Qayto said:
That's been on my "to read" list for ages, I might hold off and wait to watch it instead. I rarely watch something I've read (and vice versa) Let me know how it goes @txa1265
Click to expand...
Absolutely - neither of us have read it yet, which as you imply can cause significant issues (I am 'allergic' to the Foundation series since it fundamentally betrayed the books in the first episode).
 
Qayto said:
That's been on my "to read" list for ages, I might hold off and wait to watch it instead. I rarely watch something I've read (and vice versa) Let me know how it goes @txa1265
Click to expand...

txa1265 said:
Absolutely - neither of us have read it yet, which as you imply can cause significant issues (I am 'allergic' to the Foundation series since it fundamentally betrayed the books in the first episode).
Click to expand...
If you prefer to choose between the book and the series and don't like to do both, aren't books usually a better, deeper experience? Unless you're sure you'll never find the time.

Both look interesting to me, thanks for the reference! I'll probably start with the series if I can get it somehow (I'm shocked, but it looks like Apple TV+ would be available in my part of Gaul).
 
Redglyph said:
If you prefer to choose between the book and the series and don't like to do both, aren't books usually a better, deeper experience? Unless you're sure you'll never find the time.
Click to expand...
I read a lot - 90 books last year and ~35 so far this year. This has been on my 'mental TBR' but never my physical TBR, and my wife reads about 6-12 books per year. (so for example she is just reading a book now that I read more than 2 years ago!)

I'm mixed on reading and watching, so we shall see!
 
Redglyph said:
If you prefer to choose between the book and the series and don't like to do both, aren't books usually a better, deeper experience? Unless you're sure you'll never find the time.

Both look interesting to me, thanks for the reference! I'll probably start with the series if I can get it somehow (I'm shocked, but it looks like Apple TV+ would be available in my part of Gaul).
Click to expand...
Reading is a solitary experience, I tend to watch TV with Mr Qayto, one episode a night. I find if I read and watch something, I get a blurring of characters and plot. I do read a lot but tend towards "easy" reading, anything too engaging and it keeps me awake. Games and TV series are a new thing to me, husband thought I was missing things in Fallout because I didn't take my game hat off and was overly studying some details. As a non Fallout fan, he really enjoyed it.

We're quite disciplined about which paid streaming service we have, we wait until there are at least two series we definitely want to watch. There is another series of the excellent Slow Horses on Apple TV later this year so we might be waiting until then. If a series of Silo and Severance could be added to that, what a great month that would be.
 
Qayto said:
Reading is a solitary experience, I tend to watch TV with Mr Qayto, one episode a night. I find if I read and watch something, I get a blurring of characters and plot. I do read a lot but tend towards "easy" reading, anything too engaging and it keeps me awake. Games and TV series are a new thing to me, husband thought I was missing things in Fallout because I didn't take my game hat off and was overly studying some details. As a non Fallout fan, he really enjoyed it.

We're quite disciplined about which paid streaming service we have, we wait until there are at least two series we definitely want to watch. There is another series of the excellent Slow Horses on Apple TV later this year so we might be waiting until then. If a series of Silo and Severance could be added to that, what a great month that would be.
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely. Reading and watching the same story at the same time can be very confusing. I tried once, but it's not easy to keep track of the little differences and how far the story has developed.

Apple TV+ seems to have a few good series. I may do a quick trial but I don't think I'll subscribe permanently, though. The Silo series is well worth watching, and if engaging books keep you awake, you wouldn't get much sleep with those anyway. ;) I'm looking forward to the next season, wondering how they'll handle it.
 
I finished Fallout and obviously didn't really care for it. Hiring MachLachlan and Emerson yet barely using either just strikes me as madness, lol. Two great actors yet hardly utilized. And look, I'm not one to point out people for deficits, yet is it just me or is there something odd about Lucy's eyes? I might tune in for a second series or not, it's certainly not must watch for me.
 
Last edited:
Carnifex said:
...yet is it just me or is there something odd about Lucy's eyes?
Click to expand...
This!!! I kept thinking that they were digitally altering Ella's eyes to make Lucy look like an anime character. Her eyes seemed way bigger than they were in other things I'd seen her in (which admittedly is limited to Army of the Dead). But I saw no posts about it, so I assumed I was imagining things.
 
Last edited:
DarkWunder said:
This!!! I kept thinking that they were digitally altering Ella's eyes to make her look like an anime character. Her eyes seemed way bigger than they were in other things I'd seen her in (which admittedly is limited to Army of the Dead). But I saw no posts about it, so I assumed I was imagining things.
Click to expand...
I forgot she was in Army of the Dead. I kept wondering why she seemed familiar...

As for her eyes, I don't think they were digitally altered, but you're not the only one who wondered about them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/1cbdqq7/ella_purnells_eyes
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/1cbdqq7/ella_purnells_eyes/
 
Well who doesn't like women with gollum eyes. :LOL:
 
DarkWunder said:
This!!! I kept thinking that they were digitally altering Ella's eyes to make Lucy look like an anime character. Her eyes seemed way bigger than they were in other things I'd seen her in (which admittedly is limited to Army of the Dead). But I saw no posts about it, so I assumed I was imagining things.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've seen that actor in another show or film, but quickly looking at photos on IMDB shows that here eyes are the same size in events and other films. She just had slightly larger eyes than average, but it's not uncommon. Some people have larger mouths, noses, ears, eyes, ...

I noticed it, but it never shocked me, to be honest.
 
I'm a few episodes into Lessons in Chemistry and I like it so far. It's pure fiction, but I could imagine those things happening to someone in the 60s. The only aspect that bothers me a little is the caricatural nature of the characters, or at least the antagonists. Everything that goes against the main character also seems somewhat overdone, just for the sake of making her that hero we want to prevail. I understand why it's done, but I think a little subtelty is more efficient than a hammer when it comes to conveying a message.

If you read the interview in the LA Times, you can see what motivated the book (misplaced credits happen all the time, unfortunately, and not only to women but they surely see it more often than us). There are also questions about the book vs the show, though it looks like the author didn't want to be too much involved:

As with most adaptations, there is some rearranging to the story. There are some additions, there are some tweaks. Did you have any stipulations? Like, look, I know this is going to be an adaptation, and some things are gonna be different, but these are things that are really important that I would like to keep intact?

I wanted to keep everything intact. This is why I had to remove myself. I mean, this is where the novelist can get in everybody’s way. I’m used to being edited, I think it’s really nice just to say to another creative person, “You have a vision, let’s see what your vision is. Let’s see what you want to do.” Also, there are a lot of people. I’m used to working on my own. They have 9,000 people working on this. They have different motives, and they have different things that they’re trying to do. And I respect that.

Have you watched any of it? Does it still feel like it’s the world you created? Or does it feel totally different in your view?

Well, I just saw a rough cut. I will say Brie Larson really immersed herself in this role. And I really appreciate all the work that she put into that because when she walks out on that stage, when she’s just Elizabeth Zott at work, that’s who I saw. And it was really amazing for me to see that on the screen. It was like, “Wow, there she is.” It’s a different animal. And so I would say to any viewer, this is their rendition. It’s different from my vision, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not as good at all.
Click to expand...
 
I wrapped up the fourth series of Spooks yesterday and I would never have predicted a story about Lady Diana Spencer would have been the season finale. The sheer attrition on this show is astounding, I'm learning to never get too attached to anyone, save perhaps Harold, who seems to endure anything tossed at him.
 
Shagnak said:
The Steel Brotherhood dude, though... juries still out on that one.
Click to expand...
He's really hard to figure out. I've only seen up to episode 2 though.

He did a great job acting while being questioned by the head honcho of the BoS and other moments, but a lot of the time I'm struggling to figure out what he's going for. I have no idea if he placed the blades in his friend's boots. It's not clear what he was feeling when he talked to his friend after. All the scenes with closeups of his face while he's in armor are just a big question mark on what emotion he was trying to convey.

Some of it was the director or the script and not him at all. Why was he being bullied in his fist scene? His best bud was the most popular and (and feared?) cadet. Later, it could've been indicated it was due only academics? If so, the culture that was conveyed in every other scene didn't match up with the only indicator for all the dislike and bullying. And the biggest, buffest, and one of the few classically handsome men on the base being bullied by everyone is just silly. Unless it was a tilt of the hat to RPGs where physical appearance means absolutely nothing and stats are king. All the cadets kind of looked like the weird characters people make with generators. There was even a random old guy among them.
 
Tony said:
He did a great job acting while being questioned by the head honcho of the BoS and other moments, but a lot of the time I'm struggling to figure out what he's going for. I have no idea if he placed the blades in his friend's boots. It's not clear what he was feeling when he talked to his friend after. All the scenes with closeups of his face while he's in armor are just a big question mark on what emotion he was trying to convey.

Some of it was the director or the script and not him at all. Why was he being bullied in his fist scene? His best bud was the most popular and (and feared?) cadet. Later, it could've been indicated it was due only academics? If so, the culture that was conveyed in every other scene didn't match up with the only indicator for all the dislike and bullying. And the biggest, buffest, and one of the few classically handsome men on the base being bullied by everyone is just silly. Unless it was a tilt of the hat to RPGs where physical appearance means absolutely nothing and stats are king. All the cadets kind of looked like the weird characters people make with generators. There was even a random old guy among them.
Click to expand...
You're overthinking things. Trust me when I say the show isn't that complex. Your questions will be answered if you keep watching it.
 
I've finished Lessons in Chemistry. Very nice mini-series. It touches a few themes of the 50s-60s: mainly racism, gender equality, capitalism, orphans. The story has a lot of nice touches, but I kept my initial impression that it's dualistic and some of the abuses feel artificially exaggerated (nothing too bothering).

I didn't read the book, so I can't compare. At one point, it seemed the story completely forgot the purpose of the protagonist and that something was missing. It's easy to realize something has changed and why, and it's confirmed in a later episode, so it's not a big deal, but I have the impression that they didn't manage the transition the best they could. I'm pretty sure the book had more room and the luxury of narrative to make it smoother.
 
Last edited:
Redglyph said:
Lessons in Chemistry <snip> It touches a few themes of the 60s: mainly racism, gender equality, capitalism, orphans.
Click to expand...
You keep saying 60s, but from the very first episode it mentions 1951 as the time-frame. Those same issues were still topical in the US a decade earlier - we were only a few years away from when women were unceremoniously fired from jobs to make room for men 'to support families' (even if not true and with many women being single earners after war deaths) ... just like was mentioned in an early episode.
 
txa1265 said:
You keep saying 60s, but from the very first episode it mentions 1951 as the time-frame. Those same issues were still topical in the US a decade earlier - we were only a few years away from when women were unceremoniously fired from jobs to make room for men 'to support families' (even if not true and with many women being single earners after war deaths) ... just like was mentioned in an early episode.
Click to expand...
You're right; there are a few timelines. The main story is in 1961-62 and the flashbacks are through the 50s (some even earlier). The series doesn't always show the dates, though, like the very beginning which I think is 1961, before the first flashback to '51.

And true enough, obviously all those issues weren't better before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.