#Tim’s life doesn’t get Bad until war games era. and then everything gets bad all at once

[aalghul]

Why does everyone think Tin’s parents are abusive? Neglectful sure, but that was before his robin run. Doesnt his dad apologize and start treating him better?

He and Jack did have a recovering relationship and Tim was heartbroken when Jack died. his fans like to exaggerate his childhood because the others had such rough childhoods (and this is obvious in the way they talk about him. having other characters gasp and go “even I can’t imagine being neglected like that” your dad was a literal villain who ruined your and your mom’s lives. be serious). Tim’s life was…not difficult at All until he decided to be Robin at 13, and even then, he got written as “the better one” for long enough that he kind of just got lucky a lot

[rebeccaheyman]

reading + listening 9.21.20

The Bookshop of Second Chances (Jackie Fraser), eBook ARC (pub date May 2021). Four-star NetGalley review:

At first, THE BOOKSHOP OF SECOND CHANCES just seems like a charming tale of a down-on-her-luck, 44-year-old woman finding a new life in a small Scottish town. But in a neat trick of smart plotting deft characterization, Fraser turns the narrative into so much more.

Thea is a refreshingly direct, introspective, infinitely relatable woman who's been dealt two very different hands at once: she's been laid off from her job right around the time she discovered her husband of 20 years has been having an affair, but she's also inherited a house -- complete with rare book collection -- and a not-insignificant sum of money from a dear but distant great uncle. With little keeping her anchored to her old life, Thea travels to Baldochrie to see about the house. Once there, she finds life in a small town on the Scottish coast suits her rather well, and then of course, there's Edward.

Edward has, like too many of us I suspect, based much of his life on the hurts of his youth. He's a modern-day Heathcliff who's moved past the romantic fixations of yesteryear long enough to become a curmudgeonly adult with a rather dysfunctional sex life. He's at war with his brother, the literal lord of the manor in Baldrochie, and spends his days holed up in his rare books shop. Until Thea walks in, and something like friendship begins.

I savored the slow unfolding of these two characters, who I grew to care about immensely. Fraser's is a nuanced portrait of a woman in middle age, facing the necessity of beginning again. To say Thea is an "everywoman" discounts her uniqueness, wit, and rather special charm, but she's not *not* everywoman, either. She feels like someone I know, or someone who could, in another life, be me. So it's a particular kind of triumph to see her grow and change and find joy.

Comps to EVVIE DRAKE STARTS OVER are warranted only in the loosest sense; the storytelling and writing here are far superior. Readers who enjoyed WOULD LIKE TO MEET will appreciate Thea and Edward's later-in-life romance, and fans of Graeme Simsion will find a lot to appreciate in Fraser's three-dimensional characterizations and excellent dialogue.

Tall, Duke, and Dangerous (Hazards of Dukes #2), (Megan Frampton), eBook ARC (pub date October 2020). If you’ve been reading these reviews weekly, you’ll know that I listened to the first-in-series, Never Kiss a Duke, last week. The sophomore installation was... not good. Two-star NetGalley Review:

If you, like me, felt that the first installment in the Hazards of Dukes series was a knockoff version of Kleypas's DEVIL IN WINTER, you're going to feel more of that "recycled trope" vibe in the second book-in-series, TALL, DUKE, AND DANGEROUS. While Ana Maria and Nash, our main couple, were introduced in book 1, the characterizations here seemed to come out of nowhere; our heroine is a literal Cinderella -- a girl of noble birth, forced to act as a maid by her now-blessedly-dead stepmother, and newly restored to her proper place in society -- while our hero was the victim of parental abuse at the hands of his father, which has left him isolated from his emotions and hopelessly taciturn. Ana Maria is fluent in Grunting Duke, so she can decipher Nash's true feelings even when he can't. And lucky for both of them, he wants her to be a Regency-era MPDG, and she's totally fine with it: "I want you to help me find the good parts of being who I am, of using who I am to do better for everyone. Joyfully." In other words, "I'd like you to make me the best version of myself, because that should definitely be your responsibility, o ye of the lesser sex." 

I've given Megan Frampton a very fair shake -- in fact, I've read three of her books in the past seven days. Each has felt like a faint echo of better HRs I've read before. While the writing is serviceable enough, the storytelling is weak. Here particularly, the ending comes fast; there's no denouement, not even the Epilogue one expects in this genre. I'd wager my last crown that book three sees Thaddeus and Olivia making an unlikely pairing. All in all, I have to let go of my hopes for Frampton's work, which seems derivative and predictable at best, and dangerously familiar at worst.

Lady Be Bad (The Duke’s Daughters #1), (Megan Frampton), aBook (narr. Jilly Bond). Please let us never try to parse why I leaned in so hard to Megan Frampton this week. After NEVER KISS A DUKE last week, I just... wanted to see what she was about, I guess? Which makes no sense, because if we’re talking about HR authors I read for the first time last week, I should have latched on to Julie Anne Long, whose LADY DERRING TAKES A LOVER I actually really enjoyed. Like I said -- we shouldn’t overthink this. 

Here’s the deal with LADY BE BAD: If Sarah MacLean’s NINE RULES TO BREAK WHEN ROMANCING A RAKE (2012) and Tessa Dare’s SAY YES TO THE MARQUESS (2014) had a scandalous affair, this book would be the chaise longue they fooled around on in the drawing room. That’s it. That’s the review.

The Mighty Oak (Jeff Bens), aBook (narr. Adam Barr). You might be wondering what business I had reading a literary character study about a violent, drug-addicted hockey player, so I will tell you: Blackstone Audio, publisher/producer of innumerable aBook titles I have listened to and loved, started a GoFundMe to help those employees who have lost everything in the fires raging across the western US. I don’t personally know anyone at Blackstone, but I can hear the echo of Mary Jane Wells saying “Blackstone Audio presents...” on every intro track to The Ravenels series. This company is responsible, in part, for many hours of joy in my life, and now their employees are suffering, and if we’re not committed to small acts of kindness to help those who have totally, inadvertently helped us, what the hell are we doing with ourselves? Cutting this tangent short to say that Jeff Bens saw my tweet about the GoFundMe and very kindly emailed to say thanks for donating, so I said hey let me know when your forthcoming Blackstone title releases and he said actually it’s today and I think you know what happened next. Before I get to my review, I’m going to repost the link to the Blackstone Audio GoFundMe, and I truly hope you will donate even a single dollar. The book community is vast and beautiful, and for all its flaws, I want to believe we take care of each other. SECOND ACTION ITEM is to peruse the catalogue and buy or borrow a Blackstone Audio title. Might I suggest...

THE MIGHTY OAK is about Tim “Oak” O’Connor, a hockey player lauded for his violence and intensity on the ice. Tim’s body is breaking down under the stress of his lifestyle, which involves a lot of OxyContin, and it’s pretty clear his mind is likewise struggling under the weight of drug abuse and, probably, CTE. The thought that kept resonating with me while I listened to Adam Barr’s excellent narration was this: Tim O’Connor is a drowning man who doesn’t realize he’s wet. The portraiture in THE MIGHTY OAK is powerful, visceral, and heartbreaking, even as Tim’s journey resolves in something like victory. CW for drug abuse, physical violence, and -- no other way to say this -- an eyeball dangling from its socket. 

Ready Player One (Ernest Cline), aBook (narr. Wil Wheaton). I’m generally a sucker for books about puzzles -- even puzzles based on 80s pop culture and video games. RPO is what would happen if The Westing Game and Ender’s Game made crossover appearances on an episode of The Twilight Zone. The world-building is top-notch, if belabored at times; in a version of our world that has departed so completely from the reality we know, the temptation to narrate quotidian minutiae was too strong for Cline to resist. It’s not uninteresting, for example, to hear every painstaking detail about how Wade sets up the gaming system in his apartment, but it’s not exactly page-turning either. The story’s peaks more than compensate for its valleys, and you can’t beat Wheaton’s narration. 

[thelowartgloominati-blog1]

Hey I’m about to whine about how I’m a stupid 2D animation fanboy, you can probobly just... not read this, your life will be unchanged.

Okay, so for those of you who did not heed the warning; if you follow my stupid blog you already know I’m a vintage Disney nerd. I grew up in the 90′s and early 2000′s, I had all those big clam-shell VHS tapes of all the vintage and, at the time, contemporary Disney films, when my family got a DVD player one of the first things we did was get a few collections of 30s-40s MIckey Mouse Cartoons because I used to love those as well (still do), and wore out the few tapes I had. It also stands to reason that I’m a gigantic Disney World/Land fanatic as well, I’ve read whole books on how to maximize any given visit to either park, I know an embarrassing amount about the parks’ history, and I consider The Haunted Mansion essentially my favorite thing that exists in this and presumably any parallel universes.

All of that said, my infatuation with all the Disney properties is rooted in my fundamental love of 2D animation, and that’s where the crux of this wall of text comes in; of all the releases Disney has laid out for the next two fiscal years (and in this case I include all divisions of the Disney corporation, so Lucas Films, Marvel studios, Jim Henson’s studios, all of that jazz), there’s no 2D among them. Alot of you are probobly thinking “Well DUH, Indigo, Disney said several years ago that they weren’t interested in 2D anymore for the foreseeable future, this isn’t news,” and you’re right, this isn’t news. The focus of the company has been, for some time on their 3D animation studios (which, just so we’re clear, have produced some quality films; Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, Frozen, etc.), a series of live action/CGI remakes of many of their older, more well known films (with mixed results thus-far, in my opinion), and a continuation of the Star Wars/ Marvel licensing gravy train that I have no real opinion about (I like Star Wars fine, I respect the original films for how influential they were to film history, I just don’t consider myself a big time fan like some people are; and I don’t care for superhero films conceptually so... yeah). 

Anyway, a lot of people seem to like this stuff, even removing the licensing stuff and just focusing on the in-house Disney productions they’ve announced, this new Lion King remake trailer that they put out yesterday went super viral, even though, if I’m gonna be blunt, there is literally no reason for it to exist. Infact, just for the hell of it, lets break down all the in-house Disney releases slated for Q4 2018 to 2019, shall we? So we’ve got the aforementioned Lion King, Live action/CG remakes of Aladdin and Dumbo in 2019, Mary Poppins Returns later this year, Ralph Breaks the Internet, which is just coming out at time of writing, and Toy Story 4, also next year. Okay, so of all of those the only one that I would say NEEDS to exist is Ralph 2, the first movie was very good, the sequel looks like a lot of fun, plus that series is the exception that I would say DOES need to be in 3D, as the whole video game character angle wouldn’t really fly in 2D, so that gets a pass. Mary Poppins Returns might also get a pass, as while I’d say the original film stands fine on it’s own, it could be interesting to see how some of P.L. Travers’ other Mary Poppins books (there were actually several she wrote) could translate to film, and it’s been over 50 years, so I’d say that’s a suitable amount of time to where the narrative of “X character is gone for a long time, comes back to see how things have changed” makes a reasonable degree of sense, it could work, I reserve judgement until I see it. Toy Story 4... Nah. I Don’t really see why this needs to exist, I didn’t even think Toy Story 3 NEEDED to exist until I saw it, and the ending to that film was, simply put, perfect. There is absolutely no need to continue that story, it’s perfect. Will it be good? Maybe, I was surprised before, I could be again, but I’m skeptical on that one.  As for the remakes, I don’t think ANY of them need to happen. Lion King doesn’t make any sense, as the 2D visuals simply look better to me then the CG they seem to be going with, all the problems I had with the Jungle Book remake would seem to apply here. Aladdin is just a bad idea, because no matter how good the person they get to play Genie is, you can NEVER completely divorce the role from Robin Williams, as he made that character so intrinsically his own. Anyone else playing him will either have to play him completely different and essentially become a different character, or else come off as doing a Robin Williams impression. If they really thought they could put an original or creative spin on the story, they should have put this one on ice until later down the line, that said, I don’t think there is a creative spin to be done on it that hasn’t already been done. As for Dumbo, I really don’t understand what they intend to accomplish, there’s not a whole lot to do with that story that the original didn’t do, and again, THE CGI LOOKS WORSE THEN THE ORIGINAL 2D CELL ANIMATION FROM 1941. 

See I’m a firm believer in the concept of: if you can’t remake it BETTER or bring an original take on the source material, then why remake it AT ALL? This is, by the way, why I really liked Maleficent, from 2014, which you’d think would be a no-no for me, as it was a live action/CG remake of a classic era 2D Disney film, but the reason I liked it was because it brought a very original spin to the source material, the idea of re-framing that story to more or less turn the “hero” and “villain” dichotomy on it’s head, and make you side completely with a character whom in the source material was a textbook example of an “evil because evil” character archetype. Also, that film had a very good reason to be live action, as the whole “everything you know is a lie” narrative gelled well with the contrast of the original vs. the remake, it’s as if the 2D original is some sort of historical account of what happened, but this film is what really happened, in that context I think it worked. I loved that movie, and if the rest of these remakes ended up doing similar things I’d be on-board with them too, but after seeing Jungle Book, and seeing Beauty and the Beast, I really don’t think that’s the angle they’re going for with these, I think it’s a case of “shine up older properties we haven't done anything with in a while, put them back into theatres, get paid, repeat.”

I also would argue that my fondness for 2D is not just nostalgic, but functional in a sense of future proofing these films. Can you say, without Googling, what year Disney’s original Alice in Wonderland came out based on how the movie looks? If you said 1951 you’d be right, but I doubt you’d know that that movie was over 67 years old by the way lit looks, because that’s the magic of 2D animation, and particularly cell animation. TIMELESS is the look that style of animation gives, it still looks colourful, and fluid, and smooth, even over half a century later. It has not aged a day, because the style in which it was made is age-proof. Compare that to the Tim Burton version from 2010, even only EIGHT YEARS after it came out, the CGI already looks dated, the effects were cutting edge at the time, but are quickly showing their age. I’m not saying Alice 2010 is necessarily a BAD movie, although I don’t particularly care for it, but it’s simply a fact that it has visually aged more in 8 years then the original did in 67. 

I know at this point that I sound like a crotchety old man yelling from his porch, and I don’t want to take away anyone’s enjoyment of any of these new films, and if they all turn out to be good, than that’s great! But I just wanted to express WHY, I dislike the direction Disney has gone with their in-house productions, and why I think 2D needs to given another shot, if for no other reason then to shut up nerds like me.

Then we can focus on the real enemy: STAR WARS BRANDING IN DISNEY LAND! (get that “edge of the galaxy” crap out of here!)

[stephmolliex]

The other problem with Apple's content restrictions -- creative freedom

Apple is reportedly resistant to sex, violence, and drug-related material in its upcoming content push. AppleInsider looks at why a lack of controversial shows might not be the only problem with Apple's TV approach. For most of the last year, Apple's upcoming foray into TV content has been framed a certain way. The company is spending billions of dollars to get into business with well-known talent and greenlighting a couple of dozen shows, even as it's never been clear exactly when Apple's TV efforts will launch or what distribution scheme it will use. The company has even made its initial move into feature film acquisition. There's been some amount of hand-wringing over whether tech companies can beat Hollywood at their own game, but overall Apple has been seen as a likely major player in the TV space going forward. But Apple's plans got a major wave of bad press following the publication over the weekend of a Wall Street Journal story with the headline "No Sex Please, We're Apple: iPhone Giant Seeks TV Success on Its Own Terms." According to the piece, which cited producers and agents, Apple is shying away from shows that depict "gratuitous sex, profanity or violence," with "religious subjects and politics" also on the no-no list. Key for Apple, according to the reporting, is keeping up its family-friendly image and avoiding any controversy that could hurt its core business. Forgot about Dre The Journal story opens with an anecdote about Apple CEO Tim Cook, a year ago, viewing an episode of "Vital Signs", described as "a dark, semi-biographical tale of hip hop artist Dr. Dre." After Cook watched the show, which included "characters doing lines of cocaine, an extended orgy in a mansion and drawn guns," he declared that Apple could not show such a thing, and torpedoed the show. "Vital Signs" had been announced in 2016, although it never arrived and its exact fate remained a mystery until this week. Assuming the anecdote is true, it's unclear exactly what Apple was expecting from a "semi-autobiographical tale" of Dr. Dre, especially since Cook and Apple presumably did some amount of due diligence back in 2014 when they bought Beats from Dre for $3 billion. It was also reported back in early 2016 that "Vital Signs" was viewed at the time as more of a promotional vehicle for Apple Music than a harbinger of Apple's entry into the TV business. Apple does have some shows in the works with mature themes, including a potential series about the life of the late pop star George Michael, and a series from two of the creators of the long-running, notoriously ribald comedy series "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." But overall, Apple's TV efforts are taking on a family-friendly tint. At any rate, the Journal includes several examples of Apple objecting to content on the shows that are in development. Filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan, developing a show for Apple, was asked not to include crucifixes in a scene. Apple rejected an idea for a show starring comedian Whitney Cummings as "a college ombudsman in the era of #MeToo." And the most high-profile announced series in Apple's lineup, a show about TV morning news, to star A-listers Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, has been delayed due to disagreements with Apple executives about its tone. The Journal story -- and various follow-up pieces -- have pointed out that Apple could be hurting themselves by largely avoiding more mature programming. After all, prestige TV has long been synonymous with nudity, violence, and other controversial content. TV-MA "The Sopranos" was loaded with sex, violence and profanity, as is its successor as HBO's marquee series, "Game of Thrones." Netflix has never been shy about risque material, and when Amazon started making TV shows, its first breakthrough was "Transparent," a groundbreaking drama series about a family patriarch (Jeffrey Tambor) who comes out as a transgender woman. And "Breaking Bad," which was supervised at Sony TV by current Apple content executives Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht, got very dark and very violent very often throughout its run on AMC. One could make the case that Apple is handicapping themselves by avoiding any sex, violence, drugs, religion, politics, or any other subject matter that could conceivably be called controversial. Apparently some within Apple agree- according to the Journal, employees inside Apple in Los Angeles have taken to calling the content project "Expensive NBC." But there's another issue, raised the Journal story, that should raise questions about Apple's content plans. Creative control Beyond the conflict restrictions, there's another continuing theme in the Journal story, one of Apple executives interfering with the visions of creators of the new shows. One show was spiked before it debuted, others had showrunners replaced, and still others had executives give notes on small aspects of their shows. Some level of what's called "studio interference" is always to be expected, and has been for long as there have been movies and TV shows. After all, it's Apple's billions that are funding the enterprise. But it's not hard to imagine word getting out in the creative community that Apple isn't a place where showrunners and other artists are given as high a level of autonomy as they are in other places. Adding to this is the possible perception that Tim Cook and Eddy Cue, accomplished as they are, do not come from a background of running or overseeing a TV or movie studio. Contrast that with future competitor Netflix, which in the last six months has made nine-figure deals to lure three major TV showrunners -- Shonda Rhimes, Ryan Murphy and Kenya Barris -- from their previous networks. Those deals have granted those creators not only massive amounts of money, but a high level of creative freedom. This is especially important for someone like Barris, the creator of "Black-ish," who frequently clashed with ABC Studios brass over that popular show. So the next time a major artist is deciding where to set up his or her next big project, that person might look at the deals Netflix is giving out, and choose them over Apple, where they might not get the chance to push the envelope, or get final say over major aspects of their show. And such a perception could hurt Apple in the long run. "When you have a large platform, there's a large responsibility" No, Apple's planned content restrictions are not "censorship," as Daily Telegraph ludicrously stated in a headline. Apple can air or not air whatever content it chooses on their own platform. It remains not a public venue, and can police its platform, and its devices, any way it sees fit. Even so, Apple has never been as much of a free speech absolutist as some other companies in the tech space. Eddy Cue, speaking at South by Southwest last spring, articulated Apple's view in the matter. "We think when you have a large platform, there's a large responsibility," Cue said. "From the music store, to the app store, to podcasts, we had a bunch of rules, we came up with guidelines that had to be followed in order to participate in that. "At times we got some heat for it, people weren't happy that we had guidelines. The other part is that no one is completely free. There's no such thing as free," Cue said to applause. "There's no pornography on any of these sites, so people do draw lines, and you can decide where you want to draw the line. We do think free speech is important, but we don't think white supremacist speech or hate speech is free speech that ought to be out there." This issue came up again in recent weeks, as Apple dropped conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' InfoWars, first from Apple Podcasts, and about a month later from the App Store. In July, Apple also removed QDrops, an app geared towards adherents of the "QAnon" conspiracy theory, from the App Store. While he didn't address the subject of controversial shows, Cue addressed Apple's content plans in the same speech, stating that "we're not after quantity, we're after quality" and citing Steve Jobs' former leadership of Pixar Animation Studios as an inspiration, with lessons for the Apple of today. "We want things that are of great quality," Cue said. "That doesn't mean everything will be a hit, but everything should be very very high quality, and I think that's where we will stand out." The Disney precedent There are ways for Apple to have controversial content on its platform without sullying their image. This is a question that's long been faced by Disney, another venerable family-friendly brand that was also associated with Steve Jobs. When you think of Disney, you probably think of Mickey Mouse, or princesses, or Walt Disney World, or other characters or brands associated with children and families. More recently, Disney has leveraged its ownership of Star Wars and Marvel to add to its stable of kid-friendly characters, as these days you're as likely to run into a Storm Trooper at Disney World as you are Mickey or Goofy. But Disney is such a corporate behemoth that it has its hand in a lot of things, from Hulu to the newly acquired Fox TV properties to the Touchstone Pictures movie imprint, that are at times more adult-oriented. Whether Disney is facing similar restrictions when it launches its own streaming service next year is a question that's come up before -- reports in August said it would omit all R-rated content -- but that will only serve to give Apple a direct, family-oriented streaming competitor. The streaming future Apple's content launch, according to the Journal piece, is currently set for March 2019, although there are chances it could be delayed even further. With billions at stake, and no particular product cycle dictating the timing of the launch, Apple seems likely to prioritize getting it right over getting it out fast. Apple is clearly playing a long game with its content plans. They've got billions of dollars invested, and even if the first wave of shows is plagued by problems, there's plenty of room for course correction and changes in strategy with barely a blip in Apple's financials. Amazon got off to something of a slow start with its content plans, and it also took Netflix years to build out itself out into a streaming collossus. But when it comes to whether Apple's service will succeed, relationships with talent may end up as just as important a factor as any. The question surrounding the avoidance of mature content is less about immediate viewership attraction, and really whether Apple can maintain those relationships with the stable of creators, making it the right one for the company. https://goo.gl/GGeGLM