Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to The Westing Game - It Ends with Us Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to The Westing Game - It Ends with Us Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:09
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our it ends with us listener polls and preview the Westing game Get a clue. Hello and welcome back to this film is Lit Pockets where you talk about movies that are based on books. It's a prequel episode. Plenty of feedback to get to. So we're not going to mess around. We'll jump right in. We always do our patron shout outs. I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why. Three new patrons this week. First up at the free level, Grover 51. Thank you, Grover. At the $2 Newberry Medal Award winning level, Skinner 25. Thank you, Skinner 25. I don't know if. If Patreon defaults people to like word. Yeah, I don't know number if you don't enter something or if we just. It's a coincidence that those two came in back to back. I don't know. And then finally at the $5 Hugo Award winning level, Vinnie the Fungus. Thank you, Vinnie the Fungus. A character from El Dorado.
• 1:12
  Speaker B: No, I think it's Atlantis.
• 1:14
  Speaker A: Atlantis. One of them. Because it's their profile picture on Patreon. I was like, oh, that guy. I remember that guy from that movie. So thank you, Vinny the Fungus. Hope you're checking out and enjoying the that bonus content. And as always, we want to celebrate our Academy award winning our top tier patrons. And they are Amanda Nicole Goble, Harpo Rat, Nathan Mathilde Cottonwood, Steve Ben Wilcox, Theresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier, Gretch Justgratch. Shelby says it's fine. I didn't need a real trailer anyway. And that darn skag. Thank you all very much for your continued support. I don't know what Shelby's is in reference to this week.
• 1:53
  Speaker B: No idea.
• 1:54
  Speaker A: Some movie, obviously. I'm not sure. I assume maybe I'm assuming a Marvel movie property of some.
• 2:00
  Speaker B: But I don't know.
• 2:00
  Speaker A: I don't know. Trying to think when I don't know. I'm not keeping up with that stuff. So I don't know what when things are supposed to drop. So hopefully there will be a real trailer soon for you. All right, it's time to see what the people had to say about ends with us.
• 2:19
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man. All right. On Patreon we had four votes for the book and one for the movie. Kelly Napier said, I didn't really enjoy the book or the movie, but I didn't enjoy the book less than I didn't enjoy the movie. So I voted for the book.
• 2:43
  Speaker A: There you go. Fair enough.
• 2:46
  Speaker B: I can't believe you didn't bring up that she gave her daughter the middle name Dory. Oh, Emerson. Dory Kincaid. Talk about stupid names. If they wanted to give a NOD To Ellen DeGeneres, why not give her the middle name Ellen? It made me so mad. I actually meant to bring that up. And I did not go through my reading notes carefully enough. But there is a note. If you scroll to the very bottom of my reading notes, there is a note about stupid baby names. And why does every property that I read have a stupid baby name in it? I saw something on the Internet where there are actually two edits of this movie. One that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds edited and one that Justin Baldoni edited. I read that the Lively Reynolds one was the one that ended up being released. So now I'm so curious as to what the Baldoni cut would have looked like. Maybe someday it will be released like Zack Snyder did with Justice League. Maybe don't give the Internet people any ideas.
• 3:46
  Speaker A: Yeah. So from my understanding, and I could be wrong with this, I don't know if it's true to say that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds edited one. There was a version, and it's the version that was released, from my understanding that Blake Lively had more input on the edit on. And you're speaking loosely there, obviously, but there is. Cause I've actually, that was the one thing in the podcast. There's a whole lot of back and forth between the editors and which editors are working with who, and there's a ton of drama about that that's involved with all of that. But, yes, there is a version that Justin Baldoni preferred, like an edit that he preferred and an edit that Lively preferred. And from my understanding, the version that was released was the edit that Lively preferred. So, yeah, that being said, I have no idea what the differences are or whatever, and I don't know if we ever will know.
• 4:41
  Speaker B: Anyway, I'm not upset that I read this or watched this, but if I never read another Colleen Hoover book again, it will be too soon. Totally not my jam.
• 4:49
  Speaker A: It's fair.
• 4:51
  Speaker B: You know, I feel slightly similarly. I'm not upset that I read or watched this. I don't know that I would pick up another Colleen Hoover book without, like, somebody requesting it for the show.
• 5:03
  Speaker A: Right.
• 5:04
  Speaker B: I did see on her Instagram page that apparently she's. There's another adaptation of one of her books.
• 5:10
  Speaker A: There's like a million coming out. They're whipping them up constantly yeah, like
• 5:12
  Speaker B: the specific one that I saw on hers was Verity, I think it was called, and it has Dakota Johnson in it.
• 5:20
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think there's several, but yeah.
• 5:25
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Shelby, who said, like many things in How I Met your Mother, I always thought the Dobbler Dahmer thing was a load of horseshit, especially considering that the lady Ted's friends are trying to warn him about was a stranger who followed him everywhere for months and started fires in public buildings. Like, I get it's a comedy, but still. Yeah, I. I've never watched How I
• 5:48
  Speaker A: Met yout Mother, so I can't even comment.
• 5:49
  Speaker B: I watched it in its original run.
• 5:51
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 5:52
  Speaker B: And have not watched it since. And for some reason the Dobbler Dahmer thing just like sticks in my head. But I couldn't tell you anything about that, like, specific episode storyline.
• 6:02
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's. I've just, I've always. Again, I haven't watched it. I've just heard from what I've seen over the years that How I Met yout Mother is one of the less well aged sitcoms of that era. But I could be wrong.
• 6:16
  Speaker B: There's definitely a lot about it that has not aged well. I do also think there are some really interesting storytelling techniques that evangelizes, but
• 6:26
  Speaker A: I mean, people liked it for a reason. It was very, very popular. So I'm not saying it's without merit or anything. What it seems like to me is that I've heard that it has not aged as well as maybe some shows from the same time period.
• 6:40
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from John Pauley, who said, I went into the book not knowing anything about it or the movie and thought it was based and thought based on the title it would be about escaping toxic families and making one where toxicity didn't exist. And that only turned out to be partially right. Since the majority of the book is about Lily and Ryle's relationship, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the it was going to end with them. And halfway through after the stairs incident, I thought the answer was going to be open acknowledgement of problems wrongdoing in therapy, which would have been a healthy and fresh take. In the end, choosing divorce over staying with Ryle is better than other options, but immediately letting him have single parenting time with the baby seems like it's still a low bar. I don't want to be negative about the book, as I think it shows some light to the difficult situation many people that are abused can face. That people May not think about. I think it doesn't even live up to its title. The it of abuse was still experienced by Lily. And while I'm glad the character is getting divorced, she's still accepting normal relationship with her abuser via shared custody. I feel a better ending of the abuse would have been the character finding relationships. A relationship that doesn't have abuse. And that just didn't happen in this book. Maybe it happens in the sequel. There was an excerpt in the audiobook afterward for Atlas's POV immediately after the events of this book. And I found it interesting what the author would have to say for that relationship. But. But Atlas putting Lily on this pedestal and not seeking any other romantic relationship other than her for more than 10 years is not very healthy either. Could have done without so many Ellen DeGeneres references.
• 8:27
  Speaker A: Yeah. So I think what you're saying is a better ending of the abuse would have been finding a relationship that doesn't have abuse. I think that's the implied ending of the story for sure. At least in the movie. Well, and to the cause you said that Farmer's Market scene's in the book. That's the implied ending. Obviously, we don't see it. Yeah. But that is the implied ending is that she ends up in a relationship with Atlas that is not abusive.
• 8:50
  Speaker B: And I also. I do think it's maybe a little oversimplified to say that the it in the title is abuse.
• 8:58
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 8:59
  Speaker B: No, it's the cycle.
• 9:00
  Speaker A: The cycle of abuse. When she says. When she. The line specifically is referencing at the end when she says it ends with us. She's talking about the cycle. Meaning I am not passing this on to you. Yeah. Is what she's saying in that scene. I am not continuing this cycle in a way that will affect you, the baby. Now, you can argue whether or not that's the case. The fact that she allows this abusive guy to be in the baby's life from day one, seemingly with very little work having been done on himself. That's a whole different conversation. But in her mind, she is not the baby's. The child is not being raised in an abusive household.
• 9:35
  Speaker B: Right.
• 9:36
  Speaker A: So thus ending the cycle of abuse. It ends with like. That's what it's implying. But yeah, I completely agree about the point about Atlas. Not. Was that mentioned in the book that he specifically didn't seek out other relationships? Or did he just not? Or is he.
• 9:51
  Speaker B: I don't think he ever mentions being in another relationship.
• 9:58
  Speaker A: But you also don't recall him specifically.
• 9:59
  Speaker B: I don't Recall him. We don't recall waiting for her or anything like that. There is a scene where he says that he did like come to try to find her when she was in college and then he like saw that she was in a relationship with a guy at that time and was like, oh, well. And like left. Okay, but I don't recall and I could be misremembering this. I don't recall him specifically saying that he like, he like waited for.
• 10:24
  Speaker A: Celibate voluntarily celibate for 10 years or whatever. Yeah, because that I agree. But even still, I think that still comes across in the movie. I think even still in the movie, even if you don't know that he was like, not. Well, because in the movie they change that, I guess, to be fair.
• 10:39
  Speaker B: No, he. So the girlfriend that he mentions in both the book and the movie, it ends up was not real.
• 10:45
  Speaker A: Oh, okay.
• 10:46
  Speaker B: He just said that so that she wouldn't feel like he was.
• 10:49
  Speaker A: I don't think the movie ever.
• 10:51
  Speaker B: No, they did. It was. Yes, it was a really brief, like blink and you miss it. Line exchange about Cassie not being real. I think when they get to his house after they're at the hospital, she says something about like, there's never a Cassie was there or something.
• 11:09
  Speaker A: I just missed that line then.
• 11:10
  Speaker B: Okay. It was like a singular line.
• 11:12
  Speaker A: Okay, well then, yeah, then I guess the movie doesn't change that. So. Yeah, I guess it's possible. And if that's the case, then yeah, that's weird. I don't like that he was like, I'm going to wait for you person I may never see again. That's not healthy either. Yeah.
• 11:27
  Speaker B: And our last comment on Patreon was from Nathan. Nathan also has a comment on every other. Other platform.
• 11:36
  Speaker A: But also was our requesting.
• 11:37
  Speaker B: Yes, also Nathan was our requesting patron. And Nathan said, I'm not gonna lie. When I proposed this book slash movie, I assumed they were both going to be terrible.
• 11:48
  Speaker A: I assumed the same thing. When you. When I read your recommendation or that you wanted to do it, I was like, great.
• 11:55
  Speaker B: I thought the book was a rom com based on the first scene and was pretty convinced there was no way it was actually going to have a real accurate depiction of abuse. I was super fucking wrong. As a guy who has never been on the receiving end of physical abuse, I came in knowing only that you are supposed to leave an abuser the first time something happens. I really felt anger at Lily's mom because how could she stay in that situation and endanger both herself and her daughter? I realize that's victim blaming, and I would never say that to a victim, but it was still in the back of my head. I say all this to say that I feel like I was perhaps in many ways the target of this book and the fantastic job it does of cultivating empathy. After the first abuse scene, I kind of justified in my head that he was just angry the one time and his hands are his livelihood so his anger makes sense. After the second time, I knew this probably meant the relationship had to end, but they were so closely tied because Ryle I'm with y' all that this isn't a real name, despite the fact that I looked it up and apparently it is was siblings with her best friend and she was so excited to be an aunt. She provides the thinnest fig leaf of reasoning that Ryle isn't her dad because he apologizes afterwards so she shouldn't treat him like she thought her mom should treat her dad. I was willing to accept this because breaking up would be awkward and leave a weird dynamic between Alyssa and Lily. All in all, I don't think I would have behaved any differently than Lily did. The book does such a good job of putting me in her position. I think it's honestly pretty brilliant. It led me on exactly the journey that it was trying to.
• 13:31
  Speaker A: Yeah, I think that's at its strength, that's what the book is doing. Or at its best, that's what the book is doing for sure.
• 13:39
  Speaker B: I think the movie did overall a pretty good job of creating a similar vibe, but in a different way. I didn't like the unreliable narrator twist at all because I think it really undercut the journey the book took me on of knowing what really happened but being willing to excuse it anyway. However, I think the film establishes a low key sense of malice underneath the actions and words of Ryle. Not sure if it was real life Baldoni coming through, but it worked to make me feel questionable about him even before we had the reveal. In the book, I just kind of liked Ryle except for the blow ups. I thought both Lively and Baldoni were excellent in this movie. I didn't find Baldoni cringe except when he was meant to be. Maybe I'm just a Ryan Reynolds fan, but I love quips and I felt like starting the story with a scene that would feel right at home in Annie Manic Pixie Dreamgirl Romance films which I love does a good job of getting you engaged with characters so you can go on the ride.
• 14:35
  Speaker A: I agree that that's what they're going for in that scene is a quintessential rom com meet cute banter thing. It's just. It felt late to me. Like if this movie came out and was doing that and was using that as a sort of like framing method in 2015 or 12 or something, that would feel more. I think it would work better for me. But at this point that kind of super banter heavy rom com stuff feels a little dated and a little try hard to me in a way that just. And especially if it's not written brilliantly, which I just don't think that particular scene was, it felt a little heavy handed and a little clunky in how some of that banter was inserted and working or not working in my opinion. But I agree, that's definitely what they're doing. They're playing on the manic pixie dream curl. Kind of like super canon. Like super again, just bantery meet cute. Where immediately you're like, ah, these two, look at them.
• 15:43
  Speaker B: I also got a little choked up when Ryle was so happy about the baby being named Emerson. I had it in my notes how sweet it seemed and was shocked to hear Brian found it so corny or poorly delivered.
• 15:55
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know. It's obviously different perspectives but that it just the way it was delivered, something about it felt very fake to me.
• 16:01
  Speaker B: But yeah, I think Atlas gets a bit of a bad deal in the movie. I honestly felt like the flashbacks did a lot less for me as far as developing him in the movie versus the book. I think that's fair.
• 16:17
  Speaker A: He doesn't have a ton. Yeah, he's kind of a. Not a super compelling character in the movie. He's. He's like the non. He's just not Ryle. Yes, that's like his character.
• 16:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, his character is being not Ryle.
• 16:31
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 16:32
  Speaker B: Being in Lily's head via the diary made the past events seem more impactful for him and her. I also thought the time spent at Atlas's house seemed longer in the book and he was so kind and willing to be what she needed. It works to counter the paternalism he displayed earlier at the restaurant. Even his comment about being there if she was ready to fall in love again didn't feel so self serving because he seemed willing to never see her again if that's what she chose.
• 16:58
  Speaker A: I agree it didn't feel self serving. It's just in the context of the story as a whole. I think for his character it's fine. And I agree that didn't necessarily feel self saving for him as A character, but in the context of the story. Pulling out from more of a critiquing the author as opposed to a specific. The whole thing recently, but critiquing it more from a doylist perspective as opposed to a Watsonian perspective, which is just for people who don't know. Watsonian is when you talk about. I think I'm getting this right and not backwards. Is when you're discussing character motivations and stuff within the context of the story versus pulling back to a Doyle doylist critique is critiquing the actual author and their kind of intent on stuff from that perspective. I think that it belies a slightly paternalistic motivation by Hoover while writing that. But I think within the context of the character, it works. Okay. I don't know. I will still explain that.
• 18:04
  Speaker B: But yeah, yeah, no, I think you're right. And I do think that like, while I do feel that the book overall was an attempt to portray domestic abuse in a very real way, and I do think that the book largely succeeds at that, it does also have the fingerprints of the author's like internalized, patriarchal.
• 18:31
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 18:32
  Speaker B: Ick on it.
• 18:33
  Speaker A: Yeah. And that's what I think colors the whole thing in a lot of ways for people is you can just kind of feel, I think maybe similar to something like Twilight or whatever. You can kind of. Even though it's never like explicitly conservative or Christian Y or whatever, you can kind of just feel the energy of it that has this, like this was written by somebody that. I don't know what their politics are, but they're probably not like super progressive. Like they, you can just tell they have a somewhat patriarchal and like paternal, paternalistic view of relationships that while not like deeply problematic, they're not like.
• 19:10
  Speaker B: Right. And I don't even, I, I don't even know that I would say it's necessarily like. I mean it probably is kind colored by like conservatism or something like that.
• 19:21
  Speaker A: But I'm saying little C. Conservatism and not like modern day movement conservatism.
• 19:26
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 19:26
  Speaker A: How I was using that in that particular instance.
• 19:29
  Speaker B: But I'm. I'm talking more about the type of thing that is just hasn't been like unpacked.
• 19:39
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 19:40
  Speaker B: By a person.
• 19:41
  Speaker A: I agree. I agree. I think that's true. I think it's more likely that. Yes. Kind of patriarchal. Yeah.
• 19:47
  Speaker B: Because we, I mean we, we live in a patriarchal society. And even if you are a very progressive person, if you don't ever bother to do the work of like Unpacking that it's still going to be in everything that you put out into the world.
• 20:03
  Speaker A: And this is a little bit of that unpacking has been done, but just
• 20:06
  Speaker B: a little, just a tidge.
• 20:08
  Speaker A: A tidge. And again, maybe that's to the benefit of. I could see this similar, it's a similar argument to the Barbie movie thing to some extent of, I can see the value of a story like this that has even that perspective of being fairly patriarchal in that it can speak maybe more effectively to people who are deeper into that yes. Patriarchal mindset and like, have never at once thought about examining, you know, like the dynamics of like spousal relationships and, and, and really like, like the people who are most, I don't say the most susceptible to like domestic abuse because it's across the board and all it, whatever. But there is a huge portion of society who are deeply ingrained in conservative patriarchal societies who are in abusive relationships and don't even realize it or even if they do realize it, think it's their duty or think it's fine or what, blah, blah, blah, whatever. And I think maybe this kind of story that isn't coming from like a very like super progressive angle of like, well, let's destroy relationship hierarchies and like blah, blah, blah, you know, like she doesn't leave her relationship and form a polycule or whatever. You know what I mean? Like there's, there is a, there is a framework and an ease of access in what this story is doing for maybe the audience that would need this message the most potentially. Yeah, I agree that I think works in a similar way where it's like, yes, what it's doing is not particularly like super progressive or revolutionary at all, but it might be important to the people who need it. Similar to like the Barbie movie where it's not, you know, it's not doing anything super revolutionary. It's very, very entry level feminism.
• 22:00
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 22:01
  Speaker A: Level takes. But there are people who need entry feminine level.
• 22:04
  Speaker B: The number of social media posts from middle aged moms that I saw after that, we were completely blown away.
• 22:11
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 22:12
  Speaker B: By realizing things.
• 22:13
  Speaker A: Yeah. And it's one of those things. It's like. And of all the things. And that was maybe the funniest thing about the Barbie movie to me, it's like of all that's maybe the best place to have the most boiler like base level, entry level feminist discourse is the Barbie movie because it's for little kids and parents and you know, it's, it's a mass market Mass appeal thing, that huge swat. Like they weren't targeting that movie towards film scholars and people in academia and like that's not who that movie was necessarily for. And so yeah, it. Yeah, I think there's a similar thing here.
• 22:55
  Speaker B: Nathan closed out his comment here by saying, overall, I was pleasantly surprised by both the book and the movie and I'm glad I suggested them, even if I did it with much different expectations in mind.
• 23:05
  Speaker A: We went on a similar ride there. Nathan,
• 23:10
  Speaker B: over on Facebook. We got quite a few comments.
• 23:16
  Speaker A: Yes, we did.
• 23:17
  Speaker B: And I have some thoughts on some of the comments. But we're going to start with Nathan's comment on Facebook. And on Facebook, Nathan said, definitely going with the book. But I liked the movie too. I agree. They nailed the casting for young Blake Lively. As far as being a lookalike, I'm not sure about the portrayal as Isabella Fairer. I don't know, plays the character with way more confidence than in the book. I didn't feel like it really affected the movie, except it makes her feel older and more contemporary to Atlas, which erases the 18 year old, a 16 year old that the book presents. It also makes sense as that is that as a slightly older kid, Lily might be more confident. Like grown, adult Lily.
• 24:04
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know. I obviously can't compare her performance to the book, so I don't. Yeah, I was really.
• 24:11
  Speaker B: I thought she was good.
• 24:12
  Speaker A: She was good. Yeah. I don't think he's even saying she's bad. He's saying that it's a different. She has more confidence.
• 24:16
  Speaker B: Slightly different take. We had a comment from Crystal sliding in like an hour before.
• 24:23
  Speaker A: We were gonna record this right at
• 24:25
  Speaker B: the deadline and Crystal said, I'm going with the book on this. The movie actually made me miss 50 Shades of Gray. At least that movie was ridiculous enough to make me laugh. It ends with us was forgettable. What was good? I ended up watching this with a friend who is not chronically online like me and had never heard of the book. She was actually surprised at the reveal of him being abusive. So in this way, I guess it did work because she's no stranger to red flags. But then I guess it can be hard for any of us to recognize abuse when it's not the abuse that we're used to.
• 25:00
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, and there's also an element in the movie of like. Well, obviously the red flags. But we'll. We'll get to it later. But like the, the edited memory thing, we'll. We'll talk more about that. In a minute. But yeah.
• 25:14
  Speaker B: What was bad. I can't stand the ending. While I do at least get what they were going. What they were doing with the overall idea of the nuance of. In an abusive relationship, the ending was just a little too tidy.
• 25:26
  Speaker A: I agree with that.
• 25:27
  Speaker B: Yeah. She has a heartfelt moment explaining to him why they shouldn't be together. And he tearfully agree. Yeah. I'm not saying it could never happen. But the idea of a severely abusive and controlling man being willing to let the object of his obsession go because it's what's best for the infant daughter is sadly not typical.
• 25:45
  Speaker A: I completely agree that it's not typical.
• 25:47
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 25:47
  Speaker A: And that that's what that is. The biggest criticism I have in the movie or one of the big criticisms I have a movie we talked about in the episode is that it's definitely idealized. It is a.
• 25:55
  Speaker B: Yes, it's. It's a satisfying.
• 25:57
  Speaker A: It's a satisfying ending, but it is definitely not typical or representative.
• 26:02
  Speaker B: And I, I do think that in the sequel there's more like. More about that and more like strife between them with him, like not wanting to necessarily not. Not actually wanting to let.
• 26:14
  Speaker A: Or whatever.
• 26:14
  Speaker B: Yeah. By the way, the best portrayal of an abusive relationship in my opinion is Kevin can himself.
• 26:22
  Speaker A: That's on the watch list. I've recommended watching that several times and we just never got.
• 26:27
  Speaker B: Have you. I don't remember you recommending.
• 26:28
  Speaker A: It's a TV show.
• 26:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, I know it's a TV show.
• 26:31
  Speaker A: Two seasons. Y. But it stars the. What's her name from Schitt's Creek. The daughter. Oh, she's the wife. It's a sitcom. That is not a sitcom. It's a sitcom. It's a frame. It's this very interesting creative device where it's initially presented like a standard sitcom where the wife is in a relationship with an obnoxious guy who she hates. It's like a classic 90s sitcom or whatever, like King of Queens or whatever. And. But then. And it's shot like those parts where she interacts in the main set with the husband and stuff are all shot like a standard like multi cam sitcom. But then she will like walk into the other room and it will switch to an entirely different show where it's like just her. And it's shot like single camera, dramatic lighting. Doesn't look like a studio sitcom or whatever. And it's about how much she like hates her husband. His name's Kevin. Like Kevin can fuck himself, I think is the thing. And about how their relationship is A disaster. And I don't know the specifics. I've intentionally avoided any looking at anything on it because I've heard it's interesting and good, and I believe it's only two seasons, and then it ended, so it is on my list. I've heard it's very good.
• 27:48
  Speaker B: Okay, so now I'm just gonna rapid fire a couple short comments that we got that I then want to talk about.
• 27:58
  Speaker A: Yep.
• 27:58
  Speaker B: Okay, so first off, Jasmine said, I choose podcast.
• 28:01
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 28:02
  Speaker B: And then Jessica said, gun emoji to my head and no other choice. I'm going book. Ian said, hard pass on both. And Andy said, what's like a Sophie's Choice? Except the issue is that you want both to go. The agony of knowing one of these is still out in the world and you are helpless to prevent it. I also choose podcast.
• 28:23
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 28:24
  Speaker B: And then we also got a comment, I think, from Kevin. Well, that was just like a gif of what's his name being. Making, like, a disgusted, confused face.
• 28:34
  Speaker A: I don't remember what it was. I know there was a. Yeah, there was a gift. Remember what. What the gift was?
• 28:40
  Speaker B: So. Okay. And first off, I want to say, Jasmine, you're exempt from this because I know you listened to the episode, but I feel like. And maybe I'm wrong. I feel like we got some comments this week from people who didn't read the book, didn't watch the movie, and also didn't listen to our episode, because some of these, I feel like, are just, like, pithy, dismissive of the property. The property as a whole, which we spent a lot of time talking about in the episode. So the fact that we got comments that were like, that. I'm not mad, but I am disappointed.
• 29:33
  Speaker A: Yes, there is a little bit of disappointment. I agree. I. I'm not mad. And it's fine. And. And if you. If it's not your thing, totally fine. If you weren't interested in it, totally fine. Also, we've said before, if you don't watch or read or whatever, you can still comment if you want to, but specifically. I guess we've never specifically clarified that in that instance. I would prefer if you've listened to the episode, if you have not consumed any. Any content about this thing.
• 29:57
  Speaker B: And you're just, like, assuming that we're gonna agree with you.
• 30:01
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's a. Or maybe not even assuming we're agree with you, but just, like, I don't know. It's hard to describe. Yeah, I guess disappointing is the thing. It's just like. Because I think Disappointing is the right word for it because we went in with a similar mindset of. And so I don't even. Like, I'm not. We're not even critiquing you for, like, having the thought, like, this property is useless or bad or should be gotten rid of. Like, it's fair to have that thought. It is a little frustrating after our episode comes out and then we get feedback that is like, this property is pointless. And when it's like, our whole conversation was about, like, how we kind of thought that was going to be the case and then that wasn't the case, it just. Again, it feels a little bit like, well, you didn't listen. Okay. So you didn't watch it, you didn't read it, and you didn't listen to our episode. Or if you did listen to our episode, you're just ignoring everything we talked about.
• 30:49
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 30:49
  Speaker A: You know what I mean? So that just comes back feeling a little bit, like, disappointing.
• 30:53
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 30:53
  Speaker A: Again, it's not like, it's fine. It's not a big deal or anything like that. It's just a little disappointing when you get that sort of feedback. Specifically because we were so surprised and interested to have that discussion about how we were surprised that this story was maybe more compelling, more interesting, and had more to say than you would generally think from the cultural conversation about this property. And it does. At times, there is an element which you see this the other way a little bit, too. I don't. I. Because there is an element of, like, well, this is like. It's. There's, like, a little bit of passive sexism. And just like, this is the thing that there is.
• 31:32
  Speaker B: Yes, there is. Surrounding this property, I think a lot of passive, like, casual misogyny. Casual. Casual misogyny. You know, I said we. We've talked about it. We talked about it with Twilight. We talked about it with 50 shades of gray. We talked about it with this property. And I think this property's biggest s might be being popular with women.
• 31:54
  Speaker A: Yes. Yeah. I think there is an element of that to it, is that the people who are into this book, I understand, are maybe not the most academically. Like, Liter, like the book. The people that this book is most popular with are not maybe, like, the most, like, literarily engaged people that you've ever come across. You know, they read a lot of, like, kind of pop literature and stuff or whatever, and maybe engage with literature in a way that you think is more surface level. And I have those criticisms of people. I've had the criticisms of the way people engage with media and stuff. But I also think that you're just doing that yourself by dismissing it out of hand as completely worthless when I think it's not. Like I said, and we spent two and a half hours talking about the ways that we thought this property is maybe more interesting and less worthy of just blanket dismissal than a lot of people think it is or blanket criticism or whatever. It's. It's an interesting story that has interesting things to say and maybe it doesn't do all that great or whatever, but it's at least worth talking about. And like, kind of the pithy casual like, ha, I'd rather die than read or watch this. Yeah, it's like, would you, though? Like, it just feels kind of. Again, it's fine. It is what it is. I understand that sentiment and I'm sure I've done it before in the past and I'm sure I will do it again in the future for things that I find worthy of dismissal. But. But there is an element of that that, again, was just a little, kind of disappointing or frustrating.
• 33:22
  Speaker B: All right, moving forward from that, we had a comment from m' Aladdin who said, I choose neither. Initially, I was going to give it to the movie, but in this case, I feel like if I have read the book, I would have chosen the book over the movie. I rewatched the movie for this episode and my thoughts are the same as when I saw it before the scandal. It was fine. The acting and directing were just fine. One of my nitpicks about the movie are the first three flashbacks to Atlas before we meet the grown up version in the restaurant. I feel like they could have replaced those scenes with moments of Lily's father being kind in one scene and abusive in the other.
• 34:01
  Speaker A: I mean, they could have. There could have been more, maybe with her father. That may have been good. But I think you also need those scenes with Atlas to establish their relationship. So I don't know if replacing them necessarily makes sense, but you definitely need. I think you need those scenes. You can maybe also add scenes to get a little bit more backstory with the father, but I also didn't find it necessary. I felt like I understood the dynamic with the father well enough to get what was going on there.
• 34:31
  Speaker B: Atlas in the movie looks too clean to be a homeless person.
• 34:35
  Speaker A: I think that varies a lot. That's.
• 34:39
  Speaker B: I will say that in the book they talk specifically about him not being able to access a shower. So if we're comparing one to one, yeah, maybe the movie didn't get it exactly right.
• 34:52
  Speaker A: Just to go on. Even Bruce and Batman Begins look more realistic as a homeless person when he left Gotham. I think you may be over generalizing the cleanliness of homeless people.
• 35:02
  Speaker B: Yes, that is where I was going
• 35:04
  Speaker A: with that very, very broadly because there's a number of. Not a huge portion, but there's a small community of homeless people in our town that we live in. And the quote unquote hygiene of those people vary greatly. There's one guy in particular that I see walking around all the time who you would never guess that guy was. He just. He looks perfectly clean and wearing clothes that seem perfectly clean. I've never been like super close to him to know, but like at a distance from when he's walking down the street, he just looks like a guy. But you see him sleeping out on benches and stuff around town. So he is absolutely unhoused currently. But you know, there's a lot of resources. Again, it also depends on. There are a lot of resources for people. Like we have several like resource centers in our town where people can go and shower and do laundry and all that kind of stuff. And some of them do and some of them don't. And so it really just depends.
• 35:56
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 35:57
  Speaker A: And I think in this instance, to me, I felt like it was implied that he was only very recently homeless. Like had maybe run away from home not that long ago.
• 36:06
  Speaker B: Yeah. So I think it's the implication.
• 36:08
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 36:09
  Speaker B: I also laughed when Katie said in the book Lily Pity fucked Atlas. I hope he was minty fresh like in the movie when she did. Otherwise I can't help but imagine a teen version of Neil Breen from Pass Through. It's clean, Lily. It's all clean. Now let's fuck.
• 36:23
  Speaker A: Like when he's throwing the cans out of his trailer or whatever in the desert.
• 36:26
  Speaker B: I don't remember that at all.
• 36:27
  Speaker A: I haven't watched. I. Yeah, there's an episode there, a pass through. I think it is. He's like. He's trying to seduce that one girl. He's like cleaning out his trailer. He's like throwing like empty cans of tuna out and it's like disgusting. He's like, it's clean. And she's like, what?
• 36:44
  Speaker B: In the book it is specified that he starts like showering and doing laundry.
• 36:48
  Speaker A: Yeah. It's also in the movie clarified that because he comes over and showers and she gives him fresh clothes and stuff like that. Yeah.
• 36:55
  Speaker B: Anyway, great episode and I was surprised you guys covered it this soon. Last comment on Facebook was from Lassa who said hello again. I haven't read the book, but my girlfriend showed me the movie last year and I think this warrants to post the letterboxd review I wrote for it at the time. So this is a transcript of Lassa's letterboxd review. This isn't just bad, it's fascinatingly bad. The topic is horribly mishandled, the dialogue is laughable, the twists and turns are mind boggling, and the costumes are God awful.
• 37:32
  Speaker A: Fascinating. I disagree with all of those.
• 37:34
  Speaker B: Yeah, I disagree with all of that too. Lily dresses uniquely, but I don't think her costumes are bad.
• 37:41
  Speaker A: She dresses ridiculously. Kind of. It's very.
• 37:43
  Speaker B: She's artsy.
• 37:44
  Speaker A: She' artsy in a way that is, you know, gonna be off putting some people. It's definitely not everybody's style. But I also, I don't think it's particularly like bad. And everybody else dresses fairly pretty normal normally.
• 37:56
  Speaker B: So yeah, while watching I switched between amused giggles, being annoyed and extremely confused. And for a lot of it I was blaming first time director and co star Justin Baldoni. Then my girlfriend revealed the backstory of this travesty to me and I got incredibly angry. You should all look up what went wrong with this movie. It's completely insane. And identifies the true villain behind this mess.
• 38:21
  Speaker A: I don't know the implication there. You didn't say it outright. The vibe I'm getting from that comment is that you're implying that the true villain behind this mess is Blake Lively, which is not true. Yeah, based on all of the stuff I have consumed about the behind the scenes of this movie. She was not. Again, we've outlined this a little bit. She was not like a perfect person to work with by any stretch by from what I have heard. And I'm sure she was annoying to work with at different times. But the issues with this movie, again, I don't even think there are that many issues with this movie as presented. It's not like an incredible movie, but it's. It's not like awful or anything.
• 39:01
  Speaker B: It is, it is a perfectly serviceable.
• 39:03
  Speaker A: Perfectly serviceable movie for one. So again, that just goes back to. Just disagree with your assessment of the movie as a whole. Again, I don't think it's a great movie. I don't even think it's necessarily a good, good movie. I think it's a perfectly good at what it's doing movie, which is it's being a romance drama that is shedding a light on domestic abuse with a questionable ending, which is fair. I don't want to Say that your girlfriend was tricked by outrage peddlers on the Internet, but that your girlfriend may have been tricked by outrage peddlers on the Internet, because that is. Is a big thing. There's huge portions of and side portions of the Internet that think that Blake Lively was like, this monster on set ruining this movie because she's like an egomaniac. And that is, I will say most generously, that is an oversimplification, a vast oversimplification of what occurred. And at best, that's kind of libelous because it's. That's not what happened here, in my opinion.
• 40:03
  Speaker B: And also in mine. Yeah, watch it at your own risk, but you might have better things to do, like decorating a flower. Show that flower shop that doesn't look like a flower shop. Messing up a frittata by leaving it in the oven for too long. Try to take it out with your bare hands and accidentally punch your girlfriend in the process. Or naming your baby after the dead brother of your father. Of the father. I wouldn't say he accidentally punched her. I think the reveal at the end was that he.
• 40:30
  Speaker A: Yes, it's very clear that he intentionally, intentionally hit her. Yeah. Also, the flower shop looks like a flower shop.
• 40:37
  Speaker B: It looks like a.
• 40:38
  Speaker A: It looks like a very fancy, like.
• 40:39
  Speaker B: Yes, it's a very fancy flower shop.
• 40:41
  Speaker A: Yes. But it looks like a flower shop.
• 40:43
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's like a downtown cool girl, like, expensive flower shop.
• 40:49
  Speaker A: It's a cool, like, Hoyt flower shop or whatever, but. Or haute flower shop, but it's not. It looks like a flower shop. It actually doesn't even look that my mom works in a flower shop.
• 40:58
  Speaker B: I was gonna say.
• 40:59
  Speaker A: And it doesn't look that different than my mom's flower shop. And now it looks like a trend city version of my mom's flower shop. But it's not actually that. Like, my mom's flower shop looks very similarly, like, eclectic and weird and full of stuff. And yeah, it actually. I was like, yeah, I actually thought they kind of nailed what a high end flower shop boutique would look like.
• 41:20
  Speaker B: So there's my take. Keep up the great work and best of wishes from Germany.
• 41:24
  Speaker A: Well, thank you. And we were obviously disagreeing with you there and kind of pushing back in some ways. But we appreciate your comment and that
• 41:32
  Speaker B: you listen, over on Instagram, we had two votes for the book and one for the movie. And Nathan said voting book. Did y' all wonder if Ryle was lying about the surgery that made him angry when he first appeared after the reveal that the same tragic gun incident happened to him. I wondered if he made that experience the case as a way to Trojan horse the conversation about his trauma with a complete stranger.
• 42:00
  Speaker A: I did not think that maybe.
• 42:02
  Speaker B: I, I.
• 42:03
  Speaker A: It's. It's an interesting idea.
• 42:05
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 42:05
  Speaker A: Now that you mention it, because it does. I forgot the, like.
• 42:09
  Speaker B: The, like, coincidence of that.
• 42:11
  Speaker A: Yeah. It's interesting that maybe he could have done that, but I. I would. I would be inclined to say that. No, that what. That what makes the most sense narratively and thematically is that he's telling the truth and that it's just a thing that triggered his anger in that scene because it was a similar enough like, situation to what happened to him as a child that it just, like, really, really.
• 42:35
  Speaker B: Gotcha.
• 42:35
  Speaker A: Triggered him, basically. And so. Yeah, but it's an interesting idea. I just don't think that he. I don't think it was a lie. That was not how I would interpret the story.
• 42:45
  Speaker B: No, me either. But it is an interesting idea.
• 42:47
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 42:49
  Speaker B: Also, I don't think neurosurgeons are generally the ones involved in an emergency for gunshot wound, even if the damage was to the brain.
• 42:57
  Speaker A: I don't know. I'm speculating the same way you are here, but my speculation would be the opposite in that I would think it absolutely would be a neurosurgeon.
• 43:06
  Speaker B: If you were shot in the head. Yes. Like, if there was no damage to the head, probably no reason for the.
• 43:13
  Speaker A: If it's shot in the chest, they're not gonna call the neurosurgeon.
• 43:16
  Speaker B: If there was voice damage.
• 43:18
  Speaker A: I think you might.
• 43:20
  Speaker B: Yes, neurosurgeon.
• 43:21
  Speaker A: And especially. Cause I'm assuming what's going on there is that I. Obviously, Initially, the ER doctors or whatever are doing whatever they're doing, but then they stabilize the patient to a point where, okay, now we got to do some brain surgery. We're calling the brain surgeon for that. Or not. You know, like. So I. Again, I am also speculating, but I feel pretty confident that a neurosurgeon would be the person who would be called in to do a brain surgery if one were needed.
• 43:49
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Co Ray, who said, 100% the book is better, and then tagged Colleen. Colleen Hoover.
• 43:59
  Speaker A: God, I hope she didn't listen. Actually, I hope she did. Actually.
• 44:02
  Speaker B: I hope Colleen Hoover did listen, because I feel like we were pretty fair.
• 44:06
  Speaker A: Fair. And had a very interesting conversation about her book and the movie.
• 44:11
  Speaker B: So Colleen Hoover is the best. She has such an incredible way of writing that makes me feel all the feels.
• 44:17
  Speaker A: There you go.
• 44:18
  Speaker B: Yeah. I'm glad that that. That was not the experience, necessarily the experience I had reading the book, but I'm glad that you have that experience and that you have someone who fills that for you for reading. And then we had a comment from Tim Wahoo that said, movies are always better.
• 44:36
  Speaker A: There you go. You decided to read that one.
• 44:39
  Speaker B: Consistency with Tim. We love the consistency.
• 44:43
  Speaker A: There's a little bit of inconsistency when you choose to read his comments or not, though.
• 44:48
  Speaker B: Sometimes it just doesn't feel worth it.
• 44:50
  Speaker A: I know, I know.
• 44:51
  Speaker B: But also, like, if there are other comments, I feel bad leaving just his out. So over on Threads, we had one vote for the book, zero for the movie, and one listener who couldn't decide. And then we got a comment from sending stuff to Luke, which I assume is also Nathan based on the comment left. And this person said, voting book. Fuck Justin Baldoni. Sorry, I ran out of things to say about the book and movie.
• 45:20
  Speaker A: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's Nathan. Yeah. Yeah.
• 45:24
  Speaker B: Over on Blue sky, we had one vote for the book and zero for the movie. And Nathan said, voting for the book. One of my favorite parts of the book that understandably doesn't make the movie is Atlas's poker buddies. Towards the end of Lily's stay with Atlas, some guys show up at his house. She's understandably scared, but Atlas lets her know they are his poker buddies. She lets them in and joins their weekly game. They are super likable and even take it in stride. When she tells them about her abuse and pregnancy. They just immediately take her side and act as a sort of soft reintroduction to society again for Lily. I agree. I totally understand why that didn't make it into the movie. It's a lot of extraneous characters that we never see again. But I did think it was a nice scene in the book. And finally, over on Goodreads, we had two votes for the book, zero for the movie, and Nathan said, voting book. One of my favorite book moments happens in the same conversation Katie read with Lily and her mom. Lily's mom reveals that she realized Lily was silent at the funeral on purpose and says that she appreciated her doing that along with the whole conversation. It really works to humanize the moment.
• 46:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's interesting. You didn't mention that in the. And I thought that was. When I read that. I thought that was interesting or it would have been an interesting. Well, again, it's different in the movie.
• 46:49
  Speaker B: They do it differently, so it wouldn't work slightly differently.
• 46:51
  Speaker A: Yeah, and I Just wanted to thank Nathan for going through the lengths to comment on everything to get our engagement up. Basically, I assume what you're doing is just taking what you would have written all on Patreon and just parceling it up between the different. But keep doing that because again, it helps engagement on other platforms and it makes it fun to read your different, different notes. Instead of reading them all in one big block, we get to split them up a little bit, which is fun.
• 47:15
  Speaker B: And our last comment on Goodreads was from Mikko, who said, I have literally zero knowledge of any controversy regarding this property outside occasionally seeing people trash Hoover's writing. Maybe that's why I thought the chemistry of the two leads worked. I was expecting something way worse based on the book's reputation.
• 47:36
  Speaker A: This is the thing. Yeah.
• 47:38
  Speaker B: Though there's still some very clunky stuff like how Ryle says, quote, this is a very special hand that has been through almost half a billion dollars worth of education literally two pages before he burns it. Was that supposed to be setup and payoff?
• 47:52
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 47:53
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think so.
• 47:54
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 47:54
  Speaker B: My main gripes about the book aren't with the subject matter. And the attempt to talk about abuse feels honest. I prefer the book's version of how Lily reacts to the abuse. She doesn't edit the memory. Something that feels passive and automatic in the film, but makes up excuses and otherwise convinces herself that it's not a big deal. The active refusal to see the problem and do something about it works better and feels more real. At least I can relate more to coming up with excuses than denying the thing in the first place.
• 48:22
  Speaker A: I think that's an interesting point. And I think it. I think both work in different ways.
• 48:26
  Speaker B: Yeah. I think both have their merits.
• 48:27
  Speaker A: Yeah. I think both work in different ways. I do think what you're saying makes. Makes a lot of sense. That actor refusal to see the problem and her denying it and us seeing it as the audience and seeing that she's like that. She's just refusing to acknowledge what is happening. But what I like in the movie is that it takes us on the journey with her better by doing the edited memory thing. I think it. Because the other red flags are all still there. Everything else about the relationship is still there. And it even helps. I even think part of what I wonder if part of what the performances and stuff and the writing that people think is bad and weird, if some of it is in reaction to that because some of the ways that she reacts and their relationships and they re interact with each other feel really weird. And incongruous with what we see. You know what I mean? And it makes it feel, like, weird. Like, it almost makes it feel like there's something wrong with, like, the script or whatever. And I do wonder if some of, like the, like, for instance, like, the way she, like, begs and pleads with him after they storm out of the restaurant and, like, and they're having that argument on the street and all of that, and the way he. He reacts and interacts and, like. Because up until that point, you still don't see him as abusive. Like, the movie has not presented him as abusive, yet it is that he literally, at that point, it was just the. The cooking accident, quote, unquote accident. And that has been presented as a very clear accident in the movie to us so far, to the point where it does feel like, why are they behaving this way? It just feels weird. But then you realize, oh, in retrospect.
• 50:10
  Speaker B: Yeah. And if you're able to go back and then recontextualize exactly the interactions between them that initially felt a little weird and off make a lot more sense.
• 50:20
  Speaker A: Yes. If you. Yeah. Which I think is interesting. Again, I think it's compelling and I think it does work, but I also think. Think that that, like, you're saying that that kind of somebody making up excuses and convincing themselves that it's not a big deal. I think the movie does a little bit of that eventually, like, later, it at least tries to. But, yeah, that is a different. It's a different perspective. And I think both are. Work in their own ways.
• 50:42
  Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, I think they both have merit. I also think that potentially, like, purely from a practical standpoint, when you're talking about reading a book versus watching a movie, I think that the book's version might have been a little more difficult to make. Really compelling, potentially.
• 51:02
  Speaker A: Yes. Yeah, I agree. I agree. And that's actually what I was kind of getting at was that I think the way the movie does it works maybe better in a movie than it would in a book. And the way the book does it works better in the book than it would in a movie.
• 51:15
  Speaker B: Wow. It's almost like that's the whole thesis of our show. All right, back to Mikko's comments. Mikko said, neither the book nor the movie were my thing, but my vote goes to the book. Also, if others have a hard time getting their hands on the next film like me, I'd highly recommend doing some snooping on a certain archive of the Internet.
• 51:37
  Speaker A: Yeah. And we'll talk more about that here. If you are having trouble. And we'll. We'll get to that here in a second. When we get to the how you can watch the next movie, we'll explain exactly where. Yeah. Can find it and how at the end. So.
• 51:50
  Speaker B: So our winner this week was the book with 13 votes, several of which were Nathan's. But that's fine. I accept that. This isn't serious. You can vote.
• 52:00
  Speaker A: It's not like it was going to be a tie otherwise or something. Yeah.
• 52:03
  Speaker B: Of 13 votes to the movies, two plus our one listener who couldn't decide.
• 52:07
  Speaker A: There you go. All right, it's time now to preview our next book. The Westing Game. Turtle is a girl who loves Adair.
• 52:18
  Speaker B: Bet is a dollar for every minute I stay in the mansion.
• 52:21
  Speaker A: What she discovers is a mystery buried within the final wishes of a millionaire.
• 52:29
  Speaker B: Greetings from beyond the grave who has
• 52:32
  Speaker A: turned his will into a game of clues.
• 52:34
  Speaker B: The second clue is ant a match has been found. The Westingame is a 1978 mystery book written by children's author and illustrator Ellen Raskin. I went and looked at her other stuff that she's written and did not see anything that I recognized. So I think this might be her, like, biggest thing. It is a middle grade novel and it is a Newbery medal winner, which is an award that recognizes the year's most distinguished contribution to American children's literature.
• 53:08
  Speaker A: I wonder, that's interesting when you said this is like the main thing you think she's done or whatever. It's interesting because I don't think I've ever heard of this book. I don't think I've ever read it. But for some reason, the name Ellen Raskin, like, she also did.
• 53:20
  Speaker B: She did a lot of illustration.
• 53:22
  Speaker A: Maybe that's it. I wonder if she had illustrated books that I was aware of or something. Probably because the name, I'm like, why do I know that name? And maybe it's just similar to somebody else's name that I'm thinking of. I don't know. But something about Ellen Raskin, like, really triggered something in my brain of like, I have seen this name before.
• 53:39
  Speaker B: At the time of the book's publication, Kirkus Reviews called it, quote, a super sharp mystery, more a puzzle than a novel, but endowed with a vivid and intense cast. If Raskin's crazy ingenuity has threatened to run away with her on previous occasions here the complicated game is always perfectly meshed with character and story. Confoundingly clever and very funny. The Westing Game ranked number nine all time among children's novels. In a survey published by School Library Journal in 2012, and in a retrospective essay about Newbery Medal winning books from 1976 to 1985, literary critic Xena Sutherland wrote of the Westingame quote, still a popular book with a group of readers who are mystery or puzzle fans. In retrospect, this seems more entertaining than distinguished. Its choice as a metal book underscores the problematic. Can a distinguished book book also be a popular book? I would say yes.
• 54:41
  Speaker A: Yes, of course. Like what?
• 54:44
  Speaker B: And all the better if it's both, I think. In 2025, Publishers Weekly revealed that Ellen Raskin's estate had two unfinished works in manuscript form, one of which is allegedly a sequel to the Westing Game. However, no plot details, titles, or excerpts have ever been released from the sequel. So I don't know if they're planning to do anything with that or not. My hope would be not. Yeah, personally, just. Just let it. Let it stand. But, you know, whatever.
• 55:17
  Speaker A: Unless they also had some notes from Ellen Raskin that was like, please finish this and publish it. Yeah, or whatever.
• 55:24
  Speaker B: Aside from the 1997 film that we'll be discussing, the Westing Game was also adapted as a Stage Play in 2009. Additionally, in September 2020, it was announced that HBO had placed a script to series order based on the book. However, I was unable to find any recent information on that project.
• 55:46
  Speaker A: Fair enough. All right, that brings us to Get a Clue. Now all she has to do is solve his murder.
• 55:54
  Speaker B: Nobody's gonna find out nothing. And if they do,
• 55:58
  Speaker A: the only problem is that everyone's a suspect. Get a Clue is a 1997 film directed by Terence H. Winkless, known for directing 38 episodes of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. The original series, a movie called Rage and Honor, which seemed to be like a martial arts movie, maybe. Maybe a film called White Wolves 2, Legend of the Wild, and then three episodes of the Beetleborgs TV show, among other things, was written by Dylan Kelsey Hadley, whose only other main credit. I think they had three writing credits. And the only other feature film credit might have been two. And their only other credit was White Wolves 2 Legend of the Wild. So they both worked on these two films together.
• 56:47
  Speaker B: Was that one of the crazy. Remember when we did A Hatchet and we talked about all of the, like, quote unquote sequels to the movie that they were, but they all had, like, names that had, like, continually less and less to do? I feel like that wave might have been one of them.
• 57:06
  Speaker A: It's. I don't I have no idea. I don't think it's. It's not related to Hatchet at all.
• 57:10
  Speaker B: Right.
• 57:10
  Speaker A: I don't. I'm sorry. I don't know what you're asking me.
• 57:13
  Speaker B: So when. When we did Hatchet.
• 57:16
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 57:16
  Speaker B: The name of the movie was A Cry in the Wild.
• 57:21
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 57:22
  Speaker B: And then we were talking about how it. A Cry in the Wild had like a bunch of sequels.
• 57:28
  Speaker A: I vaguely remember that.
• 57:30
  Speaker B: Okay. Spawned three sequels. White Wolves, A Cry in the Wild 2, White Wolves 2 Legend of the Wild, and White Wolves 3 Cry of the White Wolves.
• 57:40
  Speaker A: So it is interesting.
• 57:41
  Speaker B: Yeah, so it is.
• 57:43
  Speaker A: Yeah. Those are. And those are. Those have to be unique affiliate. They're not. Because that I looked at. So I looked at the poster for this movie and it's. It seems to be about like a family, like raising wolves or something like.
• 57:55
  Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. So the. So the. I. We talked about that.
• 57:59
  Speaker A: I know it was a long.
• 58:00
  Speaker B: I know it was a long time ago. We talked about how the movie specifically got a bunch of like, unrelated, like, straight to VHS sequels or whatever.
• 58:11
  Speaker A: Oh, yes. That's what it is.
• 58:13
  Speaker B: Or something. Yeah.
• 58:14
  Speaker A: Yeah. So, yes. White Wolves, A Cry in the Wild 2. It's like the Rambo First Blood. It's like the First Blood Part 2. Rambo, whatever thing. White. A Cry in the Wild 2 is a teen adventure film about five teenagers on a wilderness trek. So it's not related to Hatchet at all. In the mountains, who must work together to survive after their leader is injured with the help of a mysterious white wolf. And Then White Wolves 2 Legend of the Wild is the sequel to that movie.
• 58:41
  Speaker B: To that.
• 58:41
  Speaker A: And that might be a more direct sequel. Maybe like. Or. You know what I mean, Like. Yeah. Anyways, so it is technically. That's weird. It has a technical connection.
• 58:51
  Speaker B: You said that. And it, like, triggered my. My memory synapses.
• 58:56
  Speaker A: Yeah. I'm almost done with my notes, by the way, because this. I've said this a couple times over the years, but I legitimately think this may be the movie that has the least information on the Internet about it that we've ever done. There was nothing I could find. Nothing. Other than the very limited Wikipedia article. The film stars Ray Walston, Ashley Pelden, Diane Ladd, Sally Kirkland, Cliff DeYoung, Sandy Faison and Louis Arquette. So this was a made for TV film by Hallmark Entertainment and Showtime, and it aired on Showtime. So we do not have a box office. It also does not have a critic score on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. And it has a 5.2 out of 10 on IMDb. As I said, I could find basically zero information on this film period. So that's all I got. I did find a couple reviews. These are from Wikipedia and these were also the same reviews I found in other places. So I just included the points from Wikipedia. Tony Scott, writing for Variety, called the film quote, a satisfactory kid pleaser and an intricate complex romp whose outer characters and labyrinthine or UTRA character Is that a word that I'm not. Who's O U T R e characters Maybe a word I don't know. And labyrinthine plot could use polishing. End quote. And then Sharon Johnson for the Patriot News which made me question what the hell that is. Called it quote a ripoff and wrote that it's quote this overly long, not very involving mystery isn't much of a movie. End quote. And I'm scared. What the Patriot Dash News is is this is also from 1997. So it's.
• 1:00:32
  Speaker B: It's probably not as.
• 1:00:33
  Speaker A: As insane as insane as it is now. Patriot News is the largest newspaper in Harrisburg. Carlisle Metropair. So it's. Yeah, it's just a newspaper in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
• 1:00:43
  Speaker B: The fact that she called it a ripoff makes me wonder if she realized it was.
• 1:00:48
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's interesting. I would have to go find that specific.
• 1:00:51
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:00:52
  Speaker A: Review to see it like the complete context of that.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker B: That.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker A: So I need a subscription to actually read the article. So I'm not going to be able to read it. But it's the actual like newspaper clipping of the review.
• 1:01:07
  Speaker B: Like a microfiche.
• 1:01:09
  Speaker A: Yeah. Literally. Yeah.
• 1:01:10
  Speaker B: Oh, I love that.
• 1:01:11
  Speaker A: From the Sunday edition, September 14, 1997 on page 75, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
• 1:01:18
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's interesting because I had not gotten the vibe that this was like an unofficial adaptation.
• 1:01:25
  Speaker A: I don't think it is. The other thing I could think would be that she's referring to some other movie that it feels similar to. I don't know what it would be.
• 1:01:32
  Speaker B: Maybe we'll see. When? Because I am wondering partly because I've seen a couple different versions of the movie poster and DVD VHS case now and they all say on them based on the Westing game by Ellen Raskin. Which makes me wonder why they changed the title.
• 1:01:51
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's weird.
• 1:01:52
  Speaker B: And I wonder if they changed it it to try to pick up some. Some like buzz from some other like maybe clue.
• 1:01:59
  Speaker A: Clue is a decade.
• 1:02:00
  Speaker B: I know but that's the only thing I can think of.
• 1:02:02
  Speaker A: Yeah. I have no idea. Yeah, maybe. Yeah it could be clues because it's a mystery. So they're like Clue, like, maybe Clue was blowing up on like home DVD or something. Maybe.
• 1:02:11
  Speaker B: Yeah, I don't know. Maybe. So if it is ripping off Clue, I'll know about it.
• 1:02:18
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's what I said. And that's. I was like, maybe. Maybe it's ripping off some other kids movie that. Yeah, like, maybe we'll watch it and go, oh, this is clearly like, like trying to do Home Alone or so I don't know. But like something like that. But we obviously won't know until we watch it, so we'll have to see. But that would be my guess of what she's referring to. And not like, oh, it's ripping off this book. Because, like, you would know. Like, clearly it just is this book. I would hope you would think that
• 1:02:41
  Speaker B: if you were writing a review of it in your Sunday edition of your
• 1:02:45
  Speaker A: local paper, I might be able. By the time we get to the episode, I might be able to. Because I think I. I think I might be able to access that newspaper potentially. So I might be able to. Because I think we might have an account for that newspapers.com or whatever for like historical stuff. So I might be able to read that article and if I do, I can talk you in. In the main episode, I can mention what she was referring to as a ripoff or how it was a ripoff, hopefully. So.
• 1:03:11
  Speaker B: Or maybe we'll watch it and we'll be like.
• 1:03:13
  Speaker A: Or maybe we'll watch it and it'll just be obvious. Yeah. As always, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook. Facebook, Instagram, threads, Blue Sky, Goodreads, any of those places. Interact. We'd love to hear what you have to say about the movies we watch. We're just in time. We're about to have a storm roll through and thunder through all of our talking. So we got here. I just got an alert on my phone. I assume it's a severe thunderstorm warning. Yep, yep, there we go. So, yeah, we're about to get hailed on. Hopefully not, but we'll see. Yeah. So support us or engage with us on all those social media platforms. We'd love to hear what you have to say. Drop us a five star rating and write us a nice little review on all of the places where you listen to us and support us at Patre. Katie, where can people watch Get a Clue? The westingame.
• 1:03:55
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library or a local video rental store. I did check with our local library and they did not have a copy of this movie. This also might be one where like, if you have a friend or a relative that has just never thrown away their VHS collection from the 90s, maybe
• 1:04:14
  Speaker A: check with them, maybe you could find it there.
• 1:04:15
  Speaker B: Yeah. You can stream this with a subscription to Cineverse or something called Dove Channel.
• 1:04:23
  Speaker A: Dove Channel is who owns the rights to this movie now? Because when I looked at YouTube, like if you rent it through YouTube, it's through Dove Channel or whatever.
• 1:04:32
  Speaker B: So I think they own you can do.
• 1:04:34
  Speaker A: Which I think is just a spin off of Hallmark or might even be Hallmark Travel might be Dove Channel.
• 1:04:38
  Speaker B: I don't know about it. I just think of the chocolate or the soap.
• 1:04:41
  Speaker A: Yeah, but because Hallmark's logo was a dove forever. Right. I'm pretty sure. And so I think Dove Channel might be Hallmark. Hallmark Movie Channel. Now, essentially, I think you can do
• 1:04:51
  Speaker B: Cineverse offers like a one week free trial. If. So if, if you feel like you want to roll the dice that you won't forget to cancel that.
• 1:05:01
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:05:02
  Speaker B: Otherwise, as Mo suggested, you can do a little poking around on the Internet Archive.
• 1:05:10
  Speaker A: Yes. So it's not so Dove Channel streaming services direct to consumer Ottoman. Dove Channel offers a library of family friendly and Christian based programming. The channel is a partnership between Cineverse, then known as Cinedigm. Oh, those are the people that make projectors maybe or whatever. Because before movies at our theater, all the time it's like Cinedyme or. No, that's Cinedyne with an N. This is Cinedyme. Because I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure the movie theater one where it's like Cinedyne. I think that's an N at the end.
• 1:05:41
  Speaker B: I think it's an M. I don't know.
• 1:05:42
  Speaker A: Well, anyway, we're going to have to go to the movie. We just went Saturday, Sunday. But they don't do that anymore. They don't do the Cinedine thing. I don't think anymore. Maybe they. I don't think so. I don't. At least I don't recall it anyways. And the Dove Foundation. The Dove foundation is a nonprofit that does like the. They're the ones who like rate the movies for like.
• 1:06:01
  Speaker B: Oh, God.
• 1:06:02
  Speaker A: Like, for like nonprofit organization. Yes. That rates films, television programs, video games and other media for their suitability for family audiences based on Christian values. Founded in 1991 and headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, it's best known for its Dove Family Approval seal, a certificate certification mark awarded to entertainment deemed appropriate for family viewing. So in that case, then I'm Perfectly happy to say. You should just go to internetarchive.com and search for the Westing game. Yeah, I found it earlier. Do not search for. Get a clue. You won't find it there. The Westing game is what it's under. And it's very good quality. I clicked through it looks like a very good quality, good version of it that they got. And so, yeah, you can just watch it on Internet Arcade. You don't have to give your money to a weird Christian organization if you don't want to.
• 1:06:49
  Speaker B: Yeah, the. The Wikipedia article for the book did say that it was released also under the title the Westing Game. I don't know. It didn't.
• 1:06:58
  Speaker A: It may have.
• 1:06:59
  Speaker B: It didn't specify, like, when or where.
• 1:07:01
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:07:01
  Speaker B: But, yeah, who knows?
• 1:07:03
  Speaker A: So. Yes. Yep. Those are the places you can watch it. I will say, as I was clicking through it, I was like, like, man, I'm not. I don't know if it'll be any good or not, but it looks pretty good for a kid. A made for TV kids movie from 1997. It's one of those things people like, we don't make movies like this anymore, man. Like, I can't believe that a made for TV movie that nobody's ever heard of looks like that. Again. I. I say that I clicked through a couple scenes and it's not like it was like the most glorious thing. I just was surprised by how compelling it looked from the coupled places I clicked through, which I was not suspect or expecting. So I'm interested to see what it is because I've literally never heard of it. I still don't know. I know it's like a mystery thing or whatever, but I have no idea, like, what. What it is.
• 1:07:49
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's like a kind of a murder mystery, like who gets the. The inheritance.
• 1:07:56
  Speaker A: So is it kind of like what's the. The young lady detective Nancy Drew? Is it like a Nancy Drew story?
• 1:08:04
  Speaker B: A little.
• 1:08:04
  Speaker A: No. Okay.
• 1:08:05
  Speaker B: It's like an ensemble cast.
• 1:08:07
  Speaker A: Oh, okay. Okay.
• 1:08:08
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:08:08
  Speaker A: So it's more like an Agatha Christie novel, but for kids.
• 1:08:12
  Speaker B: Yeah. Maybe there's not really a. Yeah, there's not a detective fair. Yeah. And it's a short book. It's like 180 pages. Ish. I read it in like fourth or fifth grade. That would have put me at like 10, 11. And I remember really liking it.
• 1:08:32
  Speaker A: Sweet. Yep. All right, so, yeah, go ahead and watch that on Internet Archive. That makes it. Everybody can. Can get a hold of that one because. Yeah, I was worried that, like, nobody was gonna be able to watch this movie, but. Yeah, the fact that.
• 1:08:46
  Speaker B: Read the book. Yeah, it's a good book. It's a short book and it's. You'll fly right through it.
• 1:08:52
  Speaker A: Yeah. Cool. Well, come back in one week's time. We're talking about the Westing game, Slash Get a Clue. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary pals and everybody else, keep reading books, keep watching movies and keep being awesome.