Stranger Things 2 – A review

All is not quiet in Hawkins Indiana. There are old wounds that just refuse to close. Will tries to cope with his new existence as ‘the boy who lived’/’zombieboy’. Mike misses his friend Eleven with every breath he takes and then there’s the rip in the continuum down in Hawkins lab.

When, at Halloween, Sheriff Hopper is asked to investigate a peculiar pumpkin problem it starts off a chain of events that reopens the old wounds and creates many new ones.

Stranger Things is back! If there’s one thing the creators of the show (The Duffer brothers) knew from the get go was that their new outing wouldn’t be ‘as fresh’ as last year’s sleeper hit. But to counter this the creators filled season 2 to the brim with nods to famous 80s sequels, a bigger budget, fan-service and a satisfying continuation on the characters we love. This season wears its ‘2’ with pride and rightfully so.

This season is just as delicious to watch as the season previous. It’s nostalgia with great characters and a healthy dose of pure horror sprinkled on top. But, to be honest, there are a few small tears here and there (in the fabric of time and space) that make this season slightly less perfect. I’ll get to that.

MadMax – (New) adult characters

The first thing I noticed as I binge-watched the show (3:00 AM!) was that the titles were different than what we (the audience) were teased last year. The first episode is still called MadMax, but the rest are different. I don’t know what went on in the creative process. But, then again, ‘what’s in a name’.

Anyway I decided to use the ‘original’ teased titles as a coat rack to hang my article on. Beginning with MadMax or: (New) adult characters.

The reason why the first season worked so well was because the characters were all so very well written. Especially Winona Ryder was a hoot as Joyce Byers; the ultimate lioness of a mother willing to do anything to protect her cub. In that season she came up with a clever scheme to communicate with her lost son. This season showcases her intelligence yet again as a woman who has, by now, fully accepted the stranger things going on in her hometown. It’s this acceptance and her blind love for (and trust in) her child that makes her one of the favourite characters in the show.

That and the fact that she can be, at times, mad as a hatter. This is a hilarious overprotective woman who isn’t afraid to break her house down if it would save her son. It’s a logical madness that, at first glance, might look like a weakness but instead makes the Joyce character richer.

Then there’s Bob (Sean Astin). I liked Bob. But was for a while afraid that good Bob might be a bad Bob.

I like saying the name: Bob!

Even though he’s mainly written in the show as for his BASIC-skill set -and his The Goonies fame- he does bring a nice stability to the Byers family. He’s the new goofy normality that this dysfunctional family is striving for. Given the fact that Sean Astin has cemented himself in Hollywood as the go to nice guy it’s nice to see him charm his way through the episodes. His character’s love for Joyce is real and he really is trying to connect to the boys. Like Sherriff Hopper he is a man willing to do anything to protect and serve.

A much better part than what the actor got handed in The Strain.

This brings us to the villain of the piece: Dr. Owens (Paul Reiser) of Aliens-fame. Who, in fact, isn’t a villain at all. In the character’s own words (paraphrasing):”I’m the schmuck people brought in the fix the mess.”

Yes, he works for the ‘dark side’. But his morality is straight as an arrow. He is a great antidote to last year’s Dr. Brenner; because he's the nicest 'villain' ever. This is, I consider, a great move on the creators’ part. We already had one big human villain in the show, why would we need another one?

Nerdy me, by the way, loved the final Lab-showdown for the character because it kept reminding me of this little YouTube sci-fi gem: the tower. Watch this one, it’s great!

One bad beat, though, are Mike’s mom and dad. They take quite a step backwards this season. Last year Mike’s mother was the pillar of stability in the Wheeler household. When Mike thought Will was dead he went to his caring mother to cry. This season she comes across as a ‘desperate housewife’. Like the character has been turned upside down.

The Boy Who Came Back to Life – (New) child characters

Another smart move the creators made this season was changing the spotlight of the characters. In the first season it was Mike (Finn Wolfhard) and Eleven’s (Millie Bobby Brown) show. Will (Noah Schnapp) was missing most of the time and Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo) and Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin) were in the background doing their thing. This season the character focus has been turned ‘upside down’ (sorry for the pun).

For a short while it is suspected that this season is going to be all Will. And certainly the actor gets a lot more to do this season. He’s an emotional wreck trying to cope with the darkness that’s hunting him. Plus he, once again, is allowed to showcase his intelligence to his mother. He certainly is Will the wise! But in the end, without spoiling too much, when darkness engulfs him the focus remains steadily on Dustin, Lucas and the new girl in town Max (Sadie Sink).

I did get my wish though: evil Will. Awesome!

It’s always difficult to include a new character in a beloved show. And, I must admit, it took me a while to warm up to Max. The reason for this is actually spotlighted in the show itself as Mike tells her (paraphrasing): "I'm the Paladin, Will is the Cleric, Dustin the Bard, Lucas the Ranger and Eleven the Mage." There’s no real reason to have the girl around (apart from the hilarious hormones-related scenes for Dustin and Lucas). Most of the time she’s in the background reacting to what’s happening.

This has partly to do with the fact that it takes a while before the audience learns the truth about her and her brother. And when ‘we’ do it turns out that she isn’t part of the whole mystery (yet).

That doesn’t make me dislike her. In fact the actress plays her part beautifully. It’s just that her part, for now, only functions to flesh out the Lucas and Dustin parts.

Lucas and Dustin then are the true main characters of this season. Lucas has a loving family (‘in which mom is always right’) with an annoying sister to boot. And Dustin has a cat lady for a mother (of course he does) and a penchant for creepy animals and swearwords.

SPOILER: As in the first season I like the logic in this show. It isn't Will's thrown up slug that happens to happen upon Dustin's dustbin. No there are more. It's like putting some logic to a ‘leap in logic’ audience members have grown accustomed to.

Both boys shine in their increased roles. Especially McLaughin’s Lucas makes up for lost character development that was lacking last season. And Matarazzo’s Dustin just keeps on being hilarious – but with a real heart as is shown in the last ten minutes of the season.

The Pumpkin Patch – The eleven episode

Eleven or Jane, was left out for most of this season. A snippet here and there of her sulking in her cabin. With one delicious puberty-fuelled outburst of jealousy.

There are several things to keep in mind when writing a character like Eleven. For starters her powers need to be contained. You can never have a superhero who’s too powerful. That’s why Superman has his kryptonite. So that’s one of the reasons why Eleven had to be locked away most of the season.

Second, with such a mystery shrouded character, you’d want to explore her past a bit. But by doing that there’s always a danger of hurting the other characters.

Supposedly Mike was there when Eleven visited her ‘mama’. The writers have to incorporate his character’s reaction to what he learns there. And maybe that doesn’t work in the long run.

So by taking Eleven away from Hawkins the show creates a nice standalone episode that either works for the overall show or can be discarded: a safe bet. It might feel a bit out of place in the grand scheme of things. But then, again, her character needs it.

Kali/eight (Linnea Berthelsen), in this episode, is, to me, a good addition to the Eleven-mythology. This revenge-driven (let’s be honest) psychopath serves in the overall storyline of Eleven as both an expansion as a setting of borders (quite literally really). Eleven learns that she’s not alone. Yet she also accepts her goodness and love for those people who helped her a year back.

This episode is a nice change from the rural American style that is Stranger Things. Plus it allowed the creators to do one thing which every sequel-maker wants to play around with: bring a 80s city to life due to a bigger budget.

The Palace – Sequel galore

As I said in the opening this season of Stranger Things wears it’s ‘2’ with pride.

Just remember the ‘rules of the sequel’ from Scream 2:

• The body count is always bigger.
• The death scenes are always much more elaborate, with more blood and gore.
• Never, ever, under any circumstances assume the killer is dead.

All this happens in Stranger Things 2. But there’s more.

There are, for instance, several references to Indiana Jones and the temple of Doom. Blocks under a child’s feet to drive a car. Hopper picking up his hat from the ground. And, of course, Nancy and Jonathan’s internal discussion at the ‘conspiracy theorists house’.

I like the couple very much. But, like last season, their storyline (Barb) is a bit detached from the rest of the show.

This brings me to the other ‘sequel’ thing I wish to highlight here: fans!

I’ve been reading on fan culture for years now (Henry Jenkins’ Textual Poachers and Matt Hill’s Fan cultures are the cornerstone books on fan research). And if there’s one thing that’s always a bit murky is the question if ‘whether or not a creator should give the fan what he/she wants?’. The will-they-won’t-they-issue.

Should the creator hold off on the payoff of letting the hero and heroine get together or not? Sometimes it works (e.g. Bones). Sometimes it doesn’t (e.g. Glee) or it’s too late (e.g. Frasier). That’s one of the ways of looking at why Eleven was in her cabin most of this season. Because the payoff between her and Mike already happened – they are in (childish) love.

The conspiracy theorist Murray Bauman (a hilarious part by Brett Gelman) takes this issue head on. In a meta-sense he explains the problem of being a fan: ‘you want it to happen, whilst, at the same time you don’t’. It’s like postponing desert – the best part of a meal.

The inclusion of this scene makes Stranger Things 2 as a sequel even richer. It knows what it is (like Mike explaining Max the function of each member of the group). It knows the sequel tropes it’s dancing to. So why not highlight it? Like nostalgia. That’s why the show indulges in those hilarious ‘photo moments’. And that’s certainly why one of the episodes ends with the Ghostbusters song. That’s what the fans want – so give it to them! But don’t let them forget that –as a group of philosophers once said: ‘you can’t always get what you want!’

The Pollywog – Some critiques

Directing-wise this season is as solid as the first. But with the twist that –apart from the increased budget for lavish special effects- there is a sense of some fun with the camera. There’s a great long take shot at the Halloween party (ever since Goodfellas that’s a thing – long takes and social gatherings). And there’s a wonderful rotating shot of Sherriff Hopper in the tunnel.

I don't know; I'm a sucker for those claustrophobic backlit shots.

It’s only the flow of the story that feels a bit off this time ‘round.

As I said before it took (quite) a while before Mike and Eleven got together again (for various reasons). But then there’s Kali’s appearance in the opening and the way she’s ‘forgotten’ for the next six episodes. Or the long time before the show allowed some character development for Billy (Dacre Montgomery). I think these things should have been shifted.

I liked that scene of Billy with his father. Just simple little 'names' like faggot. You don't say that to your son no matter how out of line he is! So just this particular swearword made me dislike the father with a vengeance. Quite the achievement for the singular scene he was in. Having said that, even though I understand the evil stepbrother better doesn't mean that I like him. Him, picking on little girls. Slamming a plate against poor Steve's head in (what he intended to be) a honest fistfight. Tsk tsk.

Billy, for me stayed an evil no-good bastard because his character development came too late. Kali, I almost forgot about until Eleven visited the big city.

Then there’s the general mystery of the show which starts a bit late as well. In this season there isn’t a missing boy-case in the very first episode. It takes a while to get started. I’m on two minds about this one. I liked the little tickle here and there before the season shifted in top gear at the Mew Mew-moment. But maybe it should have happened sooner.

 By the way: putting a kid under, out again and under again. I'm not an anaesthetist and neither are any of the characters. But, this is one of those tropes that just keep on giving.

A final scriptural issue I have with this season of Stranger Things is the last episode. It contained some rather convenient writing on the Steve part just to keep his character involved. A problem derived from too many (fan favourite) characters to juggle near the end. But, having said that, -as with the rest of the show- the show does deal with this issue with such charm that it’s (almost) easily forgiven.

The Secret Cabin – Spoiler galore.

Alright, this is the paragraph to skip if you do not wish to be spoiled. Final warning!

So now with the portal closed all seems quiet in the little town of Hawkins. In fact, the story has been wrapped up so nicely with a string and a bow (and two kisses this time –again the number ‘2’) that it is safe to assume that next year something cataclysmically has to happen to get everybody involved once again. At least there are some parts left out in the open: Will Dustin finally get a girlfriend? Will Steve get a girlfriend?

I'm still hoping for some residue superpower residing in Will. We've had a somewhat evil Will which was great. But, now I want to see him truly be part of the group instead of the victim. Something like a scene in the upside down in which Will goes: "Don't worry guys...been here before. I got this!” Who knows; maybe he became immune to the upside-down gooey.

Anyway, that would mean that one of the other boys might become a victim next year. My guess is Dustin and the stuff he inhaled in the tunnel.

Other loose strands are off course the evil stepbrother Billy with his terribly unbuttoned shirt (and give him a razor please). And the whereabouts of Dr. Brenner/ ’Papa’.

I said from the get go that he isn't dead yet. ‘Big bad’s don’t die that easily. Having said that I do now fear for dear Dr. Owens’s life. A tried and tested method of re-introducing the big bad: let him kill his replacement.

Then of course there is Kali/eight and her trigger-happy friends and the whole back-story they bring in regards to Eleven’s mother. I would like to see them return.

The Brain – The map

The map. The most popular article I posted on this silly blog of mine.

I intend to continue on it. And thank goodness Stranger Things season 2 helped me out. There are three distinct moments in the season that a map of Hawkins is shown. So that’s going to take some prt scr-ing. Then there’s a map of (at least three floors) of Hawkins laboratory and a whole map of the tunnel system (even though that one is going to be immensely complex to draw out).

Then there are the new locations like the arcade, the three pumpkin farms (each with names or their owners)

Great to see Matty Cardarople. I liked him in Jurassic World and A series of unfortunate events. However, he does only play one kind of character. He's good at it, no worries there. But if he's going to be a recurring character next season he needs some development.

and of course the verbal references to locations. Places like ‘lover’s lane’. Some lakes. The fact that Max lives in a poor street while she goes trick-or-treating in ‘rich town’. The fact that the school is about a mile west (or east) from Eleven’s cabin. The car graveyard now resides on top of a hill south of Hawkins on walking distance to the lab. Et cetera.

One little issue I did find with my map is the space between the lab and Will's house. In season one Will was caught because he lives close to the lab. You could walk it.

Now the sheriff and Eleven drive for a good 10-15 minutes to get there. Maybe there is some artistic freedom going on here?

I’m going to have some fun!

The Lost Brother – Conclusion

This episode has now been renamed The gate – talk about a 80s title.

Stranger Things 2 is a blast for everyone who liked the first season. It’s more of the same with a bigger budget and far more horror. It’s like this season wants to remind its audience that this season is grander than we ever seen before like a sequel should.

Each and every member of the cast is devoted to bringing you the best time in Hawkins you could ever wish for. Some major players of the first season might take a step back from the spotlight to let others shine. But by doing that the series allows for a further exploration of the stranger things going on in that little 80s town of America. To quote Dustin: “Prrrrrrrrrrrrr!”

Annabel: creation – a review

Six girls and a nun are invited to live in the country home of an old doll maker and his bedridden wife. One night one of the girls finds something she wasn’t supposed to find: a possessed doll named Annabel.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, somehow, horror movie sequels are turning out better than their predecessors. Like Ouija: Origin of evil, Annabel: Creation is a deliciously scary movie with a black heart of gold.

The second better sequel Lulu Wilson appears it. The girl is a lucky charm.

There is lots to like in this movie and I’ll get to them in due course. But here, right now, I wish to take a moment and lament each and every character’s selective loss of hearing!
Anybody who has a sister knows that a girl’s scream is about the loudest sound in the known universe. And the girls scream a lot in this movie. Yet nobody hears them?

This is the only truly, silly, thing that I couldn’t let slide in this movie.

Like any other spooky movie there are one or two faux pas (or leaps in logic). You’ll just have to accept them. But sometimes a movie strains your willingness  a bit too much.
That being said the rest of the review is going to be all out praise. I loved Annabel: creation.

Well, maybe one other little issue I had with this movie? SPOILER: What’s wrong with a Bible-lined stainless steel metal box filled with crosses and holy water and bury the doll on a Christian cemetery? A closet…really?

A GREAT OPENING
The movie starts lovely. Both parents (Miranda Otto and Anthony LaPaglia who play Esther and  Mullins) are as sweet as can be and in this wonderful world of bliss when…BAMB, you are reminded  that you are watching a horror film.

I like this turnaround on the famous horror trope. A lot of horror movies have a mysterious grumpy character roaming around (the haunted house). Now, normally this gloomy character explains the back-story about the ghost in the finale of the movie. Thus revealing after the fact that he was a good guy after all.

But characters are all about the way they are introduced. They can change through the story but first impressions matter. So the gloomy character in this example would remain a gloomy character with a little more heart.

So by inverting this trope in Annabel: Creation we are introduced to a loving couple. Whereby the downtrodden versions you see in the rest of the movie still maintain this first impression of sweet people. So LaPaglia grunting droopy-eyed as he fixes Sister Charlotte’s dumbwaiter becomes, by knowing his back-story, a loving character who went through a lot of pain. Not a nasty character that might have some sweetness hidden inside.

THE GIRLS
After the opening the audience is introduced to the main cast of the movie: six orphan girls, a nun and father Massey (who delivers the best joke of the entire movie).

Two girls (Tayler Buck and Lou Lou Saffran) don’t really get to do a lot. A shame really because I think this movie has enough hauntings to go around. But I do mention them because, even though they are glorified extras, their mere presence makes the ordeal these orphans as a whole face a bit grander.

But, I must admit, I’m on two minds on this one. The movie would have been equally effective if these characters were written out.

The other four girls easily line up in pairs. There are the two older girls Carol and Nancy (Grace Fulton and Philippa Coulthard) who each get a nice little scare scene or two. But they are mainly there to feed the power of the villain to a grander level and to isolate the two main actresses: Talitha Eliana Bateman and Lulu Wilson who play Janice and Linda.

If a villain attacks only one person that’s scary enough. But if a villain can attack at two different locations at the same time we are dealing with uncomfortable grand powers.

Again the movie takes a step back to show the sweetness of the characters before introducing the horror elements. Wilson and Bateman shine in these short scenes together that are specifically there to showcase the sisterly love between the two characters. Their friendship is absolute and they are  willing to do anything for each other. It’s believable which makes this the backbone for the rest of the movie.

When the haunting start is when Wilson and Bateman get to have some fun. Shifting between scared out of their wits, panicking and even malevolent-ness these young actresses get to use a whole pallet of (extreme) emotions which they deliver beautifully.

I like to joke that scream queens are getting younger.

After Chloe Moretz’s start of her career in horror movies (Wicked little things, The Amityville horror and Let me in) now it’s Lulu Wilson’s turn to become the queen of the genre.

But then again, as I’m writing this, I just learned that Jamie Lee Curtis is returning to the Halloween franchise. There’s only one true queen!

THE SCARES – CHECHOV HAVING FUN.
Having believable characters with a good heart is only part of a good horror movie. You’ll also need scares. Now, horror movies are known to be (usually) filled to the brim with Chechov’s guns.

I explained this before but I’ll do it again. It goes like this: If a person showcases a gun mounted to the wall in the first act then in the third act that same gun has to go off.

So if a person mentions he’s afraid of the dark…surprise surprise what happens later on.

I remember the music box from the Conjuring 1, the fire truck from the Conjuring 2 and, more recently, the bolt-pistol from IT (quite literally a Chechov’s gun).

There are several in Annabel: Creation: A stair lift, a (very cool –I want one) ball-on-string gun, a scarecrow, a well  and several others that I won’t spoil. And that’s the fun of the horror movie genre. These call backs of things you see earlier in the movie brings a certain satisfaction for the viewer. But they also create tension. You know that something is going to happen with that creaky old stair lift but you just don’t know when or what.

I would even argue that Annabel: Creation does for the stair lift what the shower did for Psycho and the bathtub for What lies beneath. But, then again, I never trusted those contraptions since I saw Gremlins.

But apart from this solid usage of Chechov, Annabel: Creation doesn’t shy away to use some tried and tested favourites. Of course there are the occasional jump-scares. And, of course, a door you closed two times already will open a third time. This is horror-staple and they still work.
In this sense I’m saying that Annabel: Creation is still, in basis, a movie that wants to scare its audience. But it elevates itself over other ghost-movies by including tension and a lot of original intriguing scares next to the ‘old favourites’.

DIRECTING
It is obvious that this movie belongs in the James Wan universe of the Conjuring and Insidious (just look at the demon). The fabulous long-take tracking shot as the girls walk into their new home is a direct copy of the introductionairy scenes from the two Conjuring movies. The way shadow and light are used is more than similar as Wan does in all his ghostly outings.

That similarity does take a bit of the credit away from the director David F. Sandberg. But then again, this is the same director that brought us jump-scare the movie (link) Lights out. Maybe a little bit of work in the style of another director is just what the man needed. He’s talented –no doubt. But I don’t want to sit through another Lights out being frustrated that the movie opts for cheap tricks instead of tension building. And, as I said above, the jump-scares in Annabel: Creation are far more forgivable when there are enough original tension-building scares to counter them.

He does achieve some great shots though. The little joke of inverting a cross. The strange angled shot that starts off hovering over a church. And then, my favourite, a direct reference to the Phantom of the opera.

He definitely had fun making it. But I wouldn’t truly call this movie his own. There’s too much of the established universe peaking over his shoulder.

STORY
To end with story for a change (usually I begin with story); I already let two cats (well kittens) out of the bag at the beginning of this review. Nevertheless the rest of the story is rather logically placed –like a kids’ tea table- around the aforementioned tentpoles of creepy objects/Chechov guns.

Janice wants to leave, Linda wants to help her friend. Nobody tells poor Samuel anything before it is too late. Not because the script demands it but rather because they don’t think anything supernatural is going on.

More so, a small scene between the Mullens actually addresses their worries about the possibility of an evil entity behind some of the events so far. But they quickly dismiss it. This, I think, is a smart move in regards to the story. More often than not horror movies opt to drop these little scenes which in turn causes characters to look oblivious.

Annabel: Creation uses the story like a creaky stair (lift) each logical step brings you higher until you can’t see the bottom anymore.

Annabel creation is already the better movie because of the simple fact that I can hardly remember its predecessor.  Without spoiling too much Annabel: Creation ends with a scene connecting the two movies and it actually took me a second to remember what this whole scene was about.

Overall: Annabel: Creation is locked together far stronger than that ramshackle closet the Mullen keep their creepy doll in. It gives you true, sweet, characters, some scares and a nice bow on top that ties it to the first Annabel movie. That’s all you want in a scary movie. But sometimes a movie just elevates itself above the rest.

Strike - a review

 I think, by now, the cat is so far out of the bag that it can hardly be called a spoiler anymore. Joanne K. Rowling is also Robert Galbraith.

Which is something I always rather liked. I noticed when her first post-Harry Potter book (The casual vacancy) came out that reviewers couldn’t stop linking this new book to the boy-wizard series. And, to be honest, that would be a hard thing to top indeed.

However, when it was revealed that she was also a he naturally this caused quite a happy possibility for the promotional department. Again to be honest, would the Strike books have sold as well if it wasn’t this famous author behind it.

I too only read the first book (Cuckoo’s calling) after the reveal.

Now I don’t believe that Rowling wilfully let the truth behind the pseudonym slip just to sell more books. She’s got more than enough money. I assume that by now she’s living the life we all want: to do a job you love without the financial pressure of mortgages and whatnot.
Creating this pseudonym, to me, really was what it was: to create a new series of books to stand on their own merit regardless of the author.

Rowling loves making series.

I don’t really like the books.
Having said that I don’t always enjoy the Strike novels. Writing the reasons down in this very article caused me to create an entirely separate article which you can find here . The bottom-line is this: A detective novel automatically comes with suspects that need to be questions. And I don’t really like the style that the Strike-novels use. 

That and the moaning about the leg and the poisonous ex-girlfriend.

But (after reading the first two books) something wonderful happened in the TV-adaptation. Whereas in a book each chapter visiting and questioning another suspect becomes dull rather quickly, in a TV-show it is nothing more than one scene after the other. 

You don’t need to start the chapter with the hero waking up and getting a bus to the next suspect. You can immediately cut to it.
 

This because TV (and movies) is such a timed medium that each and every bit of filling has to be left out the door. You’ve only got two/three hours to tell the story.

The same goes for  the ex-girlfriend or the leg trouble. Yes they are important to the character. But for time reasons they can quickly be inserted in fast flashbacks or the occasional grunt or two.
And then there’s another thing I like about the TV-show from the get go: the series fixes a lot of the mistakes the books make.

For instance, in Silkworm there’s a whole car crash-sequences that has no real goal except that it layered the Robin character a bit. Now, inventing a car crash to make a character more interesting is –to me- like making the sky split open and making God appear. There must be a simpler way of doing this.

The TV-show heard my prayers and instead of a car crash it opts from some off-road problem solving. Far more believable and the character development stays intact.
So I guess I can say that, to me, the TV show is far better than the books it is based on. 

With the small exception that intense sequences like fighting or danger are of course less immersive if you see it happen to other people instead of reading the thoughts and prayers.

The TV show
One of the biggest plusses of the TV-show is the way it depicts the words on the screen. For me this involved some corrections of my ‘reading mind’s-eye’. For instance Strike’s office, to me, always looked like a grubby Trainspotting-toilet kind of place. Which is silly of course since, well, who would be willing to hire a detective living in shambles.

The same goes for Strike and Robin. The Strike that I read in the books kept on appearing like an elderly man (Brian Cox maybe). So this love between Strike and Robin (maybe sexual, maybe brother and sister) felt off to me. But now on screen I can believe the tension (and the envy of Robin’s fiancé).
 
I think Tom Burke is well cast as Cormoran Strike. He is as big and impressive as the character demands but also has a quirky sense of humour and an intelligence to top it all off. When he’s thinking you know he’s already three steps ahead in his mind. And in plain conversation his dark eyes hardly ever show the wheels spinning behind them.
 
The same goes for Holliday Grainger as Robin (who has a delicious telephone scene in Cuckoo). The problem with her character, though, is the same as in the books – she hasn’t had her moment to shine yet with a case of her own. This’ll probably happen soon enough. The books are building up to it anyway.

I haven’t read the third book yet.

Then, as I said before the show strips the novels down to the basics. Whole paragraphs are reduced to an equally impressive ‘look’ or ‘cough’. That’s the strength of images. If you do it right you (literally) don’t have to spell it out for the audience.

This gives the show it’s speed. And when a detective show is on a roll those silence moments in time when Strike is thinking things through are the moments the audience is invited to do the same.
 
Visually
Visually Strike manages to appeal to the viewer by showing the uptown and downtown world of London. Silkworm, for instance, has a fabulous architectonical house that, just by looking at the outside, fits in the story marvellously. The inside then is a set decorator’s dream of an odd painting here and there and the tone of light just right.
This very same episode also includes a nice reflection-shot that showcases the skill behind the camera.

So in short: Strike is a great work of television that improves on the books.
Now; I’ve read the first book (got the killer wrong), the second book (pinpointed the killer), but haven’t got ‘round to reading the third one. So I’ll see it next year's time. Time to go sleuthing.

‘Fixing Strike’ a short story or two on writing.

As I was rambling away on my Strike review (above) I noticed that my mind wandered off to what I consider good writing. And what I personally came across when I tried my hand at the craft. So here it is:

I like to write short stories from time to time. I’m not proclaiming that I’m very good at it. But as a hobby, like this blog, it’s fun. However, two things I noticed from time to time I want to share with you:

This isn’t me being an high and mighty ‘author’ or anything. This is just silly old me with a hobby telling a story or two about the things I noticed.

Knowing yourself.
If you like to write and get somewhat good at it you have to do it a lot. Like Stephen King wrote in his marvellous on writing: that doesn’t automatically mean that you are going to win the next nobel prize for literature. But a bad writer can become an average writer and an average writer a good writer –with practice.

But the craft of putting words in order is nothing with a creative idea at its basis!
I’ve read numerous books written by talented but utterly uninspired authors. Whereas, at the same time, I’ve read great stories written in the worst lingo imaginable.

Now, like the tricks you learn by putting words in order; I honestly believe that you can also spark your creativity by doing it a lot.
Step out of your comfort zone every once in a while and write down a terrible person and let him/her get away with the terrible things.
Imagine what an event would do to a person. Don’t just write: pregnant! But have fun with it. Use her pregnancy later on in the story. Create scenarios (her missing the bus because she can’t run, she afraid to fight the villain because of her child…you name it).

Stepping out of your comfort zone is a great way to spark your creativity. That is why, a few years back I wanted to write a story about a serial rapist...

I’ll tell you how I came up with it. I’ve always been a fan of the TV-show Columbo. And one of the defining characteristics of this show is that it shows the ‘how’ the murder was committed right up front. So the show wasn’t about ‘whodunit’ but about how the lieutenant was going to catch the crook.

Framing a story like that gives a lot of screen time to the criminal. No longer is it Hercule Poirot pinpointing the villain in the last five pages. No the whole set-up of the crime and the motivation is crucial to the story.

This is what I wanted to do. I wanted to have a criminal commit his crime and get caught (or get away with it, I hadn’t planned that far ahead yet).
Now, at that time there was a serial rapist on the loose in my hometown. Young women were advised never to travel alone.

And it took quite a long time before this criminal got caught.

And that fascinated me. It inspired me. I wanted to write this story about the vilest sort of criminal I could come up with and now real life was handing me inspiration on a platter.

So I started writing. From the perspective of the villain I wrote a lengthy page in which he prepared himself for his nightly ‘hunt’ –as he called it.

And then I had to stop. This because I noticed quite the flaw in my own person: I simply couldn’t imagine why a person would do such a thing!

I think I speak for the majority of men folk when I say that a woman screaming ‘no don’t’ isn’t the best motivation (maybe I’m naïve, but I'm happy to be). So this whole concept of a guy actually enjoying the resistance is strange to me. I simply cannot imagine what the fun part is for someone  about non-consensual force in intercourse.
So there I had a problem. I had a whole police investigation planned out. The crook staying one step ahead all the time. But I simply couldn’t write the crook or the actual crime because I couldn’t see why he did it. Try as I might.
So I learned a lot about myself during this writing exercise. I  have to stick with villains whose motivation and drives I might actually understand. A good old-fashioned murder or something.
Creativity is fun. Stepping out of you comfort zone is fun. But it isn’t a key to an unlimited magazine of pick-ready notions.

The structure
Quick: name two Agatha Christie novels! Chances are that you named Murder on the Orient Express and And then there were none (I’ll forgo on the original two racist titles).
What is the similarity between those two novels. They are both, when you get down to it, locked room thrillers. Ten or more people in an isolated location. One of them is the killer.

One of the reasons why these two novels are the best known of her repertoire is because this ‘trick’ of an isolated location takes away the common trope of the detective novel.
In any standard detective novel the detective gets a case and starts investigating. In chapter three he questions suspect A. In chapter four suspect B. And so on. In chapter twelve he then points out the culprit.

It’s this structure that made me stop reading the Cormoran Strike novels by Robert Galbraith.
Christie in her two most famous novels takes away the travel time between suspect A and B. They are all in a room together. You can mix things up and question two suspects in one chapter. You can have fun without having to write lengthy parts of the story about how the detective got up in the morning and caught the tube to Whitechapel.

I’m currently writing a story about a serial murderer (murder is something I can comprehend. Rape still a no-no.) and I found myself caught with the detective hopping from place to place investigating suspects.

So I took a leaf out of Christie’s greatest hits and set it all in a small village. Easy. Problem solved.  Now I don’t have to take the tube, bus, airplane or helicopter for all that matter. My detective can interview suspects on the fly.

That’s two things I want to share here: Be creative but keep it manageable for yourself. And, second, when you write stay wary of the structural deadfalls.

I liked writing this. I don’t, really, know why. I guess I’m a sucker for handing out free advice through the anonymity of the Internet (that way it doesn’t feel forced). Maybe I’ll continue this in later chapters with other things I noticed.

The Stranger Things (season 2) posters

What a sense of humour the Stranger Things-poster designers are having.
We already know that the creators of Stranger Things have another few seasons planned.

Now that Game of Thrones is running at an end and I've given up on House of Cards (It should have ended with a three/four season run - now it's just dragging) I'm 'shopping' for something fresh. Stranger Things could be the key.

At least -as I stated in a previous (short) article- I have faith in the Duffer brothers' long term plans for the show.

Anyway here we have season two coming at us and the show doesn't want us to forget the amount of tribute that is encompassed in this show. Each and every little poster they 'upped' ever since July has been a 'parody'/tribute to a classical children's/adventure/horror-eighties movie poster.
And I love the show for it even more. These are brilliant designs that tell one single truth: old movies are just as great today as they were then!

Lucius 1 & 2 – a (somewhat) game review.

Lucius is one of the many sons of Satan. In his first adventure he discovers his powers and uses it to kill his family and servants. In his second tale he murders anybody indiscriminately. The boy is pure evil and you, as the player, has to be evil with him.

Let’s start with a title explanation: ‘Lucius 1 and  2 – a (somewhat) game review.’
Both the Lucius games are so riddled with errors and mistakes that you can hardly call it a game. Character’s that won’t die, items that float in the air or sudden disappearances from your inventory. Half of both the games is trying to find a way around the silly errors the games throw at you.

But, having said that, the game that remains is simply far too (wickedly) delicious not to like!

The best way I can describe it is by comparing it to Peter Molyneux´s original idea for the Fable-franchise of games.

His idea was (as usual for him) far grander than could be achieved at the time. He wanted to create a game in which the choice of a good or bad path were much more difficult to achieve from the onset. A game wherein every death counts and that the children of the dead could come to hunt you.
What Fable ended up to be was a game in which the choice between bad and good were rather black and white. ‘Do you wish to help kidnappers or protect the family?’ The only moment in the game I (the player) was truly bad was when I sacrificed two murderous criminals to get a rather cool crossbow.

Don’t judges get a salary when they condemn a man?

Lucius, however, is different. In these games you are bad to the bone for the get go. It’s the ground the temple is build upon –if you will. So you play a bad guy (boy).
And in this sense it is far more honest than any other game wherein the hero mows down hundreds of adversaries and still remains good.

Like The Saboteur in which you can drive over numerous civilians and still remain the hero. 

I prefer Second World War-games because of Nazi’s. Nazi’s were (and are) the scum of the earth so my conscious is far more comfortable with killing those (regardless of the children they leave behind or their backstory) than in any contemporary game in which my mind starts boggling about political agendas or cold-war outside influences.

In Lucius you play the anti-Christ; evil incarnate. And playing a game with such a mindset makes you care less about the personal life of each of the characters you kill.

Yet the games do like to play around with it. Each person you kill has somewhat of a back-story (written down in a short synopsis when your mouse hovers over the character).

This game forces you to accept the ‘dark side’ and just go with it. This makes ‘killing granny’ far more easier.

It does happen, though, throughout the games that you sometimes come across characters you do not wish to kill.
Babies for instances are still a ‘no-no’ (even the game programmers didn’t dare to touch upon this subject). And, halfway through the second game, I stumbled upon a gay couple having sex in a bathroom. I was so happy that the game-makers dared to include same-sex love I almost (almost) didn’t have the heart to kill them.

What makes Lucius such a nice game to play is mainly because of the brutality of it all. You (the player) constantly find yourself plotting an planning your next murder without getting caught. But you are also trying to solve riddles.
Here we have a guy walking to a phones every 30 seconds. Accept the darkness and go with it: “Now, what can I do with an electrical wire and a phone?”
It is a murder spree that let’s you get away with it without having to bother about consciousness or whether or not ‘I’ should do this.

The story around it is fun (especially if you like horror-movies) but unimportant. Each level brings you new ways to kill a person. In the end acid and poison are the ones you use when you don’t figure out the best way to kill a person.
So let’s tackle the two games one by one.

LUCIUS 1.
What did I like about Lucius one?

For starters the person who planned the mansion needs a reward. I don’t think I’ve ever played a game in which each and every room was so perfectly placed.

I remember Resident Evil in which rooms popped up that were totally illogically placed in comparison to other rooms.

Did the original Resident Evil game have a kitchen?

Second the way ‘you kill’ is one way and one way only. This isn’t King’s Quest II in which you either kill the snake or throw a bridle on it. The point of the game is figuring out how to kill a certain person and getting away with it/remaining a good boy in the eyes of your parents.
So Lucius 1 is a bit of a morbid puzzle. I’ve got an absentminded teacher and a gun…what to do with them both?

Now you might hate killing your teacher (I did). But in the grand scheme of things it is the puzzle of actually killing him that takes the cake. Whether or not you like the person is a duality this game enjoys to toy around with. But in the end you are still evil and you have to make evil choices.

Heavily influenced by the movie The Omen (obviously) Lucius 1 does try to incorporate a dramatic story. And, even though, it is well (voice) acted and all the main draw of the game is still the kill.
So, interestingly enough –on a person psychological level, I skipped through most of the story because I didn’t want to get too close to the victims.

I have no qualms pretending to be a sociopath in a game. But when a character strikes me as sympathetic I will most certainly dislike killing that person (I’m a normal human being after all).
But this is, without a doubt the highlight of Lucius 1. It’s a puzzle game with a fatal win. But at the same time it plays with your player/human emotions by ‘telling you who the person you are killing is’.

In this sense it is far removed from the Mortal Kombat games.

Sub-zero might be a nice guy but in the end it’s still you against him in the pit. And he is trying to kill you.

You have to ‘push the button’ to proceed. Knowing full well that the person you are killing is kind and just.

If you don’t like it…then why did you start the game in the first place?

LUCIUS 2.
Lucius 2, then is an entirely different game all together. Yes, some of the puzzles are still there. But overall it’s an open-world game in which you get to kill people whichever way you see fit.
You can kill a person with a complicated plot of an electrified phone and a call from a distance. Or you can just pour acid over the poor bloke.

Lucius 2 simplifies the murder spree but at the same time insinuates it.

You can either look for the clues and kill accordingly or you can go all out with every bit of ammo you have and kill with that.

Sometimes just turning off the life support of a patient is enough.

Whereas in the first part it were the puzzles that caused the murders that worked as the incentive. In the second part this puzzle element/motivation is removed somewhat.
Lucius 2, in this sense, makes YOU the murderer. A murderer who, by the way, is constantly checking his supplies of explosives and burnable substances.

Let me highlight some of the more elaborate killings:

• Calling a creepy guy on a payphone and then breaking the ceiling above him.
• Breaking a man´s radio and then letting him be crushed by some barrels.
• Poisoning a heart transplant.
• Locking somebody in a safe without oxygen.
• Setting off a woman´s car´s car alarm and then electrifying her.
• Calling a man and flinging a circular saw-blade at him.
• Pushing a man in a wood-chipper.
• Letting a smoker, smoke near a gas-leak.
• Poisoning a man’s facial cream with biological waste.
• And, of course, an instant classic, steam powered firing an adult toy at somebody.

No, subtlety isn´t Lucius´s game.

You can finish most levels without (hardly) murdering a soul. I would argue that only (about) 30 murders are needed to get certain keys (only because the game doesn’t allow pick pocketing).

An achievement the game makers should have incorporated: An angel boy escaping and killing a demon.

Yet you find yourself constantly worrying: ‘how to kill this soul’ or ‘how to kill that’. Only after the fact realizing that there was a way to kill that person that didn’t rely on you using your inventory.
In Lucius 2 the whole backstory of characters has been downsized to a small biography whenever your mouse hovers over a character. This time around there is no ‘playfulness’ between murder and ‘knowing the character’.

Though, as I mentioned above, it does occur.

Rather Lucius 2 is about killing the world in the most ingenious ways possible. People, therefore, become chess pieces: easily sacrificial. And the fun of it all is figuring out the most ingenious way to discard those people.

Lucius is a dark tale. And I’m happy to note that I just as easily play the Ducktales-remake as well.

Crushing a villain with a pogo-stick in delicious Technicolor…One can find darkness anywhere.

Summary
So why should you play this game?

The basis of this article is about the struggle between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in computer-games. In any Call of duty-game you are the hero killing hundreds for the right cause. I never liked that concept.
I prefer a more ‘real’ approach. And I found this ‘approach’ in Lucius.
In this fiction you are bad and everybody you meet is supposed to die by your hands. This is a honesty I like.

I argue that Lucius is more of a complete game because (in this narrative) this little sociopath doesn’t feel at all. In Lucius 1 there was still a game going on between me (the killer) and the victim and how much I might have liked him/her. But when part two rolled along the only feeling the player (me) feels is that whenever I kill a person I then realizes that there was a simpler way to kill.
As Lucius became darker from game 1 to 2, so did I.
A lovely game but play some Ducktales afterwards.

Game of thrones season –what season are we at again?- seven – a review.

Well I can’t get enough of stuffing feathers up in Game of Thrones’s cap. They deserve it. It truly is the one great shows on television nowadays. And that is quite the feat when you consider what other diamonds are on.

But nobody is without faults. So, for this review, I decided to begin by having a little look back to seasons previous and just quickly (In one very easily skippable paragraph) sum up the things I disliked ‘til now. The show is in the final stretch anyway.

The sour before the sweet as it were.

I'm starting to enjoy googling the exact names of the characters of the show for these reviews. Tyrion will alway -to me- be good Lannister simply because I keep on forgetting how to spell his name.

What I disliked in seasons previous:

The violence
That’s one I mentioned earlier. In season two Stannis scalped a man with one quick swift from his sword. And after that things became more and more brutal in Westeros. With, of course, the gruesome Viper versus Mountain fight as the pinnacle of grossness (with extra points because we liked the character).

Now, I don’t mind a little bit of blood every now and then (I’m still watching the Walking Dead for some reason – probably because of Carol or Tara). But I do always fear that ‘showing violence creates a want for even better violence’.
The prime example is of course Quentin Tarrantino whose movies become more and more explicit as time goes on.

I, for a short time, feared that Game of thrones would go the same route. But for now the show has been a sweetheart in the latest seasons so what am I complaining?

The sand-snakes
It is rather annoying when a storyline doesn’t work. The sand-snakes are the prime example. You can actually pinpoint it down to one singular scene: the fight scene between the sand-snakes and Bron/Jamie. Because that scene didn’t work the rest of their storyline went down like a house of cards.

Now there are three ways of dealing with such a problem: ignore, redo or scrap. The showrunners chose for the latter. Which meant a quick ‘bye-bye’ for some of my preferred actors. Only getting back to some of the characters in minimal fashion and eventually killing them all: leaving the best snake (due to her awesome conversation with Bronn seasons previous) alive for only one additional episode.

Master Qyburn
He got dropped into the Game of Thrones universe rather slyly (like he is). But, when you start to think about it he is tremendously one-dimensional. He’s like the Igor from old Frankenstein movies.
I think this has to do (for me) with the way old grand master Pycelle was disposed off (killed by kids). In a deleted scene from season four (I believe) he is shown showing his true face to Tywin Lannister. In it he was a fit man who managed to play his apparent weakness as a strength. This scene was deleted, so not part of the cannon. I hated that. I wanted Pycelle on the same playing-level of Littlefinger or Varys.

Alas, I wasn’t allowed that ‘happy’ moment in the end of things. But I still have that deleted scene- and I can pretend it was included in the show.


Anyway, this disregard for Pycelle made me under appreciate Qyburn.

Accidental coincidences
I loathe accidental coincidences in movies or television shows. World War Z is littered with those.
In Game of thrones they often get away with it. Brienne was looking for Ayra and actually found her (in the whole of Westoros –while Ayra and the Hound were hiding), which lead to the Brienne versus Hound battle. I could live with that. There was enough story to make me believe that the two groups might actually meet.

But Jorah stumbling over Tyrian in a tavern. With the Spider nowhere to be found as well. Again this is season six, something really weird was going on back then.

Poor Sansa
And then there’s Sansa. She went through hell and back only for, when you think it’s all over, to be handed over to Ramsay Bolton. This felt like a cheat to me. It destroyed –to me- the progress she had made over the years. Which I thought was proven when she lied at the Eyrie and made her black dress.

Now, the end result is the same. She’s still the one in power in Winterfell. But to me the showrunners should have ‘either’ kept out this empowerment moment of her dress. Or they should have scrapped the whole Bolton marriage. Give it to another character to undergo it (as –I believe- in the books).
‘Feelings of being cheated’ are always subjective (actual cheating I might be cool about). So maybe this was the card the showrunners were playing. Like Robb’s death, my trust in a happy future for Sansa crushed.

The actual review
But that’s enough of me huffing and puffing like one of Daenerys’s bastard dragons (the fourth dragon: I call him Donnie). There’s lots to like this season. The main reason being: all the storylines are getting wrapped up in lightning-speed fashion with some cool battles to boot.
And to wrap up those storylines, characters who haven’t seen each other for ages finally get to have a conversation again. Like the Stark children.

The Starks.
Well that’s fun to have them all back again. Sansa has grown out of her ‘I’m better than you’ notion and actually asks Arya to be honest to her. Ayra, on her behalf, is pretty (bloodthirsty) messed up in the head. And then there’s Bran who…well I sincerely hope he didn’t die in that cave as Meera stated. But am I rooting for Arya to slap some emotions into the boy. Too bad that dear Meera had to suffer through his coldness on her way out.

He was more into her brother anyway.

I do hope I get to see her again though. I don’t like her going away without any kind of reward. Not marriage or a love story or anything. But at least give her a purpose for after the war. If she survives it at least.

The deaths.
What would Game of Thrones be without a requiem of deaths. The Sand-snakes were quickly dispatched off. The queen of thorns took famous last words to a whole new level by verbally ‘b*tchslapping’ Jamie.

And, knowing full well that Jamie and Cersei are up for their retribution each scene the gold-handed knight is in is gut-wrenchingly tense. He might go any moment. There’s no more need to have the character around.

But the biggest death is of course that of dear old Littlefinger. Why oh why didn´t he think off the possibility that Sansa might mistrust him? Why oh why didn´t he leave Winterfell the minute Bran started quoting him his own words? And why of why wasn´t Varys involved in his death?

Anyway it is what it is. The slyest player of the game of thrones has been found lacking. I could write a whole article about Littlefinger’s mindset when he pleaded to Sansa (did he actually believe she would warm up to him?) and I’m certain the books will have another fate in store for him. But, alas, that’s the way he went out in the show and, to be honest, quite fitting.

Speedy Gonzales.
We are moving at lightning speed. Ravens fly left and right, Deux ex Bronns or Dragons appear out of nowhere. It’s not polished, perhaps, but at least Game of thrones knows when it’s time to go.

Something I wish Dexter learned at the end of season 4.

With only a handful of episodes left GOT is combining characters, killing off some and whatnot. This does make the overall story simpler. Now it truly is down to baddies versus goodies. But also a bit less compelling.

I think all I want is a shot of the camera following one of the ravens from one far out place to the other. Just so the audience knows the distances and speed these birds can travel.

Game of Thrones now relies on the character development from seasons previous to adorn the woodwork as it were. No more Littlefinger having a lengthy monologue over a lesbian tryout.
It’s like an old diesel engine getting started. It might start slowly but by now it’s firing all cylinders and raging across the road.

Filler and Fan-service
This speed does, however, cause some of the fans of the show to accuse the series of ´filler´ and ´fan-service´.
These are two terms that usually don’t have anything to do with each other but, in the context of Game of Thrones, do.

This season was a bit more all out when it came to special effects. I’ll give you that. But at the same time it was pretty mild on overall set dressing.
There were no lavish decors. There were no crowd scene. And there certainly wasn’t (thank god) another shame sequence that required both.

I never liked the ‘shame scene’. This because I can’t see a reason why the woman had to be naked. So when the actress (Lena Headey) refused to be naked again the producers spent numerous dollars on a body-double and some CGI-techniques to make the head fit the body. Money thrown away in my opinion.

Crafting ´deadites´ isn’t cheap. Dragons are even more expensive. So by throwing the audience a bone or two the creators of Game of Thrones misdirected the audience to focus on the cheaper bits. They are saving money for the next season as it were.

I certainly remember poor Tyrion getting hit unconscious in one of the earlier episodes before he went to fight a war. A simple trick that allowed the producers to save some money by not showing the carnage.

This whole season, to me, felt like a building up to the final –expensive- fight. Friends get together. Foes make their amends. All the various storylines are getting connected.
But this also creates: fan-service. Or, (putting it bluntly) what does the general public want to see?

So Arya being all cool with her sword. Sansa being (even) cooler when she condemns Littlefinger. Jon and Dany having (incestuous – mind you) sex.

Near the end of a tale all the little hints an author dropped are remembered and reimbursed. When you read a book about a quarrelling couple you can bet your bottom dollar that –in the end- they end up together.
Fan-service, in this sense, is the logical conclusion for logical thinking minds. The reader/watcher expects it to happen and then it happens. The fact that you can save a buck or two by doing so is a bonus.

Speculation
Which brings us to the fun part of this review: speculation. What is going to happen in the final season? My guess is as good as any.

And I’m always wrong. Neither the lackbuster Lost-finale or the great fun (but slightly unbelievable) Breaking Bad-finale did I see coming completely.

Well, Cersei is going to remain the big player next season of course. Not only has (probably) she sent ravens to the citadel to see if there is any way to control the white walkers.

Her Maester creepy-hand must have, by now, informed her of the benefits of an dead army and its knack for contracting new personnel.

But second I wouldn’t put it past Cersei to be contended to be the ruler of six kingdoms instead of seven. If I recall correctly The twins are a natural border between the north and south. So why doesn’t she uses her Bravos’s sells words to lock the northern army in and build a new wall?

Bran. I do hope he grows out of his rather autistic persona –but I don’t think he will. I agree with Meera that he really died in that cave (having said that I do want Meera to have a proper farewell/reward).

Now, people have speculated for years that Bran is at one time going to warg into a dragon. But now that we have an Ice-dragon on the table why not that one?

It’s something Bran (in my fantasy) isn’t going to survive (but it would destroy said dragon). Or, if he is, he’s going to end up as the original three eyed raven stuck in a tree in the north.

The other theory, though, is that Bran is the Night King. Even though that’s is rather unlikely since we saw the Night King’s birth a season ago. But it does give food for thought.
You see, the theory is this: how did the Night King know that he was going to get a dragon to break down the wall?
All this tracking through the snow is fun and all but if you can’t break the wall you are still in a pickle.

In a behind the scenes interview last years the show creators said that the author disclosed three things to them that blew their mind. The first one was the truth behind ‘Hodor’ –what are the other two going to be I wonder. This could be one of them.

So if Bran is all seeing and he has a link between him and the Night King (happened in the Door-episode). Wouldn’t it be interesting to believe that this link is a bit stronger than might have been suspected.

That this link told the Night King that a dragon would be coming? That the reason John Snow and (most of his) comrades are still alive is because Bran allowed it.

E.g. he needs Cersei and Dany to be present at the final battle so the dead can destroy them and rule the world.

That Bran is now working for the dark-side?
This would be interesting because now the Starks have a danger amongst their midst. Somebody who is plotting against them. This would be a fun move for the show to end on. To realize that Jamie’s choice to throw Bran from the window (almost) destroys the world.

Butterfly wings causing storms.

Conclusion
So there you have my musing on this season of Game of Thrones. As always it has been miraculously/impeccably shot.

I think the only bad production moment in the entire show was that sudden hard-rock song when Jamie lost his hand.

So there isn’t a lot to talk about.
I argue that this season was a ‘build up’ for the next. The final season in which the showrunners are going to go all out over seven episodes.
During which time I do wish for the show to please (please) give Tyrion a free night at a brothel. The poor chap needs it.