#now i've gotta go work on my own movie o7 godspeed everyone

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

good things about ep. 7:

this episode was by far the best at working with film as a medium. there were still issues, to be mentioned soon, but this ep did a lot of things that impressed me on a level of cinematic structure and format:

some actual tension!! simply showing the trio running from cerberus created investment and stakes for me in a way no monster fight or other obstacle had before (a matter definitely enhanced by the music)

the use of flashbacks!! now, i have some issues with the content of those flashbacks, but since im basically getting two degrees in assessing media i know how to give credit where credit is due lmao. these flashbacks were doing interesting things cinematically, creating parallels with percy's experiences in the present, especially that last flashback where they continued poseidon's voiceover into the present moment. fuck yes!! use the medium of cinema to your ADVANTAGE!!

related to the use of flashbacks, the match cuts!! they were so good, as they helped make visual those narrative and characterological parallels being constructed through the flashbacks. film is an inherently visual and auditory medium, and it was so refreshing to see the show experimenting and making effective choices with those tools

some issues with ep. 7 and the series as a whole:

i'll admit it. im tired of the trio already knowing everything about every obstacle they face (having to improvise in the fight with cerberus was so refreshing and retained more of the spirit of the book as opposed to uh. every other obstacle). and i think this connects with show's overall struggle with writing, adaptation, and the medium of film. these writers have committed the cardinal sin of assuming their audience always needs explanation. in any writing class (fiction and screenwriting are my personal expertise), you are told to assume your audience is smarter than you think, bc a writer's instinct is to assume they need to be clear about action and themes out of a fear of confusing their audience and the end result of that situation is a boring, overly explanatory piece of work. (an re the young viewers, kids are freaking smart!! i literally teach kids of the age range these books are directed for and they are so quick-witted. kids don't need stuff handed to them on a platter, they know how to put puzzle pieces together.)

example of the aforementioned "too much knowledge" issue: the pearls. (people have already explained the issues with medusa, the casino, procrustes, etc., so im going for a new one that's been bugging me a bit.) after percy received four pearls, the general conclusion people came to was that one pearl would break, forcing them to have to choose three people to go/one to stay and thus making the choice more "meaningful" (i.e. bc the opportunity to save everyone had been stripped). it's a fair choice, a fair reason, a fair analysis, and this is a change that bothers me but much more minimally than other changes to the show. here's the deal: the reason they had to give four pearls in the show was bc the trio already knew exactly what the pearls would do. there was no reason to give only three pearls bc that would force a character (probably percy) to raise the question of like "hey, that's not enough to save four people!" so where am i going with this?

in the books and the musical, we get the alluring line of what belongs to the sea can always return to the sea. percy gets three pearls in the book and a seashell in the musical, where he doesn't know right away the specifics of what this gift does (the seashell is an excellent example of adapting a story to a new medium, as a low-budget theatrical production can't afford the effects of smashing three pearls and causing people to vanish from the stage, so blowing the seashell to open a portal was a great move that worked for the new medium and retained the spirit of the source material - percy having an epiphany well after receiving the gift about what, exactly, the gift did and how it would help him). in the show, they issue is that they already know, thus creating the dilemma of there being no reason not to give four pearls. again, not the worst choice the show has made, but it's another example of how the show's most pervasive issue is over-explaining and giving too much information to its characters.

in short: the pjo show doesn't understand "show don't tell." they love telling even though "showing" is Most Important in film as a medium, like it's even more important to show what's going on in film than it is in prose because cinema is an inherently collaborative medium that generates a visually-dominated product. the show clearly lacks a fundamental understanding of the medium it is working with!! and that is bad!!

another issue: the lighting. this show suffers from the current trend in film to make dark scenes impossible to see in.

more characterological problems: the gods are not imposing. just to speak of ep. 7 alone, why was hades so... banter-y? in the book he literally makes percy's hand "move... against [his] will" to show him the pearls. there was none of that power and domineering energy in the show!! the pjo show keeps hammering us over the head with what should be a series-long revelation about the gods' flaws and pettiness and spite and misuse of their incredible power, and yet all of the gods seem almost like... caricatures. where is their ability to be charismatic and threatening. to be lax and powerful. to remind us that they can, have, and will kill demigods.

core thematic issue: the show lacks the humor and fun and adolescent spirit of the books. i've seen a lot of people insist the show is directed for young readers of the book, which i don't disagree with, but the lack of humor and energy and vitality is undoubtedly turning off a lot of younger viewers. in a lot of instances, everything feels so gritty and angsty, lowkey like the winx adaptation (but on a less severe scale). we have moments of sass/sarcasm, moments of levity, but it doesn't feel like a core trait of the show (much less of percy) like it does in the book. and honestly, i think that's a loss! if rick wanted a grim pjo adaptation, fine, but i wish the show hadn't been advertised as something perfectly attuned to the spirit of the book bc it's just not. if it was, i'd be laughing a lot more.

now, let's talk about sally...

i don't love how they've characterized sally in this show. i respect that they wanted to "modernize" her character and more accurately demonstrate the struggles of a single parent raising a child with learning (and in percy's case, also magical) difficulties. i genuinely do respect that choice, and i can follow the thorough-lines created in the show that illustrate this revamping of her character. similarly, i can respect that they didn't want sally to seem like a stereotypical "passive" victim of abuse re gabe, hence her explicitly pushing back at him. that said...

i still don't think these are effective or necessary changes, because i don't think sally was portrayed as overly passive or as a perfectly equipped parent in the book. i understand the argument that gabe is still presented as abusive, i.e. that he checks her phone without permission and controls access to the car, but those moments feel so technical. when i rewatch those scenes and examine the acting (both line delivery and bodily cues), sally is outwardly derisive toward gabe ("who's yancy?" / sally sighs and shakes her head, exasperated, has the long blink to give an extra beat before responding: "the school."), yet at the same time there's a banter between them, where sally insists that she's going to go to montauk no matter what, and if gabe disagrees then she won't bring back both their sandwiches for the knicks game that they apparently watch together often (implied by "you know i hate watching the knicks alone!" "so do i!"). sally holds herself confidently in this scene (hands on her hips). gabe is forced to actually ask politely for his sandwich order (and notably holds his shoulders slightly inward, visually closing himself off in a physical representation of surrender). two of my friends, diehard pjo fans who are not literature or film scholars, were both confused as to why sally and gabe seemed to be bantering within a seemingly standard relationship dynamic - not necessarily the happiest of couples, but a standard married couple (as opposed to clear imbalance of power between them in the book).

to be clear, it's not that sally needs to be a "passive victim of abuse," and it's certainly not that the show needs to explicitly depict gabe hitting sally or percy for us to understand that he is abusive. my issue is that the show seems to have not understood what made sally a strong character initially: her willingness to endure anything for her son, including marrying an abusive man who smelled so rankly human in order to prevent monsters from finding them. like, sally resisted gabe's abuse in the book! the reason blue food is a major motif in the first place is because sally and gabe had a fight where gabe insisted blue food wasn't a thing, and thus percy observes that "ever since, my mom went out of her way to eat blue."

in other words, verbally standing up to one's abuser is not the only way to demonstrate that a character is not a stereotypically weak, helpless, passive victim. it's definitely an easy choice with regard to cinematic staging (and the show has a pattern of taking the easy way out of conflicts and nuance), but i think the real issue is that sally's vocal protests come in tandem with the defanging of gabe. why does his body language and tone falter in arguments with sally? does he not have the upper hand? where is the evidence of an imbalanced power dynamic? there is no one way to write abuse bc the tragic reality is that abuse happens in an infinite number of ways, but nonetheless i am frustrated with the route the show went down in the first ep bc it feels reductive to the core of sally's character and her strengths: her endurance, her implicit but present rebelliousness, and her love for her son.

im also not a fan of some of the flashbacks we're getting with sally. it's not that sally shouldn't be "allowed" to get frustrated ever, but a major element of her characterization in the books is that she didn't take that frustration out on percy. i just don't see sally jackson getting upset that percy doesn't want to swim (beside that, i can't imagine percy not wanting to swim lmao). i just don't see sally jackson almost aggressively telling percy that he is the one making their goodbye ugly (because he's being a kid?? who doesn't want to leave his mom?? you're telling me sally wouldn't recognize the root of his anxiety immediately??). i just don't see sally speaking vaguely to percy about there being things she has to do that he doesn't understand instead of doing her best to meet percy where he's at with her explanation. if someone is coming to this show without having read the books, i genuinely think they might be starting to question sally's parenting, i.e. if she was really as wonderful a mom as percy insists or if he simply sees her through rose-tinted glasses. bc here's the thing: percy does see sally and his mom's struggles through rose-tinted glasses, and it's because sally bottles up and hides her struggles and frustrations from him. she doesn't let percy witness those frustrations. as such, there's an incongruity between book!sally and show!sally that doesn't mesh for me.

in short, show!sally feels like a new character to me. that's fine if that's the route they wanted to take, but again: why advertise it as a faithful adaptation if you're not going to be faithful to the core elements of central characters?

im also disappointed by how much the show has stripped annabeth of her character besides her intelligence. i have some thoughts about the adultification of young Black girls and the fact that annabeth is Black in the pjo show, mostly that i can't tell yet whether the show has the self-awareness to offer commentary on this reality for many Black girls through annabeth's character being seemingly defined by her intelligence and maturity or if they're simply unwittingly replicating this circumstance. i need more material before i can make a concrete assessment here, but all the same, i wish they were allowing these kids and especially annabeth to be kids - to make mistakes, to fall into traps, to have little crushes and get flustered, and to not know everything about every monster/obstacle before they come to face it.

people have talked to death the issue of the pacing so i won't belabor it but in general this show has terrible pacing. the first two eps are rushed (we got so little luke that im concerned his betrayal won't have much heart/meaning/oomph in the final ep), the constant unnecessary exposition creates periods of narrative drudgery, most of the fights lack tension bc the choreography is effectively nonexistent, them missing the solstice deadline has so far sucked the wind of the energy of their quest (of which there wasn't much in the first place bc the show did a poor job establishing the looming threat of a globally destructive war being on the horizon), and in general there's no sense of stakes. sigh.

i probably have more thoughts, but i'll stop for now bc i've got a shit ton of assignments to work on. in sum: the show lacks an understanding of how film operates as a medium, and while the merit of the show as an adaptation can be debated, it's simply a poorly constructed and lackluster piece of tv.

(but on the bright side? the trio is killing it even with the weak material they've been given, and their acting talent is the only reason i and many of my friends have kept watching)