Science Fiction Interpretations

Topic List

Replies | Active | Stats

Post New

General Chat

Chain Games

Author Lounge

Help & Feedback

Movies & TV

Arts & Recreation

People & Celebs

Our World

Literature

Music

Sports

Virtual Blogs

Tributes

Recruiting

Subject: Science Fiction Interpretations

Posted by: brm50diboll
Date: Jan 02 17

I have debated with myself starting a Virtual Blog for months. I have so little free time nowadays that I may not be able to keep it up, but I think I'll at least try. This is intended to be wide-ranging, so it wouldn't fit in the Television, Movies, or Literature boards categories and I don't want to clog up General with just my observations but here I can rant if I choose and people can choose to ignore me or engage my flawed analysis if they wish.

469 replies. On page 14 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

brm50diboll

The thing is, with babies, audiences absolutely *hate* to see babies or children die. But babies grow older, and have to be replaced by child actors, who have to keep changing over time. It's just not practical to have more than one or two babies on a TV show. They are nightmares to showrunners. And believe me, the audience doesn't forget about them. When you introduce a baby to a TV show, that character now pretty much *has* to appear from time to time for the rest of the show. But child actors can't do very much. One "Judith" can be managed. Ten would destroy any TV show.

There are some things you just can't dramatize effectively on a TV show. I think audiences understand why The Walking Dead doesn't show all the babies that are likely out there in the various bands of survivors.

As with any question that comes forth, I Google it. George RR Martin is 70, a year *younger* than Stephen King. Obviously, there's no guarantee, but I haven't read he has any kind of illness, so Martin is still active. Google says he's working on a prequel to GoT now. He could finish his novels if he really wanted to, probably. But that doesn't mean he will.

When I said earlier that babies need to be replaced by child actors, who need to be changed, I meant it. The Olsen twins on Full House were the rare *exception*, not the rule. Several different child actors usually end up playing a character that started as a baby and went on to be on a show for several years. With regard to just Judith, at this point 19 different actors have played that role: 8 sets of twins at first, and now three different actresses. It is almost impossible to keep child actors in long term contracts. Their parents usually won't allow it because of the damage it does do their educations. Having babies on a TV show creates enormous problems. You're just not going to see more than two babies of main characters on a show. It's too much trouble. Google "Walking Dead Judith" and read the articles if you don't believe me.

Reply #261. Nov 04 18, 3:49 PM

Blackdresss

Of course I believe you! Why wouldn't I believe you?

But GRRM being only 70? That, I had to Google for myself. He's not exactly aging well. And one of those articles about what he has to say to his fans about him finishing his books was worth the search!

I still don't think he's going to finish those books. That, I'll believe when I see it.

"Hold The Door!"

Reply #262. Nov 04 18, 4:07 PM

Blackdresss

And wait, what??? A prequel? No one wants a prequel!

I just read that article, too. No way is he going to finish his books. He's far too distracted.

The Forbes article is interesting, too, telling us we just need to accept that he's probably never going to finish those books. He's over a decade late on his "promise" in the fifth book.

You, I believe. GRRM? Not so much.

Reply #263. Nov 04 18, 4:10 PM

Skyflyerjen

The Walking Dead (tv) in my opinion was at its best when it happened to be similar to the graphic comics. And in the comics, they do mention that the living are technically “the walking dead”. But with Andrew Lincoln’s departure, I wonder if the show can exist. It has lost viewers as time has gone on. Mostly I think it’s because people are tired of seeing their favorite characters die.
(And Carl is still alive in the comics)

Elle, amen! George R. R. Martin does seem to be having lots of fun being a consultant for the show. I worry he will not live long enough to see the end. Brm, you could be right about your suspicions about his involvement and purposely not writing/finishing the books before the show ends. Part of me can’t blame him. I wouldn’t want my readers possibly blabbing the real ending to everyone, possibly ruining the show. But… the thought of him writing a prequel instead of ending the original series is insane. Insane. He must be really into new characters or something. The 4th book was mostly new characters but it wasn’t great, so I hope he keeps working on that elusive 6th book!

Re: babies. Let’s be realistic. Men and women living in an apocalyptic world with limited resources (i.e. birth control…) and lots of time on their hands? There would be pregnancies left and right. That would be hard to maintain on a show, like you said, how Judith kind of disappears a lot.
And for SURE, it is taboo to endanger/kill a baby in any type of entertainment. It’s avoided often (who could blame them) but their odds of survival would be so low (in the Walking Dead comics, Judith was killed).
It’s difficult. There should definitely be more babies on these kinds of shows, but I understand why there isn’t.

Reply #264. Nov 06 18, 2:07 PM

brm50diboll

Regarding this planned prequel to GoT, it's not like it covers the years immediately prior to the events of season 1, such as the Mad King's reign. No, it is much, much more radical than that: it is set *thousands* of years before the events of GoT. It is essentially a completely different world.

As I said, The Walking Dead TV show has never been bound to the comics and what it is doing now bears no resemblance whatsoever to what is happening in the comics. The TV show is driven primarily by casting considerations: what actors can we keep for a decent price (AMC doesn't have the budget of HBO) and, if we can't keep them, how can we try to maximize the ratings when we kill off our main characters?

People have been complaining about dropping ratings for years, yet the show keeps getting renewed. Those who are predicting the show's cancellation after Rick Grimes is gone may be surprised. The thing is, we are entering a new age of TV where a big part of the audience for these types of shows doesn't watch it when it originally airs, anyway. Instead, they wait for these shows to show up on apps like Netflix or Hulu. Audiences are so splintered nowadays that as long as a show has a dedicated core following, even if that following is fairly small, it resists being cancelled.

I'm not going to make any predictions about what might happen. I'm actually not that interested, to tell the truth.

Reply #265. Nov 06 18, 2:25 PM

Blackdresss

Well, Rick Grimes didn't really die, he just mostly died, so that happened.

Judith Grimes is now 10 years old, the same age Carl was at the start of all of this, so that also happened.

And we have a new baby, RJ Grimes, so... that happened.

But if you're just not really interested, I suppose, hmmmm....

I suppose Jen and I could still talk about this? Since "The Walking Dead" is ongoing, and Maggie is the next to leave the series. I don't think it's about money, I think it's about playing the same character for so many years. Andrew Lincoln said he wants and needs to be home with his family, that his kids are of a certain age where he needs to be there. Chandler Riggs wants to go to college. And Lauren Cohan used a lot of words that didn't really say much of anything, but I *think* she was trying to say she wants to make movies and is tired of playing the same character, literally the same character, after all these years.

And Stan Lee of Marvel Comics fame died yesterday, just as an aside.

Reply #266. Nov 13 18, 4:59 PM

brm50diboll

Chandler Riggs is probably telling the complete truth. The others (the real adults) are being "diplomatic". These are things actors say when they've decided to leave but want to keep good relations and not burn bridges. Their agents know the real stories, but won't tell (at least for a few more years.)

I was a DC comics kid growing up, not Marvel, though obviously Stan Lee was an icon and I have great respect for his work. I always enjoyed seeing Stan Lee make cameo appearances in Marvel movies, and also in The Big Bang Theory. The cameo appearances that celebrities made in The Big Bang Theory were always hilarious. They had a special talent for elderly stars, including Leonard Nimoy and Bob Newhart (as "Professor Proton"). Bob Newhart is still alive, although his character has been dead for a few years and shows up in Sheldon's dreams as a ghost "Obi Wan Kenobi" version of himself, the latest appearance this last season in a "diner on Dagobah".

Reply #267. Nov 13 18, 5:29 PM

Blackdresss

I've only recently started watching "The Big Bang Theory" so I have hours and hours of hilariosity in store for me. I was sorry to hear this is the last season, though, but it will take me forever to get caught up. Because... Jim Parsons wants off the show. Bye-Bye Big Bang.

I would imagine they're all telling the truth. Why would they lie? Also, now that we've flash-forwarded, we have also learned, if we watch "Talking Dead," too, that Rick Grimes will be making appearances in either flashbacks or current events, or in the future, or all the crazy things they did on "LOST." I'm sure Carl can do the same thing, if he wants some extra bucks. And anyone else we've lost, or may lose in the future.

We have a whole new group, just added! And maybe exiled, but maybe not. When you flash forward, apparently, you can do whatever you want, to include the addition of all those dang babies.

Reply #268. Nov 13 18, 5:52 PM

brm50diboll

That's the thing about not burning your bridges when your agent can't make the deal you wanted. You get the opportunity to return for special appearances and flashbacks or flash forwards or flash sideways or whatever. I think they'll be doing some of that on the last season of Game of Thrones, as well. I'll bet there will be a few opportunities to see some characters that were killed off some time ago. I know several former GoT cast members were seen by paparazzi at some of their filming locations. One that comes to mind is Jason Momoa, who was known as Khal Drogo and is now Aquaman. We've already seen Khal Drogo after his death before. He appeared when Dany was in Qarth and went to the House of the Undying to rescue her dragons. I think there are a lot of fans that would like to see Sean Bean again as Ned Stark. Me, I'd like to see Natalie Dormer as Margaery Tyrell. She had this strange sort of crooked smile I really liked.

The Big Bang Theory had lots of very interesting cameo appearances. There was Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Steve Wozniak, and many others that nerds like me get a kick out of.

Reply #269. Nov 13 18, 6:35 PM

Blackdresss

Natalie Dormer has that little crooked smile in everything. I think it's just her being her. She has it in the character she plays in one of "The Hunger Games" films, complete with American accent.

And the actress who played Ramsay Bolton's girlfriend, Myranda, the daughter of the Keeper Of The Hounds, gets to play a Princess in the next TV series based on the Philippa Gregory books, this one "The Spanish Princess."

It's going to be a really long, cold Winter.

Reply #270. Nov 13 18, 7:38 PM

Skyflyerjen

To me, an uninformed, broke outsider, I sometimes think, “You’re giving that all up? For what?!?” Giving up a lucrative job on one of the most popular TV shows seems crazy. I imagine myself pouting and thinking “Andrew Lincoln had better not be in anything else then!” But I’m mature enough to know that there are two sides to every story and can’t judge anyone for leaving.
I hate when actors choose to leave a show. The worst is when they’re replaced by different actors, that’s just odd. I suppose flashbacks can be nice so we can see the character again.
I was pretty surprised Margaery died. I was so happy that the High Sparrow died, but I thought Margaery had a future because she was wily.
Did you like “The Hunger Games”? I read them and enjoyed them. I wasn’t gaga over them like some other YA series, but they were unique and entertaining. That of course leads me to ask if anyone has seen “Battle Royale”?

A long Winter indeed! A Game of Thrones shortened season 7, a long wait for a short season 8. Hmph!

Reply #271. Nov 14 18, 3:51 PM

brm50diboll

I think Andrew Lincoln will do fine in whatever endeavors he has planned for the future. Typecasting can be an issue for some actors, but I think burning bridges is worse. There are much worse things in this world than being known for one role you played on a TV show the rest of your life, even if that does happen sometimes, which it probably won't for Andrew Lincoln.

I liked the Hunger Games movies, and I read the books also (rare for me). I particularly enjoyed Donald Sutherland as President Snow. Villains are often more interesting characters than heroes. Natalie Dormer is an accomplished actress, and I'm sure there's a whole lot more ahead for her as well, but GoT couldn't have ended with Margaery winning influence over Tommen and pushing out Cersei and the High Sparrow, with Tommen becoming a wise, competent, and long-lived king. No, that would've ruined much of the drama prematurely. So Margaery, Tommen, the High Sparrow, and all the Tyrells had to go, unfortunately.

Reply #272. Nov 14 18, 4:43 PM

Skyflyerjen

That’s very true. Andrew Lincoln is still young and can go on to do anything and not always be known as Rick Grimes. Look at Danai Gurira, AKA Michonne. She plays Okoye in the Marvel universe and has made a name for herself other than the awesome character she portrays on The Walking Dead.

I successfully ignored the cries of “Pick Gale over Peeta! Eeee!” while reading The Hunger Games series. (Side note, to me it was never even a competition really… making something out of nothing) I agree, Donald Sutherland did a mean President Snow for sure.
I think I expected the Margaery VS Cersei storyline to continue a bit longer. Tommen… oof. He was so frustrating to me. How do you see the series ending? My friend has a good theory about who ends up ruling Westeros, and he’s proven to be adept at guessing endings.
My hopes for Westeros are that everyone realizes they ~have~ to fight together to defeat the White Walkers and the Night King, otherwise they’re dead anyway. There will likely be many horrible deaths, but in the end, my hope is that Daenerys wins the throne and begins a wonderful reign. A lot of the argument is “Hey, ___ is the rightful heir to the throne!” I know that matters, but they have to be smart and realize who would be best at it. They never will but it’s entertaining to picture.

Reply #273. Nov 15 18, 11:55 AM

brm50diboll

Of course I'm male but, yes, to me also, Gale seemed a better match for Katniss than Peeta.

One of the things about GoT that I think is intentional by Martin and which stimulates fan interest are somewhat random events that drastically change outcomes and the balance of power. Fans like to speculate "if such-and-such hadn't happened, then...." about all sorts of things. So I'm going to approach the Tommen matter a bit slowly and indirectly.

Characters in GoT are are often more complex than they appear initially. Our first impression of Jaime Lannister from the very first episode (with the incest scene and pushing Bran out the window) is that he was totally evil and conceited. But over time, we see there's a lot more to Jaime than just that. He has a good side. I think the character of Tywin Lannister (played wonderfully by Charles Dance) is absolutely pivotal to the show. It is easy to say the Lannisters are evil and Tywin was their ruthless patriarch, but that is a vast oversimplification. In my opinion, Tywin was *the* most competent leader on the show. Had he survived, Tommen (as everyone else, including Cersei) would've been dominated by Tywin and no one else. Tommen would've governed competently (since Tywin would've made the real decisions) and the rise of the Sparrows never would've happened. Neither Margaery nor Cersei would've fully gotten their hooks into Tommen because Tywin would've stopped it. But Tywin's one serious weakness was his hatred of his own son Tyrion, which I felt was quite irrational, as Tyrion had shown on several occasions he was smart and loyal to the Lannister cause (up until what ultimately happened.) Why in the world did Tywin hate Tyrion so much? All the Lannisters blamed Tyrion for his mother's death in childbirth, which to me seems utterly ridiculous. Tywin also had reason to dislike Tyrion over his failure to produce a male heir (particularly the Sansa marriage) and his drunkenness and philandering. But those were minor sins, taken in balance. Tywin should've investigated the Joffrey poisoning impartially, and not just have accepted Cersei's claim it was Tyrion. And then Shae betrays Tyrion, which Tywin should've also seen past, and then the surprise Tyrion crossbowing Tywin on the toilet. Now Tywin is gone and there is no one to help shepherd the weak Tommen past all the snakes in his court.

Margaery was the least damaging influence on Tommen after Tywin's death. Sure, she was a social climber, but she wasn't pure evil or deluded. Had Tommen been a puppet of Margaery alone, things would've been better. But Tywin had discussed what makes a good king with Tommen in front of Cersei at Joffrey's funeral. And Tommen's first answer, much to Tywin's chagrin, was "holiness". So Cersei knew Tommen's biggest weakness, and exploited the Sparrows. Yes, the High Sparrow turned on Cersei, but *everyone* underestimated Cersei's ruthlessness. I mean, think about it: What allies does Cersei have left? OK, she has the zombie Ser Gregor. But Cersei has even alienated Jaime. What could Cersei's expected result of all this possibly be? Does she really think Dany, Jon Snow, Tyrion, Jaime, and the White Walkers will all just kill each other to leave only Cersei left standing? I think Cersei's lack of clear thinking is a big plot hole on the show, but the show needs a good villain and the Night King isn't a good villain, for several reasons: 1) a good villain needs crushing dialogue - none of that from the Night King, and 2) HBO, while it has much greater financial resources than, say, AMC, and GoT *is* their flagship show, still *cannot* devote the kind of money to GoT, a TV show, that a blockbuster movie does. They have a limited special effects budget. So since the Night King and the White Walkers and so forth are heavily CGI, their time onscreen must be limited for budgetary reasons. So Cersei *must* be the primary antagonist on the show.

I think fans would rebel if either Cersei or the White Walkers were the Victor's in the end. There are those who want a Dany-Jon Snow marriage at the end. That seems too pat to me. Besides, Danaerys Targaryen is a deeply flawed character herself. She may be every bit as mad as her father "The Mad King" ("Burn them all!"). Yes, she's hot, definitely. But a good ruler for Westeros? I don't think so. So I'm not buying the Dany-Jon Snow alliance (especially given their kinship). I have no idea what will happen. But I hope the three remaining Starks get their vengeance.

A "happy" ending would probably also be unrealistic. So expect a winner who is flawed. Put Arya on the Iron Throne. Ha!

Reply #274. Nov 15 18, 1:13 PM

Blackdresss

Tywin hated Tyrion because his wife died giving birth to him. And, he saw him as an abomination.

I liked "The Hunger Games" books, but not the movies. Although Effie Trinket was a fascinating character, both in the books and in the movies.

I think I counted 11 major character deaths in the GOT episode where Cersei got her revenge. That's my favorite episode to date. The music alone was amazing. And so different from any other episode before or after.

Reply #275. Nov 16 18, 12:40 AM

terraorca

I enjoy the books much more than I do the follow up movies.
Hunger Games and Game of Thrones are perfect examples.
Now if they write books after the movies have been made,(Star Wars,) that changes everything.
I think it's all about my imagination versus what they can actually visually represent in the movies. I just thought of another example, The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, great books, okay movie(just one so far.)

Reply #276. Nov 16 18, 1:24 AM

C30	Rough rule of thumb, I agree with terraorca, in my case prime example was Phillip Jose Farmers's "Riverworld" series. The books captivated me, the subsequent film was, to put it kindly, rubbish! Reply #277. Nov 16 18, 3:29 AM

terraorca

I watched "Lucy" tonight.
Directed by Luc Besson.
Starring: Morgan Freeman and Scarlett Johansson
Very interesting movie about how much of our brain could a person use, and what would be that person's capabilities as the percentage increases.

Reply #278. Nov 16 18, 3:32 AM

UmberWunFayun

I definitely agree about books and movies, so much so that I try very hard never to watch a movie based on a novel until after I read the book. I read The DaVinci Code in one night because I was planning a trip to the cinema with friends the next day.

I also enjoyed 'Lucy', I was particularly intrigued by the way Lucy lost more and more of her humanity the smarter and more 'plugged in' to the communications network she became. This is an excellent allegory for the way people today live their lives through social media and eschew real life relationships in favour of their cyber-lives. I find people becoming ruder and less empathic all the time, in direct relation to how much time they spend staring at their smartphones instead of taking part in reality. The only difference is that people generally aren't using more of their available brain power like Lucy, and have no idea what's going on around them.

Reply #279. Nov 16 18, 7:21 AM

UmberWunFayun

And yes, I do realise the irony in making this point on a social media blog.

Reply #280. Nov 16 18, 7:22 AM

469 replies. On page 14 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Legal / Conditions of Use