"TALES OF THE CITY" ON NETFLIX- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/18/19 at 6:53pm

It's really worth reading the last book even if PTChazman thinks Maupin killed off Anna Madrigal at Burning Man.  He did not.

 

[PTChazman]

Posted: 7/18/19 at 10:45pm

Right. She “bounced” like at the end of that movie Thelma and Louise. You mentioned in 2014 that you read the book “far to quickly”. I agree.

The ending is subject to interpretation. Anyone else read the book? Your interpretations of the “death” at the end?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/18/19 at 11:47pm

Did you smoke Mrs. Madrigal's potent weed as you read the book?

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/19/19 at 11:42am

But...she didn't die in the book, right?  RIGHT?  Like...she didn't die.  She lived. 

This thread has made my head spin because I am certain she didn't die in the book...and then I decided to research (my kindle is dead at the moment while I'm at work and I can't read the last chapter dammit!).  I found a review from the LA Times of ANNA MADRIGAL and in it, the writer mentions that Mona died in Babycakes and I just finished reading Babycakes for the first time in 10 years and she...also is not dead (at this point...she dies between Sure of You and Michael Tolliver Lives).

Why is everyone killing off people when they didn't die????

 

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 7/19/19 at 6:49pm

SonofRobbieJ said: "But...she didn't die in the book, right? RIGHT? Like...she didn't die. She lived.

This thread has made my head spin because I am certain she didn't die in the book...and then I decided to research (my kindle is dead at the moment while I'm at work and I can't read the last chapter dammit!). I found a review from the LA Times of ANNA MADRIGAL and in it, the writer mentions that Mona died in Babycakes and I just finished reading Babycakes for the first time in 10 years and she...also is not dead (at this point...she dies between Sure of You and Michael Tolliver Lives).

Why is everyone killing off people when they didn't die????

But the reboot was not taken from the books and Maupin did not write the script.


"

 

[PTChazman]

Posted: 7/19/19 at 7:43pm

Nope. Don’t need any mood altering substances.
There was a city waiting for her.

[persephone88]

Posted: 7/20/19 at 7:30pm

I enjoyed all the books except for Michael Tolliver Lives. I felt like Maupin really changed Michael's character in that one in a particularly unpleasant way. I was glad to see he softened up a bit in the final novel. Recently re-watched the original miniseries with my daughter last month, and we both enjoyed it. Now about halfway into the second mini series. So does the new Netflix series pick up where the last one left off, or is there a big time jump? 

 

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/22/19 at 10:36am

SmoothLover said: "SonofRobbieJ said: "But...she didn't die in the book, right? RIGHT? Like...she didn't die. She lived.

This thread has made my head spin because I am certain she didn't die in the book...and then I decided to research (my kindle is dead at the moment while I'm at work and I can't read the last chapter dammit!). I found a review from the LA Times of ANNA MADRIGAL and in it, the writer mentions that Mona died in Babycakes and I just finished reading Babycakes for the first time in 10 years and she...also is not dead (at this point...she dies between Sure of You and Michael Tolliver Lives).

Why is everyone killing off people when they didn't die????

But the reboot was not taken from the books and Maupin did not write the script."
 

I get that.  I have no problem with her dying on the show.  I don't have a problem with the show being a riff on the characters old and new (I mean...do we really want to see Norman Neal Williams again??) But people here are discussing the book as well (Days of Anna Madrigal), and my memory is that she did not die at the end of that book. 

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/22/19 at 11:46am

She did not die in the book and the person in this thread who invented the fiction that she did, was saying that  “at least” the ending of the series was better than what Maupin came up with in the book. In that person’s mind, a Burning Man butterfly float, is turned into a rocket that did what Thelma & Louise did when they got the blues.

Updated On: 7/22/19 at 11:46 AM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/22/19 at 3:00pm

That...is what I thought was being said.  Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

One of the small issues I had with the miniseries is that they were exploring plot points (Shawna's parentage) that were not addressed in the three previous miniseries.  You had to have read the books to know about Shawna was actually Connie's child.

[PTChazman]

Posted: 7/22/19 at 7:17pm

I’ve watched ur comments over the years and you are repeating your typical lack of respect for other people’s opinions. Read Charles Isherwood’s and google others impressions of the end of the book. Even if Maupin himself responds on this board that it wasn’t his intention that she died, the way it’s written is subject to interpretation.
Wow. It must be awful having to be right all your life.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/23/19 at 2:20am

You seem to be aiming that at me and not SonOfRobbieJ who had the exact same issues as me with your um interpretation. But I’m the problem for somebody who’s profile was created a year or two after I stopped posting here with any regularity, so aware of my long “history”? Ok.