Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to The Shawshank Redemption - The Maze Runner Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to The Shawshank Redemption - The Maze Runner Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our Maze Runner listener polls and preview the Shawshank Redemption. Hello and welcome back to another prequel episode of this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. This prequel episode's coming out at an odd time because we were a little behind schedule with our summer series, but we're catching back up and we were going to get right back on schedule with our Shawshank Redemption episode, which will be out on time this week. But we do have quite a bit to talk about, so we're going to jump right into our patron shout outs.
• 0:44
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons.
• 0:48
  Speaker A: That's why we have two new patrons this week. Well, kind of one and a half, I guess. One free patron joining in for free, which means they can see all the posts and stuff, but obviously don't get any of the bonus content or anything. Kate Burrell. Thank you, Kate for signing up for the free patronage. And we have a new $2 Newberry medal award winner. And they are David Spencer. Thank you, David. We really appreciate it. And as always, we have our Academy Award winning patrons that support us every month at the top level. And they are Nicole Goble, Eric Harpo Rat, top salesman for May at TFIL Pod, Vic Apocalypse, Mathilde Cottonwood, Steve. Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier Gratch. Just scratch. Shelby says girls are awesome. Smiley face with sunglasses emoji that darn skag and V. Frank. Thank you all very much for your continued support. We really appreciate it. Katie, let's see what people had to say about the maze runner.
• 1:51
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man.
• 1:57
  Speaker A: So I put a note here that I wanted to start with I forgot to tell my anecdote about the maze runner that I mentioned at some point. And I have to do it before I forget. It's not even that interesting in retrospect, but I thought it was kind of just an interesting view into the differences in generations or whatever. So during my day job I work in video. I do my like video production or whatever. And something I do pretty regularly is I go to a local technical school. Like there's like a career in technology school and they do job interviews, mock interviews, and I go and volunteer and help do like mock interviews for their video department because they have like a TV and film program or whatever. And I interview some of those students, do fake interviews for them to like prepare them. And so usually that ends up just kind of Chatting and asking interesting questions and just getting them comfortable, talking to people and talking about stuff they're passionate about and whatever. I don't, like, grill them. Like job interview questions. I don't know if they like what I do or not, but I kind of have a conversation.
• 2:59
  Speaker B: I mean, they keep having you back.
• 3:01
  Speaker A: Well, it's not like, sure, but they don't know what I'm doing during the interviews. But anyways, because I don't really do, like, a job interview necessarily. But point being, because one of the things that's interesting about is the kids themselves, like, being in the program doesn't necessarily mean they want to pursue a career in. In TV and film. Always. I've had that happen before, so I always ask them. And when I do get kids who actually are interested in TV and film and want to go into that, then we kind of go down that path and talk about those kind of things. And I had a kid, this last one where I was asking, which I always asked him, what are some of your favorite movies or TV shows? What inspires you to want to make movies? Or what inspired you to get into this? What are some of the inspirations you have that really get you excited about movies or TV or whatever video? I had a kid this year who was like, oh, yeah? I don't know. He's like, well, you know, there's one movie that I really like that is probably my favorite movie that is, like, the reason I want to make movies. And I was like, oh, what is it? He goes, I don't know if you've ever heard of it. And I go, I mean, try me. I've heard of a lot of movies. He's like, the Maze Runner. And I was like, oh, yeah, okay, this is like, a few months ago. And I was like, cool, cool. And then we chatted about it and asked him, like, why? And stuff. And it's not like it's a terrible movie, but it's just funny that. That, you know, for somebody my age, it's like Star wars or whatever, Indiana Jones or something like that. For this kid, it was the Maze Runner. And I was like, all right, fair enough. Just thought it was really interesting. Anyways, that's my anecdote.
• 4:32
  Speaker B: All right, well, over on Patreon, we had five votes for the movie and zero for the book. This is going to be a recurring theme.
• 4:42
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 4:43
  Speaker B: Kelly Napier said, I think my decision was a lot harder than it was for the two of you, because I didn't totally hate this book. I wouldn't say that we totally hated the book.
• 4:55
  Speaker A: I wouldn't say totally hated because I don't think it's at least like. I can't say I totally hate it because I don't think it's doing anything like offensive.
• 5:02
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 5:03
  Speaker A: You know what I mean? Like, I don't think it's doing anything harmful.
• 5:06
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 5:06
  Speaker A: It's just not a particularly interesting.
• 5:08
  Speaker B: It's not particularly interesting. Yeah, I agree.
• 5:10
  Speaker A: Like it's. And like I said, I kind of mentioned like as a 12 year old or whatever. I think I would have liked reading it. Like, I don't think it's like bad.
• 5:16
  Speaker B: As a 35 year old. Very forgettable.
• 5:19
  Speaker A: I just don't think it's like a good book.
• 5:20
  Speaker B: I feel like I'm gonna forget what happened in that book before I even read the second one completely.
• 5:25
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 5:26
  Speaker B: But Kelly said. But I voted for the movie mostly because the world building was a lot stronger than the book. I also appreciated them losing the telepathy between Thomas and Theresa. It always felt so unnecessary when I read the books previously.
• 5:40
  Speaker A: Well, that makes me worried.
• 5:41
  Speaker B: That makes me very worried that it's. Yes. That it's not gonna be important in the upcoming books.
• 5:47
  Speaker A: Just gonna be a thing that he added that is just there.
• 5:51
  Speaker B: My favorite thing the movie did that wasn't in the book was the wall where the guys etched their names. I thought it was a great way to quickly show what the Gladers had been through in their time there. And it's absolutely plausible that a bunch of teen boys would want to carve their names into something. There were a few things I think the book did better. The first is Galley's dislike of Thomas. I liked that a reason was given for him to hate Thomas. Some distant memory he couldn't quite recall. Instead of just hating on him, to hate on him.
• 6:21
  Speaker A: So obviously I disagree a lot because to me it almost felt the opposite.
• 6:26
  Speaker B: I agree. And now obviously there were a couple people who expressed similar opinions on that element of the book. And I don't know, I. For some reason it just did not work for me.
• 6:36
  Speaker A: It did not work for me at all. And now I know. I get what you're saying. Like, yeah, like that he does have this. This distant memory or whatever for some reason. But it felt so. Because we don't know what it is. To me it felt so, like arbitrary and like, okay, well how can I. How do I latch onto this in any way if I don't know the reason? Yeah, in any way. Well, and in the movie he doesn't really hate him initially, which is, I think, what helped us for us, and what makes him a more interesting character in the movie is that he doesn't just initially hate him in the movie. He. He's like a harsh kind of like, you know, he. He wants to harshly enforce the rules and gives him a hard time. But he also like that moment where they. After they fight and he remembers his name and they, like, shake hands.
• 7:17
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 7:17
  Speaker A: Like.
• 7:17
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 7:18
  Speaker A: It's not like he just hates him. He. He's just, you know, he's kind of weary of him. And then as it progresses and he starts. And the Glade starts falling apart and he sees Thomas as the reason for that, he grows to dislike him and hate him. But it's. It's. It's a. It's a slower progression in the movie based on things we actually see versus in the book. It's an immediate thing based on something we never.
• 7:41
  Speaker B: Yeah. Based on something we don't know anything about. That I think could have been an interesting storytelling element.
• 7:49
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 7:50
  Speaker B: This idea of, like, the memory loss. But him kind of like vaguely being able to remember Thomas, he thinks like something that could have been interesting but was just not very well explored by the book, in my opinion.
• 8:01
  Speaker A: I would agree.
• 8:02
  Speaker B: But Kelly went on to say, I also preferred the way they did the Griever hole. Sorry for making you say it again, Katie. To being the way out of the maze in the book. If the maze had been explored as thoroughly as we were told it was, there's no way they wouldn't have found the way out shown in the movie before Thomas showed up. Along the same lines. The final battle was way better in the book, too.
• 8:25
  Speaker A: Yeah. Those are two things that we covered specifically.
• 8:29
  Speaker B: And side note, show me a picture of Kaya Scodelario, I think is how you say her name, probably. And a picture of Margaret Qualy. Quality. And I'll tell you, they're the same.
• 8:40
  Speaker A: I didn't realize, but they do look pretty similar.
• 8:42
  Speaker B: They do look pretty similar.
• 8:44
  Speaker A: And Kaya. Kaya Scudillario. I don't know if I've seen her in anything else ever.
• 8:50
  Speaker B: I. I looked her up following TV shows. She was in some TV stuff.
• 8:55
  Speaker A: Like British TV shows.
• 8:57
  Speaker B: Yeah. I don't. I don't think she was in anything else, like, as big as this.
• 9:02
  Speaker A: No, I don't think so.
• 9:04
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 9:06
  Speaker A: But she does look like Margaret. Quality. We're in. This is when we entered the Margot Qualley era.
• 9:11
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 9:11
  Speaker A: We go through eras of. Of. Of actresses looking like. Like types, like archetypes. Of actresses being popular. And we're in the Margaret Qualley era right now.
• 9:21
  Speaker B: So our next comment was from Shelby, who said there's a parody clip of a Bachelorette style show making the rounds on social media. In it, the Bachelorette sends a guy home because as she tells it, I feel like you're just here for the zipline.
• 9:38
  Speaker A: Oh. So, Shelby, I have good news for you. There's a whole TV show that. That is from. That is one of my favorite TV shows. If you haven't watched on Netflix. It's a show called I Think youk Should Leave with Tim Robertson, I think is his name. So the guy in that sketch is Tim Robertson, and he. He's in a movie.
• 9:57
  Speaker B: I think it's Robinson.
• 9:58
  Speaker A: Robinson. That's it. Tim Robinson. He's in a movie that just came out with Paul Rudd called Friendship that I want to see. But I think you should leave as a sketch show. And that's just one of the sketches is that fake, fake Bachelorette thing where he's just there for the zipline. Anyways, that is a great show. Go watch. I think you should leave. It's all that kind of humor. So if you liked that sketch, you'll probably like the show. But it's very weird humor. But specifically, another thing that's super funny in that is that the actress in that is the lady from Black Sales. I'm pretty sure.
• 10:30
  Speaker B: Oh. Or.
• 10:33
  Speaker A: Or no, no, no. She's. It's either the girl from Black Sails or the girl from the Flash. No, it's. I think it's the girl from Black Sails.
• 10:39
  Speaker B: I could.
• 10:40
  Speaker A: The French. The French actress from Black Sails. She is the girl who is like the Bachelorette in that. I'm pretty sure. Anyways.
• 10:47
  Speaker B: Yes, I had a huge crush on her when we watched Black Sails.
• 10:50
  Speaker A: I'm pretty sure that's it. Her. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.
• 10:53
  Speaker B: Okay. So Shelby went on to say, well, friends, this is the part of the Maze Runner franchise where I go home. I was here because the maze is magnificent. But they escaped the maze. That means no more maze. Without the maze. Why should I stay back? When this movie came out, I saw it with a friend in theaters. Neither of us knew a thing about it other than maze. It was a spur of the moment decision, but we had a fun time. I'm glad. I could appreciate the maze on the biggest screen I could find. It was beautiful. The sound design was perfect. 10 out of 10.
• 11:28
  Speaker A: Fair enough.
• 11:29
  Speaker B: The only other thing I remember from that experience was my friend's reaction when. Gasp. A Girl showed up, followed by my response. It's probably his sister. I'm not excited about the maze.
• 11:40
  Speaker A: I will say that when I read that line, I was like, oh, it's gonna be a sister. We're gonna do the Star Wars.
• 11:46
  Speaker B: I could, I could definitely see that happening.
• 11:50
  Speaker A: It's the Luke and Leia thing. Yeah, yeah. As soon as I read that, I was like, oh.
• 11:58
  Speaker B: Guess we'll find out.
• 11:59
  Speaker A: Yeah, we'll see.
• 12:01
  Speaker B: I'm not excited about the maze less sequels, but I am vaguely curious if the movie continues the trend of better than the book in every possible way. I have a vague idea of what happens in these next two.
• 12:14
  Speaker A: I. I personally am more excited about the maze of sequels because to be honest, the maze held very little. Not very little. Like, it was an interesting concept, but like, I wasn't like over the moon, like the maze. I got it. I'm so excited for this maze. Like, I'm more excited for to see where it goes story wise. Although I will probably be disappointed and be like, well, the maze was the most interesting thing they had going. So we'll see.
• 12:40
  Speaker B: Probably. I do think it is a bold decision to immediately abandon the thing that you premised your entire first book around.
• 12:48
  Speaker A: But it is interesting.
• 12:50
  Speaker B: I guess we'll see how that one plays out.
• 12:52
  Speaker A: And I was correct. The actress from from that I think you should leave sketch is also. She is from Black Sails. Her name is Jessica Parker Kennedy. She is from Black Sails, but she is also in the Flash. She plays Nora West Allen.
• 13:06
  Speaker B: Oh, that's right.
• 13:07
  Speaker A: I remember that because I remember we stopped watching right after she came on.
• 13:11
  Speaker B: Shortly before we stopped watching. Yeah.
• 13:13
  Speaker A: And we were like. I was like, hey, it's what's her name From Black Sails and Max is her name in Black Sail fails. But anyways.
• 13:21
  Speaker B: Continuing with Shelby's comment, speaking of, I thought this would have come up in the prequels, but I guess not. The Kill Order and the Fever Code are just prequels Dashner added to the series after the fact. The trilogy is the Maze Runner, the Scorch Trials and the Death Cure, all of which were adapted.
• 13:38
  Speaker A: That makes me feel so much better.
• 13:40
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think I got confused in that initial prequel because when I looked on the like, Wikipedia page for this like I was looking on the like series Wikipedia page and it had them listed in publish order, but it didn't say that they were prequels in the like table that I looked at. So I think I just missed that fact. But I am also very relieved.
• 14:02
  Speaker A: I'm relieved about that. Although I'm a little worried that that means we're not gonna get the answers we want about the backstory in this. You know what I mean?
• 14:12
  Speaker B: Quite possibly.
• 14:13
  Speaker A: I'm a little worried that we're gonna left at the end of the series going okay, but I still don' why the maze and you know what I mean? And that we may not get those answers until these prequel. Hopefully that's not the case.
• 14:26
  Speaker B: It looks like there's tons of bonus content if you're so inclined. Probably not inclined. I'd be interested to hear listeners more familiar with the world weigh in during this summer series.
• 14:38
  Speaker A: I don't know if we're gonna get any bonus content.
• 14:39
  Speaker B: I would also be interested in that. I don't know if any will show up, but I would also be interested if they do.
• 14:46
  Speaker A: They'll probably off pretty quickly after they hear us dumping on the book for the first episode.
• 14:54
  Speaker B: After seeing the movie, I did give the book a try. I got halfway through and moved on. Listening to the audiobook this time was much better. And I can see why young readers like it. As you both said, this book is all tell. As an adult who reads a lot, it was a struggle at times. But for young readers with less patience who just want action, telling can be the right move.
• 15:15
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's kind of what I said. Like, if I read this when I was 12, I'd be like, okay, I would enjoy it.
• 15:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. Showing and telling are both important to something like a novel. And I'm sure Katie could do a whole learning things segment on this showing is for the emotional moments, the moments when we're supposed to bond with the characters and explore the world. Generally, they're breathing moments for the story to get us to connect, but they slow everything right down. Telling is useful for making things move quickly. For example, summarizing the characters, doing a bunch of things so we can get back to the important parts of the story. Right? Yeah, sometimes it's. It's better to just say John Smith bought groceries instead of taking us through the whole experience of finding a parking space, getting a cart, weaving through the aisles. Oh, no, they're out of chocolate ice cream. Unless something important happens during the grocery run, you don't need any of that. Young readers with short attention spans are less likely to miss the difference if you rely more on telling to keep the story going.
• 16:07
  Speaker A: Yeah, sure. I think the issue is that it was just there wasn't. There was like one scene of the showing, like, give us slowing down to let us emotionally connect with characters during the chop.
• 16:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. There was not enough of that.
• 16:21
  Speaker A: There just wasn't. Yeah.
• 16:22
  Speaker B: And my particular issue, like when I brought up telling and not showing during the episode, was that there were specific moments when he would tell us a character had a particular trait that we had never seen, but there was never any point where that character displayed that particular trait.
• 16:41
  Speaker A: And that is in that instance where, regardless of whether it's easier for children or whatever, that is an instance where you should show because just saying, oh, this character does this, especially saying it three quarters of the way through the story when we've been with that character for the whole book and we haven't.
• 17:00
  Speaker B: Seen them act like that or even.
• 17:03
  Speaker A: Had it told to us before. That's another thing. Even if you want to go super lazy with it and just have characters tell us that about that character, they need to tell us that earlier in the story. Like, even then it's lazy. But, yeah, just.
• 17:15
  Speaker B: Well. And I would even say that for something geared towards young readers, you should employ both.
• 17:21
  Speaker A: Yes. Yes.
• 17:21
  Speaker B: You should show that character being a hothead, for example, and then have double down on that with another character being like, oh, that guy is such a hothead.
• 17:30
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 17:30
  Speaker B: But we only got the second half.
• 17:32
  Speaker A: Of that because then you're actually kind of teaching how to read a little bit by showing so that they get it. Pick up this character's character traits through the more emotionally engaging, interesting version by showing us them doing things. It also teaches people or young readers to engage with context clues and again, sus stuff out on their own, but then reinforcing that they're correct in what they have assessed about this character by having another character confirm that I think is probably the best way to do it first.
• 18:00
  Speaker B: Yeah. And I just don't think that this book did that effectively at all.
• 18:04
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 18:06
  Speaker B: Other thoughts from Shelby. I'm pretty sure that Chuck is the only one who ever says clunk in the movie. And it's when he's explaining why they say clunk. It's the most egregious of Dashner's lingo. But if anyone has to say it, it at least suits Chuck. Once Thomas gets his memories back in the movie, he starts saying shit, which makes me hopeful.
• 18:27
  Speaker A: Oh, does he?
• 18:29
  Speaker B: I didn't catch. Or was that the next she said in the movie? So I don't remember him saying, but I'm. I believe you. I'm sure he does.
• 18:39
  Speaker A: Chuck says one time. Because that's. I. Now that I'm thinking about it, when he's getting hauled out of the thing that line where the Griever is pulling him and Thomas says, hold on. And Chuck goes, no shit. He says shit there. Which is interesting. I. I imagine he does, because that line would have zero impact as a comedic beat if he said no clunk. Because the audience would be what they would forget because the movie only, like, set it up once. You know what I mean?
• 19:05
  Speaker B: That's true. The book and the movie both explain that they say clunk because of the sound it makes when you go number two as a human being. I'm just gonna say it doesn't, though, if, like. Yeah, that's so.
• 19:20
  Speaker A: I. I will debate that. Or not debate that. I will say that. I think the context of what. Why they use that word is because they're talking about them use going number two into, like, a bedpan style or like a metal. I assume they are using the restroom in, like, a bucket or something. Yeah, that would, like, maybe a metal bucket. That does make like.
• 19:47
  Speaker B: Yeah, it would make more of a clunk sound. Like that is fair.
• 19:49
  Speaker A: I don't know that's what they're going for, but that would be my guess because other than that, I don't know.
• 19:54
  Speaker B: Any other context if they were just going out and squatting in the woods.
• 19:57
  Speaker A: Or like, in a hole. It wouldn't. Yeah, it wouldn't. Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. My thought was maybe that because they have an outhouse, I think they. Yeah, they. We. In the very beginning, somebody is using or. No, they say a bathroom, but I don't know if they have plumbing. Because remember, very early in the book, there's that scene where Newt or somebody scares. No, Chuck scares Gally. In the bathroom window.
• 20:20
  Speaker B: Yes, yes, yes.
• 20:21
  Speaker A: They specifically say bathroom window.
• 20:23
  Speaker B: I think.
• 20:23
  Speaker A: I don't think it's an outhouse. I think it's. Maybe it isn't out.
• 20:25
  Speaker B: So if they have plumbing, it would make a splash.
• 20:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, that makes no sense. If it's. If it's a regular bathroom with plumbing. If it was an outhouse that had, like, a bucket toilet kind of situation that they, like, empty out every day or something or whatever.
• 20:39
  Speaker B: Or even something more like a porta potty.
• 20:42
  Speaker A: Yes, that could.
• 20:43
  Speaker B: That could kind of make a. A clunk.
• 20:46
  Speaker A: Yeah. But fair enough that most contexts. No, it wouldn't make sense.
• 20:52
  Speaker B: The places where the summer series takes us. Shelby ended that thought on. It feels like the author spent a maximum of 10 minutes workshopping this part.
• 21:03
  Speaker A: I do wonder if we just spent more time.
• 21:05
  Speaker B: I think we may have spent. Just spent more time working that out. You already mentioned, but the characters are so much better in the movie. One thing I did like better about Gali in the book was that he remembers the world before and that's why he wants to stay in their little oasis in the glade. I thought that was an interesting idea.
• 21:24
  Speaker A: So I was that Gally in the book. I thought Alby was the main one who had that motivation towards the end.
• 21:32
  Speaker B: Towards the end where he's like, I.
• 21:34
  Speaker A: Remember the world out there sucks. I don't really remember Gally. Maybe he did. And I'm just forgetting.
• 21:41
  Speaker B: I more prominently remember Gally just hating on Thomas because of his memories.
• 21:47
  Speaker A: Because of his memory and knowing he was somehow affiliated with the maze or whatever. And I mean, not so much because of, like, he remembered again. I have an explicit memory of Alby being like, I remember the world out there.
• 21:58
  Speaker B: It sucks, and it's awful. And I don't. We shouldn't go back to it.
• 22:02
  Speaker A: But he still kind of goes along with him anyways, just because. But Gally. I didn't recall that, but it's possible I'm just forgetting. Forgetting that.
• 22:09
  Speaker B: But, you know, to go back to what I said about this earlier, kind of echoing what Shelby says, it's an interesting idea.
• 22:16
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 22:17
  Speaker B: Does it work? Not for me, but it is an interesting idea.
• 22:21
  Speaker A: Yeah. I think the movie did a better version of that without him remembering.
• 22:25
  Speaker B: But, yeah, it was cathartic to see Teresa wake up and immediately barricade herself in a tower to Chuck Rocks at the boys. It was a nice change from Thomas telling us that all the boys talk about having her for themselves. Yeah. That was something that we didn't get to talk about in the episode, but some of the reactions to Teresa were kind of gross in the book.
• 22:47
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. But I. I don't. I will say I don't know how much of that is. I think some of that's intentional because it's like, you know, it's a. It's. It's 30 pubescent boys.
• 23:01
  Speaker B: I mean, I agree.
• 23:04
  Speaker A: A girl for the first time in their memory, like, it's gonna be weird. And like, I think the book did an okay job of, like, this is a weird experience and handling it. And, like. I don't know. I. I get what you're saying.
• 23:17
  Speaker B: I will say I. I appreciate that the book didn't dwell on it.
• 23:20
  Speaker A: Yeah. That's what I mean by when I say handle it. Well, it's like, they didn't dwell on it and make it, like, a big recurring weird thing.
• 23:26
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 23:27
  Speaker A: But at least Addressed the fact, like. Cause it's like right at the beginning, Albie's like, nobody touc. Blah, blah, blah. Like, you know.
• 23:33
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 23:33
  Speaker A: In a way that at least felt like the movie or the book kind of acknowledging, like this is a. A weird, tough situation. But I don't want to. We're not going to dwell too much on this. This. Yeah. Gender politics of it all.
• 23:46
  Speaker B: I will say, though, I still prefer the movies.
• 23:49
  Speaker A: I agree. I agree. Yeah.
• 23:51
  Speaker B: On that note, I enjoyed Teresa feeling like a character in the movie with her own motivation book. Teresa just felt like Thomas cheerleader. I'm curious to see if they stay so different in the sequels. I thought I remembered this movie being better, but literally, second one, Thomas wakes up in the box and there's already more tension.
• 24:10
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yep.
• 24:12
  Speaker B: That's all I've got this time. Interested to hear what Brian thinks of Stephen King's writing?
• 24:17
  Speaker A: I'm interested to know why you're interested to hear what I think of one of the most prolific and well regarded authors of our generation's writing. Spoilers. I think it's good. I have finished the book already. It's good.
• 24:32
  Speaker B: Is this the first King you've read?
• 24:34
  Speaker A: I think so.
• 24:36
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 24:37
  Speaker A: At least that I've read in its entirety. I may have read an excerpt at some point somewhere from like a class or something, but I. I don't think I've ever read anything else Stephen King's done. I don't think maybe a short story or something, but. Yeah.
• 24:50
  Speaker B: All right. Our next comment was from Cottonwood Steve, who said, in all fairness, this was an easy choice and the movie should win in a landslide.
• 24:59
  Speaker A: I think it did.
• 25:00
  Speaker B: Now. Now, I was one of those people that went into this movie without reading the source material. And I knew right away the ending was going to be a con. In fact, it kind of disappointed me. And I didn't know this was based on a book series. I would have loved to see this get a 70s sci fi ending where the kids step out of the maze and realize the world just sucks and they are screwed and they can't go back. But that is some fanfiction kind of stuff I would have written because I'm just that morose. Anyway, I feel you really hit a lot of the same points I had when I read this story. It's a battle of either or when it comes to the book versus the movie. I definitely liked the Lord of the Flies, Lost Boys vibe of the movie, but I also missed the intricate hierarchy the boys established with the runners being on top. I Missed the special room only the keepers knew about where most of their special equipment was held. Plus, I enjoyed the ending a little more in the book, where the group actually gets to sleep in beds and eat pizza in addition to the way they escaped. I despised the psychic connection Thomas and Teresa had. But I did like the fact that Teresa wasn't in a coma for seemingly half the book. Yeah, yeah, she was in a coma for like most of the book.
• 26:12
  Speaker A: And the movie shortens that quite a bit. That being said, I, I. It's funny that everybody hated the psychic connection so much. It just did nothing. I just didn't care. But like, I also don't think it was. I think it makes sense to cut it in the movie, but it didn't like actively bother me in the book. I don't know. I was like, it's whatever.
• 26:32
  Speaker B: I give the movie a lot of credit when it came to the casting and the nuanced changes to the characters. No one on the planet could be described as potato faced more than Willpolter.
• 26:42
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's. You're not wrong. Live action Sid from Toy Story Gally.
• 26:49
  Speaker B: Was definitely the best change. Rather than just being some young oversized jerk, he was actually a responsible and physically imposing character. In military terms, reasonable. Reasonable and physically impossible.
• 27:03
  Speaker A: Like reasonable in the sense that like, he wasn't just like an asshole. Like unreasonably so.
• 27:07
  Speaker B: Yeah, he actually. Yeah, in military terms. I like the fact they made him a de facto senior master sergeant rather than a kid vying for General.
• 27:16
  Speaker A: Sure. Take your word for it. Because I don't know, I don't know the archetypes there to be able to apply it to the movie.
• 27:22
  Speaker B: He could have gunned for a higher commission, but instead he stayed close to his men. I felt Alby's change in character was better as well, for I just didn't enjoy the dark turn he took at the end of the story. Destroying the map room just seemed out of left field. Even if he somewhat prepared the others on the condition he might do that. Minho's changes were also welcome, making him a little more stout and resolute rather than the cowardly Asian character that was prevalent for the longest time in Hollywood media. But the biggest character change I appreciated was Thomas. This is a hot take, for sure. I don't know if it's that hot. I kind of agree. But Thomas seemed like a massive Mary sue in the book. He was destined to be a runner. According to his inner monologue. He was psychic, he helped build the maze, blah blah blah. In the Movie Gally was obviously more physically imposing than him and than him and proved so in the circle. Compared to the other runners we see, namely Ben and Minho, Thomas definitely looked like he needed to hit the gym. Plus Thomas saves Alby with the help of Minho, which felt more realistic than him doing it alone. Plus the biggest difference was the final fight where Thomas fights alongside his other Gladers. While in the book it makes it seem like everyone is sacrificing themselves for him.
• 28:39
  Speaker A: They are essentially.
• 28:40
  Speaker B: Yeah. I just get the feeling he relies on teamwork and the strength of others rather than being the main character. Of course, this could all change in future books, so we shall see.
• 28:51
  Speaker A: Yeah, because I assume we are still going to. I mean he is, you know, the most important boy. So we're gonna figure out why and.
• 28:58
  Speaker B: I some kind of chosen something something. Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing how this series moves along. Personally, this story could have just been a one off book if the desire to capitalize on a genre movement wasn't at the core of the creation of this series. Felt the same way about Divergent, but who knows. We shall see. My obvious prediction is Thomas and Teresa eventually get together and create flare resistant children. My crazy idea is it's all a simulation. Let's see where this goes.
• 29:29
  Speaker A: I'm not saying it's that. That's probably my. I didn't include that in my predictions, but that probably would have been my long term like a series prediction, like.
• 29:39
  Speaker B: A Matrix style, like that.
• 29:41
  Speaker A: This whole thing is. Yeah, some sort of.
• 29:45
  Speaker B: I could see that happening thing where they.
• 29:47
  Speaker A: They wake up in a pot or whatever and they're doing all of this in mentally like simulating all of this in order to unlock whatever. I don't know, kind of. I guess that's kind of like. I guess the inverse of Ender's game where they think. They think it's all fake and it.
• 30:07
  Speaker B: Ends up being real. And Steve's last comment we'll hear was and as a former runner before COVID messed up my waistline and my job, messed up my back. It is essential having runners underwear. Just saying.
• 30:20
  Speaker A: I mean, yeah, you got to have good underwear.
• 30:22
  Speaker B: I'm not saying that it's not essential.
• 30:24
  Speaker A: No.
• 30:24
  Speaker B: I just think it's funny that James Dashner went out of his way to clarify that they had it and they.
• 30:30
  Speaker A: Called them runny undies, which is also funny.
• 30:33
  Speaker B: Okay, I think this is our last. Yes is our last comment on Patreon from top salesman for May at TFIL Pod, which is Nathan Yes. And Nathan said, I thought I was very negative toward this book, but y' all liked it a lot. A lot less. I thought I was very negative toward this book, but y' all like it less than I did by a lot. I can't really argue with you. And the movie was definitely better. I will say that while Movie galley is much better, I don't think it's the case that in the book, he's just an angry kid who hates Thomas for no reason. He hates him because he has previously been stung. And he saw Thomas and knew he was associated with the Maze. He doesn't have his dull memory anymore, so that is why he's so frustrated. I think the book was trying to make this post sting status complex and meaningful, but kind of for halfway and gave up.
• 31:28
  Speaker A: Mm.
• 31:30
  Speaker B: I also felt emotional connections to Chuck, Thomas and Minho based purely on the book and wanted them to live. So I wouldn't say the book did a totally terrible job of building up characters.
• 31:43
  Speaker A: Chuck is the only one. Like I said, Thomas, I didn't care about Minho. Like, I knew the book wanted me to care about him, but I just.
• 31:50
  Speaker B: Didn'T really see that was the thing for me was that I could feel the book, like, telling me that I needed to care about these characters. But it didn't come through enough in the actual writing.
• 32:03
  Speaker A: Yeah. Again, Chuck was the only for me.
• 32:04
  Speaker B: To form those emotional bonds.
• 32:06
  Speaker A: Yeah. Chuck was the only one where it tried to do that. So it just. Again, I knew that it wanted me to like these other characters. I just didn't.
• 32:13
  Speaker B: I think I would have liked Thomas more if I hadn't been in his perspective.
• 32:17
  Speaker A: Could be. Yeah.
• 32:18
  Speaker B: To be fair.
• 32:18
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 32:20
  Speaker B: I think in the movie, we're meant to believe that the Glade was attacked right after Team Thomas left, and only Gally survived. So in his sting crazed state, he went to take revenge on the people who he thinks ruined his home. He was able to get there faster because he didn't have to fight as many Grievers since they were busy protecting the entrance and then dead or neutralized. He also didn't spend time looking at the base or watching the video.
• 32:45
  Speaker A: My question is still, though, and I get. The only explanation, I think, is that he was stung at this point. So he just remembered was like, how does he know where to go to find them? Yeah, because he had never seen the hole.
• 32:58
  Speaker B: The only explanation is that he had.
• 33:00
  Speaker A: Never seen the hole. He didn't know where it was, how to get into it or anything. But he just. After they get attacked. He just was able to find them again. The only thing I can think is that him being stung, he then remembered.
• 33:14
  Speaker B: Yeah. Given that knowledge somehow.
• 33:18
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 33:20
  Speaker B: In the greater context of summer series, I found the Divergent, Twilight and Fifty Shades films to be truly tough to get through. This was an engaging and propulsive movie. While definitely not reinventing the wheel, I would put it well above those other series.
• 33:36
  Speaker A: I think this movie may be better than any of the movies in those series. Probably. But I thought.
• 33:46
  Speaker B: I don't think I would put it. Personally, I don't think I would put it above the first Twilight movie.
• 33:51
  Speaker A: Probably not the first Twilight movie. No.
• 33:53
  Speaker B: Maybe some of the other ones.
• 33:55
  Speaker A: Most of the other ones. I think my point was talking about comparing it to those was the book specifically. I think it may be my least favorite book of fifty Shades is worse.
• 34:06
  Speaker B: Fifty Shades.
• 34:07
  Speaker A: Fifty Shades is worse. But other than fifty Shades, I think.
• 34:09
  Speaker B: It'S Divergent is kind of a six of one for me because I think that the Maze Runner, just comparing first book to first book, I think that Maze Runner might be a little technically better maybe. But I think Divergent, that first book was way more interesting and intriguing than anything about the Maze Runner.
• 34:36
  Speaker A: I think I would agree with that. Yeah. Well, I think what I would say is that I think the Maze Runner, this book was easier to read and a breezier more just simple read than the first Divergent. But part of that is. But as a result is maybe a slightly better book. But the Divergent, the first book, as messy as it was, at least had some characters that I thought were interesting.
• 35:02
  Speaker B: Yeah, it gave me a little more to chew on.
• 35:04
  Speaker A: Yeah, it just had a little bit more going on, but maybe a slightly worse book and it doesn't go anywhere super interesting.
• 35:12
  Speaker B: I am interested to compare moving forward through this series because Divergent just got messier and messier and worse and worse.
• 35:19
  Speaker A: And it does feel like this may.
• 35:21
  Speaker B: Do a similar thing, but maybe not. We don't know yet. Okay. Over on Facebook we had five votes for the movie and one for the book and we got a couple comments. The first was from Luciana or Luciana, I'm not really sure.
• 35:40
  Speaker A: Depends on how Italian they are.
• 35:43
  Speaker B: Who said this book was a dnf a do not finish for me. I posted a comment somewhere when I began it to say I was pleasantly surprised that I wasn't hating it yet. But unfortunately that opinion didn't last. Listening to Thomas's inner monologue in the audiobook was so tedious and I just didn't care about any of the characters. The movie gets my vote because it was far better than what I read of the book, but that's a low bar. Loved your episode though.
• 36:12
  Speaker A: Well, thank you. I pretty much agree. Another note that I wanted to mention and it kind of goes back to what I was just saying about it being. Or this being readable. Obviously this flies a little counter to what Luciana just said. But one of the things I remember I realized that and when I said like, oh, as a 12 year old I would like reading this is that it's written in the style that reminded me of the Da Vinci Code of whatever that author's name.
• 36:38
  Speaker B: Yeah, we did talk about that.
• 36:39
  Speaker A: Where it's super short chapters. It's like four page chapters and every chapter ends on like a mini cliffhanger kind of that wants you to like.
• 36:49
  Speaker B: Oh, so you have to turn the page.
• 36:50
  Speaker A: Turn the page. It's a page turner and it's written in the style of a page turner that I thought again would be compelling to 12 year old me. To me, 36 year old me. Reading it, I'm like, like I, I know the next thing's not going to be that, you know, like it's, it's like it, it kind of wears out its welcome when everything like every chapter ends with this. Like, oh, what? What now what? Oh, it's just like, all right. Like it just kind of. You get diminishing returns on that. But it did remind me a little bit of DaVinci code in that regard, which. One day. One day.
• 37:25
  Speaker B: Probably sooner. Probably sooner than later than later.
• 37:27
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 37:30
  Speaker B: Our next comment on Facebook was from Andy who said my vote is for the film for all the same reasons talked about on the pod. I read it back in the day for reasons related to teaching and just didn't like it. Then when the movie came out, I was pleasantly surprised. It looked great. Cast are dynamic and committed and within the context of it being a YA boom film, it was competent and entertaining. If there's any overall criticism of both, it's that I don't really think the story is about anything that is there's a cool concept, the dystopian setting and a Lord of the Flies social experiment. And I don't really, I don't and I don't think it really says anything about any of them.
• 38:12
  Speaker A: Yeah, so far that seems to be the case. We'll see. Like maybe it will say something by the end, but so far it really doesn't seem to be saying. Saying anything. Super interesting even on the micro scale. Like you're saying of like in the context of the Lord of the Flies style thing, it doesn't really say anything interesting about like the nature of children or community.
• 38:30
  Speaker B: You know what I mean? It's using those things, but it's not using them to comment on anything.
• 38:35
  Speaker A: Yeah, like, I don't come out of this going like, oh, like this is about like the cruelty of the human spirit or like anything. You know what I mean? It's just there's not, at least so far it's come out of it kind of just being like. Which I don't think is necessarily terrible. Like, I think it's fine for some stories to just be like an adventure story that's not really about anything. But it does, you know, it is.
• 38:58
  Speaker B: Well, but I think, I think where we struggle with something like this though, is that it's not just an adventure story. It's using these genres that are typically used to comment to like, level very dystopian. Sci fi is usually dystopian sci fi, sci fi and this kind of Lord of the Flies thing. Those are pretty typically used to comment on, to make social commentary and commentary on human nature. And this is just not doing anything with them, which makes it to me feel a lot less interesting than other similar stories. Our next comment on Facebook was from Mladin, who said I wasn't going to miss this one. Even though my life had been a little chaotic over the past two months, I experienced both the book and the movie. But my vote goes to the book.
• 39:51
  Speaker A: Oh, a book defender.
• 39:53
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think maybe our only book defender. We gotta come at least comment mine. Yeah. Before I discuss what I liked about the book, let's highlight some of its positives. The cast and acting. Oh, the movie's positives? Yeah, the cat. The cast and acting were great and I especially liked Will Poulter as Gali to a certain point. More on that later. West Ball did an excellent job of bringing the visuals from the book to the screen. The action and tension surrounding the mystery and the characters running from the Grievers was thrilling. I preferred the movie's version of the maze map over the one in the book. Now let's get into what I liked about the book. The introduction to Thomas is similar in both versions, but his personality differs slightly. Book Thomas is very intelligent, curious, frustrated and hot tempered, especially after Chuck's death. Movie Thomas is also intelligent and curious, but he comes across as more of a good person rather than a flawed one simply trying to survive and find answers.
• 40:53
  Speaker A: I will say personally, both Thomas in both versions to me is pretty bland and interesting. Like I don't find a particularly interesting character in either version. Like he's the least interesting part of the movie, honestly. And I also found him, I don't know if he's the least interesting part of the book, but he, I, I just think he's, I like the frustrated and hot tempered. Especially after Chuck's death. We see so little of that. Because it's right at the end of the book that I don't.
• 41:22
  Speaker B: Both. Yeah. We see so little of that.
• 41:24
  Speaker A: Yeah. Like, I don't know. I just, I, I, I don't think he's a. Yeah. He just doesn't do much.
• 41:30
  Speaker B: And perhaps, perhaps Mladin has read the other books and maybe there's. Yeah. Future casting that for us. But we'll find out. Teresa was more intriguing in the book than in the movie.
• 41:43
  Speaker A: Wow. That's. I could not disagree with that more.
• 41:46
  Speaker B: When she arrives at the Glade, she mentions that she triggered the end, which keeps readers wondering about its meaning. Additionally, she possesses telepathic abilities that allow her to communicate with Thomas. She is also the one who claims that she and Thomas are responsible for the kids being in the Glade.
• 42:05
  Speaker A: Her character has more interesting plot elements in the book than in the movie, but she's not a more interesting character.
• 42:14
  Speaker B: I would agree, in the book than in the movie. She's also in a coma for most of it.
• 42:18
  Speaker A: I think she has mentioning that she triggered the end and that is kind of compelling narratively in the story. Why did she trigger the end? What is it about? What does that mean? What is her relationship to this? That stuff's interesting, but it doesn't make her an interesting character. It makes her have. There are certain things about her as an object, as a plot device, as a plot device that are interesting, but not as a character, at least to me. Same with the telepathy thing. It just doesn't make her more interesting as a character. To me, the scene where she climbs a tower and throws rocks at the boys when she first shows up is 10 times more interesting as a character than Element than anything we ever get in the book.
• 43:05
  Speaker B: I totally agree with that. Galley was my favorite character in both the book and the movie. He is the one who tries to keep everyone safe in the Glade and is constantly skeptical of Thomas.
• 43:17
  Speaker A: I will agree that he may have been my favorite character in the movie. I thought he was the most interesting character in the movie, potentially.
• 43:23
  Speaker B: For example, after Thomas survives the maze at night and kills a Griever Gally questions how he was able to accomplish what no one else could in two years. Furthermore, after Gali disappears for a significant portion of the book, he returns terrifying and angry and tells Thomas he doesn't want to discover the truth.
• 43:41
  Speaker A: Yeah. Again, to me, this is similar to the Theresa thing, where he has some interesting plot devices attached to his character in the book. But him as a character, I didn't find as interesting in the book as I did in the movie. But I guess it just depends on what you find interesting about character.
• 43:59
  Speaker B: And I think it is kind of a slight difference. But yeah, I would agree with you. I think there are potentially some more interesting, like, narrative pieces attached to these characters or things that could have been interesting if they were a little better written.
• 44:18
  Speaker A: Yeah. And explored more generally. Yeah.
• 44:21
  Speaker B: But are the characters themselves interesting in the book? Not to me.
• 44:26
  Speaker A: Not to me either. Yeah.
• 44:28
  Speaker B: Now I need to mention a part I didn't like in the movie. After Thomas and the others decide to leave the Glade, while some stay with Gally, it feels as though Gally agrees to let them go with Thomas and will not stop them. So when he later shows up in the research lab pointing a gun at Thomas, it makes no sense, as we already established he wouldn't try to prevent their escape. In the book, Gally's actions are more coherent. After everyone thinks he died, he reappears in the research lab alongside a woman with. With answers, kills Chuck. And then Thomas, filled with rage, returns the favor.
• 45:05
  Speaker A: Oh, returns the favor.
• 45:06
  Speaker B: I think Gally's alive.
• 45:07
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't think. And Thomas doesn't do anything in the.
• 45:10
  Speaker B: Well, he beats him up.
• 45:11
  Speaker A: He beats him up in the book. But we. Yeah, I. I didn't get the vibe that he's supposed to be dead after he beats the.
• 45:16
  Speaker B: Out of him. Right. Because the. Again. And. And maybe this is just not the book not being, like, super well written, but the last thing we hear about Gally in the book is that he's unconscious but still breathing.
• 45:31
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 45:33
  Speaker B: And then everybody, like, busts in with guns and, like, shoots everyone. So maybe he died in that and the book just didn't tell us that. And we'll find that out in book two.
• 45:43
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 45:44
  Speaker B: But the last we see of Gali in the book, it says. It specifically says he is still breathing. So I think he's alive.
• 45:54
  Speaker A: Thomas didn't know which were louder. There was a crunching, there's blood. There were horrible screams. Thomas didn't know which were louder. Galleys are his owns. He beat him. He beat him as he released every ounce of rage he'd ever owned. And then he was being pulled away by Minho and Newt. His arms still flailing even when they only hit air. They dragged him across the floor. He fought them, squirmed, yelled to be left alone. His eyes remained on Galley. Lying there still. Thomas could feel the hatred pouring out as if visible line of flame connected them. And then, just like that, it all vanished. Yeah, that's the last mention of Galley. So he's laying there still. So I. I guess. Yeah. To me, he doesn't. I wouldn't say he's dead, but he tried to kill him, probably.
• 46:31
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 46:31
  Speaker A: So fair enough. I don't entirely disagree with this because, like, I. I think we questioned his motives in the movie.
• 46:39
  Speaker B: The movie, in some of the changes that it made. Had to kind of pull some strings together that maybe didn't necessarily fit perfectly.
• 46:47
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 46:48
  Speaker B: And I. Maybe we're supposed to presume that because he got stung, he's in, like, a crazed state.
• 46:53
  Speaker A: Yeah. I will say, though, that I did. I didn't find it confusing that. So after Thomas and the others decide to leave the Glade, while some stay with Galley, it feels as though Galley agrees to let them go with Thomas and will not stop them. So when he later shows up in the research lab pointing a gun at Thomas, it makes no sense, as we already established, he wouldn't try to prevent their escape. He did try to prevent their escape, but there was enough.
• 47:14
  Speaker B: Yeah, there were enough on Thomas's side.
• 47:16
  Speaker A: That they basically were like, all right, we're not gonna fight and kill each other. Like, yeah, they basically got into a standoff, and there was enough firepower on both sides that they were like, all right, you can go. Like, he let them leave, but then after the Grievers show up and kill everybody else in the Glade, I assume.
• 47:31
  Speaker B: Right.
• 47:32
  Speaker A: He then shows up.
• 47:34
  Speaker B: What have you got to lose?
• 47:35
  Speaker A: Yeah. At that point, it's like, everything that, you know, it's all lost. So he's like, fuck it. I thought it kind of tracks and makes sense. Again, my issue is more of like, how did he get there? Why did he know it was there? Like, that kind of stuff. And also, just having him be stung at that point kind of felt like it slightly undermined his character. I don't know. I just. Yeah.
• 47:53
  Speaker B: Overall, while both the book and the movie are good in their own right, I preferred the book over the screen adaptation.
• 47:59
  Speaker A: Fair enough. We love somebody going to bat for the losing side. Well, not the losing side, but the.
• 48:05
  Speaker B: I love when people disagree with. That's what I mean. It's so much more interesting. Sorry, that's not that we don't also like getting comments that agree with us 100 but I I like when people come out come out swinging for for whatever we said we hated.
• 48:19
  Speaker A: Yeah, really. I think it's super fun and fascinating.
• 48:24
  Speaker B: Over on Instagram, we didn't have any feedback comments, but we did get two votes for the movie, one for the book, and two listeners who couldn't decide on Threads. We had two votes for the movie and zero for the book. And Gumbyok234 said, I really, really tried to read the book, but I couldn't get more than 10% in before. I just lost interest. If we had not been reading this for the podcast, had I not been obligated to finish it, I would have given up after a couple chapters, I think. Yeah, I can't wait to find out what Scientist Frypan is named after.
• 49:05
  Speaker A: Me too.
• 49:08
  Speaker B: And over on Goodreads we had one vote for the movie, zero for the book, and Mikko said, I watched the movie first, so maybe that influenced my assessment. But I enjoyed it much more than the book in almost every way. I can see the storytelling value of A Leap of Fate into the Griever hole, but I have such a hard time grasping what it is. A holographically hidden hatch floating in an infinite pit.
• 49:35
  Speaker A: I think you nailed it.
• 49:35
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think so.
• 49:36
  Speaker A: I think Hole in one. You nailed it.
• 49:39
  Speaker B: The door they open with a Griever's access card seems so much cleaner.
• 49:43
  Speaker A: It's definitely cleaner.
• 49:44
  Speaker B: It's definitely cleaner.
• 49:46
  Speaker A: Explain in a movie.
• 49:47
  Speaker B: I just think it's like 10% less interesting.
• 49:50
  Speaker A: I think it's like way less interesting. It's just, yes, you're sacrificing cleanliness and ease of translating or ease of narrative accessibility, especially for a movie audience, for what I think is just a kind of a more fun world building. It's the kind of weird I dislike in books. Like, I don't know, I don't know how to describe it, but in books like this I like kind of weird, slightly hard to grasp, but also not that hard to grasp because you. Again, I think you nailed it in one. It's a holographically hidden hatch that floats, that is in a space that is. Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't really make sense, but it doesn't need to. I don't know. I, I again, I just think it's kind of interesting and fun. But you're not wrong that It's.
• 50:39
  Speaker B: It is a lot cleaner in the movie.
• 50:41
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 50:42
  Speaker B: Miko went on to say, I really disliked the amount of capitalized terms and slang in the book. You don't need to capitalize gathering maps, variables, or the poll, the map room.
• 50:53
  Speaker A: The.
• 50:54
  Speaker B: Everything is capitalized.
• 50:55
  Speaker A: Everything is capitalized to create this. Yeah.
• 50:58
  Speaker B: The book actually uses the word crap as a curse a couple of times, which makes all the other cursing feel even more childish. I didn't catch that either, but I also was not looking for it. Even the film's translator gave up with the slang, and the subtitles simply referred to butchers and medics and not slicers and medjacks. That is fair enough. The changes the movie makes just make sense. Teresa is introduced later, so we get to see a bit of the normal functioning of the Glade before things start to go awry. And while she's in a coma for a while, I felt like she slept thrice as long in the book. She definitely did. I can buy the initialism WCKD and people turning that into the word wicked, but the bad guys actually using the acronym wicked just. No.
• 51:47
  Speaker A: I appreciate you knowing the difference between an initialism and an acronym, even though I said it incorrectly in the episode.
• 51:52
  Speaker B: Miko, good job.
• 51:54
  Speaker A: Because. Yes. No, I guess WICKED in that sense would be an acronym if they pronounce it it wicked.
• 51:59
  Speaker B: Yeah, if.
• 52:00
  Speaker A: Yeah, if they say WCKD as wicked. But if they say wckd, then yes, it's an initialism.
• 52:06
  Speaker B: Teresa saying Thomas is much more intriguing than the cliche line. Everything is going to change. Yeah, totally agree with that. And finally, without the fake sky, we get a nice goodbye shot of the whole maze from the helicopter.
• 52:20
  Speaker A: Like, it's fun to see the whole thing, I guess, but I also. I thought the. The fake.
• 52:24
  Speaker B: I thought the fake sky was more interesting. The movie has its problems, like how every other scene ends in an interruption, or how people somehow get stung without anybody ever seeing the Grievers. But I still easily prefer it over the Half Baked book. My overarching guess for the series is that the more we learn about wicked's plans, the less the maze makes sense. I think that is a very good prediction.
• 52:49
  Speaker A: That's my fear.
• 52:52
  Speaker B: By the way, how is it time for the summer series again? The Hobbit was only a couple of months ago, right?
• 52:59
  Speaker A: This is so accurately nails my like, because like every time we get to the summer series, I'm like, oh God. And then I'm like, what was the last one we did? And then the one I think was the last one we did was one we did like, three years ago, and I'm like, oh, no. Oh, no.
• 53:17
  Speaker B: Yeah. Passage of time isn't real. Can't wait for next year when you have to resort to something like the Da Vinci Code series.
• 53:26
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 53:27
  Speaker B: Yeah, maybe We'll. We'll find out when we get through these.
• 53:32
  Speaker A: So they.
• 53:34
  Speaker B: What was the third one?
• 53:35
  Speaker A: They at least made two. I think they made three. It's the D.A. vinci Code. Angels and Demons.
• 53:41
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 53:41
  Speaker A: And then the final one was. I think they made the third one. I can't remember what the heck the name of it is.
• 53:48
  Speaker B: I never read the Da Vinci Code. I did read Angels and Demons in high school, but I could not tell you a single thing about it.
• 53:54
  Speaker A: I read the Da Vinci Code. I've never read Angels and Demons, so.
• 53:57
  Speaker B: And I've never seen any of the movies.
• 53:59
  Speaker A: Is the first of the Robert Langdon film series, Inferno. Yeah, they made inferno in 2016.
• 54:05
  Speaker B: Oh, okay.
• 54:06
  Speaker A: So there is all three of them, which I think is all three of the books.
• 54:10
  Speaker B: All right, so our winner this week was the movie in a landslide with 15 votes to the books. Two plus two listeners who couldn't decide.
• 54:22
  Speaker A: Yeah. Absolute landslide, which, you know, tracks with our experience. Thank you all very much for all your feedback. We really appreciate it, especially getting that in on short notice, because we had to turn this episode around quicker than normal. Katie. We don't have a learning things segment this week because we had quite a bit of feedback and we got quite a bit to talk about with our preview of Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard all the evidence.
• 54:48
  Speaker B: This was revenge.
• 54:50
  Speaker A: He fired the gun empty and then stopped to reload.
• 54:55
  Speaker B: You strike me as a remorseless man, Mr. Dufresne. I hereby order you to serve two life sentences is back to back.
• 55:05
  Speaker A: They send you here for life. That's exactly what they take. I'm Mr. Norton, the warden. I believe in two things. Discipline and the Bible. Here you'll receive both.
• 55:20
  Speaker B: All right, it's actually Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. I keep putting the the in there. Every time I accidentally.
• 55:28
  Speaker A: It feels like it should be there.
• 55:29
  Speaker B: And then I see the title of, like, the actual book, and I'm like, oh, yeah, there's.
• 55:33
  Speaker A: It feels like it should be. Even without the movie title aside, it feels like it needs the the.
• 55:39
  Speaker B: I agree. But, yeah, but Rena Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption is a realist novella by Stephen King, who we have covered a lot on this show. It was first published in 1982 in his collection Different Seasons. And according to Wikipedia, it is considered one of his best works.
• 56:00
  Speaker A: That's interesting because I didn't even know it was one of his works works. Yeah, I will say, having read it, that doesn't surprise me because it's pretty good.
• 56:09
  Speaker B: Different Seasons actually also included his novella the Body, which we have also covered on the show. It was adapted as Stand by me in 1986. It was a very early episode that we did that was like in the first year or two of the podcast. Another of its stories, Apt Pupil, was also adapted in 1998, although we have not covered it on the show. I believe. So, yes.
• 56:34
  Speaker A: Never heard of that.
• 56:35
  Speaker B: Yeah, obviously it did not get quite the reception as Shawshank Redemption.
• 56:40
  Speaker A: Well, I bet it to me, the fact I've never heard of it in 1998. I almost wonder if it's a made for TV.
• 56:46
  Speaker B: It could be adaptation. Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption was also later included in the 2009 collection Stephen King Goes to the Movies. The genre realism is unusual for King. Literary realism is a genre that attempts to present mundane and ordinary subject matter in like, a straightforward way. So we're not being like grandiose or exotic with our subject matter. No speculative or supernatural elements. So obviously not what we're used to.
• 57:21
  Speaker A: Reading from King, part of the reason I was so surprised when I found out it was Stephen King years ago, I was like, wait, really?
• 57:28
  Speaker B: Stephen King has described Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption as a prison escape story in the vein of old Warner Brothers films.
• 57:36
  Speaker A: That's fascinating to me because a note that I don't think I included in my movie notes is that when Darabont came to him wanting to adapt this, he thought he was surprised at why he would want to because he didn't think it was filmable.
• 57:52
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 57:52
  Speaker A: Which is a crazy thing to say if he also had described it it as a prison escape story in the vein of a Warner Brothers. What do you mean it's unfilmable if you wrote it in the style of a movie. And I will say, having read the whole book now, I don't know what Stephen King was. I mean, I guess it's hard to say that because I've seen the movie, so I know how it translates into a book. But just reading it as a book, I'm like, yeah, man, what do you mean? This is impossible to shoot, like Blade Runner or something. I at least understand why somebody's like, I don't know. This can't Be filmed or Solaris or something like, how do you film this? I at least understand somebody saying that about something. This. I'm like, well, I don't know. It's a. It's a very straightforward prison narrative, like with a. With a. With a narrator who talks through the whole, like. I don't know. It seems very obvious how you translate into this, into a movie.
• 58:42
  Speaker B: My last note here is that aside from the film that we will be discussing, the story was also adapted for the stage as the Shawshank Redemption in 2009.
• 58:53
  Speaker A: That doesn't surprise me because it seems. I'm surprised it took that long for a stage play because there aren't that many sets like, you know, it takes place in a lot of. You could first play you can do. And there's not like, you know, it's a fairly straightforward. Like, there's not any weird, like big set pieces or anything like that. It's just like, you know, you just need a prison set. So. All right, that is it for Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption Book facts. It's time now to learn a little bit about the Shawshank Redemption, the film. Why'd you do it? I didn't, since you ask. You're gonna fit right in. Everybody in this innocent. Hey, what you in here for? Didn't do it. He had a quiet way about him, a walk and a talk that just wasn't normal around here.
• 59:38
  Speaker B: On the outside, I was an honest.
• 59:40
  Speaker A: Man, straight as an arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook. I think it would be fair to say I liked Andy from the start. The Shawshank Redemption is a 1994 film written and directed by Frank Darabont, known for the Green Mile, the Mist, and the Walking Dead. Interesting. He was the creator and showrunner on the Walking Dead. But yeah, Green Mile and Mist are his other two big movies. The film stars Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton, William Sadler, Clancy Brown, Gil Bellows, Mark Rolston, and James Whitmore, among others. It has an 89% on Rotten Tomatoes, an 82 on Metacritic, and a 9.3 out of 10 on IMDb. And it is the number one rated movie on IMDb on their top list. It has 3.1 million ratings. So I believe part of the reason it's number one is that it has both either the highest score or tied for the highest score, but also has the Most ratings with 3.1 million. But it was kind of a box office flop. It only made 73.3 million against a budget of 25 million.
• 1:00:46
  Speaker B: I know how it works, but it's still wild to me that that's considered a flaw.
• 1:00:50
  Speaker A: Well, and, yeah, because there's marketing and.
• 1:00:52
  Speaker B: Right.
• 1:00:53
  Speaker A: So, yeah, it essentially just made. You know, it might have made, like, it may have broke even, basically, kind of. But, yeah. The film was nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actor for Morgan Freeman, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Sound, Best Editing, and Best Original Score. And embarrassingly, both it and Pulp Fiction lost Beck's Best Picture to Forrest freaking Gump. Yep. Unbelievable. This is one of the years in the Oscars that people talk about as, like, just one of the worst years, because Forrest Gump beat out both Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption in, like, a lot of awards. And it was just like, oh, yeah, yai. It was one of those that didn't age well. I think at the time, people weren't like that mad about it. But in retrospect, people are like, Forrest Gump's not. Not nearly on the same level as these other movies are. So getting into some production notes. Frank Darabont worked with king back in 1983 on a short film adaptation of the Woman in the Room because Darabont had bought the rights from King for a dollar through his dollar deal arrangement. I don't know if you've heard of this. This is actually really cool. So Stephen King, I think he still does this. He has this thing where you can. New directors can purchase the rights to any of his, I think, short stories specifically for a dollar and. And adapt them in order to help get their careers off the ground. Like, hey, you can do a Stephen King movie.
• 1:02:21
  Speaker B: You know what? Stephen King, probably not.
• 1:02:24
  Speaker A: Not.
• 1:02:24
  Speaker B: Probably not a perfect guy. I don't know every detail about him.
• 1:02:27
  Speaker A: I'm sure he has lots of demons.
• 1:02:28
  Speaker B: I'm sure he has lots of demons and, like, things that aren't so great. But, like, overall, he seems like a pretty good guy.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker A: And he was doing this back in the eight. Like, he's been doing this forever. Yeah, he would sell. Young filmmakers could buy rights to a Stephen King script for a dollar and then make a movie out of it. And again, it was an attempt to help them get the careers off the ground using his name and his stories. So after he had made that short film, Darabont came back to King after he got a credit for writing on Nightmare on Elm Street 3. So he had a screenwriter credit now and had a little bit of clout in the industry, and then he bought the rights to Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption for $5,000. And according to Stephen King, he actually never cast the check and later framed it and gave it back to Darabont, accompanied by a note which read, quote, in case you ever need bail money. Love, Steve. So a producer at Castle Rock Entertainment, Castle Rock Entertainment, Liz Glotzer, which Castle Rock Entertainment doesn't exist anymore. They got bought by somebody, I think, or something. She liked the script so much after reading Darabont's draft of it because he both wrote and directed. Directed. She threatened to quit the studio if they didn't produce the film. Castle Rock co founder Rob Reiner also really liked it and apparently supposedly offered Darabont several million dollars in order to be able to direct it himself. And this was something that Darabont really, like, thought about, like, doing, but ultimately decided he'd rather make the movie himself. But Reiner stuck around to help mentor him on the. On the Pro. On the project. Darabont's or, sorry, Rob Reiner's version of the film was planned to have both Tom Cruise as Andy Dufresne and Harrison Ford as Red instead of Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, which I think would have been okay. Harrison Ford, I could see his Red wouldn't hold a candle to Morgan Freeman. He's perfect. But Tom Cruise is Andy. There's no, like, I'll get to this. I think I know why you would go with Tom Cruise. And I think it has to do with him having just been in Rain man probably recently. In Rain man.
• 1:04:34
  Speaker B: This was 1994.
• 1:04:35
  Speaker A: Yeah. And so I think we're going on the Rain man casting because Andy Dufresne's character. We'll get into this. But I. I think is autistic of some sort. And I think that, like, maybe they were leaning into that angle. Like, oh, Tom Cruise can. He just played Rain Man. He can do. Or he didn't play Rain Man. What am I talking about? He's ignorant.
• 1:04:55
  Speaker B: I was just really going along because I have never seen Dustin Hoffman is right.
• 1:05:00
  Speaker A: I wonder, am I talking about why did they think Tom Cruise makes sense? I don't know why. Well, then now I don't know why they thought Tom Cruise would make sense as Andy Dufresne other than just maybe being, like, the most popular actor in the world at the time because he had just been in Mission Impossible or whatever. I don't know. But no, Tim Robbins makes way more sense than Tom Cruise. So speaking of Liz Glotzer earlier, who said she would quit the film if they didn't make it, it was Also, her idea to cast Morgan Freeman as Red, and she actually ignored the novella's character description of a white Irishman who's. That's why he's nicknamed Red, as he has red hair, which I thought was very funny, because this is like one of those things where it's like, everybody nowadays would be. Not everybody. Idiots on the Internet nowadays would be.
• 1:05:46
  Speaker B: Losing their mind over a small, very.
• 1:05:48
  Speaker A: Loud subset of people, you know, but the kind of movies they would celebrate would. I mean, the Shawshank Redemption is like, the epitome of the movie that those kind of nerds would point at and be like, this is a perfect movie. This is before Hollywood was woke. And it's like, well, no, actually, so literally, one of the producers on the film was like, we're going to make this character, this black guy. Because I like. I think it makes more sense for this character.
• 1:06:10
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:06:10
  Speaker A: And, you know, I just. It was very funny that, you know, we had. We had a producer doing DEI casting back in the 90s. Not really, but, like, you know what I mean? Like, that's how it would be described. I just thought it was very funny. Speaking of Morgan Freeman, he apparently opted not to research his role, saying, quote, acting the part of someone who's incarcerated doesn't require any specific knowledge of incarceration because men don't change once you're in that situation. You just tow whatever line you have to tow, end quote. Tim Robbins did do a little bit of research, including, like, going to prisons and talking to prisoners and stuff. So other actors that were considered for the role of Andy Dufresne before Tim Robbins included Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall, Clint Eastwood, Paul Newman, kind of like all of the most obvious, like, have been in Prison Break movies. Tom Cruise, as I mentioned earlier, Tom Hanks and Kevin Costner, apparently, the latter three of which Cruise, Hanks and Costner were all offered the role and turned it down for different reasons. Hanks turned it down because of Forrest Gump.
• 1:07:13
  Speaker B: Right. He was busy.
• 1:07:14
  Speaker A: Yeah. And Cruise supposedly went to Table Reads, but then declined to work for Daramont or Darabont because of his inexperience as a director. So. And I said earlier he was going to be it in Rob Reiner's version, but didn't end up doing it in Darabont's version.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker B: Version.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker A: It's because he didn't want to work with an experienced director, which is everything I know about that makes sense for Tom Cruise, because Tom, Buddy. Well, yes, but Tom. Tom Cruise is like the. Like, the most, like, everything I've ever heard. And even going back to this far back, I think Tom Cruise is like the epitome of like, a film professional. And like, everything on all of his sets are like. To the. Like every. Like, you know, to the letter of how, like, sets should be run and stuff like that. He's like, very. And we'll get into it. But there was some issues in production, so he may have seen some signs with Darabont that. That as to why he didn't want to work on the film. I thought this was interesting. Brad Pitt was initially cast as the character Tommy, who's like a minor character in the film, but ended up dropping out after Thelma and Louise was a big success. So apparently production was fairly rough. Darabont was a fan of doing a lot of takes which Morgan Freeman did not love. And they apparently had butted heads over quite a bit. There's a story that's like one of the top IMDb trivia facts is that there's a scene early in the movie where Red, Morgan Freeman's character, is playing catch in the prison yard or whatever. And they filmed the scene. He just catches and then throws a baseball. And then they talk for a few minutes. And they apparently filmed that scene so many times that the next day Morgan Freeman had to have his arm in a sling. Cause he had thrown the baseball so many times. Or they filmed it for like eight straight hours. I can't remember something like that. Which is wild to me. For a young director to be that, like. I don't know, that's crazy to me. To be like that kind of tyrant on set where you're like, no, we're gonna do 800 takes when it's like your first big, like, directing. That's kind of wild to me. Darabont has reflected on this and later and said, basically, like, I learned a lot about how to make a movie during that time and I didn't do everything perfectly, blah, blah, blah, that sort of thing. Thing. Also, he apparently had a lot of disagreements with Roger Deakins, who was a cinematographer on the film that Tim Robbins specifically wanted to bring on. Because Deakins had shot the Hudsucker Proxy with Tim Robbins right before this. And Roger Deakins is like one of the greatest, if not greatest, cinematographers ever. Definitely. Probably the greatest living cinematographer. He's like 90 something now. I think he has a podcast about cinematography. But he. Yeah, he's very good. But apparently they had some disagreements about how to shoot the film. Specifically, Deakins wanted to show either Darabont I think Darabont wanted to show more like wides of the outside of the prison. And Deakins specifically did not want to because he felt it would make the film more claustrophobic to not get big, expansive wide shots anywhere and to do a lot more just like close ups and claustrophobic stuff to help sell the like. Yeah, the feeling of being in prison. I don't remember which of them won. I assume Daramont probably did. But I'll be. I'll be interested to kind of think about that in context of watching the film again this time that they had that disagreement to see who kind of won out and how it works. So the setting for Shawshank Prison in the film is the Ohio State Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio. Apparently it was kind of perfect. They. They searched all over the country looking for a prison to film this in. This one was kind of perfect because it had a very timely prison look. It's like a very old stone prison that looks like every stone prison from a movie in the US but it had also just been shut down three years earlier due to inhumane living conditions. So it was deserted, but not like, you know, deserted for 50 years and like completely run down. It's kind of like the perfect situation. But almost all of the cell block scenes were shot at a set that they built at a nearby Westinghouse factory to get the exact layout they wanted for the cell block. But most of the. A lot of the other interiors of different rooms and stuff were shot in the prison. And then all of the exterior stuff was shot at this Ohio State Reformatory. Super random. Fun fact. The oak tree under which Andy buries his letter to Red was located near Malabar Farm State park in Lucas, Ohio. And it was destroyed by winds in 2016. And I know this. Well, I know it. Cause I read it in the thing. But I also know this because I have a piece of it. My mom randomly, or I supposedly have a piece of it. I don't know whether or not you trust the authenticity of this, which I think so. Apparently after that happened and it fell down, it got knocked over by winds. Either somebody that owned the land or whatever basically bought the tree because it was dead at that point, and then cut all of the wood up and made little like keychains out of the wood from the tree from the Shawshank Redemption. And my mom bought one of those and bought me this little keychain that it has like a little wood, kind of looks like a pen.
• 1:12:16
  Speaker B: Yeah, it does kind of look like.
• 1:12:17
  Speaker A: A little like round Wood piece or whatever that is. Supposedly wood from the tree from the Shawshank Redemption. So there you go. That's fun. One of the most famous scenes in movie history, Andy standing shirtless in the rain is apparent, and I won't say when, is apparently one of Deacon's least favorite shots in the film, because he feels like he overlit it. And thinking back to it, I can see what he's talking about. It's still a great shot, but I can see what he's talking about. So despite the film's box office failure, as I mentioned earlier, Warner Brothers shipped 320,000 VHS copies to video stores around the country, and a spokesman freely admitted that that figure was out of whack with the film's performance in theaters. But it was based on positive Oscar buzz. Even though it didn't end up winning any of the Oscars, the movie became the most rented video of 1995 and one of the highest grossing video rentals of all time. And it's also the reason the movie is. Is like, a classic now.
• 1:13:13
  Speaker B: Somebody made the right call.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker A: Somebody made the right call. It's the reason this movie is the number one movie on IMDb. It's because everybody rented it on VHS in 1995 when it came. Like, literally every single human being that owned a VHS player rented this movie and saw it. And then on top of that, as I mentioned before, it ran on cable and stuff constantly. I saw bits and pieces of this movie dozens and dozens of times over my life.
• 1:13:38
  Speaker B: Yeah, I have never seen this, which I think we mentioned in the previous episode at the end. But I am curious, as we're watching it, to see if I recognize any. Like, if I saw it on TV and didn't realize what it was at any point.
• 1:13:53
  Speaker A: I'm sure, again, it was literally on, like, Forrest Gump. Like, it's one of those movies that they would just throw on TNT or whatever, just all the time, because it's a. Like, everybody will watch it. It's a crowd pleaser. And it's also a thing I'll get into later. But I also think it works kind of to watch in chunks, especially once you've seen the whole thing. You can kind of watch any random scene from it, and it's like an enjoyable little subset of the movie. Whereas you don't feel like you have to watch the entire thing to, like, get something out of it. Like, you're like, oh, it's this. It's the rooftop scene. Oh, I love this scene. And you can watch that, like, 10 minute scene and then like, if you don't, if you have to turn it off or go to work or, you know, leave or whatever, it's fine. And so I think that also lends to kind of like the Christmas story around Christmas because it's very vignette. You can kind of watch any little segment of it. I think that's another reason this movie is so popular, if I had to guess. So Getting into some reviews, Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman said that Freeman makes Red's character feel genuine and lived in. Janet Maslin of the New York Times also praised Freeman, saying, quote or praised. Praised Freeman, but lamented that Red's role in the film had limited range and was restricted, restricted to observing Andy. She thought that Freeman's performance made him a much stronger figure than simply an observer, saying that his performance was especially moving when describing how dependent Red had become on living within the prison walls. Which is. That's a very moving scene. Variety's Leonard Clady suggested that Freeman had the show your role in the film, allowing him, quote, a grace and dignity that came naturally without ever becoming banal. The Washington Post Destin Howe called Freeman a, quote, master of comedic and poignant cadence. And Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, his review, which producer Liz Glotzer credited with derailing the film's box office success, praised Freeman, saying his, quote, effortless screen presence lends Shawshank the closest thing to credibility it can manage, end quote. So sounds like he was negative on the film overall, but still liked Freeman's performance. And then finally Roger Ebert's review, which that's crazy that, that one, because Roger Ebert gave the film four stars, four out of four stars, saying, quote, it is a strange comment to make about a film set inside a prison, but the Shawshank Redemption creates a warm hold on our feelings because it makes us a member of a family. Many movies offer us vicarious experiences and quick, superficial emotions. Shawshank slows down and looks. It uses the narrator's calm, observant voice to include us in the story of men who have formed a community behind bars. It is deeper than most films about continuity in a lifetime based on friendship and hope, end quote. So Ebert was a big fan of the film. As always, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, Instagram, threads, Goodreads, bluesky, all those places. You can also drop us a review. You can also Support us@patreon.com ThisFilmIsLit Katie, where can people watch the Shawshank Redemption?
• 1:16:50
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library. I think there's a good chance that they will have a copy of this. Or a local video rental store, if you still have one. You can pretend like it's 1995. Yeah, other than that, I didn't see that it was streaming with a subscription anywhere, but you can rent it for around $4 through Amazon, Apple TV, YouTube, Fandango at home, Spectrum and Plex.
• 1:17:20
  Speaker A: Yeah, it doesn't seem to be streaming anywhere. That's wild. All right. Yeah, no, I'm excited to watch it. I have read. I finished the book, like, yesterday as we're recording this, because we're trying to get us back on track. And I'm not gonna spoil my feelings. I'll say this, that I was very surprised by the book, and I'll leave it at that, because anything else I'd say would just give away why I was surprised. But I was very surprised, and I'll explain why in the main episode. But I'm. I'm very, very excited for. I just haven't watched this movie in, like, over a decade, and I'm very. It was one of my favorite movies for a long time, and I'm very interested to see how it holds up for me, but also what you think of it, because you've never seen it, which I think will be fun. All right, come back in not even one week's time. A few days, we will be back talking about the Shawshank Redemption. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary pals, and everybody else keep reading books, watching movies, and keep being awesome.