Outlander and The 100

[shadowkat]

Yep, the television adaptation of Outlander is quite a bit better than the book which I'm STILL slogging my way through. 90% through now.


They handled the sequence in which Jamie rescues Claire from Randall and then punishes her for wandering off, when he'd told her to stay put, far better than D.G. wrote in the novel. What they did was flip the point of view from Claire to Jamie. So we saw the rescue from his perspective, and his reasoning for spanking her. It's actually a funny scene, because she fights him tooth and nail, and he's at first a bit hesitant, but enjoys it after she kicks him in the face. And then she punishes him by not sleeping with him for several weeks, until he finds a way to seek her forgiveness by promising not to do it again. The sex scene after - is filmed more as sex between equals, than the rough "taking" it is in the book. The television writers are better at choreographing sex scenes than the author is at writing it. LOL! Of course it helps that we have pretty actors.

I like the switch in pov quite a bit. For one thing - we find out what happened between Jamie and Laoghaire, and why Laoghaire thought if she only got rid of Claire, all would be well. Also, no time is spent on Claire being jealous of Laoghaire or thinking Jamie is hung up on her - Claire doesn't even think about her - which makes a heck of a lot more sense. In the book, Claire spends two chapters worrying over Jamie's relationship with Laoghaire and being insanely jealous. She comes across as a bit of a ninny. I just wanted to smack her upside the head in the book. Here - we're in Jamie's pov and he's worrying over healing the rift between him and Claire, and has to deal with Laoghaire throwing herself at him in the midst of it. Claire never sees it.

If you have to choose between reading the novels or watching the tv series, pick the tv series - it's so much better. The changes in the text are perfect. It's tighter. And the characters are far more likable.

Almost all caught up on The 100 - three episodes left, I think. Has it finished for the season? It's insanely violent - which makes it difficult to watch. Not to mention grim. Last season was easier to watch, and far less violent. That said, there are brilliant moments in there. Such as a telling conversation between Abby and Kane regarding how we reap what we sow. Abby is upset about something her daughter, and their current leader, Clark, chose to do. And Kane reminds her that Clark is the result of her own upbringing. They created these kids. They made similar and at times far worse choices - Machiavellian choices, where the ends justify the means and the needs of the many outweigh the few.

What The 100 really gets across is how violence doesn't solve problems, it just makes things worse. And torture is useless, and doesn't work. In fact one character even states it - that torturing won't work - it never does. It's a waste of time. She found that out the hard way. Also, putting the needs of the many before the few...leads you into a series of choices that you can't take back and doom you in the end. All life is sacred, if you get in the habit of choosing which lives are sacred and which aren't...sooner or later you are going to end up at the end of that sacrificial knife yourself.

And here's the thing -- it's not preachy. It shows, doesn't tell. For example? While Clarke and Lexa are making the decision to not tell their colleagues that there is a missile headed their way because they'll lose an advantage in their war on Mount Weather, Mount Weather is making the decision to take the bone marrow from a bunch of kids, resulting in their horrible and painful demise, in order to save their own people.

The society in the 100 makes sense - these are the survivors of nuclear warfare. They are their parents children. They are still warring with one another. It reminds me a great deal of the themes in Battle Star Galatica, V. 2....where what happened before happens again, because the human survivors of a horrible war, haven't figured out yet that violence doesn't solve problems. They still resolve all their problems with guns or violence.

Our media and culture is practically screaming that message at us, by the way. It's in just about every television series with few exceptions. Which I find rather fascinating.

Comments

[lizziebuffy2008.livejournal.com]

I have not watched the show yet, but read the book last year. I am interested to see how they will handle what Randall does to Jamie in the latter part of the book. That is not a subject that is broached much in television or movies.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think they'll do the rape, because hello, Ron Moore of BSG fame.
He certainly did it on BSG and DSN.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

All life is sacred, if you get in the habit of choosing which lives are sacred and which aren't...sooner or later you are going to end up at the end of that sacrificial knife yourself.

Honestly, this exact thing is where I almost dropped the show halfway through s2 (though I did eventually finish and quite enjoy it). The whole plotline where Finn murders a bunch of innocent villagers, which is then treated by everyone on "our" side as a reason to feel sorry for him, while the Grounders' demand that he face justice (and some people's willingness to deliver him to them) is treated as complete barbarism (sure, their execution methods aren't exactly nice, but surely there's some middle ground between "Oh you poor thing" and "torture him to death"?). Only when it's too late does it occur to them to put him on trial themselves, and even then it's seen as a concession rather than the appropriate thing to do. Even though the show does present both sides, its sympathies are still fairly obviously with Sky People and Finn in particular, but I just couldn't muster a shred of sympathy for him after that - and it got worse the more his friends tried to explain that it wasn't his fault.

There's a (far from unique in spec fic but still) troublesome attitude in how the story treats the Grounders - yes, they're treated as people too, but they're so very obviously coded as The Other, as (increasingly Noble) Savages (their own language, the warpaint, living in huts in the forest, etc) that a Grounder death may be tragic but is never equal to the death of one of the Americans. There are far worse examples around, but The 100 does so much right, that it bothers me all the more when they seem blind to something like that.

That said, I do appreciate that the show keeps blurring that line - I just wish they were more conscious of where it is.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I got to admit, I took a break from the series after that point. I binge watched the last 7 episodes this weekend. It was either that or delete them from the DVR and give up.

And I've mixed feelings in how the series is handling the "Grounders". Although it sort of redeemed itself showing how horrific the Mount Weather group was in comparison, and that group to a degree was manipulating the Grounders. (Have you ever read or seen HG Wells "Time Machine"? Where you have two surviving groups of a nuclear war. One are mutated barbarians, the other group is scientists. And at first it looks like the barbarians are the monsters, but as we move through the story - it's actually the scientists? This is actually a common sci-trope, don't know if HG Wells started it or not?
Star Trek, BSG, and various others have certainly done it.)

At any rate - the 100 redeemed itself in one way - by showing the horrific things the Sky People do. We're in their point of view for the most part, so of course our emotions are on their side - but the show doesn't back down from having "our heroes" do horrific things. By the end of the season what Finn did looks like a walk in the park compared to the actions of Clark, Lexa, Jasper, and Joha (how he basically sacrifices each of the 12 people who trusted him -- so that he can reach his promised land, which turns out to potentially be the source of the planet's devastation to begin with. Murphy, who ironically was considered an irredeemable murderer in S1, suddenly has become Johra's conscience - stating how can you do this? How crazy are you? He trusted you and you threw him to a monster? )

And Clarke killed over 100 people. Several innocent people. Lexa ironically was the one who set up a truce, so neither her people nor the Mount Weather group died, but she sacrificed Clark's. Clark kills everyone in the building. Did she have another option?
It's not clear. And who is worse, Clarke or Cage or Lexa?

I think, and I give the series credit for doing this, they put us in the Sky People's perspective for a reason. It's so easy to demonize the "Other". Abby and Kane's conversation is fascinating, because they discuss the horrible things they did to survive.
And it echoes Jorha's discussion with Murphy - about doing whatever it takes to survive.
In the first season, Kane was no better than Cage - he was sacrificing people to keep others alive, and almost floated Abby. Even before the Grounders showed up, the kids on the ground, the 100, were solving their issues with violence. The Grounders just gave them something to bond over.

As Abby states to Clark at the end, maybe there are no good guys. And I like that blurring of the line.

I wish they'd made the people in Mount Weather a little less EVVVIL, though. It was hard to feel much empathy for them - because we never really got to know anything about them - except that they were living off of the blood of the Grounders, so felt a bit like vampires. Evvvvil vampire scientists. The resistance movement inside Mount Weather wasn't really revealed until the end. And it was hard to care that much about Mai and Jasper.

They should have spent a little bit more time developing Cage and the Doctor (who didn't appear to have a name), explaining their motivation. Instead both felt a bit like one-dimensional moustach twirling villains, along with the creepy old guy who loved Van Gough paintings.

They've actually done a much better job developing the Grounders - Indira is a great character, as is Lexa and Lincoln.

The series is making me a bit curious about the books...which I've been told it follows somewhat closely. It's been renewed for a 3rd Season.

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

As Abby states to Clark at the end, maybe there are no good guys.

Judging from several comments I've read made by the showrunner, this is exactly what the core of the show is about.

I also think he could have been influenced by the line in Firefly / Serenity where Zoe says, sagely, that "You know the definition of a hero? A hero is someone who gets other people killed."

I'd also add If one were to try to define what a "good guy" is, then a good guy is a person who can live through the horrors of having to make these impossible moral decisions, understand and take responsibility for their role in creating said horrors, and yet somehow retain the mental and emotional strength to keep trudging on, and eventually try to bring about some results that make things better overall. And-- not go insane and simply drop out.

A guess for a theme of The 100 S3-01 -- go rewatch "Anne" from BtVS S3.

I wish they'd made the people in Mount Weather a little less EVVVIL, though. It was hard to feel much empathy for them - because we never really got to know anything about them - except that they were living off of the blood of the Grounders, so felt a bit like vampires. Evvvvil vampire scientists. The resistance movement inside Mount Weather wasn't really revealed until the end. And it was hard to care that much about Mai and Jasper.

They should have spent a little bit more time developing Cage and the Doctor (who didn't appear to have a name), explaining their motivation. Instead both felt a bit like one-dimensional moustach twirling villains, along with the creepy old guy who loved Van Gough paintings.

The Doctor did have a name, although with my poor memory these days it escapes me. One question for next season will be, how much will Jasper hate Clarke for causing Mai's death?

Things did move very speedily this season. It's my understanding that the showrunners deliberately wanted to use what budget they had available to make "16 really good, tight episodes" as opposed to 20 or 22 where they may have had to trade off desired special effects or sets or the ability to retain / pay certain actors to get them those extra eps. That's a pretty rare request, for fewer eps, not more.

This series definitely bears rewatching, its darkness notwithstanding. Like many of the best Whedonverse works, or the Sarah Connor Chronicles, or BSG, I find many of the episodes often haunt me for days after watching them.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

This series definitely bears rewatching, its darkness notwithstanding. Like many of the best Whedonverse works, or the Sarah Connor Chronicles, or BSG, I find many of the episodes often haunt me for days after watching them.

While I agree in part, I must admit the only series that I could successfully rewatch was Buffy. I was thinking about it this morning, what distinguished Buffy and made it in some respects more enjoyable than the others? It was the humor. Buffy didn't take itself quite so seriously and neither did the writers. There was a lightness to Buffy, a satirical element, that is missing from a lot of its successors.

I can't rewatch The 100 far too grim and violent. Also visual memory, so having some of those images imprinted on my brain once is enough. It is an insanely violent series. And one that has very little humor or light in it. But it does haunt me long afterwards and I'd say, much like BSG and Lost, which it reminds me more of than Buffy or Firefly, again far too dark, I can't rewatch.

One question for next season will be, how much will Jasper hate Clarke for causing Mai's death?

Actually, I think he's going to blame Monty more. Keep in mind that he and Mai went back to save Monty. And Monty is his best friend. Monty set it up - if it weren't for Monty, Clark could not have pulled the lever. Also Monty is there, Clark is gone.
It's hard to hate someone who is gone and saved your life. (Although, bare in mind, Mai would have died anyway. When they made the decision to pull the lever - the Guards were about to execute Mai and Octavia. There was no way out for Mai and she knew it.
Killing Cage, as both Clark and Bellamy stated, would not have ended it.)

a good guy is a person who can live through the horrors of having to make these impossible moral decisions, understand and take responsibility for their role in creating said horrors, and yet somehow retain the mental and emotional strength to keep trudging on, and eventually try to bring about some results that make things better overall. And-- not go insane and simply drop out.

The Classical definition at any rate. Hercules, Odysessus, and various Greek and Roman heroes fit that. Also one's from the romantic period. The Modern definition is a bit different, I think. Or broader. In that a hero is someone who finds a way of solving problems without compromising their moral compass or more importantly taking life - see Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. Then there is the "hero" who sacrifices themselves rather than have anyone else die or to free others, although people often tend to die in their name long afterwards, the sacrificial hero - which is in a lot of our religious mythology and text. (Example? Jesus).

[(Anonymous)]

I have the last 4 episodes left to watch (of The 100). I had to take a break from it because the overriding bleakness was getting to me, but I still find it a fascinating study of a post apocalyptic society. Seems to me that our go to mode as humans is violence, a not overly optimistic thought. Maybe that's why I love Star Trek; it assumes that we can overcome that, and reach for the better angels of our nature.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I had to take a break from it because the overriding bleakness was getting to me, but I still find it a fascinating study of a post apocalyptic society.

Felt exactly the same way. Took a break for the same reasons. And I have to admit that I considered not watching any more and just stopping. But like you, I find it to be a fascinating study of a post-apocalyptic society. Also it flips gender stereotypes.
Normally in these types of series - the leader making all the decisions is male while the people taking the orders or staying behind are female. Clarke and Bellamy are an interesting gender flip. As is Kane and Abby. I find how it handles gender fascinating. That's rare.

Seems to me that our go to mode as humans is violence, a not overly optimistic thought. Maybe that's why I love Star Trek; it assumes that we can overcome that, and reach for the better angels of our nature.

At least from a cultural standpoint (books, movies, video games, tv shows). But there are series out there, like Star Trek, that take a more optimistic route.
Not many though. I've only seen a few. And even Star Trek was violent at times.
Although no where near as violent as series like BSG, Lost, and now the 100.
(The 100 reminds me a great deal of BSG and Lost...actually.) Haven't seen a series similar to Trek in a while.

[midnightsjane.livejournal.com]

I left a comment but wasn't logged in; anonymous is me!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thanks. LJ does that to me in my own journal, all the time.