On 1/10/2022 at 5:03 PM, Cult Icon said:

silver bullets for this series and others of its type:

 

1. The protagonist starts off in her 30s and well into her biological clock.  To be that "independent woman" it required spending most of one's time between age 18-32 at school and selling away one's youth/time to the employer.  Was it worth overemphasizing this aspect and throwing one's opportunities away throughout one's 20s while man after man threw themselves at them?  Isn't the most valuable resource...time?  Time that the woman can't get back?

 

2. What makes this woman qualified to make intelligent judgements for a lifelong life partner?  Her biological instincts?  As Book 3 shows, she didn't and she failed.  (This part is very true to life)  Wouldn't it be better if she spent her energies remedying her lack of insight and then, making intelligent decisions?  Wouldn't society benefit massively as a whole if people did this, and wasted less of their youth on the wrong relationships?

 

3. "Bridget Jones" suffers greatly from a thousand trivial matters, generally concerned about what OTHER people think of her.  Wouldn't it be better to just let them go?

 

Well, that's an interesting analysis.

 

I'm not an expert of this book/movie, so I can't judge, but that seems consistent with our current environment (though this show is from the 00s, right?)

 

 

 

The "woke" Macbeth with Denzel Washington is getting good reviews, I am looking at the film now and it kind of sucks

 

On 1/11/2022 at 5:58 PM, Enrico_sw said:

 

Well, that's an interesting analysis.

 

I'm not an expert of this book/movie, so I can't judge, but that seems consistent with our current environment (though this show is from the 00s, right?)

 

The book/films appeal to the anxiety of 30-something unmarried women, obviously this is a common problem that goes back for decades.   I did 3 hrs of the audiobook and stopped for now.  Very well written and on the mark but also very painful to listen to.

There is a claim that circulates around the 3 main Witcher subreddits (for a long time) that during casting, Ciri was originally supposed to be non-white and female asians were being looked into.  At this point it I am convinced that Lauren Hissrich is little more than an ambitious hack director that isn't up to the task of doing fantasy.  She flat out lied (repeatedly) claiming that the Witcher show was an adaptaion of the novels.  :

 

 

 

 

 

I hate judging books by their covers, but these freaks all look and think the same............ crap tattoos, weird piercings, crap hairdos, etc.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

There is a claim that circulates around the 3 main Witcher subreddits (for a long time) that during casting, Ciri was originally supposed to be non-white and female asians were being looked into.  At this point it I am convinced that Lauren Hissrich is little more than an ambitious hack director that isn't up to the task of doing fantasy.  She flat out lied (repeatedly) claiming that the Witcher show was an adaptaion of the novels.  :

 

 

 

 

 

 

But Ciri being played by a white actress, so what is the problem?

I think Anna Shaffer is of South-American descent originally and Anya Chalotra has an Indian father.

 

In any case, their races never really featured into how much I liked or disliked them. I thought Anna Shaffer's acting in season one was very lightweight. But she improved in season two. And Anya Chalotra definitely won me over after doubting her.

These novels and the games are of a central/eastern European fantasy setting (with some nordic elements, like Skellige).  There should be no blacks and asians at all in the casting.  

 

The actresses that play Triss and Yennefer are white-washed.  The actresses' instagram show them to be darker skinned.

 

I am old fashioned, I want the most ideal person to play the part!

I'm different, I honestly don't care about that stuff.

Like there is a Henry VIII show coming where Jodie Turner-Smith is going to play Anne Boleyn.

I'm totally fine with that!

But I also think this is something that has to work both ways!

Thus people should also be okay with Gal Gadot playing Cleopatra.

Cleopatra herself is a special case anyway, there is this absurd notion that she should be black - largely held by the black community - but her family was of Greek-Macedonian descent, so she almost certainly had the olive-skinned complexion of the people who still inhabit the Mediterranean area nowadays. There is no reason whatsoever to believe she was central-African in appearance.

 

All of this stuff is bullshit anyway, about having some claim to historical figures, as if sharing a skin color with one is truly meaningful?

The basic appearance of the actor when casting is vitally important for immersion.  It no longer is in this day and age with blacks being required in so many productions for corporate diversity.  Maybe over time people have gotten used to seeing so many blacks in roles that they shouldn't be in that they forgot that there was once a time when casting standards was higher.  The only thing I can tolerate is if they use good British actors instead of Italian & slavic actors  because their speaking is much more pleasant to the ear.  The recent Green Knight film could have been a good watch but they Woke-fied the casting, and an Indian plays the lead role.  An Indian (who also looks Arab!) should not be casted as an English knight.  

 

I have a similar issue with big name hollywood actors getting casted (like Dicaprio, Matt Damon, etc.) in roles that they shouldn't be in.  I think Dicaprio and Scarlett Jo are kind of shit in most of the films they are in, and miscasted.  Fassbender and Denzel Washington are terrible Macbeths.  Cottillard is a terrible Lady Macbeth, first of all she shouldn't speak with a thick French accent and second she is reciting her lines badly.

 

It would have awesome if the Witcher show was visually produced & casted like the CDPR trailers, this is the image I had in mind when reading the novels. 

 

 

It's not really that hard.  There are a lot of fan-fiction Witcher comics that capture the tone.  All of the (mostly mediocre quality- 2-3 of them are very good) Witcher comics are superior to the show.

 

The redditors have routinely captured director Lauren S's twitter communication, it indicates how she wants to do "her own" thing rather than do a proper adaptation of the source material like Peter Jackson & Joe Wright.  

This clip is from the 2001/2002 Polish Witcher (the Renfry story from the Last Wish, also in Season 1 of the Neflix show).  I am watching the Polish witcher now and it's far more authentic:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

It would have awesome if the Witcher show was visually produced & casted like the CDPR trailers, this is the image I had in mind when reading the novels. 

 

 

It's not really that hard.  There are a lot of fan-fiction Witcher comics that capture the tone.  All of the (mostly mediocre quality- 2-3 of them are very good) Witcher comics are superior to the show.

 

The redditors have routinely captured director Lauren S's twitter communication, it indicates how she wants to do "her own" thing rather than do a proper adaptation of the source material like Peter Jackson & Joe Wright.  

 

Jackson's LotR is also an interpretation. I don't recall Legolas surfing on a shield in any of the books, and he omits several things, including the entire Tom Bombadil section.

8 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

Jackson's LotR is also an interpretation. I don't recall Legolas surfing on a shield in any of the books, and he omits several things, including the entire Tom Bombadil section.

 

There is a big difference though.  Lauren S's Season 2 material is 80% totally made up.  Of the remaining 20%, Very little of the character dialogue made it from book to show.  When you adapt a novel most of it should be scenes from the books, with some leverage for improvements/modifications for the film format.  LOTR has a lot of book content, with quotes directly from the books.

 

Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice is a pretty good 2 hr summary of the book, and when listening to the audiobook it enhances the experience.  There are minor changes that frustrate Austen purists though.

hahaha:

 

21 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

hahaha:

 

 

To be fair, I know plenty of Tolkien purists who hated a lot about Jackson's adaption. e.g. the expansion of the Arwen role compared to the novels.

Or the total omission of the Tom Bombadil section.

 

But I expect the Prime series to be hot garbage, mostly because all of the "next GoT" shows have failed miserably at capturing even a fraction of the cultural significance of the HBO show.

51 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

To be fair, I know plenty of Tolkien purists who hated a lot about Jackson's adaption. e.g. the expansion of the Arwen role compared to the novels.

Or the total omission of the Tom Bombadil section.

 

But I expect the Prime series to be hot garbage, mostly because all of the "next GoT" shows have failed miserably at capturing even a fraction of the cultural significance of the HBO show.

 

I have a question, out of curiosity, and I really want to understand: did you voluntarily want to avoid the point of his post (who was denouncing the fact that woke ideologies are ruining the American entertainment industry)?

 

Is it because you think it's OK to be woke?

 

(honestly, I don't want to be confrontational and I respect people who "want to do the right thing". I just don't think that woke is the right thing).