#(really I just gave them all my favorite alien pieces like an alien scavenger lol but I think I tied it all together nicely)

[girlscience]

I am intrigued by the wip titled “zaz” if you would like to share some about it fjdjdjdk

Ohhh yes I will absolutely share about Zaz!!! It is more or less a huge ass on-going worldbuilding document. There has been a vague idea of an alien world floating around in my head since about 2018 I think? And I finally started writing it all down and putting some actual detail into it. This document includes such things as angle and axis of rotation of the planet, placement of tectonic plates, ocean and wind currents, tides, a bit of flora and fauna, alien biology and culture, the very rough beginnings of an alien language, and some other related bits.

The aliens that live on this planet are the ones I have mentioned before that have horns like pachycephalosaurus and practice a sort of headbutt wrestling. The alien race is called Ma't'am. Zaz specifically is the name of one of the ma't'am, I am going to use them in a space dnd game, but they are also my sort of "way in" for understanding the culture and life in a more specific way than broad cultures (this whole world exists far beyond the scope of dnd but it has kind of given me an excuse to go wild over it lol). Zaz is a diminutive form of zazaz, which is a sort of bamboo like mangrove tree that their people use to do everything from building ships to weaving baskets to making clothing. And it connotes something like solid/sturdy/useful/multipurpose. The planet is mostly covered by ocean (fun fact the 'sand' on the planet is actually lots of small sea glass so the whole ocean is sort of like stained glass) and the majority of the landmass is islands. There are groves of zazaz trees around many of the islands, and because the ma't'am are entirely ship-living nomads the zazaz trees and a few other mangrove like plants are the only land based organism/object that they interact with.

This is my very loose map of the planet (excluding the wind and ocean currents, they are on another layer and make it hard to read). It's not super great, I have definitely made better maps before, but I think it gives a pretty clear picture of the shape of the world! The world is about the size of Mars, so it is quite a bit smaller than earth. I made some very loose calculations about human populations from a few different areas and time periods and concluded that there would be around 100 million ma't'am living on the planet.

I have about a bajillion other thoughts on this world and it's people, but that's the pretty basic overview I think? Someday I hope to draw Zaz and some of the other Ma't'am and their world.... but who knows if that will ever happen. I will absolutely share more information about all this if anyone wants it! I think about it all the time and love theorizing and worldbuilding with other people :)

[hockeychik13]

Honest Reviews: The Die Hard Franchise

I would like to start a series with this blog called Honest Reviews. In it, I will honestly review some of my favorite pieces of entertainment. Believe me, I am truly passionate about the things I enjoy, but I'm also not completely blind to their flaws or the things about them that may alienate certain audiences. Plus, I just genuinely love talking about movies and TV shows. To kick things off, today I want to talk about the Die Hard franchise.

    I will preface this review by saying I enjoy some of the movies much more than others, but I do not hate any of the films in the series.

Die Hard

    This is by far one of my favorite films of all time. It is witty, entertaining and is a perfect example of an every-man turned hero. It also introduced us to the late, great Alan Rickman and I think we owe this film a sincere amount of gratitude for that piece alone. It is also the first time we got to see Bruce Willis as a badass.

    Believe it or not, the studio didn't want to cast him in the role because of his fame for the TV show Moonlighting. Which had a similar feel to Castle as being a funny, witty crime sitcom type show. That's not really the image you get when you think of Bruce Willis now, is it? Me either. However, at one time, that's what he was typecast as and we almost didn't get the ass-kicking Bruce Willis we know and love today.

    Anyway, the film itself is entertaining. There are sort of bloopers and perceived plot holes (I, for one, never questioned how McClane knew Bill Clay was really Hans Gruber), but from start to finish it keeps you interested. There's enough personal backstory to make you care about the characters emotionally. And Rickman managed to create a new kind of villain in Gruber that almost had you rooting for him out of sheer respect. Die Hard gave us a lot of things that cinema had been missing up to that point and countless films have tried to re-create that magic to no avail. I will also point out that it is a Christmas film. So, if you're anything like me and have a distaste for traditional Christmas films, this makes an excellent replacement.

    Now, comes the criticism: It didn't exactly age well. Now, it is pretty much a timeless classic and those of us who experienced life before high speed internet and smart phones seem to have a better appreciation for films that have outdated technology, however to a newer audience I think all of this films charm would be lost. There are far too many things in the movie that could easily have been solved by the institution of modern technology that for audiences who have never lived life without these modern conveniences would just not make any sense. Also, there have been so many copies and homages of this original film at this point that it wouldn't be new even for a first time viewer. The fashions are very dated and someone laughable at this point, which is something newer viewers would be quick to point out. Unfortunately, at this point in our lives this movie requires a lot of explanation to new audiences to express its true significance. And people really don't like things that they need explained to them.

Die Hard 2

    I will start off by saying that despite the many, MANY times I have seen this movie, it is truly forgettable. Despite bringing back familiar characters and introducing a new and fairly impressive villain, the plot is really quite weak and it seems like a rehashing of the original without the heart, wit or simplicity. The plot is overly complicated and the happenstance by which John McClane gets involved seems really kind of forced. There's a terrorist plot at an airport where his wife is supposed to be landing that makes her plane unable to land and then there's a war criminal that the terrorists are trying to release who is supposed to be flying into said airport. Also, there's a snowstorm.

    So, John McClane is back, doing what we love him doing. Fighting bad guys, saving the day, doing the impossible because if not him, then who? The movie's setting is really what will ruin it for modern audiences. Anyone who has traveled in the last 10 years can tell you that if you even mention certain words in the airport you're rush tackled and smuggled away for questions and a cavity search. In this movie we have people firing guns in airports, baggage claim attendants being murdered and no one noticing, terrorists dictating flight patterns and whatnot. And yet, the airport seems to be pretty business as usual. Today, it would be a media frenzy and the entire airport would be shut down before anyone could blink. For anyone watching the movie today, the airport and security response would be unfathomable. And the need for McClane's involvement would be completely laughable. Also, the bit about his wife being trapped on a circling plane running out of fuel (with the dickish reporter from the first movie no-less that she punched in the face) just feels tacked on to add a human element to a film that seems to have dropped any semblance of character development in favor of a confusing plot and lack-luster action sequences. It's a good watch for a lazy day of silly entertainment, but it is easly forgotten and that isn't a bad thing.

Die Hard: With a Vengance

    This movie makes a triumphant return to the franchise's roots with a clever plot and engaging characters. They went simple and moved the action to John McClane's home turf of New York. They introduced Samuel L. Jackson as a new every-man hero to play off of McClane's tired and too-often tested anti-hero at this point. I call him an anti-hero because when we first see him he is a rough-looking, hungover shell of the man that we came to know and love. We learn that things never did work out between he and Holly and he has been living with the consequences of the previous two movies in the time we have not seen him. We don't usually get a glimpse into the reality of the weight being a hero can put on a man and it's refreshing to see a movie deal with that head on. There are also touches on the issues of racism that are dealt with in a far more realistic sense than I've seen previously. The lines aren't black and white between bigotry and acceptance and that is depicted beautifully in this film.

    The plot itself is simple. A so-called terrorist is sending John and his reluctant partner Zeus on a series of scavenger hunts and having them solve riddles to find and diffuse bombs around the city. It all turns out to be a cover up for a heist, which is wonderfully reminiscent of the original film. It manages to pay homage to its origins without copying what has already been done. The villain is engaging and interesting, much like Hans Gruber was and Jeremy Irons manages to create a villain that keeps us guessing and wanting more. The pairing of Willis and Jackson was also a fantastic choice as they play well off of each other with banter but they are also equally intelligent. They work as an equal team, not hero and sidekick.

    This film has actually aged a little better than it's predecessors. Although the use of pay phones wouldn't make any sense to modern audiences (what's a pay phone? lol) there is little else that wouldn't make sense overall. The police responses make sense with current times and the cast is more recognizable to newer viewers. Given that it came out in 1995, the fashions were less dated the locations in New York were more recognizable. The film also has a more updated look instead of the grittier look of the older films. It is smooth and higher definition which is a medium that modern audiences are much more accustomed to.

    My only criticism of this film would be the somewhat tacked on personal relationship stories. Despite Bonnie Bedelia's (Holly McClane) absence from this installation completely, there is still the underlying theme of John calling his wife to try to reconcile. Given the fact that the first two films take place two years apart, it is conceivable that after the events of the first film they would be able to reconcile and still be in a good place by the second film. However, there are 5 years between the second film and this one, making it probable that the issues the two had at the onset of the first film would have become issues once again (they were never actually solved by the events in the first movie. She was just really happy because he saved her from terrorists and stuff). It's evident from the first film that they have very different expectations for their relationship and their love for each other really wasn't enough to overcome any of that. There's also the random relationship between Jeremy Irons' Simon and his right hand henchwoman Katya. Although it's completely conceivable that they grew close and forged a relationship while working together for their shared cause, it seemed tacked on and served little purpose other than to add a sex scene somewhere in a movie where it doesn't really fit.

    This movie is worth watching multiple times. It's a great Saturday afternoon bit of entertainment and the nice thing is it can be watched completely independent of the other films. Although they are still dealing with McClane's failed relationship, you don't need to know their rocky background to assume that the cop who started the movie as a drunk would have an estranged wife. Even if you're not a fan of the original, give this one a look. You might find your interest in this franchise piqued.

Live Free or Die Hard

    This installment came out 12 years after the previous film in 2007. It gives us a John McClane whose life has gone pretty much in the direction we could have assumed from the last film. However, this movie chooses to address his relationship with one of his children. Lucy McClane was present in the first film and her brother John was only mentioned given that he was the baby of the family. She makes her adult debut in this film as a central character with closer ties to the plot, giving John that personal element to his heroism that was slightly lacking in Die Hard with a Vengance (although this isn't a bad thing in this film).

    The movie itself deals with more technological themes which makes it much more complicated. However, the addition of Justin Long as his sidekick in this film helps to diffuse some of the tech jargon with wit and bits of comedy. Although the joke is that McClane doesn't understand modern technology, few of us actually understand the technology (besides cell phones) being referenced in the film. McClane is us and that's part of the joke. However, Justin Long's Matt is also us. He isn't a fighter or a physical hero like McClane. He needs McClane to protect him and I'm fairly certain we would need that too. This movie allows us to be more involved in the story because we can see ourselves more clearly in it. Yes, there are unbelievable moments and things that aren't physically possible in the real world, but that doesn't diminish the movie's entertainment factor.

    Also, part of the fun of the film is that they chose not to use CGI and instead rigged up incredible special effects to get what we see on screen. So, yes, they did actually throw a real car at a real helicopter. The movie is worth a watch just for the special effects knowing that they didn't use computers to create them. They also actually demolished pieces of freeway (a piece that was scheduled to be demolished anyway and the film was able to use for their special effects) as well which makes for both a more realistic feel to the effects and fantastically interesting behind the scenes footage of how things were created.

    Unfortunately, the technology is actually a detriment to this film. Although it was attempting to move the franchise into the modern era with its inclusion as a main plot point (not a bad idea given our reliance on technology), it actually serves to date the movie even more than the use of pay phones. Technology is growing and changing at an alarming rate in modern times, which means that even when a piece of it is brand new, it is quickly outdated in a matter of weeks now. Which means that the technology used in a movie now 10 years old seems ridiculously antiquated and silly by today's standards. Which is sad because this is actually a very enjoyable film. But, modern audiences are fickle. And I'm not sure that Justin Long's charm, Bruce Willis' reluctant hero shtick, Timothy Olyphant's sociopathic villain and a guest appearance by Kevin Smith are enough to entice new viewers to look away from their cell phones long enough to appreciate anything this movie has to offer.

    Once again, it's an enjoyable film. Fun on a day when you have time to watch special features along with this film to see how things were done. Although it doesn't work as well as a stand alone film. Without knowing the backstory of the McClane family and why Lucy may be angry with her father, this movie feels more like a rip-off of Taken with some tech thrown in than it does a Die Hard movie. So, it's really something that should be watched in context, not out of it.

A Good Day to Die Hard

    This movie was released six years after the previous film in 2013. Since the last movie dealt with the relationship between McClane and his daughter Lucy, this one deals with his relationship with his son John. This seems like a great idea on paper, but in practice it lacked a lot. Overall, the movie felt out of place in the Die Hard franchise. Instead of being the every-man hero, McClane is shown as the antiquated dad with good intentions who is really just in the way. It is obvious from the start that the sole purpose of this film was to kick start a revitalization of the franchise following John Jr (or Jack as they like to call him so we don't get confused) as the new hero.

    There are two huge issues with this movie that made revitalizing the franchise virtually impossible:

   The first is the plot. For the first time in the Die Hard franchise we leave the country. A big part of McClane's appeal was his quiet patriotism. Doing what's right for his country and the people he protects despite great personal sacrifice. This film has him in Russia trying to bail his son out of a Russian prison. Then it turns out his son is really special ops. And is an angry child even though he's a grown man. He has no respect for his father or the lengths to which his father has gone previously to do the right thing (which plays into the cliched "daddy didn't love me enough" theme so common in action films). The plot is way overly complicated and involves double crosses and sub plots and a climax in Prypyat (which is the city now laying abandoned after the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor) that never really seem to come together to form a coherent plot. Although the plot didn't seem to be what was important. At the center of it all seemed to be the desire to introduce Jack as the new hero who will step up so his father can retire.

    Which brings us the the second issue with this movie. The casting choice of Jai Courtney as John Jr/Jack just didn't work. He isn't horrible. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate him and he is a good action star. However, to take the place of John McClane both on the big screen and in our hearts there needs to be a certain spark that he just doesn't have. He's not an every-man. He's insanely muscular, which is impressive but really just makes him another Schwarzenegger-like invincible hero. Which has been done to DEATH. Looking at him, he's the hero we expect. But he isn't he hero that we know. He's not the beat cop who would show up to a routine 911 call and save the day. He's not the guy on the street who would help someone because it's the right thing to do. He's the guy in the movie who saves the world and looks good doing it. Fitness aside, he doesn't have the personality for the role. Yes, he's good as an action hero, but he's not a McClane. He doesn't have witty one-liners and when he tries they don't work. And the way his character was written in the film, I found myself rooting against him and pitying his father. Which made the whole "saving the world" plot fall into the background and seem sort of useless.

    I'll be perfectly honest, despite having seen this film multiple times, I don't actually even remember what the main plot really was. I know that the relationship between father and son felt forced, but not in the way they were hoping. The previous film addressed the tensions between McClane and his children but allowed that tension to have layers that made sense given the history we know about John. This movie just goes right to the cliches and never lets up. Jack is angry at his father, rebelling in every way (despite being way old enough to have established his own life and moved on from the anger at his father) and seeming to consist of nothing but a distaste for his father. He is the embodiment of an angry teenager dealing with his parents divorce inside the body of a grown man. Even though they end up working together for the greater good, just like there was no true resolution of the issues between John and his wife, there isn't between John and Jack either.

    Jack also isn't likeable. I can't imagine following him on similar adventures like we've seen John, but only because I can't see Jack being humble enough to take on the role of a true hero without his pride getting in the way. If I were to suggest a better casting decision for Jack it would have been Channing Tatum. I know, I know, but hear me out. He's good looking, much like Bruce Willis was when the series started (he's still good looking but not exactly heartthrob status anymore) and he's in good physical shape so his ability to fight bad guys wouldn't be questioned. However, unlike Courtney, Tatum has an endearing quality about his features and has proven to be quite adept at both comedy and wit. Although the movie wasn't fantastic, White House Down had a feel of Die Hard in the White House because of his ability to be a believable every-man hero and give the audience the wit and humor needed to break up the tension and violence of an action film. He's also proven more than once that he has the ability to carry a feature film on his own or work beautifully with ensemble casts. Courtney has also struggled in these areas with his other films making it next to impossible for him to be able to carry the franchise beyond this film. Tatum's humor would have also played well with Willis' and as a duo they would have been more believable as father and son with a rocky relationship. Tatum also has more similar features to Willis like a trademark smirk and softer eyes, whereas Courtney never seems to be able to break serious face.

    Although I'm not saying that this film isn't worth a watch, if you haven't seen it, you're really not missing much. It was a disappointing installment in an otherwise impressive franchise. If you're a fan of the franchise already, give it a watch, but if you're new to it I wouldn't bother. It wouldn't encourage new audiences to give the rest of the franchise a shot and is really quite forgettable as a stand alone movie.

Overall

    I know this has been a long-winded post, but if you have made it this far with me, I thank you! This franchise holds a very dear place in my heart. I know I got a bit harsh with the last installment, but that's mostly because my expectations have been set so high by the rest of the series. I'm proud to own all of the movies. I'm happy to introduce new people to the series and I'm always thrilled to discuss it with other people. It's a great set of action movies and Bruce Willis is a great hero to root for. Now excuse me while I settle in for a Die Hard movie marathon.

Yippee-Ki-Yay!