I really enjoyed them too, which I guess I could have made clearer. I felt like my enjoyment was heightened by my knowledge and nostalgia for the books, but interesting yto hear another positive perspective without that aspect. I suppose what I’m trying to say is not that they aren’t or can’t be good, but that they aren’t and can’t be a faithful and complete adaptation.

The world building aspect is why I tend to think TV series are generally the better screen medium for scifi than feature film, having more space to explore the causes and consequences of a fantasy premise. But yeah, I love a spectacle. The setting and soundscape of the new movies are top. Like I can’t rember feelings like that in the cinema since Lord of the rings.

It’s impossible to adapt, see all previous adaptations. I think you’ve pretty accurately summed up the shortcomings of the medium for that story. Watch the movie to marvel at the setting brought to life with a nice soundscape, ideally see it on a big screen. If you read the book you’ll have some attachment to the characters and universe anyway so pacing and skipped detail shouldn’t be too much of a problem for you. Just don’t expect it to be perfect. IMO the second part is a bit stronger, maybe because the scope is tighter.

Lived in NY for a while (manhattan) and travelled to a lot of other states. The comparison rings true for me, NY has it’s own culture for sure.

Or you could read it as critical of capitalism.

“motivation, purpose, social skills, creativity” arguably all valued more under socialism/communism (admittedly there’s a lot of semantics going on under the hood here). Which is why so much tallent goes to waste as grist in the capitalist mill.

That doesn’t fit with anything I know about Weinersmith. You got any source?

Euchre can be gambled on right? So at least there is some angle where it’s “undesirable”.

What?

Nah the people he grifted were “misguided”. He had all the time in the world to realize the toxic impact he was having on the world, he was intellectually gifted and granted extraordinary power and influence (as a direct consequence of his deliberately reactionary positions he took), at that point you have to be giving a truly naive amount of benefit-of-the-doubt to not conclude malice.

You’re throwing out unevidenced, and frankly not very relevant, generalizations again.

Can you honestly not see that a man why literally describes women as inherently chaotic, and men as inherently ordered, who advocates openly for “forced monogamy”, is hateful. If so I guess we have nothing more to say to each other. Just because he dresses it up in flowery language doesn’t make it less repulsive.

Do they? Do you have any evidence of that.

I’m going to be generous and assume you haven’t read his work, at least not critically. You should go listen to the episodes of the “behind the bastards” podcast about him or read more or less anything written about him:

https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-young-men-drawn-to-jordan-petersons-intellectual-misogyny/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

Edit with non paywalled link

http://archive.today/8bBl4

He’s being “made fun of” because he’s a misogynist, a sophist, and a hypocrite. The crying is incidental. Less obviously heinous people overwhelmingly receive sympathy in their vulnerability. If I’m getting your argument right you’re saying: “people are mean to men who cry so indeed men shouldn’t cry”. The takeaway is surely, “be less of a dickhead” rather than “cry less”.

It’s funny when - a man who spent his career reinforcing the bullshit societal biases that make it harder for men to share emotions - cries and shares his emotions.

Fixed that for you. Decidedly not sacasm.

I am sorry that he had to suffer such trauma, but hopefully it helps people realise how full of shit he was.

It’s kinda poetic for them to go down next to the titanic, itself a story of complacency and excess/opulance.