#I really like how this movie portrays the conflict between man and nature.. it doesn’t resolve easily and there is no quick answer.

[calico-fiish]

Con planning!!

[caffeinatedseri]

Dead Apple Light Novel

Recently, I decided to buy LN 5, Dead Apple, purely because I’m a sucker for all of BSD’s light novels, so this post will revolve around what I took away from this novel. 

Dead Apple is Canon

Since the story jumps around in the timeline a lot, I had originally thought that Dead Apple took place outside of canon (especially with Atsushi’s flashback). 

However, a particular part of Asagiri’s afterword stuck out to me:

Now, allow me a moment to discuss some of the particulars of Dead Apple. Chronologically, the story takes place after the second season of the anime — in other words, after the war with the Guild, which puts Dead Apple somewhere between the ninth and tenth volumes of the manga. 

The novel also ended up affecting the main story in numerous ways, and I’m sure this new experience will continue to influence my future work as well.

It’s not unusual for a light novel to insert itself into the main timeline (see 55 Minutes which takes place in the 10th volume), but it’s nice to have confirmation that the same applies to Dead Apple. 

Of course, just because a work isn’t canon compliant (see BEAST), doesn’t mean that it has no potential for further analysis or it doesn’t bring any added complexity to the main plot. Regardless, this post serves as somewhat of a precursor to my other posts concerning Dead Apple since I have a tendency to talk about it a lot, and I’d like to establish a basis for a lot of my posts. 

Differences between the Movie and Light Novel

In the afterword of the light novel, Hiro Iwahata (the author of this LN) said:

“Furthermore, I worked on this book under Asagiri’s supervision, meaning there are several lines in certain scenes that differ from the movie. It might even be fun comparing the two!  Nothing would make me happier than the fans enjoying this novel alongside the movie.”

As per Iwahata’s request, I went into the light novel, looking for differences between it and the movie. However, the novel is surprisingly, almost identical to the movie (maybe not surprising considering it is a “movie novelization”).

Because the differences are so miniscule, I believe they hold an even greater significance, since Asagiri must have wanted to change these specific details for a certain reason. 

Some of the differences I talk about might be unimportant, but I did my best to catch everything that was changed from the movie.

1. The movie doesn’t mention SKK as a part of the Dragon’s Head Conflict, but the novel says, “Some fought under the alias Twin Dark.” 

This probably means that SKK became a pair either before the Dragon’s Head Conflict or during (although I’m pretty sure that the “organization” they destroyed over night was Shibusawa’s organization).

2. When Dazai says that he would’ve continued killing people in the mafia if it weren’t for Oda, Atsushi has little to no reaction in the movie; I would describe it as maybe a hesitant or concerned feeling.

In the novel, Atsushi has a more outward reaction.

““Huh...?!” Atsushi was baffled. He had no idea whether that was true. What did Dazai mean by that? (...) The melancholy Atsushi felt from Dazai had disappeared, and Dazai continued to speak in his usual lighthearted manner.”

Not only does he react verbally, but the novel also adds an inner monologue (mainly for Atsushi) that can’t be portrayed as well in movie format. 

To me, this change highlights how Atsushi sees Dazai purely as a good person; he reacts in such a startled manner because he believes that Dazai is too good of a person to be in the mafia killing people (which we know Atsushi hates). This trend reoccurs throughout the story, of Atsushi turning a blind eye to Dazai’s “bad side.”

3. This one isn’t at all the movie’s fault, but the novel gives a lot more clues as to what the “dead apple” and the dagger in the apple motif represents.

The first time it appears is when Kunikida and Tanizaki meet the Special Division’s agent, but they find out that he’s already dead.

“It [the apple] was, without a doubt, a simple fruit... save for the fact that there was a knife sticking out of it as if to condemn the taste of sin. A blade had been driven into the symbol of original sin. A dreary, ominous aura, oozed from the ripe fruit like venom. 

Throughout the novel, it seems to associate the “dead apple” motif with Fyodor pretty strongly, especially since this paragraph ties in Fyodor’s ideals nicely with the symbolism of the apple and dagger.

The apple represents sin, the very first sin — which you could interpret as sin at its purest — while the dagger represents the condemning of such sin. However, the apple can also potentially symbolize life, while the dagger stabbing into life can mean death. 

Fyodor’s ideals revolve around “removing the sin” of ability users (represented by an apple in this case) but he does so through manipulation. The dagger is associated with stealth and deception, which is fitting with what Fyodor does to “remove the sin” of ability users.

However, he’s also taking the lives of ability users in this process, hence stabbing the apple, coincidentally committing another sin in his attempt to relinquish all sin.

4. In the “Snow White” Oda and Dazai flashback, everything is identical to the movie (word for word), but there is some additional narration.

“It was an alarming sight — Dazai sounded like he was in a trance. It was as if he was ignoring all this world had to offer while in pursuit of something else.”

I’ve talked about this particular scene before here, but the gist is that Dazai was discreetly talking about himself while referring to Snow White. 

Dazai joined the mafia because he believed that the violence (or true human nature) would give him a reason to live, but we already know that this kind of thinking was flawed.  Thus, this line most likely means that Dazai was ignoring all of the “good” qualities of the world while pursuing a reason to live, which inevitably wouldn’t work. 

5. Right after the flashback, when Dazai takes the pill, the novel really sells the act of “Dazai walking towards his death and going to the evil side.” 

Personally, this scene in the movie felt more open to interpretation after you’ve seen the ending. You could say that Dazai took the antidote and said “Being on the side that saves people is more beautiful,” because his plan is to continue living to save more people. 

However, the novel throws away any possible double meaning with this paragraph:

“Dazai then reached for the pill with his bandaged hand, neatly picked it up, and slowly brought it to his lips — just like Snow White and the sweet, poisoned apple. The venomous red-and-pure-white-pill disappeared inside his mouth.”

After Dazai’s tangent on how Snow White could’ve committed suicide out of despair, the narration compares him directly to Snow White. With the added venomous pill stated outright, it only further cements the idea that Dazai’s actually committing suicide here.

I don’t particularly like this change, because it feels like this moment was set up entirely just to divert the audience’s expectations, rather than it be a standalone scene that makes sense when considering the rest of the story. (It might not necessarily be a change, possibly just a rough translation from movie to novel). 

6. When Atsushi wakes up from his nightmare, there’s some additional inner monologue:

Everything’s okay. I’m not the same person I was when I lived at the orphanage. I have friends. I have a place where I belong — the Armed Detective Agency. Things are different now.

The anime (and in turn the movie) tends to downplay the effects of Atsushi’s trauma — probably due to the limitations of anime — but regardless the novel portrays it much better with how Atsushi’s trauma affects practically every aspect of his life. 

7. I thought Fukuzawa’s ability only gave his subordinates control over their abilities, but the novel says:

“Yukichi Fukuzawa and his skill, All Men are Equal, a peculiar ability that allowed him to suppress and control his subordinates’ skills.”

Does this mean that Fukuzawa could control and suppress all of the agency’s abilities? It could be a weird translation, but it seems oddly specific.

8. This detail isn’t actually a novel exclusive, but it is an extremely small detail that I missed while watching the movie, so I figured I would add it here too.

“the phantom’s notebook had the word Compromise written on the cover. A copy of himself that didn’t follow ideals but made compromises was an abomination to Kunikida.”

Considering how abilities act as the shadow to every character in this story, this is a nice detail that shows how Kunikida’s inner desire is to compromise, because carrying such heavy ideals is undoubtedly a burden. However, because he holds onto his ideals so strongly, it becomes his biggest weakness AND his biggest strength.

9. There’s a super small detail added to this scene with Dazai, Fyodor, and Shibusawa. When Dazai suggests that Shibusawa could be saved by an angel or a demon, the following exchange occurs:

“Hmm... Maybe an angel?” Dazai picked up the skull on the table. “Or maybe a demon?” “It’s obvious what both of your true intentions are, if you ask me.” The third man mirthfully cackled and took the skull from Dazai’s hand.

In the movie, Dazai doesn’t pick up anything, so as a result Fyodor doesn’t take anything from Dazai either. 

Because Fyodor walked into the scene after Dazai suggested that an angel or demon would save Shibusawa, I strongly suspect that this was foreshadowing future events in which Fyodor does “save” Shibusawa by giving him his memories back.

The novel adds more to this foreshadowing by having Dazai pick up the skull before it’s taken by Fyodor — essentially having Fyodor take the cards out of Dazai’s hands and put them in his favor. 

It’s also worth pointing out that the skull is also the object that Fyodor uses to revive Shibusawa into a supernatural ghost of some sorts at the end of the story.

10. This may be just a difference in translations but in the movie, Shibusawa refers to Fyodor as “Demon Fyodor-kun”, whereas in the novel Fyodor is called “Fyodor the Conjurer.” (Ango uses the Conjurer title as well).

In western esotericism, a conjurer is a person who summons supernatural beings, like spirits, demons, or God.

This slightly changes the connotation of Fyodor’s title from a inhuman being of pure malicious intent to just a human who summons these otherworldly beings. This idea also aligns with Shibusawa’s revival, since he’s some sort of supernatural ghost that was “summoned” by Fyodor. 

11. Skipping past the parts where Kyouka and Akutagawa regain their abilities, and Chuuya talks to Ango in the government facility, (since they have little to no changes between the movie and the novel) there is a somewhat significant detail changed in Draconia once again with Dazai and Fyodor.

In the novel, this glowing ball of energy from the movie is actually described as an apple: 

The two lights melted into one and spun until they formed a juicy sphere. They had produced a single apple — a juicy, poisoned apple red as blood.

It birthed a skill — and an extremely powerful one at that — the ability to absorb. Every last crystal adorning Draconia’s walls was sucked into the apple with intense force. Ten — a hundred — a thousand — two thousand — every last one was greedily devoured by the apple...

The apple swelled as it absorbed the numerous crystals until the red light became hotter than the surface of hell.

Since the “dead apple” motif aligns with Fyodor’s character, we can assume that the apple is representative of sin, and sin is associated with abilities, as Fyodor believes.

This strange poisoned apple is made of abilities and has an ability (the ability to absorb), and it commits a sin (greed) in its devouring of other abilities; it’s also hotter than “hell”, which is a very specific connection that leads me to this idea:

My theory is that a normal apple represents life, while a poisoned apple (or dead apple), indicative of a stained, impure life, represents sin. Fyodor believes abilities are akin to sin (what a clever rhyme), therefore all of their lives are sinful.

12. This is arguably the most insignificant change of this entire post, but I feel obligated to put it here regardless since it was different from the movie. When the Special Division detects the singularity of Shibusawa’s dragon form in the novel, it says:

“Abnormal values for singularity are increasing! They’re twice — no, 2.5 times higher than they were six years ago.”

In the movie, the number is five times higher instead.

Why did this number change? Is it significant? I honestly have no idea (I’m surprised I even caught this), but it’s there and I had to document it anyways. 

13. The novel adds this narration for Shibusawa when he gets his memories back and he’s in the orphanage’s room with Atsushi:

“Shibusawa clearly recalled the events from six years ago. Fyodor had enticed him to go to the orphanage where he tortured a young Atsushi... until Atsushi fought back and killed him.”

There’s two things to take away from this: Fyodor had known Shibusawa for at least six years, and Fyodor had been planning the events of Dead Apple since at least six years ago. 

I find it hard to believe that Fyodor’s plan was thwarted by Dazai, because of how Fyodor demonstrated his ability to plan ahead in the main series, but I’m not sure what the long term effects of this plan could be. If Shibusawa succeeded, then it could’ve aligned with the DOA’s goals, but once again I don’t think Fyodor’s plan was actually foiled.

14. Super minor once again, but right after Shibusawa gets revived, the last sentence of chapter 5 is,

“Nobody would ever see the smile on Fyodor’s face.” 

Honestly, I think this was just added to create an ominous tone, but it’s a nice detail regardless.

15. As the red fog spreads across Yokohama, there’s a good part of exposition that connects the “dead apple” motif to Fyodor once again:

“After the red fog devoured the earth, the planet would undoubtedly look like a floating red apple from space. There would be no humans left on its surface, nor any signs they ever existed. It would be a true paradise, and with that, the Dead Apple would finally be complete. A dead planet covered in red fog — that was what Fyodor had planned and sought out.

Nothing other than death could wash away the original sin of man, so it was only fitting for the sin, which started with a fruit, to end with one as well. 

It’s pretty long, but I like the way this passage is written, more specifically the last part since it fits well with the sinful poisoned apple idea.

It also aligns with Fyodor’s ideals of creating a true paradise, free of ability users. However, if Fyodor had planned to have the Earth covered in fog, that could mean that his plan was actually stopped by Dazai and Atsushi in the end.

16. Shibusawa has a few additional lines of dialogue when he talks to Atsushi in their final fight.

“The dragon and tiger... I see now why they are called rivals.”

The dragon and tiger have their roots in Chinese Buddhism, but to go further into that topic would make this already lengthy post even longer.

“Don’t get the wrong idea, though. I’m not blaming you for what happened.”

This line is a brief moment of weakness for Shibusawa, which is interesting in contrast to his strong will to kill Atsushi. Just as Atsushi learned to accept the past and the tiger’s ferocity, Shibusawa shares the same attitude by separating the blame from himself to just simply accepting the past for what happened.

17. In the aftermath of the last fight against Shibusawa, Atsushi and Kyouka meet up with Dazai.

Kyouka asks, “Are you sure this is what you wanted?” which prompts two different responses in the movie and novel respectively.

In the movie, Atsushi says, “Just as Shibusawa was able to forget that he’d been killed before, I think Dazai can put his past behind him again. But this is fine.”

In the novel, Atsushi says:

“... I could probably seal away this memory just like how I’d forgotten I’d killed him before. But... I’m okay with this.”

I interpreted Kyouka’s question in the movie to be questioning Dazai’s loyalties, as he did betray everyone, and Atsushi responded in Dazai’s defense because he trusts him.

However, the novel does change Atsushi’s response to focus on himself rather than Dazai, which in turn changes the implications of Kyouka’s question. 

Kyouka seems to be asking Atsushi whether he was okay with killing Shibusawa, and Atsushi responds by acknowledging that he did kill Shibusawa, and that’s okay. (a very clear development from the beginning of the story when he believed it was unnecessary to kill anyone, and he didn’t want to kill anyone)

18. In the epilogue, Ango talks about the underlying motivations behind the “Dead Apple” case. This change could be attributed to translation differences (like many others in this post), but the connotation does slightly differ from movie to novel. 

In the movie, Ango says, “How is a man like Shibusawa, so intelligent that others look like alien creatures to him, to act, to be destroyed, or to be saved?”

In the novel, Ango says:

“Perhaps the two of them [Dazai and Fyodor] just wanted to get a glimpse of someone like them... Perhaps they wanted to see what he would do and how he would meet his demise... or perhaps how he would be saved.”

The movie simply poses a broad question of what would happen to Shibusawa, a person alienated from the rest of society. 

The novel changes this to focus on Dazai and Fyodor’s perspective — two irredeemable aliens from society just like Shibusawa — executing this grand scheme out of curiosity to see what would happen to someone of the likes of them, and if there’s a possibility for redemption.

19. This is the final difference on this list, and it’s quite a large change. In Fyodor’s monologue at the very end of the story, he has a completely different tone from the movie to novel.

In the movie, Fyodor says, “But in order to end this world, rife with crime and punishment, I do need that book.”

The novel says: 

Glittering high-rises and stately brick buildings stood side by side in this port city with its countless citizens who struggled against crime and punishment. “I think I’ve taken a liking to this city myself..”  Fyodor took a bite of the apple in his hand, and the juicy nectar ran down his delicate fingers. “You’d all better be on your best behavior until next time.”

The reference to the book may have been removed for consistency with the main series, as the book is a part of the DOA’s plan (or more specifically Fukuchi). 

It also seems like Fyodor has grown fond of the city, and no longer wants Yokohama to be destroyed, so it’s still possible that his plan deterred from what he had originally intended.

Beyond that, I’m not entirely sure why crime and punishment was mentioned, or why there’s such an ominous tone to his ending statement, but that’s up to personal interpretation. 

That concludes the long list of extremely specific and minor differences between the Dead Apple movie and light novel! 

Overall, I would say it’s worth checking out the light novel if you don’t have a strong grasp of the Dead Apple story, because it definitely presents the small intricacies of the plot in a more comprehensible way. 

On a side note, the manga adaptation has a lot of noticeable differences from the movie and light novel, mostly with the addition of entirely new scenes (which you can read @buraihatranslations​ — what a shameless self plug). I would highly recommend reading it as those extra scenes are very amusing, to say the least without giving any spoilers.

Honestly, this post was a lot longer than I intended, but I hope you enjoyed it regardless. Thank you for reading!

[mostlymovieswithmax]

Movies I watched in July

Once again I’m doing my monthly round-up of movies I’ve watched. This was a good month for the cinema getting back on track and seeing new releases including the new M. Night movie, Old and James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad. Pretty sure Marvel put out a new movie also. I’m hoping that this list can help in guiding a decision about what to watch (or what to avoid) and introduce people to movies they may otherwise not have heard of or bothered to see. These short reviews are my own subjective opinions on each individual movie and maybe a more informal approach to movie criticism can help include others who are just passing through. Here is every film I watched from the 1st to the 31st of July.

Bridesmaids (2011) - 4/10

Off to a good start. I won’t say Bridesmaids is a terrible movie but I don’t think I’m exactly the target audience. As far as I know, this is a beloved comedy but I just can’t get on board with all the boring, juvenile humour; with Maya Rudolph shitting in the street, with Rose Byrne and Kristen Wiig trying to one-up each other at a toast that went on forever, with Melissa McCarthy shitting in a sink… the conflict is so done to death and makes the movie feel unspecial. I do understand the appeal of the film, especially for women in that before this movie the likelihood of seeing something like this, where women play up the more crass and gross side of comedy, was probably few and far between. But the story is very tired and while I did appreciate some moments, namely a couple of decent jokes and some of the more intimate scenes, for the most part it felt like they wanted to corner a more quiet type of line delivery in a way that was supposed to be understated but very funny so as to not rely on over the top body language or musical cues, and it ended up being super dull.

Spectre (2015) - 7/10

As far as I can tell, a lot of people don’t like this instalment of the James Bond franchise… but I really enjoyed it! I’ve really taken a shine to these Daniel Craig-era Bond movies and while I can’t say any of them are the most amazing thing, I have a lot of fun with them. The biggest problem I have with Spectre is the villain being utterly pointless and uninteresting in basically every way. The idea of every villain Bond has fought before being tied to this one organisation controlled by this one guy is ridiculous, and what makes it worse is that the villain is barely in it! There’s so much that doesn’t come together in this but as it goes, I still had a really good time. Daniel Craig holds the whole thing together; he is excellent as 007 and the main reason I’m up for each of these movies is because of him. Sam Mendes directs again after the previous instalment and for what it’s worth I do think he does a good job with some of the action set pieces and the locations. I’m so ready for No Time To Die.

Shazam (2019) - 7/10

Shazam is a genuinely fun superhero movie that doesn’t take itself seriously at all. I was having a great time throughout and while it could conform to some of the same tropes we’re used to with these kinds of movies, it still remained playful and used the character of Shazam to his fullest potential in a way that showed an understanding of just how silly the idea of a kid who can turn into an adult and shoot lightning out of his hands is.

High School Musical (2006) - 6/10

So as you may or may not know, I co-host a podcast: The Sunday Movie Marathon. It’s a film podcast and every week I get together with my other co-hosts and watch movies. For episode 38, we watched the High School Musical trilogy. This first movie blew me away. I was really surprised with just how much fun I had, and if you want to hear more of my thoughts on the film, please listen to episode 38 of the podcast.

High School Musical 2 (2007) - 4/10

We then jumped into the second and while it’s certainly not as good as its predecessor, there are still some brilliant songs that manage to top the last movie. Again, more of what I have to say can be heard on episode 38 of the podcast.

High School Musical 3: Senior Year (2008) - 3/10

Senior Year was pretty hard to get through. I don’t remember it being as bad as it was, but then I didn’t really remember it anyway. It did however have one redeeming quality, which you can discover on episode 38 of the podcast.

The Piano Teacher (2001) - 9/10

What the fuuuckkkk. The Piano Teacher is horrendously affecting and I was so upset when it ended, maybe not because it’s not what I wanted but because it’s just so fucking dour and unrelenting. This is the second Haneke movie I’ve seen (after the original Funny Games) and I’m so impressed with how well executed it is. Following a woman who teaches piano, we get a glimpse into the life she lives, how sheltered she is from living with her mother at an age where you’d reasonably expect a person to be living alone or with a partner or friends (even going so far as to be sleeping in the same bed as her), and how repressed she is sexually. It’s clear she’s never experienced any kind of sexual interaction or romantic love with another person, so she goes out of her way to take control and make that happen. The upsetting nature of it comes from just what she does in pursuit of it or as a result of her repression, and what is done to her. It is by no means a movie to recommend to your parents but The Piano Teacher offers so much in terms of the ideas it presents (and I’ll admit there seems to be a lot more going on than I think I picked up on a first go round) about women in modern society, and about the portrayal of sex and expectations of people when it comes to how that is represented in a person’s character depending on their gender. I really enjoyed this movie but it is not for the faint of heart.

Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure (2011) - 1/10

My podcast co-hosts decided it’d be a right laugh to add Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure to this episode and that might have been a fun idea for them because they got to watch it together, but I was just watching it alone. Just a 24-year-old man watching Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure alone and having a miserable time, I might add. But for a short and sweet ramble on what we all thought, please listen to episode 38 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast.

Dr. No (1962) - 6/10

A lot of very iffy parts of this movie. A lot of discomfort arising from how black people are portrayed that really didn’t sit right with me. As far as a Bond movie goes, this first instalment in the series is one I’ve seen before and it’s not wholly engaging but it plants the seeds for the rest, with Sean Connery breathing life into the role and making an otherwise lacklustre plot bearable.

Black Widow (2021) - 6/10

I think probably the best part about Black Widow is the experience I had while watching it. It was great being back in the cinema with a couple of friends in a packed theatre. The energy was high and I’m sure for a lot of people, this is the first time they’d been to the cinema since Endgame. For what it’s worth, I did have a lot of fun with Black Widow and I’ve explained more of what I thought about the movie in episode 39 of the podcast.

The Climb (2020) - 10/10

The Climb was added to Now TV recently and I already knew I loved it, having seen it in an empty cinema theatre last year, which I had an absolute blast with. The Climb details the years of a rocky friendship told over scenes filmed as one-shots. Not only is the presentation something to gawk at, but the performances by the two leads playing these friends with a terrifically dysfunctional dynamic is truly captivating. They’re both trying to figure out their own lives and where one can come across as being rather selfish, the opposite is true in his counterpart, whom everyone loves. This is a truly funny and heartwarming movie with a lot to say about how we choose to live our lives and who we choose to be with. It’s a shame the distributors of The Climb didn’t do a very good job because if not for it being available on Now TV, it would be near impossible to watch without forking out more money than is necessary to purchase a film.

From Russia With Love (1963) - 5/10

The second Bond movie. I thought perhaps I’d change my mind on it with another watch, having seen it for the first time maybe a year ago. But no, it’s still largely boring and it treats women like absolute garbage. From Russia With Love is one of those movies I forget as I watch it, and I was trying very hard (in the middle of the day!) not to fall asleep.

The Good, The Bart, and The Loki (2021) - 1/10

I don't usually talk about the short films I watch but for this I'll make an exception. As we all should know, Disney owns The Simpsons now, through their acquisition of Fox, so, coupled with another of their properties, that being Marvel, they decided to make a six-minute animated film wherein Marvel’s Loki is stranded in Springfield. This felt as though it was a minute long due to the horrendously jarring pacing; it is a movie that feels adamant that it needs to exist, while trying as hard as it can to be over as soon as possible. It serves only to stare the audience directly in the face and say “look, characters from The Simpsons are dressed as Avengers”, shit out three credit scenes, then end before you’ve even processed the atrocity you just bore witness to.

Russian Ark (2002) - 8/10

For this next episode of the podcast, we watched a few Russian movies, starting with Russian Ark, a film shot completely in one take as the camera moves about a luxurious museum in a first-person perspective as this main character watches what is happening around him, seeing people moving about the place but unable to interact with them, guided only by another man who seems to be just slightly out of his own perception of reality. This is a tremendous feat in filmmaking and more can be heard about what I have to say in episode 39 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast.

Ivan’s Childhood (1962) - 7/10

For my own pick of Russian movies to discuss on the podcast, I chose the debut feature from one of my favourite directors, Andrei Tarkovsky. It’s amazing that while this is not his best film by far, Ivan’s Childhood is still such a stellar debut, jumping around in its timeline as it details a child’s experience in the second world war. Again, I do go into more depth in episode 39 of the podcast, so be sure to check that out.

Outlaw (2019) - 1/10

The third movie chosen for this marathon is apparently the fourth Russian LGBTQ+ movie ever made. I’m unsure of the ultimate goal of this movie but what seems to be clear is that it hates the LGBTQ+ community. This is perhaps the worst film we’ve discussed on the podcast to date, so listen to episode 39 to understand exactly why it’s such trash.

Almost Famous (2000) - 7/10

I too love heavy music and also studied journalism so it stands to reason that a movie about a teenager who makes his way onto a band tour, following them through America and interviewing them as they hang out and play shows is going to be a premise that resonates with me. This certainly did. I enjoyed Almost Famous a lot; this kid is living the dream and I was so along for the ride, seeing a lot of myself in what was being portrayed. That said, the story itself is at times a bit by the numbers and I really would’ve been more on board if the visual component was more interesting. For what it is, technically it’s fine enough but nothing in that department ever jumped out at me.

Minari (2021) - 8/10

It’s crazy that this didn’t get a theatrical run where I live in the UK. It feels as though I complain about film distribution all the time but I really don’t understand the process by which a movie gets no cinematic release and yet, months later will pop up on the front shelf of hmv, taking pride of place. But of course I got the blu-ray straight away. Minari has a lot to say about the immigrant experience, specifically in America as a family comes over from Korea and tries to start a business and make something of themselves. You get to see a lot of what you might not think twice about when you think about immigration: the hardship of coming from a place where you know everyone to somewhere rural and sparsely populated, having to make friends with locals and integrate within the community; the strain it can put on a family and on a marriage where this idea is presented about the importance of making it on your own in order to live and not just survive, while also taking into account why you’re doing it in the first place and the value you place on being part of a family that you decided to make because that was more important than money, than economy, than proving you were good enough to make it in a place that gave you very little advantage from the offset. This concept of the promised land, of the American dream is a construct. There are times when it’s not pretty, when you have no running water, or you’re in debt, or a family member is dying and it just feels like you’ve been dealt as bad a hand as you can get. But it is better to know you’re not facing all that alone.

Roma (2018) - 10/10

This was my recommendation for the podcast episode on Alfonso Cuarón movies. Roma is as beautiful as it is heart-wrenching and I would recommend listening to episode 40 of the podcast to find out more about my thoughts.

An American Werewolf In London (1981) - 8/10

In all fairness, London is enough to make anyone a little crazy at the best of times. An American Werewolf in London showcases some fantastically grotesque effects, akin to something like Carpenter’s The Thing, in showing the dead brought back to life and a horrifically gory transformation scene. Although the film is from the perspective of an American protagonist, directed also by an American, the depiction of British culture and climate is something I’ve not seen many films pull off quite so well, and I was pleasantly surprised at the more comedic tone the film has overall, which is something that works more in its favour than straight horror would.

The Party’s Just Beginning (2018) - 6/10

Karen Gillan’s directorial debut is… pretty good! There are a lot of ideas I like in this movie: a woman living life and through convenient circumstances, is confronted with death in many ways. Gillan obviously knows her homeland as well as she can, imbuing the whole thing with an intensely Scottish vibe (though maybe not in the same vein as something like Trainspotting) that makes it a bit more unique than a more run of the mill movie of this ilk, backed up in no small part by her own main performance. The plot itself is no great diversion from the kind of story I’m used to with these smaller movies and for something that’s trying to include messaging about transgender issues and suicide, it probably could have been handled better or done in a different way.

Solaris (1972) - 9/10

Another Tarkovsky joint, one I thought I’d revisit to see if there was indeed more to get out of it a second time. Well, it’s no surprise that yes, there was certainly more to get out of it. Solaris is a crazy trip of a movie and I would liken it to Kubrick’s 2001 in terms of how grand the scale of it feels. Yet this is a film that comes across as deeply personal, choosing to focus on a specific character as he goes to a space station to help those on board who are experiencing some kind of emotional crises, only to feel the effects of the planet, Solaris invading his own mind as it has the crew. To many, I can see this lengthy Russian sci-fi being a tad slow but my personal experience is one of deep engagement. Solaris pulls its viewer in a lot of different directions and it is always doing something unexpected in terms of where its narrative goes. There’s a lot to think about with the movie and thankfully it’s no chore to watch again.

Y Tu Mamá También (2001) - 9/10

Another recommendation for the podcast episode on Alfonso Cuarón movies. This is a very relaxed experience, following three young people as they go on a road trip, visit different places and have sex. Listen to episode 40 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast for more of my thoughts.

Children of Men (2006) - 10/10

My favourite Cuarón movie, one that never stops being tense as its characters are constantly moving towards the end goal. Set in a future where humans are infertile, the oldest living person is 18, and London is the last city in the world that’s still keeping it together, somewhat. This is masterclass filmmaking. Listen to episode 40 of the podcast for more insights.

Minority Report (2002) - 5/10

I’m really not the biggest fan of Spielberg… Minority Report is an interesting movie in terms of its concept of stopping crimes before they happen by way of prediction, but I just didn’t connect with the heart of it. The colouring is way too overexposed in a way that’s supposed to be eliciting a futuristic vibe but instead feels so early-2000’s in the worst way. My biggest problem with Minority Report is just how long it is, clocking in at two hours and twenty-five minutes which allows for a lot of meandering, all while never quite developing characters enough for you to care about.

Caché (2005) - 9/10

Oh god! Another Michael Haneke movie! Here we see a couple periodically sent video tapes featuring hours of footage of the outside of their house. The anxiety ratchets up and the mystery gets deeper with every minute. There’s always at least one moment in any of his films that have so far made me realise just how out of my depth I am. Caché is no exception, and I won’t spoil anything here because I think it’s better just to watch the movie and see for yourself. He is a director that wants the audience to know something and that something is never what is explicitly shown at face value; it is pressed into the fabric of the film - plainly evident, yet hidden. Caché is so stupidly clever in displaying its themes and messaging - making reference to the Siene Massacre of 1961 as well as a deeper study of colonialism - and there’s no way to change a single detail of it without risking the Jenga tower crumbling to the ground. It all works in tandem. It is passion and fury and haunting.

Coco (2017) - 7/10

Pixar had a string of around seven forgettable movies before this point so thankfully Coco emerged to show the company still had something good in them. Coco deals a lot with themes of death and legacy, remembering those who are gone in order to preserve them and while its plotting is quite basic and there are certainly moments that either drag or cannot escape the same Pixar formula, most of what the movie has to offer is a lot of fun, with creative, colourful animation and emotional beats that resonate the way they’re supposed to.

Incredibles 2 (2018) - 5/10

Oh, they almost had it! There's a lot here that could have been explored in far more interesting ways. Setting Incredibles 2 directly after the events of the first movie was not a good idea. If it had taken place five or ten years after, the characters could have been in different places in life and it would feel as though they'd actually changed and developed. But instead of trying to be a film that actually cares about its characters and the journeys they go on, a lot of the film is wrestling with the idea that Bob isn't supportive of his wife and Jack-Jack has to fight a raccoon… They have to shoehorn in a villain that in no way compares to the genius of the original. The ending of the original introduces another antagonist that gets wrapped up within this film's first ten minutes, except they don't catch him and he's never mentioned again. It's a real shame because the animation is fantastic and the acting is superb and there are great ideas sprinkled throughout. It just doesn't come together.

Toy Story 4 (2019) - 6/10

I was rather reluctant to watch Toy Story 4 because from the get-go I’m not really here for sequels being made just for the sake of it. Everyone loves Toy Story and making another one is a sure fire way to make money. This is the first time I’ve seen Toy Story 4 and for what it’s worth, I did enjoy it. The animation is immaculate and that alone feels like a huge flex from Pixar who tend to step up the game when it comes to animation in film, despite not having the best track record for films generally at this point. While it was nice to see these characters again, I found a lot of them to be side-lined (namely Buzz) in favour of a story that focuses mainly or entirely on Woody, who I just don’t like as much as in the previous movies. Generally the movie is good and decent enough but there’s no real antagonist and the plot is quite loose… it doesn’t feel as though it needed to be made from a story point of view.

Onward (2020) - 6/10

And with that I have seen every Pixar movie. And Onward is a fine one to go out on. While I don’t think it compares to the likes of earlier Pixar it’s still pretty fun. Or maybe I’m just a sucker for a medieval setting filled with bright colours and magic! Speaking of which, the animation was super and the medieval quest element is something that hooked me with the film. Again, plot-wise it does feel very familiar and I don’t know, maybe I’m past the point now of expecting Pixar to mix it up where their formula for story-telling is concerned but the movie is quite predictable. Nonetheless, while I’m not rushing back to see Onward I would hardly turn it off or refuse if someone wanted to watch it.

Old (2021) - 3/10

Oh boy! New M. Night movie dropped and my word, was it fun! For more of my thoughts on this… masterpiece (?) of a movie, please direct your attention to episode 41 of The Sunday Movie Marathon podcast.

T2 Trainspotting (2017) - 5/10

Trainspotting is perhaps one of my favourite movies and I had never bothered with the sequel, 20 years on, because the ending of that first movie is so conclusive. T2 felt more an excuse for these guys to get together again and in that, I probably would have preferred a couple of pictures on Twitter of the main cast and director, Danny Boyle having dinner or something. This is a fine movie - very arty in its presentation but meandering and dull in its story that doesn’t offer much in the way of proof that it had to exist.

Taste of Cherry (1997) - 9/10

What makes life worth living? This is a central question and theme of Taste of Cherry, and one that leaves such interpretation not only up to its central character but to the viewer as well. This film got me thinking about times in my life when I truly have had no answer to hard questions. Because it’s hard to convince people of things they are so adamantly against and harder still to rationalise what you believe if you’re not even entirely sure why you believe it in the first place. We are all of us alive and in recognising that, does that make it precious? And if indeed living is not a happy thing, why then should we fight so hard to preserve it? I felt upset as I watched this movie because I’ve been asked these kinds of questions before and it makes me feel stupid when I’m unable to answer. But the only real answer I can give is, everything. And if you can’t see the point then you’re not looking hard enough. Taste of Cherry is beautiful in its exploration of these topics and in its overall presentation, offering some of the best visuals in any movie I’ve seen - fitting for a feature with so much to say about the beauty of life - and an ending that as much pulls the rug out from under you as it does pull you out of the dark and make you realise just how lonely you’ve felt.

Bones (2001) - 2/10

Snoop Dogg is Jimmy Bones! This film is super funny but I’m not sure it’s trying to be and I really didn’t love it overall. But I do talk more in depth about it in episode 41 of the podcast.

The Duchess (2008) - 5/10

Another recommendation for the podcast. The Duchess was pretty much exactly what I thought it was going to be and there’s a lot to like about it but generally it’s a bit sparse. For more chat on the movie, listen to episode 41 of the podcast.

The Man With One Red Shoe (1985) - 1/10

This was another one for the podcast and man, was it awful. We had to watch it at 1.5x speed towards the end because it just wasn’t getting finished otherwise. To find out more, make sure to listen to episode 41 of the podcast.

The Emperor’s New Groove (2000) - 7/10

Pull the lever, Kronk! Haha! Slays me. I do quite miss this era of Disney, where the animation was hand-drawn and the stories were actually compelling and funny. The Emperor’s New Groove is vibrant, it’s got great characters and memorable moments that will forever be ingrained in the memory of culture. All in all, it’s just a solid flick that doesn’t waste time, developing the standard fall from glory type of arc but smoothly and in an entertaining way.

The Suicide Squad (2021) - 8/10

Oh, bloody hell! They actually made a good one! The Suicide Squad is not only better than the ‘Suicide Squad’ of 2016 in every way, it’s a genuinely great film! This time, James Gunn (director of Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy movies) is at the helm and it seems clear that Warner Bros. basically let him do what he wanted with the movie, as it doesn’t seem to bog itself down with the restrictions of a more family-friendly rating. The result of this is a far cleaner, colourful film with a clearer vision that takes from early Vietnam movies and uses that style to craft a superhero/villain movie that differentiates itself among the copious amount of existing films of the genre.      The Suicide Squad wastes very little time, introducing fun, crazy characters we’ve not seen on the big screen before and isn’t worried about killing a whole bunch of them, with standouts being Elba’s Bloodsport, Melchior’s Ratcatcher 2, Stallone’s King Shark (expertly rendered with fantastic visual effects), and Robbie’s returning interpretation of Harley Quinn.      A lot of Gunn’s trademark sense of humour is laced throughout and more often than not, it hits. The audience at the cinema were truly loving this movie and I’ll admit, I was right there with them. This mix of the gritty, gory and absurd is not something that should work as well as it does but the basic premise of the film is already so silly (and boy, do they know it) that it just works! Certainly one of the best DC movies since The Dark Knight and one I’d be more than happy to watch again. This is what the modern comic book movie should be: just balls to the wall fun!

[thisiskatsblog]

Hi! I have a "weak larry moment" and I want to ask you. Why do you think they are still together? I mean... Everything what we seen could be just pr company.

Because larries still a big part of a fandom. Ao they give us what we want and we're belive them.

Sorry if I'm sound like a cruel bitch but what if we all wrong?

What if they are break up already and we are dellusional.

Oh anon.

I used to hate these asks for two reasons

1. I was wary they might have come from someone trying to trick me into making some kind of superficial and faulty argument which they could later quote me on. Isn't it sad how much we live in fear of being made to look "delusional"? I think that says something really important...

2. They made me feel treated like a Larry reassurance machine "when in doubt press ask for easy shot of dopamine"

Anyway, before I get into that, I want to say there's nothing weak about doubting. Doubt is good. You doubt, therefore you think, therefore you are. Moreover doubting your own convictions simply means you're not an asshole. So I think we can cut the "weak". You really don't want to live in a world where there is one fixed truth in which your faith must be strong.

Moreover, if indeed Louis and Harry were ever together and the girlfriends were PR relationships then to think Louis and Harry may still be in a relationship, but not really being sure about it either, is not "delusional" but a natural consequence of being confronted with conflicting stories for a prolonged period of time.

One thing in your ask doesn't make sense to me though. There's theory that sexual interest in a celebrity motivates buyers. That would explain why most rock stars are portrayed as single, or promiscuous, and why gay rock stars are often portrayed as straight with a long term girlfriend. So Louis/Harry+PR relationships with girls could make sense. There's also a theory that PR relationships between the leading actors in movies sells those movies. Again, that could explain why Harry and Olivia are in a (PR) relationship. Louis and Harry have nothing to sell together though, they have separate solo careers. I don't immediately see the economic motivation for keeping Larries on a leash as there's no theory that supporting someone's secret relationship motivates buyers - and most of all, there's nothing to buy from either artist that relates to that relationship. They're not selling Larry merchandise are they?

So I want to turn around your question and ask, if before you believed they were a couple, why do you now think anything has changed? What is different now compared to then? Why would you believe, after ten years of PR portraying a straight picture, PR would now try to keep alive the gay picture they intended to destroy all this time?

Last but not least, something really important about this fear of being portrayed as delusional.

There is nothing delusional about thinking that closeting exists. It really happens all the time. If, IF, Louis and Harry were never together, and it was all just a bromance into which LGBTQ+ fans, keen to see themselves represented, read too much... so what? So. Fucking. What?! Then we were wrong, and our lives will go on. And if, IF, Harry and Louis were once together, and now they've broken up, and we still believe they're together... again: so what?! I mean, we can't know, how are we supposed to know? If they were closeted, they clearly can't talk about it. There would be nothing delusional about us thinking nothing's changed, just as there is nothing delusional either about being in doubt because there's been no strong, undeniable confirmation.

What I'm trying to say with my So. Fucking. What?! anon, is that there's nothing wrong with getting things wrong. Or at least there shouldn't be.

But being very afraid of getting it wrong is, however, something we see a lot in this fandom.

One reason for that is that there is probably a segment of fans who have fallen into the dopamine trap, regularly opening their social media accounts to get their Louis and Harry fix. I am not at all judging that. Social media are designed to give you a dopamine shot and to make you come back for more. It doesn't matter whether the content is produced by PR or by Larry fans, after a while you’re going to need your fix and when there's a lull, you'll feel unrest. What if they are no longer a couple and I’ll never another shot of this again? Again, I am not making fun of this, it’s a real thing where we are, all of us who are constantly on social media, filling a void with a drug that’s legal and right in our back pocket. If this sounds familiar, then I recommend you watch the Social Dilemma. It won’t solve your dopamine problem right away, but it’s helpful to be aware of how it works. 

Another reason, and that's the really pernicious one for me, is the very real fear many have that someone would target them, dox them and portray them as being completely delusional for believing a man who's in a long term relationship and who accidentally had a son from a one night stand, would have a secret relationship with a man who's known to be promiscuous and into older women. Why are we so afraid of that? Because it's happened to multiple people of importance in this fandom. Because it happens to "Larries" collectively all the fucking time.

But if closeting exists, and if PR relationships exist, why on earth would anyone be so freaking invested in making people who believe Louis and Harry are a couple look like they're mad?

...

Now as to your question: Because of the tattoos and a number of other reasons, I think they were a couple, I like the idea of them, and I don't see any evidence of them having broken up. Maybe I'm wrong. I could very well be wrong.

SO. FUCKING. WHAT?!

[ifeelallwrite]

Let’s talk about Hospital Playlist. (KDRAMA REVIEW)

note: does contain spoilers

When people ask me what is my favorite Korean drama of all time, with no doubt, IT’S HOSPITAL PLAYLIST. This drama has the comic relief, the emotional scenes, realistic characters-just to name a few. No toxic relationships and petty revenge fights. Nothing else will stop me for saying that this is the ultimate feel good drama.

SYNOPSIS: The drama shows insights into the daily lives of doctors and nurses working at Yulje Medical Hospital. It focuses on 5 doctors who have been friends since medical school, who also play together as a band.

This drama encompasses so many elements and characters so bear with me yo this might be real long 

Hospital Playlist is produced/written by the Shin-Lee PD and writer pairing, whose previous works were the renowned Reply trilogy and Prison Playbook (which are *chef’s kiss*) I really like that all their dramas really highlight humanism, and puts emphasis on creating a heartwarming and realistic series. There isn’t always a major conflict to be resolved, but instead it showcases how different people-in this case mostly those in the medical field-go on about their daily lives.  I also liked their reasoning to produce a medical drama which was that hospitals were where the most dramatic moments occurred, for example during births, deaths or sickness. And since we are still in the Covid-19 pandemic, it ties in greatly to be paying homage to all the medical personnel saving lives. Hence, props to those who were involved in this meaningful masterpiece <3

The drama is not the usual 16 episodes, but has 12 episodes for each season (SEASON 2 IS COMING SOON YAAS) Good thing is I felt that they were still able to weave a dynamic storyline in the first season even with lesser episodes. The writing was just top-notch with the witty humor bits. Additionally, the music is AMAZING. I love the concept of the main characters being a band and playing different songs every episode too.

Okay, now onto the characters. I thought that every character in this drama was well rounded. Starting of with the main five characters, also known as The 99ers, whose distinctive personalities and natural chemistry make all of them extremely likeable. All main characters are professors of different specialties, and I find the male OB-GYN (Seokhyeong) and female neurosurgeon (Songhwa) very refreshing. Also, I like Shin-Lee dramas always have characters that might be realistic yet hardly seen in other dramas or films. For example, Professor Ahn Jeongwon. Despite being a chaebol (inheritor/heir), he isn’t depicted as a spoilt brat or a cold character, instead as a warm Pediatric doctor who uses his wealth to secretly support patients in need. However it makes him stingy to his friends LOL

To be honest, I really thought I was gonna dislike Junwan due to his cold and tsundere nature. I pretty much believed that he was going to be the party pooper type of the bunch, but with the writer being a master of character development, he turned out to be really sincere and hilarious at times. Same for Ikjun, who apart from his enthusiastic and happy go lucky exterior, cares the most about the people around him. Although Seokhyeong seemed detached and introverted, he shows a emotional side to his friends as well as his mother. Songhwa is literally a girlboss though haha she’s smart, capable and gets along with everyone well. And she’s the most sane out of the bunch. 

With all the main characters, we have the relationships. Junwan is the first to date seriously with Iksun (the dog or Micky? jkjk) who is Ikjun’s sister. When it first happened I was like not again Jung Kyung Ho (bc he dated his best friend’s sis in prison playbook too LMAO) I think their relationship was realistic and open. It also showed a more sensitive side to Junwan who would do anything for her. I especially liked how he said he didn’t need access to her phone because he trusted her. Yet as all couples do, they have their fair share of ups and downs. Like conflicts on getting married and a long distance relationship as Iksun moves overseas for graduate studies. I don’t really know how to take the ambiguous ending for these two, as Junwan receives the returned box (that has the ring he sent) I really hope nothing bad happens to these two though.

I’m sure we all love Wintergarden couple though, tbh they’re kinda my OTP at the moment 🤣 It was pretty much a ‘will they won’t they’ relationship with a relatively slow build. I think Gyeoul turned out to be one of my favourite characters. Shin Hyun Been did a good job at portraying her as a straightforward but innocent Resident, who is pretty much openly crushing on Jeongwon. The scenes they had together were adorably awkward (and the scene where he gives her chocopies omg) And when Jeongwon battles his inner conflict to become a priest, the final decision where they kiss was beautifully shot, with the actors both showcasing their emotions extremely well. 

Then we have Chihong who pursues Songhwa, his professor. Midway through the drama, it is also shown that Ikjun and Songhwa might have had romantic feelings for each other. Songhwa ends up rejecting Chihong’s confession. In my opinion, Chihong was quite a interesting character but I didn’t really like him at the end. (I like the actor though) He did a real jerk move during drinking games, insisting on Ikjun to confess his feelings towards her even though he is already trying not to put Songhwa in an awkward spot. Although his character did end up making a cool exit and when I thought about his incredible story of soldier to doctor, I kinda regret disliking him that much. As for IkSong, In the final episode Ikjun confesses to her one last time, and we are left waiting for Songhwa’s reply. As much as I love this pairing, I don’t think that the ship will sail or maybe not as quickly as we think. I believe Songhwa would meticulously consider the sacrifices to their friendship or other aspects and might not be able to bring herself to it, but I hope it’s otherwise. 

Lastly not forgetting Seokhyeong and Minha, another Professor+resident pairing. This one’s a bit ambiguous though, mainly because there hasn’t been much romantic development. To me, the most impactful scene came from Minha who had been irritated by continuous night shifts and was on the verge of a breakdown. She ended up remarkably saving a patient, starting off surgery on her own for the first time. Oh man Minha was such a lovable character, I remember feeling so bad for her but extremely proud of her for her accomplishment. Although Seokhyeong seemed a bit aloof and distant (which was intentional bc he’s an introvert) I think the backstory and all the hardships he faced with his family really made me feel for him. I hate to break it to you, but I’m not so sure if the ship will sail because of the phone call from his ex-wife and Minha’s somewhat rejected confession. But who knows, they might pull off a twist 👀

Apart from all these characters, there are more characters HHAHAH However, I think this is the killing point of ShinLee dramas. Unlike typical dramas which usually focuses on a main character and 2-3 side characters, they like to cast a diverse range of actors (especially those from theatre/musicals and lesser known drama/movie actors) while actually give their characters personality or a reason to be there. I’ve seen many dramas where extras or side characters were kind of irrelevant thus making me feel that they weren’t needed to build the storyline, yet ShinLee dramas hit different y’all. Every role, no matter how small, holds significance to the drama. It really seemed like a collaborative work that shows off every actors skills (and not forgetting staffs) and teamwork.

Anyways because there are way too many characters and too many scenes for me to mention them all, I’ll just talk about some honourable mentions heheh

1. Sunbin and Seokmin confession scene (ahh so cute)

I kinda sensed that they liked each other at the start but I didn’t know Seokmin would ask her out on a date at the end. Even though it’s kinda awkward that they are dating and working with each other though (both are in the same department) but hey the confession was cute and awkward and just warm and fuzzy 🥰

2. MAMA ROSA IS THE QUEENN

I think we all (would) love Mama Rosa because she’s a real one ☝️ (probably the coolest mother ever) She’s feisty, hilarious and kind to others. Plus her friendship with Ju Jong Su was just adorable and super wholesome. The scenes where they were supporting one another through tough times and hanging out with each other when they felt lonely always put a smile on my face. Oh and how Mama Rosa treated Gyeoul was extremely sweet. (as well as Seokhyeong’s mother) Despite her tough exterior, she’s a likeable character for being a strong but caring woman.

3. Just Do Jae Hak

I seriously love this guy so muchhh omg he’s so funny

Do Jae Hak has a funny amd clumsy personality, though it’s clear he’s been through a lot and is strong willed person. From admitting his indecisiveness to counselling Jun Wan on his love issues, there’s literally nothing to hate about him.

4. Uju and his dadd

The father and son chemistry between these two is so good omg. The scenes with these two are so adorable and heartwarming (not to mention hilarious) It’s amazing to see how Ikjun cares so much for Uju despite his hectic workdays while going through infidelity issues with his ex-wife. Uju is matured for his age and shows his love and appreciation for his dad too, making their interaction a great portrayal of a healthy family relationship💞

5. the food stealing the show🥘

Who doesn’t love food and when a show has great food scenes? Some of the best scenes are definitely when the 99s gather to eat. It really showcases each character’s personality with the tiniest details as well as highlight warm delicious meals. Just don’t watch this when you’re hungry at 2am in the morning guys you’ll be drooling all over your screens HAHAHA

Of course there are way more aspects, like Hongdo and Yoonbok, Ikjun and Iksun’s pigeon jokes and raps, or Jeongwon drunk crying in the chicken shop with his brother (who was his coach in Reply 1994 when he played Chilbong LOL)

Most importantly, I think it is the themes and messages that you get from the drama that really create such a lasting impression. Not only does it hit you in the feels with the hardships of hospital patients, or the hardworking doctors+nurses who are working long shifts saving lives, it also tackles topics of friendships through the possibilities of platonic and friends-to-lovers relationships. However I think the biggest lesson for me came from Seokhyeong, who learns to live his life doing what he want, with the people he treasures. Although the drama might seem slow at times (mainly because there isn’t really a main plot line/conflict occurring), but this drama would still bring you on a journey where you would laugh, cry and finish the series, begging for season 2 ✌🏻

[zukkacore]

Whitewashing in AtlaLok: the Western & Christian Influence on s2 of LoK

Ok, so i’m not a big brained expert on all things indigenous or even all things asian but I do think bryke's christian & western worldview seeps so far into season 2 of LoK that i think out of every season it’s by far the most unsalvageable out of everything they’ve ever done in the Atlaverse and is a very insidious kind of whitewashing. I know that sounds hefty but here’s what I mean

For the record, I’m a mixed filipino person & while there is religious diversity among filipinos, more than i think ppl realize or that the catholic majority is willing to let on, when we were colonized a large percent of the population was indeed forced to convert to catholicism so that’s my background, & i don’t know everything about taoism or the what the tai chi symbol represents but the way Bryke westernize the concept of Yin and Yang is honestly… kinda bewildering. They get so many details about yin & yang wrong?? & Yes, it’s possible they could’ve been trying to create their own lore that differentiates itself from the traditional depictions of Yin & Yang, but in the end i think it doesn’t matter b/c the lore they invent is a very obviously western interpretation of the concept of “balance”.

The most important and honestly worst change they make is that concepts of “light” and “dark” are completely oversimplified and flattened to represent basically “good” and “evil” (which, the light and dark side are a bit more complex than representing just “peace/order vs. Chaos” like the show might imply but we don’t even have time for that, but is funny how they get the genders wrong. Like. Traditionally, light is usually coded masculine and dark is usually coded feminine, but never mind that, that’s just a tangent). This really simplifies the nuance of the s2 conflict and makes it a lot less interesting, not to mention just—misrepresents a very real religious philosophy?

And for the record, a piece of media going out of its way to do "the show, don’t tell" thing of stating in the text that “oh, light and dark are not the same thing as good vs. evil” without actually displaying that difference through the writing is just lip service, and its poor writing. A lot of pieces of media do this, but i think s2 of LoK is particularly egregious. The point of this philosophy of balance is that you aren’t supposed to moralize about which side is “good” or “bad”, or even really which one is “better” or “worse”. Even if the show states the concepts are not interchangeable, if the media in question continually frames one side (and almost always its “chaos/darkness”) as the “evil” side, then the supposed distinction between “light vs. dark” and “good vs. evil” is made moot. And besides the occasional offhand remark that implies more nuance without actually delivering, Vaatu is basically stock evil incarnate.

This depiction of conflict as “defeating a singular representation of total evil” isn’t solely christian, but it is definitely present in christian beliefs. And I think those kinds of stories can be done well, but in this case, in a world filled entirely of asian, Pacific Islander & inuit poc, to me it feels like a form of subtle whitewashing? B/c you’re taking characters that probably wouldn’t have christian beliefs, and imposing a christian worldview onto them. Not to mention removes what could have been an interesting conflict of any nuance and intrigue… and honestly, sucks, because I do think s2 has the bones of an interesting idea, mostly b/c there are potential themes that could’ve been explored—I know this b/c they were already explored in a movie that exists, and it’s name is Princess Mononoke! It has a lot of the same elements—tension between spirits and humanity, destruction of nature in the face of rapid industrialization, moral ambiguity where there are no easy or fast answers and both sides have sympathetic and understandable points of view. (Unsurprising b/c Miyazaki is Japanese & Japanese culture has a lot of influence from Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, etc)

Bryke’s western & christian worldview also totally seeps into the characterization of Unalaq, the antagonist of the season which is a real problem. I’m in the middle of rewatching s2 right now and what struck me is that….. Unalaq comes across kinda ecofash AND fundamentalist which is 1) seems like an odd combination but maybe it really isn’t? 2) i think is a really tacky choice considering that the water tribes take the majority of its inspiration from inuit and polynesian indigenous cultures.

I honestly forgot abt this but Unalaq gives this whole lame speech abt how the SWT & humans as a whole suck b/c of their lack of spiritual connection & it was really eerie to me b/c "humans are morally bankrupt and they must be wiped out/punished for their destruction of the environment" is total ecofash logic bc it blames all of humanity for damage caused by those in power—be they capitalists or whoever. It’s a worldview that blames the poor and powerless for something they have no say in, and has real eugenics undertones bc with every implication of culling, there has to be someone who appoints themself the job of culling—of who is and isn’t worthy of death.

This belief also struck me as......... kinda christian in it's logic as well which is WEIRD b/c once again........ their cultural inspirations are DEFINITELY not christian...... The whole "man is inherently evil and must spend their whole lifetime repenting/must face punishment for it’s wickedness" thing and the way that christianity treats humanity as born with original sin or inherently corrupt—as well as above or separate from nature are really stronger undertones in Unalaqs worldview....... which isn't really an indigenous way or thinking.

I'm generalizing of course but from what I have seen from the indigenous people who speak on this is that (feel free to point out or correct me if i’m mostly generalizing abt Native Americans and not other indigenous cultures & there are some differences here) is that while native tribes are not monolithic and do vary wildly, there are a lot of common threads and that reverence and respect toward nature and your surroundings is an important tenant of indigenous beliefs. (I specifically remember the hosts on All My Relations saying essentially that we humans are a part of nature, we are not separate from it, and humans are not superior to animals—I’m paraphrasing but that is the gist of it)

So, yeah, I think it’s just really distasteful to write an indigenous character who is characterized in a way that’s way more in line with a christian fundamentalist & wants to bring about a ragnarok style apocalypse end of the world when that isn’t really a tenant of our beliefs? (btw, the way the end of the world is framed is also kinda fucked up? If i were being charitable, I could say that maybe s2’s storyline is a corruption of the hindu depiction of the end of the world, but even that sounds mildly insulting for reasons I won’t get into b/c i am Not The Expert On Hinduism. I will say that once again, the framing of the concept is all wrong, the show views the idea of apocalypse through a very western lense)

To wrap this up, I think the depiction of Unalaq could *maybe* work b/c he is the antagonist, so someone who strays from the NWT cultural tradition in a way that makes his view of morality more black and white wouldn’t be a *horrible* idea for the bad guy of the season. Especially because the introduction of capitalism to the A:TLA universe could probably cause a substantial shifts to… idk, everything i guess, b/c capitalism is so corrosive. Like. Sometimes people are just traitors. I do think it would be interesting to portray the way capitalism manifests in a society without white christians. Like… I do think there are a lot of ways secular christianity and capitalism are interlinked. But Unalaq is not portrayed as an outsider, he’s portrayed as hyper-traditionalist in a way that’s vilified? I guess rightly so, he does suck, but it’s just hard to conceptualize how a person like Unalaq comes to exist in the first place. In the end, I don’t really think it makes sense, in a world without white people, I don’t really know where this introduction of black and white christian morality would even come from in the avatar world?

TL;DR, Bryke applying western christian morality & world views to non-white characters in a world where white people have NEVER existed to affect our beliefs is a subtle form of white-washing. It imposes simplified “good vs. evil” world-views & cultural beliefs onto its characters. Any attempt to represent or even just integrate our actual beliefs into the A:tla lore are twisted and misrepresented is a way that is disrespectful and saps out any nuance or intrigue from the story, and alienates the people its supposed to represent from recognizing themselves within the final product. And Finally, on a more superficial story level, these writing choices clashe with the already existing world of ATLA--and is honestly just poor world-building.

[ordinaryschmuck]

What I Thought About The Falcon and the Winter Soldier

Salutations to you, random people on the internet who most likely won't read this. I am an Ordinary Schmuck. I write stories and reviews and draw comics and cartoons!

Gonna be honest, I didn't think The Falcon and the Winter Soldier needed to be a full-length TV series. I mean, if Spider-Man can discover that he didn't have to replace Iron Man in a two-hour and nine-minute long movie, then the Falcon can learn he can't replace Steve Rogers in the same amount of time, right? I was excited, don't get me wrong, but I didn't know how they can fit a plot for a movie into a six-hour-long series. Unlike WandaVision, which needed to be a TV show to get those TV homages right for each episode, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier didn’t sound like something that would honestly work better as a film. But, once it started airing, and my excitement increased each week, I can positively say that it would not have worked as successfully if it wasn't a TV series.

Unfortunately, I'll have to get into spoilers to explain why, but trust me when I say that if you haven't checked it out yet, you definitely should. Because I'm about to dive in (or fly in) as I explain why The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is easily in the top tier MCU projects.

WHAT I LIKE

Sam Wilson: If WandaVision was about developing Wanda, then The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is about developing Sam. He might share the spotlight with Bucky, but this is so clearly Sam's story. It's his journey of becoming the new Captain America that gets more of a focus, and it is one of the best aspects of the series. And as I said, it's similar to Spider-Man's journey in Spider-Man: Far From Home. Sure, this time, it's more about stepping up to the mantle, but both Sam and Peter have to learn how to be their own hero rather than replace the one left behind. In Sam's case, it's more than just being the new Captain America, but also being the black Captain America. I'll talk more about the implications of that later, but for now, all I'll say is that it was so engaging seeing Sam accept his role. Plus, even though Sam tries to carry Steve's title, that doesn't mean he's Steve Rogers 2.0. He has his own ardor and personality as Captain America, on top of still representing the aspects of what that title entails. Partial credit for that goes to Anthony Mackie, who does a phenomenal job of portraying a man who's inspirational and charming in all forms of hell. I'd salute him as much as I'd want to have a beer with him...except not really because I refuse to touch a single drop of alcohol. But Sam Wilson would make me consider it! Because he's that good of a character.

Bucky Barnes: Much like Vision in WandaVision, Bucky takes the sidelines as Sam acts as the main face of the series. Unlike Vision, however, Bucky's story seems more like its own thing rather than something that's connected with his co-star. In a way, it's better, but it also seems worse. Because without having it be locked with Sam's story, Bucky's is still compelling as it develops him further in his own way. His journey may not be as engaging as Sam's, but it's still entertaining enough to watch his own narrative get continued in small spurts. Although, the fact that Bucky's story has little to do with Sam's does have the unfortunate side-effect that he doesn't need to be there. His inclusion is very much welcomed, but I feel like Bucky dealing with his own guilt and trauma as the Winter Soldier could be something that can fill up its own series rather than half of one. That being said, Bucky absolutely needs to be in this show. The emotional turmoil that Sabastian Stan portrays so well hits hard, and his dry humor works for some comedic highlights. Bucky's half of the story might be unnecessary for plot reasons, but it is unquestionably necessary for enjoyment.

There’s a lot of talking: This seems like a misstep, especially since most superhero shows are bogged down by characters talking to pad out the run time. Although, the dialogue in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is more like the dialogue in the series Daredevil. There are more words than action, but nearly every line is so incredibly engaging that I do not care. Sam and his sister talking to a banker about getting a loan might not sound as entertaining as Sam being in an air chase against terrorists, but I surprisingly held onto every word being said due to how well-acted it was. Plus, these discussions help make these characters more human on top of making the world feel believable. I understand the argument of show don't tell, but to me, as long as the dialogue is written well enough and said convincingly, I can learn to live with it.

The Flag Smashers: The concept of the Flag Smashers intrigues me. The idea that a group of people believes things were actually better when half the world got turned to dust is a perfect concept for the MCU to explore. In fact, this is the third story in a row that dives deep into the consequences of what happened post-Infinity War and Endgame, and I'm all for it! The universe is forever changed by this one big event, and it's not going to be irrelevant anytime soon. For the Flag Smashers, they offer the most striking glimpse of how the world is forever changed. Now, I'll admit, after seeing doom and gloom in Avengers: Endgame, it would be better to see the benefits of the Blip that characters claim to have existed rather than told about them. But seeing how there were dozens of fans who made the audacious claim that Thanos was right, I don't consider it too far of a stretch to believe that the Flag Smashers could exist. Especially since the arguments that characters present do seem persuasive enough. It's only the actions that the group makes that derail any sense of the discussion. But in a good way...for the most part. But I’ll get into that later too.

The Reveal of the new “Captain America”: This was the dirtiest, sickening punch in the gut that the first episode could have ended on...and I love it!

John Walker: I often find the best antagonists are the ones I'm willing to psychologically analyze. That's John Walker in a nutshell. He is an arrogant ass who deserved to get slapped around when taking things too far. Yet, I always find myself coming back to those scenes where he seems conflicted about becoming the new Captain America. I get a sense that he genuinely wants to do the right thing and those moments when he asks if he is all but confirms it. John's problem is the constant support he's given by his friends. I'd argue that building his ego is the very reason why he gets frustrated so quickly by people denying him, as he often reacts like a toddler who throws a tantrum when a parent makes the "mistake" of saying “no.” This is why it's satisfying seeing people more powerful than John kick the s**t out of him because it results in his ego going through a well-needed deflation. Still, the constant frustrations he has for not being respected as the new Captain America makes his further descent into insanity all the more appealing to watch. Because him taking the super-soldier serum proves Dr. Erskine's theory is true: "Good becomes great. Bad becomes worse."

...And this is why the writers dropped the ball when trying to make John Walker redeemable. It's exceptional if that was the intention. After all, I did say there were glimpses of a man who wanted to become great, not worse. However, given what John does in later episodes, we're going to need more than glimpses to believe his switch from bad to good. Especially since his decision to set his anger aside to suddenly help people is a little too unbelievable for my tastes given how fast it happens. It's not an awful decision. It's just one that needed a bit more polish. I still find John Walker an incredible character regardless, but I don't blame people for being a tad more hesitant given how poorly paced his redemption arc came across as.

Readapting “Star-Spangled Man”: I adore this for two reasons.

Reason #1: It's a solid callback to Captain America: The First Avenger, which I will always stand by as my favorite Captain America movie.

Reason #2: It proves how much John Walker doesn't understand what it means to be Captain America. When Steve did this song and dance routine in his movie, he hated it. Better yet, Steve despised it. Because he wasn't helping anybody. He was just being a dancing monkey to appeal to civilians, and you see how much he regrets doing it with each show. For John, he relishes the whole thing, because of course, he would! John loves having his ego appealed to, and this routine is doing nothing but inflates it. It's a solid case of visual storytelling to prove to the audience just how disconnected John is from being Captain America. Steve or Sam wouldn't have done this, because being a hero is more than respect and adoration. It's about actually doing the right thing. A lesson that John desperately needs to learn.

Sam’s and Bucky’s bromance: You remember how I said that Bucky's dry sense of humor can be a comedic highlight? Well, that's only second rate to the times he and Sam bicker like an old married couple. Whether it's because of the writing, directing, or Makie’s and Stan's natural chemistry, seeing Sam and Bucky interact with each other is always a blast to see. And on top of being funny, there are these well-handled moments of drama shared between both characters that make their relationship convincing. It's why you can't have this series without Bucky, despite it so clearly being Sam's story that gets the more focus. Because without either character, we would miss out on some entertaining interactions that I wouldn't trade for anything else for this series.

Isaiah Bradely: Well, this character was a pleasant surprise. Although, "pleasant" might not be the right word because every scene with Isaiah is absolutely gut-wrenching in all the right ways. Carl Lumbly gives a phenomenal performance for a character that has been beaten down, with very little hope he has for any change that matters for his race. Plus, his backstory may not be as unbelievable as you might think. Between 1932-1972, America performed what is known as the Tuskegee Experiment. Scientists tested the effects of syphilis by injecting it into African Americans, telling them that they were receiving free health care when they didn't. So the idea that scientists tested super-soldier serums on African Americans, not knowing the dangerous effects, is not that far of a stretch. Neither is the knowledge that a black man was disrespected despite fighting hard for his country. If you researched African American history, you'll find that this type of horse s**t happens way more times than it should. It is heartbreaking, and Isaiah Bradley represents all of it. Thus making the little Isaiah exhibit in the Captain America museum all the more tear jerking just because of how sweet it is to see him get some semblance of a win. This level of discussion of what it means to be an African American is something I never expected with The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, but I greatly appreciate it nonetheless. What's even better is that these discussions don't end with Isaiah.

The discussions of racism: Again, this was something I didn't expect, but grateful for it nonetheless. I mean, I should have expected it given that one of the co-stars is black, but given how the story was about Sam being the new Captain America, I didn't think discussion of racism and racial injustice would come into play. Turns out that I was naive to think those things are separate. The burden of being a black Captain America is something that not many white people, including myself, consider a big deal. But looking at America's past and how others react to any African American in power, you realize that, yes, it is a big deal. Isaiah, and several real-life POCs in history, prove that America doesn't respond well to a person of color being better than the average white man. So it is easily reasonable to believe that there would be issues with a black man becoming a symbol of what America should be. Hell, I'm willing to bet that there were issues when this happened in the comics way back when. Not because of some bulls**t about how it doesn't fit with the character or story, but solely because they can't handle a black Captain America. And if you don't believe something like this wouldn't happen to someone like Sam Wilson, look back to that scene with the police who didn't know he was the Falcon. This crap happens every day, and it's The Falcon and the Winter Soldier that shines a light on it. Despite being something I didn't expect, the talks of racism are very much appreciated. And I'm as pale white as an introverted vampire. I can't even begin to comprehend how the African American community must feel about all of this.

Zemo: Who the f**k expected this guy to be one of the best things in the series?!

Seriously, from Captain America: Civil War, I wasn't too into Zemo as a character. I loved the idea that this powerless guy tore apart the world's greatest superheroes through intelligence and coercion. But his needlessly complicated plan and stale personality weren't enough to win me over. So when he returned, I expected to dread every minute of it. Little did I know that Zemo's comeback would skyrocket him into top-tier MCU villain territory!

Zemo is a character that, despite "helping" our heroes, still works on his own agenda. He might put them on the right path and occasionally assist in a fight, but only because he still won't stop at anything to make sure fewer super powered individuals are in the world. Because that's the thing about Zemo: His motivation was fine and understandable to a point, but his personality was flawed in Civil War. Here, I finally see how Zemo can work. Despite having no power, he uses his mind to look for any angle to control the situation, gaining an advantage even if it is for a short time. For instance, while he can't harm Sam or Bucky without risking his own life or jeopardizing his temporary freedom, he can still annoy the hell out of them. Like when he forced Sam into a situation where he had to drink literal snake juice. It's actually a ton of fun to watch, and I'm honestly glad that Zemo gets to live to see tomorrow. It means that he might make another return, and I can't wait to see what's in store for him in the future. Which is something I didn't think I'd say five years ago.

The Dora Milaje: It was actually pretty cool seeing these characters make an appearance, notably when they slapped around John Walker like it was nothing. Although, a part of me wonders that if Chadwick Boseman hadn't died last year, we would get to see T'Challa himself make an appearance. This lines up with the character, as I can see him dropping everything to hunt down the man who killed his father. Which would be just as awesome, if not slightly more so, to see. Still, we work with what life gives us. And what it gave are awesome cameos that make the MCU feel more inclusive about its characters rather than limiting them to their specific sections in the universe.

Walker killing the Flag Smasher: There is something so wrong with seeing that shield stained with blood. 'Cause here's the thing: Captain American can kill. He's a soldier. It's expected for a soldier to take lives for the sake of justice. What John Walker did isn't justice. It was vengeance. Vengeance that is fueled by anger rather than the need to do the right thing. Because when Captain America leads an army to kill the man who whipped out half the universe, that's fighting for a just cause. But when “Captain America” kills a man, the wrong man, for killing his best friend, that is an act of selfishness that no one would see your side on. And it was the final nail in the coffin that proves how John Walker does not deserve that shield.

Sam and Bucky vs. John: This might just be the best fight in the entire series. Not only is it so satisfying to see John Walker get everything that he deserves, but the whole thing was pretty intense to watch. After seeing what John can do with that shield, it makes moments when Sam and Bucky barely dodge his attacks with it all the more blood-rushing to see. Plus, Civil War's motif playing the background is another solid callback that fits well narratively since this is technically two superheroes fighting another superhero. It's an incredible scene that was worth the wait of four hour-long episodes to see.

Setting up Joaquín Torres as the new Falcon: I don't know if Marvel will follow through with this or even if they should. That being said, if they do, I'm all for it. Joaquín already seems like a pretty fun character, and his interactions with Sam show there's enough chemistry there to give Captain America a new wingman. I probably won't lose sleep if he doesn't become the new Falcon, but I'll still be excited regardless.

Madame Hydra: I know that she has an actual name, but I refuse to remember it due to how long and convoluted it is.

Anywho, we get a small glimpse of who Madame Hydra is as a character, but already I'm intrigued. She seems to have a fun personality, added by Julia Louis-Dreyfus' dry energy. Whether this is set up for the next big bad or just introducing a fun character, I'm interested. Madame Hydra was already a blast in the short amount of time she was in the show, and I can't wait to see what future installments have in store for her.

“Louisiana Hero”: Or as I like to call it, "Sam's Hero Theme." Because while this is the track that plays for the intro, it still shows up when Sam is training as the new Captain America. Not only is it insanely catchy, but I love that you hear a hint of the theme of Captain America: The First Avenger, yet "Louisiana Hero" is still very much its own thing. And that's another reason why I consider it Sam's motif because it fits precisely with the character. Sam is a person who has a hint of the good man that Steve was but still does his own thing when wearing the stars and stripes. Not a copy, but still heavily influenced by the original. So kudos to Henry Jackman for creating a musical piece that fits so well with a character far better than any other themes or motifs prevalent in the MCU. Because, let's be honest, there aren't that many.

Sam’s new suit: ...I mean, it looks cool. Kinda corny at times, sure, but points for comic accuracy.

Sam Carrying Karli: I mean, look at it.

This looks like something that should be painted and hung up on a wall due to how beautiful it looks.

Sam’s Speech: Two meaningful things are going on with this speech.

First, it proves once and for all that Sam Wilson is Captain America. He doesn't just fight for his country. He also believes the government that runs it should take accountability for any missteps before dealing with something worse than a person who took the term "rebellious teenager" into an extreme.

Second, it is so satisfying seeing Captain America tell government officials off about unjust treatment. Even if it does diddly-squat about anything in the real world, it's still a big moment that's effective because of the bulls**t that happens every day. It's far from an actual win, but it still feels good (I hope). And that still counts for something, right?

“We’ll need a U.S. Agent”: Credit to Louis-Dreyfus for saying a stupid cornball of a name and making it sound...not that.

WHAT I DISLIKE

Still running that Marvel Studios logo in every episode: It's still a nitpick, but its still annoying. It's alright if you want to use the full fanfare for the first episode, but at least shorten it for the rest of the season. Please? For the love of all that is holy?

The CGI: The Falcon and the Winter Soldier has some pretty...not great CGI. It's not as awful as the CG in the DC shows on the CW, but it is way too easy to tell what looks real and what doesn't. Failing to make CGI convincing has been a problem in the MCU for a while, as most of the time, characters barely look like they really exist in the scene. To me, I compare it to when Red vs. Blue switches between actual animation and Machinima. The CG models stick out like a sore thumb to the in-game models, but at least it looks cool. Because while I don't believe that I'm seeing an actual man with bird wings flying through a canyon while chasing helicopters...it still looks cool. Still, not many people would be as forgiving as I am to this type of thing, so it's onto the dislikes it goes.

The direction of the action: Now I want to clarify that I have no problems with the action itself. Some fight scenes are pretty cool while also added with some exciting set-pieces that kept me engaged the whole way through. It's just the direction of the action that I have issues with. The camera is always shaky with so many cuts that it's hard to follow half the time. It's an understandable technique to hide the stunt double's faces or to make it look like it really is the actual actor who's doing the fighting. The issue is that once you know a show like Daredevil exists, with its plethora of well-directed action, the cracks in the armor become much more noticeable for a series like The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.

Karli Morgenthau: Karli...frustrates me. Because on the one hand, Erin Kellyman does an impeccable job at portraying the heartbreak, frustrations, and determination that Karli has when fighting for her cause. On the other hand, Karli's cause is so layered with hypocrisy that it's hard to understand her position. She wants to prove how the world was better during the Blip, saying that everyone was happier then. So why do things like blow people up and kill “Captain America?” I get the latter. The guy's a d**k. But to prove to people how better things were, is death and destruction really the best choice to get that point across? I get the mentality of how people respond better to a harmful fist rather than a tranquil hand, but really, has that mentality ever worked out either? 

However, you could argue that her hypocrisy is fueled by the super-soldier serum, with the "good becomes great and bad becomes worse" theory that John all but confirms. Although, unlike John, we never got to see Karli pre-serum, so we don't know how much it really had affected her. With John, it's easy as many scenes indicate how close he was to snapping and murdering someone who disrespects him. We don't get that for Karli and are left to assume she was already crazy about thinking how intense violence can show the world how great things were during the Blip.

Then again, that could be the plan. Show how a person with the best intentions is ultimately wrong, given the lengths they go through to accomplish them. It worked for Thanos, so it should work here. And it would have...if not for Sam saying that Karli has a point. Because for the main hero to say that the villain is correct, you have to show them doing more good than bad. I understand the mentality Karli, and the Flag Smashers, have. But by doing nothing but committing crimes and violence, any point they have is discredited. Take note of the fact that nobody but nutcases on the internet says that Thanos has a point. Because he doesn't. He's a maniacal supervillain who does something so intense that nobody should be on his side. It's similar with Karli, but because we're apparently supposed to agree with her, she doesn't work as well.

...DO YOU SEE WHY SHE'S FRUSTRATING?! Because while I can see how she can be an incredible character, there are so many holes in how she works that I fail to appreciate any of it. And seeing how she's the main antagonist, a character who takes up a good chunk of the screen time, it's not a good thing that she tends to flounder more times than she should. I want to like Karli, but given everything that's wrong with her, I just can't.

Rewriting Sharon as the Power Broker: This is an intriguing idea met with a mixed execution. You see, I like the idea of a character who was once an ally becoming a villain, yet the heroes have no clue about it whatsoever. It creates solid dramatic irony, but only if done well. With Sharon, it's not really done well. It genuinely feels like her character was changed radically to give her this personality. A fun personality, I'll add, but one that comes across as really jarring when looking back at her previous appearance. Don't get me wrong, a character's current personality feeling so radically different from their previous one can work a treat, but only when we see them go through point A to point B. We're told about the s**t that went down with Sharon, but unlike understanding the mentality of the Flag Smashers, her personality change would have been more effective if we saw it. So while I like the idea of Sharon becoming another big bad in the future, I would have liked it more if we saw her decline into possible villainy.

------------

By using my usual scoring system for MCU shows and movies, I'd give this season of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier a solid 8/10. There are problems. Quite a lot of problems. Hell, even the stuff I like comes with a fair share of issues. It's just a matter of asking yourself, "Do I like some parts more than I dislike them?" For me, I find myself enjoying much more than I didn't. It's not perfect by any means, but while it definitely falters at times, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is a series that soars to great heights. You might not be in love with it, but you’ll have a helluva good time regardless.

Now if you don't excuse me, it's time I swap from one superhero series to another as I share my more in-depth thoughts on--

[streets-in-paradise]

I want to talk about some of the main family relationships in Troy

As I already told once in one of my posts, I adore to overanalyze family relationships in the media I consume. I’m still in the process of writing another one as a second part to my sibling relationships post talking of more family relationships from various of my fandoms but, since that one is taking me too much time to finish, I'm writing now this shorter one for my Troy appreciation series. 

I already started this ramble in the same post I referenced. There I talked about my favourite family bond in the entire film, the sibling relationship of Hector and Paris. Still, there is a lot to discuss about family dynamics in the story this movie tells. Even since I was writing that post I kept thinking on how many family related story arcs this movie has and how, if you pay close attention to those, you can capture the essence of the characters. Because of this, I decided to dedicate a separate post to the main family relationships portrayed there and the important role they play in the development of the story. I will try to skip the ones i already talked about before. This are, for most part, the relationships inside the trojan royal family. Since i already discussed those, most of this will be about family bonds of the greek characters. 

As i stated in previous posts, this is a talk about the characters and actions in the movie. I’m not talking from an adaptation” movie vs book” point of view. I can occasionally mention some of the differences but there would be more references than comparisons. 

As always, i apologise for any possible mistakes in my writing. I’m still in the process of getting used to writing long texts in english. Also, I give proper credits for the images to the original sites hosting them. 

Agamemnon and Menelaus 

The movie establishes them clearly as the main antagonists. Precisely, one of the many scenes I love in this movie is the one in which they show up to the gates of Troy commanding the greek army and they argue with the trojan princes over the terms of the combat between Paris and Menelaus. The first thing I always notice in that one is how alike Hector and Paris look when they get down from their horses, it reminds me of the actual part of the Iliad in which it is said that Paris gets confused for a brave man because of his looks. Going back to my point, in that scene I get the vibe of opponents these characters have just by the display of the dynamics between siblings. 

Agamemnon is using his brother’s problem as an excuse for a war highly profitable for him. Menelaus is aware of this and he doesn’t care because he is too consumed by his wish for revenge and, it seems that this mutualistic beneficial goal is what sticks them together. Their first scene together, when Menelaus goes to Mycenae asking his brother for help, summarizes their relationship in a great way. Menelaus seems to have a rather servile attitude towards his brother and Agamemnon clearly takes advantage of that, having in that particular time a perfect excuse to attack an enemy he had wished to conquer for a long time. If you think about it, this is the exact opposite relationship of Hector and Paris. I love how well this scene fits as a contrast to the argument in the ship scene of Hector and Paris . In both, Menelaus and Paris are basically asking for the help of their older bros, one doing it on purpose and the other one half aware. Their family relationships are established so well by those two scenes. 

Going back to the one scene I mentioned first, the exchanges between characters are awesome. Not only because you can appreciate directly how this differences play a role in the conflict, but also because you can totally appreciate how every character involved is the exact opposite of the one who challenges. The exchange between Hector and Agamemnon is fantastic. I love how Hector cuts the crap on Agamemnon’s cocky bullshit, their short interaction is priceless.Also, i almost feel bad for Paris because “ the sun was shining when your wife left you” is his best line in the entire movie and he gets his ass kicked by Menelaus immediately afterwards. I like how, despite being a coward, Paris is a sassy little shit. 

Something i need to add about these brothers is that the Director’s Cut adds a better perspective on Agamemnon’s care for Menelaus. There are many short hints, especially after Menelaus’s death, that show how he actually cared for him. I think that this small glimpse should have stayed in the final version. Even when Agamemnon is a piece of shit of the worst kind and his brother was not very different, it is nice to see him caring for something else than his own imperialist desires from time to time and to get a real family vibe from those two.

Achilles and Patroclus 

Before starting with this two i want to clarify that i am fully aware of the very different interpretation their relationship got in this movie. I heard that the romantic approach was explored in Troy: fall of a city. I haven’t watched it yet, it is on my to watch list and at some point i will do it. Now, speaking of what we have seen in the context of the movie, i have to say that i love the adorable family bond they have since the first scene they share. This is by far my second favourite family bond in the film. 

As i said before i have a weakness for family relationships and tragedies regarding them are the biggest pain i can imagine. I don’t have anything against romantic Achilles x Patroclus, i just enjoy a lot the family approach it took here. First, i think it happens because i saw the movie far before reading any piece of trojan war related fiction and second because I happen to enjoy seeing family bonds more than romantical ones. My basic example for explaining this is the complaint I had over Kili x Tauriel and how it kinda shifted the focus of the previously established family story of the Line of Durin. If i have to choose between  a family or a romance story of any kind, I will always end up more interested in the first option because i relate to and enjoy those better. 

In this version, they are cousins with a very brother like relationship. I feel like here Patroclus acts like a little bro that hero worships Achilles. We know that his parents died and Achilles took care of him but we don’t know when that happened. What we do know is that his protection is the only aspect Achilles feels responsible for in his life. His bond with him reflects the best and the worst of him. It displays his softer and his most terrible side. Without paying close attention it looks like the romantic subplot with Briseis is the part of the plot that is supposed to show his soft side and, partially, it does but i think that job is already done earlier with the introduction of Patroclus. The story with Briseis serves mainly as support of what was already established there. The kindest, more human side of Achilles is clearly there when you look at his interactions with Patroclus. 

One of the main reasons why i enjoy this relationship so much is because, plotwise, it serves as a perfect point of encounter for the two main heros’ characterizations. Despite all the effort the storytelling makes in pointing out the many differences between Hector and Achilles, these two apparently opposite men share the same limitation. Hector’s goal is to protect his country, Achilles’s goal is immortality through fame, but both find themselves lost when their reckless younger relatives endanger themselves and both react the same way. When Paris was at instants of dying by the hands of Menelaus Hector had to choose between saving him or letting him get killed for the good of Troy. The man who serves as paradigm of honesty and sacrifice, the most noble hero of the story, broke the agreement and killed Menelaus. He broke a pact and gave his enemies an even better excuse for war that will doom Troy because his brother’s life was at risk. Achilles’s madness over grief for Patroclus fits so well family related in this particular narrative because it originated in the same feelings. Paris and Patroclus may be opposites, one being a coward and the other the embodiment of reckless courage, but both become the limit of tolerance for Hector and Achilles. At the end, both heros are driven by love for their families. In this version where Hector and Paris have this strong bond that works perfectly as a mirror for Achilles and Patroclus, it fits so well for them to be family. The chain of deaths unleashed with Patroclus’s death becomes a natural response to the bonds previously mentioned between the four characters involved. Everything becomes a big family tragedy and that is devastating. 

One more comment i will make about them is that i also love how some of Achilles’s friends add some more sweet or happy hints to some scenes. Eudorus, despite the formal servant-like way in which he speaks to Achilles, gives me a long time friend who is almost family vibe. Of course, i have to mention Odysseus here as well. Patroclus and Achilles sparring scene has an amazing chill domestic fun tone and he adds even more fun to the moment once he arrives. They are the most likeable greeks of the movie and you get such a friendly feeling of them. I live for these guys. The main scene they shared is the happiest of the film. 

Bonus mentions 

The Director’s Cut has a lot of scenes that help you understand some of the characters' motivations and lots of them are family related. One small scene I wish really hard the should had kept is the one in which Priam explains the reasons for his deep religious devotion. He listens to the high priest’s terrible advice and ignores his son’s wiser words not because he is a nice but dumb and inept king. He believes Apollo saved Hector from a disease when he was a baby boy. There is a reason for his blind, sometimes naive, faith in Apollo’s protection.Other cut out moment with a similar meaning is the one in which Andromache tells Hector she lost seven brothers in a previous war. She is tired of losing people, her husband is all she has. Having this in consideration her story turns even more tragic. 

I could mention a few more characters and moments but this is getting too long so i will end it here. I think it is enough for the topic i wanted to write about and the only main character i feel i skipped a bit here is Priam but i had talked enough about the trojans and how much i love them so i think it is enough. 

I enjoyed writing this, as fast as i can i will upload the general post for family relationships i’m working on and i’m thinking of making a special one like this for lotr.  @hrisity12​  I tag you as i always do in all my Troy content. 

Thanks for reading this ramble i intended to keep short but, as always, ended up longer than i expected. 

[differentnutpeace]

'Jupiter's Legacy' Decodes The Superhero Genre Without Subverting It

You'd be forgiven for wondering how Netflix's Jupiter's Legacy compares to other recent entries in the glut of "Wait, what if superheroes ... but, you know, realistic?" content currently  หวย บอล เกมส์ คาสิโนออนไลน์

 swamping streaming services. (To be fair, this "realistic superheroes" business is something we comics readers have been slogging through for decades; the rest of the culture's just catching up. Welcome, pull up a chair; here's a rag to wipe those supervillain entrails off the seatback before you sit down.)

So here's a cheat sheet. Netflix's Jupiter's Legacy is ...

Less cynical and empty than Amazon's The Boys

Less bright and blood-flecked than Amazon's Invincible

Less weird and imaginative than Netflix's The Umbrella Academy

Less funny and idiosyncratic than HBO Max's Doom Patrol

Less dark and dour than HBO Max's Titans

Less innovative and intriguing than Disney+'s WandaVision

Less dutiful and disappointing than Disney+'s The Falcon and the Winter Soldier

Less thoughtful and substantive than HBO's Watchmen

Less formulaic and procedural than the various CW super-shows (which I include here only out of a sense of completism, not because they're aiming for the same kind of performative faux-realism that drive most of these other series).

It's unfair to make these comparisons, sure. But it's also inevitable, given the crowded landscape of superheroes on TV right now. And in every one of those comparisons, Jupiter's Legacy doesn't necessarily come up short (it's far better than The Boys, especially), but it does come up derivative.

Makes sense: "Derivative" is a word that got slapped on the comics series it's based on, by writer Mark Millar and artist Frank Quitely, which kicked off in 2013. Millar and Quitely would likely prefer the term "homage," of course, and after all, the superhero genre is by nature nostalgic and (too-)deeply self-referential. So the fact that so many story elements, and more than a few images, of Jupiter's Legacy (comics and Netflix series both) echo those found in the 1996 DC Comics mini-series Kingdom Come is something more than coincidental and less than legally actionable.

Showrunner Steven S. DeKnight and his writers' room have carved out only a thin, much more grounded slice of the comic's sprawling multi-generational saga, but they've retained certain elements of family tragedy and Wagnerian recursiveness, wherein the sins of the father get passed to the son. They've also, smartly, retained the multiple-timeline structure of the comic as a whole, though they've pared it down and stretched it out over these eight episodes, clearly hoping for a multi-season pickup.

Readers of the comics will likely grow impatient at how little of the overall saga is dealt with here, but this review is aimed at those coming to the series fresh, who will find more than enough in this season to satisfy — it's a whole story that hints at what's to come without slighting what's happening now.

The now in question switches between two eras. In 1929, immediately before and after the stock market crash, brothers Walter (Ben Daniels) and Sheldon (Josh Duhamel) are the sons of a successful steel magnate. Walter's the diligent numbers guy, Sheldon's the glad-handing optimist. Sheldon's rich, smarmy friend George (Matt Lanter) is going full Gatsby, and muckraking reporter Grace (Leslie Bibb) runs afoul of Walter and Sheldon following a family tragedy.

Sheldon becomes beset by visions that will put him and several other characters on a path to their superhero origin story. Be warned: The series doles this bit out even more slowly than the comic — settle in for seven episodes' worth of Duhamel clutching his head and shouting while trippy images flash by, hinting at his ultimate destiny.

In the present day, Sheldon is the all-powerful hero The Utopian, who is married to Grace, now known as Lady Liberty. Walter is now the telepathic hero Brainwave, and George is ... nowhere to be seen.

The series has fun playing with the disconnect between the two timelines — characters from the 1930s story are either missing, or drastically transformed, in the present day, and while later episodes connect some of the dots, many of the most substantial changes are left to be depicted in future seasons.

The present-day timeline instead focuses on the generational rift between heroes of Sheldon and Grace's generation and those of their children. There's the brooding Brandon (Andrew Horton) who strives to live up to his father's impossible example, and the rebellious Chloe (Elena Kampouris), who rejects a life of noble self-sacrifice and neoprene bodysuits for a hedonistic modeling career.

At issue: Sheldon's refusal to acknowledge that the world has changed, and that the strict superhero code (no killing, no politics, etc.) that he lives by — and forces others to live by — may be obsolete, now that supervillains have escalated from bank robbery to mass slaughter. Younger heroes, including many of Brandon's friends, feel compelled to protect themselves and the world around them through the use of deadly force.

Clearly it's a fraught cultural moment to have fantasy characters who can fly and zap folk with eye-lasers deal with that particular all-too-real real-world issue; several scenes land far differently than they were originally intended.

But unlike other entries in the superhero genre, Jupiter's Legacy is prepared to deal overtly, even explicitly, with something that films like Man of Steel and shows like The Boys too simply and reflexively subvert: The superhero ideal itself.

The notion that an all-powerful being would act with restraint and choose only to lead by example is what separates superheroes from action heroes. Superheroes have codes; that's the contract, the inescapable genre convention, the self-applied restriction that tellers of superhero tales impose upon their characters; navigating those strictures forces storytellers to get creative. Or at least, it should. The minute you do what so many many "gritty, realistic" superhero shows and movies do — dispense with that moral code, or pervert it, or attempt to argue it out of existence by portraying a villain so heinous and a world so fallen that murder is the only option, you're not telling a superhero story anymore. You haven't interrogated or inverted or interpolated the genre, and you certainly haven't deconstructed it. You've abandoned it.

Say this much for Jupiter's Legacy — it's not content to wave the concept of a moral code away, or nihilistically reject it. It instead makes its central theme the need to inspect it, unpack it, and truly and honestly grapple with it.

Which is not to say it doesn't stack the deck by portraying a fallen modern world not worth saving — it does do that, usually through the lens of Sheldon's daughter Chloe, who throws herself into a world of drugs, alcohol, sex and general narcissistic monstrousness. The show attempts to explain her sullen self-destructiveness as a reaction to her father's unrealistic ideals, but in execution, her scenes prove cliche-ridden and bluntly repetitious. It's one of several examples where the show's choice to focus on and pad out one small part of the comic's overall tale results in leaden pacing.

But even though it takes seven full episodes for the characters in the 1930s timeline to get to the (almost literal) fireworks factory of their superhero origin, it's hard to argue that it isn't worth all that extra time, as Duhamel, Bibb, Lanter and especially Daniels have a great time with the period setting. (There are two other actors who get brought into the superhero fold in this timeline, but they 1. aren't allotted nearly enough screentime to really register and 2. represent spoilers.)

The period details of the 1930s timeline (Lanter was made to wear a waistcoat; Daniels' pencil-thin mustache should win its own Hairstyle and Makeup Emmy), and the brewing conflict between the younger selves of Sheldon and Walter can't help but make those scenes much more intriguing to watch than those set in the modern day.

The ultimate effect is a lot like watching the 2009 film Julie and Julia, in that sense. If you imagine that Julia Child could fly and shoot lasers out of her eye-holes.

And, really, who's to say she couldn't, after all?

[scoobydoominuscoobydoo]

Alright, I guess we should talk about Scoob!

So Scoob! was digitally release nearly a month ago and Mod Silas and I finally got around to watching it. 

For anyone who liked it and don’t wanna read me heavily criticize it then I’ll just spoil you right now:

I did not like Scoob! at all.

And it was really disappointing because this is the first wide release film Scooby has gotten in 16 years. That’s a long time to think of bringing Scooby to the general public who don’t go out of their way to watch every single direct-to-video movie. The announcement of a new feature length film was two or three years ago and I was really excited to hear it because I was expecting some high-quality content.

My opinion of it quickly dropped a lot when it was revealed that the original voice cast wouldn’t be in it. That’s fine all on it’s own but they did it without even letting the original cast know they wouldn’t be a part of this (Besides Frank but he wasn’t even cast as who he originally played). Seeing both Matthew and Grey’s responses to this made me sad and I was significantly less excited for this movie. 

Suddenly the concept of this movie not being that good became very real to me. How much passion can you have for Scooby-Doo when you ignore the original cast and hire people who have never done anything for the franchise before that.

Despite all of that, I was giving Scoob! the benefit of the doubt because I really wanted this movie to be good. I wanted this movie to open up the potential for more major Scooby projects. And while this movie did well financially I find myself so disappointed that after 16 years this is what we got.

Since I hated almost everything about this movie I’m gonna break it up into a numbered list (otherwise I’ll be ranting endlessly).

#1: This movie fails at telling a story.

When the trailer was dropped I remember being like, “Great. Lets recycle the whole Scoob and Shag friendship as a central narrative. Not like they’ve done that a million times before.” And then next thing you know, they’re on the Falcon Fury and I was so not excited. That was two plot-lines they’ve played with before and I can’t remember the last time anyone cared about the Blue Falcon. It’s one of the weaker movies and nobody talks about that one episode of MI that he’s in.

But again, I was going to let it slide because it’s still possible to create a good story out of something recycled.

The movie opens up with them when they were kids and I was already bummed because this movie is taking place in present times and not the 70′s or the 80′s. They allude to the fact that Shaggy enjoys stuff from that time period (while he’s scrolling through a smartphone) but that’s not the same. This concept bugged me for the rest of the movie because the majority of scenes where the gang is solving something they just Google it and the the scene is over. As opposed to it taking place before the internet and writers would have to get creative. And while I love the gang as kids because when it’s done in the show they have so much charm and life the beginning scenes are kinda pointless and don’t establish anything major. I think they were trying to show that the gang have been really close since they were little but it doesn’t come off that way. Not to mention the whole scene with the gang together feels really stiff and I was salty that Shaggy wasn’t wearing a Commander Cool costume instead of his Blue Falcon outfit.

At this point I was waiting for the character conflict to be introduced because that’s a key convention in every Scooby movie. There’s always a man in a mask to chase but that’s not where the story comes together. The story comes from some sort internal conflict within the characters.

The phantom dinosaurs in Legend of the Phantosaur are awesome but that’s not what the movie is about. It’s about Shaggy overcoming his own internal hurdles.

That’s been a consistent pattern in the best of the Scooby films (even all four of the live action ones do this) and I was waiting for it to be identified. And then next thing I know we’re twenty minutes into the movie and I’m not sure what it’s even about. The scene where the gang talk about wanting to become a legitimate business happens so fast and it took me like five minutes to be like, “Wait is this our conflict?” A fight between the gang about Shaggy and Scooby’s usefulness to the cause? (Which is also a recycled plot but whatever.) Their fight happens so fast and isn’t taken all that seriously so Shag and Scoob’s anger seems more played for a laugh than anything else.

But then they cut to the bowling alley and the two of them seem genuinely upset. And I can’t help but think if you had let the earlier scene escalate into an actual argument that I would have bought the hurt feelings. But then none of it matters because Shag and Scoob are immediately attacked and rescued by the Blue Falcon and someone’s OC. And when the rest of the gang find out they instantly feel bad and so I guess the tension between the gang wasn’t supposed to be the central conflict.

Now it’s back to being about Shaggy and Scooby and their millionth time being the chosen one.

Shaggy becomes pretty upset because Scooby is getting into the whole superhero thing and isn’t giving Shag a second thought. But the thing is, none of this was built up. The villain and Simon Cowell tell Shag he isn’t special and both of those times aren’t even remotely emotional. They briefly mention that Shag has some self confidence issues and that turns into him getting mad at Scooby for taking off his collar and playing hero. Ignoring the fact that this is not in character at all it’s clear that the story is now forcing conflict because we’re 45 minutes into the movie and all we’ve done is slapstick.

Shaggy and Scooby’s falling out is ridiculous because they’ve only been mad at each other for like ten minutes of the whole movie so there aren’t any stakes at all. You know they’re gonna make up because this fight came out of nowhere and wasn’t built up at all. Shag and the gang reuniting isn’t emotional at all and Shaggy breaking up the fight could have been so much better if it was just done better.

And that’s how this whole movie is, this plot had the potential to be great scenes could have gotten something from me but nothing is built up and it can’t stay consistent.

By the final battle of the film we’ve only had two things resembling character arcs in Shag and the Blue Falcon and neither of them have any weight. The movie tells us what we already know, that Shaggy is indeed useful to the gang and I just want this movie to be over.

And I guess because they wanna tug on your heartstrings the writers threw in a little self-sacrifice. And I’m not against that at all I think that’s a good resolution to the arc they were trying to give Shaggy but the thing is there’s no stakes or tension in the scene. It just happens and we’re meant to be sad about it but I can’t because nobody else in the scene seems to think it’s all that depressing besides Scooby. And like two minutes later the conflict is resolved and we get our obligatory dance party at the end. 

That whole thing is not a story, nothing is really accomplished by the end and nobody has really gone anywhere. 

There was no Point A which takes us to Point B which brings us to Point C. This was an insane labyrinth of lines running through as many points as they could and then calling it a day. There was no natural progression and none of the conflicts presented even mattered because they were immediately resolved anyway. That makes sense for a TV show but this is a feature length film. I honestly could not believe they were going to release that in theaters because there is no way it’s worth the money. 

It was so devoid of the Scooby-Doo charm and this movie felt more lifeless than anything I’ve watched in a long time.

#2: The movie does a bad job of portraying the gang’s friendship.

One of the fandom’s favorite parts of the Scooby-Doo franchise is the friendship between the gang and the way their characters interact.

But in this movie they behave more like coworkers than anything else. They try to play up the gang feeling guilty and missing the guys but it’s really not convincing. And it’s clear that the fight was more or less to contribute to Velma, Daphne and Fred’s story rather than the whole gang. They spend most of their scenes talking about the mystery or what Shaggy and Scooby would be doing if they were there. The one time in the movie where I can buy them being best friends is when we watch that accidentally took a video instead of a selfie. I thought that was really cute and showed the gang’s dynamic effectively.

The end of the movie where Shaggy is supposedly sealed in the Underworld forever is so underwhelming because Scooby is the only one reacting. Like that’s supposed to be their best friend of ten years who they don’t think they’ll ever see again and they barely bat an eyelash until they go to comfort Scooby.

My first thought was, “There is no way the gang would just let Shaggy sacrifice himself.” And I kept wondering why no one else was trying to stop him or hold him back. 

It’s annoying because I like when the whole gang’s relationship a key part of the plot rather than just Shaggy and Scooby + the other three who are also here.

#3: The villain and the Blue Falcon are pointless.

You could have taken Brian and Dick Dastardly out of the movie and replaced them with anyone and the movie would not have changed at all.

The Blue Falcon squad add nothing to the story and are mainly just there for ......nostalgia I guess??? But nobody even remembers the Blue Falcon??? 

The scenes with Dastardly are easily the worst parts because he’s just a copy-paste villain who sometimes says semi relatable things and it’s meant to be hilarious. His whole plan to open the Underworld just to get his dog back could have been interesting but obviously it wasn’t because nothing is properly built up in this movie.

Their first mistake was immediately revealing who their villain was right off the bat. I won’t be salty that they used actual supernatural forces because Scooby has done that plenty of times. I am salty that they just up and tell you who the puppetmaster is without any goal at anonymity which just goes against everything Scooby is about.

And they’ve done this multiple times. Whenever real supernatural forces are brought into the mix that does change anything because the forces are almost always being controlled by a man in a mask. This sticks to the Scooby belief that the real evil in our world comes from man and not fictional monsters.

#4: This movie’s presentation is not good.

I will quickly say that I actually liked Shaggy’s design in the movie even though Mod Silas already drew Shag with a long sleeve under his shirt and I think that’s a lot better looking. Whatever, I thought he was cute.

I was talking about how stiff the opening scenes felt, well the whole movie looks pretty stiff as well. 

The character designs are distracting (every girl in this movie with their hair down looks like they’re just wearing a wig it looks so bad I don’t understand hair hasn’t looked back in animation for like a decade) and the animation is pretty sloppy. The directing and camera movements also don’t make any half the time and only make everything more jarring. I have nothing against CG animation but I feel like this movie was trying to be 2D in a 3D space and and was just not working out.

Also the voice acting in the movie is really not good. Like idk how this movie managed to get a bad performance out of these pretty renowned actors but none of them sound like they wanna be there or even really care. Which is funny because if they had kept the original cast you know they would have given it 110% since they actually have passion playing these roles. If the performances were actually good I feel like I would have enjoyed the movie a little more.

They also play some standard pop songs and that confused me because they literally played the original theme song at the beginning. Like you guys have the What’s New theme which everyone loves, a plethora of other theme songs, and two Hex Girls songs you could have played. 

When the dance party at the end happens Mod Silas pointed out that it was a wasted opportunity because instead of having the Blue Falcon be a DJ they could have just brought in the Hex Girls or Simple Plan.

But they didn’t do that and I honestly wonder if the people who made this movie care about Scooby-Doo at all.

#5: The things that I actually liked.

Again, I liked that scene where they do that cute selfie thing, I thought was adorable and accurately showed their dynamic.

I also liked that Daphne was the one to point out what Shag and Scoob contribute to the team because I’m biased.

When they address that Shag and Scoob are they ones that make sure the gang is eating I like that, I thought it was very in character and made a lot of sense.

I like when Captain Caveman showed up for literally no reason and was voiced by Tracy Morgan. Simply because it was so dumb I had to laugh.

I like the gang’s group hugs because those always showcase how tall Shag is compared to everyone and they all deserve a hug.

Any of the lines Fred said because they were the majority of the actually funny jokes in the movie.

The scene where Shag, Scoob and Daph are split off and she keeps getting her spare Scooby Snacks stolen by Scooby. I just love that trio for obvious reasons and it was the only part of the movie where I felt happy.

At the end when Shaggy yells at the gang and tells them what to do because I just always like it when he does that, it always throws the rest of the gang off and it’s funny.

The scene where they unmask Dastardly and it’s Simon Cowell and then they unmask Cowell and it’s Dastardly again. Like the smartest joke the movie had.

The Hex Girls poster at the carnival because it tricked me into thinking we’d see them at some point.

I liked DynoMutt, I though his design was cool and he got the other half of the actually funny jokes.

When Blue Falcon does that phone gag and is all like, “Adventure is calling!!” And the scene is supposed to be exciting but then Shag immediately is like, “No thanks.” I thought that was in character and pretty funny before being taken back because conflicts are resolved instantly in this movie.

Conclusion:

When you’re passionate with something as underground as Scooby-Doo you find yourself getting very protective of the legacy it leaves behind.

Granted this franchise has always had some black marks on it’s record but that’s to be expected since it’s a 50 year-old series.

Scoob was going to bring Scooby-Doo back into the limelight after such a long time remaining on CN or Boomerang respectively. And was just so devoid of the passion that even MI had, it felt like more of a cash grab than anything else. And it bums me out because there are so many good things that we could have gotten from an animated theatrical release.

But instead we got an hour and forty-five minutes of nothing and that isn’t what Scooby deserves at all. I can only hope that someone will want to try again and this time, they’ll actually care.

(Feel free to share your own thoughts on the movie and maybe discuss point I made that you agree/disagree with.)

[justathingidid]

‘LOVE WEDDING REPEAT’ IS ONE WEDDING TO SLEEP THROUGH

Eleanor Tomlinson and Sam Claflin play brother and sister in the film

Love Wedding Repeat was released on Netflix on April 10, 2020. The film is an updated version of the 2012 French short film Plan de Table, which follows eight guests at a wedding.The synopsis Netflix provides for its newer version is simple enough - “Different versions of the same day unfold as Jack juggles difficult guests, unbridled chaos, and potential romance at his sister’s wedding.” 

Basically, a wedding meets Groundhog Day. That actually sounds pretty interesting.

So why was Love Wedding Repeat so bad?

It’s nearly impossible to answer that question without doing some serious digging and examination into the movie. Is it the shallow plot, tonal inconsistencies, or Sam Claflin’s atrocious haircut that caused Love Wedding Repeat to miss the mark? Let’s march down the aisle and see.

In this post, I will:

Summarize the plot

Conduct a character analysis for the ensemble (spoilers!)

Examine the  film’s poor execution of “repetition” 

THE PLOT

From the start, it’s obvious Love Wedding Repeat has close to no concept of time. We start out with Jack (a miscast Sam Claflin) and Dina (a pretty, but boring) Olivia Munn at the end of a stay in Rome, where they’ve supposedly spent time together and fallen in love. Dina is the roomate of Hayley, Jack’s sister. Now, not only is the romantic chemistry between Jack and Dina non-existent - it’s really more of a sexual tension - but so is the desire to care about the two of them ending up together. The two are interrupted before a kiss can occur, and eventually head their separate ways.

Sam Claflin and Olivia Munn play love interests to one another

Fast forward 3 years and Hayley is getting married to wealthy Italian Roberto, causing Jack and Dina to reunite. The “3 years” might as well have been the next day, since there appears to be little growth in any of them - especially Jack, who still struggles to formulate a sentence around Dina. Luckily, Hayley’s placed them at the same table. But Jack’s desire to make a move is constantly interrupted by the other guests, and the distractions only grow when Hayley’s ex-boyfriend Marc shows up to crash the wedding and a sleeping drug is misplaced in a champagne glass. And when love doesn’t prevail, the movie switches things around: showing us another seating arrangement at the table that changes the situations of each character. What should be a wild ride that eventually ends with love (and yes, a kiss) - feels shallow and undeserved.

THE CHARACTERS

The ensemble is talented, but lacks cohesion

JACK

Sam Claflin portrays the main character

I like Sam Claflin. I really like Sam Claflin. He’s more than suitable to handle these types of films, with romances Me Before You and Love, Rosie under his belt. But, here, the lack of personality to Jack’s character makes it difficult for Sam to bring much to the film. Now, Sam certainly does carry the film, but it’s definitely breaking his back in the process. There’s only two things to know about Jack: 1) he likes Dina a lot (I still doubt it’s love - despite what the film says) and 2) he loves his sister. Everything else: dead parents, a job as an engineer, an ex-girlfriend -  all which would help bring a sense of depth to Jack as a person - is simply mentioned and never truly explored. His bumbling speech and “just can’t win” trait make it hard to not like Jack, but it does grow old after a while. One would think that losing Dina 3 years prior and finding her newly single would make Jack jump at the chance to make a move, but he still struggles to articulate his feelings to her, or even ask guests to leave so he can speak to her alone. It hurts to watch Jack’s awkwardness be one of the biggest barriers between him and Dina - the film would strengthen if Jack was actively trying to speak or flirt and then was pulled away. Jack’s supposed conflict of having Amanda, his ex-girlfriend, attend the wedding is hardly a conflict, given their relationship seems to have consisted of more sex than substance and Dina barely seems to care about Amanda’s presence. In an attempt to make Jack have something to his character, he ended up with nothing. Well, nothing but a kiss and a wealthy brother-in-law. 

HAYLEY & ROBERTO

Eleanor Tomlinson and Tiziano Caputo play the marrying couple

Hayley and Roberto are the couple causing the “wedding” in the film’s title, which fails to show a ceremony and instead, spends the film at the reception. Now, Roberto plays next-to-nothing of a role in the film, so let’s focus on Hayley, who is arguably the cause of all conflict in the film.

During her relationship with Roberto and (fairly near to the wedding), Hayley slept with old classmate, Marc, who unexpectedly shows up to the wedding to declare his love for her and expose the secret. Hayley threatens to have security to remove Marc from the wedding, but decides that recruiting Jack to drug Marc with sleeping medication is somehow a better idea. How? In the first scenario, the infidelity is exposed and during an argument with Hayley, Roberto accidentally falls off of the balcony to his death. In the second (and final) scenario, Marc has a change of heart, keeping the secret to himself, leaving Roberto to live his married life in blissful ignorance. Apparently, if in the second scenario love prevails, being honest isn’t part of the deal. Hayley’s infidelity is excused because according to her “it didn’t mean anything” and she “loves Roberto!” If love truly prevailed - if Haley truly loved Roberto - the truth should’ve come out with Hayley admitting it and (hopefully) Roberto forgiving. But, that’s just me and my ideas. 

Anyways, Hayley also decides to invite Jack’s ex-girlfriend Amanda for whatever reason (it’s not even mentioned if Amanda and Hayley are friends) and to sit her and Jack at the same table. I thought she loved her brother? It’s no surprise when the table arrangement goes south, and is that the fault of the little kids who switched the name cards, or the bride who planned: not only for those particular people to sit at the table but to add a sleeping drug into the mix? 

DINA

Olivia Munn plays Dina

Olivia Munn really tries with this role. You can tell she attempted to bring something to the table with Dina, but - similar to Jack - there’s not much to her. She’s a foreign correspondent and former roommate/friend of Hayley, but she’s mainly just the pretty girl who’s Jack’s love interest. Dina is at the wedding as a plot device. She’s there to remind Jack to seize his chance at love, she’s there to be separated from Jack or whisked away, she almost exists as a symbol. Her story of being kidnapped whilst in Afghanistan and coming back to care for a sick mother who would eventually pass is played twice for laughs, making it hard to find anything to care about for her. “Does she even like Jack?” is what I wondered in the back of my mind. She definitely engages in conversation with him, but her flirtiness is hard to find as more than friendliness. It’s known that Dina is newly single, having broken up with an ex. While this is a golden opportunity for Jack, it’s not even determined whether Dina is interested in another relationship. It certainly would’ve been nice to see Dina try to make an effort towards Jack as well - truly making it feel as if both sides are being kept apart.

BRYAN & REBECCA

Joel Fry and Aisling Bea play Bryan and Rebecca

It’s established early that the comedic side-kick is Bryan, the man-of-honor-maid-of-honor, whose relationship to Hayley or Jack doesn’t feel entirely sincere no matter how the film tries. He doesn’t come across as a “ride-or-die” type of best friend, and it’s unclear how he and Hayley even met, or what his relationship is like with Jack. Is he best friends to both of them? There’s little time to ask these questions (not like the film would answer) since Bryan announces his plan for the evening: convincing famous director Vitelli to give him a role in a film. This “subplot” is little plot, since Vitelli’s presence or effect on the wedding is barely felt. In the first scenario, this plan fails tremendously, with Bryan (victim of the sleeping medicine) falling asleep on Vitelli and mid-speech. In the second scenario, the plan works, but only after he falls in love with Rebecca, the blunt Irish guest whose relation to Jack or Hayley is not made clear. Honestly, Rebecca was my favorite character, possibly because she had a clear personality. Even if her chatterbox nature was exploited for exposition, Aisling Bea plays the obliviously honest nature with such perfection that I didn’t mind. Rebecca and Bryan have supposedly dated, but in the end, the two end up together, so there’s little time to care about what caused the breakup. I could only wish that Bryan had acted as more of a wingman for Jack and Rebecca had been given a larger role, perhaps as a wingwoman for Dina.

MARC

Jack Farthing plays the coked-up wedding crasher

If Marc was more of a looming threat, his arrival could’ve easily saved the movie. In fact, I was intrigued by his arrival: who is this disheveled, red-eyed man stumbling into the wedding reception? Whoever he was, he was obviously up to no good. However, the one thing that makes Marc interesting: the secret of him and Hayley having slept together, is quickly taken away or avoided when Hayley reveals the information to Jack (and the audience) on her own. Marc is not much of a physical threat either, his druggy demeanor makes him easy to overtake, hence why in the first scenario he’s locked up in a armoire. While the whole situation with Marc could have easily been avoided had Hayley had security remove him, the sleeping drug intended for him never finds its way in his champagne glass. And what’s worse: the audience never gets to see that scenario. If Marc was intended to be the antagonist of this movie (which the film will try to convince you he is), he surely failed by barely being much of a threat to begin with. 

CHAZ & AMANDA

Allan Mustafa and Freida Pinto play Chaz and Amanda

If Hayley’s enemy of love is Marc, then surely Jack’s is his ex-girlfriend Amanda. Or, supposed to be. Unfortunately, what is told about Amanda is worse than what is shown. For someone who’s supposed to be extremely rude and problematic, Amanda just seems to be extremely annoyed at best. Even when seated next to Jack, she doesn’t bother commenting on the situation, but her unbearable fiancé Chaz sure does. His angry comments towards Jack seem to be coming from a place of hurt: Amanda has not responded to his marriage proposal six months prior. But where Chaz could really be a character to wreak some havoc, especially for Jack, his lines are delegated to unfunny penis jokes for nearly the entirety of the movie. No wonder Amanda is annoyed.

SIDNEY

Tim Key plays Sidney

Speaking of annoying, it’s time to talk about the last character of the ensemble: Sidney. Who is this guy? Once again, his relationship is not made clear and the audience is quite confused by the kilt-wearing-crotch-adjusting guest who lacks social intelligence. You can tell when Sidney is supposed to be funny and unfortunately it falls short every time. I guess him finding love in the end is supposed to make us feel some type of way, but it failed to move me. Every member of an ensemble should have something to contribute, and I can say - aside from a few scenes where he was needed to act as a barrier between Jack and Dina - Sidney was completely unnecessary in the film.

VITELLI

Paolo Mazzarelli plays Vitelli in the film

Why was Vitelli in this film? What exactly did he add? Is he actively scouting for a new movie or did guests just assume? What’s his whole relationship thing with Dina? He offered her a ride - was he romantically interested or trying to cast her? Who even is this guy? How does Roberto know him?  

I just...why?

THE ORACLE

Penny Ryder voices The Oracle

There’s a narrator in this film. Don’t ask why. Not only is she completely unnecessary and unhelpful, the message she spews for a majority of the film is not only untrue but contradicts the entire plot: that chance is the enemy of love.

“REPEAT?”

Confused, Bryan? So am I.

I don’t what’s worse: that I can’t tell you how many times the film lived up to the “repeat” part of its name, or that I don’t want to. It’s true: the film only plays out the entirety of two scenarios when it comes to seating at the table. The rest are muddled in what is perhaps the worst montage I’ve seen recently (and I’ve been subjected to multiple ‘senior szn’ recaps on IGTV), and offer no information. In this montage, we don’t know who has the sleeping drug, and the entirety of the table isn’t even in frame. You don’t know who is sitting where or who has the sleeping drug. I guess it doesn’t matter because Jack and Dina don’t end up together, but it does matter because it needs to make the wait worth it. The audience should be subjected to different crazy scenarios: they should realize how completely wrong everything has gone. They should be tired of reliving the same wedding reception, they should want Jack and Dina to end up together to just end it. 

But I must say, the best part of the montage was Jack and Rebecca end up tongue-kissing. That’s a scenario I’d love to see.

CONCLUSION

A kiss to end it all

I hate to bash a directorial debut. But I hate wasted potential more.

Love Wedding Repeat could’ve been something great - it really could’ve. It’s easy to see the same idea executed better going down as a modern rom-com classic. But Love Wedding Repeat’s failure to live up to its name is a major disappointment, especially giving the talented leads (who are better off playing friends than a couple). The idea was certainly there, and so were the resources. I mean, they shot on-location in Rome. But if Love Wedding Repeat shows anything, it’s how a lackluster script can truly harm a concept. You can’t tell us sad stuff about our characters, show the sadness. Show the tension between Jack and Amanda, show us the camaraderie between Hayley and Bryan, show how reckless and wild Marc is - make us care and understand. It shouldn’t just be Jack who wants a kiss between him and Dina - it should be us.

Overall, I can only hope what Netflix has in store for the future when it comes to rom-coms isn’t anywhere close to repeating this complete mess. 

[militant-holy-knight]

Kingdom of Heaven Review: Secular Agnostic Humanist Crusader Edition

Whenever the topic of Ridley Scott’s 2005 movie Kingdom of Heaven comes up, it invariably brings up how it’s one of his most mediocre movies and that “the Director’s Cut is better”. This makes sense since the movie actually had a very mixed reception when it was first released on theaters, as critics lambasted the cliched plot and characters and overall being all style and no substance. As it turns out, several changes were made behind the scenes by executives who felt the movie ran too long and cut scenes they felt were appropriate, but actually improved the story.

I’ve heard so many people praising the Director’s Cut to the point they even said it was an “whole different movie”, which was very confusing to me, and made me wonder if they actually saw it and aren’t parroting someone else. Now don’t get me wrong: it’s true that the Director’s Cut is the superior version to the theatrical one and does fix issues like character motivations and actions, it doesn’t even come close to fixing the foundation which it was built on: an extremely politically-biased and revisionist distortion, product of someone molded by their own time period than anything else. 

The characters have anachronistic attitudes that are out of place specially at the heart of an holy war. The sympathetic characters - whether Christians or Muslims - can be identified as secular humanists that express religious tolerance and would rather live and let live, whereas antagonistic characters are characterized by their religious fanaticism. Baldwin IV and Saladin would rather live in peace with each other, but are beleaguered by the circumstances of their followers who clamor for war. This portrayal couldn’t be more absurd and further from the truth because the “peace” between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Ayyubi Caliphate was not meant to last forever, but more until both sides regrouped and rearmed to resume hostilities like an armistice, not to mention the fact both monarchs were extremely pious in their faiths (Catholicism and Sunni Islam, respectively) and considered themselves their staunch defenders. 

This is no accident. Ridley Scott is an agnostic and has admitted at multiple occasions that he used it as an opportunity to criticize religion. Perhaps the most illustrative moment where this attitude sweeps in is during the climax when Jerusalem is eventually besieged and Balian delivers an speech to the army that boils down to “Jerusalem belongs to everyone”, which simply wouldn’t fly with the Christians at the time. Consider in that era where even people of their own faiths struggled among each other (The Kingdom of Jerusalem was Latin Catholic and other Christians like Orthodox, Armenians and Copts were often regarded as schismatics, while Sunnis and Shias were at war with each other like they always do), can you imagine if someone actually said that in regards to other religions?!?

A particularly inconvenient aspect of the movie that is clear for everyone who sees it is that only the Christian side is the only one truly hit with the fanaticism issue, whereas Muslims comes off as cleaner. When you really come down to it, the crusader side is filled with more despicable villains who are named, whereas the Muslim side has one token nameless mullah who is an asshole to Saladin, threatening him that if he doesn’t give them Jerusalem, they will kill him and find someone who can - that is about the extent of his villainy. There is also a Saracen rider that wants to duel Balian at one point, but he is just some random threat thrown in, and it’s later revealed he was an slave masquerading as someone else. 

Now compare this with Balian’s asshole priest brother who steals his wife’s crucifix, the slimy Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Guy of Gisborne and Raynald of Chatillon, both of whom are generic warmongers that just want to kill infidels for no reason, the former kills an emissary which constitutes as an offense worthy of Genghis Khan’s wrath while the latter rapes and kills Saladin’s sister. What makes this worse is that none of these are true: The Patriarch actually helped ransom people during the Siege of Jerusalem, Guy wasn’t particularly better or worse than his contemporaries and if anything, he was regarded as an weakling rather than a bloodthirsty thug, whereas Raynald never even attacked Saladin’s sister (according to Arab sources) and while he was still a very violent man, it was the result of being held 16 years in a prison under Muslims in Aleppo and in the end, he died like a Christian martyr to jihadist terrorism - being told by Saladin to convert to Islam or die, which he picked the latter. 

You can tell when certain fedoralords say they hate religion actually hate Christianity only, and this is the tone that oozes from this movie. No wonder a historian once called this movie “al-Qaeda’s version of the story” because Christians commit horrible atrocities against innocent Muslims hence Muslim aggression by Saladin is justified. If anything Bin Laden likely envisioned himself as an modern-day Saladin, hoping to unite the Muslim world against the “Eternal Crusader”. The lionizing of Saladin is laughable given the fact that until recent memory he was an obscure figure on account of being Kurdish, but was co-opted by Arab Muslims as their hero. I wonder how would audiences feel that Saladin had half Jerusalem’s population enslaved which is something he actually did in real life instead of letting them go like in the movie.....

There are also other problems with the movie besides religion that even the Director’s Cut couldn’t fix like Balian’s character. I already went over how he is representative of the movies’s secular humanist themes, but there is a lot more wrong with him beyond that. Simply put, he is the most vanilla flavor protagonist, devoid of charisma or flaws, and comes across as a Marty Stu when you think about it: a nobody who is revealed to be the bastard son of some crusader baron that just so happens to be influential enough with Jerusalem’s nobility that everyone good immediately befriends him. He has a tragic backstory that makes him an atheist, but is perfect and devoid of any flaws and is written in such way that serves as a surrogate for the audience. By contrast, his historical counterpart was a knight born and raised in Jerusalem who was actually devout and politically shrewd, which comes across as more interesting and Arab Muslims agreed since they wrote “he was like a king”. But nope. Can’t have that because Balian is actually Scott’s self-insert by his own admission and we can’t have a guy like real-life Balian because modern audiences can’t identify with him.

Scott seriously misunderstood the Knight Templars. Naturally like our lead villains they are also genocidal maniacs, but also appear to be a secular noble/warrior class of some kind since Guy and Raynald are affiliated with them (they weren’t in real life), and it’s a plot point that Guy is engaged with Baldwin’s sister Princess Sybilla. Templars made vows of chastity and poverty, schewing all property and titles so it makes no sense for either of them being part of the order, much less for a Templar to become king. (Afonso Henriques of Portugal was at least a former Templar).

And then there are the geo-politics... Even though Scott denied that the movie was an metaphor, it certainly comes across this way with characters talking about how much wealth they made from the campaigns as if this was the American intervention in the Middle-East for oil. Jerusalem had no resources, no real treasures except maybe the True Cross which had great emotional value for the Christians and in fact, it was the other way around: it was far more expensive, having to secure resources, armor and weaponry to join the crusade with the likely risk of death with no returning home with the only comfort being remission of sins in case of falling in battle.

The Crusades were precipitated by Muslim aggression in the first place, namely the Seljuk Turks who crushed the Byzantine Empire in the Battle of Mazinkert and began persecuting Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land, not to mention the subhuman conditions that Eastern Christians found themselves as dhimmis under Islamic rule. When framed this manner, the wrath of Latin Catholics hearing the atrocities carried out by the Turks is quite justified. Could Scott himself say this is justified compared to how much Muslim caravans were attacked by Templars on his movie?

So to sum things up: we have liberal political bias that portrays one side as the assholes while the others justified in retaliating, a perfect protagonist that is clearly a self-insert, generic villains that are evil for no reason other than being Christian, historical inaccuracies, white-washing certain figures while removing all nuance and depth from others, honestly embarrassing analogies with modern topics that stick out like a sore thumb. And in the end, for you to walk away with not much. I am sorry but even the Director’s Edition didn’t make things significantly better because the movie’s issues lies at their conceptual form: Balian is still a Marty Stu, the Christians are largely one-dimensional evil, the Muslims are honorable and enlightened, etc. You can’t make a story engaging when the setting is revolving around religious conflict and the leads are all secularists, or else it shows how much “smarter than thou” attitude you have.

I’ve heard about how Scott got into a spat with the British historian community who made very clear how his movie was bollocks. A common defense on his behalf is that he isn’t obligated to tell history like how it was and he made the movie he felt best, which is honestly just baffling because it’s very insulting towards the audience. I am not saying that the audience should be challenged (at least not in a Rian Johnson way), but imagine if Raynald’s captivity was brought up and his death was portrayed in redemptive fashion after all his atrocities, imagine Saladin preaching jihad against the crusaders, imagine Balian breaking his oath, etc. Now that would have made an more memorable movie instead of the one who is remembered for his slightly better version released separately. Certainly history had a better story to tell than Ridley Scott.

Like what Amin Maalouf, author of “The Crusades through Arab Eyes” once said.

It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all.

[periodicreviews]

Last of Us Part II

I went into Last of Us Part II without many spoilers and completed it today. I’m writing out my thoughts before reading any other reviews of the game.

Technical stuff

On a technical level, the game is a logical successor to Uncharted 4. The same great sound design is key to trying to locate where enemies are and I feel like playing with headphones is key. There’s a moment where if you fail a jump, your partner will say “hey you know if you run before the jump…” and the character you control says “yeah yeah, I know.” This is a great way of guiding the character without interrupting them with a prompt.

Returning from Uncharted 4 is the ability for characters to pause mid conversation when you walk away and for them to continue when you get closer. There aren’t quite as many chances for this to be triggered without vehicles but it’s good to see.

One of my big problems with the graphics in Uncharted 4 is that the facial models felt almost unrecognizable as they made them match the actors faces way too much. Nathan Drake just felt like Nolan North, as did Elena’s model. Maybe they learned their lesson because all the faces in TLOU2 felt like the characters I remembered from TLOU1. The only exception being the young Ellie model. At times, her eyes kind of felt dead. I don’t know if that’s a result of porting it from PS3 or not.

I also felt like the default control scheme was too hard to get used to. Dodge being mapped to L1 just did not feel natural coming from a first person shooter background. I eventually remapped it to the circle button, put crouch on the left control stick click, and other changes.

The number of options with respect to controls, which are fully configurable, and visual settings, particularly for motion sickness, are something that every console game should provide.

Speaking of motion sickness, the settings never quite eliminated it for me and although it became more manageable, there was this constant physical discomfort while playing the game. I believe Neil Druckmann said something to the effect that TLOU1 is about hope and TLOU2 is about hate. In that sense, I guess I felt more immersed by hating the game itself for causing my motion sickness.

 The plot

The game can be arguably be broken into two parts, Ellie’s story and Abby’s story. You play a tiny bit of Abby in the beginning of the game but then the focus is mainly on Ellie, until the two intersect at the theater confrontation. After the theater confrontation, you take control of Abby primarily, then finish things off as Ellie.

Once this midway switch happened, I figured they were going to have you play as Abby as you kill Ellie and Dina. I also wasn’t sure whether they would make you be the one to torture Joel. If you don’t know already, the game opens with Abby torturing and murdering Joel, which sets the plot in motion.

For a time, I was kind of upset that they were making me play as Abby. Your first big segment as adult Abby after you know who she is, is the slow walk through the WLF base. It feels like it drags on forever as you walk past children in classrooms, play with the dog, see all the animals, everyone eating in the cafeteria, etc.

Obviously, this is supposed to mirror the beginning of the game with Ellie as you walk through the Jackson level and see every single one of these same things. The level is supposed to get you to empathize with the people you have been murdering for 20 hours. “See? Abby’s not so bad, she wants pine scented soap at the commissary.”

But does everything need to be the same? There’s people running away from Jackson, the Seraphites, and the WLF. Characters on both sides are dealing with the internal power struggle. There just happens to be two pregnant women in Mel and Dina. It just happens to be that both Abby and Ellie are seeking revenge over the death of their father figures. Both WLF and Jackson engage in torture to get the info they need. At times all these coincidences just felt forced.

In the end, the game seems to be saying that this cycle of revenge is pointless because we’re all the same and it just causes more pain. The cycle plays out in this order in the game:

1. Joel murders Abby’s dad

2. Abby tortures and murders Joel

3. Tommy, Dina, and Ellie torture and murder Abby’s party members, in the search to find Abby

4. Abby murders Jesse, seriously injures Tommy, Dina, Ellie

5. Ellie attempts to murder Abby but eventually stops

But it bothered me the whole time that the game didn’t attempt to explain why Abby felt the need to torture Joel, when there’s no evidence that he tortured her father. Then it proceeded to make this equivalence between Abby and Ellie like they were equally guilty. Granted, Ellie tortured Nora in the hospital but that’s only after she egged her on by gloating about Joel’s screams.

Another thing that bothered me in the final pointless battle between Abby and Ellie is that they choose to portray Abby as the better person who doesn’t want to fight. Maybe it’s not necessarily a moral call, but just that she doesn’t think she can win in her current state.

 Abby’s redemption

I guess my bigger complaint is about Abby’s whole redemption arc. After being rescued from the Seraphites by two kids, Lev and Yara, she returns to Owen where the two argue about Owen leaving to find the Fireflies. At the heat of the argument, they decide to have sex, despite Mel being pregnant with Owen’s baby.

That night, Abby has a bad dream where she walks through the door of the hospital where she found her dad’s body and instead finds Yara and Lev dead hanging from a tree. When asked by Yara or Lev why she came back to help, despite all the protests from Owen, she says something like she had to do something or she couldn’t live with herself.

I guess there’s some indication of regret for what she has done in the past. But it’s never made clear if this is about Joel or just her life choices in general. Later on, after rescuing them, she has the same dream but this time, she sees her dad alive instead. That temporary peace is then destroyed by the murder of Owen and she goes on a rampage to try to kill everyone associated with it.

I feel like there’s both not enough of Abby’s past in order to sell the regret and/or not enough regret in the present to sell the shift in behavior.

 Trans representation

I should have done my research before assuming what I had heard was true. It turns out Abby isn’t trans at all, only Lev is (who is in fact voiced by a trans actor). I thought I remembered reading a paper in a Young Abby segment that mentioned “transitioning”. Maybe I read it too fast and it was about another character, not Abby. Thanks to the helpful commenter who corrected me.

It seems people are mad at Laura Bailey just because she voices a character and they don’t like what that fictional character did, which is absurd but unfortunately not surprising.

The game obviously takes a risk by featuring not just one trans character but two. By risk I mean both politically from a company standpoint and from a writing standpoint.

I’m writing this prior to reading any other reviews or to know what exactly the controversy is surrounding Laura Bailey, who plays Abby. I’m assuming the problem is that she is not trans and is playing a trans character. I’m unsure if the same is true for Lev or not. I understand the problem of trans actors being rejected from roles because of that identity. But I don’t think all of the blame for that should lie with Laura Bailey, rather with Naughty Dog for making the choice not to cast a trans actress. If the audition was blind and Laura was select purely based on performance, that would complicate things. But given TLOU2 is almost a movie in terms of all the motion capture that is done, I feel like that probably wasn’t the case.

As a straight man, I felt like Abby and Lev as characters were done tastefully. Their identity is never really centered around being trans, just like Ellie’s character has never been centered around her being lesbian/bisexual. The other characters in the world don’t seem to treat them any differently because they are trans. There also aren’t the usual “trap” tropes or accusations that they aren’t “real” women or men.

 Things that suck

I was kind of surprised at how emotional I got during the game. There have definitely been games that have scared me (Dead Space) and games that have made me cry both out of sadness and joy (Mass Effect 3 Citadel DLC). But I don’t think a game has made me feel the same combination of anger, despair, and disgust in quite the same way.

The game starts off with a very graphic torture scene where Abby murders Joel but that didn’t really affect me. The scene was for sure shocking and I empathized with Ellie. But what really affected me was first having to control Abby as you attack Ellie and maybe even more so, watching Ellie leave Dina to continue to pursue Abby. It just hurt so much to see her give up the perfect life in pursuit of this pointless struggle.

 Was it good?

But is it a good game? Did I enjoy it? Do I agree with the message it’s trying to send?

It’s hard to describe a game like TLOU2 as fun or enjoyable when it’s a horror-action-drama. There are some great scenes between Joel and Ellie, Ellie and Dina, and Ellie and Jessie. It was also nice to see characters like Lev and Yara who have grown up exclusively in this infected world.

I’m 100% on board with seeing a conflict from both sides. I just feel like they portrayed Ellie as evil, in order to make Abby more likeable, all to make both sides seem equal. On a technical level, the game is great, despite it crashing once and some other minor visual issues when the camera would clip through the level. I’d probably give it an 8/10.

[biscuitreviews]

Biscuit Reviews Star Trek Discovery (Season 2) (SPOILERS)

After watching the first season of Discovery, I thought, “what first season of Trek isn’t awful, maybe Discovery will hit its stride in the second season.” Then I watched the second season... 

That was a thing.

As mentioned previously in my season one review, technological inconsistencies will not matter and Lore will be taken on a case by case basis. Season 2 will be judged on Season 2 alone, but I will bring up Season 1 events if appropriate. I won’t be going over every episode as Season 2 had a continuing storyline.

Spoilers will be discussed so if you haven’t watched either the first or second season, you’ve been warned.

Season 2 immediately picks up where Season 1 left off, with the USS Discovery answering a distress signal from the USS Enterprise under the command of Captain Christopher Pike. With the Enterprise heavily damaged, Starfleet has tasked Pike to take command of Discovery to continue his mission on investigating seven signals that mysteriously appeared with no explanation.

Having Pike come in is once again an excellent way to bridge this series with the TOS timeline. We also get to see more of Pike himself as our only experience seeing Pike in action is the TOS pilot. Pike is a Captain that will do anything for the crew he serves. He upholds Starfleet’s ideals of peace and exploration. We even get to see Pike still continue to carry the guilt of being able to do nothing during the Federation/Klingon war, something that we also saw in the pilot episode of TOS which was a really nice touch of connecting that this Pike we are seeing is the same Pike from the pilot.

As for where we are exactly in accordance to the TOS timeline, Season 2 takes place at an undetermined amount of time after the events of the TOS pilot. However, from what I have observed with what Discovery presents to us, my guess would be we are about 8 years away from the first episode of Kirk’s command of the Enterprise which we saw in “The Man Trap”. Which would put the events of the pilot happening around the first or second year of Pike’s command of the Enterprise. Take that little detail with a grain of salt, but again, with what we’re presented, I feel this makes the most sense in terms of the timeline of the Prime Universe.

However, despite how awesome Pike was, I felt season 2 used him as a crutch to keep the series up. It seems that the second season wanted to highlight Pike as the main character rather than Michael Burnham, you know, who the series is actually supposed to be about?

Speaking of Michael, what’s her story this season? Finding Spock after he broke out of a psychiatric hospital. Why is Spock in a psychiatric hospital you might ask. He’s there because he’s connected to the seven signals somehow and believes that the creator of the signals, known as the “Red Angel” is communicating with him. Spock also enters a “logic breakdown” trying to figure out if the Red Angel is real or not, seeing how he’s the only person that has had any form of contact with this being.

We’ll get more to Michael’s story soon, but first let’s go ahead and address the elephant in the room. How is Spock in Discovery? He’s fine. I don’t have a problem with this Spock showing more of his emotional side as it lines up more with how Spock was portrayed in the pilot of TOS. However, what I do have a problem with the conflict he has with Michael Burnham and how the writers handled the rest of Spock’s family. Spock resents Michael, why does he resent Michael? The reason for said resentment is what I consider to be one of the most offensive things to happen to Spock himself.

Amanda Grayson, Spock’s mother, saying how she couldn’t give all her love and support to Spock because she didn’t want to confuse him with his Vulcan/Human heritages and being raised the Vulcan way.

What the fuck.

Look, I know canon established that Amanda had difficulties with raising Spock and how she faced challenges with the Vulcan upbringing. But even through all of that, she still showed her love towards Spock and did her best to give Spock the support he needed during his formative years. We’ve even seen Spock in TOS and the movies be very warm towards his mother, even AOS reflected this. To have Amanda say she gave everything to Michael not only gives more unnecessary resentment Michael faces to the longtime Trek audience, but also does a disservice to the established relationship between Amanda and Spock that we see in TOS and the movies.

Let’s not forget the other reason Spock has resentful towards Michael, because she called him a half-breed when they were kids. The reason Michael did that was also really weird, which was for the sake of protecting him from the Logic Extremists to show that they hated each other. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that would stop a terrorist organization trying to harm Spock. This seems like another case of the writers needing a patchwork reason to show why they never went after Spock as a child to uphold established Lore and that was what they came up with.

As for Spock himself, well my complaints for Spock are the same as Pike’s. He was used as a crutch for the season to keep interest, which was not necessary. A Spock appearance was inevitable with the adoptive nature he shares with Michael, but to have him play the large role was unnecessary, especially with what we learn about Michael’s connection with the Red Angel.

Now Sarek, this season, I will have to admit, he was handled much better than the previous season. We see a Sarek that cares for Spock, even partaking in Vulcan rituals to attempt to reach out to his son when Spock is missing. We see Sarek doing everything possible to help Spock. Even when he’s faced with a dilemma between turning Spock over to the Federation for questioning, we see that internal conflict he faces on whether it’s the best course of action. 

However, his reason for turning him over was a really dumb reason. 

“Because the Federation can take better care of Spock.” 

I’m sorry, but every piece of Lore, every Star Trek series, has shown that nothing can take care of a Vulcan better than another Vulcan when it comes to these mental issues. We see this in TOS, we see this in DS9, we see this in Voyager, and we see this in the movies. But it’s the thought that counts I guess? Not really.

Another reason for turning Spock over is that it’s because he believes in Spock’s innocence and that he believed it was logical to have Spock, Pike, and Michael provide their evidence regarding the Red Angel and why Spock didn’t commit the murders he was framed for. He knew that for Spock to be cleared, it was logical to appear cooperative and with the Discovery crew actively investigating the Red Angel and Spock’s alleged crime, it made sense. That part I get, and I wish that was just the reasoning, instead of tacking on the whole “Federation can take better care of Spock because of his condition.” It would have really highlighted Sarek’s loyalties to the Federation, while at the same time showing his love for Spock. But we didn’t get that. Instead we got the Federation can take better care of a Vulcan than another Vulcan.

Now, what about the other characters? Staments’ storyline dealing with the revival of his husband Dr. Culber I’ll admit is something I was not a big fan of. If anything the revival of Dr. Culber, got rid of the development and drive Staments had in the end of the first season and the need to want to leave Starfleet at the beginning of Season 2. It had the potential to tackle a sci-fi issue, is this alternate version of a character the same person, or are they a completely different person?

The initial answer I’ll admit was rather intriguing. Dr. Culber can recall the experiences, but those experiences are not his and he even stated as such. He even moves out of the shared quarters with Staments to figure out who he is as well as show that this Dr. Culber is indeed a different person. I was looking forward to the two of them getting reacquainted and see a new type of relationship develop. A new romance, a friendship, or maybe not get together at all. Instead, we got the new Culber picking the relationship back up with Staments without any real meaningful development or reasoning as to why he chose to re-enter said relationship. 

Now Trek has always played with character deaths. In fact, Voyager is a series that played with it alot, at least every character died at some point, but got revived because of either breaking time loops, changing the past, or having alternate universe versions just take over. The reason it worked with Voyager is because the crew were in an unknown part of galaxy and were doing everything possible to get back home. All of it was written and ingrained in Voyager’s story and DNA.

With Discovery, this felt more like a mistake they were trying to correct in season one by negating the “killing the gay” trope to be like “see, he’s not dead. It’s Trek, just write it off!” No, I’m not going to write that off, Alex Kurtzman, you just did more of a disservice towards these two characters just like the disservice that happened to them in season one.

Saru’s arc is not only amazing, but also in many ways relatable to his self-discovery as a Kelpian. We learn that Saru’s planet, his species actually used to be the oppressors towards the Ba’ul many years ago. Now that the Ba’ul have risen to power, they have turned their revenge on the Kelpians and are now oppressing them. Saru begins to enter a stage in a Kelpian’s life where it has been long believed that he is entering death. Instead he’s entering an evolution in his species. The fact that he doesn’t know what this new stage will do or how to go about it is very relatable. As a human person, I sometimes don’t know the inner workings of my body. Everytime we see a species in Trek, they know everything about their biology so to see an alien species actually not know something about theirs is very relatable.

I did love Tilly’s arc with communicating with the mycelinal network. Thinking she’s losing her grip of reality little by little, coming up with the conclusion on what was happening, reaching out for help when she needed it and the Discovery crew giving her actual honest help. If only they actually provided that level of support for another character that reached out for help. Don’t worry, I’ll be getting to Ash Tyler later. Hell, when Tilly was taken into the mycelinal network, Discovery did everything they could to get her out. The second part of her arc, which occured in the finale, was handled terribly in the writing sense as it actually required you to watch another series known as “Short Treks” to understand as it introduces a new character, Me Hani Iki Hali Ka Po (which I will refer to as Queen Po moving forward).

Yeah, I’ll deviate from Discovery a little to briefly mention Short Treks. Short Treks was meant to be more of a supplemental series telling short stories within the Trek universe. It’s a great idea for lore building but to have one episode required to understand how something in the finale happened left a bad taste in my mouth. 

Take Saru for example. He had a Short Trek episode that showed how he joined Starfleet. Yet it’s not required to watch as Saru gives what you need to know in the main series, but if you want the full experience you can watch the Short Trek episode or don’t, either way, you have everything you need. Even the Picard prologue episode doesn't require you to watch it first as again, what you need to know is in the series itself.

But Tilly’s episode regarding Queen Po, if you don’t watch it, you’ll be lost as to why this new character is important as well as her connection to Tilly.

So what about Ash Tyler, what’s he up to. He’s on Kronos!  Maybe he’s acting as a liaison between the Federation and the Klingons? Nope, he’s now the husband of the new Klingon Chancellor, who was his rapist. He forgave his rapist and then married her. 

Do the writers just not know what to do with him? 

I’m sorry are we going to forget everything that he went through in season 1? How he would enter a mental breakdown at the mere mention or sight of her. Are we going to forget all of the physical and mental abuse that was done to him, just sweep it under the rug and forget that everything happened because they now love each other? 

Look, I know canon established that Klingon women are very violent and physical towards their mates. But you know what Trek also established, that it was consensual when someone would engage with a Klingon in any sort of courtship or sexual relationship. But everything that happened to Ash Tyler wasn’t a part of Klingon culture and courting, it was not consensual, it was torture and rape in a time of war!

Look, the writers need to do better. He had some great potential to highlight issues such as PTSD and male rape victims. But it got bungled so hard that I don't even know how they can fix the mess they have made of his narrative. Would certainly be better for him if the writers stop trying to have him be a posterboy of issues that they clearly do not understand how to convey. 

Oh, they have a kid too. But the father was the Klingon who’s personality and soul was fused into Ash Tyler and now he needs to protect the kid, because reasons. So he and the Chancellor fake Tyler’s death and the death of their child. Those events bring him to join Section 31.

Now, Section 31 has been mentioned here and there in Trek lore, we would see their presence every now and then in DS9. We learn that Emperor Georgiou has actually become a member of Section 31 and would be an ally to the Discovery crew. Seeing a Mirror Universe person try to acclimate themselves to the way of life in the Prime Universe, which is a very drastic change compared to what she’s used to was a very refreshing change of pace involving anything that deals with the Mirror Universe. 

From being a leader of an empire that nearly brought the galaxy to its knees, to now taking orders from Starfleet. Not only that, but she must also obey her superior officers and report to her commanding officer, Leland. Whom in classic Mirror Universe fashion, does what she can to become a new commanding officer of the ship.

I’ll admit seeing more of this is something that I would like and I really hope that the Section 31 series starring Emperor Georgiou really takes off.

Leland will actually be our “big bad” for the season. He will be killed and have his body taken over by a Section 31 AI known as Control. Control’s immediate goal is to obtain consciousness, however, it’s the connection with the Red Angel that explains why Control is a threat.

The Red Angel is Michael’s mother, Gabrielle, who was thought to be dead. This actually added a lot to Michael’s backstory. Michael’s mother worked for Section 31 and was developing a time travel suit. Why was she working on a time travel suit? Because Section 31 obtained evidence that the Klingons were developing time travel technology. That little part I’m a bit weirded out on as I don’t think Klingons would even waste their time on time travel tech. Honestly that seems more like something a Romulan would do than a Klingon, but ok, I guess we’ll go with that.

When the Klingons attacked, she attempted to use the suit to go back in time to get her family out before the Klingons came. But, instead of going into the past, she ends up 950 years into the future, where Control has evolved and eradicated all life in the galaxy.

With Michael hoping for a joyous reunion with her mother, we find Gabrielle determined with one mission and one mission only, to stop Control. I actually really liked Gabrielle’s coldness towards Michael as it shows that she has been trying to stop Control for a long time. The exhaustion on her face, the zero emotion she had when reuniting with Michael and the sharpness of her dialogue delivery show a woman that has seen everything she cares for die in front of her repeatedly. So much so that Michael’s attempts to reach out to her are met with a callous mindset that Gabrielle knows too well. Why should she bother trying to reconnect with her daughter, if to her she’s simply going to die soon anyway for what is probably the thousandth time?

We even see Michael desperately trying to find some sort of connection, some sort of in to allow her mother to feel what she is feeling and that moment right there you really feel for Michael and just wish that her mother would at least hug her or something. 

It’s these moments that help Michael grow more as a character and help her stand on our own, without the need of Sarek or Spock holding her back. These moments show a Michael that just wants to save her mother, and show her that this long battle she has fought can end and that the future can change. Michael has lost her mother once and she is now in a position to save her.

This is how you bring a reunion, this is how you make a character standout. By having Michael show herself and her feelings. Not attach her to something that she really doesn’t need to be attached to for the sake of creating a connection with legacy characters for the buy-in. 

After the final battle and stopping Control, we see the USS Discovery and its crew find themselves 900 years into the future and that is where season 2 ends and where season 3 will begin.

Once again my main complaint is terrible writing that disrespects the characters. It disrespected Michael by having her continue to be held back by Sarek, Amanda, and Spock. It disrespected Spock by completely trashing his relationship with his mother. It disrespected Staments and Culber by just negating a major death from the previous season, tackle an interesting topic, and then just back out and move on like nothing changed. It disrespected Ash Tyler by continuing to have him be a representative of not-so-much talked about issues and still doing everything wrong on bringing awareness. 

Hopefully being in the future can free Michael and allow her to grow now that Sarek and Spock are no longer holding her back since they’re now dead. Hopefully this allows Ash Tyler to no longer be tortured by the writers ignorance. Hopefully, they stop messing around with Staments and Culber and actually show both of them starting a new relationship, or just have them both remain friends or show them finding new love. Also, I hated that they used this to essentially “test the waters” on their version of Pike and Spock to see if a new “Strange New Worlds” series would be welcomed. Despicable!

But with how the first two seasons have been so far, I’m not holding my breath.

Star Trek: Discovery Season 2 receives a 2 out of 5

[oltnews]

They really don't say anything to Scarlett Johansson. She may be the star of "Black Widow", but that doesn't mean that she has any idea when the movie trailer will be released. You may remember that we had a first surprise glimpse of "Black Widow" earlier this week. And when we say early, we mean early. Tuesday, our story was published just before 2 a.m. The trailer fell late Monday without fanfare or advance warning, and Johansson told Stephen Colbert Thursday evening that even she didn't know it was going to happen. "I woke up and received a text from Chris Evans saying," The trailer is superb. "I don't know what he was doing at 5 a.m. It's another story. Yeah, getting up, of course," she said, responding to Colbert's joke. haven't said it! They hide everything from me. " Also read: 'Black Widow': Natasha Romanoff has a family reunion and kicks ass in the first trailer for Marvel Prequel (Video) Johansson was on "The Late Show" to promote "Marriage Story", which she performed with Adam Driver, aka Kylo Ren from the "Star Wars" trilogy. So Colbert asked if she had any idea who would win a fight between Kylo and Natasha. She didn't have a lot of response, nor about the details she was allowed to say about "Black Widow", other than the fact that it was between "Captain America: Civil War" and "Avengers: Infinity War ". Johansson says the film is a "homecoming" in which Natasha must now face some of her guilt over the things she did before becoming revenge. However, fans wondered why a solo film, Black Widow is not an origin story that goes back to its training beginnings in Russia, and she explained why this story was better. "I could never have made this film 10 years ago when we had just started our journey with Marvel. It’s a film that speaks so much… the character informed this film. My trip with Natasha informed this film. She’s a character who’s a fully recognized woman. It has a complexity that it is delicious, "said Johansson. "Not to say it would have been something else or totally entertaining in 10 years, but we can do things that are good." Also read: Review of the film 'Marriage Story': Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver split up in the devastating drama of Noah Baumbach Colbert also had another theory to direct by her: that it was Johansson's last go-around as "Black Widow". Here is why: it is his eighth appearance because the character and the spiders have eight legs. Can't it be a coincidence? Of course, Stephen. Check out Johansson's appearance on CBS "The Late Show" above. All 23 Marvel Cinematic Universe movies ranked, from worst to best (Photos) No one on the Internet wants to talk about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it's something we simply can't continue to ignore. But seriously: even if this seemingly unstoppable franchise has rabid fans around the world, nobody can agree on those they prefer (or at least, for that matter). TheWrap film editor-in-chief Alonso Duralde gets into the subject - and no, he's not paid by anyone at Disney to love (or hate, for that matter) any of these films. wonder 23. "The Incredible Hulk" (2008) Released just five years after Ang Lee's "Hulk", this second attempt to make a man a leader in the great green creature radiated by Gamma proved just as disappointing. If we've learned anything from the Avengers movies, it's that Bruce Banner works best when he's a supporting character (and when he's played by Mark Ruffalo). wonder 22. "Ant-Man" (2015) Although this film deserves to be rewarded for not having put the fate of humanity at stake - the stakes are more than the size of a child's train - the stabs to the humor of the film seem to be overestimated , and little natural charm from Paul Rudd comes to the fore in what should be a breezy caper. We can only wonder what the original version of Edgar Wright might have looked like. Disney / Marvel 21. "Thor" (2011) Director Kenneth Branagh tackles the the-and-thou of Asgard's segments, but the little town where the pinnacle is played out has been one of the most cheesy fake towns on the screen since the terrible movie "Supergirl" in years 80. On the positive side, actor Chris Hemsworth shows a scintillating spirit in this adventure of the god of thunder, coupled with an impressive musculature. wonder 20. "Iron Man 2" (2010) The best MCU movies do a good job of distracting you from all the setup of future franchise entries; this one offers so much empire building that it might as well have a "Pardon Our Dust" sign on it. Still, Scarlett Johansson's first appearance as Black Widow, dispatching opponents down the hall, made an unforgettable impression. Disney / Marvel 19. "Captain America: the first avenger" (2011) Just like he did in "The Rocketeer", director Joe Johnston excels at portraying the brilliance of the 1940s, although the characters are not as vivid as the USO sparrow. But fear not, true believers - the screen adventures of Cap have improved a lot in his later solo and team movies. wonder 18. "Thor: The Dark World" (2013) Firmly average, yes, but an improvement over its predecessor and a good time, skillfully balancing superheroes, second bananas, entertaining villains and the occasional killer one-liner. In no way a cornerstone of the MCU, but this one, mainly, works. Disney / Marvel 17. "Iron Man 3" (2013) Director and co-writer Shane Black doesn't always have the narrowest understanding of history - what is the infamous Extremis still doing, and why? - but he shows his skill in witty jokes (which Robert Downey, Jr. can make within an inch of his life) and breathtaking action (a flight rescue of a dozen passengers who have just fallen from Air Force One). Disney / Marvel 16. "The Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015) It's always fun when the group comes together, but it's also hard to rediscover the magic of this first time. This sequel offers a lot of excitement and banter scripted by Joss Whedon, but it's also a bit overloaded with characters and support setups for the next MCU movie series. Both fans and enemies of superhero movies can find arguments for their arguments here. Disney / Marvel 15. "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" (2017) The group is back together, and they are as hilarious as when they first came out, but overall, this sequel gives the impression that it is only vamping (entertaining) until the next major change of the intrigue in the MCU. Kurt Russell appears as Ego the Living Planet, who claims to be the long-lost father of Peter Quill / Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), and although the film is more concerned with character and emotion than intrigue , not all the movement the moments ring true. Disney / Marvel 14. Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) This sequel has a better idea of ​​his own stupidity than his predecessor, as Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) and The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) flee the Feds, fight the phased-in ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) and thwart plans of a gangster (Walton Goggins), while planning a rescue of the mother of The Wasp (Michelle Pfeiffer) from another dimension. Feels more Disney - in the sense of Kurt-Russell-as-Dexter-Riley - than Marvel, but still fun. Disney / Marvel 13. Captain Marvel (2019) Both the personal development and the retro of the 1990s are played with a fairly heavy hand, but it's a lot of fun to have here, Brie Larson's heroine, both bubbling and haunted - nothing like amnesia to spice up another story of origin - to one of the biggest feline bananas in the history of cinema. 12. "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) It's a little difficult to judge this one on its own merits, because it is clearly a half-film; we will not really know how this film will materialize until we have the sequel. But in the meantime, he does a pretty impressive job of juggling some 25 major MCU characters and keeping his sense of humor even in the face of mass destruction (and intense scenes involving torture and genocide). Disney / Marvel 11. "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) You get all the T-crossing and I-dotting required at this point in the game, but the capper for the first piece of the MCU saga is a mostly satisfying season finale that offers rare moments of catharsis among moments of entertaining characters. which will cause laughter and maybe even a few tears. Disney / Marvel 10. "Spider-Man: Far From Home" (2019) This second outing from director Jon Watts and leader Tom Holland maintains the lark tone and focus on the characters that make these films feel like such a unique corner of the MCU. This time, the post-snap (or "blip", as the film says) Peter Parker and his friends are heading to Europe in a film that looks like a road comedy that sometimes blows up some superheroes. Disney / Marvel 9. "Thor: Ragnarok" (2017) Director Taika Waititi ("Hunt for the Wilderpeople") strikes a delicate balance between breathless action and the fate of the universe on the one hand and ironic stupidity and catchy jokes on the other. Fortunately, he has Chris Hemsworth, who excels in both, surrounded by spirit like Tom Hiddleston, Mark Ruffalo and franchise beginners Tessa Thompson, Jeff Goldblum and a glorious Cate Blanchett. Disney / Marvel 8. "Captain America: Civil War" (2016) The plot and the pace aren't as tight as in "Winter Soldier", but if you're looking for somber human conflict and exciting superhero-on-superhero action, this movie does a lot of good as "Batman v. Superman : Dawn of Justice "did wrong. Disney / Marvel 7. "Iron Man" (2008) It all starts here - a story of superhero origins for literalists who cannot hide behind explosive planets or radioactive spiders. Jon Favreau, then most famous for directing "Elf" and writing and co-starring in "Swingers", seemed a strange choice for the material, but he knows how to give us the two characters (played by Downey and Gwyneth Paltrow with plume) and ka-blam. wonder 6. "Black Panther" (2018) While the titular African superhero king of Chadwick Boseman takes something from a back seat to a troika of fascinating female characters - played by Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira and Letitia Wright - the film nevertheless overflows with excitement and of a rich history. (And Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger ranks among the franchise's biggest villains.) Disney / Marvel 5. "Spider-Man: Homecoming" (2017) Less motivated by guilt and haunted than previous versions of the character (on the page or screen), Tom Holland's Spider-Man has enough on his plate to manage his superhero growing pains. Hungry to join The Avengers but still struggling with everything he has to learn - he's only 15 years old after all - our hero faces the evil blue collar The Vulture (well Michael Keaton, Birdman) in a funny adventure all by presenting real challenges, formidable characterizations and a wonderfully detailed cast. (You must love a teen movie that works for Zendaya, Tony Revolori, Abraham Attah and Josie Totah, as well as scene-robber newcomer Jacob Batalon.) Sony / Marvel 4. "Doctor Strange" (2016) It would be too easy to ridicule the master of the mystical arts on the big screen, but director Scott Derrickson and his team somehow gave us a version of the surgeon-turned-magician, Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who seems at ease in the real world, rubbing shoulders with the Avengers and crossing tripping and dazzling dimensions where no one else could go. 3. "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014) Pleasant, casual and steeped in the super hits of the 70s, this comic adventure is something of an outlier - both tonal and geographic - in the Marvel universe. Yet whether Rocket Raccoon and Black Widow intersect or not, this saga that covers the stars reminded us that there is more than one way to tell a story about superheroes. Disney / Marvel 2. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (2014) Aggressive patriotism meets anti-government paranoia in this fascinating tale that pits the captain against labyrinthine plots. It also turns out that Steve Rogers is much more interesting in time travel in the 2000s than firmly at home in the 1940s. And you will believe that the Falcon can fly. Disney / Marvel 1. "The Avengers" (2012) Still the gold standard of the MCU, this film reveals that Joss Whedon gets comics in their DNA, in the same way that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were fluent in the language of serials in the "Indiana Jones" movies. Putting all of these heroes in one room (or helicopter, anyway) has produced tremendous results, although the success of the film has led to the all-superhero-all-time ethos of contemporary Hollywood. Disney / Marvel Previous slide Next slide TheWrap reviewer Alonso Duralde orders the MCU, including "Spider-Man: Far From Home" No one on the Internet wants to talk about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it's something we simply can't continue to ignore. But seriously: even if this seemingly unstoppable franchise has rabid fans around the world, nobody can agree on those they prefer (or at least, for that matter). TheWrap film editor-in-chief Alonso Duralde gets into the subject - and no, he's not paid by anyone at Disney to love (or hate, for that matter) any of these films. https://oltnews.com/even-scarlett-johansson-didnt-know-black-widow-trailer-was-falling-video-thewrap?_unique_id=5ea1a7409999e

[furkanandiceng]

FURKAN ANDIÇ BEMAN MAGAZINE (OCTOBER 2017) INTERVIEW TRANSLATION

You are on our screens with a very different role in Kanal D’s TV series “Meryem”. How is it going?

We’re very busy, to be honest. Just like every work in this sector, we film the episodes within a very limited time, which requires working at quite a busy pace. But I can say that, for us actors, the most important criteria of satisfaction is the quality of the final product. Because the feeling of satisfaction we get as a result of the effort we put in is indescribable. Then you think that it is worth the effort. What we do in Meryem really satisfies me, which in turn motivates me to keep up with this busy schedule.

Do you understand the situation Savaş is in? Do you communicate with the characters you play?

Before building a relationship with the characters I play, I create them. In this way, I know everything about the characters I play in the light of all the knowledge I have gained through my acting experiences so far. We form an opinion (about the character) with the help of the information in the script and character analysis. After that, you ask whatever questions you wish about that character into the space and help that character have a physical form, be something living. It may be a traumatic reflex from his past, or the reactions he gives to different emotions. Then, with our directors, we try to create the character by making all the connections  between the total of these and his past given in the script.  

Savaş’s situation is really interesing. Life has wounded him from somewhere other than daily problems such as money, love or work. He is a man who lost his mother at an early age and had to grow up separate from his house because of the conflicts he had with his father. And this has always made him emotionally incomplete. After he loses his fiancée who was filling this void and helping him hold onto life in an accident, everything becomes even more difficult for Savaş. The void created in his life after Sevinç’s death pushes him to avenge his emotional breakdown and to start a search of the criminal.

Can you control your anger? What makes you angry the most?

Anger is a very interesting emotion. A very natural, humane reaction when someone is assaulted or deprived of something. To be honest, I used to have a quick temper and show my anger to the other person. But as I got more mature, I have come to realize how tired the other person becomes as a result of such reactions. So in recent years, I can control my anger pretty well. I don’t make an extra effort for this either. What makes me angry the most is when someone takes me for a fool. We people are social beings; we have a tendency to live together in a community. And communication is the most valuable social tool we use to understand each other. We can resolve everything through communication, but the fact that people try to fool others is, in my opinion, like fraud. Because I think like this, I can say that I dislike when people take me for a fool.

You’ve had your first movie experience with “Damat Takımı”. It is going to be in theaters soon, are you excited?

Damat Takımı is very valuable to me. First of all, the script was good and I felt that the friendship of the characters was very similar to the friendship I have with my friends. This is very valuable. Secondly, both my Volkswagen Beetle car and my best friend and manager have minor roles in it, which I believe will bring good luck. And most importantly, Damat Takımı is my first movie.

I had always filmed TV series before this and was very picky about movies, and this had both advantages and disadvantages. Its bright side is that my first movie is like how I imagined. Such a movie that I will keep a copy throughout my life and watch it proudly whenever I wish. The downside is that I met the magical world of cinema late. Cinema is a very different field from TV. Since we don’t have time problem, every scene can be structured more finely, both by the actor and the director. The beginning and the end (of the script) is there, so you can build the character in more detail. And this made me feel as free as I had never felt before, which in turn was reflected directly in my acting. I am going to watch it for the first time on October 16th in the premiere, to be honest. So I can say that I’m very excited. I hope people who take time and watch it enjoy themselves too.

Is there a specific movie genre or character that you want to play in the future?

I want to work in projects that have good scripts and well-written characters that I believe I can portray well. And of course, I want to do all of these with an innovative team. In other words, like everything else, cinema changes rapidly so I want to work in projects that I think will catch up with this speed.

Frankly speaking, rather than being an actor limited to one genre, I want to play characters with diverse emotions and motivations, so I want to be not only in romantic comedies but also in different categories of movies such as drama, horror and action. I think, as an actor, my job is to wear the shoes of the character I will play and present the paths he walks and the choices he makes to the viewers.

Have you learnt anything from the characters you play?

The script’s uniqueness, the actor’s imagination and curiousity altogether can make the actor feel intense and real feelings that he’s never experienced before. The actor can even collect memories, so to speak, while experiencing those feelings. I learnt  a lot of things from each of the characters I created. And I believe that made me a more mature person in life. Having different experiences and adding something to yourself while playing different characters are great opportunities for actors.

Among the countries you traveled to, where did you feel like you belonged?

Bali, Indonesia. The attractive disorderliness of the location... A lot of people travel from Europe to Bali. And many people who come bring along their cultures. But, on the other hand, the local people preserve their own religious beliefs and cultural values and this kind of creates a very orderly disorderliness in the island. The island’s unique and attractive natural beauties also made me feel like I belonged there. Beside this fascination, I can say that Bali is an ideal place for me considering my personality. I’m a person of warm climates. I like water and water sports. I like to observe different cultures and talk to people from those cultures. I can communicate with them easily and learn something from them. The local people in Bali also have the same sentiments and motivation toward the foreigners. This is why I love that place.  

Have you ever had to break up with someone? If it’s not very personal, why?

Breaking up with someone is something dramatic for me, and I may have never told someone to break up in my life. But I may have played a significant part in the ending of some of my relationships, because at the end of the day, breaking up is a destruction. At work or in friendships, it is the end of a relationship in its general sense. We can say that it is destruction for both sides. That’s why I prefer keeping this destruction at minimum. Even if I’m the one destroying it, I try not to hurt the other person. That’s why I don’t want to say that I’ve broken up with someone. I probably managed to explain myself and my reasons, so I can’t give you any examples since I haven’t broken up with anyone.  

When did you suffer because of love for the first time; are you in love right now?

I was 11 in 5th grade, and it was because I couldn’t confess to her. It was a very painful feeling. Loving someone romantically isn’t something we experience every day. That’s why we definitely have to protect our love. We may often be afraid to confess it to the other person, but I believe that nothing that may happen when we share our feelings can be worse than not sharing them at all. Nowadays, I’m not in love with anyone. You never know what future will bring but I can say that there’s no time for it in this tempo of my life.

Do you get help when you shop?

Yes. I make sure to ask the opinion of the person with me.

Is there anything that makes you say “I don’t want to die before I do it”?

I don’t want to die before filming a full-length movie that I’ve written. I hope I will have the chance to do it.

What is the book that had the biggest impact on you?

“Aşkın Gözyaşları” (Tears of Love) by Sinan Yağmur. Shams Tabrizi and Mevlana are two figures whose wisdom was admired not only during their days but even today. In the book, we see both their divine love and eternal values like loyalty, dedication, belief and reality. I also think that the book doesn’t take any sides and everyone can find sincere values about life in it.  

Have you ever had a moment when you thought you grew mature?

Toward the end of 2000s, after high school, I went to Kiev, Ukraine. Going there made a big difference in my maturity level. Life was too difficult there. It wasn’t like a normal university life. I can say that it was more like a “fight for survival”. There was a huge difference between the living standards I had before I went to Kiev and after I went to Kiev. It taught me to live with less and to create something out of nothing. What made me mature was that I normalized the process and moved on with my life. I learnt a lot. It may also be because I was at an age when my personality was being set. So, in short, the time when I believe I grew mature was when I returned from Kiev.

Is there an attire that you wear all the time? What kind of style do you have?

My black and white t-shirts. As a style, I like getting dressed casually. Wearing simple and plain clothes is an aesthetic appearance, in my opinion. That’s why I don’t prefer very complicated pieces of clothing. Comfortable pants and a plain t-shirt can make me feel good. That’s when I think what I wear looks good on me. Also, I think what we call a style is the choices that make one feel good.

Who do you look up to the most in life?

I actually look up to a lot of people. Artists, athletes, scientists... I look up to every person who makes efforts to add value to the world rather than to achieve something when they are alive. I can say Keanu Reeves, for example. His humility, helpfulness and spiritual world is really admirable. He’s someone who weighs his work only in terms of the value it adds to the world. I believe that he has a focus like “How can the world become a better place with my performance or the money I earn?”. I think that his tragic background didn’t stop him from achieving his goal but even helped him have this vision. This is a level of patience and calmness that I can look up to greatly.

Why did you choose martial arts?

I did sports throughout my life. I was interested in many sports, particularly basketball. But they were all team sports. I learned different kinds of disciplines and skills, of course. But in this tempo of my life now, it’s really hard to form a team and dedicate myself to the team. So I started doing individual performance sports. The reason why I’ve chosen martial arts is the adrenaline and philosophy. You have different kinds of experiences due to adrenaline hormone. It teaches you to think reactively, know the opponent within a short time, foresee what’s coming, weigh the defense and attack at the same time and most importantly, to focus on that moment independently from everything else. They also have humble philosophies like respecting the opponent, preserving the body’s agility, not hurting the opponent, using intelligence more than excitement and achieving a mental tranquility. This is why I’m interested in martial arts.

Do you have a weakness for anything?

I can actually say that I have a weakness for fun. I noticed this through the observations of the people close to me. Like everyone else, I try to be with the people I love and spend fun time with them while enjoying life. And I can sometimes lose the track of time while doing it. Making the most of now is, in my opinion, life itself. So I may be trying to keep that fun time longer.

What does acting mean to you?

An achieved goal. But after achieving this goal, I’ve realized that it is a very deep and long journey. I know I still have a very long road ahead; it makes me very excited. In some scenes, actors can get too immersed in the depth of a moment. We may experience very exciting feelings in such moments. It is like you are given the chance to live a moment of someone else’s life in your own life. If an actor has really tasted this, he will probably want to collect such moments during the rest of his life as much as he can.

Are you happy with where you are?

Yes. I’m at a point where I feel I’m very open to learning. It had never been so fun to learn something. I’m satisfied with the point I have arrived by improving myself in my work life too.

Our motto is “BeStyle”. What’s yours?

“Know yourself.”

(English Sub) Q&A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmLBamZc-Vc

Backstage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BozrkARyLL4