#at this rate Robin' biggest character development I could ask for is for him to comfortably drink pc' milk STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

paralleljulieverse · 4 years

Photo

“We’ll be educating Archie, so we’ll be busy for a while...”

We are a little late with this commemorative post, but last month -- 6 June, to be precise -- marked the 70th anniversary of the debut of Educating Archie (1950-59), the legendary BBC radio series starring ventriloquist Peter Brough and his dummy, Archie Andrews. Fourteen-year-old Julie Andrews was part of the original line-up for the 1950 premiere season of Educating Archie and she would remain with the show for two full seasons till late-1951/early-1952.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of Educating Archie during the ‘Golden Age' of BBC Radio in the 1950s. Across the ten years it was on the air, it grew from a popular series on the Light Programme into a “national institution” (Donovan, 74). At its peak, the series averaged a weekly audience of over 15 million Britons, almost a third of the national population (Elmes, 208). Even the Royals were apparently fans, with Brough and Archie invited to perform several times at Windsor Castle (Brough, 162ff). The show found equal success abroad, notably in Australia, where a special season of the series was recorded in 1957 (Foster and First, 133).

Audiences couldn’t get enough of the smooth-talking Brough and his smart-lipped wooden sidekick, and the show soon spawned a flood of cross-promotional spin-offs and marketing ventures. There were Educating Archie books, comics, records, toys, games, and clothing. An Archie Andrews keyring sold half a million units in six months and the Archie Andrews iced lolly was one of the biggest selling confectionary items of the decade (Dibbs 201). More than a mere radio programme, Educating Archie became a cultural phenomenon that “captured the heart and mood of a nation” (Merriman, 53).

On paper, the extraordinary success of Educating Archie can be hard to fathom. After all, what is the point of a ventriloquist act on the radio where you can’t see the artist’s mouth or, for that matter, the dummy? Ventriloquism is, however, more than just the simple party trick of “voice-throwing”. A good “vent” is at heart a skilled actor who can use his or her voice to turn a wooden doll into a believable character with a distinct personality and dynamic emotional life. It is why many ventriloquists have found equal success as voice actors in animation and advertising (Lawson and Persons, 2004).

Long before Educating Archie, several other ventriloquist acts showed it was possible to make a successful transition to the audio-only medium of radio. Most famous of these was the American Edgar Bergen who, with his dummy Charlie McCarthy, had a top-rating radio show which ran in the US for almost two decades from 1937-1956 (Dunning, 226). Other local British precedents were provided by vents such as Albert Saveen, Douglas Craggs and, a little later, Arthur Worsley, all of whom had been making regular appearances on radio variety programmes for some time (Catling, 81ff; Street, 245).

By his own admission, Peter Brough was not the most technically proficient of ventriloquists. A longstanding joke -- possibly apocryphal but now the stuff of showbiz lore -- runs that he once asked co-star Beryl Reid if she could ever see his lips move. “Only when Archie’s talking,” was her deadpan response (Barfe, 46). But Brough -- described by one critic as “debonair, fresh-faced and pleasantly toothy” (Wilson “Dummy”, 4) -- had an engaging performance style and he cultivated a “charismatic relationship with his doll as the enduring and seductive Archie Andrews” (Catling, 83). Touring the variety circuit throughout the war years, he worked hard to perfect his one-man comedy act with him as the sober straight man and Archie the wise-cracking cut-up.

Inspired by the success of the aforementioned Edgar Bergen -- whose NBC radio shows had been brought over to the UK to entertain US servicemen during the war -- Brough applied to audition his act for the BBC (Brough, 43ff). It clearly worked because the young vent soon found himself performing on several of the national broadcaster’s variety shows. His turn on one of these, Navy Mixture, proved so popular that he secured a regular weekly segment, “Archie Takes the Helm” which ran for forty-six weeks (ibid, 49). While appearing on Navy Mixture, Brough worked alongside a wide range of other variety artists, including, as it happens, a husband and wife performing team by the name of Ted and Barbara Andrews.

Fast forward several years to 1950 and, in response to his surging popularity, Brough was invited by the BBC to mount a fully-fledged radio series built around the mischievous Archie (Brough, 77ff). A semi-sitcom style narrative was devised -- written by Brough’s longtime writing partner, Sid Colin and talented newcomer, Eric Sykes -- in which Archie was cast as “a boy in his middle teens, naughty but lovable, rather too grown up for his years-- especially where the ladies are concerned -- and distinctly cheeky” (Broadcasters, 5). Brough was written in as Archie’s guardian who, sensing the impish lad needed to be “taken strictly in hand before he becomes a juvenile delinquent,” engages the services of a private tutor to “educate Archie” (ibid.). Filling out the weekly tales of comic misadventure was a roster of both regular and one-off characters. In the first season, the Australian comedian, Robert Moreton, was Archie's pompous but slightly bumbling tutor, Max Bygraves played a likeable odd-job man, and the multi-talented Hattie Jacques voiced the part of Agatha Dinglebody, a dotty neighbourhood matron who was keen on the tutor, along with several other comic characters (Brough, 78-81).

In keeping with the variety format popular at the time, it was decided the series would also feature weekly musical interludes. “Our first choice” in this regard, recalls Peter Brough (1955), “was little Julie Andrews”:

“A brief two years before [Julie] had begun her professional career as a frail, pig-tailed, eleven-year-old singing sensation, startling the critics in Vic Oliver’s ‘Starlight Roof’ at the London Hippodrome by her astonishingly mature coloratura voice. Many people of the theatrical world were ready to scoff, declaring the child’s voice was a freak, that it could not last or that such singing night after night would injure her throat. They did not reckon with Julie’s mother, Barbara, and father, Ted: nor with her singing teacher, Madame Stiles-Allen. In their care, the little girl, who had sung ‘for the fun of it’ since she was seven, continued a meteoric career that has few, if any rivals” (81).

As further context for Julie’s casting in Educating Archie, the fourteen-year-old prodigy had already appeared on several earlier BBC broadcasts and was thus well known to network management. In fact, Julie had already worked with the show’s producer, Roy Speers, on his BBC variety show, Starlight Hour in 1948 (Julie Andrews Radio Artists File I).

Julie’s role in Educating Archie was essentially that of the show’s resident singer who would come out and perform a different song each week. In the first volume of her memoirs, Julie recalls:

“If I was lucky, I got a few lines with the dummy; if not, I just sang. Working closely with Mum and [singing teacher] Madame [Stiles-Allen], I learned many new songs and arias, like ‘The Shadow Waltz’ from Dinorah; ‘The Wren’; the waltz songs from Romeo and Juliet and Tom Jones; ‘Invitation to the Dance’; ‘The Blue Danube’; ‘Caro Nome’ from Rigoletto; and ‘Lo, Hear the Gentle Lark’” (Andrews 2008, 126)

Other numbers performed by Julie during her appearances on Educating Archie include: “The Pipes of Pan”, “My Heart and I”, “Count Your Blessings”, “I Heard a Robin”, and “The Song of the Tritsch-Tratsch” (”Song Notes”, 11; Julie Andrews Radio Artists File I). Additional musical interludes were provided by other regulars on the show such as Max Bygraves, the Hedley Ward Trio and the Tanner Sisters.

Alongside her weekly showcase song, Julie’s role was progressively built into a character of sorts as the eponymously named ‘Julie’, a neighbourhood friend of Archie’s. In a later BBC retrospective, Brough recalled that it was actually Julie’s idea to flesh out her part:

“We were thinking of Educating Archie and dreaming up the idea...and we wanted something fresh in the musical spot. We had just heard Julie Andrews with Vic Oliver in Starlight Roof...and we thought, why not Julie with that lovely fresh voice, this youngster with a tremendous range? So we asked her to come and take part in the trial recording and she came up with her mother and her music teacher, Madame Stiles-Allen...and Julie was a tremendous hit, absolutely right from the start. She used to sing those lovely Strauss waltzes...and all those lovely songs and hit the high notes clear as a bell. And then she came to me and said, ‘Look...I’m just doing the song spot, do you think I could just do a line or two with Archie and develop a little talking, a little character work?’ So, I said, ‘I don’t see why not’, So we talked to Eric Sykes and Roy Speer and, suddenly, we started with Julie talking lines back-and-forth with Archie, and Eric developed the character for her of the girl-next-door for Archie, very sweet, quite different from the sophisticated young lady she is today, but a lovely sweet character” (cited in Benson 1985)

As intimated here, an initial trial recording of Educating Archie was commissioned by the BBC, ostensibly to gauge if the format would work or not. This recording was made with the full cast on 15 January 1950 and was sufficiently well received for the broadcaster to green-light a six-episode pilot series to start in June as a fill-in for the popular comedy programme, Take It From Here during that series’ summer hiatus (Pearce, 4). The first episode of Educating Archie was scheduled for Tuesday 6 June in the prime 8:00pm evening slot, with a repeat broadcast the following Sunday afternoon at 1:45pm (Brough, 88ff).

All of the shows for Educating Archie were pre-recorded at the BBC’s Paris Cinema in Lower Regent Street. Typically, each week’s episode would be rehearsed in the afternoon and then performed and recorded later that evening in front of a live audience. Julie’s fee for the show was set at fifteen guineas (£15.15s.0d) for the recording, with an additional seven-and-a-half guineas (£7.17s.6d) per UK broadcast, 3 guineas (£3.3s.0d) for the first five overseas broadcasts, and one-and-a-half guineas for all other broadcasts (£1.11s.6d) (Julie Andrews Radio Artists File I).

The initial six-episodes of Educating Archie proved so popular that the BBC quickly extended the series for another six episodes from 18 July to 22 August (“So Archie,” 5). Of these Julie appeared in four -- 25 July, 1, 8, 14 August -- missing the fist and last episode due to prior performance commitments with Harold Fielding. Subsequently, the show -- and, with it, Julie’s contract -- was extended for a further eight episodes (29 August-17 October), then again for another eight (23 October-18 December). These later extensions were accompanied by a scheduling shift from Tuesday to Monday evening, with the Sunday afternoon repeat broadcast remaining unchanged (Julie Andrews Radio Artists File I). All up, the first season of Educating Archie ran for thirty weeks, five times its original scheduled length. During that time, the show’s audience jumped from an initial 4 million listeners to over 12 million (Dibbs, 200-201). It was also voted the top Variety Show of the year in the annual National Radio and Television Awards, a mere four-and-a-half months after its debut (Brough, 98; Wilson “Archie”, 3).

Given the meteoric success of the show, the cast of Educating Archie found themselves in hot demand. Peter Brough (1955) relates that there was a growing clamour from theatre producers for stage presentations of Educating Archie, including an offer from Val Parnell for a full-scale show at the Prince of Wales in the heart of the West End (101). He demurred, feeling the timing wasn’t yet right and that it was too soon for the show “to sustain a box office attraction in London” -- though he left the door open for future stage shows (102).

One venture Brough did green-light was a novelty recording of Jack and the Beanstalk with select stars of Educating Archie, including Julie. Spread over two sides of a single 78rpm, the recording was a kind of abridged fantasy episode of the show cum potted pantomime with Brough/Archie as Jack, Hattie Jacques as Mother, and Peter Madden as the Giant. Julie comes in at the very end of the tale to close proceedings with a short coloratura showcase, “When We Grow Up” which was written specially for the recording by Gene Crowley. Released by HMV in December 1950, the recording was pitched to the profitable Christmas market and, backed by a substantial marketing campaign, it realised brisk sales (“Jack,” 12). It was also warmly reviewed in the press as “a very well presented and most enjoyable disc” (“Disc,” 3) and “something to which children will listen again and again” (Tredinnick, 628).

In light of its astonishing success, there was little question that Educating Archie would be renewed for another season in 1951. In fact, it occasioned something of a bidding war with Radio Luxembourg, a competitor commercial network, courting Brough with a lucrative deal to bring the show over to them (Brough, 103-4). Out of a sense of professional loyalty to the BBC -- and, no doubt, sweetened by a counter-offer described by the Daily Express as “one of the biggest single programme deals in the history of radio variety in Britain” (cited in Brough, 104) -- Brough re-signed with the national broadcaster for a further three year contract.

For their part, the BBC was keen to get the new season up on the air as early as possible with an April start-date mooted. Brough, however, wanted to give the production team an extended break and, more importantly, secure enough time to develop new material with his writing team. Rising star scriptwriter, Eric Sykes was already overstretched with a competing assignment for Frankie Howerd so a later start for August was eventually confirmed (Brough, 105ff). The Educating Archie crew did, however, re-form for a one-off early preview special in March, Archie Andrew’s Easter Party, which reunited much of the original cast, including Julie (Gander, 6).

The second 1951 season started in earnest in late-July with pre-recordings and rehearsals, followed by the first episode which was broadcast on 3 August. This time round, the programme would air on Friday evenings at 8:45pm with a repeat broadcast two days later on Sunday at 6:00pm. The cast remained more-or-less the same with the exception of Robert Moreton who had, in the interim, secured his own radio show. Replacing him as Archie’s tutor was another up-and-coming comedy talent by the name of Tony Hancock (Brough, 111). It was the start of what would prove a star-making cycle of substitute tutors over the years which would come to include Harry Secombe, Benny Hill, Bruce Forsyth, and Sid James (Gifford 1985, 76). A further cast change would occur midway through Season 2 with the departure of Max Bygraves who left in October to pursue a touring opportunity as support act for Judy Garland in the United States (Brough, 113-14).

The second season of Educating Archie ran for 26 weeks from 3 August 1951 till 25 January 1952. Of these, Julie performed in 18 weekly episodes. She missed two episodes in late September due to other commitments and was absent from later episodes after 14 December due to her starring role in the Christmas panto, Aladdin at the London Casino. She was originally scheduled to return to Educating Archie for the final remaining shows of the season in January and her name appears in newspaper listings for these episodes. However, correspondence on file at the BBC Archives suggests she had to pull out due to ongoing contractual obligations with Aladdin which had extended its run due to popular demand (Julie Andrews Radio Artists File I).

Season 2 would mark the end of Julie’s association with Educating Archie. When the show resumed for Season 3 in September 1952, there would be no resident singer. Instead, the producers adopted “a policy of inviting a different guest artiste each week” (Brough 118). They also pushed the show more fully into the realm of character-based comedy with the inclusion of Beryl Reid who played a more subversive form of juvenile girl with her character of Monica, the unruly schoolgirl (Reid, 60ff). Moreover, by late 1952, Julie was herself “sixteen going on seventeen” and fast moving beyond the sweet little girl-next-door kind of role she had played on the show.

Still, there can be no doubt that the two years Julie spent with Educating Archie provided a major boost to her young career. Broadcast weekly into millions of homes around the nation, the programme afforded Julie a massive regular audience beyond anything she had yet experienced and helped consolidate her growing celebrity as a “household name”. Because Archie only recorded one day a week, Julie was still able to continue a fairly busy schedule of concerts and live performances, often travelling back to London for the broadcast before returning to various venues around the country (Andrews, 127). As a sign of her evolving star status, promotion for many of these appearances billed her as “Julie Andrews, 15 year old star of radio and television” (”Big Welcome,” 7) or even “Julie Andrews the outstanding radio and stage singing star from Educating Archie” (”Stage Attractions,” 4). In fact, Julie made at least two live appearances in this era alongside Brough and other members of the Educating Archie crew with a week at the Belfast Opera House in October 1951 and another week in November at the Gaumont Theatre Southampton (Programme, 1951).

Additionally, the fact that the episodes of Educating Archie were all pre-recorded means that the show provides a rare documentary record of Julie’s childhood performances. To date, several episodes with Julie have been publicly released. These include recordings of her singing “The Blue Danube” from 30 October 1950 and the popular Kathryn Grayson hit, “Love Is Where You Find It” from 19 October 1951. Given recordings of the series were issued to networks around Britain and even sent abroad suggests there must be others in existence and, so, we can only hope that more episodes with Julie will surface in time.

Reflecting on the cultural significance of Educating Archie, Barrie Took observes that, “Over the years [the] programme became a barometer of success; more than any other radio comedy it was the showcase of the emerging top-liner” (104). Indeed, the show’s alumni roll reads like a veritable “who’s who” of post-war British talent: Peter Brough, Eric Sykes, Hattie Jacques, Max Bygraves, Tony Hancock, Alfred Marks, Beryl Reid, Harry Secombe, Bruce Forsyth, Benny Hill, Warren Mitchell, Sid James, Marty Feldman, Dick Emery (Foster and Furst, 128-32). All big talents and even bigger names. However, it is perhaps fitting that, in a show built around a pint-sized dummy, the biggest name of all to come out of Educating Archie -- and, sadly, the only cast-member still with us today -- should be “little Julie Andrews”.

Sources:

Andrews, Julie. Home: A Memoir of My Early Years. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2008.

Baker, Richard A. Old Time Variety: An Illustrated History. Barnsley: Remember When, 2010.

Barfe, Louis. Turned Out Nice Again: The Story of British Light Entertainment. London: Atlantic Books, 2008.

Benson, John (Pres.). “Julie Andrews, A Celebration, Part 2.” Star Sound Special. Luke, Tony (Prod.), radio programme, BBC 2, 7 October 1985.

“Big Welcome for Julie Andrews.” Staines and Ashford News. 17 November 1950: 7.

Broadcasters, The. “Both Sides of the Microphone.” Radio Times. 4 June 1950: 5.

Brough, Peter. Educating Archie. London: Stanely Paul & Co., 1955.

Catling, Brian. “Arthur Worsley and the Uncanny Valley.” Articulate Objects: Voice, Sculpture and Performance. Satz, A. and Wood, J. eds. Bern: Peter Lang, 2009: 81-94.

Dibbs, Martin. Radio Fun and the BBC Variety Department, 1922—67. Chams: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018.

“Disc Dissertation.” Lincolnshire Echo. 11 December 1950: 3.

Donovan, Paul. “A Voice from the Past.” The Sunday Times. 17 December 1995: 74.

Dunning, John. On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Elmes, Simon. Hello Again: Nine Decades of Radio Voices. London: Random House, 2012.

Fisher, John. Funny Way to Be a Hero. London: Frederick Muller, 1973.

Foster, Andy and Furst, Steve. Radio Comedy, 1938-1968: A Guide to 30 Years of Wonderful Wireless. London: Virgin Books, 1996.

Gander, L Marsland. “Radio Topics.” Daily Telegraph. 13 March 1951: 6.

Gifford, Denis. The Golden Age of Radio: An Illustrated Companion. London: Batsford, 1985.

____________. “Obituary: Peter Brough.” The Independent. 7 June 1999: 11.

“Jack and the Beanstalk.” His Masters Voice Record Review. Vol. 8, no. 4, December 1950: 12.

Julie Andrews Radio Artists File I, 1945-61. Papers. BBC Written Archives Centre, Caversham.

Lawson, Tim and Persons, Alissa. The Magic Behind the Voices: A Who's Who of Cartoon Voice Actors. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi Press, 2004.

Merriman, Andy. Hattie: The Authorised Biography of Hattie Jacques. London: Aurum Press, 2008.

Pearce, Emery. “Dummy is Radio Star No. 1.” Daily Herald. 6 April 1950: 4.

Programme for Peter Brough and All-Star Variety at the Belfast Opera House, 22 October 1951, Belfast.

Programme for Peter Brough and All-Star Variety at the Gaumont Theatre Southampton, 12 November 1951, Southampton.

Reid, Beryl. So Much Love: An Autobiography. London: Hutchinson, 1984

“So Archie Stays on.” Daily Mail. 1 July 1950: 5.

“Song Notes.” The Stage. 28 September 1950: 11.

“Stage Attractions: Arcadia.” Lincolnshire Standard. 18 August 1951: 4

Street, Seán. The A to Z of British Radio. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009.

Took, Barry. Laughter in the Air: An Informal History of British Radio Comedy. London: Robson Books, 1976.

Tredinnick, Robert. “Gramophone Notes.” The Tatler and Bystander. 13 December 1950: 628.

Wilson, Cecil. “Dummy Steals the Spotlight.” Daily Mail. 27 May 1950: 4.

____________. “Archie, Petula Soar to the Top.” Daily Mail. 20 October 1950: 3.

#julie andrews #educating archie #peter brough #archie andrews #radio #bbc #british #1950s #ventriloquist #hattie jacques #max bygraves #tony hancock

20 notes · View notes

xb-squaredx · 4 years

Text

The Unwritten “Rules” of Smash Bros. Speculation

Super Smash Bros. has become one of the most ambitious crossovers in all of gaming, featuring characters from seemingly endless franchises duking it out. With each new installment, fans eagerly make the cases for their preferred choices, and with the advent of DLC, even after the game launches fans still speculate as to who will join the battle. The most recent title, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, is no exception. As of this writing, we have six more DLC characters incoming for Ultimate, and speculation is in full swing. While it IS fun to speculate, attempting to narrow an almost infinite number of choices down to just six is quite the undertaking, so I thought it’d be more interesting to instead look at the arguments people often have for or against certain inclusions. I aim to compile the “rules” of who can and cannot get into Smash Bros. and see which rules hold water and which ones are on thin ice. Let’s begin!

NINTENDO ONLY

I’ll start with what was once one of the most binding rules for speculation. Smash Bros. was at one time, a celebration and collection of solely Nintendo-owned IPs, and despite fans pleas, various other characters from other companies surely couldn’t join in the fun. At least, until Brawl. Snake from the Metal Gear franchise and Sonic the Hedgehog himself made the leap from dream to reality as they were added to the roster and from that day onwards, nothing has ever been the same. In fact, we’re at a point now where most wish lists are populated almost entirely by third-party characters. It’s safe to say that this particular rule WAS broken and should be casted aside, however in its place another, similar rule has cropped up.

FRIENDLY RELATIONS

OK, so Nintendo doesn’t need to own the character in question…but they damn well better have been on a Nintendo console! The better the relationship between Nintendo and the game/franchise in question, the better chance they have of appearing in Smash, at least according to some people. Looking at our guests in general, this rule DOES seem to hold some water. Snake is a tad of a stretch, as the bulk of the Metal Gear Solid games aren’t on Nintendo platforms, though Twin Snakes exists, and the original Metal Gear was on the NES, so you could make an argument for him. Sonic, Mega Man, Simon and Pac-Man have made plenty of appearances on Nintendo consoles and while Microsoft owns Banjo now, he got his start with Nintendo. But then we have Cloud and Joker, who throw a wrench into the works. Both characters at the time of their playable debut had only appeared in spinoffs on Nintendo systems, with the games they made their ACTUAL debut in not appearing on any Nintendo console. Cloud famously made his debut in the first Final Fantasy game to NOT be on a Nintendo system. Over the years however, Cloud would appear in cameos in smaller spinoffs, as early as the Game Boy Advance as a summon in Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, and as per Sakurai’s own explanation, Cloud is meant to be a rep for the franchise on the whole, and there were indeed six other games Nintendo had on their consoles as “justification.” For Joker however, the Persona series stuck to Sony platforms, though the series they spun off from, Shin Megami Tensei, DID have tied to Nintendo, and the spinoff Persona Q was released as a 3DS title, so he gets in…BARELY.

I do find it interesting to note that, even if fans might not hold belief in this “rule,” other developers seem to respect it. When asked if Dante from the Devil May Cry series could see a playable appearance in Smash, Capcom instead stated that his own games would have to be on Switch first…and then a few months later, they put Devil May Cry 1 on Switch. Is this merely a coincidence? Maybe, but it’s pretty funny all the same. So far this rule has been bent, not broken, but I think it’s only a matter of time. This of course isn’t the only “rule” that’s open to some wiggle-room.

2 SEXY 2 VIOLENT

Nintendo is a family-friendly company and while they DO occasionally opt for more mature titles, they seem to put a lot of importance on casting a wide net and not going for too many ratings above T for Teen, or the rough equivalent in Europe and Japan. So when it comes to Smash, which is in part a celebration of all of Nintendo (plus guests), it pays to make sure THAT game keeps a similar rating. So any character addition that could jeopardize that rating is immediately suspect in the eyes of fans, and I’m inclined to agree. Throughout Smash’s life, we’ve seen how Nintendo and Sakurai have had to bow to the almighty ratings board. Items like the Ray Gun are designed to be as cartoonish as possible, and while this IS a game about smacking people around with punches, kicks, tail swipes and the like, it’s often presented in a very over-the-top manner to lower the impact. Now, there’s plenty of ways to play up the more cartoonish aspects of violence for new playable reps, but there seem to be limits. Bayonetta can’t use her gory Torture Attacks, for one, and when it comes to firearms, the series is a little gun-shy with depicting them. Snake famously only uses explosives, despite firearms being pretty common in his games. However in recent years we’ve seen some deviations from this. Bayonetta is allowed to use her guns, and Joker himself prominently uses his own gun. Granted, Bayonetta’s firing magic bullets and technically Joker’s using a model gun, but they’re still more realistic than the standard Smash shooter. So while it’s POSSIBLE to see the likes of the Mortal Kombat cast or the Doomslayer himself, I also wouldn’t hold my breath.

(Credit to @LetItMelo on Twitter)

God forbid you show any skin either! If a character is overtly sexual in their design, there’s a good chance they’ll be excluded from all the smashing going on, and we’ve seen this in various different forms throughout the series. Following the onslaught of horny players using the in-game camera to look under character’s skirts and the like in Melee and Brawl, female character models now have nothing but darkness underneath skirts and dresses. Or you can be like Rosalina and have the entire universe there. Even non-playable characters can’t escape alteration or even outright removal. Data suggests that the Fire Emblem character Tharja was supposed to be a trophy in the 3DS version of Smash 4, however the trophy does not exist in-game and the fact that her outfit is mostly a sheer bodysuit likely has something to do with it. In Ultimate in particular, the Xenoblade character Mythra had her Spirit altered; her boob window was removed and she gained tights on her otherwise bare legs. And this was just for some 2D art! Then there’s the case of Mai Shiranui, who was excluded from making a cameo on Terry Bogard’s stage, despite the multitude of other SNK character cameos and her status as one of the more recognizable SNK characters. In the Japanese version of Terry’s showcase video, Sakurai specifically states that the ratings board prevented them from including her.

But Bayonetta got in! And sure, she did, but with some concessions made. Her Wicked Weaves no longer leave her naked, only losing part of her outfit, and her more sexual traits are downplayed. There’s also Zero Suit Samus’ uh…let’s say alluring design, so there’s clearly wiggle room here, but at the same time both characters in question are still relatively covered up. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a Senran Kagura or Dead or Alive character to make the leap to playable status but I AM saying that they’d probably have to cover up or get some breast reduction surgery before they can make their debut. Still, ratings are not set in stone and over time, things change and gray areas emerge. With that in mind, I suppose we might as well take a look at one of the murkier, unclear “rules” fans have invented.

HE’S AN ASSIST, GET OVER IT

Being a playable character isn’t the ONLY way to be represented in Super Smash Bros. of course, and throughout the years we’ve seen various ways to get in on the fun. Stages, items, trophies, assists, Spirits, and Mii costumes all exist as ways to make a nod to virtually any franchise under the sun, but the question remains…if you’re already represented in such a way, do you have a shot at being made playable? Looking across the games, the answer would seem to be “Maybe in the next game.” Pit was a trophy in Melee before being brought back (and redesigned) for Brawl. The likes of Little Mac, Dark Samus and Isabelle have been Assist Trophies in one game, only to become playable in the next, and while Chrom and King K. Rool were Mii costumes in Smash 4 they’re playable in Ultimate. So far, we haven’t seen a single character make the playable jump in the same game, even with the option of DLC, but is it really such an impossibility?

Looking at items, like the Assist Trophies or even the Pokeball items, there are times when certain items won’t spawn, so it’s not too much of a stretch to say that, if Waluigi was chosen as a playable character, you couldn’t just find a way to keep his Assist Trophy from popping up in a match. This seems to happen in stages too; if a Link is playable in the Spirit Tracks stage, another character conducts the train. To run counter to that though, Ridley being made playable (and scaled down) is likely the biggest reason that the Pyrosphere stage didn’t make the return in Ultimate. That being said…Chrom is playable now, but he’s still part of both Robin’s Final Smash AND their win screens so…who can say what the actual edict is here?

Spirits are definitely a strange issue; if we take it as fact that if you have a Spirit in the game already, you can’t be made playable…that essentially means that 99% of Nintendo’s stable are ineligible and that just doesn’t seem right to me. Why limit yourself that much? Your only remaining options are brand new games that come out after Ultimate, though we’ve also had DLC spirits added in to promote a lot of these games. I’d like to assume that, at the very least, if you get in as a DLC Spirit, it’s unlikely that you’d be made playable later on. We have cases like the random Resident Evil Spirit event that casually gave us the most popular villain (Wesker) and the three most iconic protagonists of the series (Jill, Leon and Chris), which would make me question what a Resident Evil Spirit Board for a potential DLC character would look like. Why add that franchise in AHEAD of their playable appearance? Overall, I’d argue that a character with a Spirit in the base game has a chance of being made into playable DLC…but it’s a slight chance.

But then we have costumes…and this is where it can get interesting. Characters that are already playable can have costumes based off of them, as the likes of Link and Samus demonstrate, and even in the case of someone like Chrom who finally made the leap to playable, his costume still exists. But it’s the third-party costumes that garner the most attention. At launch, none of the third-party costumes from Smash 4 were in Ultimate, though as the Fighter’s Pass has doled out characters, these costumes have been slowly brought back, alongside new ones. At present, all of Namco’s costumes have yet to be seen, as well as the costume of one oft-requested puppet, Geno. Does this mean Namco will get a DLC rep, or that Geno will finally make the dreams of many fans come true? Anything’s possible, but there are no guarantees. As we can see with the likes of Sans and Cuphead, it’s also possible for characters to be added in as more elaborate costumes than your typical Mii flair. It certainly seems more likely to me that, say, Shantae could get a special Mii costume, even when she’s already a Spirit in the base game, and this might apply to other fan favorites too. On the whole though, there’s just a lot that’s up in the air regarding this particular rule. Nothing has contradicted it yet, but I can’t say I’d rule anything out in this case. If there’s ONE stipulation we have gotten confirmation on MULTIPLE times however, it’s this next “rule.”

NO GOKU ALLOWED

Smash Bros. celebrates video games, end of story, so all the cries to add in X character from some other form of media are ultimately fruitless. Sakurai won’t add Son Goku from Dragon Ball, and we won’t get Iron Man or Shrek. At present, the only characters that aren’t strictly FROM a video game, are at least intimately related TO video games. Both R.O.B. and Mr. Game&Watch are basically mascots for the NES and Game&Watch systems respectively, and they’re deeply tied to Nintendo’s own history as it is, so no one really bats an eye at their inclusion. Aside from kinda “tainting” the pureness of the series by introducing something that’s not a video game, there’s also licensing issues to consider…as well as the fact that it’d be a Pandora’s box the likes of which we’d never recover from. If Goku got in, then why not George Costanza or Spongebob or Walter White? It’d never end and the series would lose its identity.

There are still, however, a few characters that fans desperately want in the game, and they have this rule to contend with first. Geralt of the Witcher series is brought up as a possible inclusion, however the character originates from books. While the games have certainly gained notoriety and in some cases have surpassed the books in the public consciousness, that doesn’t change the fact that Geralt isn’t strictly a video game character. Oddly enough, however, he’s made the rounds in a lot of different video games over the past few years. He’s available as a character customization option in Daemon X Machina for one, a Switch-exclusive mecha game from 2019, and also in 2019 he was a guest character in Soulcalibur VI. Granted, that series has already seen guests from other mediums, like from the Spawn comics or characters from the Star Wars series. His appearance in Monster Hunter: World is also pretty unexpected, so it wouldn’t be completely out of nowhere to expect him to eventually make it to gaming’s biggest crossover, but I have my doubts. There’s also Sora from the Kingdom Hearts series, and while he DID originate in a video game, he is co-owned by Disney, and is closely tied to their properties as a result. Now, it’s not as if Nintendo hasn’t had a relationship with Disney; plenty of Disney games have appeared on Nintendo systems, but including Sora in Smash would either mean erasing any connections to the Disney characters in his games, or adapting them and subsequently breaking this massive rule and causing pandemonium! OK, it’s not as serious as all that, but it’d be a…delicate deal at any rate. Disney is pretty protective of their IPs, and Sora is also co-owned by Square Enix who is also pretty protective and hard to work with…Cloud barely got back into Smash Ultimate for one thing, and the rights for all that Dragon Quest music couldn’t have been cheap, so I feel like Nintendo wouldn’t be willing to go in on this a third time, especially with Disney’s involvement. But…miracles can happen, I suppose.

LITERALLY WHO?!

For our last “rule” here, I want to tackle one of the more subjective stipulations: relevancy. When it comes to shooting down character choices, you’ll often hear things like “that series hasn’t had a new entry in YEARS, so why would they promote that?!” or “that puppet’s been in one niche game that no one knows about!” It is true that characters in Smash do tend to promote newer games, as the likes of Roy, Corrin, Byleth, Joker and Hero show. I mean, why ELSE is the hero from Dragon Quest XI the default costume, other than that he’s the new hotness? But I think it’s clear at this point, especially when it comes to Ultimate, that being relevant isn’t everything. King K. Rool hasn’t been used in well over a decade, but he was added due to fan demand. A similar thing can be said for Banjo, as Microsoft hasn’t exactly used that IP in a while, and many would argue that Minecraft is a much more relevant rep from Microsoft if anything.

You’ll see people complain about certain inclusions with the argument that “no one knows who that character is!” but often that just demonstrates the complainer’s own bubble. Many in the West might not have gone CRAZY when Hero was announced, but Japan LOVES Dragon Quest and its inclusion is HUGE. Sakurai himself even notes this when going over Terry Bogard and SNK’s own history in the arcades. Relevancy only matters so much; if fans want them, and they bring something new and fun to the table, they have a chance. So this rule, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t one to take seriously. One man’s niche is another’s mainstream, really.

CONCLUSION

At the end of the day, Super Smash Bros. frequently makes dreams come true and breaks through any preconceived notions regarding who can and cannot smash, so I do find it somewhat of a fool’s errand to compile these “rules” and act like they’re the gospel. In truth, Nintendo and Sakurai can do whatever they want, and with enough time and money, anything is possible. There was once a time when we thought Sonic or Banjo fighting Mario and Link was a pipe dream, or hell…the entire concept of Nintendo all-stars all in one place was pretty farfetched over 20 years ago, but look at where we are now. As the old saying goes, rules are made to be broken…so clearly our next 6 characters are Doomslayer, Kasumi from DOA, Waluigi, Geno, Sora and Hank Hill. Yup. And I for one will be INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTED if that is not the case!

In all seriousness, speculate away, because at the end of the day, it’s pretty fun and harmless by itself! Just…hype responsibly, OK?

Happy Smashing

-B

#smashbros #supersmashbros #smashultimate #nintendo switch #doom guy #doomslayer #waluigi #sora #kingdom hearts #geno #super mario RPG #fighter's pass

2 notes · View notes

whitewolfofwinterfell · 5 years

Note

Stranger Things Season 3! :) If that's too broad, talk about your favourite character arc and/or favourite pairing.

Ooh, nice. I haven’t really shared my thoughts on season 3 so far. Thanks for asking :)

Overall, I was really disappointed with season 3 of Stranger Things. I think that the show could’ve (and perhaps should’ve) ended after season 2 and that the only reason it has continued beyond that is because it’s so popular. It didn’t really feel like there was anything new to offer this season, it was just a rehash of the same things we’d already seen. Everything about it felt completely underwhelming. I didn’t like the characterisation of any of the main characters (the exceptions perhaps being Max and Will) and I think the character development and arcs on a whole were pretty weak. And to nit-pick a bit now, there were certain scenes that made me feel super uncomfortable like the whole sexualising of Billy with the mom’s around the pool and the scene where Hopper threatened Mike. I know it’s not that much of a huge deal, but it felt like some of this scenes were framed in a comedic way and I just didn’t find it funny at all. In fact, this season made me realise that Stranger Things works much better as a horror/thriller than a comedy.

There were a lot of things I wanted or expected from season 3 that we didn’t get such as: more focus on Will, the development of a Will/El friendship, more family Byers bonding, more cohesion of the main cast, Steve/Nancy/Jonathan moments, better development for Mike and El’s relationship and something new or fresh with the Mind Flayer.

I was glad they actually did something with Billy, it was necessary to give him a more weighty arc, but unfortunately for me, it didn’t completely work. It all felt a little too cliche and predictable, although I appreciated the effort to do something else with him. Likewise, I expected more from Mike and Eleven’s relationship. There had been quite a big build-up to them being together and I was really rooting for them, but it didn’t always quite feel right to me in season 3. I was never hugely into Joyce and Hopper as a pairing, but once again, I kind of expected more from them in season 3. The whole thing felt very forced and one-sided to me. I see Hopper as being in love with Joyce, but I feel like she only sees him as a friend or big brother. She was clearly still grieving for Bob and although the romance wasn’t forced down our throats (they didn’t even kiss), it still felt a little fanservice-y. I liked the addition of Robin to the cast, but I also think that the season wouldn’t have been that much worse without her. In fact, I think it would’ve made more sense to not have new characters and focus more on developing the original ones. At times it felt like everything was too stretched and there were too many characters so there was a lack of focus or cohesion. I don’t know why, but overall nothing felt like it quite synced up this season.

Now onto the positives, because so far this has been pretty negative. My favourite character has always been Steve and season 3 didn’t change that. I don’t think he was utilised to his full potential (but then again, I don’t think any of the characters were) and it sometimes felt like he was purposefully dumbed down for comedic effect, but I still love him to bits. He has a heart of gold and mother hen Steve is still my favourite thing ever. I enjoyed seeing his dynamic with Robin, it was good to see him enter into a new friendship. I don’t think there’s anything that could happen that would lessen my love for Steve, I think he’s great.

There were some really good dynamics this season too. I loved El and Max together. It was so refreshing to see how close they’ve become considering they started off on the wrong foot, with El being jealous and a bit threatened by Max, and Max feeling inferior to Eleven. It’s also one of the only female friendships we’ve really had on the show, so it was good to have a fun female dynamic. I really enjoyed Bauman and Alexei. Alexei was such a pure character, I was so sad when he died. Obviously, I also loved Steve and Dustin as always. They’re my favourite dynamic on the whole show and I don’t think that’ll ever change. As much as I loved these dynamics, I would’ve liked to see some more time and attention given to others.

By far my biggest issue with the season was the lack of Will. Noah is such a talented actor (he still continues to amaze me) and for two seasons Will has been in the worst position of any of the characters. He was absent for the majority of season 1 and then possessed by the Mind Flayer for a lot of season 2, so we haven’t had much of a chance to see Will just being Will. What we did see of Will and his arc was really good, and I liked the direction it was taking, but there just wasn’t enough of it. In many ways, Will is the most important character of the series. The entire story wouldn’t exist without him, he’s the one that brought everyone together in the first season and he was the center of the plot, so I feel like he deserves more recognition and attention now.

Going off first impressions and the way I felt watching the season, I’d probably rate season 3 as the worst season of the show so far. But I haven’t really read around about it that much, and I always find that reading others opinions and hearing from the people that made the show gives me a slightly different perspective and allows me to see some of the good aspects that I perhaps overlooked.

#answered #slayers-every-one-of-us #stranger things spoilers #my meta #stranger things meta

8 notes · View notes

theonceoverthinker · 5 years

Text

OUAT 4X06 - Family Business

After spending ten minutes trying to make a pun for this one, I don’t SNOW if I can do it!

...Well, there you go!

Review’s under the cut!

Main Takeaways

Past

I’m torn between disliking and liking the writing choice to have Anna doubt Ingrid so fiercely. On one level, I sort of get it. After being betrayed by Hans (And more recently, Rumple), Anna’s become a bit less trusting. That’s good character development. However, to have Anna be untrusting to this degree is just a little too far fetched for me. I think had Anna wanted to accept her and been more outright friendly, but was too curious to settle for Ingrid’s non answers, the story would’ve been a bit more palatable for me.

So, as far as Belle goes, I’m kind of inclined to treat this episode in a way as a precursor to Belle’s attitude later in life, kind of like“Best Laid Plans.” Just like how Snowing dedicated themselves to being the best people they could be after their horrible sin, Belle does the same thing through a combination of seeing Anna be taken and learning the truth behind her mother’s death. That also having been said, I feel like had they stated that the stone of memories was a one-off item, I wouldn’t be so frustrated with Belle because why not just get another stone after saving Anna?

That also having been said, I get that it didn’t matter. What mattered in this segment was that Belle’s selfishness fucked over someone and the point of this episode was to realize that and show that she’s grown from it. And that is the important part of the episode and it was delivered well. What I pointed out were smaller narrative crumbles that don’t amount to absolutely nothing, but are ultimately less important than the delivery of the theme.

Present

I can talk about a lot of aspects of this episode (And I will), but let’s be real here: The big part of this episode really comes down to a singular moment. While most of this episode is pretty clearly framed otherwise, so much so that I wonder just how much can write about, this moment’s where shit gets complicated and messy. That, of course, is Belle’s use of the “dagger” to make Rumple take her to the Snow Queen’s fortress.

Let’s break my thoughts on this down a bit.

It’s...a complicated situation. I’m sympathetic to Belle in the sense that she’s trying to stop The Snow Queen and making a hard choice like that is something she sees as just something that has to be done. Additionally, the mirror scene establishes that Belle might have doubts about the validity of the dagger, so there might have been a part of her doubting that it would work. I also get that this was Belle’s weakest moment and thus, it’s something she doesn’t want relayed.

That having been said, this episode frames Belle’s motivation as wanting to keep a secret. That’s the reason why she doesn’t relay her information to Emma and Elsa. And for a secret that is so relatively small in the grand scheme of not only the scope of the universe, but what villains have been forgiven for around in these parts, I find it rather weak and makes for a stark contrast to her attitude of just shutting up from the present scenes prior It’s brought on by a sad conversation with Elsa and Belle finds it more appropriate to use the dagger on her husband than just simply tell the truth, a moment that when finally comes to pass, isn’t given any gravitas, meaning that Belle keeping that secret wasn’t that big of a deal. It’d be one thing if Elsa was so mad that she froze Belle or shut her out or something like that, but she doesn’t, making the reason Belle wants to hold out telling the truth fall flat.

I also almost wish this moment had come earlier in the season, maybe before “The Apprentice” because that look of fear on Rumple’s face when he realized that his own wife is using the dagger to control him would’ve been a hella effective point in showing why Rumple feels like he needs to go to the extreme of putting people in a magic hat to ensure that he never has to be controlled again. That said, it does work here, albeit not as effectively.

I do think that the framing of this moment works. Ignoring the motivation behind it, Belle is shown as going too far by using the dagger, BUT the more complicated nature of the dagger being as real as a $3 bill isn’t ignored by the narrative either.

Okay, now that that’s done, let’s move on.

The mirror scene is a really chilling look into Belle’s psyche. Not only is there a great display of Belle’s insecurities on display in this scene, but it truly sets up the mirror as a genuine threat. Belle is one of the purest characters in the show, second to probably only Ariel at this point. And yet the mirror is able to pull at the weaknesses she doesn’t possess as easily as loose Jenga pieces. Within a minute, she feels helpless.

I also really like the way Rumple is presented here! He’s at once a villain and a victim in a way and the balancing of that was well done!

Stream of Consciousness

-I like the costume Belle has in the first bit of her flashback. It does a really good job of painting her youth and naivete.

-I love how literally every piece of Belle’s wardrobe and decorations in her room are Beauty and the Beast colors!!! Dude, if she wasn’t the actual Belle, I’d accuse her of being the biggest fangirl in the world! XD

-Really, Rumple? Belle doesn’t know about the hidden safe by this point?

-”Before we open.” So I guess that library scene really didn’t carry over in any capacity. That’s a shame.

-I absolutely LOVE the zoom out shot as everyone takes in the Snow Queen video tape! All eight of the mains are in the shot as well as Elsa! And everyone is so serious, even the woman in the blue sparkly dress! I know it’s been said 1,000 times, but it’s totally CSI Storybrooke up in this bitch! XD

-Belle, you are amazing at tracking! And you dig any chance to be a hero! Why the fuck are you willingly stepping down?! XD

-Why does everyone diss books?! And if you’re gonna diss the book, maybe take the book? Like, I don’t want Maurice to take the book, but if he’s gonna go to the trouble of being a douche nozzle, at least go all the way.

-I feel the need to ask if Ingrid has employees at “Any Given Sundae.” Does she just switch off between driving the truck and running the shop? Did she ever have an intern? XD

-”Was she afraid someone was gonna steal the rocky road?” You’re three episodes off, Emma.

-Ice powers are the world’s most dangerous mood rings! XD

-”Do you really think she would’ve discovered that if I didn’t want her to?” And what part did you have to play in Emma discovering that evidence? Like, every piece of evidence Emma has uncovered has been by total coincidence! The video, the truck? Both of those were spur of the moment decisions!

-I feel like mirror Belle is what would happen if Lacey had Belle’s memories.

-Ummm, if that was the real dagger, would that slash have killed Rumple or would it kind of be like what happened with Dark Hook where only the lethal cuts matter? But then again, that was close to the throat.

-Belle, where the hell did that gorgeous ass coat come from? Because holy hell, I LOVE it!

-Okay, am I the only one who feels like Maurice had some personal experience with Rumple prior to Belle’s summoning?

-”Spend a little more time in this town love, and you’ll realize that just about everyone’s related.” This is true and I LOVE it! XD

Favorite Dynamic

Regina and Robin. I really like Regina’s scene with Robin in the forest. Lana perfectly shows Regina’s frustration at having tried every possible approach to waking Marian and failing at it as well as this sense of resignation about what she has to tell him. It’s a fantastic moment in how it’s performed and written. Regina’s in her best form by being blunt, but not unsympathetic: If Robin wants to save Marian, he has to fall in love with her again, no if’s, and’s, or but’s. You can tell that this is the last thing she wants to say, but she knows it’s the truth. It’s a really good display of her growth as a character. Something very difficult for her to do and the truth isn’t pretty, but she’s delivering it anyway, even at her own expense. The added bits of snark additionally really help it too by giving the scene a bit of levity and gives the dialogue a bit of that Regina fierceness.

Writer

Kalinda Vazquez comes in for her second episode in a row, a first for a writer for this series outside of A&E! Alongside her is Andrew Chambliss. I gotta say, it’s nice not having a newbie this episode. While there are some character issues, I think the episode works more than it doesn’t due to the more complicated nature of the present segment’s story and the fact that the framing is spot on.

Rating

8/10. I think there are a fair amount of good elements to this episode. The delivery of the themes is solid and that is the ultimate make or break piece of an episode like this. Additionally, the framing of this story was hard, but successful.

-----

Hey! Sorry this wasn’t my best review. I don’t know what happened with this episode, but it just took me so long to figure out how I felt about it. I hope what I put out made sense.

Thank you for reading, if you did as well as to @watchingfairytales and @daensarah. Love you!!!!

Season 3 Total (42/230)

Writer Scores: Adam and Eddy: (9/60) Jane Espenson: (10/40) David Goodman and Jerome Schwartz: (10/50) Andrew Chambliss: (14/50) Dana Horgan: (6/30) Kalinda Vazquez: (14/40) Scott Nimerfro: (6/30)

*Links to the rest of my rewatch will no longer be provided. They take posts with links outside of searches and I spend way too much time on these reviews to not give them that kind of exposure. Sorry for the inconvenience, but they still can be found on my page under Operation Rewatch.

#ouat #once upon a time #watching fairytales #ouat 4x06 #ouat rewatch #jenna watches ouat

27 notes · View notes

onetruesporkbot · 6 years

Text

One or the Other...Preferably the Non-Stupid One

A website I frequent, the Outhouse, has an article pertaining to Detective Comics #980, and the potential effect it (and to a degree, Flash War) has on the lives of Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Brown. I’ve mentioned my problems with their reinventions before, but...well, I’m doing it again. Sue me. And yeah, this’ll be a long one, so maybe go for a walk around the block to stretch your legs first, make sure you got to the bathroom, and maybe grab a drink before reading on.

I've had my own ideas on how to fix the error of Cass and Steph’s altered histories. Mostly they involve retconning Harper Row into either non-existence or just not being an attention/glory leech on the Bat-Family’s butt-cheek, praised as a paragon of splendor. Even if someone can find evidence that editorial/executive mandates forced the spotlight on that character throughout the Eternal books, the interpretation/execution of that, vis-a-vie how she affected Stephanie's and Cass' lives, is on Tynion (and, granted, the other writers who were working off his ideas), and acts as a basis for his ‘Tec run. As is her lack of development, off-putting but still happily accepted bad attitude and generally not really doing much, but still being treated like royalty by her experienced betters. She’s a bad character, and none of the Bats or Birds, acting in their right mind, would tolerate her like they did. THAT is the core of the problem with those stories and these reinventions, and they aren't solved simply because Harper became the Mr. Wick to 'Tec's Drew Carey Show, and just isn't seen very often later on.

Not the most fair comparison, because the depraved, abusive, lying, cheating, over-privileged misery-mongering manager is by far more likable.

While heavy-handedly-hoisted Harper is a large part of the problem, there are others where these characters are concerned. Steph's reinvention started out well enough, but then Tynion decided to charter her a flight from "beginner" to "accomplished crime-fighter" in a mere few issues. Stephanie lost a big part of what I've seen draw her to readers (like a friend of mine): her tenacity. Instead of a girl that kept doing the hero thing after being frequently told by those around her, including Platinum-Status Crook-Scarer Batman, to quit, and publicly (off-line) actually spoiling her Dad’s schemes, training hard to better herself...she was remade into a girl running around with her mask down half the time, leaving vague hints online that are ignored or hacked away. It’s later discovered didn't really want to catch her Dad, regardless of what that meant for Gotham, a city she’s quick to abandon when the s#&t hits the fan. She could swing across the sky and fight off assassins despite little or no training (excelled in this regard only by...you know blue). So, she’s got a skill-level and bravery on par with vigilantes with years of experience...until she doesn’t.

Cassie's changes are the biggest offense to me. While Steph started somewhat strong and had any thunder thoroughly absorbed by Harper, Cass' entire EXISTENCE became tied to Row. Every movement, every action, every breath was about some unlikable wastrel with delusions of perfection. Remaking a pre-existing character's life all about a newer one’s is even worse when that newer one has all the originality of the comic Diesel (see Linkara's review for context). Their "friendship" had zero basis, other than one party's guilt and the other party needing constant attention and praise heaped upon her. It makes Cassie’s her entire motivation more about appeasing Harper, proving herself to Harper, even asking for death in Harper’s name...as opposed to realizing that, regardless of who the victim was, killing someone was wrong. I don't recall if they ever named the guy Cassie originally killed, but it was better that he didn't have some "important" connection to a character like a bad soap opera desperate for ratings. Now it’s felt more like “killing that person was wrong...because it was Harper’s Mom.” Just like the Wayne Murders, it's better and more poignant if it were left random. But again, the problems go beyond Harper. Having Cass speak so early changes her "neurologically atypical brain", or how, when you think about it, slaughtering children and piling them up (seriously, what the eff, Jimbo?) kind of defeats the whole revelation Cass has when she takes her first life. Even if she feels she has no family, Cass taking the name of a serial killer makes no sense...I would think the body count would outweigh “feeling alone” element to the name (really, Jimmy’s stretching for that one). Then there’s the fact that Tynion’s blithering idiot version of David Cain never loved his daughter, except as a passing reference in his kamikaze strike, which was mostly about Mother not appreciating him enough. And probably just an excuse to kill another characters father because some at DC has Daddy Issues. I mean, they cut Cluemaster’s throat, THEN cut Orphan-Cain’s throat...but he somehow survived...oy, now I’m remembering all the plot holes. So many plot holes. I mean, Cassie turning evil was incompetent, but not only did that give fixed in under two years, Adam Beechen excelled in other respects during Robin, and wasn’t prone to unbearable slog.

This is the crap you’re making me miss, DC.

Harper Row was either the standard or the launching pad for Tynion’s versions of these characters, and much to their detriment. This vision OMAC-Tim gives Cass and Steph just proves what I've been saying, that these characters of Orphan and...Not-Quite-Spoiler...aren't "just the same" characters as before Flashpoint, despite some similarities. They haven't earned what they did beforehand, Tynion just tried rebuilding them from the ground-up, then a few issues later just wrote "it's this way now" to closer resemble their pre52 versions, with no build-up or effort put into it. Heck, after hearing 'Tec readers talk about how Steph has been acting insane, these last pages suggest that, perhaps, she was playing Achilles or whatever his name is, which...I could kind of see Batgirl-era Steph doing...not a bumbling idiot who let Gotham burn over her stinkin' parental disputes and took orders from an ego-maniacal brat.

Cassie and Steph can hug all they want when things get emotional, it doesn’t change that the versions under Tynion had one called the other subhuman, and then when they next saw each other, spontaneous group-hug-invite. That is nowhere NEAR the same as the two of them disliking each other, and their rivalry developing into a friendship.

“Remember when I said you weren’t a person only because you didn’t speak? AHAHAHAHA! Good times, GOOD times...”

And really, I think fans of these characters are just so glad to have ANY version of them, they're more forgiving of Tynion's writing, whether it's error-heavy or just serviceable. They’ll excuse the problems to support the characters. Sure, Jimbo tosses in some emotional moments, hugging, crying, but given his previous work and history with them, I question if it had any real structure to it. He didn’t hesitate to have Tim bone Steph, even though that’s not something pre52 Tim would do, so why should I believe he put any effort into the Clayface/Cassie friendship, or...any character/Cassie friendship? But even if he did...how does it justify what he changed or how he changed it? I’d say it doesn’t; his mistakes aren’t better just because he and/or DC refuse to acknowledge them (hence the absence of Harper). NOTHING justifies these problems.

So, moving forward from Steph and Cass learning they had alternate, better-written lives...we don’t know how that’ll go. ‘Tec 981 could see them decide they (for some unholy reason) prefer to have started out as side-characters in their own origins if it props Harper up further, never having actually ever been the same as before (but “different” and “change”, so that makes it better somehow). Or, in a rare show of intelligence, this will lead to them ACTUALLY getting their lives back, no reinvention, no dead Dads either influencing their sociopathic negligence or wanting them dead, no stupid changes mandated by a bunch of witless baboons in charge...none of it. Because none it was good, none of it improved or equaled what was done before, and none of it is justified by long slogs in between distracting heart-string-tugs. Tynion’s changes, including but certainly not limited to the spotlighting of Bluebird, brought nothing new or good to the table, regardless of circumstances, and I fail to see why they or their effects should continue.

The characters CANNOT have both histories; they just don’t work together. Steph’s beginnings cannot be both humble AND tied to yet-another city-wide massacre. Cassie’s life cannot be about her AND someone that has no right, rhyme or reason to be associated with her. David Cain cannot be a trained assassin at odds with a daughter he genuinely cares for AND...whatever the Hell Tynion thought he was writing Orphan to be. None of this deserves passive dismissal, not after all the years of crap DC has flung our way. They’re mistakes don’t deserve the validation of continuance for these characters or their world.

We’ll see.

12 notes · View notes