#he’s truly such a fascinating and terrifying and funny and scary character

[lamentablesbian]

was anyone else surprised that this episode confirmed it was solely Milchick’s idea to create the Lumon “reforms” on the Severed floor? i have spent the entirety of this show trying to figure out what Mr. Milchick’s whole deal is, from his deference to authority and his superiority over the innies to his absolute dedication to the cause of Lumon— i assumed he was a middle man. bowing and scraping to achieve his goals and get more power? money? something? but during his performance review we learn that the obviously performative “reforms” are even more performative than we even knew! it was literally solely for Macrodata Refinement’s benefit and it was only Milchick’s idea! i have been running off the assumption that Milchick lives for orders, but this means he has a lot more power than i ever knew. which makes his slow slide to disillusionment (ie. the paintings) all the more interesting. literally what the fuck is his deal. why was he allowed to do all that.

[lem-cup-rev]

Sp2: Wild Blue Yonder

Doctor Who

🪛🪛🪛🪛

DOCTOR WHO IS SCARY ACTUALLY!

Oh, yes! I love when a character says something that just doesn’t really make sense, but you barely notice at first… It takes a few beats… and then you realize things are very wrong…

Them getting chased by enormous distorted doppelgangers was so insane. Like, in terms of horror moments that are not subtle and are pure dead ‘it’s gonna freaking get you,’ the sheer size of them coupled with the believability of the effect gave me such a thrill.

Also huge shoutout to not-Doc going wolfmode at the end. What would be the point of perfectly mimicking your prey if you gave up the ability to get down and zoom on your knuckles?

—

I really enjoyed all the time spent exploring and wondering about the odd situation. It’s very fun seeing Doc and Donna get back into what is apparently their dynamic. You can certainly feel that they’ve done this 100 times before (and still never learned their lesson). Doctor has a great way of vamping it up while mixing technobabble exposition with approachable buffyspeak. It was easy to believe both the sci-fi premise and that he does this stuff every week.

Love that we got the barest taste of xenolinguistics, just the mention of the idea of deriving the numbers from context clues. It made me imagine Doc Chants of Sennaaring the alien computer. The interface even had hexagons… let me at the hexagons, doctor who!!!

I thought it was great that all four of the characters handled the ‘doppelganger dilemma’ scenes as dumb as possible, just rapid-firing half-baked ideas back and forth.

I’ll admit the salt scene was where The Doctor’s Bullshit Logic™ really stretched my credulity too far to enjoy it. But I think it adds a lot if you headcanon that the Doctor is truly making stuff up by the seat of his pants every day of his life. I love the idea that whipping out a salt shaker was just the next wild idea he flailed upon, and then he had to run with it.

—

Hey so the Doctor’s kind of a bastard, huh?

It seems like a really interesting question. ‘Cause there’s always going to be the looming idea that he’s a faux-friendly god who plays with mortals for sport, and I’m certain all the different generations have a different relationship with that.

Special No.1 told us in words that the Doctor is extremely kind. And he obviously cares with all his hearts about Donna (and that Wilf fellow).

But how about the bit where he fakes getting poisoned to prank her? Not the time for it, when she’s legit terrified about getting stranded. But I think we’re meant to take that as benign?

Oh, and not to bury the lede, the fact that he takes the wrong Donna and almost leaves her to freaking die!!

I am fascinated by that scene, because his sudden, improvised method of selection (you’re human if you can’t explain why a joke is funny) is obviously bullshit, but I thought I was meant to take it as clever and correct per the contract of the narrative. Only it wasn’t! It was bullshit! So what does that say about him? What is that meant to say?

All else aside, it made for a great horror scene.

Next time: Getting a little too silly.

[glittter-skeleton]

Currently obsessed with how I see Technoblade’s introduction in the theoretical live-action found footage-style DSMP adaptation as described in this post by @walksinlatewithcoffee

We first hear him mentioned in one of Wilbur’s video journals (?) that he keeps in Pogtopia as a new addition to the team. We first see him lurking in the background of some Tommy videos, maybe a cape here, a shadow there. Him talking with Wilbur about anarchy, filmed by Tommy from begging a corner and stuff like that. Then it’s the red fistival and his back is constantly turned to the camera but he’s not the focus anyways. We do hear his “I’ll make this as painless and colorful as possible” phrase though.

The pit is a blur, so is November 16th, everything after the explosion at least, his speech is obliviously not filmed by Tommy (who I see as the guy who actually goes around and films stuff and that way is the most reliable and clear pov), it’s some shitty security camera left from Shlatt’s surveillance so we don’t see his much then either. Then, we don’t see him for a while, he’s talked about a lot though. Que the Butcher army. Ranboo, the minutes man, does recording during this entire period for him own convenience, but his hands would be shaking and it’s all unfocused since he only needs the audio anyways.

The first time we truly see him is Tommy with his vlogs. At first it’s the same shtick, a rustling, a door opening, Tommy sitting shaking terrified in his basement. In what he thinks are his last moments Tommy turns his camera to Techno opening the door. But we don’t see a brave warrior, we see a tired injured man. He’s framed from down below with Tommy’s hight. Still scary, still cool, but human. Se see more and more as him and Tommy bond. We see how much he really cares for Carl, how he pets his polar bears. We don’t see the Blade, you know? Just him.

I think this would be an interesting framing where Techno is dehumanized enough that for a second he side with the butcher army, even with how shitty all of their actions are. Plus, in an adaptation there have to be establishing things that frame the characters in the correct light.

On the DSMP the characters don’t need establishing. It’s Technoblade, he’s scary and powerful but loyal to ideals and friends. Why? Haven’t you seen smp Earth? Or Minecraft mondays?

Phil. He’s powerful, fatherly and chill. How do we know that? Well, it’s Philza Minecraft.

Quackity. Funny and aloof, a total non-threat. Don’t mind him, it’s not like he can do anything. Come on. He raids club Penguin for a living.

Idk, I just find it fascinating how on the dsmp you kind of need prior knowledge to know how to perceive certain people. So erasing that you need a way to integrate that back into the narrative and I find thinking of those fascinating. Why you should trust Phil, be scared of Techno and Punz, ignore Big Q and Tommy, etc.

[lucyreviewcy]

The Three Three Musketeers (or Where The F*ck Did All The Stupid Hats Go)

I read The Three Musketeers and then I watched the 1973, 1993 and 2011 adaptations. Which one wins tho?

Adaptation is a fascinating concept, especially of texts which are frequently adapted or parodied. After I rewatched the 2005 Pride and Prejudice I was reminded how weirdly divisive the two dominant adaptations of that book are. A lot of people consider the 2005 to be an inferior betrayal of the 1990s BBC version. I actually prefer the 2005 because I think Matthew McFadyen’s Mr Darcy is a wonderfully complex character. McFadyen imbues Darcy with social awkwardness and anxiety, which Lizzie misinterprets as his pride. To overcome the “Lizzie doesn’t fancy him ‘til she sees his house” debate, director Joe Wright includes a moment where Lizzie glimpses Darcy alone with his sister. He’s comfortable, his body language is completely different, and he’s smiling broadly. That moment really sold me on the entire film because it made Darcy a full character and was a really simple addition that rounded out the story. I still like the 90s version but for me, it’s the 2005 that takes first place.  (Although an honourable mention for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies because it is an excellent romp.)

Look: adaptation is always a complicated topic. You can’t untangle one adaptation from another, because it’s pretty rare that somebody adapting a classic text like Pride and Prejudice or The Three Musketeers is not already familiar with existing adaptations. The most recent adaptation of any classic text is not simply an adaptation of that text, but the next step in a flow chart that includes all the previous adaptations and the cultural context of the newly created product. These three adaptations of Dumas’ 1844 novel are all texturally and stylistically very different, and two of them diverge significantly from the original text. What I found truly fascinating was what all of them had in common, and what each new era (these were made at around 20 year intervals) decides to add or remove. What do all these movies agree are the essential parts of the story, and what are some adaptations more squeamish about including from Dumas’ original narrative?

Before we dive in, no I have not seen every single adaptation of the story, that would be a dissertation level of research and I do actually have things to do right now (although, I will admit...not many.) I’m looking at these three Hollywood adaptations because they all had star studded casts (for the era they were made in), they’re all English language, and (crucially) they were all easily available on the internet for me to stream.

What are the essential ingredients of a Three Musketeers adaptation?

Firstly, there should be at least three musketeers. Secondly, D’Artagnan (Michael York 1973, Chris O’Donnell 1993, Logan Lerman 2011) should be a young upstart who is introduced part way through a sword fight. He should also have silly hair. He is also consistently introduced to the musketeers in all three films by challenging them each individually to duels at noon, one o’clock and two o’clock. 

The films all maintained some elements of the original “Queen’s Diamonds” storyline, and featured the Queen, Milady and Constance. The characterisation of these three varied a lot.

Our villains in each case are invariably the Cardinal, his pal Rochefort (who always has an eyepatch, although this trope is not in the book and is actually attributable to the way Christopher Lee is styled in the 1973 film), and Milady de Winter. Satisfyingly, at least two of the villains usually wear red because they’re bad. Red is for bad. 

All three are very swashbuckling in tone, have elements of physical comedy, and two of them include one of the three valet characters Dumas wrote into the original story, Planchet (1973 Roy Kinnear, 2011 James “ugh why” Corden). They also all bear the generic markings of the movies made during the same era, our 70s D’Artagnan feels like a prototype Luke Skywalker. The 90s version features a random martial arts performer. The 2011 version has CGI and James Corden in equal measure (read: far too much of both.)

What are the big differences?

I’m going to divide this category into three main segments: character, story and style. My own three musketeers, the three musketeers of movie making.

Character

D’Artagnan

D’artagnan in the book comes across as a pretty comical figure. He’s nineteen and there’s something satisfying about how similar Dumas’ caricature of a nineteen year old is to a modern character of the same age. He’s overconfident, has a simplistic but concrete set of morals, and falls in love with every woman he sees. If D’Artagnan were a 2021 character, he’d really hate The Last Jedi, is what I’m saying. He’d definitely have a tumblr blog, probably a lot like this one, but perhaps a scooch more earnest. He really loved The Lighthouse but he can’t explain why. Isn’t it nice to know that awkward nineteen year olds have been pretty much the same for the last three hundred years at least? 

In all three films he’s kind of irritating, but at least in the 1973 this feels deliberate. This version has a certain “Carry On Musketeering” quality to it and D’Artagnan is your pantomime principal, he’s extremely naïve and he takes himself very seriously. This is the closest D’Artagnan to the book, and the 1973 is, in general, the film which adheres most faithfully to that source material. 

The 1993, which is (spoiler alert) my least favourite adaptation, has Chris O’Donnell as the least likeable D’Artagnan I’ve come across. I’ve only seen O’Donnell in one other thing, the Al Pacino movie Scent of a Woman. He’s bearable in that because he’s opposite Al Pacino, and so his wide-eyed innocence makes sense as a contrast to Pacino’s aged hoo-ah cynicism. Rather than being introduced in a practice sword fight with his father, as in the other two films, D’Artagnan is fighting the brother of an ex-lover. This captures the problem with the film in general: this adaptation wants D’Artagnan to be cool. He is not. The comedy of the 1973, and indeed the book, comes from D’Artagnan being deeply uncool, and from his blind idolisation of the deeply flawed Musketeers who actually are cool, but not necessarily heroic, or even good people. Their moral greyness contrasts with D’Artagnan’s defined sense of right and wrong, but he still considers them to be role models and heroes. 

2011′s version also suffers from “Cool D’Artagnan” syndrome, with the added annoyance of that most Marvel of tropes: the quip. One of the real issues with this film is that the dialogue has a lot of forced quippery that doesn’t quite land, and the editing slows the pace of the entire film. D’Artagnan’s first interaction with Constance is a bad attempt at wit which Constance points out isn’t very funny. The problem is that Constance has no personality so there’s no real indication that she’s in any position to judge his level of wit. She’s just vague, blonde and there: three characteristics which describe an entire pantheon of badly written female characters throughout the ages. Cool D’Artagnan also means that Constance should be additionally cool, because in the book, Constance is older than, smarter than and over-all more in charge than D’Artagnan. 

Female Characters

Let’s go into this with an open mind that understands all these films were made in the sociological context of their decade. The 1973 version would absolutely not be made in the same way now. Constance is a clumsy cartoon character who is forever falling over and accidentally sticking her breasts out. This is not the character from the books, but does at least leave an impression on the viewer one way or another. 

In contrast, the 1993 has a Constance so forgettable I literally cannot picture her. I think she holds D’Artagnan’s hand at the end. That’s all I can say on the subject. 

The 2011 has Gabriella Wilde in the role, and absolutely wastes her. Anyone who’s seen her in  Poldark knows that she can do sharp-tongued beautiful wit-princess with ease. It’s the writing of this film that lets her down, in general, that’s the problem with it. The storyline and design are great, but the actual dialogue lacks the pace and bite that a quip-ridden star vehicle needs. This Constance is given simultaneously more and less to do than the Constance of the original book, who demonstrates at every turn the superiority of her intellect over D’Artagnan, but doesn’t get to pretend to be a Musketeer and whip her hat off to show her flowing golden hair like she does in the 2011. 

The best character, for my money, in The Three Musketeers is Milady de Winter. Even Dumas got so obsessed with her that there are full chapters of the book written from pretty much her perspective. In the book, she’s described as a terrifying genius with powers of persuasion so potent that any jailor she speaks to must be instantly replaced. My favourite Milady is absolutely Faye Dunaway from 1973. She’s ferocious and beautiful and ruthless, but potentially looks even better because the portrayals in the other films are so very bad. 

The 1993 version has your typical blonde 90s baddie woman (Rebecca De Mornay), she wouldn’t look out of place as a scary girlfriend in an episode of Friends or Frasier. 2011 boasts Milla Jovovich who presents us a much more physical version of the character, even doing an awkwardly shoe-horned anachronistic hall of lasers a la Entrapment except instead of lasers its really thin pieces of glass? The “yeah but it looks cool” attitude to anachronism in this film is what makes it fun, and Jovovich’s Milady isn’t awful, she’s just let down by a plot point that she shares with 1993 Milady. Both these adaptations get really hooked on the fact that Athos used to be married to Milady at one time (conveniently leaving out the less justifiable character point that Athos TRIED TO HANG HER when he found out she had been branded as a thief - doesn’t wash so well with the modern audiences, I think.) Rather than hating/fearing Milady, the two modern adaptations suggest that Athos is still in love with her and pines for her. This detracts from Athos’ character just as much as it detracts from Milady’s. Interestingly, and I don’t know where this came from (if it was in the book I definitely missed it), both films feature a confrontation between the two where Athos points a gun at Milady but she pre-empts him by throwing herself off a cliff (or in the 2011, an air-ship.) I think both these versions were concerned that Milady was an anti-feminist character because she’s so wantonly evil, but I disagree. Equality means it is absolutely possible for Milady to be thoroughly evil and hated by the musketeers just as much as they hate Rochefort and the Cardinal. If you want to sort out the gender issues with this story, round Constance out and give her proper dialogue, don’t make Milady go weak at the knees because of whiny Athos (both Athos characters are exceedingly whiny, 1973 Athos is just...mashed).

The Musketeers

These guys are pretty important to get right in a film called The Three Musketeers. They have to be flawed, funny but kind of cool. Richard Chamberlain is an absolute dish in the 1973 version, capturing all those qualities in one. Is it clear which version is my favourite yet?

Athos is played variously by a totally hammered Oliver Reed (1973), a ginger-bearded Kiefer Sutherland (1993) and a badly bewigged Matthew McFadyen (2011). They all have in common the role of being the most level-headed character, but the focus on the relationship between Athos and Milady in the 93 and 11 editions undermines this a lot. Athos should be cool and aloof, instead of mooning over Milady the entire time. The 2011 gives Athos some painfully “edgy” lines like “I believe in this (points at wine) this (flicks coin) and this (stabs coin with knife.)...” which McFadyen ( once oh so perfect as Mr Darcy) doesn’t quite pull off. 

Porthos seems to be the musketeer who is the most different between interpretations. A foppish dandy in the 1973, a pirate (!?!) in the 1993, and then just...large in 2011. I think the mistake made in the 2011 is that large alone does not a personality make. There are hints at Porthos’ characterisation from the book: his dependence on rich women for money and his love of fine clothing, but these are only included as part of his introduction and never crop up again through the rest of the film. Pirate Porthos in 1993 is... you know what, fine, you guys were clearly throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck. 

Aramis is our dishy Richard Chamberlain in 1973, followed by womanising Charlie Sheen in 1993 and then strikingly suave Luke Evans in 2011. I actually didn’t mind Luke Evans’ interpretation, his dialogue is forgettable but his sleek charm stuck in my head. For some reason, this version has Aramis working as a parking attendant for horses, it worked for me as a fun A Knight’s Tale-esque bit of anachronistic character development. Charlie Sheen has never managed to appear likable or attractive to me and so his role in the 1993 falls flat. In fact, in that edition there’s not much distinction between the musketeers as characters and they’re all just very 90s and American. As anyone who’s read this blog before will expect, I think Keanu Reeves as Aramis would have really upped this film’s game. In fact, Keanu Reeves as Aramis, Brad Pitt as Athos and Will Smith as Porthos could have been the ultimate 90s adaptation, throw in DiCaprio as D’Artagnan and Roger Allam as the Cardinal and I’m fully sold. 

The King and Queen

All three films try and do the “Queen’s Diamonds” storyline, but only the 1973 actually includes the Queen’s affair with Buckingham. The queen, played by Geraldine Chaplin, is a tragic romantic figure (she doesn’t have a tonne to do besides being wistful and sighing over Lord Buckingham). The king is played as a frivolous idiot by Jean-Pierre Cassel (voice dubbed by Richard Briers). He doesn’t really think of the queen as a person, more as a possession that he doesn’t want Buckingham to have. 

In the 1993 version, Buckingham doesn’t really feature, and it’s the queen’s refusal to get off with the Cardinal that prompts his fury at her. The book does touch on the Cardinal’s desire for the queen, but it’s placed front and centre in 1993. This is definitely the boobsiest version, with quite a lot of corsetry on show and a cardinal who hits on literally all the women. The king is shown as a stroppy teenage boy under the thumb of the cardinal, who just wants to ask the queen to the dance but doesn’t have the nerve. The king is, essentially, a Fall Out Boy lyric. 

The 2011 also seems to be really squeamish about the idea of the queen having an extramarital affair. It paints Buckingham (played with excellent wig and aplomb by Orlando Bloom) as a stylish villain, who’s advances the queen has rejected. Like the 1993 version, the King is a feckless youth rendered speechless by the presence of his wife. Both these versions want the King and Queen to be happy together, while the 1973 doesn’t give a fuck. 

The Cardinal and his Cronies

The cardinal is kind of universally an evil creepy guy. One of the characters from the 1973 version who actually left the least impression on me, played by Charlton Heston. I think he’s overshadowed in my recollection by cartoonishly evil Christopher Lee as Rochefort. Lee’s Rochefort is dark, mysterious and wonderfully bad, and so influential that all other incarnations’ design is based on him. The 1993 version had truly over the top Michael Wincott as a character I could honestly refer to as Darth Rochefort from the way he’s framed, while 2011 boasts a chronically underused Mads Mikkelsen in the role. 

Cardinal-wise, 1993 was my favourite with Tim Curry in all his ecclesiastical splendour. It was disappointing that everything about this film, including the Cardinal’s sexual harassment of every single female character, really didn’t work for me. Tim Curry is a natural choice for this role and gives it his campy all. 

2011 has not one but two trendy bond villain actors, with Mikkelsen working alongside Christoph Waltz who was...just kind of fine. I was really excited when he appeared but he didn’t really push the character far enough and left me cold. 

Story

The story is where the different adaptations diverge most completely. 1973 follows the plot of the novel, D’Artagnan comes to Paris, befriends the Musketeers and becomes embroiled in a plot by the Cardinal to expose the Queen’s affair with Buckingham through the theft of two diamond studs. D’Artagnan, aided partially by the musketeers, must travel to London to retrieve the set of twelve studs gifted by the King to the Queen, and by the Queen to Buckingham. He does so, the plot is foiled, he’s made into a musketeer! Hurrah, tankards all round.

The 1993 version drops D’Artagnan into the story just as the Cardinal has disbanded the Musketeers. I found the plot of this one really hard to follow and I think at some point D’Artagnan ended up in the Bastille? There was this whole plot point about how Rochefort had killed D’Artagnan’s father. In the original, and in the 1973 version, D’Artagnan’s entire beef with Rochefort is rooted in a joke Rochefort makes about D’Artagnan’s horse. I guess for the producers of this one, a horse insult is not enough motivation for a lifelong grudge. That is really the problem with the entire film, it forgets that the story as told by Dumas is set in a world where men duel over such petty things as “criticising one’s horse”, “blocking one’s journey down a staircase” and “accusing one of having dropped a lady’s handkerchief.” The colour palette and styling are very 90s “fun fun fun”, but the portrayal of the cardinal and the endless angst about D’Artagnan’s father really dampen the mood. 

The 2011 version, this is where the shit really hits the fan. We meet our musketeers as they collaborate with Milady to steal the blueprints for a flying ship (it’s like a piratecore zeppelin). Milady betrays them and gives the plans to Buckingham, they all become jaded and unemployed. D’Artagnan arrives on the scene (his American accent explained by the fact that he’s from a different part of France) and befriends the Musketeers. The cardinal tries to frame the queen for infidelity by having Milady steal her diamonds to hide them in Buckingham’s safe at the tower of London. Something something Constance, something something help me D’Artagnan you’re my only hope. MASSIVE AIRSHIP BATTLE. The king and queen have a dance. James Corden cracks wise. 

It seems like as time has passed, producers, writers and directors have felt compelled to embellish the story. I think, specifically in the case of the two later versions, this is because they wanted the films to resemble the big successes of the period. Everybody knows no Disney hero can be in possession of both parents, so D’Artagnan is out to avenge his father like Simba or Luke Skywalker. In the 2011 version, the plot is overblown and overcomplicated in what seems like an attempt to replicate the success of both the Sherlock Holmes and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises. Remember the plot of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End? No, me neither. 

Style

The style of these films grows increasingly wild along with the plots as time passes. The 1973 features a lot of slapstick comedy, some of which really made me cackle, and some of which was cringeworthily sexist (Constance’s boobs through the window of a litter.) That’s the 70s though! I love The Godfather but Diane Keaton’s character is unbelivably dull and annoying. Star Wars features a pretty good female character but she does end up in that bikini. The 70s seems to be a time of movies that were great except for their occasional headlong dive into misogyny. That doesn’t mean the entire movie is bad, it just means it’s suffering from the consequences of being made in the 70s. There were other consequences of this, I doubt many modern productions could get away with physically injuring so many of it’s cast members. From a glance down the IMDB trivia page, this film yielded a higher casualties to cast ratio than the My Chemical Romance Famous Last Words music video, and that’s a hard figure to top. 

The 1993 version is a Disney feature and suffers from having a thin sheen (not Charlie in this instance) of “Disney Original Movie” pasted over every scene. It looks like The Parent Trap might be filming in the adjacent studio a lot of the time. The vibrancy of the colours makes the costumes look unrealistic, while the blandness of the female characters means this movie ends up a bit of a bland bro-fest. Also occasionally the sexual and violent moments really jar with the overall tone making it an uneven watch. One minute it’s Charlie Sheen cracking jokes about trying to get off with someone’s wife, the next minute you see Milady throw herself off a cliff and land on the rocks. Weird choices all round. 

The 2011 version, as I’ve already mentioned, was trying to borrow its style from the success of Sherlock Holmes and Pirates of the Caribbean, with a little Ocean’s 11 thrown in. The soundtrack flips between not quite a Hans Zimmer score and not quite that other Hans Zimmer score, and after the success of Stardust it ends with a Take That song (for it to match up to the story it should have been Take That feat. Harry styles imho). Visually, there’s some fantastic travel by mapping going on, there’s far too much CGI (one of my friends pointed out that the canal in Venice seemed to be full of Flubber). Everyone is dressed in black leather, and there are not enough big hats at all. One of the best things about Musketeers films is that they’re an excuse for ridiculous hats, and in a film with a quite frankly insane visual style, I’m surprised the hats didn’t make it through. The cast, unfortunately, really lack chemistry which means the humorous dialogue is either stilted or James Corden, and the editing is just very strange. It’s one of those films that feels about as disjointed as an early morning dream, the one where you dream you’ve woken up, gotten dressed and fed the cat, but you actually are still in bed. 

Conclusion

Adaptations focus on different things depending on the context they were created in. The 2005 Pride and Prejudice is deliberately “grittier” than its 1990s predecessor, at a stage when “grit” was everywhere (The Bourne Identity, Spooks, Constantine). The Musketeers adaptations demonstrate exactly the same thing: what people wanted in the 70s was bawdy comedy and slapstick with a likeable idiot hero, the 90s clearly called for... Charlie Sheen and bright colours, and the 2010s just want too much of everything and a soundtrack with lots of banging and crashing. The more modern adaptations simplified the female characters (although the 1973 version definitely is guilty of oversimplifying Constance) while over-complicating the plot. There’s a lot of embellishment going on in the 2011 version that suggests the film wasn’t very sure of itself, it pulls its plot punches while simultaneously blindly flailing its stylistic fists. 

The film that works the best for me will always be the 1973 because it’s pretty straight down the line. Musketeers are good, Milady is evil, falling over is funny and the King’s an idiot. The later adaptations seem to be trying to fix problems with the story that the 1973 version just lets fly. The overcorrection of Milady and the under characterisation of Constance is the perfect example of this. If you want your Musketeers adaptation to be more feminist, don’t weaken Milady, strengthen Constance. Sometimes a competent female character is all that we need. A Constance who is like Florence Cassel from Death in Paradise or  Ahn Young-yi from Misaeng could really pack a punch.

I adored the energy of the 2011 adaptation, I loved how madcap it was, I loved how it threw historical accuracy to the wind. I thought the king was adorable, and I really enjoyed seeing Orlando Bloom hamming it up as Buckingham. I was genuinely sad that the sequel the ending sets up for never came, because once they got out of the sticky dialogue and into the explosions, the film was great fun. It was a beautiful disaster that never quite came together, but I really enjoyed watching it. I love films that have a sense of wild chaos, some more successful examples are The Devil’s Advocate, Blow Dry and Lego Batman. I think the spirit of going all out on everything can sometimes result in the best cinematic experience, it’s just a shame the script wasn’t really up to muster for 2011 Musketeers. 

I’m excited to see what the next big budget Musketeers adaptation brings, even if I’m going to have to wait another ten years to see it. I hope it’s directed by Chad Stahelski, that’d really float my boat (through the sky, like a zeppelin.)

[the-trashy-phoenix]

Supernatural season 3 review (part 1)

Link to part 2:

Having also finished the third season, I have to admit each one until now is better than the one before. Of course that’s because you grow fond of the characters, but I honestly think it gets more and more original and involving going on. Starting with the tight link with the previous season, which in this case is Sam’s death. If you’ve never watched Supernatural, don’t worry, these guys die and come back to life on average once a season; if you’re a Supernatural fan, well, you surely know it better than me.

Resuming quickly, in the last episodes of the second season Sam dies killed by one of those guys who, just like him, have some sort of psychic abilities and are supposed to take part to the upcoming war fighting in the Yellow-eyed demon’s (whose name is Azazel, as I learnt reading Carly’s review) army. Dean is of course devastated and can’t just leave Sam dead, so he manages to make a deal (rings a bell?) with the Crossroad demon, who had appeared at some point in the second season: Sam can be brought back but the price for Dean is extremely high, because the demon would make him live for just one more year, after which he will go directly to hell. It’s understandable that he does it because he can’t live without his brother and it’s been his duty to protect and save him since when they were children, but it’s also undeniable that it’s kind of Dean’s way to get partly rid of that sense of guilt he constantly feels because of John’s sacrifice. It reminded me of Greek tragedy, because some plays have a usual pattern, whose main feature is that parents’ faults fall onto their children in an endless chain of guilt and grief from which it is impossible to escape. Dean feels like his life isn’t worth living anymore and it seems more than right to him to give it to his beloved brother, that’s why when Sam wakes up he doesn’t seem to worry about his end, at least at the very beginning. On the other hand Sam now experiences Dean’s same sense of guilt and is mad at him for imposing it to him, even if deep inside he knows he would have done the same thing, but he also can’t understand how his brother could and can accept so easily the idea of dying. In fact he can’t, he’s just pretending once again to protect Sam, who tries to save him, just like he himself did, in every possible way. At a certain point this pretending is revealed and underlines powerfully the lack of communication between the two, just like what happened after John died, when Dean kept hiding his grief because he’s supposed to be the strongest, as a big brother. I do comprehend they lie to one another for the best, but it always turns out to be a really bad choice.

Before proceeding with the episodes and the single characters, I’d like to point out one thing I feel like I delayed too much. I’m talking out about Dean’s obsession for girls (or hot chicks, if you prefer). I know it’s a part of his characterization as the prototype of the heterosexual strong man, but still I think it’s a bit exaggerated at some point, giving the impression he objectifies women. By the way let’s also consider that ten or fifteen years ago maybe there wasn’t exactly the same sensibility we now have.

This time I’ll be more schematic in commenting the episodes, because I think I’ve something to say for nearly each one of them, as they are full of events and of some new interesting characters.

In the second episode we meet Lisa, a sweetheart of Dean’s from when he was younger: he wants to meet her again, but he soon finds out she has a son, who he suspects being his. For how we know Dean we would swear he’ll be terrified by the idea of having a son, but at the end he’s unexpectedly disappointed that child is not his. This is just apparently weird, for we can explain it well considering Dean’s recurrent desire and thought of having a “normal” life and a family of his own, and maybe also all that looking for the hottest girls is nothing but a means of hiding his strong will for a stable life and partner. I have to say this episode is also really scary and disquieting because of the demonic children.

The third episode welcomes a more permanent character, Bela Talbot, a cunning thief who keeps bothering Sam and Dean during their hunts. She’s the typical bad-but-fascinating kind of character: she’s so smart you’re naturally driven to sympathize with her. The boys have a strange relationship with her, as further on, in episode 6, they’re forced to cooperate with her to solve a case and they even succeed in saving her life even if she didn’t really prove to deserve it. It sometimes seems like her mean attitude takes over her just because it’s her nature; so, even though, as I said, the brothers saved her, she steals the Colt, putting them in serious difficulty. No surprise the boys quit relying on her and refuse to save her again in the last episodes: we learn she wanted the Colt for herself because she is soon dying due to a deal she had made years before with a demon that killed her parents. Her story is quite sad, but of course she could have saved herself giving up her dark side and trusting Sam and Dean.

I really enjoyed the fifth episode, in which the fairy tales of the brothers Grimm come tragically true from a girl’s fantasy. It’s funny how supernatural events grow stranger as the episodes go on, and how sometimes the protagonists can’t believe some things actually exist even if they’re used to that. This episode is also a turning point in the general plot because Sam, desperate for saving Dean, kills the Crossroad demon with the Colt (before Bela steals it) hoping to free his brother from his deal, but the creature unexpectedly tells him that another mysterious and very powerful demon holds the contract. Sam is puzzled and he and Dean will dedicate the rest of the season to hunting that one.

I’ll mention episode 7 because we meet again an old friend, Gordon, one of the main villains of the second season who comes back to have revenge, but, as I anticipated in the previous review, he’s finally defeated in the most ironic way. In a sort of ring composition, the episode is about vampires, the same creatures Sam and Dean are hunting when they meet Gordon for the first time, and the hunter gets bit by one of them and he becomes the monster he hated the most. I don’t wanna sound mean, but he actually deserved that.

I liked the episode set at Christmas, first of all because it’s truly the best time of the year (at least for me), secondly because I think it fits perfectly Dean’s situation, being a joyful period, but also full of sadness and melancholy for another year is passing by. Of course Dean can’t but feel it strongly and I think that’s why he gets so emotional, wanting to celebrate as a proper family. We also feel so sorry for the brothers as we see flashbacks from their childhood representing their memories of their sad time on their own following their dad in his continuous hunting.

I can’t but give a special mention to episode 11, which Carly expected, and made me expect, impatiently. It’s just so funny and frustrating at same time, with the same day repeating all over again without Sam being able to stop the loop, and leading him to lose his brother for six long months (kind of a preview of what will happen when Dean will be “permanently” dead) and at the end to bring him back making the trickster (the same one we met in the first season) stop creating alternative realities.

We also see again some other recurrent characters: Bobby, who I analysed in the previous review, in episode 10 in particular, because the boys are called to save him from his own dreams, and to do so they have to enter them (in this way we and the brothers have the chance to know more about him and his past); the so-called “Ghostfacers”, a group of clumsy fake hunters Sam and Dean had met in the first season (and meet again now in episode 12) and have constantly to save from themselves and the hunts they put themselves into; the FBI agent Henricksen, who is “hunting” the brothers as he thinks they’re dangerous criminals. Nevertheless, in episode 12, he has to change his mind and reconsider his opinions about them for the police station where Sam and Dean are kept is attacked by a demonic army and Henricksen himself gets possessed. While deciding how to fight them, they are helped by Ruby, a demon who seems to be different from the others: at first she seems willing to help Sam saving Dean, and help the boys in general (as in episode 12 against the army), but at the end her purpose comes out. But let’s go a little bit back to Henricksen and the police station: they manage to defeat all those demons really smartly (they read out the exorcism formula though speakers which spread the sound all over the place), but when everything seems to be going well, Sam and Dean learn from the news that another demon came at the police station after they left and killed everyone. It is called Lilith, and she’s the real villain of the season, mainly because it’s her who holds Dean’s contract. So of course the final fight is to defeat Lilith, but also to save Dean’s life. That’s when Ruby intervenes again to suggest Sam could use his psychic abilities to defeat her. He’s tempted by Ruby’s ideas because, even if he doesn’t know how to manage his powers, he’s so focused on saving his brother’s life he could be a bit naïve trusting Ruby without really knowing what’s her real purpose, even though she seems to be the only good demon living. On the contrary Dean doesn’t believe her at all. We can’t know how the things would have ended up if they listened to Ruby’s advice, but they don’t and they can’t kill Lilith, so Dean is chewed up by the hellhounds and goes directly to hell. This scene is so heartbreaking because Sam’s pain is nearly unbearable and you find yourself having hoped, or having been sure, Dean would survive in some ways. That’s how the third season ends, with Sam broken into tears, Lilith still strong and free, Dean covered in blood deep down in hell. Hope seems far away. Or maybe we just have to wait for the next season.

- Irene 💕

[dvp95]

quiet on widow’s peak (7)

pairing: dan howell/phil lester, pj liguori/sophie newton/chris kendall rating: teen & up tags: paranormal investigator, mystery, online friendship, slow burn, strangers to lovers, nonbinary character, trans character, background poly, phil does some buzzfeed unsolved shit and dan is a fan word count: 3.5k (this chapter), 23.2k (total) summary: Phil’s got a list of paranormal experiences a mile long that he likes to share with the world. Abandoned buildings, cemeteries, and ghost stories have always called his name, and a particular fan of his has a really, really good ghost story.

read this chapter on ao3 or here!

“Why don't we just use the door?” Dan hisses, arms wrapped around themself to make up for their thin denim jacket. “It's unlocked.”

“This is the way Mar and I always did it,” Phil hums, watching Sophie move the loose boards away from the window. She's perched on PJ's shoulders like a little bird.

“It's more fun,” Chris offers.

“Plus, entering houses by the door is the quickest way to alert ghouls and neighbours to your arrival,” says PJ.

“I think Martyn just liked showing off. Don't think it was that deep.”

“Done,” says Sophie, patting the top of PJ's head. “You can put me down now.”

With much more care and grace than Phil knows he would have been able to manage, PJ helps Sophie off his shoulders. Phil has dropped all of his friends at least once, so he isn't allowed to be the boost anymore.

Phil hands his bags over to Chris while they're figuring that out. They'd left their laptop bags in the car so they had less to carry - except Dan, whose messenger bag is across their chest like they're prepared to make a quick getaway. Phil can't really blame them, since it's not like they signed up for this the way the rest of them have.

“Wait,” says PJ. He digs around in his jacket pockets until he comes out with a Sharpie marker that he probably stole from Martyn's bedroom. “Give me your arm.”

“You know I was joking about the protection sigils,” Phil says, but he rolls up his sleeve for PJ anyway.

“Well, I sure as fuck wasn’t,” says PJ. He looks at something on his phone before he takes Phil by the elbow and starts drawing something bubbly and almost cute. Phil figures that he’s planned these out, or at the very least had some letters picked out, so he watches the design bloom in fascination.

“What does this one mean?”

“If I told you, it wouldn’t work,” says PJ, pressing one last dot right above the circular shape before he moves on and grabs at Chris’ arm without warning. Chris doesn’t seem to mind, he just lets PJ shove his sleeve up while he looks up at the boarded windows of the townhouse.

“That tickles,” Chris says, but he doesn’t try to take his arm back.

“Shut up, you big baby,” PJ murmurs.

It’s a different symbol that’s coming together on Chris’ skin, and Phil wonders why. Did PJ really make them unique protection sigils? That’s kind of cute and kind of hilarious. He watches Dan out of the corner of his eye as PJ finishes Chris’ sigil and moves on to Sophie’s. Dan’s brows are furrowed and they’re gripping at their own elbows from some combination of cool air and nervousness.

“Dan,” Phil says, shifting closer so they don’t get the whole peanut gallery involved. “You don’t have to be here. It’s okay to be scared.”

“I’m not scared,” Dan says with much less conviction than they’d had in the coffee shop.

Phil pretends to believe them. “But it’s okay if you are.”

The way Dan’s eyes fix on Phil’s makes him feel frozen in place, like Dan can somehow see into his soul. Their eyes are so warm and their lashes are so, so long that Phil feels certain that he won’t be the one to look away first.

“Are you scared?” Dan asks quietly.

Phil is terrified, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the house they’re breaking into. He shrugs, shoving his hands into his jeans pockets and twisting them anxiously.

“This is a pretty normal day for me,” he says. “But I don’t always have a Scooby gang with me.”

The lines around Dan’s mouth deepen before their lips actually curve up, like a tell. Phil is fully prepared to wrestle with the instinct he’s got to stare at Dan’s lips some more, but he doesn’t have to.

“Are you fucking talking about Buffy again?” PJ hisses, bumping his elbow against Phil’s as he joins them. He reaches like he’s going to grab at Dan the same way he’s grabbed at the rest of them, but he hesitates with his hand outstretched. “Er, Dan, can I draw on you, too? I know you don’t believe in this stuff, but it’ll make me feel a lot better.”

“Go nuts,” Dan says, holding out their hand like PJ is a lord who ought to kiss it. PJ, of course, just starts drawing a new shape on the back of it, because that’s the logical conclusion. They watch the lines form shapes with a sort of vague interest.

“I wasn’t talking about Buffy,” Phil feels the need to clarify. “I’m not always talking about Buffy.”

“That’s news to me,” says PJ.

Dan grins, looking a lot more at ease now that the atmosphere is all banter and no ghost stories. “He wasn’t, I can vouch for him. Think he was making a classic Scoob refer-ino.”

“Ah, the ancient texts,” PJ says, his own shoulders going loose as he grins back at Dan. “Wait ‘til he has to take his contacts out later. It’s not as funny hearing someone shout that they can’t see without their glasses when that person is the one in charge.”

“I’m right here,” Phil reminds them. “And Velma was in charge.”

“All set,” PJ says like Phil hasn’t spoken, adding a flourishing tail to the edge of Dan’s sigil.

“Great,” Dan says, dry. “Glad I have my protection from things that are definitely not real. Now what’s keeping me safe from the very real possibility of a human being attacking us?”

“Phil’s crowbar.”

“Oh, sure, that makes me feel loads better.”

“Are you lot coming or what?” Chris hisses, hefting one of the sleeping bags over his shoulder.

Phil breaks away from the conversation with a strange fluttering in his gut that’s completely unrelated to the rush of adrenaline he still gets when he lets Chris and PJ boost him to an unlocked window. He’s not very graceful at the best of times, so he’s glad that he doesn’t do anything stupid like fall flat on his face in front of Dan. He sits on the windowsill and lets the weird vibes from the Wilkins house wash over him again, raising goosebumps down his arms even under his thick jacket. He frowns into the dim kitchen, looking for any sign of life.

“Pass me the bar,” he murmurs, letting a hand dangle without looking back at his friends. It feels like something was waiting for them; there’s an air of anticipation in the very real sensation of being watched.

The cold metal placed in his palm makes Phil feel better, even if he can’t actually do anything with it. He murmurs a thanks and slips into the kitchen, eyes roving over all the shadows and nooks in the old house. He hears Sophie clamber in behind him but he doesn’t turn to look. It feels like turning his back on the darkness will end badly for him.

“Oh, don’t like that,” Sophie whispers. Phil feels her brush against his arm and hears the camera click on as Chris and PJ start the familiar train of passing bags through the window.

“Feels weird, right?” Phil agrees, matching her volume.

He moves further into the house, knowing that his friends will catch up. Sophie stays at his side, pointing the camera into every corner like she, too, is trying to find the source of the invisible eyes that feel glued to them. They’ve done this together fairly often, and Phil has done this by himself even more often, but something about this place, tonight, makes him feel like they’re green again.

Phil tenses when he feels something grip at the back of his jacket, but then the something speaks with Dan’s voice.

“Okay, why don’t we turn on the lights?” Dan whispers, right in Phil’s ear. Phil shivers. Some new goosebumps might rise, as well, but there’s no real way to know for sure. He isn’t about to roll up his sleeves and check.

“Why would we do that?” Phil asks. He doesn’t tell Dan to let go of him, and they don’t. Dan keeps hold of the back of his jacket even as he leads the way to the lounge, and Phil spares a moment to consider how weird this is going to look if Sophie is getting it on camera. Like he’s Dan’s guide dog or something.

“Oh, I don’t know,” says Dan, “so we can see?”

“It’s not really that dark in here,” Phil says with a little huff of a laugh. “And we’ve got torches.”

The noise Dan makes is unhappy, but they don’t protest. Phil shakes his head, directing his smile at the unlit fireplace so Sophie can’t pick it up.

“Fuck this,” Chris’ voice comes from the hallway, much too loudly.

Phil and Sophie sigh in harmony.

“What’s he doing?” Dan hisses, and Phil turns to give them a longsuffering sort of look.

“Chris doesn’t like this part,” says Phil. He doesn’t bother whispering, because Chris is already knocking things against walls and shouting nonsense. “Being sneaky doesn’t come naturally to him, so he prefers to just announce that we’re here and ruin my shots. I usually edit this out.”

As ridiculous as Chris’ methods are, Phil feels the weight of invisible eyes on them lift. He should probably be annoyed at Chris for scaring the presence away or antagonizing it, but it feels like he can breathe again, like they truly are alone in this room, and he’s got to give Chris the credit for that.

When Chris joins them, an irritated PJ at his shoulder, he looks altogether too proud of himself. Both of them glance at Dan’s hand, still gripping onto Phil.

“Thanks for that,” Phil says dryly, stopping any commentary before it starts.

“Welcome,” says Chris, bright. “Shall we upstairs?”

The Wilkins place isn’t all that scary now that the weird vibes are gone, it’s just creaky and dark and dusty. Phil is fine with that - the place he lives is all of those things, too - but every small noise under their feet makes Dan twitch. They’ve shifted to tugging on Phil’s sleeve instead, sticking so close to Phil’s side that he can feel their body heat.

PJ leads the way to the attic, talking a mile a minute to the camera about the way he’d felt the first time he was here, and Phil pulls Dan to a stop a few feet from the rest of the group.

“You seem a little stressed,” Phil says, trying to hide a grin. He doesn’t want Dan to think he’s mocking them, but it’s just a little cute.

Dan’s eyes are wide and their bottom lip is extra chapped from how many times they’ve dug their teeth into it, but they still manage to scoff. “I’m not stressed,” they insist. “And I’m not scared. I’ve been here before, y’know.”

“You’ve been here for parties,” says Phil. “It’s a bit of a different vibe.”

“Little bit,” Dan admits.

“I’m not making fun of you,” says Phil. He pats Dan’s arm with his crowbar-less hand. “It’s okay to be scared.”

“You’re not scared.”

“I’ve been doing this a really long time,” Phil reminds them. It’s the sort of thing that Dan must objectively know, but they look a little sheepish like maybe they’d forgotten.

“It’s not that I’m scared of, like, ghosts or something stupid like that,” Dan says, letting go of Phil’s sleeve and scratching the back of their neck. He feels a bit bereft for it. “I just don’t really like the dark, y’know, and maybe I get freaked out sometimes just watching your videos, and I kind of expected it to be less scary IRL but it’s actually way worse so I don’t really know what to do with that.”

The number of words they can fit into one breath is truly incredible to Phil. He smiles at them and watches redness blossom in patches across their cheeks as they realise how much they’re talking without saying anything at all.

“That’s cute,” Phil blurts out.

Dan bites their lip again, smiling a bit. Before they can say anything, though, there’s a sort of crashing noise from the general direction of PJ and Chris. Phil is very used to this.

“Fuck,” Dan breathes, gripping onto the strap of their messenger bag and flinching when a follow-up bang echoes through the hall. “Why are they like this?”

“I ask myself that question every day,” Phil sighs.

“Boys,” Sophie calls over in her soft, amused voice. “The idiots have got the ladder down. You coming?”

Dan laughs and nods, but Phil takes hold of their arm before they can go too far.

“Hey,” he says. “I can tell her not to call you that.”

The soft look he gets for it, laughter still scrunching Dan’s eyes and showing off their dimples, makes Phil’s chest kind of cave in on itself. They shrug, pulling Phil along the way Phil guided them earlier. “I don’t mind. It’s not inaccurate.”

Phil swallows hard. “It’s not?”

“It’s also not accurate,” Dan says, that softness still all over their face. “We’ll talk about it later if you want to. Just trust me that I’ll say something if one of you makes me uncomfortable, okay?”

“Okay,” Phil agrees, letting himself be dragged instead of letting go.

--

The floorboards in the attic are dirty and covered in marker, but Sophie finds a nice warm corner to set their sleeping bags up in. Chris is dealing with the camera and voice recorder, checking batteries on all their gadgets while PJ interrogates Dan on where they got their boots.

Phil tunes them all out and starts looking at the different sigils, taking photos and trying to figure out what somebody would possibly need from doing magic in a house that’s been empty for decades. Surely there are better places to open a veil like that. Phil doesn’t know a lot about magic, if it’s even a real thing, but he has a whole heap of assumptions and absolutely none of those point to a townhouse in Rusholme with working electricity.

When his eyes start to feel dry, Phil grabs his rucksack. “Be back in a sec,” he says, dropping the ladder down.

“What?” Dan asks, their voice pitching a little higher. “Where are you going?”

“Bathroom,” says Phil. He hands his crowbar to Dan, because he feels somewhat certain that he won’t need it. “Can’t take my contacts out without washing my hands. I won’t be long, okay? Just hang onto this and don’t listen to anything Chris tells you.”

“I resent that,” Chris chimes in, stretching out on one of the sleeping bags. “See if I let you crawl into bed with me later.”

“When have I ever wanted that?” Phil sighs. He never knows how to react to Chris flirting with him, but it’s so much more awkward when Dan is blinking between them like they’re wondering if they’ve missed something. Whatever Dan is missing, Phil is pretty sure he’s missing it, too. “Like I said, don’t listen to Chris.”

Dan still looks nervous and a little confused, but all Phil can do is give them a reassuring smile before heading back downstairs.

The house is quiet and dim, streetlights streaming through the boarded windows and giving Phil enough vision to find a bathroom. It’s pretty gross, but the tap works and that’s all Phil really needs. He’s got anti-bacterial wipes and a travel-sized hand sanitizer, so that’ll have to substitute for the lack of soap.

Phil never feels more vulnerable than he does when his sight is impaired and no matter how much he blinks, his reflection doesn’t come into focus. In this moment, trying to get his contacts in their pot without incident because he does not trust this countertop, the lights above the mirror turn on. Phil freezes. Blinks. The lights go back off.

Slowly, he reaches for his glasses case. He can’t hear the click of a lightswitch when the lights keep flickering, which rules out his first suspicion of his friends messing with him.

As soon as Phil has his glasses on his nose, it stops. He blinks at himself in the mirror and waits for the lights to turn back off on their own, but they don’t. His hands are shaking a bit as he digs for his pills. With a deep breath, Phil runs the tap again to drink out of his cupped hands.

“If you’re toying with me,” Phil says to the empty bathroom, “then stop, but if you’re trying to communicate with me... do it again.”

Nothing happens. Phil isn’t sure if he should be relieved or not.

Everything gets shoved back into his rucksack with no ceremony, because Phil needs to be out of this small room as soon as possible. He slings it over his shoulder and heads back to the attic with careful steps, his heart pounding in his ears.

--

Phil doesn’t tell his friends what happened with the lights. It’s such a small thing, could have even been a coincidence, so it doesn’t make much sense to tell them now instead of when they’re all comfortable at the coffee shop again. There’s no point in freaking PJ and Dan out further when they both look like they’re about to crash. They and Sophie are all yawning where they’re curled up on the sleeping bags, in any case, and Phil meets Chris’ eye.

Neither of them are good at sleeping in the best of situations. They always take first watch, and sometimes they don’t end up sleeping at all.

Chris winks and passes Phil a flask. When Phil takes a cautious sip, warm coffee hits his tongue and he hums, wondering when Chris filled this up. It’s good coffee and isn’t making Phil’s heart race, so it’s most likely decaf.

They don’t talk, because PJ is already snoring lightly and Sophie’s head is pillowed on Chris’ thigh. Phil’s friends can fall asleep anywhere. It’s something he’s always been a bit jealous of. He looks down at Dan and feels his heart jump when Dan’s eyes are open and already looking back at him. The red patch on Dan’s cheek appears again, and Phil watches it in fascination.

Dan is pretty. There’s no real denying that one. They give Phil a sheepish little smile at being caught staring and close their eyes, curling close enough that Phil could reach down and smooth the curls off their forehead if he was stupid enough to do so.

He’s not that stupid. He hands Chris’ flask back to him and pulls out his phone instead. It’s looking like it’s going to be a quiet night after all, he can probably get a few more levels of Candy Crush out of the way. As much as Sophie makes fun of him for still playing it in 2019, it’s Phil’s favourite time-waster.

When he looks at Dan again, six levels later, Dan’s eyes are open. They aren’t looking up at Phil anymore, though, they’re just staring blankly at the attic wall and breathing shakily.

“Dan?” Phil murmurs, putting his hand on Dan’s shoulder. Dan doesn’t react. “Er, Dan?”

Dan’s body is so tense and their eyes are so wide, but they don’t say anything. They don’t even twitch. Phil looks over at Chris, who frowns and checks on Sophie in his lap. She’s stiff as a board, Phil suddenly notices - and so is PJ, whose unblinking stare is fixed on the ceiling.

“What the fuck?” Chris asks, tapping Sophie’s face lightly.

“I think this is the sleep paralysis,” says Phil. He gives into the urge to brush Dan’s curls out of their eyes, giving them a small comfort from whatever they’re seeing right now.

“How do we fix it?”

Chris doesn’t panic, because he doesn’t do that, but he looks unsettled in a way that Phil hasn’t seen him before. Phil finds himself wondering, not for the first or the last time, what these people mean to each other for this to rattle Chris so visibly.

“I don’t think we can,” Phil says, pulling his knees to his chest and continuing to run his fingers through Dan’s hair. He’ll apologise if he has to, but he likes to think that he’s helping in some small way. “When Dan told me about this happening, they said that nobody was able to wake the others up. I think we just have to wait it out.”

“I hate that,” says Chris. He laughs humourlessly and cups Sophie’s chin, tilting her face from side to side. “Fuck. It’s like she isn’t even home.”

Phil looks at Dan’s eyes again. They’re the same colour and shape as they’ve been all night, but the warmth and sparkle are completely gone. A shiver runs through Phil at the sight, and he bites his own lip. “Yeah. Yeah, I hate it, too.”

[sophieakatz]

Thursday Thoughts: The Right Medium For The Right Story

I’m a bit obsessed with the topic of adaptation – and by “a bit obsessed” I mean “I wrote my undergrad thesis about it.” Adaptation is a kind of re-telling; you take a story that was told before, and you change some things when you tell it again.

For example, West Side Story is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. It’s the same basic story, but it’s set in 1950s New York instead of 1300s Verona, and the warring “families” are rival gangs instead of members of the nobility.

But there’s another kind of adaptation here that’s perhaps even more important than the change of setting – the medium. While Romeo and Juliet was originally a stage play, West Side Story was a musical, and later adapted again into a film. Adapting a story across mediums changes the work just as much, if not more, than anything else – or, at least, it ought to.

Minor spoilers for The Hunger Games books and movies as well as Disney’s Aladdin and The Lion King ahead.

[Image: The Hunger Games movie poster]

A Rose By Any Other Name Is Different

As a writer, I firmly believe that you must find the right medium to tell a story in. If you later change the medium, then something about the story is going to need to change as well. As much as a reader might want the film of a book to be completely loyal to the original text, a story originally designed as a novel is not going to work if you simply transfer it page-for-page onto the screen. This is because there are fundamental differences between books, a textual medium, and films, a visual medium.

My favorite example of a book-to-film adaptation that shows a clear understanding of the necessity of change is the Hunger Games franchise. Suzanne Collins’s books are told from a first-person perspective, giving the reader insight into Katniss’s thoughts the whole way through. Because we are hitchhiking along in Katniss’s mind, we get a lot of exposition about the world through her memories, and we know exactly what she thinks and feels about everything that’s going on. Importantly, this includes her confusion about how much of her affection for Peeta is real or just for the Capitol audience.

The Hunger Games film, on the other hand, is shot in a traditional third-person manner. Consequently, in the adaptation process, we lose Katniss’s point of view. We don’t get so many of her memories, aside from a brief dream sequence. We also lose her inner conflict about the performed romance (though the sequel, Catching Fire, plays catch-up on that point).

The filmmakers could have tried to make the film more like the book by adding a voiceover to explain what Katniss is thinking throughout the film, to sidestep the limitation of not actually being inside Katniss’s head anymore. Plenty of films do that. But The Hunger Games does not.

Instead, the film leans into the differences between the two mediums, seizing the opportunity to explore things that the book could not. While we lose Katniss’s inner voice, we gain everything that Katniss could not see. We get scenes of President Snow talking politics with Seneca Crane, making the viewer aware of the greater stakes of Katniss’s behavior in the Games much earlier than Katniss herself is. We also see the riots in District Eleven as they happen, instead of learning about them much later. In the third film, Mockingjay, scenes of Katniss’s work creating promotional videos with the rebellion are paired with the actual acts of rebellion that her words have inspired (I particularly love the “hanging tree” sequence at the hydroelectric dam). The effect is haunting, and it all truly drives home the magnitude of what���s going on.

As a result, the Hunger Games films remain true to the heart of the story without trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. A rose you read about in a novel might smell just as sweet as one seen on film, but only if you acknowledge that you can’t depict the rose in the exact same way in a book as you would in a movie.

[Image: The 2019 Aladdin movie poster]

Anything Is Possible… But Not Always

The current trend of live-action Disney film adaptations provides us with a fascinating case study in the power of adaptation, and of how well the adaptors succeed in transitioning a story from one medium to another. The original animated films (which themselves are mostly adaptations of oral fairy tales – but that’s a whole other blog post) and the new live-action and/or photorealistic CGI films are, of course, both films. But the kind of story you can tell in traditional animation is different than the story you can tell in a more realistic “live action” style.

(Not to mention that the kind of story you can tell in a mainstream media production today is different than the stories told twenty-plus years ago, representation-wise… but again, that’s a whole other blog post.)

Animation is a medium of imagination. That’s why animated fairy tale movies have always done so well. The un-reality of the medium lends itself to depicting the kinds of fantastical transformations typically told of in fairy tales. The viewer can suspend their disbelief and forget about the rules of the real world while watching an animated film. It’s much harder to forget those rules when the people on the screen are human actors.

The live-action Aladdin hits all the same story beats as the animated Aladdin, but it makes several brief but notable changes along the way. There are just some things that the animated film could get away with that the live-action film could not.

For example, the Genie spends a lot more time in a “human” disguise than he does in his natural blue form. If you were on the internet at all when the first images of Will Smith as the Genie were released, then you likely saw the backlash – for a lot of people, it just felt weird. A blue character with cartoony proportions who is constantly shifting into different shapes and sizes works very well in traditional animation, but less well when it’s an otherwise normal-looking human guy who is just… blue. You can smush and stretch the 2-D animated Genie and nobody will bat an eye, but if you tried to do the same to Will Smith – ouch! It conflicts with our idea of what is possible in the real world, and a live-action film is always going to feel more like the real world than a 2-D animated film.

This is likely why Jafar does not transform into a snake in this movie. Jafar-as-snake is arguably one of the best parts of the original Aladdin film – it’s certainly one of the best parts of the Fantasmic show at Disney’s Hollywood Studios. It’s awesome, it’s terrifying, and it does not happen in the live-action adaptation of Aladdin. Jafar does a lot of other magic – mostly levitation, paralysis, and creating a storm – but he does not turn into a giant snake. The world of Agrabah established in this film is many things, but it is not established that this is a world where people can turn into animals. We do see some animals turning into other animals – Abu becomes an elephant, and Iago a monstrously huge bird – but neither of them remain transformed for very long. The audience’s suspension of disbelief will only go so far in a live-action film, and the filmmakers probably guessed, and I think correctly, that Jafar turning into a snake would not have gone over well in this medium.

Another thing that would not have gone over so well in live-action is the scene in the marketplace where a shopkeeper threatens to chop off Jasmine’s arm for stealing an apple. Just picture it – a man grabbing a young woman and threatening her with a sword, and they are both real people with real-people proportions, and it is a real sword instead of a cartoony dinged-up scimitar. In the animated film, the moment is quickly played off as funny, but here it would have been scary, much too scary for the first act of an otherwise cheerful film.

A savvy adapter sees and accepts what won’t work as well in their chosen medium, and so makes the appropriate changes.

[Image: The 2019 The Lion King movie poster]

Rules? What Rules?

Which brings me to the new “live-action” Lion King. Now, if you enjoyed this film, then I’m happy for you, and I neither expect nor want to change your mind.

However, this film does not successfully adapt its story from one medium to another. It keeps almost everything about the story, the music, and the dialogue exactly the same as before – but now, the world and animals are photorealistic. Throughout the film, I kept wanting to close my eyes and just listen to it, because the film that I was hearing and the film that I was seeing just plain did not match up with each other.

When Mufasa dies, Simba’s voice actor is obviously crying – you can hear the tears in his voice. But Simba himself is not crying, because real lions do not cry. The disconnect between what the viewer hears and what the viewer sees reminds us that what we are watching is not real, consequently breaking the suspension of disbelief and robbing the scene of vital emotion.

A musical and a nature documentary are two very different things which we watch for very different reasons. Put bluntly, this new Lion King imposes the rules of a nature documentary onto a musical. In a nature documentary, the animals must look and move a certain way which does not line up with human emotional behavior, and the world must look and behave in a certain way which features muted colors and subtle movements. A musical, on the other hand, is all about heightened human emotion – that’s why characters sing, because their emotions are so big that they can only be expressed in song! Musicals are also about visual spectacle over strict realism (with some exceptions – compare the elaborate stage effects of The Phantom of the Opera or the intensive choreography of Hamilton with the much more subdued The Spitfire Grill).

There are a few moments where the rules of the animal world line up with the rules of the Lion King story, to wonderful effect. For example, when Nala is telling Simba to return to Pride Rock and confront Scar, Simba paces back and forth in a real form of lion body language which reads to a human eye as frustration. The slouched-to-the-side way that lions sit looks a lot like the casual lean of a confident villain, giving Scar a marvelous aura of attitude. Also, the frantic, bouncy, here-and-there movement of a meerkat lines up well with Timon’s jumpy, shifty personality and dialogue, adding humor at key moments.

But for most of the film, there is little to no bridge between the story that they are trying to tell and the medium that they have shoved this story into. The Lion King is not a realistic story. Audiences did not go see The Lion King in theatres in 1996 because they wanted to see a realistic story. They went to see a colorful, fantastical musical about talking animals with human emotions. Photorealistic CGI is simply not the right medium for that kind of story, and the story was not changed nearly enough to fit the new medium.

[Image: Cinderella’s Castle at Walt Disney World]

What Comes Next?

I see nothing wrong with telling a story again. As I said before, I love adaptation. It’s clear that today’s filmmakers, especially the filmmakers at Disney, are eager to try their hand at recreating the stories that they watched and loved when they were younger. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but there is a wrong way to do it, and I hope that future adaption films move away from that way.

One of the biggest things that Walt Disney loved about Disneyland was that, unlike the films, he could change things in the theme park if they no longer worked for the audience or if they could now be done better than before. I think he would be intrigued by the current culture of adaptation, and curious why today’s filmmakers aren’t doing more to explore the differences between mediums and the different kinds of stories that you can tell in different mediums.

Adaptation does not have to mean being stuck saying the same thing over and over. It could, and should, lead to us telling more stories, different stories, and better stories, because when it comes to adaptation, change is a good thing.

[acsversace-news]

Warning: This recap of the “Manhunt” episode of The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story contains spoilers.

From the beginning we’ve known that Andrew Cunanan fancied himself a man of finer tastes. Even while on the run for a murder spree, he still took the time to purchase just the right Wayfarer knock-offs or order a surf ‘n’ turf meal from a wealthy john. Did Cunanan wear just any old bathing suit? Nope, it was magenta Speedo all the way. And when it came to rat-infested, crumbling junkie motels, you better believe Cunanan asked for an ocean view. Yes, even the lowest of human existences can leave room for glamour.

“Manhunt” continued last week’s premiere with even more backstory of where both Versace and Cunanan had been in their respective lives before the titular assassination. And like last week, it took what everyone knew about the case (from sensationalized tabloid coverage mostly) and filled in the gaps with new facts, genuine insight, and arresting beauty. Let’s talk about it!

We began with an unrecognizable, anonymous man in disguise.

Underneath this ingenious, identity-concealing ensemble was none other than famous fashion designer Gianni Versace. But this costumed ruse would be for neither heist nor romp. No, he was at a clinic receiving bad news about a blood test he’d recently taken. And while this episode was careful to keep things vague, this scene, added to a later scene in which he could barely walk unassisted, was meant to suggest that Versace’s life had once been threatened long before Andrew Cunanan ever pointed a gun at him. You can probably guess what the illness was. But as a reminder, the ’90s were an especially bad time for a specific group of people.

Versace’s diagnosis played heavily into this episode’s central concept. That he’d been able to fight off his illness using state-of-the-art medicines, he’d slapped the grim reaper across its tacky face, and he’d begun to embrace life as only a formerly dead man walking could. Which, as Donatella Versace noted, made his later murder all the more devastating.

But death comes for us all, even those who can afford to have their facial bullet wounds spackled over and their cremains laid to rest so fabulously.

Even when reduced to several ounces of ash, Versace still flew first class. Honestly touching.

We then cut over to Andrew Cunanan, who was currently speeding on the freeway scream-singing “Gloria.” Which, we’ve all done that, and in my case nearly every day. “Gloria” is one of the greatest songs of all time. As we quickly discovered, Cunanan was only just arriving in Miami, so this act of free-wheelin’ joy came after he’d murdered his first four victims. Yep, he was now murder-jazzed, and it was time to spread his brand of awful in a beach community!

Cunanan showed up at the dingiest motel with the most beautiful oceanfront view in Miami. It was clearly a faded stucco hell pit of junkies and, well, other serial killers I’m guessing. Between the presence of a junkie Max Greenfield and a duct-tape gimp mask, this was like if American Horror Story: Hotel had been crossed with Miami Vice. Into it.

Meanwhile the FBI had arrived in town around the same time, but this local Miami detective lady quickly realized they were terrible at their jobs and had not tried particularly hard to catch this gay spree-killer yet. They hadn’t even made any copies of his “Wanted” poster! And as we’d learn later, citizens were ready and willing to report a Cunanan sighting, which made it all the more frustrating that the FBI had been so slow to spread the word. (Thank God for America’s Most Wanted.)

As you can imagine, Andrew Cunanan made fast friends with junkie Max Greenfield, and after a heartfelt scene in which Greenfield’s character talked about his HIV diagnosis, the two schemed openly about how to make quick cash and/or buy some junk to smoke. An enterprising liar and conman, it was almost charming that Cunanan still resorted to turning tricks sometimes. I guess that was easier than, like, check fraud or whatever.

So, sex work for local lonely hearts was now on the menu! Congratulations, Miami fellas!

Except, whoops … there was the pesky fact that Andrew Cunanan was a total psychopath. Which meant that this john’s simple request to be dominated led him to finding himself suffocating under a face full of duct tape and terrorized within an inch of his life while Andrew Cunanan danced around the room in a pink Speedo.

Yeah this was one of the most disturbing scenes I’ve seen in a Ryan Murphy joint, but the terror was effective. The disturbing vibe continued even afterward, as the terrified john sat watching Cunanan finish a lobster meal, waited until Cunanan left, and then debated whether to call 911 and report the assault. Alas, the wedding ring he placed back on his finger suggested why the crime ultimately went unreported. Again: The ’90s really sucked.

But enough darkness, it was time to remember what made Versace famous! In this scene, Donatella urged Versace to change things up and compete with his more goth-inspired competitors Galliano and McQueen, but Versace made clear that he was in the business of joy and beauty and life, especially now that he had his health back. Donatalla couldn’t help but see his point.

And credit to this show for not only producing a convincing fashion show (with convincingly Versace-ish looks) but also even casting a runway model who resembled Shalom Harlow to play Shalom Harlow! Miss her. Come back, Shalom.

As though we needed more evidence that Andrew Cunanan was unhinged, we got this cute scene where he smoked tons of drugs, then went to the bathroom for some quiet time. In this case quiet time involved wrapping his head and face in duct tape and also admiring the intensely insane serial killer wall he’d created in the bathroom:

Yeah, I think we’d recalled Cunanan as being an out-of-control party boy or whatever, but this series has done a lot to prove he was insane in a scary and singular way. Just a bad-time-guy lookin’ for trouble.

We also got glimpses into the romantic life shared by Versace and his lover, Ricky Martin (as himself, jk). And though their lifestyle of hooking up with men together and going to the clubs was nothing they were ashamed of in their private life, we could sense that the straight world would never understand their situation. Versace himself doubted that his partner truly loved him enough to want to be married (which … gay marriage? What a futuristic concept in 1997!), yet they still were clearly everything to each other. It would be romantic if we didn’t know where this was all heading.

We then got another classic Cathy Moriarty appearance, in which we saw the incident when Cunanan sold a stolen coin to her at her pawn shop and she remembered it enough to contact the police after the shooting. And again, she’d even glanced at her collection of “Wanted” posters before making the sale, underscoring again that the authorities’ slow-to-act tendencies toward gay crime had almost directly led to Versace’s murder. But at least we can all continue to count on Cathy Moriarty when we need her!

I loved this brief scene when a drag impersonator of Donatella showed up at Versace’s manor and demanded to come in and hang out. He was polite enough about it, noting that one Donatella in his life was enough, but still. She DID look fun to hang out with. I probably would’ve let her up.

That night, Versace and his lover went out to the local dance club Twist, and Andrew Cunanan followed them there, presumably to shoot him right there in the club. But Versace ended up ducking out before the encounter happened but not before his lover informed him that even at night, even amid opportunities to be around other men … he still chose Versace and wanted to marry him. Again, except for the line of strangers behind them and the bad ’90s techno wafting in the air, this was an incredibly touching and romantic moment. These two.

Inside, a clearly dejected Cunanan was approached by a random hottie, and he responded by having a borderline meltdown in which he listed all the different fake occupations he’d ever pretended to be. Including, of course, serial killer. But while the random hottie had no reason to think Cunanan was being serious about any of them, it was a chilling notion that someone who had spent a lifetime lying about his accomplishments was now going to try to make a name for himself in a more tragic and gruesome way. Ugh, he was the worst.

“Manhunt” functioned best as a continuation of last week’s introduction to the story and setting. And like last week, it relied on visuals and physical performance more than written dialogue, and was just as spellbinding. Tense, funny, emotional, and troubling all at once, this is a fascinating world to explore and I can’t get enough. Obviously it’s a dark story and doesn’t promise to get any lighter by the end of it, but I can’t help myself. That this is even on the air (and executed so perfectly) is enough to give someone a new lease on life. How very Versace.

[booksaremyoxygenn]

Ready Player One: Book Review & Discussion

“We’d been born into an ugly world, and the OASIS was our one happy refuge.”

If you love video games and the 80s, you MUST read this book. USA Today’s comparison of Ready Player One to Willie Wonka & the Chocolate Factory couldn't have been more spot on, but instead of the inheritance of a man who owns a chocolate factory he is playing for the inheritance of a video game creator.

Overall Rating: 4.5 / 5 Stars

My biggest argument is that because there was so much info and teaching about the 80s and video game references it felt choppy and it was hard to get lost in the book. However I absolutely loved learning all of those fascinating pieces of information. There were surprisingly many great life lessons in this book and I feel like I am walking away more knowledgeable. 

Age Recommendation: Well.... it depends on the child. It does curse a few times (but let’s be honest the kids already know the words, the aim isn’t for them not to learn it but to know not to use it.) However there is a bit of a lengthy section on things I would not even want my 13 year old sister reading on 193-194 so I recommend you take their book, rip that page out and then they are all ready to go. They will never even miss it. I think there are great life lessons in this book though for a young teen age group like the importance of logging off and living offline and not getting wrapped up in trying to constantly escape the real world. It talks about how people should be judged by their personality not their appearance. If we could simply choose out skin color, gender, and appearance like an avatar, life would be easier but life doesn’t work that way so accept people the way they are. You may surprise yourself with who your closest friends up being. 

Spoiler- Free Review: 

Wade just really doesn’t like his lot in life, whether that be in the real world when he’d rather be in a video game or that he is in the 2040s when he’d rather be born in the the 80s, or at the least before the Global Energy Crisis. Though he doesn’t mind living in OASIS soaking up the endless knowledge. The vast source of all books, movies, art, history, videogames, and, most importantly, information on James Halliday. OASIS is like the internet but with VR glasses only 10x more detailed, advanced, and infinite. Wade doesn’t even go to a real school he goes through the virtual reality of OASIS. “In OASIS, you could become whomever and whatever you wanted to be, without ever revealing your true identity, because your anonymity was guaranteed.” (pg 57) When James Halliday, inventor of OASIS, dies and leaves his fortune (240 billion dollars) to the first player to find the three keys hidden within his own video game, the world goes crazy in pursuit. Though after numerous years no one had found a single key, until Wade. That’s how the story begins. 

I loved that Cline’s writing encourages readers who know nothing about the 80s or video games to read this book. That has been a massive concern for people before they pick up this book, that they won’t understand the references. To be honest, there were many hidden “eggs” in the text that I saw that I knew were references that I just didn’t understand. (Which was still cool and I enjoyed looking them up and learning more.) However, all of the big, important references he explains in the book and he doesn’t make you feel stupid for not knowing but explains it clearly for those of us who aren’t experts. I genuinely feel more intelligent by reading this book and now know a lot more about pop culture in the 80s. Who knows this all may come in handy on Trivia Night? I highly recommend this book for a fun, nostalgic read. 

SPOILER Review / Book Discussion: 

Isn’t it scary how possible this all could be? With virtual reality continually advancing (in real life) how much longer will it take until people go to school in virtual reality like Wade or before the internet takes on this new form?

Though obviously in Wade’s world as technology has advanced his real world has been given up on. The stacks, while a great concept and super cool looking on the front cover, are atrocious living conditions. Though I must give Wade kutos on his battery powered heater and computer but really just his van in general. It makes me want to make my own Bat Cave inside a van. This was when I knew what his advantage would be in this game, he was a self-teacher, self-motivator, and dedicated his whole life to the hunt. 

One of my favorite parts about Cline’s writing was how it was constantly breaking stereotypes and speaking about important topics. I really appreciated the backstory that he gave Halliday. Especially how even though he wasn’t good at school he became a multi-billionaire. I am so tired of the assumption that being good at school has a direct correlation with future success. So many people who have changed the world never went to college, dropped out, or did poorly in high school. Another thing that I loved was the fact that this whole story wouldn’t have happened if Ogden Marrow (Og) wouldn’t have walked over to Halliday when he was sitting alone and invited him to play Dungeons and Dragons. It reminds me how much can change by a simple act of kindness and stepping out of your comfort zone to talk to new people. This whole story wouldn’t have happened, their world may have been drastically different if it wasn’t for Og’s invite. My favorite part though was how he had Asperger’s autism because my older brother has it as well and I could see the connections. Halliday’s lack of desire to express social skills, inability to step into other people’s shoes, and his few unhealthy obsessions were the most common traits. However I wish he wouldn’t have made the connections between Halliday’s crazy side and his Aspergers because that gives a bad name to this type of autism. (I mean you can’t win every battle right?)

One thing that really bothered my is how indifferent Wade was to risking everyone’s lives in the Stacks during his meeting with IOI. Once he realized he wasn’t actually gambling his own life because he wasn’t at home then it didn’t bother him anymore. He was willing to risk that. I understand that his aunt was cruel to him and that there were thieves and rapists roaming around the stacks but that’s not a good enough excuse as to why his conscious was clear about all those people he played a part in murdering. He said that there were no survivors. I understand that his other option was be enslaved to IOI but he is very smart, he could have figured out an alternative where hundreds of uninvolved people don’t die. (pg 146)

I personally love when authors put deep meaning into characters, places, animals and other things’ names. I loved that Art3mis was the greek god of the hunt and that Wade was Parzival. “On the day the Hunt began, the day I’d decided to become a gunter, I’d renamed my avatar Parzival, after the knight of Arthurian legend who had found the Holy Grail.” (pg 28) I love when author’s twist different stories together like that and give character’s deeply meaningful names. Like Alaska in John Green’s Looking for Alaska, or Katniss from The Hunger Games whose name is from a plant that is latin for archer. I prefer a bit more meaning than when Rainbow Rowell named the twins in Fangirl Cath and Wren because the mother didn’t know she was going to have twins so she split up the name Catherine. Though I do apprecaite it more than when authors just randomly name thier characters. (Also, Darth Vader’s name is literally Dark Father in Dutch so his name is a spoiler in itself.) I applaud Cline for his good choice in names. 

The first task was where players went into the Tomb of Horrors from Dungeons & Dragons to play Joust against Acereak. It was amusing to me but as someone who doesn’t know the first thing about Dungeons and Dragons the references were lost on me. However this line really stuck me as funny..... “It suddenly occurred to me just how absurd this scene was: a guy wearing a suit of armor, standing next to an undead king, both hunched over controls of a classic arcade game.” (pg 82) The whole time after he met Acererak I just imagined him going from his scary, glowing eyes to his best friend playing a video game and them fist bumping each other. Like I genuinely wanted them to become friends. Haha.

The first gate was where players played Dungeons of Daggorath to open the gate where they had to say and act all the lines of the character David Lightman in the film WarGames. This was my favorite task / gate he had to do and I wish I had my own version for The Hunger Games where I could be Katniss. Anyone else agree? They called them “Fliksyncs” (112) and I genuinely think if they make something like it in real life, it could be my favorite invention of all time. You would get to walk, talk, and live the life of your favorite character, your heroes, or be 1/2 of your favorite OTPs. ( I would gladly be Clary to play besides Jace from The Mortal Instruments... just putting it out there.)

A really important message that spread throughout the span of the book was that the internet (OASIS in RPO’s case) can take over our lives. ”It had become a self-imposed prison for humanity,” he wrote, “A pleasant place for the world to hide from its problems while human civilization slowly collapses, primarily due to neglect.” (pg 120) How much truer does that get?? Than once Wade won the egg even Halliday admitted that that was one of his biggest regrets, not logging off and living life the way it was meant to be, truly using your senses and awakening your body instead of constantly trying to mute it and hide yourself.  “I created the OASIS because I never felt at home in the real world. I didn’t know how to connect with the people there. I was afraid, for all all of my life. Right up until I knew it was ending. That was when I realized, as terrifying and painful as reality can be. it is also the only place where you can find true happiness. Because reality is real. Do you understand?” (pg 364) I think that is something people across the globe can relate to. We could all use a lesson in learning when to turn off our screens and fully engage in the world around us. 

Another really important message was during that OH MY GOSH! AECH REVEAL!.... which at first I felt like it changed everything but that’s the whole point, it didn’t change anything. She was still the same person she had always been. We see what we want to see in a person when we make assumptions about them from what they look like. It’s just a genuine reminder of how the lines between gender are so fluid and it doesn’t matter what you are born but how you act. I’m not even referencing transgender specifically but just boys being free to like pink and girls feeling free to be obsessed with Star Wars and video games. Though there was another lesson in this which was how she chose to be a white, male avatar, because her mother told her it would help her get treated better, even in the virtual world.  “In Marie’s opinion, the OASIS was the best thing that had ever happened to both women and people of color. From the very start, Marie has used a white male avatar to conduct all of her online business, because of the marked difference it made in how she was treated and the opportunities she was given.” (pg 320) Why is this so painfully true?? I really loved what Wade said after he found out,  “We’d connected on a purely mental level. I understood her, trusted her, and loved her as a friend. None of that had changed, or could be changed by anything as inconsequential as her gender, or skin color, or sexual orientation.” (pg 321) Though I will admit I am glad that Cline made Ache a lesbian because I was worried she was going to confess her love to him and then Wade would have to choose.... and there just wasn’t enough pages left in the book for all that drama. Plus I really love when books allow guys and girls to just be friends without every liking each other romantically. 

The final thing, that I wouldn’t dream of ending this review/discussion without talking about is... Art3mis. Can we talk about how she started out such a strong character who was a fighter, independent blogger and full time badass who knows exactly how she plans on saving the world with the prize money from the egg. But then as time goes on she transforms more into a love interest than a fierce competitor. I think she sees this as well which is why she leaves him to focus on the competition. Though at the very end when she finally meets Wade in person she does that thing that Reese Witherspoon talks about in her Woman of the Year speech. Where Art3mis, the female,  turns to Wade, the male, and pretty much says, what do we do now? This is a phrase Reese says she hates reading the most and is usually written by scripts with no female involved in the writing.  She says “Now you do you know any woman in any crisis situation.. who has absolutely no idea what to do?” Reese made a good point in saying that it’s top woman stop playing the damsel in distress because we so rarely are. Art3mis went from this total badass who could carry her own to a self conscious, love interest. However, I am so glad that Art3mis gave up Wade for the hunt in some ways because if she would have given up her passions and her life long goal for a boy, I would have been more insulted. Personally, I just really like strong, female leads and am getting tired of women being accessories to males. I’m also tired of the never ending line of self conscious characters (both female and male) who find their self worth and beauty once their romantic interests informs them that it exists. So thank you to characters like Celaena Sardothien, Alaska Young, and Margo Roth Spiegelman for showing the world that it’s cool to love yourself and know you are amazing. Though I was still rooting for Art3metis because of her strong will and good intentions for the prize. 

In the end everything seemed to fall perfectly in place which made me so happy. No loose threads and a beautiful, sappy, happy ever after. The character development for Wade was so great and I felt happy walking away from this book knowing that things were going well for him. 

Favorite Quotes: 

1.) How the protagonist, Wade, feels about video games is how I feel about books...

"Playing old video games never failed to clear my mind and set me at ease. If I was feeling depressed or frustrated about my lot in life, all I had to do was tap the Player One button, and my worries would instantly slip away as my mind focused itself on the relentless pixelated onslaught on the screen in front of me. There, inside the game's two-dimensional universe, life was simple" (pg 14)

2.) Me when I get into a good book series....

“I was obsessed. I wouldn’t quit. My grades suffered. I didn’t care.”  (pg 63)

3.)  “Spending time with her was intoxicating. We seemed to have everything in common. We shared the same interests. We were driven by the same goal. She got all my jokes. She made me laugh. She made me think. She changed the way I saw the world. I’d never had such a powerful, immediate connection with another human being before. Not even with Aech.” (pg 174) 

4.) “I was watching a collection of vintage ‘80′s commercials when I paused to wonder why cereal manufacturers no longer included toy prizes inside every box. It was a tragedy, in my opinion. Another sign that civilization was going straight down the tubes.” (pg 176)

5.)  “And then one night, like a complete idiot, I told her how I felt.” (pg 179)

6.) “No one in the world ever gets what they want and that’s beautiful.” (pg 199)  

7.) “I stood outside her palace gates for two solid hours, with a boombox over my head, blasting “In Your Eyes” by Peter gabriel at full volume.” (pg 203)

8.) “Art3mis had led me to believe that she was somehow hideous but now I saw that nothing could have been further from the truth. To my eyes, the birthmark did absolutely nothing to diminish her beauty. If anything, the face I saw in the photo seemed even more beautiful to me than that of her avatar, because I knew it was this one was real.” (pg 292)

9.)  “In Marie’s opinion, the OASIS was the best thing that had ever happened to both women and people of color. From the very start, Marie has used a white male avatar to conduct all of her online business, because of the marked difference it made in how she was treated and the opportunities she was given.” (pg 320)

10.)  “We’d connected on a purely mental level. I understood her, trusted her, and loved her as a friend. None of that had changed, or could be changed by anything as inconsequential as her gender, or skin color, or sexual orientation. (pg 321)

Discussion Questions: 

1.) Would you apply for the virtual OASIS education like Wade?

When Wade talks about his classes and how he is able to travel through a human heart, visit the Louvre, Jupiter’s moons and more it makes me think that our education system could be so much better with this technology. For one, he discusses how discipline isn’t a problem, how Wade can mute out bullies, and how even the teachers liked the system so much more. It gives students the ability to do things like Wade did and go to chat rooms with his friends in his free time and hang out with people he likes and avoid / mute the ones he doesn’t. I think there are major problems like affordability and the fact that you miss out on real human interaction that scientists have proven is needed for a healthy mind, body, and soul. 

2.) If you were a gunter, would you join a clan or stay solo? 

In the end I think that part of the lesson Holliday was trying to teach is that you need other people to succeed. You need help and can’t do everything on your own. Why else would he have made the door only open with three keys?

3.) If you were Wade would you sell out to sponsors, movie and book people, and the Suxors? or would you risk it all on the chance of being the first to find the egg?

4.)  What movie would you want to enter into like Wade did for the first gate for a “Syncflik”? Could you complete the dialogue for a whole movie?

5.) Did they fake drink at the bar at Og’s party because they hadn’t ever been able to eat or drink inside the OASIS before? 

6.) Has social media become obsolete in their world or is the avatar practically their form of social media? Or instead of trying to impress people with how they went to the beach or the expensive Louis Vuittons they just bought, do they put their energy into impressing through their OASIS accounts?

7.) Doesn’t IOI trying to capitalize on OASIS sound a lot like the government trying to end net neutrality? I think this whole story is a lot more realistic than most of us would like to admit to ourselves. (pg 33)

Movie Trailer: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSp1dM2Vj48 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scj3wiIcSu0&t=115s

I really hope they keep the Rocky Horror Show scene (pg 179) in the movie because I want to see them have fun and be laid back together. Plus it would be really funny. It was super entertaining in Perks of Being A Wallflower when Charlie has to be in the show. Also, I saw the zero gravity dance floor and the revamped Delorean in the movie trailer and can’t wait to see more of that. (pg 182)

The only thing that would make me immediately hate this movie is if they don’t give Art3mis her birthmark and so far in the trailer I noticed that they have only distinctly shown one side of her face but in the clip where she is sitting in a chair across from Wade you can see most of her face and I didn’t see any scar. What a missed opportunity? Unless they are having her cover it in the first half of the movie with makeup or something. The greatest parts of this book were the lessons learned and I think him meaning that he would love her no matter what she looked like in person because he loved who she was is a crucial part of the story and the birthmark plays a large role in that. It was an opportunity to give people who had similar situations like birthmarks have someone that looked like them in a movie to relate to. I think it really could have been something special. 

The other thing that is a bit of a turn off is the body form they gave Ache in the movie because it means that she won’t be able to have that moment talking about how she chose a white, male avatar because of how she felt at a disadvantage as a African American woman and wanted her avatar to be able to escape that. Also the actress they cast is thin so it is another missed opportunity. 

Also the choice of the song from Willy Wonka “Pure Imagination” was genius for the trailer. It was beyond perfect!

Side Note:

Also, if you would like to watch part 2 of this book... it’s called WALL-E. There are different characters but it is definitely what Wade’s planet earth is going to look like very soon. They were all absorbed in the internet and forgot about real life and how to make connections, just like this book. I mean Wade even notices his weight gain from being overly absorbed into the game. (pg 196)

[supremetyrantino]

Mr Brown Jimmie Dimmick Warren The LeQuint Dickey Mining co employee Only 4 but I'm curious what your opinion is

Damn...you know me so well for you to send me characters played by my main man, thank you <3 

Well, here we go!

1. Mr. Brown. He’s my talkative baby and to be honest, I was really sad about his death because he is really funny, never did anything truly wrong, and provided us of the most iconic monologues of all time. (Also, Brown/Pink is my ship.)

2. Jimmie Dimmick. He is my 2nd fave because I think he is really interesting being an ex-hitman and all while still being dweeby. In fact, I like to make up a backstory for him and his wife, Bonnie. (P.S. I think Jimmie is Quentin’s cutest character that he’s ever played.)

3. Ritchie Gecko (another name I added because I hate myself). I know he’s #problematic but I can’t help but feel that he truly could have been terrifying and fascinating to watch if he was still alive as a vampire. Also, I love how scary he is and how he is different from Quentin’s usual roles. (P.S. I like that the fact this is the first time I truly saw Quentin kill someone.) 

4. The LeQuint Dickey Mining Co. employee (his name is Frankie, by the way.) Obviously, I should hate him because reasons, but I love his accent and how he dies. (Most directors don’t do that nowadays.)

5. Warren, sweet, sweet, Warren. He’s just drunk Quentin and he’s kinda cool but he’s just there.

Anyway, thank you for asking me and have a nice day!

[lazybarbarians]

Charmed Life, by Diana Wynne Jones

Kalinara: So things got a little hectic between work and @Ragnell’s obsession with Mass Effect Andromeda, and we ended up missing a week or two. Oops. But we’re catching up this week with one of my childhood favorites: Diana Wynne Jones’s Charmed Life.

So Charmed Life takes place in Jones’s Chrestomanci Cycle, a fantasy series set in a world that’s fairly similar to ours, albeit with a few differences. Magic is an ordinary part of life in this world: children can take magic lessons from tutors or in a classroom, “Accredited Witches” sell their services in respectable shops, and there is even bureaucratic oversight!

The main characters of the story are siblings: Gwendolen and Cat. They’re hapless young orphans who are taken in by distant relatives, one of whom is Chrestomanci, a magic personage of some importance. Chrestomanci’s Castle is very grand, but also very strange, and seems to have a lot of rules and customs that the children don’t quite understand. Gwendolen in particular chafes under Chrestomanci’s rules and begins to act out in ways that cause a lot of trouble.

Cat, Gwendolen’s younger brother, is our viewpoint character. I remember reading somewhere that Ms. Jones intended Cat to be read as autistic, and that comes across, I think, even though the word is never used in the text. Cat is very likable, observant, and reasonably clever, but there is a lot that he doesn’t understand, and particular dynamics that he’s unable to read. It doesn’t help, though, that the authority figures in the story, particularly Chrestomanci himself, seem to think that Cat has more knowledge about what is actually happening. If they would have taken the time to TALK and EXPLAIN things to the poor kid, probably a lot of trouble could have been avoided.

Ragnell: Which is funny because when it all comes out in the end they say they were waiting for him to talk and explain how much he knew. I didn’t think autistic when I was reading, but now that you mention it it makes perfect sense.

K: Gwendolen is one of my favorite villains in literature. She’s a child, and sometimes it’s not completely clear that she understands the ramifications of what she’s doing, but she understands enough that she is still a pretty scary individual. She’s likely to be terrifying as an adult.

R: It’s always impressive when they make you dislike a child that much. Janet was a definite improvement on Gwendolen.

K: Chrestomanci himself is very grand, but I think I identify far too much with Cat, because I find him incredibly frustrating and opaque for most of the story. However, I find the idea of his office fascinating. And I’d love to learn more about the political conflict between the Chrestomanci’s office and the hedge wizards that comes into effect in the last part of the book.

R: I gathered that Chrestomanci was a good guy from certain clues, so I didn’t find him very frustrating. He was definitely opaque. I was more interested in the Family than his office, though. That quirky group of people in the household was interesting to me.

K: The one regret I have about the story is that while Cat does appear in some of the later stories in the series, Gwendolen doesn’t (at least as far as I know.) And I feel like Cat deserves a bit more closure with his sister than he’s actually gotten.

R: Also… she got what she wanted, ultimately. That doesn’t really serve my sense of justice, no matter how good an end things are for Cat.

K: I can’t argue with you there. But then Gwendolen seems like the sort that can’t ever truly be happy. But, I’d have really liked a future encounter so we’d see a more fitting end.

[greyliliy]

Identity asks: 12, 15, 30?

12. dog person or cat person?

Can I say both? XD

I mean, if I absolutely had to pick, I’d go with a cat because they mesh with my personality better? I love dogs (I’ve always wanted a Doberman since I was a kid after seeing Oliver and Company, and I loved my dog when we had one & I like seeing other people’s dogs), but they require a lot of care and attention that I’m not so great at providing. Cats tend to be more self sufficient (though thinking about it, a dog might be good to force me out of the house to take them on walks and stuff).

I’ve had one dog and two cats (rest in piece all three), and I loved having both.

15. five most influential books over your lifetime.

Oh, let’s see. These aren’t in any order, but I’ve got off the top of my head:

The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle – Book is near perfect. I cry every time I read it. I love that every adaption of it is near book accurate (both the cartoon & the IDW Comic) and I cry every time I read those. It’s just such a good book, with such a bittersweet ending, and hng. Everything about it from the setting, to the characters, to the moral grayness everywhere is just so good. I could go on for much longer, but know it’s one of my favorite books and is the reason when I hear “Red Bull” think of this book instead of the drink.

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson – It’s one of my favorite books. I’ve always had soft spot for single father stories and Jim & Captain Silver’s relationship is just one of those good ones that’s sort of tragic, but I still can’t help but love it. It’s a great story, and has been adapted into two of my favorite movies: Muppet Treasure Island and Treasure Planet.

Pressure by Jeff Strand - This is probably the most modern book on this list. It’s a dark humor, horror story about two friends (Alex and Darren) who meet as kids and grow up to be two very different men. Specifically, Darren grows up to be a serial killer and decides that Alex is still his best friend in the whole world and that they should be killers together (Alex isn’t keen on that idea). I wrote a full review over on Goodreads, but honestly, just any book that explores a villain with genuine affection for other people (while still very much being an awful person) is just such a wonderful dichotomy that I adore it when it’s explored (which is probably why I write it so much myself).

Battle Royale by Koushun Takami – This man managed to make a HUGE cast of characters all individual, unique, and memorable with some of them only getting a page or two to themselves. The book is violent, emotional, over the top, and a rush. I read the entire thing in two sittings, near non-stop. I loved the book, I loved the ending, and I like that despite all the death and horrible things, it’s not a hopeless novel. There’s some good stuff in there in all the horror, and I can only hope to get that balance in my own novels.

Misery by Stephen King - Stephen King is my author hero; not only do I love what he’s written, I love how much he’s written. I can only pray to be as prolific as he is & I love his dark sense of humor, and the way he can make the most ridiculous things seem intense and scary when they’re written down and you’re in the moment, vs when you laugh about how funny it really was later. Out of all his books I’ve read, Misery was my favorite. Paul and Annie just have this chemistry together that’s horrible and fascinating, and they play off each other so well. Annie is a truly terrifying woman, but she also has her little moments of being relatable, and then she goes right back to riding over a cop with a lawn mower. And then of course, Paul. He’s a great narrator and I loved him.

30. Pick one of your favorite quotes.

“When it comes to a beautiful woman, age is quite irrelevant.” - Carrot Glace from Sorcerer Hunters (anime dub).

Carrot Glace is one of my favorite characters of all time. He’s a woman-chasing, hound dog, but there is a reason everyone in that series (including his brother) fell head over heels in love with him. This quote was from one of the earlier episodes, where he met a girl named Lake who aged an entire lifetime in a single day & Carrot was falling in love with her when she was his age & a little older. But when she arrived as an old woman, she asked how he could still want her and he gently placed a flower in her hair with a warm smile and dropped that line and it was just–that was it. The defining moment that established him as a good man, and not just a skirt chaser. He liked Lake for Lake no matter what she looked like, and it really struck me when I was younger and watching it for the first time, and I just love it still.

[theliterateape]

Chris Churchill Saves the World | How "The Walking Dead" Helped Me Feel My Feelings

By Chris Churchill

I love The Walking Dead for a lot of reasons. But here’s the reason I’m so loyal to it:

When I was nineteen years old, committed to the psych ward, sitting across from my first psychiatrist, Dr. Bolan, he explained it to me. He told me I had a panic disorder (a diagnosis that subsequent psychiatrists haven’t necessarily focused on but one that seems to encapsulate a big part of my problem). He compared my brain to a house with many rooms, all of which had a light switch to be turned on when something worried me. As he explained, most people can turn the light on and then, when it was no longer needed (i.e., the thing that worries you is gone), they can turn the light off. People with a panic disorder cannot turn the lights off once they get turned on.

Next thing you know, all the lights in the house are on and it’s noon.

Good explanation, I thought.

Years later, after having been diagnosed as bipolar ii, my therapist and I began to discuss how I still at that time, once sent into panic, could not recover on my own. A concern over a missing wallet, even though the wallet was recovered the next day, turned into real existential crisis. I was so worked up about the possibility of identity theft, that I obsessed for months and months over any and all problems (completely different problems) that I could come up with. I came up with some great philosophical discoveries for myself, not the least of which being that I’ll bet most of the great western philosophers have the strictly obsessive side of obsessive-compulsive disorder. I also proved, to my own satisfaction (and really, who else’s satisfaction do I need) the existence and nature of God and figured out what science will need to do to truly create artificial intelligence, simply because I physically couldn’t stop thinking.

Forget enjoying anything. I was stuck in the emotional state of extreme vigilance. Extreme vigilance, without a real target, forces you to create problems to solve.

But why is that? My therapist and I talked through this for months. She explained to me that people with the type of childhood trauma I sustained might never learn to soothe themselves (without doing something). That’s why, in order to soothe themselves some people nervously shake their foot or tap their fingers or click pens, stay busy, or develop obsessions and sometimes, as in my case, some people can’t stop solving problems even when there aren’t any. They feel compelled to obsess over certain ideas. Fun fact: even when you solve the problem, you don’t feel any better.

As I was recovering from my most recent breakdown, I started gathering with a few good friends each week to watch bad movies. We enjoyed poorly conceived science fiction, unscary horror movies, and bizarre concepts in action adventure. A highlight from those movies was, of course, Roadhouse. Another was the Bart Conner (yes the Olympic gymnast) vehicle called Gymkata, where Mr. Conner played a character who kept getting into mortal danger but, luckily, this always occurred when he was near gymnastics equipment.

Things had been pretty dark for me during those days except for those weekly breaks where we marveled at terrible movies and bonded over our own highly personalized Mystery Science Theatre 3000-style riffs on these movies.

So one day, I came across a dvd of 10 Horror Classics. I thought, “Ten? All in one DVD? They must be laughably bad.” One was the original, George Romero classic, Night of the Living Dead. I had not realized it was a classic because it was actually a good movie. I had assumed it would be terrible. I settled in for a good, patronizing giggle but instead found myself enjoying a really terrifying, groundbreaking, low-budget film.

I never had cared for scary movies before that day. I’m sure they were all funny to me. Just silly, overacted, bad effects, and unbelievable. But this movie, with its genre generating plot, hit me just right. It grabbed me with both how frightening it was and how icky it all was. Watching this movie I got legitimately worked up.

Then the movie was over and I realized that I felt pretty good.

So I thought, “Are all zombie movies this good?” (No) So I began to seek out old, Romero and Romero-like zombie films.

I was becoming obsessed with the feeling these movies were giving me. Not a problem to solve, but something visceral.

When I was running out of good zombie movies to watch, my good friend Charmin suggested I watch this new show, The Walking Dead. She knew I’d love it.

From the opening scene I was hooked. Our hero, in weakened physical state, and vulnerable, stumbles upon a little girl, dragging a teddy bear. He calls out, “Little girl...” to which the little girl responds by turning abruptly, showing that she is missing all the skin around her mouth, and rushes to attack him. I felt the horror, uncertainty, and “ickyness” of it all.

And then the hero killed it. And I felt better. Then our hero found another horrible, disgusting, dangerous monster and I was terrified and creeped out and vulnerable and then he killed it and I felt better. And it happened again. And again.

I felt scared. It felt personal. It got killed. Then I felt better.

I binged the show to catch up to its then current season (I think it was into the middle of Season 2 by the time I caught up. I got very used to getting very nervous and frightened, one could even say panicked, and then seeing someone kill that thing that scared me. And then I felt better.

Like the psychiatric equivalent of eating hot pepper in the midday sun to cool off.

My therapist and I realized I was actually practicing the primitive skill of feeling better. (She says I’m fascinating.) It turns out that learning to feel better is something you learn before you have episodic memory and only with the help of a soothing nurturer spending sufficient time with you.

So now, in lieu of having developed those skills when I was supposed to have, the show was teaching me to soothe myself. So each week. I tuned in to care even more deeply about these characters in peril. And even when they kill off a favorite TV friend, and then it goes to commercial, I realize it is just TV, and I feel better.

Then I began to practice that feeling away from my show. I worked at developing the sense memory of feeling better thanks to my beloved post-apocalyptic soap opera.

So when I read good or bad reviews about my show, it matters a little to me, but not a lot. Because now I realize that people love the shows they love because of the feelings that show repeatedly gives them, show after show, for years. Not just, did it scare them but did it help them feel better.

Horror is like comedy in that the tension builds due to a character or characters we identify with being in some level of peril and then that tension is released with a satisfying and sometimes unforeseen resolution. In jokes it happens quickly, while in horror, it might take two hours. In both cases, we often have physical reactions to the peril and release at the resolution. Laughing is a combination of tension and release. I’ve seen child psychologists explain with the example of a loving parent tossing their baby in the air and catching the child. The baby laughs when it is caught because it is relieved that everything is fine. The horror movie affects us in a similar way (often, also accompanied by laughter).

So it’s not surprising that someone like me who enjoys laughing through his days, with its repeated tension and release, also loves to pretend to care for people who are pretending to be killed. Tension and release, for sure, but with a longer arc and higher stakes.

I can practice feeling better.

So thanks Glenn Rhee for the dumpster fake out. I needed that.

Thanks to Darryl, Michonne, Carol, Carl, and Rick. Thanks for almost dying all those times. I needed that.

Thanks to the deus ex helicopter that saved Rick. I needed that too.

Robert Kirkman, thanks.

To all my psychiatrists, my therapist, and to that little half a pill I take who got me to the point where I could feel the fear and then the relief. Thanks.

Critics don’t matter. They’re not in my head. And they probably wouldn’t understand what was in there anyway.

The Walking Dead returns with its tenth season tonight on AMC.

[patchsing3-blog]

The Monsters That Made Halloween Horror Nights the Best Bad Horror Movie Never Produced

Why I can't stop thinking about the made-up monsters at Universal Studios.

One of my favorite Halloween traditions is the complete transformation certain theme parks (maybe my favorite capitalist institution) undergo from, roughly, mid-September up until Halloween weekend. You know, the kind where they close the park early to turn it into a string of haunted houses and "scare zones" where local actors get to enact their revenge on tourists for a few hours? Of every theme park that does this, Universal Studios Halloween Horror Nights might be my favorite, and I say this as a man that has been to absolutely zero Halloween theme park events. Why is that? Because it has a whole damn story that a bunch of weirdos wrote, and you can enjoy it all from the safety of your own home.

A little history: Like most theme park attractions, Halloween Horror Nights started out as a showcase of mostly licensed attractions. Shows and haunted houses were built around horror movies that you'd know, characters like Leatherface and Frankenstein's Monster would be featured in shows. It was all very loosely organized around spooky stuff. Five years in, though, the people behind Horror Nights decided to build the event around a host: The Crypt Keeper, who, in the mid-90s, was still really damn popular. After two years of the Crypt Keeper in 1995 and 1996, Halloween Horror Nights would return to a looser format mostly inspired by horror films popular at the time. But for HHN's tenth anniversary in 2000, the event was revamped to be built around an original character, Jack the Clown—and this is why I love the idea of Halloween Horror Nights so much.

The Halloween Horror Nights team of misanthropes could've just designed a scary clown to dress up actors in and terrify people and left it at that. Clowns are creepy. Movies have told us that forever!

But Jack the Clown had a backstory, and you can follow it through wikis and fan sites because, like most things on the Internet, theme parks are obsessively documented by the people who love them. Read his page and you'll find he's a killer clown (boring), but he was murdered and hid in a jack-in-the-box (better) found by a film crew that died (okay) and finally, many years later, Universal Studios brought the jack-in-the-box his corpse was hidden in because they thought it was a cool prop and now an undead clown is haunting the park (NOW WE'RE COOKING WITH GAS.)

It goes on like this, for years. Jack was a huge success, so the designers of Halloween Horror Nights would create new characters—called, simply, Icons—to build the annual event around. There's the Caretaker, a depraved surgeon obsessed with finding where humans keep their souls. The Director is a snuff filmmaker. The Usher brings movies to life. On their own, they're not terribly remarkable, but eventually, in the stories that were told across various haunted houses each year, Halloween Horror Nights slowly built up an ongoing universe, building to a crossover for its twentieth anniversary where they were all revealed to be harbingers of the personification of Fear, a demon that was influencing the Universal Studios designers to keep making haunted houses. It's extremely WWE.

This is all corny schlock, but the Icons represent what's maybe the coolest thing about theme parks outside of, you know, rides—when done well, every part of a theme park attraction tells a story. And what's funny about that is that it isn't done out of generosity, but to hide the fact that you spend most of your time in theme parks either waiting in a line, or walking to another line. This is probably why I find the Icons so fascinating—there's no reason they need to be there. There's no reason to come up with a series of wholly original stories to fill your theme park's seasonal Halloween event with for just a few nights per year. Using the far more familiar trappings of popular horror movies works just fine. People can gawk at haunted house sets lifted from Halloween, and be scared by actors dressed like Jason Vorhees. You don't have to have Jack the Clown.

Sadly, the designers of Halloween Horror Nights have seemed to take this to heart. The 2010s have largely eschewed original icons in favor of a loose collection of haunted houses and scare zones inspired by horror films—this year's Halloween Horror Nights 28 is mostly themed after '80s horror, with Stranger Things, Halloween 4, and Poltergeist being big touchpoints. It makes sense—it's easier to get people excited about a really good Stranger Things or Halloween themed haunted house than one that tells the story of how Jack the undead clown became the avatar of Chaos, and decided to rebel against Fear Itself to start an evil carnival called The Dark Fantastic. (That was the real plot of Halloween Horror Nights 25, the penultimate event with an Icon at the center.)

Do I, personally, have a horse in this race? No, not really. Again—I have never attended a single Halloween Horror Night, and were I to try one, any damn haunted house would probably be effective as hell on me. But I don't know. I love the idea of horror as pro wrestling, and fiction that indulges in the idea that theme parks—a truly bizarre concept—are horrific disasters waiting to happen, and then sell crazy amounts of tickets based on the notion that things go wrong in them. What a scam. What ingenuity. Halloween Horror Nights is the kind of scare that America was made for.

MORE STORIES LIKE THIS ONE

Source: https://www.gq.com/story/the-monsters-that-made-halloween-horror-nights-the-best-bad-horror-movie-never-produced

[crimsonbreeze]

Favorite Episode List

One Piece- 1015 Bleach- ep.13 Friends- 5x11