Jump to content

Mladen

Members
  • Posts

    17,749
  • Joined

Everything posted by Mladen

  1. I thought they would use black marriage cloak, at least. But then again, that green was always more important from Alicent's POV, a clear departure from Viserys and Rhaenyra and I think it was used here in such fashion. Much like Sansa vocalizing her Stark roots in Season 6 "I am a Stark, I will always be a Stark", Alicent just quietly said the same.
  2. To quote Sheldon Cooper, "I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would" MVP of the episode was Alicent and her entrance. I loved that quote about color of the flame and finally we are gearing up for Blacks v Greens. I miss good old days when a simple costume would tell a story. That was what this was and I have enjoyed it. As for Criston, he could easily justify himself. People were drinking, he attacked me, threatened the Princess and I reacted. Not a story I would find unbelievable. Rhea's death was expected for me. I sincerely doubted that they would kill her off screen, or just by some accident. Daemon doing so gives him much darker tone, but that is Daemon.
  3. The best thing about HotD is how it makes me sympathetic to Alicent. Actually it makes me cheer for her, wishing her best. Which, book never did. And honestly, we are getting an incredible context to everything she will do in the future. Between Viserys' public humiliation, marital rape, Haelena's health issues, and Rhaenyra's lies... Add pressure by Otto, and previously established psychological issues and you get a young woman, lost in the world, where everyone around her is not treating her with modicum of respect. Freedom was a big theme in the episode. When Rhaenyra complained about men, Alicent reminds her that women in the realm are lucky if they get to choose between 2, let alone dozens of men. There is a parallel between how they shot Aemma dying and the non-consensual intercourse between Alicent and Viserys. That bird perspective shot on blooded bed of Aemma and Alicent's face while Viserys is on top of her just reiterates the tragedy of the most powerful woman in Westeros - the Queen. The ending was perfect for me. Orwyle bringing Moon tea to Rhaenyra was such a powerful statement about Viserys - yeah, honey, he did what you made him do, but no, he is not buying your sh*t. And Rhaenyra knows it. The camera work could have been better in this scene, to be a bit more effective, the the point made was simply brilliant. As people said, we are setting up the Dance in a brilliant way. It is slowly brewing, but the inevitability of the confilct has become clear.
  4. I am not British, I am not a monarchist, but there is a sense of loss. She has been Queen of UK for all my love and her death is simply the loss of one of those life constants. It's a small, perhaps unimportant thing for me personally, but it just speaks what presence she was in our planet's life the past 70 years. Having said that, I find there is something profoundly sexist in some of the criticism she is receiving as I see people blame her for a lot of things - Charles, Andrew, William and Harry and all their personal sh*t. And perhaps we can hold her accountable for some things, but I find it distasteful when people blame the wife, the mother, the grandmother (the woman in general) for the numerous scre-ups of husbands, sons, grandsons (well, male). Through all of that, one actually realizes that this woman served her realm for 70 years and that people generally find her unreproachable in that. Which is frankly, truly amazing. May she rest in peace.
  5. Oh, boy... It was awful. While I was giving the chance based on the first two episodes, this one - plainly awful. So many bad moments, so much cringe... I am sure, or almost convinced that The Stranger is and most likely, Halbrand is... Yeah, the visuals are brilliant. But again, we have these visuals for the sake of what? Telling us how much money they spent, or some notion of escapism. I am still to see some sort of subtext in the visual aspect of the series. If someone had gotten something, be kind, share.
  6. @Werthead has a point. We just need to let this one be "just fine". Simply, there are too many factors in play that made this adaptation difficult, but then again, there are also many missed opportunities to just give them benefit of doubt. I don't know if anyone spoke about it and I apologize if I missed it, but what about the language? OK, dialogues are weird and all, but simply, this lacks Tolkien's language so profoundly that I cannot connect to it. I am speaking about that rich, poetic prose that made me make a vocabulary of all the beautiful new words when I read it 2 decades ago. I feel that the language is simply lacking Tolkien's genius, which is for me, in many ways deal-breaker. Yeah, I know Tolkien was unique in many ways but I still think that the writers could have made a language of the series a bit more, IDK, poetic, delicate, ethereal... I hope people understand it... Overall, thoroughly unimpressed by the plot. I did like Morfydd Clark more than I thought I would, but I feel she is doing her best when the script is obviously "cutting her wings". Dwarves were the best part... Music is really sublime. And visuals are stunning. That would be all
  7. I really like how this show is acted, I like how they interact and I like how time had been taken for this wonderful slowburn. The conversation between Rhaenys and Rhaenyra was especially delightful to watch as both are correct in some ways and both miss some points. Rhaenys is right about Kingdom, but wrong that it can never be changed. Rhaenyra is half-right about Rhaenys. It wasn't that she was unfit for Queen, it was the fact she's a woman. But once Rhaenys sees things through Rhaenyra's eyes about things being able to change, and Rhaenyra understands that she might well be Rhaenys 2.0, the two women will form an union...
  8. 8/10 I am one of those weird beasts that really like slowburn episodes with a lot of dialogues. Unlike "Game of Thrones", this series lacks the shock value that we had in the first two episodes of season 1 of GoT (defenestration and wolf pup killing). But, you can see and feel everything simmering and you are just waiting to explode. It's that Martin's line about "seeds of war being planted in times of peace" that I find incredibly appropriate for this. The plot moves slowly, it is peaceful time, but the impending war looms over all of them.
  9. I am hearing a lot about "wokeness" in this adaptation and while I am aware of the changes, I can't say I am bothered one bit by them. Here is a thing. The criticism about "woke" is on aesthetic level, if I may say that way. Or visual. The criticism I am reading is focused more on the fact that Lucifer is not male, or Death is not while female etc. I haven't seen much of saying that anyone actually failed in what they were supposed to do - bring these fantastical beings to the screen. Contrasting this to Game of Thrones where visual aspect was always pleasing, but the substance was lacking, here we have that some people find that aesthetical, visual aspect lacking or inappropriate, while they don't delve too deep into whether these changes affected the narrative of the series. Lastly, this is a modern adaptation helmed by a modern, and if you please, woke, author. He seems to be perfectly content to adapt his work into a modern TV adaptation. I don't see anything political or even problematic about it. I mean, if works like these don't give us opportunity to "play" with roles and even focus more on certain intangible aspects of casting and not just visuals. And as I have written on Twitter, it seems we will need George R.R. Martin to return the favor and proclaim "N.G. is not your b**ch"
  10. I haven't been previously introduced to the comics, which is a HUGE mistake on my part. But, this adaptation was sincerely everything. It's been a while since I have been so intellectually and emotionally inspired. Structure of the season is a bit all over the place, but the trifecta of episodes - "A Hope in Hell", "24/7" and "The Sound of Her Wings" was AMAZING. It's borderline impossible to choose the favorite as each episode is such a treat, in their own ways. The "game" between Lucifer and Dream was everything a fantasy series should give me. The casting of Dream was amazing. He is such a dry character which allows personal changes to be more visible and even, somehow, more impactful. The last meeting with Hob was absolutely wonderful. Not sure about Rose part and the last four episodes. I am not sure if I would have preferred for them to have kept the episodic structure of the series, connecting separate stories into one thread, instead of having somewhat disconnected the first and the second part. As for the rest of the cast, I have enjoyed each and one of them. I was pleasantly surprised by Gwendoline's turn as Lucifer. The aesthetics were English in that quirky, colorful vibe. I have seen some critics regarding the wokeness of adaptation but, honestly, perhaps it is because I am an Unspoiled but I didn't mind it. I suppose there were some changes, but I am profoundly happy with how everything turned out to be that I have no serious complaints. Even when Tom Sturridge came dangerously close to Robert Pattinson's "Twilight" vibe
  11. All of these arguments are factually correct and I can't argue against them. That said, I am more affected by Ms. Clark as Galadriel than anything else. And I know that Blanchett who is 53 ATM, can't play this younger version, but that emotional side of my brain says she should have. Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is one of those characters for me. One of those that define certain era. I was just a kid when I watched FOTR and her gliding down those stairs as the Fellowship looked at her. I still remember the excitement, the emotional connection with this serene, out-worldly creature. It marked the beginning of my love for Ms. Blanchett and it is still strong as it was 2 decades ago. So, yeah, I understand the arguments and they are all valid. It is just that there is part of me that would be ecstatic to have seen Ms. Blanchett as Galadriel one more time, especially in the role that gives us more grounded Galadriel. And, yes, I would totally ignore that she doesn't look like she is 25. Having said that, I wish Ms. Clark all the best. She has some gigantic shoes to fill and it seems she is doing just fine.
  12. If we talk about Dr Curry, I think yes, she talked to Heard (and more importantly, per Heard's lawyers, gave her muffins). I think they had two meetings or such. I am not sure that is how fact-finders work... The way I understand lawyers hire several experts, but bring to the stand only those that corroborate their story. As an expert witness myself few times, there were situations when lawyer would just thank me for my services and I never got on the stand. The fact that Dr Curry was on the stand means Depp's team found her results favorable for them.
  13. Oh, yeah... I mean, I don't think anyone can say Depp is innocent victim here. It was, as it seems, a mutually abusive relationship. And I think jury understood them. I think their problem was more of Heard representing herself as "noble victim" (to quote Vasquez) when in fact she was also abusive. I feel most of them thought that op-ed mischaracterized their relationship and that is why they found grounds for falsehood of those statements. Sexual abuse here is also very important topic and point of contention because her lawyers were all over the place with that. First they claimed there were no sexual abuse, then when judge decided that the title matters, they claimed there was sexual abuse, only not to mention it in the closing arguments. *** I am not sure she had bad lawyers. But, Elaine would sometimes do ad hominem attacks that didn't work. That TMZ employee really gave her the taste of her own medicine. Dr Curry very calmly explained muffin situation. They were more invested of discrediting these people as credible witnesses than proving them wrong. It was a strange and ineffective tactic. Lawyers commenting this were always wondering whether Heard is the problem here, as they would not understand some moves made by her lawyers.
  14. I don't think Heard was ruined by Depp's lawsuit. But, I think she lost all credibility in public the moment she sat in that witness chair. It was simply "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thing. Vasquez made her admit she lied about donating money to charity. Vasquez made her admit that op-ed was about Johnny, thus destroying that image of "woman moving on". She mentioned Kate Moss, in hope to ruin Depp, it backfired and Moss made Heard look even less trustworthy. Many people had issues with her facial expressions, believing she is faking tears. It was just bad. She admitted to nothing. I have heard her lawyer saying she admitted her faults. No, she didn't. We heard her smiling and snickering on the video, it was proved she leaked the edited video to TMZ, and there is of course poop-gate. Simply, no one would believe her after so many lies. And had she sat rationally with her lawyers and told "Yes, I did this and this and this. Let we explain the jury my side and my reasons...", Depp would have never won. But, she denied things she couldn't possibly deny. And jury didn't believe her.
  15. I have read her article and yes, it doesn't mention him, but it is clearly about him. And you can deny that, I understand that perspective but she was called as a witness, she sat and said: So, we are passed pretending op-ed was not about him.
  16. One really has to enjoy the cherry-picking of verdicts people do here. "Oh, you should trust the judge in UK". "No, the jury in Virginia heard Amber." I mean, both sides are doing the same. Choosing the verdict they believe in because it suits their narrative. And then we go into mischaracterizing both trials. One side will say that it is possible that judge was biased and hadn't have all evidence in UK, the others will talk how jury was tainted. As similar as two cases have been, legal experts are very clear that they are not about the same thing, the laws in UK and US are different, hence the different verdicts. We are all right and we are all wrong. As one said, "at the end, we will see that the only thing abused here were substances," Yes, both these individuals have issues, it was a toxic relationship and perhaps it is good that we have two different verdicts so neither of them would get "free out of jail" card. The one thing I am truly bothered is Ms. Heard's insistence that this trial affects all women. No, it affects you. The vernacular that is being used about "setbacks for women". People speak about character assassinations. Well, Amber tossed a first stone and she has been throwing for a while now. Now, when she lost, she says she doesn't like the game. Well, I am sorry, but this Pandora box has been opened by you. And, the thing we have learned so many times with celebrities, you try to control narratives and media will ultimately backfire. This is just the last example of it. I am in a hospital and I am bed-ridden for the past few weeks. I followed it plus US lawyers' commentaries on that. Your opinion can vary on Depp based on what you heard on that trial. But, without any doubt, after hearing her two testimonies, I feel like no jury would let her off the hook. The impression was disastrous. She has been caught lying, point black, numerous times. And she did come off as malicious sociopath. The only reason I am careful with my words regarding Ms. Heard is that I know that it could all be impression. But, most certainly, Depp's lawyers, especially Camille Vasquez annihilated Heard's credibility. I would even say that Vasquez as attorney, Dr Curry as a witness expert and Kate Moss as a witness were the trifecta that swayed jury.
  17. Yeah, but I am not sure what other ways he would have in "clearing his name". I mean, Heard certainly had no regards for him when she penned that op-ed. It was also a very public character assassination. There is no way one can spin that. She sat and admitted the op-ed was about him. So I am not sure how we would expect him not to "go for the jugular". Also, I am not sure we can blame him for propagation of misogyny. At least, his lawyers made sure to be very specific that the case is about one man and one woman. Heard's team transformed the trial into "sending messages". *** Honestly, I have some serious issues with how Heard's team approached this. Yes, Depp's team chose the "playground" but they had enough room. Most lawyers I followed on YT were certain Depp would lose, and as the trial progressed, they were all changing opinions. And those opinions were not based on some TikTok/Twitter commentary, but on what they have seen. Their comments were that the judge was extremely fair to both parties, that jury took seriously their duty. As far as I understood the lawyers' commentaries on the case, Heard's cross-examinations by Vasquez both times really undermined the case she had.
  18. I understand where you come from and you are right about Depp's career. I won't be crying over some Hollywood actor not earning tens of millions of dollars. But, we know he was fired from Pirates and Beasts because of this. I mean, he has the right to work and make shitty movies, if he wants to. Half of Hollywood shoots bad movies that earn far less. So, as much as I would agree with you, he is entitled to continue his career as long as there are those who would watch his movies.
  19. IDK, I don't think the jury was the problem here. I understand that argument, but I would find difficult to believe that there is one jury case today in US where a juror hadn't commented with their family. From the people who reported directly from the courtroom, the jury was very much invested, they had extensive instructions by the judge, they took notes. I am not sure that the jury was the problem here. For me, it all came down to Amber's disastrous performance on the stand, I think her lawyers went too many times ad hominem on Depp witnesses. I mean, Elaine complained about time to Dr Curry after investigating her about muffins. The people Depp team put on the stand seemed in better control of the public. When you compare Dr Hughes and Dr Curry, and I am no expert on it, one can easily guess whom would jury listen more. Kate Moss thing was also a huge blow for Ms. Heard, as simply people are more prone to believe that a man is not abuser if he has not a history of abuse and Kate Moss certainly refuted that. I think Ms. Heard lost because simply, her team miscalculated certain things. She simply wasn't believable and her emotions seemed ingenuine. I am not sure sequestered jury, or non-televised process or even other jury would change that.
  20. Well, I don't know what sequestration means exactly, but for this trial, cameras never recorded the jurors, plus the judge sealed their names from public record for a year. As for juror being tainted, I am not buying it. I think Vasquez did incredible job in crushing Ms. Heard's credibility and this was a case of who is more credible.
  21. Sorry, my mistake. My English legal vernacular is not as good as I think. You are completely right. I think that is, in part, why he won. He and his team tried to make this about one man and one woman, while Ms. Heard on the stand was issuing statement after statement about powerful men, their power. As I said, they were playing "this is the bigger issue" and it simply backfired. And I agree with you... I know it is not perfect, but the thing that most countries admire United States for is the ability for anyone to have their day at court and be heard. That tease "Tell the world, Johnny" sadly did not end well for Ms. Heard.
  22. I am with @Ran with regard to this. Simply, if this case is going to destroy the movement, then it was a shaky movement to begin with. Today we speak about this case's impact on MeToo movement, because Amber Heard lawyer basically wanted jury to feel that way. Rottenborn clearly stated that the jury needed to send a message. I mean, that is not what jury does, as far as my understanding of American law goes. They are there to decide whether Amber defamed Johnny and vice versa. Nothing more. But, Amber's lawyers felt the need to put the pressure on the jury and it simply backfired. What is being forgotten here... Heard was innocent until this jury found her guilty. (of defamation, to be precise. Let's not forget what was this case about) Depp was guilty until this case found him liable for defamation about hoax. I don't think this trial exonerates Johnny, but it did cast a significantly different light to the narrative Heard, ACLU and Washington Post served to the public. All of that was Ms. Herard's narrative until she sat on witness' chair and said that op-ed was about him. Plain and simple. In front of the jury. She herself claimed it was about him and that he is the reason why it was written. If I find that moment unforgettable, I am sure that jury who was 2 meters away from her, felt the same. Today, we could have had people encouraging both men and women to come forward when it comes to abuse. Instead, people are using the same vernacular claiming that it is a "setback". One really needs to ask why are they doing so. Is it because they believe Depp vs Heard was a referendum on MeToo, or they simply rally the troops against any reasonable criticism? But, with such divisive and polarized society, it is a wonder anyone can have reasonable opinion without being targeted as far-left or far-right.
  23. Given that you have responded to me, I really doubt I show any sort of certainty regarding this case. Well, the regulars - LA Times, Variety, Washington Post, etc. What I find on Google Search from American and British media. My impression and it can be wrong is that although they recognize Heard's lack of credibility, it is like "it doesn't matter because he is a powerful man". It's just my impression. And many of liberal commentators are doing the same. Again, just my impression, not a state of fact.
  24. I edited that part. I apologize for it. From my perspective, here in Europe, this entire case is once again clashing of far-left and far-right. And somehow I think the point is lost here... @polishgenius, thanks. I really didn't know.
  25. This is a gross misrepresentation of the support Depp got. (Not saying there is no misogyny there, there most certainly is, but to put entire Depp support into far-right corner would be, IMO, really wrong.) And practically this argument is what is wrong with American society these days. You all think in extremes. Either you are far-left or far-right. There is no middle ground anymore. We have seen numerous Hollywood women like Jennifer Aniston, Penelope Cruz, Eva Green, Selma Hayek supporting Depp - are they mean-spirited and misogynistic? Instead of using this moment to reexamine the cancel culture Hollywood has based MeToo on and admit some mistakes, we see leftist being closed to any idea of wrongdoing by anyone surrounding Amber. And they immediately started firing: "No one will ever believe women because of this." As far as I am concerned, both extremes here are wrong. I feel like the common sense has been lost here. I do believe that one can believe in MeToo movement and still believe AH lied. I believe someone can sympathize with Depp and still hold him accountable for some actions. What I don't believe is this strawman argument American media played since last night.
×
×
  • Create New...