After reading the article, I feel like the writer only understood half of the series. Yes, the show is a commentary on the dangers of fandom. But that's just one of the two commentaries this show tries to make. She completely misses the second part and that is SWARM is an anti-serial killer serial killer show. It is a commentary on Western media serial killer series in popculture, itself.

The series flips the the common trope of television serial killers, that is, white men who are smart, witty and more often than not charming who do these elaborate kills and crimes. Think Joe with his plastic cage or Hannibal with his dressed up murder scenes and fancy human meals or even Dexter getting his victims naked only to wrap them up in cling film in a done up setting. These are pop culture monsters who aren't treated as monsters by many of their fans. You have Penn Badgley who has to repeatedly tell so many of the show's fans that Joe isn't a good character. He isn't some poor little "meow meow." He is a serial killer.

Meanwhile, you have Dre on Swarm. She is not white. She is not a man. She is not charming. She is not talkative. You don't get this running narrative of what is going on in her mind. And most of all she doesn't do "beautiful" and "campy" murders. Her kills are played for real. She uses whatever her hands can grab. And there was even a time where she just used her own hands because that was what was available. There is no swelling of music or ironic match up of a pop song playing in the background for humor as she murders. It's just these stark, cold kills. Yes, this show is an entertainment series but the murders aren't being played for entertainment like every other serial killer show. Glover is trying to separate this serial killer show from all the others in this way.

Episode 6 was practically smacking you across the face with this commentary.

"Cases like that can make a career. And I get it...(laughs)...it seems like wishful thinking. A Black female detective stumbles onto a Black female serial killer. ...But the truth is, a killer like Carmen...just isn't on their radar. But I've seen this before."

"Seen what before?"

"Black women falling through the cracks."

How can you watch that and not get the joke? The satire of the whole series?

If you made Dre smart, witty, charming and doing all of these Rube Goldberg meets Renaissance style murders, she would be like all of the other serial killer shows out there. But she is not. Her murders are not meant to played for entertainment. They are meant to make you feel queasy and uneasy. She is suppose to unnerve you and disgust you. That's what makes her stand out from every other serial killer. Glover isn't playing murder for entertainment even though this is a series. He is saying that serial killer shows that do that are messed up. Here is what a serial killer would do in real life. It's not charming. It's not "beautiful." You would not want to be friends with Dre. You would be terrified of her.

The word "misogynoir" is mash up of "misogyny" + "noir." With "noir" being the French word for "black." So, "misogynoir" is the hatred of specifically black women.

edit: Why the downvote? That's exactly what it means. If you don't like it, don't get mad at me. I didn't make up the word.

Are you telling me that you wouldn't roll your eyes and write someone off because they complain that a show was bad because it was too "woke?"

Because if you are, you are stronger than me. As soon as someone goes, "Yeah, this series is too 'woke'," my brain picks up its bag, puts on its hat and goes out the door.

Which in turn was inspired by John Ford's westerns. It's all circular.

Not the biggest fan of "Coming of Age" comedies but I did love Book Smart.

I feel the same. Not into westerns either but Doc set in a western setting was the perfect way to end that trilogy. The other western that I like is The Magnificent Seven. ...well, maybe that and The Three Amigos which is the comedy version of The Magnificent Seven.

So, help me God, AMC, if you pull this with Interview with the Vampire, I am flipping all the tables.

I hate this new land where just because something is renewed for a new season doesn't mean it is renewed for a new season. It must be terrifying for the cast and crew's to be at the whim of higher ups who doesn't give a flip about story and art and just want to make every growing returns. No one is safe.

Legends of Tomorrow. I loved Nate's running gag of hating "crossovers."

I wonder if it was because of Covid restrictions her and her being American. I can imagine going back and forth for shooting would make that difficult. Everyone else already lived in Europe or had the very least, a base in Europe.

> They killed off a great character and then looked like they brought her back, but no it was a VERY similar but different character with no lines.

I couldn't finish season two. I tried to but stopped half way. I only stuck for so long because I was hoping a certain someone's death had been faked but nothing came about it. Is that who you are talking about? Because she was my favorite character in the first season and I would have watched a whole show of her going around the world with her trusty sidearm hunting down demons.

If it was, the latest Avatar would have only made a buck fifty at the box office and everyone would be laughing Cameron right out of Hollywood. According twitter, that movie was going to bomb.

He burned some major investors and he has now zero connections to anyone rich and powerful with any political strings to pull. The government would love to make an example on how they don't let the "1%" get away with everything like how everyone knows they do.

He is the perfect scapegoat. The guy doesn't have a prayer.

House of the Dragon works because it has so few magical elements in it. It has dragons and that's basically it. The rest is just a medieval type family drama saga. Hard to mess up if you keep it as simple as possible like they do here.

The problem with modern fantasy shows is that they almost never set up the rules upfront and at the same time they throw in as many magical elements as possible to make their series stand out without setting up the rules on how everything works. At most, they go the lazy route and do tropes as in, "There are elves in this world. You know else, right? Pointy ears. Fast. Sleek. Yep. That's it to them." That's not world building. That is a paper thin set up of lazy tropes trying to pass themselves off as rules. And you can't do that with fantasy. People need to know what to expect in this universe. What creatures are in it. What is the hierarchy of them. What can magic do here. What can't it do.

Basically, it's work. Lots of work. That's one of the reasons why if you look at fantasy novels, they are usually so thick, they can double as a booster seat and almost always have a glossary of terms in the back and sometimes even a map in the front.

But modern television writers don't want to do this work. So, they end up with bad series that looks like every other bad fantasy series. Like one giant mud puddle.

The reason why sci-fi series don't have this problem is because, well, the rules for the most part are already written out. It's called science. Hence, science fiction. People already know what can and can't be done because most people have a basic understanding of science. They understand the "speed of light" is fast. That people can't survive in the cold of space without the right equipment. That aliens aren't going to have the same biology as humans even if they look exactly like a human. That time is linear. That if you go back in time and mess with it, that will lead something changing in the future. Nothing needs to be spelled out up front because school has already told them what they need to know.

Again, you can't do that with fantasy because there are no universal rules across the genre. What may work in one series, may no apply in another series.

I think he's over by how the character has been written before the Hawkeye series. But I think if you would lean more on the spy who doesn't want to be a superhero part, I think it would work. Like I said, Hawkeye, the series, felt like a shot in the arm for the character. We saw how broken he is. And it would be interesting to see more of that side and get to know his backstory.

True. But the Egyptians have as much of a claim. Especially since it was originally considered worthless trash at the time it was collected. So much so, that similar artifacts around it were being used as building materials for other things. The Europeans salvaged it, put the work into figure exactly what it was and translated it. Now that it has actual value, the Egyptians want it back? Screw that. They didn't give a damn about it for centuries. They were even a threat to it because, again, they saw it as worthless and were smashing up all the ruins. But the moment someone else put in the actual hard work to make valuable they claim it was theirs all along.

That's nonsense.

It would be like you throwing out a couch on the curb to be taken away by the garbage man. Instead, someone else with a truck took it, restored it wonderfully, displayed it for all to admire and you come along and say, "Hey, that's my couch. Give it back!" No, you were going to throw out the couch. It was salvaged and restored by someone else. Now it's their couch. You don't get to reclaim it now that it has been restored. You lost it the moment you declared it trash.

The case of the Rosetta Stone isn't like the Benin Bronzes which were actually being used for what they were intended and honored by the original owners. That is a clear cut case of the original owners having their property, which was at the time being used properly, being stolen. The Rosetta Stone is not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.

If what you dig up belonged to someone else, it might not be yours or mine, the current landowner. For example, I am in North Carolina. If you dug up my backyard and found an ancient Native American site full of artifacts, do I get to claim it because it was on my land or does the Native American nation whose ancestors those artifacts belong to get claim it? The Rosetta Stone was created during a time when the Greeks controlled Egypt and it was part of the Grecian Empire. That makes it a Greek artifact. If anything, the modern Greeks have a stronger claim on that artifact than the modern Egyptians.

There's something about Clint that I like about that Hawkeye kind of touched on. Clint is the only Avenger who strikes me as not wanting to be an Avenger. The guy doesn't want to be a superhero. He wants to be an undercover agent. A spy. But now his face is being plastered everywhere. There is even a musical with his likeness in it. And, frankly, he is kind of over it. I can imagine his kids dragging him to see Rogers the Musical and he reluctantly went along to make them happy. Otherwise, he would probably roll his eyes at the idea and never see it.

I want to see more stories of this side of Clint. The reluctant superhero. He would be a good mentor to the Young Avengers. I can see Kate dragging him into the fold, all proud and hero worshiping him and demanding he be their Nick Fury. And Clint sighing and doing so because deep down he is protective of these kids. He wants them to thrive. He wants them to do well.

Armesen was fun as Fester because he went for camp. I think that's what is missing from Guzman and Zeta Jones. That camp element that was part of the comics and other two live action takes of the characters. They are playing the roles too straight. I mean, they are fine as in they aren't terrible. But they could be better.

I've always wondered why some ancient names like Noah, Adam, Eve and Mary survived well into modern day while other names like Eadburg just fade away into nothingness. What makes some names endless while others stuck in a certain window of time that gets shut?

Did I pee in your cornflakes and just forgot about it....?

Also, I am taking in expert knowledge. It just happens to be collected folklore and folklore practices. Grimoires were a thing and still are. Hidden in plain sight grimoires were a thing and still are. And during this time, simple written spells were all over the place. You can still find carved warding marks on the walls of older buildings throughout Europe with England being one particular country. Double Vs, Slashes, Daisy Wheels. Magic was extremely common.

Also, It is not clear why the name was written so stealthily, with a drypoint stylus, rather than ink. “Maybe it was to do with the resources that person had access to. Or maybe it was to do with wanting to leave a mark that put that woman’s name in this book, without making it really obvious,” Hodgkinson said. “There could have been some reverence for the text, which meant the person who wrote her name was trying not to detract from the scripture or compete with the word of God.”

They are making an educated stab in the dark here. As am I. Only it never really occurred to them to see it from a folklore perspective. They are almost using a modern perspective. A woman's name is secretly written in the book over and over again, therefore, the book must belong to a woman. True. But, also, given that it's on a religious text, in a religious setting, the name is hidden and repeatedly written with that accompany drawing, to completely ignore the folklore implications is missing out on a big potential clue to what is exactly going on here.

Meanwhile, the cheap paperbacks I bought a few of years ago are already turning yellow.

In the doodle, I don't see a person reaching out to another person and the other person holding their hands out. Instead, I see a nun with a habit getting slapped. With the lines coming out of her being action lines of her turning and feeling the sting of the slap.

Knowing folklore of this time, and how often the written word and figures be it drawn or created in poppet form were used to direct "magic" at a target be it good or bad, I think we are looking at a sneaky spell. Write down your target's name at a certain time over and over, draw what you want to happen and pray for it to happen. That's how basic spells worked back then.

At least it was the guy's birthday. So, belated Happy Birthday!

It's either a style decision or her mother's side of the family age quicker than say a human does. Which I would not put it past Gunn to make Mantis grow old quickly and die because Peter is cursed when it comes to love ones.

The Pogues' Fairytale of New York is a song I would never thought in a million years of appearing in an MCU project. I don't know why. But it just never occurred to me. But it sets the mood so perfectly.

Wait, was that Mark Hamill.....?

By his reaction, I feel like they caught Pratt's genuine reaction to the lit up set. That's what I would have done if I were Gunn. Just kept Pratt away from the set until the cameras were rolling and get his actual reaction to all the lights because the sets were so impressively looking. Between this and Andor, God, I adore a good actual set over greenscreen or LED screen setting. For one thing, as good as CGI is, they have yet to perfect the way light bounces off material. It always looks flat and muddy because the blacks are never black enough.

Love the Ralph Bakshi homage style of animation. It felt like something Gunn always wanted to do but just needed the right moment to bring it out.

Gillan's delivery of, "You can't out run me, Bacon!" is making me still giggle thinking about it. In fact, everyone looked like they had a blast making this.