A little mistake that rick riordan made in the book is that he thought the gateway arch overlooked the mississippi river. But in fact the arch and the river were separated by a highway, thus Percy would have fallen much farther away.
It was so cool how in the show poseidon saves percy by allowing a jet of water to guide him into the river. Just shows how this adaptation has thought everything though and is building on the original books to make the entire series a million times better.
3K notes
·
View notes
I love the way Percy says Annabeth's name on the way to the top of the Gateway Arch. Like everyone is their character to a t. Grover is thinking out loud (talking about Athena having to let Echidna in,) Annabeth is thinking deeply about something that was said to her, and Percy is staring at her, trying to get her attention because he knows she's onto something.
God the acting, the cast, the dialogue. No notes.
88 notes
·
View notes
Okay so, all of the #percyjacksonandtheolympians tv show has been great, but hello?!?!? The episode that just came out????? It's perfection, the flashback? The little convo in the train at night? Grover's sass after being woken up??? Echidna and Chimera??? The way the Gateway Arch whole deal now makes sense???? Also, it being a temple made for Athena????? The way Percy tricked Annabeth??? Like, outright outsmarted her???? Him putting his friends' lives over his own??? (Percabeth is already blooming don't tell me otherwise), the Nereid???? Telling him???? Just breathe???? Just like his mom did????? It's a perfect switch for the Nereid looking just like Sally. Tho I'm a little downed that Percy can't stay dry underwater yet. Also, the ending, so on point for Rick istg
59 notes
·
View notes
After seeing the 4th episode i was really disappointed. The gateway arch and its museum have a colonial history much more far reaching than environmentalism, and for once I genuinely expected the directors and screenwriters to address it because the issue was brought up by the characters themselves. But then… it’s just about animals. It’s kept to animals. And every nuance for indigenous communities’ rights and sufferings under colonialism was just thrown out the window.
I wanted to make it clear that Grover’s character stands as the reason for caring for animals; it makes sense for him to take the stance he does because he is a satyr, and as such, dies with the forest itself. He is, for all purposes, a spirit of the wild and cares for its inhabitants equally to humans. This isn’t the real issue. This is fine by itself.
But why are the forests dying? Why is the wild disappearing? Pjo has always stuck to Pan disappearing as a reason-- again, not bad for fantasy reasons. But when they talk of it, Grover diagnoses the issue by pointing to humans as the ones who kill the environment. Annabeth agrees wholeheartedly, that humans are to blame for the environment around them.
This is the real issue. The issue is thinking that all humans are predestined to hurt the environment; that the future itself is always opposed to nature. Not all humans would do that-- not all humans do that! The indigenous community does just fine as stewards to the nature around them and living with, not on, the land. Even ‘Land’ isn’t a good description; the world, the air, the water, the spirits, the animals, and humans are all included in ‘Land’ as a concept. That balance requires action and consequence, which have been carefully passed down through specific and important indigenous methods (oral history, artistic creation and appreciation, physical practice of methods, etc).
My point is, the thing that Grover is frustrated with is not humans. It’s white settler colonialism. And I feel that the ones writing this script had every chance to bring it up as it pertains to indigenous communities-- or at the very least learn not to call settler colonialism the fault of all humans. It would have been so easy for Annabeth's reply to even be as simple as 'colonization' or something (and hey-- that response has no outright gore-- it's even a vocabulary word for middle schoolers). But they don’t. They leave us with a sense of shame for humanity, rather than showing us that the destruction of the wild only started in the Americas a few hundred years ago, and was done by white settlers and colonizers. That is the legacy of the Gateway arch.
I fully understand that genocide is not something we should bring up lightly, nor something that should be available to children of a certain age. As someone getting their MA in History and moving forward to be a part of the academic community, I also understand that even minute details of saying 'humans' instead of rightfully painting a fuller picture of ' white settler colonialism' can radically change how we perceive native peoples. We must be specific, and hold ourselves accountable.
Rick has done great work in learning as he goes about racism in writing, but he's just not there yet. Especially with his history of the description of Piper, it's not easy to say that he understands the indigenous community at all. And hey-- I have yet to meet another historian who does! I've been dragged into offices and told to move to a different college just because I cover indigenous history (even as a white American), so it's not easy to learn and grow in this area. But we must. And I think that talking about these issues now can pave the way for better representation and talks about legacy in the future.
45 notes
·
View notes
alternate universe where instead of percy blowing up the st. louis arch, he's in memphis and blows up the Bass Pro Pyramid and jumps into the mississippi river from there.
like. it's just as feasible as him falling into the mississippi from the arch. the pyramid is actually CLOSER to the river. please i wish this was real.
22 notes
·
View notes
sunset mystery in the forest
photography + © Christof Keßemeier
17 notes
·
View notes