Ripley on Netflix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely being set up for a Season 2, right?

its been described as a "limited series" so that was a reveal / revelation at the end, not a cliffhanger in the conventional way a 2nd season would pick up on

I hope there isn't a season 2 - this ended perfectly

I read that the show creators acquired the rights to all the Ripley books, so there may well be follow up seasons, though not “season 2” in the traditional sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m one of the very few people who has read each and every one of the Ripley novels. I also loved the movie, even though it took very different turns from the book. So I was thrilled to see there was going to be this series…

Unwatchable. 100% unwatchable. Long, slow, boring, no need for the black and white, miscast, wrong tone, trying to shoehorn in diversity in a way that serves absolutely no one and does nothing for the plot. It’s a no. So disappointed.

The diversity was a big bizarre misstep.

Zero chance Dickie and Marge would pal around with a non-binary gal who dresses like a man. Zero chance that character would exist anywhere IRL as a Brit in Italy in the 1960s. (Talk about a nepo-baby…it’s Sting’s kid and they were given a role that just didn’t make sense).

And what are the odds of a successful private eye catering to white people domestically and abroad who is black?

Tokenism. Distracting, unrealistic tokenism.

Zero chance.

Plenty of women in the early 60's wore men's clothing, especially at Wellesley and Vassar and Bennington and those young women went to Italy and Europe all the time. My mother did it. It's you who are deciding this is "tokenism" and couldn't possibly exist. Who are you to make such decisions? Are you a historian of gender?

NP. Of course you are direct about the fashion and I’m sure many took on masculine sounding nicknames as well, but highly doubt that those women were being referred to casually with a masculine pronoun the way Freddie is when discussed by others. Gender expression has obviously been varied throughout history but that just wasn’t happening in those social circles at that time and it’s not offensive to observe that. At the same time I don’t know that we were supposed to think Freddie was a non-binary character. I just thought this was a non-binary person cast as a man, full stop.

+1
The character was a man, Freddy. Not a non-binary person.

no one cares, except you.

Um, that's the first comment I've made about this subject. You sound charming though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow looked the part: privileged young Americans.

The guy who played Dickie seemed badly cast and nothing about Dakota felt right in this film.

Sting’s non-binary kid was just so odd in this film for Freddie.

Andrew Scott is brilliant…but far too old for the part.

Agree with all of this! No charisma in the supporting cast, and casting a 47 year old in the lead was bizarre.

Such a disappointment about Ripley’s age. In the book he is supposed to be around 25. It doesn’t make sense he would be around Dickie and Marge’s parents age.

Yeah, the actors playing Dickie and Tom are way too old. So old that the plot almost doesn’t make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow looked the part: privileged young Americans.

The guy who played Dickie seemed badly cast and nothing about Dakota felt right in this film.

Sting’s non-binary kid was just so odd in this film for Freddie.

Andrew Scott is brilliant…but far too old for the part.

Agree with all of this! No charisma in the supporting cast, and casting a 47 year old in the lead was bizarre.

Such a disappointment about Ripley’s age. In the book he is supposed to be around 25. It doesn’t make sense he would be around Dickie and Marge’s parents age.

Yeah, the actors playing Dickie and Tom are way too old. So old that the plot almost doesn’t make sense.

It was the "middle aged" version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow looked the part: privileged young Americans.

The guy who played Dickie seemed badly cast and nothing about Dakota felt right in this film.

Sting’s non-binary kid was just so odd in this film for Freddie.

Andrew Scott is brilliant…but far too old for the part.

Agree with all of this! No charisma in the supporting cast, and casting a 47 year old in the lead was bizarre.

Such a disappointment about Ripley’s age. In the book he is supposed to be around 25. It doesn’t make sense he would be around Dickie and Marge’s parents age.

Yeah, the actors playing Dickie and Tom are way too old. So old that the plot almost doesn’t make sense.

It was the "middle aged" version.

The version where 47 yr old Dickie’s industrialist father finally says enough is enough— that darned son needs to grow up. lol.

[Anonymous]

I'm just watching this now and agree about the casting. I don't know if it's the ages so much as I just can't get the cast of the movie out of my head.