BethR

It's been more or less a thing from the beginning according to a recent essay on problems with GoT's representation of race and medieval history/culture from The Public Medievalist. The author has written a book on the series and is a fan, yet argues that it is Good point.

Episode 5 proved even more polarizing than episode 4. Speaking of controversial character treatment in G.R.R.M. series, back in the 80s, he killed off the female lead of Beauty and the Beast in s2, and fans were outraged. She was "replaced" in season three by an equally if not more interesting female character, but fans never accepted her. I knew nothing about this at the time, because I wasn't on the internet. Henry Jenkins writes about it in Textual Poachers. Also, this Twitter thread on writing the series is pretty good (no spoilers).

Update with casting news for this show, plus some additional writing/producing staff: Espenson and Petrie both worked on Buffy, Angel, and Firefly.

The execution of that particular character could certainly be perceived as racially insensitive and part of a pattern of privileging white characters in the show that goes back to season 1, and may be read as a problem of the stereotype of the Middle Ages, especially the European Middle Ages, as purely caucasian. So that's a discussion that's been going on for a while with regard to the show (not to mention medieval studies generally). I suspect the character's death is setting up another character (maybe two) to go off the deep end for revenge. It's a frequent, maybe even stereotypical, plot trope, that got at least two other show-runners in trouble for killing off a minority character (in both cases, not a racial minority, but a lesbian) to send the other partner off on an emotional tear in Buffy and The 100. The writers viewed it as character-driven writing. Many viewers saw it as insensitive at best, at worst, an attack. Bury Your Gays

Some might say that episode 8.2 was overdone with fan-service, but I, and many others, loved it. Goodness knows, there will be more than enough darkness and death ahead. Alan Sepinwall's review is excellent, as far as I'm concerned. Full of spoilers, though, if you're not watching. And at least one event may have further repercussions...who knows?

I hate ranking things. However, I shall do my best. This is a good list.

If I had seen this nomination before the list closed, I would have seconded it. Yes, it may be flawed, but as a film it fits the list theme very well.

Did the student journalist know that the play by Mark St. Germain (on which the movie is based, I suppose) is being produced by Campbell Theatre Arts, also in April?

You've set forth what seem to me solid reasons for seconding this film's nomination. It is an enjoyable movie.

Second The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.

Thanks, Ken. I just read your whole review. The concerns you raise are ones I had based on the promotions for this series. I may or may not watch it.

I could have sworn I posted about The Kid Who Would Be King, as I feel duty bound to see every Arthurian legend movie, no matter how dubious, but it must have been on some other platform. I actually liked this one. As Doug C says, it was "clever, unpretentious entertainment" and I also found it to hold closely to what I feel is the spirit of some of the original texts (e.g., Malory), while finding fun ways to update the story for today's young audiences. If I were 10, I might be inspired to look for a book version after seeing this. Whereas after seeing King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, if my parents were stupid enough to allow such a thing--I would just be sad and horrified.

Somehow I missed this earlier. I started reading Burke with his first Robicheaux mysteries in the 80s, maybe--The Neon Rain (1987) and Heaven's Prisoners (1987). The first was made into a terrible movie. The second is where Dave really starts taking shape as a character, I think. Burke improves and expands Dave's world for a while, but in most recent novels, is starting to repeat himself and rant a bit. The supernatural elements are most effective in 1993's In the Electric Mist with Confederate Dead--which also has the best title ever. The Katrina novel (Tin Roof Blowdown) is also worth reading.

I can't believe we don't have a thread for this novel in the "Literature" forum (I checked, already knowing that if we did, PTC would have found it & linked it to the original post here ). As a missionary kid from the Congo/Zaire/Congo, I recognized the excellence of the writing, characterization, and structure, but generally disliked the experience of reading it. Mixed responses from my fellow Congo MKs, a few of whom had actually known the Kingsolvers. In an interesting twist, high school MK friends, now missionaries in the Kikongo region (near Kinshasa), posted photos of Kingsolver and her husband who were visiting the area this week, to revisit the place of her childhood memories (though some who knew her then say she rarely ventured out of the house) and to lecture at the university on the value of education and environmental preservation. A TV series is probably a better medium than a movie for this complex, multi-perspectival and decades-long novel. It will probably just reinforce anti-missionary prejudices, though.

I seconded Overstreet's nomination of Apted's documentary 35 Up, but I wonder why this particular installment of the series was chosen rather than, for example, 56 Up--or indeed, the entire 7 Up series? Any comments appreciated.