Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 8 hours ago, JEORDHl said: So like, did they cover the entirety of the book or will there be more coming? The book is somewhat different. I'm loving it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 29, 2022 Author Share Posted January 29, 2022 I just finished episode 8. The book and the series are, at best, fading echoes of each other. The series is more surreal than the book. The book has more and less connectivity between the characters than the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairparavel Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Station Eleven Hamlet is the best Hamlet. I wasn't sure I loved all the changes, particularly characterizations (plural), though I recognized the need in some cases. In the end I loved it as much as the book, recognizing they are complimentary versions of each other. Amazed they cast Gael Garcia Bernal in what was a minor character on-screen but the central bond in the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3CityApache Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Not sure if I called him minor character, he probably got comparable screen time to Clark or Miranda and longer than Frank overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 1, 2022 Author Share Posted February 1, 2022 Finished last night. It’s good. The end of episode 9 really was tough. I do prefer the book to the series. But the series wasn’t bad. I stand by my statement that the two stories are fading echos of each other. I’m curious if others who have read the book and watched the series have a preference and if the preference corresponds with which they read or watched first? I read the book in December 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Finished last night. It’s good. The end of episode 9 really was tough. I do prefer the book to the series. But the series wasn’t bad. I stand by my statement that the two stories are fading echos of each other. I’m curious if others who have read the book and watched the series have a preference and if the preference corresponds with which they read or watched first? I read the book in December 2019. I'm only about a third of way through the book now, but I have to say I like it a lot more. It's way darker and more realistic. Seems like the show made a number of changes to have a broader appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 1, 2022 Author Share Posted February 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: I'm only about a third of way through the book now, but I have to say I like it a lot more. It's way darker and more realistic. Seems like the show made a number of changes to have a broader appeal. It seems like their trying for a “happy ending” when 9 Billion people died. I don’t understand what the series was doing with Clark’s character. Perhaps they’re saying all the survivors went mad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: It seems like their trying for a “happy ending” when 9 Billion people died. I don’t understand what the series was doing with Clark’s character. Perhaps they’re saying all the survivors went mad? Clark hasn’t come up much yet other than a quick look at his personal issues and how he’s a jerk. I’m just confused why they made The Prophet a sympathetic character when in the book you know from his introduction that he’s a truly evil figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 57 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: It seems like their trying for a “happy ending” when 9 Billion people died. I don’t understand what the series was doing with Clark’s character. Perhaps they’re saying all the survivors went mad? I don't think the show is going for a 'happy ending', but it certainly approaches '20 years post pan' as being a somewhat simpler, possibly better time. The very framing of each time period is purposefully done; pre pan is tight, grey, claustrophobic and people are generally unhappy. The opposite being the case 20 years later. It does seem to be saying that in some ways The Prophet is right and Pre Pans are just broken people and we shouldn't be trying to return to the past. I don't know what Clark is like in the book, but I think he's great in the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 On 2/1/2022 at 11:09 AM, Tywin et al. said: Clark hasn’t come up much yet other than a quick look at his personal issues and how he’s a jerk. I’m just confused why they made The Prophet a sympathetic character when in the book you know from his introduction that he’s a truly evil figure. I think the weakest part of the book is that Spoiler Tyler is so bad. Like, he's just slightly more fleshed out than stock "bad rapey killer guy". By making Clark more insecure and partly responsible for Tyler, Tyler becomes less of a manichean evil character, which I think works better That still works fine for the book, but I think the show benefits greatly from the change. I mean he's still awful, he used kids as suicide bombers. I think this also makes for a more interesting comparison between Kirsten and Tyler as the "children" of Miranda and Arthur through Doctor Eleven. I don't think the label "sympathetic" really applied to show Tyler. I guess the show is slightly more optimistic? Although maybe not- show Kirsten has killed waaaay more people than book Kirsten. and they added in the whole Gil getting killed by suicide bombing children. That's pretty freaking dark. I think they changed Jeevan mostly to be able to have someone with him at the beginning of his story, so he's not just talking to himself, and also because Kirsten, who I'd say is closest to a "main character", well, in the book her story at the beginning of the pandemic is pretty minimal. I think having two characters with some history from the beginning of the [pandemic] helped keep the story tight and give us some stakes. It also let the show play up the Doctor Eleven comics story as a parallel for Kirsten. It also let them do a reunion, which was obviously pretty rewarding. Spoiler Another optimistic aspect of the book is Clark showing Kirsten the evidence of a powered community nearby. This seems as much or more of a hopeful future as anything presented in the show. I don't know that I really have a preference. I think the changes the show made worked well for the show. Love the book. I did see the show first. I think another thing the show ended up doing well was showing a post apocalyptic world that might actually be worth living in, unlike The Walking Dead or The Road 28 Days Later. And it didn't feel the need to do some cheesy good vs evil showdown like say the Stand. Eta: both the show and book made me want to reread The Wild Shore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 On 2/1/2022 at 10:47 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said: It seems like their trying for a “happy ending” when 9 Billion people died. I don’t understand what the series was doing with Clark’s character. Perhaps they’re saying all the survivors went mad? I think they picked Clark to become the best example of the "those who cling to the past are cursed", vs the Kirsten types, who live in the new world. I'd say this theme is stronger in the book than the series, but the show seems to have really locked into Clark as the "guy trying to bring the past into the future" and he's probably the most natural choice, what with the whole Museum of Civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2022 Author Share Posted February 3, 2022 7 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said: I think they picked Clark to become the best example of the "those who cling to the past are cursed", vs the Kirsten types, who live in the new world. I'd say this theme is stronger in the book than the series, but the show seems to have really locked into Clark as the "guy trying to bring the past into the future" and he's probably the most natural choice, what with the whole Museum of Civilization. Yes. But in the book “The Museum of Civilization” was just a museum. It wasn’t some bizarre cult like compound. It was a relatively successful post-pan community. Clark certainly wasn’t borderline insane. That said the contrast makes a certain degree of sense. I was also a bit bothered by everyone who was still alive showing up in the same place at the same time. I know the showrunner wanted to make that about “fate”. But it still stretched credulity quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Yes. But in the book “The Museum of Civilization” was just a museum. It wasn’t some bizarre cult like compound. It was a relatively successful post-pan community. I had the same impression of the airport group -- they were successful, they were happy, they were safe. 22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Clark certainly wasn’t borderline insane. I wouldn't consider Clark insane at all, simply someone who found comfort in fixating on the past and becoming a bit obsessed with it, an obsession that everyone else at the compound humored because he had in fact been a good leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2022 Author Share Posted February 3, 2022 16 minutes ago, Ran said: I wouldn't consider Clark insane at all, simply someone who found comfort in fixating on the past and becoming a bit obsessed with it, an obsession that everyone else at the compound humored because he had in fact been a good leader. He didn’t have that aspect in the book. Nor was the airport a cult like compound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: He didn’t have that aspect in the book. Nor was the airport a cult like compound. I still don't see where the compound comes off as a cult. It seems well-ordered and organized, with post-Pan young people having classes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2022 Author Share Posted February 3, 2022 1 hour ago, Ran said: I still don't see where the compound comes off as a cult. It seems well-ordered and organized, with post-Pan young people having classes, etc. The quarantine… forcing the Traveling Symphony to come… refusing to let members of the TS leave if they didn’t want to stay… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The quarantine… I don't know if that's utterly crazy. Even if the virus is gone, these people have isolated themselves and would not know what variations of even common diseases are out there that they might be in danger from. 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: forcing the Traveling Symphony to come… I put that down as more the Enrico guy being single-minded. 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: refusing to let members of the TS leave if they didn’t want to stay… And that seems to be for the safety of the community, isolating it from the rest of the world. We saw what happened at Pingtree when strangers came around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 Agree with Ran, i didn't get the impression the Museum was cultish at all. It was presented a little like that before we actually ever see it, but I don't recall anything during the museum scenes that made me think there was anything especially odd about the people there. Kirsten was worried they were going to do something to the Symphony and it was all a trap, but it almost certainly wasn't, and I don't think there was any element of blackmail to it either. Clark didn't come off as crazy either IMO, just a guy who wanted to be appreciated and loved, and really struggled to achieve that due to his personality. The Museum was successful, they had rebuilt their community, they had power, they had all these amazing relics of the past. That Tyler wanted to destroy the past didn't mean that there was anything wrong with the Museum or that community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2022 Author Share Posted February 3, 2022 9 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Clark didn't come off as crazy either IMO, just a guy who wanted to be appreciated and loved, and really struggled to achieve that due to his personality Okay, but that is a big change from Book Clark who was just presented as a fairly competent individual who organized this community and thought the museum was a good idea to preserve a memory of what was. It was never obessive in the book. Chalk it up as a change in the series I didn’t care for. Everyone seems a bit unhinged in the series… that said… having lived through a collapse of human civilization that is understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Yes. But in the book “The Museum of Civilization” was just a museum. It wasn’t some bizarre cult like compound. It was a relatively successful post-pan community. Clark certainly wasn’t borderline insane. That said the contrast makes a certain degree of sense. I was also a bit bothered by everyone who was still alive showing up in the same place at the same time. I know the showrunner wanted to make that about “fate”. But it still stretched credulity quite a bit. Right. I think they changed Clark to make Tyler less 'evil', and to reinforce the idea that the past and memory can become trap. He's very different than book Clark. Was there some point about fate? It was really just Jeevan and Kirsten meeting up again, and Tyler and his Mom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.