Tuesday, April 5, 2016
My hypothesis on the Historical King Arthur
[Update: This whole post was a waste, read why at the bottom]
Monday, April 4, 2016
Sailor Moon Crystallizes
So I just spent a good deal of my morning this Monday April 4th 2016 watching 3 episodes of the Sailor Moon franchise.
First were the 3rd and 2nd to last episodes of Sailor Stars, which I've been following since Hulu started it's actual story-line, but did watch the Nehelena episodes first.
They were both really good, It's hard to imagine I was once an immature punk who kinda denied the fact that I liked this show for more then looking at the Heroines. Back then I didn't even know Stars existed, but still.
Spoiler ahead. Skip to the next Bold line if you haven't seen them.
For the big reveal at the end of 198. I went into this knowing a few basic things already, one being what it's villain is called. So I honestly hadn't even noticed that they hadn't called her a "Sailor" before this point.
I had thought to myself watching these two episodes "we've seen other people jump in-front of Usagi to shield her form approaching danger repeatedly, I'd like to see her do it for a change" and then BOOM!!! it happens, perfect timing.
I also thought pretty quickly that Sailor Galaxia's fall was kind of like Anakin Skywalker's, she couldn't handle loss. Some of the Prequel haters might respond to that here with "that's how Lucas should have done it" so which I will say ____ you. In general the motive for falling is part of what the haters hate, they talk about wanting a generic slow ends justifies the means gray area pushing power corrupts message, even though that would utterly contradict the entire premise of how they tired to turn Luke. For all the ways Luke's journey was different, that flaw he absolutely shared, it's what lured him to Cloud City.
Spoilers stopped for now.
And then as soon I'd finished those I saw the first episode of seasons 3 of Crystal was up.
Now I agree with a lot of the popular criticisms of the first two seasons of Crystal. I'd said before I felt the lack of filler was a problem. I hated the as Manga mimicking as much as possible art style which also keeps me from getting into Hellsing Ultimate. And I agree with Vraik's argument for why the Anime changes to the Dark Kingdom story-line were improvements.
But I still enjoyed Crystal a decent amount, and I don't think anyone hated the theme song, Moon Pride.
Sailor Moon S was my favorite season of the old Anime as I've said before. Even so I feel even though I haven't actually read the Manga that from what I know the extent to which the Anime changes were improvement kind of decreases as it goes on. One of my few complaints about S was that it takes so long to meet the character the whole story is kind of about, and I'd been assured in the Manga Hotaru does show up sooner.
Then the early glimpses showed evidence of improving the art style, much less Manga bound. So I awaited with high hopes.
And unlike Batman V Superman those hopes were not let down at all, it was an awesome episode.
Spoilers below again.
We don't have a formal introduction to Hotaru yet, but she was there right at the start.
And the new Theme Song is pretty rockin too. And it's animation and the transformation scenes both show signs of now desiring to directly homage the old Anime.
And I was not expecting based on what I'd been told about the Manga to see Naru, Umio and Motoki still around. I was quite pleased.
Spoiler over.
It was fast paced, but this time didn't seem to be at the expense of indulging in the characters. It was a fun half hour of Anime. I recommend even people who hated Crystal before give it a try.
I may keep sharing my thoughts here every week. If you want to enjoy some good Racaps of Stars I recommend joseinnextdoor. She hasn't gotten to these episodes yet, it should be up Friday. Actually she's done the entire old Anime as Hulu's put them up, but I've only consistently followed Stars.
First were the 3rd and 2nd to last episodes of Sailor Stars, which I've been following since Hulu started it's actual story-line, but did watch the Nehelena episodes first.
They were both really good, It's hard to imagine I was once an immature punk who kinda denied the fact that I liked this show for more then looking at the Heroines. Back then I didn't even know Stars existed, but still.
Spoiler ahead. Skip to the next Bold line if you haven't seen them.
For the big reveal at the end of 198. I went into this knowing a few basic things already, one being what it's villain is called. So I honestly hadn't even noticed that they hadn't called her a "Sailor" before this point.
I had thought to myself watching these two episodes "we've seen other people jump in-front of Usagi to shield her form approaching danger repeatedly, I'd like to see her do it for a change" and then BOOM!!! it happens, perfect timing.
I also thought pretty quickly that Sailor Galaxia's fall was kind of like Anakin Skywalker's, she couldn't handle loss. Some of the Prequel haters might respond to that here with "that's how Lucas should have done it" so which I will say ____ you. In general the motive for falling is part of what the haters hate, they talk about wanting a generic slow ends justifies the means gray area pushing power corrupts message, even though that would utterly contradict the entire premise of how they tired to turn Luke. For all the ways Luke's journey was different, that flaw he absolutely shared, it's what lured him to Cloud City.
Spoilers stopped for now.
And then as soon I'd finished those I saw the first episode of seasons 3 of Crystal was up.
Now I agree with a lot of the popular criticisms of the first two seasons of Crystal. I'd said before I felt the lack of filler was a problem. I hated the as Manga mimicking as much as possible art style which also keeps me from getting into Hellsing Ultimate. And I agree with Vraik's argument for why the Anime changes to the Dark Kingdom story-line were improvements.
But I still enjoyed Crystal a decent amount, and I don't think anyone hated the theme song, Moon Pride.
Sailor Moon S was my favorite season of the old Anime as I've said before. Even so I feel even though I haven't actually read the Manga that from what I know the extent to which the Anime changes were improvement kind of decreases as it goes on. One of my few complaints about S was that it takes so long to meet the character the whole story is kind of about, and I'd been assured in the Manga Hotaru does show up sooner.
Then the early glimpses showed evidence of improving the art style, much less Manga bound. So I awaited with high hopes.
And unlike Batman V Superman those hopes were not let down at all, it was an awesome episode.
Spoilers below again.
We don't have a formal introduction to Hotaru yet, but she was there right at the start.
And the new Theme Song is pretty rockin too. And it's animation and the transformation scenes both show signs of now desiring to directly homage the old Anime.
And I was not expecting based on what I'd been told about the Manga to see Naru, Umio and Motoki still around. I was quite pleased.
Spoiler over.
It was fast paced, but this time didn't seem to be at the expense of indulging in the characters. It was a fun half hour of Anime. I recommend even people who hated Crystal before give it a try.
I may keep sharing my thoughts here every week. If you want to enjoy some good Racaps of Stars I recommend joseinnextdoor. She hasn't gotten to these episodes yet, it should be up Friday. Actually she's done the entire old Anime as Hulu's put them up, but I've only consistently followed Stars.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
The War of The Roses, Game of Thrones and Final Fantasy Tactics
Game of Thrones, based on the Saga of Fire and Ice books, and Final Fantasy Tactics are two important parts of modern Nerdy Pop Culture (one is currently a bit more obscure then the other) that have in common drawing inspiration from the chapter of English history known as the War of the Roses. But with some clear major liberties.
Both are also very dark pessimistic and arguably deconstructive takes on the High Fantasy Genre, I guess the War of the Roses isn't the most ideal piece of history to draw on if you wanna be Optimistic.
Both Ivalice and Westeros were originally Seven Kingdoms, just like England which was seven Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms united by Ælfrēd The Great's successors. Aegon Targaryen being a conqueror from outside Westeros however would make a closer analogy to William The Conqueror then Ælfrēd.
One thing I wonder if anyone else has noticed is that when you apply how Westeros' geography equates to England's, The Wall that is such a big plot point is clearly inspired by Hadrian's Wall.
The scenario also involves an "Evil" Queen who's son may or may not be the son of her Kingly husband. But how exactly she relates to the House that sides with her tends to be changed.
And both are a conflict between North and South. Perhaps the least unique of the defining characteristics. There was a North v South civil war in the history of my country also. Bible scholars know that happens in the Bible twice (with Israel and with the division of Alexander's Empire in Daniel 11). And it's part of Ancient Egypt's history. And since we'll be talking some Japanese media here there was also a time when Japan was divided between rival branches of the Imperial Family, one based up North and the other down South.
There are some key differences in how the two draw inspiration from it.
The most superficial thing is the way Tactics geographically switches the scenario somewhat. In both the History and GoT it's the Southern House that sides with the Queen, while in Tactics it's the North.
But the biggest distinction is that Martin was largely drawing on a popular perception of the war that viewed the Yorks as the good guys, at least before the Yorks internal conflicts messed everything up. Richard 3rd Duke of York was largely the basis for Ned Stark, and Edward IV the basis for Robb Stark.
But in Tactics both Dukes are equally selfish pricks who care nothing for the suffering their war brings on the common people they're supposed to be responsible for. And they're not even the most Evil characters in the story.
However, they also have a lot in common in how they change the story, which is perhaps the most interesting thing to look at.
In the real War of the Roses both houses were branches of the Royal Family. Siding with Lancaster was by traditional standards siding with the rightful heir, they had been the main line for two generations by this point. While the Dukes of York descended from a different son of one of the earlier Plantagenets. The Duke of York held a relation to the Royal family comparable to the Duke of Orleans prior to the French Revolution. The Noble who serves as leader of the Lancaster faction without sitting on the throne himself is actually Somerset and that's why their associated with the South. [Update: So I originally wrote this not knowing about the whole Mortimer claim, the Yorks are the more senior line by Male-Preference rather then Male-Only Primogeniture. But also Henry IV claimed the Throne by Conquest like Robert Baratheon.]
But in both GoT and Tactics the warring houses are separate Noble Houses, and the Royal family effectively going extinct is partly what causes the conflict.
In both the Queen is a member of one of the rival houses who married the King. While historically the Queen was a foreign (French) royal who married the King of England, who was a Lancaster.
All three have in common a suspicion (though in Tactics it is very vaguely hinted at while in GoT it's blatantly confirmed) that the actual father of the Queen's son is a member of the House that sides with her. But because of the above change this makes both fictional scenarios Incestuous, while historically it would not have been (I won't venture to guess if it's true or not).
As Fantasy stories it's not surprising that both add supernatural elements, but it's interesting how they both bring them in in a similar way. An inhuman menace threatens to destroy the world and the internal selfish squabbling of the people who run it have them totally uninterested in dealing with that. Like they're taking Reagan's whole "if Aliens attacked we'd all come together" slogan and saying, "no we wouldn't".
That's not necessarily the only way you could bring Cosmic Horrors into a story like this. You could go further then Martin in siding with the North by having the Demons side with Lancaster and the Angels side with York. But that would lack nuance I suppose. In Homer's depiction of the Trojan War the gods all took sides in the conflict and often switched sides at random, I would probably emulate that.
Both are likely to be very different from history in how they end. Martin's isn't over yet so we don't know for sure. But it seems like there is hope that maybe eventually they will come together and deal with the real threat. But as a Video Game FF Tactics has to be a story where the character you play and the party he forms save the world mostly on their own, the depressing part is in Universe no one knows what Ramza did and the biggest @##hole is remembered as a hero.
If whoever rules when the dust settles isn't exactly either side fighting each other when it all started. Then that "winner" could be viewed as allegorically Henry VII to some extent. In tactics this would be Delita Herial (and maybe Ovelia would be Elizabeth of York?). But an important plot point of the game is that Delita was a complete commoner. Henry Tudor had a distant connection to the Lancaster line, but more importantly he was a direct heir to the Princes of Wales and thus to the Kings of the Britons who ruled the Island before the Anglo-Saxons came. Because of this he was heralded as the Mab Darodan and the return of King Arthur.
Who would make the most sense in that context in Game of Thrones? Maybe a Targaryen since Pendragon means head of the Dragon. And Henry Tudor was a direct descendant of Maelgwn who Gildas called "The Dragon of the Island". Arthur means Bear but none of the houses of Westeros have a Bear as their symbol. Henry Tudor invaded crossing the channel from France, which could fit what Daenerys is planning to do.
Also GoT doesn't have an allegorical vilification of Christianity. It has religious themes, but not so blatantly anti-religious.
They are no doubt not the only works of fiction to draw inspiration from the War of the Roses. Though I'm hardly an expert on the subject. But I know that the first such example would actually be Le Morte d'Arthur, which has to a large extent defined Arthurian legend ever since. Thomas Mallory was actually contemporary with the War of the Roses, so for his time the influence of that War on fiction was more like WWII and Vietnam are for us. The actual geopolitical scenario in the story makes far less of a direct analogy, the parallels that do exist are ones you may have to be a contemporary to get.
There has also been fiction that directly depicts the history involved. Starting with Shakespeare's Tetrology, (the Henry VI trilogy and Richard III). I rather enjoyed The White Queen TV Series, haven't read the books.
Both are also very dark pessimistic and arguably deconstructive takes on the High Fantasy Genre, I guess the War of the Roses isn't the most ideal piece of history to draw on if you wanna be Optimistic.
Both Ivalice and Westeros were originally Seven Kingdoms, just like England which was seven Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms united by Ælfrēd The Great's successors. Aegon Targaryen being a conqueror from outside Westeros however would make a closer analogy to William The Conqueror then Ælfrēd.
One thing I wonder if anyone else has noticed is that when you apply how Westeros' geography equates to England's, The Wall that is such a big plot point is clearly inspired by Hadrian's Wall.
The scenario also involves an "Evil" Queen who's son may or may not be the son of her Kingly husband. But how exactly she relates to the House that sides with her tends to be changed.
And both are a conflict between North and South. Perhaps the least unique of the defining characteristics. There was a North v South civil war in the history of my country also. Bible scholars know that happens in the Bible twice (with Israel and with the division of Alexander's Empire in Daniel 11). And it's part of Ancient Egypt's history. And since we'll be talking some Japanese media here there was also a time when Japan was divided between rival branches of the Imperial Family, one based up North and the other down South.
There are some key differences in how the two draw inspiration from it.
The most superficial thing is the way Tactics geographically switches the scenario somewhat. In both the History and GoT it's the Southern House that sides with the Queen, while in Tactics it's the North.
But the biggest distinction is that Martin was largely drawing on a popular perception of the war that viewed the Yorks as the good guys, at least before the Yorks internal conflicts messed everything up. Richard 3rd Duke of York was largely the basis for Ned Stark, and Edward IV the basis for Robb Stark.
But in Tactics both Dukes are equally selfish pricks who care nothing for the suffering their war brings on the common people they're supposed to be responsible for. And they're not even the most Evil characters in the story.
However, they also have a lot in common in how they change the story, which is perhaps the most interesting thing to look at.
In the real War of the Roses both houses were branches of the Royal Family. Siding with Lancaster was by traditional standards siding with the rightful heir, they had been the main line for two generations by this point. While the Dukes of York descended from a different son of one of the earlier Plantagenets. The Duke of York held a relation to the Royal family comparable to the Duke of Orleans prior to the French Revolution. The Noble who serves as leader of the Lancaster faction without sitting on the throne himself is actually Somerset and that's why their associated with the South. [Update: So I originally wrote this not knowing about the whole Mortimer claim, the Yorks are the more senior line by Male-Preference rather then Male-Only Primogeniture. But also Henry IV claimed the Throne by Conquest like Robert Baratheon.]
But in both GoT and Tactics the warring houses are separate Noble Houses, and the Royal family effectively going extinct is partly what causes the conflict.
In both the Queen is a member of one of the rival houses who married the King. While historically the Queen was a foreign (French) royal who married the King of England, who was a Lancaster.
All three have in common a suspicion (though in Tactics it is very vaguely hinted at while in GoT it's blatantly confirmed) that the actual father of the Queen's son is a member of the House that sides with her. But because of the above change this makes both fictional scenarios Incestuous, while historically it would not have been (I won't venture to guess if it's true or not).
As Fantasy stories it's not surprising that both add supernatural elements, but it's interesting how they both bring them in in a similar way. An inhuman menace threatens to destroy the world and the internal selfish squabbling of the people who run it have them totally uninterested in dealing with that. Like they're taking Reagan's whole "if Aliens attacked we'd all come together" slogan and saying, "no we wouldn't".
That's not necessarily the only way you could bring Cosmic Horrors into a story like this. You could go further then Martin in siding with the North by having the Demons side with Lancaster and the Angels side with York. But that would lack nuance I suppose. In Homer's depiction of the Trojan War the gods all took sides in the conflict and often switched sides at random, I would probably emulate that.
Both are likely to be very different from history in how they end. Martin's isn't over yet so we don't know for sure. But it seems like there is hope that maybe eventually they will come together and deal with the real threat. But as a Video Game FF Tactics has to be a story where the character you play and the party he forms save the world mostly on their own, the depressing part is in Universe no one knows what Ramza did and the biggest @##hole is remembered as a hero.
If whoever rules when the dust settles isn't exactly either side fighting each other when it all started. Then that "winner" could be viewed as allegorically Henry VII to some extent. In tactics this would be Delita Herial (and maybe Ovelia would be Elizabeth of York?). But an important plot point of the game is that Delita was a complete commoner. Henry Tudor had a distant connection to the Lancaster line, but more importantly he was a direct heir to the Princes of Wales and thus to the Kings of the Britons who ruled the Island before the Anglo-Saxons came. Because of this he was heralded as the Mab Darodan and the return of King Arthur.
Who would make the most sense in that context in Game of Thrones? Maybe a Targaryen since Pendragon means head of the Dragon. And Henry Tudor was a direct descendant of Maelgwn who Gildas called "The Dragon of the Island". Arthur means Bear but none of the houses of Westeros have a Bear as their symbol. Henry Tudor invaded crossing the channel from France, which could fit what Daenerys is planning to do.
Also GoT doesn't have an allegorical vilification of Christianity. It has religious themes, but not so blatantly anti-religious.
They are no doubt not the only works of fiction to draw inspiration from the War of the Roses. Though I'm hardly an expert on the subject. But I know that the first such example would actually be Le Morte d'Arthur, which has to a large extent defined Arthurian legend ever since. Thomas Mallory was actually contemporary with the War of the Roses, so for his time the influence of that War on fiction was more like WWII and Vietnam are for us. The actual geopolitical scenario in the story makes far less of a direct analogy, the parallels that do exist are ones you may have to be a contemporary to get.
There has also been fiction that directly depicts the history involved. Starting with Shakespeare's Tetrology, (the Henry VI trilogy and Richard III). I rather enjoyed The White Queen TV Series, haven't read the books.
Monday, March 28, 2016
More on DC based Audio Dramas, The Superman we needed
I did a post on DC based Audio Dramas before, this is a follow up.
The other Batman project from the same people was The Lazarus Syndrome, which was good but nothing special.
For Superman, the first project was actually the Trial of Superman which I didn't like.
But The Adventures of Superman, was an adaptation of all but 1 issue of Byrne's Man of Steel miniseries (everything but the Batman/Magpie story) and the first two issues of Byrne's monthly Superman run.
It is awesome, it has all the same actors as the Death and Return adaptation for characters that are in both. I have my issues with Byrne's dystopic depiction of Krypton, but this adaptation was awesome.
It told Superman's origin well, and established a CEO Lex Luthor, and had Superman battle two super powered enemies. And clocked in at just about exactly a 2 hour run-time.
Basically, that is the Superman Reboot movie I wanted in 2006, if we'd gotten that a year after Begins then a modern Superman could have gone side by side with a modern Batman. And Maybe just maybe there could have been a counterbalance to Nolan's clout opposing doing a shared universe. The Dark Knight would have been the same but Rises may have gone differently. And after solo trilogies we could have gotten the World's Finest film I wanted.
Instead we got nothing, there was no Superman film to go alongside the Batman revival.
And the thing is this Audio Drama is a half hour shorter then a certain unnamed 2006 movie, and yet more happened in it.
By the time we did get a Superman reboot the comics had changed, his origin had been revamped a few more times, none for the better in my opinion. The time had passed for the Superman I love to get a film treatment. I like the Man of Steel movie, but it's not the ideal.
Instead of getting the Superman we needed, we got the Superman we deserved.
The other Batman project from the same people was The Lazarus Syndrome, which was good but nothing special.
For Superman, the first project was actually the Trial of Superman which I didn't like.
But The Adventures of Superman, was an adaptation of all but 1 issue of Byrne's Man of Steel miniseries (everything but the Batman/Magpie story) and the first two issues of Byrne's monthly Superman run.
It is awesome, it has all the same actors as the Death and Return adaptation for characters that are in both. I have my issues with Byrne's dystopic depiction of Krypton, but this adaptation was awesome.
It told Superman's origin well, and established a CEO Lex Luthor, and had Superman battle two super powered enemies. And clocked in at just about exactly a 2 hour run-time.
Basically, that is the Superman Reboot movie I wanted in 2006, if we'd gotten that a year after Begins then a modern Superman could have gone side by side with a modern Batman. And Maybe just maybe there could have been a counterbalance to Nolan's clout opposing doing a shared universe. The Dark Knight would have been the same but Rises may have gone differently. And after solo trilogies we could have gotten the World's Finest film I wanted.
Instead we got nothing, there was no Superman film to go alongside the Batman revival.
And the thing is this Audio Drama is a half hour shorter then a certain unnamed 2006 movie, and yet more happened in it.
By the time we did get a Superman reboot the comics had changed, his origin had been revamped a few more times, none for the better in my opinion. The time had passed for the Superman I love to get a film treatment. I like the Man of Steel movie, but it's not the ideal.
Instead of getting the Superman we needed, we got the Superman we deserved.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Processing Batman V Superman
If I were a prideful person the last thing I'd do is possibly retract a glowing review of a film within 2 days of posting it.
Everything I said I loved in that initial review I still love, the issue is the things I was kind of in denial of.
First thing I should mention is because of my local theater's new pick the seat when you buy the ticket policy I wound up with no choice but to watch in the second row, and it was the Ultra Screen, and 3D which I've never had a problem with before but never been up front before. I honestly think that hindered my ablity to enjoy the show somewhat, but I saw The Dark Knight in the first row of the same theater and that was no problem.
For the last year or two I've made a big deal out of the fact that my expectations of movies have never been wrong. My opinion may be inconsistent with popular opinion but I'd never disliked a movie I thought I would love. So maybe I didn't want to admit that that undefeated streak had been broken. I wanted to leave this film proclaiming it to have beaten The Force Awakens, and that I couldn't do even yesterday.
There are different ways to criticize this movie. And if you're someone who hated Man of Steel then your criticisms of it's sequel are useless, you should just not see the sequel if you didn't like the first.
There are two kinds of criticisms of Man of Steel, there are the film making and writing criticisms a professional film critic would make. And while I find those far more understandable here then with many other films I've liked that the critics didn't (Like the Star Wars Prequels), I still see them are far from deal breaking, there is no doubt this film was a beautiful piece of art with some phenomenal acting.
Spoilers Ahead!!!
Then there are the criticisms a fan would have, Comic fans who have many things they both absolutely did and absolutely did not want to see recreated. And my fellow SJWs who care about representation and stereotyping issues. There is a lot to understandably hate about this movie. But some things to like too.
As a Man of Steel fan I've never proclaimed it the ideal Superman movie, I'll make a post in the near future that will give an idea of what the ideal would be to me. My hope for this sequel had always been that it would take us in the direction of the Superman I love, and what we got of that was a mixed bag at best.
As far as my personal Fanon/Headcanon is concerned Jenny is the Jimmy Olsen of this universe no matter what Snyder says.
I somewhat controversially said I do not have a problem with including Doomsday and not killing Superman. And I even could have been ok with doing the Death of Superman this soon. But this execution was mixed. Two of the things I liked about how the Comics did it was that it didn't involve Krytponite and was absolutely not Luther's doing. But I did like how it made me think of the Spear of Longinus.
The Fan Boy Perspective is pretty much expecting the coming R Rated version to be better. There is little chance I will wind up feeling that way. I wanted a film that was Dark but not a seeming full on rejection of the lighter side of the DC universe, and it is largely in that desire that I'm disappointed.
I was really bothered when Jena Malone (it'd leaked that she was Barbara Gordon) didn't appear in the film. And if the "uncut" version has her appear in only one scene where she's crippled and ambiguously raped, I will frakking hate that version with a passion, whether it has been in theaters or now.
I'm ok with The Killing Joke moment being part of her history ONLY if it gives us Oracle, without Oracle it is useless fridgeing and nothing more. And that is part of why the New52 canon bothers me.
The complaints people at the Mary Sue have I also consider valid. When they're getting into what their site is about and not just vaguely saying it was "unpleasant".
I will still reject any sense of blaming the problems on the Shared Universe concept or "catching up to Marvel".
There is this notion that just because something does serve as set up for future movies means it's clearly irrelevant to that movie as a stand alone piece. In art there is more to it then just what at face value advances the plot. All of my favorite completely self contained Animes like Utena and Evangleion have lots of moments that are plot/story/character irrelevant but absolutely needed. I love Iron Man 2 exactly how it is and honestly think it would be less of a coherent work without it's crossover elements. Same with The Amazing Spiderman 2.
So how is all that Justice League set up relevant to this as a stand alone film? Maybe because it's making Superman a Messianic archetype and now his Disciples are going to make more disciples. His legacy will live on.
But I also must admit despite my denials that this movie wasn't their original plan. A shared universe was Warner's plan I don't doubt, but I fear Batman was thrown into this particular film when MOS under performed.
Seeing Bruce's parents killed again is not redoing the origin. Begins is still the only Batman origin story. I do feel every version of the Batman mythos needs it's own version of that defining moment. And the connection between Batman and Superman begins with how they are both orphans in different ways.
And last but not least I wanted Superman to win the title fight. Even though I'm more of a Batman fan overall I did not want the expected DKR outcome again. I guess what I like about how they made peace wouldn't work if Superman had won, but still.
And that just reminds me why I initial opposed a Vs film in the first place. What I wanted was The World's Finest, or Dark Knight over Metropolis.
Everything I said I loved in that initial review I still love, the issue is the things I was kind of in denial of.
First thing I should mention is because of my local theater's new pick the seat when you buy the ticket policy I wound up with no choice but to watch in the second row, and it was the Ultra Screen, and 3D which I've never had a problem with before but never been up front before. I honestly think that hindered my ablity to enjoy the show somewhat, but I saw The Dark Knight in the first row of the same theater and that was no problem.
For the last year or two I've made a big deal out of the fact that my expectations of movies have never been wrong. My opinion may be inconsistent with popular opinion but I'd never disliked a movie I thought I would love. So maybe I didn't want to admit that that undefeated streak had been broken. I wanted to leave this film proclaiming it to have beaten The Force Awakens, and that I couldn't do even yesterday.
There are different ways to criticize this movie. And if you're someone who hated Man of Steel then your criticisms of it's sequel are useless, you should just not see the sequel if you didn't like the first.
There are two kinds of criticisms of Man of Steel, there are the film making and writing criticisms a professional film critic would make. And while I find those far more understandable here then with many other films I've liked that the critics didn't (Like the Star Wars Prequels), I still see them are far from deal breaking, there is no doubt this film was a beautiful piece of art with some phenomenal acting.
Spoilers Ahead!!!
Then there are the criticisms a fan would have, Comic fans who have many things they both absolutely did and absolutely did not want to see recreated. And my fellow SJWs who care about representation and stereotyping issues. There is a lot to understandably hate about this movie. But some things to like too.
As a Man of Steel fan I've never proclaimed it the ideal Superman movie, I'll make a post in the near future that will give an idea of what the ideal would be to me. My hope for this sequel had always been that it would take us in the direction of the Superman I love, and what we got of that was a mixed bag at best.
As far as my personal Fanon/Headcanon is concerned Jenny is the Jimmy Olsen of this universe no matter what Snyder says.
I somewhat controversially said I do not have a problem with including Doomsday and not killing Superman. And I even could have been ok with doing the Death of Superman this soon. But this execution was mixed. Two of the things I liked about how the Comics did it was that it didn't involve Krytponite and was absolutely not Luther's doing. But I did like how it made me think of the Spear of Longinus.
The Fan Boy Perspective is pretty much expecting the coming R Rated version to be better. There is little chance I will wind up feeling that way. I wanted a film that was Dark but not a seeming full on rejection of the lighter side of the DC universe, and it is largely in that desire that I'm disappointed.
I was really bothered when Jena Malone (it'd leaked that she was Barbara Gordon) didn't appear in the film. And if the "uncut" version has her appear in only one scene where she's crippled and ambiguously raped, I will frakking hate that version with a passion, whether it has been in theaters or now.
I'm ok with The Killing Joke moment being part of her history ONLY if it gives us Oracle, without Oracle it is useless fridgeing and nothing more. And that is part of why the New52 canon bothers me.
The complaints people at the Mary Sue have I also consider valid. When they're getting into what their site is about and not just vaguely saying it was "unpleasant".
I will still reject any sense of blaming the problems on the Shared Universe concept or "catching up to Marvel".
There is this notion that just because something does serve as set up for future movies means it's clearly irrelevant to that movie as a stand alone piece. In art there is more to it then just what at face value advances the plot. All of my favorite completely self contained Animes like Utena and Evangleion have lots of moments that are plot/story/character irrelevant but absolutely needed. I love Iron Man 2 exactly how it is and honestly think it would be less of a coherent work without it's crossover elements. Same with The Amazing Spiderman 2.
So how is all that Justice League set up relevant to this as a stand alone film? Maybe because it's making Superman a Messianic archetype and now his Disciples are going to make more disciples. His legacy will live on.
But I also must admit despite my denials that this movie wasn't their original plan. A shared universe was Warner's plan I don't doubt, but I fear Batman was thrown into this particular film when MOS under performed.
Seeing Bruce's parents killed again is not redoing the origin. Begins is still the only Batman origin story. I do feel every version of the Batman mythos needs it's own version of that defining moment. And the connection between Batman and Superman begins with how they are both orphans in different ways.
And last but not least I wanted Superman to win the title fight. Even though I'm more of a Batman fan overall I did not want the expected DKR outcome again. I guess what I like about how they made peace wouldn't work if Superman had won, but still.
And that just reminds me why I initial opposed a Vs film in the first place. What I wanted was The World's Finest, or Dark Knight over Metropolis.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice was Awesome
The critics can go screw themselves.
I'll admit I had some reservations early on, but it quickly buried all of those.
Batman was great, but Superman was the best. I loved Lex and Gal Gadot was awesome.
Spoilers Ahead!!!!
Ezra Miller's Cameo totally made my think of Crisis on Infinite Earths, it as awesome.
I'd noticed before how Bruce and Clark's mothers had the same name, I love that they played that up in this, it was beautiful.
I'd observed before how that iconic image of Lois holding Superman's body after he died was kinda like classic depicting of Mary holding Jesus at the foot of the Cross. They totally played that up here, made it look exactly like Jesus taken down from the Cross.
I'll admit I had some reservations early on, but it quickly buried all of those.
Batman was great, but Superman was the best. I loved Lex and Gal Gadot was awesome.
Spoilers Ahead!!!!
Ezra Miller's Cameo totally made my think of Crisis on Infinite Earths, it as awesome.
I'd noticed before how Bruce and Clark's mothers had the same name, I love that they played that up in this, it was beautiful.
I'd observed before how that iconic image of Lois holding Superman's body after he died was kinda like classic depicting of Mary holding Jesus at the foot of the Cross. They totally played that up here, made it look exactly like Jesus taken down from the Cross.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Pokemon Color Names, Tolkien and Hebrew word play
As a long time Pokemon fan, I've often thought of writing as a fanfic my own adaptions of the first generation games, maybe the second also. One more faithful then any of the Anime or Manga we've had thus far. But with some details that homage other adaptations.
The thing that bugs me is what to do with the names of the characters the player names. I don't want to repeat the main Anime's names, but the idea of literally naming characters Red, Green and Blue is too weird.
Then one day it hit me, as a Christian who likes studying The Bible including the Greek and Hebrew, "what about the Hebrew words for those colors?" And it so happens that the Hebrew words for Red and Green are grammatically masculine while Blue is feminine, fitting how those characters are named in Japan's Manga.
Red is Strongs number 119, and the names Adam and Edom are both forms of it.
Green is Yereq, Strongs number 3418. Based on how other Hebrew words get transliterated when they become names, I could see that becoming Jerek. Which could serve as a pun on Jerk, which fits for the rival.
Blue is Strongs number 8508, Tkeleth or Tekaleth or Tekhelet or Tehelet. Blue/Leaf is of course my personal favorite playable character.
Gold is Zahab (2091) or Dhab in Aramaic (1722). Also grammatically masculine.
Silver is Keceph or Kehsef, strong number 3701. Also masculine.
Crystal appears in the KJV twice, different words in the Hebrew, neither is probably identical to what we mean when we say Crystal. The word in Ezekiel 1:22 is actually a word for Ice/Frost. Job 28:17 uses Strongs number 2137, Zekukith, which is feminine.
And after that the characters stopped being named after the games themselves. Still it's interesting to note that the titles of the third generation games can probably all be correlated to the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest, in Exodus 28:17-20. Same with the names of the for Shitennou of Sailor Moon.
After that the gender correlations stop anyway. Dawn for example I already know from important past studies of mine is masculine in Hebrew. I could make a feminine version of a male name easily (just add a Heh or Teth at the end) but I'd rather if I did something like that use words the Masoretic Text actually used.
On the subject of combining my Nerdiness with my love of Hebrew. Let's take a look at Tolkien's unfinished The Lost Road.
The premise involved several father-son pairs who's names all had the same meaning. The father being Bliss-Friend (though the word for Bliss often being a name for a mythological paradise) and the son being Elf-Friend. Culminating in Amandil and Elendil of the Akallabeth. The thought naturally entered my mind of what the Hebrew versions of those would be.
For "friend" I could use Rea, strong number 7462, (or Reah, 7464, it's feminine form if I wanted to change the gender roles). Or Merea, strong number 4828, which comes from Rea. Reu is a Hebrew name that comes from Rea, he was the son of Peleg and ancestor of Abraham. And also the name Reuel/Raguel which means "friend of God", the equivalent to the Greek Theophilos.
For the father's name I'd use Eden, Eden does mean "delight" and "pleasure", and Tolkien clearly intended Aman to be the Eden of his cosmology in a sense. In fact I don't think it's a coincidence Aman has the same meaning as Eden, Tolkien probably knew what Eden meant.
Thing is there is no Hebrew word for Elf, of course Elf is transliterated rather then translated in all the names used in The Lost Road. But in Hebrew Elf will inevitably look like a theophoric name. But there are other words that begin with Aleph-Lamed, like the Hebrew words for Oak. Or you could begin it with Ayin rather then Aleph, like with Eden and Elown.
The precedent of Reuel also tells me which root goes first would be switched. Which would make Reueden for the father's name, and Reuelf, Reualf or Realf for the son.
For the sake of reference I'll state that the Greek names wold be Makarphilos (from Makaron Nesoi, the Isles of the Blessed in Hesiod) and Ælphilos, Alphilos or Elphilos.
The thing that bugs me is what to do with the names of the characters the player names. I don't want to repeat the main Anime's names, but the idea of literally naming characters Red, Green and Blue is too weird.
Then one day it hit me, as a Christian who likes studying The Bible including the Greek and Hebrew, "what about the Hebrew words for those colors?" And it so happens that the Hebrew words for Red and Green are grammatically masculine while Blue is feminine, fitting how those characters are named in Japan's Manga.
Red is Strongs number 119, and the names Adam and Edom are both forms of it.
Green is Yereq, Strongs number 3418. Based on how other Hebrew words get transliterated when they become names, I could see that becoming Jerek. Which could serve as a pun on Jerk, which fits for the rival.
Blue is Strongs number 8508, Tkeleth or Tekaleth or Tekhelet or Tehelet. Blue/Leaf is of course my personal favorite playable character.
Gold is Zahab (2091) or Dhab in Aramaic (1722). Also grammatically masculine.
Silver is Keceph or Kehsef, strong number 3701. Also masculine.
Crystal appears in the KJV twice, different words in the Hebrew, neither is probably identical to what we mean when we say Crystal. The word in Ezekiel 1:22 is actually a word for Ice/Frost. Job 28:17 uses Strongs number 2137, Zekukith, which is feminine.
And after that the characters stopped being named after the games themselves. Still it's interesting to note that the titles of the third generation games can probably all be correlated to the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest, in Exodus 28:17-20. Same with the names of the for Shitennou of Sailor Moon.
After that the gender correlations stop anyway. Dawn for example I already know from important past studies of mine is masculine in Hebrew. I could make a feminine version of a male name easily (just add a Heh or Teth at the end) but I'd rather if I did something like that use words the Masoretic Text actually used.
On the subject of combining my Nerdiness with my love of Hebrew. Let's take a look at Tolkien's unfinished The Lost Road.
The premise involved several father-son pairs who's names all had the same meaning. The father being Bliss-Friend (though the word for Bliss often being a name for a mythological paradise) and the son being Elf-Friend. Culminating in Amandil and Elendil of the Akallabeth. The thought naturally entered my mind of what the Hebrew versions of those would be.
For "friend" I could use Rea, strong number 7462, (or Reah, 7464, it's feminine form if I wanted to change the gender roles). Or Merea, strong number 4828, which comes from Rea. Reu is a Hebrew name that comes from Rea, he was the son of Peleg and ancestor of Abraham. And also the name Reuel/Raguel which means "friend of God", the equivalent to the Greek Theophilos.
For the father's name I'd use Eden, Eden does mean "delight" and "pleasure", and Tolkien clearly intended Aman to be the Eden of his cosmology in a sense. In fact I don't think it's a coincidence Aman has the same meaning as Eden, Tolkien probably knew what Eden meant.
Thing is there is no Hebrew word for Elf, of course Elf is transliterated rather then translated in all the names used in The Lost Road. But in Hebrew Elf will inevitably look like a theophoric name. But there are other words that begin with Aleph-Lamed, like the Hebrew words for Oak. Or you could begin it with Ayin rather then Aleph, like with Eden and Elown.
The precedent of Reuel also tells me which root goes first would be switched. Which would make Reueden for the father's name, and Reuelf, Reualf or Realf for the son.
For the sake of reference I'll state that the Greek names wold be Makarphilos (from Makaron Nesoi, the Isles of the Blessed in Hesiod) and Ælphilos, Alphilos or Elphilos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)