Actually, there is. There's an episode where June couldn't do the shopping, and Rita was bitching at her about it ("I have to do your work as well as my own"). The Marthas you see in Loaves and Fishes aren't there because they want to be. Shopping isn't part of their usual job description. They're there because either the household is between handmaids, or the handmaid can't do it that day for whatever reason. I've read the novel more times than I can remember - certainly over a dozen. I've seen the movie many times. I've seen many of the episodes twice, plus multiple viewings of various clips on YouTube channels where the series is reviewed, dissected, and discussed. Yes, the movie matters because the same people hold the rights to both the movie and TV series - and I've noticed that some of the series dialogue is word-for-word identical to the movie. FFS, some of the music in the Luke-centric episode in season 1 was very close to some of the movie music. So I do know what I'm talking about, thankyouverymuch.
Maybe, but I took that whole interaction being more a case of Rita not trusting June and vice versa. The only other time I recall any conflict between Marthas and the Handmaids were June was butting into their underground network for her own means and they were right to be annoyed. Okay. Well. I didn't say you didn't know what you were talking about. I only said that what happened in the book (and yeah, the movie, too) doesn't directly correlate with what happens in the show until it actually happens in the show. Nothing more, nothing less.
So you're of the view that the book is irrelevant, even though the series is based heavily on the book, and even in the third season, there are STILL snippets of dialogue and small scenes that show up that were taken from the book? Of course, people who haven't read the book don't know that. It's so annoying to see all the comments about "the writers" making up some aspect of Gilead, when it's taken directly from the novel. I can't wait for the part where the Native American scholars hold their symposium to discuss Gilead as a point of historical record, and the viewers are going to complain about the "weird stuff" the "writers made up". The show writers won't be making that up. It's in the novel. RTFB.
I did not say that. I only meant that particular bit of information has no correlation to the series until the series itself establishes. Nothing more. But there's no point in this argument. We've been here before. I disagree with something you said, you blow it out of proportion, I try to explain myself, you ignore it, and so on. Rinse and repeat.
You are arguing that black is white. It's like arguing that some fact about Star Trek isn't a fact just because you personally don't know about it and you won't believe the person who is explaining to you how everything fits. Look in the mirror. Yes, I do think there are nuances I'm picking up that you aren't. I've explained that the series is following the book, even with some scenes in the third season. A careful reading of the book would make this perfectly clear.
I hear you, Nth. I've read the book. I've seen the movie. Maybe not multiple times, but I'm familiar with all incarnations. I recognize there are differences between all 3 incarnations. Our main character's name being "June" the most obvious. I'm happy understanding each incarnation is it's own universe. They are parallel, but aren't the same. Of course, that's been the case with everything that has repeated versions in the same or different media.
Look, we were talking about how the handmaids are treated by the other classes of women. It's obvious how the Wives treat them and think of them (Eleanor being the one exception, but to her June is still a servant). The Marthas are in their own world most of the time. They blend into the background and see and hear a lot that most people don't. And it's quite obvious that Marthas consider themselves above handmaids - yes, in the TV show. It's shown multiple times. Just be aware that some of the things in the show that people attribute to the imagination of the writers actually originated in a different production (ie. the 1990 movie, where the handmaids have to participate in a group hanging), or even the lip rings (there's a front cover illustration of one of the editions of the novel that shows a woman whose mouth has those abominable things - that edition is from years before the TV show came along). The only version of this show that I don't know what might have been used in the TV show is the opera (which I have not seen).
The Testaments comes out on Tuesday and Hulu is already planning to adapt it. We've known for awhile that the sequel is told from the perspective of three women, but now we know that one of them is Aunt Lydia. We don't know if Hulu intends to do an entirely different adaptation as if their first series doesn't exist or whether it'll be a further extension and thus utilizing Ann Dowd. I don't know when I read it myself considering I still haven't gotten to The Handmaid's Tale (yes, I know) but hopefully I can avoid as many spoilers as possible before I finally get there. And I certainly hope people in this thread will restrain entirely from referring to that text while discussing this series outside of spoiler code for the foreseeable future. The reviewers in the article in the post you quoted and clearly didn't read.
Who cares about idle speculation from a bunch of reviewers. Did anyone on the production staff talk about killing off June? Because that would be a monumentally stupid thing to do, given the premise of the show.
Because they have insightful takes on characters and themes that not every viewer picks up on. And honestly, I've seen a growing trend among reviewers and regular viewers alike (supported by even Atwood in the article I linked about The Testaments) that the show is being hindered by staying focused on June and not growing beyond her stuck in Gilead. And I agree with them, which is why I wrote that post in the first place and provided the link to that discussion.
The long arc of this series is June being free of the tyranny of Gilead, either by escaping and reuniting with her daughters, or dying to save them AT THE END OF THE SERIES. Killing her off now would leave the show directionless, much like the Walking Dead post-Rick. Just more of the same oppression and depression with no end in sight. And like the Walking Dead, the secondary characters don't have the ability nor the depth to carry their own series (e.g. it's the adventures of Luke and Moira fighting Gilead by writing angry letters from Toronto). I have zero problem with it being June vs. Gilead. Not every series has to be an ensemble cast effort with unsuspecting plot twists. To quote Lily Allen: "I don't care about clever, I don't care about funny."
To each their own, but I (and others, too) think that the show is missing out on a lot of great storytelling potential by not focusing more on Moira and Emily. One reviewer (I think Vox's Emily VanDerWerff or maybe A.V. Club's Allison Shoemaker) suggested the show could've better handled the Natalie storyline better if instead of a new Handmaid as June's walking partner, Eden's punishment was to become a Handmaid (instead of the bizarre death sentence we saw), which would have made that whole relationship resonate better. The point is the series has moved beyond June to a degree and the show would be even better if it didn't keep restraining itself. I love Elisabeth Moss' performance, but June's story waned greatly for me in the past season and I kept yearning to see more of Moira and Emily and others. The novel was about Offred. The show is about a whole lot more.
I think their story would be better suited for a spin-off. Something that could air during The Handmaid Tale's off season.
Coincidentally I just started reading The Testaments today. I hope to finish it during the Christmas holidays at the latest.
No chance of location filming in Ottawa at any point, I take it? Granted that Parliament Hill's Centre Block is currently undergoing reno work for everything from asbestos removal to enhancing earthquake-resilience capacity. But, still...