Outlander and The 100
Apr. 4th, 2015 11:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatYep, 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-04-06 01:14 pm (UTC)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.