atla live action thoughts: season one review

first things first: anyone who says the Movie That Does Not Exist is better than the live action is straight-up lying. the shymalan film fails on the criteria of even being a decent movie, let alone an adaptation. the netflix series, for all its problems, is at least an enjoyable watch with great effects, music and (mostly) appropriate casting. there's absolutely nothing to compare here - the netflix version clears easily.

now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's delve into the series, starting with the positives.

the good:

visuals and cinematography. they really did a great job of making it feel like a fantasy universe you wanted to be in & i love how vibrant the saturation and colour grading was. it made the world feel so much more dynamic and alive instead of the same flat, boring dullness that so many movies and shows have these days. sometimes i didn't even mind that i was being fed obvious exposition because at least they were giving me something pretty to look at lmao

effects and action. the bending was surprisingly good for the most part, and they did a good job of making the elements feel unique through the stunt choreography and the actors' movements. i'm immensely thankful they didn't try to skimp on budget by merely cutting away from fight scenes or showing us as little as possible. almost all the action sequences were fast-paced and engaging, and i was never bored watching them

acting. the main four were all great, but gordon cormier and dallas liu have to be the standouts for me. gordon brings such an earnest, innocent sweetness to aang that you can't help but like him, and dallas plays all of zuko's facets perfectly: the angst, the explosive anger, the bratty snark, and especially the deep-rooted pain that characterizes so many of zuko's actions in book 1. the range he has, especially when flashing from younger to older zuko, was insane. special shoutout to maria zhang and sebastian amoruso as suki and jet respectively, because they killed it

music. leaves from the vine instrumental had me tearbending and i love how they kept the iconic avatar theme while making it a little darker for this iteration of the story. in general, the soundtrack felt very true to the animation while still being a fresh spin on it

zuko and iroh's relationship and expanding on zuko's crew. i think the fandom universally agrees that lu ten's funeral and zuko's crew being the 41st division were the best changes in the series, so i'm not going to talk about it further other than to say that these scenes show me what the show can be, and that's why i'm not giving up on it

the bad:

characterization. almost all the main characters are missing the little nuances that made them so great in the original, but the greatest casualty is katara. i hate that they took away so much of her rage, and gave many of her traits and struggles to sokka. i don't think this is a problem solely with the writing though, because certain lines do feel like things animated katara would say, but the directing and line delivery don't have the same punch that made her so fierce in the original. this is an easily fixed issue though, so i hope they take the criticism and let my girl be angry and fuck shit up next season

exposition. this was primarily a problem in depicting aang's personality and the relationship between the gaang, because a) why are you TELLING me that aang is mischievous and fun-loving instead of just showing me and b) the gaang do NOT feel like close friends, mostly because they spend so much time apart in every episode that they have little screentime to actually bond and develop intimacy.

lack of focus on the intricacies of bending. for a show whose tagline is "master your element" the characters spend very little time actually... mastering their element. zuko is never shown to struggle with firebending (which is going to have ramifications when it comes to developing his relationship with azula), and neither aang nor katara ever learn waterbending from a master throughout the the entire show. i'm pretty sure aang never willingly waterbends ONCE in the entire eight episodes, discounting the avatar state and koizilla. bending isn't just cool martial arts, it's closely linked to the philosophies and spirituality of each nation, and i wish that had been explored more.

pacing. they really needed to do a better job of conveying that time passed between episodes because an 8-episode season is just going to FEEL shorter than a 20-episode one. the original animation felt as though they'd truly been on a long journey before arriving at the north, but here it feels like the entire show happened in the span of a fortnight or so because each episode seemed to pick up right after the previous. they needed to have more downtime within episodes instead of just rushing from plot beat to plot beat because it made everything feel a lot more rushed. give the characters and story time to breathe.

final rating: 7/10.

overall, i would describe the live action as a better version of the percy jackson movies - not an accurate or perfect adaptation, but a decent story that's very fun to watch. but what really makes me root for this show to get a season 2 is that it has a lot of potential and more importantly, a lot of heart. it's evident that the people who worked on it do genuinely love and respect the original series, and it shows onscreen.

regardless of anything else, this show created opportunities for so many asian and indigenous actors, writers and creators to tell the kinds of stories and play the kinds of roles they don't usually get, and that's something worth supporting. if they take the criticism from this season and improve, i believe they really do have something special on their hands which - although it might not be the original we all know and love - could still be a story to be proud of.

I love to laugh.

DreamWorks revealed what their 9/26/2025 movie is...

It's a movie based on the show GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE, which is - of course - a DreamWorks TV Animation production. So basically, SPIRIT UNTAMED Redux...

I was predicting the seemingly long-gestating RONAN BOYLE from director Fergal Reilly, based on the fantasy book series by Thomas Lennon, was after THE WILD ROBOT as the next DreamWorks not-sequel movie. Then again, this fella predicted it would be this autumn's DreamWorks movie as well. It was announced some time ago, had a director and writer locked... Where is this movie? Has it been cancelled? WILD ROBOT and this project have been announced well after it and are coming out, RONAN BOYLE hasn't been talked about since its initial announcement back in... September of 2020...

So yeah... DreamWorks Animation occasionally doing the TV show-to-movie thing. And releasing them as mainline "DreamWorks Animation" movies, and not under a different banner.

This isn't really a thing the other houses do or have done.

Yeeeeears back, Disney formed Disney Movie Toons Studios to make feature films based on Walt Disney Television Animation's then-hit shows. The first of which was DUCKTALES: THE MOVIE - TREASURE OF THE LOST LAMP, released in summer 1990... To less than stellar box office results, but it probably lived a great second life on home video. That film was largely produced at a French unit that Disney used to have. This was followed by A GOOFY MOVIE in 1995, based on the show GOOF TROOP. That too was largely animated at the French studio, as well as their Australian unit with contributions from the mainline Burbank building. It never counted as part of the Disney Animation "canon", however. And following former chairman (and future DreamWorks founder) Jeffrey Katzenberg's departure in fall 1994, A GOOFY MOVIE was kind of just brushed off. While it did okay at the box office, it was no blockbuster, and would later become a cult smash. Movie Toons eventually became Disneytoon Studios, and their future was making direct-to-video sequels to classic Disney animated films with an occasional outlier, such as the THREE MUSKETEERS movie with Mickey and the gang.

Whereas DreamWorks? Both this movie and 2021's SPIRIT UNTAMED - whose TV series was based on a DreamWorks Animation film anyways - were under the mainline DreamWorks Animation banner, and are theatrical pictures.

I'm sure this news is going over well with certain folks, lol. Weird-ass adults who think every DreamWorks movie absolutely *has* to be the sword-wielding cat adventure...

I just find it fascinating myself, because this isn't usually a thing American animation powerhouses do. Disney made it very clear what was part of the major animated movies "canon" and what wasn't, as if an animated movie continuation of an animated TV series was somehow less than? (Fittingly, A GOOFY MOVIE is held up in high esteem by some, even above many of the mainline WDAS-made movies. It was given a rather mixed reception upon its original release.)

But also, Pixar, Illumination, etc. don't really have TV animation divisions per se. Sometimes a film spawns a series that's made elsewhere, such as HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA, but that's about it. Sony Animation did do that AGENT KING show and YOUNG LOVE recently, so they do some TV animation stuff alongside the heavies - it's all under "Sony Pictures Animation" anyhow. With Disney, their TV animation division is separate, ditto DreamWorks.

No Disney TV Animation show since the 2000s got the theatrical movie treatment, the last one in question was TEACHER'S PET in 2004. Those were straight up Disney Television Animation productions, not Disneytoon. DreamWorks is a lot more fluid, as we recently saw what was essentially a pilot film for a MEGAMIND TV series debut exclusively on streaming, while SPIRIT UNTAMED and GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE got full-on DreamWorks movie treatment. It's a little weird, yeah, but it's how they've been rolling.

I'd imagine, like SPIRIT UNTAMED, this will be animated elsewhere. Not Sony Imageworks, probably a Mikros or a Jellyfish-type studio. It's a preschool show, so I'd imagine DreamWorks isn't going to want to sink too too much into this.

Anyways, the mystery's over. I'm still wondering what's going on with RONAN BOYLE. 2025 now houses, for DreamWorks, a non-sequel (DOG MAN), a sequel (THE BAD GUYS 2), and a TV series adaptation (GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE)... Doesn't affect me either way, I'm not the audience for GABBY'S DOLLHOUSE lol.

2026 is all but confirmed to be the year of SHREK 5, now it's the original in question that I'm curious about.

BMG Layoffs Hit Dozens in Film/TV, Theatrical & Marketing Departments – Billboard

Kristin Robinson | Oct 28, 2023

BMG terminated about 40 employees on Thursday (Oct. 27), sources within the company tell Billboard. The layoffs “discontinued” its international marketing department for recordings as well as its Modern Recordings label and “discontinued” its “New York theatrical productions initiative” and “the active commissioning of new films,” according to an internal memo obtained by Billboard. It took place on the day of the New York office’s annual Halloween party, says a source.

The eliminations include company leaders like Fred Casimir (executive vp, global repertoire) and Jason Hradil (senior vp, global repertoire) and affected employees in its Berlin, New York, and Los Angeles offices. A source within the company fears there are more layoffs to come and believes the layoffs may be a result of the company hiring the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in recent months.

After employees were notified they were being laid off, the company hosted a call with the U.S. recorded music team — including those who were let go — according to a source within the company.

“Everyone at BMG says it feels like a venture capital firm now and not a record label,” laments an employee. “Things got dark real fast, and it bums me out watching a lot of amazing people lose their jobs right before the holidays.”

In a video call hosted by CEO Thomas Coesfeld, the leader explained that the restructuring was part of the implementation of its new strategy, BMG Next, according to an internal memo shared with Billboard. “The international marketing team was set up five years ago in response to the needs of the company at the time,” he said to senior managers. “Our talented team has done a great job, driving international campaigns for artists including Lenny Kravitz, Kylie Minogue, and Louis Tomlinson, but unfortunately on a business level, expectations from this novel structure were not met and it created duplication of functions with local teams. The clear business decision is to instead give artists a single contact point with their local repertoire teams.”

A BMG spokesperson declined to comment beyond providing the memo.

In the last year, BMG — which represents talent like Jelly Roll, Halsey and Lainey Wilson as well as certain rights to the catalogs of Tina Turner, Peter Frampton, Mötley Crüe, and more — has made a number of significant business changes. In January, its longstanding chief executive Hartwig Masuch announced he would retire and would be succeeded by then-CFO Coesfeld, effective Jan. 1, 2024. On April 18, BMG claimed it would be the first music company to fully integrate its catalog and frontline music operations. On May 17, Masuch announced he would accelerate Coesfeld’s transition to CEO to July 1 instead.

In September, BMG announced it was winding down its agreement with Warner Music Group’s ADA and would be taking over direct management of its 80-billion-stream digital distribution later this year. (Digital revenues contributed 70% of BMG’s overall revenues in 2022.) Last week, BMG also announced it would be partnering with UMG’s commercial services division for the distribution of its physical recorded music. Coesfeld described the deal as the first project of a burgeoning “alliance” between the two music companies.

UPDATE: This article was updated Oct. 28 at 7:28 p.m. e.t. to quote an internal memo’s characterization of layoffs across departments.

the bronze, silver, gold stuff relates to the level of difficulty of pattern dances iirc. It's why you dont see it at the junior or senior level, because the pattern dances competed at ISU events are all at a certain level. but its important for the babies to learn. shadow dance is when two solo dancers do a pattern dance side by side. not sure about solo combined lol

thank you! so there’s already a whole category where two dancers, often the same gender, do pattern dances together side by side 👀

this is so fun 🤩 have they ever done no touch sequences as patterns in paired ice dance? i would guess no - imagine, they think half a pattern is too much or too boring for the public, but this ⬆️ is great

there are so many possibilities 😲 and they already have competitive categories where 2 skaters don’t have to be M/F - c’mon ISU!

'As Cillian Murphy receives some of the best reviews of his career for Oppenheimer and seems incredibly likely to score an acting nomination at the Oscars next year, you may be eager to delve more into his past work.

And one movie of his that has built up a cult following in the years since its release is In Time, a 2011 sci-fi with an incredible premise.

Written and directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, Lord of War), the film is set in a future in which time has become the ultimate currency. Yes, time literally is money.

This is as humans have been genetically engineered to stop aging on their 25th birthday, but are programmed to live only one more year - unless they can buy their way out of death.

As such, the rich can essentially remain immortal, while the poor are forced to beg, borrow or steal to earn enough hours to survive.

The movie follows a factory worker (Justin Timberlake) from the poorest ghetto who, with the help of a wealthy woman (Amanda Seyfried), aims to upset this system - while being pursued by a timekeeping cop (Cillian Murphy).

Upon release, In Time was a box office hit, grossing $174 million on a $40 million budget. However, it was seen as a bit of a critical disappointment, only earning a 37% Rotten Tomatoes score.

That said, while the general consensus surrounding the movie is that it does not fully capitalise on its very intriguing premise, it has garnered a legion of fans in recent years.

Amongst the praise for In Time is the way the film depicts the stark division between the rich and the poor, as well as the amount of time certain people in society have to give up to work just to stay afloat.

One Letterboxd user wrote:

"I really love the concept of this movie and it has a great political message [about] the real world where the top 1% have so much money they don’t know what to do with it and they’re overcome with greed while a big portion of us are struggling to get by day to day unable to get medication/food/essential things you need to survive."

Another reviewer added:

"Time has become currency and everyone is on borrowed time once they stop aging at 25 years old. The rich have no problem living forever, while the poor are constantly struggling to add time to their lives and finding time to pay bills... Loved the story and the class war commentary."

A third said: "Rewatched this movie after such a long time and I still love it. The concept is really interesting and I love how it still emulates our society," while another wrote: "This is one of my favourite films, the concept is just so interesting, I would kill for a sequel or a series set in this universe."

Meanwhile, a fifth Letterboxd user joked: "This movie made me a communist when I was 10."'

Do you have a favourite version of Leon, or a close second to RE4R? I really loved his design and and character depiction in Vendetta. He seemed a lot more fleshed out and was overall just really enjoyable to watch imo!

this is a super interesting question that I've never really thought about before.

I would probably say that I don't have a favorite version of Leon per se, so much as I appreciate it when installments actually follow the emotional throughline for his character.

every RE character has a problem of an inconsistent characterization, to a certain extent, because the writing teams at Division 1 change from installment to installment. the reason why RE2make to RE4make feels so coherent is because it was literally the exact same team both times, which almost never happens. in the OG canon, the writers for RE4 were not the same writers as Damnation, and those guys did not write RE6, etc.

the only version of Leon that I straight-up did not like was Degeneration, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the fandom agrees with me on that. and, I've been over this before -- I get it; I understand why Degeneration was such a shitshow. but that doesn't absolve it.

but like. I'm very critical of Damnation Leon, for example, because he's so fucking annoying in that movie, because Capcom went real hard swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction after Degeneration. Leon is literally the worst part of Damnation; he ruins every single scene he's in. if you were to remove him from that movie, the entire movie would be much better off for it and would probably be able to stand on its own as a genuinely good film. it would've done a wonderful service to Ada's character, too, because she's mostly fantastic in that film -- but Leon's presence drags her down, because it always does.

but even Damnation has moments of brilliance with him -- particularly, the very beginning and the very end. (the sarcastic nod he gives JD when he's tied to the chair is also probably one of my most favorite Leon reaction moments ever, too -- on par with his tantrum at Chris in Vendetta.) his anger and frustration at the US government is so on point and finally exposes just how little he trusts them and how stuck he feels. that was something that was missing from OG RE4 (for, again, understandable reasons), so it was really great to have that put out in the open and expressed.

same thing with RE6. there are moments in RE6 when Leon is absolutely insufferable and/or feels like a scene was crafted without the intention of even putting him in it, so he's just kind of there -- but there's some really brilliant moments with him. his reunion with Sherry will always be a stand-out moment for him, and the entire Tall Oaks section with him being The Professional(TM) to Helena's rookie is excellent, too, and shows real character progression from his own rookie days in RE2.

and Infinite Darkness -- holy shit, his characterization is all over the place in that series. it's like he's three different characters rolled up into one, and he just bounces wildly back and forth between who he's meant to be for any given scene. but that scene of him and Jason in that shitty apartment, sitting across from each other and talking about treason, and then Leon just hauls off and shoots him in the heart -- that is one of the single best scenes in the entire Resident Evil series, period. not only is Leon's character perfect in that scene, but everything about the visual storytelling there was on point to create the perfect amount of tension.

but now that I'm thinking about it -- you're right, in that Vendetta is probably the best example of consistently good characterization that he has. Vendetta doesn't stray or get distracted at any point when it comes to Leon's character, and it follows his emotional throughline perfectly. the only issue with Vendetta is that he's so steeped in his misery that he almost comes off as mean-spirited sometimes, when that's really not who he is.

Can Wonka (2023) beat Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at the box office?

We’re about a year out from the release of Wonka.  The upcoming 2023 film, directed by Paul King and starring Timothée Chalamet as Willy Wonka, will be the third film in the Wonkaverse™, following 1971′s Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and 2005′s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I’m not here to discuss whether or not the 2023 film will be a quality movie—I’m almost certain it will be.  I’m here to discuss money.  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was obviously a huge hit in 2005, becoming the eighth-highest-grossing film worldwide in that year.  Charlie’s $474 million gross is extremely admirable, but $474 million doesn’t make it unbeatable.  It’s within striking range of what the 2023 film could do.  The question is: can Wonka beat Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at the box office?  I’ll be looking at several reasons going for it and going against it.

The Roald Dahl curse

When Netflix acquired the Roald Dahl catalog in 2021, Forbes’ Scott Mendelson described the acquisition as a “huge risk”.  Why?  Well, Roald Dahl’s films haven’t historically done well at the box office.  With the obvious exception of Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl film adaptations are almost always a financial failure.

Not a single Roald Dahl adaptation (sans Charlie) has grossed more than double its budget.  On paper, Steven Spielberg’s The BFG may look like it made some money, but if you take into account the advertising and marketing costs, it ended up being one of Spielberg’s only “money-losing mega-flops” (see the above Forbes article).  Financial information is largely unavailable on 2020′s The Witches, but considering it went straight to HBO Max during the pandemic and received disastrous reviews from critics, I think it’s safe to say that film was not one of Dahl’s successes.

Again, financial success does not correlate to critical success, as almost all of Dahl’s adaptations have become cult classics, and the only mega-blockbuster is probably the most divisive film adaptation of the bunch.  However, I agree with Forbes that pursuing any Roald Dahl adaptation nowadays is a big risk.

However, the magic that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had is (arguably) star power.  Any Johnny Depp/Tim Burton collaboration in the mid-2000s was a license to print money.  Now, Paul King isn’t a household name, mainly because he hasn’t done much outside of those two Paddington movies.  Timothée Chalamet, however, is a household name, and his loyal army of young supporters does bear a resemblance to the following Depp had in the 2000s.

It also helps the 2023 film’s prospects that Willy Wonka is by far the most iconic and recognizable Roald Dahl property, and that the 1971′s financial underperformance could be considered a fluke since it was released more than fifty years ago when moviegoing in general was vastly different.  This was years before summer movies were considered a thing.  Wonka will be the definitive factor as to whether or not the Willy Wonka property is the one exception to the Roald Dahl curse, or if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory alone is the exception.

Releasing a candy-themed movie in Winter (and competition)

I’ll preempt this by saying that it’s entirely possible that Wonka may succumb to a shuffle in Warner Bros. release lineup.  Preferably, that would result in the movie being released sooner rather than later, but November sees the release of Dune: Part Two and two back-to-back Chamalet films seem unlikely.

Wonka (coming December 15, 2023) is the first Wonka movie to be released in December, as Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory was released in June and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was released in July.  This seems like a no-brainer and will most likely help the film rather than hurt it.  There are all kinds of snowy environments (from what we’ve seen from the on-location shooting) and any movie about candy will be a perfect Christmas film.

It’s easy to look at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s box office and say that it’s a safe bet to release a movie like this in summer, but the truth is that the summer of 2005 wasn't a summer populated with hits.  July 2005 saw the release of Fantastic Four... Sky High... uh... March of the Penguins... and that's it as far as movies that kids would have any interest in seeing (unless there was some awesome kid out there eagerly awaiting The Devils Rejects).  In fact, July 2005 was such an underwhelming month for kids movies that Charlie’s main competition for it’s opening weekend was considered to be the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the book, not the movie).  That’s right, there were a handful of people that just didn't go to the theaters that weekend because they were reading.

But speaking of competition, let’s look at the movies that are coming out the same weekend as Wonka...

Oh... there aren’t any...

Yeah, it’s probably because we’re still twelve months out, but Wonka is the only movie scheduled for the first nineteen days of December 2023.  Obviously, this isn’t going to stay the same, so we’ll just have to see what movies Wonka has to face against in its opening weekend.  December 20th sees the release of The Color Purple, which is also a musical.  It’s too early to say what age group it’ll be aiming for, but considering the first movie was PG-13 and the story is so profound, I’d imagine there will be families seeing it.  December 20th also sees the release of the next Ghostbusters movie, which is an odd choice because I’ve always associated Ghostbusters with autumn and halloween, but whatever. This, to me, poses the strongest competition to Wonka of all the December releases on the calendar so far.  It’s releasing only five days after Wonka, and I think once Ghostbusters hits theaters, the kids are going to dig the adventure and spookiness, and Ghostbusters will be the go-to movie for families after December 20th.  But more on what kids will be looking for in Wonka later...

Appeal to children

Or actually, more on that now!  This one may not spring to mind for most people, but as someone who was five years old when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was released, I remember the movie being sold to me on the appeal of the child characters.  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had a pretty great marketing campaign that emphasized each of the nasty children.  As a kid, I thought the kids were the highlight of the film.  Wonka wasn’t a character I appreciated until I got older.

I mention this because Wonka most likely won’t have child characters as iconic as the previous two iterations, and part of me wonders if a kid is going to see the promotional material for Wonka and beg their parents to see it.

The chocolate factory was also an appealing aspect to 5-year-old me.  A chocolate waterfall with a pink boat, a room with squirrels, the glass elevator passing by room after room of dream-like gadgetry...  Obviously, because this is a prequel, there will most likely be very little of the chocolate factory in the movie, and they won’t be used in the marketing because they wouldn’t want to spoil the end.  Now because it is a Willy Wonka movie, there’s going to be some kind of magic-like candy environments (we know they are going to Loompaland), even though it won’t be the factory itself.  We don’t know anything about what the movie has shot on soundstages, but one can imagine it’s absolutely more magical than the on-location shooting they were doing in dour Londontown.

How much it appeals to children is one aspect of the project that I can’t really judge it on because there hasn’t been a trailer yet.  I will say that, beyond the child characters and the factory, the trailers need to have a tone that looks fun.  Wonka so far looks smart and it looks sentimental, which means it’s skewing close to the 70s film.  There needs to be some wackiness, some adventure and some pure childish fun—all things that the Tim Burton movie got across very well in it’s advertising—to make Wonka a movie that kids will drag their parents to, and not the other way around.

What?  A Willy Wonka prequel?  Can’t Hollywood get some new ideas blah blah blah

Even though there have only been two Willy Wonka movies over the last fifty years, people somehow have it in their minds that the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory franchise is one that Hollywood continually pillages.  I mean, there have been 25 James Bond movies in roughly the same amount of time.

However, a major hurdle that Wonka will have to deal with is perception.  Most people are going to say to themselves “Why are they making a Willy Wonka prequel?  Who asked for this?”  Admit it, you were saying this yourself before you learned about the movie’s exceptional cast and crew (heck, you may still be saying it).  The public nowadays is very keen to the notion that Hollywood pillages every franchise it can lay it’s hands on, with Disney’s endless barrage of remakes, prequels, and legacy sequels being the most prominent example.  The advertisers of Wonka are going to have a challenge convincing the public that this a story worth telling and worth seeing, and not just a soulless studio attempt at making a buck off the Willy Wonka name.

Of course, the film’s marketing hasn’t even begun.  Once people see some images and hear some songs, things may change, but if I were to gauge public sentiment towards Wonka right now, I would say it looks pretty unfavorable for the movie.  Critics seem more optimistic than the general public, but that’s mainly because Paul King is well known among critics but not so much among Joe Public.

However, Wonka can overcome this because Charlie and the Chocolate Factory overcame this.  Charlie faced a great deal of hostility prior to its release, from people refusing to give the movie a chance because they held the 1971 film in high regard.  Tim Burton himself commented on this in June 2005: “The way people talk, it’s like we’re taking copies of the cold movie and burning them so no one can ever see them again.”  And despite the die-hard 1971 fans who refused to watch any Willy Wonka that wasn’t Gene Wilder, Charlie went on to become the 58th highest-grossing-film of all time at it’s time of release, and a whole generation of children grew up with it and consider it their preferred version of the tale.  I’ve never been so proud.

Wonka has the ability to do just this, become a hit and become the preferred version of story for a generation of children, and piss a bunch of people who grew up on the previous two adaptations (although I hope 2005 fans are more keen to welcome it into the Wonka family).

The quality of the movie itself

Yeah, my final point is that Wonka’s box office performance will be impacted by just how good it is.  The public isn’t particularly looking forward to another Willy Wonka movie, but if they hear it’s really good, like really good, then people will flock towards it.  This is comparable to Top Gun earlier this year.  To me, it seemed like there was absolutely no hype for this movie whatsoever, but it gained popularity just because of how good it was (haven't seen it so I can’t confirm this).  I knew people who went and saw it without seeing the first Top Gun.

Paul King obviously has a great track record with family films, with his Paddington movies averaging at 98% on Rotten Tomatoes—compare this to Willy Wonka’s 91% and Charlie’s 83%.  This alone shows that King is capable of making a Willy Wonka film is not only good, but that could unseat both versions as being the definitive Willy Wonka film, as both Charlie and Willy Wonka have their own problems: the 1971 film being dated in several areas and having some serious pacing issues, and the 2005 film exploring Wonka’s upbringing in a polarizing way.

However, it’s also possible that the movie FUCKING SUCKS!!!1!!!  I’ll use Tim Burton as an example: he had a nearly flawless filmography in the 1980s and 1990s.  Honestly, try to find a bad film among the following: Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, Batman Returns, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Mars Attacks!, Sleepy Hollow.  And then in 2001 he did Planet of the Apes, which was not only his worst movie at the time, but a frequent contender for worst movie of the year and won the Razzie for Worst Remake.  Thankfully, Burton redeemed himself immediately after with four consecutive bangers: Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, and Sweeney Todd.

(This may be a bad example because Planet of the Apes was still the ninth-highest-grossing film of 2001, and therefore it’s negative reception didn’t affect it’s box office gross...)

It’s difficult to assess Paul King overall as a director, because while he’s done arguably the two most acclaimed family films of the 21st century, he hasn’t really done anything outside of the Paddington films to further prove his filmmaking prowess.  He did a movie in 2009 called Bunny and the Bull, which has a 6.6 on IMDB, a 3.3/5 on Letterboxd, a 67% critics score and a 65% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes—every metric indicating that it’s pretty decent but nowhere near Paddington.

The soundtrack alone could be enough to boost Wonka to become a hit, considering the previous two films have fantastic soundtracks.  The (Academy Award-nominated) 1971 soundtrack has since become ingrained into pop culture, and the (Grammy-nominated) 2005 soundtrack has some of Danny Elfman’s best compositions.  The 2023 film’s music will be composed by Neil Hannon of The Divine Comedy.  I’d be lying if I said I’ve ever heard any of his stuff, but he’s a more inspired choice than your usual Hans Zimmer or Alexandre Desplat or whoever (I don’t know who the go-to-guy for musicals would be).

So will Wonka beat Charlie at the box office?

Looking at all the facts, Wonka faces an uphill challenge.  Ultimately, no, I do not believe that Wonka will make more money than Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  I expect Wonka to have a lower budget, so there’s a good chance that it will be more profitable than Charlie, but I’m anticipating that Wonka ends up somewhere in the $300–$400 million range.

I do think that Wonka will be the second-highest grossing Roald Dahl film and the second exception to the Roald Dahl curse.  And I just think to myself, if Mary Poppins Returns (a movie truly no-one was asking for) could make $350 million in 2019, then Wonka could do just as much.  And the Willy Wonka property is far more relevant and in-demand than Mary Poppins.  So here it is:

Wonka (2023): Prediction as of December 4, 2022

Worldwide gross: $350 million

Rotten Tomatoes: 84% critics, 68% audience

Trust me, I want this movie to do well.  Peter Ostrum, the original Charlie Bucket, said something absolutely true, that any Wonka project reignites interest in all the other Wonka projects.  So yeah, I’d love to see Wonka do well and there be a huge surge in popularity for the other two movies.

Anyway, thank you so much for reading!  I realize I’ve kinda abandoned my Tumblr in favor of posting more frequently on my Twitter, but I want to begin using my Tumblr for more editorial style posts like this, offering my thoughts on any aspect on the Wonka world in general.

Hi Marcia! I read your meta about Snow and Aurora's ages and it was very well thought! I wanted to ask you about how do you view the issue of Ariel's age? Unlike Aurora and Snow who are timeless or 16 in a fantasy world where it was the age of majority for young women, Ariel was written much like a very modern teenage girl. I remember that in the DVD commentary both Mark Henn and John Musker stated that they wanted Ariel to feel more like a real teenage girl in aspects like wanting to grow up but still being innocent or even in details like her fawning over Eric's statue, which Musker made the comparison of a teenage girl fawning over her favorite rock star poster in her room. She was also partly inspired in Alyssa Milano who was 16 at the time to model her physical appearance (alongside Glen Keane's wife and Sherri Stoner who were both adult women). Because of that, many people have issue that she married at age 16, because many feel as if an actual high schooler got married. I still don't buy it, because I remember in a magazine that Ron Clements said that through the movie Ariel grows from a teenage girl to a young woman and Glen Keane stated that her story is that about a teenage girl becoming an adult, in other words, her story is one of coming of age, but what do you think about it?

Thank you so much for letting me know how you experienced my thoughts! The Ariel topic is a very divisive one but, as always, I have an opinion about it lol

So, I can definitely tell you've done a ton of research from all the references you listed! I totally agree that there's an argument to be made about The Little Mermaid, in some ways, being a coming of age story for a young girl but I always felt it was more of an allegory for the gay experience and found the former take just substitutes as the straight, sanitized version of this. With the original author being LGBT and Howard Ashman adapting it, there's so many gay allusions and parallels that go over so many people's head, and it's so much more than just a straight woman who doesn't fit into her society. The inclusion of Ariel being sixteen, like in Aurora's case, was a nod to the original fairytale (though in most versions I'm almost certain that the mermaid is fifteen), and the film admittedly suffers from slight tonal issues because it's caught between being a fairytale and the newer shift to intentionally making stories more modern (despite the fact that the previous films all had timeless storytelling, I think every generation just thinks they're reinventing the wheel; I remember reading interviews Lesley Ann Warren did when the '65 Cinderella came out and she was claiming it was a much more realistic and modern take on Julie Andrews's Cinderella and, in retrospect, Julie's seems to emerge as the more realistic and modern one).

I think saying Ariel is sixteen does give the audience insight, as I mentioned in a previous ask with Snow White, of how much less...cynical she is about the world around her. She isn't blind to the horrors that humanity is capable of committing, but she has such an untainted view of life, especially in comparison with Triton, and she's his direct foil when it comes to the storyline of the film. I, personally, still take this with a grain of salt though because it's undoubtedly a fantasy film and the reason that we're clutching so tight is because 18 is the legal age of consent in our modern times, in America, but even if this was a super literal take...16 would've been the age Ariel would've gotten married anyway in the time she comes from? That's not even counting what the age of consent would've been in Atlantica or in Triton's kingdom, and those rules are probably different than ours. Besides, we don't know how much time passes between Triton turning Ariel into a human and the wedding happening. Also, nothing is sketchy about her and Eric's relationship because it's impossible that he's more than two years older than her, which still places their relationship in a healthy dynamic in terms of consent.

I think Mark and Glen and the directors, and even Jodi's, take on Ariel is valid but I think the most important, when examining artistic intent is Howard Ashman's, as he and Hans Christian Andersen, are the creators of Ariel. Jodi even says that she mimicked Howard's reading of the lines and, if anyone ever loves Ariel, it's because of Howard Ashman's take and how he coached her. Everything about Ariel comes from Howard, and I think the reason we never see Ariel in the sequels the way she is in the original film is because of the loss of that fundamental gay perspective. So, yes, technically Ariel could just be seen as a realistic teenager who's coming into her own but I personally see her as someone who's learning to live life in a society that oppresses her, against all odds, and in the face of a family that doesn't understand or accept her. It's about Ariel discovering herself and finding her place in the world and I think it's safe to say these things could be true about any teenage girl, and I think it's a great diversion for directors who want to make a film marketable to middle America and generally present it as more acceptable, but those things are so much more true to the gay experience and community. How do you live in a world where you constantly have to hide yourself, change who you are, lie to your family for your own safety, feel like an outsider? Where the life you want is seemingly accessible, but also out of reach? How that move, which will in so many ways be validating and help you feel like a participant in life as opposed to a prisoner, will at the same time give you a new life and love and family, while completely alienating you from everything you've ever known and is dangerous and can cause you to lose everything- even your own life? Does having a voice matter that much if you're stifling yourself and who you are on a daily basis? Or is the voice of authentic self-expression more important? I swear, I could talk about this forever, but to answer your question, I think the teenager coming into her own take is fine (and Ariel being sixteen...again, she came from a different time when people got married much younger, Eric wasn't that far apart from her in age, and we don't know how much time passed between her becoming a human and the wedding), but I ultimately think it's the story of a gay person finding their place in the world and having to navigate through life alone and risking everything to be able to live authentically. There's a reason the Disney studios credit Howard with "giving a mermaid her voice."

Beverly Hills Cop is a really fun copaganda flick. Produced by the guy who also produced Top Gun, you know what you're in for, and that means not thinking too hard about some of the things the movie is pushing. It's picking up a dirtbike from some guy on craigslist and ignoring some concerning comments on politics these days in order to make the sale go smoothly. You can raise a couple eyebrows but the #1 goal here is fun.

To that end, this film is very good. There's a reason it shot Eddie Murphy to stardom, and the script--rewritten with heavy input from Murphy after Sylvester Stallone's disastrous edgy primary rewrite--is just as charming as the leading man. This is a movie about an underdog Detroit detective trying to investigate his childhood friend's murder by a corrupt LA art dealer, and Murphy really sells it. Frustrated by class divisions and--take special note--procedural requirements the police are forced to follow, Murphy's detective character is a lovable, fast-talking charmer and you can't help but cheer for him as he drives his dented Chevy Nova next to the shiny Mercedes models of Rodeo drive.

Taking note that all films are inherently about making films, it's easy to draw a direct line between a film starring a relatively small entertainer new to the movies and the story of a scrappy detective from a smaller (and relatively racially dissimilar) town trying to rub elbows with the stuck up establishment guys who do things a certain way. Inasmuch as a movie is about making movies, it's clear that Beverly Hills Cop is telling a story about making it in showbiz as someone who wasn't born into the big club (perhaps a young comedian trying to break into the movies after finding success in standup).

Simultaneously, the finale's "moral" of the story is that things are better when cops violate civil rights to nail the bad guys who they couldn't get otherwise. As a writer I saw a clear opportunity for the LA cop characters to obfuscate the truth and bend the rules to nail the bad guy on probable cause, already a morally dubious ending but still better than what we actually got. Rather than omit some truths in the police report with a wink, the film's great moment of triumph has the Beverly Hills police outright lie about the events culminating into a bloody shootout, with Murphy's character smiling in approval the whole time.

To that end, I found the messaging of the film reminding me of a campus cop who'd prevented a local homeless man from stealing student bicycles. Retelling the story of how angry the man had been at being stopped from cutting bike chains, the cop remarked that he wished he could've punched out the man like a Philadelphia policeman had recently been caught doing. Which is to say, while the emotional appeals to justice there are valid, the rhetoric there leads to more civil rights violations than not.

This is a precise example of what a lot of my posting on propaganda references. Even as some scenes furrowed my brow (*shaking my head and frowning while I laugh so that people know I disagree with the copaganda in Beverly Hills Cop*), the movie is too good not to watch, and rather than studiously eschewing anything with the hint of a harmful idea I'd posit that you should lighten up instead.

I highly suggest Beverly Hills Cop as a staple 80s film, even with the copaganda caveat. In fact, its biggest societal harm was not glorifying police violence but rather the fact that its main theme served as the sample for the Crazy Frog Song that plagued flip phone ringtones and will probably continue to haunt phone calls for decades to come.

I only saw 1 and 3 in theaters back in the day. Went to see the new one blind with my family. Thought the choice to kill off the one character was strange enough when I first saw it since she seemed pretty important. Saw the complaints about dead reckoning online and was curious, so I checked out 4-6 since I missed them over the years. Yeah, I’m even more stumped after seeing the last three. Was it scheduling conflicts or was Ferguson just not interested in making more? If you know, ofc. I’m just trying to wrap my head around all this because I’m truly baffled rn. (Btw rogue nation’s my favorite)

HI! Welcome to the blog and I appreciate your message. Really glad you liked RN - the most Rebecca/Ilsa screen time of all the films with her plus she has amazing fighting sequences and just a very cool storyline.

No, no scheduling conflicts and it wasn't her decision either, at least neither she nor the people involved in production said anything to that effect. From all interviews director Christopher McQuarrie made it looks like it was his decision and that it was made early on, way before they began filming the film in 2020 and basically right after they finished Fallout in 2018. He basically said that the for the film to have real stakes someone close to Ethan had to die, they looked at different directions including Benji and Luther but decided that Ilsa's death would have the most emotional impact on the story and that her character basically had no way to go after the previous films other than having a heroic death.

Here is what he said:

"It was clear to the filmmakers from the beginning that it was Ilsa’s time to bow out. “It was one of the earliest conversations – around the set of Top Gun, we were already talking about it,” says McQ. “We knew that that emotional arc [of Dead Reckoning] was of a certain emotional tone. And we knew that if the movie was going to go darker, something in the story had to diverge.”

After the evolution of Ilsa from Rogue Nation to Fallout, there was pressure not to dilute one of the saga’s most complex and charismatic figures. “Any place you took that character would make less of her. It would suddenly become frivolous, which is something we're always trying to avoid,” McQuarrie explains. “The character would become frivolous, or she would just become a romantic interest. And it was never about creating a character who was defined by her love story with Ethan Hunt. Their relationship transcends a traditional love story.” It became clear that giving Ilsa an impactful send-off was the best way to serve her. “It felt like that story was looking for its resolution. And so we said, ‘This has got to happen’. What really needs to happen in the story is, the stakes have to be real. They can't be implied.” 

You can read here more about his view on her death (as he said it was a heroic death) and that he expected divisive reactions from the fans on this: https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/mission-impossible-dead-reckoning-part-one-10-more-spoiler-facts/

Hope this helps!

The follow-on to the last few posts is that... yes some people didn't like or understand The Last Jedi. That happens when you commit to a story. It's not in itself a problem. But it had reasons to explore certain ideas (and for the last fucking time Luke was already an exile in the first ST film) and whether you liked those or not could be described on the narrative's terms, not based on which end of the fandom they were trying to placate.

A lot of the things I enjoy end up being divisive because that happens when you commit to an idea. It's just the nature of things. Nothing is universally palatable or edifying; there is a beauty in that because it's the diversity of expression.

Meanwhile what was fundamentally wrong with The Rise of Skywalker is that it was not interested in saying anything substantial because it was terrified. It was scared, and ashamed, and catering to the worst of the worst who didn't even know what they really wanted anyway. You can't cater to fans in a really substantial way to begin with because what they like is the story you've chosen to tell, not the one they're telling you to write. Else how could they be fans altogether?

In an age of fan entitlement and the relationship between fans and creators blurred, this isn't a sentiment that makes many people happy. Certainly it is painful to find out stories you were attached to went in the wrong direction, but on the other hand, there was... always that inherent flaw present in the story because of who was spearheading it (complicated by handovers of creators, to be totally fair, and production interference etc., - so there are caveats like that).

But of course you naturally have that problem where personal taste is conflated with absolute objective value, and with the way fandom is otherwise conflatable with media criticism online, this creates a lot of problems.

Physical media lovers rejoice...

This week, we got some rather bombshell news from Disney's home entertainment division...

First up is PREY, the Dan Trachtenberg-directed PREDATOR film, getting a 4K and Blu-ray in October. That's *big*. PREY was one of the movies that Disney sent straight to streaming last year, among many other fellow 20th Century Studios titles like THE PRINCESS and ROSALINE. PREY had actually had actually tested very well before release, and many were puzzled as to why it never got a theatrical release... and why it seemingly had no future as a title outside of Hulu.

Even some recent theatrical 20th Century/Searchlight titles - confusingly - never made it to disc, like BARBARIAN - a surprise favorite of mine last year - and SEE HOW THEY RUN. The former was also thought to be a Hulu-only exclusive, but great test results bumped it to theatrical. And thankfully so, that was a movie - what with its one or two hard-left turns - worth experiencing in a theater. I certainly hope those movies come to 4K/Blu-ray very, very soon.

But even better... More physical media of streaming-exclusive stuff! Disney is now putting three Disney+ shows on physical media, on 4K and Blu-ray. WANDAVISION, LOKI's first season, and THE MANDALORIAN's two seasons... Obvious that they'd go with the MCU shows and the STAR WARS content, but it's a start... And it was strongly implied for quite some time that Disney+ was going to be the *only* place where you could watch the Marvel shows...

Well, demand can be quite a persuasive thing to these companies... Being loud works!

I don't know if this will lead to any other shows or movies getting the disc treatment. Disney heads had sort of implied that they'd put a greater emphasis on physical media releases in North America (meanwhile, pulling the plug on physical media releases in Australia, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 3 being the final title) post-Chapek... But I can easily see this being applied to popular stuff and not everything that's been released.

My hope is that all those 20th Century films eventually make it to disc, along with the Disney+ original movies and shows. HOWARD, in particular, is at the top of my wish list. Especially the ones they inexplicably removed, too, like CRATER. No work should be erased and unavailable to see. Like, ever. When something's made and released, and I don't care how good or bad it is, it's the public's from there on out. It should always be available, especially in a post-Disney Vault world.

It's funny because Disney themselves, back when the home media division was called "Walt Disney Home Video", released a truck-TON of various live-action movies on video and DVD over the years...

In the early 1980s, 90% of what was available on video from Disney was live-action stuff, due to the company's hesitance to release the majority of the animated features on video. So you had almost all the live-action movies, from well-known films like MARY POPPINS and THE LOVE BUG to things like... THE NORTH AVENUE IRREGULARS, SNOWBALL EXPRESS, GUS, etc. By the late 1980s, several other films made it to video, such as 2-parter movies that were aired on Disney's anthology program... Ever hear of SMOKE? BLACK ARROW? MY DOG, THE THIEF? Even some of the first-ever Disney Channel movies saw video releases back then, such as TIGER TOWN and GONE ARE THE DAYES.

Disney was even pretty good with putting a lot of these on DVD in the 2000s, although some didn't make it past videocassettes. And I have to say, when Disney+ launched, I was quite astounded at how many titles they had on there... Outside of greed and corporations being dinguses, I see no reason for the stuff not to be on there. I get licensing/rights stuff concerning catalogue 20th Century titles... But Disney-made titles? C'moooon...

So, this news gives me a spot of hope regarding physical media and the availability of certain films/shows.

The Fabelmens (2023) - Review

Director: Steven Spielberg

Runtime: 2h 31 mins

Drama

A young and aspiring filmmaker tries to navigate his childhood and chase his dreams, while his family begins to fall apart around him.

Over the past few years acclaimed Directors have reflected on their lives. Alfonso Cuarón took us on a thought-provoking journey through 1970’s Mexico with Roma, and more recently Kenneth Brannagh put his showy direction aside and showed us a more vulnerable part of his filmmaking in Belfast. Now it seems Steven Spielberg wants to tell his story, navigating his own childhood and reflecting on the relationship between his Mother and Father. 

The first scene of the film sees fictional Sammy Fabelman on his first trip to the cinema with his parents, ultimately scared but also blown away by The Greatest Show on Earth. He then follows it by trying to film his own train crashes in order to control the fear, awakening an early connection to filmmaking. Watching that ‘wonder’ that young Sammy sees in these early scenes is intoxicating, seeing a love of cinema through the lens of a Director who is responsible for some of cinema’s most awe-inspiring moments is The Fabelmans’ most endearing quality. 

Having said that though, The Fabelmans often wrestles more subjects than it can handle. The film is much more comfortable showing us the awe-inspiring filmmaking moments more so than anything else, and while the stories about depression, antisemitism and bullying are by no means brushed to one side, they merely dangle like loose threads at the bottom of the tapestry Spielberg is weaving. 

This film is almost certain to be divisive, but as a love letter to cinema it still conjures some wonderfully crafted moments. The script sometimes dodges its harder subjects and the film may even verge on self-indulgence, but Spielberg remains the master of awe-inspiring cinema – showcasing some of his best techniques and reminding us why he’s sat at the top of Hollywood for so many years.

4/5

its not that confusing, really - well, okay, it can be a little confusing. to elaborate, i’ll try to explain this to the best of my ability.

yes, everything is canon in the sense that the concept of “canon” is a term used to describe works of fiction that are officially produced by the owners of the property. as both “spongebob squarepants” and “kamp koral: spongebob’s under years” are officially produced by the owners of the property, they are both canon even when or if they contradict each other. at the same time, nothing is canon because it is used to describe these works with the idea they are produced by the same author in relation to one another. as spongebob squarepants as a franchise is a collaborative work that has had many hands involved, each with their own ideas and perceptions of the series, and not solely produced by the creator of the property, stephen hillenberg, then the the more debatable on whether anything really counts as canon everything becomes. 

the concept of “canon” therefore can be an extremely divisive and limiting word, however, because it is a word invented for works in which there was a single creator who had the final say on what was or was not official to their works, like a book series, independent comic, or manga - so not everyone really agrees on how to qualify the concept of a canon to begin with in the context of any other work - such as ones that rely on collaboration and team-work to be produced, like films or a television series. spongebob, as previously mentioned, is entirely collaborative and has been since it’s inception. hillenberg had more control over the comics than he had over the show after a certain point, but it wouldn’t make sense to claim that the comics have more canonicity than the show, would it?

the term as it is known is typically used for a continuity driven or serialized series - one that depends on and requires a consistent understanding of events. spongebob squarepants is not such a series. spongebob squarepants is a series structurally built from the ground up so that every single concept introduced in the series is entirely self-explanatory within the episode, and its events are typically isolated and unrelated to other episodes. they can reference other episodes, of course, but watching a referenced episode is not required to understand the one you are watching. this is unlike an episode of, say, final space - where your understanding of an episodes events are contingent on having watched the series in order and having familiarity with the facts introduced and presented in that order.

“continuity” can either mean “the sequence of events shown in a work” but it can ALSO mean “the version of the universe presented in this work” - for instance, archie’s “sonic the hedgehog” is a very different continuity from fleetway’s “sonic the comic” which is also a very different continuity from IDW’s “sonic the hedgehog” - although they all naturally share similarities as they all focus on some of the same groups of characters, and similar character archetypes, with some similar story beats because they’re based on the same concepts. but they’re different continuities. and those continuities can have different canons.

spongebob squarepants is more comparable to tom and jerry or the looney tunes in terms of continuity - that is to say, there is none and that everything is entirely dependent on who is working on an episode or short, and what they find funny. there is a degree of consistency in the sense that there is a status quo to be maintained using the same pieces, like a game of chess, but at the same time, those pieces need not go in the same direction every time, nor are they expected to, you see? they’re entirely dependent on the circumstances presented, and those circumstances may change from episode to episode based on what would be funny or what would allow for a joke to work out best.

so suffice to say that spongebob is not a show created to have a consistent timeline at all, never was and never will be. it’s timeline is entirely depended on the whims of any writer of a given episode - of which there are numerous. spongebob is not a show created to have a real “canon” aside from it’s status quo - the things established from episode to episode to be understood in any order, isolated from any other episode. you can watch any episode focused on sandy without ever having watched her introduction, for example. it’s canon is essentially schrodinger cat, if it is not relevant to the episode’s premise then it exists in a state of both canon and not canon - it could be in timeline a or it could be in timeline b. cuz it’s simply not relevant until it is relevant, you see? 

“canon” when it comes to spongebob squarepants is a social construct that exists entirely in your mind, and in the mind of any given writer, and it will not be consistent because each of us will have different views of what is or isn’t or what should or shouldn’t be canon based on what we’ve seen, our perspectives, and the status quo presented. it’s relevant when it’s relevant, which is dependent on the feelings of whoever may work on an individual episode.

one writer may enjoy a trait a character exhibits in one episode and incorporate that into an episode they write, while another may dislike that trait and can either chose to omit it or contradict it entirely - as the series is an entirely collaborative effort, both are equally valid in their portrayal when it does not contradict the status quo of the series established. whether or not plankton enjoys golf does not effect whether or not he tries to steal the krabby patty secret formula, so it’s fair game. whether or not spongebob knows narlene and nobby does not effect whether or not spongebob has a job at the krusty krab, so it’s fair game. whether spongebob met squidward at kamp koral does not effect whether or not spongebob lives next to him, so it’s fair game. you follow?

so, essentially, one should be viewing spongebob squarepants as they may view a looney tunes short - especially as looney tunes is one of the main inspirations for spongebob squarepants - that every single episode can be viewed as existing in its own, unique timeline, not necessarily in sequence with one another, but may relate to or be based on another work created involving the same cast of characters in whatever way may be relevant as intended by the writers and boarders involved at the time.

so yes, any given episode may exist in any of the potentially existing timelines shown to exist, not necessarily in chronological order, and not necessarily consistently, and with very little explicit confirmation or in-universe elaboration, cuz it’s not that kind of show. newer episodes are likelier to be based on other newer episodes based on how production works combined with the current consciousness that would form within the teams that work on those episodes, but that does not necessarily exclude older episodes either, ect ect

tl;dr: easily any episode could exist in any timeline, and unless explicitly stated - which they have not provided any official statement regarding as it is Not That Kind Of Series - there isn’t any real firm hard rule as to which timeline any given episode exists in as it’s very much so Not Relevant except when it is, which is not often.

Every Judy Movie-#24

Way, way back in High School I set out to watch every single one of Judy Garland’s movies. Several I’ve rewatched many times since, others I had no desire to see again. Now, in honor of the centennial of her birth, I thought I’d do something with this knowledge and make a quick write up of my thoughts on all of them...

Title: The Pirate

Release Year: 1948

Plot Summary: In a small Caribbean village, Manuela (Garland) dreams of a life of passion and adventure with the legendary pirate, Mack "the Black" Macoco. Unfortunately, her guardians have arranged for her to marry the dull, unattractive mayor, Don Pedro (Walter Slezak). Desperate to see something of the world beyond her town before her marriage, she travels to the nearby port city where she encounters Serafin (Gene Kelly), the star of a travelling circus. He falls in love with her at first sight, and upon discovering her hidden passion, comes to her town pretending to be the pirate to win her heart. Things get even more complicated when it turns out the boring mayor is the real Macoco, now retired.

Thoughts: This might be the single most divisive movie in Garland’s filmography. A rare flop for the star at the peak of her box office appeal, audiences continue to debate whether it’s an underrated masterpiece or a failed attempt at farce. Personally, while I’ve always enjoyed the film, I’ve gone back and forth over just how I would classify it.

The Pirate is a flawed film, suffering from studio interference and the poor health of its leading lady (it was on this film that Garland’s personal demons really began to negatively impact her ability to work.) More then that, The Pirate was dealing with topics that went beyond what audiences at the time expected from musicals. One number, “Voodoo,” in which Garland’s character was to express her repressed romantic yearnings was deemed to suggestive by studio execs and replaced by the tamer “Mack the Black.”

At its core, The Pirate is a movie about what’s beneath the public facades we all put up, whether it’s to meet the expectations of our family (Manuela), to get what we want (Serafin), or to run away from our unpleasant secrets (Don Pedro). It is also about a heroine who is pressured by those around her into suppressing her romantic and passionate desires so she may conform to society’s expectations of her, and that she only finds real happiness when she abandons that conventional lifestyle. That these two themes, taken together, lend themselves perfectly to a queer reading, and that this film was directed by Vincente Minnelli, himself a closeted gay or bisexual male, with a deliberately theatrical style that gives it a certain camp value, are all important in understanding what this movie is trying to do, and why it went over many peoples’ heads.

In-depth analysis is not really the point of this mini-blogathon (or whatever this is) but The Pirate is one of those movies where you have to talk about what’s going on beneath the surface. This probably isn’t the first movie most of Garland’s gay fanbase would reach for (not when there’s the found-family comfort of The Wizard of Oz or the melodrama of A Star is Born available), but it is the entry in her filmography that seems the most intended for a queer reading. And in Pride month, that seems like enough to classify this as an underrated masterpiece.

Can Be Enjoyed By: Diehard Fans Only | Casual Fans/Fans of Musicals in General | Essential Viewing for Everyone

Multi narrative film

Yan Ma [Martea]

Recently I read an online article called:  Figuring a global humanity: cinematic universalism and the multinarrative film, by TIAGO DE LUCA .  I really agree with this sentence in the paragraph;  ' a narrative based on fragmentation and division rather than unity.'

The multi-narrative film is not a movie with completely consistent narrative plots, but rather multiple narrative films overlapping, diverging, and can be combined to form a movie, or can be individually presented as a short film. Here I want to talk about a multi-narrative film I recently watched: "Crazy Stone" directed by Hao Ning. It tells the story of four small groups revolving around a priceless jade stone.

The first group of thieves wanted to steal the jade stone, the second group were the security guards who wanted to protect the stone, the third group was the son of the jade boss who wanted to monitor and steal the stone, and the fourth group was the real estate developer who wanted to buy the jade. There is only one stone, everyone wants it, and the son of the jade boss took action first, using his identity advantage to replace the real jade with a fake one. Due to a series of misunderstandings, the thieves got the real jade but thought it was fake, so they decided to use it to exchange for the jade in the exhibition hall. In the end, the fake jade was bought by the real estate developer, while the real jade was left aside, being mistaken as fake by everyone.

One outstanding aspect of the film is its brilliant ensemble cast. There are no fixed absolute male or female leads, each character in each plotline can be considered as a protagonist, they are positively depicted in their own narrative perspective, or mentioned in passing in others' narratives, collectively weaving a perfect web of relationships, with each person being a crucial node. Including the security guard who has been owed eight months' salary, the team of thieves who steal every day, the selfish real estate developer, the son of the boss who monitors and steals, and the overseas professional thief, each character is not rigidly isolated, but through mutual connection and resonance, they express their individual personalities and vitality, showing great sophistication.

In terms of technique, the film advances through continuous questioning and answering, with the narrative of the latter perspective supplementing the previous paragraph, and posing new questions, gradually clarifying, and clarifying the plot in the weakening ambiguity, therefore, the clues and plot are mutually intertwined and developed, and its multi-narrative framework structure is an indispensable setting. Overall, the film breaks the traditional contrast or similarity of multi-narrative narratives, piecing together a complete story with confusing and unrelated plots, ultimately merging into a complete circle; in addition, the climax of the film is scattered in various questioning and answering small plots, making the progress of the story fluctuating and fascinating.

This film uses coincidences and black humour to create a tightly woven story. Through coincidences and details, seemingly unrelated clues are cleverly brought together. Presenting the process of events from multiple perspectives adds to the absurd and humorous feeling. Using multiple threads and intersecting in time and space, involving numerous characters and complex relationships, the story is full of thrilling violence and scattered beauty. In multi-narrative films, the most exciting and crucial aspect often lies in the interconnection between characters, and the juxtaposition and reflection of various subplots. Each narrative line not only has certain intersections and overlaps, but also has independent fresh content, such application of techniques is very effective in enhancing the audience's viewing experience.

Reference :

Tiago, De Luca, Figuring a global humanity: cinematic universalism and the multinarrative film,(Oxford University Press on behalf of Screen)2017,18.https://watermark.silverchair.com/hjx002.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAA2IwggNeBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggNPMIIDSwIBADCCA0QGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMjzA137MFFN6ZeEm2AgEQgIIDFWE5k0204MSmd_zOjK94jZWAaLbdpMuiHbCITzQ_01iXYLSRRY6XV1demlu9_afeQt16Z--bn2nuaOWyiAbZ92xnhfxwNadPia4VnhmkwMn6fmGtFpj_hFCrewEZmY2vknPHbGGzQREGbRJF2LZ3YA0PWSwYbCRWZFrGS6Nhm1w-abTYsZ3UtcGkz-4bkVBxR_mV83Pz_jQtsv0-zZ7r21RLGy-y-GvINTTObWeDBTqUehj6NQ5eAHWvBKlEbEYpVgdR8yw2972W07JV4h0ee5dpCzLDktgggwoXlGSxDgwV526jTVqi-7rE5XYWM_lU8kDasqwclWzCSLrygG_URwA2fFhka848x_P43EgC0FI0Jl6pTQ_KG-KOEuaH_Rb0cVlo_aya0we32rUVWowJRavtUb4kxtIeio4GHgA65gxFr22F6W4z4OdI4JxilpZP74pMdNBLm7A7GY-ySp3PIdKGVwnYkvepKVjEdKLe6Pb9X8kMXQ39UlJT94YtTbKvl_bnjewQLmydD4erhYQUtq3e0qvGpB-nR6cpkdYERCGbrLOSkvrkdHk9d2Ahjl91ZKqt7QQEIkPFLAs60UqNEw6cdePWj1t4yhI6XyrEHsWkC3jU7RVH2xmI2CUp4VOXKcuRPB1GPZXLcNfO8CA8WkX__nzXClygFop31VWT_cPclSf6ajatLJTLd-kF2ltfhsSTZ87uneBq2aG-El2t-Dnq_qXWNAoRPP67_L6F2oSu1XjC_G-FI_tHBGIKFFE7BJdvBQdWam_nX6xwbqMqQYrhg2va5pqPxM0tCV1Flz9Wt2jmA_NwJFW56dBgIjTJXPwudbBmyDIwqKU0xvQn-AEGZVF5o5JHAcGimcjUkT_Q3senkHwWiYbHHmEY0oiP5oAUS2dLopfviYcFXZFPRFU9K4d4RHBHJDgs-aceq-7EpQDS0dk47v4Mq7POIp8HCcavdF8_mvUR8BqiNrnHiu6jo8FMUOk7zvPHsYTvav0lHdz1N2KNCx9D8VsuSuFcJdB8c77BIuBU3-yoS0-e9TxwTixxew

Crazy Stone, 2006,directed by Hao Ning , online video , viewed 01 May 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2QAJOzf3cU