Nice pen (in Ripley TV show)

[stric75]

It appears that Montblanc 149 is getting quite a bit of attention in one of the shows on Netflix, i.e., Ripley. Whenever the Montblanc is used either by Richard Greenleaf, or (later) by Tom Ripley, the comment they get is "nice pen".  It's also prominently shown both as an object of desire for Ripley but also as a treasured item for Greenleaf. Interestingly enough, after Ripley kills Greenleaf and takes his possessions among which are documents, MB 149 and a luxury watch, he ends up in the sea. Later, the (stolen) watch requires repair due to exposure to salt water, whereas, MB is shown to work (flawlessly).

[NoType]

@stric75I trust that I am not the only one that could have benefited from the inclusion of a ##SPOILER ALERT## between the second and third sentences above, since I have yet to watch the Netflix Limited Series and had been looking forward to doing so in the next few days.

[Carrau]

While it is easy to understand why a spoiler alert may have been beneficial, it is equally easy to understand the omission by the OP given the novel has been around for 60 years, and this is the second remake of the original movie ( Plein Soleil, aka Purple Noon, and  five Academy Award nominated The Talented Mr. Ripley ) all of which include the aforementioned plot element, and hardly obscure.

[Karmachanic]

Not to forget The American Friend

[Midori]

The fact that the novel has been around for 60 years or that there have been multiple remakes is besides the point. First, there's an assumption that everyone has read the novel or watched any of the remakes - younger folks may not have. Second, even if people have read the novel or watched any of the remakes, it's possible that the the Netflix series adapted the original story and the plot did not develop the same way - the OP gave that away. Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, the post could have been written without giving away the plot. Like this:

 

"It appears that Montblanc 149 is getting quite a bit of attention in one of the shows on Netflix, i.e., Ripley. Whenever the Montblanc is used either by Richard Greenleaf, or (later) by Tom Ripley, the comment they get is "nice pen".  It's also prominently shown both as an object of desire for Ripley but also as a treasured item for Greenleaf. Interestingly enough, after Ripley takes Greenleaf's possessions among which are documents, MB 149 and a luxury watch, he ends up in the sea. Later, the watch requires repair due to exposure to salt water, whereas, MB is shown to work (flawlessly)."

 

The same point could have been made, while sparing a thought for those who had not watched the series yet. 

[NoType]

11 minutes ago, Midori said:

The fact that the novel has been around for 60 years or that there have been multiple remakes is besides the point. First, there's an assumption that everyone has read the novel or watched any of the remakes - younger folks may not have. Second, even if people have read the novel or watched any of the remakes, it's possible that the the Netflix series adapted the original story and the plot did not develop the same way - the OP gave that away. Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, the post could have been written without giving away the plot. Like this:

 

"It appears that Montblanc 149 is getting quite a bit of attention in one of the shows on Netflix, i.e., Ripley. Whenever the Montblanc is used either by Richard Greenleaf, or (later) by Tom Ripley, the comment they get is "nice pen".  It's also prominently shown both as an object of desire for Ripley but also as a treasured item for Greenleaf. Interestingly enough, after Ripley takes Greenleaf's possessions among which are documents, MB 149 and a luxury watch, he ends up in the sea. Later, the watch requires repair due to exposure to salt water, whereas, MB is shown to work (flawlessly)."

 

The same point could have been made, while sparing a thought for those who had not watched the series yet. 

@MidoriThank you for this cogent and eloquent assertion.

[Carrau]

8 hours ago, Midori said:

The fact that the novel has been around for 60 years or that there have been multiple remakes is besides the point. First, there's an assumption that everyone has read the novel or watched any of the remakes - younger folks may not have. Second, even if people have read the novel or watched any of the remakes, it's possible that the the Netflix series adapted the original story and the plot did not develop the same way - the OP gave that away. Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, the post could have been written without giving away the plot. 

 

The same point could have been made, while sparing a thought for those who had not watched the series yet. 

Understood, and I believe my post confirms there is more than a single view on this.  The post was about the pen and its esteemed durability and value to several characters.  I’m not sure the OP is obliged to place “spoiler alert” notices in any post, helpful as it may be to those who feel revealing a plot detail rises to the level of a significant social transgression.  (Even researchers on “spoilers” are divided on the positives and negatives of reveals.). Did anyone give a thought for the feelings of guilt that may have been engendered in the OP after complaining about the lack of the “alert?”  I doubt the OP’s “spoiler” was deliberate, so pointing out the OP’ s apparent lack of “thought” is likely to have a more significant and lasting impact than the “spoiler.”

 

[Paul-in-SF]

1 hour ago, Carrau said:

Did anyone give a thought for the feelings of guilt that may have been engendered in the OP after complaining about the lack of the “alert?”  I doubt the OP’s “spoiler” was deliberate, so pointing out the OP’ s apparent lack of “thought” is likely to have a more significant and lasting impact than the “spoiler.”

 

Sorry, this is not a good analogy or comparison (with our without all the "scare" quotes), nor does it follow logically from the first part of your post. To go into pedantic detail on the logic: either the OP believes that the spoiler was meaningless, in which case the OP would feel no guilt about doing it, or else the OP believes the spoiler was meaningful, in which case the OP ought to feel some guilt, as the damage potentially done by the spoiler would be much more widespread than any harm from the single reminder that spoiler alerts are a polite thing to do. 

 

I have no particular dog in this fight, at worst the spoiler was an oversight that doesn't need extensive chastisement. Interesting side note: the movie Purple Noon, which I had never heard of, was on Turner Classic Movies last night (I did not watch it). 

[stric75]

@Karmachanic thanks for mentioning the American Friend. I remember reading an article with Wim Wenders where he spoke of the rough start they had with Dennis Hoper, who flew straight from the Philippines (after finishing work on Apocalypse Now ) to meet with Win and Bruno and, Dennis being Dennis (i.e, drunk and high) immediately started a fight with Bruno. Even though Talented Mr. Ripley was a good film, I prefer the interpretations of the novel in Purple Moon and the American Friend. 

[oregano]

I thoroughly enjoyed how prominent the 149 is in the series, making appearances throughout —fitting considering the importance of one’s signature to identity. It made me want to get one, even though the pen is too big for me. Also, there’s a reason the MB works flawlessly after events transpire, and it isn’t the reason the OP said (won’t go into details but you’ll find out when you watch the show).