Rick Riordan personally crushed my dreams 

By MOLLY THOMPSON — mmtthompson@ucdavis.edu 

I, like the vast majority of my generation, spent my upper elementary and middle school years nose-deep in the pages of Rick Riordan’s “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” series. And then the subsequent “Heroes of Olympus” books, and then “Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard,” and so on and so forth. A story centered around a charismatic, relatable, funny adolescent protagonist with a charming inner monologue and a misfit found-family who manages to cleverly stumble through fantastic adventures —- what’s not to love? If you’re under the age of 25 and you’ve never thought about who your godly parent would be, you’re either lying or you’re at least a little bit of a loser. So when I got wind of a Disney TV show adaptation of the beloved book series that would be spearheaded by none other than the author Riordan himself, I was elated. The chance to see my favorite characters traverse the world of Greek mythology and trip acid — I mean lotus flower cookies — in high definition? Sign me up. 

Alas, I was disappointed. The first few episodes really led me on — they were more or less book-accurate, and they made my inner middle-school-fangirl very happy. Walker Scobell, who plays the titular character himself, did a great job embodying Percy’s quintessential irreverence and sarcastic, juvenile antics, and much of the rest of the cast were similarly excellent in their performances. The one character that I do take issue with, however, is Annabeth Chase. Now, I have absolutely nothing against Leah Jeffries, who plays the character. In fact, I think she’s an incredibly talented actress. But the way her character was written in the show just doesn’t live up to book-Annabeth. Annabeth Chase is a complex and nuanced individual, but she came into that complexity and nuance over the course of a ten-book-long saga. I think one of the first mistakes the show made was trying to divulge into her depth too quickly, which both incentivized them to make plot changes and shifted the way that we came to know her fundamentally. 

Admittedly, I may be biased. Annabeth has been my comfort character since my introduction to the series. My driver’s license says my eyes are grey and I don’t want to talk about it (In the right light they are, okay?), so I have very high expectations for how she’s portrayed. I’m actually completely fine with the visual differences between the actors and the physical literary descriptions. In a way, I appreciate it because it allows me to keep a level of separation between the book characters and the show characters, which prevents the show from altering my perception of the books. Book-Annabeth is fiery, witty, sharp and stubborn. She’s defensive because she carries a lot of emotional baggage, but we don’t know that initially because we only see her through the eyes of a pre-teen Percy Jackson, who hasn’t yet learned what makes her tick. Show-Annabeth is clever, determined and clearly strategic in a very true-to-novel way, but she lacks the spark and fervor that her on-paper counterpart embodies. Book-Annabeth, when she’s young, is so driven by a deep sense of having something to prove, and I just don’t get that on the screen. 

Regarding the plot, to me, it felt like the writers kept the bare-bones skeleton of the novel and rearranged all of the guts. Yes, they go to the waterpark and the Lotus Hotel and the waterbed store, but everything that happens at each location is completely different. 

Riordan has provided explanations behind some of the changes that were made. For example, in the final episode, he notes that “the pearl doesn’t take Percy back to the beach in Santa Monica, but to a more convenient [and] important beach: Montauk. We figured if the pearl always returns to the sea, why not the Atlantic, which is closer to camp? This cuts some details like the airplane ride back, yes, but [in my opinion] this made sense and there were a lot more important things to cover! Like the upcoming battle with Ares.” 

This makes sense to me. It’s small, it doesn’t change anything major and it adapts well to the on-screen format. What I don’t appreciate is when they change an entire, major plot point without a clear reason. Multiple times throughout the series, the central trio (Percy, Annabeth and Grover) would go into a situation where I, as a devoted fan, knew they were about to encounter a monster. I would be on the edge of my seat, ready to watch them walk in blind, figure out who they were facing and how to defeat them and then eke out an impressive win. Yet time and time again, they went in fully aware of who they were facing, which took the anticipation and fun out of the entire scene. This happened with Medusa, the Lotus Hotel and Casino and Procrustes, among even more. When they already know how to overcome the adversary, the event becomes, frankly, boring. 

“I understand that sometimes it helps move the story along in an adaptation but when the show is constantly telling instead of showing, it begins to feel a little unreasonable,” Anna Nacht, a first-year environmental engineering major, said.

Sally Jackson, Percy’s lovely, sweet mother, has a slightly different role in the show than she does in the books. The screenwriters kept her nurturing, loyal essence, but specifically her dynamic with Gabe Ugliano, her abusive partner, takes on a completely divergent meaning in the show. As originally written by Riordan, Gabe is offensive, manipulative and downright nasty. In the end, Sally (spoiler alert) uses Medusa’s severed head to turn him to stone. This is a decisive action that empowers Sally, and is especially poetic because of the story of Medusa herself. I always appreciated the justice in the act, so I thought the show snubbed Sally a little when they changed the narrative and took that away from her. On screen, Gabe is more of a weak, annoying moron than he is abusive. Sally doesn’t submit to him, which means it would have been kind of mean for her to get her revenge as she did on the page. But that subversion disappointed me — I love a good dose of poetic justice, and I feel that Sally deserves that retribution and power. 

Despite this (non-exhaustive) list of grievances, I truly did enjoy the show. The characters are lovable and charming, the plot is compelling, and it includes enough cohesive aspects that I still absolutely relished in seeing my beloved stories come to life. There are some things I may never get over (they specifically made it a point that Percy couldn’t understand ancient Greek?), but I certainly will still beeline to get my hands on a second season, should the opportunity arise. And honestly, I can’t complain too much because compared to the movies, this show is golden.

Written by: Molly Thompson — mmtthompson@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, whose originals are the fairest of them all?

BY MALCOLM LANGE — mslange@ucdavis.edu

Nowadays, everyone has their own streaming service for any form of content they produce. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if my Uncle Doug had his own Doug+ subscription site for his TikTok vlogs. The problem with this is it puts a huge strain on the TV and movie enjoyer — as everything is being separated into one of seven mainstream streaming services. Each site costs more than it should, as they only own one or two shows that we would want to watch but will charge anywhere from $10 to $20 a month. Luckily for us, many streaming sites have student discounts. However, even with discounts seven streaming subscriptions will add up incredibly fast. 

In an ideal reality, we would have an unfettered sharing of shows we could consistently access regardless of who owns the property rights to the show. That does not appear to be a very likely outcome, so the next best solution is finding out which sites are “worth” it. 

The big streaming sites that I believe are in the most competition with each other are: Hulu, Netflix, Disney+, Max (formerly HBOMax), Apple TV, Paramount+, Peacock and Prime Video. All of these sites carry excruciatingly popular movies and shows that are likely to pull fanbases to subscribe. Since all of these sites have such extensive libraries, I believe that it would take too long and be too hard for us to tell which one is truly the best. Instead, I propose we look strictly at each individual site’s original series to determine which is worth paying for each month.

Keeping this condition in mind — we are only considering their original works — it, unfortunately, dumps Paramount+ at the bottom of the list, along with Max, Prime Video and Hulu. This is merely because the good originals that we got from these streaming sites are in relatively short supply. Each one has some good, dare I say, great original series. Hulu probably has the weakest lineup, with their main contender being “Only Murderers in the Building.” Sadly, Hulu just doesn’t have enough to compete with the big kids, and therefore is the first out on our hit list. 

Soon to follow is Paramount+. This streaming site has “Picard,” “Star Trek: Strange Worlds” and the “iCarly” reboot but other than those specific shows their roster of “new works” is lacking in substance. Even though I love “Star Trek,” it does not offer a very good variety of shows. Some readers, who potentially have not showered in a few days, might ask, “How can you get rid of Prime Video so fast? They have ‘The Boys!’” Yes, this is true, and “The Boys,” “Invincible” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” (which was a great show even if it changed some of the o-so-sacred lore of “The Lord of the Rings”) and “Good Omens,” but still I believe it cannot compare to other streaming services. Their shows are also very niche, two of them being superhero shows and the third being a prequel installment to “The Lord of the Rings.” 

Max also features a weak lineup even with hit shows such as “Harley Quinn,” “Our Flag Means Death” and “Peacemaker” but that’s about it. They don’t have many more fantastic shows under their belt. 

The next streaming service to say au revoir to is Peacock. Sadly, “Love Island Games” could not save Peacock from being dumped from our hypothetical streaming island. Even having phenomenal shows like “A.P. Bio” and the new series “Ted” could not keep them in the game. However, “A.P. Bio” did not originate on Peacock, only moving there after NBC made its own service and as I am not a 14-year-old boy, I have no desire to watch “Ted.”

The last three on our list — Netflix, Disney+ and Apple TV — are behemoths of streaming services. Netflix came out with the instantly popular “Stranger Things,” “Wednesday” and “The Witcher” — all amazing series, but “Sex Education” is really what helped keep this streaming service up for so long. 

Disney+ has a super roster of original shows as well, spanning from Marvel series to Star Wars series too, but that’s about it. However, they have produced some amazing Star Wars content and really good Marvel shows as well. Titles such as “Andor,” “Hawkeye,” “The Mandalorian,” “Ahsoka” and the all-time best “I Am Groot.” Finally branching out, Disney+ has dropped “Goosebumps” which was a fun adaptation of the classic books and “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” which seems to be a great series so far (keep crying die-hard book “fans,” no one cares that they changed some of the story points. If you want the story from the books, read the books). 

Apple TV, surprisingly enough, has a very diverse variety of original shows that have been outstanding. “Ted Lasso,” “Shrinking” and “Mythic Quest” are all comedy shows that also have great character writing and understanding. “The Morning Show,” “Severance” and “Criminal Minds” are incredible dramas and thrillers. “Foundation,” a fantastic adaptation of Asimov’s sci-fi series. “Schmigadoon!” is one of the most creative and ridiculous new shows having a star-studded cast and hilarious writing in the past couple years. 

Dwindling down the finalists, the first to go is Disney+. If you don’t like superheroes or Star Wars, it is not worth paying $13.99 a month for no ads. As we come to our final two, we will also look at the prices that would be paid for the streaming service without ads. Looking at the original series offered combined with the prices, we have a clear winner and that is… Apple TV! Apple TV is offered for no ads at $9.99 a month and has the best variety and produced original series. It is hard to beat “Ted Lasso” and “Shrinking” as they are some of the best new shows that I have watched in a while. The final nail in the coffin was that Netflix is priced at $15.49 a month for no ads, matched with their unfortunately worse selection of original TV shows. 

If you could only buy one streaming service and you were looking to watch some new series, Apple TV would be the best option. It is among the cheaper options, with the widest selection of original shows. (Not sponsored by Apple TV.) (Unless they feel like reaching out ;)) 

Written by: Malcolm Lange — mslange@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

How the fall of a democratic European nation would destabilize global peace

By MAYA KORNYEYEVA — mkornyeyeva@ucdavis.edu

After nearly two years of daily air strikes, bombings and raids on Ukrainian cities, the war between Russia and Ukraine is nowhere near over. Despite fading from American mainstream media, the Ukrainian people are fighting and dying to protect their freedom and culture from Russian aggression.

Yet, in spite of numerous pleas from the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, foreign countries are being parsimonious in terms of what aid they provide in support. European nations are looking toward the United States and following in their footsteps, only sending weaker, smaller amounts of weaponry and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

To those that say providing aid to Ukraine goes against our national interest: I say that you are wrong. Our national interest, at its core, values protecting foreign democracies. It has done so for centuries, encouraging the creation of democracies in countries around the world and spending millions of dollars on the upkeep of these governmental systems — of course, this rhetoric is typically used as a cover for the interference and destabilization of other countries. 

In not focusing enough attention on Ukraine, the United States government essentially closes their eyes to a dangerous future, which has the potential to put the daily lives of Americans at risk. In refusing to fund a quick Russian defeat, America is allowing a risky stalemate to continue. 

In the event of a Ukrainian loss, the people would lose their national identity, and the world would lose a country, which (coincidentally?) is the only thing standing between Russia and the United Nations. By allowing the elimination of the barrier between NATO and Russia, the world is left exposed. Russian aggression has proved to be persistent and illogical, defying expectations and resulting in extreme devastation and death. 

Who would be next? Poland, perhaps, or Hungary, Romania, Moldova? Or, fueled by their victory over Ukraine, would Russia align itself with other military powers — for instance China or North Korea? While this may seem pessimistic, it is not something that politicians should be ignoring. 

It is truly unbelievable that, in the 21st century, seven genocides are happening simultaneously around the world, at the expense of innocent people and with the sole desire for power. In helping Ukraine now, we are, to an extent, also helping ourselves: we are ensuring that in the future, a more powerful Russian aggression is not pointed toward the United States. 

I do understand that there is a general fear among the American people that, if the government sides with Ukraine and announces their alliance against Russia, there will be an immediate and deadly retaliation. Russia is one of the world’s largest military forces — having inherited the Soviet Union’s powerful nuclear arsenal — so this fear is genuine and real. 

However, if the United States decides to wholeheartedly join Ukraine’s efforts, there may be a consensus among other countries that they can do the same. Out of the world’s 193 countries, 41 have pledged support to Ukraine; what can global cooperation achieve if not peace? Even given Russia’s military strength, 42 countries against one are big odds. 

We need to be reminded that the people of Ukraine are not going to stop fighting. They are not going to give themselves up to Russia. They will continue taking up arms on the front lines, weaving nets and caring for wounded soldiers, distributing food, water and basic necessities to refugees and standing strong in their culture and beliefs. 

The Ukrainian people need the world to notice their resolve and to realize that allowing continuous warfare to exist is not an option. Whether it’s communities crowdsourcing medical supplies, people petitioning their local and state governments, journalists reporting on the war or the federal government taking action, sending military and financial aid to Ukraine can and should be prioritized. 

Without Ukraine, the global social, economic and political balance will be forever altered in favor of apathetic greed. 

Written by: Maya Kornyeyeva — mkornyeyeva@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.