#and you have to make the active choice to suspend your disbelief and get invested

[grimark]

i like bad special effects. meaning not just old and outdated (which in a lot of cases were actually groundbreaking for their time, but i digress) but also low-budget or rushed or just kinda corny and poorly executed. i think it adds charm where a lot of more polished productions are lacking.

[bedlamsbard]

So, I get the distaste for Rebels and The Bad Batch (definitely that last one), and I can certainly suggest @agoddamn's series of watching Clone Wars (because wow, I'd forgotten how poor that series could be), but with The Mandalorian, the most I can understand of your dislike of it is how it handles previous characters. Which, yeah, Filoni and his Precious OCs, but other than that, what about it? I mean, the plot/theme seemed simple to me: focusing on the relationship between Din and Grogu.

Ack, I didn't realize that out of context of my past ten years of fannishness and fannish engagement the takeaway from recent critical posts would be "Bedlam hates Star Wars," let alone "Bedlam hates Rebels"!

Look, I love Star Wars -- I genuinely do love Rebels and TCW, I'm very fond of Resistance and most of the films, and there are other parts of the ancillaries (books, comics, games) that I love, like, and/or enjoy. There are other parts of the saga that I dislike, a lot of it that I'm pretty neutral on because I just don't care; there's very little that I outright hate. (There are things that I avoid because I know I would hate them; I won't read Dark Disciple because the old EU Republic/Clone Wars comics from Dark Horse were formative for me and I'm not really over how Quinlan Vos's story line got retconned for TCW and thus the novel, so I don't feel the need to rub my face in it.)

I think, especially with Star Wars, there's a tendency to think that people only complain because they dislike or hate whatever it is they're complaining about it. I don't talk about the parts of Star Wars I actually hate because I frankly don't see the point in talking about the stuff I have no emotional investment in, or where my emotional investment only is distaste -- that's why I'll almost never talk about the ST. (And why I've only talked about the back half of Rebels S4, which I do genuinely hate, a handful of times over the years: I don't want to think about the thing I actually hate.) I talk about Rebels and TCW because those are the parts of Star Wars that I love and because I occasionally want to dig into why there are parts of them that just don't work for me. (And I do realize that if anyone pays attention to what I reblog and don't it may come off as me not liking them particularly; 99% of the time I only reblog TCW or Rebels gifsets immediately after I've rewatched episodes, and I haven't been doing rewatches lately for various reasons.) Critique doesn't mean "I hate it," it means "I want to think about this more on a critical level." It means "I love the puzzle pieces, why does the way they were put together not work for me? How could they have been done differently so that it would have worked for me?" Like I said a few weeks ago, while I don't want to actively add negativity to the fandom, I also don't really want to sit down and shut up if something isn't doing it for me if otherwise I love the thing; I want to figure out why it doesn't work. This is the flip side of "if you can't say anything positive, don't say anything at all" -- I'm not talking to Dave Filoni or the other showrunners (and I would never say any of this to the face of anyone at Lucasfilm), I'm sitting here talking to myself and to my friends about why the puzzle pieces don't quite come together for me. (And the bonus of me putting it on Tumblr is that I can actually find it again, because sometimes I do want to go back and see what I said about XYZ.)

If I'm not actively talking about all the things I love about Rebels or TCW it's because I don't particularly feel the need to justify why Thing works for me, because I already know it works for me. Or because I spent the first two years or so of Rebels and big chunks of TCW doing episode liveblogs, which are on the back end of my "Bedlam watches Rebels" and "Bedlam watches TCW" tags, and I don't feel the need to come back and say "I love the way XYZ happened" six or seven times. Or because I think it would be obvious because I've written something around a million words of fanfic about the two of them. Or because I have three Rebels tattoos and am a Rebels cosplayer, which obviously I don't really talk about on Tumblr but is something that I personally know. I mostly have not talked about The Bad Batch publicly (and only a little privately) because mostly it's not doing much that triggers strong feelings in me one way or another, though I do have the whole "why are these puzzle pieces not working for me, how would I have put them together differently" feel about parts of it.

As for Mando specifically -- look, Mando's fine. I understand why it appeals to a lot of people, even if I am not one of those people. I don't particularly find Grogu appealing either on a character or an aesthetic level. I find that for me personally the show varies wildly in quality from episode to episode; I find it to be a little too clever about itself in how it deals with both the world, its plot, its place in the saga, and its characters in a way drives me up the wall. It hits a couple of really specific things that are huge do not wants for me and some of that is on a shallow note of "I don't like how they do their Twi'lek prosthetics" and some of it is "I don't particularly like the aesthetics" and some of it is a weightier "I'm confused about what the thematic points of the show are because they're all over the map" and yes, some of it is, "I don't like how Mando intersects or does not intersect with other parts of the saga." Or the way that it gets valorized for being live action rather than animated by a lot of the fandom and then gets elevated over the other parts of the saga that I care about the most (TCW and Rebels). I've talked in the past about how Mando genuinely made me feel gaslit, even if that was no one's intention and thus was not actually gaslighting; it just managed to hit on my specific issues. I don't talk about Mando that much because mostly I just don't care and when I do talk about it it's because it managed to trip into something I do care about.

And if I sound particularly cranky right now, it's because every time I say something critical and it starts making tracks out of my usual circles, someone comes in to go "wow! you must hate Star Wars!" or "wow! you care a lot about [aesthetic choice]! why would you care about that!" or "wow! you're an idiot for thinking XYZ would happen/not happen!" or variations thereof. I've been in fandom for twenty years. I've been in this fandom since George W. Bush was president. I know how it goes. I'm going to reiterate the post I made after the Mando finale:

in any expanded canon, people are going to have different deal-breakers on where they can suspend their disbelief and it’s not a judgment on you and yours if theirs is different than yours. nor does it automatically say something bad about them! it just means y’all have different priorities and that’s fine! neither one of you should be jumping down each other’s throat because their line in the sand is “this contradicts something in previous canon” and yours is “the CGI is unconvincing.”

I feel like I’ve been seeing a lot of condescension (rather than hostility, which tbh is par for the course in SW so I just tune it out) recently and like…people can have different priorities. it’s fine. they’re not stupid for having their priority be “I don’t like the prosthetics” when your priority is “character A was mean to character B.” don’t worry, Lucasfilm isn’t listening to any of us.

[armageddon-generation]

Articulating Why His Dark Materials is Badly Written

A long essay-thing with lots of specific examples and explanations of why I feel this way. Hopefully I’ve kept fanboy bitching to a minimum.

This isn’t an attack on fans of the show, nor a personal attack on Jack Thorne. I’m not looking to ruin anyone’s enjoyment of the show, I just needed to properly articulate, with examples, why I struggle with it. I read and love the books and that colours my view, but I believe that HDM isn’t just a clumsy, at-best-functional, sometimes incompetent adaptation, it’s a bad TV show separate from its source material. The show is the blandest, least interesting and least engaging version of itself it could be.

His Dark Materials has gorgeous production design and phenomenal visual effects. It's well-acted. The score is great. But my god is it badly written. Jack Thorne writing the entire first season damned the show. There was no-one to balance out his flaws and biases. Thorne is checking off a list of plot-points, so concerned with manoeuvring the audience through the story he forgets to invest us in it. The scripts are mechanical, empty, flat.

Watching HDM feels like an impassioned fan earnestly lecturing you on why the books are so good- (Look! It's got other worlds and religious allegory and this character Lyra is really, really important I swear. Isn't Mrs Coulter crazy? The Gyptians are my favourites.) rather than someone telling the story naturally.

My problems fall into 5 main categories:

Exposition- An unwillingness to meaningfully expand the source material for a visual medium means Thorne tells and doesn't show crucial plot-points. He then repeats the same thing multiple times because he doesn't trust his audience

Pacing- By stretching out the books and not trusting his audience Thorne dedicates entire scenes to one piece of information and repeats himself constantly (see: the Witches' repetition of the prophecy in S2).

Narrative priorities- Thorne prioritises human drama over fantasy. This makes sense budgetarily, but leads to barely-present Daemons, the Gyptians taking up too much screentime, rushed/badly written Witches (superpowers, exposition) and Bears (armourless bear fight), and a Lyra more focused on familial angst than the joy of discovery

Tension and Mystery- because HDM is in such a hurry to set up its endgame it gives you the answers to S1's biggest mysteries immediately- other worlds, Lyra's parents, what happens to the kids etc. This makes the show less engaging and feel like it's playing catch-up to the audience, not the other way around.

Tonal Inconsistency- HDM tries to be a slow-paced, grounded, adult drama, but its blunt, simplistic dialogue and storytelling methods treat the audience like children that need to be lectured.

MYSTERY, SUSPENSE AND INTRIGUE

The show undercuts all the books’ biggest mysteries. Mrs Coulter is set up as a villain before we meet her, other worlds are revealed in 1x2, Lyra's parents by 1x3, what the Magesterium do to kids is spelled out long before Lyra finds Billy (1x2). I understand not wanting to lose new viewers, but neutering every mystery kills momentum and makes the show much less engaging.

This extends to worldbuilding. The text before 1x1 explains both Daemons and Lyra's destiny before we meet her. Instead of encouraging us to engage with the world and ask questions, we're given all the answers up front and told to sit back and let ourselves be spoon-fed. The viewer is never an active participant, never encouraged to theorise or wonder

 Intrigue motivated you to engage with Pullman's philosophical themes and concepts. Without it, HDM feels like a lecture, a theme park ride and not a journey.

The only one of S1's mysteries left undiminished is 'what is Dust?', which won't be properly answered until S3, and that answer is super conceptual and therefore hard to make dramatically satisfying

TONAL INCONSISTENCY

HDM billed itself as a HBO-level drama, and was advertised as a GoT inheritor. It takes itself very seriously- the few attempts at humour are stilted and out of place

The production design is deliberately subdued, most notably choosing a mid-twentieth century aesthetic for Lyra’s world over the late-Victorian of the books or steampunk of the movie. The colour grading would be appropriate for a serious adult drama. 

Reviewers have said this stops the show feeling as fantastical as it should. It also makes Lyra’s world less distinct from our own. 

Most importantly, minimising the wondrous fantasy of S1 neuters its contrast with the escalating thematic darkness of the finale (from 1x5 onwards), and the impact of Roger’s death. Pullman's books are an adult story told through the eyes of a child. Lyra’s innocence and naivety in the first book is the most important journey of the trilogy. Instead, the show starts serious and thematically heavy (we’re told Lyra has world-saving importance before we even meet her) and stays that way.

Contrasting the serious tone, grounded design and poe-faced characters, the dialogue is written to cater to children. It’s horrendously blunt and pulls you out of scenes. Subtext is obliterated at every opportunity. Even in the most recent episode, 2x7, Pan asks Lyra ‘do you think you’re changing because of Will?’

I cannot understate how on the nose this line is, and how much it undercuts the themes of the final book. Instead of even a meaningful shot of Lyra looking at Will, the show treats the audience like complete idiots. 

So, HDM looks and advertises itself like an adult drama and is desperate to be taken seriously by wearing its big themes on its sleeve from the start instead of letting them evolve naturally out of subtext like the books, and dedicating lots of scenes to Mrs Coulter's self-abuse 

At the same time its dialogue and character writing is comparable to the Star Wars prequels, more childish than media aimed at a similar audience - Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Avatar the Last Airbender etc

DAEMONS

The show gives itself a safety net by explaining Daemons in an opening text-crawl, and so spends less time showing the mechanics of the Daemon-human bond. On the HDM subreddit, I’ve seen multiple people get to 1x5 or 6, and then come to reddit asking basic questions like ‘why do only some people have Daemons?’ or ‘Why are Daemons so important?’.

It’s not that the show didn’t answer these questions; it was in the opening text-crawl. It’s just the show thinks telling you is enough and never shows evidence to back that up. Watching a TV show you remember what you’re shown much easier than what you’re told 

The emotional core of Northern Lights is the relationship between Lyra and Pan. The emotional core of HDM S1 is the relationship between Lyra and Mrs Coulter. This wouldn't be bad- it's a fascinating dynamic Ruth plays wonderfully- if it didn't override the Daemons

Daemons are only onscreen when they serve a narrative purpose. Thorne justifies this because the books only describe Daemons when they tell us about their human. On the page your brain fills the Daemons in. This doesn't work on-screen; you cannot suspend your disbelief when their absence is staring you in the face

Thorne clarified the number of Daemons as not just budgetary, but a conscious creative choice to avoid onscreen clutter. This improved in S2 after vocal criticism.

Mrs Coulter/the Golden Monkey and Lee/Hester have well-drawn relationships in S1, but Pan and Lyra hug more in the 2-hour Golden Compass movie than they do in the 8-hour S1 of HDM. There's barely any physical contact with Daemons at all.

They even cut Pan and Lyra's hug after escaping the Cut in Bolvangar. In the book they can't let go of each other. The show skips it completely because Thorne wants to focus on Mrs Coulter and Lyra.

They cut Pan and Lyra testing how far apart they can be. They cut Lyra freeing the Cut Daemons in Bolvangar with the help of Kaisa. We spent extra time with both Roger and Billy Costa, but didn't develop their bonds with their Daemons- the perfect way to make the Cut more impactful

I don't need every single book scene in the show, but notice that all these cut scenes reinforced how important Daemons are. For how plodding the show is. you'd think they could spare time for these moments instead of inventing new conversations that tell us the information they show

Daemons are treated as separate beings and thus come across more like talking pets than part of a character

The show sets the rules of Daemons up poorly. In 1x2, Lyra is terrified by the Monkey being so far from Coulter, but the viewer has nothing to compare it to. We’re retroactively told in that this is unnatural when the show has yet to establish what ‘natural’ is.

The guillotine blueprint in 1x2 (‘Is that a human and his Daemon, Pan? It looks like it.’ / ‘A blade. To cut what?’) is idiotic. It deflates S1’s main mystery and makes the characters look stupid for not figuring out what they aren’t allowed to until they did in the source material, it also interferes with how the audience sees Daemons. In the book, Cutting isn’t revealed until two-thirds of the way in (1x5). By then we’ve spent a lot of time with Daemons, they’ve become a background part of the world, their ‘rules’ have been established, and we’re endeared to them.

By showing the Guillotine and putting Daemons under threat in the second episode, the show never lets us grow attached. This, combined with their selective presence in scenes, draws attention to Daemons as a plot gimmick and not a natural extension of characters. Like Lyra, the show tells us why Daemons are important before we understand them.

Billy Costa's fate falls flat. It's missing the dried fish/ fake Daemon Tony Markos clings to in the book. Thorne said this 'didn't work' on the day, but it worked in the film. Everyone yelling about Billy not having a Daemon is laughable when most of the background extras in the same scene don't have Daemons themselves

WITCHES

The Witches are the most common complaint about the show. Thorne changed Serafina Pekkala in clever, logical ways (her short hair, wrist-knives and cloud pine in the skin)

The problem is how Serafina is written. The Witches are purely exposition machines. We get no impression of their culture, their deep connection to nature, their understanding of the world. We are told it. It is never shown, never incorporated into the dramatic action of the show.

Thorne emphasises Serafina's warrior side, most obviously changing Kaisa from a goose into a gyrfalcon (apparently a goose didn't work on-screen)

Serafina single-handedly slaughtering the Tartars is bad in a few ways. It paints her as bloodthirsty and ruthless. Overpowering the Witches weakens the logic of the world (If they can do that, why do they let the Magesterium bomb them unchallenged in 2x2?). It strips the Witches of their subtlety and ambiguity for the sake of cinematic action.

A side-effect of Serafina not being with her clan at Bolvangar is limiting our exposure to the Witches. Serafina is the only one invested in the main plot, we only hear about them from what she tells us. This poor set-up weakens the Witch subplot in S2

Lyra doesn’t speak to Serafina until 2x6. She laid eyes on her once in S1.

The dialogue in the S2’s Witch subplot is comparable to the Courasant section of The Phantom Menace. 

Two named characters, neither with any depth (Serafina and Coram's dead son developed him far more than her). The costumes look ostentatious and hokey- the opposite of what the Witches should be. They do nothing but repeat the same exposition at each other, even in 2x7.

We feel nothing when the Witches are bombed because the show never invests us in what is being destroyed- with the amount of time wasted on long establishing shots, there’s not one when Lee Scoresby is talking to the Council.

BEARS

Like the Witches; Thorne misunderstands and rushes the fantasy elements of the story. The 2007 movie executed both Iofur's character and the Bear Fight much better than the show- bloodless jaw-swipe and all

Iofur's court was not the parody of human court in the books. He didn't have his fake-Daemon (hi, Billy)

An armourless bear fight is like not including Pan in the cutting scene. After equating Iorek's armour to a Daemon (Lee does this- we don’t even learn how important it is from Iorek himself, and the comparison meant less because of how badly the show set up Daemons) the show then cuts the plotpoint that makes the armour plot-relevant. This diminishes all of Bear society. Like Daemons, we're told Iorek's armour is important but it's never shown to be more than a cool accessory

GYPTIANS

Gyptians suffer from Hermoine syndrome. Harry Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves' favourite character was Hermione, and so Film!Hermoine lost most of Book!Hermoine's flaws and gained several of Book!Ron's best moments. The Gyptians are Jack Thorne's favourite group in HDM and so they got the extra screentime and development that the more complicated groups/concepts like Witches, Bears, and Daemons (which, unlike the Gyptians, carry over to other seasons amd are more important to the overall story) needed

At the same time, he changes them from a private people into an Isle of Misfit Toys. TV!Ma Costa promises they'll ‘make a Gyptian woman out of Lyra yet’, but in the book Ma specifically calls Lyra out for pretending to be Gyptian, and reminds her she never can be.

This small moment indicates how, while trying to make the show more grounded and 'adult', Thorne simultaneously made it more saccharine and sentimental. He neuters the tragedy of the Cut kids when Ma Costa says they’ll become Gyptians. Pullman's books feel like an adult story told through the eyes of a child. The TV show feels like a child's story masquerading as a serious drama.

LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA

Let me preface this by saying I genuinely really enjoy the performances in the show. It was shot in the foot by The Golden Compass' perfect casting.

The most contentious/'miscast' actor among readers is LMM. Thorne ditched the books' wise Texan for a budget Han Solo. LMM isn't a great dramatic actor (even in Hamilton he was the weak link performance-wise) but he makes up for it in marketability- lots of people tried the show because of him

Readers dislike that LMM's Lee is a thief and a scoundrel, when book-Lee is so moral he and Hester argue about stealing. Personally, I like the change in concept. Book!Lee's parental love for Lyra just appears. It's sweet, but not tied to a character arc. Done right, Lyra out-hustling Lee at his own game and giving him a noble cause to fight for (thus inspiring the moral compass of the books) is a more compelling arc.

DAFNE KEENE AND LYRA

I thought Dafne would be perfect casting. Her feral energy in Logan seemed a match made in heaven. Then Jack Thorne gave her little to do with it.

Compare how The Golden Compass introduced Lyra, playing Kids and Gobblers with a group of Gyptian kids, including Billy Costa. Lyra and Roger are chased to Jordan by the Gyptians and she makes up a lie about a curse to scare the Gyptians away.

In one scene the movie set up: 1) the Gobblers (the first we hear of them in the show is in retrospect, Roger worrying AFTER Billy is taken) 2) Lyra’s pre-existing relationship with the Gyptians (not in the show), 3) Friendship with Billy Costa (not in the book or show) 4) Lyra’s ability to befriend and lead groups of people, especially kids, and 5) Lyra’s ability to lie impressively

By comparison, it takes until midway through 1x2 for TV!Lyra to tell her first lie, and even then it’s a paper-thin attempt. 

The show made Roger Lyra’s only friend. This artificially heightens the impact of Roger's death, but strips Lyra of her leadership qualities and ability to befriend anyone. 

Harry Potter fans talk about how Book!Harry is funnier and smarter than Film!Harry. They cut his best lines ('There's no need to call me sir, Professor') and made him blander and more passive. The same happened to Lyra.

Most importantly, Lyra is not allowed to lie for fun. She can't do anything 'naughty' without being scolded. This colours the few times Lyra does lie (e.g. to Mrs Coulter in 1x2) negatively and thus makes Lyra out to be more of a brat than a hero.

This is a problem with telling Northern Lights from an outside, 'adult' perspective- to most adults Lyra is a brat. Because we’re introduced to her from inside her head, we think she's great. It's only when we meet her through Will's eyes in The Subtle Knife and she's filthy, rude and half-starved that we realise Lyra bluffs her way through life and is actually pretty non-functional

Thorne prioritises grounded human drama over fantasy, and so his Lyra has her love of bears and witches swapped for familial angst. (and, in S2. angst over Roger). By exposing Mrs Coulter as her mother early, Thorne distracts TV!Lyra from Book!Lyra’s love of the North. The contrast between wonder and reality made NL's ending a definitive threshold between innocence and knowledge. Thorne showed his hand too early.

Similarly, TV!Lyra doesn’t have anywhere near as strong an admiration for Lord Asriel. She calls him out in 1x8 (‘call yourself a Father’), which Book!Lyra never would because she’s proud to be his child. From her perspective, at this point Asriel is the good parent.

TV!Lyra’s critique of Asriel feels like Thorne using her as a mouthpiece to voice his own, adult perspective on the situation. Because Lyra is already disappointed in Asriel, his betrayal in the finale isn’t as effective. Pullman saves the ‘you’re a terrible Father’ call-out for the 3rd book for a reason; Lyra’s naive hero-worship of Asriel in Northern Lights makes the fall from Innocence into Knowledge that Roger’s death represents more effective.  

So, on TV Lyra is tamer, angstier, more introverted, less intelligent, less fun and more serious. We're just constantly told she's important, even before we meet her.

MRS COULTER (AND LORD ASRIEL)

Mrs Coulter is the main character of the show. Not Lyra. Mrs Coulter was cast first, and Lyra was cast based on a chemistry test with Ruth Wilson. Coulter’s character is given lots of extra development, where the show actively strips Lyra of her layers.

To be clear, I have no problem with developing Mrs Coulter. She is a great character Ruth Wilson plays phenomenally. I do have a problem with the show fixating on her at the expense of other characters.

Lyra's feral-ness is given to her parents. Wilson and McAvoy are more passionate than in the books. This is fun to watch, but strips them of subtlety- you never get Book!Coulter's hypnotic allure from Wilson, she's openly nasty, even to random strangers (in 2x3 her dismissal of the woman at the hotel desk felt like a Disney villain). 

Compare how The Golden Compass (2007) introduced Mrs Coulter through Lyra’s eyes, with light, twinkling music and a sparkling dress. By contrast, before the show introduces Coulter it tells us she’s associated with the evil Magisterium plotting Asriel’s death- “Not a word to any of our mutual friends. Including her.” Then she’s introduced striding down a corridor to imposing ‘Bad Guy’ strings.

Making Mrs Coulter’s villainy so obvious so early makes Lyra look dumber for falling for it. It also wastes an interesting phase of her character arc. Coulter is rushed into being a ’conflicted evil mother’ in 2 episodes, and stays in that phase for the rest of the show so far. Character progression is minimised because she circles the same place.

It makes her one-note. It's a good note (so much of the positive online chatter is saphiccs worshiping Ruth Wilson) but the show also worships her to the point of hindrance- e.g. take a shot every time Coulter walks slow-motion down a corridor in 2x2

The problem isn’t the performances, but how prematurely they give the game away. Just like the mysteries around Bolvangar and Lyra’s parentage. Neither Coulter or Asriel have much chance to use their 'public' faces. 

This is part of a bigger pacing problem- instead of rolling plot points out gradually, Thorne will stick the solution in front of you early and then stall for time until it becomes relevant. Instead of building tension this builds frustration and makes the show feel like it's catching up to the audience. This also makes the characters less engaging. You've already shown Mrs Coulter is evil/Boreal is in our world/Asriel wants Roger. Why are you taking so long getting to the point?

PACING AND EDITING

This show takes forever to make its point badly.

Scenes in HDM tend to operate on one level- either 'Character Building,' 'Exposition,' or 'Plot Progression'.

E.g. Mary's introduction in 2x2. Book!Mary only listens to Lyra because she’s sleep and caffeine-deprived and desperate because her funding is being cut. But the show stripped that subtext out and created an extra scene of a colleague talking to Mary about funding. They removed emotional subtext to focus on exposition, and so the scene felt empty and flat.

In later episodes characters Mary’s sister and colleagues do treat her like a sleep-deprived wreck. But, just like Lyra’s lying, the show doesn’t establish these characteristics in her debut episode. It waits until later to retroactively tell us they were there. Mary’s colleague saying ‘What we’re dealing with here is the fact that you haven’t slept in weeks’ is as flimsy as Pan joking not lying to Mary will be hard for Lyra.

Rarely does a scene work on multiple levels, and if it does it's clunky- see the exposition dump about Daemon Separation in the middle of 2x2's Witch Trial.

He also splits plot progression into tiny doses, which destroys pacing. It's more satisfying to focus on one subplot advancing multiple stages than all of them shuffling forward half a step each episode.

Subplots would be more effective if all the scenes played in sequence. As it is, plotlines can’t build momentum and literal minutes are wasted using the same establishing shots every time we switch location.

The best-structured episodes of S1 are 1x4, 1x6, and 1x8. This is because they have the fewest subplots (incidentally these episodes have least Boreal in them) and so the main plot isn’t diluted by constantly cutting away to Mrs Coulter sniffing Lyra’s coat or Will watching a man in a car through his window, before cutting back again. 

The best-written episode so far is 2x5. The Scholar. Tellingly, it’s the only episode Thorne doesn’t have even a co-writing credit on. 2x5 is well-paced, its dialogue is more naturalistic, it’s more focused, it even has time for moments of whimsy (Monkey with a seatbelt, Mrs Coulter with jeans, Lyra and Will whispering) that don’t detract from the story.

Structurally, 2x5  works because A) it benches Lee’s plotline. B) The Witches and Magisterium are relegated to a scene each. And C) the Coulter/Boreal and Lyra/Will subplots move towards the same goal. Not only that, but when we check in on Mary’s subplot it’s through Mrs Coulter’s eyes and directly dovetails into the  main action of the episode.

2x5 has a lovely sense of narrative cohesion because it has the confidence to sit with one set of characters for longer than two scenes at a time.

HDM also does this thing where it will have a scene with plot A where characters do or talk about something, cut away to plot B for a scene, then cut back to plot A where the characters talk about what happened in their last scene and painstakingly explain how they feel about it and why

Example: Pan talking to Will in 2x7 while Lyra pretends to be asleep. This scene is from the 3rd book, and is left to breathe for many chapters before Lyra brings it up. In the show after the Will/Pan scene they cut away to another scene, then cut back and Lyra instantly talks about it.

There’s the same problem in 2x5: After escaping Mrs Coulter, Lyra spells out how she feels about acting like her

The show never leaves room for implication, never lets us draw our own conclusions before explaining what it meant and how the characters feel about it immediately afterwards. The audience are made passive in their engagement with the characters as well as the world    

LORD BOREAL, JOHN PARRY AND DIMINISHING RETURNS

At first, Boreal’s subplot in S1 felt bold and inspired. The twist of his identity in The Subtle Knife would've been hard to pull off onscreen anyway. As a kid I struggled to get past Will's opening chapter of TSK and I have friends who were the same. Introducing Will in S1 and developing him alongside Lyra was a great idea.

I loved developing Elaine Parry and Boreal into present, active characters. But the subplot was introduced too early and moved too slowly, bogging down the season.

In 1x2 Boreal crosses. In 1x3 we learn who he's looking for. In 1x5 we meet Will. In 1x7 the burglary. 1 episode worth of plot is chopped up and fed to us piecemeal across many. Boreal literally stalls for two episodes before the burglary- there are random 30 second shots of him sitting in a car watching John Parry on YouTube (videos we’d already seen) completely isolated from any other scenes in the episode

By the time we get to S2 we've had 2 seasons of extended material building up Boreal, so when he just dies like in the books it's anticlimactic. The show frontloads his subplot with meaning without expanding on its payoff, so the whole thing fizzles out. 

Giving Boreal, the secondary villain in literally every episode, the same death as a background character in about 5 scenes in the novels feels cheap. It doesn’t help that, after 2x5 built the tension between Coulter and Boreal so well, as soon as Thorne is passed the baton in 2x6 he does little to maintain that momentum. Again, because the subplot is crosscut with everything else the characters hang in limbo until Coulter decides to kill him.

I’ve been watching non-book readers react to the show, and several were underwhelmed by Boreal’s quick, unceremonious end. 

Similarly, the show builds up John Parry from 1x3 instead of just the second book. Book!John’s death is an anticlimax but feels narratively justified. In the show, we’ve spent so much extra time talking about him and then being with him (without developing his character beyond what’s in the novels- Pullman even outlined John’s backstory in The Subtle Knife’s appendix. How hard would it be to add a flashback or two?) that when John does nothing in the show and then dies (he doesn’t even heal Will’s fingers like in the book- only tell him to find Asriel, which the angels Baruch and Balthamos do anyway) it doesn’t feel like a clever, tragic subversion of our expectations, it feels like a waste that actively cheapens the audience’s investment.

TL;DR giving supporting characters way more screentime than they need only, to give their deaths the same weight the books did after far less build up makes huge chunks of the show feel less important than they were presented to be. 

FRUSTRATINGLY LIMITED EXPANSION AND NOVELLISTIC STORYTELLING

Thorne is unwilling to meaningfully develop or expand characters and subplots to fit a visual medium. He introduces a plot-point, invents unnecessary padding around it, circles it for an hour, then moves on.

Pullman’s books are driven by internal monologue and big, complex theological concepts like Daemons and Dust. Instead of finding engaging, dynamic ways to dramatise these concepts through the actions of characters or additions to the plot, Thorne turns Pullman’s internal monologue into dialogue and has the characters explain them to the audience

The novels’ perspective on its characters is narrow, first because Northern Lights is told only from Lyra’s POV, and second because Pullman’s writing is plot-driven, not character-driven. Characters are vessels for the plot and themes he wants to explore.

This is a fine way of writing novels. When adapting the books into a longform drama, Thorne decentralised Lyra’s perspective from the start, and HDM S1 uses the same multi-perspective structure that The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass do, following not only Lyra but the Gyptians, Mrs Coulter, Boreal, Will and Elaine etc

However, these other perspectives are limited. We never get any impression of backstory or motivation beyond the present moment. Many times I’ve seen non-book readers confused or frustrated by vague or non-existent character motivations.

For example, S1 spends a lot of time focused on Ma Costa’s grief over Billy’s disappearance, but we never see why she’s sad, because we never saw her interact with Billy.

Compare this to another show about a frantic mother and older brother looking for a missing boy. Stranger Things uses only two flashbacks to show us Will Byers’ relationships with his family: 1) When Joyce Byers looks in his Fort she remembers visiting Will there. 2) The Clash playing on the radio reminds Jonathan Byers of introducing Will to the song.

In His Dark Materials we never see the Costas as a happy family- 1x1’s Gyptian ceremony focuses on Tony and Daemon-exposition. Billy never speaks to his mum or brother in the show 

Instead we have Ma Costa’s empty grief. The audience has to do the work (the bad kind) imagining what she’s lost. Instead of seeing Billy, it’s just repeated again and again that they will get the children back.

If we’re being derivative, HDM had the chance to segway into a Billy flashback when John Faa brings one of his belongings back from a Gobbler safehouse in 1x2. This is a perfect The Clash/Fort Byers-type trigger. It doesn’t have to be long- the Clash flashback lasted 1:27, the Fort Byers one 55 seconds. Just do something.

1x3 beats into us that Mrs Coulter is nuts without explaining why. Lots of build-up for a single plot-point. Then we're told Mrs Coulter's origin, not shown. This is a TV show. Swap Boreal's scenes for flashbacks of Coulter and Asriel's affair. Then, when Ma Costa tells Lyra the truth, show the fight between Edward Coulter and Asriel.

To be clear, Thorne's additions aren’t fundamentally bad. For example, Will boxing sets up his struggle with violence. But it's wasted. The burglary/murder in 1x7 fell flat because of bad editing, but the show never uses its visual medium to show Will's 'violent side'- no change in camera angle, focus, or sound design, nothing. It’s just a thing that’s there, unsupported by the visual language of the show

The Magisterium scenes in 2x2 were interesting. We just didn't need 5 of them; their point could be made far more succinctly.

In 2x6 there is a minute-long scene of Mary reading the I Ching. Later, there is another scene of Angelica watching Mary sitting somewhere different, doing the SAME THING, and she sees an Angel. Why split these up? It’s not like either the I Ching or the Angels are being introduced here. Give the scene multiple layers.

Thorne either takes good character moments from the books (Lyra/Will in 2x1) or uses heavy-handed exposition that reiterates the same point multiple times. This hobbles the Witches (their dialogue in 2x1, 2 and 3 literally rephrases the same sentiment about protecting Lyra without doing anything). Even character development- see Lee monologuing his and Mrs Coulter's childhood trauma in specific detail in 2x3

This is another example of Thorne adding something, but instead of integrating it into the dramatic action and showing us, it’s just talked about. What’s the point of adding big plot points if you don’t dramatise them in your dramatic, visual medium? In 2x8, Lee offhandedly mentions playing Alamo Gulch as a kid.

I’m literally screaming, Jack, why the flying fuck wasn’t there a flashback of young Lee and Hester playing Alamo Gulch and being stopped by his abusive dad? It’s not like you care about pacing with the amount of dead air in these episodes, even when S2’s run 10 minutes shorter than S1’s. Lee was even asleep at the beginning of 2x3, Jack! He could’ve woken from a nightmare about his childhood! It’s a little lazy, but better than nothing.

There’s a similar missed opportunity making Dr Lanselius a Witchling. If this idea had been introduced with the character in 1x4, it would’ve opened up so many storytelling possibilities. Linking to Fader Coram’s own dead witchling son. It could’ve given us that much-needed perspective on Witch culture. Imagine Lanselius’ bittersweet meeting with his ageless mother, who gave him up when he reached manhood. Then, when the Magisterium bombs the Witches in 2x2, Lanselius’ mother dies so it means something.

Instead it’s only used to facilitate an awkward exposition dump in the middle of a trial.

The point of this fanfic-y ramble is to illustrate my frustration with the additions; If Thorne had committed and meaningfully expanded and interwoven them with the source material, they could’ve strengthened its weakest aspect (the characters). But instead he stays committed to novelistic storytelling techniques of monologue and two people standing in a room talking at each other

(Seriously, count the number of scenes that are just two people standing in a room or corridor talking to each other. No interesting staging, the characters aren’t doing anything else while talking. They. Just. Stand.) 

SEASON 2 IMPROVEMENTS

S2 improved some things- Lyra's characterisation was more book-accurate, her dynamic with Will was wonderful. Citigazze looked incredible. LMM won lots of book fans over as Lee. Mary was brilliantly cast. Now there are less Daemons, they're better characterised- Pan gets way more to do now and Hester had some lovely moments. 

I genuinely believe 2x1, 2x3, 2x4 and 2x5 are the best HDM has been. 

But new problems arose. The Subtle Knife lost the central, easy to understand drive of Northern Lights (finding the missing kids) for lots of smaller quests. As a result, everyone spends the first two episodes of S2 waiting for the plot to arrive. The big inciting incident of Lyra’s plotline is the theft of the alethiometer, which doesn’t happen until 2x3. Similarly, Lee doesn’t search for John until 2x3. Mrs Coulter doesn’t go looking for Lyra until 2x3. 

On top of missing a unifying dramatic drive, the characters now being split across 3 worlds, instead of the 1+a bit of ours in S1, means the pacing/crosscutting problems (long establishing shots, repetition of information, undercutting momentum) are even worse. The narrative feels scattered and incohesive.   

These flaws are inherent to the source  material and are not the show’s fault, but neither does it do much to counterbalance or address them, and the flaws of the show combine with the difficulties of TSK as source material and make each other worse.

A lot of this has been entitled fanboy bitching, but you can't deny the show is in a bad place ratings-wise. It’s gone from the most watched new British show in 5 years to the S2 premiere having a smaller audience than the lowest-rated episode of Doctor Who Series 12. For comparison, DW's current cast and showrunner are the most unpopular since the 80s, some are actively boycotting it, it took a year-long break between series 11 and 12, had its second-worst average ratings since 2005, and costs a fifth of what HDM does to make. And it's still being watched by more people.

Critical consensus fluctuates wildly. Most laymen call the show slow and boring. The show is simultaneously too niche and self-absorbed to attract a wide audience and gets just enough wrong to aggravate lots of fans.

I’m honestly unsure if S3 will get the same budget. I want it to, if only because of my investment in the books. Considering S2 started filming immediately after S1 aired, I think they've had a lot more time to process and apply critique for S3. On the plus side, there's so much plot in The Amber Spyglass it would be hard to have the same pacing problems. But also so many new concepts that I dread the exposition dumps.

[sobdasha]

i got caught up with this not because i did better but because i’ve had no time/watched some tv

War for the Oaks, Emma Bull I began reading this book at the same time as The Innkeeper's Song, listed below. I started out dragging my feet on this one and racing through TIS. But one book got progressively more amazing while the other book got progressively less impressive and my better book is this one. This was the roomie's first brush with urban fantasy, and one of her friends got her a second-hand first edition paperback, and so she talked about it a lot until I finally picked it up and she said "Uh but also I haven't read it in forever so I uh. Don't know how it holds up." (She rightly fears me because as you will have noticed I am a Very Particular Reader.) Reasons I disliked this book at first: - fashion choices that scream "1980s" and fashion choices that scream "lesbian" are incredibly similar and guess which of the two I am not getting, seeing as this was published in 1987. - Eddie is breaking up with her garbage boyfriend which is good but she has an incredible amount of chemistry with Carla which is disheartening given that I know I won't get sapphics and Eddie will end up dating some other boy with whom there is no chemistry. - This is a book about rock-n-roll bands I don't know any of these songs (okay I might know these songs but I don't know artists or titles so I may as well not know any of these songs) it's kinda wasted on me. - oh boy I'm so excited to watch her and the phouka fight like Kagome and Inuyasha or any other pair with this dynamic yaaaaay /sarcasm Reasons this came to be a Good Read: - Everyone dresses so goddamn queer in this book that you know what, everyone except that jerkass Stuart is queer. He's garbage so he can be straight or whatever. It's my reading experience I do what I want. There's no way these people aren't bi. Also it's canon because everyone takes one look at the phouka and assumes he's gay. …………………………with slurs but still. - Good supporting cast. - I both failed to give the phouka a deep voice and also to sustain a Stereotypical Gay voice (which, the dialogue will totally 100% support), but I did accidentally voice him with Tatum's dub of Tomoe from Kamisama Kiss which was completely appropriate in the "vaguely gay vaguely British unambiguously prissy" department, and also entertaining because it reminded me of the dynamics in that anime but, y'know, better. - I almost gave up when the romance hit hardcore but it turned out later that was actually a fake-out that was meant to be garbage and set us up for the endgame much later, by which point Eddie and the phouka actually had the same level of chemistry as Eddie and Carla, so I could actively enjoy the ship. A win! Anyway it was fun. It may not have aged the best in the sense that it strove to be accurate to time and place (see: homophobic slurs), but the character dynamics held up pretty dang well. I would definitely read this again and enjoy myself; in fact I plan to.

The Innkeeper's Song, Peter S. Beagle I was very excited to read this because I was so blown away by The Last Unicorn but the more I read the more disappointed I got. Half the time I feel like that weeb who is like "hello I only like your fanfic you wrote when you were 13 and high on pixie stixs, all your stuff now sucks", and half the time I tell myself, "Maybe there is a reason I've only ever heard of The Last Unicorn and had no idea he'd actually written other books." As you have probably picked up by now, I have a knee-jerk dislike of first person PoV where it must prove itself worthy to me first, despite the fact that I like plenty of things written in first person. I also have a knee-jerk dislike of "I will change the narrator every chapter and announce loudly who it is instead of doing it subtly but unmistakably in the content of the text itself." This book had both. Despite all my harsh judgment, it would be incorrect of me to say that this writing choice is not valid. That this writing choice cannot be used to amazing effect. I do not believe that is what happened here. I did not feel it was adding much to the story to begin with (other than being the shortest and straightest path to advancing a narrative with many fronts), and I was definitely unimpressed when we got to the string of chapters, all of them less than a page and some no more than a paragraph, during the orgy scene where the 3 women have sex with 1 teen boy who's been thirsting after them, and they pay him a lot of worshipful attention in the orgy even though none of them actually like him, and also this is when we reveal one of the women is a man in disguise in the most confusing way possible so my cringe got even deeper as I waited for Beagle to fuck up a trans storyline. (It was literally just "I'm on the run so I'm magically dressing as a girl" but it took a really long time to clarify that after.) In addition to not liking the narrative structure, I just wasn't interested or invested in the actual plot. It didn't feel very urgent or important and at the end I was like "what even happened and also why did it happen." I was underwhelmed. I was definitely the wrong audience for this book. Oh also because I was not enjoying myself I started to get really irrationally annoyed by the way fantasy fauna and flora would have fantasy names and they would be italicized. In a first person PoV. Where the narrator is literally speaking the language that this word is native to. It half felt pretentious, and half highlighted what felt like a loose thread: everyone is literally narrating to someone (presumably collecting the story, after everyone has gone their separate ways) and this has all been woven together into a proper narrative, but our story collector is absent despite addresses to such a person. What purpose does this serve? Does it make it more ~authentic~ fantasy? Because I don't buy it. Now my suspension of disbelief is snapped; I'd have preferred it was either left out entirely, or made into a brilliant framing device like in The Name of the Wind.

Giant Bones, Peter S. Beagle This one was short stories "set in the same universe as The Innkeeper's Song", which basically meant some city names were reused, as well as all those italicized fantasy names and the "I am narrating my story to an audience in-story" frame. You know, all the things I didn't particularly care for. I pressed on to see if there was anything I might like, but since I can't remember, I assume there wasn't. Because this left me wanting, and the title was Giant Bones, I went to reread Conservation of Shadows by Lee instead, starting with "The Bones of Giants," which was greatly preferable, so much more my speed. That's when I did the write-up for the last round of books lol.

Nimona, Noelle Stevenson This has been on my list for Forever but I'm bad at reading new books. Anyway! Nimona was very good!! It felt, hm, very self-indulgent in the way that is amazing, where the creator gives themself whatever they want and the work turns out brilliantly because of it. I didn't think I was into friends to enemies to lovers but apparently I love it wen Stevenson handles it (see: She Ra reboot). Speaking of She Ra, I probably would have figured out where the end game was going if I'd read Nimona before looool. I know people referenced it when they talked ships but I just….didn't...pay enough attention. There was found family stuff I enjoyed, dad stuff, I'm finding that I am liking a lot of takes on monster girls, etc. Anyway it gave me a lot of feelings, it was funny, it was good, I need to get a copy.

The Dragon Pearl, Yoon Ha Lee The first time I talked about this book I mentioned something about the pacing and suspending disbelief or whatever, but I want to note that this time the pacing felt perfect and the plot didn't seem weird at all, it flowed very smoothly. I don't know if that's because it was a reread and I knew where it was going, or because I just read it awkwardly the first time. Anyway. Something that stood out to me this time is that, near the end, I realized this story is a bit animated Disney Mulan. There's even the "you broke this you broke that you impersonated a soldier but also you saved China so thanks" bit. Where The Dragon Pearl is wildly different from other Mulan-type stories that I like (see: Monstrous Regiment) is that it is entirely ungendered. (There are some mentions of gender in the book. These amount mostly to, "most foxes choose to be female because Tradition but one of my cousins decided to be male like my brother and no one mocks him for it" and "official name tags also include handy signifiers of which personal pronouns a person prefers.") What I'm trying to say is, a lot of other stuff when dealing with/trying to deconstruct gender stereotyping, ends up reinforcing it in a way. In order to illustrate why the stereotypes are wrong, they end up repeating the stereotypes a lot in order to argue against them. The Dragon Pearl, on the other hand, is genderless in a way that doesn't reinforce the gender binary. There are no gendered clothes. There are no gendered bathrooms. There are no gendered hairstyles or accessories. There are no gendered actions or emotions or stereotypes. There are no gendered bodies (the differences highlighted between Min and Jang-who-she's-shapeshifting-into are of build ie, height, center of gravity, not of private bits). No plot points revolve around the maleness of the person Min is impersonating; no plot points revolve around the femaleness of Min. And they/them? It's never explained why any person uses that pronoun. They just do so that's just how it is. I just think this is amazingly neat and I wanna applaud Lee for this finesse.

The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue, Mackenzi Lee I put this on my list because Queer and people were recommending it, but it was not well-advertized to me. I was expecting shallow teen romance, but dressed in historical clothes and unsubtly, unabashedly, unashamedly GAY. So I was expecting some gay. I was not expecting gay pining I actually enjoyed, I was not expecting call-outs for privilege of wealth and class and sex and color, I was not expecting the drama of the romance to not be stupidly fabricated misunderstandings but instead be driven by the need for character development and personal growth, I had forgotten I was expecting people of color, people with disabilities, badass women, I was not expecting a nuanced call-out of ableism ("I don't believe I need to be well to be happy", etc). I was not expecting a reversal of gender stereotypes that avoided saying "X gender is bad." Like, Monty is the team weakest link. Monty faints at the sight of blood. Monty is romantic and emotional and swoons at the slightest provocation. Monty uses his wiles to seduce people, that's the main skill he actually brings to the party. Monty cries. Aside from probably Monty's asshole dad who hates him for being gay, no one else nor the narrative calls these traits out as being Feminine (And Therefore Bad). Like, haha, We All Know These Are All Stereotypes Of Women At The Time, but no one says it. I find there's something really nice about no one saying it. Meanwhile, Percy and Felicity are competent and cool and I heart them. (What the hell, I heart Monty too. He really grows on you. He's so soft and in love and pathetic.) Anyway going back to the privilege thing, I love that Percy and Felicity and others constantly call Monty out on his privilege and refuse to coddle him over it. But they also care about him and they are very tender to him, not because of his privilege, but because he is a person who deserves basic person things, when he has his own issues. Your issues don't excuse your behavior, but yikes we deeply underestimated the sheer depth of your PTSD and we're gentler with you because of it. So try to stop being an ass. This book is just super wholesome and I can already tell this will be one of my new go-to's when I need a comfort book. Like Ancillary Justice etc.

The Gentleman's Guide to Getting Lucky, Mackenzi Lee This is not a fanfiction in the sense that is it written by the author and not a fan, but you need to understand, as part of me selling this to you as earnestly as I can, this is a fanfiction set after The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue which involves hijinks as Monty and Percy try and fail hilariously to have their first time having sex together, Felicity tries to wingman, there are miscommunications and nervous breakdowns and tender resolutions and it is absolutely a perfect indulgence. Because it was written by the actual author everyone is 100% in character and the narrative voice is spot-on. Kudos!

The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy, Mackenzi Lee Ace/aro Felicity???? ACE/ARO FELICITY!!! TBH I only vaguely remembered the descriptions for this one, ie "this time it's lesbians," and I was reading this going "there is a suspicious lack of lesbians but so much platonic vibes and also…..maybe…..maybe…????" and like I got both lesbians AND ace/aro Felicity????? Lee wrote this book? As a gift? For me???? I cannot believe I was blessed with "not like other girls"!Felicity as a vehicle for calling out the internalized misogyny inherent in the Not Like Other Girls mindset, and it is glorious. You can like pretty dresses and running around doing science, or you can hate dresses and only love science, or you can only like pretty dresses, or you can like whatever the heck you want in whatever combo, doesn't matter you're still a girl you're still valid and this shit isn't mutually exclusive. Much as I don't wear makeup (I've slowly learned to wear dresses again) in real life, gosh I love Johanna for being like "I love dresses and I love science and what if I was a badass adventurer but also got to be rescued a lot" because that was bitty me. Gimme a princess dress and a sword and a bow and arrows but also a tower to be rescued from and then various adventures. I want it both ways! And that's okay!! Also this is a critique I have apparently wanted since at least 3rd grade, see this proof from my daily journal prompts, I apologize for my lack of attention to spelling and forming letters: "Girls are what ever girls are. Girls like different things so I con't judge them all. Some girls like barbies. Just becaus you my not like barbies dosn't mean those girls aren't girls, it means they like more things that hove barbies. I like nintendo and I'm a girl." Apparently I was a Not Like Other Girls who thought Other Girls were still extremely valid. (that's kind of hilarious though because like, child, you had Barbies and didn't hate Barbies, you are just bad at playing with dolls and props. You're also bad at playing Nintendo.) Other stuff specifically, hm, it was refreshing to not have "I am skinny and perfect and clearly ugly" or even "I am legitimately ugly." Instead we have, "You do realize my torso is a solid rectangle, it laughs at this corset which I guess we are going to put on anyway, also my football player shoulders are going to literally pop the sleeves off that dress" and "I am built like a corgi dog, this is simply a fact of my proportions." Like, Felicity definitely has Issues with her traditional femininity and lack thereof, but I feel like it was never specifically tied to "my body shape is ugly." Also to go back to this book being written for me personally. You know they always say to write things that only you could write, that are self-indulgent, write what you want to see? It's really hard to do without a template to follow. Right before I picked up this book I realized that maybe The Thing Only I Would Write would be saying "a Skadi-and-Njord marriage is in fact a valid happy ending," but I've never seen that before and I don't know what it would look like even if I kind of understand the concept. All the media I consume, if not ending in romantic soulmates, is at least found family. If you are a loner, if you like being alone, your happy ending is to get a manic-pixie-dream-anything (girl, grandson, grandma, dog, whathaveyou) and integrate back into being social. There are no happy endings where a loner stays alone, where you get married but live separately and see each other very rarely because you love them but can't stand to live with them and you need to be alone to exist as you. And Mackenzi Lee just up and wrote it. It's valid to want to live in a house by yourself filled with bookshelves and have friends. It's valid for a girl to marry another girl who is a pirate and sails around most of the time and only comes to visit on occasion so you don't get sick of her and you keep loving her. This is an okay thing for an ace/aro to want, and it's valid to be happy with this. I can't even, y'all. I'm still marveling. I finally have seen a picture of the life I know would make me happy, and it's finally been acknowledged that I can be happy. (The amount of time I've spent, knowing I hate being social, and wondering--how many years down the line, when I'm living alone and content, will the switch suddenly flip? How many bridges will I have left behind when it turns out that I actually feel loneliness, and I'm miserable and unable to make friends and it turns out there are no manic pixie dream whatevers in real life and I fucked myself over forever because I was wrong and I should have been maintaining these social ties now and turning into someone I'm sure I'm not? What if people like me, who don't really get lonely without people, don't actually exist??) Anyway representation matters. Also Felicity being blindsided with Callum's proposal was, wow, okay I should have caught on to ace!Felicity then because that was so very accurate to my life experience minus people cutting fingers off. Look I was quoting stuff at the end to a friend and she was like "maybe that's why there's aces on the cover" and I am a very stupid ace okay. Felicity and Johanna's intense queerplatonic friendship that they keep trying to take up again in among the same sort of "you need character growth" drama that Monty needed re: Percy is also just, chef kiss, god I love this book. I need to buy this book. I haven't yet so what I did is I renewed all the books so I could immediately reread them after I finished them the first time.

[tazscapes-blog]

Creating a Professional Backyard Landscape

Your Calgary yard is your personal sanctuary, but how do you even begin to think of backyard landscaping ideas that will optimize your space?

Here’s a quote you have probably already seen elsewhere on our website, but I’ll write it again:

“What is it about the landscape that awakens the deepest response in us?

Surely it is the very unity of existence.

The sense of the sublime of something far more deeply infused, whose dwelling is the light of the setting suns, and the round ocean, and the living air, and the blue sky, and the mind of man;

a motion and a spirit that impels all thinking things, and objects, and all thoughts, and rolls through all things.

We cannot be anything other than related, for every atom that makes up our constantly changing bodily form comes from the same source as the mountain, lake, bird, and fish.”

 – LEATHERS, 1980

One of the things I learned during my landscape design training was the importance of connecting our senses to our natural surroundings.

Designing for residential home-owners is always a challenge. Seeking to evoke primary human senses such as sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste in someone’s Calgary yard isn’t an easy task.

In years of doing this, I’ve come to realize that by letting budgets hold me back, I tend to lack creativity. I become yet another landscapers Calgary who installs a 12’ circle patio and fire pit and hopes clients will bite.

How ridiculously boring.

In successfully running my own Calgary landscaping company, I’ve learned that I have to let my creativity run. Instead, I focus on presenting what I call the “Maserati” of designs to the client and let them tell me they’d rather have a Toyota.

Don’t get me wrong; I understand that no one would say no to a Maserati if they could afford it. But at the same time, ask yourself how many times you bought something you really couldn’t afford but just had to have it.

Exactly. Striking a primordial cord into my client’s emotions is critical. I hope to show them what they can have in their own Calgary yard every single day and, why they don’t need to travel miles and miles away on vacation every year.

Instead, they can invest that money into their own personal sanctuary.

I initially got this concept stuck in my psyche when I first moved to Calgary about five years ago. A high-end client told me that she and her husband sold their multi-million dollar business and retired.

Her husband told her she had two choices:

He can buy her a house in Palm Springs, and they can go there for six months out of the year to avoid the cold Calgary winters.

They can develop their 5 acres or 2-acre backyard.

Her response to him was: “I don’t like to travel.”

Here are a few examples of creative, “Maserati” landscape designs we at Tazscapes have proposed to our clients. We wanted to show them that the possibilities are endless if they genuinely wish to make their Calgary yard their own personal island:

Project #1: Decked Out Calgary Yard

Located in Aspen Woods, Calgary, our clients had an existing pressure-treated deck that they used quite often. It was a 12’ x 24’ deck, but it wasn’t big enough to entertain some of their high-end business associates.

They also didn’t have any room for a hot-tub they were hoping to install. So, they contacted us to propose backyard landscaping ideas that would accomplish all of their needs.

I followed my foundational design concept of ideal destination points: cooking, dining and lounging. Having these focal points at different levels, I suspended the beam structure overhead and connected each element. This was the most efficient way to bring coziness to the space.

I also made sure that they would have all their requirements fulfilled. There was an area for an outdoor kitchen, a central space for dining and a grand area for lounging and entertaining.

By bringing in the overhead pergola structure, I not only connected each area but allowed for an experiential transition between each space. I accentuated it by adding a Plexiglas’s bridge that would let visitors walk over a dry creek bed to get to the grand lounging deck.

Project #2: The Subtle Picturesque Garden

This one was one of Tazscapes’ more lucrative projects.

When I met the client, she was extremely frustrated with the space she originally had. It was small and – sorry to say – it was ugly.

She mentioned her inability to come up with decent patio and landscaping ideas for such a small space.

In the past, she had a couple of landscape contractors and “trained” landscape designers in Calgary come into her Calgary yard to give her some ideas. She even paid a landscape designer to draft a detailed drawing for her.

When she showed me the design, I shook my head in disbelief. It just didn’t make any sense.

It consisted of a lot of decking for such a small space, especially since the clients were a young couple looking for a low-maintenance, classic garden feel.

The client wanted a Calgary yard in which she could spend hours enjoying the sun. She also hoped to gain something aesthetically pleasing that she could see from her existing concrete patio, and from her kitchen inside. As a landscape design expert, I heard this as, “I want to be able to simulate my senses after a long day at work.”

I knew there was little to no space for grass. With the square footage being so small, I suggested artificial turf (fake grass landscaping). I also knew we needed a feature piece. She already had a concrete patio, and judging from my consultation, she didn’t need anything elaborate to entertain lots of guests.

Clearly, she wanted a personal oasis. I proposed a water feature bubbler so that the calming sounds can give her the tranquillity she was looking for. With vivid green grass (albeit, synthetic) in conjunction with the surrounding plant material, we were able to fill her small space with life and serenity. It couldn’t have been more of a personal sanctuary.

Project #3: The Garden Bar

Located in Bearspaw, Calgary, the clients of this residence had an existing gazeebo they wanted to be refurbished. During a consultation, I learned that they wanted more than a gazeebo – they hoped to create an outdoor retreat. At the end of our conversation, I suggested that they essentially want a living room outside, and they agreed.

As a Calgary landscaping expert, I always ensure that my game is in tip-top shape so I can impress my clients with a unique and custom landscape design.

I designed a gazebo structure that had everything they would ever need right inside. A central fire pit featuring a built-in chimney to release smoke would give the space a hint of primal nature that would evoke their senses.

We also installed a bar/kitchen top that surrounded them, along with two TVs so they could sit back and enjoy an evening around the fire.

And yes, the client used to work as an executive at Shaw Cable – the salesman in me had to throw that in there!

Project #4: Backyard Beach Resort

Clients in Priddis, Calgary came to me when they acquired this new home.  With a lake backing their yard, they asked how they can create a personal retreat. They mentioned that they wanted to take advantage of the water by incorporating a beach for their kids. The clients also said that they had many people push acreage landscaping ideas that they weren’t particularly happy about.

As a reputable company, we take pride in ensuring that each client gets the most thought-out landscape design proposal possible. We went right to work on this project to come up with truly custom and unique landscaping ideas.

I proposed to create a beach resort in their backyard that was so serene; it would lead them to believe that they could enjoy an all-inclusive vacation anytime they wanted. I also strived to make sure they had everything they would need – from dining with the family to entertaining a large group of friends – all while taking advantage of the lakeside view.

Since the family had a passion for fishing, I designed a custom dock that gave them ample space for various activities. The final result imitated the amenities of an all-inclusive resort.

Having a vision for spaces is critical when designing. It doesn’t need to be highly complex or extravagantly expensive. Rather, it needs to serve a function for your everyday life.

[owl-eyed-woman]

Attack on Titan Season 2 Episode Analysis - Episode 9 (Episode 34)

Last week, I briefly expressed frustration over the lack of focus on Eren’s troubling predicament.  Well, I guess the show read my mind, because this episode is all about Eren, consisting almost entirely of an extended conversation between Eren, Reiner, Bertholdt and Ymir. I see now why they structured these episodes as they did; by getting last week’s stuff out the way, this episode can concentrate on Eren’s experience.

Now, I do need to impress just how light this episode is on any plot. To be reductive, this episode is basically just 4 titan-shifting kids hanging out in the trees and chatting. It’s about as chill as an episode about being kidnapped could possibly be.  

The only time we cut away from this scene is to remind us that the scouts are closing in as a type of ticking clock and to show us that maybe, finally, after so many episodes, Hanji might have figured out that humans have been turning into titans (we’ve waited so long, please I’m so tired). Apart from these brief digressions, this episode is all about an intense yet intimate situation, providing an opportunity to show off AOT’s deft characterisation.

But before we get to all that fun character stuff, we first need to establish the specifics of the situation. Or in other words, we need an explanation for why everyone can just chill out and talk for a while. The reason for this is relatively simple; there’s literally nothing else they can do.

AOT makes it abundantly clear that they have reached a stalemate, lovingly detailing the reasons why their only option is to sit around and shoot the shit. They’re good reasons too: they’re surrounded by titans, Reiner and Bertholdt are the only ones with ODM gear, all of them are too exhausted to turn into titans, they need to heal, and so on. Every possibility is accounted for and comprehensively dismissed, just to force the audience to suspend their disbelief and hopefully alleviate our inevitable frustration. It’s quite sneaky when you think about it.

So Eren is caught in a situation where wits and a cool head are essential. To further complicate matters, Eren is forced to work with Ymir. This is the first time we’ve seen Eren and Ymir properly interact and I think I can guess the reason why; Eren and Ymir are such fundamentally different people, it’s obvious that they really don’t like each other. Eren is naturally idealistic and moralistic, wearing his emotions and his ethics on his sleeve. Ymir is unfailingly cynical and frequently selfish, concealing her true intentions behind several layers of snark and misdirection. If they had to choose who they’d be stuck with like this, I’m sure that they’d be each other’s last choice. It’s telling that Eren, the guy who trusts almost every single one of his fellow cadets, isn’t sure if he can trust Ymir.

In general, this whole situation is completely antithetical to Eren. Eren is a man of action and emotion, so the fact that he has to stay put and stay calm is practically torture. Funnily enough, Eren is fully aware of this and that, in order to succeed, he’ll need to supress his emotions; this is obviously a big ask for Eren, the most emotionally volatile character in AOT. I mean, I’m sure he’ll fail (and he does) but it’s nice to see that he’s aware of his flaws and is actively trying to address them. Progress!

Ymir, on the other hand, is frankly excelling. One of Ymir’s defining character traits is her ability to conceal her emotions and intentions, remaining cool and detached while secretly pursuing her goals. She is in her element and she is playing the people around her so well. Ymir seems bored and honestly indifferent to the situation, but all the while she’s gathering information and investigating her enemies’ intentions. This doesn’t go entirely unnoticed by Reiner and Bertholdt, but she’s successfully using her façade of aloofness to confront them and bide her time (what for, we’ll have to see).

Still, Eren and Ymir are only one plate on offer in this tension buffet. Another integral dish to this very messy situation is the current betrayer of the day, Reiner.

For the first half of this episode, Reiner is a suitably imposing captor, acting very straight-laced and intimidating. But then, something changes. Entirely unprompted, Reiner starts talking about completely mundane topics, about military promotions, about being worked too hard, as if he was still a soldier and not a traitor. For a brief moment, the Reiner we knew and loved, the one who cares about his friends and who wants to marry Christa, is back. But it’s all so wrong.

When Reiner’s true motivations were revealed in episode 6, it was honestly a challenge to reconcile this new knowledge with how I’d previously understood Reiner. Reiner truly seemed like a morally upstanding, sincerely loyal soldier, more so than Bertholdt or Annie. Could I have completely misread Reiner? There had to be more going on to justify this unexpected about-face.

Now, we finally get an answer as the true depths of Reiner’s psychology are revealed. In the face of his incredible crimes against humanity, Reiner’s guilt became so great that his mind and memories split into two different personalities. All this time, there have been two separate sides to Reiner, warrior-Reiner and soldier-Reiner. One side is aware of his monstrous crimes and his ultimate aim, and the other side is entirely oblivious to the truth as a coping mechanism to live with the guilt and find solace in the simple life of a soldier. All those shots of Reiner’s reflection in the water in episode 6 definitely make a lot more sense now; they were there to foreshadow Reiner’s bifurcated personality.

Reiner’s act as a loyal soldier was so convincing to me because he had convinced himself it was legitimate. Unlike Reiner, Bertholdt and Annie never risked their lives for another soldier or even got emotionally invested in their deception; such actions could jeopardise the mission, which a true traitor wouldn’t do. It all makes sense, then, why Reiner risked his life for his comrades and seemed to genuinely care for his fellow soldiers – because one side of him actually did!

Of course, Ymir and Eren are completely shocked and dumbfounded when they realise just how unhinged Reiner truly is. Bertholdt’s reminder that he’s a warrior, not a soldier, snaps Reiner back to reality and has an almost triggering effect on Reiner. He starts to shake with fear and suffer through a PTSD-style flashback. He actually starts crying; that’s how traumatic it is.

As is to be expected, Eren doesn’t react to this revelation well. Reiner and Bertholdt’s betrayal has been incredibly painful for Eren to deal with and he’s still working through conflicting feelings of love, hate, anger and betrayal. To have this betrayal complicated by the fact that Reiner was (in his own messed-up, split-personality way) sincerely loyal this entire time, is truly confronting for Eren. This is all compounded by the fact that Reiner and Bertholdt’s actions directly resulted in his mother’s death; his beef with Reiner is deeply personal.

So in the wake of this reveal, Eren is justifiably livid and almost sanctimonious, verbally attacking Reiner and rejecting his right to this emotional trauma and guilt. Usually, I question Eren’s propensity to ignore the moral complexity of these situations, but he makes a salient point here; Bertholdt and Reiner did horrible, monstrous things, so how much sympathy do they deserve? I do think it’s important to remember that no matter how relatable and sympathetic they may seem, our true sympathy must remain with the tens of thousands of people that died because of their actions. As Eren argues, they aren’t soldiers or warriors or any other noble classification, they’re just murderers.

But then Eren goes and takes it too far, demanding that they stop pretending to have emotions because they aren’t human anymore. I had honestly hoped that episode 7’s fight was a sign that Eren could acknowledge the humanity of his enemies, rather than simply dehumanising them to make them fit into his moral worldview. Sadly, Eren has reverted to his typical response. It’s always one step forward, two steps back with Eren. Humans can do monstrous things, Eren (that’s the point of your show).

Dangerously, Eren’s moralism blinds him to the bigger picture. He focuses far too much on the clear-cut evil in front of him that he is unable to realise that Reiner and Bertholdt are almost certainly pawns in a much larger conspiracy. Yes, they did something horrible, but there is still so much we haven’t been told about the circumstances surrounding their participation in this massacre. While, I’m sure this will not absolve them of their crimes, it will at least explain their motivations and add nuance to this tragedy.

Reiner doesn’t react well to Eren’s virulent condemnation either, and angrily asks what Eren wants from him since his diatribe won’t bring back the people they killed.

Eren’s reaction to this is really fascinating. He is taken aback but then he admits to his naivety and vows to “make you guys suffer in the worst way possible”. There’s something monstrous about the way Eren says this.  At this point, Eren isn’t trying to do the just or moral thing, he simply wants the most violent, painful kind of revenge. Eren isn’t as pure or as good as he thinks he is. He has a cruel, monstrous side that has grown more and more pronounced.

This proclamation might have led somewhere too. But then, Ymir scoffs at him, telling him off for his childishness. Morally, Ymir is the complete opposite of Eren. Eren sees the world in strict black and white and truly believes right and wrong can be delineated in every situation. Ymir is all grey, prioritising her own wellbeing and rejecting moral codes in lieu of self-preservation.

So when she hears Eren’s very simplistic response, she completely rejects it. Ymir doesn’t care about who Reiner is or if what they did was right or wrong. Besides, Ymir knows there’s a bigger enemy behind all of this. But before she can tell Eren who this enemy is, Reiner interjects.

Since Ymir already knows so much and is so unaligned morally, Reiner offers her a chance to join their side. Ymir initially balks at this - she has no reason to trust them or side with them. But then, Reiner brings up Christa. Ymir is often a confusing, complicated character, but one thing has been made very clear: she genuinely loves Christa and will do anything to protect her. This is the key to Ymir’s allegiance and Reiner knows this.

As this episode has shown us, Ymir has no love (or even loyalty) for Eren, feeling either indifference or antipathy. Every interaction with him thus far has been a tactical move to ensure her survival. But when Reiner says that they can protect Christa and appeals to this side of her, Ymir makes her choice to side with them. Ultimately, while Ymir values her own wellbeing, she will prioritise Christa over herself no matter what.

I can only say that I genuinely hope Christa can snap Ymir back to her senses. It’s hard because I desperately want Ymir to stay on Eren’s side, even though it makes complete sense that she would go against him. It’s such good characterisation, even if it pains me to watch her make this choice.  

On that depressing note, the episode ends. It’s a fairly simple episode, but still well-done overall. All will be decided next time…

[fountainpenguin]

What's your opinion on "Phantom Planet"? Are you going to treat it as canon?

Of course! It’s part of the family!

I went into the finale knowing it wasn’t a well-liked episode, but honestly I was expecting worse (Entire Ghost Zone being destroyed or closed off forever, Sam getting ghost powers, Danny permanently losing his, Ghost Zone being relocated to another planet, everyone living in harmony with ghosts, another mass memory erasure, ghosts coming to life as humans, etc.) 

“Phantom Planet" wasn’t exactly thrilling (I’ve seen a LOT of “Asteroid about to destroy Earth” plots, and using it for the final episode possibly wasn’t the best way to go), but it wasn’t necessarily a BAD episode. It was no “Cheese and Crockers”, at least. 

I’m not sure any series finale can be as disappointing to me as the one for the seventh book of the Children of the Lamp series. Also, Jack finally got it through his head that Vlad was no friend of his, so I really liked that! And Vlad’s evil plan worked (mostly), so props to him. 

I can totally understand why people who had been watching the series as it aired may have been disappointed by the finale. But because I’m a late arrival and I’d HEARD it was going to be bad, I went into it bracing myself for that. It’s a little disappointing in context because its existence means that Valerie’s plotline never received a proper canon ending, but honestly, as an episode, I don’t find it as bad as the phandom makes it out to be. 

You’re welcome to take my opinion with a grain of salt. Keep in mind that I seem to be one of the sole people who enjoys Danny having character flaws and making mistakes and fixing problems by himself instead of a deus ex machina character appearing just in time to save his butt really likes “Livin’ Large”. I don’t have any problems with the finale so huge that I can’t handle them and choose to deny its existence, so yeah, I treat it as canon.

Do I actively avoid reading ‘fics that specifically say they don’t treat ”Phantom Planet” as canon? Mmhm. That’s just my personal tastes. Some people turn to fandoms because they like to see the characters in AUs. No shame in that! But I like canon, and as a writer myself, I can’t help but feel a liiiiii’l insulted when someone says, “This creator’s ideas are bad and my ideas are so much better” or “Reaffirming major worldbuilding details they confirmed as canon years ago means a creator doesn’t know their own creation anymore”.

This “praise canon” view is something I am actually struggling to overcome, because it’s a biased and limited way of looking at things. But I do believe in respecting those who spend their time and creative energy to give us wonderful things. I will probably always believe in that. I don’t have any problems with someone saying, “I personally didn’t like the way this is done, so I’m going to alter it a bit”. I simply don’t like someone saying, “This is just bad and horrible in general and anyone who actually liked it should be mocked”.

I favor building on what canon gave us. Devising behind-the-scenes explanations that solve plot holes. Not just tossing things out all together, except as a very last resort when despite your best efforts, you can’t rectify it. I work with moral grays, remember? I believe there’s good to be found in everything (everything creative-wise, anyway; I’m not going to defend abuse). 

I have a lot of respect for people who try to balance everything canon gives us. I raise my eyebrows at those who, in my mind, don’t look like they even tried to be faithful to the source. I understand that I’m only seeing the fruits of their labors and not what went on in their heads, so they may have justifiable reasons for eliminating certain bits of canon. 

To be brutally honest, I’m invested in writing my own stuff. I don’t always have the time or desire to invest myself in someone else’s. Thus, I prefer the easy option: reading fanfics that treat most everything as canon, so I don’t have to constantly remember, “Okay, what were those ten and a half episodes they said aren’t canon in this work?” I’m sure people look at my stuff the same way! Let’s be real, my stuff gets pretty complicated.

(Note: You guys know how much I love BookwormGal’s FOP fanfic, “Never Had a Friend Like Me”. I’m fine with authors saying, “This is an alternate future and none of the events after this point in the show will be treated as canon”. That’s easy to remember! I only struggle when it comes to cherry-picking tons of episodes that in my mind have no reason to be singled out. If you can justify your reasons for cutting something and just generally prove that you tried to work with canon, I’ll support you even if you’re cutting something I happen to like. But if your reason is merely, “I didn’t like the fact that this character made this choice or expressed this personality trait”, then I feel a little :/ . I enjoy stories that are like, “This is an in-character story about what life might be like if a different choice had been made”, but I don’t like, “I thought this was dumb, so I’m going to ‘fix this’ by writing this character out of character". Some people enjoy that. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. It’s just not my tastes.)

Like I said, some people turn to fandoms in search of AUs. Plenty of people like AUs! I’m rarely one of them. I only look to a fandom because I LIKED a show. If I’m bothering to search for fanfics when there’s so much else I could be doing, I must have REALLY liked canon. Thus, it disappoints me when people choose to disregard massive chunks of canon- but only if I feel like they didn’t try. Again, as long as I feel like you gave it a try, I’m okay with you cutting things.

So I’m totally biased when I see a DP ‘fic that says, “No PP” or “AU”. It’s an instant turn-off for me: I make a judgment that this person “didn’t try” right then. So, I’ll look at the word count. If it’s a high word count, I take it more seriously (I almost never read anything under 1,000 words per chapter). Lots of words means work, which means trying, which earns my respect. If the word to chapter ratio impresses me, I read the summary again. Spelling or capitalization errors will turn me away. If everything looks good, I check the character list. Anything other than canon or pairings I find plausible will make me hesitate; ‘fics that look like they’re purely shippy I often avoid. But, if I’m intrigued, then I’ll give it a try!

I only do this if I’m out looking for ‘fics. I’m a busy person, so I’m not always in the mood to read someone else’s stuff when I could be writing my own. Mostly, someone I trust would have to recommend an AU ‘fic to me as good before I look into it. Or the ‘fic involves a character that I like, since I tend to go for obscure characters such as H.P. and Youngblood. Within reason, I’m willing to be lenient when those two are involved.

Not everyone holds this opinion! I respect the right of others to be unhappy with and express unhappiness about the way something was done. But as for me, I have to be severely bothered by something in order to not accept it as canon. And really, there’s only one thing that could ever bother me that much: Breaking continuity. 

There’s a writing rule that states, “Your world can play by whatever rules you want it to, but the events of your story need to be consistent with the rules you establish”. Every time I talk about suspension of disbelief, this is what I’m referring to. Let’s cite, say… “Milo Murphy’s Law” as an example. When I approach a new show, I happily expect to be greeted by a world with its own rules. I’ll play along with you until you betray my trust. I can totally suspend my disbelief for a family curse inspired by the real-life concept of Murphy’s Law without batting an eye. I can’t suspend my disbelief for Milo being weighed down by a stack of paper in his backpack, but not by a 20,500-pound anchor.

So, my devotion with canon may be based in my love for writing; it’s a “me” thing. Continuity is one of the most important things to me, and it’s very difficult for me to like a cartoon that utterly lacks it (except in the case of something like “Tom and Jerry” and “Spongebob” that have an “ageless” vibe to them, where time and episode order doesn’t matter at all, since S.B. is in the working phase of his life, and not in school and occasionally having school vacations).

For this reason, the FOP episodes I don’t accept as canon are ones such as “Perfect Nightmare” (which broke rules like not being able to wish for good grades) and “The Fairy Beginning” (which broke tons of established canon). “Phantom Planet” didn’t break visible canon as far as I’m concerned. While I do have a couple of grievances (Tucker being made mayor as a high schooler and statues of Danny being set up all over the world), it’s allowed to stay.

For the most part, I treat anything that doesn’t shatter canon as, well… canon! I’m a psych major. Law of parsimony and Occam’s razor run in my blood! If it ain’t absolutely broke after you’ve tried your hardest to fix it, don’t toss it!

[thomsonreuters-blog]

Dvd Box Sets - Overview

It's always a good idea to have a Bond box set, although the grade of the films does vary,'' says Rosie. For the last decade, several Underdog DVD sets are released. This new set also comes with a fold-out guide to every season. The TV series box set is a significant investment, and additionally, it is a fantastic gift idea. In addition, some box sets contain just 3 seasons, while some contain six or more. To conclude, the box set provides Twilight fans to observe the full chain of films and all the further features, interviews and materials to find the total Twilight movie experience all in one convenient box collection. The cable box isn't turned on or does not have any power.  Dvd Box Sets

Inside my opinion, if you would like to simply read books and do very little online activity, you've got two choices. If you are purchasing manga books simply because you wish to read each one from time to time and keep it like a side hobby I believe that you should concentrate or think about just get each and every volume individually at your own pace and time. Cult series generate just a few million viewers. George RR Martins epic collection of novels are converted into this amazing televisual feast.

The End of Dvd Box Sets

If you've got an older VCR or gaming system which it's still true that you utilize occasionally, you will probably will need to connect this device via the acompositea inputs. A DVD is so convenient because you're able to workout in the privacy of your own house, and you may take it on a trip when you're traveling. All you pay to get a DVD is media mail postage in 1 direction. You might want to return and re-watch each one of the DVDs to be sure you don't miss any point that's being made if you generally be easily distracted by visual imagery. Frequently, you are going to be in a position to pick up 3, 4 or even more DVDs from 1 person for the price of merely 1 credit. Studios release movies at various times all over the planet, and if it's available on DVD in the usa before it's released in France, they could potentially lose out on box office receipts in the event the consumer could get the DVD.

LCD TV has replaced the huge screen Plasmas from a couple of years back. A television is more than just a means to access your favourite media, it's also an essential part of your house's dAcor. It's a show that may easily be binged watched, so get prepared to get rid of a day or two. Suspend your disbelief for 40 minutes as you watch, and take pleasure in the show. Highly recommend for anybody who is on the lookout for some very good TV shows like American Horror Story.

Definitions of Dvd Box Sets

The characters in every single space car are extremely interesting too. The very first scene is critical as it sets up the underlying theme to the whole series. Often it is every time a movie does malfunction when the owner makes the decision to sell it and purchase a new one. For me, the movie functions as the acid test to determine how much of a KISS fan someone is. The majority of the films are the c ollectors or exclusive editions. It was also the very first Disney animated film to get a Parental Guidance certificate in the United Kingdom!

[fitness-19]

Why has the three-wheeled car been so popular in history and yet never succeeded?The year is 1980, and we are sitting in the elaborate three-story "tree house" behind the Sigma Chi fraternity at General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan, smoking an awful lot of pot.   The topic is cars, of course, and given than the economy is in the toilet, gas is available only on even and odd days, and the 1980 Corvette 305 "California" is maybe cranking out a pitiful 180 HP on a good day, it seems that the days of high-performance cars are behind us.   The Chevette is one of GM's best-selling cars at the time."What about a three-wheeled car?" someone says, exhaling marijuana smoke.  And no, his name wasn't Elio, but maybe he had the same conversation in the same tree-house, a decade later, when he also went to GMI.   The speaker passes the bong, and a marijuana-fueled discussion ensues.The appeal of the three-wheeled car is very simple.   Emissions controls and safety standards meant that cars of that era got shitty gas mileage, had poor performance, and cost a lot of money to build and buy.   A three-wheeled car would sell like hotcakes in the recession era of 1980!A three-wheeled car, which could be registered as a motorcycle, would avoid emissions and safety standards, and thus be very cheap to make, have good performance, and get fantastic gas mileage.   For simple commuting and going to the grocery store, it would make a good second car.   A few more bong hits, and it starts to sound like a viable idea.  The bong hits being the key.The Reliant Robin was made in the UK until 2001, as severe taxes on cars made three-wheelers far less expensive to own.   However changing economic conditions and regulations put an end to the three-wheelers for the most part.  As the UK slides into depression following Brexit, perhaps the new Nissan plant there can crank out these poverty-mobiles once again.And it is an idea whose time has come and gone, time and time again.   Whenever a recession hits - or a depression - or government regulations make building an ordinary car too expensive, people start thinking about three-wheeled cars.   And a lot of them have been made over the years.   Probably the largest market was in England, where three-wheeled cars were taxed far less than ordinary cars, and thus a lot were made and sold for many years.  They also had three-wheeled "motorized wheelchairs" which were leased to handicapped people for a minimal cost, so they could get around.   For an island that is so small you can walk  drive across it in a day, such vehicles might make sense on low-speed secondary roads.The Queen next to an "invalid car" which were leased to handicapped people in the UK to help them get around.   Few exist today, and likely many handicapped people ended up dead or further handicapped if they got into an accident in one of these deathtraps.In other markets, not so much.   After World War II, shattered economies in Germany, Japan, and Italy turned to three-wheeled cars (or tiny four-wheeled microcars) as their solution to the problem of no work, no money, and no gas.  In Italy, the Vespa scooter was born.  These cars are poverty-mobiles that become popular when an economy crashes.  They were even briefly popular (in concept if not in execution) in postwar America, when new cars were in high demand and factories couldn't make them fast enough.   The Davis Divan, (shown at the top of the page) sat four across and was developed during the post-war car shortage - but quickly faded from the scene.   The Tucker was also born during this era.As you can see, transitional economic conditions often result the development of oddball cars.   The problem is, of course, that recessions end.   People make more money and they no longer want poverty-cars.   In the 1970's, maybe such a "car" would have sold, in limited numbers.  And yes, people tried back then to build three-wheeled cars - it turned out to be a scam.   But by the mid 1980's, when the economy started to recover, sales would taper off to nothing.   In a way, it is like the recession of 1958, which spawned the Chevy II, the Falcon, and the Valiant (and put VW on the map in the USA).  Small, cheap cars started to sell well in America, then, but by the mid-1960's, everyone wanted a big-block "Muscle Car".   When the oil crises hit in 1973, we got the Vega and the Pinto.  The car business is cyclical this way.  Remember how many Honda Fits were sold in 2009 - and how many monster SUVs have been sold since then?By the way, if you want to see a collection of three-wheeled cars and microcars, check out the Lane Museum in Nashville, Tennessee (yet another good reason to go there!).   Sadly, the Bruce Weiner Microcar Museum here in Georgia closed a few years ago and the collection was auctioned off.   You can still "virtually" visit that museum online, though.   As you can see, the idea of a simple basic mico-car or a three-wheeled car is one that has been popular many, many times in the past, usually in response to harsh economic conditions.  And in nearly all instances, such poverty-mobiles had a brief heyday in the sun, or were utter failures in the marketplace.   They never really took off for the long haul.So why, other than in the heavily regulated UK, did three-wheeled cars not succeed in the marketplace?   There are a number of reasons, used cars being one of them.   No matter how cheaply you think a three-wheeled car can be made (and they are more expensive than you think), they are not competing with conventional brand-new four-wheeled cars, but inexpensive used four-wheeled cars.   Why would you buy an Elio for $8000 when for the same money you could buy a pretty lightly used Toyota Corolla?   And let's face it, the Elio is never going to be made, and if it was, it would cost more than $8000 to make, particularly as presently envisioned.The vaunted advantage of the three-wheeler is that it avoids nasty environmental and safety regulations (which actually protect you and the environment).   As a motorcycle, you'd have to wear a helmet and obtain a motorcycle driver's license - a barrier to customers who might not want to have to take a motorcycle driver's test (and might not be able to pass it) in some States.   But if you could avoid airbags and pollution controls?   That would be sweet!  You could make one of these cars for cheap, right?The problem is, you are one government regulator away from going out of business.  If you made a car with three-wheels, the government might argue it is a car and thus has to meet all the appropriate safety standards.   There goes your cost-savings right there.More puzzling still, the vaunted Elio car is said to be equipped (in theory, anyway, none have been built, other than rough prototypes) with airbags, pollution controls, etc., negating the cost advantages of the three-wheeler.   If you equip such a car with all of that stuff, you might as well cut to the chase and add the fourth wheel and just make a regular car.   Airbags aren't cheap, and neither are emissions controls.Will we see three-wheeled cars in our future?   Probably not.   The Elio seems to be slowly fading from view, as each date for production or other goals comes and goes with no activity in their used Hummer plant happening (other than, apparently, selling off the machinery!).  And economic conditions worldwide are getting better, overall, not worse, even if it seems that a recession is on the horizon.  Even in India (especially in India), Tata motors  is trying to wean the public of the "tuk-tuk" type three wheelers in favor of their new four-wheel nano car.  When people have a choice and they can afford to do so, they favor a more traditional four-wheeled car.   Three-wheeled cars are usually not a choice but something people are forced into buying.Sadly, like with the Tucker, or the Bricklin, or whatever, there are always a few rabid "true believers" who are willing to suspend disbelief to put a religious-like fervor into a vehicle or other product, for no apparent valid reason.  And often these sort of folks lose their shirts as a result.   Never make a consumer good into a religion or believe it will change the world.   Don't invest - or put down payments on - wild-eyed dreams.   Sadly, the people who are losing money on these sorts of deals are people who can least afford to lose what little money they have.   But then again, they have no one but themselves to blame for being so blind to the obvious.I realized, even back in 1980, that the three-wheeled car was little more than a marijuana-fueled fantasy.   It made a lot of sense after a number of bong-hits, but then you sober up and realize that it really makes no sense, economically or environmentally or from a safety standard.   And maybe right there is a good reason to give up on pot and pot-fueled fantasies. The Bricklin car was going to revolutionize the car business and provide much-needed jobs for New Brunswick.  Sadly, not only was the car a piece of crap (the few that were made, anyway) but a lot of people lost a lot of money in the deal and the politicians who backed it lost their jobs.   A lot of elected officials in Shreveport, Louisiana are no doubt sweating right now.

http://suv-tires.blogspot.com/2017/06/three-wheeled-cars-again.html

[sobbani]

Why has the three-wheeled car been so popular in history and yet never succeeded?

The year is 1980, and we are sitting in the elaborate three-story "tree house" behind the Sigma Chi fraternity at General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan, smoking an awful lot of pot.   The topic is cars, of course, and given than the economy is in the toilet, gas is available only on even and odd days, and the 1980 Corvette 305 "California" is maybe cranking out a pitiful 180 HP on a good day, it seems that the days of high-performance cars are behind us.   The Chevette is one of GM's best-selling cars at the time.

"What about a three-wheeled car?" someone says, exhaling marijuana smoke.  And no, his name wasn't Elio, but maybe he had the same conversation in the same tree-house, a decade later, when he also went to GMI.   The speaker passes the bong, and a marijuana-fueled discussion ensues. The appeal of the three-wheeled car is very simple.   Emissions controls and safety standards meant that cars of that era got shitty gas mileage, had poor performance, and cost a lot of money to build and buy.   A three-wheeled car would sell like hotcakes in the recession era of 1980!

A three-wheeled car, which could be registered as a motorcycle, would avoid emissions and safety standards, and thus be very cheap to make, have good performance, and get fantastic gas mileage.   For simple commuting and going to the grocery store, it would make a good second car.   A few more bong hits, and it starts to sound like a viable idea.  The bong hits being the key.

The Reliant Robin was made in the UK until 2001, as severe taxes on cars made three-wheelers far less expensive to own.   However changing economic conditions and regulations put an end to the three-wheelers for the most part.  As the UK slides into depression following Brexit, perhaps the new Nissan plant there can crank out these poverty-mobiles once again.

And it is an idea whose time has come and gone, time and time again.   Whenever a recession hits - or a depression - or government regulations make building an ordinary car too expensive, people start thinking about three-wheeled cars.   And a lot of them have been made over the years.   Probably the largest market was in England, where three-wheeled cars were taxed far less than ordinary cars, and thus a lot were made and sold for many years.  They also had three-wheeled "motorized wheelchairs" which were leased to handicapped people for a minimal cost, so they could get around.   For an island that is so small you can walk  drive across it in a day, such vehicles might make sense on low-speed secondary roads.

The Queen next to an "invalid car" which were leased to handicapped people in the UK to help them get around.   Few exist today, and likely many handicapped people ended up dead or further handicapped if they got into an accident in one of these deathtraps.

In other markets, not so much.   After World War II, shattered economies in Germany, Japan, and Italy turned to three-wheeled cars (or tiny four-wheeled microcars) as their solution to the problem of no work, no money, and no gas.  In Italy, the Vespa scooter was born.  These cars are poverty-mobiles that become popular when an economy crashes.  They were even briefly popular (in concept if not in execution) in postwar America, when new cars were in high demand and factories couldn't make them fast enough.   The Davis Divan, (shown at the top of the page) sat four across and was developed during the post-war car shortage - but quickly faded from the scene.   The Tucker was also born during this era. As you can see, transitional economic conditions often result the development of oddball cars.   The problem is, of course, that recessions end.   People make more money and they no longer want poverty-cars.   In the 1970's, maybe such a "car" would have sold, in limited numbers.  And yes, people tried back then to build three-wheeled cars - it turned out to be a scam.   But by the mid 1980's, when the economy started to recover, sales would taper off to nothing.   In a way, it is like the recession of 1958, which spawned the Chevy II, the Falcon, and the Valiant (and put VW on the map in the USA).  Small, cheap cars started to sell well in America, then, but by the mid-1960's, everyone wanted a big-block "Muscle Car".   When the oil crises hit in 1973, we got the Vega and the Pinto.  The car business is cyclical this way.  Remember how many Honda Fits were sold in 2009 - and how many monster SUVs have been sold since then? By the way, if you want to see a collection of three-wheeled cars and microcars, check out the Lane Museum in Nashville, Tennessee (yet another good reason to go there!).   Sadly, the Bruce Weiner Microcar Museum here in Georgia closed a few years ago and the collection was auctioned off.   You can still "virtually" visit that museum online, though.   As you can see, the idea of a simple basic mico-car or a three-wheeled car is one that has been popular many, many times in the past, usually in response to harsh economic conditions.  And in nearly all instances, such poverty-mobiles had a brief heyday in the sun, or were utter failures in the marketplace.   They never really took off for the long haul.

So why, other than in the heavily regulated UK, did three-wheeled cars not succeed in the marketplace?   There are a number of reasons, used cars being one of them.   No matter how cheaply you think a three-wheeled car can be made (and they are more expensive than you think), they are not competing with conventional brand-new four-wheeled cars, but inexpensive used four-wheeled cars.   Why would you buy an Elio for $8000 when for the same money you could buy a pretty lightly used Toyota Corolla?   And let's face it, the Elio is never going to be made, and if it was, it would cost more than $8000 to make, particularly as presently envisioned.

The vaunted advantage of the three-wheeler is that it avoids nasty environmental and safety regulations (which actually protect you and the environment).   As a motorcycle, you'd have to wear a helmet and obtain a motorcycle driver's license - a barrier to customers who might not want to have to take a motorcycle driver's test (and might not be able to pass it) in some States.   But if you could avoid airbags and pollution controls?   That would be sweet!  You could make one of these cars for cheap, right?

The problem is, you are one government regulator away from going out of business.  If you made a car with three-wheels, the government might argue it is a car and thus has to meet all the appropriate safety standards.   There goes your cost-savings right there. More puzzling still, the vaunted Elio car is said to be equipped (in theory, anyway, none have been built, other than rough prototypes) with airbags, pollution controls, etc., negating the cost advantages of the three-wheeler.   If you equip such a car with all of that stuff, you might as well cut to the chase and add the fourth wheel and just make a regular car.   Airbags aren't cheap, and neither are emissions controls. Will we see three-wheeled cars in our future?   Probably not.   The Elio seems to be slowly fading from view, as each date for production or other goals comes and goes with no activity in their used Hummer plant happening (other than, apparently, selling off the machinery!).  And economic conditions worldwide are getting better, overall, not worse, even if it seems that a recession is on the horizon.  Even in India (especially in India), Tata motors  is trying to wean the public of the "tuk-tuk" type three wheelers in favor of their new four-wheel nano car.  When people have a choice and they can afford to do so, they favor a more traditional four-wheeled car.   Three-wheeled cars are usually not a choice but something people are forced into buying. Sadly, like with the Tucker, or the Bricklin, or whatever, there are always a few rabid "true believers" who are willing to suspend disbelief to put a religious-like fervor into a vehicle or other product, for no apparent valid reason.  And often these sort of folks lose their shirts as a result.   Never make a consumer good into a religion or believe it will change the world.   Don't invest - or put down payments on - wild-eyed dreams.   Sadly, the people who are losing money on these sorts of deals are people who can least afford to lose what little money they have.   But then again, they have no one but themselves to blame for being so blind to the obvious. I realized, even back in 1980, that the three-wheeled car was little more than a marijuana-fueled fantasy.   It made a lot of sense after a number of bong-hits, but then you sober up and realize that it really makes no sense, economically or environmentally or from a safety standard.   And maybe right there is a good reason to give up on pot and pot-fueled fantasies.

The Bricklin car was going to revolutionize the car business and provide much-needed jobs for New Brunswick.  Sadly, not only was the car a piece of crap (the few that were made, anyway) but a lot of people lost a lot of money in the deal and the politicians who backed it lost their jobs.   A lot of elected officials in Shreveport, Louisiana are no doubt sweating right now.

[fitness-19]

Three-Wheeled Cars (Again)

Why has the three-wheeled car been so popular in history and yet never succeeded?

The year is 1980, and we are sitting in the elaborate three-story "tree house" behind the Sigma Chi fraternity at General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan, smoking an awful lot of pot.   The topic is cars, of course, and given than the economy is in the toilet, gas is available only on even and odd days, and the 1980 Corvette 305 "California" is maybe cranking out a pitiful 180 HP on a good day, it seems that the days of high-performance cars are behind us.   The Chevette is one of GM's best-selling cars at the time.

"What about a three-wheeled car?" someone says, exhaling marijuana smoke.  And no, his name wasn't Elio, but maybe he had the same conversation in the same tree-house, a decade later, when he also went to GMI.   The speaker passes the bong, and a marijuana-fueled discussion ensues. The appeal of the three-wheeled car is very simple.   Emissions controls and safety standards meant that cars of that era got shitty gas mileage, had poor performance, and cost a lot of money to build and buy.   A three-wheeled car would sell like hotcakes in the recession era of 1980!

A three-wheeled car, which could be registered as a motorcycle, would avoid emissions and safety standards, and thus be very cheap to make, have good performance, and get fantastic gas mileage.   For simple commuting and going to the grocery store, it would make a good second car.   A few more bong hits, and it starts to sound like a viable idea.  The bong hits being the key.

The Reliant Robin was made in the UK until 2001, as severe taxes on cars made three-wheelers far less expensive to own.   However changing economic conditions and regulations put an end to the three-wheelers for the most part.  As the UK slides into depression following Brexit, perhaps the new Nissan plant there can crank out these poverty-mobiles once again.

And it is an idea whose time has come and gone, time and time again.   Whenever a recession hits - or a depression - or government regulations make building an ordinary car too expensive, people start thinking about three-wheeled cars.   And a lot of them have been made over the years.   Probably the largest market was in England, where three-wheeled cars were taxed far less than ordinary cars, and thus a lot were made and sold for many years.  They also had three-wheeled "motorized wheelchairs" which were leased to handicapped people for a minimal cost, so they could get around.   For an island that is so small you can walk  drive across it in a day, such vehicles might make sense on low-speed secondary roads.

The Queen next to an "invalid car" which were leased to handicapped people in the UK to help them get around.   Few exist today, and likely many handicapped people ended up dead or further handicapped if they got into an accident in one of these deathtraps.

In other markets, not so much.   After World War II, shattered economies in Germany, Japan, and Italy turned to three-wheeled cars (or tiny four-wheeled microcars) as their solution to the problem of no work, no money, and no gas.  In Italy, the Vespa scooter was born.  These cars are poverty-mobiles that become popular when an economy crashes.  They were even briefly popular (in concept if not in execution) in postwar America, when new cars were in high demand and factories couldn't make them fast enough.   The Davis Divan, (shown at the top of the page) sat four across and was developed during the post-war car shortage - but quickly faded from the scene.   The Tucker was also born during this era. As you can see, transitional economic conditions often result the development of oddball cars.   The problem is, of course, that recessions end.   People make more money and they no longer want poverty-cars.   In the 1970's, maybe such a "car" would have sold, in limited numbers.  And yes, people tried back then to build three-wheeled cars - it turned out to be a scam.   But by the mid 1980's, when the economy started to recover, sales would taper off to nothing.   In a way, it is like the recession of 1958, which spawned the Chevy II, the Falcon, and the Valiant (and put VW on the map in the USA).  Small, cheap cars started to sell well in America, then, but by the mid-1960's, everyone wanted a big-block "Muscle Car".   When the oil crises hit in 1973, we got the Vega and the Pinto.  The car business is cyclical this way.  Remember how many Honda Fits were sold in 2009 - and how many monster SUVs have been sold since then? By the way, if you want to see a collection of three-wheeled cars and microcars, check out the Lane Museum in Nashville, Tennessee (yet another good reason to go there!).   Sadly, the Bruce Weiner Microcar Museum here in Georgia closed a few years ago and the collection was auctioned off.   You can still "virtually" visit that museum online, though.   As you can see, the idea of a simple basic mico-car or a three-wheeled car is one that has been popular many, many times in the past, usually in response to harsh economic conditions.  And in nearly all instances, such poverty-mobiles had a brief heyday in the sun, or were utter failures in the marketplace.   They never really took off for the long haul.

So why, other than in the heavily regulated UK, did three-wheeled cars not succeed in the marketplace?   There are a number of reasons, used cars being one of them.   No matter how cheaply you think a three-wheeled car can be made (and they are more expensive than you think), they are not competing with conventional brand-new four-wheeled cars, but inexpensive used four-wheeled cars.   Why would you buy an Elio for $8000 when for the same money you could buy a pretty lightly used Toyota Corolla?   And let's face it, the Elio is never going to be made, and if it was, it would cost more than $8000 to make, particularly as presently envisioned.

The vaunted advantage of the three-wheeler is that it avoids nasty environmental and safety regulations (which actually protect you and the environment).   As a motorcycle, you'd have to wear a helmet and obtain a motorcycle driver's license - a barrier to customers who might not want to have to take a motorcycle driver's test (and might not be able to pass it) in some States.   But if you could avoid airbags and pollution controls?   That would be sweet!  You could make one of these cars for cheap, right?

The problem is, you are one government regulator away from going out of business.  If you made a car with three-wheels, the government might argue it is a car and thus has to meet all the appropriate safety standards.   There goes your cost-savings right there. More puzzling still, the vaunted Elio car is said to be equipped (in theory, anyway, none have been built, other than rough prototypes) with airbags, pollution controls, etc., negating the cost advantages of the three-wheeler.   If you equip such a car with all of that stuff, you might as well cut to the chase and add the fourth wheel and just make a regular car.   Airbags aren't cheap, and neither are emissions controls. Will we see three-wheeled cars in our future?   Probably not.   The Elio seems to be slowly fading from view, as each date for production or other goals comes and goes with no activity in their used Hummer plant happening (other than, apparently, selling off the machinery!).  And economic conditions worldwide are getting better, overall, not worse, even if it seems that a recession is on the horizon.  Even in India (especially in India), Tata motors  is trying to wean the public of the "tuk-tuk" type three wheelers in favor of their new four-wheel nano car.  When people have a choice and they can afford to do so, they favor a more traditional four-wheeled car.   Three-wheeled cars are usually not a choice but something people are forced into buying. Sadly, like with the Tucker, or the Bricklin, or whatever, there are always a few rabid "true believers" who are willing to suspend disbelief to put a religious-like fervor into a vehicle or other product, for no apparent valid reason.  And often these sort of folks lose their shirts as a result.   Never make a consumer good into a religion or believe it will change the world.   Don't invest - or put down payments on - wild-eyed dreams.   Sadly, the people who are losing money on these sorts of deals are people who can least afford to lose what little money they have.   But then again, they have no one but themselves to blame for being so blind to the obvious. I realized, even back in 1980, that the three-wheeled car was little more than a marijuana-fueled fantasy.   It made a lot of sense after a number of bong-hits, but then you sober up and realize that it really makes no sense, economically or environmentally or from a safety standard.   And maybe right there is a good reason to give up on pot and pot-fueled fantasies.

The Bricklin car was going to revolutionize the car business and provide much-needed jobs for New Brunswick.  Sadly, not only was the car a piece of crap (the few that were made, anyway) but a lot of people lost a lot of money in the deal and the politicians who backed it lost their jobs.   A lot of elected officials in Shreveport, Louisiana are no doubt sweating right now.

via Blogger http://suv-tires.blogspot.com/2017/06/three-wheeled-cars-again.html

[fitness-19]

Why has the three-wheeled car been so popular in history and yet never succeeded?The year is 1980, and we are sitting in the elaborate three-story "tree house" behind the Sigma Chi fraternity at General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan, smoking an awful lot of pot.   The topic is cars, of course, and given than the economy is in the toilet, gas is available only on even and odd days, and the 1980 Corvette 305 "California" is maybe cranking out a pitiful 180 HP on a good day, it seems that the days of high-performance cars are behind us.   The Chevette is one of GM's best-selling cars at the time."What about a three-wheeled car?" someone says, exhaling marijuana smoke.  And no, his name wasn't Elio, but maybe he had the same conversation in the same tree-house, a decade later, when he also went to GMI.   The speaker passes the bong, and a marijuana-fueled discussion ensues.The appeal of the three-wheeled car is very simple.   Emissions controls and safety standards meant that cars of that era got shitty gas mileage, had poor performance, and cost a lot of money to build and buy.   A three-wheeled car would sell like hotcakes in the recession era of 1980!A three-wheeled car, which could be registered as a motorcycle, would avoid emissions and safety standards, and thus be very cheap to make, have good performance, and get fantastic gas mileage.   For simple commuting and going to the grocery store, it would make a good second car.   A few more bong hits, and it starts to sound like a viable idea.  The bong hits being the key.The Reliant Robin was made in the UK until 2001, as severe taxes on cars made three-wheelers far less expensive to own.   However changing economic conditions and regulations put an end to the three-wheelers for the most part.  As the UK slides into depression following Brexit, perhaps the new Nissan plant there can crank out these poverty-mobiles once again.And it is an idea whose time has come and gone, time and time again.   Whenever a recession hits - or a depression - or government regulations make building an ordinary car too expensive, people start thinking about three-wheeled cars.   And a lot of them have been made over the years.   Probably the largest market was in England, where three-wheeled cars were taxed far less than ordinary cars, and thus a lot were made and sold for many years.  They also had three-wheeled "motorized wheelchairs" which were leased to handicapped people for a minimal cost, so they could get around.   For an island that is so small you can walk  drive across it in a day, such vehicles might make sense on low-speed secondary roads.The Queen next to an "invalid car" which were leased to handicapped people in the UK to help them get around.   Few exist today, and likely many handicapped people ended up dead or further handicapped if they got into an accident in one of these deathtraps.In other markets, not so much.   After World War II, shattered economies in Germany, Japan, and Italy turned to three-wheeled cars (or tiny four-wheeled microcars) as their solution to the problem of no work, no money, and no gas.  In Italy, the Vespa scooter was born.  These cars are poverty-mobiles that become popular when an economy crashes.  They were even briefly popular (in concept if not in execution) in postwar America, when new cars were in high demand and factories couldn't make them fast enough.   The Davis Divan, (shown at the top of the page) sat four across and was developed during the post-war car shortage - but quickly faded from the scene.   The Tucker was also born during this era.As you can see, transitional economic conditions often result the development of oddball cars.   The problem is, of course, that recessions end.   People make more money and they no longer want poverty-cars.   In the 1970's, maybe such a "car" would have sold, in limited numbers.  And yes, people tried back then to build three-wheeled cars - it turned out to be a scam.   But by the mid 1980's, when the economy started to recover, sales would taper off to nothing.   In a way, it is like the recession of 1958, which spawned the Chevy II, the Falcon, and the Valiant (and put VW on the map in the USA).  Small, cheap cars started to sell well in America, then, but by the mid-1960's, everyone wanted a big-block "Muscle Car".   When the oil crises hit in 1973, we got the Vega and the Pinto.  The car business is cyclical this way.  Remember how many Honda Fits were sold in 2009 - and how many monster SUVs have been sold since then?By the way, if you want to see a collection of three-wheeled cars and microcars, check out the Lane Museum in Nashville, Tennessee (yet another good reason to go there!).   Sadly, the Bruce Weiner Microcar Museum here in Georgia closed a few years ago and the collection was auctioned off.   You can still "virtually" visit that museum online, though.   As you can see, the idea of a simple basic mico-car or a three-wheeled car is one that has been popular many, many times in the past, usually in response to harsh economic conditions.  And in nearly all instances, such poverty-mobiles had a brief heyday in the sun, or were utter failures in the marketplace.   They never really took off for the long haul.So why, other than in the heavily regulated UK, did three-wheeled cars not succeed in the marketplace?   There are a number of reasons, used cars being one of them.   No matter how cheaply you think a three-wheeled car can be made (and they are more expensive than you think), they are not competing with conventional brand-new four-wheeled cars, but inexpensive used four-wheeled cars.   Why would you buy an Elio for $8000 when for the same money you could buy a pretty lightly used Toyota Corolla?   And let's face it, the Elio is never going to be made, and if it was, it would cost more than $8000 to make, particularly as presently envisioned.The vaunted advantage of the three-wheeler is that it avoids nasty environmental and safety regulations (which actually protect you and the environment).   As a motorcycle, you'd have to wear a helmet and obtain a motorcycle driver's license - a barrier to customers who might not want to have to take a motorcycle driver's test (and might not be able to pass it) in some States.   But if you could avoid airbags and pollution controls?   That would be sweet!  You could make one of these cars for cheap, right?The problem is, you are one government regulator away from going out of business.  If you made a car with three-wheels, the government might argue it is a car and thus has to meet all the appropriate safety standards.   There goes your cost-savings right there.More puzzling still, the vaunted Elio car is said to be equipped (in theory, anyway, none have been built, other than rough prototypes) with airbags, pollution controls, etc., negating the cost advantages of the three-wheeler.   If you equip such a car with all of that stuff, you might as well cut to the chase and add the fourth wheel and just make a regular car.   Airbags aren't cheap, and neither are emissions controls.Will we see three-wheeled cars in our future?   Probably not.   The Elio seems to be slowly fading from view, as each date for production or other goals comes and goes with no activity in their used Hummer plant happening (other than, apparently, selling off the machinery!).  And economic conditions worldwide are getting better, overall, not worse, even if it seems that a recession is on the horizon.  Even in India (especially in India), Tata motors  is trying to wean the public of the "tuk-tuk" type three wheelers in favor of their new four-wheel nano car.  When people have a choice and they can afford to do so, they favor a more traditional four-wheeled car.   Three-wheeled cars are usually not a choice but something people are forced into buying.Sadly, like with the Tucker, or the Bricklin, or whatever, there are always a few rabid "true believers" who are willing to suspend disbelief to put a religious-like fervor into a vehicle or other product, for no apparent valid reason.  And often these sort of folks lose their shirts as a result.   Never make a consumer good into a religion or believe it will change the world.   Don't invest - or put down payments on - wild-eyed dreams.   Sadly, the people who are losing money on these sorts of deals are people who can least afford to lose what little money they have.   But then again, they have no one but themselves to blame for being so blind to the obvious.I realized, even back in 1980, that the three-wheeled car was little more than a marijuana-fueled fantasy.   It made a lot of sense after a number of bong-hits, but then you sober up and realize that it really makes no sense, economically or environmentally or from a safety standard.   And maybe right there is a good reason to give up on pot and pot-fueled fantasies. The Bricklin car was going to revolutionize the car business and provide much-needed jobs for New Brunswick.  Sadly, not only was the car a piece of crap (the few that were made, anyway) but a lot of people lost a lot of money in the deal and the politicians who backed it lost their jobs.   A lot of elected officials in Shreveport, Louisiana are no doubt sweating right now.

http://suv-tires.blogspot.com/2017/06/three-wheeled-cars-again.html