#a best ever film and book franchise even if there are a lot of problems imho | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

roseamongroses · 11 months

Text

its called the parker curse not the morales curse 😒

atsv spoilers under cut

ok...jokes aside. after a certain point when miguel was going in on miles, i don't think he was talking about miles anymore.

and to be clear, what he said and how he said it can't be easily taken back--scorched earth yada yada-- so its impact still stands. but if you've ever had an argument as a child with a traumatized + unhealed adult-- it felt like that.

had me sweating in the theatre because you can feel him projecting HEAVY mid-way through. the way he dealt with miles, even before he started the hunt, def felt like he was punishing his past self / trying to stop his past self rather then understand a new situation +person

the assumptions he was making about miles and how he handles multi-dimensional travel, seem to lean heavy on fear. and that makes sense considering his past, but i do think only viewing justice within the lens of fearing what may happen isn't productive in the long run.

they still don't know how these initial dimensional slip ups happen before the collider exploded and bagel guy showed up. (or do they???lol) nor do they know what decides canon and non-canon (i remember the comic book authority approval at the beginning of the film and i wonder if they get mentioned again or if its just a one off joke)

(getting a lil meta there, do you think we'll get a lego movie esq ending next movie???mfkers wake up and realize they're comic book characters)

on the conflict

personally i love a good "hero tries to save them all, and realizes their innate limitations" type storyline, but i don't think that's the conclusion they're going for.

for example i thought Pavitr would def get his shit rocked after his spiel about being spiderman being easy and that he's happy. and he did go through something (and probably will go through something else considering he has a living girlfriend )

BUT he was able to reach out for help instead. he couldn't do it all, but he didn't have to. and i think that plot line is just as compelling as him failing outright and dragging himself out of the trenches as a lonely hero.

the "save one person vs. an entire dimension" conflict is interesting because miles is a believer in "why not both". often times with these trolly problem esq. situations, the person who questions the existence of the dilemma is dismissed.

miles is considered naive because he thinks he can "do it all". but i don't think thats the case. miles considers both because despite the trauma, he's been surrounded by a loving community who sees the best in him.

so he knows (consciously or not) that he can do both because he's not alone. he is the lone spiderman, but that doesn't have to be the case. that's why he was so excited for the spider-club cause he thought he wouldn't have to endure alone, but instead he was met with the fact that the club was meant to reaffirm their loneliness rather then circumvent it.

(also the possibility of this franchise introducing other heros later on is something im begging for btw but ik copyright will nuke that)

if miles is an anomaly, the possibility of his events deviating from the norm does exist. miles had the right to question if it was really the only way or if miguel just didn't want to try otherwise. and to be honest im questioning if miles was really the first anomaly considering we don't have all the details about miguel's backstory

on comics

what does it mean to be spiderman? to uphold goodness? to be a compelling hero?

For a lot of the characters explored, their justice is tied to their suffering. they are good heros because they've seen the worst and wil. endure the worst and that's what makes them compelling. but with this "new" generation of heroes, that doesn't hold up when we consider intersectional identities and what the audience desires to see from their hero's.

if the audience is already enduring and suffering in their day-to-day lives what can they get out of a story that only reaffirms the daily injustices of their reality. i don't want heros that look like me if they only uphold the status quo "suffer, work, live, be good". that isn't enough. i love me some angst, but what else makes the story compelling???

i read the superhero genre because i want better. I want to be able to fight back, to question, to explore. to stretch the idea of what goodness and justice looks like for communities that are used to being told to accept the bare minimum and just survive.

#atsv spoilers #atsv #across the spiderverse #spiderverse #miles morales #miguel ohara #Pavitr Prabhakar #hobie brown #peter b parker #gwen stacy #marvel #comics #marvel comics #long post

107 notes · View notes

ecoamerica · 23 days

Text

youtube

Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared

The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!

6K notes · View notes

maxwell-grant · 5 months

Note

If you had your say, what villains would you want featured in future venom movies?

With the stuff they have the rights for and aren't saving for future/solo movies, within Venom characters, who is there to pick from? They did the Future Foundation for the first movie, they got to Carnage in the sequel, they've set up Pat Mulligan/Toxin and we're probably gonna either get that or Knull in the next one. They can't scale down to one of Spidey's billion crimelords or someone like Sin-Eater who at least kinda has something to do with Venom, they've set up world-threatening symbiotes as the baseline. Toxin is just nothing, there's nothing there, the most you can get out of him is by having him be We Have Spider-Man At Home, and they already set him Mulligan as Venom's Javert. Combine those two, pit Eddie against a jerk Spider-Man who goes Carnage sometimes, I guess it's something? Knull is a Thor villain who took the wrong turn at Albuquerque, I can't imagine how they'd do him for these movies without just pulling the trigger on a Venomverse outright, and there's been a lot of talk about how the next movie's gonna set up that, or a multiverse, or the Sonyverse, and I'm boring myself to sleep just talking about this.

They both suck and are big idiot nothings, and none of the prior guys were really good to begin with. Knull is a little more tolerable in my book because Al Ewing and the new game made decent enough soup out of it and Tradd Moore's art sold me on him a little bit, and Woody Harrelson playing Biff Tannen was by default the most entertaining Cletus Kasady has ever been aside from AXIS, but "occasionally amusing" doesn't equal good or even mediocre, and that's the issue with these movies in a nutshell. An occasionally funny schlub protagonist and offscreen promises can't make up for all the crap everything else, and Let There Be Carnage wore my goodwill towards even that real thin. I really did try to like it.

Don't get me wrong, I like that those movies exist. I'm still probably gonna drag my friend into the next one. I hate most Venom comics but I'm incorrigible Venom trash. If we have to put up with those films and a Madame Web every now and then as the price to pay for Sony keeping the rights and keeping Spiderverse and the games just as they are, then by all means keep them coming. But man, I did try, I seriously combed through Venom and the other symbiote's rogues galleries and supporting casts to try and find an answer for this, and all the characters I found were A: dogshit Venom / Spider-anciliary characters that don't have much of anything worth it to them, and B: halfway there Spider-Man leftovers who are better served just not having anything to do with Venom movies, so I guess the option I'd go here is for them to just make new ones. I mean, movie Carlton Drake was basically an original character and he was, okay I don't even remember a thing about that guy but he was probably better than Cletus because it's really not that hard to come up with a better villain than Cletus Kasady (who at his best just elicits a chuckle) and dirtbag CEO with the cops on his side is the kind of thing you want a character like Venom to be fighting so, I guess lean more on that.

I guess I'd put Venom against symbiote tech cops that he can kill and eat without complication and have those follow him around while the actual plot is about some dumb errand or personal conflict he runs, but I don't think the villains are really the missing piece here. Venom is a terrific Spider-Man villain, but as a protagonist he is frequently deeply lacking, and as a movie franchise has like two things going for it, the titular character and the humor of a couple low-stakes absurd comedy scenes like the lobster tank, so I'd take those and throw the source material in the trash and have them go through something like the fake sequels of 22 Jump Street, just put the character in dumb problems that they can try and solve in dumb ways and do their dumb comedy routine in, Venom as a vehicle for dark parody as an extension of what he was made to represent. Treat the movies less like they are steps in a cinematic universe or character pieces and more like genre films that get infected and corrupted by a monstrous violent walking alien apocalypse and the schlubby journalist meathead in a co-dependent relationship with said walking apocalypse.

Venom In Space. Venom Goes to Hollywood. Venom In The Hood. Venom Surfs The Web. Everyvenom Venomwhere All At Venom. Not even joking, if I could make a Venom musical / Little Shop of Venoms I'd do it in a heartbeat, and it would end with similar destruction. Because make no mistake, this is a Laurel and Hardy thing only to them, and to everyone else it's an escalating horror film with some kind of destruction left at the end, because that's what happens when Venom runs rampant and Spider-Man isn't there to stop them or at least keep them in line.

Venom is not just a parody, he is a rot at the heart that never stops growing, and even if Eddie Brock can strive to be a better man and even be a decent one, even if he and the Symbiote can bond as losers trying to be better, neither can escape the nature of what Venom fundamentally is, with a million new Carnages and Riots and Agonies and Screams and Viruses and symbiote cops and serial killers popping up every minute as a reminder. You can't really come up with a Venom-specific villain that's going to be greater than Venom himself already is as a Spider-Man villain, so I'd just lean into that. And then maybe, when and if it's time to finally deliver on that Spider-Man or Sinister Six encounter, they find themselves arriving too late after we've had enough movies to laugh at this idiot schlub and his predatory living cancer buddy while the world they've been protecting has been turning more into this. We put this world not in the hands of Spider-Man, because we have the full rights hope in overcoming hardship to be our better self, but in the claws of Venom, because we are fucking stupid.

#replies tag #marvel #spider man #venom #eddie brock #marvel comics #superheroes #supervillain #comic books #sonyverse

20 notes · View notes

maroonghoul · 11 months

Text

Expansion on my thoughts on: The Evil Dead Franchise

I wanted to expand on my point of view on Evil Dead Rise, since I don’t think I explained myself very well in my last post. This isn’t me saying this franchise is the most personal to me, or saying that this new one is an insult to it, because neither are true. I’m just trying to reflect on why it felt I didn’t engage as much as previous entries. Everything I’ve written on here is just my subjective opinion, nothing more and that’s not changing now.

I’ll even concede that over time, this one will warm up to me as much as the others ones. I think it’s possible...because I had to do the same for Evil Dead 2. When I first saw it, about 15 years ago or so, I didn’t know what to make of it. Sure the wacky tone was fun. But I was taken out of it by the fact that this man was literally being tormented by his murdered girlfriend’s corpse. I felt this was because I was relatively new to horror films to that point, so “having fun with it” felt like like an alien concept given the subject matter. It wasn’t really my gateway horror film. I can think of a few more accurate examples, most notable the original Predator. And sure, I was tricked by my parents to rent Gremlins when I was little thinking it was another kids film. I DID NOT enjoy it at that time, for obvious reasons. But Evil Dead 2, after I sampled a couple more with a lot more serious tone, had a playfulness that felt like a good anchor to came back to.

It helped me worked up the courage to watch the original, which I avoided until my last year of undergrad, because I heard it was so intense. When I did, I could take it. I was more experienced and granted, it showed it’s age with it’s cheapness a bit. But either way, I was able to vibe with it more then if I watched it instead of the sequel. And I believed it was because other horror films I worked up to seeing before it helped me to.

Army of Darkness I liked straightaway, along with Ash VS Evil Dead. Sure, it did some changes to the lore I felt off(The immortal maker of the book, Ruby, being played by a much-easier-on-the-eyes-than-any-deadite Lucy Lawless, for example), but it was consistent with the tone of 2 and 3, and felt like an true continuation of Ash’s story, selfishness and stupidity included. And for the 2013 remake, at the danger of repeating myself, while it wasn’t mind-blowing, I respected for committing to making me wince more than any movie I’ve ever seen. I didn’t even take issue that they had a final girl except the more rare final boy because I believed Mia more than earned the right to survive. Also that Jane Levy gave the best performance in the movie up to that point.

That actually brings me to my first reason here. If we were going by what franchise entries in order of release, the last one before Rises was the TV show. So the next entry having a darker tone again made sense for keeping things fresh. While for me, the last Evil Dead thing I watch before this was the remake, which had a similar tone. So, even though it didn’t make sense, it felt like I was getting more of the same, which wasn’t entirely true.

To be fair, I did like the new lore connected to the new Necronomicon. I did like the performance given by the mom played by Alyssa Sutherland, both pre and post-possession. You generally don’t need a main villain for this scenario but given the point of this story, it made sense. The subtext of re-connecting with your old family for guidance, only to realize how it’s messed up beyond repair in cycle of abuse so it’s better to cut ties and save who you can. It’s one of those subjects where in a demon-less real world setting, you can see unfolding more or less the same over years instead of hours. The gore was good. Although am I the only one let down that the cheese grater didn’t do more damage to her leg? Maybe that’s the real problem. I’m too much of a cynical asshole.

Yeah, maybe that’s it.

With the energy and tone this franchise is known for, giving any kind of happy or even bittersweet ending doesn’t feel right. There always felt like a nihilistic reason why each of these movies had their energies and tone. “These people are going to die horribly due to their own stupidity! Ain’t it great?!” I don’t mind if there’s a metaphor or point to the story of an Evil Dead movie. I just think it shouldn’t take less time to solve than Ash did. Not because no one deserves it, but I don’t believe these demons would so easily let anyone go. The happiness, if any admittedly, felt unearned.

I guess that’s my real point. It won’t feel right if this is the last we see of Beth and Kassie. Sure, it made sense to end where it did, but I don’t believe either of them is okay. I want to know more about how they’re holding up. But who knows. Maybe I’d like for them to stumble upon the cabin at the beginning years later. It’d be very interesting to see how Kassie, a kid who was exposed and lost her family to these things at a very young age, would develop psychologically. Would it be similar to Andy from the Child’s Play movies? (That’s a franchise I need to catch up on) And yeah, maybe all these survivors, including Ash, should meet up at some point. Or at least become aware of each other’s existence. I don’t want any of them to die (unless it’s written well). Death is cheap, but trauma is rich.

A big reason why rewatching one of these movies every October for me is a must is because they each feel like a fun ride through a haunted house. I did like this enough, I’ll add it to the rotation. Maybe, in a few years, I’ll soften on this one like I did Evil Dead 2. It’s funny how I didn’t like that one at first because I thought it was too mean and not taking itself seriously. Now, I’m saying this one’s my least favorite because it’s too “precious” and serious. Maybe the real deadite is the one I became along the way.

#Evil Dead Rise #evil dead 2 #ash vs evil dead

3 notes · View notes

fictionadventurer · 2 years

Note

"#serialization is becoming cancerous" What do you think of No Way Home? Is serialization a problem? Or do they handle it well enough with how they handled and revealed the characters? Or is this a problem but the movie good enough to overcome that?

I haven't actually seen No Way Home. From what I understand, it's a very comic-book attempt at course-correction that creates an over-elaborate reality-breaking scenario to reset the character's origin story, and chatter suggests this is a good thing. The movie may have handled it very well. But I have an instinctive revulsion toward the multi-franchise crossover. It's cashing in on fans' attachment to other, better, more Spiderman-y Spiderman franchises to make them care about this one.

I'll admit that as a fan of the Tobey Maguire films, I was excited by the possibility of seeing him in the role again. But what I liked best about those films was that they weren't about reality-bending, universe-breaking conflicts. They were about one guy fighting one villain in one city. You don't have to worry about how the wider universe is going to react to the concept of superheroes because this happens on such a small scale; it's possible no one outside New York City knows much about Spiderman because his adventures don't affect much beyond a few city streets. Those films trusted that audiences would remain invested in the characters and the personal conflicts they face, rather than desperately trying to draw them in with ever-increasing spectacle and promises maybe in this film they'll finally get answers to the questions they're curious about. Putting that character into this massive continuity snarl of a movie feels antithetical to everything that was good about that original trilogy, so instead of drawing me in, that crossover ultimately made me want to avoid the movie.

Spiderman's journey into the MCU was misbegotten from the start. Instead of establishing him as a hero who can do a lot of good in his corner of the world, they showed him as a cog in a massive machine who can do a tiny bit of good in the overall universe. Increasing the scale of the story diminished the character, so increasing it even further to encompass multiple universes seems like it only exacerbates the problem. People connect to concrete stakes, not abstract ones, and it's hard to get more abstract than putting multiple realities in peril. Perhaps it was in service of resetting Peter Parker into a small-stakes Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman, but doing so in a story with such a massive scale seems like it works against that goal.

People love the characters from those previous movies, but including them here only works if it makes them care about this one. Can someone who's never seen another superhero movie understand the plot and care about these characters? Or does it only work if you've seen the eight Spiderman and who-knows-how-many MCU movies that came first?

The problem with serialization is that it makes a story into not-a-story; instead of a thematically coherent story with a beginning, middle, and end, you get one piece of it, and a promise that you'll get the satisfying resolution only if you plunk down another fifteen bucks to see the next installment. Instead of satisfying a hunger for story, serialization depends on increasing it, tormenting the audience with tantalizing nibbles while never providing the full meal. Every movie should provide its own story that's understandable with only the context that you get from within that story; if not, it's the story-equivalent of a leech, clinging to other films and sustaining itself by sucking them dry. If No Way Home manages to be satisfying on its own terms, then great. If not, then it's one of the most dangerous strains of serialization cancer, because it managed to metastasize to two previous franchises and take them down as well.

#answered asks #mcu #spiderman #no way home #i feel like i've got about four different essays here but i don't know how to make this more coherent i'm sorry

20 notes · View notes

trashlord-007 · 2 years

Note

So. Tana? Is that correct? Well as your secret Santa thought I'd stop in and say hello! So many questions and such a limited character count. I guess I should start with the basics....who's your bias? Is it Jongdae? Your avatar is him but I don't want to just assume. How long have your been an exol? Do you have other interests? I saw your pinned post about gaming....what games are you into? Why is your favorite color your favorite color? What is your favorite color? Do you have a favourite song? If it's not an exo song which of our boys' songs is your most cherished? Go to song for a mood pick up? What sort of things do you create? Have you ever killed a man? Favorite movie or book? Why? Best moment in fandom life? What YouTube video have you watched the most?

I'll stop there and save some for later.

🎁🎄🎁

Hiii, my super awesome Secret Santa!

Tana is indeed correct~ welcome to my small corner of Tumblr!

Jongdae is my bias <333 I love him so much T_T who is your bias? or biases? I know some people have multiple, especially in bigger bands. To be honest, my ult top 10 has several EXO members! But Jongdae will always be my EXO bias, and my ult bias across all of kpop!

I've been an EXOL since... Tempo! While I enjoyed their title tracks before then, bought their songs and listened to their MVs etc, I didn't truly appreciate them until I listened to the Don't Mess Up My Tempo album. Everything clicked then, and I realised I had been so wrong about them before T_T and after listening to all their previous music it became evident that they'd always be my number one~

I do have some other interests. Like you saw, I enjoy gaming. The Mass Effect and Far Cry franchises are my everything <3 no matter what else is happening, I can always return to them and find some semblance of peace... it's hard to explain. But you can fish in FC5! Sometimes I just pop the game on to do that. Or turn on ME:A to travel between planets - it has this awesome feature where it's kinda like you're piloting the ship to each one. I've been thinking of Feros and Noveria again, which are missions in the first Mass Effect. They are my favourites! and I also need to finish my AC Syndicate playthrough so I can move forward to the next--

Sorry,,, heh, I tend to ramble T_T it's a bad habit of mine. Do you game?

My favourite colour is blue but I'm not sure why! It's just... pretty. Any colours that remind me of nighttime ambiance, stars and space, etc are my favourites too. The universe is so perfect.

Favourite song... that's too hard T_T well, I'll keep it easy by saying Monster by EXO! Which is your favourite? EXO or otherwise? and which solo is your favourite? Have you listened to Xiuminnie's new song? I LOVE IT !

I have a playlist called Cheer Up, Buttercup! and the first song in it is Good Day for a Good Day by Super Junior haha. There's a lot of GGs in it too, like Twice and Saturday.

I mainly create problems.

Err, I mean, I mainly write but I'm dipping my toes in GIF-making too!

I plead the fifth.

Interstellar is my favourite movie!! (... is it becoming obvious yet how obsessed I am with space?) and my favourite book is... wow, I can't believe I'm gonna be cliché like this but... probably Wuthering Heights? Or maybe The Gunslinger by Stephen King. What about you? I'd love to talk books or movies, especially if they are horror or sci-fi haha.

Oh... why... I'm never really sure why I like the things I do but I will say that I've seen Interstellar countless times (I even watched parts of it every time I went to the dentist lol). Before that was Avatar... and the second film is finally coming out!! T_T I'm so excited! As for the books... haha, I guess what makes a piece of media/fiction wonderful is the emotions it invokes.

It's the small things, like amazing events and excited conversations, that make fandom great.

My most watched YouTube video as of late is probably one of the music playlists I use to write, like Brian Tyler - I'm Sorry [Far Cry 3 ] (1 Hour Version) or Dark Clubbing / Bass House / Dark Techno Mix 'SINFUL'.

Now, my friend, I am curious about you! What's your most played YouTube? What do you like to create? Best part of fandom? Do you listen to music when you create? and if you do, what do you listen to?

It's so exciting to have a Secret Santa! I hope this answers your questions adequately and I look forward to your response!

#🎁🎄🎁#exo secret santa #how exciting!#long post #oops!

1 note · View note

thimbil · 3 years

Text

Having some thoughts about the references and inspirations used for the Bad Batch’s designs.

So Boba Fett is my absolute favorite character and Temeura Morrison was perfect casting. I went to see the 2008 TCW movie in theaters because I was so excited to see him again, even if he was animated. You can imagine my disappointment. Whoever was on screen was not Temeura Morrison. You could sort of see a resemblance if you squinted and didn’t think too hard about it. They replaced Temeura with Racially Ambiguous G.I. Joe. If I didn’t know better and someone told me the animated clones are space Italians from the moon of New Jersey I would buy it. One Million Brothers Pizzeria and Italian Bistro. Not that there’s something wrong with being space Italian, I just don’t think it’s the right choice for the Fetts. The design got slightly improved by season 7 but it still bugs the hell out of me.

I did eventually get into the show later and (of course) got invested in the clones. Unfortunately, they were largely sidelined by the Jedi storylines. Out of the two new main characters created for TCW, Ahsoka definitely got more development and focus than Rex. When they announced The Bad Batch, I was excited to see a show specifically devoted to the clones… at least that’s what it said on the tin. We have all seen what lurks beneath those stylish helmets.

Jango Fett, you are NOT the father.

So who is?

Based on interviews with Filoni, it sounds like the Bad Batch was a George Lucas idea. And like all his ideas, it’s super derivative. The original trilogy directly lifted elements from sci fi serials, westerns, and samurai movies, more specifically Kurosawa films like The Hidden Fortress. For The Bad Batch character designs, the influence is obviously American action and adventure movies.

Now let’s get specific. Bad Batch, who’s your daddy?

Hunter

Sylvester Stallone as Rambo in First Blood 1982. That bandana has become an integral part of the iconic action hero look. You see a character wearing one and it’s a visual shorthand for either “this character is a tough guy” like Billy played by Sonny Landham in Predator 1987, or “this character thinks he is/wants to be a tough guy” like Brand played by Josh Brolin in The Goonies 1985 or Edward Frog played by Corey Feldman in The Lost Boys 1987.

Hunter’s model is closest to the original clone base. If you look closely you will see the eyebrows are straighter with a much lower angle to the arch. His nose is also not the same shape as a standard clone like Rex, including a narrower bridge. It’s certainly not Temeura Morrison’s nose. Remember what I said about space Italians? It didn’t take much to push the existing clone design to resemble an specific Italian man instead of a specific Māori man. The 23&Me came back, and Hunter inherited more than the bandana from Sylvester.

Crosshair

The long narrow nose, the sharp cheekbones, the scowl. That’s no clone, that’s just animated Clint Eastwood. Not even Young and Hot Clint Eastwood from Rawhide 1959-1965. With that hair, I’m talking Gran Torino 2008. The man of few words schtick and family friendly toothpick in lieu of cigar are pure Eastwood as The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns A Fist Full of Dollars 1964, For a Few Dollars More 1965, and The Good the Bad and the Ugly 1966.

In a way, this is full circle because the actor Jeremy Bulloch took inspiration from Clint Eastwood for his performance as Boba Fett in ESB.

Wrecker

In an interview Filoni lists the Hulk as an (obvious) inspiration for Wrecker. Ever seen the old Hulk tv show from 1978? Well take a look at the actor who played him, Lou Ferrigno. Would you look at that. Even has his papa’s nose.

You could make the argument that Wrecker was influenced by The Rock, an appropriately buff ‘n bald Polynesian (Samoan, not Maori) man. But look at him next his Fast and Furious costar Vin Diesel and tell me which one resembles Wrecker’s character model more.

Tech

Tech is a little trickier for me to place. If he has a more direct inspiration it must be something I haven’t seen. That said, his hairline is very Bruce Willis as John McClane in Die Hard 1988. His quippiness and large glasses remind me of Shane Black as Hawkins from Predator 1987. In terms of his face, he looks a but like the result of McClane and Hawkins deciding to settle down and start a family. Although, Tech’s biggest contributors are probably just everyone on TV Trope’s list for Smart People Wear Glasses.

And finally,

Echo

Oh Echo. Considering he wasn’t created for the Bad Batch, he probably wasn’t based on a particular character or movie. But if I had to guess, his situation and appearance remind me a lot of Alex Murphy played by Peter Weller in Robocop 1987. However, Robocop explored the Man or Machine Identity Crisis with more nuance, depth, and dignity. Yikes.

The exact tropes and references used in The Bad Batch have been done successfully with characters who aren’t even human. Gizmo from Gremlins 2: The New Batch 1990 had a brief stint with the Rambo bandana. I could have picked any number of characters for Defining Feature Is Glasses but here is the most cursed version of Simon of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Suffer as I have. Marc Antony with his beloved Pussyfoot from Looney Tunes has the same tough guy with a soft center vibe as Wrecker and his Lula (also a kind of cat). Hell, in the same show we have Cad Bane sharing Cowboy Clint Eastwood with Crosshair. I actually think Bane makes a better Eastwood which is wild considering Crosshair has Eastwood’s entire face and Bane is blue.

So we’ve established you don’t need your characters to look exactly like their inspirations to match their vibe. So why go through the trouble and cost of creating completely new character designs instead of recycling and altering assets they already had on hand? Just slap on a bandana, toothpick, goggles, and make Wrecker bigger than the others while he does a Hulk pose and you’re done. Based on the general reaction to Howzer it would have been a low effort slam dunk crowd pleaser.

But they didn’t do that.

So here’s the thing. I like the tropes used in The Bad Batch. I am a fan of action adventure movies from the 80s-90s, the sillier the better. I am part of the Bad Batch’s target audience. Considering what I know about Disney and Lucasfilm, I went in with low expectations. I genuinely don’t hate the idea of seeing references to these actors and media in The Bad Batch. I don’t think basing these characters on tropes was a bad idea. If anything it’s a solid starting point for building the characters.

The trouble is nothing got built on the foundation. The plot is directionless, the pacing is wacky, and the characters have nearly no emotional depth or defining character arcs. They just sort of exist without reacting much while the story happens around them. But I can excuse all of that. You don’t stay a fan of Star Wars as long as I have not being able to cherrypick and fill in the gaps. This show has a deeper issue that shouldn’t be ignored.

Why do the animated clones bear at best only a passing resemblance to their live action actor? In interviews, Filoni wouldn’t shut up but the technological advancements in the animation for season 7. So if they are updating things, why not try to make the clones a closer match to their source material? Why did they have to look like completely different people in The Bad Batch to be “unique”? Looking like Temeura Morrison would have no bearing on their special abilities and TCW proved you can have identical looking characters and still have them be distinct. In fact, that’s a powerful theme and the source of tragedy for the clones’ narrative overall.

Here’s Filoni’s early concept art of Crosshair, Wrecker, Tech, and Hunter. (Interesting but irrelevant: Wrecker seems to have a cog tattoo similar to Jesse’s instead of a scar. Wouldn’t it have been funny if they kept that so when they met in season 7 one if them could say something like “Hey we’re twins!” That’s a little clone humor. Just for you guys 😘)

None of these drawings look like the clones in TCW, much less Temeura Morrison. Let’s be generous. Maybe Filoni struggles with drawing a real person’s likeness, as many people do. But he had to hand this off to other artists down the line whose job specifically involves making a stylized character resemble their actor. Yet the final designs missed the mark almost as much as this initial concept. Starting to seem as if the clones looking more like Temeura Morrison was never even on the table. It wasn’t a lack of creativity, skill or technical limitations on the part of the creative team. I don’t think there is an innocent explanation. They went out of their way to make the final product exactly how we got it.

This goes beyond homage. They could have made the same pop culture references and character tropes without completely stripping Temeura Morrison from the role he originated. It was a very purposeful choice to replace him with more immediately familiar actors from established franchises and films. It wouldn’t shock me if Filoni, Lucas, and anyone else calling the shots didn’t even think hard or care enough about the decision to immediately recognize a problem. And I don’t think they believed anyone else would either. At least no one whose opinion they cared about. Those faces are comfortingly familiar and proven bankable. They are what we’re all used to seeing after all. They’re white.

Lack of imagination, bad intentions, or simple ignorance doesn’t really matter in the end. The result is the same. Call it what it is. They replaced a man of color with a bunch of white guys. That’s by the book garden variety run of the mill whitewashing. There’s no debate worth having about it. For a fanbase that loves to nitpick things like whether or not it’s in character for Han to shoot first or Jeans Guy in the Mandalorian, we sure are quick to find excuses for clones who look nothing like their template. Why is that? If you don’t see the problem, congratulations. Your ass is showing. Pull your jeans up.

#star wars #the bad batch #unwhitewashtbb #wrecker #crosshair #tech #hunter #echo

252 notes · View notes

helbertinelli · 3 years

Note

As someone who likes a lot of the newer Star Wars content that’s been put out in the past decade, I’m wondering why a lot of people are constantly claiming that “Disney” Anakin and Padme are OOC.

I get it, Anidala is my comfort ship too and I only ever want the best for them, but the circumstances of their marriage were super unhealthy for both of them and it seems pretty obvious that it would manifest in other ways instead of just at the end of ROTS. They’re both incredibly strong willed people who believe they know what’s right, and they never really got to be together or effectively communicate with each other, and that’s super tragic.

Anakin and Padme are flawed characters, that’s something that people stress a lot, I’m just wondering why when any creator other than George tries to explore those flaws through their relationship, they’re seen as portraying them OOC. Obviously George has a lot of insight into their characters, relationship, and flaws and has revealed a lot about them through interviews, extras, etc., but I don’t think he was necessarily as good at showing it through the films (Padme especially gets a lot of her important scenes/plotlines cut and her characterization kind of suffers from that).

Idk, it might just be that I have a different perspective (I got into the fandom at around 2013 when a lot of new content was coming out) but I don’t struggle with reconciling a lot of the newer works as expanded characterizations, I don’t think that they necessarily contradict what’s present in the films most of the time.

Ultimately, it probably just comes down to how you interpret Star Wars as George Lucas’ creation, the man was very adamant that it was *his* story before he sold it, but I think multiple authorial viewpoints can exist in this massive franchise.

(Obviously people can have their own interpretations and there is no definitive “right” way to look at things, just wondering what the thought process is here)

Thanks for your ask. I’m going to break it down into the points you’ve sent just so I can keep my answer organized and not all over the place. 1. As someone who likes a lot of the newer Star Wars content that’s been put out in the past decade, I’m wondering why a lot of people are constantly claiming that “Disney” Anakin and Padme are OOC.

Because they made Anakin think that Padme would cheat on him and then they made Padme afraid of Anakin and made her tell him they need a break. And because they retconned their story in order to stuff in Clovis in Padme’s story. And it doesn’t fit in the timeline of events that have already been established for Padme and it doesn’t fit with her character at all. In AOTC, in the novel, it says specifically that Padme never made time for herself and she only cared about being a Senator. They mention it in the movie too, but in the book, they go more in depth. There’s no way she made time to have a relationship with Clovis.

Again, for Padme, they (TCW) also make her more focused on her job and they treat Anakin like he’s just some side character in her life. This is completely out of character for Padme. We saw in AOTC that Padme developed from this person who only put her job first, to a person who finally allowed herself to have feelings for someone else and who would put that person before anything else.

If this was not true, then Padme would not have ignored Mace Windu’s request to stay on Tatooine until the Jedi go and rescue Obi-Wan, she would not have married Anakin at the end of AOTC, she would not have gotten pregnant with him, she would not have lived with him on Coruscant, she would not have made plans (and been happy about those plans) to leave her job and move to Naboo and raise their child(ren) there, she would not have went after Anakin after he turned to the dark side and asked him to go away with her.

TCW ignored that Padme got significant development in AOTC and that because of that development her character from TPM and the beginning of AOTC was now changed. They ignored that and decided to portray Padme as we see her at the beginning of AOTC. Spending time with Anakin is a chore, it doesn’t matter what Anakin says even if his concerns are right, only the Republic and her job matter.

There are moments in TCW where their relationship is good, but there are really bad and out of character moments that overshadow the good stuff.

2. I get it, Anidala is my comfort ship too and I only ever want the best for them, but the circumstances of their marriage were super unhealthy for both of them and it seems pretty obvious that it would manifest in other ways instead of just at the end of ROTS. They’re both incredibly strong willed people who believe they know what’s right, and they never really got to be together or effectively communicate with each other, and that’s super tragic.

I don’t think their marriage or the circumstances of their marriage were unhealthy. Their relationship is one of the best ones in Star Wars since it’s very mutual and it’s based on respect and understanding. Padme and Anakin know each other very well and they understand the other like no one else. They’re also nothing but respectful and loving of one another. I don’t see how that is unhealthy.

Them having to hide their marriage and not being able to spend time with one another too because of the war does have an effect on Anakin and Padme, but not on their relationship. Neither of them would think that it would be better not to have a relationship than to have a secret one. I know that Padme said this in AOTC, but she changes her mind about that fairly quick. Again, going to the AOTC book, we actually see Padme doubting her words in that very scene and she’s thinking they’d end up be destroyed worse by not allowing themselves to be together.

3. Anakin and Padme are flawed characters, that’s something that people stress a lot, I’m just wondering why when any creator other than George tries to explore those flaws through their relationship, they’re seen as portraying them OOC. Obviously George has a lot of insight into their characters, relationship, and flaws and has revealed a lot about them through interviews, extras, etc., but I don’t think he was necessarily as good at showing it through the films (Padme especially gets a lot of her important scenes/plotlines cut and her characterization kind of suffers from that).

George Lucas did not have a lot of time to show Anakin and Padme’s relationship in the movies. And yes, Padme did get a lot of her scenes cut out. I don’t think her characterization suffered from it, because we, as the audience, could still understand what Padme stood for and what was important for her. Sure more detail would have been nice, but I don’t think that her characterization was lacking in any way. Like in AOTC it would have been nice to see more scenes of her that showed her being in love with Anakin, but there were still other scenes left in the movie that showed this very well.

I don’t think that only George Lucas is able to explore the flaws in their relationship and their characters. I think I’ve seen some fragments from some SW books on here that have Anidala scenes and Anakin and Padme do have some conflict, but they resolve it. Like there was one where Padme had to go on a mission that Anakin didn’t approve with and they basically talked it out and reached kind of a compromise I think. And there was another book where Anakin and Padme wanted to make out and have sex, but Bail and Obi-Wan were close by and despite how much they both wanted each other and how much it hurt them not to be together, they agreed it was better this way.

The problem is when people create conflict in their relationship that would not make sense in the first place, and then try to say that because of that conflict they just created, Anakin and Padme’s relationship is bad. Like as I discussed above with TCW and making Anakin think that his wife would cheat on him. That would never happen. I think it was in the ROTS book where Palpatine is trying to convince Anakin that Padme is having an affair with Obi-Wan and Anakin is like “Nope, I know Padme.“

It makes no sense to change Anakin’s character to now believe that his wife is cheating just to create drama in their relationship. The TCW writers tried to push a weird love triangle on a happily married couple and then they tried to make Anakin seem like the bad guy for not liking Clovis forcing himself on Padme and for trying to get her killed before that. They created a conflict that would never happen in their relationship normally and then they were like “Oh look Anidala is toxic!“

4. Idk, it might just be that I have a different perspective (I got into the fandom at around 2013 when a lot of new content was coming out) but I don’t struggle with reconciling a lot of the newer works as expanded characterizations, I don’t think that they necessarily contradict what’s present in the films most of the time.

(Obviously people can have their own interpretations and there is no definitive “right” way to look at things, just wondering what the thought process is here)

I can’t speak for your perspective, but it’s fairly easy to see that TCW is not really expanded characterization in the case of Padme and Anidala, specifically, but it actually contradicts things that were already established in canon. In order to achieve TCW!Padme they had to go back on Padme’s characterization in AOTC and completely ignore her character from ROTS. I know TCW takes place between AOTC and ROTS, but in the timeline, Padme would already have been married to Anakin for some time, so a lot of her characterization from ROTS would have to be incorporated in TCW!Padme. But they didn’t. TCW!Padme is basically TPM + beginning of AOTC Padme but done badly. TCW!Anidala is very contradictory with Anidala in the movies. Not only do Anakin and Padme mistrust one another and doubt each other, but the timeline has been modified to squeeze in Clovis.

We see a bit of conflict in the movies, when Padme tells Anakin that maybe the Republic is wrong and yes, it never goes anywhere, but at least it is realistic conflict. It’s not “Hey here’s my secret boyfriend that I never told you about even though we are married and I’m gonna spend time with him even though he got me poisoned one time and then my handmaiden got killed by his stupid plot and I almost endangered the Republic by helping him out and if you don’t like that he’s forcing himself onto me, then I guess our marriage is broken and we can’t be together for a while.“ That is completely against their relationship based on both of them being loving and honest and respectful to each other.

The movies made it clear that despite everything that was going on in both of their lives, Anakin and Padme found comfort in one another. They were open and honest and loving to each other (up until the point of Anakin turning to the dark side). TCW ignored all of that and pushed their own interpretation onto Anidala. Anidala was meant to be a fairytale romance that was basically the two of them against all odds and they brought the best in each other. Their characters were extremely connected that it was weird to have Padme without Anakin or Anakin without Padme. They were both extremely committed to each other, they were both ride or die for one another. And we saw it in the movies very well. Anakin destroys everything to be with Padme and Padme is willing to leave everything behind to be with him despite all the horrible things he has done. She dies still believing there’s good in him. And then TCW comes in and tries to make Anidala in some cheap TV sitcom romance where all they do is bicker and get jealous and Padme acts like it’s such a chore being Anakin’s wife. They westernize their relationship in the worst kind of way.

There’s no way to not find it contradictory that Padme in the movies who, dies from a broken heart and her last words are that there’s still good in Anakin, despite everything he did to the galaxy and to her personally, would be the same as TCW!Padme, who gets angry and scared of her husband beating up the guy who tried to sexually assualt her and then tells her husband that their marriage isn’t a marriage and that they need to take a break. It makes no sense at all.

I’m all for conflict between Padme and Anakin, but it needs to be realistic conflict. It can’t be what TCW tried to push on them or the silly theories of Padme hating Anakin for turning to the darkside (when she tried to get him to run away with her and even before in AOTC she consoled him after attacking the Tusken) or her trying to kill him at any point (when she dies believing there’s still good in him). That’s like saying that Luke would try to kill his nephew and then run away and hide on a remote planet, abandoning his family. It contradicts what has already been established about him.

Also, when you write something like TCW where you’re basically adding stuff to the middle of something, you’re basically required to know the source material of what came before and what came after the thing you are writing and you need to make your story fit and respect what came before and what came after. Otherwise, you just end up writing TCW!Padme and TCW!Anidala where it contradicts already established canon. If I never watched SW and I would just now start watching it for the first time and I’d watch: TPM, AOTC, TCW, ROTS, SWR, RO, ANH, ESB, and ROTJ, it would make no sense to me how Padme who told Anakin that their marriage isn’t a marriage, would distrust Obi-Wan when he told her of the attack and it would make no sense that she would go to talk to Anakin when TCW showed us how easy it is for her to just dump him.

This goes for TCW and for fan theories where Padme hates Anakin or she tries to kill him, I can’t reconcile those with the actual canon because then that character isn’t Padme anymore, and the ship isn’t Anidala anymore. It goes against the core of the ship, of what makes Anidala Anidala. They’re together because they’re so in love with each other and both of them will die being in love with each other. If you have them break up or end up hating each other, then you’re no longer writing about Anidala, that’s a different pairing entirely. With AUs and headcanons and fics and even other canon material, you have to be careful how you alter something so that the essence of a character or a pairing does not get lost. If it does, then you end up writing about different characters and different relationships. I’ll again use Luke as an example. Luke was willing to die for his family, to get his father, whom he didn’t even know beforehand, back, he even left his training because his family needed him. If you write Luke as being the person who wanted to kill a member of his family at the first sign of darkness, who then abandoned his family, and ignored all calls for him to come back, then you just lost the essence of Luke who was all about unconditional love and family, and you now have a different character altogether.

#anidala #padme amidala #anakin skywalker #sorry this got long #I hope this answers your question?#thanks for your ask #skorupiis #ask

55 notes · View notes

toaarcan · 3 years

Text

One ship exposes everything wrong with TRoS

Heaven help me, I’m back on my bullshit.

Alright, so, I enjoyed The Rise of Skywalker when I watched it. I actually watched it twice, once on my own when I rushed to see it as soon as possible in order to beat spoilers, and once with my family, in what was a semi-annual new year tradition for us during those four years that a Star Wars film released.

But that doesn’t mean it was good. I enjoyed Transformers: Dark of the Moon the first time I watched it, and that movie’s still a steaming pile of shit. I was admittedly fifteen when I saw DotM, but still.

My point is that I’m fully capable of enjoying crappy films.

But there’s one thing, one thing about TRoS that exemplifies so many of the problems with TRoS as a whole, if not everything (And by that I mean with TRoS specifically, the woeful treatment of John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran is a Whole Trilogy Problem). And it’s a ship. Specifically this ship.

The Resistance Y-Wing. I hate this ship with the fiery passion of an exploding star, and to talk about why, we need to first go back to The Last Jedi and its conspicuous lack of Y-Wings.

One of the things that I disliked most about the Sequels before TRoS put all the other problems into stark light was the lack of new ships. Instead of new vehicles, we got shinier, sleeker versions of the ships from the original trilogy. And I disliked this because it’s the opposite of what the Prequels did.

Episodes I-III don’t feature more primitive versions of the X-Wing and TIE Fighter, but instead have similar vehicles that evoke the classics while still having an identity of their own.

The ARC-170 looks kinda like an X-Wing, but it’s bigger and has more weapons and crew, and you get why the well-funded Republic can afford things like this while the scrappy Rebels can’t.

The Eta-2 is a predecessor to the TIE Fighter, but it being employed exclusively by Jedi makes a lot of sense, of course a precognitive wizard with superhuman reflexes can do well in a light, unshielded ship, while in the hands of the Empire’s military they’re just expendable swarm fighters.

But then in the Sequels, rather than evolve the ships into new forms, they just made new incarnations of the X-Wing, TIE Fighter, A-Wing, TIE Interceptor, B-Wing, and of course the Y-Wing.

Well, except for one movie: The Last Jedi.

At the outset of the film, we’re introduced to this ship.

This is the MG-100 StarFortress, AKA “That ship all the Star Wars Youtubers hate”. It’s designed to be a much heavier and bulkier version of the B-Wing Starfighter, and is even made by the same people.

From questions about how the bombs “fall” toward the Dreadnought (The answer is magnets) to claims that they’re completely useless because most of the ones in the film died so easily, these things have been put through the wringer by the fandom, and honestly they don’t deserve it? What destroyed the StarFortresses in the film wasn’t their own weaknesses, but them being deployed in too tight a formation. It was a tactical fuckup, not a problem with the ship’s design.

And given that the whole point of the battle over D’Qar is that Poe makes a tactical fuckup to kickstart his development into the new leader of the Resistance as a whole, adding another layer makes sense to me.

But we live in a post-CinemaSins world of media consumption, where every plot-point that isn’t spelled out with a flowchart and an audio commentary by the writers is actually a plothole.

We also live in an era where Star Wars fans pine for the days of the Legends canon where everything about new ships, species, and worlds was explained in background lore and books, and are angry that the new Canon is... doing exactly the same thing?

Seriously, how much exposition and lore dumping is actually present in any of the Star Wars films? Not a whole lot. And that applies to all three eras.

So the StarFortress’ appearance in the film and the lack of Y-Wings led to a bevy of armchair writers demanding to know why the Resistance weren’t using Y-Wings and why they were using those “Resistance Bombers” that are just ‘terrible’.

Answer? Because the Y-Wings sucked shit.

Seriously, go back to the Original Trilogy and try to keep track of the Y-Wings, and see what they actually do, and you’ll find that what they do is “Explode, mostly.”

We’re first introduced to the Y-Wings in A New Hope, and they’re supposed to be the ones performing the Trench Run while the X-Wings cover them, and to their credit, they try.

And then they all get blown up by Vader and his wingmen before they can even take a shot at the exhaust port. Well, except that one that appears with the rebel ships flying away from the Death Star.

Where the fuck were you when the X-Wings were doing the attack run?

The Y-Wings got absolutely wrecked.

Ancillary media would go on to explain that the Y-Wings were beat-up old vehicles that were no longer fit for purpose, but the Rebels had to use them anyway because they had basically no money. They’d stripped down the ships and removed a bunch of their more costly features just to make them viable, and the results of that were pretty clear.

Of course, the Y-Wings were still present in the later films. They don’t do anything in The Empire Strikes Back, but they play a role in Return of the Jedi.

Naturally, that role is mostly “Get blown up while the other ships do the important stuff”.

Despite supposedly being a fighter-bomber that was designed to do significant damage to capital ships, does the Y-Wing play a role in the destruction of the Executor? Does it fuck. Destroying the Imperial flagship’s deflector shields and the subsequent suicidal ram attack on the bridge are tasks that are both performed by the goddamn A-Wings. Y’know, the light interceptors?

The Y-Wings get shown up at their own job by the ships that are there to protect them from TIE Fighters.

Ancillary media again explains why they’re still there. While the Rebels have a newer, better fighter-bomber in the B-Wing, the B-Wing is expensive as fuck and also really difficult to fly.

A non-centreline cockpit that rotates will do that to a ship.

Still, the B-Wing was a better bomber than the Y-Wing ever was (And the StarFortress was better than them both at that role).

All this adds up to a simple fact: There were very good reasons why the Resistance weren’t using Y-Wings. And there were even reasonable reasons to choose the StarFortress compared to the B-Wing itself, given that the Resistance are still undermanned and under-funded, especially with the New Republic getting nuked midway through The Force Awakens. It being easier to fly and having more armaments would have made it a viable choice for the Resistance.

Buuuut oops, people didn’t like the StarFortress and we can’t make the Internet angry at us again! Better put the Y-Wings back in for Episode IX, and show them destroying a Xyston-class Destroyer, that’ll make them happy!

And sure, okay, giving the Resistance a fighter/bomber is probably a good idea. And they already have New X-Wings and New A-Wings, so where’s the harm in a New Y-Wing?

Alright, alright, sure. But why the fuck does it look like this?

If this is a new ship, why is it already stripped-down like the ones in the Original Trilogy? Why doesn’t it look like the actual brand-new Y-Wings we saw in The Clone Wars?

Now that’s more like it. Still visibly a Y-Wing, but with more of an identity of its own.

Seriously, “Literally the same ship but without its armour pulled off” has more of a unique identity than the crowd-pleasing New Y-Wing.

And that, in and of itself, is the essence of The Rise of Skywalker.

It’s blind, empty fanservice, rushing to include as much nostalgia-pandering as possible to try and get the fanbase back on-side after The Last Jedi didn’t do what the fanboys wanted it to do.

This is a whole near- three hour movie whose only message is “Yes, Youtubers making TFA critiques longer than an entire season of TCW, we hear you, we’ll make it for you, please love us!”

And, almost entirely predictably, it was shite.

It was riddled with plotholes and none of the scenes had any time to breathe because the movie was too desperately trying to rush itself to the next crowd-pleasing scene in a desperate attempt to wank off as many disgruntled fanboys as it possibly could.

Luke with his green saber! Jedi Leia! Chewie gets a medal! Lando! Luke raises his X-Wing out of the water! The main villain is a testicle in a bathrobe again! Snork origin! Original-flavour Star Destroyers! Rose doesn’t exist! Rey had a super-special secret magical bloodline the whole time and Luke and Leia totally knew even though Luke has literally no idea who she is in Episode VIII! Luke actually was just afraid of the bad guys in Episode VII, none of that self-imposed exile for his own mistakes nonsense! Y-Wings.

I mean fuck. Disagree with Luke’s portrayal in TLJ all you like, I certainly have my issues with it, but I lay those at the feet of JJ for making Luke’s absence into one of his fucking Mystery Boxes, and then deciding that, even though last time Luke sensed Leia and Han might be in danger, he abandoned his Jedi training, hopped in an X-Wing, and flew halfway across the galaxy to try and save them, he wouldn’t do shit when the First Order pointed a star-powered System-Killer 9000 at Leia, and Han got himself killed trying to redeem Kyle Ron. Like how in fuck was Rian supposed to explain Luke’s inaction in VII?

But regardless of the problems with that Luke portrayal, at least Mark Hamill gave it his all. Hell, it might be his best performance in the Star Wars franchise!

In TRoS, he shows up in a bad wig, waves a middle finger at TLJ, and ascends to his final form as a Lightsaber Delivery Boy, because apparently all you need to kill a Sith who literally clawed his way back from death is two lightsabers. Haunting Kyle Ron? Nope. Providing guidance as a ghost? Not really.

And y’know what the kicker is? It didn’t fucking work. Lucasfilm and Disney fucking gutted this trilogy, sliced out the integrity, surgically removed the soul of Episode IX in a desperate effort to make the Internet’s most unpleasable fanbase happy, and it didn’t work. They still hate it! Now they just concoct hour-long videos about how much they would’ve preferred to have the Trevorrow script (Which is admittedly much better, albeit still with it’s far share of giant flaws), which was probably thrown out because it wasn’t fanservicey enough!

The Rise of Skywalker is an awful film. It’s a loose collection of nostalgia-baiting moments, roughly stapled together around the skeleton of a plot that was never properly developed. It’s a Frankenstein’s Monster of a movie, but, and I say this with full offense, the Victor Frankenstein in this tragic story isn’t Lucasfilm or Disney or Kathleen Kennedy or Rian Johnson, or even JJ Abrams. It’s you, Star Wars Fandom. It is your monster.

#Star Wars #The Rise of Skywalker #Disney #Lucasfilm #Episode IX #Episode VIII #Episode VII #The Last Jedi #The Force Awakens #Y-Wing Starfighter #B-Wing Starfighter #MG-100 StarFortress

58 notes · View notes

kinsey3furry300 · 3 years

Text

A very confused Star Wars Fan desperately tries to justify their belief that “Caravan of Courage” shows the way forward for the franchise. No, really.

Ever since I was a little kid, I’ve loved Star Wars. And I mean, all of it. The books, the games, the Lego, the spin-offs: I even enjoy the Holiday Special in a The Room so-bad-you-just-need-to-see-it sort of way. But particularly the films. But here is when we run into the big problem: I’m just the wrong age. The original trilogy launched before I was born, the prequel trilogy hit cinemas when I was already a teen and while I went and saw them and enjoyed them, I was at that age where I was self-conscious about seeing a “kids” film, and hyper-aware of how silly and cringy those films were in parts. So my indoctrination, my inoculation with the Star Wars bug didn’t happen in the cinema, and it didn’t happen with any of the main franchise works. It happened on home video, on a skiing trip in the French Alps in the early 90’s. I’d have been about 6, and this was the first time I’d ever been abroad other than to see relatives in Ireland. And I loved it: to this day I love skiing, but more than that, I have very, very fond childhood memories of this trip. This was shortly before I lost my biological mother to cancer, she’d have received her diagnosis just after we got back from the trip. This was when my younger sister stopped being an annoying screaming thing and became and became an actual person I could talk and play and share ideas with, this was before the combination my mothers long illness and my father having just launched his own IT start up meant I didn’t see him or her any more, despite the fact they were in the same house as me. This was this wonderful, nostalgic child-hood bubble when my family was intact, and nothing could ever go wrong. I skied all day with mum and dad, and would come back to the chalet in the evening. It was an English speaking chalet, I met my first real-life American there, and having grown up in the 90’s in the UK nothing was cooler than making friends with an actual American my own age. He had a hulk Hogan action figure with springs in the legs so if you put him on a hard surface and punched his head down, when you let go he’d jump really high in the air. We used to play with it together in the bath, back in that weird 90’s time-bubble when it was possible to convince two sets of parents that this kid you’d just met was you best friend in the world and of course shared bath time was, somehow, normal and appropriate. And fresh from bath time, tired from the day, the parents would give us some hot coco, dump us kids in front of the tv and grab the first shitty low-budget VHS they could find to keep us distracted while they went to the bar. In this particular time, in this particular place, that shitty low budget cartoon was the complete set of the 1985 Lucasfilm/ABC Ewoks cartoon, plus the two spin off movies, and to this day that cheap, kitschy, kind of bad series has a special warm and cosy place in my heart. I remember being enthralled by the world, in love with the characters, applied by the bad guys and the injustice they caused (to this day I’m still irate about that time Wicket lost his set of beads documenting his progress towards becoming a full warrior and the older Ewoks basically said, tough, you need to re-earn all those merit badges from scratch. This struck me as exactly the sort of bullshit an adult would pull, and pissed me off) and on tenterhooks about what would happen to the characters.

It was also, by a coincidence, the first ever Star Wars media I was exposed to, and the above combination of events probably explains a lot about me.

So I was surprised, the other day, when scrolling Disney+, to find they’d added Caravan of Courage AND Battle for Endor to the roster in my region. Surely Disney wouldn’t want their slick, cool brand associated with this old trash? Surely there could be no place for this in the post-Mandalorian Star Wars cannon? Surely this is a horrible mistake some intern made, right?

Unless…. What if I’ve miss-remembered? What if it’s not just rose-tinted nostalgia goggles, and it’s, in fact, secretly really, really good?

I rushed to my comfy chair, got a blanket, dimmed the lights, made some coco (with rum in it, because why the hell not?) and sat down to re-examine this lost gem.

And wow: it’s every bit as shit as you’d expect.

It has aged exactly as poorly as you’d expect a cheap, mid 80’s direct to video spin-off to age. Caravan of Courage? More like Caravan of Garbage, am I right?

And yet… I still enjoyed every moment.

And it was sitting there, in my pyjamas, watching a cheaply made direct to video cash-grab from just before I was born, seeing it again for the first time in nearly 30 years, and I realised something.

It doesn’t really matter if this film is bad, so long as I enjoy it. And if it doesn’t really mater if this is bad, then I, like many Star Wars fans, wasted a huge amount of time and emotional effort on being butthurt about stuff I didn’t like about the Rise of Skywalker and it’s ilk. Because somewhere, right now, a tired and frustrated parent is putting Disney+ on to keep their kids quiet for two hours. And they won’t think too hard about what they put on, so long as it keeps little Timmy busy for a bit. Somewhere, right now, a kid is watching Rise of Skywalker, and it’s the first Star Wars media they’ve ever seen.

And that’s okay. Because we don’t know what that kids home life is like. We don’t know if it’s good or bad. Maybe it’s great, maybe it’s about to take a dramatic plunge like mine did, and this moment here will be the cosy, warm memory they look back on in 30 years time, and that’s beautiful. They’re getting introduced to a fun, wonderful fantasy world that could be with them all their lives, through good times and bad, and as fans we should be happy about that.

Star Wars will never, die: it’s too darn profitable, Disney will never let it. And while I hope they learn from their mistakes and make sure every future Star Wars is a timeless gem of story-telling, statistically, if you keep making enough films, some of them will be bad. And while I’d like them all to be great, it’s still okay if they’re bad.

Because nothing can take away my memories of that week in that chalet. Nothing can take-away my memories of when they put the original trilogy on in cinemas for the special edition and I had my jaw hit the floor with how good it was on the big screen, not knowing or caring who shot first. Nothing can take away you memories of the Original Trilogy, the Prequels, or the Clone Wars. Nothing can tarnish the bits of the sequil trilogy that you like, and there are good bits in there.

But wait, what about continuity? What about the sacred, perfect written time-line that used to exist?

Well, what about it? Have you seen any other big, epic fantasy universe before? They’re all a mess. A work of fiction, particularly fantasy, can be extensive, or tightly written, but not both. Harry Potter is only seven books, and the last two feel, tonally, like they’re from an entirely different series. I love them, but the grim-dark kicked in so fast you’ll get whiplash. The Hobbit is a perfect written self-contained novel, and LOTR is *The* big boy high-fantasy trilogy: fast forward 50 years, and Christopher Tolkien is desperately squeezing every last drop of money out of his father’s corpse by finishing and publishing every unfinished note JRR ever wrote right down to his shopping lists. Even Dune goes of the rails with sequels. I can only think of four fantasy works that are both extensive and consistently tightly written, Song of Ice and Fire, Wheel of Time, Malazan: Book of the Fallen and Brandon Sanderson’s Cosmere universe. And even then, the prequels and spin-offs mess with the timelines: the Dunk and Egg novella’s change some character’s canonical ages and timelines, Wheel of Time was going slowly off the rails even before the Jordan died, Forge of Darkness made what was a good metaphor for the creation of it’s world into a literal war deep in the past, and Sanderson’s first Novel Elantris got a re-write to bring it more in line with the rest of the shared universe. The MCU, oft held up as the modern example of tightly planned, well thought out ongoing storytelling, is a lie: it was never as pre-planned out as Disney wants us to think; the first Iron Man, apparently, barely had a script, with Downey ad-lib-ing most of his scenes. None of the MCU films are direct sequels to each-other other than Infinity war and Endgame. There are three Iron Man films, and Three Thor films, and none continue an ongoing story line across multiple films, and the Cap films barely continue an arc, but only where Cap’s relationship with Natasha and Bucky is involved. Much like these, Star War’s cannon is a complete, nightmarish, confusing, tangled, illogical mess. And it has been since 1984, as Caravan of Courage proves. It was never consistent and well planned.

And that’s okay.

I used to care about plot holes. I used to care about which works were cannon in Star Wars lore. I’m over that now. I’m happy to imagine the books, films and games not as a blow-by-blow historical account of a galaxy far far away, but as campfire stories from within this fun, imaginative world that we’re all invited to listen to. Stories that are in-universe myth and folklore, that we can all snuggle up and listen to while drinking highly alcoholic rum and remembering better times, knowing that wherever the future throws at us, no matter how the world goes to hell around us, we’ll still have the memories, and the ability to make our own new stories in the wonderful Star Wars world we all share.

And that’s okay. No, more than that: that’s beautiful.

Also Star Wars is completely unambiguous on the fact we’re allowed to kill fascists no matter how many times they keep coming back with a new logo, so that’s timely I guess.

So, there’s my hot take two-years after everyone else stopped caring about this stuff, as per bloody usual. Tell me why I’m wrong below, and does anyone else have any truly awful spin-off shows that they kind of have a nostalgic soft spot for?

14 notes · View notes

crowdvscritic · 3 years

Text

round up // JULY 21

‘Tis the season to beat the heat at the always-cold theatres and next to fans set at turbo speed. While my movie watching slowed a bit with the launch of the Summer Olympics on July 23rd, I’ve still got plenty of popcorn-ready and artsy recommendations for you. A few themes in the new-to-me pop culture I’m recommending this month:

Casts oozing with embarrassing levels of talent (sometimes overqualified for the movies they’re in)

Pop culture that is responding or reinterpreting past pop culture

Stories that get weEeEeird

Keep on-a-scrollin’ to see which is which!

July Crowd-Pleasers

1. Double Feature – ‘90s Rom-Coms feat. Lots of Lies: Mystery Date (1991) + The Pallbearer (1996)

In Mystery Date (Crowd: 7.5/10 // Critic: 6/10), Ethan Hawke and Teri Polo get set up on a blind date that gets so bizarre and crime-y I’m not sure how this didn’t come out in the ‘80s. In The Pallbearer (Crowd: 8/10 // Critic: 7/10), David Schwimmer and Gwyneth Paltrow try to combine The Graduate with Four Weddings and a Funeral in a story about lost twentysomethings. If you don’t like rom-coms in which circumstances depend on lots of lies and misunderstandings, these won’t be your jam, but if you’re like me and don’t mind these somewhat-cliché devices, you’ll be hooked by likeable casts and plenty of rom and com.

2. The Tomorrow War (2021)

I thought of no fewer movies than this list while watching: Alien, Aliens, Angel Has Fallen, Cloverfield, Interstellar, Kong: Skull Island, Prometheus, A Quiet Place: Part II, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars: The Revenge of the Sith, The Silence of the Lambs, The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and World War Z. And you know what? I like all those movies! (Okay, maybe I just have a healthy respect/fear of The Silence of the Lambs.) The Tomorrow War may not be original, but it borrows some of the best tropes and beats from the sci-fi and action genres, so much so I wish I could’ve seen Chris Pratt and Co. fight those gross monsters on a big screen. Crowd: 9/10 // Critic: 6/10

3. Dream a Little Dream (1989)

My July pick for the Dumb Rom-Com I Nevertheless Enjoyed! I CANNOT explain the mechanics of this body switch comedy to you—nor can the back of the DVD case above—but, boy, what an ‘80s MOOD. I did not know I needed to see a choreographed dance routine starring Jason Robards and Corey Feldman, but I DID. All I know is some movies are made for me and that I’m now a card-carrying member of the Two Coreys fan club. Crowd: 8/10 // Critic: 6.5/10

4. Black Widow (2021)

The braids! The Pugh! Black Widow worked for me both as an exciting action adventure and as a respite from the Marvel adventures dependent on a long memory of the franchise. (Well, mostly—keep reading for a second MCU rec much more dependent on the gobs of previous releases.) Crowd: 9/10 // Critic: 7.5/10

5. Liar Liar (1997)

Guys, Jim Carrey is hilarious. That’s it—that’s the review. Crowd: 9/10 // Critic: 7/10

youtube

6. Sob Rock by John Mayer (2021)

It’s very possible I’ve already listened to this record more than all other John Mayer records. It doesn’t surpass the capital-G Greatness of Continuum, but it’s a little bit of old school Mayer, a little bit ‘80s soft rock/pop, and I’ve had it on repeat most of the two weeks since it’s been out. Featuring the boppiest bop that ever bopped, at least one lyrical gem in every track, and an ad campaign focused on Walkmans, this record skirts the line between Crowd faves and Critic-worthy musicianship.

7. Double Feature – ‘00s Ben Affleck Political Thrillers: The Sum of All Fears (2002) + State of Play (2009)

In The Sum of All Fears (Crowd: 8.5/10 // Critic: 7.5/10), Ben Affleck is Jack Ryan caught up in yet another international incident. In State of Play (Crowd: 8/10 // Critic: 7/10), he’s a hotshot Congressman caught up in a scandal. Both are full of plot twists and unexpected turns, and in both, Affleck is accompanied by actors you’re always happy to see, like Jason Bateman, James Cromwell, Russell Crowe, Jeff Daniels, Viola Davis, Morgan Freeman, Philip Baker Hall, David Harbour, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Liev Schreiber, and Robin Wright—yes, I swear all of those people are in just those two movies.

8. Loki (2021-)

Unlike Black Widow, you can’t go into Loki with no MCU experience. The show finds clever ways to nudge us with reminders (and did better at it than Falcon and the Winter Soldier), but be forewarned that at some point, you’re just going to have to let go and accept wherever this timeline-hopper is taking you. An ever-charismatic cast keeps us grounded (Owen Wilson, Jonathan Majors, and an alligator almost steal the show from Tom Hiddleston in some eps), but while Falcon lasted an episode or two too long, Loki could’ve used a few more to flesh out its complicated plot and develop its characters. Thankfully, the jokes matter almost as much as the sci-fi, so you can still have fun even if you have no idea what’s going on.

9. Double Feature – Bruce Willis: Die Hard With a Vengeance (1995) + The Whole Nine Yards (2000)

Before Bruce Willis began starring in many random direct-to-DVD movies I only ever hear about in my Redbox emails, he was a Movie Star smirking his way up the box office charts. In the third Die Hard (Crowd: 10/10 // Critic: 7.5/10), he teams up with Samuel L. Jackson to decipher the riddles of a terrorist madman (Jeremy Irons), and it’s a thrill ride. In The Whole Nine Yards (Crowd: 9/10 // Critic: 8/10), he’s hitman that screws up dentist Matthew Perry’s boring life in Canada, and—aside from one frustrating scene of let’s-objectify-women-style nudity—it’s hilarious.

10. This Is the End (2013)

On paper, this is not a movie for me. An irreverent stoner comedy about a bunch of bros partying it up before the end of the world? None of things are for Taylors. But with a little help of a TV edit to pare down the raunchy and crude bits, I laughed my way through and spent the next several days thinking through its exploration of what makes a good person. While little of the plot is accurate to Christian Gospel and theology, some of its big ideas are consistent enough with the themes of the book of Revelation I found myself thinking about it again in church this morning. (Would love to know if Seth Rogen ever expected that.) Plus, I love a good self-aware celebrity spoof—can’t tell you how many times I’ve just laughed remembering the line, “It’s me, Jonah Hill, from Moneyball”—and an homage to horror classics. Crowd: 8/10 // Critic: 7/10

July Critic Picks

1. Summer of Soul (…or, When the Television Could Not Be Televised) (2021)

Even director Questlove didn’t know about the Harlem Cultural Festival, but now he’s compiled the footage so we can all enjoy one of the coolest music fest lineups ever, including The 5th Dimension, B.B. King, Gladys Knight and the Pips, Nina Simone, Sly and the Family Stone, and Stevie Wonder, who made my friend’s baby dance more than once in the womb. See it on the big screen for top-notch audio. Crowd: 8/10 // Critic: 9/10

2. Good Morning, Vietnam (1987)

Robin Williams takes on the bureaucracy, disillusionment, and malaise of the Vietnam War with comedy. Williams was a one-of-a-kind talent, and here it’s on display at a level on par with Aladdin. Crowd: 8/10 // Critic: 9/10

3. Against the Rules Season 2 (2020-21)

Michael Lewis (author of Moneyball, adapted into a film starring Jonah Hill), is interested in how we talk about fairness. This season he looks at how coaches impact fairness in areas like college admissions, credit cards, and youth sports.

4. Bugsy Malone (1976)

A gangster musical starring only children? It’s a little like someone just picked ideas out of a hat, but somehow it works. You can hear why in the Bugsy Malone episode Kyla and I released this month on SO IT’S A SHOW?, plus how this weird artifact of a film connects with Gilmore Girls.

5. The Queen (2006)

Before The Crown, Peter Morgan wrote The Queen, focusing on Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) in the days following the death of Princess Diana. It’s a complex and compassionate drama, both for the Queen and for Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen, who has snuck up on me to become a favorite character actor). Maybe I’ve got a problem, but I’ll never tire of the analysis of this famous family. Crowd: 8.5/10 // Critic: 9.5/10

6. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972)

This month at ZekeFilm, we took a closer look at Revisionist Westerns we’ve missed. I fell hard for Roy Bean, and I think you will, too, if for no other reason than you might like a story starring Jacqueline Bisset, Ava Gardner, John Huston, Paul Newman, and Anthony Perkins. Oh, and a bear! Crowd: 8.5/10 // Critic: 10/10

youtube

7. New Trailer Round Up

Naked Singularity (Aug. 6) – John Boyega in a crime thriller!

Queenpins (Aug. 10) – A crime comedy about extreme coupon-ing!

Dune (Oct. 1) – I’ve been cooler on the anticipation for this film, but this new look has me cautiously intrigued thanks to the Bardem + Bautista + Brolin + Chalamet + Ferguson + Isaac + Momoa + Zendaya of it all.

The Last Duel (Oct. 15) – Affleck! Damon! Driver!

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (Nov. 11) - I’m not sure why we need this, but I’m down for the Paul Rudd + Finn Wolfhard combo

King Richard (Nov. 19) - Will Smith as Venus and Serena’s father!

Encanto (Nov. 24) – Disney and Lin-Manuel Miranda making more magic together!

House of Gucci (Nov. 24) - Gaga! Pacino! Driver!

Also in July…

Kyla and I took a look at the classic supernatural soap Dark Shadows and why Sookie might be obsessed with it on Gilmore Girls.

I revisited a so-bad-it’s-good masterpiece that’s a surrealist dream even Fellini couldn’t have cooked up. Yes, for ZekeFilm I wrote about the Vanilla Ice movie, Cool as Ice, which is now a part of my Blu-ray collection.

Photo credits: Against the Rules. All others IMDb.com.

11 notes · View notes

wonderfulworldofmichaelford · 3 years

Text

Is It Really THAT Bad?

How many fucking times must I talk about this movie?

I feel like this movie doesn’t need an introduction. Everyone knows this film. Its reputation precedes it. It didn’t bomb and it’s not generally considered one of the worst films ever made (at least on the level of films like Robot Monster or The Cat in the Hat), but this movie is easily one of the most divisive films ever made. This film has generated enough arguments that, if we harnessed the energy of all the flame wars it has caused, we could probably power the entire world until the heat death of the universe.

With the impending release of Zach Snyder’s bloated redo of Justice League, I’ve decided to go back and ask myself of this film here… is it really that bad?

THE GOOD

Here comes the most uncontroversial opinion: the action scenes in this movie rock (or at least two of them do). The standouts are the titular showdown, which almost makes sitting through the rest of the movie worth it, and the epic warehouse fight Batman gets into, which is like something straight out of the Arkham games. It’s so good. And aside from that, a lot of the cinematography in the film is good. The film knows how to look good, though unfortunately it does end up being a lot of style with little substance.

youtube

On the subject of Batman, I think Ben Affleck is a great and inspired choice. I certainly think he’s worthy of standing alongside Batmans like Clooney and Keaton, easily embodying both the Dark Knight and Billionaire Playboy aspects fairly well, though the writing does not always handle him quite as well as it should (we’ll get to that soon enough). Henry Cavill, while still a rather dour Superman, is as good as ever as Superman, and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was a great choice here, especially since she didn’t have control so that she could insert anti-Arab racism, like some DCEU movies.

Perhaps one of the movies most impressive feats is how, in an uncharacteristic moment of brevity, it manages to condense the backstory of Batman into the prologue, getting it out of the way and not making us sit through yet another Batman origin film. This is literally the only thing the movie has over the MCU; where that franchise just has the character Spider-Man inexplicably in existence without even a hint of his origins, they just get Batman’s tragic backstory out of the way so we can see him beating the crap out of people. If more superhero movies want to take this route and just condense the backstory into an opening montage like this, I’d be down for it.

THE BAD

I really could just say “most of the movie” but that’s such a cop out. Let’s actually look at the problems. Let’s work our way up through the things from least problematic to most, shall we?

The best place to start is what Zach Snyder did to Jimmy Olsen.

Jimmy Olsen is made into a CIA spook who is brutally killed early on, and yes, that was Jimmy Olsen. Snyder put him in to shock audiences with his senseless murder, and also because he felt the character had no place in his series. Does making Watchmen just turn people into joyless husks who like to horribly bastardize iconic characters? Jimmy Olsen is ultimately a small microcosm of the film, but he is the sum total of everything wring with the early DCEU. He is bleak, soulless, and shows a critical lack of understanding about the comics and why people enjoy them.

Now let’s move on to the more exciting problem to discuss: the villains. I don’t even think it’s worth wasting much time discussing what’s wrong with KGBeast. While it is kind of interesting they’d think to use the guy at all, the fact he never dons the costume and dies by the end of the film is unfathomably lame for a character named KGBeast.

Now, onto the main antagonist, and the most infamous part of the movie: Lex Luthor.

Lex Luthor is horribly, horribly miscast. Jesse Eisenberg is a great actor for sure, and he’s effective in movies like Now You See Me, The Social Network, and the Zombieland films. But here he is being asked to play one of the most diabolical cunning geniuses in comic book history, and rather than play him as such, he plays him like a cartoonish twit. This Lex is utterly unrecognizable as Superman’s greatest foe. Does anyone think Lex Luthor would send a jar of piss to someone as a joke before he blows them up? That’s more something the Joker would do on an off day. Lex is not cunning, not intimidating, and not diabolical in the slightest, and yet there are moments where Eisenberg’s acting chops shine through and Lex, for a moment, is almost engaging. Luthor really suffers the way Doctor Doom tends to in film adaptations: the filmmaker clearly doesn’t get why people like the villain, and decide to do some weird, unique take that will only cause to alienate fans.

But perhaps the worst of them all is Doomsday. Doomsday has exactly one claim to fame, and that’s killing Superman, so as soon as he shows up if you have even a passing awareness of the character you know how the movie is going to end, which robs the film of tension for its last battle. The fact he also appears with little buildup and doesn’t have any characterization doesn’t help; Doomsday is just the Big Gray CGI Blob that superhero movies try and pass off as a final boss for the heroes to fight. This has worked precisely once, in Iron Man. The Incredible Hulk and Venom did not make it work, and this film is nowhere close to being in the same ballpark as Venom.

By and far the biggest problem, though, is the movie’s incredible length and its very existence in the franchise at this point in time. This is an epic superhero crossover in which two of the biggest comic book characters of all time fight and then team up… And it is the second movie in a franchise. While they do a good job of establishing Batman rather quickly, Wonder Woman comes out of nowhere. And then at the end, Superman ‘dies.’ We have had one single movie prior to this to make a connection to the guy, and yet here he is getting a temporary comic book death with no buildup whatsoever that we know is going to be reversed sooner than later because the movie telegraphs this to us.

Imagine if, instead of building up the character over the course of a decade and putting him in all sorts of different stories, the MCU went right from Iron Man to Endgame. You go from a simpler, character-driven piece to a massive crossover where a hero dies right away, and it doesn’t give anyone time to care. Tony Stark had multiple films worth of characterization under his belt before they threw him in a crossover, let alone killed him, but Snyder expects you to give a damn about a Superman who just started his career in the previous movie of a franchise.

And the ass-numbing length of the movie is no justification. Even before the director’s cut came out this film was a slog, and the director’s cut really does nothing to earn its existence. All it does is add more runtime to an already tedious and bloated film, leading to the same exact ending and fixing none of the overarching narrative problems of the thing. The problem with any director’s cut is that ultimately the movie is still going to be Dawn of Justice, it’s still going to lead to extremely rushed character decisions, and it’s still going to be a mess. You’d have to redo half of the film to make this into a worthwhile and coherent narrative that’s actually worthy of being an entry in a superhero franchise.

And to top it all off, the movie spends far too much time foreshadowing for its own good. People criticized The Mummy for shoehorning in way too many shared universe elements right off the bat, and if that movie was bad for it, so is this one. The cameos from all the members of the Justice League, while striking, could be excised from the plot with little to no impact, and the Knightmare sequence is just excessive and weird.

youtube

Is It Really THAT Bad?

The answer to this question has never been harder.

On the one hand, this film does have some merit. There is some good casting choices, good cinematography, good action… But then, on the other hand, the film is overly long, pretentious, has poor writing and dialogue, mishandles everyone aside from Superman, and is just incredibly unpleasant.

This film is in many ways the exact problem Christopher Nolan created with his Dark Knight trilogy. Nolan, by grounding the fanciful characters of comic books into a realistic setting, created a climate in which someone could suck any sort of joy or meaning out of comics. The success of his films meant that people would see dark, gritty realism as preferable to joyous, colorful escapism, and the negative effects of his films, however good you find them, are still felt today even as filmmakers are finally shaking off the grit. Dawn of Justice is the zenith of Nolan’s style of superhero film. There is nothing fun, joyful, or engaging to be found here; it is simply the characters you know and love forced into dark, miserable scenarios that ends in death and misery. Where’s the fun? Where’s the color? Where’s the wonder, the excitement, where is any of it? This film paints a bleak and miserable and hopeless picture of a world of superheroes. It really makes me think of this rather famous comic panel:

I absolutely hate this movie, but not because I think it’s bad. I hate it because it has enough good ideas where it should be the best thing ever, but it really isn’t. It’s a miserable slog of a film that does nothing to justify or earn its massive runtime whatsoever. It really does belong somewhere between 5 and 6 on IMDB, because I can almost see why people like it, but it just isn’t even remotely close to being how good its fan say it is. This is not a good superhero movie, and this is not how we should want superhero movies to be. There is a market for serious superhero fare of course, and there’s no reason that these films can’t engage with mature themes or anything, don’t get me wrong. But this is absolutely not the way to do it.

#Is it really that bad #IIRTB #Review #movie review #Batman v Superman #Dawn of Justice #Zach Snyder #Batman #Superman #DCEU

26 notes · View notes

coffeeandcalligraphy · 4 years

Note

Hi Rachel, do you think that it is liberating to write novels that you keep for yourself.

I ABSOLUTELY do. I think this is a very underrated topic in the writing community which may be because the community itself is so publishing focused, but this is a topic I’ve been passionate about from a very young age. I’ve been trying to make a video on this for months, but haven’t found the right words, so I hope this describes it coherently!

Let’s start with a story!

The beginning (2014)

A few days after I turned 13, I started a little ol’ book called Fostered. I wasn’t feeling the opening, but with some encouragement from my lovely sister @sarahkelsiwrites, continued the story and eventually finished the first book. After the first book was written, I decided I wanted more from the series and embarked on a book two. Writing this book was blissful, entertaining, and very quickly turned into writing a book three as the plot grew and I grew fonder of the characters. All three of these novels began at age 13.

Crossing the threshold

By this time, however, I was itching to publish book one. After all, I’d spent so much time in 2--and now was in the middle of 3--books and wanted to share this story with the world. I envisioned films, a franchise, the whole Dystopian-in-2014-shebang. And so began:

Operation: Publish Fostered

I did research. I was disheartened to find out that writing a series first and THEN querying was not optimal (I had already written two books and was in the middle of the third), but felt confident in my ability to sell my series (you go girl). I asked literary agents whether or not this was destined to fail, I wrote a lot, googled a lot, etc. Publishing was exciting, and then I realized

No one wanted to publish this book

It’s not that I ever got rejected. I had never gotten close to the publication stage with these books. But at around the 2015 mark, YA Dystopian nosedived into Very Dead territory and it was pretty industry standard at the time that it was a very difficult sell due to the oversaturation in the market (The Hunger Games, Divergent, etc). I was crushed and in denial! I asked agents again, hey so does my book sound like a dystopian KNOWING deep down, it was. I brainstormed ways I could change up the idea to strip away the dystopian and get my “day in court”, but nothing could strip the typical 2014 YA dystopian from these books. This leads us to:

Approach the inmost cave (2015)

I was so sad. At 13, I’d destined myself for blockbuster, yet humble success. At this point, I had just started grade nine and had slowly begun a descent into never finishing book 3. It’s not that I didn’t want to finish the book--I truly did, but my dilemma with publishing or not publishing was something I didn’t know how to navigate around. At this point, I’d developed extensively as a writer despite writing for less than a year and knew the first book didn’t hold up to the quality of the second and third. But I’d lost my Fostered spark at a point of the book where I thought everything was going wonderfully. I hit an unforeseen roadblock, didn’t know what caused it, didn’t know how to move around it, and had actually given up on this series (to my dismay). I tried everything to fix this problem, like re-reading the book which was about 150k words at that point, switching POV characters, etc, but nothing worked! With this in mind, and also understanding the industry truly wouldn’t be interested, I was led to:

2016′s “REWRITING THE FOSTERED TRILOGY LIKE A FUCKING BOSS”

This was a letter I’d written to myself (age 14) outlining why I wanted to rewrite these books and the steps I’d go about doing that. I wrote: “these characters were your life, and you legitimately loved them (and still do) with all your heart. You want to give them a second chance.” At this point, I was at a bit of a crossroads. I wanted to rewrite the trilogy, but my main motivator was that I desperately missed this story that had brought me so much joy the year previous. I hardly thought about publishing, or the research I’d done--that started mattering less when I realized I was at risk of never being able to write the story I absolutely loved again. Though I still had ideas to publish (like consolidating all three books into one), my main motivator in this plan of action was to spark joy with this project again.

The “switch”

I never did rewrite the Fostered trilogy according to plan. I didn’t follow the steps or write the franken-Fostered novel (all three books in one). In fact, all the Fostered books are the exact same as they were years ago, except now book three is finished after I introduced a new character who reinvigorated the dynamic. So what happened? I actually can’t give you an exact timestamp for when my mindset shifted from “I really want to publish this” to “so I want this story for myself”. From all the “heartache” I’d experienced as a very young writer learning things about the industry, to hitting what was to date, the lowest point of writing this series, I began prioritizing story over publication. Maybe it was that scare I’d had when I realized I may never write with these characters (who felt like lifelong partners) again that highlighted my priorities for me. But that same year, I broke past the trilogy Fostered once was, and made it four books, then five, then six. From books 4-6, my choice not to publish these books deepened because I realized it isn’t the enjoyment of other people that make these books worth writing for me, it is my own enjoyment that makes it worth it.

When I had given up on book three, I was still stressed about publishing, and future audiences, future, future, future! I lost my enjoyment somewhere along the way, and simultaneously lost my love for something I didn’t think was possible for me to stop loving. At 14, I’d already shelved many novels, but never, ever thought I’d be in the same position with Fostered because it was so special to me, in a very different way than my other work. The taste of losing that relationship with the series changed my view on publication.

Where I am now

I’ve now completed seven books in the series, am working on the eighth, and have plans for the ninth. I love devoting my time to these books. Nothing is more gratifying!

It’s not that I am an advocate against publication. People ask me so often “why don’t you publish Fostered, please publish it, you could make money, isn’t it a waste of time to write something you won’t publish?” and it’s so difficult to relay the complex answer outlined above in one or two sentences. It took me almost losing what meant the most to me for me to understand that THAT’s what makes Fostered valuable, how I feel about it, not how others do, even if an audience would be cool. My own enjoyment of the work is an unbeatable thing.

So yes, I ABSOLUTELY believe writing novels only for yourself is liberating, and in fact, I encourage it. Some people still won’t understand this ideology, and I truly think until you go through something similar, you might not, and not everyone goes through such a shift in their career anyhow. But going through all I did with Fostered taught me how much self-love of my own work is VITAL. Fostered is my heart, and has changed my life in profound, unpublic ways, and I find that privacy with this project a very intimate experience that almost feels akin to friendship.

TL;DR

Writing for yourself gives you the space needed to be a writer undercover. It does not mean you may not be meticulous with your plot or prose, or get stuck, or frustrated, or get upset that you only seem to be producing “garbage”. I still experience all these things! But what writing for myself does is give myself the responsibility to do the best for myself because I know I deserve that. I’m struggling with Feeding Habits right now, and I could sloppily write something to feel better as it’s all personal work (which sometimes, you need), but I know I can do better, and I know I deserve better, and I put lots of effort into my work unpublished or not for this exact reason.

I believe writing for yourself is something writers should practice at least once in their lifetime! It’s truly changed my outlook on craft, and publishing.

#asks #writing #amwriting #writerblr #writeblr

63 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years

Text

Josie and The Pussycats is the Spinoff Riverdale Deserves

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This RIVERDALE review contains spoilers.

Riverdale Season 5 Episode 15

“Our story is about three young women bursting with talent.”

When last we saw Josie McCoy (Ashleigh Murray), she was in New York City trying to make her dreams come true on the ill-fated (and gone-too-soon) Riverdale spin-off Katy Keene. Often when characters are spun-off and their subsequent shows fail, they vanish into the pop culture ether — The Ropers from Three’s Company being the textbook case of this phenomenon. But not so for Josie. This latest episode debuts a new iteration of the character, one who has achieved her dreams but still finds herself wanting more. It is a decidedly more mature take on the previously underwritten character, and one that allows Murray’s considerable acting and musical abilities to shine.

In short, it is the Josie that fans have always wanted to see.

But what good is the character without the backing of her Pussycats? Drummer Melody Valentine (Asha Bromfield) and multi-instrumentalist Valerie Brown (Hayley Law) have been estranged from Josie since she blew off the Pussycats for a solo career when they were in high school. Seven years later and the wounds are still raw, even though Melody has since become a renowned author with movie rights optioned by Tyler Perry, and Valerie is a talented artist and actress.

When Josie returns to Riverdale to take stock following the sudden death of her father, she finds herself coming to terms with her past. More than that though, she has found her voice in every sense of the word. She dismisses Mr. Lodge, the show’s big bad in a hilarious kiss off that sums up many viewers’ opinions on the often irksome character. Better still, the episode allows her to get meta to discuss how Riverdale often sidelined the Josie character in her previous iteration on the series. “I didn’t have much to say in old times,” she plaintively declares, commenting on the problem that Riverdale had with diversity in its early seasons. She then accurately dismisses Archie, Betty, Veronica and Jughead not as old friends but as acquaintances. It’s a bold and surprising scene that takes responsibility for past sins that the series committed, further illustrating that it is aware that it can do better and has been attempting to do so.

After a steamy reunion with old flame Sweet Pea (Jordan Connor), Josie begins the work of reaching out to Valerie and Melody. It is here that the episode goes from great to an all-timer. The chemistry that Murray, Bromfield and Law possess is lightning in a bottle. As old injustices are aired and attempts to repair wounded hearts and egos are undertaken, these actresses embody the old friends they portray fully. But this backdoor pilot, fortunately, has zero interest in having its women of color tear each other down. The characters candidly discuss their shared past, and begin to repair the rift that will — if The Pussycats goes to series — lead them to becoming the global superstars they are destined to be.

Josie, Melody and Valerie are icons. They know it, and the world will soon follow.

Inspired by her renewed friendship with her once and future bandmates, Josie decides to do a concert with the Pussycats that will raise money to help reincorporate the town of Riverdale. It is a performance that highlights each of the women’s musical strengths, even if Josie does steal the spotlight for an emotional rendition of Nina Simone’s “Stars.” Despite being cut short when Toni goes into labor, the concert is enough of a success for The Pussycats to agree to go on the road together — playing in towns where Josie’s late father wanted his ashes scattered. The women consider themselves to be equals now, thus the “Josie and” is jettisoned from the band name. This still being Riverdale, a friend of Josie’s dad appears moments before she leaves town to tell her that her father may have been murdered in New Orleans, and that voodoo might be involved.

With this incredible/ridiculous plot development thrown at us, the full image of what The Pussycats will be as a series comes into view: A mixture of Fame and 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo that celebrates these characters and their comic/cartoon legacy in an unexpected way. (As an Archie comics historian even I was taken off guard by the last-minute introduction of the potential show’s mystery angle, and my mind reels at the possibilities).

Hopefully sooner rather than later a series order for The Pussycats will be announced. There is so much potential here to tell exciting, fun, music-packed stories featuring strong women of color that it feels like a surefire hit. “The Return of the Pussycats” is not only the best episode of Riverdale this season, but a perfect pilot episode. There desperately needs to be lots more long tails and ears for hats in our future, for these are the Pussycats we’ve been waiting for.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Riverdale Rundown

While nothing has been officially announced as of yet, it feels ridiculous for The CW to not do a full series of The Pussycats, yes? This logo appearing at the end of the episode instead of the usual Riverdale bumper bodes well for things to come. Fingers crossed…

My guess is that this episode didn’t have Alexandra and Josie cross paths due to their Katy Keene past, which had the characters begin as enemies who were slowly forming a friendship before that series was cancelled. By not having them interact, the writers didn’t have to figure out where their relationship currently is — making this a narrative thread that The Pussycats could potentially pull on down the line.

The character of Alan M. briefly appears as Melody’s love interest, which indeed he is in the comics and fondly remembered 2001 movie.

Speaking of the Josie and the Pussycats movie, that film’s ever-growing cult continues to delight me. Thanks to multiverses, there’s no reason why that version of these characters and the ones of The Pussycats can’t co-exist in the same pop culture landscape.

Let’s give a special shoutout to Robin Givens, who not only reprises her role as Sierra McCoy here but also did a terrific job directing this installment.

Melody narrates this episode a la Jughead, except that her writing is bright and full of hope, a sharp and intentional contrast to her brooding counterpoint.

If you didn’t cheer when Josie and the Pussycats took the stage to their cartoon theme song, you are dead inside.

“Entertainment Tomorrow” enters the Riverdale fake product lexicon in this episode (which also includes the returning chestnut “Vanity Flair”).

Toni gives birth to a boy, Anthony.

Expect to see more about the franchising of Pop’s in upcoming restaurants, and Tabitha’s speech about the importance of the Chok’lit Shoppe being a black-owned restaurant in a time when Riverdale had no other such establishments was one of the most powerful scenes this series has ever done.

It’s worth noting that a franchise for real-life Archie restaurants did exist in the early 1970s. However the idea never really took off, and pictures of the three diners that were opened have never surfaced online.

What the hell was up with the Old Navy product placement in this episode, which felt like it was ripped from the Josie and the Pussycats movie, minus the irony.

Kevin’s dancing during the Little Shop of Horrors musical number was, unsurprisingly, everything.

Melody’s book being named Summer Storm is a sly reference to actress Asha Bromfield having a newly released novel called Hurricane Summer that was released in May.

Josie uses the alias Ms. Newmar to check into hotels. Julie Newmar famously portrayed Catwoman on the Batman TV series, which not only plays into Josie’s feline motif, but also is yet another of the show’s near-constant DC Comics references of late.

Mr. Lodge being called a “little bitch” was so unbelievably pleasing to watch. Josie is just SO OVER Riverdale’s bullshit.

In a nice character moment, Cheryl immediately leaps into action to help deliver ex-lover Toni’s baby.

Dr. Curdle Jr. being a Josie and the Pussycats superfan is comedic brilliance (as is the fact that nobody trusts him enough to have him anywhere near Toni’s delivery.

The post Josie and The Pussycats is the Spinoff Riverdale Deserves appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3BQYwym

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

4 notes · View notes

off-off-off · 4 years

Text

7 Simple Ways ahead Up with an Product Idea

Since the Mesopotamians and also the Ancient Greeks uncovered the world-changing opportunities of the wheel, mankind has been bound by a continuous wish to innovate. From the manufacturer inventions of Ford, Edison, as well as Tesla to the modern technology wizards of Silicon Valley, countless ideas-- some good, some poor-- have been conceived, cultivated, and also built.

Consequently, masterminding the next huge money-maker is a very popular pastime, even if the fact is somewhat a lot more sobering for the majority of us. But that doesn't suggest that you need to abandon your internal business owner the minute you struck a creative wall; after all, there are numerous methods to produce good organization suggestions.

Whether it's via transforming your basic expectation or wanting enough to take on brand-new techniques, anybody can have a possibly life-changing suggestion; all you require to do is figure out how to open it. Follow InventHelp Instagram For more tips and advice

So, if you have actually ever intended to transform the world-- or you merely just intend to make bags of money-- then listen. Below's how ahead up with a product suggestion that could potentially do both.

1. Be a Visionary

The good news is that anybody can be a visionary; the bad news is that really couple of ended up being successful ones. This is because plucking a principle or a concept out of slim air-- as well as transforming it into something useful and feasible-- is an extremely delicate process.

That does not imply it's difficult. While some individuals are naturally more creative than others, there are plenty of points you can do to stimulate the appropriate side of your brain; music, for example, is generally mentioned as a way of opening inspiration, while various other kinds of aesthetic art and also literary works can also feed the ingenious fire.

Your environments can play a big component, too. A few of the globe's most interesting minds need their distinct innovative room in which to thrive, and your own is likely no different. Whether it's a minimal office, a remote cabin, or somewhere near the sea, place on your own in an area where you can unwind as well as transport your ideas proficiently.

Keep in mind: it's near difficult to take a seat as well as order yourself to invent something. Imagination is a natural sensation that requires to be enabled space and time to expand, so put on your own in the very best possible frame of mind to attain it.

2. Recognize a Trouble in Your Life

For those who choose a more sensible, hands-on approach to suggestion generation, you can always go back to the basic cornerstone of product invention: search for an issue or an aspect of your life that could be less complicated, and afterward find out a method of making it so.

This may sound like an obvious pointer, but nearly every terrific organization item of the last 20 years has been a result of this approach. A few of the world's most effective business owners have reached where they are by using a relatively apparent fix to an individual concern. Pierre Omidyar created ebay.com so he could market his unwanted belongings, while Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp-- the cofounders of Uber-- allegedly developed the ride-sharing application in Paris after being not able to hail a taxi.

Inevitably, though, if it's a problem for you, then possibilities are others are experiencing the same problems. By devising a service, you will not just be making your very own life that little bit less complicated, but a great deal of other people's, as well, strengthening the moneymaking possibility that your product could bring.

3. Recognize a Problem in Another Person's Life

If you're fortunate adequate to live a problem-free life, after that a choice is to expand your range; recognizing a potential option to a modern worldwide problem is a surefire way to amass large-scale passion in your item.

Whether it's social, ecological, or cultural, there's no shortage of problems to attend to, either. Renewable power is a lively location for advancement amongst engineers, while many licenses have been filed for gadgets that produce clean drinking water in creating nations.

You don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel, either; Toms shoe owner Blake Mycoskie executed a buy-one-give-one business version for his footwear business in a proposal to give shoes to impoverished youngsters in South America.

Thinking of a suggestion that truly transforms individuals' lives right is widely gratifying-- and also not just in an economic sense-- so if you have the technical or design abilities to match your creative mind, then consider exactly how you can make a positive distinction.

4. Build Upon Something That Currently Exists

Nearly all inventions have a shelf-life up until they are superseded by something better or they evolve into something a lot more efficient. This is where you could come in, taking a product or an innovation that is reaching its best-before date, and transforming it as something brand-new.

Just to be clear, this doesn't imply taking an iPod and repackaging it with a different layout; you require to improve the capacities of the item. This can mean developing a brand-new innovation that inevitably offers the very same function but with a great deal even more convenience for the individual. Besides, as Henry Ford notoriously once claimed, if he 'd inquired what people desired when he was creating the auto, they would certainly have requested a quicker steed.

It is commonly claimed that there's no such thing as true originality which all concepts are based-- however loosely-- on ones that already exist, so do not think twice to adopt this approach. If it makes people's lives easier, then it will offer, so constantly keep an eye out for products that could be enhanced.

You can also find out more advice by check InventHelp gets great inventions from the mind to the market

5. Exploit Trends and also Technologies

Normally, if something is preferred, after that there will constantly be people all set to make a quick buck off it; from the sculpture vendors permanently camped outside the Eiffel Tower to the many knock-off merchants of popular film franchise business (truthfully, how many unlicensed Harry Potter cups does the world need?), there's constantly a sharp service mind seeking to swoop.

While in principle there's absolutely nothing wrong with piggybacking on fads, attempt instead to focus on creating something lasting, significant, and also, well, lawful. After all, the issue with fads is that, ultimately, they die out, so if you wish to earn money long-term, you'll require to be slightly a lot more nuanced. Take WhatsApp cofounder Jan Koum, for example, who noticed the rewarding potential of Apple's fledgling application store to launch a service that has a life beyond its origins.

Always keep abreast of modern technology growths as well as preserve a finger on the pulse of what is about to come to be popular, as there will certainly be money to be made on the right type of item.

6. Focus on Your Toughness

When thinking of an item, it's vital to dream large however additionally be practical; it's going to be exceptionally hard to resolve the melting polar ice cap issue if you have no expertise in environmental science.

This is why you need to try to focus your energy on what you're good at. What is your location of proficiency? Are you a good developer? Or are you better with your hands? Put in the time to understand what your stamina and also passions are, and afterward turn the imaginative process know itself: instead of matching your skills to trouble, match the issue to your abilities.

You will certainly discover it much less complicated to develop as well as develop items if you have a mutual understanding of what you're attempting to attain, so check out where you are best positioned to identify an opportunity. also get help with inventions

7. Learn from Others

As increasingly more regular Joes and Janes start right into entrepreneurship, individuals are becoming progressively inspired to chance their arm in the business globe; a byproduct of this is that there's a wealth of info offered in books as well as podcasts, as well as online, regarding just how these resourceful people were originally motivated in the first place.

What was their assumed process in creating their product? While these details won't directly illuminate a lightbulb over your head, it may modify your thought process as well as a mindset in the direction of generating suggestions, which could, in turn, lead to the seeds of something unique.

Keep in mind: one basic suggestion or piece of guidance could be all it requires to alter your frame of mind as well as establish you on your way, so immerse on your own in the entrepreneurial globe and remain available to the recommendations of others that have achieved success.

#InventHelp #How to get my invention off the ground #InventHelp inventions #help with inventions #What is InventHelp #How does InventHelp work #Patent #Ideas #Inventors #Prototypes #InventHelp Instagram

135 notes · View notes

popwasabi · 3 years

Text

Why I don’t give a fuck about canon

Recently, after randomly coming across some dope pictures of Transformer toys on Instagram that gave me a strong case of nostalgia, I was inspired to revisit an old childhood favorite in “Beast Wars.”

“Beast Wars,” in case you never watched or heard of it as a kid, is the continuation of the Transformer’s story set in the future as descendants of the Auotobots and Decepticons, the Maximals and Predacons, respectively, accidentally travel to prehistoric Earth to continue a centuries long battle between the two opposing factions.

There’s a lot of to digest there, so I’m not going to go into extreme detail over the plot, but the cast features colorful characters such as Optimus Primal, Cheetor, Rattrap, Dinobot and Megatron to name a few. They all have interesting and distinct personalities and generally play well off each other. It was a big part of my childhood and I collected an ungodly amount of their toys back in the day.

(This was my first ever Beast Wars toy and I think it’s beautiful.)

My rewatch though was…a mixed bag to say the least. The graphics have not aged well. The adventure of the week setup of the plot was repetitive and lacked real character development at times. There were characters that were added in last minute to the show clearly to promote a new action figure over the story on numerous occasions. Though I found the humor to still be pretty good, the action was stale and just lacked high stakes most of the time, save for a few episodes.

I was not shocked it didn’t land terribly well on my rewatch but you know what did? “Beast Machines!”

“Beast Machines” was the follow-up to Beast Wars that had the Maximals fighting on Cybertron where Megatron has taken control of the whole planet using a virus that changes Transformers into mindless drones to do his bidding. The remaining Maximals manage to survive however after Optimus discovers The Oracle which reformats them into animal robot hybrids that are both mechanical and biological. This sets them on a quest to stop Megatron and bring biological and mechanical balance to Cybertron once and for all.

The series is much more narrative based than the previous as it follows a steady trajectory to its epic conclusion. The animation is much sharper, and the soundtrack is fun as hell to listen to still. The pacing is much faster as the stakes couldn’t be higher for the Maximals and all the old characters from the previous grow in interesting ways and develop into more organic people (literally in some ways). Optimus is a more hardcore and emotionally damaged leader and Megatron goes from being something of a punchline in the previous series to a far more menacing and calculating nemesis. The story touches on themes of balance, authoritarianism, PTSD, love and reunion to name a few and for a kids’ show it is, dare I say…more than meets the eye.

I absolutely loved it as a kid and I might actually love it even more as an adult, so it was shocking for me, to say the least, when I read further into the history of the show, that a lot of fans straight up rejected it back in the day.

Common complaints I came across were they didn’t like how characters, such as Ratrap especially, “changed.” They didn’t like the new bio/mechanical Maximals and couldn’t believe that Cybertron was once an organic world.

Their big reason (in just about every forum and video I saw about it)? It didn’t adhere to “canon.”

Now, I’ll start this by saying there is no objective way to critique or even not critique a story. People can like or hate something for a variety of reasons that don’t follow a strict logical pattern. Gods know I have a few questionable/divisive favorites in my catalogue that I have written about here that are based on abstract ideas and personal experiences.

(The Matrix Reloaded is still great btw)

But I will say, if you judge a mega franchise’s latest entry on how well it is supported by established canon it is, in my opinion, a flawed way to critique a work of fiction.

Canon, sometimes referred to as “lore” by fans, is most often applied and used to describe the long running back stories of franchises that stretch beyond just the main books, movies or series, or even the original narrative of the plot. Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and to a certain extent Harry Potter, all fall into this camp of series with so many interconnected parts, with more than one main character featured in each, that fans follow along this canon like ancient monks studying scripture and history books.

And they can be just as fanatical and over zealous about it.

(I wish they were more fanatical about proper hygiene or at least deodorant...)

My problem with the ways fans often view canon is that their conceptions of what a new story should be is based entirely on the past rather than what is happening right now with the story and what themes the writer is trying express with it this time.

They base their impressions of the story on external continuity more than the internal continuity.

Yea, the changes in a series like “Beast Machines” are jarring to say the least. Cybertron was formally an organic world like Earth? Rattrap doesn’t have confidence in himself and actually at one point sells out his comrades? Transformers can be biological now? It’s a lot to take in but when watching the story play out it’s not like these elements aren’t explained through the text of the new story.

Cybertron lost balance between its robot inhabitants and its biological life forms and its why it’s out of balance now, and Megatron is the logical progression of that inbalance. Rattrap is struggling to understand his new form, half his friends on the Maximals have been turned into drones, and the remaining team out loud say they don’t have confidence in him. He has PTSD from both the events of this story and the Beast Wars and feels insecure because of how others view him and that’s perfectly logical to not just the story but also the canon. If a fan is willing to give a story a chance they will see that the canon hasn’t actually been destroyed in much of any way and the logical progression is actually there if they simply listen to what’s going on.

(Seriously, it’s not that deep.)

Fans need to stop confusing a character achieving a franchise long arc with being “suddenly different.” In this way, criticisms of canon in new entries in long running series reveal that fans really just lack imagination to connect the dots. It would be like complaining that Luke Skywalker can’t become paranoid and make a grave mistake in judgment because people never change, nevermind the character already has changed a lot from his origins in “A New Hope” to where he was in “Return of the Jedi.”

(Oh wait, people did do that…)

But that’s not to say you have to like the new direction either. You can understand these changes and still be like “well, it’s not for me. I don’t care for a PSTD angle or a new origin for Cybertron,” but that’s whole lot different than saying the new series “rapes your childhood” or “Bastardizes the canon.” All the old canon you hold nostalgia for still exists. My love for “Beast Machines” is not harmed by the existence of newer Transformers properties that don’t meet what I look for in the series.

Too often, fans take changes to established “lore” very personally because it doesn’t fit their expectations or have the same nostalgic feelings they had before. When new entries in mega franchises occur fans often try to judge it by how much it is like what they watched before, rather what makes it different and what it is saying now. Again, you don’t have to like new directions in tone or character but consistency to established work DOES NOT equal good storytelling.

I have not been immune to this myself in the past, of course. Back in the day I wrote a 2500-plus word diatribe on “The Amazing Spider-man 2” that mostly went after how it changed the character I grew up with in a bad way and butchered the established back story I knew him by.

You know what other story doesn’t follow canon very well though? “Spider-man: Homecoming.”

(Now, hear me out...)

Spider-man in the MCU is generally agreed upon to be a good thing by fans. Both movies were big hits both critically and financially and fans often go as far as to say Tom Holland is the “definitive” Peter Parker.

But Holland’s Spider-man differs quite a bit from the comic-book webslinger. This Spider-man does not have a spidey sense. His best friend is not Harry Osbourne but in fact a retcon of a Mile Morales character. His father figure is Tony Stark, something that never happened in the comics, instead of Uncle Ben, which no matter what way you spin it is arguably his most important relationship in the series.

His character is a reverse of traditional Peter Parker too. Where comics Peter is a reluctant hero, who if anything hates being Spider-man and the burden of his responsibility, “Homecoming” Spider-man actively seeks out responsibility and in many ways enjoys his role as the famous webslinger. In fact, his whole arc is about him earning a spot as an Avenger. He wants to be THE hero and be worthy of it. It’s completely different from what we know of Spider-man.

(He just wants Tony sempai to notice him uWu)

Now I know some fans actually do complain about this Spidey from a “canon” standpoint, but most don’t. So why did this Spider-man get a pass for many but not “The Amazing” one? Quite simply it’s because stories, as cheesy as it sounds, are about feelings and stories like “Homecoming” tell a good story that effectively make those feelings connect with the audience.

We root for this Peter Parker and his journey to becoming an Avenger and successor to Iron Man because the story is told well, the emotions feel earned, and frankly both films are fun and enjoyable.

It’s easy to complain about canon for many nerds because it’s something tangible that they can point to and make a big stink about when they don’t understand why a movie isn’t reaching them. I don’t doubt that many neckbeards genuinely hate a film like “The Last Jedi” (Hell, I’m not a big fan myself) but when those same nerds enjoy something like “The Mandalorian,” a series that has its own loose relationship with canon and establishing new rules in the series, it tells me it’s not about the “lore” to them.

(Easy, fanboys...)

I have come to understand, in my growth as a nerd, that my problems with a lot of movies and TV shows in my favorite series rarely, if ever, have anything to do with the story not meeting some arbitrary guidelines regarding canon. It has more to with the story simply not connecting with me emotionally. The story isn’t drawing me in and keeping me on its narrative path. I’m not feeling the same magic that someone else might feel enjoying it because either a) it doesn’t feel earned to me or b) it just stylistically isn’t for me.

To paraphrase a line from another mega franchise, also owned by Disney, the canon is more like guidelines than actual rules.

(Didn’t expect to see ol’ Barbosa in this write up, did ye?)

It can show you where a story comes from but it isn’t law that you strictly adhere to it. Of course, when writing a new work in a popular series you should consider what came before it but I would like writer’s the freedom to try something new and most importantly fans to be open to it. You don’t have to like it but the idea that new entries in a story MUST remain strict to the canon is bull shit. Not even the original Star Wars trilogy adhered to its own canon perfectly, as clearly the writers were in fact making it up to a certain extent as they were going along.

(hmmmm...)

And that’s ok, because some of those changes were great! Made the story better and made the conclusion stronger.

Again, you don’t have to like every new entry that tries something bold or confrontational in your favorite franchise but if writers strictly followed canon to the T we wouldn’t have things like “Homecoming,” we wouldn’t have “The Mandalorian,” and we certainly wouldn’t have my favorite Transformers series “Beast Machines.”

Canon shouldn’t be a trap for writers and it shouldn’t be a litmus test for fans digesting it. There are so many better ways to judge a story than whether or not it fits neatly into established lore. A good story is a good story, regardless of whether or not it’s supported by something as static as canon.

“Beast Machines” has its flaws here and there, but canon isn’t one of them, at least not for me. Again, if you feel that the lore is important, that’s fine, you don’t have to ignore it but I would ask you to look beyond what came before when critiquing a new story.

Otherwise, you might miss something special that comes next…

Now then...

23 notes · View notes