Messages

As a work of adaptation, the way they are haphazardly spilling information and willingly undermining what should be late-story reveals is so weird that, as a reader of the books, I can't really wrap my head around it or see the logic. Let's just say that 3 episodes into season 1, and they have already totally blown the biggest twists of the climax of both books 1 and 2. It's genuinely quite hard to see how the ending of this season will even work, or that the introduction of things like the Subtle Knife won't lose a lot of their impact now that theyv'e already shown characters hopping between dimensions willy nilly.

I'm sure the screenwriter is working to some sort of wider plan, but it's certainly an... interesting way to go about it.

Anyone else still watching this?

While episodes two and three were a definite improvement over the pilot, it just isn't really gelling for me.

While I fully understand that changes and compromises in terms of plot and structure will always need to be made when adapting a book for the screen (especially one as complex as this), I've got to question the wisdom of altering the actual lead characters to such an extent that they bear little to no resemblance to their book counterparts. Asriel comes across as really shouty and manic when in the books he is the epitome of composure and steely determination. Ma Costa (played in the series by Anne Marie Duff) is so vastly different in appearance and temperament from the character described in the book that I genuinely didn't realise who she was supposed to be until I saw the credits.

But the biggest problem of all for me is still Lyra. In the show she just comes across as really passive and dull, almost sullen - and shows none of the rebelliousness, grit, pluck, and simple force of personality that drives so much of the plot of the novels. A huge part of her character in the books is also her telling of tall tales and general trickstery, impish nature, which is something they're only paying the barest of lip service to. It's really hard to see how later key plot developments are going to work when the portrayal of the lead character is so lacking in these traits, and when the rest of the cast and the foundation for all of the key relationships are, imo, coming across as so flat and lifeless.

A lot of the acting just seems... quite bad - a lot of clunky, at times almost unintentionally funny line readings, not the standard of performances you'd expect from an HBO production, and some of the minor roles are especially poorly acted. I don't know if the problem is more to do with direction, writing and editing than the actors themselves, given that the cast is filled with very capable actors?

On a broader plot and writing level the show appears far more interested in overloading the viewer with exposition and lore at the expense character development. And by attempting to set up and over-explain every little thing about how the world works and the mysteries and higher concepts that come into play much later - the alternate dimensions, the Magisterium etc etc - they are actually making an already tricky to adapt story far more confusing and front-loaded than it needs to be.

If you boil the story down, all they need to really establish at this point is the nature of daemons, the Gobblers/rescue plot, and Lyra learning how to use the alethiometer, all of which they are really not nailing imo. The alethiometer in particular is being treated almost as an afterthought rather than, you know, something so central to the story that in some territories the book (and the 2007 movie) were literally named after it.

The title sequence is so amazing - just perfect - it's a shame that the rest of the show isn't living up to the promise of it so far.

I honestly wouldn't worry about spoilers - it really isn't a plot-driven show.

I feel it's grossly under-rated

Underrated? Didn't it make like a billion dollars?

It's quite good.

I definitely appreciate the simplicity of it - the modern Star wars films are far too convoluted for my liking, so it's nice to see a return to the more sparse, visually driven storytelling style of the older films. Nice to have the scenes actually have time to breathe vs the breakneck pace of something like The Force Awakens or Rogue One.

Visuals and music are unsurprisingly great.

If I have a complaint its that the story is pretty predictable so far, the dialogue can sound quite stilted and cliched (especially in episode 1) and that the plot hinges on something that is basically a reference to something from a previous film. Would be nice to see a little more originality.

Um, you guys realise this is a list of favourite films, not favourite cinema visits, right? I didn't see all of the movies on my list in the cinema, neither did I necessarily even see them on the year of release...

It'll be interesting to see whether they commit to the premise of a lead who never removes his helmet

IIRC, they didn't announce Pedro Pascal's involvement until very late in the day - I think they'd even released publicity stills at that point, so I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't even him in the suit.

The paradox of conspiracy thought is that the people who extol conspiracy theories think they are the ones with their eyes open and everyone else are 'sheep', yet the reality is that they who are the naive ones, as they are the ones subscribing to the rather quaint notion that someone, somewhere is in charge and in control of everything, and we live in a ordered universe instead of one of horrifying chaos.

[Wild]

Everyone else is just typing 'film 201X' into google, right?

A bit yeah, though I generally have a pretty decent memory for release dates. All my life I've tended to use movie release dates as memory aids - eg I can remember when certain events in my life happened because of what movies were out at the time.

Having said that, I forgot Wolf of Wall Street was 2013 - I'd probably replace Llewyn Davis with that instead in my list.

Brooklyn

Ah, good shout. I really enjoyed that movie, though it's seemingly fashionable to bash it. I tend to enjoy almost anything involving Nick Hornby - great screenwriter/adaptor. Wild was another one of his from this decade that I loved. Also it has Domhnall Gleeson in it, kind of the MVP character actor of the decade, he's been in so many great movies.

2014 ... (a very good year, this one – hard to choose!)

Whilst the films I'm into are wildly different from the choices so far, it's interesting to note that 2014 also ranks extremely highly in my own half-cobbled-together list - though 2012 seems to have been the real standout for me. I'm struggling with 2016 though.

Moonlight?
Hell or High Water?
Arrival?
The Handmaiden?
Deadpool?
Captain America: Civil War?

None of them do anything for ya?

2012: Dredd

Shouldn't that be Skyfall? 

a very good year, this one – hard to choose!

Agreed. 2013 was surprisingly tough though, struggled to think of much I really loved from that year.

OK, seen this doing the rounds on social media - list your favourite movie for each year of this decade.

Here's mine:

2010: Toy Story 3
2011: Attack the Block
2012: Dredd
2013: Inside Llewyn Davis
2014: Paddington
2015: Mad Max: Fury Road
2016: Hunt for the Wilderpeople
2017: I, Tonya
2018: American Animals
2019: Jojo Rabbit

Honourable Mentions:
Paddington 2, Sing Street, Whiplash, Nightcrawler, Captain Fantastic, What We Do in the Shadows, Hell or High Water, Green Room, The Wolf of Wall Street, Guardians of the Galaxy Volumes 1&2, Super, The Avengers, Avengers: Endgame, Pacific Rim, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Colossal, Django Unchained, Dunkirk

Parasite.

There's a lot to like about this film - it's very well made and I was very entertained for the first two thirds - the entire second act is basically one long scene of suspense - but it started to lose me a bit towards the end, with one absurd plot twist after another that stretched my suspension of disbelief far beyond breaking point.

Ultimately, having now seen both this and Snowpiercer, I just don't think I like Bong Joon Ho's style of filmmaking all that much. I'm a very literal-minded person when it comes to films. Subtext is all well and good, but I don't like it when theme and metaphor dominates the storytelling and takes things into a more fantastical, dream logic kind of place. Strip away all of the commentary on poverty and inequality and you're left with a basic suspense thrill that doesn't really hold up.

[The Morning Show]

I really admired how restrained the ending to The Americans was, as it [spoiler]didn't end with the explosive fireworks Breaking Bad 'everybody dies' climax I was half expecting, and the resolution was much more concerned with character and personal cost than spectacle or body count.[/spoiler]

I enjoyed The Americans but I would have ended it...

I disagree - the theme of the whole show was [spoiler]identity - having the family split at the end, with Philip and Elizabeth relegated to a 'home' they no longer recognise - seems a perfectly poignant and logical endpoint. It also allowed them to get out of the show alive, which lets be honest we all wanted them to, and yet still have to pay an unimaginable cost for everything they have done.[/spoiler]

We ended up watching four or five episodes of the Reese Witherspoon/Jennifer Aniston/Steve Carrell drama seriesThe Morning Show on Apple TV+ yesterday - a sort of Network for the #metoo era. It's not a show I'd have chosen myself, but my girlfriend wanted to watch it. I didn't like it at all at the start, but must admit I got somewhat involved as it went on. If there is a problem with the show, it's that the writing is very heavyhanded and on the nose at times, and it's honestly really hard to get invested in the overall stakes, because who really gives a shit about the mainstream, squeaky floor studio news format anymore? It seems like a relic from a different era to me. The show is at it's most interesting when it lays bare the artificiality of everything, but other times it seems to want the audience to genuinely care about the news show and the plight of its pompous characters. It's a weird one.

Your proxy has to be registered themselves and able to vote in that particular election. They do not have to be able to vote in your polling station, but if they cannot will need to contact your electoral registration office to sort a postal vote. Ideally, you would want someone local to your polling station, if that's possible.

Cheers.

Whenever I've looked into postal voting in the past the timeline has always seemed way too short. I did send my postal vote in the last general election, but have no idea if it actually got there in time.