Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How very Trumpesque of him.
LOL!
The real reason though is there was shoddy world building in the Neverland arc. Neverland had so much potential and it was completely wasted.
True that. I’d much rather have seen Tiger Lily back then, as opposed to the boring subplot of Charming dying. But they wasted the potential of S2 characters (e.g. Ruby) in their rush to get to Neverland and then squandered Neverland’s potential too.
[adrotate group="5"]Regarding the question of whether Hook and Emma should break up, people are using different perspectives to decide what is “logical”. @thedarkonedearie is using a Doylist perspective while @hjbau and others are using a Watsonian perspective. It makes sense that if A & E don’t see the problems with the relationship, then they wouldn’t break up a couple they’ve invested in. But from an in-universe perspective, it might make sense in terms of character consistency, relationship problems etc. It depends a lot on which perspective you are basing your argument on.
I watch this show because i like discussing it. I like dissecting it. I like being critical of it. I like how it makes me think about what i want and expect out of my writing. It makes me think about character and how important i think that is, it makes me think about how important it is to show not tell because it does that so badly. This show being written this bad has improved my writing. It has made me think about the tropes that i don’t want to fall into. It has made me think about the structure and build of my arcs. We have good critical discussions about character and plot because of this show. This, in my opinion, is a good discussion even if we disagree vastly on how we view the show. The discussion is of value, disagreeing peaceably is of value, so i continue to watch this show, so that i can continue to be part of the discussion.
This for me as well. At this point, I get a lot more value from the discussions than from the show itself.
3% is awesome!! Finally someone else who watches!
Well, in this case it’s actually cause rather than correlation! I saw you mention this show on another thread and that’s why I started it. 😉
As for the worldbuilding I agree and I hope the next season (which I think is confirmed) goes more in detail about the off shore and clear corruption and shadiness going on here. I’m very interested in how this world got to be the way it is and why.
This is exactly what I’m most interested in too. I was hoping we’d get more detail in S1 though – just to whet our curiosity for S2.
Does anyone watch the OA? I’ve heard it’s really good, but weird, and starts to taper off after a few eps.
3% – Only 5 episodes into it so far. It feels like a cross between Hunger Games and Quantico. So far, I’d say it’s good, though not great. The story is fine, but the dystopian world doesn’t seem highly original. However, it has potential. They could go from good to great with some skilful world building from here on.
Merlin – I watch this for light entertainment when my brain is too tired to absorb anything more complex. It’s fine when watched just for fun. If I were to get more analytical, I’d say I have a few problems with this show in that its themes are too parochial for my taste. But I don’t bother going too deep.
ODE TO ZELENA
Based on ‘I’ll be there for you’ by the Rembrandts
So no one told you life would never go that well,
Your face is green,
You’re mean
Your boyfriend’s straight from hell.
Your mother warned you of life’s difficulties
But then she went and cast a spell that wiped your memories!
I’ll be there for you,
When our loves hit the floor.
I’ll be there for you,
Like I was once before.
I’ll be there for you,
Cause we’re heroes now, and that’s what heroes do!
In addition to the problems already mentioned, the biggest problem for me is that the characters are no longer relatable or engaging. I simply do not care about them anymore. If any of the mains died, I wouldn’t be able to muster any emotion. The problem is twofold. First, they don’t behave like real people would, which makes it hard to relate to anyone. Poor writing, PLOT etc – we’ve discussed all of this at length at some time or another. The second problem is the lack of diversity in the group. I’m not just talking in terms of race, sexuality, age etc. They even think alike – witness all of them heading off to the Underworld with Emma, leaving babies and young children behind because “that’s what heroes do”.
I haven’t watched any episodes since ‘Heartless’ and I’m struggling to stick with OUAT. I doubt I’ll still be watching by the end of S6.
This show is never going to be great, in my opinion, and i do think it will only ever be remembered for killing Lexa
Yes, when I checked out the ratings, I was surprised by how low they were. They weren’t much higher than OUAT in S4 and 5, even though the show is much better than recent seasons of OUAT. I think the problem is that nothing makes ‘The 100’ stand out from other dystopian teen dramas. Well, Clexa did, but Clexa is no more. But there’s nothing to pull you in; you only realise that it’s good after you start watching.
Anyway, here’s more grist for the discussion mill.
– Have you read Kass Morgan’s book or do you intend to? How does it compare to the show?
– ‘The 100’ gets many accolades for its diversity. Do you think it deserves them or did it actually fall short in its representation of LGBTQ and PoC characters?
Carrying on from my last post….
I’ll start off with Clexa. Clexa was a thing of beauty. The writing was epic. The acting was epic. The slow burn was epic. No wonder people were heartbroken when it ended. From a story perspective, I don’t think Lexa needed to die. Her death did move the story along, but the writers could have found another way to do that. Jason Rothenberg said in an interview that he would have loved to have Alycia Debnam-Carey as a series regular. It all boiled down to the fact that she was leaving the show. That was the core problem, and sadly, there was no easy way around that. Either she died or disappeared into the wilderness. Whichever way they did it, Clexa had to end because Clark couldn’t have a relationship with someone who was offscreen.
Could they have avoided the ‘bury your gays’ trope? Yes. Could they have spared LGBTQ fans the pain? This is a tricky one. They could have avoided the brutal shock of killing her, but having her disappear and break up with Clarke would, I believe, have caused a different kind of heartbreak. Lexa was popular and she would have been sorely missed no matter what.
As for Bellamy, I have a different perspective. I agree that his motivation was ill defined. But I rationalised his actions as follows. Bellamy’s drive has always been to protect. It’s usually his sister, but his wanting to be a guard on the Ark indicated that it extended beyond that to his wider community. He has always had a propensity for violence. The final piece of the puzzle is Bellamy’s psychological state. Again, it’s not made explicit why he was so vulnerable when Pike got to him. We know that he felt abandoned by Clarke. Also, I don’t remember any of the hundred really supporting Bellamy after his girlfriend’s death. So I think the pieces are all there, but it shouldn’t have been left to fans’ imaginations to put them together. With better writing, Bellamy’s actions could have been made pretty convincing.
One thing I’m curious about is how this show will end. Guaranteed, it won’t be a happy ending, but will they really kill everyone off? That would surprise me. Besides, there’s bound to be a twist. I honestly don’t even have any theories at this point.
