#Timeless Honest Trailer | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jazy3 · 2 years

Text

Ghostbusters: Afterlife Review

!!SPOILERS AHEAD!!

If you saw my ‘Favourite Movies this Year’ post, you’ll know that Ghostbusters: Afterlife was right up there! Free Guy was my favourite movie of 2021, but Ghostbusters was a close second! Initially my best friend was more excited for this movie than I was. We first saw the trailer for it back in 2019 and to be honest I’d pretty much forgotten about it before the trailer appeared again in 2021. But her enthusiasm was infectious, so I looked up the trailer again and wound up falling down a Wikipedia rabbit hole researching the movie and its production and from then on, I was hooked! In preparation we decided to re-watch the original Ghostbusters movie from 1984 and I recommend everyone else do the same if you’re interested in seeing this movie. It’s on Netflix and since the last time either of us had seen the movie was back when we were teenagers it was good to have the refresher and get into the spirit of it.

You can watch Ghostbusters II from 1989 or skip it. I looked up the plot on Wikipedia to jog my memory, but you don’t need to re-watch it to get Ghostbusters: Afterlife. You do however need to re-watch the original Ghostbusters movie if you haven’t seen it recently because there are a lot of references to it in the new one. While I think I would have still enjoyed the film if I hadn’t watched the original recently, I definitely think I enjoyed the new one way more because I did! Ghostbusters: Afterlife is the answer to the question, ‘What would the original Ghostbusters movie look like if it was made today with updated special effects and timeless humour?’ You may not have asked the question, but you got the answer and it’s great!

This movie is a riot from start to finish! It’s action packed, there are ghosts and ghouls galore, and the comedy is on point! Fan favourites Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, and Ernie Hudson are back as Dr. Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, and Winston Zeddemore to clean up the town once again and the spirit of Egon Spengler and Harold Ramis are alive and well throughout the film. In this latest installment we are introduced to a new younger cast of characters for the audience to relate to. Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things fame plays Spengler’s grandson Trevor, McKenna Grace from the Chilling Adventures of Sabrina plays his granddaughter Phoebe, and Carrie Coon of Avengers: Infinity War plays their mother and Spengler’s daughter Callie.

Paul Rudd plays high school science teacher and Callie’s love interest Mr. Grooberson and newcomers Logan Kim and Celeste O'Connor play Phoebe’s new friend Podcast and Trevor’s friend and love interest Lucky Domingo. In this long awaited sequel, set thirty-two years after the Ghostbusters first defeated Vigo the Carpathian in New York City we learn the fates of the original Ghostbusters and meet single mother Callie and her teenage son Trevor and eccentric daughter Phoebe. When Callie, who’s facing eviction, learns that her estranged father Ghostbuster Egon Spengler has died she moves her family to Summerville, Oklahoma and they take up residence in the old farmhouse Egon left them.

Once there Trevor gets a job at a local dinner after developing a crush on Lucky, one of the carhops, and Phoebe enrolls in summer school where she finds a kindred spirit in Mr. Grooberson the science teacher. While at summer school Phoebe befriends another student, who goes by Podcast, and as the movie progresses the kids learn that their grandfather was one of the infamous Ghostbusters and that something very strange is happening in Summerville. The movie features lots of great call backs to the original film. We see Phoebe, Podcast, and Mr. Grooberson tamper with a ghost trap, the Muncher ghost reappears to wreak havoc on Summerville, and Ivo Shandor returns! We also see Phoebe restore the Ghostbusters’ original proton packs and Trevor finds a dilapidated Ecto-1 in the garage and fixes it up. It was previously thought that a third installment of the Ghostbusters franchise would never happen as Bill Murray and other original cast members had made it clear they were not interested and would not sign on.

However, after the death of Harold Ramis in 2014, Jason and Ivan Reitman reimagined the long furloughed sequel as a tribute to Ramis and his beloved character and approached Murry and the other original cast members about the project once more. This time everyone agreed, and the project moved forward. It’s worth noting that prior to Ghostbusters: Afterlife being made the rights to the franchise were renegotiated in a deal that made sure that the original cast and their families were taken care of and would not have to want for anything financially for the rest of their lives. This is what allowed that disastrous all female Ghostbusters reboot in 2016 to be made, but it also paved for Ghostbusters: Afterlife to be made following Ramis’ untimely death.

I think perhaps my favourite thing about this movie apart from the humour is that it’s a touching tribute to an actor and character that so many of us, and our parents, grew up with made by the people closest to him, his friends, and colleagues, and you can really see that in the film. The original actors aren’t acting when they mourn the loss of their friend. The characters mourn Egon as their actors mourn Harold. Something I really loved about the movie was how the ghosts and poltergeists our heroes fight throughout the film and the mission that they are on can all be seen as an allegory for battling disease and the loss of a loved one.

What’s most interesting to me is that this allegory that stuck out so strongly to me was likely unintended as the film was shot in 2019 and wrapped production the year before the COVID-19 Pandemic hit. Nevertheless, I couldn’t help but see the similarities. In the opening scene we see Egon Spengler running from a powerful ghost alone which he attempts to trap using an elaborate set up of ghost traps on his property only for the traps to fail when the power goes out. This leaves Egon defenceless, the ghost attacks him, and he suffers a fatal heart attack.

Watching this in the fall of 2021 two years into a global pandemic that had left over a million dead at that point I couldn’t help but see the similarities between the effects that ghosts, poltergeists, and similar entities in the Ghostbusters universe have on their victims and the way disease can ravage the body and leave those suffering feeling helpless. When a powerful disease takes over those suffering often feel alone and isolated and a heart attack or brain aneurism are common causes of death when someone dies after battling a disease.

In the wake of Egon’s death his daughter Callie and his grandchildren Phoebe and Trevor are left to pick up the pieces, pack up his house, and try to make sense of what he left behind. His friends and fellow Ghostbusters are left feeling remorse and regret for not keeping in touch, for not believing him, and they are left wishing they had more time. All of which will be familiar for anyone that’s lost a loved one to disease whether it was sudden or slow. I found this particularly poignant in the time of COVID-19 and it’s a heartfelt reminder of how fragile we all are and how precarious and precious the lives we lead truly are. While the filmmakers would have had no idea how close to home the movie’s portrayal of loss would be for so many us, I find it fascinating how good art can speak to things that haven’t even happened yet.

The filmmakers weren’t trying to speak to an audience that was living through a global pandemic and watching loved ones die they were simply expressing their own loss over the death of their friend. I think because this depiction came from a genuine place of love and grief for those involved I found it deeply moving and it’s one of the many reasons Ghostbusters: Afterlife will take its place on my list of favourite movies and comfort films that I’ll watch again and again for years to come.

On a lighter note, I have to say I really enjoyed how funny the film was! I thought the humour throughout the film was well timed and well played and the younger actors they cast did a great job of giving the film the levity it needed to make it fun and balance out the heavy themes of loss and regret. It’s fitting that they cast Mike from Stranger Things to play Trevor. Afterall, the show is largely responsible for the eighties’ classic coming back into the public consciousness. While the original movie never really fell out of public awareness the iconic Ghostbuster Halloween costumes from Season 2 of Stranger Things reawakened interest in the original movie and streaming rates skyrocketed as a result. The series is full of references to the franchise.

One of the first thoughts my friend and I had when we walked out of the theatre was that were probably Stranger Things references, we didn’t get yet because of the delayed release of both the movie and the new season. Ghostbusters: Afterlife and Season 4 of Stranger Things were both supposed to premiere within a few months of each other and since Finn Wolfhard appears in both it’s likely that tie ins were planned for both projects. But unfortunately, the release of the film and the actual filming of the show got delayed, pushed, and interrupted by the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

To be honest having watched both the film and the new season of Stranger Things I expected there to be more references and tie ins than I was able to spot. However, this is likely because such references were most likely edited out as they no longer made sense or were never filmed because the release dates had been pushed back considerably and it was unknown when either project would be released for quite some time. For instance, in Ghostbusters: Afterlife you can tell that there’s a cut when the characters are looking at the dates on the tomb wall because of the movie’s release date being pushed from 2020 to 2021.

If you look closely you can also see that the writing on the tomb wall has been edited in post-production to match this as moving the release date to 2021 throws off the original timeline. In Season 4 Vol. 1 of Stranger Things when the Hawkins gang enters the Creel House and Dustin drops his backpack on the floor you can see an ‘I got slimed’ button with a picture of the Muncher ghost on it. I’d love to know what other references and tie ins were originally planned for both projects and if any other eagle eyed fans managed to catch references I didn’t.

Until next time!

17 notes · View notes

panosatthemovies · 2 years

Text

Cha Cha Real Smooth is a surprisingly fresh, honest and enjoyable coming-of-age tale that won the audience award at the Sundance Festival to be quickly picked up by Apple TV+ for a worldwide release. The surprise comes mainly from the fact that sophomore director Cooper Raiff is a 25-year-old that has not only written the piece but stars in it opposite the ever more beautiful Dakota Johnson, who's become a dominant player in Hollywood after graduating from the 50 shades franchise. Raiff's screenplay recalls The Graduate, although his screen persona is far more energetic than Dustin Hoffman's in the timeless classic. The supporting cast is fantastic, including Vanessa Burghardt in the role of Johnson's loveable daughter. The only problem, I guess, is that Cooper looks older than his age, and the age difference with Johnson isn't as apparent as it should be. Still, you get rewarded with a heartwarming, honest performance and positive energy missing from Hollywood these days, to the point that I haven't been invested in any other film so much lately. This one is real good.

B+

Trailer: https://youtu.be/QRyyagJ9GPo

#Cha Cha Real Smooth #Dakota Johnson #Cooper Raiff #Sundance #film review #movie review #review #appletv+

2 notes · View notes

timelesshonesttrailer · 5 years

Text

The bane of many writers is that once you have birthed a story, taken the time to write, erase, rewrite, edit, scream at, and finally accept the words that you have written… you have to name it.

Like people, or businesses, the name is everything. It’s one of the first things people see. It’s what they will use to communicate the story to others. So picking a good title is vital, which makes it all the more daunting. But like most things in life, once you break it down and examine its parts, see how it works, it becomes a lot less scary and a lot more manageable.

This is how I got pretty good at making titles, not only for my own works, but for others. And I want to share with you what I learned, and hopefully make the task of titling your stories a lot less terrifying.

To create a good title, you have to focus on two things: Structure and Meaning.

Structure

Quick, think of all your favorite books, shows, and movies. Now think of popular franchises that are household names. What do they have in common, title wise? They are short and to the point.

On average, these titles are one to two words long. This does not include articles or connecting words like “the,” “of,” “or,” etc, because they pretty much disappear.

The titles also average few syllables, about two or three. You don’t really want to go above four. English is a very lazy language and we like to keep things short. This is why a lot of titles get shortened anyway.

Examples of Titles (remember, articles/connectors don’t count):

Friends – One word, one syllable.

Cheers – One word, one syllable.

Lost – One word, one syllable.

Dune – One word, one syllable.

Timeless – One word, two syllables.

ER – One word, two syllables.

Twilight – One word, two syllables. Can refer to the entire series.

The Mummy (1999) – One word, three syllables.

The Simpsons – One word, three syllables.

Parasite – One word, three syllables.

Titanic – One word, three syllables.

Hamilton – One word, three syllables.

The X-Files – One word, three syllables. Though it’s debatable if X-Files is one word or two.

CSI – One word (standing in for three), three syllables (standing in for seven).

Star Wars – Two words, two syllables.

Good Omens – Two words, three syllables.

Game of Thrones – Two words, three syllables. Often verbally shortened to Thrones.

Lord of the Rings – Two words, four syllables.

I can keep going, but you see the trend.

But what about titles like the Harry Potter books? The answer is in the question. Each book/movie title starts with Harry Potter and then has a modifier. Harry Potter itself is only two words and four syllables. Then if someone talks about a specific novel, they typically would not say the whole title, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, they would simply say Azkaban. The same is done in other series. Percy Jackson for example.

There are, of course, exceptions.

Elementary is a one word, but five syllables. It’s also a very common phrase in both the genre and in everyday life. Use of common phrases is a way to get around the above formula because we’re already used to saying them, thinking them, etc. One Day at a Time is another good example. Three words, five syllables, but doesn’t feel any longer than Lord of the Rings.

But the longer the title, the more likely it will somehow get shortened. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was changed to three syllable Blade Runner. My favorite book, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, has a very long title. Technically it’s three words when you remove articles/connectors, but the syllable count is a whopping ten. It gets away with it because for one, it’s a rift on an already common phrase, and two, fans can call it Hitchhiker’s Guide which is only four syllables.

Now, once you know the structure of a title, you can work on choosing one.

Meaning

The title of your story has to give the reader an idea about what they’re getting into. It does this by focusing on one of the following:

A literal Person/Place/Thing – Percy Jackson, Cheers, The X-Files

The Subject Matter – Friends, Law & Order, The Sixth Sense, CSI

The Genre – Twilight, Star Wars, Friday the 13th, Altered Carbon

The Overall Metaphor/Concept – Game of Thrones, Parasite, Pride and Prejudice

Many of these cross over. The Sixth Sense and CSI could also be considered a literal thing as well as a genre marker. If your title fulfills more than one slot, that is neat, but not a necessity. You might feel like you have to come up with some complex title, but sometimes it’s really just as simple as it’s a show about friends and their relationships with each other.

Take the title Catch-22. The term Catch-22 is a major metaphor and concept that is universally known today. But when Joseph Heller wrote Catch-22, no one called that concept a Catch-22. The title was simply naming the military rule (a thing), which created the situation and therefore drove the narrative. People later co-opted the title to quickly express the concept that the book so masterfully discusses.

Whatever you chose, the title should match the feel of the story you’re trying to tell. It’s part of your promise to the reader, and must make sense by the time they get to the end of the story.

But how to pick a title when you have persons, places, things, subject matter, genre, and metaphors in your story? You simply work backwards. Ask yourself what your story is really about.

What is the driving force of the narrative?

What do you want your readers to get out of the story?

Is it a story about a person?

Or about the people of a specific group?

Is the story a one-shot or the beginning of a trilogy/series?

Is there a specific name or line of text that sums up your story neatly?

Somewhere in the answers to those questions is your title.

Now, I can make guesses on how some of the above mentioned titles came to be. Cheers takes place in the bar of the same name, and it’s about the patrons of said bar, so it’s the story about a place named Cheers. But I can’t speak for the creators and what thought processes they might have went through in order to choose their titles. So, instead, I am going to give you some of the titles I have come up with and explain how I got there.

Copper and Gold Two words, four syllables. Genre: Urban Fantasy This is the first book of a series based around a singular character, Minni Masterson, whose motif is copper, which plays a large role in the story. Since it’s a series, I need a title that could be formulaic across each one. In the first novel, the “guest character” is a gold dragon (Aiden Drake). So when I say Copper and Gold, I’m really saying Minni and Drake. And in the second book, when I say Copper and Cobalt, I am saying Minni and the Kobolds. Copper and Mercury is Minni and the Werewolves. Etc.

Emperor’s Shadow Two words, five syllables. Genre: Star Wars fan fiction/Mystery/Character Study The story is about Mara Jade who was an Emperor’s Hand. It’s about her coming to terms with the shadow that looms over her from her past and what Palpatine did to her. Instead of going with something much bulkier like In the Shadow of the Empire, I merged her past (Emperor’s Hand) with her current conflict.

The Serpent and the Liar Two words, seven syllables. (This format of “The X and the X” is one that is an exception to the rule, so long as the syllables belonging to X remain low) Genre: Marvel!Loki fan fiction/Pre-Movies Canon Compliant The story is about Loki and the events leading up to the first Thor movie. It also brings in Sigyn to explore that ship, along with some Norse myths, and to explain why she isn’t in the movie. Loki, of course, is known for his serpent motif and as the god of lies. I play on this, giving Sigyn a serpent motif, something to match her with Loki. But on several occasions, I raise the question of who is actually the serpent, and who is the liar? Because the best way to lie, is to tell the truth. So, like Copper and Gold, I’m really just calling the story Loki and Sigyn, I mean, Sigyn and Loki?

Amehrana One word, four syllables. Genre: Timeless Food Truck AU/Garcy Slow Burn The story is about Flynn and Lucy, and the rest of the team, in an AU setting. I named Flynn’s food truck Amehrana because it’s a mix of the word American and Hrana, which is Croatian for food. So the title is both a thing (the food truck) but also another word for Flynn and Lucy because he’s Croat and she’s American. But unlike Copper and Gold and The Serpent and the Liar, there is the added symbolism here of Flynn and Lucy coming together.

Frankenstein’s Monster Two words, five syllables Genre: Timeless Mission Fic for Proposed Season 3 (non-movie compliant) The mission is Mary Shelley, but that doesn’t mean there *has* to be a Frankenstein reference. But you have Flynn who thinks he’s a monster, one created by Rittenhouse. I also go deeper and hint at Lucy herself being a Frankenstein Monster, i.e. created by Rittenhouse for a purpose she doesn’t want any part of. Once again, my title is basically just another name for my main characters.

I want to interject for a moment and point out that we all have our preferences in our writing styles, and titles are no different. If you realized you tend to do most of your titles a specific way, then own it. It’s part of what makes you unique as an artist. And if you occasionally decide you want to go a completely opposite direction for one story, then go for it.

Case in point.

No Accounting for Heroes Three words, seven syllables Genre: Canon Compliant account of the Fall of SHIELD and its aftermath This fic really takes a hard look at what happens to those living in a world with superheroes. The main character, an accountant named Rani, is giving an account of events. My cowriter suggested putting “accounting” in the title which made me think of the common phrase, “no accounting for taste,” which is a concept about how different people like/need different things, and applied it to the story. No Accounting for Heroes means that we all need a hero, but maybe not the heroes we think we do, and we can all be heroes in some way, to someone in need. But also, there is that underlying current that heroes are not held accountable for the destruction that follows in their wake.

Never be afraid to ask for help with titles. And don’t be afraid to reject titles if they don’t fit. And definitely don’t be afraid to take the suggestion, turn it over, season it, put it in a waffle iron, and see if what comes out is edible.

I have helped others name their stories, and here are three examples:

Remember, Remember Two words, six syllables. Genre: Timeless Garcy Canon Divergent/Angst/Mission Fic The story is about Lucy trying to save Flynn after he goes back to 2012. Emma saves him instead. Eventually Lucy runs into him and she discovers he doesn’t remember her and only knows what Emma has told him. At the end of the story, they have a final confrontation during the Gunpowder Plot. When the author asked my thoughts on a title, well, the Gunpowder Plot has the very famous saying “Remember, Remember, the 5th of November” and the whole story is Lucy trying to get Flynn to remember…

Disavowed One word, three syllables. Genre: Timeless Luciana Canon Divergent/Angst In this Twitter story, Flynn is blocked from returning to the US from Canada because they still think he’s a terrorist. Basically, his own country, whom he helped save, rejected him. When asked for a title, I focused on the idea that this story is about Flynn being rejected/denied entry/etc. I basically flipped through synonyms for rejected until I came across disavowed which is a term often used in spy craft. It’s a heavy word which paired well with the angst of the story.

Only Our Stories Three words, five syllables. Genre: Timeless Movie Canon Compliant-adjacent/Angst/Mission Fic The phrase “only our stories” is said in the fic itself. Future-Lucy writes it down towards the beginning, once she’s returned from dropping off the journal post-Chinatown. All that she has left of Flynn is only their stories, which she writes in the journal. She is eventually able to change things to get Flynn back, but he doesn’t remember her. There is still a connection though… their stories.

Never be afraid to take a line from your story to use as your title, so long as you follow the structure guidelines from the first section.

At the end of the day, coming up with titles is just as much a skill as any other part of writing. We suck at first, then we figure out what's good, what's bad, and look at the world around us to figure out how to make it better. And don’t be afraid to edit it as much as you edit your novel. Until you publish, no title is set in stone, so it doesn’t have be right the first time.

And now here is where I close out this reference guide by saying something inspirational. Instead, I’m going to name this piece. While I wrote it, the temp file name was “Creating a Title” which is technically accurate but has no umph or style. This guide is meant to be helpful so the title should inspire confidence that I know what I’m talking about. But I don’t want it to sound too clinical either.

A synonym for “name” is designation which I like but too many syllables because I’ll have to add to it. Synonym’s for “title” don’t give me much either. Instead, I should focus on the concept of the guide rather than its direct contents. Using something like “What’s in a Name?” would be too cliché. “I Suck at Titles” is funny, at first, with it being the exact opposite, but my genre is more educational than satire.

Wait, if I’m not going to reveal the title until the end, as a way to show you the thought process in creating a title, then to the reader, the title both does and doesn’t exist at the same time. It’s what you might call a…

Schrodinger’s Title: A Guide to Naming

#Reference #How to title a story #Naming #I also used this to name the starring section of #Timeless Honest Trailer

40 notes · View notes

thekatebridgerton · 2 years

Note

I only just saw the Persuasion trailer and I.....

What have they done? Where is Anne Elliot because that woman we saw on screen was not her. At all! What happened? I am too shocked to react...wtf!!!😭😭😭😭🤬🤬🤬🤬

The Bridgerton-fication of Anne. That's what happened.

You know, If Kim Kardashian damaging Marilyn Monroe's dress in the met gala for funsies has taught me something about Hollywood. it's that they can and will butcher any piece of someone's historical legacy in the name of 'giving it a new story' and 'modernizing it' without caring for the consequences

I'm really starting to wonder what's up with Netflix rewriting the work of other people to fit a 'modern' narrative instead of picking a work that doesn't need to be re written ( there are many) or writing something new themselves because it's really starting to grate on my nerves. I've said it before about Bridgerton. the showrunners took and rewrote around 90% of Julia Quinn's original book in order to fit in with the narrative Shondaland wanted to portray

Like what's the point? There's got to be a less painful way to put a period drama on screen.

Why call it Persuasion at all when it's irreconizable in the trailer? Why not call 'witty Anne gets her ex back' or 'Elizabeth meets Wenthworth'

I honestly feel like it was a lost opportunity for Netflix to actually give us this decade's adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. (But I guess Keira Knightley truly remains the toughest act to follow.)

Yes we get it, Anne Elliot isn't Austen's easiest heroine to like if you're used to literary ladies who stand up for themselves like Lizzie Bennet and Anne Shirley. But that's the thing that makes Austen so timeless. She wrote about women who were not always witty or cleverly funny. Anne is saddest spinster in her circle and yet she's someone we really grow to root for in Persuasion

Im going to be honest here. Anne Elliot is not for everyone. Same as Emma Woodhouse is not for everyone.

Anne Elliot is meek, silent, underappreciated and unhappy. In a nutshell she's the antithesis of the modern cookie cutter heroine we've come to expect from period dramas. I mean who wants to write a sad heroine? Worse, who'd be willing to portray her?

But what Netflix did to Persuasion was not the right way to modernize the story! Jane Austen would be scandalized by the whole shouting from the window scene of the trailer alone

And that's the tea

#netflix persuasion #persuasion #anne elliot #she deserves so much better #captain wentworth

27 notes · View notes

thetaoofbetty · 3 years

Note

Bughead chemistry is still fire. The show may actually go down because of the other ships but bughead is timeless.

for real tho, even the songs they've been using for them have been pretty smexy sounding. they're not dumb.

more anons under the cut:

i'm sure someone will disagree with me about things being called fanservice when it's not but not liking something doesn't mean it happening is fanservice (this applies to b/a too). they've always used b/a for drama and sometimes, yeah, as a plot device for bughead.

and i say bughead based on the way the show treats it as an issue for bughead and not v/a. if they decided to extend a bughead and v/a reunion, then yeah, they were always going to fallback on what they've always done for them. they fell back on veronica and reggie. and getting jughead out of the way? does no one really see the convenience factor here? people really think they just time jumped where bughead had a history during that time and it's just...fine? they're all just going to hold hands and skip to the finish line with these new, conflict free ships?

even in the first 4 seasons of riverdale, the ships had conflict on the regular.

but the b/as are very selective in what they pay attention to or acknowledge. first they said it was canon because of roberto (which, yes, that is how even AUs work in media when they're shown, the thing still happened even if it won't matter past that) then they said it was an AU because archie died then they said it was still canon because they were getting their b/a wedding and then said it was meaningless because bughead was kissing.

uh. pick a lane, guys. we (and by we, i mean most bugheads and v/as) knew that it was an AU? and that it was also canon but also not in riverdale? like, that wasn't hard to figure out from the original event trailer? enjoying ship content where we find it is how shipping works, actually.

as for 6b, hmm. if the betty pyrokinesis thing is totally legit then i guess we're doing that? tho, i wonder if it's part of cheryl's curse and that's why it's concentrated on the 3 of them having stuff happen to them. i'm guessing they're all dealing with the after affects of the bomb for the first couple of episodes and then it's not until 6x08 or 9 where they start to get into that, when the vale stuff starts to come over? i know lili was missing for a bit while filming recently right? so not sure what that means for those eps but i would figure we're going to get into the tbk, curse, archie's new nemesis plot mid-season maybe?

after that, there's been a teased love triangle and i can see how and why people think it's going to be b/j/a but we'll see. roberto oversells and underdelivers so who knows? i definitely think we're going to get some weirdo plots and they still need to bring the "epic battle between good and evil" thing they pushed back. if i'm being honest, i fully expect we'll get what we got in s5 (and 4, 3, 2, 1...) and the main couples will be back in each other's orbits investigating the mystery (bughead) and trying to solve the town's issues (v/a).

no i haven't but i feel like someone on my dash watched it and i wanted to watch it based off of that. then i forgot and you just reminded me. so thank you for that.

i'm sure she will. i'm also pretty sure veronica and archie will work together like always, ha. i think the thing is that veronica is the one who broke up with archie in s5 so maybe that plays a part in her decisions, i don't know. veronica often acts like everything that bothers her is in the past so she can keep it moving so having her actually deal with some stuff would be nice for a change tbh.

but the show writes women like that a lot. they rarely get to express themselves for more than 5 seconds before sucking it up and putting on a brave face because that's what a lot of these writers think being a strong woman is.

that's not how that works but whatever.

#besos!#anonymous #riverdale spoilers #riverdale speculation

28 notes · View notes

bearinabandana · 3 years

Text

I dreamt that they were releasing a Doctor Who game to fill a lot of the lore about the fugitive/forgotten years of the doctor's life. The trailer was super cool and the thematic of the game was a lot more like fantasy than science fiction. Fandom was super excited because we would finally figure out a lot of the secrets of the forgotten lifes

Anyway I also dreamt of the very start of the game, that revealed to be a platform game (they hadn't said before what type of game it would be) (sounds lame but it was really cute pixel!doc okay) and it starts with the Doctor (13) and a companion (you could choose Yaz or Dan) in a kind of maze, trying to get out.

AND IT WAS SUPER CUTE BECAUSE BASED ON THE COMPANION THE INTERACTIONS WOULD CHANGE-- like- if you choose Yaz you'd spend a lot of time answering her questions and snarky comments (you have to play as 13!! So all the answers you could choose were like- avoiding the questions lol) (but if you made the right decisions, further on the game the options would start to get more honest and kind)

Ah yes- and if you choose Dan you'd spend some time trying to get him out of (kind of??) a basketball hoop that he tries to steal from the maze and got stuck in. So fun

And there are also little fight mode with monsters, Yaz and Dan have their own abilities so that's very cool

I don't remember if I dreamed of further on the game, but I think you changed characters (13→fugitive doc or 13→timeless child) (for example) when 13 had a flashback or discovered something about her life

So that was really cool. Once again, a shame that my unconscious brain is not in charge of Doctor Who

#BBC WHEN WILL WE HAVE PLATFORM PIXEL GAME OF 13 AND FUGITIVE TIMES HUH??#W H E N !!!!!

5 notes · View notes

ilwinsgarden · 3 years

Text

Sooo... I finally got to watch some of the new DW episodes (three of them, I think there’s fourth one out by now?) and thought I would write a few words here. And I warn you right away that if you want to see just excited comments don’t read on.

I’ll say right at the beginning, I’m rather disappointed. I was looking forward to see Thirteenth Doctor again very much and she’s still great but... But. Well. I expected new season, that is also Thirteenth Doctor’s last, nevertheless I expected it to be normal, rather standalone stories maybe with some two-parter(s) at the end. When it soon was clear it’s not gonna be this, I’ve thought - ah yes, ok, they want to make it super spectacular for regeneration, but apparently (just read it on wikkipedia) there’s not gonna be regeneration yet, but three specials after the series that will only lead to regeneration. (Please, don’t tell me, that everyone knows that because they said it there and there, I don’t search for information about new episodes on internet, I haven’t came across any and we don’t get any news about Doctor Who in our country so if this is something that has been known, I didn’t know, so yes it surprised me. And not in a pleasant way).

Anyway. Even if it was regeneration at the end of the series... why to make some complicated story with end of the universe for the whole series? Why? I’m not much fan of these supercomplicated stories with mystery backgrounds etc. (like timeless child) and... ok, maybe that’s not quite precise. I like mystery in the story, hints and clues leading to some interesting reveal, but for some reason those in Doctor Who (2005 DW) felt rather... over-combined (is that a word in english?) and just... too much. And not worth all the fuss to be honest. For me. That probably doesn’t explain enough the thing but I couldn’t do that in my mother language either. With Flux episodes, ok, maybe it’s not as much supercomplicated as just too-much-parter about the Doctor saving the universe from another end of the universe, but there are also mentions Division (is that the word?) and those bad guys in the temple (I’ve thought it was “Tim Shaw” when saw it in trailer (yes, I’ve seen trailer, that’s all that I’ve seen “ahead”)), that shows “there’s more to it then it seems” and that’s what I mean mostly with the “supercomplicated stories with mystery backgrounds”. Though “all” the Doctor Who monsters coming back feels... unnecessary? I get they just try to use the opportunity and snatch as much as possible for themselves (though it kinda confused me in the first episode when there was flux introduced - i.e. some force about to destroy the universe which we saw very illustratively at the space station where... that guy that joined the Doctor later was - yet Sontarans were all so happy about its coming ready to battle. Like - what are you about to battle about when flux will destroy the universe??? Which doesn’t seem to be quite true as it seemed in next episode, which confused me even more. So yeah, I think supercomplicated is the right word for this as well after all.)... what was this sentence even about... ah, yes DW monsters coming back. So I get they’re just trying to use the situation (as always) and gain the power (as always) but why all? Or... of course it’s not all of them... I mean... (oh gosh, I wish I could express myself better. Or at least a bit) Right. So. Yes, I get Daleks and Cybermen and Sontarans and Weeping angels are kind of main (or the most favourite) monsters of 2005 DW (first three of all DW of course) so it’s logical they choose those because they obviously couldn’t choose literally all monsters that ever appeared in DW (though that would be fun, wouldn’t it!), but there alrealy are another bad guys (oh! I remembered their names - Swarm and Azure) so why to put other four “old guys” there? Those are the things that makes it feel over-combined (if that’s the real word) for me. Ok, I hope I managed to explain at least a bit what I meant with that “supercomplicated” stories.

Now what else I could mention. I miss Graham and Ryan. Like a lot. Fam just feels so much... poorer (? not worse or something like that just... not complete) though the story would be too complicated anyway. But still. Miss them. As for the new companion (Dan), well... he seems nice. And that’s about all I can say about him, I don’t know the actor so no impressions that I might have if I knew him and generally I’m not much impressed by Dan so far so... yeah, seems nice, that’s it for me. *shrugs*

So it probably sounded out that I don’t like the ne episodes and maybe even won’t go on watching next episodes. That’s not right. I still enjoy Thirteen (though that jumping along the timelines and floating in that... out of time space (it wasn’t time vortex was it?) when she spoke to those... things from the temple... was really weird.), but I’m not enyjoing it as much as I was looking forward to it and I’m not that much excited to watch next episodes. Like, I will watch them of course, but it’s not that I couldn’t wait to watch them.

(I guess this paragraph didn’t make it better and it still sounds like one big grumble, well what can I do. After all, I warned you right at the beginning.)

#doctor who #doctor who season 13 #doctor who season 13 spoilers #thirteenth doctor #spoilers #though there's not much spoilers mentioned here at the end

6 notes · View notes

yeonchi · 4 years

Text

Doctor Who 2021 New Year’s Special Review: Revolution of the Daleks

Air date: 1 January 2021

New Year’s Day is the new Christmas Day for Doctor Who. Two years ago, I was writing the review for the 2019 New Year’s Special, Resolution. One year ago, I was writing the review for the first episode of Series 12, Spyfall Part One (which essentially served as the 2020 New Year’s Special). Today, I'm writing this review for the 2021 New Year’s Special. Whether the change was because of political correctness, low ratings or just to change up the status quo, I think we should be glad that we even have a festive special, unlike the English dubs on Koei Tecmo’s Warriors games.

Amazingly, this special was filmed alongside Series 12 last year and kept on hold to today, meaning that production was largely unaffected by the coronavirus. Even with the anticipation and uncertainty for Series 13, which has already been reduced to eight episodes (with festive special status unknown), this episode serves as a good icebreaker given everything that’s happened in 2020 and the Timeless Child arc of Series 12.

Here is my spoiler-free thought for this episode: “It’s epic, heartbreaking and ridiculous at the same time.”

Spoilers continue after the break. Also, please don’t forget to check out my look at Doctor Who: Lockdown and the hiatusbreaker update for some post-Series 12 review thoughts.

Introduction

Chibnall mentioned that the recon scout Dalek from Resolution give birth to the new Dalek variant that was seen in this episode, thus making this episode a sequel to said episode. As such, this was the case.

367 minutes (about 6 hours) after the Doctor and her extended fam fought the recon scout Dalek at GCHQ, its shell was recovered. Jo Patterson, then Technology Secretary, tipped Jack Robertson (he will be referred to by his surname hereafter to differentiate him from Jack Harkness) off about it and managed to acquire it. After acquiring the plants of car firms that had abandoned Patterson and Rugazzi Technologies, Leo’s company, Robertson had defence drones developed (and 3D printed) based on the design of the Dalek’s shell.

The production of this episode was concluded by April 2020, with Chibnall stating that post-production work was continuing during the lockdown. This was before the death of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter protests, meaning that the scene showing the testing of the defence drones was likely inspired from the Hong Kong protests. We see people throwing bricks and molotov cocktails, and the Dalek is shown to be fitted with a water cannon, CS gas sprayer and a sonic deterrent. That’s about all the allusion we get - if we had any more then we would have had a serious problem.

Doctor and companions separated

At the end of The Timeless Children, the Doctor was sentenced to life imprisonment in a maximum-security prison, while Graham, Ryan and Yaz were brought back to Earth along with Ravio, Yedlarmi and Ethan. We don’t get to see those three in the episode, sadly.

Over the next ten months, Graham and Ryan had moved on with their lives while Yaz became obsessed with finding the Doctor (yeah, just forget that you have a family and a job as a policewoman lol). Graham shows Yaz some leaked footage of Robertson at the defence drone testing. They go to confront Robertson, but are turned away by his security guards.

Meanwhile, the Doctor had been in prison for decades, accompanied by a Weeping Angel, an Ood, a Sycorax, a Silent and even a Pting. Unbeknownst to her, Captain Jack Harkness had managed to get into the same prison as her, spending 19 years just to get the cell next to her, before making himself known and breaking out of the prison together. The Doctor and Jack head to Graham’s house, where they catch up and set out to find Jack Robertson.

There are a couple of one-to-one scenes that really got me thinking. When Jack and Yaz investigate traces of Dalek DNA in Osaka, they talk about their separation from the Doctor and what their time with the Doctor has changed them into. Jack tells Yaz, “Being with the Doctor, you don’t get to choose when it stops. Whether you leave her, or she leaves you.”

Let’s break that line down with information from the TARDIS Wiki page on companions. There are several ways that a companion can join the Doctor - they stow away on the TARDIS, they were “kidnapped”, or were assigned by higher powers, like UNIT, the Time Lords or the White Guardian. Just like that, there are several ways that companions leave the Doctor - they might choose to leave, the Doctor decides or is forced to leave them behind, or they die.

The interesting thing is that Jack says that they don’t get to choose when they leave. In the case of companions who decided to leave of their own will, you might think it was an easy decision for them, but in truth, there is context behind their motivation to leave. In Series 2, Mickey Smith stayed on Pete’s World to help defeat the Cybermen after that world’s counterpart of himself (Ricky) died and he became increasingly disillusioned with Rose favouring the Doctor over himself. In Series 3, Martha Jones decided to leave the Doctor after seeing her family enslaved by the Master for a year, travelling around the world to get people to think of the Doctor, and realising that her feelings for him would never be reciprocated. In the classic series, Tegan Jovanka left the Fifth Doctor after being sickened by the death and destruction she witnessed. From this, I can deduce that what Jack meant to say isn’t that the companions don’t get to choose when they leave, but that they don’t get to choose the circumstances that lead to them leaving. In some cases, that also applies to the companions who get left behind by the Doctor or killed.

The other one-to-one is between Ryan and the Doctor in the TARDIS. The Doctor apologises to Ryan for leaving him, Graham and Yaz behind for ten months and Ryan tells him that during this time his relationship with his father has improved and that he got to catch up with friends. Ryan asks the Doctor what has changed with her since they last met and the Doctor tells her that she isn’t who she thought she was (that storyline’s never going to go away, isn’t it? Hope to learn about the full story of the Timeless Child in Series 13). This scene really highlights how the companions can be a source of support for the Doctor, just as the Doctor is a source of support for them.

Ryan tells the Doctor that she is the same as she has always been. The Doctor comforts herself by saying that nothing’s changed, but Ryan says that it wasn’t what he meant; things change all the time and we might be scared of the new, but in the end, we have to confront the new, or the old. This bit was definitely made with the Timeless Child twist in mind. Yes, things change (particularly when it comes to Doctor Who), but some changes can be good or bad; just as there are people who saw the Timeless Child twist as good, there are people who saw it as bad (including myself). It’s like what I said in the hiatusbreaker update about The Timeless Children pulling an Ultraman Orb and trying to lessen the impact of the twist when it didn’t make sense and caused more damage than expected.

Human-created Daleks (sort of)

When the recon Dalek’s shell was salvaged, some traces of its DNA remained in it. Since, according to Missy in The Witch’s Familiar, every cell of a Dalek is genetically hardwired to survive, their consciousness can live within the tiniest fragment of their DNA. Leo managed to clone the recon scout Dalek out of those traces and hooked it into the neural network. Disgusted after being shown the creature, Robertson tells Leo to incinerate it, but when he tries to do so, it escapes and takes possession of him. In a way, the recon scout Dalek was resurrected in this episode, but it didn’t feel like the same character.

While hooked into the neural network, the Dalek managed to make more clones of itself using Robertson’s resources, feeding them with the liquefied remains of the people who worked on them. After being confronted by the Doctor and the others, the Dalek uses the UV light to activate the Daleks, transport themselves into the shells that it augmented, then kills Rob and begins subjugating Earth.

Just as Jo Patterson introduces the defence drones in her first speech as Prime Minister, she gets exterminated by them quickly after they are activated. If Jack Robertson is an expy of Donald Trump, then Jo Patterson is an expy of Theresa May - a forgettable Prime Minister whose claim to fame (defence drones for the former, Brexit for the latter) backfired on them. To be honest, when I heard that they would be in this special, I almost thought that they got married or something.

There was a similar situation like this in the Series 3 two-parter, Daleks in Manhattan and Evolution of the Daleks, only this time, the Daleks were more involved. In that story, the Cult of Skaro were attempting to find a way to survive beyond the Dalek shell, to the point of creating Dalek-human hybrids, a new race with the intelligence of Daleks but with the emotions of humans. In both cases, the new Dalek variants were considered impure due to the human elements within them.

I’ve compared this episode to Victory of the Daleks when the trailer came out. With the addition of the conflict between the two Daleks (as I will outline below), there are additional contrasts to the Seventh Doctor story Remembrance of the Daleks and the Big Finish Eighth Doctor audio story Blood of the Daleks.

The nuclear option

With thousands of defence drone Daleks on the move and no weapons to deal with them, the Doctor seems to do the only thing she can think of that doesn’t involve destroying the Earth ala the Moment (which was what I was thinking) - signal a ship of Death Squad Daleks (SAS Daleks, but more brutal) to Earth to deal with the impure defence drones.

The two groups of Daleks confront each other on a bridge (specifically the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol). After seeing his Daleks get exterminated, Robertson takes his nuclear option - part with the Doctor and side with the Daleks. That’s right, Jack Robertson does an Utsumi (Nariaki Utsumi from Build, if you didn’t know) and sides with a race that would kill him the first chance they got. Give him a cane to break and we would have gotten the first tokusatsu meme in Doctor Who.

For someone who seems to be so obsessed with protecting himself (normally by using other people), I must say that this was a strange step for Robertson to take. Given that Robertson is an expy of Trump, one can only wonder what Chibnall and people like him think of Trump. Would Trump sell himself or humanity out to invading aliens? Personally, I don’t think he’d be stupid enough to do so. I think he’d bomb them with everything he has.

Robertson convinces the Daleks to take them aboard their ship and meet their commander. Meanwhile, Jack, Graham and Ryan board the ship and plant explosives on it. Graham tries to get Ryan to fistbump him, but he just tells him to “stop talking weird”. We’re back, fellow kids. Missed us?

Robertson tells the Daleks that the Doctor summoned them. The original Dalek returns and offers to be purified, only to be exterminated. Graham, Ryan and Jack find Robertson and they get off the ship together just as it is destroyed.

The Doctor floats her TARDIS in the sky among the Daleks and lures them inside, which would normally be an impossible feat if it weren’t for the fact that it isn’t actually the Doctor’s TARDIS, but the other TARDIS from earlier. She sets it to fold in on itself and send itself to the heart of the Void, thereby destroying them.

Soon after that, Robertson claims that he was acting as a decoy and so, he is lauded as the saviour of humanity. A honorary knighthood and a revived presidential run is mentioned after the toxic waste scandal (Arachnids in the UK) ruined his previous attempt. This is where my comparison to Utsumi weakens - Utsumi pledged himself to Evolto so that he could find a way to bring him down, but there doesn’t seem to be any ulterior motive in Robertson’s actions. Frankly, I’m surprised that he wasn’t exterminated at all.

Parting ways (for now)

By the time Graham and Ryan return to the TARDIS, Jack has left and is on his way to see Gwen Cooper, who has apparently had another child, a son. Honestly, his departure feels quite lackluster.

The Doctor offers to take the fam to a restaurant apparently named the Meringue Galaxy, but Ryan decides to leave the Doctor since he believes that his friends and planet need him. Graham struggles to decide, but in the end, he decides to leave with Ryan, leaving the Doctor and Yaz on the TARDIS. The Doctor gives them some psychic paper as a parting gift.

The final scene is a throwback to the beginning of The Woman Who Fell to Earth. Graham is helping Ryan ride his bike when they bring up some strange incidents around the world, like a troll invasion in Finland or gravel creatures in Korea. Ryan begins riding his bike one more time when they see Grace looking back at them in the distance. This is the last episode where Ryan’s dyspraxia is explored. Shame Chibnall never managed to do a lot with it.

We’ve known that Graham and Ryan would be leaving the series for months now, and we’ve also known that there would be opportunities for them to return. Let’s hope we see them again in Series 13.

Going back to my discussion about companions leaving, the major factor in Ryan and Graham’s decision to leave was that they had spent ten months away from the Doctor and unlike Yaz, they had already moved on with their lives. Additionally, for Graham, he doesn’t want to leave Ryan given the relationship they built up during their time with Doctor and possibly also for fear of abandoning Ryan, given how his father wasn’t there for him previously. This doesn’t feel as deep compared to other companions’ motives for leaving the Doctor, but it’s still quite deep.

At the end of Can You Hear Me?, we see Ryan talking to Yaz about spending their lives with the Doctor and forgetting everyone back home. I’d always thought that the human element of being a companion was annoying, but we have to remember that companions are people too and they had their own lives before they met the Doctor.

Other general thoughts

I know this is kind of irrelevant given that this episode was produced at the end of 2019, but could Leo be considered an Uncle Tom for inventing something designed to suppress protesters? By the way, don’t let China know about this or we’re all screwed, even in Hong Kong or Taiwan.

Jack gets a gold star for rescuing the Doctor. That puts Jack and Graham at 10 points and Yaz and Ryan at 20.

Jack also has his sonic blaster back as well. Will Jack also be back for Series 13? We’ll just have to see it to believe it.

The title cards are jarring again. Can the production team not be inconsistent with their fonts?

I swear, all the Yaz favouritism in the last two series must have given her Stockholm syndrome. Who’s to say that Mandip Gill wanted to leave, but Chibnall asked her to stay?

Taking a look at the designs for the Daleks, the defence drones are alright. They glow a bluish-white colour normally, but they glow red and shoot red beams when the Dalek creatures took control of them. You could probably mistake them for being red in the dark, which is highlighted when they are shown shooting people in the streets. As for the Death Squad Daleks, they’re basically just the basic bronze Daleks, including their leader. They should’ve brought back the multicoloured New Paradigm Daleks just so the Death Squad Daleks could be differentiated from ordinary Daleks.

Following the premiere of this episode, a new companion was announced for Series 13, with John Bishop playing the role of Dan. Honestly, with the Timeless Child mystery still looming and the lack of character development for Yaz, a new companion is the last thing this series needs, particularly since Series 13 would be Jodie Whittaker’s third series and possibly, her final one (if we’re going by previous Doctors). At the moment, Bishop is currently isolating after being tested positive for the coronavirus. I wish him well and look forward to seeing him in Series 13.

The reduced number of episodes in Series 11 or 12 may have contributed to the lack of focus on Ryan’s dyspraxia or character development on Yaz, but that’s no excuse. Chibnall had plenty of opportunities to factor them in, but he was too focused on not having a story arc in Series 11 and destroying canon in Series 12 to even think about it (Graham and Ryan got more character development in those two series than Yaz did). Now that Series 13 has been reduced to eight episodes (not counting the possibility of a split series or another New Year’s Special out of the eight), I fear that Chibnall won’t have enough opportunity to factor in Dan’s character development with Yaz’s character development, the Timeless Child, Ruth and/or the Master, particularly when he delegates half of the series to other writers and does very few good things in the remaining episodes he writes (or co-writes). Honestly, Series 11 and 12 felt like a waste of time in some aspects.

Summary and verdict

Like I said at the start, this episode acted as a good icebreaker in the long break between series. However, ever since my red-pilling in The Timeless Children, I’ve started to see this series in a new light, particularly with the help of YouTubers like Bowlestrek or Nerdrotic. Despite this, I’m reluctant to hop on the #RIPDoctorWho bandwagon because we still don’t have the full details for the Timeless Child arc, so I’m reserving most of my judgement until we get it.

Most of the episode was good, but the ridiculous part for me was when Robertson Utsumi’d himself and somehow managed to survive. Jack’s departure felt lackluster, Ryan and Graham’s departure felt lackluster to other companions’ departures and Jo Patterson was just... ehh. Let’s not forget that we didn’t see or hear a mention of the surviving humans from the previous episode because Chibnall just forgot about them.

Rating: 6/10 Series 12 total: 77/100 (77%) Series 12 total with Revolution of the Daleks: 83/110 (75%)

Overall, this special brought down my total score for Series 12, but it still did slightly better compared to Series 11. If it weren’t for Jack Harkness, my score for the episode would have been lower. Robertson, being a Trump expy, essentially represented all the SJW red flags in this episode; pointing them out is unnecessary at this point given my red-pilling.

That’s it for my review of the New Year’s Special. There is a certainty that Series 13 will premiere this year, so the next time I return with another review will presumably be in late 2021. As long as Jodie Whittaker is the Doctor, my mission to review her episodes will continue. Follow me on Facebook and/or Tumblr and keep an eye out for my future posts, Doctor Who-related or otherwise, such as the Kisekae Insights series where I give insights on my personal project, which was heavily influenced by Doctor Who.

Stay safe and I’ll see you then.

#doctor who #doctor who series 12 #thirteenth doctor #doctor who series 12 review #thirteenth doctor review

3 notes · View notes

9worldstales · 3 years

Link

INTERESTING POINTS TO PONDER FROM INTERVIEWS 7

Interviews might not remain forever available or not be easy to find so I’ve decided to link them and transcribe the points I find of some interest so as to preserve them should the interview had to end up removed.

It’s not complete transcriptions, just the bits I think can be relevant but I wholeheartedly recommend reading the whole thing.

And of course I also comment all this because God forbid I’ll keep silent… :P

Title: EXCLUSIVE: Screenwriter Don Payne Talks Thor!

Author: Elisabeth Rappe

Published: Feb 23, 2011

BEST BITS FROM THE INTERVIEW

ABOUT THE SCRIPT FOR “THOR”

Thor has seen a lot of screenwriters come and go, and I imagine that led to some very drastic changes to the character and story. Can you talk at all about that process, and what changes were made over the course of project? (For example, I know rumors swirled very early that the Thor movie would be an origin story with his alter ego, Dr. Donald Blake!) How did the script come together? At what point in the process did you come on board, and what was your contribution?

Don Payne: First off, for the record, the final, official WGA writing credits for the film are “Story by J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich, Screenplay by Ashley Edward Miller & Zack Stentz and Don Payne.” Any other writing credits you might have seen elsewhere are either outdated or incorrect.

As far as how the script came together, J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich worked on the project before Kenneth Branagh came on board to direct. At that point, Ken and Marvel sat down and decided exactly what kind of story they wanted to tell. They took everything that had been written so far and figured out a game plan. Marvel then hired Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz, and, as I understand it, those guys worked pretty intensely on the screenplay over the course of four or five months. After they left the project, Marvel hired me, and I stayed on all the way through the end — about a year and a half total. For the first eight months, I continued to develop, rewrite, and restructure the screenplay, bringing in new characters and new scenes. I worked closely with Ken and Marvel throughout the process, and, as the cast came together, I worked with Ken and the actors during rehearsals here and in London.

Then, once production started in January 2010, I was on set writing every day, both at the studio in Manhattan Beach and on location in New Mexico, and continued to work through post-production.

I’d like to say more about how the script has evolved since the very beginning of the development process, but I don’t want to spoil anything. I hate spoilers. (Mostly because I’m weak, and I can’t resist them myself!) But I’ll be happy to talk about it all after the film comes out. What I can say is that this really has been the greatest writing experience of my life. I’ve never worked harder or been as closely involved day-to-day on a project as I have on Thor.

And as far as Thor’s alter-ego goes, as Kevin Feige has said, people looking for a Donald Blake reference might just find one.

ABOUT THOR’S JOURNEY AND FAMILY

I know you’ve worked with iconic superheroes before, was Thor more or less daunting to deal with? He’s a real anachronistic, medieval character. How do you bring that into the modern world? Is it ultimately the same as trying to make any superhero realistic and relatable?

Don Payne: Well, I think the challenges are pretty apparent. As you say, Thor’s a unique character, and it’s an unusual story we’re telling. When you’ve got something like Captain America, the premise is easier to get right away — he’s a superhero fighting Nazis in World War II. Whereas we’ve got an extra-dimensional being once worshipped as a god by the ancient Norse who’s banished to earth and stripped of his powers to learn humility, all set amidst the Shakespearean intrigue of a dysfunctional royal family. It’s not as simple to grasp.

You just have to find the things that make Thor timeless and relatable as a character. It certainly helps that he’s charismatic and likeable, albeit flawed. He’s banished for good reason, but I think people will want to go on the journey with him and root for him to find redemption — particularly with Chris Hemsworth’s performance.

I think what really makes Thor relatable are the family relationships. There’s a lot of dysfunction in the House of Odin. Thor’s got a hard-ass father and a jealous brother. But for all of Thor’s hardheaded rebelliousness, he, like Loki, is really just trying to live up to his father’s expectations and make him proud. I think people can relate to that father and son dynamic.

ABOUT SIF, THE WARRIORS THREE AND HEIMDALL

What can you tell me about the parts popular Asgardians such as Heimdall, the Warriors Three, and Sif play in the overall plot? Will we see more of them in other Marvel movies? Is there potential for a Sif spinoff, as she has enjoyed in the comics?

Don Payne: The Warriors Three and Sif are very much like they are in the comics. They’re fierce warriors who are fiercely dedicated to their friend Thor. They’ll follow him anywhere — which might not always be the wisest thing. Also, as in the comics, Heimdall is bound by duty and honor to guard his post on the Rainbow Bridge, and he’s got serious issues with anyone who tries to cross it who would endanger Asgard.

As far as seeing these characters in other movies or their own spin-off films, I think Marvel already has a full slate of projects in development, so I imagine we’ll only see them as part of the Thor franchise. But you never know. I’d ask Kevin Feige if I were you!

ON THE HUMOUR OF THE MOVIE

One element that jumped out at me in the trailer was the comedy – it felt very light and natural, not corny. (Jane reacting to Thor’s name, for example, or the coffee cup scene.) How did you strike the balance between the comedy and drama of the piece? Were there moments where you thought “Ok, this goes too far with the fish-out-of-water joke”?

Don Payne: Well, my hope is we’ve included just enough humor in the script, but no more than that. This isn’t a comedy, and that’s not what I was hired to do. It’s an action film, and, as in all action films, you need those fun moments. But you have to do it sparingly. You don’t want things to get silly.

One thing we all agreed about early on was to make sure we were careful about how we approached the fish-out-of-water moments. We didn’t want Thor to come to earth and suddenly become an idiot for comic relief. Even without his powers, he’s the same person on earth as he was in Asgard — a smart, headstrong warrior. He’s a being from an advanced race who’s used to travelling to other worlds and thinking on his feet. We didn’t want him looking at a television set and going, “What is yon magic box, with phantoms that move and speak inside it?”

Still, he’s on unfamiliar turf, and there’s some fun in that. You just have to find the right balance. You also want to have fun moments and dialogue during the action sequences, so you put those into the script. Of course, those bits are the easiest to cut in editing if you find the jokes are too much or too distracting. You can pick and choose.

ON JANE AND DARCY

I particularly liked how Jane and Darcy react to Thor’s arrival. They aren’t immediately throwing themselves at him. They think he’s hot, but likely to be crazy. I know you’re a staunch feminist, so I imagine their portrayal was important to you. Can you talk about how you approached them? It seems rare to have two girls in a single Marvel film, possibly competing for Thor’s attention. How did that play into the romance, and how did you approach the relationship between Thor and Jane? Did Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings have any input into their characters?

Don Payne: Kat did an amazing job taking the words on the page as written and making them fly. She really embodied the character of Darcy.

After the second trailer came out, I read some people mistakenly speculate that her character was created as a marketing decision to appeal to the youth audience or some such thing — as if the producers sat down and said, “Hmm… this script is good, but we need a character to appeal to the tweens! With current pop cultural references!” I promise you, that wasn’t the case at all. I came up with Darcy because we needed someone to work with Jane Foster, and the character had to have a vastly different background, personality, and world-view from Jane in order to make that relationship interesting. I decided to make her a woman, frankly, because other than Sif and Frigga, we had a very male-heavy cast of characters. I thought it might also be interesting to have someone working for Jane who both frustrated her and who Jane saw as protégé whose potential she could help fully realize.

But I also wanted Darcy to be the voice of the common man. We’ve got Asgardians and astrophysicists, so I wanted someone to say what the average moviegoer might be thinking. If someone in the audience is thinking, “What the hell is that weird, glowing thing?!” Darcy should be asking “What the hell is that weird, glowing thing?!” (That line isn’t actually in the movie, but you get the idea…)

Natalie actually helped out tremendously with the character of Jane Foster. Let’s be honest, Jane Foster in the comics has traditionally been one of the most boring characters in the Marvel Universe. In the film, she’s an astrophysicist, so that makes her more interesting right off the bat. And it doesn’t hurt that she’s played by Natalie, who brings loads of personality and charm to any character she portrays.

Originally in the script, however, Jane was more of a traditional scientist — a hardcore skeptic. But Natalie came to the first rehearsal with the idea of turning that on its end. She suggested making Jane the believer. She thought Jane could be more of a kind of “scientist as poet” — someone who thinks outside of the box, someone whose theories are considered outlandish and are frowned upon by the scientific community. But it’s the kind of thinking that leads to great discoveries. When Thor arrives, she’s willing to take a leap of faith — and she has to pay the consequences for it. Natalie’s input made the character more interesting, improved her relationship with Thor, and, in general, made the story better. And she helped make sure Jane Foster isn’t boring. So I’m grateful to her for that.

During my story meetings with Ken and Marvel, we put a lot of work into the Thor/Jane relationship, and there was much discussion about exactly how and how quickly things should progress between them. I think we succeeded in developing their romance realistically, so it doesn’t feel forced.

ABOUT HEIMDALL AND THE MCU TAKE

There has also been a lot of ugly and foolish controversy about Idris Elba being cast as Heimdall. I don’t like to justify bigotry with attention, but has the reaction surprised you and the rest of the team?

Don Payne: You’d think as a society we’d be beyond this now. The funny thing is, this film was never meant to be a straight representation of traditional Norse mythology. It’s the cinematic take on the Marvel comics take on Norse mythology. In fact, in the reality of our movie, the Norse myths are actually based on our version of the Asgardians, after they visited ancient Norway. The Norse just got some things wrong, based on their primitive understanding of their encounters. (Like, for example, worshiping the Asgardians as gods.)

The bottom line is Idris is great in the movie. I think almost all of the people who are skeptical or have issues with the casting will be convinced when they see the movie — except for all the actual racists out there. But who needs them?

MY TWO CENTS

This interview is so goddamn awesome because it’s so informative. Don Payne talked about a lot of topics and didn’t give just two lines answers but well rounded explanations. There’s so much more than the bits I’ve selected but I couldn’t really copypaste it all, though I wholeheartedly recommend you to read it.

I’d kill to get a peck at the old scripts but definitely there was a lot of work ongoing to produce the definitive one.

Anyway I love how almost all Marvel seems to know Odin is a bad father yet Odin doesn’te ven get a slap on his wrists. Really guys...

I like how he admits Thor’s journey is one of redemption... but really that’s not how you made a redemption arc...

I also find interesting how again we get a confirmation that Sif and the Warriors Three are ‘fiercely dedicated to THEIR FRIEND THOR’.

In the movie Thor says:

Thor: Why don't you tell her how you sent the Destroyer to kill our friends, to kill me?

But the truth is that those were his friends, not both’s. For the Warriors Three and Sif there was never a choice between Thor and Loki. They were Thor’s friends and to him their loyalty went.

I also like how he says he hopes they included enough humor, but no more than that as this is an action film, and, while fun moments are needed they need to have them sparingly of things get silly. How they didn’t want Thor to come to earth and suddenly become an idiot for comic relief. How they didn’t want for the jokes to end up being too distracting. I think this speaks of care for the story.

They even put care in creating Jane and Darcy. I still think they could do Jane better, but still they tried.

#thor odinson #lady sif #fandral #volstagg #hogun #loki odinson #odin borson #heimdall #jane foster #darcy lewis #interview #don payne #mcu thor #9 worlds interview study

1 note · View note

wildlyminiaturesandwich · 5 years

Note

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the announcements from Maxis Monthly? Did the Game Changers know about or have any say in the rebrand?

Ok so I’m gonna answer your last question first lol

The title “Game Changer” is definitely a little confusing because it implies that we actually change the game in some way, but we don’t. Well, most of us don’t. I think some of the bigger Game Changers have a little sway because they know the team personally and have been to the Sims Headquarters and stuff, but for the most part all we do is get early access so that we can provide our individual communities with a glimpse of the pack that goes a little more in depth than just trailers, that way people can see what’s included and decide if they want to buy it, and hopefully bring more people to the franchise in the process. And we definitely didn’t have anything to do with the rebrand, we heard about it at the same time everyone else did.

As for your first question, I’m gonna put it under a cut for a couple reasons: [a] Listen, I have opinions lol and [b] for anyone that is like me and is sensitive to colour contrast, I don’t want anyone getting a nasty headache or sore eyes if they don’t have to. Let’s do this!

So first off, LOVE that they’re adding over 1000+ decorative world objects! There have been so many things over the years in different packs that I’m sure we’ve all seen and been like “Why didn’t you let us use that!?”, and now we’ll be able to! Sucks that some creators spent so much time liberating those things for us only to now have their work be obsolete though 😕

I also think the Create-A-Sim Story Mode looks interesting. I don’t like the idea that you can’t change the sims aspiration and traits though; they’re locked in once you’ve finished answering the questions. I’m not sure how much use I’ll get out of it, as I tend to either pick specific traits based on my sim’s backstory or randomise them, but it’s nice to know the option is there and answering the questions might be fun to see what kind of sim you get!

Now, onto the rebrand.

I just don’t understand it!

Listen, I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t like change; I don’t do well with big changes at all. But this isn’t about that, this is about trying to understand why EA felt the need to rebrand The Sims 4 (which I can’t work out) and why they chose those colours, and I just… don’t understand.

I mean I understand, they’re trying to attract a younger audience with bright shiny things. But I don’t UNDERSTAND, you know? I don’t understand what prompted them to do it now, after almost five years?! Why did they feel the need to change something that didn’t need to be fixed at all? And why they went with this particular colour scheme! It’s so unnecessarily bright! As a graphic designer I’m genuinely horrified by the colours they chose and as a consumer of their product, I’m a little annoyed that they spent time and money on this when there are other things that are more important (like things that are actually broken) that keep getting the “We don’t have the resources” excuse or just flat out ignored.

Here’s the difference between the original box arts and the rebranded ones:

That blue is GOD AWFUL! It’s like Tumblr’s new blue background; I literally have a headache from looking at it! It doesn’t fit with the style of the rest of the game at all. And they claimed in the stream that the new box art designs really make the render sims “pop”… they really don’t. The backgrounds of the DLC packs are way too busy. I just I don’t understand why they couldn’t just stick with the nice clean, minimalist look they had before; it was truly a timeless design. A design that actually made the render sims pop and didn’t detract from them at all with busy backgrounds and headache-inducing colours!

Oh and can we just talk about the new base game box art render for a second? I love it, I really do. It looks cool and I’m excited to get to learn more about these new sims that are being added and according to the Gurus in the stream, all of the stuff on those sims is being added to base game (the stuff that’s not already base game that is). I’m excited about that pink hair BUT take a good look at all the other stuff… look familiar? That’s because most of us have already paid for that stuff. The jacket on the pink haired sim is from Get Famous, the beanie on the sim next to her is from Get to Work, the hair under the beanie is from Dine Out, the bracelet on the sim with the camera is from Seasons, the chef uniform in the middle is from Get to Work, the jacked on the sim up the back with the phone is from Get Together, and the sleeveless hoodie on the sim to the left of that is from Fitness Stuff. They’re all recolours of stuff from other packs. I’m all for free content, because hey it’s free, but I really wish they wouldn’t make things from other packs base game; people paid for that stuff.

Side note: I feel sorry for the people who collect the psychical copies of the games, because unless they can afford to buy new copies of all the packs, any new packs aren’t going to match their old ones now. And also the people who got tattoos of the old plumbob 😕

Which brings me to the plumbob, and yet another before and after:

The new plumbob is whatever; I don’t hate it, I just prefer the original. It matched the one in game and suited the artstyle of the whole game really well, whereas the new one looks too much like The Sims 3 and doesn’t suit The Sims 4 at all. It’s also not going to match the plumbob in-game anymore as for some reason they decided not to change that one? I mean it wouldn’t matter to me if it did because I always have my default file edited to get rid of it, but it just makes no sense to leave the original in there if you’re changing everything else.

New box art, plumbob and stuff aside, the thing that probably annoys me the most about this rebrand is that the pack icons and colours are changing. I get that they probably ran out of colours to choose from for each pack, but the fact that it’s so hard to tell the difference between the colours for the game and stuff packs is gonna be a problem for anyone who has difficulty distinguishing between different colour tones. Mr Sandwich, for example, couldn’t tell that there was a difference between the two, even after I pointed it out to him. Why didn’t they make one of them yellow?!

I personally used to find things from expansions in the catalogue by looking for the colour of each pack icon. “I know the thing I’m looking for is from Get Famous, so I’ll just keep scrolling until I see a pink icon”… well, not anymore:

All expansion packs are now teal, all game packs are now blue (a different blue than the box art blue I might add 😩), and all stuff packs are green; the only difference is the icon on them. And yes, I’m aware you can filter things by pack, that’s what I used to do for stuff and game packs because they were always the same colour, but if I’m just scrolling through say the curtains category, it’s a lot quicker to just scroll once or twice looking for an icon colour than it is to go into the little menu, click on “packs”, scroll down to the pack I want and choose it.

The new pack icons and colours also look awful on the main menu. Here’s a little before and after again:

Urgh that blue! There as nothing wrong with the original menu but now we’re gonna have the god awful blue again… not the point, sorry. Look at those icons! They’re too… saturated? busy? both? I dunno what but they look awful, especially on the blue background! At the very least they should have just made them one solid colour instead of trying to carry over the crystallized look.

And lastly the loading screen….

Again with the gross colour combinations and the background is just plain boring. The old one is much nicer and easier on the eyes.

Maybe it’s because I’m old and not the target audience for this new look but honestly I JUST DON’T GET IT! I understand that EA are trying to attract more people to the game, obviously younger people, but I really don’t think alienating and confusing the people who currently play your game in favour of luring in new people is this is the way to go about it.

Thankfully I’ve already seen a couple of the amazingly talented modders in the community say they’ll do everything they can to either give us back the original menus and loading screens or make a less obnoxious version as soon as they can, so I’m just gonna keep my fingers crossed that it won’t be too difficult for them to do and look forward to downloading those mods so I can play without getting a headache every time I have to look at the main menu and loading screen 😅

NOTE: Before anyone starts shouting at me for “being negative about a free update” just note that anon asked for my thoughts on it; these are my thoughts. If you like the new look that’s great, I’m really happy for you! But anon wanted my honest opinion and I’ve given it. Will this rebrand stop me playing the game? Of course not! The game is still the same no matter what the box art and menus look like, but that doesn’t mean I have to like them and it doesn’t mean I can’t express my disappointment about it all, especially if a follower asks for my opinion about it.

#sandwichasks #Anonymous #saviourhide

602 notes · View notes

chicagoindiecritics · 4 years

Text

New Written Review from Mike Crowley on You’ll Probably Agree: 10 Reasons Why ‘Blade Runner 2049’ is better than ‘Blade Runner’

If you haven’t’ seen the movie, see it then read this. No intro, let’s jump right in.

1. K is a replicant

The reveal of K’s genetic code, or lack thereof, flips everything we assume the movie will be on its head. We are learning along with K what it means to exist. Do we as humans, live like replicants? Do we obey a society that treats us like trash but breath anyways out of the fear of death? Where we viewed “Blade Runner” mostly through Deckard’s eyes who didn’t have much of a personality, K’s lack of a character is his entire purpose for existing. For K to emote is to face death.

Where Harrison Ford’s Deckard entire arc was us questioning if he’s human or not (despite what Ridley Scott unequivocally says), there’s nothing much of substance to Officer Deckard. He gets drunk, retires replicants, that’s it. Name one thing that makes Deckard standout? I’ll wait. Ryan Gosling’s Officer K goes from a machine that is dying spiritually on the inside to someone wanting to have a purpose in life. All while maintaining his composure, if perhaps too much poise for the film. Anything with a conscious can feel. Whether or not how it was made is as relevant as where you were born or what skin color you are. The importance is that you’re here.

K doesn’t seek gratitude nor affirmation. He doesn’t suffer from a narcissistic personality. All he wants is not just to be another useless piece of metal.

2. Deckard has depth this time

Being a daddy changes you a lot. Rick isn’t just a slouchy drunk who likes to shoot robots out of legal obligation. He’s a man who’s principles and love for forbidden things cost him his life. What kind of soul did Deckard have in the first film? Who did he care for? Please don’t say, Rachel, we all know why he was attracted to Rachel. Like Winston in 1984, Deckard rejects Big Brother for a life of pain to gain a glimmer of happiness.

3. It’s horrifyingly relevant

Denis Villeneuve based the imagery in 2049 on a planet that has become degraded with pollution. The buildings are extrapolating enormous amounts of water into the atmosphere, the sea wall at the end of the picture will be our new Mount Rushmore, the orange Vegas is happening now. Denis Villeneuve didn’t predict the earth looking like this, but his production team was still spot on. A picture that transcends its very style, developing a look that will be discussed on its merits separate from the ubiquitous original, is a stunning achievement.

Everything isn’t dystopian because that��s the way it was in the book. It’s what will happen to us in real life, why we’d look for colonies to live on if we had the technology or funding towards NASA to do so. God help us all.

4. The love story questions the essence of relationships

The story between K and Joi further examines the meaning of love, sex, and mortality, with the two being different versions of artificiality. When the default sexed-up version of a naked Joy pops up on the screen, we are emotionally mortified. Some of us may be repulsed to observe a character we care for utilized like a thirsty Godzilla.

The towering ad tries to seduce K tempting him to buy it, rendering everything Joi said to K throughout the picture questionable. Its manipulation solidifies his final decision in life to help another man. We’re not sure if she loved him or said what it thought it wanted him to hear throughout the narrative. Possibly Joi herself didn’t know her intentions. An unusual amount of nuance and uncertainty rests in the love story. Who do we love? Why do we love? Do we love by the heart or the heart of our designers whom we don’t know?

Meanwhile, Deckard was just drunk and horny when he bashed Rachel up against the wall. Sorry, that really was all there was to their passion despite what Wallace says.

5. The movie was an honest commentary about how the world views woman

Here’s a controversial one. A lot of women were disgusted by the way they were depicted in the film. Outwardly watching the movie, I can’t blame them. I’ll let Mr. Villeneuve speak for himself. “I am very sensitive to how I portray women in movies. This is my ninth feature film and six of them have women in the lead role. The first Blade Runner was quite rough on the women, something about the film noir aesthetic. But I tried to bring depth to all the characters. For Joi, the holographic character, you see how she evolves. It’s interesting, I think. What is cinema? Cinema is a mirror on society. Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today. And I’m sorry, but the world is not kind on women.”

Villeneuve is right. Women today are still sexualized. Even with the Me Too movement, women are continually seen as sex objects or subservient slaves in a male-dominated society. Villeneuve isn’t interested in painting a rosy picture that Hollywood does for female roles to make the audiences feel comfortable. It’s an honest reflection on who we are. What we see is what we don’t want to see, but that’s part of the honesty of cinema.

6. The score is mesmerizing

Another point in which I may face some contention. Yes, Vangelis’ score is iconic, but it only works for the era it was composed in. Much of its mixture of bleeps, blops, and wind chimes are a product of its time. A lot of emotion is missing from the score other than the opening theme and “Tears In Rain.” Hearing much of the soundtrack while on the road, I sometimes thought I was listening to something from a porno. Take a listen to “Wait For Me” in the soundtrack and tell me otherwise. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Walfisch’s score is timeless while also paying respect to Vangelis’ synthetic use in the original. It dives into the character’s mind providing a replication of something more human than what Vangelis composed.

7. It thematically ties more directly to “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” than “Blade Runner” does.

“Blade Runner” got the overall gist of Phillip K Dick’s novel. Replicants are scared, trying to find a way to survive as Deckard hunts them down. However, the Andies in the movie almost deserve to die. In their quest for more life, they torture and kill multiple civilians. What did the guy making the eyes do to deserve being frozen to death? What about J.R. Sebastian? He was nothing but pleasant to Roy and Pris. Did Roy eye gauge him when he was done with Tyrell?

Aside from Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), our replicants are fully rounded people. Sapper Morton is a watchful protector who was meant to be a NEXUS 8 combat medic; Joi’s true intentions come into question for herself and us. K’s inner conflict is the central core of the story. All of this revolves around the meaning of existence within a world that has forgotten about you. The introduction of Robo procreation is an evolution of Dick’s ideas, widening his notion of why life exists in the first place.

8. It doesn’t get lost in the scale

Many sequels love scope over characters. Remember “The Matrix”? Remember how they talked about Zion and all these other things we didn’t see? When the sequels brought in Zion, the focus got lost in the spectacle. “The Matrix Reloaded” was a bumbling CGI mess of Agent Smith Clones and cave orgies. “The Matrix Revolutions” was a glorified “Space Invaders” game. Shoot as many sentinels as you can before becoming overwhelmed. Amidst the sequels bumbling chaos, I missed the smaller scale of the Nebuchadnezzar crew.

The story of “2049” could have focused on the replicant uprising with thousands of robots slamming into humans. We could have gone off-world to finally see what all these other colonies we’ve heard about are like. Some have argued that the movie could have borrowed some of its source material from the later novels about replicants creating humans, so on and so forth. All of that sounds incredible in theory. In execution, you would likely get “The Matrix” sequels.

A movie that overreaches in scope, attempting to please fans by showing everything. What we got was an incredibly meaningful story that further explores the themes of the original while building upon its world without going too far. We see what’s beyond L.A. on the dilapidated west coast. The answer is not much. The film aims at minimalism over extravaganza.

9. We’re still talking about it

After being MIA for decades, “Blade Runner 2049” isn’t forgotten. I can’t say the same for “Superman Returns,” “Monsters University,” “The Incredibles 2,” “Live Free or Die Hard,” and “Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull.” In fairness, people do talk about Indy 4, but not in a positive fashion. “Blade Runner 2049” returned to the limelight with disastrous box office results yet high accolades, even gaining the Academy’s attention. Ironically it seemed destined to live the life of its predecessor.

“2049” may have tanked because it was a multimillion-dollar art film that respected its audience’s intelligence. Maybe “Blade Runner” was too far gone amongst the public to gain an interest geared almost entirely towards comic books and Disney. I think the trailers after the reveal teaser looked too generic for my own two cents, turning me off from the film for a short while.

Here we are with Honest Trailers in 2020, making a video about a film that came out in 2017. Bloodsoaked orange skies from the headlines mention the atmosphere of this film. Somewhere, about 100 other people are writing their analysis of “Blade Runner 2049” as I type right now. Seven years from now, we’ll be talking about why the world is still like “Blade Runner 2049.” Villeneuve made a timeless sequel to be remembered.

10. It’s better than the first film and one of the best films in the last ten years

Here’s why you’ll probably agree with this one when you put your pitchfork down. Remove your nostalgia goggles. I know it’s hard to do, please, trust me. Look at the points I made above. Think about how ironic the love story is to our lives. The layers of meaning behind K’s existence is lightyears beyond the featureless Rick Deckard. The picture isn’t flawless. Niander Wallace is spectacularly corny in his scenery-chewing grim monologues. Dr. Eldon Tyrell had some ambiguity regarding the morale of his intentions. For that, I’ll give the original the benefit of my doubt. I understand Ryan Gosling was cast to be intentionally deadpan, but it’s okay to emote once. His distant stare in all of his other performances made it difficult for me to discern myself from the actor’s rather dull persona.

With this said, “Blade Runner 2049” understands cinema. Its atmosphere is why we venture into a dark room that takes us to a different place. Denis Villeneuve’s masterful follow up is one of the most orgasmic cinematic experiences I have witnessed in the last ten years that demands a re-screening in 2022 when theatres reopen at an entirely safe capacity. The style doesn’t overshadow its substance, which is far richer in detail than the original without grasping at blatant metaphors. “Blade Runner 2049” is slow cinema at its finest, letting us into the character’s heads, knowing when to be quiet and when to be loud.

Like “The Empire Strikes Back,” not everyone appreciated the movie at first. Time has been incredibly kind to it, though. I wish the Academy recognized “Blade Runner 2049” beyond its technical marvels in 2018. I suppose it wasn’t the type of picture that catches Oscar voter’s eyes. But it has acquired the audience’s to this day. Now, if you could just look up and to the left for me?

from you’ll probably agree website https://ift.tt/3kxHs7O via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3kG03i7 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #CIFCC #film critics #movies #film #Chicago

5 notes · View notes

vroenis · 4 years

Text

The 2019 Charlie’s Angels Reboot Was A Good Project & Deserved More Respect From Hollywood

We’ve just finished watching the film and there was a lot both J and I really enjoyed about it. We’re critical of media and art in different ways and I certainly don’t speak for them, as for me, oddly I’m lenient in ways that they probably aren’t when it comes to production and culture. I don’t have to dive too deeply into the cultural response to this picture to know how it went down, I’ve come into contact with just enough of it to have a clear understanding of the popular digest. The response is not at all unexpected, it’s just uninformed.

I feel that the 2019 (year of publishing) Charlie’s Angels reboot was a good project with a wonderful spirit. Elizabeth Banks’ aims were clearly evident in the final product, however it may have been shaped along the way, and that it was under-served in the production process likely from the very beginning.

This casting is fantastic.

I do wish there were better cast-ensemble promos for me to lift from the internet and wonder whether that’s another telltale sign of production or whether the heat has just faded since release and they’ve just dropped out of the archives but I struggled to find well composed images.

The first short sizzle-teaser I ever saw for the film, I thought was quite good. Neckbeards and mouthbreathers won’t have paused for a second thought before launching hate for the project - anything in the most vague proximity of feminism or empowerment of women, or even simply just not being centred around men - will be enough to bring snide internet snark by the truckload. It remains interesting that men continue to struggle to live in a world where there can be things that also exist that are not for them, they cannot simply let these other things also exist without contributing in some way. As it were, the project looked good. Sharp, clever, playful, and a timely reboot reclaimed in the most contemporary way. When I looked up the production details and found out Banks was championing it herself, I really took an interest in it. As the first full trailers released, the casting looked great - genuinely diverse and with real chemistry, I hoped it would find the audience it was looking for.

J and I have had a lot going on in our lives over the last two years and still do. We’ve gone to theatres I think twice in that whole time, maybe three times and I think two of those were gift certificates generously paid for by family. So tonight we finally got around to watching Charlie’s Angels. If we’d seen this in theatres, I’d have still be satisfied and had the same evaluation.

A production budget of $55 million is low-balling a project of this scope;

There seems to have been a bit of pre-production shuffling and Banks did a lot of wrangling herself early on.

The whole shoot front to back was just over two months and I assume three countries, US/or studio inclusive.

CGI is noticeably subpar but not exactly cheap either, so it still would have cost a significant portion of that prod. budget. When I say subpar, the CG in this film isn’t bad, please don’t take that criticism as overly negative of the CG artists’ work - remember that people do the best they can with the time and money they’re afforded. If you want to understand what that’s all about, I encourage you to watch Corridor Crew’s channel on YouTube.

Combat choreography with principle actors isn’t great, there’s far too much editing but again, I’m betting there wasn’t a whole lot of money and thus time for training and rehearsing for them, so combat is noticeably slow.

2nd Unit photography looked very good because this kind of thing is very old-school Hollywood in that it contributes to what makes an action/spy movie look like one. Unfortunately, that means it was also expensive. We’re really running out of money here...

There is a lot of licensed music in this feature which isn’t cheap at all. Again this feels super old-school Hollywood and definitely demographic targeting, but it firmly timestamps the feature - any film, really - and unless your film is about capturing the essence of the time IT WAS THE 80′s! or FOLK FESTIVALS JUST BEFORE COVID BROKE OUT as an example of not necessarily wanting to capture the past, I really think trying to nail down pop songs of the hot present ultimately does your film a disservice.

And I’ll address that one first because I feel like it may have been one of the easiest changes to make to lift the overall quality of the picture. Instead of burning thru an immense amount of budget on a pile of pop licenses, I think a calculated risk could have been taken in getting a young contemporary musician to create a slick electronic score in its entirety to back it along side the generic orchestral action fare, no disrespect to Brian Tyler. To be honest, Tyler probably could have done it all himself but was also probably just writing to spec. BUT HEY... WHY NOT SCOUT FOR ANY NUMBER OF AMAZING WOMEN OUT THERE WHO ARE PHENOMENAL ELECTRONIC MUSICIANS AND PRODUCERS what am I talking about it’s Hollywood...

This is what I mean by the project deserving more respect and being under-served. Hollywood doesn’t believe in projects like this, they don’t realise what the project is and why it needs frontier, sincere, good faith hiring and instead under-funds but funds it nevertheless SEE? WE FUNDED IT, WE DID THE GOOD THING, SEE US SUPPORTING THE WIMMINS? WE’RE NOT SEXISTS YOU CAN’T SAY WE’RE SEXISTS YOU CAN HAVE YOUR FILM oh it didn’t do very well except we didn’t let you make it the way you wanted to make it, we still shackled you to

THE SAME TERRIBLE HOLLYWOOD TRADITIONS THAT, BY THE WAY, ARE FAILING OUR MANLY MAN MOVIES FULL OF MEN HOLY SHIT THE DEBT-RECOVERY CYCLE IS REALLY DOING A NUMBER ON OUR INVESTORS I SURE HOPE WE DON’T HAVE TOO MANY CONSECUTIVE FAILURES OR, SAY, SOME KIND OF GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC AND/OR ECONOMIC EVENT HAND-WRINGING

ahem where was I

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross provided the entire soundtrack for The Social Network and it’s both fantastic and timeless. OK oranges and refrigerators, but the principle still stands - I get the intent of Charlie’s Angels was a summer blockbuster but it would have still been elevated by being all the more slick having its own identity in music, having its own sound. You want that soundtrack by that amazing young woman because it sounds fucken awesome.

Charlie’s Angels still needed a few passes by a dialogue editor. I say that a lot. I know my standards are high and it’s a Hollywood film. There’s no problem at all with the vernacular, idioms and the casual language, that was all fine. It’s always just the little details - again, it’s always time and money which - really is just money. A good dialogue editor or script supervisor might have been able to just elevate this whole thing to that super-smooth level of flowing just right. Or perhaps if the actors had spent more time in training and combat rehearsal together, they’d have riffed better and improvised more. They still have good on-screen chemistry but again, more time - more money for time - and things improve.

If you don’t know my taste in film, you could see if you recognise anything in the Film Notes page of this journal, but it’s totally OK if you don’t. Basically most of them are long and boring, with super long takes of people not saying or doing much. I still love Hollywood films tho - I love all cinema and I’ll repeat like a broken record, I should either add a section to Film Notes of my favourite blockbusters or create a page for them. Anyway - Charlie’s Angels still has too much editing mostly due to the aforementioned combat, but also because of that good old Hollywood formulaic style-guide. It’s easy to look up the production credits and pluck out names but on a project like this, it’s difficult to pin the end result on the roles themselves. In these cases, personnel like editors are more like daily jobs rather than creative contributors which again is an immense shame. I catch myself before saying “It doesn’t have to be a Malick/Shortland/Lynch project...” but why not? Why can’t a summer blockbuster have its own fantastic identity? General audiences can identify Michael Bay and Christopher Nolan - sure, one or perhaps both of these people take themselves far too seriously, but why not let a project have its own identity?

We run back into the conversation of protecting investments and style guides.

The easy answer to Bay and Nolan is they’re men, but they’ve also had time to prove their worth over time with previous work and track record. Because they’ve had the privilege to do so. Because they’re men. And most of the people making decisions and letting them experiment and sometimes fail to recover investment on their projects and hey, don’t worry, just try again, are men - and they were permitted to try again because they were themselves men.

Whether individual men do or don’t deserve whatever they did or didn’t get, I’m not here to discuss. Many of them definitely didn’t and I can’t change it.

What we should be changing is how we finance, how we empower and how we hand over autonomy of projects to women in cinema, in the arts - in professional life, in any industry.

YOU DON’T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT

So. Fucking. What.

I can make educated guesses and I can support as much as possible as fair and equitable an arts industry wherever I engage with it.

I really liked Charlie’s Angels. It had a lot of heart. It had a wonderful sense of play and sass and smarts. Yes, a few too many “why didn’t they just shoot the bad guy” moments etc. - again - script reviews, better writers, more time...

More money.

More respect from an industry that doesn’t respect women and women’s autonomy; social, professional, in all aspects.

I hope Elizabeth Banks wants to make another one, can raise the finances for it and has even more control of the next project. More power to her.

#2020 #chrono #writing about film #cinema #Charlie's Angels #Charlie's Angels 2019 #Elizabeth Banks

1 note · View note

timeagainreviews · 5 years

Text

Thoughts leading up to series 12

Happy holidays, friends! I know, I know. It's been a while. I would love to sit here and say I have been away doing important things, but really I've been hibernating. The results of that awful election, mixed with the holidays had left me feeling a bit lethargic as of late. That being said, I had a nice Christmas. Being an immigrant, I don't see my family on holidays. My boyfriend and I spent the day piecing together a Babylon 5 jigsaw puzzle. I made my pal Gerry a celery for his 5th Doctor cosplay and he gifted me a replica of the Li H'sen Chang poster from "The Talons of Weng-Chiang." It was a very Doctor Who Christmas! Sadly, there was no Doctor Who Christmas episode!

Alas, it hardly matters, as new Doctor Who is mere days away! As I did last year, you can expect weekly coverage for each new episode. I'm looking forward to getting back into the groove of consistent writing. Usually, the fandom is more abuzz when the show is actually airing, so please remember to check in with this blog, as I will be watching along with the rest of you!

If you recall, prior to series eleven, I made a list talking about some of my hopes and expectations for the new TARDIS team and the new production team. Seeing as series twelve is just days away from premiering, I thought I might do it again. Let's get to it, shall we?

The Thirteenth Doctor

Seeing Jodie Whittaker back in the TARDIS for another round of adventures has me massively excited. One of the downsides to Christopher Eccleston's run is that we never really got to see him develop the role of the Ninth Doctor. I'm hoping we'll get to see more aspects of her character. Seeing as I don't expect her to regenerate any time soon, there's still much of her personality left to explore. We've met the friendly adorkable Doctor, now let's see her bend a little.

One of my primary complaints about Jodie Whittaker's portrayal as the Doctor was that I didn't think she got scary. While I love her bravery, running headlong into danger, I would like to see a shade or two of her dark side. Up to this point, she's been too friendly to be scary. I know I'm not the only person with this complaint, so it will be interesting to see what a year of hiatus and refocusing will do for her. Honestly, I hope they don't change her too much, as she's pretty great. I'd just like to see them flesh her out a bit.

Other than her personality, I'm also hoping to see some costume variations. The trailer for the new season does give us Jodie in a bow tie, which I am all for. I've also seen a picture where her trousers are black. I'm hoping they continue to tweak her costume here and there, as watching the Doctor's costume evolve over time has always been one of my favourite things about the show.

Chris Chibnall's return

Was there anyone from series eleven that drew more ire than Chris Chibnall? Sure you got the people who hated Jodie solely because she was a woman, but on the level of legitimate concerns, Chibnall was up there. I myself threw a bit of mud in his direction, and I don't feel as though it was without good cause. The general management of the show seemed a bit aimless, despite many promising elements.

Something about the way series eleven was received gave the BBC pause to reevaluate the show's trajectory, and I have a distinct feeling that Chibnall was at the heart of a lot of it. From his lack of a season-long story arc, to the villains being a bit shit, to an overly dour tone, his first year as showrunner left something to be desired. The fact that we didn't even get a single webisode during this gap year shows me that they're still not 100% sure what to do with Doctor Who.

However, having said this, Chibnall's core TARDIS team is one of the most exciting aspects of series twelve. I can't wait to see more from this great line up of characters. And if the exciting trailer for this new series is anything to go off, we're in for quite a ride. Chibnall's most recent endeavour as showrunner was last year's "Resolution," a much-needed bit of classic Who villainy in the form of a Dalek. I was left feeling optimistic that Chibnall was capable of delivering solid storytelling. And that's the operative word- optimistic. As long as he doesn't get needlessly gritty, I'm cautiously optimistic that this year-long hiatus has yielded positive results.

The Companions

Like many other viewers, my chief complaint about the companions has to be Yaz. She really got shafted on the level of character development last year. When you have someone as talented as Mandip Gill, it's a shame to waste her. I know the fandom was quite vocal about this fact, so I fully expect to see the show give her more time in the spotlight. I don't know anyone who disliked her character, which is a good sign that the fandom wants more of her.

Ryan and Graham were two characters that I felt got a great bit of character development. The moment when Ryan finally calls Graham "granddad," was a truly exciting moment for two characters we had grown to love. The logical next step, at least in my mind, is to test the boundaries of this new relationship. I'd really love to see Graham meet a new love interest. Introducing someone into Graham's life would make Ryan have to broaden his definition of family even further. It might also be a catalyst for his own personal growth.

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't also see one or more of the companions depart from the TARDIS. My gut says it would be Graham, but I wouldn't be surprised if all three of them left at the end of the series. As much as I love the current companions, I would love to see what energy a new companion or two might do for Jodie's Doctor.

The Villains

Prior to series eleven, I was feeling very optimistic for new Doctor Who. That is until I read an article where Chris Chibnall announced there would be no returning villains. Other than the announcement that Chibnall would be showrunner, nothing had made me more concerned for the show's future than "no returning villains." It's not that returning villains are a must for Doctor Who. It's actually a rather brave thing to attempt. The reason it's brave is that if you're going to leave out classic baddies, you've got to justify your decision by crafting new classics. And I'm sorry, but some Slipknot dude with teeth in his face is not classic.

From what I've seen of the trailer and promotional stills, we're looking at at least three returning creatures from the Whoniverse. We've all seen the picture of Jodie staring down the Judoon. If I am completely honest, those have left me with the least amount of hype, as they weren't ever even full-on villains. I've always found the Judoon slightly hokey, so I could take or leave them. The plus side is that there is still plenty of room to develop them as a species. Are there non-Shadow Proclamation Judoon? Are there evil factions? I'm curious if nothing else.

Another familiar face is the Cybermen. While I feel like both the RTD and Moffat eras used the Cybermen ad nauseam, they're still a classic baddie with a solid track record. It appears they'll have something to do with the finale and that "timeless child," storyline I'm uninterested in, so fine, sure, ok. The real alien species I'm excited for is the Racnoss! Much like the Judoon, the Racnoss are also underdeveloped. I wasn't a big fan of them the first time around, which is why I'm excited for more. I'm curious to see what depth can be found in these campy arachnids. If nothing else, the makeup is fun.

The Guest Actors

Series eleven treated us to a surprisingly tender performance from Lee Mack in "Kerblam!" We got a decent turn by Mark Addy, working with not a lot to go off as the underwritten Paltraki. But without a doubt, the best performance came in the form of Alan Cumming's King James. Not only was he as hilarious as he was loathsome, but he also elevated what could have been a more straightforward performance, by finding that sweet spot of camp and contemptible.

That being said, with actors like Stephen Fry, Lenny Henry, and classic Doctor Who alum Robert Glenister joining the show, I'm hopeful we'll get at least one memorable performance out of the lot. I've not followed many of the ins and outs of the storylines, so I have no idea who anyone is playing other than Goran Višnjić as Nikola Tesla. That being said, the addition of Tesla to the series seems an obvious fit. He was an eccentric man who was a bit weird about his pet bird. I expect his story to be one of the stranger ones we'll enjoy this year, or at least, it had better be.

The BBC's involvement

I'm hoping that in this last year, the BBC weren't just reevaluating Chris Chibnall's direction for the show, but their own involvement as well. They got rid of Bake Off and Formula One, Top Gear's audience followed Clarkson over to Amazon. All that's left are partisan news coverage, QI, Countryfile, and Doctor Who. Oh and I guess "His Dark Materials," but I don't know anyone who's talking about that show. As I said earlier, it's been a year of nothing from Doctor Who as a series. Other than comics and a less than perfect VR game, we've gotten nothing from the Thirteenth Doctor and the fam. Not even a novel or webisode to tide us over. How hard would it have been, while filming series twelve, to shoot a quick little skit on the TARDIS set? The Moffat era did this a lot, and it was always nice to see a little bit of Doctor Who while waiting for more episodes.

As the last vestige of the BBC's once-great television empire, you would think they might start to give a shit about Doctor Who. I know it's a crazy concept, but perhaps shelving one of your best shows for a year wasn't the best option. It would be nice to see them put more money and effort into the show. It would be a welcome sight to see them also put more money into the budget for things like merchandise or extended universe media. We've got three books for the current Doctor and that was last year. David Tennant had over thirty novels, while Matt Smith's Doctor appeared in over 15, and Capaldi only appeared in nine. Do you remember the last time we got a Character Options figure that wasn't a repaint of another figure? The most recent one we got was Harry Sullivan, and I'm pretty sure the only new element to that figure was his head. I've seen previews of the new companion figurines, and they're great, but I want more.

Perhaps I sound a bit spoiled. Many shows never expand beyond their allotted episodes, but this is Doctor Who, a show with a broader reach than your telly. It seemed last year that they were finally giving the show its dues. There were billboards of Jodie's face everywhere. The hype was palpable. Now, it's just four days from series twelve, and I've not even seen a bus ad for the new show. A woman I see out on dog walks was surprised when I told her the show was returning on the first of January. She had no idea. This is the Doctor Who audience that they're failing, not people like me who count the days like an advent calendar. The BBC needs to decide once in for all if they're going to give Doctor Who the respect it deserves, or sell it someone who will.

And that's it for now, friends. I hope you're all just as excited as I am to be back in the blue box. If all goes as planned, I should have a new review up the day after each episode. I'm optimistic that I'll have some great things to say!

#doctor who #series 12 #Jodie Whittaker #Thirteenth Doctor #chris chibnall #dalek #cybermen #yazmin khan #Ryan Sinclair #Graham O'Brien #mandip gill #tosin cole #Bradley Walsh #bbc #stephen fry #racnoss #judoon

9 notes · View notes