#I have seen people who are familiar with the original complain about changed storylines and changes to the gods so like. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bigskydreaming · 3 years

Note

Tom is already rehashing some things, like too many homages to the nineties run, Zucco's daughter plot point, Beatrice had ideas for societal reform he's taking that and giving it to Dick. It'll probably be half hearted, but it stings that Beatrice left just a few issues ago and she's already completely forgotten for the sake of DickBabs or a love triangle.

Like the thing about the nineties runs is I mean, as much flack as we give various elements of them, there’s so much from that time period that was good? Great, even! Just....myself and the writers seem to have very different opinions on what the most interesting elements of the nineties comics were, oh well.

And omgggggg I’m still so mad about Bea, and its literally Shawn Tsang all over again. The writers keep introducing new, interesting characters, investing just enough time and focus into them to have us interested in them and wanting to see more.....and then they toss them aside to go back to drawing from the same well as always.

And the thing is, this isn’t even about me not really being a Dick/Babs shipper, because honestly, I’m not enjoying the Dick/Kory stuff in what I’ve seen of Titans Academy either, and for the exact same reason:

When they create new characters like Shawn and Bea, they KNOW they’re starting from scratch and need to build interest in those characters from the ground up. So they’re forced to put their best foot forward. There’s no short cut there, if you want people to care about a brand new character you have to give them REASONS to care. You have to make those characters likable, you have to make people WANT to root for them, you have to hook them with intriguing backstories that don’t feel formulaic and new angles that don’t feel just derivative of older characters, and that’s how we got stuff like Shawn’s history as a former sidekick to a villain and now running a support group for rogues trying to turn their lives around, and Bea’s work in societal reform.

But then the second they stop having the patience to build the new characters up enough that the interest in them can actually start to reach the levels that lets older characters last and grants longevity....they just toss them aside and move on....except they never really move on, just backwards. Because the problem with so MANY superhero couples, far from just Dick and Babs or Dick and Kory, is just....how lazy it seems to make so many canon writers. They just fall back on rehashing the same old tropes and just updating popular moments that resonated with fans in the past, now just recreated with a slightly more modern twist but without ever really being anything new.

Even with ships that I’ve never really been sold on in the past like Dick/Babs, I’ve always said, there’s usually nothing stopping me from GAINING interest in them.....its just....the writers have to GIVE ME A REASON TO. And so many of DC’s writers just aren’t even trying. They’re just moving parts around and pushing characters together in various arrangements like everyone’s just a puzzle piece that you can mix and match however you want......and then just basically expecting readers to be interested purely because of who the characters are, or because it hinges on a nice moment that they then milk the hell out of without ever expanding that into building actual STORY around these moments but rather just squeezing each one til they get everything they possibly can out of it and moving on to the next as though its all just about chasing the next soundbite...because it is! LOL.

And honestly, this problem extends far beyond just the Nightwing title or the Batfam or Taylor’s run or writing in particular.....its a company wide issue right now. In fact I would bet just about anything that its a matter of editorial edict, that even before Taylor started his run DC said okay here’s the approach we want everyone taking with their stories right now:

And that’s like.....its all about banking on nostalgia and the comfort of the familiar right now. I think Taylor is drawing all these elements straight from the 90s Nightwing comics, like Blockbuster and Dick having been a cop, etc, because these are the elements of past Nightwing stories that are so well known. Its the same reasoning behind why they put Tim back as Robin and so many of their new characters are just new spins on old faves like Punchline and Harley Quinn, and why they’re pushing all these older ships that haven’t been together in ages and why specific team lineups are reappearing....its because nostalgia is the name of the game for DC right now, and all their writers are just pulling together threads of classic stories that have stood the test of time, figuring anything that landed particularly well with fans in the past will sell with people here and now, and weaving these threads together and brushing over them with a modern social issues veneer.

As an approach, its basically all just about repackaging previously successful story moments and elements with just enough changes or in just new enough a configuration that readers aren’t likely to complain en masse that like “hey we literally already read all this. We’ve already BOUGHT these issues. When we were kids.” Its minimizing creative risk while maximizing monetary profit. Spend as little creative capital as possible outside of anything that’s already been successful in the past and as such is a relatively proven quantity, instead of testing new material that’s an unknown and runs the risk of falling flat and thus not being profitable.

And see, I’d almost guarantee that all THAT, that whole line-wide approach to DC’s storytelling, is because the powers that be looked at the last several years of stories and how many of THEM fell flat with readers, and decided that the problem was they’d BEEN trying too much new stuff and readers just didn’t like it. Because they WERE concentrating on presenting totally new stories and building up new ideas throughout their books.....but readers have been pretty vocal for years now about being disenchanted with most of DC’s major stories. And so DC I think looked at that and came to the conclusion that okay, people just don’t want new right now, they want the familiar.

But like.....DC’s problem IMO was never that they were trying new stuff? The reason so much of their new and original storylines weren’t gaining traction or bringing in readers and kept shedding old readers had absolutely NOTHING to do with them being new and previously unseen storylines, which makes falling back on nostalgia very much a non-solution to entirely the wrong problem.

No, DC’s problem for years has been that they’ve been all about spectacle instead of story. There’s ZERO emotional pay-off to any of their biggest plot twists or character beats, and emotion is LITERALLY what people read stories for. Its all about racing to the climactic action packed finish of every storyline and then immediately resetting everyone back to square one and jumping straight into the next big story, without ever giving the events of any of their stories time or reason to MATTER to the characters.....and if they don’t matter to the characters, our proxies that we’re viewing these stories through, then why should any of it matter to us? Why should any of it linger, dig in roots, resonate with us as moments that left an impact and that we accordingly want more of?

And again, like because I’m a Dick Grayson focused blog I’ve obviously largely been focused on how much I dislike the SPECIFIC reactions or non-reactions to so many of the major beats in his stories.....but it was spread throughout their entire line.

Bruce and Selina almost got married....but why should anyone care outside of Tom King’s title when nobody else seems to, no other characters feel anything about this, and Bruce in none of his other appearances seems the same as ever without any reminder that he just almost got married but then didn’t.....and if the characters don’t ever seem to be affected by or feeling a need to revisit or reflect on recent stories, why should we bother remembering them either?

Jason was dramatically and fucked-upily (yes its a word, I totally looked it up and everything) exiled from Gotham....and then all of that is undone in a single issue with one low-stakes awkward conversation between him and Bruce. Damian quits as Robin and goes off the map and everyone in his family is like “hey don’t we have a littler brother, I feel like we did maybe” for one panel per story arc, and that’s it. Roy’s back from the dead and everybody’s like oh hey cool instead of the kind of return we used to get like when Donna came back and everyone was like oh shit, this MATTERS, because we MISSED you....just like Dick’s death never mattered to anyone but fans of his character because much like I was just saying earlier with them not really giving me a reason TO emotionally invest in Dick and Babs’ relationship if I wasn’t already, same thing with the aftermath of Forever Evil. They didn’t give anyone else reason to emotionally invest in that as something that HAPPENED to Dick and that he was AFFECTED by....because the writers didn’t bother writing him as all that affected by it and it was just like oh he’s a spy now, all that was last year’s content, we’ve moved on, keep up.

And on and on it goes. Ric Grayson was the same problem all over again. Rinse and repeat down the line with everyone from Wally to Donna and etc etc etc.

THAT’S why DC’s stories have been falling flat. It has nothing to do with people not being interested in new ideas, characters or directions, its that’s ALL they were giving us, but it was like just reading wiki summaries of events just alongside pretty art, but no real emotional weight or substance to anything we were reading....and thus, literally nothing that we couldn’t get much the same outcome from if we just...stuck to reading wiki summaries after the stories were over, with no real need to follow along with them. For years most fans have basically just been about keeping up to date with changes in the characters’ lives, but without feeling any real need to watch those changes unfold and play out.

And so honestly I worry we’re just gonna be subjected to a company wide rehashing of old and familiar storylines, directions and character beats, but repackaged and delivered in the exact same way DC was delivering us their new stories and ideas these past years....and its basically going to have the same results, because its the same problem. They didn’t actually fix anything by switching gears, they just shuffled around the actual issue.

And DC’s just gonna be like well now wtf are we doing wrong, we were so sure this would work, everyone LOVES nostalgia right? Did we pick the wrong stories and character beats to bring back?

When really its like......it honestly doesn’t matter WHICH stories and beats they rehash, because its not about them picking the ‘right ones,’ the real keepers, the stories that everyone really WAS eager to see brought back or made new again.....

Its about like, the only reason any of those stories or beats or dynamics stood the test of time and are still familiar and well-known....is because the stories AROUND those moments and ideas gave us reason to emotionally invest in them and retain them as crucial to our view of the characters and things that would resonate and stay with us for a long time.

It was never that any of those ideas or stories were just so innately brilliant that they couldn’t help BUT linger in the overall reader consciousness...it was the fact that we CARED about what happened in those moments and stories.

*Shrugs* But I mean hey, what do I know? I’m just a dude on the internet lolol.

55 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 3 years

Text

MCU What if Ep 1-2-3: My two cents

So, I’ve been watching the “What if” series. I won’t beat it around the bush, I’m enjoying it but at the same time I get the feeling this series is aimed at younger audience, younger audience which isn’t deeply familiar with the movies and needs to be feed a simpler storyline.

In fact from the way they present it in each episode 1 single change should be the one which gives life to a parallel universe in a sort of domino effect… only, from what I could see in those 3 episodes, there are actually multiple unconnected changes, 1 presented more markedly as if it were the one starting everything and the others… just there for unknown reasons but they aren’t remarked and might easily be missed by who doesn’t remember well the movies.

Characterizations are also simplified, with heroes more black and white than grey, and a general toning down of the drama. This isn’t necessarily tied to the short time, 30 minutes in the hand of a good storyteller are plenty of time to construct a complicate, adult, emotionally engaging story… but a complicate story requires an audience willing to put its mind to understand it, or capable to handle a more morally nuanced plot or that wouldn’t be too distressed by a more emotionally engaging one.

This kind of audience is clearly not what those stories are aiming at.

This isn’t meant to say they’re bad, they’re perfect for young audience, passing on a good message, being overall funny and giving them the chance to enjoy the heroes they love in a different setting.

Dialogues are nice, their voice actors so far delivered good performance, the art isn’t bad and the stories can feel still intriguing enough.

However, if you think too hard at them, especially in comparison to the original movie, the story tends to crumble or feel morally poor or mess up the characterization or some other thing.

Overall I think the “What if” so far are more enjoyable if you don’t really remember well the movies and, anyway, judge them as stand-alone more than “What if” based on how a single divergence from the plot could create a new timeline.

Some examples?

Pick “What If... Captain Carter Were the First Avenger?”

The divergence supposedly happens when Peggy decides to stay in the room.

Erskine: Agent Carter, wouldn't you be more comfortable in the booth? Peggy: No, I'd prefer to stay. Watcher: There. That's the moment that created a new universe. When asked to leave the room, Margaret "Peggy" Carter chose to stay. But soon it would be her venturing into the unknown and creating a new world.

Only, in truth, it’s not just Peggy who was meant to go to the booth and didn’t.

EVERYONE was meant to go to the booth… only they all stay and Kruger, the spy from Hydra, who was seated in the booth BEHIND Peggy in “Captain America”, in the “What if” episode attacks the lab during Erskine’s explanation and not, as he did in “Captain America”, after the experiment took place, using as a distraction a bomb he left in the booth, and not on the floor of near to where the experiment was taking place so that it can kill Erskine.

And, to be really accurate, Erskine, in “Captain America”, asked Peggy to move to the booth when Steve was already lying down for the experiment, while here we see him asking her so while the two are standing next to each other and he hadn’t started undressing yet.

And there’s a reason why in the movie things were done like that.

Of course in the movie everyone was in the booth, it was safer should something go wrong with the experiment.

Of course Kruger waited for the experiment to be carried on, if it didn’t work there was no point in stealing a vial of a serum that didn’t work.

Of course Kruger left the bomb in the booth and made it explode when he was outside of it, so that he was sure it would create distraction but not harm him.

Overall, it’s not just Peggy that acts differently, it’s Erskine, who asked her to move in advance, it’s all the people there, who didn’t move to the booth, it’s ESPECIALLY, Kruger, who originally aimed to see if the serum worked and, in this case, steal it and kill Erskine so he couldn’t produce more and instead he now doesn’t check if the serum works and kills, for unknown reasons Chester Phillips, who didn’t even have a weapon in his hand and so didn’t pose a threat.

Even the placing of the bomb is poor because, since there was plenty of mechanisms in the lab, it could have triggered a series of explosions that were to destroy the whole place, himself and all the serum included.

But how many young viewers noticed all this or worry for the risk of everything exploding or realize that causing an explosion outside of the room in which the serum was worked as a diversion so as to take people away from that place, while if the bomb were to explode there, everyone would converge in that place, with hydrants possibly as no one worries about fire spreading but they should… even if there’s magically not as much as there should be.

And tragic scenes get tamed down, we don’t see Erskine die, we might not even realize he died in the explosion, young viewers might not remember or not like Chester Phillips so when he’s shoot he doesn’t leave an impression and Kruger’s shape gets shoot down by Peggy so we don’t have him committing suicide.

It’s not a complain, it’s a logic choice to make the series more palatable to a younger target by toning down the violence and the drama in it.

And so we reach the big event of the episode.

John Flynn would want Stark to get the serum injected in himself (forgetting there were men of the MP around him who shouldn’t be all dead) but starts to complain when Peggy volunteers to take the serum herself. Peggy does anyway and again things are tamed down, as Steve ended up screaming so loud in “Captain America” Peggy feared they were killing him and they considered stopping the experiment but Peggy doesn’t scream at all.

Sure, in had been scientifically proved women are built to handle pain better, but very likely Peggy’s lack of scream isn’t because she’s tougher, it’s again to not upset young audience.

So, while Steve lies on the ground and no one comes to help him, Peggy comes out of the experiment enhanced. But here we’ve the real core of the episode, John Flynn decides the experiment is an absolute failure. Why?

Flynn: Sixty million dollars and all the hope in the world down the drain. I was promised an army. I was promised peace and salvation. Instead, I get a girl.

Basically the real core of the episode, the real theme is that Captain Carter will have to fight discrimination based on sexism.

Peggy: You have a Super Soldier. Flynn: Women aren't soldiers, and they sure as hell don't fight on the front lines. They might break a nail.

Undoubtedly this is an important matter, it’s a good topic to make an episode about, to give young girls an heroine, to show to them and to the boys what an absolute moron Flynn was in discriminating Peggy, also presenting boys being supportive of Peggy and trusting her. Howard Stark, Steve Rogers, and then Bucky and everyone else, all the men who see Peggy fighting are ultimately supportive and admiring of her. This is important. But Flynn’s sexism is better remarked if we don’t remember what happened in “Captain America”.

Steve Rogers: Sir, if you’re going after Schmidt, I want in. Col. Chester Phillips: You’re an experiment. You’re going to Alamogordo. Steve Rogers: The serum worked. Col. Chester Phillips: I asked for an army and all I got was you. You are not enough. Senator Brandt: [to Steve] With all due respect to the Colonel, I think we may be missing the point. I’ve seen you in action, Steve. More importantly, the country’s seen it. [to his aide] Paper.[the aide shows them the news paper (‘The New York Examiner’ Vol. XCVII No. 33.634, Wednesday, June 23, 1943), headlines: "Nazis in New York - mystery man saves child"] The enlistment lines have been around the block since your picture hit the newsstands. You don’t take a soldier, a symbol like that, and hide him in a lab. Son, do you want to serve your country on the most important battlefield of the war? Steve Rogers: Sir, that’s all I want. Senator Brandt: Then, congratulations. You just got promoted.

I mean, Rogers was a male and he too was judged ‘not enough’. Brandt has him tour the nation in a colorful costume as “Captain America” to promote war bonds, while scientists study him and attempt to reverse-engineer the formula.

Chester Phillips was likely killed because otherwise they would have no reason to deal with Peggy the same way he dealt with Steve ‘one is not enough’, only it wouldn’t have been a sexist problem, just math (though it could be argued Phillips never trusted Steve to begin with). This causes the message ‘sexism is dumb’ ends up feeling forced because it’s basically pasted over a previous narrative of ‘not being enough’. If you want, you can read it as always discrimination and discrimination it’s always bad, but it still cheapens the message.

All this not to say that the episode isn’t awesome if seen as a stand-alone… it’s just that when you compare it with “Captain America” it feels weaker.

And then there are the other discrepancies, like the Hydra bringing the Tesseract to Berlin and not to Azzano (a sign somehow Schmidt and Hitler didn’t have a fall out) with Stark using it to power up an “Hydra Stomper” suit that proves if he had had the right power sources and technologies he could have built “Iron Man” too.

They’re not bad points (actually I loved the “Hydra Stomper” suit and how Peggy rode it the way Tekkaman from “Uchu no Kishi Tekkaman” used to ride Pegas in my childhood memories) but again they’re divergences without a clear reason. Schmidt and Hitler shouldn’t get along better solely because Peggy got the serum.

And that’s the first episode.

“What If... T'Challa Became a Star-Lord?” is also clearly aimed to a younger audience but with a goal different from “What If... Captain Carter Were the First Avenger?”

Watcher: What you call destiny is just an equation, a product of variables. Right place, right time, or in some instances, the wrong place at the wrong time. As fate would have it, at that very moment, a Ravager spacecraft was arriving on Earth to abduct the spawn of the Celestial, Ego. But in this universe, Yondu outsourced the assignment to his subordinates. Yondu: You morons grabbed the wrong kid!

For start this episode doesn’t try to rewrite a single movie, but by taking pieces of assorted movies “Thor: The Dark World” (for Tivan) “Guardians of the Galaxy” (for the idea of the setting), “Black Panther” (for T’Challa), “Avengers: Infinity War” (for the Black Order), “Captain America” (Tivan has his shielf), “Thor: Ragnarok” (TIvan has and uses Hela’s headpiece, talking of her as if he knew her and we can see he also has Thor’s hammer), “Thor: The Dark World” (Tivan has Malekith’s dagger) creates a completely different timeline by changing something that happened in 1988 and then jumping straight in… 2014, I presume, where a lot is different but we aren’t meant to see the process due to which things were changed, just to accept how T’Challa, kidnapped as a kid by the Ravagers, managed to make the difference.

In fact the whole theme of this episode is that T’Challa is a hero and a role model that gets success and admiration by TALKING TO PEOPLE AND PERSUADING THEM TO DO THE RIGHT THING. He’s meant not to have a character arc but to create a world that’s the best possible for people.

In fact we’re told just by talking with Thanos he persuaded him to stop his whole plan without using violence.

Korath: How exactly did you stop Thanos, the Mad Titan, from decimating half of the universe? Oh, no. Thanos: I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong. T'Challa here showed me there was more than one way to reallocate the universe's resources. T’Challa: Sometimes the best weapon in your arsenal is just a good argument.

I mean, he doesn’t just turn the Ravagers into Robin Hood’s “merry men”, he talks with Thanos and Thanos decides to change his ways.

This is great, a wonderful message, a message against violence, a message about the power of the words and it makes T’Challa a real hero who, just by talking, saves the universe from Thanos but… but T’Challa from the movies was maybe not so good at persuading people from not doing wrong but he still had something amazing that made him very human and, at the same time a role model.

T’Challa wasn’t perfect, he made mistakes… but then he would admit them and correct them.

In “Captain America: Civil War” he wants to kill Bucky in retaliation for what happened to his father…

Natasha Romanoff: T'Challa. Task force will decide who brings in Barnes. T'Challa: [He clenches his fist.] Don't bother, Miss Romanoff. I'll kill him myself.

…but then he understands killing his father’s murder would be wrong and even stops Zemo from committing suicide.

T'Challa: Vengeance has consumed you. It's consuming them. [He blinks ruefully and retracts the claws in his gloves.] I am done letting it consume me. Justice will come soon enough. Helmut Zemo: [Holding a gun Zemo smiles thinly.] Tell that to the dead. [He tries to shoot himself but T'Challa grabs him just as he fires.] T'Challa: The living are not done with you yet.

And the same goes in “Black Panther”. At first he doesn’t want to ask Killmonger his name because he knows he is his uncle’s son and this would give him the right to compete for the throne as well as expose what his father did…

Killmonger: Oh, I ain't requesting nothing! Ask who I am? Shuri: You are Eric Steves. An American black operative. A mercenary nicknamed Killmonger. That's who you are. Killmonger: (LAUGHING) That's not my name, Princess. Ask me, King? T'Challa: No. Killmonger: Ask me. T'Challa: Take him away.

…but then he’ll acknowledges they had wronged him, will show him Wakanda’s beauty and will change things in Wakanda. T’Challa in the movies isn’t as perfect as T’Challa in the “What if” episode. He can’t solve everything and make the world perfect. He isn’t always right. He gets angry, vengeful, afraid of the truth. But then he rises above this and does the right thing.

“What if” T’Challa is a model of perfection that’s admirable… but that sits simply too high above the original T’Challa who also had to deal with Thanos but didn’t even think he could change his mind just by giving him a talk… and with good reason.

Younger kids might not realize because they might have not fully grasped how Thanos was a genocidal maniac, who massacred millions even prior to the snap, tortured his daughters and even removed body parts from Nebula. They might swallow it was just that easy to talk him into not doing the snap, and Thanos only needed someone to tell him it was wrong… and that in truth he loved Nebula… but for older viewers while beautiful, this is simply unbelievable.

And what about Yondu and the Ravagers? Just because they had T’Challa they became good and righteous. This is how Peter Quill described Yondu in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” which still gives a sympathetic portrayal of Yondu:

Quill: He wasn't my father. Yondu was the guy who abducted me. He'd beat the crap out of me so I'd learn how to fight and he kept me in terror threatening to eat me.

But T’Challa doesn’t seem to have such complains against Yondu.

Now… In Quill’s case Yondu kept Quill so as to protect him from Ego…

Yondu: Once I figured out what happened to the other kids, I wasn't gonna just hand you over.

…yet he kidnap him and tells him his home was destroyed so as to manipulate him into staying… but this is so easily forgotten by T’Challa to the point children might not even realize it was there. Yondu was a good dad for him, he kidnapped him because T’Challa was basically wasted at home.

Yondu: Sometimes you need to hear a lie to see the truth. You're just like me, T'Challa. T’Challa: I am nothing like you. Yondu: You're an explorer, Star-Lord. And for people like you, like us, the past ain't nothing but a prison. You don't belong down there with them. You belong up here with us, with your family.

Although T’Challa doesn’t seem to agree at first… in the end all is forgotten.

Yondu: Look, T'Challa, I just wanted to say... T’Challa: There's no need. I was the one who told you I wanted to see the world. All you did was show me the universe.

and

T’Chaka: (Voice shaking) My son, my son. I knew you would find your way home to us. T’Challa: I'm sorry it took me so long. Let me introduce you to the family I made along the way.

All this is to basically excuse the premise, something horrible like kidnapping a child is passed as not really something terrible so that kids wouldn’t deal with its emotional implications and can even think that it was a pity that, in the normal universe, it was Peter Quill that was kidnapped… without realizing that kidnapping is bad and that in T’Challa’s case Yondu wasn’t even doing it because he wanted to protect him. Actually it’s unexplained why, all of sudden, Yondu felt the need to keep T’Challa and completely forgot about Quill, didn’t even care about making sure Ego wouldn’t find Quill despite, thanks to T’Challa, becoming a better person. It’s another change, one that people knowing the movies is bound to notice but not kids.

So again, for who knows the movie well, the story ends up being weak and this is also because, while T’Challa could persuade Thanos off screen not to commit genocide… all of sudden his persuasive power isn’t even really tested out with Tivan. Tivan is the big evil… yet he’s somehow less fearsome than Thanos because we clearly don’t want to scare the kids.

So again, wonderful for young audience who doesn’t remember well the movies… not so solid for who’s older.

And so we move to “What If... the World Lost Its Mightiest Heroes?” which is absolutely my favourite so far. This one at a first glance seems to be a “What if” of a comic named “The Avengers Prelude: Fury's Big Week”.

The awesome thing of this story is we don’t know what changed the universe, we only discover that someone is killing off the Avengers before they could become the Avengers, starting with Tony Stark.

The mystery is, at a first glance, cool, the idea original, Natasha gets a big role as she investigates and even fights things along with Fury and, again, children will likely not really realize how the “What if” is actually changing the settings even when they’re supposedly not related to the change that caused this parallel reality, the death of Hope van Dyne. I mean, we can start our list of changes with the random funny things that has no reason to happen because Hope’s death shouldn’t have made Coulson and Barton to be so appreciative of Thor’s hair, something they never bring up in the movie…

Coulson: Whoa. I got visual on the intruder. He's a Caucasian male, mid-twenties with... really great hair. Fury: Excuse me? Coulson: It's an accurate description. Sir, he's gorgeous. Fury: I need eyes in the sky. Barton. Barton: Already on it. He's making a move on the hammer. One shot, one kill, sir. Just say the word. Fury: Hold your fire. I wanna see this. Barton: Whoa. Coulson wasn't lying about the hair. That's nice.

…to continue with more plot related matters like how Betty should have known Banner had intruded in her lab dressed up as a delivery boy and was now hiding in a wardrobe… but if we want we can forgive them. Maybe Hope’s death really changed some things in weird ways we couldn’t predict… but the place with the biggest revolution seems to be Asgard… which actually shouldn’t have been affected by by Hope’s death AT ALL and instead the situation is completely different from how it were in “Thor” to the point I could write a 20 pages meta on the changes. But, if we assume this episode is aimed at children, it works because the “Thor” situation was complicate and here instead they show solely some random and confuse elements that children might have picked up from talks about the movies… but that weren’t like that in “Thor”.

And again we have messages that can be good for children, how a father will love his little girl, how Nick Fury will save the day even without the Avengers, how:

Fury: S.H.I.E.L.D. is people, people willing to give their lives for something greater than themselves to save the world from men like you.

…and how in the darkest time new heroes will always come to save Earth as when Loki take over because it seems there are no more Avengers, Fury can still count on Carol Danvers and Steve Rogers.

Coulson: The Avengers fell before they had a chance to rise. May they rest in peace. Fury: They can, but we won't. The Avengers were always meant to be more than a team. They were an idea, the affirmation of humanity's need to believe that in our darkest hour, we will find our heroes. Watcher: I believe that in this universe, as in every other, hope never dies. As long as someone keeps their good eye on the bigger picture.

It’s a good message about hope… but again, it’s something for children. We’re meant to believe Earth could be conquered in one day time without struggle whatsoever… and that only the heroes could save it. Children might not remember it but in “The Avengers” humans tried to nuke New York to stop Loki… the idea they would just sit and say ‘whatever’ to Loki’s domination makes it look as if they actually agree with him to an adult… but, of course, the battle of New York is something we might not want to show to a little child.

And now… something else that’s relevant.

I said the “What ifs” are good stories for children… but we’re talking of young children here because if the child is a little older they can end up passing a completely wrong message.

Remember "What If... Captain Carter Were the First Avenger?" and how it tackled sexism as an absurd behavior to keep? How Captain Carter overcomes it? By using her supersoldier powers to beat the Nazi. She shows as a supersoldier she works.

Does she turns over the concept that ‘Women aren't soldiers, and they sure as hell don't fight on the front lines. They might break a nail’?

At most she proves she can be a soldier. She doesn’t fight using the fact she’s a woman as her strongest point, she fights using her super strength as her strongest point… where Steve Roger’s strongest point wasn’t his enhanced strength but his moral values. Peggy proves as a super soldier she’s equal to Steve… but Steve as a super soldier proved he was better than Red Skull. Peggy’s actions in the story doesn’t cause people to revalue women in general, just her. People either aren’t sexist and accept her regardless of her genre (Howard, Steve) or they’re sexist but accept her because she is strong.

It’s meaningful that when she thinks Steve is dead Flynn goes back to his old mindset…

Flynn: She should never have been in the field in the first place.

… because the truth is he never changed it. Peggy had only yelled at them to stop calling Steve “Hydra Stomper” as his name was “Steve Roger” and Flynn decides she, not Steve who actually died, should have never been in the field.

They don’t show how Peggy got information from Zola, which seems to imply all she did to get them was to beat him up. Chester Phillips in “Captain America” manipulated him into talking with his intelligence only.

Do you know which were Peggy’s abilities in the universe in which she isn’t a super soldier? She’s a Master Martial Artist, an Expert Marksman, a Master Spy, an Expert Tactician, a Thief and can speak and read English, Russian and German fluently as well as use a convincing American accent.

This is hardly noticeable though in her own story.

Howard: Should we not have a plan? Peggy: Who needs a plan? I have a shield. Howard: A shield is not a plan. Oh, Carter...

She was a tactician!

Now… she has a shield. But whatever girl wants to be like her won’t have a shield, nor a super serum. To be a real role model for girls who aren’t anymore children Peggy needed to have qualities they too could have that would empower her. The only good moment is when she understands what Howard plans to do:

Howard: If I can get to the controls, I can transpose the ingress and do science stuff. Peggy: You mean transpose the polarity and reverse the suction? Howard: Being the genius is my thing.

But again, the irony here is that this is no genius plan, middle school students had probably seen him being done in movies and cartoons already. It might seem genius idea to kids, but when you’re older it hardly sounds like one… and when Howard complains all in the machine is written in German they don’t have Peggy show her knowledge of it, and translate the words as she fight, she just fight and he’s supposed to figure things out.

“Captain America” is a role model for what he has inside. I’m sure Peggy Carter has plenty of things inside her as well… but “What if” makes it more about the super strength she has gained.

Where Steve gains Phillips’ respect, Flynn’s respect is more a façade due to her successes thanks to her super strength, and that respect gets pulled back as soon as she gets upset by his behavior. Sure, Flynn is a worse person than Phillips in this black and white world but this too is part of the narrative. If Peggy can’t permanently win over sexism in one person, it’s not real victory at all. If what’s remarkable about her is how she fights (due to the serum) then who didn’t have it, will never have a hope. Peggy Carter was more of a female model when she wasn’t supersoldier, she felt more of a role model in “Captain America”, when she got to do this with her own strength:

Peggy Carter: Put your right foot forward. Gilmore Hodge: Mmm… We gonna wrassle? Cause I got a few moves I know you’ll like. [suddenly Peggy punches him hard in the face. Col.Phillips drives up] Col. Chester Phillips: Agent Carter. Peggy Carter: Colonel Phillips. Col. Chester Phillips: I see you’re breaking in the candidates. That’s good!

…than when she punched Nazis thanks to being a super soldier. Peggy has never been a fragile Fräulein, but this episode seems to remark she’s not one merely because she has taken the serum.

As a result… she sets an impossible role model for girls. If the key to be (partially) respected and accepted by males is to get the super soldier serum and/or the shiled… well, that serum doesn’t exist, not does the shield.

And a similar problem exists in “What If... T'Challa Became a Star-Lord?”

Teaching a small child he can solve problems by talking and not by hitting is important… but passing the message that you can stop bullies or worse just by talking to them is again setting an impossible role model. People like Thanos can’t be stopped with just words. People like Yondu and the Ravagers wouldn’t become Robin Hood and his merry men merely because they have with themselves a young boy who tells them the right things… and what Yondu does to T’Challa is worse than what he did to Quill and having been kidnapped as a child shouldn’t be waved off so easily. We’re not talking of Yondu finding an orphaned T’Challa and raising him, if he had picked up N’Jadaka after he lost his father it would have been different, but here, he just ripped a child from a loving family, a family he loved back. And it’s almost presented as a good thing because this causes the universe to be saved by Thanos, Yondu’s lie giving T’Challa the motivation to try to to make the universe a better place.

Nebula: You lost your home, and now you save everyone else's.

And problems continue with “What If... the World Lost Its Mightiest Heroes?” because there, the solution, the hope, is presented solely by the superheroes. No one opposes to Loki, the whole Earth is expected to be saved by Captain America and Carol Danvers. The one who refuses to kneel to Loki is Fury, who’s considered special. We don’t have in this story a lone old man who’s standing stubbornly despite the threat.

LOKI: Kneel before me. [The crowd ignores him. Three more Loki's appear, surrounding and blocking the crowd from escaping.] I said KNEEL! [While the crowd quietly kneels, Loki embraces out his arms with a wide smile] Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel. ELDER GERMAN MAN: [As the words resonate to the kneeling crowd, an elder German man refuses to kneel and stands, heroic.] Not to men like you. LOKI: There are no men like me. ELDER GERMAN MAN: There are always men like you. LOKI: Look to your elder, people. Let him be an example. [As Loki is about to execute the man with his scepter as the light glows blue. Right as the energy beam shoots out, Captain America arrives, diving in just in time to block the blast with his shield, and knocking down Loki]

So basically in this series heroes set impossible standards… and are the only ones who can save the day. It can be fun for an adult, as he doesn’t need role models… but for a boy who’s no more a small child but not yet old enough to do without viewing heroes are role models, the heroes presents a standard that is something unattainable. And this is bad because he too might enjoy watching the show, but the show gives him no hope… where ironically, Marvel movies were about giving positive role models in which you could identify.

Overall I stay my case, the “What if” series is definitely enjoyable… but the bar for the target audience is set to a very young age, they don’t really follow the idea that one small change can realistically change everything because they actually intrude plenty of small changes for their setting to work, and might end up not giving the right message if you’re in between a age between a small child and an adult. Of course future “What if” episodes might change, and I will probably still love them because I adore what if… but I would love them even more if they had aimed to a target audience a little older… making their heroes, more realistic role models which can be emulated and if they had respected their own premise, that ONE SINGLE CHANGE can create a completely different new reality.

What changed in the Peggy episode wasn’t just Peggy not sitting on the booth. What changed in the T’Challa episode wasn’t just Yondu sending his subordinates to pick up a kid. What changed in the mightiest heroes episode wasn’t just Hope dying.

The fact you need more changes in order to make the difference makes the initial point that one change can make the difference void. You destroy your own premise… and this is not really a great idea.

But whatever, I guess if the idea is that the audience is really young, they didn’t expect the audience to pick this up but just to swallow their idea that ‘a moment created a new universe’.

MEDIA MENTIONED:

Movies: “Iron Man 2” (2010), “The Incredible Hulk" (2008), “Thor” (2011), “Captain America: The First Avenger” (2011), “The Avengers” (2012), “Thor: The Dark World” (2013), “Captain America: The Civil War” (2016), “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” (2017), “Thor – Ragnark” (2017), “Black Panther” (2018), "Avengers: Infinity War” (2018), “Captain Marvel” (2019)

Comics: “The Avengers Prelude Fury's Big Week” (2012)

#mcu what if #mcu iron man 2 #mcu the incredible hulk #mcu thor #mcu captain america the first avenger #mcu the avengers #mcu thor the dark world #mcu guardians of the galaxy vol. 2 #mcu thor ragnarok #mcu black panther #mcu avengers infinity war #mcu captain marvel #9 worlds study

18 notes · View notes

florianavlaicu · 4 years

Text

Door to Freedom, self reflection on pattern recognition

Pattern recognition sets us free- this is the gem revelation for today’s Life theme and transmission.

Free from what? One might be able to go and do anything he or she desires… but still not feeling free.

Is freedom a feeling?

I love watching the movie Eat Pray Love.

I have been watching it every now and then for the past years.

First time I watched it was in summer of 2018, in Transylvania, Sibiu. I was a volunteer for a permaculture garden. Beautiful time and place.

The movie and the place lifted me much and gave me the insight and clarity that it was time for me to prepare to go to India. After almost 4 months and my first vipassana, I took a one way ticket to the mystical land to find what I did not even know I was looking for.

Every time I watch the movie I get a new perspective.

You know that scene in Bali where she is with this naked Dj that is inviting her into a casual love affair and she is saying to him something like: I have dated you 15 years ago and I have dated you 6 months ago.

This is her recognising of a pattern choice in relationships that is not serving anymore the integrity of her heart. She has made the unconscious conscious by taking these inner and outer trips to return to her core. I think that the balance they are storytelling in the movie is the actual core stability that is explored in the Gene Keys.

Even if we all take this template journey, of Eat Pray Love, go Italy, India and Bali… it will give us totally different perceptions and revelations, because our deep subtle layers of energetics will highly influence everything, all the time and space.

I skipped the italian indulgement and went straight into the unknown of India.

It was overwhelming, exciting, revelatory, fluid, sacred… all the humanities frequencies low and high were there.

I stayed for 133 days and it gave exactly what I needed.Purpose.

I met with a frequency there that I later found out through the Gene Key why I was so fascinated by it.

This frequency was embodied by Ananda Mayi Ma, "the most perfect flower the Indian soil has produced".

I felt this sacred feminine energy twice in Goa, once in my room and once in the open sitting space of the yoga school I was working for.

It felt so familiar to me with heart feeling of surrendering to her divine will.

But both times, I let myself be distracted by something else, outside my self.

I began to study, think and feel of her… then shortly after, the Gene Keys appeared in my life and showed me that in my Hologenetic Profile I have the 58th, unlocking a deeper understanding within me related to Bliss, Joy, Service, Divine Will and Love.

If you would like to meet this Divine feminine that was and is Ananda Mayi Ma, Richard Rudd, the wisdom channel of the Gene Keys is offering us this profound poetic exploration here:

https://youtu.be/LSuihr6yUKI

So you see, even if it might have seemed to be a shallow thing to do…. to follow a movie script… I actually followed my intuition, my joy.

The same I feel about Bali… there is something there for me to meet within. And I know the currents of love will take me there eventually.

I am activating myself so much with the Gene Key, I am reading and contemplating; opening myself into awakening by the favor of Grace.

I was seeking for some higher teachings encompassing perspectives from a multidimensional level that would lead me to a deeper understanding of life, of myself.

I am actually seeking to return home. I am looking to return to my integrity and empty myself, as so much I have taken in as if it would belong to me.

Today, the 55th got me. I am free 😂

Or at least I am working on it.

I am shocked by how blind I was and still am. The many beliefs that I have that I am not aware of are contouring my reality. And then I complain and I blame.

This runs deep in my family. This runs deep in our collective.

And it feels very connected to being judgemental, thus keeping myself far aways from experiencing connection with the integrity and perfection of all of life.

Today I found out that what I was intuitively stretching so much was my fascia, feeling very constrained… showing how much I have separated myself from the whole, because of my borrowed beliefs.

I feel like a carousel of revelations, that if I am engaged in one relationship it is more than enough to illuminate my shadow patterns. I understand the need for slowing down. Where I was running, there was nothing really to see, to be able to take responsibility to bring my unconscious into the light of consciousness. I was given the perfect environment to see my shadow and light work.

And I am honest to myself now that I was not in enough energetic flow and awareness to do work for others. Although this work still is, just by personal integration and sending out a fresh energy wave out there, in there.

I saw patterns of how I am addicted to stress and hijack my own nervous system, choosing to consume things that would amplify my stress. Slowly, slowly, my choices changed and still changing. It greatly to pause and breathe deeply, especially when I am not in the mood, cause I am drifting in a mental noise.

I was wondering and asking directly to my Inner Divine Self to explain to me what actually sovereignty means. What does it mean to take responsibility for myself? How do I become self sustainable? How do I end this co- dependency loop? To whom did I give my power away? What is clouding my heart sight?

What is empowerment?

Is it enough to just See the pattern and when next time comes, choose to walk away? Be present and patient, Floriana.

I have been taking in so much of the spiritual knowledge as if all is relevant and true for me. Emptying something and filling it with something else. Should empty and just let God fill in?

Not easy to filter and keep in my life what is really nurturing me into self awakening and ascension.

I am recognising my victimhood shadow.

I am seeing the play of life and how I have projected so much on others, blaming them for my lack, for my misfortune. I am tired and rested in the same time. I have cleaned some more of the inside basement and attic.

More green blue golden inner space, that’s my wish. Make it indigo, violet, red, orange and yellow also.

All is so subtle, that slowing down is a prerequisite to self- artistry.

My Lemurian Roots surfaced some more these past few days. Like an old and new love arising within my cells. The intents are becoming purer and purer. The Spirit is awakened within me. I tell, this is the softest of the softest love I have ever felt.

In my daily morning water ritual, I am beginning to let go of any kind expectations, just being the Loving of all that is.

I wish I could be like this all day, all ever and ever.

One day, I was woken up with: “ Speak for the Water “

I have no idea where my next home will be, but I am sure it is near her body, The Healing Sacred Feminine Water. I have some ceremonies to perform.

I am embracing my Sensitivity and it feels it has a lot to do with the Receptivity of my mind, my body, my heart.

I understand that I am an expression of a certain frequency of Ecstasy. I was made of the ecstasy of the primordial water giving birth to life. But what does the Sun want from me… Everything is showing me that I was born to be THIS LOVE.

I am allowing myself to be seen without expectations.

I am practicing giving love without expectations.

I see that I am playing hide and seek with myself. I pretend to do something else when someone comes and might discover my joy, judge me for it, punish me for it. I am afraid to be myself, I hide myself and then I seek for myself… an endless loop of self- inflicted prison.

Yes, I was a child and my parents laughed and punished me for my natural expression and exploration.

Then I would learn to avoid being seen, heard, but longed to be seen, heard.

I missed and craved for their warm touch, acceptance and tenderness.

So I entered deeply into the shadows of sexual addiction.

I blamed my DNA legacy. I am a victim and I am not a victim. By reinforcing my blaming pattern, I continued to constrict the actual beauty of my DNA.

Eventually life showed me that Hey, it is ok, feel into your pain, embrace yourself, you are on your way. This is the way. Guilt is the Sun Light in disguise. Awakening is not easy, nor hard.

I completely understand people who are living in the woods and I completely understand people who are living in the cities.

If my inception as a human seed and my 9 months experience inside the motherly belly is contained in the wisdom and library of my cells, then can I make now a transfer of care, safety and beauty perception of the outside world? Incept and carry myself again? Rebirth myself as completely new human being, born with activated 3rd Eye,

Vitality, Intuition, Peace and more, knowing that all is well and life is interconnected, self- sustained, beautiful and its people are amazing pearls that I can trust and love without fear and limits?

Can I visit that belly timeline and make some energetic operations? Hmm.

In a way, self love is just this.

I will be born like this… but in the future.

This life is about a different kind of journey and it is ok, perfect just as it is.

I have been under so much stress and unease, misfitting the requirements of the world.

Can I let go of the attachment to my own storyline of being a victim of life?

Yes. No. Not yet. Yes.

Can I sing without hiding and judging myself?

Yes. No. Not yet. Yes.

Some friends said that I am changing my mind too much. Yes, I am. I must. I must return my mind to its original receptivity.

I must return to my original beingness. I must return to play. I must not make it a must. I must forget myself into mindfulness.

I find it very strange that I need to do things to survive.

I see there is a game of survival, of competition.

I am just not energising this game anymore. I have discovered a new way of living.

So, we all energise some kind of game after all?

Do we really choose, now, in this lifetime, in this Earth body or it had been decided when we sat and raised pure consciousness hands at the Divine Table of Service?

I am such a copycat sometimes.

I am so eager to guide people to live their lives in a better way, but is this really ok? Even guidance of any kind feels more like entertainment, always tricky.

I find that being the silent loving witness of someone speaking is the most genuine guidance I can offer. Me; maybe you feel different and that is cool, fine by me.

I remember the community calls from Gene Key. I was in their first Deep Dive into Genius, 4 months virtual retreat. And I wish I had joined more of these calls, but I was too distracted. I was only in the last two… profoundly beautiful to just hear, to just be with other people, to just speak, to just have others be with me.

Was the teacher indirectly showing us that there is so much guidance, so much orientation in the silence of listening just?

I did this a few nights ago, without recalling these community calls.

My friend shared some of his life experiences and within me I decided I will not judge, interfere, analyse, project or get entangled.

After his sharing, he said that he is surprised that after so much talk he does not have a headache, as he normally would. I took it as a successful listening, in which I spoke energetically with acceptance and compassion.

Yes, indeed, freedom is such a deep ancient longing. But what is freedom actually? How do we awaken to this great changing frequency?

What are the patterns that we have to become aware of so to explore this new domain?

Because slavery still is on our beloved planet, just in slight different style. I invite you to imbibe yourself in the transmission of The 55th Gene Key to find your own sense of freedom. If you are ready and resonant.

We are in a majestic, divine game.

It is not enough to know the rules of this game to create a desired outcome. Maybe it is a good idea to even surrender the outcomes.

Still, it remains a good idea to be a human being with an awakened, original and upgraded DNA. And for this

miraculous occurrence, changing one’s Aura Attitude is key to this process of returning to our sacred tune.

With openness& friendliness,

Floriana

4 notes · View notes

gastrobrack · 4 years

Text

Brave New World 2020 review from probably the biggest fan of the book you’ll meet in your life

(Mostly Spoiler Free) Okay so. I’ve been waiting for this show for a really long time because I absolutely love the book and it means a lot to me. My standards were admittedly pretty low because it can’t get worse than the 1998 movie, so I didn’t really mind when I saw the trailers and stuff where other people were complaining.

TL;DR I thought the show was actually pretty enjoyable, but you have to read the book first in my opinion, or else it seems like it would be hard to follow at times. Where the show really screwed up royally was Mond’s storyline, which felt completely out of place and confusing, and when it ended up dominating the end of the final episode it just kinda ruined the story for me. The show is definitely more focused on the setting and characters than the societal predictions and themes of the novel, and for me that’s okay because we have the book to tell it better anyways. I’d say watch it if you liked the book or are curious about it, but I don’t think it would really be enjoyable for the average viewer.

Side note: I watched this in the wee hours of the morning and some of the praise might just be the special interest talking, I’m just happy to be here and get more content

That being said, I think this show is like the Riverdale of Brave New World. However, in its defense it’s at least got the energy of the parts of Riverdale like the “epic highs and lows of high school football” and the “serial killer gene”, so it’s at least pretty funny. Personally, I knew that they would have to change a lot both to adjust for the longer runtime (around 9 hours) and to make the book enjoyable to a TV audience, because of course in the book you can have 2 chapters of exposition at the beginning and that’s not as enjoyable for a TV experience. So, let’s get into the pros and cons of the show!

PROS

-I really liked Bernard! In the book he means a lot to me personally (hell, I’m writing this while listening to my Bernard playlist) so I was of course kinda worried they might screw him up again like they did in the ‘98 movie, but I was pleasantly surprised! They did change him and divide his original personality between John and Lenina, but somehow they managed to create a new Bernard that both kept me on my toes and at the same time felt authentic and likeable!

-Honestly, almost all the characters were done very well. They were all expanded upon in an interesting way while also staying generally pretty accurate to their book counterparts. I generally felt the same about them as I did with the novel, so I think that means they did a job well done. I think that John and Lenina were very different, but they still ultimately had the same general motivations. A lot of the cast’s interactions felt very natural, and I liked that they expanded upon Lenina and Fanny’s (or Frannie as she’s called here) friendship.

-The show looked great, I know a lot of people really didn’t like the look of it because it wasn’t what they thought it would be when they read it, but for me that’s basically exactly what I imagined it would be. The costume designer clearly had fun making a bunch of outlandish outfits for everyone to wear and it’s all very pleasant to look at.

-I think they did a good job fixing some of the problematic elements of the book without actually damaging the integrity of the things they were changing. For example, in the book, the savage reservation is quite literally just a native reservation, written in a way that clearly suggests Huxley didn’t really put a lot of thought into his depiction of real people. In the show, it’s a theme park where British people get to immerse themselves in the cultures of the old world, with the savages themselves being poor theme park workers reenacting events to shock and mystify the Brits. Now, admittedly, I think this makes a lot more sense as it ties into the consumerism that runs deep within their society. I know some people are mad about this because they think it’s cancel culture or something but honestly it’s not a big deal to me.

-This one might not be as important to some people, but I liked that the cast was pretty diverse, and the fact that John is the only straight one honestly made sense to me considering it would be in the World State’s best interest to encourage bisexuality amongst its citizens. Some of the characters (Helmholtz and Mond) are being played by women, and some people are kinda upset about that but I don’t really think it changed too much, although to me it is funny to think the showrunner thought he was doing something by “casting women of color to play white male characters” considering everyone I know who read the book didn’t picture either of them as white.

-Honestly, I think the show did humor very well. It was very funny in a sort of dry way, and never felt forced or out of place. It all seemed like it naturally stemmed from the characters’ awkwardness and culture shock (on both sides) and it made me really happy as someone who loves all these characters to see them make me laugh.

CONS

-Now, I’m not usually one to complain about this too much, seeing as I love the book in a non thematic and academic context, but the message kinda got lost in all of it. I think the issues they brought up certainly were there, and could lend themselves very well to being good. The writers just focused on the entirely wrong things in the last episode, and that misguided focus completely changes the lens in which the rest of the show is retroactively viewed for me.

-Mustapha Mond was just, where do I even begin. In the book, Mond doesn’t show up much except to provide exposition, and his position as an authoritative figure ultimately moves the plot towards the end of the novel. In the show, Mond gets this weird AI plotline that makes no sense, as in this version they have a sort of internet contact lens type system that allows them to connect to everyone else, and it is powered by said AI. The system itself doesn’t bother me as much as how poorly handled this plotline was. Not only was it completely random and was the only plotline in the show not to have some sort of roots in the events of the book, but it was extremely confusing to me. This leads into my next point, which is:

-The ending. Oh my God the ending. Now, look. I’m not gonna say much because I want this to be as spoiler free as possible, but the ending just honestly was a dumpster fire. The writers chose to focus the whole ending on the aforementioned AI plotline, despite the book providing a much more solid framework for an ending that they already seemed to be setting up. This shift in focus comes very late into the final episode, and it honestly doesn’t make any sense why the writers would really want to go this route. It feels like they were just adding things that didn’t fit into the story, and I can’t really discern why except for the possibility of setting up an unnecessary second season. I love the book, it’s my special interest, but I think I speak for everyone when I say we do not need a second season especially if its gonna be full of plotlines that make no sense and serve no purpose. This heavily changed ending not only undermines the whole thematic purpose of the novel but honestly kind of goes actively against everything the book was trying to say in the first place.

-They really don’t set up any of the world building, and although I caught on very quickly due to my familiarity with the book, it seems like it might get confusing for unfamiliar watchers. In the book, they explain their process for birthing and then conditioning children into their social body very in depth before they get into the actual plot and characters, and I think this show could have used some of that. Here, they talk a lot about conditioning but don’t actually explain what the conditioning is or why they have the caste system in the first place.

-This is a minor disappointment more than anything and I didn’t actually notice till about the second episode, but there’s no more Ford talk, which is kinda disappointing cause it was pretty fun in the book.

-Obviously it goes without saying that there’s sex in this, I mean it IS Brave New World. However, in this one, it just feels excessive and kinda just like it’s there for shock value more than anything.

-This isn’t really a con so much as it is just a disclaimer, I know a lot of people are excited for Demi Moore as Linda and Joseph Morgan as the new character CJack60, but don’t get your hopes up too much, they don’t get to do much. If you read the book, you’d know that about Linda but I’ve seen reviewers get upset that she wasn’t in it more when she was one of the big names attached to the project. (FWIW she did a great job and I loved Linda in this whereas I didn’t in the book) As for CJack, he spends a lot of time just standing there and looking at things and doesn’t get to do much until the last 2 episodes or so.

CONCLUSION

As someone who really loves the book’s setting and characters sometimes even more than the actual messages and predictions, I’ve always wanted an adaptation that focuses more on those elements, especially since that would make for an easier transition to the screen. Seeing this was a very nice breath of fresh air, because it embraces the inherently satirical and dare I say funny aspect of the story, as well as the characters’ individual quirks and distinct personalities. Obviously it’s not as hard hitting and important as the book, but I think those messages were better left in book form anyway. For someone like me, who loves the book with all my heart, this show honestly gave me most everything I wanted and it felt the most true to the spirit of the book’s world and characters out of any of the adaptations. I would say check out the show if you’re interested in it or enjoyed the book, but you should definitely be familiar with the book before you watch this.

#brave new world #sorry this is so long #i pulled an all nighter to watch the show as soon as possible and im running on 2hrs of sleep #anyway stan bernard!

19 notes · View notes

fictionadventurer · 5 years

Text

Here, have a bunch of scattered thoughts, observations, and opinions about Greta Gerwig’s Little Women:

(Spoilers below, which wouldn’t usually be a big deal for something based on a classic novel, but I will be discussing the ending).

General Thoughts

The colors in this movie are lovely. The cinematography is lovely. This is a movie with so many wonderful things to look at. (Though the lighting was too dark in some scenes).

I loved how tactile this movie was. The things on-screen just feel so real and textured. I don’t know, like, there’s a fence Jo climbs over, and we see the splinters in the fence and it just feels weighty and textured. It made me appreciate the things in this movie’s world and in ours.

The music was great. I want the soundtrack.

I loved, loved, loved all the dancing scenes. Not sedate, not romantic, just so much vibrant joy and life. Jo’s dance in the pub was one of the highlights of her story. Almost as good were her and Laurie’s ridiculous dances at their first meeting–you see how well they get along as friends. The focus on dancing is definitely one of my favorite parts of the movie (and another reason I want the soundtrack).

A lot of the acting had weird rhythms to it. Especially in group scenes where there was a lot of talking, it felt like people were just rapid-fire reciting lines from the book, rather than saying real things that real people would say.

The beginning confused me. I couldn’t figure out whether the woman was supposed to be Jo March or Louisa May Alcott (part of the problem is that I wasn’t expecting a blonde Jo). I kind of wish Gerwig had just made a Louisa May Alcott biopic if she wanted to explore Little Women’s publication process, because it just makes this story more confusing.

The flashbacks were less confusing than I was expecting. There were a few times where it took a few seconds to figure out which part of the timeline we were in, but for the most part, I could follow it because I was familiar with the book. I’m not sure I could have followed it if I hadn’t been familiar with the book.

Some of the flashbacks layered together really well. Other times, it just felt like we were jumping randomly through time. At some points, it didn’t feel like a story. It was just stuff happening, and even if it looked nice, I couldn’t connect to it emotionally.

I kind of like the way they layered Beth’s original bout of illness with her death, but then the story moves on to other storylines and other flashbacks and the death doesn’t really have an impact. Her death is just another thing that happens, rather than an emotional turning point.

The ending is very frustrating. So many of my thoughts about the movie in general are shaped by that ending, so it’s going to get it’s own section (and probably at least two other posts about it).

Character-Focused Thoughts

Laura Dern was a good Marmee. A bit livelier than might be expected, while still being warm and motherly. I can believe this Marmee would struggle with her temper.

(For some reason, I just really like Laura Dern. I don’t know why. Thus, I can’t give a real assessment of her Marmee because I just like that she was in the role).

That conversation between Marmee and Jo about her temper made no sense. Marmee starts out saying that she’s learned to control her temper, and when Jo says she wants to be like that, Marmee responds, “I hope you’ll do better. There are some natures too noble to curb, too lofty to bend.” What? It sounds like she’s saying that Jo doesn’t need to change, which is the exact opposite point this scene should be making. Unless she’s trying to say that she wants Jo to do more than curb her temper, but become someone so strong in her morals that she can stand strong against the temptations in life. But that’s not clear from the scene, and it’s easy to read it as a vague “empowerment” message. It’s another point where conflating Jo with Louisa May Alcott (by giving Marmee a line from one of Alcott’s mother’s letters) made the story more confusing.

To my surprise, I really liked Emma Watson as Meg. Or at least, I liked Meg and was able to forget that she was played by Emma Watson. She was a bit distant, a bit bland, but there was also something compelling about her sedate sweetness. (I loved her purple dress).

Her little subplot with John and the silk was my favorite part of the plot. Just when I was thinking, “This is just like other Little Women adaptations where I can’t connect to the characters”, we get that stunning scene of them discussing the price of the silk and I get teary-eyed over John’s regret that he’s too poor to give his wife what she wants. His compassion warring with his frustration, his love warring with practicality. Exquisite. And the resolution was perfect, with both of them willing to sacrifice for the other’s happiness.

As you can probably guess, I loved James Norton as John Brooke and wish he’d had more to do in the story.

While I kind of wish that we’d seen more of John’s love story with Meg, I also kind of like that we kept the focus on their married life. This movie’s so obsessed with marriage, but this is the only part of the movie where we get to explore what marriage actually looks like, rather than just listening to characters talk about their opinions of it.

Jo was lively and vibrant and I loved how they kept her relationship with Laurie so thoroughly brotherly (until the ending, which I’ll get to later). And I loved the “I’m so lonely” line, but the movie didn’t really do anything with it. There was so much potential for character development, but then she just didn’t develop. It’s the exact opposite of everything that I talked about in my essay about the ‘18 Little Women. The earlier adaptation got a lot wrong, but Jo’s arc was strong and compelling. This movie just assumed that Jo’s already great and didn’t give her an arc at all.

Beth was sweet and adorable and I wish we’d gotten more of her. The scene where she thanks Mr. Laurence for the piano was one of my favorite character moments of the movie. Her barely audible, stammering ‘thank you’ is such Shy Kid Culture.

Florence Pugh played older Amy very well, and highlighting her practicality was an interesting choice. But why didn’t they hire a kid to play younger Amy? She was ridiculous in the role of a twelve-year-old girl. I spent half the movie trying to figure out what young Amy’s voice reminded me of, until I finally realized: It sounds exactly like Mallory from Studio C whenever she plays a little kid in a sketch. I doubt that sketch comedy was what these people were going for in their Oscar-nominated movie.

Amy and Laurie’s romance had very interesting moments to it, and I love how they pushed each other to change. I liked the idea of it (and loved the scenery it took place in). But as two characters who fall in love, I’m not sure that what we saw on-screen was enough to make me really believe in it.

Mr. March was almost a non-character. I really wish that he’d been more present, and I wish they’d highlighted his letter and his role in his daughters’ character development more. (But this movie wasn’t really interested in the virtue-development part of the plot). He was bashed a lot by Aunt March and we didn’t get a chance to see if she was right about him or not.

Aunt March is a delightful old-lady character. I loved a lot about her. I didn’t love how she was a mouthpiece for their most ham-handed ideas about marriage.

Hannah was excellent. Added a nice dose of practical common sense. One of my favorite characters.

Making Mr. Laurence into a Southern gentleman was an interesting choice, especially given how this episode highlighted the Civil War part of the setting. I liked him, especially his relationship with Beth.

I laughed during Laurie’s first appearance, when the camera slowed down and made it into the most cliche romantic-comedy moment possible. Then when he spoke, I understood for the first time in my life why people like Timothee Chalamet. The goodwill toward his character was not to last.

Brotherly Laurie was adorable and likable. One of my favorite scenes was when he first meets the March family, and just stands there silently appreciating their lively, loving, comfortable family atmosphere.

Romantic interest Laurie was a jerk and a creep. The way he kept touching people who didn’t want to be touched, forcing affections on people who didn’t want them. Not cool. And “She calls me ‘my lord’?” Creeeeeepy.

After all the hype over the smock scene, I was expecting a lot more. I was like, “That’s it?” Not that I’m complaining–I was expecting something a lot more overtly sexual and I like that it was restrained.

(The cloak that Amy puts on after the smock scene? Gorgeous. I want it.)

I hate that Jo decides she wants to marry Laurie. After a whole movie spent showing how she’s right that their relationship was brotherly and that Amy’s a better fit for him, suddenly out of nowhere she just wants to attach herself to him because she’s lonely. And then it fails not because Jo has any revelations about herself or life, but because he’s already taken. It was just so bizarre. Especially in light of the ending, but again, I’ll get to it later. (Probably in another post).

Bhaer was a lovely character. I don’t understand why they made him French, but he’s such a steady, sensible, caring presence for Jo, so sweet and intelligent, and the movie completely failed to make use of his character and the arc he could have provided for Jo.

The Ending

It’s my biggest source of frustration. I’d been fully spoiled for it, knew that it was “ambiguous”, and came fully prepared to do as many mental gymnastics as necessary to allow for the interpretation that Jo and Bhaer’s love story is the “real” ending. I couldn’t do it. There is no way that I can see that chase in the rain as anything other than a “forced” ending to the fictional story in Jo’s book.

When Bhaer visits the March’s, Jo’s not warm. She’s not happy. She’s just stunned and awkward. Frederick saying that he’s taking the job in California is nothing more than the most blatant set-up for a romantic-comedy ending. Even when he leaves, Jo doesn’t seem regretful, he’s just like, “Come and visit me sometime,” and Jo’s only response is, “Yeah, I probably won’t.”

Then, when she turns around, everyone has the most forced, zombie-like smiles on their faces. “You love him,” they all insist, and Jo is just baffled, like she’s in a Twilight Zone episode and struggling to assert her reality against a world that’s warped around her. Then they railroad Jo into a romance plot, setting up everything for the romantic-comedy chase in the rain against all of Jo’s protests that it’s unnecessary. And then the actual declaration of love is so entwined with Jo’s talk to her publisher that I can’t see it as anything other than fiction. The lines are such vague romance stuff that seems unconnected to anything that we’ve seen in Jo and Bhaer’s relationship through the rest of the movie. “I have nothing to give you,” he says, even though there’s never been a mention of him as poor before, no indication that this would have been a problem for their romance.

And then we see the lovely sunlit ending where everyone is happy and living active, fulfilled, love-and-service-filled lives, contrasted with the cold sterility of Jo watching her words get bound into a book. Don’t get me wrong, the binding process was beautiful to watch, but putting it forth as a “better” ending than Jo and Bhaer running a school together was absolutely ridiculous.

At best, I could try to say that the sunlit ending is a happy future brought about by the publication of the book–the royalties fund the school, everyone can be together, and Bhaer works at the school and he and Jo are friends and colleagues even if they don’t get married. But it’s given such an unrealistic gloss, and when the scene fades out and turns into the cover of the book, it seems like the final stamp saying that this is all fiction, and the only real thing about this ending is the book that Jo holds in her hands.

Instead of being surrounded by loving family and friends, she’s alone, holding a book. A book that isn’t even the book she wanted to write, a book that forced her to abandon her artistic principles for the sake of money. And to me, she looks like she’s about to cry (not happy tears), and it’s just such a bleak, sterile ending to a movie with the potential for such vigorous life.

(I do kind of wish I’d seen it without being spoiled for the ending and not knowing Gerwig’s thoughts about the “best” ending for Jo, because I’ll never know if I would have come to the same interpretation of the ending if I’d been coming in completely blind. I kind of feel like I’d have had similar thoughts, but I’ll never know.)

There’s so much more I could say about this ending, but all my thoughts are connected to how it affects the arcs and messages of the rest of the movie, and this post is far too long already. I’ll need at least one significant essay and at least 1-2 other posts to untangle exactly how this ending affects my feelings about this movie.

#little women #little women 2019 #if anyone actually reads all of this they deserve a prize #i'm shocked by how long this got #i spent like two mornings and a good chunk of this evening writing this #does anyone care about my minute opinions of a movie that's been out for a month?#unlikely #but what else am i to do with these opinions i ask you?

51 notes · View notes

timeagainreviews · 5 years

Text

The surprising similarities of Doctor Who and Twin Peaks

Earlier today, a friend of mine asked me why I chose to do a blog about both Doctor Who and Twin Peaks. He thought it was a very odd pairing. While explaining to him some of my various reasons, I realised that it would actually make a rather interesting article to talk about the similarities between both shows. Believe it or not, there are several. My hope is to possibly garner new interest in either show for Whovians and Peakies alike.

I know a lot of you are here for the Doctor Who content, but I would like to think that a sliver of you are also interested in the Twin Peaks content. That being said, this article will contain some minor spoilers for both Twin Peaks and Doctor Who. Though I will try and maintain the central mystery without giving too much away. I’ve toyed with the idea of writing articles about Twin Peaks outside of episode recaps, but I’ve always shied away for fear of spoilers. Consider yourself warned!

A tale of two pilots

I’ve gone over this in previous blogs that both Twin Peaks and Doctor Who have two separate pilot episodes, albeit for totally different reasons. In the case of Doctor Who, the second pilot was filmed after it was decided that the first one failed to capture the correct tone for the Doctor. Because of this, a reshoot was done, softening the First Doctor’s irascible temper to something more relatable. His cantankerousness was dialled back to rebelliousness, and our protagonist began to feel less like the villain.

In the case of Twin Peaks, the second version of its pilot episode was filmed for the sake of European markets. Having had a rather profitable year, the network ABC was willing to take a gamble on a dark horse in the form of a little project from Mark Frost and David Lynch. However, they only ordered the one episode upfront. Figuring it may never see more than a pilot, an extended version of the episode was filmed to include a conclusion of the story for European markets. While this version of the pilot was not aired in the states, it is widely available on DVD release.

This may seem like a tenuous connection at best. But both of the unused pilots can be viewed as a means to further understand their respective shows. Seeing the Doctor act like a jerk gives a bit of insight into just how far is too far. People may complain that the First Doctor is a cranky old man, but seeing the original pilot of "An Unearthly Child," really illustrates the delicate nature of that balance. Similarly, watching the masterful work of David Lynch’s perfect introduction of Twin Peaks wrap itself up in a clunky, tacked on extra thirty minutes feels just as hollow. People may complain that Twin Peaks leaves too much to mystery, but seeing it end in a shootout makes you appreciate the ambiguity of later episodes. Both pilots prove that sometimes less is more.

Time Off

Both TV shows were cancelled and subsequently brought back to air years later. After 26 seasons of travelling in time and space, Doctor Who had been booted by the head of BBC. After only two seasons Twin Peaks was cancelled by ABC, far before its time. Later, both series attempted a sort of reboot, or revival in the form of movies, both of which were panned by critics. At this point, the only places either show really existed were within the hearts of fans. You may have seen the occasional convention, magazine, or book, but it would appear that both beloved series were dead in the water.

However, it is that very flame kept lit by the fans that gave each series its respective cult status. After years of fans wondering if their favourite shows would get the revivals they so deserved, it would seem their prayers were finally answered. Oddly enough, neither show was a complete reboot, with each acting as a continuation of their original storylines. While each revival has its share of detractors, purists who prefer the original show, overall they were both considered very successful. Much of this is owed to the fact that the creators opted not to be slavishly devoted to the source material, but to instead make something new that still managed to respect the past. Instead of purely playing into nostalgia, they make a case for their own existence by being something new.

Some not so familiar faces

One of Doctor Who’s greatest strengths is that it was able to inject longevity into the show by introducing the concept of regeneration. While most shows die when their actors leave the show, Doctor Who was able to write replacing the actors into the narrative by making it a biological function of the main character. Like Mary’s claim of a virgin birth, its an idea so unique that you can only get away with it the one time. Anyone who replaces their actors in such a way would just be copying Doctor Who, right?

Enter Twin Peaks. Aside from outright replacing actors, as in the case of Donna Hayward in “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me,” David Lynch has taken a rather novel approach to replace actors who have either died or refused to return. Take, for instance, the actor Michael J. Anderson who played “The Man from Another Place,” (or the Arm) in both the series and the movie. After a payment dispute, Anderson claimed that he was “irreplaceable.” And when you consider just how deep his character goes into the mythos of Twin Peaks, it’s hard to disagree. That is, unless you’re David Lynch.

Lynch’s solution to losing Anderson was to simply replace him with a central nervous system/tree with a brain like a wadded piece of chewing gum for a head. And you know what? It actually worked. Referring to it as a sort of “evolution,” the audience needed only to take a moment to bask in the brilliance, and then move on. The same method was used to replace David Bowie with a machine that resembled a tea kettle, or the villainous Bob with a floating black orb containing his face. No actor? No problem.

The surprising fact is that the mythology of both shows was able to sustain what would normally be considered insane narrative choices. As opposed to jumping the shark, these changes actually deepened the mythos of either show. From their conception, both Doctor Who and Twin Peaks are so unique that they have been able to write, and rewrite their own rules.

Relative dimensions in space

Whether it’s a blue police box that is bigger on the inside or a convenience store that disappears like a TARDIS, neither show seems all that interested in obeying the laws of physics. Physical space is a minor obstacle to be manoeuvred around with an almost godlike technology bordering on magic. We see creatures using otherwise mundane objects to completely sidestep reality. Pictures hanging on walls are portals into entire worlds. Stuccoed buildings act as gateways opening up to boxes floating in space. Portals open deep in the woods to take us into terrifying dimensions that boggle the mind.

Interestingly enough, both shows approach these elements seemingly from opposite ends of the spectrum. With Twin Peaks, what has been hinted at possibly being aliens, may actually be something more spiritual. With Doctor Who, something that is hinted at as spiritual is usually aliens. Regardless, in both instances, matter is simply a plaything of beings far more advanced than we mere mortals.

Time and time again

Wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff isn’t just a thing that affects the Doctor. The heroes of Twin Peaks also experience their fair share of time displacement. Whether it’s a hole punched into the universe by an atomic bomb that imprints the 1940′s onto a dimension visited by Lewis and Clark, or a trip in the TARDIS to the time of Lewis and Clark, both storylines are tangled in a web of timelines threatening the fate of everyone involved.

As we learn with the Doctor, so too do we learn in the case of Dale Cooper that toying with timelines is not an exact science. Distortions happen. Things change. People tend to disappear. Once you cross that threshold, it could all be different. Even with the greatest of plans, our heroes in the fight between good and evil may find themselves in a never-ending battle. At the end of the day, even the best of intentions can be undone by a simple time loop.

They both changed television forever

From their very first episodes, both Twin Peaks and Doctor Who aimed to be something different. I’ve said in the past that Doctor Who operates on a level of surrealism rarely seen in science fiction. In a similar manner, Twin Peaks injects a heaping dose of the surreal into both the soap opera and police procedural genres. Because of this, they each come off as incredibly unique stories that stand apart from everything else. Many imitators have come and gone in the years since, but very few have achieved the same degree of success.

These aren’t just lighting in a bottle moments either. The unique nature of either show acts as a response to what came before it. These are deliberate choices to make something different. Sydney Newman’s edict of “no bug-eyed monsters,” while widely ignored, actually speaks to a greater desire to make something of substance. Much in the same way, Twin Peaks exists as a comment on the shallow nature of murder mysteries of the day. Instead of focusing on the murderer, it focused on the victim and how such a crime can destroy a small town.

In their own ways, Twin Peaks and Doctor Who aimed for something deeper. Audiences weren’t just asked to experience terror. Violence was not just a thing to ramp up the tension. Along with the darkness, came a lot of light. The relationships between people were just as important as those between good and evil. Pure joy is a thing to be celebrated, and not scoffed at through pessimistic edgelording. The full spectrum of human emotion is not ignored to service a “clever,” plotline. Even though both shows occasionally lost sight of this principle, they were always at their best when, at their cores, they celebrated life. It is as the Second Doctor said- "There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things. Things that act against everything we believe in. They must be fought.”

#doctor who #twin peaks #bbc #abc #twin peaks fire walk with me #david lynch #mark frost #thirteenth doctor #an unearthly child #dale cooper #laura palmer #time travel #Time and Time Again #TARDIS #Regeneration #first doctor #sydney newman #verity lambert

8 notes · View notes

brittanybutler · 6 years

Text

My thoughts on the novelization of the Kim Possible movie! Minor spoilers.

Okay, so I caved and bought a digital copy of the live action Kim Possible movie novelization and, uh... I have some thoughts. Continue reading for some general information and my opinion on the overall vibe. Nothing toooo spoiler-y or deep. Well, I get deep with my analysis... but I’m not analyzing anything too big. Just minor things and lines that aren’t important to the storyline but can give you a pretty good idea of what the movie will be like. There are no details that I would consider major or huge plot points in this post. If you’ve seen all of the trailers/sneak peeks and are familiar with the film’s summary, you should be alright. Basically, keep reading if you want to know what to mentally prepare yourself for lol.

Right off the bat, all I’m gonna say is that judging from the dialogue alone -- it’s definitely geared towards kids. Young kids. I don’t think teenagers will think this is cool. Just as I feared, there’s cheesy use of social media (selfies, live-streaming, youtube) and annoying 2010s slang (“shook” “fam” “kthanksbye,” etc.) I don’t understand why they feel the need to throw in stuff like that to make it ~current~??? It just makes it feel awkward and trying too hard to be relatable. I think keeping it relatively timeless and omitting slang and selfies would’ve been the better option for a live action adaptation of something as iconic as Kim Possible. There’s already enough technology with her freaking holographic Kimmunicator and gadgets! haha. It’s 2019. We all know that smartphones are a thing. They’re normalized now. You don’t need to shove it in our face, haha. I mean, Kim said some dated slang in the cartoon and flip phones were prominent... but it’s a cartoon. It works. With live action, it gets a little dicey. You want these characters to feel like people who talk like real people, ya know?!

Something that made me cringe beyond belief is the first scene at Bueno Nacho. Athena named her dog “Ron Stop-pit-bull” (I kid you not) so Ron says something about wanting to be a freaking dog when he grows up??? So Athena and Ron literally proceed to woof like dogs and break into laughter about it......??? I have no idea how that’s not gonna be cringeworthy on screen. I wanted to die just from reading it. Some people assumed this photo from J-14 magazine was behind the scenes, but it does in fact happen in the movie:

One thing that sorta rubbed me the wrong way is that they talk about Kim and Ron being famous heroes on the news and everything a liiiiittle too much. Athena being a superfan of Kim and Ron kinda goes along with that and could potentially feel a little overkill. The morons who think that Kim had a secret identity are gonna have a field day with that lol. Ugh.

The holographic Kimmunicator is a really cool update for this generation since the original one was essentially a smartphone with FaceTime and wouldn’t be nearly has forward thinking as it was in 2002. Towards the end of the KP series it was updated to a wristwatch, among a few other different designs (but a wristwatch also wouldn’t be forward thinking today thanks to Apple Watches) and now it’s a necklace. I like that!

The only issue is that it’s not very discreet. Wade pops up a lot throughout the movie and as we saw in the sneak peek, the hologram is pretty huge. I hope the size can vary or something? Because that could be weird when Wade beeps Kim at school and stuff. It was handy when cartoon Kim could casually whip out the handheld, open her locker and talk to Wade on the computer, or glance at her wrist. Not sure how this is gonna fly in other situations:

Also, this sneak peek makes more sense in context. I figured it would. People are seriously overreacting. They portray Kim as a perfectionist and she desperately wants to be on time for her first day of high school. It’s not “WHY is Kim using her gadgets and Wade’s help for an every day situation?!?! UGHH” like people are complaining about. It makes sense to me. It’s cute! That barrel roll is still completely unnecessary though, hahahahaha. But, I’m embracing the random stunts like that. I think it’s hysterical.

I know a lot of people (myself included) were upset about Kim not being a cheerleader, but she actually is! Or at least, she was...? And is still interested in cheer at the beginning of the movie. So that’s nice! Kim being a cheerleader was necessary on the show because it helped us make sense of all her flips and kicks and such during missions. It’s a really important part of her character so I was sooo happy to see that it wasn’t completely erased!

I still want to be surprised by the movie, so I just skimmed it and skipped a lot of pages. But yeaaaah. That’s the general gist of it. I feel like I’ve read enough to know that I should keep my expectations lower than I originally planned. This doesn’t mean the movie is going to be terrible or anything. The junior novelizations usually leave out a lot of things (the book felt extremely short? Granted, I skipped a lot.. but yeah) and the whole story is written in a way that’s cheesy and simple for little kids to read. Like, I’m not gonna lie. I was pretty much cringing non-stop. I have a junior novelization of The Even Stevens Movie and it’s cringy as HECK. They even changed some of the dialogue for whatever reason! But the movie isn’t nearly as cringy and is clearly a campy self-aware flick once you watch it. I’m hoping KP will be the same way.

I can’t help but worry that it’ll translate to screen as suuuuper lame though. Let’s hope the actors can pull it off convincingly. I want to love Ron (I stand by my word that Sean Giambrone is the perfect choice) but he’s seeming a little too dumb at points, overly kid friendly and hunky dory! Like a literal human cartoon. He trips over his shoelaces and falls victim to other clichés like that. Some of the lines he has are... oh boy. [i.e. *sees a giant statue of a brain* “WOW! I didn’t know brains were so big! How do they fit in our heads?!” -- An actual Ron Stoppable quote.] In a cartoon, a line like that works. But live action? Ehhh. It all depends on Sean’s delivery though, and I have faith in him but... dang, he has some awkward dialogue to work with.

I’m a huge fan of The Goldbergs, so Ron is the main thing I’m excited about if I’m being totally honest. I will say, the first two chapters are the only parts I read fully (since they were the free sample) and I liked it. It’s action packed and fun. We’ve actually seen a lot of it in the trailers already so if you wanna read it, it doesn’t spoil too much at all. Ron’s grand entrance is cute and wacky and I actually smiled really hard while reading and picturing it. :)

I’m not a big fan of how Rufus is introduced. They made a major change and it kinda genuinely upset me. But, I will say.. they at least give us an explanation for why Rufus is so smart and aware. That’s kinda cool, since in a 2d cartoon you don’t need to question why a naked mole rat can talk and point and help Kim and Ron lol. I’m horrified of how the CGI will look in action though. From the one photo we’ve seen, he looks kinda terrifying imo:

I’ve said before that instead of attempting to go for a ~realistic~ feel, they might’ve been better off keeping 2d animated Rufus and having a vibe similar to Space Jam lol. I mean, Kim Possible is a cartoon that makes no logical since in real life so I don’t think that would’ve hurt. Or maybe I’m just sad because 2d Rufus is sooo adorable. I’m gonna miss him so much.

EDIT: They’ve officially released some footage of Rufus in action and he looks waaaaaay better than I expected! Yay!

As everyone has predicted, from the few parts I read.. Drakken and Shego seem awesome and on point! Pretty funny as well. I don’t have any complaints about them. Rest assured, Shego delivers her sarcastic remarks a ton. I actually laughed out loud at one of them omg. From what we’ve seen, Todd is doing a fantastic Drakken and Taylor has great deadpan delivery. I have a feeling they might steal the show tbh!

So, yeah. Make of this what you will!

I’m still really excited for the movie, but I’m relieved to have my expectations in check now.

#kim possible #ron stoppable #disney channel #sean giambrone #sadie stanley

17 notes · View notes

dreameater1988 · 7 years

Text

My Top 10 Twelfth Doctor Stories

I’ve seen other people do this, so I decided to make my own Top 10 of Twelfth Doctor stories.

10. Flatline

I have a soft spot for stories in which the Doctor gets in a bit of a situation and putting him in a shrinking TARDIS was a hilarious plan. I have to admit, I wasn’t that fond of the episode when I first watched it, but to be quite honest, I love it a bit more with every rewatch. I think this really is one of those episodes that you have to watch a couple of times to really appreciate it. I’m also glad that the Boneless were picked up again in one of the comics because who doesn’t love a recurring monster? They were creepy, they were threatening and quite difficult to defeat - which the Doctor eventually did while giving an amazing speech. I think it was the first Twelfth Doctor speech that really struck me because of how fierce and powerful it was. And a cute bonus: Doctor Oswald. All of these things definitely put Flatline in my Top 10.

9. The Zygon Invasion / The Zygon Inversion

Another thing I love about Doctor Who? Kate Stewart! So it would be a shame not to include one of her stories in my Top 10. I have always preferred two-parters over single episodes because of that little heart attack causing “to be continued” thrill and these episodes do it quite brilliantly. The Zygons as monsters aren’t exactly my favourites, but they were really well used in this case. I really enjoyed the storyline and the many jokes that were put in the episodes (Why do you have a Union Jack parachute? - Camouflage. - Camouflage? - Yes, we’re in Britain.) There really are so many things I love about this two-parter: the Doctor’s emotional speech, Jenna marvellously playing two different characters, Kate tricking the Zygons, . . . The final product is a thrilling episode and wonderful entertainment.

8. Dark Water / Death in Heaven

The finale of S8 has to be on this list for one reason alone: Missy. Michelle Gomez really, really rocked that part and I will love her forever for it. I never really liked the Simm!Master because of various reasons (mainly cause his version of the Master collided with the version in a book I’ve read and loved). Yet the Twelfth Doctor and Missy really brought that “true friendship gone horribly wrong” part across. There was also the storyline of Clara losing Danny and later losing the Doctor by letting him go which I think shaped her S9 character to a large degree that I really, really love. The Cybermen were less creepy in this episode than in others (the S2 two-parter has scarred me forever), but this story wasn’t about the Cybermen or an invasion at all, at least it’s not how I see it. This two-parter is about loss and friendship. And it contains yet another Twelfth Doctor speech that I will love until the day I die. He’s my idiot with a box and a screwdriver.

7. Oxygen

I feel obligated to put at least one episode from S10 on my list and since this was the only one that really stirred something in me, here we go. I loved the space station setting (because I’m a sad sci-fi nerd), I loved the dystopian “oxygen on sale” bit, but you know what I loved the most? The Doctor going blind. Oh my God, how I loved the big reveal in the end when he said he still couldn’t see. The Doctor is a Time Lord surrounded by humans, he is always superior to them simply because of the fact that he’s (like he said to Clara in FtR) “less breakable”, but finally, we get to see that he is breakable after all, that he’s vulnerable, that he’s no longer the superior hero. I love that bit. Sadly, the episodes that followed didn’t really put this plot twist to use in my opinion.

6. Mummy on the Orient Express

Who wouldn’t want to go on a trip on the space Orient Express with the Twelfth Doctor? This episode was beautiful from start to finish: the setting, the costumes, the dialogues, the storyline, the tension between the Doctor and Clara. Every moment of this episode was wonderful and a pure joy to watch. It was also a big turning point in the relationship between the (new) Doctor and Clara because, for the first time, she saw him for who he really was. Now, a couple of weeks ago I bought Doctor Who - The Complete History and I read about the making of this episode and I have to admit that I probably would have loved the original script (in which the Mummy is a life-extending body suit that won’t let people die and Clara briefly gets turned into one) a little bit more because it contains more sci-fi elements than the version they ended up using. But hey, I’m not complaining. The episode is awesome.

5. Into The Dalek

“I see into your soul, Doctor. I see beauty. I see divinity. I see hated.” Just hearing these words in my head gives me goosebumps and I think that is a very good sign that this episode definitely belongs in my Top 10. A lot of things have been done with Daleks over the past 50+ years, but miniaturizing the Doctor and putting him inside one is definitely one of the more brilliant ideas. I also really love the early version of the Twelfth Doctor, I love my grumpy, old alien and he’s at his peak in this one. But he’s also still struggling to find out if he is a good man or not and I really enjoyed that conflict that we saw in Peter’s first season. Rusty the Dalek plays a big part in that conflict and their dialogue makes me shiver even after watching it about 30 times.

4. The Magician’s Apprentice / The Witch’s Familiar

The Doctor riding a tank into a medieval castle while playing the electric guitar! Do I need to say more? Yes, I’m definitely going to say more, but, oh my God, that was probably one of my favourite moments of the entire show. I sat in front of my telly, gawking at the screen. There will never be a season opened better than this. You won’t believe how much I enjoyed watching it the first time and how much I am still enjoying it every time I watch this episode. The rest of the two-parter is anything but a let-down. I loved the Twelfth Doctor/Missy interactions in this one because up until the end of the episodes you can really see the former friendship, you can see just how long they have known each other, how much they meant to each other back then (I live for this kind of thing). Also, bringing back Davros is always a nice touch. Bringing back Skaro was amazing (and seeing the fear in Missy’s eyes when she realized where she was). The Clara/Missy duo was amazing. The Doctor pleading for Clara’s life on his knees when he thinks he’s about to lose her. Honestly, there isn’t anything that I don’t love about this two-parter. Add “The Doctor’s Meditation” to this and you’ll get 10 minutes of pure, silly fun as well.

3. Listen

This episode was the one where I decided that Twelve was my Doctor. In fact, it was the pre-intro scenes with him that showed him sitting on the TARDIS roof and talking to himself by candlelight that got me. But that’s not why I loved the episode. It was properly creepy. I love the creepy episodes the most and sadly, there has been a bit of a lack in those in recent years, but Listen was definitely one of the best. I first watched the leaked black and white version and even then it gave me chills. This episode also showed how much of an impact Clara really had on the Doctor (apart from getting him to save Gallifrey and asking the Time Lords to help him). She saw him as a young, frightened boy and she put those thoughts in his head that would accompany him for the rest of his life. It was a wonderful, little twist. I also really enjoyed the fact that we never got to know what the monster actually was. I love that some people believe it’s a kid under a bedspread and some (like me, cause I’ve paused and seen a screenshot of what looked like Voldemort) think it was an actual monster. Whatever it was, I’m glad we never got the solution handed to us. That makes it even more interesting to me.

2. Under the Lake / Before the Flood

I don’t think I’ve said it enough, but this two-parter is actually perfect. Everything about it is perfect. The Doctor and Clara are at their peak, they’re having their “glory years”. It’s very likely that there was a large time span between TMA/TWF and this two-parter because we see them in full action, we see them incredibly bonded, we see them trust each other completely. This is the first time we see how intense their relationship actually is (“If you love me in any way, you’ll come back”, “I’m changing history to save Clara.”). They are the perfect TARDIS duo in this one, but we also get a sense of foreshadowing as to what is going to happen to Clara in the future. The minor characters in this story are all perfect as well, I can’t say a single bad word about them. I normally don’t care about minor characters because I’ve learned that many of them end up dead anyway, but in this one, I can’t help but feel for them as well. As for the storyline and plot twist, it was a two-parter full of exciting moments and surprises with a lot of laughs and emotions thrown in as well. And the Fisher King was a great monster. Perfect television entertainment for a Saturday night that almost ended up being Nr 1 on my list.

1. Heaven Sent / Hell Bent

Heaven Sent is, in my opinion, Steven Moffat’s masterpiece and always will be. It felt like he was working his way up from The Eleventh Hour to culminate in the S9 finale with two episodes that actually managed to blow my mind. I am very critical when I’m watching TV and I’m not so easily impressed, but Heaven Sent actually blew my mind. Heaven Sent, an episode that is longer than usual, that features only one actor in only a handful of rooms and it’s the best damn thing I have ever seen on TV. During S10 I often complained about seeing the “plot twist” coming, but this one took me completely by surprise and broke my heart in the process. Oh, the tears I’ve shed over Heaven Sent! It’s that moment the Doctor realizes what he’s doing, what he’s been doing and for how long that always breaks me and it’s underlined by the most perfect Murray Gold score I’ve ever heard. And of course the big reveal that Gallifrey was waiting on the other end.

I think Heaven Sent / Hell Bent are the perfect depiction of the stages of grief in the Doctor’s 4.5 billion years quest to save Clara. And oh, how he did it! It’s not a secret that Clara has been my favourite companion from the moment she appeared on screen and after watching her become more and more like the Doctor over the course of the seasons, it was such a satisfaction to see her get her own TARDIS and run away. There is something so bitter-sweet, so emotional about this series finale and at the same time, it’s so full of twists and turns and surprises. It’s devastating and uplifting at once. In one word: perfect!

#whouffaldi #peter capaldi #twelfth doctor #doctor who #my top 10

113 notes · View notes

bardqueenofgallifrey · 7 years

Note

I didn't have a tumblr account in 2013, so I have no idea how the fuck a 53-year-old Sci fi show became part of something as cringe as "superwholock". I mean, I watch Sherlock but damn this match makes no sense. Could you explain to me how it happened please???

Honestly? I don’t know exactly.

I was never really a part of SuperWhoLock, and I don’t think I was on here for the origins either, but whenever it was that I did get on here, I was just a passionate Whovian who also watched and liked Sherlock (these days I’m pretty indifferent about Sherlock one way or another, and give as few shits about Supernatural as I ever did).

BUT, I’m gonna see if I can try and work out/theorise how SuperWhoLock rose and fell, if only to try and make the point that Doctor Who never deserved to be lumped in with it. Feel free to challenge any points I make, because I’m guessing here.

although, frankly, this idea of cringe culture is kinda snobby and gross. let people like shit, damn, if they’re not hurting anyone or trying to say Supernatural is the best show ever, who gives a fuck, honestly

Firstly, the thing about Doctor Who is that it has been around for literal multiple decades. Almost fifty four years. It has been around since before some of our parents were born.

Doctor Who fans were around long before the internet was invented. They were here before, and will be here long after everyone has forgotten what the hell Supernatural ever was. Doctor Who fans are now the ones making Doctor Who. They were the ones who, when it got cancelled, created an entire thriving Audio Drama business through the love of it that still existed everywhere, and they are the ones who brought it back and now create it. They’ve never let it die.

You know why? Why Doctor Who’s endured, and is so passionately loved by so many, and before all this mess wasn’t any more cringy than being into Star Trek? Because it’s good.

It is a flawed show, of course (always, somehow, in some way, in ways that vary across different eras), but one that is good in a reckless, nonsensical, optimistic way. No matter the ups and downs of its objective quality, it’s never really lost its heart.

It is a show with a protagonist that uses words/intelligence/compassion over violence to fight, a show that focuses on telling hopeful adventures that can be watched by children and also inform them of some of the harsher aspects of the world in an interesting way.

Also, it’s always been quite progressive. It had the first female drama producer at the BBC, and a gay Indian director. No one wanted it to succeed and it’s a miracle the show ever got off the ground.

People like to talk about the “screaming Classic companions” but you know what? Fuck that. The Classic ladies were all wonderful, including the biggest screamers. Susan? The Doctor’s granddaughter, genius, with telepathic abilities and a whole lot of heart. Mel? Computer programmer aka fucking smarty pants, who once flipped the Doctor over her shoulder, and was such a genuinely nice person that it was genuinely impressive. Zoe? Adorable 60′s companion who canonically had a higher IQ than the Doctor.

Doctor Who ladies have been awesome since the beginning, and calling out misogyny from the beginning.

(It ALSO had errors of its time, especially an Orientalism issue that is pervasive through a lot of older sci-fi, that can’t and shouldn’t be forgotten either. But that’s for the most part irrelevant to this discussion other than the general whiteness which is still obviously a problem albeit one the show is slowly working on.)

The reboot then brought in (some, not enough) queer characters and main characters of colour, etc, and its general diversity has only been getting better and better on that front for the most part, especially in the last couple of years.

But anyway, how the hell did it get mixed up with the whole SuperWhoLock mess?

Well, the reboot brought in a whole new generation of fans, and only got bigger and bigger and bigger, and was peaking RIGHT about when Sherlock aired.

The Doctor Who and Sherlock crossover is easy enough to work out; they had the same headwriter(s), and they’re both about neurodivergent (coded??) genius white guys that theoretically have a kind of unconventional attractiveness to them. You can see how they drew in the same crowd.

Now, how the hell Supernatural became a part of that, I’ve no idea. I’ve never been a Supernatural fan (even if I did watch the first four and a half seasons once, more or less enjoy them, but also not find them massively interesting).

But I’m going to assume it’s because it again involved white guys with Big Emotions, that the fans could thirst over, who were undertaking some larger than life shit.

My theory is that it, at least partly, was the White Male Slash Fandom.

You know. That group of mostly straight girls who treat shipping conventionally attractive white men like a fetish and a kink to explore, who will ship basically any two CAWM under the sun if they so much as look at each other. I imagine the Johnlock crowd overlapped with the Destiel and Wincest crowd, and Doctor Who, since it had Ten/Simm!Master (and Eleven/Rory to a lesser extent) as well as some nice hetero ships, kind of got dragged along because almost everyone in the Sherlock fandom was probably in the Doctor Who fandom too.

You can kind of see how it fits. The Supernatural gang and the Team TARDIS are big damn heroes with a lot of heart, while Sherlock fulfilled the ideal levels of pretentiousness that we all go through in our teenage years.

Of course, then everyone realised that Supernatural kinda sucks because it’s an incredibly white, incredibly male, incredibly STRAIGHT show that just queerbaits its audience and doesn’t know when to call it quits, and so everyone started jumping ship.

Then everyone looked at Sherlock, either went “this has its issues but it’s still fun”, “this is QUEERBAITING TOO, WHY WONT JOHNLOCK KISS, FUCK MOFFISS”, or “this is also incredibly white, incredibly male, and incredibly straight, so fuck this also”, and that was it for Sherlock and general opinion too.

(For the record: Johnlock was not queerbait. Johnlock was an expression of Steven Moffat’s own very intimate, but platonic, friendship with Mark Gatiss, and they explicitly told everyone they were not gonna make it gay. And then the toxic ass fandom, deluded out their minds, started sending Gatiss - an actual gay man - abuse about being “an honorary straight” for not making their fetishised fictional relationship canon, at one point literally the day after the Pulse massacre. Seriously. What the fuck. Never speak about it being queerbaiting ever again and leave Mark Gatiss the fuck alone.)

Now. Doctor Who had meanwhile been dealing with the changeover of the showrunner.

Series 5 went down pretty well for the most part, but a lot of people had their issues with Series 6 and Series 7. The fandom had kind of gotten too big, for a show this unconventional. To the point of a lot of people not being able to deal with the distinct change from the style of Russell T Davies, because they weren’t really aware of how the show needs to reinvent itself constantly even on a stylistic level. Because they were treating the show like any other show, when one can’t really do that.

It was all kind of a mess of:

very mixed fan reception on Series 6

Series 7 being on the weaker side (not as weak as some people who missed the whole point of Clara’s storyline make it out to be, but weak nonetheless, though Moffat has admitted to this and explained it was because he was under so much pressure about the looming 50th anniversary, and like, fuck, fair enough)

people being pissed at Moffat for Sherlock shit

Russell T Davies having done quite a few things in his era that are questionable from a wider Doctor Who standpoint, which Moffat as the Ultimate Who Fan didn’t go along with, only to then receive hate from people who were convinced that if RTD did something it must be right, because they haven’t seen Classic Who or apparently bothered to do a couple of google searches to educate themselves

plus, a few of Moffat’s quotes around 2012ish got taken out of context because he’s a sarcastic little shit who runs his mouth

and so people got the idea that Moffat’s a narcissistic misogynist who “loves white men”

also people confused “plot hole” with “is going to be explained later” and complained about him having plot holes in series 5-7 when really it’s just that he was waiting to tie up all the loose ends in Matt Smith’s finale episode

Anyway, thus began the popular - to this day! - sentiment of thinking that Moffat is one of the worst things to happen to television, or at least Doctor Who (and Sherlock Holmes).

And so, that was the “downfall” of Doctor Who and SuperWhoLock, so to speak, as all three shows were written off by the wider Tumblr/nerd community as being incredibly cringy.

Now, to examine it from today’s view, in light of recent series/opinion about the series/the female Doctor reveal.

The problem is, the general attitude about Moffat - who don’t get me wrong, is far from a flawless writer, or person - has literally reached the point of mass delusion. It’s very clear that literally thousands of people have a completely fictionalised version of him in their heads.

How do I know this? I saw someone say that a female Doctor was a “defiance of everything the Moffat era stood for”.

As in, the same Moffat era that, in the last three seasons:

explicitly made the genderfluidity of Time Lords canon (Dark Water/Death In Heaven, World Enough And Time)

changed the Master into a woman (Dark Water)

had the now female Master refer to becoming a woman as an “upgrade” (The Witch’s Familiar)

had a companion’s whole storyline be about “becoming the Doctor” in her own right, with her getting a whole episode of her pretending to be the Doctor, and her flying off in her own TARDIS with a companion of her own in the end of her final episode! (Flatline, Hell Bent)

had ANOTHER companion’s storyline end with her immortal space girlfriend at the console of the TARDIS, offering for her to travel through all of time and space with her in a direct parallel to the Nine/Rose offer from the first episode to the reboot (The Doctor Falls, Rose)

had a Time Lord regenerate from a white guy to a black lady onscreen just to FINALLY shut up people who said race/gender changes couldn’t happen (Hell Bent)

had the Doctor positively reacting to the suggestion that he could be - or had been - a woman, multiple times (Death In Heaven, World Enough And Time, The Doctor Falls)

Moffat’s era has been statistically proven to have shifted public opinion in favour of a female Doctor (ask @scriptscribbles, if you want proof), thanks to the above.

Simm!Master: “She? Is the future going to be all girl?”

Twelve: “We can only hope.”

Also, Moffat wrote Lumley!Doctor in The Curse of Fatal Death in 1999. He’s been pushing for a female Doctor for 18 damn years.

So, the idea that anyone thinks he’s against it, as opposed to having explicitly worked to help make it happen for years, shows that the general opinion of him is literally a mass fictionalisation/delusion.

(It’s just one example, but there are hundreds of others, like how everyone seems to think he thinks of himself as The Greatest Ever and having a huge ego, when he’s literally one of the most self-deprecating people ever, if you watch him in an interview. He’s openly admitted to mistakes he’s made on his time on the show, such as the way he handled the scene at the end of Flesh and Stone, and how Series 7 wasn’t his best because of the pressure he was under about the upcoming 50th anniversary; he is aware of his fallibility.)

He’s not a perfect person, or writer, and no one knows that better than him. There’s a lot of critical discussions we could have about his writing, and there are a fair few actual problems with it, just as there are in the RTD era, and every damn era of Who that has existed. I’m not saying everybody has to like it, because every era of Doctor Who is down to personal preference, and that’s fine. There are plenty of rational, well-informed people, fans and otherwise, who have their -often sound - reasons for not liking Moffat and/or his era of Who in general. I am friends with some of them.

But those rational, well-informed people are like, 5% of the people who otherwise make up a sea of loud, ignorant delusion that condemns Doctor Who under Moffat’s direction and downright refuses to acknowledge some of the amazing stuff it’s done in the last few years.

(Like, Series 10 featured a black lesbian co-lead who got a happy ending, leaving the Moffat era finishing strong on six canonically sapphic women, four of whom are still alive, none of whom died pointlessly or without agency, and three of whom are immortal or close enough, in a time when all other TV sapphics are dropping dead like flies. It also had the Doctor punch a racist in the face and comment on how history is whitewashed, and had an episode slamming capitalism. Plus, the finale canonised that Time Lords don’t view gender the same way, reinforcing canon genderfluid Time Lords.)

Between his second and third seasons of DW being divisive and/or a bit weak, all the Sherlock shit going down, and the fall of Supernatural, and the issue of people taking RTD Who as the baseline for everything Doctor Who when they really shouldn’t have, anti-Moffat sentiments got so big that masses of people fell off the show, and continue to refuse to acknowledge that he might have done anything worthwhile with it since they left. That he might, as a person, have developed and improved.

And so, that is potentially how Doctor Who got lumped in with SuperWhoLock, labelled “not progressive”, and considered “cringy” to this day.

Or at least, that’s my theory, as someone who wasn’t really paying a lot of attention, but knows her Doctor Who.

#doctor who #steven moffat #fandom theory #dw fandom #fan theory #i say shit #fuck this became an ESSAY #my god #I might be totally off base here but these are my Thoughts #anon asks #I spent HOURS on this god #i edited it more than I've edited essays for uni lmao

621 notes · View notes

cienie-isengardu · 7 years

Text

Vader and droids

dragonmonday45 replied to your post: Anakin and marginalized groups (p. I)

And yet when he BECAME a machine (Vader) he had no respect for machines. Though he did treat droids better than his own living crew. Ah, irony.

As much as I agree that Vader treats people and droids different than he did as Anakin, I wouldn’t say he has no respect for machines. Of course, all depends on sources we take account, but Vader in general is quite pragmatic person who can and is willing to use everyone around him for his own purposes - yet that doesn’t mean he is doing it for his own pleasure (as, for fun) or is unable to feel connection to others. As much as Vader is usually presented as ill-mannered, brash person ready to kill and destroy anyone or anything standing in his way, there are various examples through Expended Universe (of new canon and Legends) that provide more complex view of Vader. Including the way he treats droids.

I mean, it’s one thing how Vader interacts with droids like Triple Zero (0-0-0) and Bee Tee (BT-1) - a dangerous, very inteligent machines who love killing living organisms and who a) could betrayed him any moment and b) couldn’t be left unchecked for too long because of their psychotic behaviour. But then the same Darth Vader series gives us moments like that:

This is an unnamed droid that Vader used during his mission that allowed the Darth Lord of the Sith to gain important informations AND erase all traces of his own illegal activities. At first, it’s just a droid used in Vader’s shemes. Here, the way he put a hand on droid is the same thing Anakin did with Artoo. Even if this is just a old habit (and those die hard), this is physical show of familiarity / affection that Vader rarely shows to anyone. Of course, the droid must die to secure Vader’s secrets, but before the machine ends in cosmic space and destroys itself, there is that moment:

Vader is kneeling, to be “face to face” with the droid. He did something similar for his own men, who were either dying (clone trooper CT-4981 / Contrail) or seriously injured (Erv Lekauf). This droid - a machine - get from Vader much more respect than most people around him, especially during that comics storyline. Imperial officers, particularly those corrupted, incompetent or selfish were usually political threat to his plans or Empire’s welfare in general. Most of them were seen by Vader just as a tools to use. The difference between them and droid(s) is that Vader could trust machines.

Droids. One can always trust droids is very powerful thing coming from someone who has a long list of reasons why trusting anyone is a bad idea. Of course, Vader may be seen as a lone wolf, but even he has his own men (and droids) that gained his respect and limited trust. The Darth Vader series isn’t the only one that shows that.

I already complained about this short non-canon story, but still the mouse droid was the only one character who was praised by Vader as competent, while three - THREE! - imperial officers have died. The little mouse droid failed in the end too, but the contrast how Vader feels about imperial officers and machine(s) is clear.

In the much older sources like classic Star Wars comics (#74 - 76) a droid K-3PX was one of Vader’s trusted agents. K-3PX kept Vader informed about situation on Iskalon and on Sith’s orders imprisoned admiral Tower. And we talk about a droid giving commands to stormtroopers and imperial officers on Vader’s behalf when in general machines (even the inteligent ones!) were seen as lesser beings during Empire era. And those issues of classic star wars comics were written around 1983. What is also worth to mention, the stormtroopers who learned that K-3PX is Vader’s agent didn’t question it. Their reaction - how easily accepted by them was the idea of droid directly working for Vader - makes me think that imperial soldiers didn’t think it was something too unlikely for Vader’s unusual behaviour. It raises question, how many other droids were working as agents of Dark Lord.

And let’s no forget about Vader “meeting" C-3PO on Bespin (Star Wars Tales #6: Thank the Maker). The comics covers missing scenes from The Empire Strikes Back, focusing on imperial forces & Boba Fett working together to capture Luke.The droid was destroyed by stormtroopers and its parts were presented to Vader who recognized C-3PO. That brought also memories from the past - in which the readers have a chance to see how Anakin found the damaged and abandoned on the dumpster droid, how Shmi allowed him to smuggle it to home and kept as his own. At first, Vader declared that destroyed droid was useless and ordered his men to destroy it completely (how much of that was not caring and how much Vader protected his own secrets / connection to this rebel protocol droid is debatable) but when imperial officer reported that droid was saved by Wookie, Vader reconsidered situation and changed mind about C-3PO’s fate.

Once again, we learned more of Anakin’s memories from childhood. Not only how he cared for unwanted droid (whose life seemed similar to slave’s) but though he was allowed to keep C-3PO, Shmi warned him that “droid is your responsibility. And unless you’re prepared to care for something... you don’t deserve to have it.”

Shmi’s words still “echoed” in Anakin’s mind, even many years after he became merciless Dark Lord of the Sith. This is important scene, because Vader is not in position to care for C-3PO, not like he used to do as Anakin. Even if he allowed himself the luxury to care for his long lost friend droid, his political AND apprenticeship situation wouldn’t allow that. Vader acknowledges that change, so he is giving droid to the one person that cares and protect it - to Chewbacca. For imperial soldiers it may seems like some unexcepted Vader’s whim, but he made a decision to spare C-3PO and gave him to someone who already proved that he cares for the droid in a way Anakin can’t anymore. C-3PO could have an important information about rebellion (like the lieutentant assumed was a reason why rebels kept destroyed machine) yet Vader gifted (returned) the droid to his enemies. When imperial officer asked why, Vader’s answer is similar to the words of his mother:

Vader gives the Wookie what he deserves. For observer, it may looks like Wookie deserves destroyed machine, blasted into pieces. But from context one may think Vader gave something more than that - his own creation that he doesn’t deserve anymore.

Frankly, this is one of few(?) examples of Vader returning droid to its caring owner. Of course, usually he did that for reasons that I like to call “pragmatic kindness”, but still it required some effort on his part. In SW "what if...?” comics he gave C-3PO to captured princess Leia. There is also case of Falco Sang, bounty hunter imprisoned by Vader, who wanted to use Falco’s skills for his own plans. The bounty hunter wasn’t empathetic person, but he was very fond of his droid, IZ-00T. However the droid was destroyed by Jedi Dass Jennir (that Falco tried to capture for bounty) before Falco himself were captured by Darth Vader. At some point, Vader gave to his prisoner repaired IZ-00T, what really suprised and pleased the man. Falco’s reaction, how he was looking after the Sith Lord, showed how much such gesture meant.

In all cases, Vader gave to his enemies / prisoners something more than a droid; he allowed them to keep their mechanical friends / close allies. This is my personal feeling, but I think Vader did so - beside all selfish motives - because he understood the importance of friendship with droids, even though his own situation didn’t allow him to have such relationship with them.

And since I already mentioned bounty hunters, let’s not forget the famous scene from TESB, when Vader called the best bounty hunters to catch Luke Skywalker / rebels. Among the best, there was IG-88B and 4-Lom. The second one worked with alien, Zuckuss, but IG-88 was one of rebelled assassin droid that even Empire didn’t want to deal with; there was even an imperial order to "dismantle [IG] on sight" but since the droid was one of the best, Vader didn’t care for the fact that IG was just a machine. To be fair, Dark Lord of the Sith rarely cared for someone’s gender, race or origin. Only someone’s result meant something for him.

There is also one thing worth to mention: Vader’s life depended a lot on machines. Be it his mechanical suit to keep him alive, or his meditation chamber (that allowed him to breathe outside helmet/armour) or his modificated personal starfigher(s). Despite being so busy with Empire’s bussiness he still had time to work with machines. If he not personally constructed them, then at least he designed droids (like his personal training droids) or space ships (his own starfighters, Legends!Executor).

In short: Vader’s relationship with droids is much complex than one may think, but a lot depends on sources taken into account. Vader does not treat others nice most of the times, he lacks patience for “civilized behavior”, quite often sounds angry or cynical / ironic. Vader’s behaviour in general is very unusual, sometimes brash compared to imperial norms. Still, droids (the same as common troopers) have bigger chance to be respected in his own ways than most imperial high-ranking officers. Because droids are less likely to betray him and are willing to take any, even suicide mission for his benefit. While most imperial officers want either get rid of Vader or get his patronage for their own political career. So the presence of machines create for Vader much safer and more stable environment than dealing with people on daily basis.

At least that’s how I see Vader’s relationship with droids & machines.

#star wars #darth vader #my analysis #my replies #vader and droids #droids #droids and stormtroopers get more respect from Vader #than most imperial high-ranking officers #not to mention that vader #a half-machine half a man #was sometimes admired by droids like IG-88 #my late replies #c-3po #iz-00t #falco sang #chewbacca #shmi skywalker #star wars legends #k-3px

317 notes · View notes

mrmichaelchadler · 6 years

Text

A Lit Fuse: The History of the Mission: Impossible Franchise

With this week’s release of “Mission: Impossible - Fallout,” it is time to accept an increasingly undeniable fact—the “Mission: Impossible” series is quite possibly the standout film franchise of its time. From a financial standpoint, its significance cannot be denied; the first five films in the series—“Mission: Impossible” (1996), “Mission: Impossible II” (2000), “Mission: Impossible III” (2006), “Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol” (2011) and “Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation” (2015)—have pulled in over $2.7 billion dollars and, barring some unforeseen disaster, the new one should put it well over the $3 billion mark. With grosses like that, it would be easy to simply treat the series as a sort of annuity that one could return to every couple of years to make a lot of money simply by repeating the basic formula established by the previous films for as long as audiences are will to pay to see them. And yet, thanks to the combination of things up by adding new and intriguing elements to the mix each time, the unique approaches to the basic material employed by a strong and eclectic string of directors and, of course, the indefatigable efforts of producer/star Tom Cruise to thrill moviegoers by any means necessary, a series that should by all means have become creatively moribund years ago has instead gotten better, craftier and more entertaining with age. If all blockbuster-sized entertainments were even half as ambitious and ingenious as these films have been, moviegoers would be infinitely better off.

The inspiration for the series is, of course, the long-running television series that aired between 1966-1973 that chronicled the globe-trotting adventures of the Impossible Missions Force (IMF), a secret quasi-government organization of secret agents who went out on missions, should they choose to accept them, that found them going up against enemy spies, dictators and, once budget cuts forced the producers to reduce the scope in later years, homegrown criminal organizations. In the first year of the series, the group was led by Dan Briggs (Steven Hill) but in the second season, the character was dropped and replaced with Jim Phelps (Peter Graves), who would lead the team for the remainder of the series as well as a short-lived revival of the show that appeared in the late 1980s.

Seen through today’s eyes, the show is more than a bit odd—this was a program in which most of the episodes seemed to involve the IMF working on assassination plots (though in nearly every case, it would be left to someone else to actually pull the trigger so as not to sully the reputations of our heroes) but the terse approach to the material—the characters were all business and almost never delved into their personal lives—was interesting, the labyrinthine plots (which often included multiple layers of deception and elaborate disguises) were fairly complex by contemporary television standards, the cast (which also included the likes of Barbara Bain, Martin Landau, Leonard Nimoy, Sam Elliott, Greg Morris and Peter Lupus) did solid work and the theme song by Lalo Schifrin remains a stone-cold classic.

In the Eighties going into the Nineties, spurned on by the success of the “Star Trek” movies, making big screen versions out of familiar small screen titles suddenly became the rage for a while. With its well-known title and memorable theme music, Paramount Pictures was keen to make a “Mission: Impossible” film but the project remained in limbo until Tom Cruise, at the very apex of his stardom, decided not only to do it but to make it the first effort from his newly-formed production company. Sydney Pollack was attached to the project for a while but eventually it went to Brian De Palma—the notion of the generally iconoclastic filmmaker doing a potential tentpole project of this sort must have seemed strange at the time but his last major box-office success had been an adaptation of another television show, “The Untouchables” (1987). A number of top writers, including Robert Towne, Steve Zaillian and David Koepp, worked on the script but it reportedly went into production without a completed screenplay. There were also rumors of friction during the shoot between Cruise and De Palma that appeared to be tacitly confirmed when De Palma dropped out of the film’s press junket on the eve of its opening.

When audiences first sat down to watch “Mission: Impossible” in May 1996, those with an actual working knowledge of the series must have felt right at home. From the start, the film trotted out the most familiar ingredients—the theme, the opening credits featuring a rapid-fire assortment of clips from the story we were about to see and, most of all, an IMF team once again led by veteran Jim Phelps (now played by Jon Voight) and including his wife, Claire (Emmanuelle Beart), and various experts in their respective fields (played by such familiar faces as Kristin Scott Thomas and Emilio Estevez). Most importantly, there was point man Ethan Hunt (Cruise) choosing to accept a mission in Prague to recover a top secret list of CIA agents from the American Embassy that requires clever moves, hi-tech gadgetry and, of course, an elaborate disguise or two. Then, in classic De Palma fashion, things quickly go sideways and the once-cocky Ethan is left standing helpless as the rest of his team is killed off one by one and the list vanishes. To make matters worse, when Hunt reports to his superior (Henry Czerny) for debriefing, he learns that the entire mission was a ruse designed to ferret out a mole who was intending on stealing and selling the list to a secretive arms dealer known only as Max—since he was the only survivor, the assumption is that Ethan was the guilty party. He escapes easily enough and, after putting together an ad-hoc team consisting of a couple of disgraced former IMF operatives, computer genius Luther Stickey (Ving Rhames) and pilot Franz Krieger (Jean Reno), and Claire, who survived the attack after all, creates an elaborate plan to steal the real list himself in order to lure the person who framed him while at the same time escaping the pursuit of his former employers.

The film got reviews that were decent but hardly spectacular with many of them complaining that the storyline was too convoluted for its own good. Therefore, it may come as a shock to people revisiting it for the first time in a while (or those who have never seen it before) to discover just how strong it really is. Yes, the systematic destruction of the IMF team in the opening scenes, coupled with the later revelation that—Spoiler Alert!—it was Phelps himself who was the mole, shocked and outraged fans of the original show (not to mention some of the original stars, who gave interviews to show their displeasure with the film). And yet, this move proved to be as dramatically clever as it was audacious. The times had changed considerably in the years since the original series went off the air and the notion of a clandestine spy agency going on officially unsanctioned missions to mess around in other countries was simply not going to play in the same fashion. By blowing things up in this way, the film managed to clear the decks for a “Mission: Impossible” designed for the current world while managing to throw most moviegoers for a loop early on in the proceedings.

It is funny to note that this film was once derided for its alleged incoherence because the narrative seems remarkably clean and efficiently told, especially in comparison to what passes for blockbuster filmmaking these days. When it is seen a second time—and this is the rare modern screen spectacular that actually plays better on repeat viewings—one can more clearly see just how smartly written it really is. (I especially love the scene in which Ethan and Phelps reunite and catch each other up on what is happening and Ethan quietly realizing that he is being lied to by his former mentor.) The performances are also quite good as well, which also comes as a surprise since quality acting is not usually the highest priority in films like this. Cruise does an excellent job of playing against his generally cocksure screen persona, Voight adds weight and even a slight degree of poignance to his turn as Phelps and as the mysterious Max, Vanessa Redgrave turns up in a couple of scenes and pretty much steals the show—when she and Cruise have their big scene together, the screen crackles with so much electricity that one wishes that someone could have found a project that would have given them more chances to play off of each other. (The only sort-of disappointment in the cast is Beart, who is nowhere near as electrifying here as she was in films like “Manon of the Spring” or “La Belle Noisseuse” [1991], though that might have something to do with the last-minute deletion of scenes suggest a love triangle between Claire, her husband and Ethan.)

The best thing about “Mission: Impossible”—not to mention one of the key elements that would go on to drive the subsequent films—is the way that a film that was presumably launched primarily as a star project managed to morph, with the approval of the star/producer, into perhaps the most auteur-friendly franchise in operation today. Since it is a film where he was hired to interpret someone else’s material, this is clearly not a “pure” Brian De Palma movie in the manner of such self-generated projects as “Dressed to Kill” (1980), “Blow Out” (1981) or “Femme Fatale” (2002). However, this is one of his most successful attempts at channeling his own particular obsessions into a more overtly commercial framework than is usually found in his more personal efforts. Although not necessarily the kind of story that he might have designed wholly on his own, this story allowed De Palma to tackle subject matter that has long fascinated him, such as voyeurism, technology, mistrust of the very organizations that are supposedly there to protect us and stories that feature unreliable narrators. The film also allows him to demonstrate once again that he is one of the great visual storytellers of our time and includes some of the most memorable extended set pieces of his career. Under normal circumstances, either the opening sabotage in Prague or the climactic fight aboard and on top of a train speeding through the Chunnel would be duly enshrined as the absolute peak moments in the career of an ordinary filmmaker. With De Palma, they aren’t even the high point of the film thanks to the masterful sequence depicting Ethan and his team infiltrating CIA headquarters to steal the list of spies from a room rigged to sound off alarms at even the slightest hint of an intruder in the room—even a simple drop of sweat could do the trick. The entire sequence is a breathtaking wonder that is pretty much a master class in filmmaking all by itself.

When “Mission: Impossible II” came around, Robert Towne was once again pulled into the fold to write the screenplay but the directing reins were passed on to John Woo, the Hong Kong filmmaker who dazzled audiences around the world with such jaw-droppers as “A Better Tomorrow” (1986), “The Killer” (1989) and “Hard Boiled” (1992) before going to Hollywood to make “Hard Target” (1993) and the smash hit “Face/Off” (1997). This time around, the story revolves around Ethan being sent off to track down Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), a rogue IMF agent who has stolen both a deadly virus and its cure, planning to release the former into the world and sell the latter to the highest bidder. To accomplish this, Ethan recruits professional thief and former Ambrose flame Nyah (Thandie Newton) to seduce her one-time lover and help him recover the virus and antidote—complications inevitably arise when Ethan winds up falling in love with Nyah himself. Yes, this is roughly the same plot as the Alfred Hitchcock classic “Notorious” (1946), though to be fair, “Notorious” did not contain nearly the amount of crazy stunts or over-the-top fight scenes on display here.

“Mission: Impossible II” is usually considered to be the weakest entry in the series but while it is undeniably not quite as good as its predecessor, it is still better than its reputation might otherwise suggest. The story is not much to speak of but it is presented with enough style and energy to keep things humming along nicely enough. The action sequences, starting with the sight of Cruise doing a free solo climb in Moab, Utah and climaxing with a crazy-ass duel with motorcycles, are appropriately hair-raising as well. Most significantly, the series has once again allowed a noted filmmaker to play to their strengths and idiosyncrasies instead of trying to tamp them down. This may not be a great John Woo film in the way that “The Killer” or “Hard Boiled” are but, as was the case with De Palma, he manages to make a film that is undeniably his while still serving the basic needs of any tentpole project. Woo has always been a filmmaker with a taste for grandly melodramatic stories and the swoony romantic triangle at the center of the narrative, not to mention the notion of good and evil being separated by only the thinnest of lines (illustrated at a couple of points by having Ambrose donning a mask to make himself look like Ethan), certainly accomplishes that here.

After flirtations with David Fincher and Joe Carnahan, it was J.J. Abrams, then riding high on the twin successes of “Alias” and “Lost," who was brought on to make his feature directorial debut with “Mission: Impossible III.” In this installment, Ethan has finally left the field work behind in order to train new agents for their own future missions and is even engaged to marry Julia (Michelle Monaghan), who is under the impression that he works for the DMV. During his engagement party, he is informed that one of his trainees (Keri Russell, perhaps inevitably) has been taken captive by international bad guy Owen Davian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). He and his team (including Jonathan Rhys Myers, Maggie Q and Rhames) swoop in to make a rescue, but it all goes wrong and Ethan finds himself under suspicion from the new IMF head (Laurence Fishburne). Without official authorization, Ethan and the team set off to nab Davian and while they are initially successful, things once again fall apart and the fates of both the world in general and Julia in particular are at stake.

“Mission: Impossible III” is easily the most mixed bag of the entire series. Part of the problem with this one is that the main story too often comes across as a rehash of the first film’s plot without any of the genuinely surprising twists or narrative drive that its predecessor demonstrated in spades. The bigger issue is that while Abrams has gone on to direct some of the biggest films imaginable (he is the only guy to direct installments of both the “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” franchises), he was just taking his first tentative steps into telling stories on that scale here and it shows. The action scenes are fast and noisy and frantic but for the most part, they lack the style and precision that De Palma and Woo brought to their set pieces, though comparing the efforts of a relative novice to experts like those two may be a little unfair. That said, Abrams seems more at home with the material involving Ethan’s personal life and the seeming impossibility of balancing a normal life with being called upon to save the world on a regular basis, which was also one of the key themes behind “Alias.” He also injects the series with a much-needed sense of humor courtesy of the introduction of Simon Pegg as a nerdy tech guy who would go on to become a series regular. The most significant aspect of the film, however, is the presence of the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain. This was offbeat casting, to be sure, but it proved to be an extraordinarily effective choice—he is such a genuinely menacing presence throughout that even though you pretty much know going in that Hunt will indeed save the day, Hoffman forces you to consider the possibility that maybe he won’t after all.

When “Mission: Impossible III” was released in the summer of 2006, it came at a time when Tom Cruise’s stock as a star had dipped (this was the period of his sofa-hopping antics and the like) and while it was a success, it would prove to be the lowest-grossing entry in the series. Perhaps in response to this, “Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol” (2011) made a couple of additional tweaks to the formula that might have seemed risky—both literally and metaphorically—at the time but which proved to inject some needed energy into the franchise. The storyline was not necessarily a departure from the usual array of international goings-on: after being falsely accused of blowing up the Kremlin while on a mission to spring a key information source from a Moscow prison, Ethan and his officially disavowed team (which adds Paula Patton and Jeremy Renner with newly promoted Pegg) are assigned to pursue a Russian nuclear strategist (Michael Nyqvist) who is responsible for the bombing and who is hellbent on kicking off a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. But this was arguably the first time that the mission had the feel of a team effort that allowed everyone a moment to shine, from the suspiciously adept defensive moves from seemingly ordinary analyst Renner to the thrilling brawl between Patton and deadly assassin Lea Seydoux that might have been the unquestioned highlight of an ordinary movie.

This is not to say that Cruise was exactly slacking off this time around. While he had always been a galvanizing physical presence in the previous films—one of the reasons that the stunts had such a visceral impact was that he was clearly doing the vast majority of them himself—perhaps he knew with this one that he had something to prove to audiences who might have thought that the series was beginning to die out. In turn, Cruise goes the extra mile with results that are both exhilarating and exhausting to watch. In the film's most famous moment, we see him climbing on the outside of Dubai’s Burj Khalifa tower, the world’s tallest building. Sure, he was strapped to the building with numerous cables that were later removed in post-production but the sight of a real person hanging from a real building over a great height has a weight and gravity to it that the grandest of CGI spectacles can hardly hope to approach.

The film marked the live-action directorial debut of Brad Bird, who had previously made a name for himself for helming the beloved animated features “The Iron Giant” (1999), “The Incredibles” (2004) and “Ratatouille” (2007). Once again, the decision to put such a huge project in the hands of someone who had never made a film of this size or scope raised more than a few eyebrows at the time, but that was nothing compared to the amount of eyeballs that popped upon seeing what he had done with it. Bird brought his animator’s eye to the staging of the massive action sequences and part of the fun of the film was watching all of the disparate elements come together with a great degree of humor, split-second timing and a remarkable degree of clarity (which included the smart decision to eschew 3-D for the more impressive visual gimmick of shooting a chunk of the film in the high-resolution IMAX format). From the opening Russian jailbreak to the centerpiece Dubai segment (which eventually expands to include both a high-speed chase and a giant sandstorm) to the climax in which Ethan and the big bad guy do battle in an automatic car park in Mumbai that finds both fists and automobiles flying with carefully calibrated abandon, the film feels at times as if it is indeed a live-action cartoon (in the best sense of the word). Even at its most outlandish, however, there is still a human element at its center that keeps both the story and the character grounded at all times, at least metaphorically.

“Ghost Protocol” instantly reenergized the “Mission: Impossible” series (it would prove to be the most successful of the films to date as well as Cruise’s biggest hit) but it did it so well that it almost seemed to paint the franchise into a corner—just the idea of trying to top it in terms of thrills and spectacle seemed to be a doomed prospect. And yet, not only did “Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation” live up to those expectations, it somehow managed to exceed them. Taking over the co-writing and directing chores this time around was Christopher McQuarrie (who had worked with Cruise before on “Valkyrie” [2008], “Jack Reacher” [2012] and “Edge of Tomorrow” [2014] and who did uncredited rewrites on “Ghost Protocol”) and tell a story that tie in together rather than acting as stand-alone narratives. In “Rogue Nation,” with the IMF once again disavowed and placed under the aegis of the head of the CIA (Alec Baldwin), Ethan goes off on his own to investigate The Syndicate, a shadowy organization comprised of presumed-dead agents from around the world to serve as a sort of ad hoc terrorist group. Although old colleagues like Luther and Benji, now officially part of the CIA, turn up to help him prove the existence of the Syndicate and clear his name, Ethan also receives assistance from Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), a mysterious assassin who is either a British intelligence agent posing as a Syndicate operative or vice versa.

More so than any of the previous sequels, “Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation” did the best job since the original of balancing the white-knuckle action scenes with a story that served as more than just a laundry line to connect the setpieces. Much of the promotional hype surrounding the film was based around the opening sequence in which Cruise is seen dangling from the outside of an airbus in flight. This was a knockout scene to be sure but McQuarrie managed to top those later on with a couple of equally amazing scenes—one involving an extended brawl with a sniper in the wings above the Vienna State Opera during a production of “Turandot” and the other involving Ethan infiltrating Syndicate headquarters by swimming through a pressurized underwater cavern and reprogramming a computer in under three minutes and without the use of air tanks—that demonstrated a heretofore unexpected flair for action filmmaking that rivaled anything seen in the series, or anywhere else for that matter. The writing was just as strong—the chief villain, a former MI6 agent named Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), who seizes control of the Syndicate for his own means, is more interesting than usual, the narrative unfolds in a manner that is complex and twisty without slipping into confusion and contains some very funny moments to help lighten the mood—my favorite is an apparent homage to the old “Scenes We’d Like To See” feature from Mad Magazine that finds the IMF in front of a government commission to answer for the destruction they caused over the course of the earlier films. Best of all is the inclusion of the Ilsa Faust character, a real wild card who, thanks to Ferguson’s star-making performance, serves as both Hunt’s equal and a possible romantic foil, not that they have much time for anything like that here.

Which brings us, at long last, to “Mission: Impossible - Fallout,” which, in a break with tradition, finds McQuarrie returning to write and direct a story that ties directly into its predecessor and while I suppose that the original film remains my favorite of the franchise thanks to the contributions of De Palma, this one is a legitimate work of grand popular art that serves as a wonderful payoff for longtime fans of the series and as a top-notch entertainment on its own. You have no doubt heard about many—though hopefully not all—of the jaw-dropping stunts on display and they all live up to the hoopla. Needless to say, this is one of those movies that needs to be seen in the theatre, preferably on the biggest possible screen. At the same time, the screenplay does an equally impressive job of telling a complex and consistently surprising story that meets all of the genre requirements and still leaves room to allow us to get a better idea of who Hunt is and what it is that drives him. The film even takes time to acknowledge its own now-considerable history with nicely done moments that do everything from pay homage to Max from the first film to resolving the relationship between Ethan and Julia that had been left in a sort of limbo after “Mission: Impossible III.”

And then there is Cruise, whose luster may have dimmed a bit in recent years with such misfires as “The Mummy” but who once again reminds us of the very qualities that made him one of the biggest movie stars around in the first place. Physically, he throws himself into the proceedings with a heedlessness that is bracing to behold—just watching him as he goes about his running and jumping will be enough to exhaust most viewers—but for the first time in the films, he is willing to acknowledge, albeit subtly, that he is getting older, an interesting move for someone who normally plays up his youthful nature whenever he can. He puts just as much effort into the dramatic beats as well and while this is not the kind of performance that will go on to win any awards, I cannot imagine anyone inhabiting the role with even a sliver of the conviction that he continues to bring to it even after all these years. As long as he remains its driving force, the “Mission: Impossible” franchise will hopefully maintain the absurdly high standards that it has already set for itself. However, as many have noted, he is getting up there in years, at least by action hero standards—is there a possibility that he might step away from the series anytime soon? No one can say for sure right now, but I suspect that if you listen to his last line of dialogue in the film, you will have your answer.

from All Content https://ift.tt/2mFxhCe

0 notes

littlestarprincess · 7 years

Text

So, despite the fact that anime and manga are frequently accused of having shitty pacing at some point or another (generally about three quarters of the way through, when arcs like the global ninja war in Naruto happen, or the Future Arc in Katekyou Hitman Reborn! or god what’s another big one I don’t keep track of the Big Names) there is never really any talk about the fact that a lot of works in Japanese, Chinese and Korean media rely on a different dramatic structure than the one western fans are used to.

Specifically, a lot of traditional Japanese/Chinese/Korean (I’m not sure about other east Asian countries, though -- I haven’t done a whole lot of research into this, and most of the basic stuff I’ve seen mentions those three but no where else?) uses the kishotenketsu structure, which is as follows:

Introduction -- introduces the character; think of things like the Genin & Bridge arcs of Naruto, the Daily Life arc for KHR!, the first part of any Miyazaki film (a really good one to think of in this context is probably Princess Mononoke, actually, because now that I think about it the palette actually changes a lot throughout that movie based on where it is -- Ashitaka’s introduction is very bright and summery, while the development portion of the story uses a lot of russets and reds, and then finally the twist & conclusion invoke a lot more blues and deep, cool greens. IDK if that was intentional, since like the three act structure is for western creators, the kishotenketsu is kind of everywhere and probably relied on unconsciously just as much as it’s consciously invoked, but. . . . )

Development -- still pretty straightforward -- this is where you’re probably going to start crying, and going on about how amazing the characterization/world building/depth of plot is. This is probably also the part of the story that appeals to fanartists and fanfiction writers the most, because it really emphasizes slow exploration into different character’s pasts and motivations, and aspects of the world building you’re not likely to see otherwise. Think the chuunin exams from Naruto, the Dark Tournament from Yu Yu Hakusho, the Mukuro & Varia arcs in KHR!, the Vizier and Los Noches arcs from Bleach! -- basically, it’s where western fans of a series are going to “peak”, probably because it most closely resembles the three act structure we’re familiar with. It’s where people get hyped up and praise the authors for being geniuses.

Twist -- This is the important difference. This is where fans start complaining about the pacing, because this is where the kishotenketsu really shows that it’s not just the three act structure with a different name. This is where the author introduces a concept that hasn’t been touched on before -- Naruto’s sudden turn into “war is bad! LOOK AT ALL THE WAR AROUND US”, the sudden introduction in KHR of the Mare rings and Arcobaleno as part of a trinity of magic artifacts keeping balance in the world, stuff like that. The story suddenly veers in a different direction, and for people who are used to the very straightforward rising action (which touches in to the development part of the story) -- climax -- denouement of the three act, it, well, feels like bad pacing. For the western viewer, it seems like we should be moving into the climax here, but instead we’re suddenly getting a different story, and it can feel like having the rug tugged out from under our feet, and I think this is probably where a lot of wank comes from in anime/manga especially because every time I’ve mentioned it the person I’m talking to is immediately like “? ? ?”

Conclusion -- this is another important bit that works differently than in the three act. The conclusion is where the twist/unexpected and seemingly unrelated development gets tied into the original storyline. In Naruto, we have a lot of backstory that gets closure during the final battle between Madara and the armies, and Naruto and Sasuke, and how Kyuubi and the ninja wars are tied together; in KHR, we have Tsuna’s inheritance arc, and how that ties into the future arc, as well as the resolution of the arcobaleno situation. We have two stories up until this point, and this is the part where we wind them together.

Anyway, this is mostly a preliminary post. Hopefully I can put all of this into words and explain why the pacing feels off in tower of god later this week.

#anyway I'm writing all of this up because hopefully in the next few days I'll write some nice meta on how the pacing in the last few floors #& with wangnan and the ten families and etc #is affected by the different dramatic structures #i still have lineart to color though so we'll see #that has been waiting longer so it comes first

6 notes · View notes

maczazind · 7 years

Text

FILM DIARY 2017: March - "Another Slow Month"

Spring has sprung and with the changing of the seasons comes a plethora of new films arriving everywhere. A busy month in theaters for sure, it seems to be just the start as we gear up for the blockbuster season ahead. But with a few notable tentpoles of the year arriving in the past four weeks, which did I add to my list? And what did I think of them?

As always, the following reflects MY OWN OPINION. If you’d like to see these entries in full as the year progresses, each installment is given the tag “Film Diary 2017” so feel free to follow along!

Each entry includes how every feature was primarily seen and an asterisk which denotes that viewing was the first time I’ve seen that movie in its entirety, despite possibly having seen pieces of the film previously or having a general knowledge of it. Numbering reflects the year’s overall total, not the monthly total.

March 3rd: 34) Mother’s Day* - DVD (Rental - Library); What turned out to be Garry Marshall’s final directorial effort, Mother’s Day closes out a loose trilogy known for a rotating cast of big stars. And while I find all three simply harmless, this final entry isn’t even the best of THAT group. Scenes that feel they should naturally go one way pivot into a different direction and jump elsewhere or sometimes even linger a bit too long before they cut. While the other holiday entries had some decent connected twists at the end, this one lacks that and you can see everything coming from a mile away. Its heart can be in the right place sometimes and some of the cast does have great chemistry with each other, but I just found it mostly falling flat.

March 4th: 35) Logan* - Theater; In the current state of superhero features, Logan felt like something fantastically different: unflinchingly violent and emotionally raw. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy the MCU or the DC slate of films, but this goodbye to a character embedded into pop culture for the past 17 years was something that felt right in so many ways. For those who grew up with the character, we received a more adult tale that at the same time feels truer to the comic book character with no restrictions in place to appeal to a PG-13 rating. He is every bit the previously tortured soul, even more so now given events that unfold, with an additional desire to avoid any new loyalties or attachments to newcomers, and the western-like tone drives home that personality even more. You feel for every relationship in the film, whether it be one that has developed for years or one with a young mutant he just became responsible for. Every bit of action is hard hitting. The central plot even has ties to Wolverine at his beginning that feels fitting, while also introducing us to a new central character Laura that shines just as brightly as he does – hell she even steals the show at various points. All of this combines into a farewell to Jackman’s portrayal that is as memorable as it is touching.

36) Woman In Gold* - Streaming (Netflix); You could probably lose track of how many “based on a true story” films there are in a year and this 2015 release fell through the cracks for myself. It starts off rather slow as the movie establishes how the story is going to be told, which frequently jumps back and forth between main storylines that start in the 1940s and the late 1990s while also visiting the 1920s as well. But once things settle and the characters start to actually grow close, an emotionally driven plot takes form and brings out fantastic performances from Ryan Reynolds, Helen Mirren and Tatiana Maslany. It never escapes some cliches nor its delayed start, but the backstory of Mirren’s character demands attention as the flashbacks unfold. It is a mixed effort, but one that has some impressive elements difficult to ignore.

March 11th: 37) Kong: Skull Island* - Theater; It’s been 12 years since King Kong’s last cinematic endeavor and the iconic movie creature is back on the big screen. I went in expecting a fun action movie and that’s exactly what I received. It’s not perfect; I do wish some characters were fleshed out better than their archetypes. But there was something about the fantastic visuals from director Jordan Vogt-Roberts, the strong war movie atmosphere battling the action-adventure aspects and the reinvention of the classic Kong story that left me feeling impressed. For a character around for the better part of a century, of course it can’t shake some familiar beats from previous installments. But for everything it tries to do and can do, I left the theater satisfied.

38) Hands of Stone* - Streaming (Netflix); In the decent handful of great boxing movies, this one doesn’t exactly touch the classics. Hands of Stone certainly tells an intriguing tale about a big name in boxing with a solid cast, but there is a number of times the film doesn’t know how it wants to tell the events. Often, we change perspectives from our central character of Roberto Duran to that of trainer Ray Arcel and to a smaller degree Sugar Ray Leonard, which crowds up the man under the magnifying glass. While we start from Ray’s point of view, we then shift to Duran’s while volleying back and forth for nearly two hours. This can leave the movie feeling out of focus from the career it wants to tell, while at the same time never quite shedding the typical story skeleton this genre tends to follow. As a whole, the feature doesn’t tend to hit as hard as it wants to even if it does have its moments.

March 16th: 39) Pete’s Dragon* (2016) - Streaming (Netflix); I was raised as a Disney loving child from an early age and yet the original Pete’s Dragon was never a staple in my household. I’ve always tended to shy away from its weirdness (for which I shall leave Practical Folks’ Drunk Disney to highlight here) but was drawn to the live action/animation blend. However, with Disney knocking it out of the park in regards to remakes lately, I was intrigued by this retelling of the cult classic despite just an okay box office opening stateside. And what transpires is a solid, kid-friendly adventure film that shines brightest when focusing on the friendship of Pete and Elliot. There’s something wonderfully heartfelt between the two throughout that David Lowery captures beautifully, evoking similar tones to that of Hiccup and Toothless’ bond in How To Train Your Dragon. The adults serve well and the fish out of water story is fun, but the true weight of the story is best felt with the aforementioned. While not my favorite entry in the remake era, Lowery does an admirable effort of turning a zany musical comedy into an emotional mix of fantasy, comedy and character-driven drama.

March 23rd: 40) Burnt* - DVD (Rental - Library); A comforting watch for those versed in the world of cooking entertainment. Burnt explores the art of fine dining and the passion behind it, even if it’s not a completely riveting journey along the way. Boasting an all-star cast, don’t completely buy into everyone who is on the box art; Lily James and Alicia Vikander, for example, show up for all of two scenes. Once you get past its eccentricities, there is a central cast of about four or five characters that can really shine - with Bradley Cooper giving it his all as lead. Whether or not you can get into the movie, however, lies on your interest about Cooper’s main pursuit. Perhaps a bit too clean of a story in the end and definitely quite crowded, it was still a valid viewing that simply did not come close to my favorites this month.

March 27th: 41) Independence Day: Resurgence* - Streaming (HBO Go); People tried to warn me, didn’t they? What I didn’t expect was to like the first part of the movie ,though. It sets up an interesting introduction and I was actually into it. But the most ironic thing is that once the aliens attack again is where I found the movie to lose itself. It makes dumb decision after dumb decision, killing off people you were surprised made it out of the first film. The mix of practical and computer effects are gone, drowning you in a sea of special effects and CGI sets that really feel out of place the closer you reach the end credits. Add in some unnecessary subplots and characters, and I finally understand why many were complaining last summer. Sure the first one is a popcorn film, but it manages to find a find balance of its premise, campiness and action. This one simply makes too many bad choices, with a majority of the invasion tactic being “do what we did last time” and scrambling/failing to bounce back when it inevitably doesn’t work. Though it was intriguing to see what became of this world, the end result takes a steep nosedive.

March 31st: 42) Anastasia - Streaming (Netflix); It’s been at least a decade since I’ve seen Anastasia and between the upcoming Broadway adaptation and my friend Lily’s long standing love for the film, on a whim I decided to check it out again. From what I recall, I saw the feature in theaters when I was really young, owned it on VHS, but it never hit home as an all-time favorite of mine. Revisiting it now, it was more of a pleasant surprise as the fairy tale motif really focuses more on our characters than anything. There are the kid-friendly cliches of a comedic relief animal, songs and even some magic but all of it tends to fall to the wayside when comparing to the central stories and relationships. Upon the big reunion the film leads up to, I actually got goosebumps despite knowing it was bound to happen. There’s something fantastic in the deliveries of Meg Ryan, John Cusack, Angela Lansbury and others that boost what could have been a basic tale. The only fault I tend to have is that the villain of Rasputin feels incredibly tacked on, being kept at an arm’s length for the entire plot and creating hurdles that could honestly exist without him. And while the CGI does not hold up nor is the high definition transfer as crisp, the animation has something to admire in the fact that it’s incredibly fluid as there is rarely a moment where the characters’ lines or mannerism are resting. All in all, I’m really happy to have rediscovered Anastasia at an older age as it helped give perspective and appreciation for various elements that I really believe went over my head as a child.

And that was my month of movies for March. April is already starting to look up with a handful of first viewings, with much to share next month. See you then!

What movies did you see in March 2017? Are there any movies you’d highly recommend that I should add to my watchlist? Feel free to drop me an ask or a reply!

#film diary 2017 #movies

0 notes