#3) people who liked it because they just like everything hbo serves them for whatever reason

[duncan-rohanne]

[bewitching-elizabeth-olsen]

Press: Elizabeth Olsen and Jurnee Smollett Compare Notes on Genre-Blending Acting and Advocating for Performers on Set

VARIETY: Neither Elizabeth Olsen nor Jurnee Smollett are strangers to having to really stretch their imaginations to dive into complex characters and even more complicated worlds.

Both have superhero films on their résumés: Smollett portrayed Black Canary in DC’s “Birds of Prey,” while Olsen stepped into Wanda Maximoff aka the Scarlet Witch’s shoes for Marvel’s “Avengers” franchise and then some — including Disney Plus’ first Marvel series, “WandaVision.” They are both now Emmy-nominated for projects that tasked them with jumping through time, blending genres and telling epic love stories (Olsen with “WandaVision,” Smollett with HBO’s “Lovecraft Country”). And, even though they are up in different categories (Olsen in lead limited series/TV movie actress; Smollett in lead drama actress), both of these shows are one-season wonders, leaving the performers and their audiences wanting more.

Olsen and Smollett dissected all that of when Variety brought them together post-nominations to talk about their celebrated roles and surreal playgrounds.

You both had a lot of magical or otherwise surreal elements to interact with on your shows. What did you actually have in front of you to react to on set?

Jurnee Smollett: We were very fortunate on “Lovecraft Country” because the whole VFX team worked so hard to create an atmosphere that was also practical in our space. I remember on Episode 3, the exorcism scene, we shot it over a course of three days and, while there was not a man in real life with a baby head on him, you’ve got the wind machines and the pictures are blowing and all the special effects makeup is being touched up. Atticus [Jonathan Majors] has pretty much turned into a rabid dog and I’m doing this spell with my ancestors and whether they were shooting behind us or shooting the elements, we were at our max capacity regardless because that’s just how we approach the craft. It was such a big sequence to shoot that that’s when the actor in you has to advocate for your instrument. I did go to the director and say, “Can you jump in and cross shoot Jonathan and I?” As an actor it is our job to shoot however many takes, however many angles you need, but then it is also our job to advocate for yourselves. And I love playing in this space because you get to use your imagination you get to go to crazy places. Because even while the practical elements are there; you get to go to crazy places. But I was grateful for the practical elements because it’s just so much easier.

Elizabeth Olsen: Did they have pre-viz so you knew what some of the supernatural elements looked like?

Smollett: With the Shoggoths they not only had a pre-viz for us, but for some of the scenes they had massive sculptures, like a dude standing there in a green suit with a Shoggoth head. The pilot we didn’t have this puppet, but by Episode 8, maybe we got more of a budget or something, but eventually we did get a puppet — which was really cool because you could see, “This is the moment his mouth is opening.” But also, Misha [Green], our showrunner, she just wants more blood, more dirt. She’d try to get them to blow spittle at us.

Olsen: That’s so gross!

Smollett: This concoction of Shoggoth spit, throwing it in front of this wind machine. I find the more practical stuff we have to work with, it just helps so much. And then there were the moments where it’s like, “No it’s just a green tennis ball and an X, and go.” How about you?

Olsen: For all those little things in the air and stuff in the ’50s, it was really important to our director [Matt Shakman] that we did everything ala “Bewitched.” It was all camera tricks, it was all wires. Our head of special effects had a lineage of a father who [did] special effects before him, and so puppetry and wire work and stuff like that were things that were already in his vocabulary, but we would have our special effect guys who are used to blowing things up and putting things on fire just balancing and making sure things aren’t swinging but they have to move. Even in the ’70s when she’s pregnant and everything’s in chaos, we really had a picture on the wall going in circles; they just figured out things with magnets.

When we were filming the finale, it was during COVID, during the fires last summer, and we shot Kathryn [Hahn’s] side at the beginning of the episode when she has my boys with her magic — we had to shoot them out because you always have to shoot the side with the kid out and also Kathryn was doing wires for the first time and of course it was with a corset and it was really hot and really bad air quality and so she had to be sent home by the medic at the end of the day. And so, on my side we were running out of days, and I think we had 35 minutes to shoot my side and my reactions to all of that, and there’s quite a bit of back and forth and throwing myself to the ground and hitting a different mark that will then stitch with the stunt double being pulled. I did a weird one-woman show sans kids, sans Kathryn. Our stand-ins were such a huge part of our show and I was so grateful to have them they’re reading lines with me, and our director, Matt Shakman, was like, “If you feel like you can’t do this, we’ll just do this tomorrow.” That gave an adrenaline rush to me and it just became, “I’m just going to do it.” There’s a lot of fear when you’re like, “Oh I don’t have the elements and I am on my own, literally.” But I’ve had to do this before and I’m just scared to do it because I feel stupid. But I already look kind of stupid — I’m shooting things out of my hands — so why don’t I just lean into it as full as possible and just do it and find it in some core, guttural space of desperation? That day was bizarre, but I was actually very happy that I didn’t put it off. I feel like sometimes as actors when there are things that make us nervous it’s like, “Oh we don’t have enough time to explore so let’s do it the next day if we can,” and then you’re in your head all night about it. And so, it’s nice to just do it, even if it feels silly.

Smollett: I’d imagine surrendering and using the fear and all that that you were feeling probably served you so well in it.

Olsen: And don’t you feel that, though? When you feel unsupported you just want to break down in tears and you’re not supposed to break down in tears or you’re not supposed to have those it’s those feelings in the moment, but there are other times where it is really useful and there’s something freeing about channeling it in some way.

Smollett: Yeah and it’s that word you just used: freeing. Being able to surrender — leap and the net will appear. And you’re right, if you would have gone home, you probably would have come back the next day and you would have overthought it. There’s something about using the adrenaline in that moment that I don’t think you can really teach an actor to do; it’s just experience. Because we go and we prep and we do all these things, and then you get to the set and there’s one distraction, two distractions, and those are the elements that just through experience you’ve learned to use.

But I have to say, when I was little, I used to go to sleep every night watching Nick at Nite and “Bewitched” was one of my favorite shows. I did not expect you guys, at all, to go to land of “Bewitched.”

Olsen: I didn’t either. I’m so grateful to it. I felt like I like forgot my body as an actor. You’re a very physical actor, so I feel like you probably don’t have that experience because you just seem so connected and free whether it’s on stage or doing action. And I really felt disconnected from my body until “WandaVision.” I was like, “Right, I have posture; I can walk; I have legs — all of these things are going to be telling the story and it’s period and so I get to move differently.” It’s been a while since I needed to create quite a different character, and it felt so good to wake up my body to the full character work.

Just watching you in the first episode on stage, I was like, “God damn, I want to feel that free on stage with a song and with an audience.” I’m a self-conscious actor when it comes to extras and things like that. There’s something about it where the crew’s the family, and with extras, I feel so vulnerable. And you seemed so at ease and in control and confident. It made you understand her fierceness and how fearless she was.

Smollett: Thank you so much! It’s so interesting that you point that out because, for me, singing in front of people terrifies me. It truly is one of the things that terrifies me the most. The thing about Misha’s writing is, she finds a way to teach you so much about a character in such a small amount of time. And in that first sequence we learn so much about Leti, from that fearlessness you talk about, the ease that she has in herself and in her person, but then you learn so much about her hypocrisy and the contrasting ideas that are at play inside. She’s a very complex one. In the scene with her sister where she’s talking about having dreams of pioneering into an all-white neighborhood in 1955, but she can’t afford to may for socks. [Laughs.] She didn’t come to her mother’s funeral, and yet she’s here yearning for some sort of family connection. And so, I just remember reading that and feeling so drawn to her and feeling like it’s a side of myself that I needed to unearth — there’s a Leti in me that I desired to actually be, but sometimes am not. And it’s interesting because through Leti, she really forced me to do so many things that I hadn’t done before and really become more fearless, become more unbound. It was just such a very cathartic experience for me.

Olsen: I felt that way with getting to do this sitcom comedy part. I felt like I was touching my childhood version of myself who was a ham doing children’s musical theater, who just who just like played for the laughs or whatever — that part that I don’t access at all, really, when filming. And Kathryn Hahn was such a force and Paul Bettany raised to the challenge, as well, of these comedic performances that were really physically funny. I started to get more comfortable — in the ’60s, ’70s, really got comfortable — and it was so much fun to touch that child that maybe was told too many times, “Oh, you’re such a ham” or you just felt like your big personality as a kid was not OK or wasn’t as appropriate. And so, getting to play with that was really freeing and very fun. As you were saying, there’s a release I needed to have, and through the comedy I was able to have it.

How did this sense of empowerment affect how you carried your own characters’ power? Was there something your character that inspired you to advocate for yourself or did advocating behind-the-scenes inform in-world behavior?

Olsen: I felt very lucky coming into this, because this is a world I know. And so, where my voice of advocacy came in was for actors who are coming into the world — like Teyonah [Parris], wanting to make sure that she had everything that she needed to understand where her character was going because this was a character that’s going to continue [and] if she had everything she needed for stunts. And then similarly with Kathryn, she didn’t realize there was someone who she could use to teach her hand gestures for her magic. And so, she was feeling nervous and lost, like, “How do I do this thing?” And I was like, “Oh, how do you not have that information!?” And then having a conversation with whom you need to on the crew up top and figure out how to keep everyone else feeling like they had everything they needed. And luckily, because this was a show with characters that Paul and I had before, the pieces came together and it was a situation where your voice is welcomed and heard.

From “Sorry For Your Loss,” the TV show I did with Facebook, I now have a producer voice that I can’t shut up. I now just need to talk to ADs a lot, and I need to talk to line producers a lot. I realize that I like having — especially if I’m No. 1 on the call sheet; if I’m a primary part — all of the information so I can understand why decisions that seem weird are happening, or else I’m going to get in my head about, “Why are we doing this this way? I just let people know that off the bat now because it makes me less of a control freak, having information. And it is a team effort and I think the actor’s value has changed in that in that respect. There’s a lot more opportunity for women to be vocal now, and so I’m just really seizing that opportunity.

Smollett: It was a very personal growing experience for me. It was time of transition [and] I’m still going through that transition in my life. In order to truly surrender and do the text justice, there was so much I had to bring to the altar every day to sacrifice. I remember talking to Jonathan about that, and he would refer to it as allowing your heart to break and hoping that the Holy Spirit would put it back together. She was essentially a woman trying to navigate her womanhood but she was never actually allowed to have a childhood. She was habitually abandoned by her mother and didn’t know her father and there’s something in that parental-daughter split that I found myself really relating to. Oddly enough like Leti, I was estranged from my father for years. He eventually passed away, really before there was that healing and so, oh man, it brought up so much shit with Leti. How does she see the world? She sees the world through the eyes of an abandoned child. With Leti, that made her overcompensate; with Jurnee, it made me shrink a lot. When you talk about that artist child, those of us who have been in this business for so long, you take on all the sensors. And I found myself just trying to love her a little more. One of the things I admired so much about Leti is this desire to love herself — this real desire to own herself unapologetically in a world that told her she was too Black and female, to exist in her entirety. It’s still a transition that I’m in, but I definitely feel so grateful to have been able to walk through some of that and navigate through some of that with Leti. But that’s, I think, the blessing and the curse of being an artist. You’ve got to be willing to bring your whole mind, body and spirit to it; nothing’s off limits.

Jurnee, the last time you spoke with Variety we were all assuming you’d get to return to this character, but now that HBO has said it’s not being renewed, do you have unfinished business with her?

Smollett: It’s no secret I’m heartbroken. I loved Leti and of course would have loved to continue playing her. But I am so incredibly proud of the work that we all created together — it feels so special and unique — and I am finding peace in that. We’re artists and there’s an endless well that dwells inside us— and there’s so much that’s out of our control. And I think I’ve done this long enough and I’ve experienced enough heartbreaks to know you don’t get attached to the results too much; you just try to stay in a moment. And I feel just so proud and blessed to have been chosen to go on this ride with these collaborators, so I am more so in the place of gratitude than loss.

On the other end of the spectrum, “WandaVision” was a limited series but Wanda Maximoff is a character you have been coming back to for years, Elizabeth. How do you approach that longevity — the changes in her, the changes in you and the interest in revisiting her at all?

Olsen: I’m 32 and I was 25 — so seven years ago — when I did the first one. There’s so much change that I’ve had, even as an actor and how I approach work and, I think, honor work so much more in the last five years, four years of my life. [Jurnee’s film] “Birds of Prey” feels like such a female-empowered thing, so I feel there’s a really incredible energy to beginning it, but then with me you hear people make comments about Marvel movies and it affects your own process. “WandaVision” really shook that up for me and made me reinvest.

Smollett: I so want to know your process with that because the comic book space was new for me. I’d been a fan; I’d seen all your movies and the other movies. How did you navigate all of those voices? Because they can be very loud.

Olsen: Luckily and also frustratingly my character was always this emotional anchor to a piece of the story. It was like the heart, if there’s a heart. Paul and I were the only romance that was really fleshed out in those movies. And so I just treated it like I would anything. And then, we have a really fun time filming “Avengers” And so it’s really goofy and the Russos are great. And so we, it feels light-hearted, and it feels like we have the last laugh at the end of the day. But when it comes to the reinvesting, that’s the whole mind game, right? Because you just hope that it continues to have this quality control, but the more the more things get made, you’re worried about that. Especially because I did a show on Facebook that was scripted, and I didn’t love the way they handled it. And it was hard. And so second season, we went back and we literally, as a team of producers, had meetings with people who ran Facebook Watch about where we thought they could improve. We had a whole presentation for them. And then eventually, they were like, “We’re not doing scripted anymore.” And so I didn’t have the greatest experience being a part of the launch of another streaming service. And so, the Disney Plus part made me nervous and then bringing these characters that are so big to television made me nervous. But Kevin Fiege explained to us that that they were not going to cut corners, and they’re going to try and create the same attention to detail, and they did. And I think it was really important for them to have that care for these first three shows that they were putting out because it was defining a new thing for them. And so, we were taken care of.

I think more for me with this with the reinvestment moving forward, I never had a six-movie or nine-movie thing; it was always two or three at a time — those were my contracts. And so, it’s always a really conscious decision. I wrapped “WandaVision” on a Wednesday and flew to London on a Friday to continue playing this part [in “Doctor Strange 2”]. I could have used getting out of the mindset, though, because they were totally different utilizations of the character and people would have had more time to understand “WandaVision” had we not just wrapped. And so there’s just a lot of, “We covered this in ‘WandaVision…’” It’s bigger than me, there’s lots of threads that are continuing on after me that I’m not aware of, and so it’s always about, “What can I get from this journey with this character that maybe I haven’t tapped into yet with her?” That’s where I keep approaching things from, so that I feel like I have some sort of strap-hang — that I can know that there’s going to be growth of some kind, even though it all maybe looks the same to other people. There is that conscious decision to learn a new element of this woman, or even of myself as an actor — something that I want to explore that I can bring to it.

Your passion for acting is apparent and you both produce as well. What about directing?

Smollett: I would love to one day. I find myself currently being incredibly excited about producing and ushering new voices and excited voices. I don’t know that I would want to direct myself — that’s a whole other skill. I remember watching Denzel Washington, who directed me in “Great Debaters” but he was also in it, and at that point he had such a command of his instrument that he was able to do that. But it’s a lot. And I remember him telling me, before directing himself, he went and made himself watch all his films just so that he could stomach this idea of watching himself in the editing room. And so, I love the idea of storytelling; I’m obsessed with just telling stories, but I don’t know that I would self-direct.

Olsen: I find myself still loving producing so much because I love asking questions and poking holes and thinking about reorganizing of storylines, things that I feel maybe need more structure. I loved writing essays in school so much; it was like something that I found creative because it was about putting so many different sources into a braid that could maybe create this larger conversation or thought at the end. And so, that’s how I look at scripts. That’s really satisfying enough for me, to play that role. I think one day I’ll think about it more honestly, what it what it would mean to be a director. I fear that if I were to do it anytime soon, I wouldn’t have the tools that I would want. I do ask lots of lens-y questions because I’ve really only been working for 11 years and only recently have I tried to really understand the art of what lenses to choose and why and what it makes an audience feel based on what you’re choosing. I want to have a better, more holistic understanding of [that] before attempting [directing] because I do think it’s such an art and just because I understand the structuring of a story or how a set works, I want to be able to provide the the image in my head. I don’t know if I have that skill yet, but I am curious about feeding it and nurturing that.

Press: Elizabeth Olsen and Jurnee Smollett Compare Notes on Genre-Blending Acting and Advocating for Performers on Set was originally published on Elizabeth Olsen Source • Your source for everything Elizabeth Olsen

[fromthecouch]

I have always watched too much tv - an introduction.

A personal history of my relationship with the small screen.

My grandparents, who were my main parental figures growing up, didn’t work 9 to 5s. My grandfather worked as a bus driver for the Chicago Transit Authority, for over 20 years. His schedule often fluctuated. My grandmother worked as an expeditor for architectural firms. She made her hours and often came home later in the evening. For a significant part of childhood and all of my adolescence, I spent a lot of time alone. Sometimes I would go to my friends’ homes after school or my younger cousin would stay for the evening; however, from 3:00 PM-8:00 PM on weeknights, my main source of connection to other humans was through our living room television, the screen of my family’s desktop, and the pages of fiction.

It was not until recently that I learned of the term ‘latchkey kid.’ I had been watching the A&E Freaks and Geeks documentary on Amazon Prime when I noted the phrase. It had been used during an interview portion of the documentary when one of the production team members used it to describe Bill Haverchuck. The documentary cut to a scene of Bill, one of the show’s “geeks”, sitting in front of a television, laughing hysterically, with grilled cheese and Entenmann’s chocolate cake on a TV tray. The interviewee recalled their childhood similarities to Bill —the experience of a latchkey life. I was immediately intrigued and paused the documentary to turn to Google.

Freaks and Geeks, Episode 14: Dead Dogs and Gym Teachers

The search brought me to the Wikipedia definition, listed as “a child who returns to an empty home after school or a child who is often left at home with no supervision because their parents are away at work.” I reflected more in-depth on this and found myself assessing my relationship to fiction and how it raised me.

I have always watched too much tv. I used to read voraciously. I would buy random ‘pre-viewed’ DVDs from Blockbuster and played them in rotation until I got my hands on a new batch and a new rotation started. My grandparents often enabled my habit as a reader, yet I would go through books too quickly for my family trips to the library or Borders to keep up. Most of my planned reading for the week would be completely consumed by the end of the night on Tuesday or Wednesday, so the rest of my weekly time alone, I would turn to watch things.

At a young age, I viewed watching television as infinite. Since it was before the era of eBooks, there was a limited number of hours that my books could sustain me for each week, but television would always be there for me. I watched everything — movies, children’s shows, reality television, teen dramas, daytime television, sitcoms, documentaries, sometimes even infomercial channels. Fifth grade is when I truly became in awe of all that the small screen had to offer. My grandparents had upgraded to the premium package on Comcast. We went from a few dozen channels to having HBO, The N, Discovery Kids, multiple channels of MTV, channels that played history docuseries around the clock, the Filipino variety show channel, and so much more.

As a kid, film, literature and television was how I got to know the world. When I was a teenager, I more actively started to engage with what I was watching and reading. Fiction helped me dream of what I wanted for my life. How I consumed television and film during those years laid the groundwork for who I am as a person now. That was also when I had begun to use fiction to feel less lonely, to escape from the pressures of turbulent home life, to relate to my peers. I had curated a group of friends that also had independence thrust upon them at a young age. Watching tv with each other over the phone and renting films to watch together on the weekends was a big part of how we related to one another — the common interests that bound our friendships, as mutual indoor kids. My high school years also coincided with Netflix’s shift from delivery rentals to mainly streaming, which allowed us to consume a new set of content, in an entirely new way. With adulthood approaching, we segued into the era of series binge-watching.

I was diagnosed with panic disorder and major depression when I was in my sophomore year of university. It was around that time that I became more cognizant of the way that I used television and film as coping mechanisms. Sometimes they served healthy coping mechanisms, sometimes they became more like distractions, and numbing agents. Whatever the case, I sometimes doubt that I would’ve gotten through some of my lowest times without the fictional characters, places and storylines of my favorite shows.

In 2017, I struggled with some chronic health issues, nothing serious, but very debilitating. It took me a year to stabilize. At that time, I hardly saw my friends. I had to quit my job and was unemployed for a full year, living with my boyfriend’s family in an unfamiliar suburb. I was too ill to hold down a full-time position. I was always in pain. I entered the longest depressive episode of my life, which made reading, my first love, feel daunting. I also struggled with a lot of vestibular migraines. The aftermath of those lingered for days and sometimes left me in a fog that made the words on a page feel painful.

I still had television though. On my worst days, I often only had the bandwidth to make doctors’ appointments, eat oatmeal, and rewatch television series I had already seen. The Chinese Restaurant episode of Seinfeld made me smile when I otherwise felt numb. Buffy the Vampire Slayer made me feel resilient when I felt incapable of basic human functions. Daria made me feel understood when I felt completely isolated from my peers. 

Seinfeld, Season 2 Episode 11 The Chinese Restaurant

On my better days, I could venture into a new series, which involved more attention. I mainly consumed television rather than movies for the most part, as I didn’t like having my time spent with characters and plots to feel limited. (The major exception to this was the MCU, due to the span of central, interconnected plots.) With access to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and HBO plus, I found television to again feel like my main connection to other people. When I felt like I didn’t have anyone else, I had Mr Robot, Atlanta, Glow, Mozart in the Jungle, Westworld, Stranger Things, Game of Thrones, Black Mirror, Big Little Lies, Insecure. When the pain from my migraines, GI issues, ovarian cysts, and mundanity of my newly “sick” life made me feel terrible, watching the fictional lives of others helped me escape. Watching these fictional lives, helped me feel like I was surrounded by others and living their lives with them when my own life felt on pause and isolated.

In 2018, I was fortunate enough to get on a successful diet and medication combination that allowed me to stabilize my health, move back to the city, reestablish my friendships, and resume my career. Even so, I still have more mild depressive episodes. I still get medical flareups. I am still a normal person who occasionally faces conflict, as that is just life. When I’m in those darker places, television is often both a distraction and connection that helps me recalibrate. Now here I am, at my current age of 27, and I still depend on fiction to be there for me.

Once the COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions started in March of 2020, I, like everyone else around the country, found myself limited in social interaction. I maintained some level of relatedness to others through my cat, my boyfriend, group texts with friends, and my Zoom work meetings. Yet, television was again a big part of how I related to the human experience. Television persisted in reminding me of what life was like pre-pandemic and what it could be in the future. It has helped me keep boredom and restlessness at bay. Through this time, I’ve found myself watching many series that I would have never watched otherwise. I have also found myself analyzing the series that I watch more thoroughly and with more curiosity than I had the capacity to in my youth and during my time of medical distress.

This year was also the first year that I have started writing for leisure, since high school. Being so online over the past year, I’ve often found myself with many thoughts to collect, package cohesively, and express, yet I’ve felt very limited by the current platforms I often interact with. I often feel like I cannot articulate meaningful thought on platforms like Instagram and Twitter, which are limiting by word limit and social media norms. My newfound revived interest in writing has often collided with my enthusiasm for television, film, and pop culture, more broadly.

It may be true that I watch too much television. It may also be true that television was one of my first true friends and in many ways an extra parental figure. I want to move beyond watching too much television. I want to openly explore television, what it means to me, what it means to the collective, and examine the things that we love to watch or have loved to watch with a critical lens. That is what I hope to express on here.

[plays-the-thing]

Netflix’s Witcher: What Makes a Good Adaptation? – A companion piece

If you’ve somehow found this without seeing the video first, here’s a link:

In this video I analyze the screen adaptations of Lord of the Rings, A Song of Ice and Fire, and the Witcher series. I use the comparisons of the three to discuss what makes adaptations in general work and to explain why I feel the Witcher is heading down the road to mediocrity.

However, this is a hugely complicated subject, and the works themselves are also complex, especially Martin’s work. I make plenty of claims in the video that a reasonable person could disagree with without any explanation for why I think they are true. Unfortunately, if I were to go down every rabbit hole that I touch on the video would be hours long, so I have to gloss over some potentially confusing or controversial statements.

Enter this post. Here I will be attempting to pre-empt any questions that I think people may have, and go through my thought process on certain claims. I don’t recommend that you read the whole thing. Each explanation will be followed by a timestamp and relevant quote from the video that I am expanding upon so that you can quickly search the page and find what you are looking for.

 I’m sure there will be things I don’t think to cover, or things that are poorly reasoned both here and in the video, so feel free to ask additional questions. Just please check to make sure you aren’t asking something that I already covered here.

 I will also be attempting to give as much credit as possible to all the wonderful writers and creators who have influenced my thinking with regards to these works. I’ll be linking as much as possible to my sources, as well as to additional content that expands on ideas I mention. Also I’ve included some personal tidbits and commentary, just for fun.

 Under a cut for length.

INTRODUCTION:

Huge props to the people who put together the behind-the-scenes footage of LOTR. I’ve watched all the bonus footage numerous times in my life. If you have any interest in the nitty-gritty of how movies get made, I can’t recommend it enough. It really shows all the work and complexity that goes into making movies. That they even get made at all is honestly incredible, especially massive undertakings like LOTR.

[3:30] And if you've ever wondered what the hell happened to The Hobbit, to me it seemed like they were indulging all of these worst impulses instead of catching themselves and editing them out like they did in LOTR.

As soon as I saw that they were making three Hobbit movies my hopes plummeted. It just reeked of executive meddling, and of trying to make the story into something it just isn’t. Lo and behold, that’s what we got: sticking in loads of unnecessary and thematically incoherent material to stretch out the runtime and make it more “epic.” I couldn’t bring myself to watch past the first one, but Lindsay Ellis has an excellent video series exploring in detail what went wrong with the trilogy.

PART ONE: LORD OF THE RINGS

[8:40] If you followed the events and the chronology of the book they would just hang out with Faramir for a little bit and then the movie would end

Technically it’s more complicated than this because that’s already following the revised movie timeline. In reality, Frodo would have just left the Black Gate. They *are* moving the events around to some extent, usually by a few of days here and there, but they can’t move stuff together that takes place weeks apart or the whole timeline would crumble.

[9:55] You can call it the theme, the soul, the spirit, the point, or whatever else you want, but the great works of fiction have something at their core that pulls everything together and elevates it into art. It’s a difficult thing to describe, but I think this scene perfectly tapped into the soul of Tolkien’s work.

Huge shout out to Bob Case and his video “Blame of Thrones” for first introducing me to this concept and the language of the “spirit” of a work to describe this phenomenon. In many ways the first two parts of this video are merely building on the LOTR-GOT comparison that he makes in that video, digging a little deeper and looking at more specific and concrete (and spoileriffic) examples of what he’s talking about so that we can apply these ideas to the Witcher…and beyond. Like all his work, it’s excellent. His YouTube is pretty much inactive these days, but he also occasionally writes content for Shamus Young’s blog if you want more of his work.

PART TWO: GAME OF THRONES

Alright, here it is: the section that really caused me to want to make this companion piece. Earlier I mentioned that I have sympathy for the GoT showrunners, and I really do. Martin’s work is incredibly complex, and so this section dominates the blogpost because there is so much to explain and no way that I could explain it all in the video without incredible bloat.

First I should mention that I, and all the writers I am going to credit here, share a very specific interpretation of Martin’s work. This isn’t the only interpretation. I doubt it’s the interpretation of the majority of readers. Obviously, I fully believe it is the correct interpretation, but the showrunners clearly had a wildly different one.

People who have this interpretation express it in different ways. Joannalannister collects hers in her tag #the-meaning-of-asoiaf. PoorQuentyn expresses it here, and in his analysis of Davos, Quentyn, and Tyrion. Other writers express it in their own ways.

With my lit degree hanging over my head, I can’t help but see it as a problem of competing artistic movements. To me, HBO’s Game of Thrones is part of the art movement of the past few decades, namely postmodernism. Art movements are complex, but basically postmodernism is the cynical reaction to the sincerity of modernism which came before it. Cynicism is, I think, the defining trait of Game of Thrones.

But it is NOT the defining trait of the books. In my view, Martin’s ASOIAF is part of the art movement that we are moving towards, which is starting to become known as metamodernism. Metamodernism is a reaction to the nihilistic pessimism and cynicism of postmodernism, and replaces it not with the unbridled sincerity of modernism, but rather oscillation between the two modes. It can be both ironic and sincere, deconstructionist and constructionist, apathetic and affectual. Once you have peeled back all the layers however, it is ultimately hopeful and optimistic. It embraces a sense of radical optimism. In metamodernist works optimism is often radical because the world the characters live in can be so dark. But that darkness serves only to highlight those characters that can hold fast to virtue amidst such darkness.

So, be warned. If you believe that Martin’s work is all about controlling the Iron Throne, and believe that cynicism is for the wise and honor is for fools, we just aren’t going to see eye to eye.

[12:45] Ned is a competent northern politician who has some trouble adapting to southern culture. Through a combination of bad luck, some understandable mistakes, and a misconception about his position, he fails in his goals.

The show didn’t invent the idea of Stupid Honorable Ned. Plenty of people believed this, even before the show. Obviously I believe they are wrong. If you would like to read more about it I would suggest Steven Attewell’s analysis of Ned’s chapters that he does on his blog, particularly Eddard XI and Eddard XIII. Steven does a much better job of analyzing Ned as a political actor than I ever could.

[13:00] Most of these changes are subtle…the best example is the council debate about whether or not to assassinate Daenerys.

Many of the ideas in this section are pulled from two essays by turtle-paced: Poor Doomed Ned and The Argument to Assassinate Daenerys. Turtle goes deep into the details of the differences between the Ned Stark of the books and the show, and I skimmed some of their comparisons for my argument. Steven Attewell’s analysis of this chapter is also worth reading.

[14:09] It’s a good argument, and I think in the books we are expected to mostly agree with Ned, both morally and politically.

When I say “expected” I mean from the authors point of view, which of course relies on me being correct about my interpretation of Martin’s work. Obviously I think I’m right, but if you don’t agree with my interpretation you may not agree with this statement.

[14:16] Notice also that the supporters of the assassination: Littlefinger, Varys, Renly, and Pycelle are all villains (all except Pycelle are trying to destabilize the kingdom), and the people who oppose it, Ned and Barristan, are heroes.

Each of them represents a different sort of evil. Littlefinger is a scheming sociopathic villain. Varys is a well-intentioned extremist whose willingness to commit utterly heinous acts in the pursuit of his goals makes him a villain. This is because, as Huxley puts it, “The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.”  Renly is narcissistic ambitious evil, willing to throw a realm into war to satisfy his own ego, and is totally uncaring about the lives of other people. It isn’t precisely correct to say that Pycelle is a villain because he represents the banality of evil. He thinks he’s just doing his job, but he’s morally bankrupt and politically corrupt.

[16:40] It would take too long to list all the ways that Tywin is awful, and everyone knows it.

To clarify, I mean that everyone in-universe knows it. For some god-forsaken reason, some readers seem to think that Tywin was just being effective after he unleashed the Mountain on the Riverlands and violated every military and political norm in Westeros.

If you are going to say that he is “Machiavellian” I would encourage you to actually read The Prince, where Machiavelli says “Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred” and goes into the reasons why.

[17:17] Tywin on the other hand accomplished a lot of short-term gains by being as treacherous and dishonorable as possible. But this has a cost: by proving themselves fair-weather allies they surround themselves with the same. Nobody trusts them, and so their allies scheme and betray them.

Oberyn and Doran are both scheming in their own way to revenge themselves on the Lannisters for the deaths of Elia and her children. The Tyrells poison Joffrey and scheme to spirit Sansa away to Highgarden.

[17:36] Ned failed due to a couple of minor mistakes, some bad luck, and treachery.

I mention a few times that Ned, and more broadly the Starks, get “unlucky.” Again, Steven Attewell does an excellent job of documenting this with his keen eye for how GRRM cheats political realities, but I’ll note a few of the many ways George has to bend over backward to screw the Starks.

In AGoT Catelyn leaves King’s Landing roughly around the same time that Tyrion leaves the wall, and both are on horseback. In order for them to meet at the Inn at the Crossroads Tyrion has to travel roughly 2,000 miles in the same time that Catelyn travels 400 miles. This is basically impossible, but necessary for the plot so that Catelyn can lose Tyrion at the Eyrie. If she had caught him somewhere further north she could have simply chucked him into her own dungeons and managed his trial herself.

Cersei has been trying to kill Robert for goodness knows how long with just as unreliable methods as “get him drunk on a hunt.” In order for Ned to get screwed she has to succeed in killing Robert at precisely that moment. If it had failed like every one of her other attempts she is most likely dead, because Ned would tell Robert the truth about her children as soon as he got back.

In order for Theon to take Winterfell, veteran military man and castellan Ser Rodrik Cassell has to stupidly empty the Winterfell garrison while he knows that Ironborn raiders are running loose in the North, not even leaving behind a mere twenty-five to fifty men that would have completely thrashed Theon’s assault. If Theon can’t take Winterfell, the Red Wedding doesn’t happen (as Martin has told us that the real inciting incident of the Red Wedding was the fall of Winterfell).

[17:41] However, killing him was a terrible idea, and backfired on the Lannisters instantly.

Continuing this theme, the Lannisters were in an absolutely horrible position at the beginning of the War of the Five Kings. They pretty much just have their bannerman in the Westerlands. Stannis seems to have the support of most of the Crownlands, and he and Renly are splitting the lords of the Reach and the Stormlands (with Renly having the larger chunk). The Starks have all the support of the North and the Riverlands combined. The Lannisters are surrounded by enemies who outnumber them on all sides. Killing Ned immediately jumpstarts a war that will almost certainly crush the Lannisters. That it didn’t took some very thin plotting and improbable developments at times, but overall George made it work. For more analysis of this, again check out Steven Attewell Blog: Race for the Iron Throne.

[17:48] Tywin was killed by both a guest whom he considered his ally, and his son.

I firmly believe Oberyn poisoned Tywin. Here’s a good rundown of the evidence. Beyond simple means, motive, and opportunity it also provides neat answers to lingering odd questions like why Tywin rotted so oddly and aggressively, why Tyrion knew he would find him in the privy, why Oberyn was willing to chuck his life away for a confession before seeming to have secured revenge against Tywin.

It’s also thematically juicy. I love the idea that Tywin, who so egregiously violated Westerosi norms culminating in the total breach of the social contract at the Red Wedding, was a victim of contrapasso. He can’t be protected by social norms, so he gets poisoned by his guest and ally. Did Tyrion know he was dying? Had he put it all together? Was that bolt really an act of mercy? Perhaps it was one final service to the Lannisters, to keep the dream of their alliance with the Martells alive. Who knows, but boy is it interesting to consider.

[18:13] his alliances fall to pieces, and his children are abandoned by even their own family.

I’m referring here to the infighting between the Tyrells and Lannisters (and Martells, though they never had any intent of staying true to the alliance) after Tywin’s death (though there was some before as well, just intensified after Cersei takes over from Tywin). Kevan forces Cersei to take the walk of shame, and Jaime and the rest of the Lannisters abandon her to that fate.

[19:41] Just like Lord of the Rings, and the Witcher, ASOIAF is clearly dedicated to anti-violence. Not pacifism: all three works have heroes dealing out retributive violence in order to try and restore justice.

I understand it might be odd to suggest that three works which feature so much violence can be dedicated to anti-violence, but depicting something is not the same as endorsing it. I would argue in the case of Martin’s work in particular that his depiction of violence, so un-romantically brutal and direct, is intentionally revolting, and therefore is designed to be anti-violence. Martin purposefully makes you want revenge on certain characters, gives it to you, and then forces you to stare at the inhumanity of this thing you thought you wanted. Yeah I wanted Theon to pay, but not like that. Yeah, I wanted Cersei to pay, but not like that. Yeah, I want the Freys to pay, but I don’t think I’m going to like what Stoneheart is going to do to them.

There is a certain amount of this in the Witcher as well. I can specifically think of one scene in The Blood of Elves, but I promised no Witcher spoilers.

The violence in LOTR is much more romanticized, but as Faramir says: “I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” The hero is still Frodo, who doesn’t fight anyone or anything in the whole story. Frodo is a pacifist, but his pacifism is enabled by others who are willing to fight.

[20:07] In a Dance with Dragons Daenerys allows the old slave-holding class to maintain too much power and so they immediately attempt to continue the old violence of slavery. Daenerys did not commit enough violence against the slave-owners, so they were allowed to continue existing, and as long as they existed they were always going to abuse and oppress the ex-slaves.

A couple years after the release of ADWD, an obnoxiously wrong and poisonous idea began to creep into the ASOIAF fandom: Daenerys’ violence against the slaveowners in Slaver’s Bay is dangerous and immoral, and peace is the better option. This idea was most persuasively argued in the Meereenese Blot’s series of essays.

I’ll quote some of the conclusion here:

“They are supposed to feel this generic distrust for everyone, and to fail to grasp that their peaces were actually quite successful. Dany is supposed to conclude — wrongly — that her behavior through most of the book was silly and foolish. And if you came away with those impressions too, it’s perfectly understandable…The whole plotline is designed to maneuver Dany into a mental place where she’ll decide to sideline her concerns for innocent life, and take what she wants with fire and blood.”

This idea, much like the idea that Daenerys is some sort of unhinged fascist just waiting for the right trigger, makes me unbelievably angry. This idea that I am supposed to value the life of the slaveowner and the slave equally, and that maintaining a “peaceful” slave-owning society is an acceptable alternative to violent revolution is so fundamentally revolting to me, that it turns my stomach even to write that sentence.

Some fans went even as far as to suggest that Daenerys’ occupation of Meereen was a parallel to the US occupation of Iraq, and that she was engaged in erasing an authentic slave-owning culture that she despised. If you read the above series of essays, you can see that they are, at the least, enabling that kind of thinking.

To be clear, I do not consider any slave society to be worth a damn thing. Anything that continues it is evil and all that attempts to destroy it is good. That being said, once again Steven Attewell does a better job than I ever could of rebutting the ideas of the Meereneese Blot, and explaining how the correct parallel of Daenerys’ actions in Meereen is the American mistake of abandoning radical reconstruction. He describes her actions in Meereen as abandoning a revolution half complete. I highly recommend reading it, especially if you are American. 

Martin is not a pacifist. He has said he would have fought in WWII. He demonstrated against Vietnam. As far as I know, the first time George ever used the words “Fire and Blood” was in a book released in 1982 called Fevre Dream:

“I never held much with slavery […]. You can’t just go… usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all. Know what I mean? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended.”

Daenerys is a slave-freeing, slave-owner-killing Hero with a capital H. She has made mistakes. I weep for the lives of the slaves that she has thrown away by abandoning her revolution, by failing to give the people of Astapor the strength to defend themselves, by maintaining a false peace that allows the Meereneese KKK to kill ex-slaves in the night.  I shed no tears for the slaveowners that she has killed. When you treat other human beings as property you forfeit your right to Prosperity, Freedom, and Life. Preferably in that order—I would prefer that a slave society could peacefully transition, that those who attempted to continue it could be locked up, and that bloodshed could be avoided. But sometimes violence is necessary.

Daenerys will make more mistakes, I am sure. I believe that she will swing too far in the other direction, temporarily. But that’s a topic for another time.

[20:57] She comforts the hound even as he threatens her and helps him on his path from violence to peace.

Sandor did not die, despite what the Elder Brother told Brienne. He uses his words very carefully, to suggest that the Hound is dead, but that Sandor Clegane the man is simply “at rest.” He has become a brother of the isle.

“On the upper slopes they saw three boys driving sheep, and higher still they passed a lichyard where a brother bigger than Brienne was struggling to dig a grave. From the way he moved, it was plain to see that he was lame.” - Brienne VI, AFFC

[21:40] If they don’t understand why Tywin is a villain then of course they won’t understand why the Others are the main villains of the series, and will probably replace them with some blonde queen. And if you don’t understand that the cold of the human heart is the real enemy than of course you’ll think you can stop winter by just stabbing it. Like Tywin would.

In the books the Others are the villains. They are what the whole story is building towards, much like in LOTR the story builds towards Frodo casting the ring into the Fire. Martin has said that he thinks that the finishing chapters of LOTR, like the Scouring of the Shire, were important, so we may see something like that, but the clear emphasis will be on the existential evil, and cleaning up Cersei or Aegon “Targaryen’s” mess will be a clear step down in importance. It’s something that the heroes have grown beyond, but still need to handle, just like Saruman in the Shire.

[22:04] There’s nothing wrong with liking Game of Thrones, or disliking Lord of the Rings, or anything else.

I really do mean this. I am going to be critical of things you like, and am going to praise things you love. People are different, that’s to be expected. I am not here to pretend that people should only like the things I like. I’m interested in what makes these stories work. I said much the same thing in my last video about some of the new Star Wars properties. People tend to get really attached to the media they like (I’m no exception) and that can color our perception of criticism. Do try to keep in mind that if you like something I criticize it isn’t an attack on you. You have a sacred and personal relationship to the things you enjoy that no one can take from you. I like all kinds of stuff that other people might consider bad, and that’s okay. Actually it’s great, because it gives us something to talk about.

I may genuinely hate Game of Thrones because it butchers something I came to love, but that doesn’t mean I have anything against the people who do like it for their own reasons. We’re all just out here enjoying what we like.

PART THREE: THE WITCHER

There is less in this section for two reasons. First, I promised not to spoil anything past the material covered in the show and I’ll stick to that here. Second—full disclosure here—I haven’t read all of the books because after Blood of Elves I got pretty bored and from what I had heard they did not improve in quality, and if anything got worse. Having already felt that going from the anthologies to Blood I was happy to end my reading there.

If something I say is contradicted by a later book that I didn’t read feel free to let me know.

[23:31] First I should mention that Sapkowski’s works are not on the same level as Tolkien’s and Martin’s, who are the best and second-best fantasy authors of all time. I have enjoyed the Witcher books that I have read, but they are not anywhere near as complex or beautifully written.

This is just my opinion, see above paragraph. I really do think that it’s a pretty common opinion though. I’ve read it before, and you often see people recommend the first two Witcher anthologies in a “if you like it maybe see if you like the rest of them?” sort of way. Book sales numbers also support this, though by all accounts they are exploding in the wake of the show.

But, one potential issue is that I’m reading a translation so I have no idea how good Sapkowski’s prose actually is. You get a lot of sentences in the US edition like: “it must be both bothersome and irritating.” Translation is art, not science, and passages like these make me worry that the translator is just translating each phrase without worrying about all the subtlety that makes language beautiful. These are minor examples of course, but they worry me about what else might be changed. So take my criticism of his writing with a giant, translated, grain of salt, in that I don’t read Polish.

[23:58] Despite this, Geralt the Witcher has been worming his way into popular culture for years, interestingly on the back of a series of video games

Google trends clearly show that the video games are what primarily generated interest in the character before the show. There were no English editions until around the time the games started coming out, and the US editions all feature concept art from the games on the covers. The release of the subsequently translated books after the games received very little attention in comparison to the games.

[24:15] In my opinion, that decline of focus on Geralt was the greatest weakness in the books, and the focus on Geralt is the greatest strength of the games. Because Geralt is at the core of what made Sapkowski’s story and world engaging in the first place. He is a fascinating character in a way that Ciri, who is a fairly standard fantasy “chosen child,” could never be.

This is just my opinion, and I explain why I think Geralt is so great in the subsequent paragraphs. Reasonable people can disagree on this, but I’ve come across more than a couple fantasy characters who could be generically described as “royal orphans with special powers.” It’s not exactly novel. Geralt is pretty novel, at least in terms of what I have read.

[24:49] He suffers many of the same psychological problems that characters like Tyrion and Brienne suffer from in Martin’s work

The technical name for these kinds of issues is “internalized bigotry.” This happens when you get treated consistently horribly by the society you live in due to some fundamental fact about yourself that you didn’t choose, and eventually you begin to believe and “internalize” their opinion of you. For example, people expect Tyrion to be unlovable, conniving, lecherous, and debauched. Eventually he simply leans into these characteristics, because in a way it’s almost easier to be what people expect you to be.

[25:48] To top it off, he hides all this inside a cynical and nihilistic exterior, he pretends he doesn’t care when in fact, he cares more than anyone.

The shot that accompanies this, of Geralt looking intently at what’s happening in the room while others tend to be watching with a sort of mild curiosity like you might at an unexpected circus performance, did an awesome job of conveying this idea.

[26:36] This was kind of a cool idea, but predictably their scenes ended up being generally less interesting and engaging then Geralt’s. Yennefer’s were sometimes fantastic but Ciri’s rarely were.

This was the opinion of fans that I most commonly observed. I don’t have any empirical evidence of this. If you have any that either supports or contradicts this please let me know, I would be fascinated to see it. I could see someone really loving Yennefer’s scenes, and I personally enjoyed a lot of them, but I don’t understand how someone could walk away from the first season with Ciri as their favorite character of the three. I’ll come back to this in a later section.

[27:40] In many ways the first two books, and the games, have more in common with Sherlock Holmes than they do most other fantasy stories.

Really a more accurate comparison would be Philip Marlowe since Geralt is definitely more of an American Pulp detective than a British one. I do love the similarity between Geralt’s Witcher Senses in The Witcher 3 and Sherlock’s detective vision in Crimes and Punishment. I can’t make the same comparison to a Philip Marlowe game, because no one’s made one yet.

Actually that’s not strictly true. There was one game that came out in 1996.

[28:12] But Netflix’s Witcher has barely a whiff of detective fiction anywhere. I think this has caused a lot of fans to feel alienated by the show, even if they can’t explain exactly why.

It’s not reasonable to expect people to know why they like or don’t like something. It’s a feeling, and unless they have experience with writing, narratology, literature, film studies, or just read a lot of tvtropes.org, they are not likely to be able to put their finger on what it is. This causes people to disproportionally blame the things that are most obviously wrong. The premiere example of this is Jar Jar Binks in The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar was obviously bad, but he doesn’t even come close to the top ten biggest problems with the movie. It was much worse that there was no main character or understandable plot and drama. Check out Red Letter Media’s legendary review for more on that.

I think a similar thing happened with Ciri, in that her story was sort of obviously underwhelming and so received a lot of flak, but there are deeper problems with the show.

[32:04] The third change is more subtle, but I’m worried that this Geralt genuinely believes in neutrality.

Just like Ned, the showrunners would not be the first to espouse this view. This quote in particular about “evil is evil” is obnoxiously peddled about as a justification for fence-sitting despite the fact that Geralt’s actual behavior doesn’t support it at all.

I don’t know for sure if the showrunners genuinely think Geralt tries to be neutral. There’s some evidence for yes in the first episode, the Borch episode, the Striga episode, and a couple of others. There’s strong evidence for no in the Duny/Pavetta episode. We’ll just have to see.

To be clear, when I mean “neutral” I mean in the face of immediate violence or injustice. Geralt often doesn’t care who is king, as he explains to Ostrit. But he won’t let a Striga continue to kill people just for coin.

[37:20]  When the writers took away Ned’s best arguments for his actions, when they took his story of existential triumph, of not compromising his morals, and turned it into a simple tragedy, they showed they clearly did not understand his heroism.

See PoorQuentyn’s explanation of existential heroism, and how it applies to ASOIAF.

[37:58] In the books, Ciri and Yennefer are included in the story through their connection to Geralt, because he is our hero and the foundation of our connection to the world. In the show they are included before ever having met Geralt, and they take up time that could have been spent focusing on those devilish detective details that make Geralt’s stories and character work.

Originally this video had a lot of discussion about how well these two other characters worked, but it ended up being kind of useless because it comes down to personal opinion, and the writers failure to properly use Geralt massively overshadows whether or not someone liked or didn’t like either of the other two leads. Again, I get why someone could like Yennefer’s scenes. I get why someone could maybe even like her scenes more than Geralt’s. Anya Chalotra did great. I thought the writing was a little weak at times, but on balance pretty decent. Geralt gets the benefit of all his stories being straight adaptations, and she didn’t, so it was a pretty decent job.

On the other hand, I thought Ciri’s storyline was a giant waste of space. When I think of all the best moments in the show, Ciri doesn’t show up in any of them. She spends the entire season running away from and interacting with fairly minor and forgettable characters that did not need to be introduced in this season. Calanthe, Eist, and Mousesack were great characters and the actors gave great performances, but that did not make up for the fact that her storyline went nowhere and did nothing to justify its inclusion. If someone loved Ciri’s storyline I would genuinely be interested to know why.

[39:10] I do have some sympathy for the writers of the Witcher.

Many times in this video I mention sympathy for various writers. Moviemaking is a massively complex undertaking. If you know anything about the difficulty of getting these things together you’ll know that it’s an absolute miracle any movie gets made and takes herculean effort from everyone involved. Television series are arguably even worse because they are longer, more complex, and often have a lower budget despite that. The people involved are honestly doing their best, and I recognize that, even if I criticize the product.

[39:47] They are in this unfortunate position where they can’t really pull the majority of their writing straight from the books because the material isn’t really strong enough by itself.

The books are very dialogue heavy. As I allude to, the one scene that was very close to the book is that scene with Filavandrel and it’s just obnoxious because the two characters just dialogue at each other. It goes on even longer in the book. How well that works in a book is up for debate but it wasn’t going to work on the screen, and it didn’t.

These problems are not insurmountable though. You can put other footage over these monologues. You could have included some footage of Elves fighting in their war. You could have footage of the “cursed” daughters of Lilit being locked in towers or autopsied while Stregobor explains it. I get this is more budget, but that budget went other places.

On the other hand some great scenes that I think would have translated excellently shot-for-shot from the book with little additional budget, like Renfri and Geralt in the Alderman’s attic, are entirely cut. Ah well.

[40:25] Well, I have my theories, but it in the end it doesn’t really matter.

I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody thought it needed to be more “epic” than the first two books are, so we got all this princess and political stuff in early. If there’s any merit to the idea that this series “copied” GoT, it’s somewhere in here, just like how the Hobbit got poisoned with all of the “epicness” of LOTR.

[44:54] Lastly, I’m gonna do my best to put out more regular content going forward. I’m aiming for at least one video a month.

I place no limitation on topics. It’ll probably be mostly media analysis, but if I’m honest I’m just going to write about whatever interests me. That’s the best way to keep myself interested.

That being said, if you have something you think I should analyze let me know. If I’m interested, I might do it.

[kenrik]

I ship Jonsa

I SHIP IT SO HARD. *in the universe HBO created, not the books*

And guess who I ship with Dany? ...THE IMP. TYRION LANNISTER.

Y? Because I live in my own world I guess.

SPOILERS ALERT Will be ranting about Jonsa, Jonerys, Danyrion, and the crapfest that is S7. *because my friends don’t get me and I need an outlet for my feels.* 

*with regard to timeline um, don’t equate an episode for a day..... remember, a travel from King’s Landing to the North is a month. That’s why when Cersei went up to Winterfell in S1, she was so bitchy. HAHA*

1. Jonsa I think Sansa's character development and her current character makes the most sense. Out of everyone left from the Starks - she's the last true remaining Stark.

From the start of the series, she was the worst Stark ever. But, I have to say, the way HBO played with the characters, Sansa's development was the best. Arya morphed into a faceless man who should never have any more personal inclinations. Bran turned into the distanced and removed Three-Eyed Raven. And Jon, a man of the night's watch.

Sansa, granted everyone went through shit as well, really really changed for the better. She's become cunning, smarter. She knows her cards and how to deal it. She has a firmer grasp on her enemies and an greater understanding of her father's words - a more profound loyalty to being a Stark. I believe Sansa to be a capable and great ruler if given the opportunity.

<S7 rant> (This is where I find it petty, how HBO is handling things. Sibling rivalry against Arya and Sansa planted by Baelish? I find it so stupid and petty for the developments of these characters. I find the reunions in s7 to be loads of crap. Worst of all, an incredibly written character like Baelish, Tyrion - don't you find it odd that they have terrible dialogues now; that they're characters/motives seem off? This season makes it feel like all the characters have become one-dimensional, as if they've lost their depth. You have to admit - Tyrion from the earlier seasons is not the same Tyrion we're forced with now. This is why I say HBO has done some poor writing.) <S7 rant>

Sansa is fierce, strong, so far altered from the snotty, selfish girl she was when Ned first brought her to the capital. When she reunites with Jon, he - EVERYONE - saw this. *internally screaming*

For the longest time, Sansa has had no one to fully depend on. Her whole life, she had been treated as a beautiful princess only to have her childhood stolen from her by monsters. That the moment she sees Jon, the first family she's seen for ages, a great great incredible burden drops. To Sansa, this man would be the closest to the life she's once lived and so immaturely cast aside. Out of everything she's been through, it is only her family she'll be able to love, to give her heart to freely. Jon is her family and she is able to give her broken heart to him. (I say this because after all she's been through, she knows better than to believe in the fantasy called love. As she learned from Cersei, it is nothing in marriage. or sth idk. If anything, Sansa is ready to just hand herself to a marriage that she would need - out of necessity never for love. Her character doubts her falling in love is even possible.) (So even if I'm shipping Jonsa, I'm not saying Sansa is in love with Jon like a school girl. Sansa flatly loves Jon because he is family, the last person from her past who returned to her. Arya and Bran are no longer themselves. Jon, however, only developed and became a great leader, but he is still the same kind-hearted, courageous young man he was.)

Now, Jon.

First off, Jon doesn't understand love, attraction, whatever when he first met Ygritte. When he met her, he got it all in full. Especially the heartbreak. (I don't really ship them but I get it.)

This Jon we're meeting is the post-Ygritte Jon. In terms of love, I think he's satisfied, that he believes Ygritte is his one and only.

(Which is why - I, infinitely don't understand, HBO's spin. I definitely can tell it'll be Jonaerys. Because, popularly, it makes - well, popularly... I can't even form a sentence. Jonaerys cannot be because Dany is the sort who has a reverse-harem. She can't help it, everyone will and WILL fall in love with her. And Jon's no exception. But the question is - will Jon really love-love her? Attraction is different from love. The attraction Dany invites is devotion. Jon is not one who will leave the North to rule in the South or sth like this.)

So, you have a Ygritte still devoted Jon. Ygritte has red hair. Sansa... has red... hair. (LOL at the surface-level parallels). BUT, other than this, the Sansa Jon meets when he first arrives at Winterfell is not the kid he saw as the snobbish, narcissistic girl he's related to but the beaten, less-radiant woman who has a hand in politics and in war, who's been passed from man to man.

And he acknowledges this strength in her when he leaves Winterfell in her hands. The tenderness, the trust between them, something they both have never felt in a long time - is just indescribable. You also have the great scene when Sansa and Jon argue over how to handle Ramsey. Here, the great Jon Snow (the same person Ser Davos goes on and on about when introducing him to Dany - which is another crap filler thing) is given a beating, a wake-up call he so needed. (He got a number of those from Ygritte.)

I don't know but Jonsa makes my heart warm. It just makes sense to me. (If things were written as I get understand them. LOL.) Also, those many scenes in s6 were just too ship-able!

2. Jonerys I don't get. I get it - from a, sth pov. But, based on my understanding of the characters - no, I just don't get it. I don't understand where this love will come from.

These two are basically strangers.

Dany who fell in love with Drogo, fell in love with him after a buttload of time and effort (sacrifice). This was just beautiful. GOD SO BEAUTIFUL. How you could tell they loved each other so much just by looking at each other is beyond me! (you just could!) 

Dany who 'fell in love' with the Secondsons guy, was never really in love with him. He was more like a good side dish, which said guy already admitted he didn't mind.

Dany, amid having the sweet, tender face of Emilia Clarke, ain't looking for a strong man to hold her at night in that way that's forever and love-love. (BUT DAMN. In holding onto Jon, as if she needs a security blanket EP 6 - JUST MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. Surrounded by loyal subjects (friends) who crossed the Narrow Sea with her - and yet she clings on to Jon, a stranger - I really don't get it.) (I mean, don't dare tell me it's the power of love - love is just a word. There is always a reason - A REASON - why you're attracted to another.) (You know, KenRik, love is love. You just fall in love sometimes with no explanation.)

NO.

HAHA.

Just, no.

It could be as deep as - we've gone through incredible shit together. Or as shallow as - I like his abs. There will always be a reason. And, granted the scenes we've had of Jonaerys - I refuse to believe it's because of some shallow reason. For the deeper ones, Dany has no reason to fall in love with Jon.

Jon, I totally understand falling for Dany in a shallow way. Because, Dany is incredible. It's impossible not to fall in love with her. Amid this, I will never want him to end up with Dany because that would be a love based on devotion. And Dany, she can never own Jon. Jon has a life to lead, people to rule, a realm to keep safe. Beside her, he's character will be diluted. Or Dany's. Someone's character will suffer.

Besides, politically - it would make more sense to have them rule separately.

Finally, I think I am not sold on Jonaerys - never will - because of the fact that these two have had great loves. Why would they be written into a relationship that is subpar, that is not incredible, that is forseeable and calculated? It's far too cliche and overused. It shatters the strong image of Dany. It shatters the independence of Jon.

Jon - who's had to build what he has now. Dany - who's made a name for herself.

With Jon - she'll be casted as inferior amid being queen because Jon is well - a man and that's just how it goes. (or vice-versa: With Dany, Jon'll be casted as inferior amid being ruler of the north because Dany is a queen with dragons)

I just see nothing but settling in this pair. :/

3.

I was blindsided by this too.

3. Danyrion Tyrion - you just love that imp. You. Just. Do.

Sadly, no one in his universe does other than Jamie.

<S7 rant> (His character in S7 makes no sense to me. Poor writing I say! I don't understand his motivations. His movements. They are giving us shit zero about our beloved imp. And I bet Peter is not happy with this as well. So far, he is shown as sullen and a poor tactitian. Which - should - not - be - the - case - unless - they - show - us - why.)

I get that he's still sad after all that's happened. And now, he's fighting against his family. BUT DAMN. S6 Tyrion and S7 Tyrion is so different!!

And don't tell me Cersei's people are just that good. :/ They are so not. Well, not supposably.

And, god, how many times do they have to call on Dany to save everyone's asses. Do they all suck that much? Man, do I pity Dany.<s7 rant>

When Dany and Tyrion first meet, Dany is amused by Tyrion's dark humor and cunning mind. His speech, he's just really incredible. (Well, until his character was destroyed.) Tyrion, as does everyone, (and one of the reasons why I think it's just hilarious) falls in love with Dany but doesn't know it.

He's devoted to her, chose to serve her as his queen. But, I think he could very well fall in love with her. I think he has fallen in love with her but he just doesn't know it. He doesn't trust himself on the topic. He closed his heart after all the horrid failures. But when he does wake up from his complex, he'll find that he's in love with Dany - this beast of a woman who will never fall in love with him, who he doesn't deserve (as all women), who will barely spare him a moment's glance. (after all the failures he brought to her doorstep.)

Remember how I said that the love Dany inspires is devotion - Tyrion is very able to do this. Under this pair, he'll return to King's Landing as a rightful ruler - the same he was supposed to be for countless times.

<s7 rant> MY GREAT QUESTION with Tyrion's constant failures, with his questionable dialogue and judgment - is WHERE IS ALL THIS COMING FROM? Because the fight is too much for him to handle? Because he's still depressed? Because he's fighting against his family?

WELL. UM. He's been that way all his life????

BUT prior to S7. (SERIOUSLY, JUST S7) - He's managed somehow. He wasn't pitiful. I mean - just seeing him onscreen is painful to watch. The way Dany treats him - with zero trust/respect. WHAT THE FUCK. WHERE IS OUR TYRION WHO GAVE US THAT EPIC/A MILLION EPIC SPEECHES?

SEE WHY I KEEP SAYING IT'S BAD WRITING? Because - all this are fine - if written properly. But instead we are shoved with stupid fucking FUCKING FILLERS that do nothing NOTHING for us. Why did we have to see Missandei and Grey Worm's sex scene??? WHEN HAHAHA FUCK they are not characters we care for. They are not integral to the movement of the storyline. GOD WHY. WHY DID WE GET A MILLION MINUTES OF “BEND THE KNEE” BEND THE KNEE. GOD I’LL FUCKING BREAK YOUR KNEE. 

Why did we have episode 5??? WHY.

Why did the Stark's reunions (Arya and Bran's) SUCK SO BAD. I MEAN. FOR SO LONG SO SO SO LONG. They've been separated. But - we get this reunion. So so so so so so so so unnecessary and anticlimatic. Um, I declare them fillers. So many scenes of unnecessary-ness. GOD I CAN'T EVEN. And Arya and Sansa's possible feud - WTF. I mean, I thought Sansa knew how Baelish worked? DAMMIT. I don't get anything AT ALL.

ALSO THAT STUPID SUICIDE MISSION IS JUST SO STUPID. I CANNOT EVEN. I bet George just said - oh, find a way for the white walkers to get a dragon ^^, - and the writers were like: OK...

GOD.

I should make another post just to rant about S7. WHAT THE FUCK WAS ALL THE HYPE FOR DAMN- IT. <s7 rant> 

Anyway, I digress.

Tyrion falling in love with Dany, is so funny for me because yet again, he'll believe it to be another dead end. Another fruitless thing. But this small man is a man who LOVES. He's never been loved. BUT DAMN DOES HE HAVE SO MUCH LOVE TO GIVE. (My, reminds me of my other ship :o)

Dany, (Which is why I want Tyrion written better :() it's so cute so different so awesome if she were to fall in love with a (stronger, smarter, better-written Tyrion). I mean, he's a total contrast to the men she's used to. HAHA. Both his physique and mind. Dany is the type of woman who'll have men in and out of her life. But I see Tyrion as a possible exchange for Jorah. I can see Dany and Tyrion's relationship developing over a long time of friendship, building intimacy and dependence/trust/respect/ and LOVE.

Tyrion's greatest flaw is accepting every little love bestowed upon him as if it means the world. With Dany, he will expect nothing and be satisfied with making her rule a successful one.

<s7 rant> Honestly, before s7, I thought Tyrion would be Dany's greatest asset, greatest adviser. I knew there would be troubles, but they wouldn't come because of poor strategy. I knew there would be internal arguments, but they would come because of questionable character writing. I thought these characters were fully developed (or closed to it) by the time they reach the great war. But, why do their characters make no sense? Why are they all written so poorly? Like a fantasy movie worse than a parody?

I ship Tyrion and Dany but I cannot expound by way of S7.

I can't actually explain anything s7 related.

I just don't get s7.

I think it's all bullshit. 

You know it’s bullshit when Dany gives zero fucks that she lost a child and all fucks towards Jon Snow. EPISODE 6 WTF???? Seriously - WHAT WAS THAT EVEN. <s7 rant>

To reiterate, I do not care what ship becomes canon. I JUST WANT THEM TO MAKE GOT HIGH CHARACTER STANDARDS LEVEL. All we’re getting is crap now. And if you don’t mind - well, lucky you. I got into GOT because of the engaging characters. You’ve seen so many shows with throne-stealing, incest, sex, dragons - but never one this good. Oh well, I guess it’ll be just the books for me. 

[ramajmedia]

Chernobyl: Key Details The Show Leaves Out | ScreenRant

Most people wouldn't expect that a miniseries about a 1980s disaster in the Soviet Union would become the highest-rated TV show on IMDb, but the HBO miniseries Chernobyl managed to make it happen. And it's one of the rare instances where the hype surrounding it is completely warranted. Chernobyl creates an atmosphere that flawlessly blends the banal bureaucracy of Soviet life with the apocalyptic horror of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.

RELATED: Chernobyl: 10 Other Historical Events From The Soviet Union That Deserve Their Own Miniseries

Writing a five-episode series covering an event that affected the world and involved thousands of people is no easy feat, but writer Craig Mazin (in case you didn't know, he's the guy who wrote The Hangover and used to be Ted Cruz's roommate, what a resume!) did a spectacular job of creating a story out of that mountain of experiences. However, like most TV shows that are a fictionalized version of real events, there are some aspects of the story that are literally fiction. And here are 10 of the most important details about the real disaster that the show leaves out.

10 The Real Acute Radiation Deaths Took Longer

It's not surprising that the show and its writers changed the impression of how long acute radiation poisoning would take to kill someone, because obviously speeding it up speeds up the story itself. But the realities of acute radiation poisoning would have been somewhat different. The show was correct in that it would appear that a patient was getting better for a while before they start deteriorating, but the show made it seem like this happened over the course of a few hours or days. It took the real firefighter Vasily Ignatenko two weeks to succumb to his poisoning (which sadly was slightly different but just as gruesome as it was portrayed).

9 Valery Legasov Wasn't Actually An Expert On RBMK Reactors

The real Valery Legasov was definitely an expert on nuclear physics and he was one of the highest-ranking Soviet scientists in the field, however, Legasov was actually pretty uninformed when it came to the actual construction and function of the RBMK nuclear reactors.

RELATED: Chernobyl: 5 Things That Are Historically Accurate (& 5 That Are Completely Fabricated)

The miniseries itself actually does hint at this occasionally when Ulana Khomyuk informs Legasov that his assumptions are incorrect, however, the story overall presents him as the most qualified and informed person to do the job. And just like with many other Soviet crises, Legasov was an expert in his own field but not necessarily the ideal person for this particular job.

8 Many Of The Firefighters Didn't Have Gear At All

The show definitely portrays the firefighters in Pripyat as being woefully unprepared for the horrors they were about to face when they went to put out the fire at the Chernobyl reactor, but the reality of the situation was actually even worse. Not that any proper firefighting gear would have protected them from the brutality of the broken reactor's radiation, but in many cases, the firefighters fighting that fire didn't even have that. Yes, some of them were properly outfitted in firefighting gear, but some of them had to fight the fire in their own clothes, some of them were on the scene wearing only tee shirts.

7 The System Of Propaganda Was Even Better Than They Made It Seem

The control over the media and information in the Soviet Union was far beyond what most of us can even imagine in our own lives. And the politicians in the upper echelons of the government who are portrayed in the Chernobyl miniseries make it very clear that this information is to be controlled at all costs. And although they couldn't avoid the literal nuclear fallout getting out of the country, they did an excellent job of obfuscating all of the information about what actually went on when Chernobyl exploded, even now many former Soviet citizens are unsure of exactly what happened.

6 The Three Divers Weren't Volunteers

Every form of fiction seeks out to find a hero for the story to inspire others and keep the audience engaged and compelled, and although Chernobyl was based on real events the writers did fuss with the reality of the situation to give accolades to the people involved in the situation.

RELATED: 10 Video Games To Play If You Liked HBO's Chernobyl

It was undoubtedly a heroic act for those three divers to go drain the tanks beneath reactor four, they weren't asked to volunteer and they weren't even given any reward for doing the job. They simply worked at the plant and knew the area, so they were assigned the task and completed it.

5 Threats Weren't Necessary To Get People To Do What They Were Told

The real-life Anatoly Dyatlov already makes for an excellent TV villain, and he does deserve to shoulder a fair bit of the blame for the absolute train wreck that Chernobyl became. But the writers of the Chernobyl miniseries leaned into that villainy even more than necessary. The threat of doing something or else being shot is actually a bit of a recurring theme throughout Chernobyl, but the reality of the situation is that it wasn't actually necessary to do so. The show itself acknowledges that people in the Soviet Union are socialized to do whatever they're told, and the same attitude applied to the entire Chernobyl disaster.

4 Communism Still Had Its Hierarchies

Chernobyl has been rightfully praised for everything that it does right, and it does do a lot of things right. People who were alive in the Soviet Union during that era have been astonished to see how accurately the production has managed to reproduce the settings and overall visual style of that time. However, there are some details that the show gets wrong, namely that every single person is treated exactly the same. Yes, they're living under communist rule, but someone like Valery Legasov would have a very different living space than most of the other characters that we see in the miniseries.

3 Ulana Khomyuk Wasn't Real

The character of Ulana was completely made up by the writers of the miniseries, and she was intended to serve as a stand-in for the thousands of Soviet scientists who actually did do all of the work trying to fix Chernobyl.

RELATED: HBO's Chernobyl: 5 Things That Are Accurate (& 5 Things That Aren't)

It's an understandable move, because including every single person who played a part would be impossible, and it's more narratively convenient to narrow things down. However, Ulana is clearly meant to serve a more heroic role in the story as well, which makes for a more satisfying tale but is unfortunately an inaccurate representation of how nearly everyone involved in the crisis behaved.

2 Chernobyl Was In Some Ways Inevitable

In his dramatic (and fictionalized) presentation at the trial at the end of Chernobyl, Valery Legasov explains that the entire design of the RBMK reactors are faulty and that this kind of result was bound to happen at some point, which is absolutely true. But the overall structure of the Soviet society and government also ensured that some level of disaster was pretty much inevitable as well. The Soviet system always prioritized productivity over humanity, and in a system like that, it is a near guarantee that there will be a serious loss of life as a result of those priorities.

1 The Truth Of Chernobyl Is Still Buried

The Soviet control over the media in their country and the spread of information was extraordinary. As Zharkov dramatically explains after the disaster, if it means cutting the phone lines and trapping people in the city, then that's what must be done to protect the country. And because the cover-up of Chernobyl was so great, even now the full story is not something that has come together. There are still mysteries that are left to be uncovered, and even the people who were face to face with the disaster only know their experiences of the story, they don't even know a fraction of what really happened.

NEXT: 10 Reasons Why Fans Of GoT Should Give HBO's Chernobyl A Chance

source https://screenrant.com/chernobyl-details-facts-missed-series/

[kristipetersenschoonover]

My original Weird Al cassettes. Missing from this photo is WEIRD AL YANKOVIC IN 3-D. I’m pretty sure it’s down there in those bins, but I couldn’t find it. Now that I think about it, I also have ALAPALOOZA. I didn’t see that one down there either.

It’s been said that smell is the strongest of the human senses in terms of its connection to memory; that a smell can bring back a person, place, or emotion more effectively than any of the other senses.

But I’d argue that music is right up there with smell in terms of evoking certain memories. How many times have you heard a song and thought, “oh man, every time I hear this I think of [insert memory here]”?

While my mother was a musical person (this is really an understatement since music was her career), she was also very careful about what kinds of music she’d let her kids listen to. We were pretty much relegated to show tunes, orchestral and choir pieces, film scores, and the Maranatha! brand of Christian music that was on the rise in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Anything outside of that—and especially secular rock music—was pretty much a “no-no.”

This doesn’t mean, though, that we kids didn’t find clever ways to get everything from Madonna to Def Leppard into the house. We used to put the stuff on cassettes and give it some moral-sounding label, like “Children’s Hymns.” No one had any idea.

Until one of our babysitters gave us the cassette Weird Al Yankovic in 3-D and someone didn’t hide it well.

My original Weird Al cassettes. Missing from this photo is WEIRD AL YANKOVIC IN 3-D. I’m pretty sure it’s down there in those bins, but I couldn’t find it.

Somehow—perhaps it was because I was the oldest—I was the one that was responsible for smoothing the waters. I explained to her that this was funny; that it was completely innocent because it made fun of modern songs. She not only bought it, she was open to listening to it.

To my surprise, she enjoyed the album. What shocked me most was that her favorite song was “Nature Trail to Hell”; the tune not only had the word ‘hell’ in it, it was pretty graphic in skewering the gory slasher movie phenomenon that was all the rage in the mid-1980s.

There was some kind of irony in that, I thought. The least innocent song on the album turned out to be the one she not only heralded as the most humorous, she made me put it on in the car everywhere we went. The memories of those quick trips to the pharmacy, bank, or grocery store remain some of the strongest of my mother—probably because of that song.

As years went on, Weird Al remained a part of my life. “Yoda” championed my days on the Honor Society with my friend Susie Brush. “UHF” was that song I blasted on the highway back and forth between my early days at the University of Rhode Island and home. “Jurassic Park” was with me when I lived in Narragansett and waitressed at the now-abandoned Larchwood Inn, “She Drives Like Crazy” was my summers on the lake, and “Skipper Dan” was the theme for serving as a bridesmaid in a friend’s wedding.

When I met my husband Nathan, I discovered he was a huge fan of Weird Al as well. I was over the moon when I was able to get tickets to the Connecticut stop on his Strings Attached tour, and we had a blast creating new memories with old songs.

The final moment of Al’s performance on the Strings Attached tour featured a confetti cannon. I love this shot! Nathan took it.

Our getaway to the Weird Al Strings Attached tour

For information and a review of the concert itself, visit here: https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/music/2019/07/08/Weird-Al-Yankovic-benedum-center-strings-attached-tour-review/stories/201907080068

Our car is packed and ready to go!

A start-the-road-trip photo of Nathan and I.

The Hilton Garden Inn in Preston, CT. It’s just about a mile from Foxwoods, is convenient to get to, and has the most on-time shuttle service I’ve ever seen. I usually take crappy photos of buildings, but I took this one and I think it’s actually good enough to be on a brochure! I’m very proud of myself.

We had a drive that was a bit longer than it should have been, but you know, it’s Connecticut, and the traffic here is always gridlocked for no reason (which is why you shouldn’t drive through it if you can avoid it. You can never get anywhere in a timely fashion around here). SO…even though we listened to our favorite Weird Al songs on the road, it was definitely time to crash!

Our room number. I always photograph the room number so I remember it, because sometimes I’ve booked again at the same hotel and gotten the same room. It’s nice to know!

A pre-concert cocktail–and always refreshing after a dip in the pool.

Nathan and I in the bar having dinner before the concert.

The garlic parmesan fries were fantastic, and they were very accommodating when I asked for melted butter!

Nathan and I on the hotel shuttle to Foxwoods. We’ve stayed a few places that have shuttles to various attractions. By far, this is the most prompt and reliable service we’ve ever experienced.

Our seats were in Orchestra left Row P, and it was a great view. We were also very surprised to find out we were sitting in a section with cup holders and a cocktail server.

For some reason I just really wanted a photo of us on this plastic cow, which is a photo opp spot at Foxwoods. Kinda weird, but whatever.

We were done by about one in the morning. That’s pretty good for a couple of old timers who were up at 6 a.m.

When we woke up the next morning, we were treated to lots of cool stuff on TV about the anniversary of the moon landing! (When we arrived home, we spent the rest of the day doing nothing but watching HBO’s miniseries FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON). There was something very magical about this.

Nathan stalks birds on the hotel property. There were a bunch of barn swallows with nests about.

While Nathan was birding, I enjoyed the pool.

Here’s a list of my top favorite Weird Al songs (and a couple of my husband’s favorites, too!) and where you can listen to them on Weird Al’s official YouTube channel.

“The Brady Bunch”

(Parody of “The Safety Dance” by Men Without Hats)

“Weird Al” Yankovic in 3-D – 1984

https://youtu.be/HUN-D8N_XhE

  “Buy Me a Condo”

(Original)

“Weird Al” Yankovic in 3-D  – 1984

https://youtu.be/ZcJjMnHoIBI

  “King of Suede”

(Parody of “King of Pain” by The Police)

“Weird Al” Yankovic in 3-D  – 1984

https://youtu.be/Gl1vulzQDwU

  “Theme from Rocky XIII (aka: The Rye or The Kaiser)”

(Parody of “Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor)

“Weird Al” Yankovic in 3-D  – 1984

https://youtu.be/0iwedkOmTGc

  “Nature Trail to Hell”

(Original)

“Weird Al” Yankovic in 3-D – 1984

https://youtu.be/6d4VwmGSJUM

  “Dare to Be Stupid”

(Original)

Dare to Be Stupid – 1985

https://youtu.be/SMhwddNQSWQ

  “Yoda”

(Parody of “Lola” by The Kinks)

Dare to Be Stupid – 1985

https://youtu.be/8xqXucPKPqw

  “Addicted to Spuds”

(Parody of “Addicted to Love” by Robert Palmer)

Polka Party – 1986

https://youtu.be/ad0w59lBfXU

  “Here’s Johnny”

(Parody of “Who’s Johnny?” by El DeBarge)

Polka Party – 1986

https://youtu.be/NdnuGDt04es

  “Toothless People”

(Parody of “Ruthless People” by Mick Jagger)

Polka Party – 1986

https://youtu.be/v453Z-GR-38

  “Christmas at Ground Zero”

(Original)

Polka Party – 1986

https://youtu.be/t039p6xqutU

  “Fat”

(Parody of “Bad” by Michael Jackson)

Even Worse – 1988

https://youtu.be/t2mU6USTBRE

  “Money for Nothing/Beverly Hillbillies”

(Parody of “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits)

UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff – 1989

https://youtu.be/0WPzFnZkZmI

  “UHF”

(Original)

UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff – 1989

https://youtu.be/NUi926ses94

  “She Drives Like Crazy”

(Parody of “She Drives Me Crazy” by Fine Young Cannibals)

UHF – Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff – 1989

https://youtu.be/4PdqNHyEyXY

  “Jurassic Park”

(Parody of “MacArthur Park” written by Jimmy Webb as performed by Richard Harris)

Alapalooza – 1993

https://youtu.be/gh4zvQfDhi0

  “Frank’s 2000” TV”

(Original)

Alapalooza – 1993

https://youtu.be/gbDostWXpcU

  “Amish Paradise”

(Parody of “Gangsta’s Paradise” by Coolio)

Bad Hair Day – 1996

https://youtu.be/lOfZLb33uCg

  “The Night Santa Went Crazy”

(Original)

Bad Hair Day – 1996

https://youtu.be/0FJU4GrXztE

  “White and Nerdy”

(Parody of “Ridin’” by Chamillionaire featuring Krayzie Bone)

Straight Outta Lynwood – 2006

https://youtu.be/N9qYF9DZPdw

  “Don’t Download This Song”

(Original; parody of 80s charity songs like “We Are the World”)

Straight Outta Lynwood – 2006

https://youtu.be/zGM8PT1eAvY

  “Craigslist”

(Original, but parodies The Doors)

Internet Leaks – 2009

https://youtu.be/y4sALru9IJk

  “Skipper Dan”

(Original)

Internet Leaks – 2009

https://youtu.be/a0cCRRFi1aA

  “Tacky”

(Parody of “Happy” by Pharrell Williams)

Mandatory Fun – 2014

https://youtu.be/zq7Eki5EZ8o

Wandering through the past with Weird Al It’s been said that smell is the strongest of the human senses in terms of its connection to memory; that a smell can bring back a person, place, or emotion more effectively than any of the other senses.

[gossipnetwork-blog]

25 TV Events to Get Excited About in 2018

New Post has been published on http://gossip.network/25-tv-events-to-get-excited-about-in-2018/

25 TV Events to Get Excited About in 2018

New year, new TV to look forward to.

Now that it’s finally 2018, it’s time to cut your losses with the fall shows you’ve already grown tired and make some room on your DVRs for everything the new year has to offer because there’s a lot to get excited about.

Kicking things off on New Year’s Day with the return of Arie Luyendyk Jr. as ABC’s latest Bachleor, we’ve narrowed down the 25 TV events worth getting excited about over the next 12 months from a surprisingly deep pool of worthy candidates. Seriously, there’s a lot of promising stuff coming our way. Read on and start programming your DVR!

ABC/Craig Sjodin

Bachelor‘s Big Winter

Kudos to the Bachelor franchise for trying something new in 2018. First, they went back a few years to the pre-Instagram days to find their newest leading man, Arie Luyendyk Jr., and we’re also being treated to what appears to be an international hot tub party known as Winter Games. It all sounds like exactly the fresh Bachelor air we need, and we can’t wait to see how it all goes down, starting January 1.

Freeform

Freeform Gets Grown-ish

It’s time for Zoey Johnson to fly the coop and strike out on her own…-ish. In this Freeform spinoff of Black-ish, debuting January 3, Yara Shahidi takes center stage as the eldest Johnson child embarks on her freshman year at California University with a diverse group of friends helping her navigate her first taste of adult life. Look out for guest appearances from parents Dre and Bow as Anthony Anderson and Tracee Ellis Ross are set to make occasional guest appearances in the comedy, which hails from the mothership’s creator Kenya Barris. 

CBS

Star Trek: Discovery‘s Return

The spore drive is done for and the U.S.S. Discovery is…missing. The finale ended with Lorca (Jason Isaacs) and his team including Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) evading death and destruction at the hands of the Klingons, only to find themselves some place very unfamiliar. Could our heroes be in the Mirror Universe? Whatever happens, beam us up for more adventures on January 7.

VH1

Tyra Returns on Top

Sorry Rita Ora, but Tyra Banks is reclaiming her America’s Next Top Model throne. Banks is returning on January 9 to host the revived series on VH1 after only serving as executive producer on Cycle 23. This year, expect new terms from Tyra and new competitors: there’s no longer an age limit.

Showtime

Showtime’s Trip to The Chi

If creator Lena Waithe‘s Emmy-winning episode of Master of None, “Thanksgiving,” is any indication, her new Showtime drama is, hands down, one of 2018’s can’t-miss debuts. The Chi, premiering January 7, is billed as a timely coming-of-age story that will explore the humanity behind the headlines sensationalizing the South Side of Chicago. Expect this to be an early Emmys frontrunner.

The CW

A New Superhero

Luke Cage may have come before him, but Black Lightning feels like the first superhero series to finally truly speak to the Black Lives Matter movement. The CW’s latest DC Comics adaptation, starring Cress Williams as the titular hero and premiering Jan. 16, feels timely in a way that few of the network’s other comic book offerings have. If nothing else, it’s just refreshing to have a CW superhero who feels like a damn adult.

FX

American Crime Story Goes Glam

People v. O.J. was great, but The Assassination of Gianni Versace brings a new level of glamour and intrigue to one of last year’s most talked about new series with one of the biggest crimes fashion has ever suffered. Darren Criss plays the serial killer we never before knew we needed him to play, and Penélope Cruz is straight-up iconic as Donatella Versace. We are so there come January 17.  

VH1

Mama Ru Gathers More All-Stars

While some of the queens returning for another chance at the crown barely fit in the label of “star,” let alone “All-Star”—Aja, anyone?—our excitement at finally having RuPaul and her glorious queens back is off the charts. RuPaul’s Drag Race All-Stars 3 returns to its new network (VH1) on January 25 to see who will join the ranks of legendary All-Stars and All-Stars 2 winners Chad Michaels and Alaska, respectively. Who are we rooting for? We’ll never tell. (OK, we’ll tell. That crown belongs to Trixie Mattel. Don’t @ us.)

Mindy Tucker/HBO

2 Dope Queens Come to HBO

What’s better than listening to your favorite podcast? Watching it come to life in a series of HBO specials, that’s what! Jessica Williams and Phoebe Robinson bring their acclaimed podcast 2 Dope Queens to the cable network beginning February 2 for four hour-long specials taped before a live audience, tackling topics like “Black Nerds aka Blerds” and “Hot Peen” alongside guests including Jon Stewart and Tituss Burgess. 

Netflix

Netflix Explores Altered Carbon

Netflix is going big with this original series, an adaptation the classic cyberpunk noir novel by Richard K. Morgan. Set more than 300 years in a future where society has been transformed by new technology, consciousness can be digitized, human bodies are interchangeable, and death is no longer permanent, the sci-fi series stars Joel Kinnaman as Takeshi Kovacs, the lone surviving soldier in a group of elite interstellar warriors who were defeated in an uprising against the new world order. Altered Carbon, dropping on the streaming site on February 2, looks expensive and confusing as hell. Count us in.

CBS

Big Brother Turns Celebrity

Already a staple in the U.K., Celebrity Big Brother is finally making its way across the pond for a special edition on CBS beginning February 7. Which of our D-list celebs will sign up to duke it out in the Big Brother house with Julie Chen narrating their every move? We haven’t the slightest idea and we can’t wait to find out.

Lifetime

UnREAL Flips the Script

Did you know that it’s been nearly 18 months since UnREAL signed off for season two? After that creative debacle, you may have pushed the provocative Lifetime series, a fictional account of the inner-workings of a Bachelor-esque reality series, out of your mind. But queens Constance Zimmer and Shiri Appleby deserve better, and it looks like the time off may have helped deliver a third series worthy of their estimable talents. After tackling their first African-American suitor in S2, they’re going the Bachelorette route this time around with Masters of Sex alum Caitlin FitzGerald assuming the role of Everlasting’s (the show within the show) new feminist “suitress.” Could Quinn and Rachel have finally met their match? Tune in on February 26 to find out. 

Good Girls Go Bad

What do you get when you take a Parks and Recreation fave (Retta), a Parenthood breakout (Mae Whitman), and a Mad Men diva (Christina Hendricks), cast them as three suburban moms tired of their lives, and have them rob a local supermarket. Why, the recipe for our most anticipated show of 2018, that’s what. Is it February 26 yet?

Netflix

A Queer Comeback

All things just keep getting better thanks to Netflix’s upcoming revival of the seminal reality series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Does the new Fab Five (from left to right, Bobby Berk, Karamo Brown, Antoni Porowski, Jonathan Van Ness and Tan France) have what it takes to make us forget about Carson Kressley, Ted Allen and the rest of the OGs? Come February, we’ll find out.

CBS

Round Two of The Good Fight

It’s been a long few months without Diane Lockhart (Christine Baranski) dropping an eff-bomb on our screens. The first season The Good Fight was politically charged and intriguing and the real world hasn’t gotten any less crazy, so Robert and Michelle King have a lot of fodder for new episodes, beginning March 4. Plus Audra McDonald will be a series regular this year, so our hopes of a musical episode just got all the more higher.

ABC

American Idol Returns From the Dead

Did we really want a revival of American Idol so soon after its 2016 (supposed) series finale? Not even slightly. Are we planning to tune in on March 11 to see if Katy Perry was really worth her rumored $25 million salary? You betcha. 

NBC

A New TV Musical Rises

Glee meets Friday Night Lights this spring on NBC, with Moana (Auli’i Cravalho), Ted Mosby (Josh Radnor) and Rosie Perez (Rosie Perez) in the starring roles of this Jason Katims-produced high school drama set (where else) in a working class town. This one could either be one of the year’s biggest successes or biggest flame-outs. Tune in on March 13 and judge for yourself.

ABC

Roseanne‘s Return

Revival fatigue is very real, but we for sure will not be able to look away from the return of Roseanne Barr‘s iconic comedy Roseanne, premiering March 27, for two big reasons: 1. Curiosity about how the show explains away the series finale that had Roseanne Conner revealing Dan (John Goodman) was dead and she made the entire series up as a writer and 2. Laurie Metcalf. Metcalf is one of the best actors working today. Any chance to get weekly doses of her we will take.

Hulu

Handmaid’s Trip to the Colonies

Where do you go after being the most-buzzed about new series and winning a slew of awards? That’s what we want to know, The Handmaid’s Tale! Season two, debuting sometime in April, is already well underway and details are being kept under wraps. We do know there will be more Alexis Bledel—sorry, that’s Emmy winner Alexis Bledel to you—and previously unseen parts of Gilead. “What I can tell you, and I’m not joking one bit, is it’s knocking me out where this story is going,” Ann Dowd told E! News. “I literally read the scripts and I think, ‘Oh my god.’ The ideas are genius and so unpredictable and harrowing,” she said. “Plus you see the worlds that you weren’t exposed to before: the Colonies, what that whole world is; those who make it to Canada, what happens there; the pregnancy, how that is coming along. It’s a phenomenally well-written show.”

Bravo

RHONY‘s Extra Dose of Real-World Drama

Arguably the best Real Housewives series on Bravo (go ahead and try to say another is better), Real Housewives of New York City is set to return with last year’s top-tier cast and you know there’s going to be laughs—and drama. Luann de Lesseps was arrested just before Christmas and charged with battery of an officer, disorderly intoxication, resisting arrested with violence and crimes against another person. She’s now in a treatment center. Bravo’s cameras are just itching to start recording and we cannot wait to see what they capture.

John P. Johnson/HBO

A Return Trip to Westworld

Season one felt like nothing more than a prelude, an introductory course to this world where nothing is as it seems and everyone watching wised up to the twists down the road much sooner than anyone writing expected. But now that the robots have taken over, making the demented amusement park at the center of this HBO sci-fi/western pastiche a true free-for-all, we can’t wait to see what happens next when Westworld finally returns this spring.But it better involve Maeve (Thandie Newton) kicking some ass.

FX

Atlanta, at Long Last

One of 2016’s most surreal and delightful new shows, Atlanta feels like it’s been gone forever. Apparently creator and star Donald Glover was too busy being very famous and employable to give us more in 2017, so we’ll take whatever he can give us in 2018. 

Netflix

Robin Wright’s House of Cards Reign

Robin Wright has always been the best thing about House of Cards and now she gets to truly own the show for its sixth and final season. After allegations of sexual misconduct by Kevin Spacey came to light, the status of the Netflix series was in question. After deliberation, Netflix and Media Rights Capital said the show must go on¬—without Spacey. Wright’s Claire Underwood ended season five in power, now we get to see her wield it triumphantly.

The CW

Sabrina Gets Spooky

Inspired by the success of Riverdale‘s dark take on Archie Comics, WB and Netflix are teaming up to create the show of our teenage dreams. The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (you know, the teenage witch) is already our favorite thing to binge and we know absolutely nothing about it yet. Even if we only get a cast in 2018, we are here for it. 

Sipa

Feud Goes Royal

After Feud‘s spot-on casting for Bette and Joan, we can’t wait to see who Ryan Murphy lands in the lead roles for the anthology’s upcoming second installment, Charles and Diana. We have our thoughts on who will fill the royal shoes of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, among others, but we’re sure that Murphy will still manage to surprise us. 

Which TV event are you most excited about for 2018? Sound off in the comments below!

(E!, Bravo and NBC are all part of the NBCUniversal family.)

Source link

[wavenetinfo]

He once yelled at a drug-dealing kid that he brought piss to a sh– fight. He flew into a petty rage because someone was stealing his narrow spoons, which were the only ones that could effectively navigate his Fage yogurt cups. He made a high-level Silicon Valley exec painfully aware of his advanced age in a torrent of colorful ways. And he more frequently has said the words “pilapa” and “Jian Yang!!!”

He is Erlich Bachman, and a few weeks from now, the notorious incubator, semi-gifted bloviator, Aviato pioneer, Pied Piper investor, wanna-be guru, and clothes-free emperor will bid farewell to Silicon Valley. As announced last month, T.J. Miller is exiting HBO’s beloved, Emmy-nominated tech comedy, with the season finale on June 25 serving as his final episode. “The producers of Silicon Valley and T.J. Miller have mutually agreed that T.J. will not return for season 5,” read the network’s statement on May 25. “In Erlich Bachman, T.J. has brought to life an unforgettable character, and while his presence on the show will be missed, we appreciate his contribution and look forward to future collaborations.”

It is a weighty loss for the just-renewed show — on a scale of 1 to 100, let’s call it a fleventy-five — and one that has already fans pouring out bong water in his Bachmemory. Miller’s Erlich proved to be an early breakout character on Silicon Valley, lording over the proceedings — or at least, attempting to — with a buffoonish, douchey regality while spewing cutting one-liners like, “One of you is one of the least attractive people I’ve ever met and I’m not going to say which one,” and, “He’s in the garage, like a sad bag of potting soil.” He excels at self-promotion, delusion, marijuana consumption, and grammar (“It’s hards-on”) and suffers a severe allergy to self-awareness. In his quest to matter, he has seen his fortunes raised and razed, and they may be (temporarily?) on the upswing again: In last week’s episode, Erlich accidentally charmed his way into the good graces of V.R. guru Keenan Feldspar (Haley Joel Osment), which helped him to maneuver his way into the new firm started by Laurie (Suzanne Cryer) and Monica (Amanda Crew). Whatever transpires or transmogrifies, the boys from Pied Piper who have been reluctantly receiving his shelter and counsel — that’s Richard (Thomas Middleditch), Gilfoyle (Martin Starr), Dinesh (Kumail Nanjiani) and Jared (Zach Woods) — are about to be left to their own devices, handheld and otherwise.

Miller’s move, while surprising, may not come as a complete shock. The industry profile of the always-animated, always-activated, never-predictable comedian has been on the rise — recent films include Deadpool and Office Christmas Party — as has his workload. He executive produces and stars in Comedy Cental’s The Gorburger Show as a giant blue alien, and he’s performing stand-up across the country; his first HBO comedy special T.J. Miller: Meticulously Ridiculous airs June 17. Miller, 35, is dabbling in various genres in the film world: He recently shot roles for the big-screen thriller Underwater and Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of the sci-fi novel Ready Player One. In addition, he’s co-writing an action comedy for Dreamworks titled Ex-Criminals (in which he’d also star) and he voices the lead character in this summer’s The Emoji Movie as well as in 2019’s How to Train Your Dragon 3. Miller will also reunite with Ryan Reynolds in Deadpool 2. And if he runs himself ragged and catches a cold, he’s also the cure. (See: his Mucinex commercials.)

Miller, who will perform Friday at Comedy Central’s Clusterfest festival in San Francisco, emerged from the pile of projects to explain the reasoning behind his fast-approaching goodbye, why he thinks his departure is actually good for the show, and — this one might sting a bit — why you’ll never see Erlich again.

John P. Johnson

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: If this is just a bit, this would definitely be a good time to tell us. T.J. MILLER: If this is a bit, I would never tell you.

How “mutual” was the decision? As mutual as public announcements go. I’m so grateful to HBO because they offered several ways that we could make this work. They were open to all sorts of compromise to allow Erlich to continue to be on the show, but ultimately this just felt like an organic ending. And the relationship with HBO — I mean, they did my special. It’s a dream come true, or at least a living, waking nightmare that was actualized. And on top of that, they gave my best friend, Pete Holmes, Crashing — a show that’s autobiographical, and I get to play myself. I’m not a very good actor; that’s a really easy job. I love HBO, but I thought this would be that thing that would change the show in a positive way. I mean, those guys are the funniest guys working.

Why are you leaving now? I would love to do The Emoji Movie and things like that and have the time to develop animated features. I would like to keep offering up Gorburger and letting people see a very different side of talk show guests. And that was a big part of why I said, “I’ve learned everything I can from this show. I would love to continue to be involved with it, if only because fans really do enjoy the show, and they seem to enjoy the character. But ultimately I just have to make more things and different things.”

I work so much. I do every single platform. I do every single medium, down to podcasting with Cash Levy (“Cashing in with T. J. Miller”), all the way up to being in an underwater thriller with Kristin Stewart and wanting to be the funny part of that. So [I left] for my own sanity, and for the sake of slowing down, and being more present and able to devote more time to this myriad of projects that I have going on. The other thing of it is that I didn’t get into comedy to be a television actor, and the second that I felt that there was a possibility of going on autopilot — of even phoning it in with this particular project — that’s when I say, “Okay, I gotta walk away. I have to do something where this won’t happen. I can’t allow myself to show up and give a B-plus performance on a show that is an A-plus when it comes to television.” That is a huge, huge part of it.

I think for something to come to an organic end, even if it’s before the public wants it to happen, is so much better. Leave them wanting more. There was one adage that’s never wrong. In comedy, you walk off-stage when the laughs are at their peak, and people go, “Wait, what? The show’s over? It’s just over like that?” You leave them wanting more because you don’t ever want them to wish that there had been less….

Also, in a weird way, it’s interesting to me to leave a show at its height. It’s interesting to me to see how the show will grow and change with the exit of this character.

Did you feel that you had creatively plateaued playing this character — that you had said everything you wanted to say as Erlich? There is no plateau when working with [Silicon co-creator] Mike Judge. Mike Judge is a prescient genius… I took a cue from my wife. Her favorite quote from David Bowie is — and I’m not an artist, so put “artist” in quotations marks — an artist should always be just far enough in the water that his feet are barely touching the ocean floor, and that’s where you do your best work. You don’t know what’s going to happen. I chose the most unsafe, destabilizing decision that one could make.

When did the thought of leaving first enter your mind? I think in the middle of the season, I started to think, “If there is a way…” And when I did Underwater, this Kristen Stewart-Vincent Cassel movie, it was a nice reminder because I was a stranger in a strange land — a comedian in an actor’s world and director’s world. Why did I do this underwater thriller? Because it was a Deadpool move — an unexpected move because I get to do something different, to learn from these people — I reminded myself that I didn’t get into this game to become a successful television actor. I didn’t want to be on a sitcom where I made a boatload of money and then could do films but didn’t do a ton, but have a bunch of money and bought a cool house in L.A. and totally rehabbed it so it’s no longer ranch-style. Both of us are already bored with that example. I need to be a stand-up comedian. We’ve got some pretty heavy sh– going on right now, and the best thing I can do is stand-up comedy. I hope Meticulously Ridiculous is both well-received and something that people feel like they can return to for laughs, like Norm Macdonald’s special was for me, and Patton Oswalt’s special was for me.  I’m a good stand-up comedian. But I’d like to be a great stand-up comedian, and that takes an immense amount of focus and work ethic. I have both, but I didn’t have the time.

Is any part of you nervous about this decision? I was anxious for Kate [Miller, his wife]. Kate said, “Are you sure you want to do this? Because people love this character. And you love this cast. And you love working with Mike Judge. Be very certain that this is what you want to do. Because HBO is being very accommodating.” But for myself, no, not nervous. I am so fortunate to have Deadpool 2, How to Train Your Dragon 3, and hopefully Big Hero 7, Ex-Criminals, the movie that I had set up at Dreamworks which put me in Office Christmas Party, and Ready Player One. I want to shepherd and help develop Gorburger. It’s a perfect property, it’s such a f—ing weird show, and I can say a lot more with that than I can with being the funny guy on somebody else’s incredible, great satire, but somebody else’s project. I’m excited. I have some really interesting, exciting opportunities. And more importantly, I love the idea of [using] that time to figure out how I can diversify and offer the public more comedy while also at the same time hanging out with wife, who is my favorite person alive.

My only concern was that the fans would be upset or frustrated that this character wouldn’t be present. And then the other real concern was that people would think — and some people have said this online — “Oh, okay. Well, now he’s in Deadpool, so he thinks he’s too big for this television show.” I’m not too big for anything. I’m the f—ing Mucinex man. [Laughs.] I will do it all to bring laughter to people.

Kate said, “There will be some people who feel like that there’s an arrogance to this, that there’s an element of hubris to this. I want you to think about that.” She also said, “Think about how much your family loves the show. So know that this is going to be a real bummer for everybody that loves you on the show.” And then, of course, I tell my father before I make the definitive decision. In my family, we always have to ask for a counsel of the elders. He goes, “You know what? Erlich was starting to wear thin on me.” In classic father-son fashion, he was like, “Yeah, I was starting to get annoyed by you anyway.” [Laughs]. And that was an interesting barometer for me to say, “The last thing that I want is for people to be like, ‘God, his character is so great, but he’s so one-note.’ [The writers] had given me a lot. They really allowed Erlich to become dynamic. He became a sadder, darker, more ostracized or alienated character, and that gave me a lot to do. But the moment that this character becomes grating to people, that’s going to be such a loss… In the weirdest way, it was protecting this thing that we had made — the dynamic of Richard and Erlich, and Erlich and Jian Yang — so that people would always miss it and think fondly of it, not feel like, “Well, he really jumped the shark in season 6.”

NEXT PAGE: Miller on why his exit will be good for the show — and his castmates’ reactions

2 June 2017 | 5:28 pm

Dan Snierson

Source : EW.com

>>>Click Here To View Original Press Release>>>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); June 02, 2017 at 11:58PM