At first, it seemed to me that the second season was worse than the first, but then it expanded to the desired height. A very high-quality, strong, promising series that has practically no analogues now. I look forward to the third season with incredible enthusiasm, my head is spinning when I try to imagine the story of Mary Shelley, not only outstanding in itself, but also in a talented presentation.
@Ba-l: and I'm not really interested at the moment, because I don't understand why she is. Moreover, the series is called "Genius" after all. Mary Shelley, unlike the previous characters, is not widely known to everyone, but to those who are known, it is Frankenstein.
@silence17: I haven't read Frankenstein (because I don't want to-I don't think I'll like it), but many consider this book a literary masterpiece. Moreover, Mary wrote it at a young age (the idea arose at the age of 19, the novel was published at the age of 21). Personally, I am more attracted not to her literary work, but to her biography, which has been intense and tragic since infancy. Shelley's name may not be familiar to everyone, but Frankenstein's name is familiar to many, and the word itself has become a household name. Frankenstein is a cult hero, he himself, as well as his creation, and even the writer herself have become the heroes of many films and TV series.
There are a couple of paragraphs about her in the Wiki article, with her "rich biography". Unlike Einstein's and Picasso's. Isn't there a single fan who thinks, like you, that she deserves an entire season of a TV series called GENIUS to fill her Wiki page?) I just can't imagine what they're going to talk about for 10 whole episodes. What did it affect? What has she changed in the world with her work?
@silence17: What did it affect? What has she changed in the world with her work? - For almost any famous writer, there is a person who will say that this writer means nothing to him. Therefore, I will not argue whether she influenced something or not. The creators of the series believe that it influenced and changed. It seems to me that the decisive factors in choosing the main character of the season were: 1). female gender (unfortunately, it is not permissible to shoot all seasons about men now); 2). what used to be considered oddities, but in modern society, on the contrary, is cultivated (at least in words and in popular culture) - feminism, maximum individual freedom, including freedom of relationships, etc.; 3). an opportunity to show the general picture of the cultural era (Mary began to move in a bohemian society, one might say, even in utero)))), because "Genius" is not only about one person, in previous seasons they revealed a whole circle of scientists and artists / writers / journalists, in this case you can show other writers, scientists, publishers And if you also take the circle of familiar parents , then you can 't plow here at all .; 4). drama (her life is a chain of tragic events, deaths of loved ones, in fact, that's why at the age of 19 she was able to write a thing that is considered very deep, tragic and exciting to people's souls); 5). popularity (even those who do not know the name of the writer know the name of Frankenstein. As I already wrote, I haven't read the novel myself, but the name Frankenstein has been jumping out at me from every corner for five years now - movies, storylines in TV series, articles ...); 6). the personal taste of the creators of the series. I can't answer about Wikipedia. Especially the Russian version.
@Ba-l: Well, that's just the first 2 points that seem to me to be the main catalysts =) And yes, indeed, there is a lot of information in the English-language Wiki.
@silence17: Well, actually, yahz, it would be better to make about Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace. Although she lived for less than forty years, maybe there's just not enough biography...
The last episodes were dragged away, it's kind of sad, even, it's good that I watched it, now I look at the world and talents better. I'm all in thought and analysis after watching it.
P.S. It's annoying to see so few comments here compared to other top TV series (
What a boring Picasso. Compared to the first season, it's heaven and earth. All that I remember from his genius is that, as far as I understood correctly, he created surrealism and was forever painting. And basically what happens in the series is just relationships with new passions, then new relationships, then more. It was much more interesting to watch about Einstein.
The ending is very touching. But, in general, I was bored watching the second season itself, and there are comparisons with the episodes about Einstein. I believe that the main task of a series with such a big name should be, in fact, to reveal the genius of the main character as such. The outstanding qualities of the German physicist are undeniable, but Picasso's genius is very controversial for me personally: art is a subjective matter. In the first season, we were not just immersed in the world of 20th century science, we were tried to explain the basic concepts of Einstein's work on our fingers; we were shown that he was an amazingly intelligent man and a unique personality. Here, it seems, they decided to stop at the cult of personality. I saw that Picasso was an extraordinary man, but whether he was a genius remained a mystery to me. In addition, as a person, Picasso, frankly speaking, did not arouse any sympathy, he was an eccentric egoist and a narcissist. As a result, it is not particularly clear what opinion, according to the authors' calculations, the viewer should have formed about the artist. Well, at least it's informative.
I agree with you. Moreover, it seems to me that if it weren't for Matisse, we wouldn't even know Picasso. This confrontation and the desire to become better was the catalyst, and of course his work.
The topic of art is closer to me, but it was still more interesting to watch about Einstein. I do not even know what influenced this, maybe in the second season too much attention is paid to the personal life of the artist? Naturally, you can't change his biography, but at some point you just start forgetting the names and faces of his companions, and such an intermittent narrative, jumping from one time to another, also adds to the confusion. But I partly disagree with the commentators above, Picasso was really a great man, a recognized genius of art. You may not understand this, but it's not for nothing that this man is so famous, he was a revolutionary in the field of art (cubism in particular), the series told about his struggle with, in his opinion, outdated art (although I personally disagree with this opinion :D), he wanted to create somethingwhat was new, he wanted to write the way he sees it, and he succeeded. The second season told the story of a man who managed to achieve success during his lifetime, and only his own talent and work helped him in this (and a little luck, of course). However, a season about Salvador Dali would be better in this regard, it seems to me.
I liked the series. At first, it seemed that the first season was clearly better, but then it became very interesting and informative. It's a must-see for artists.
After all, all brilliant people are very peculiar, not everyone can live and be near them ... I liked both the first season and the second! It is very interesting to observe the situation and famous people of that time. We need to shoot a season about Van Gogh))
After all, the biopic for the season of the series is a bit long-winded. I looked at Picasso first, and then Einstein, it was more interesting to me. Both are delayed for a couple of episodes, but this is not much to the detriment of quality. I liked that the actors of the young heroes are in no way inferior to the gorgeous masters, Rush and Banderas. Well, what kind of dogs they both were :), apparently this is a trait of genius :)
Oh, what a green melancholy. By the 5th episode, I stopped distinguishing between all his women. Fucked by this winder from the past to the future and back.
@RinaDasler: said a man who gives all kinds of intellectual anime and comedies 5, and TV series like "da Vinci's demons" and "genius" 3-4. It's immediately obvious-constructive and sound criticism🙃
@лупа: Oh, poor thing, it's hard to understand how a person can watch anime for the sake of Japanese without subtitles because their films and TV series get online in a smaller number? I don't even remember Da Vinci's demons, so it must have been dreary shit, too. I'm glad you have time to browse my TV shows, because I personally don't give a shit what you watch or why it's a matter of personal tastes and interests, and not all flamasters are equally delicious :)))
Somehow, Einstein's story was more interesting. And I empathized with Picasso only at the beginning of the story. Then, as a person, I began to dislike him. I understand that after all, this is a biography of a real person, and therefore everything is fine. But in the end, because of the number of women and the constant walking, I got confused. I already had to open an additional biography. I am glad for Francoise that she has found her happiness. A strong woman. I'm waiting for Mary Shelley's story.
Well, here(((((( In the third season of the anthology series, viewers will see the story of American singer Aretha Franklin, who was called the Queen of soul or Lady Soul for her strong and unique vocals. Initially, the National Geographic channel was developing a third season based on the biography of the writer Mary Shelley. An official statement was even made about it. Later, in 2019, National Geographic's plans changed, and another historical figure, singer Aretha Franklin, was promoted. Filming for the new season of the project is scheduled to begin in November, and the premiere is scheduled for spring 2020. “We were super-excited about Mary Shelley, a fascinating person, a fascinating life. The fact is that we just couldn’t find a way to crack it creatively for an eight- to 10-hour limited series,” she said. “And our feeling was if we couldn’t do it in a really excellent way and do it right, then we shouldn’t do it.”
@illseethese: they had been thinking for a very long time about how to present Shelley's biography, so that it would be interesting and so that the art form would be no worse than the content, because Shelley had a very turbulent life. And no worse than the first seasons. As a result, "stone flower" did not come out, it is not very clear at what stage - whether it was already on the set, or even a normal script could not be written. Therefore, this summer we decided to make the third season about someone else (the choice fell on Aretha Franklin). Filming will begin in November. As for Shelly, they hope to overcome her bout of creative impotence one day. Some sketches have been made, and maybe the fourth or fifth season will be shot about her.
@Ba-l: it won't be about Mary Shelley in vain... (( But today it's politically incorrect to shoot everything about white people, as if there are no white geniuses. Although the Jewish genius was already well thought out. At first, they probably decided that a female genius was already politically correct enough, but then they decided that a black female genius was even cooler. Now we need more seasons about the gay genius, about the disabled genius, etc. Eh...
I can't say exactly why I didn't like this season very much (besides the simple "it was boring," but why?). It seems that the series reflected why Picasso changed women like gloves - he considered it his duty to create, and for this you need a muse. Maybe it's how quickly it was shown: as soon as he realizes that he's bored and doesn't draw, he immediately finds another one and literally immediately says of his eternal love that he's never loved anyone so much before and this girl is special. And it's so stupid. Painting is such a colorful art form, in 10 episodes it was possible to immerse the viewer so deeply into Picasso's work, what exactly he was special about, and explain it on his fingers (as they did with Einstein's theories) that by the end of the season every viewer remembered a dozen of his paintings, could distinguish them from the same Matisse, or at least understand the distinctive feature of this style of painting. But there was very little explanation about this during the whole season, I only remembered the phrase that first you need to learn how to do it right, and then break these rules. But in my opinion, this is too little, it was possible at least to show what kind of paintings Picasso paints, how he sees a particular girl and expresses it on canvas. There were a bunch of times when they showed him how he draws, but they didn't show the image itself.
It's a good season. It's right that we didn't focus on his paintings. The perception of creativity is too individual, but getting to know what kind of person he was, what shaped him, and how he expressed himself in addition to drawing is very interesting. Banderas was pleased, as always) and the older his character got, the more interesting it was to watch the game. He turned out to be such a grumpy, stubborn and charming grandpa. Yes, Picasso's character is not a gift, but still the ending was very upsetting.
I didn't like the season. Stretched, torn due to time jumps, and somehow unpleasant. The characters are depicted as unsympathetic, all of them, including Picasso.
Discussion: Season 2, Episode 10 Join the Discussion
37Shelley's name may not be familiar to everyone, but Frankenstein's name is familiar to many, and the word itself has become a household name. Frankenstein is a cult hero, he himself, as well as his creation, and even the writer herself have become the heroes of many films and TV series.
I just can't imagine what they're going to talk about for 10 whole episodes. What did it affect? What has she changed in the world with her work?
It seems to me that the decisive factors in choosing the main character of the season were:
1). female gender (unfortunately, it is not permissible to shoot all seasons about men now);
2). what used to be considered oddities, but in modern society, on the contrary, is cultivated (at least in words and in popular culture) - feminism, maximum individual freedom, including freedom of relationships, etc.;
3). an opportunity to show the general picture of the cultural era (Mary began to move in a bohemian society, one might say, even in utero)))), because "Genius" is not only about one person, in previous seasons they revealed a whole circle of scientists and artists / writers / journalists, in this case you can show other writers, scientists, publishers And if you also take the circle of familiar parents , then you can 't plow here at all .;
4). drama (her life is a chain of tragic events, deaths of loved ones, in fact, that's why at the age of 19 she was able to write a thing that is considered very deep, tragic and exciting to people's souls);
5). popularity (even those who do not know the name of the writer know the name of Frankenstein. As I already wrote, I haven't read the novel myself, but the name Frankenstein has been jumping out at me from every corner for five years now - movies, storylines in TV series, articles ...);
6). the personal taste of the creators of the series.
I can't answer about Wikipedia. Especially the Russian version.
Well, that's just the first 2 points that seem to me to be the main catalysts =)
And yes, indeed, there is a lot of information in the English-language Wiki.
P.S. It's annoying to see so few comments here compared to other top TV series (
I believe that the main task of a series with such a big name should be, in fact, to reveal the genius of the main character as such. The outstanding qualities of the German physicist are undeniable, but Picasso's genius is very controversial for me personally: art is a subjective matter.
In the first season, we were not just immersed in the world of 20th century science, we were tried to explain the basic concepts of Einstein's work on our fingers; we were shown that he was an amazingly intelligent man and a unique personality.
Here, it seems, they decided to stop at the cult of personality. I saw that Picasso was an extraordinary man, but whether he was a genius remained a mystery to me. In addition, as a person, Picasso, frankly speaking, did not arouse any sympathy, he was an eccentric egoist and a narcissist. As a result, it is not particularly clear what opinion, according to the authors' calculations, the viewer should have formed about the artist.
Well, at least it's informative.
But I partly disagree with the commentators above, Picasso was really a great man, a recognized genius of art. You may not understand this, but it's not for nothing that this man is so famous, he was a revolutionary in the field of art (cubism in particular), the series told about his struggle with, in his opinion, outdated art (although I personally disagree with this opinion :D), he wanted to create somethingwhat was new, he wanted to write the way he sees it, and he succeeded. The second season told the story of a man who managed to achieve success during his lifetime, and only his own talent and work helped him in this (and a little luck, of course). However, a season about Salvador Dali would be better in this regard, it seems to me.
I liked both the first season and the second! It is very interesting to observe the situation and famous people of that time.
We need to shoot a season about Van Gogh))
I don't even remember Da Vinci's demons, so it must have been dreary shit, too. I'm glad you have time to browse my TV shows, because I personally don't give a shit what you watch or why it's a matter of personal tastes and interests, and not all flamasters are equally delicious :)))
And I empathized with Picasso only at the beginning of the story. Then, as a person, I began to dislike him. I understand that after all, this is a biography of a real person, and therefore everything is fine. But in the end, because of the number of women and the constant walking, I got confused. I already had to open an additional biography. I am glad for Francoise that she has found her happiness. A strong woman.
I'm waiting for Mary Shelley's story.
In the third season of the anthology series, viewers will see the story of American singer Aretha Franklin, who was called the Queen of soul or Lady Soul for her strong and unique vocals. Initially, the National Geographic channel was developing a third season based on the biography of the writer Mary Shelley. An official statement was even made about it. Later, in 2019, National Geographic's plans changed, and another historical figure, singer Aretha Franklin, was promoted. Filming for the new season of the project is scheduled to begin in November, and the premiere is scheduled for spring 2020.
“We were super-excited about Mary Shelley, a fascinating person, a fascinating life. The fact is that we just couldn’t find a way to crack it creatively for an eight- to 10-hour limited series,” she said. “And our feeling was if we couldn’t do it in a really excellent way and do it right, then we shouldn’t do it.”
Therefore, this summer we decided to make the third season about someone else (the choice fell on Aretha Franklin). Filming will begin in November.
As for Shelly, they hope to overcome her bout of creative impotence one day. Some sketches have been made, and maybe the fourth or fifth season will be shot about her.
Painting is such a colorful art form, in 10 episodes it was possible to immerse the viewer so deeply into Picasso's work, what exactly he was special about, and explain it on his fingers (as they did with Einstein's theories) that by the end of the season every viewer remembered a dozen of his paintings, could distinguish them from the same Matisse, or at least understand the distinctive feature of this style of painting. But there was very little explanation about this during the whole season, I only remembered the phrase that first you need to learn how to do it right, and then break these rules. But in my opinion, this is too little, it was possible at least to show what kind of paintings Picasso paints, how he sees a particular girl and expresses it on canvas. There were a bunch of times when they showed him how he draws, but they didn't show the image itself.
Banderas was pleased, as always) and the older his character got, the more interesting it was to watch the game. He turned out to be such a grumpy, stubborn and charming grandpa. Yes, Picasso's character is not a gift, but still the ending was very upsetting.