I guess no one here watched the trailers before the show got out, or read about the cast beforehand.
you guess right.
I DELIBERATELY didn't watch those trailers, and never watch the 'coming up on the next episode' crap, and i never read about ANY show/movie, because i don't like spoilers.
moreover, being 'properly apprised' from trailers etc should not be a criterion for enjoying a cinema production. that is a lame assertion i've never heard before. imo any film/show should be designed to be enjoyed as a standalone, on its own merit, apart from any prior knowledge necessary to aid in the narrative. (though, i do admit there are times when it does help a great deal. i am just saying it shouldn't be mandatory)
i also had a problem with the woke variation on the valerian line. eh, i'm just done. it's just not that interesting to me. the ONLY thing it had that held my interest was milly adcock, and now that she is gone, no reason to stick around. (i don't mean the milly comment as praise for her as much as i do an indictment of the overall show)
reply
share
LoveCatsHateDogs (1935)
2 years ago
The difference with the wokeness here is that GRRM is right in the room and has allowed it. In the case of rings of dogshit they are imposing wokeness on the work of a dead author who can't object.
As far as I can see GRRM has OK'ed it, and it's his work and if he wants to put black characters in that's up to him.
reply
share
buzzlightbeer (1900)
2 years ago
eh, i agree that it's his perrogative to do that. still a confirmed change from what it was described as in the books, and a kind of bait and switch on the fans, which is not cool. probably caved for the money, which i understand.
but when one starts changing his own canon after the fact, then it calls the veracity into question for ANYTHING else in the series. if this can be 'edited' on a whim, other canon details are vulnerable too.
reply
share
Qixoni (98)
2 years ago
It´s fair that you didn´t seen any stuff prior to the airing of the show. But the thing is, this time jump was only a surprise for those. The adult versions were everywhere in the ads for it, even in the posters, what we didn´t knew was when this happened.
Now, concerning the actresses, Emma D´Arcy is very unnatractive in real life due to her choices, but they did wonder with the makeup and stuff, and she seems to be a good actress. Olivia Cooke, i think she is terrible comparing with her younger self, lookswise and acting wise
reply
share
stickman38 (3346)
2 years ago
What did Emma do in real life that made her unattractive?
I think the main issue I have with this whole switcharooski is why not just use makeup to make the original cast members look older?
I mean, they got King Viserys looking like he's 80. I swear he looks like that freaky crypt keeper from that show Tales From The Crypt. TFTC was a fairly popular show here in the states, not sure if it was ever aired in the UK. But here's a picture of him...
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.a6350609a875b7a20da058b2bcec52fc?rik=1AyLzsQQLyOQDA&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
reply
share
Qixoni (98)
2 years ago
Emma D´Arcy is wants to be a man, and cuts her hair and dresses like a boy and has very weird makeup. She claims to be non binary, whatever that is.
reply
share
locutus261168 (47)
2 years ago
I wonder they only got the role because it would be cool to be a princess. But a princess is a role role a female, not a they or them.
reply
share
Qixoni (98)
2 years ago
She said it would be good to play a female character in a interview. I would say she needs help.
reply
share