot of your assessments on logic, characters, and narrative choices. For example, does it make sense for the dagger of Shadar Logoth to not instantly kill Rand? One can't go so far as to label it a scientifically inaccurate event, but it is a plot hole. That affects my enjoyment; it doesn't affect yours. Which is fine, and I don't think it's condescending at all to recognize that. I've debated pretty exhaustively and willingly on nearly every point. Plenty of other people have backed out, citing their exasperation on the discussion, and have in fact pleaded that I back out. The only discussion I can think of that I didn't engage is the game of describing each other's viewpoints on the show. And as I said, I'm willing to do that vis PM. Is there any dangling discussion in particular that you feel I've backed out of?

We engage in entertainment differently. I would be absolutely delighted to have the perspective of someone who dislikes The Wire, or Chernobyl. I had a lot of fun discussing Oppenheimer with Fionwe, who perceived flaws in that movie, which I disagreed with. That's not to say I would stop enjoying the show if flaws are pointed out. I love Game of Thrones, but will readily acknowledge the flaws it has, and it certainly doesn't bother me when I engage with people who don't like it (it does bother me the tendency detractors of the show have in gleefully insulting the creators, which I consider crass). What makes you think that I believe this is a political discussion? Because I used Trump followers as an arbitrary yet relatable example of the echo chamber phenomenon? That is the only sense that relates to discussions here. I don't consider this a political discussion. And I don't. Have I ever said "I hope you learned your lesson and no longer enjoy the show?" Or have I repeatedly said "I'm glad you enjoy the show!"? Think of it like this. Someone announces that they love apples, and one quality of apples they enjoy is that it is one of the few vegetables they find tasty. Well, one can dispute the assertion that apples are vegetables, but still be happy for someone that they enjoy apples. I consider a lot of discussions on the logic of the show in that sense. One can actually evaluate the merit of whether the show makes sense and such independent of the discussion of the quality of the show. I assert that for me, personally, that has an effect on the quality, but I do not expect those preferences of others. If that clarifies matters. Anyway, I felt compelled to respond to inaccurate characterizations of my own position, but otherwise I'm content to let the discussion rest.

I think I will take a break though. It seems people here are getting genuinely emotional and upset. It is just a tv show, so I suppose that is hard for me to understand. Anyway, I always aim for pleasant discourse and try to be accommodating. So hopefully taking a little recess will help!

I'm glad you do! Godwin has a far reach indeed if it's no longer limited to Hitler/Nazis, but applies to classic behaviorial phenomena when the subject of comparison disagrees with the connection. It seems you can invoke Godwin for anything now, and just like that you successfully invalidated the point you don't like.

I've been playing as a netrunner, since it's incomprehensible to me to start a cyberpunk game and not be a netrunner. I love all the references. The braindance sequences are very reminiscent of Strange Days, and excellent and underappreciated movie. A lot of the visual aesthetics are clearly inspired by Bladerunner and they are fantastic. Anyone have any tips on the best perks for netrunner? I've been focusing on anything that expands or regenerates RAM. I also and focusing on upgrading by cyberware.

Would you prefer if I didn't understand your perspective? I'm not even criticizing. It is a very common behaviorism. People are drawn to that which validates their opinions, and repelled by that which challenges their reasoning. How can Trump have followers who still believe the election was stolen and he's being persecuted? They want to believe in Trump and they put themselves in echo chambers that allow them to hold those beliefs. You can think virtually anything and feel confident in your beliefs if you allow them to be unquestioned. (I use this example as something I think people can relate to as outsiders observing what seems like incredible, inexplicable behavior.) And it feels good to be right. To know - bringing this back to the topic - that you like this show and you like it for good reasons. Those bookcloaks are just being unnecessary purists, with suspect political affiliations to boot. Etc. The comforting feeling of knowing you are right to like this show, and your reasoning to justify your emotional reaction to this show is all correct too, because look at all these other people who are agreeing with you. Imdb is just filled with racist trolls, that's why WoT has a low 7.1, and critics generally don't appreciate fantasy as they should, which is why WoT is receiving lukewarm reations there. It's you and those in this pleasant echo chamber who are correct.

Sure. I participate in these discussions because I'm having a lot of fun debating the matters at hand. I go into it with the hope that someone can add additional perspective or change my mind, but even if that is not accomplished, it is fun to consider flaws in another person's arguments, or see flaws in my own argument pointed out - or even cases where flaws are incorrectly perceived on either side, which results in its own discussion. I can see why people feel exhausted because they know they are set with their own point of view, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they will be conviced otherwise, and so they would rather just enjoy the warm nirvana of an agreeable consensus. That's not my perspective, but I can understand others having it. I'm actually less interested in speculating about the show future because by my perspective, it's a bit of a futile endeavor. On the basis of season 1 and books 2 and 3, what could reasonably be anticipated to occur in season 2? Rand encounters Lanfear. Rand was in Cairhein in some form. The Hunt happened in some form. Training at the White Tower and Liandrin's betrayal. Mat blowing the Horn. The Seanchan being defeated. Ishamael being defeated. Aviendha encountered in some form. In the very broadest of strokes, some things from book 2 happened, and a couple of minor events from book 3 occurred. But the particulars varied so wildly that I don't see how one can reasonably anticipate what will occur. You can't even use logic to say that based on what has occurred, it makes sense that the following will then occur, because the show isn't written with the purpose of making sense. At the end of season 1, who could have guessed that it would be Egwene who defeated Ishamael? (Actually a few people did guess that, since she and Nynaeve stole Rand's moment there, people predicted they would do it again in season 2). Who would guess that it would be Lanfear who essentially puppeteered Rand's every movement in order for him to be recognized as the Dragon Reborn? Who would guess that Callandor was unnecessary, or that Ingtar and Uno would be pointless, or that Rand would be visiting an asylum to get some fairly pointless lessons by Logaine, or that it would be Lan who gives Rand lessons not on the sword but on how to wield the One Power? Or that Min is a quasi-Darkfriend who was in cohoots with Liandrin to manipulate Mat? Or that Padan Fain would give Mat the dagger of Shadar Logoth, and Mat would use it as a proto-ashandarei/lightsaber? Or Siuan Sanche essentially becoming Elaida and Rand and Moiraine teaming up with Lanfear to oppose her, which included Lanfear killing potentially hundreds of people to aid them and Rand and Moiraine apparently having no problem with this? Etc. I would be surprised if any of that was predicted because it's all insane. I have a sense the next season likewise will go into similarly unpredictable territory, and so speculating about it is less fun, because reasonable speculation is probably going to be well off the mark.

Because we're so concerned about specifying subjectivity even when it's obvious, I'm a toxic poster in your opinion, as someone who requires adulation of the show. You are free to do so. I do not view you as a toxic poster, because I am not offended when someone disagrees with me. I find engaging with someone who has different views than me is more interesting than sticking with a group who agrees with me. This I don't understand. What makes you think I'm unable to grasp why someone would like something just because I disagree with them? They're literally telling me why they like something. It's hard not to understand. Let's take an example. Fionwe and I had a dispute about the logic of the a'dam. Fionwe explained why they think it makes sense and why they enjoyed that scene in the show. To them, the logic of the a'dam works and therefore it didn't bother them. They spelled it out pretty clearly. I understand how one can think that and therefore enjoy the show. And I'm happy for them that they do enjoy the show. I dispute their reasoning that the logic holds, and I'm not the only one. This is not dismissing their opinion, it's disagreeing with their assessment. Fionwe then responded by trying to not just disagree with my assessment, but entirely dismiss my opinion. I'm not trying to single Fionwe out here (like I told them, I enjoy their posts). It's just one example of many. What about this indicates I don't understand the point of view of people here?

You theorycraft and talk about the qualities of the show you like. No one has tried to stop you. I theorycraft and talk about what I dislike. Plenty of people have tried to stop me. And now people are trying to stop ASOIAFrelatedusername. Do you see the presumptuousness in this difference? This is a discussion thread. It's not a positive things only discussion thread, or a thread where people are vetted for whether they sufficiently toe the party lines before they are allowed to contribute their opinions. Just as you're aware that I think this show is stupid, I'm very aware that others think it isn't - why? Because they say so repeatedly. I'm sorry you feel that ASOIAFrelatedusername and I are poisoning the punch with our naysaying. But this thread is not just for you. This is a community, and not the Stepford Wives (I just read that book and Rosemary's Baby - pretty good).

I didn't realize you were acting as quality control for opinions in this thread. ASOIAFrelatedusernsme stated that they do not approve of the changes that have been made. People quote them and say, no, you're wrong, the show in fact improves on the books. ASOIAF responds to dispute those who quote them. I don't see your comment here: being more insightful than their comment here: The above is a criticism of substance. It is valid to say the show wastes its time on purely ancillary and uninteresting plot points, time that could have better been spent on other things, like developing the main characters. I agree with their criticism and welcome it here in this discussion of the show. I think their opinions are breath of fresh air that breaks up the tedium of what otherwise is a hivemind of (in my opinion) nearly uncritical acceptance of the many flaws of the show from people who desparately want to enjoy something that they can't admit is a CW-level show with a glossy budget. Which - because apparently this needs to be mentioned repeatedly - is fine. People are free to like whatever they want, even awful shows. And others are free to criticize the aforementioned awful shows.

Come on. Did you miss the part where ASOIAFrelatedusername said: Obviously they are stating their preference and what would make the show enjoyable to them. It's honestly puzzling why people who like this show are taking criticism of this show as a personal attack on them and their taste. I had a similar discussion with fionwe, where despite having taken pains to say "in my opinion" and "it's all subjective" many times, they believed for some reason I was trying to force my view on them. Seriously. Why is the dialogue breaking down here? Disagreement is not the same as declaring your opinion is wrong and you should change it. It's fine that you think the books are flawed, with room for improvement. I agree with you, in fact. I disagree with you that the show is making these improvements - my problem is the show's narrative choices are almost uniformly worse than the books. It's actually incredible how substantially inferior the show has managed to be. But you disagree. Fine. You state why you think as you do, and I state why I think as I do. That is the discussion. Maybe you'll be persuaded by my thoughts, or maybe I'll be persuaded by your thoughts. Or maybe not. No one is trying to force you to stop enjoying the show. Lanfear manipulated everyone, including Ishamael. In the books, Rand was often manipulated, but he did show agency. He was manipulated by Moiraine, but also frustrated her with his resistance to her ploys. He was manipulated by Lanfear, but again was constantly frustrating her with his resistance. Rand in the show is completely different. His actions are almost competely at the behest of others. He's basically luggage for other characters to use. Moiraine was manipulated, by she often shows agency in the show. Anyway, we can go back and forth on this, but I think it's another case of we agree to disagree. I speculate that this pattern of others usurping Rand's agency will be ongoing. We'll see in the next season what happens.

I generally don't like video games. The recent games I've played and enjoyed were heavily story oriented, such as Disco Elysium and Pentiment. This game is phenomenal fun. It has absolutely captured the feel of the cyberpunk genre, the Neuromancer/Snow Crash atmosphere. Love it.

I would dispute that the Forsaken are any more effective in the show. Ishamael was taken out by some random novice, and all of his plans kicked to shambles by bringing Lanfear in the game, whom he *knew* would betray him. Rand wouldn't have been proclaimed Dragon Reborn without Lanfear. Moiraine was also saved by her. The Forsaken have been comically incompetent if the idea is to turn Rand al'Thor.

In the show, Rand doesn't really have much agency. He's effortlessly manipulated by Lanfear, and only the intercession of Moiraine saves him from being Lanfear's puppet. It is, by the way, Lanfear and Moiraine who plot an elaborate spectacle to fulfill the prophecy announcing the Dragon Reborn. Rand is virtually uninvolved in this too (Egwene is the main force in defeating Ishamael, with Rand and Perrin serving minor roles).

I'm glad it worked for you! For me it did nothing but ruin the immersion. I think our emotional jouneys in this movie were very different, and so our respective responses to it are very different. I wasn't remotely affected by this movie. I found it well made and entertaining, but it did not evoke any kind of deep emotional reaction. I plan on reading the book though, and I do expect to be affected by that.

Scorsese literally has a cameo delivering the final line of the movie. It's pretty indulgent. For me, the movie felt like it meandered, and the additional time spent didn't really add anything. I can think of entire scenes that could have been removed or shortened without diminishing character development or serving as an obstacle to understanding the story and themes of the movie. It was still a good movie though, and I appreciate that Scorsese had the opportunity to make it. It's also a subjective call. To me indulgence was the point in The Wolf of Wall Street and I loved every minute of it. People accuse Silence of also being overly long, and for me that runtime was perfect for that movie.