#but the main characters are well integrated. the narrative foils of heros and villains is there

[prettyboykatsuki]

bnha is so overhated bro boooo

[taoofshigeru]

I think discussions like this one on OT2 Main Character-ness are interesting, and serve as a jumping-off point for something I wanted to talk about wrt Octopath 2 on the whole.

[spoilers follow]

When I see the specific critique that it's 8 small stories and not one big arc spanning all the characters, and that's a negative, I feel chafed by it for a couple of reasons. I'm going to try to outline them here.

1: In a broad sense, Octopath as a whole is designed such that the world is a major character. Every single NPC, even ones wholly irrelevant to plot or side quests, has a backstory that is at least somewhat carefully considered and some of them were written with Baby Shoes Never Worn ambitions of word count/reader reaction ratios. And it's a big world. It's hard not to get attached to some of it, and the fact that it's pretty doesn't hurt.

2: The way I read it, it's a key facet of OT2's story that there are two competing central themes, not one. The fundamental struggle with the Moonshade Order and HTAPOTCO is about apathy vs. hope. But there's also a broader sense in the world as you explore it that there's a lot of inequity and class/caste segregation. It figures most prominently in Partitio's story, but is also present in Osvald's tour of the sterling state of the prison system and constabulary, as well as the brutal way in which Papa Mishuyo is murdered. The basic question answered through gameplay is:

A) Can our heroes prevent the end of the world? (Yes, answered via gameplay)

In that sense, Ori's failed sacrifice is totally extraneous to the plot. Unless you specifically read it that her not dying led to a weaker Vide coming back (possible, but not confirmed in canon), it doesn't really matter from a gameplay perspective. Either way, you have to rekindle 4 flames and fight a cool boss to set things right. But the specific details of her character arc absolutely matters with regards to the second theme, and the question it asks:

B1) Is the world in its current state worth protecting? And, as an important corollary, B2) How do you convince someone who's experienced the worst the world's had to offer that is worth preserving and trying to improve?

Seeing the horrors of the world inflicted by humans on humans were a big part of how Ori, Oboro, and Trousseau (to an extent) were turned to the Moonshade Order's cause. Castti's very direct answer to question B2 is "Sometimes you can't." Partitio manages to answer the How without even realizing it. Hikari also makes a very serious effort to find this answer for three separate people in his life, and succeeds once (Thanks, Rai Mei). The message that I see the writers trying to land with all this is that you might not be able to convince everyone that the world is worth it, but there is worth in trying.

The message itself is not unique, but I feel it's been uniquely well delivered here.

3: And, conversely, I feel like this narrative goal falls apart if you play through a game with any one of the eight as the primary protagonist from beginning to end. The deeper cuts I don't think can be as easily achieved through a central narrative that ends with one overarching villain serving as a foil for a single protagonist. You need several sympathetic but differing points of view, and several foils to see the world through another's shoes. I think it's a level of nuance and complexity that needed a big world with a lot of people, and individual characters who experience that world differently, in order to really be delivered upon.

Unless the writing is sublime and gets a lot of underlying and dev resource-intensive support from gameplay integration, what you're getting is a game where Hikari is the protagonist and the other seven are co-protagonists. I think Hikari's an interesting character. I think all 8 characters are, but I have issues with making his or any other story the most central one. One of the things I like about a game like say, Final Fantasy 6 is that you do start with Tera and then get forced to use different party members in a way that allows you to see the world from many different points of view. But, this creates a game design issue where you're specifically forced to abandon large swaths of your party composition for story reasons at various points on the plot, which could create consternation for a number of players whose leader just went from level 68 to level 7. I think it can sometimes feel lame how modern rpgs can be allergic to any plot point that requires permanently altering party composition or playstyle, but I do feel it's an understandable constraint of the need to appeal to a broad player base. Within that constraint, there aren't a lot of way to avoid the drawbacks of Main Protagonist Syndrome.

Like, not to pick on Xenoblade Chroncles 3, but it's a recent game that also deals heavily in themes of choosing to exist even if it means struggling through a crappy world, and while it does a lot of things really well, it does suffer for the final villain being essentially The Face of Nihilism with no human traits. There are lots of subvillains in that game with more interesting dynamics, but their contributions to the overall theme didn't hit as strongly with me personally because they were presented in gameplay as optional obstacles on the way to the fight with big generic rather than the final counterpoint at the end of an individual character's journey.

I recognize this is a pretty subjective point. Vide is also The Face of Nihilism with no human traits. But because the individual route antagonists represent and give voice to more human reasons for hating the world, that conversation carried actual emotional weight with me personally.

Likewise, I understand that some people prefer stories with a strongly centralized arc that involves the characters bouncing off each other more. But I feel that OT2, more than just being something unique in the way it's represented, stays dynamic and interesting by bouncing characters both off their antagonists and the world at large, and delivers a pretty special end result.

For all I know, OT3 might never come out, or it might take the franchise in a pretty different direction. But I'm pretty confident the writers and designers of 2 navigated their game design/narrative trade-offs with finesse and knocked it out of the park thematically.

[bestworstcase]

prepared to eat these words possibly but i’m… really not convinced that jaune’s going to have the villain arc that so many people seem to expect from him in V9. ominous fiery knight in the teaser, sure, it does seem like a nonzero possibility but i have yet to see an argument for how he gets there from guilt-stricken self-hatred and grief that doesn’t boil down to “…and then the ever after brainwashes him”

1. the ever after appears to respond to emotions, and 2. the release date trailer has ruby encountering a figment of her younger self; it seems more likely to me that the knight is, well… that. a manifestation of what jaune feels about himself that he will need to confront.

further, it would feel extremely odd imo for the volume that promises to be about exploration of the main characters’ self-identities, their chosen purposes, their understanding of themselves as heroes, to maneuver jaune into a major antagonistic role—the story then becomes about team rwby alternately fighting jaune or trying to save him, relegating their own desperately needed reckonings to the narrative margins. either the release date trailer is flat out lying by making ruby’s lack of identity beyond heroism its centerpiece or whatever’s going on with jaune isn’t meant to pull focus, and in light of how overtly V6-8 built up toward ruby having a crisis of identity after taking up the mantle of humanity’s savior the latter feels several orders of magnitude more likely.

i’m just. doubtful that a jaune villain arc of any significance can happen at this point without turning into the locus of the volume’s identity theme, and rwby is frankly Better Than That; on the other hand, there is a second and only slightly less salient question undergirding V9 and that is whether or not the kids are equipped to stop salem, and i think THAT is likely to be where jaune fits into the narrative arc. because i don’t think the answer to that question is a matter of capability. how do you stop a desperate woman who cannot be stopped by force? you have to talk to her. the inescapable fact is that this conflict does not end until salem either wins or they negotiate with her; the kids are not equipped to do that now, but i suspect they will be by the time they make it back to remnant.

and, very conveniently, salem’s heroic foil is stranded in the ever after too, isolated and grappling with his private demons while team rwby try to find their way home without him because none of them know that he fell. i think they’re probably going to trip over him at a critical point in the “how do we stop salem?” narrative arc and jaune, who a) is by a wide margin the likeliest hero-side character to be able to think about salem’s side of this conflict (because his own ordeals fairly closely mirror hers), and b) has already had the seed planted re: salem being possible to reason with, will be integral in revealing the answer.

(check mr. tactics guy’s expression when salem Releases Them in witch, then ask yourself this: why did the woman who can effortlessly pin people to the floor with a snap of her fingers deliberately withdraw the restraints holding her captives before she fought hazel to, notionally, prevent him from giving those captives a window of opportunity to escape? bc jaune noticed that. he didn’t have the chance to think about it right then but now he’s stuck in wonderland with nothing to do but agonize about whether he could have done something, ANYTHING different so that penny could still be alive. and: he really didn’t have a choice during the battle. he had seconds to act; his semblance does not heal injuries anywhere near that quickly. but what if he could have done something before that battle to alter the course of fate? what if he’d acted on that moment of confusion back on the whale, for example. what if he’d followed that perception of something not adding up to the bizarre but logical conclusion that salem decided to let them escape for some reason, what if he’d gotten oscar off the whale and left the ace-ops to blow her up instead, would the ultimatum have still happened, would the evacuation and the catastrophic fight that interrupted it have gone differently? would it have happened at all?—the answer is probably no, it wouldn’t have changed very much in the grand scheme, because even if ironwood used his nuke blowing salem up she would’ve been back in an hour or two tops and penny had already been infected by the virus by then. but think about how irresistible this line of thinking might be to a guy whose self-esteem was already on the floor before cinder murdered his friend right in front of him, when his desperation not to lose anyone else and his hatred of himself for not being able to save pyrrha has been what drives him since beacon fell. this poor kid’s brain is going to be fucking devouring anything, any inkling of “maybe if i had done this penny wouldn’t have died” whether it’s rational or not. and like… they gave him that beat of “huh???” after salem set them loose for a reason.)

[themovieblogonline]

Kung Fu Panda 4 Review: Another Hilariously Awesome Entry

In the pantheon of animated franchises, Kung Fu Panda has carved out a niche that's as delightful as it is deep, blending rib-tickling comedy with surprisingly profound philosophical musings. It’s a series that’s as much about martial arts excitement as it is about the journey of self-discovery. Now, with its fourth installment, Kung Fu Panda 4 helmed by director Mike Mitchell and co-director Stephanie Ma Stine, the franchise takes a daring leap, introducing new characters and a new challenge for our ever-lovable and eternally hungry hero, Po, voiced by the inimitable Jack Black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_inKs4eeHiI Kung Fu Panda 4 resumes Po's journey, this time setting him on a quest not for his own identity, but for the next bearer of the Dragon Warrior mantle. It's a premise ripe with potential, echoing the first film’s themes of destiny and worthiness, yet it feels freshly invigorated here by its inventive narrative twists and the introduction of new characters. Among them, Zhen, a fox bandit voiced with mischievous charm by Awkwafina, proves to be a standout, offering a dynamic foil to Po’s buoyant optimism. The plot centers on Po’s confrontation with a new villain, The Chameleon, masterfully voiced by Viola Davis. The Chameleon is a shapeshifter, a being who can become anyone, bringing a level of psychological intrigue to the fore that the franchise has only flirted with previously. This antagonist is not just another obstacle for Po to punch; she is a genuine existential threat, pushing Po and his friends to their limits, and challenging their understanding of identity and trust. Returning cast members including Dustin Hoffman as the ever-wise Master Shifu, James Hong as Po’s doting father Mr. Ping, and Bryan Cranston and Ian McShane, further enrich the film with their well-established characters, creating a sense of continuity that fans of the series will appreciate. The new additions, such as Ronny Chieng, Lori Tan Chinn, and Ke Huy Quan, infuse the film with fresh energy and humor, enhancing its vibrancy and expanding its world. One of the film's most commendable aspects is its animation. DreamWorks Animation pushes boundaries with visually stunning action sequences. The battle sequences are thrilling and engaging for all ages. The humor in the series remains ever-present and genuinely funny, keeping the atmosphere light for younger viewers. Yet, the script by Darren Lemke, Jonathan Aibel, and Glenn Berger, manages to weave in layers of introspection. Particularly about leadership, legacy, and self-acceptance that will resonate with older viewers. Mitchell's direction balances the action and the comedy deftly, with a particular flair for timing that amplifies both. He crafts scenes that are visually dynamic and full of heart. This ensures that the emotional beats hit just as hard as the kung fu punches. The handling of the narrative, however, does show occasional signs of struggle. This is mainly in the latter half where the pacing stumbles slightly. It struggles to integrate the vast ensemble and their myriad character arcs into the main storyline. This is perhaps where Kung Fu Panda 4 falters slightly. The film's ambition occasionally strains coherence but doesn't ruin the overall enjoyment. Another area where the film slightly misses the mark is in its resolution with The Chameleon. While Viola Davis delivers a performance that is nothing short of captivating, the climax feels somewhat rushed. The final confrontation wraps up in a manner that seems a bit too neat. It glossing over the complex emotional groundwork laid throughout the movie. Kung Fu Panda 4 is a robust and welcome addition to the franchise. It balances the comfort of familiar characters and themes with the excitement of new challenges and faces. It offers a compelling narrative and stunning animation. Despite minor pacing issues and a somewhat tidy conclusion, the film remains engaging. It stands as a testament to the enduring charm and depth of Po’s journey. Kung Fu Panda 4 combines humor, action, and emotion. Read the full article

[mymarifae]

Susie is the center as the heart and everything points to her as the true protagonist of deltarune with Kris is the more like the secondary supporting protagonist that’s the foil to her

i wouldn't say kris is susie's foil. like literally everything else to do with writing, "foil" as a literary device can be used in many ways, and there's really no concrete definition. however, more often than not, it holds negative connotations for the character who is the foil, and i don't like that

the whole point of a foil is that one character's traits are highlighted through the traits of another, or the distinct lack of traits displayed by another character. a foil serves to make your protagonist or whatever look even better than they did before

susie is kind, brave, loving, she's always concerned for the well-being of those around her, and she's a little off-putting, a bit awkward, a little rough around the edges, a little(lot) bit crude, and she's still just a little wary of others (understandably so). to successfully be her foil, kris would need to display the direct opposite of basically all these traits. and that's the thing. they don't

kris is just as naturally heroic and brave and kind and loving as susie is. the closest thing we have in terms of them contrasting is like. susie's loud and more boisterous while kris is quiet. this doesn't make for a very good foil!

it's just interesting, seeing people talk in the notes of that susie post and getting asks like this! i've seen several people now say that susie is the true protagonist and that they think kris will possibly have a villain arc. i don't necessarily mean this in a negative way (kris is not going to have a villain arc though.); it's just like, oh we have a fundamentally different understanding of this. ok!

the way i see it, deltarune is a game about subverting expectations. this applies to the arc of literally every character so far. but even outside of the characters themselves. deltarune seems bent on taking pretty much every narrative expectation a player might have and turning it around on its head. susie embodies a lot of what you would expect from a True Hero, and unlike kris, she's loud about it. but in attempting to assign any of these characters a ~role~ like hero or villain or whatever, thus placing your expectations onto them, you've already made a mistake! none of that is important here

susie may be the driving force of the game and she may be the one keeping everyone going, but the story isn't about just her. kris is equally as important. they're as much as a "true protagonist" as susie. everything is important. every character is integral to the story. that's what i think...

but really we all know nubert is the main character of the game so disregard literally everything i just said

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #455

Top Ten Comedy Sidekicks

Ha, LOL, ROFL, guffaw, snort. Comedy, eh? You’ve got to love it, unless you somehow fall through a timewarp into a late-seventies working men’s club in Blackburn and you find yourself choking to death on second-hand smoke, mother-in-law jokes, and a simmering undercurrent of racist violence. Good times!

Anyway, it’s fairly common that even in the most serious of narratives and with the most serious of protagonists, we need a little chuckle very now and again (nobody tell Zack Snyder – actually, no, scratch that, somebody definitely tell Zack Snyder). It lightens the load, makes the world more nuanced and realistic, and even makes the truly dark moments stand out all the stronger. Most films have a bit of a joke every once in a while (and, of course, Shakespeare’s tragedies are full of comic characters or bits of business), and one very common trope is the Comedy Sidekick.

What is a Comedy Sidekick? Well, it’s a supporting character who offers comic relief, basically. sometimes this can be obviously discernible – Luis in Ant-Man, for example, may function as a plot engine from time to time, but has little in the way of actual character development and is mostly there to be funny whilst the heroes do hero stuff. Sometimes it’s harder to define; I mean, are either of the Blues Brothers a comedy sidekick? Arguably Jake is the lead and Elwood is a bit more of a “turn” (he’s almost eternally deadpan and unemotional), but I’d never say one was inherently funnier or “straighter” than the other. And the you get onto films like Aladdin: sure, Aladdin himself is obviously the protagonist, and there’s an argument to be made that the Genie is a comic relief supporting character, but I feel in this case he’s far too integral to the plot, played by a significantly more famous actor, and really just dominates the film to the extent that he becomes the de facto lead (see also: Captain Jack Sparrow). Again, in Men in Black, Will Smith’s J is clearly the “funny” one, but Smith is also the bigger star and the audience entry point; plus, Tommy Lee Jones is hilarious as the deadpan K. So it’s not as simple as it may first appear.

Anyway, the ten in this list are ones I define as definitely being supporting characters. They may be big characters, in terms of plot or development, but they’re definitely there in support of another protagonist. And whilst they may be fully-rounded characters with their own arcs, their primary function is to be funny; they’re the ones who deliver the comedy lines back to the main character, or crack a joke at the end of a serious bit.

Right, I think that’s my usual ridiculous caveats out of the way. Now let’s make ‘em laugh.

Baldrick (Tony Robinson, Blackadder series, 1983-99): Baldrick is one of the supreme comic idiots in all of fiction. Serving as a perfect foil to Blackadder, he is not only supremely stupid but also his niceness and naiveté serves to undercut his master’s wickedness; plus his idiocy is often the undoing of Blackadder’s villainous plans. But he is also charmingly fully-rounded, oblivious to his own stupidity, possessed of “cunning plans”, and with a great love of turnips. A phenomenal turn from Robinson.

Sir John Falstaff (various plays by William Shakespeare, from 1597): is it cheating to include as significant and iconic a literary figure as Falstaff? Feels a bit like it, especially as he's practically a lead (and, indeed, becomes one in Merry Wives). But really he’s the archetype: a supremely vain and self-serving comic foil, but one with vast hidden depths as he’s keenly aware of his own frailties and the inevitable end of his good times with Prince Hal.

Father Dougal McGuire (Ardal O’Hanlon, Father Ted 1995-98): in many ways he’s a slightly watered-down version of Baldrick’s comic idiot; but Dougal is, if anything, even stupider, and less self-aware. He’s like a perfect idiot, a beautiful naïve fool, a supreme man-child with his Masters of the Universe duvet. And he’s divine, just incredibly hilarious throughout; and, like Baldrick, serves as the perfect foil for his more duplicitous and cynical elder.

Donkey (Eddie Murphy, Shrek, 2001): animated sidekicks are very often the comic relief, and I’d argue that Murphy’s Donkey is as good as they come. I actually think Murphy’s prior turn as Mushu in Mulan is probably the better character, but Donkey is just a comic force of nature, a creature who exists only to make everything dafter and funnier. It allowed Murphy a chance to go all-out in a way he hadn’t on screen for quite some time, and it was something we’d rarely seen in animation (arguably only Robin Williams’ Genie is in the same ballpark). Plus, he actually is a good friend to Shrek, bringing out his better nature. Well done, Eddie!

Danny Butterman (Nick Frost, Hot Fuzz, 2007): another of those characters who really skirts the edges of “supporting comic relief” and is really a deuteragonist. But I feel like most of Frost’s characters in his partnerships with Simon Pegg are, essentially, supportive; Pegg is almost always the lead. In this film, despite Danny having some great development and functioning almost as a romantic partner for Pegg’s Nick Angel, he’s usually presented as a beautiful comic foil, his folksy, slobby demeanour contrasting perfectly with Angel’s straitlaced professionalism. And – for the second film in a row – he gets a tremendous C-bomb.

Luis (Michael Peña, Ant-Man, 2015): another comic fool, Luis is the silly, charming, endearing, loveable thorn in the side of Paul Rudd’s Scott Lang. He’s daft, yeah, and comes across as a bit dim, but his permanently-smiling demeanour means we just keep on loving him, even when we can see how annoying he would be. but what cements his position is his rapid-fire OTT explanations, and how the movie presents them; pieces of comedic joy in the MCU.

Cosmo Brown (Donald O’Connor, Singin’ in the Rain, 1952): Singin’ is one of those great Golden Age movies full of witty dialogue (as well as great songs, natch), and by its nature Gene Kelly is the lead and therefore straight man, whereas O’Connor’s Cosmo can be wackier and funnier, and in doing so get to the truth of what his friend is feeling. But what really gets him in this list is his performance of “Make ‘Em Laugh”, running up walls like he’s in The Matrix or something, and feeling like a Bugs Bunny cartoon brought to life.

Silent Bob (Kevin Smith, View Askiewniverse, from 1994): I guess you could argue that both Bob and his less-silent colleague Jay are, as a twosome, the comedy sidekicks in whichever films they’re in (apart from the two they headline, I guess); but if you take the pair on their own, I’d say Bob is the comic of the duo. Yeah, it’s Jay who’s the mile-a-minute loudmouth, cracking jokes and being explosively filthy. But who really gets the laughs? For my money it’s Smith’s perfectly-judged expressions, punctuating the pomposity or reinforcing the eccentricity of whatever Jay’s on about. And then every now and again he gets to speak, and delivers a great one-liner (“no ticket!”) or serious, heartfelt monologue (cf. Chasing Amy).

Semmi (Arsenio Hall, Coming to America, 1988): Semmi is supposed to be a loyal and devoted servant to Prince Akeem, and he is, I guess; but he’s also a true friend. Akeem’s quest to find love in New York is genuine, and despite the film’s high joke quantity, Eddie Murphy has to be relatively restrained in his lead role. Hall’s Semmi, on the other hand, gets to be acerbic, throwing shade and barbs at his lord, questing their quest and seeking his own share of wealth and, well, women. And we all love his line “you sweat from a baboon’s balls”.

Dory (Ellen DeGeneres, Finding Nemo, 2003): as discussed above, comedy cartoon sidekicks are a cinematic staple. They’re not often female, however, and even more rare is a female character who gets to be both funnier and seemingly dumber/goofier than the lead. Of course, Dory is full of pathos, a borderline tragic character whose chronic memory loss has a dreadful impact on her day-to-day life. It’s her sunny optimism (“just keep swimming!”) that makes her endearing more than her humour, however; and, of course, it’s this optimism that begins to chip away at Marlin’s (Albert Brooks’) flinty suit of armour. Funny, warm, makes our hero a better person, but can be a little bit sad – perfect comedy sidekick.

There are two that I’m annoyed that I couldn’t fit in so I'll mention them here: Carrie Fisher in When Harry Met Sally and Danny Kaye in White Christmas. In the former case, whilst Fisher’s Marie is hilarious throughout, and definitely comic relief when put alongside the relatively straight Sally, the fact that everyone, really, gets a lot of funny lines in what is a consistently funny film kinda knocked her down the rankings a little bit, even though I feel bad about it, because everything is always better if Carrie FIsher is in it, including these lists. Kaye’s Phil Davis in White Christmas absolutely steals that film from Bing Crosby, with fast-paced witty wordplay and some supreme physical comedy, and the running gag about how he saved the life of Crosby’s Bob Wallace is golden. But, I dunno, he just kept slipping down the list, despite being my favourite thing in that film. Sorry, Danny.

[terramythos]

Review: Vicious by V. E. Schwab (Villains #1) (REREAD)

Length: 364 pages. 

Genre/Tags: Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Science Fiction, Superheroes, Revenge Narrative, Dark, Time Jumps, Perspective Shifts, Third-Person, Great Characters, Duology

Warning(s): Graphic violence and torture. One of the main characters is just straight up genocidal. There is a very dubious consent scene later in the novel (non-explicit). Child death (sort of?). This is like, a gray versus black morality kind of story, so don’t read it if that isn’t your thing?

My Rating: 8.5 / 10

My Summary:

Victor and Eli, two genius college roommates at the top of their game, come up with a hypothesis for their senior project— that near-death experiences sometimes result in superpowers. However, when they test their theory, things go terribly awry, and both are left forever changed. Victor finds himself with the ability to manipulate pain. Eli becomes functionally immortal. And with a body count behind both young men, they transform from best friends into bitter enemies. 

Ten years later, Victor escapes from prison. Cunning and manipulative, Victor has had a decade to contemplate revenge against the man who put him there— Eli. When he finds an injured 12-year-old girl on the side of the road, he discovers Eli has spent the last decade systematically murdering EOs— people with supernatural abilities. Sydney, who can raise the dead, is the one of the few to escape. 

With the help of Sydney and his former cellmate Mitch, Victor begins to enact his revenge. But it’s only a matter of time before Victor and Eli finish what they started ten years ago…

But these words people threw around— humans, monsters, heroes, villains— to Victor it was all just a matter of semantics. Someone could call themselves a hero and still walk around killing dozens. Someone else could be labeled a villain for trying to stop them. Plenty of humans were monstrous, and plenty of monsters knew how to play at being human. The difference between Victor and Eli, he suspected, wasn’t their opinion on EOs. It was their reaction to them. Eli seemed intent to slaughter them, but Victor didn’t see why a useful skill should be destroyed just because of its origin. EOs were weapons, yes, but weapons with minds and wills and bodies, things that could be bent and twisted and broken and used.

Vicious is an interesting book to reread because, while the book itself hasn’t changed, the context behind it has. When I read this back in 2016 it was a standalone novel, originally published in 2013. Now I’m rereading it specifically because there is an unexpected sequel (Vengeful, 2018), and I wanted a refresher before jumping into it. Second, maybe a more minor detail— this book is homoerotic as hell, and I remember wondering if it was intentional on a first read. Now that Schwab recently came out as gay, I’m thinking it probably was, which makes it all the more entertaining.  

It’s also interesting to see how much Schwab’s writing has changed over time. Originally, I read Vicious, enjoyed it, then decided to read her big fantasy series Shades of Magic, and… Well, let’s just say *that* ended up being one of my favorite trilogies ever. Whoops? But in many ways I feel my enjoyment of Shades of Magic overshadowed Vicious. I enjoyed this book, but honestly I kind of forgot about it even though it was the first one I read. That was another reason to revisit it; while I might not like it as much as Shades of Magic, it’s still plenty good.

Before I do a deep dive into the book, I think it’s important to discuss the structure. Vicious basically has two stories— one in the past, and one in the present. The first half mostly focuses on the past, while the second half mostly focuses on the present. “Mostly” is important here— the story is very anachronistic. This serves to heighten the drama; we learn about Victor and Eli’s past relationship, then get a glimpse of just how corrupted and different it is in the present day, and of course wonder what got them to this point. While I feel it’s easy to do time and perspective jumps poorly, the chapters themselves are pretty short, so I never felt disconnected from any particular plot thread. The pacing was always solid. If anything I found this novel pretty easy to read, because I could tackle just a few chapters at a time yet make significant progress in the story.

Vicious is, without a doubt, character-driven. People with superpowers exist— called ExtraOrdinary people (EOs)— and said powers develop in a unique way. Other than that there’s nothing super special about the setting. And aside from the interesting structure, the story is pretty standard. But the characters themselves are fascinating and by far the strongest point of the novel. The main focus is obviously on Victor and Eli, and how they serve as foils to one another. Both are arrogant and straight-up terrible people, but the way they see the world differs greatly, and that’s ultimately what separates the “hero” of the story (Victor) from the villain (Eli). Gray versus black morality, hooray!

Seeing the initial relationship between the two leads and how it sours and twists over time is quite interesting. At first Eli seems to be the most level-headed of the two, but as the story develops you learn how fanatical and unhinged he really is. Dude just straight up embraces genocide after a point. Meanwhile, Victor is clearly a vindictive and selfish dick from the get-go, yet as Eli’s true nature shows, seems much less terrible by comparison. The story is sometimes a bit on-the-nose with the whole hero vs villain thing and how the two defy usual expectations, but it is still interesting to realize you’re genuinely rooting for Victor. Despite everything he’s a pretty likable character.

Aside from Victor and Eli, there are three supporting characters who substantially affect the story. Preteen Sydney gets the most screentime, and with Mitch (Victor’s bodyguard/hacker/cellmate) serves as the humanizing part of the story. Victor even seems to sort of care for the two! Though how much of that is genuine attachment versus just finding them useful is debatable. There’s a super twisted found family vibe with the trio which starts to form near the end (they adopt an undead dog and everything!). On the antagonistic side of things, we have Serena, Sydney’s older sister, who has the power to compel others. She’s pretty terrifying, and has her own twisted motivations for helping Eli. At times she’s honestly more unsettling than he is.

One of my main complaints about Vicious when I first read it was *just* as I started to really dig the side characters, their relationships, and their developments… the novel ended. Yes, Sydney gets significant development through the story. But Mitch and Serena get shafted. We only really get to know them toward the end of the novel with backstory dumps or a handful of perspective chapters. A lot of the novel’s real estate centers on Victor and Eli’s past, and while I think that’s an integral part of the novel, it feels like something is missing. At the time I thought this novel either needed to be longer or it needed a sequel. Well, now it has one of those things, so it will be interesting to see what Vengeful does with the characters.  

Thematically and philosophically there’s some interesting stuff going on. The hero vs villain thing is the most obvious, and as I mentioned gets pretty direct at times. But one idea I found interesting to consider is what happens to the souls of ExtraOrdinary people. It’s initially stated as fact that EOs lose a part of themselves when they die and return. They’re different, changed in a way they can’t quite describe. And for most of the novel this seems to be true. Victor and Eli both become twisted, detached people, obsessed with their own perceptions of reality. The two realize they should feel or think certain things and simply… don’t. Both attribute it to the fact they died and came back “wrong”. But the more we learn about both characters, the more we realize they were pretty much like that all along. The idea that people lose something doesn’t really hold up when you examine Sydney, who turns into a stronger and more vibrant person after coming back. It’s an interesting realization, because it highlights just how wrong Eli’s actions are.

There’s also a whole deal regarding God and spirituality vs science. Eli justifies nearly everything he does in the name of God, whereas Victor is an atheist— but the extent to which this affects things is a definite gray area. There are some uncanny coincidences in the story (like Victor discovering Sydney) that would be bad writing… except the characters notice it happening. On multiple occasions Victor notes that if God or Fate exists, it seems to be siding with him, not Eli. Even the formation of ExtraOrdinary abilities is bizarre. One gets superpowers based on their final thoughts and feelings? That’s so decidedly unscientific, especially from something that starts as a science experiment, that it really sticks out to me. Is there more to this dichotomy? I guess we’ll see if the sequel explores it more.

There are some small details I really like, but I think my favorite is the blackout poetry thing. There’s just something interesting and really funny about Victor defacing his famous parents’ self-help books. He mentions it’s one of the best gifts he got in prison, and it’s also one of the first things he does when he gets out. Probably the funniest part in the whole story is an intense chase scene where Victor is trying to escape someone through an unfamiliar house. He spots a Vale book on a shelf, and pauses EVERYTHING to just grab it and throw it out the window, then returns to the scene as if nothing happened. It’s just such an unnecessary detail that might have ended up on the cutting room floor but I honestly lost my shit laughing.

The ending is also viscerally satisfying. So much stuff ties together well. While the novel is about Victor and Eli and (ultimately) Victor’s revenge, you don’t actually learn much about his plan until it happens. A lot of lines and actions read differently in context of the ending, which is always something I like in a story.

(And here’s a totally skippable aside— *is* there some connection between this series and Monsters of Verity? The latter is a young adult duology by Schwab, which I read and reviewed here and here. But the first book has an opening quote from Victor. Hell, it’s part of the quote I picked for this review. They don’t seem to be in the same universe but… maybe they are? It’s just such a goddamn weird choice to quote a “V. Vale” at the beginning of an unrelated series. Maybe Vengeful has an explanation? Maybe Schwab just really liked that whole monsters vs humans line? I have no idea.)

Anyway, yeah, that’s Vicious! It’s certainly a fun one to read. The writing is punchy and easy to get through. The conflict between Victor and Eli is very well written and compelling. And, as I mentioned, the characters are the strong point (in my opinion, anyway), so if you enjoy character-driven media I definitely recommend it. Just note my caveat about some of the character development. Skip it if you’re one of those people bothered by Bad People Doing Bad Things In Fiction or think portraying Bad People Doing Bad Things is somehow Endorsing Bad Things. If dark stories aren’t your thing you definitely won’t enjoy this one. There are some aspects of the story that I feel could have been smoother or done differently, most of which I touch on in the review. I think Schwab has improved a lot since writing it, which is one reason I’m excited that my next read is the 2018 sequel.

[gch1995]

The Big Problems With OUAT’s Writing:

My favorite characters were Rumple, Belle, Emma, and Nealfire. Once Nealfire got killed off though, their characterizations and their relationships, as well as everyone else’s thereafter, went to total shit in canon. Adam and Eddy obviously couldn’t come up with any more than two-and-a-half seasons of organic or satisfying character growth for the original main cast, and it should have ended in 3x11, in my opinion. I’m pretty sure that Damon Lindlelof helped them out with the writing a lot for the first two-and-a-half seasons, which is why the story is at least coherent enough to be enjoyable up to 3x11.

But after 3A, Lindlelof’s plans for the show were butchered, Kitsowitz completely took over the show with Captain Fuckboy, PLOT, and making money their main focuses, so they kept it on air for the next four-and-a-half seasons not knowing what else to do now that they had run out of new story. Thus, it got to the point where it essentially devolved into such badly written crack!fic soap opera on screen by the end of 5A where the writing for everyone’s characterization had become so unbelievably OOC, annoyingly self-contradictory, changeable, hypocritical, illogical, melodramatically problematic, and toxic in favor of the PLOT that I had to quit to preserve my sanity.

I enjoyed reading Rumbelle fanfic moreso than the actual show because it made sense and felt more satisfying, well-written, in-character, and entertaining than the nonsensical toxic garbage the show had devolved into.

After 5A, Eddy Kitsis said in an interview that he thought “good storytelling” was making sure the audience goes “WTF? This makes absolutely no sense! This isn’t fair! This totally contradicts everything that I was shown before, and feels too stupid, too contrived, and too OOC to even believe possible.”

It wasn’t worth getting emotionally or mentally invested in this show or any of the remaining characters as written in canon anymore post 3A because A&E and these writers formula kept becoming more and more of “We’re doing our jobs if we can trick our audience after deliberately teasing them by dangling the carrot of organic growth of character that we’re too lazy to follow through on by yanking it away from them as soon as they start making logical predictions abruptly, cruelly and inorganically with constant twist of ’HOLY SHIT, CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT JUST HAPPENED?”

When Eddy basically said that at the end of 5A, I realized I was done with having any hope for this show, and I decided to finally quit watching after 5B because I knew every time something started to seem to make sense and go in a direction of organic growth for the characters, A&E and these writers would deliberately pull the rug out from under them and their audience for trying to get invested in them with some inorganic contrivance that ruined everything in an unfair way that made no sense and never would make any sense in canon from what we were led to believe would happen beforehand on this show by them because that was the whole point: A&E and these writers so often didn’t want you to make sense of their show because they were lazy hacks who didn’t know how to write a cohesive plot or organic character growth/realistic characterization after 3A.

They admitted that they liked whiplashing their audience for using common sense and logic in regards to fans whenever the story and the characters would seem to be potentially headed in a way that would make sense. They considered that “genuis” storytelling with their overinflated egos, rather than just very cruel, mean, lazy, and low bad writing that ultimately destroyed most of their main characters’ credibility and their fans willingness to stay emotionally invested in their canon show that the creators/writers refused to let unfold organically in a way that made consistent sense long term.

Instead, they used a constant series of contrived magical macguffins and twists of “WTF just happened? This makes no damned sense from what was just previously established on screen, and does not at all relate to it! This is unbelievably absurd! The characters would never do or say this shit in real life!”

It destroyed the credibility of most of their characters’ in canon and their fans willingness to stay emotionally invested in their show, and it was insulting, especially when you had showrunners like Eddy Kitsis admitting to the fans “As always with this show, once the audience gets onto what we’re doing, we have to change it.”

When they said “We hope things will be ‘fun’” for the character assassinating, wildly OOC, nonsensical, and melodramatic garbage writing of 6A for Rumbelle with the Morfetus bs twist or in 5A of the Dark Swan arc, they didn’t mean that we would necessarily be legitimately entertained as an audience when they threw in a character destroying inorganic magical contrivance or bizarre twist out of nowhere that forced the characters into weird directions that made no sense from what had been previously established.

Adam and Eddy meant that they would be having fun pissing those of us in their audience off by insulting our intelligence and common sense by constantly giving us inorganic contrivance of OOC characterizations, magical macguffins, and bizarre PLOT twists and contrivances that didn’t consistently, logically, and thus satisfyingly add up with what had been previously established, rather than entertaining us with organic character growth that made satisfactory sense by letting our predictions for characters come true in their sheer laziness to slow down and write organic character development.

There were even hints of this problem before 3B-S7 that I was seeing potential for in 2B. OUAT could have gone strong for longer than two to three ish seasons if A&E and these writers had slowed down from 2B, not gotten obsessed with Hook, not gone to Neverland, and not gotten so obsessed with the next big, bizarre, and contrived magical PLOT twist or macguffin that, oftentimes inorganically forced their characters to 180 regress in ways that made no sense for moments of “HOLY SHIT! WTF JUST HAPPENED?”

I have no problem with characters regressing when it’s done organically, slowly, relatably, and realistically. The problem with OUAT was that they used inorganic contrivances to push them back-and-forth between increasingly bizarre extremes that made no sense, rather than focusing on human or realistic motivations to get them from point A to point C organically. It felt fake, and it felt forced. I know it was fiction, but it felt like lazily badly written fiction when the characters swung back-and-forth by the writers playing God with them on the strings of their asinine PLOT twists inorganically.

It had gotten beyond exhausting trying to invest in a show run by petty hacks who were never going to allow their audience’s common sense and intelligence lead them through an organic path of growth for these characters with the writers dangling the carrot in front of them for a story that actually could make sense, and then abruptly, cruelly, and inorganically yanking it away from them with an absurd twist because they were too lazy to come up with any more ideas for organic character growth after 3A.

Let’s talk about Hook and CS becoming such a main focus on this show, and the romantic male lead/couple.” It’s not that Hook couldn’t have been organically developed into a sympathetic character worthy of redemption in his own right. A&E couldn’t write that, though. He also didn’t fit together with the ensemble main cast in the place of Nealfire as Emma’s main love interest. He and Emma had absolutely no chemistry. Hook’s sudden interest in her was bizarre and creepy.

Then, they killed off Nealfire through absurd means for Hook to take his place in the picture where he didn’t fit in the family circle, so they could have CS. They broke their own rules to bring Rumple back from the dead to turn him into the wildly OOC on-and-off-again “big bad” scapegoat cartoonish villain PLOT twister “foil” to Hook, even after having been given two-and-a-half seasons of the most well-written and well-earned sympathetic reforming anti-villain/tragic hero backstory and redemption arc from S1-3A. They destroyed Emma’s, Belle’s, Snow’s, David’s, and even Henry’s original sympathetic characterizations by obliterating their self-respect, intelligence, self-awareness, and moral integrity, so that they could inorganically force this bullshit narrative of Hook/CS being the “best hero” ever in a world of now meaningless, shallow, and simplistic black versus white hypocritical morality that Nealfire and the common goal of family balanced out with a sense of realism, common sense, organic growth and emotional depth that got lost with his death in favor of contradictory character destroying magical PLOT-twist driven Drama™️ soap opera “hero versus villain” fuckery and Hook/CS.

No wonder they lost more and more viewers as every season passed...Getting emotionally invested was no fun when the writers deliberately pulled the rug out from underneath your favorite characters whenever things started to seem making sense by totally ruining it with some bizarre magical contrivance or characterization that doesn’t add up to what we were shown before, and your logical predictions for stories that made organic and consistent sense for character growth were mocked by these writers because they refused to slow down and develop the characters after S1-3A. You were punished for being smart and using common sense, and that’s why most of these main characters’ credibility and integrity got completely destroyed in one way or another by this very lazy, petty and unfair bad writing technique of theirs that made them mostly feel like pod!people after just the first two-and-a-half seasons of the series.

tldr; You could only suspend your disbelief by turning off your brain to disregard the bullshit writing choices on OUAT and just blindly enjoy the show by getting invested in the characters for so long as written in canon without asking any questions before the writing became too infuriatingly repetitive, too contrived, too OOC, too character assassinating, and too stupid to believe. Also, Captain Fuckboy ruined the show after 3A, and he should have died and stayed dead back in early S2. It could have been different if A&E were good writers who could come up with organic character growth, and not shoehorned him in as Emma’s love interest in a way that ruined the whole show’s dynamic and sense of emotional depth by replacing Nealfire with him.

Nealfire’s death was the metaphorical death of the show’s canon, though. My personal headcanon was that the real show ended with “Going Home” (3x11) because that’s the last time there was any sort of compelling, consistent, organic, realistic, or relatable characterization or growth. After that, it all went to hell (literally), and I had to finally quit watching after S5 to preserve my sanity before anything got any worse, and on this show, it only would because A&E and these writers never learned.

A&E didn’t trust or respect their audience, so after awhile it felt like why should I respect their shitshow’s canon if it doesn’t make any consistent or well-developed sense, and they don’t care that it doesn’t themselves anymore either?

[whattheschmuck]

Dear Crystal Dynamics,

For the next Tomb Raider game I would like to see several things happen:

**I had made a post like this on Twitter fairly recently and figured it would be prudent to share my thoughts on here as well. Please note that there might be several add-ons in this post (meaning that some of these weren’t on my Twitter list).

1.) Sam.

I have to say it right off the bat: Lara is a flat, one-dimensional character without a fun-loving foil there to interact with her, emphasize different parts of her personality, and help bring her to life. The human, relatable side of Lara is what brought so many new fans to the series in 2013, and without Sam we don’t really get to see that side of Lara. Crystal Dynamics, you should really reconsider throwing away all of that untapped potential.

2.) Tombs.

I want to see tombs that are central to the plot rather than being added into the game as optional extras. After all, isn’t the game named Tomb Raider?

3.) Puzzles.

Speaking of tombs, the puzzles need to be made more difficult and logic puzzles need to be incorporated rather than only having the standard physics puzzles. I want to be shown how brilliant and intuitive Lara is.

4.) Globetrotting.

I want to see Lara actually go globetrotting rather than recycling the “stranded and fighting for survival” trope again...and I’d like to add that it is possible to follow through on this suggestion and keep the current combat and leveling systems. All you need to do is provide us gamers with several regions/maps to explore (each having their own plot-centric tombs too, of course!). I don’t care if the map sizes are cut down to facilitate this--you can get rid of all the extra outfits for all I care! When we, as gamers, are told that Lara’s going to be globetrotting we expect to see actual globetrotting! Having a single Syria segment does not count, sorry.

5.) “Daddy Issues.”

NO. DADDY. ISSUES. Please! It’s such an overused trope in every TR-verse and it directly contradicts who the Lara you’ve created is! How is she supposed to make a name for herself if she’s stuck following daddy’s research and walking in his shadow? It’s a double whammy: it compromises the integrity of her character and strips her of her independence--which happens to be one of the traits that made her so awesome in 2013! Just let Lara be her own person instead of defining her by who her parents were.

6.) No Hero Cliché.

If you want to make Lara a reluctant hero then by all means go for it! But don’t make her a white knight. That’s not who your character is and it’s not who you’ve developed her to be. Lara’s a survivor who is setting out to make her mark, to find adventure. Focus on that and Lara’s own personal interests. If she has to stop a big bad cult of religious fanatics to get what she wants, so be it. But don’t make this a narrative of “Trinity is bigger than I ever imagined. They have to be stopped.”

7.) Better Villains.

The villains in Rise were weak and underdeveloped. Take Ana for example, she was so transparent that her betrayal didn’t even come as a shock to me...why else would you guys throw a shady character that we’ve never met before into the game if not to have her be an antagonist? Here’s the frustrating part: she actually had the potential to be a wildly complex and multidimensional character--she just didn’t get the development she deserved. I didn’t know what hers and Richard’s relationship was like, I didn’t know what kind of a relationship her and Lara had or how close they were, I didn’t even know if she was lying when she said “I loved Richard” or if there was actually some capacity for moral ambiguity there! I swear, this kind of waste should be criminal.

8.) Enemies.

There needs to be a better variety of enemies in the game than what we’ve seen so far. I mean, the very first Tomb Raider game had dinosaurs in it for Pete’s sake! And while I’m not saying you need to throw dinosaurs into the next game, what I am saying is that I’m tired of fighting dudes with machine guns and immortal warriors. You clearly want to delve into the supernatural with these games so do that! Create something wacky and terrifying yet still fun to fight because you pretty much have full creative freedom to do so here--your imagination’s the limit! And while you’re at it, please give us a real boss battle!

9.) Gameplay.

Bring back the days of boat chases down the canals of Venice. Add more variety to the gameplay instead of serving us yet another plate of mass slaughter. For example, let us play through flashbacks instead of making us watch them. Or better yet, Rise took place in Siberia and Trinity clearly had a lot of technology at their disposal, right? So how about a high-speed snowmobile chase across Siberia’s treacherous terrain? Variety.

10.) Stop Clumsy Croft 2K17.

Stop making Lara look like the clumsiest, most lucky bint in human existence. Literally everything falls apart beneath her; it’s overused and it actually has the complete opposite effect of what you apparently intend it to have. Instead of putting me on the edge of my seat, stuff like this actually detracts from the drama of the game because I’m more focused on making fun of Lara for being worse than Nathan Drake in terms of breaking pretty much everything in sight despite being a brilliant young woman who graduated from UCL, one of the top-ranked universities globally. Cut back on this and show us that Lara has gotten skilled and hardened since Yamatai. Show us that she’s the Tomb Raider.

11.) “A Hardened and Experienced Survivor.”

Shouldn’t Lara have retained something from the island if she’s supposedly more “experienced”? I’m not saying that everything has to carry over from the previous game, but I shouldn’t have to relearn how to recover arrows from corpses. I also feel like a “hardened survivor” would at least be prepared for an adventure with a pistol, survival knife, and some rope. Worried about people who are new to the series having a steep learning curve? Put in an optional tutorial sequence at the beginning of the game. Otherwise just take a leaf out of Uncharted’s book and combine the tutorials with the actual gameplay.

12.) Improved Melee.

I cannot stress just how much this needs to be addressed. Tomb Raider’s melee combat system is imprecise, clunky, and just not that effective in actual combat. Here’s the thing: we know that Lara’s a bit of a scrapper based on the fight she had with the Trinity thug in Croft Manor around the beginning of the game. So why can’t we get her to fight hand-to-hand like that in the actual gameplay? Even if she lost her fight with the thug, she certainly seemed a lot more effective in close-quarters combat in that cutscene than she ever has in actual combat with her axe(s). I get that using the climbing axe as a weapon is becoming sort of a trademark for reboot Lara, but it’s just not practical and I personally feel like it should be dropped as a weapon (besides which point she already has the bow as her signature weapon). Explain the melee change as being a result of her having taken self-defense classes following the events of Rise. Just do something.

Below the read-more link is a continuation of this list with things that are a little bit more of a personal preference than the things I’ve listed to this point. Feel free to look over them if you want!

13.) Dual Pistols.

There’s a legitimate canonical reason for this. As we all (hopefully) know by this point, Roth was not only a father figure to Lara but also her mentor. He taught her everything she needed to know for survival--including how to fight. Now, Roth also preferred to dual-wield pistols so considering that and the fact that he is the one who taught Lara to fight, it’s not unreasonable to assume similar fighting styles between them (when Lara’s not scavenging for weapons). Thus: Lara dual-wielding pistols. It’s a nice way to honor Roth’s memory in future games and it gives a neat (in my opinion) backstory to Lara’s iconic dual-pistol combo. CD, make this happen!!

14.) Companions.

The presence of helpful companions (for select missions) who can hold their own can only help enhance the overall gaming experience. Having companions (like Sam for instance) would give Lara some people to banter with and help bring her character back to life. Making Lara a lone wolf hasn’t done anything for her character, there’s too much missing without someone else for her to bounce her thoughts off of. At the very least I would like to see Lara communicating with other people on an earpiece. The main thing is to have her consistently interacting with others who actually know her in some way, shape, or form because that’s when she shines.

15.) Scars.

This is actually more important than I think you realize. Give me the actual scars from Yamatai, not this thing you’re doing where the only scar you gave her is the Vladimir-pistol-whip scar artistically placed beneath her right eye. It’s cool that you included the scar from her first kill but it’s not enough. Lara’s origin story was ugly, dark, and gritty but she survived. Why would you want to erase that? Lara’s skin is a blank page and her scars are the words printed on it to tell a story. That’s the point: they were originally supposed to be kept on her character model to tell the story of how Lara Croft became Lara Croft.

It looked like you were going to stick to that plan too when you released the first Rise trailer that featured her in therapy. Her hands were scarred, she was having flashbacks, she was anxiously foot-tapping...it was perfect. But then you eliminated all of that. Here’s the thing, Crystal Dynamics: having those “ugly” scars is what will make Lara beautiful because they showcase her determination, and they showcase how powerful she is to have received all of them and endured. They most certainly would not make her look weak if that’s what you’re afraid of. Give me the deltoid scar, give me the scars on her chest, and, while you’re at it, give me the left eyebrow scar on her turning point model. Give me all of it because I want to see Lara for the undeniable badass she is.

16.) PTSD.

Mental illness is not a weakness! Let me tell you something: I am currently on three different medications (Wellbutrin, Trazodone, and Vyvanse) and I know that doesn’t make me weak. In fact, it makes me infinitely stronger than all of you big shots making the calls on Lara’s character because it is incredible that I have made it this far when I have struggled with mental illness for eight whole years! It takes strength to force yourself to get up in the mornings when you feel completely dead on the inside. It takes strength to force yourself to work harder than all of your classmates in spite of this because you had an undiagnosed learning disability and were at a disadvantage right from the start. It takes strength to tell yourself better things are coming when you feel like you have nothing worth living for.

Just living life takes strength. So how dare you call mental illness a weakness! Being mentally ill makes you anything but that, and I think that PTSD would be a testament to Lara’s character and her inner strength. Scratch that, I know it would be and I know that her having PTSD would make for an incredibly compelling narrative that also addresses very real and very serious real life issues. Mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of, it’s a common human struggle that many people go through. What isn’t human is magically coming out of the entire Yamatai ordeal with your psyche completely intact. That right there is what will make you lose fans: suppressing Lara’s humanity and locking it in a fridge. Stop worrying about controversy! There is nothing controversial about a person going through normal person stuff. Nothing. Stop making excuses and just take a chance for once!

[themovieblogonline]

Kung Fu Panda 4 Review: Another Hilariously Awesome Entry

In the pantheon of animated franchises, Kung Fu Panda has carved out a niche that's as delightful as it is deep, blending rib-tickling comedy with surprisingly profound philosophical musings. It’s a series that’s as much about martial arts excitement as it is about the journey of self-discovery. Now, with its fourth installment, Kung Fu Panda 4 helmed by director Mike Mitchell and co-director Stephanie Ma Stine, the franchise takes a daring leap, introducing new characters and a new challenge for our ever-lovable and eternally hungry hero, Po, voiced by the inimitable Jack Black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_inKs4eeHiI Kung Fu Panda 4 resumes Po's journey, this time setting him on a quest not for his own identity, but for the next bearer of the Dragon Warrior mantle. It's a premise ripe with potential, echoing the first film’s themes of destiny and worthiness, yet it feels freshly invigorated here by its inventive narrative twists and the introduction of new characters. Among them, Zhen, a fox bandit voiced with mischievous charm by Awkwafina, proves to be a standout, offering a dynamic foil to Po’s buoyant optimism. The plot centers on Po’s confrontation with a new villain, The Chameleon, masterfully voiced by Viola Davis. The Chameleon is a shapeshifter, a being who can become anyone, bringing a level of psychological intrigue to the fore that the franchise has only flirted with previously. This antagonist is not just another obstacle for Po to punch; she is a genuine existential threat, pushing Po and his friends to their limits, and challenging their understanding of identity and trust. Returning cast members including Dustin Hoffman as the ever-wise Master Shifu, James Hong as Po’s doting father Mr. Ping, and Bryan Cranston and Ian McShane, further enrich the film with their well-established characters, creating a sense of continuity that fans of the series will appreciate. The new additions, such as Ronny Chieng, Lori Tan Chinn, and Ke Huy Quan, infuse the film with fresh energy and humor, enhancing its vibrancy and expanding its world. One of the film's most commendable aspects is its animation. DreamWorks Animation pushes boundaries with visually stunning action sequences. The battle sequences are thrilling and engaging for all ages. The humor in the series remains ever-present and genuinely funny, keeping the atmosphere light for younger viewers. Yet, the script by Darren Lemke, Jonathan Aibel, and Glenn Berger, manages to weave in layers of introspection. Particularly about leadership, legacy, and self-acceptance that will resonate with older viewers. Mitchell's direction balances the action and the comedy deftly, with a particular flair for timing that amplifies both. He crafts scenes that are visually dynamic and full of heart. This ensures that the emotional beats hit just as hard as the kung fu punches. The handling of the narrative, however, does show occasional signs of struggle. This is mainly in the latter half where the pacing stumbles slightly. It struggles to integrate the vast ensemble and their myriad character arcs into the main storyline. This is perhaps where Kung Fu Panda 4 falters slightly. The film's ambition occasionally strains coherence but doesn't ruin the overall enjoyment. Another area where the film slightly misses the mark is in its resolution with The Chameleon. While Viola Davis delivers a performance that is nothing short of captivating, the climax feels somewhat rushed. The final confrontation wraps up in a manner that seems a bit too neat. It glossing over the complex emotional groundwork laid throughout the movie. Kung Fu Panda 4 is a robust and welcome addition to the franchise. It balances the comfort of familiar characters and themes with the excitement of new challenges and faces. It offers a compelling narrative and stunning animation. Despite minor pacing issues and a somewhat tidy conclusion, the film remains engaging. It stands as a testament to the enduring charm and depth of Po’s journey. Kung Fu Panda 4 combines humor, action, and emotion. Read the full article