When there's something strange, in your neighborhood, who you gonna call, DEATHBUSTERS.
It's official, I'm committed to following Season 3 of Sailor Moon Crystal.
On the finale episode of Sailor Stars I will just it was awesome, perfect ending.
I notice they're not really the Secret Identity thing, among out Sailors anyway.
I didn't expect that the mistaking Haruka for a dude would go on so much longer. And she seems to be intentionally living publicly as a guy. It bugs me because it technically makes HaruMi not Openly gay, for the time being. It's something that may have been normal for setting up a Lesbian couple in the 90s but seems kinda backwards now.
We see more of Hotaru, but I still don't think we heard her name yet.
And all the Witches 5 right away. I'm kind of worries now if they'll have time to individualize them, I really loved the yellow one's gimmick in the old Anime.
We still haven't seen the Professor yet? Interesting.
It was a fun episode I still highly recommend it.
On a side note, check out my recent YumaKuri Arashi activity on Tumblr.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Yes, the Prequels have a bit of a Racism problem.
So the one Prequel criticism I haven't talked about on this blog yet is the criticism that a number of the alien CGI characters come off as old racist caricatures.
And that is true, I will concede there is a problem there, one I'm not happy about. And people who actually belong to those offended demographics may be much less willing then me to just ignore that when watching the movies and I understand that.
This particular criticism isn't one the majority of Prequel haters care about, what is the one most valid criticism, that is at it's most apparent in TPM, is never mentioned in anything Mr Plinkett says in his TPM review (I don't know what he says about the other two). But it comes up when I'm talking among fellow SJWs at sites like TheMarySue, and at first it blindsided me only because I'm not used to it coming up, I could spend hours upon hours going back and forth with the Prequels haters of IMDB and they never care to even think of it.
But it is a problem I acknowledge, and one I should have talked about on my Blog sooner. It's a problem that exists because Lucas was from the start mimicking things common in old movies and serials where those stereotypes were usually the default. That's not an excuse, that's just the reason. His intent wasn't malicious but that doesn't make it okay.
But I want to remind people that the Prequels are far more diverse then the Original Trilogy in both human and non human characters.
A lot of people like Vrai feel one of the most important things about The Force Awakens is how diverse it is, finally having a female lead and a Person of Color in the main three. And I agree. But Liberals are also called Progressives for a reason, we didn't get here over night.
The increased diversity of the Prequels are part of a direct line of progression that made The Force Awakens possible. There would be no Rey without Padme Amidala and no Finn without Mace Windu. And no Poe without Jimmy Smitts.
And even The Force Awakens isn't perfect. The first film with a woman as the Jedi in training is also the first film where the Jedi in training is captured by the enemy and the other heroes go on a rescue mission to save her. And it's been pointed out that she technically contributed nothing to Starkiller base being destroyed. And the film still doesn't pass the Bechel Test, I'm more forgiving of failing to pass the Bechel test then most, but when the lead is a woman and it still fails, that I notice far more. And isn't Maz Kanata effectively Star Wars first Magic Negro?
And still no openly Gay Star Wars characters in the films, though we've been promised some are coming.
Besides Qui-Gon Jinn, pretty much the only major characters who are White in the PT are those required to be by the canon of the OT, it's just that happens to include all three leads and the main villain. Actually in the case of the Fetts they went against the original casting of that character to make them POC, and I still prefer to interpret all the Storm Troopers as clones no matter what Rebels says, and I've said before how TFA can be consistent with that.
They made Leia's adoptive parents POC, the most important off-screen deaths of the OT retroactively made POC. Queen Amidala's trusted military commander in TPM is an African American, and his replacement in AOTC is a Native American.
And it split the Yoda role between the original Yoda and a Black Man, a calm wise intelligent Black Man played by a actor who was being typecast as a loud screaming angry Black Man. And to me personally Windu's death is very meaningful, a lot of people think it's cheap, but I like that he echos what Luke says when he's being force electrocuted, it adds a new layer to an already Iconic scene. It brings Vader back to the moment he first choose the Dark Side right before he chooses to return to the Light. To someone who watches the films chronologically it makes Windu a part of that scene every time I watch it.
Padme Amidala is my personal favorite Star Wars character. Always has been and always will be.
Leia was impressive for the time, at a time when a woman just grabbing a gun and firing it was still unusual.
We see Padme in Episode I bearing the burden of her responsibility, we see her make tough decisions after struggling with them as I already said about the Senate Scene. We see her willing to humble herself on behalf of her people to make a new ally out of people they'd wronged in the past. And we see her take part in a battle herself right from the first movie.
There is a video online of all the lines by female characters other then Leia in the Original Trilogy, it was a very short video which was the satire. The thing is a PT equivalent would be a lot longer and thus less of a satire thanks to Shimi Skywalker alone. And I'm impressed even with the characterization given to the Decoy Queen, watch the movie knowing the twist and the scene where she orders Padme to clean R2-D2 is pretty hilarious.
I would also argue that in Episode II she does more to show her strength and independence, but also depth and vulnerability, then Leia had in the whole OT. I like how when Her and Anakin are captured and being taken to the arena she confesses her feelings to Anakin under the pretense that they're about to die, then we immediately see her fiddling with the thing that gets her unchained, she was never planning to die. I like when Anakin says "what about Padme" and Obi-Won says "she seems to be on top of things" that's why he's the Han Solo of the PT.
I think one of the few valid continuity issues isn't anything haters usually talk about but rather that PT Obi-Won is clearly less of a misogynist. Obi-Won knew Luke had a sister but said Luke is "our only hope" Yoda corrects him, yet he repeats this in ROTJ when there is no doubt that was written with us knowing who the other Hope was. So OT Obi-Won was utterly dismissive of the idea that Leia could do what he's counting on Luke to do. But PT Obi-Won fought along side female Jedi, and knew Padme, Leia's mother, was not to be underestimated, and arguably respects her agency more then Anakin, when he talks Anakin down from wanting to abandon the mission for Padme he says "what would she do in your place".
The female Jedi we see in action don't speak any-lines, but it meant a lot to see the Jedi weren't a boys only club, though it seems the Council mostly was, but as I've said before the Council's supposed to be seen as a broken institution.
Padme can be seen as more feminine and less masculine then Leia, and a certain brand of Feminist would argue that as regressive. But I'm a Sailor Moon fan, I think it's important to show feminine women can be strong too. I'd also argue Leia is that way because she has some of Anakin in her, I think you can easily argue every trait Leia doesn't get from Padme she gets from Anakin, you can see that brashness and arrogance in her at times. And I didn't even think of this till recently.
In ROTS there are issues with how Padme is handled, though I still love Portman's performance. I'm literally the opposite of most SW fans, your typical Prequel hater finds ROTS the only tolerable one, for me it's the only Prequel I have any criticisms of that bug me as I watch it, and they all come down to how the female characters were handled. But the film also has many other strengths that I think make it the best of the movies.
The caricatures with the CGI characters are a problem, especially in TPM, they're most prominent there, I think Lucas listened to that criticism and decided to be more careful for the following films. But like so many other criticisms of the Prequels it's another issue the OT also had but people give it more of a free pass on.
What about that fat disgusting gluttonous slimy worm Jabba The Hutt? Who's so fat disgusting and gluttonous he can't even move on his own? Doesn't that remind you of a real life caricature of a real life demographic? Lucas actually didn't want Jabba to be unable to move, that was a technology limitation, one that OT Purists with Rose Tinted glasses take offense at hearing Lucas express dissatisfaction with in the audio commentary tack, and resent that since 1997 CGI has enabled Jabba to walk, "It's for the best he doesn't move, he's so powerful he doesn't have to" exact words I've seen on IMDB. But even when he can walk Jabba still has that subtext.
Or Oola, the dancing exotic slave girl played by an African American actress, who's attempt to liberate herself results in a horrible death. Or the Ewoks, who were basically like dumb African tribals who think a Gold plated robot is a god. Oh wait, people do hate the Ewoks but not for that reason.
And aren't the Jawas and Tuskin raiders exactly how imperialists view the native "savages" of desert third world countries? Episode II even draws attention to this, having Anakin's genocide of the Tuskins be his first morally reprehensible act on his journey to The Dark Side, and even has him cite Racist thinking as part of why he did it.
Lando is cool, but he is kind of a stereotype, kind of exactly who Billy Dee Williams was usually typecast as, the opposite of Jackson as Windu which went against that actor's usual type casting. Then there is the Iconic character voiced by a veteran African American actor who couldn't be played by one when we saw his face, Canon demanded that but it still kinda looks bad.
Or how about Obi-Won Kenobi, a clearly East Asian name being portrayed by a British Actor, the Prequels of course repeat this offense with Qui-Gon Jinn. The thing is we learned recently Lucas did want a well known Japanese actor for the role originally, but couldn't get him, so they defaulted to the standard British actor option.
And on Gender, I've talked before about how a hesitance to use Female Villains is a form of Sexism itself, and I do remember documentaries about SW making a point out of how intentional it was we saw no women in The Empire. And I'll admit even in the Prequel era you still need the EU for good female villains, we just got one bounty hunter used as a pawn by Jango. In TFA we saw women in the First Order finally, I hope in Episode VIII the Knights of Ren have some women.
I'm sure plenty of people have talked about those issues before, but it's only when I'm defending the Prequels in a TMS comments section that all it's offenses are thrown at me with a tone of "How DARE you be okay with that".
And if anyone honestly thinks "I didn't think of those things before so that must make them less blatant". No, you didn't notice because you watched them as a kid, just as I didn't originally notice any of the implications I shall discus below with TPM when I was 13, not till I read about them being critiqued years later.
The Neimodians took the longest for me to learn about, and I'm still kind of skeptical that they were meant to sound how they're accused of sounding ("is that Legal?" is clearly pronounced with Ls not Rs to my ears), to me they always just sounded weird and alien. The Trade Federation was clearly based on the British East India Company. And their robes make me think of Venice. But still if they come off Asian to some Asian viewers they have the right to express being offended.
Jar Jar Binks is my second favorite Star Wars character, he delighted me as a child. But yes he talks like a very old accent used in a lot of old films for African Americans during and just after Slavery, it remained around actually into the 40s in The Mummy's Curse (the Kharis Mummy films were a direct influence on Indiana Jones), and that can bother people once they're aware of it. But his character is a very good person, not as dumb he as he gets made out to be, but clumsy and childlike, and by befriending Padme he helps bridge the gap between two estranged neighboring cultures.
The Gungans in general are a people the Naboo have long looked down on because they're perceived (wrongly) as being less civilized and less intelligent, and they resent the Naboo for that. And as a stand alone movie what TPM is mainly about is these two people who share a planet being reconciled to each other to thwart off an outside threat. So it's not the best way to tell that kind of story, but the affiliation with an outdated African American accent does have a purpose.
Watto is the least defendable caricature in all the films save maybe Jabba. He is definitely a SciFi cipher of a Greedy Jew caricature. But Wario equally comes off as that, or more so, and is one equally as unofficially, and he's a beloved Nintendo Character. Even though in TPM on paper Watto has no redeeming qualities, he has a charm to him that makes me love him, and I really liked his scene in ATOC, he seemed genuinely happy to see Anakin, like an old uncle.
The Prequels on diversity and representation have flaws, but I feel they are way ahead of the OT, EVEN when considering how they were for their time. The Mummy is another 1999 film I'm equally Nostalgic for. But it's handling of ethnic representation is far worse, and it's handling of female characters about equal to Episodes I and II. And it also had a character who was ambiguously Jewish and very Greedy.
A stereotyped character can still be more then that, and for people who grew up on the Prequels like me, these Prequels character are more then that just as much as the OT examples are for people who grew up on them.
And that is true, I will concede there is a problem there, one I'm not happy about. And people who actually belong to those offended demographics may be much less willing then me to just ignore that when watching the movies and I understand that.
This particular criticism isn't one the majority of Prequel haters care about, what is the one most valid criticism, that is at it's most apparent in TPM, is never mentioned in anything Mr Plinkett says in his TPM review (I don't know what he says about the other two). But it comes up when I'm talking among fellow SJWs at sites like TheMarySue, and at first it blindsided me only because I'm not used to it coming up, I could spend hours upon hours going back and forth with the Prequels haters of IMDB and they never care to even think of it.
But it is a problem I acknowledge, and one I should have talked about on my Blog sooner. It's a problem that exists because Lucas was from the start mimicking things common in old movies and serials where those stereotypes were usually the default. That's not an excuse, that's just the reason. His intent wasn't malicious but that doesn't make it okay.
But I want to remind people that the Prequels are far more diverse then the Original Trilogy in both human and non human characters.
A lot of people like Vrai feel one of the most important things about The Force Awakens is how diverse it is, finally having a female lead and a Person of Color in the main three. And I agree. But Liberals are also called Progressives for a reason, we didn't get here over night.
The increased diversity of the Prequels are part of a direct line of progression that made The Force Awakens possible. There would be no Rey without Padme Amidala and no Finn without Mace Windu. And no Poe without Jimmy Smitts.
And even The Force Awakens isn't perfect. The first film with a woman as the Jedi in training is also the first film where the Jedi in training is captured by the enemy and the other heroes go on a rescue mission to save her. And it's been pointed out that she technically contributed nothing to Starkiller base being destroyed. And the film still doesn't pass the Bechel Test, I'm more forgiving of failing to pass the Bechel test then most, but when the lead is a woman and it still fails, that I notice far more. And isn't Maz Kanata effectively Star Wars first Magic Negro?
And still no openly Gay Star Wars characters in the films, though we've been promised some are coming.
Besides Qui-Gon Jinn, pretty much the only major characters who are White in the PT are those required to be by the canon of the OT, it's just that happens to include all three leads and the main villain. Actually in the case of the Fetts they went against the original casting of that character to make them POC, and I still prefer to interpret all the Storm Troopers as clones no matter what Rebels says, and I've said before how TFA can be consistent with that.
They made Leia's adoptive parents POC, the most important off-screen deaths of the OT retroactively made POC. Queen Amidala's trusted military commander in TPM is an African American, and his replacement in AOTC is a Native American.
And it split the Yoda role between the original Yoda and a Black Man, a calm wise intelligent Black Man played by a actor who was being typecast as a loud screaming angry Black Man. And to me personally Windu's death is very meaningful, a lot of people think it's cheap, but I like that he echos what Luke says when he's being force electrocuted, it adds a new layer to an already Iconic scene. It brings Vader back to the moment he first choose the Dark Side right before he chooses to return to the Light. To someone who watches the films chronologically it makes Windu a part of that scene every time I watch it.
Padme Amidala is my personal favorite Star Wars character. Always has been and always will be.
Leia was impressive for the time, at a time when a woman just grabbing a gun and firing it was still unusual.
We see Padme in Episode I bearing the burden of her responsibility, we see her make tough decisions after struggling with them as I already said about the Senate Scene. We see her willing to humble herself on behalf of her people to make a new ally out of people they'd wronged in the past. And we see her take part in a battle herself right from the first movie.
There is a video online of all the lines by female characters other then Leia in the Original Trilogy, it was a very short video which was the satire. The thing is a PT equivalent would be a lot longer and thus less of a satire thanks to Shimi Skywalker alone. And I'm impressed even with the characterization given to the Decoy Queen, watch the movie knowing the twist and the scene where she orders Padme to clean R2-D2 is pretty hilarious.
I would also argue that in Episode II she does more to show her strength and independence, but also depth and vulnerability, then Leia had in the whole OT. I like how when Her and Anakin are captured and being taken to the arena she confesses her feelings to Anakin under the pretense that they're about to die, then we immediately see her fiddling with the thing that gets her unchained, she was never planning to die. I like when Anakin says "what about Padme" and Obi-Won says "she seems to be on top of things" that's why he's the Han Solo of the PT.
I think one of the few valid continuity issues isn't anything haters usually talk about but rather that PT Obi-Won is clearly less of a misogynist. Obi-Won knew Luke had a sister but said Luke is "our only hope" Yoda corrects him, yet he repeats this in ROTJ when there is no doubt that was written with us knowing who the other Hope was. So OT Obi-Won was utterly dismissive of the idea that Leia could do what he's counting on Luke to do. But PT Obi-Won fought along side female Jedi, and knew Padme, Leia's mother, was not to be underestimated, and arguably respects her agency more then Anakin, when he talks Anakin down from wanting to abandon the mission for Padme he says "what would she do in your place".
The female Jedi we see in action don't speak any-lines, but it meant a lot to see the Jedi weren't a boys only club, though it seems the Council mostly was, but as I've said before the Council's supposed to be seen as a broken institution.
Padme can be seen as more feminine and less masculine then Leia, and a certain brand of Feminist would argue that as regressive. But I'm a Sailor Moon fan, I think it's important to show feminine women can be strong too. I'd also argue Leia is that way because she has some of Anakin in her, I think you can easily argue every trait Leia doesn't get from Padme she gets from Anakin, you can see that brashness and arrogance in her at times. And I didn't even think of this till recently.
In ROTS there are issues with how Padme is handled, though I still love Portman's performance. I'm literally the opposite of most SW fans, your typical Prequel hater finds ROTS the only tolerable one, for me it's the only Prequel I have any criticisms of that bug me as I watch it, and they all come down to how the female characters were handled. But the film also has many other strengths that I think make it the best of the movies.
The caricatures with the CGI characters are a problem, especially in TPM, they're most prominent there, I think Lucas listened to that criticism and decided to be more careful for the following films. But like so many other criticisms of the Prequels it's another issue the OT also had but people give it more of a free pass on.
What about that fat disgusting gluttonous slimy worm Jabba The Hutt? Who's so fat disgusting and gluttonous he can't even move on his own? Doesn't that remind you of a real life caricature of a real life demographic? Lucas actually didn't want Jabba to be unable to move, that was a technology limitation, one that OT Purists with Rose Tinted glasses take offense at hearing Lucas express dissatisfaction with in the audio commentary tack, and resent that since 1997 CGI has enabled Jabba to walk, "It's for the best he doesn't move, he's so powerful he doesn't have to" exact words I've seen on IMDB. But even when he can walk Jabba still has that subtext.
Or Oola, the dancing exotic slave girl played by an African American actress, who's attempt to liberate herself results in a horrible death. Or the Ewoks, who were basically like dumb African tribals who think a Gold plated robot is a god. Oh wait, people do hate the Ewoks but not for that reason.
And aren't the Jawas and Tuskin raiders exactly how imperialists view the native "savages" of desert third world countries? Episode II even draws attention to this, having Anakin's genocide of the Tuskins be his first morally reprehensible act on his journey to The Dark Side, and even has him cite Racist thinking as part of why he did it.
Lando is cool, but he is kind of a stereotype, kind of exactly who Billy Dee Williams was usually typecast as, the opposite of Jackson as Windu which went against that actor's usual type casting. Then there is the Iconic character voiced by a veteran African American actor who couldn't be played by one when we saw his face, Canon demanded that but it still kinda looks bad.
Or how about Obi-Won Kenobi, a clearly East Asian name being portrayed by a British Actor, the Prequels of course repeat this offense with Qui-Gon Jinn. The thing is we learned recently Lucas did want a well known Japanese actor for the role originally, but couldn't get him, so they defaulted to the standard British actor option.
And on Gender, I've talked before about how a hesitance to use Female Villains is a form of Sexism itself, and I do remember documentaries about SW making a point out of how intentional it was we saw no women in The Empire. And I'll admit even in the Prequel era you still need the EU for good female villains, we just got one bounty hunter used as a pawn by Jango. In TFA we saw women in the First Order finally, I hope in Episode VIII the Knights of Ren have some women.
I'm sure plenty of people have talked about those issues before, but it's only when I'm defending the Prequels in a TMS comments section that all it's offenses are thrown at me with a tone of "How DARE you be okay with that".
And if anyone honestly thinks "I didn't think of those things before so that must make them less blatant". No, you didn't notice because you watched them as a kid, just as I didn't originally notice any of the implications I shall discus below with TPM when I was 13, not till I read about them being critiqued years later.
The Neimodians took the longest for me to learn about, and I'm still kind of skeptical that they were meant to sound how they're accused of sounding ("is that Legal?" is clearly pronounced with Ls not Rs to my ears), to me they always just sounded weird and alien. The Trade Federation was clearly based on the British East India Company. And their robes make me think of Venice. But still if they come off Asian to some Asian viewers they have the right to express being offended.
Jar Jar Binks is my second favorite Star Wars character, he delighted me as a child. But yes he talks like a very old accent used in a lot of old films for African Americans during and just after Slavery, it remained around actually into the 40s in The Mummy's Curse (the Kharis Mummy films were a direct influence on Indiana Jones), and that can bother people once they're aware of it. But his character is a very good person, not as dumb he as he gets made out to be, but clumsy and childlike, and by befriending Padme he helps bridge the gap between two estranged neighboring cultures.
The Gungans in general are a people the Naboo have long looked down on because they're perceived (wrongly) as being less civilized and less intelligent, and they resent the Naboo for that. And as a stand alone movie what TPM is mainly about is these two people who share a planet being reconciled to each other to thwart off an outside threat. So it's not the best way to tell that kind of story, but the affiliation with an outdated African American accent does have a purpose.
Watto is the least defendable caricature in all the films save maybe Jabba. He is definitely a SciFi cipher of a Greedy Jew caricature. But Wario equally comes off as that, or more so, and is one equally as unofficially, and he's a beloved Nintendo Character. Even though in TPM on paper Watto has no redeeming qualities, he has a charm to him that makes me love him, and I really liked his scene in ATOC, he seemed genuinely happy to see Anakin, like an old uncle.
The Prequels on diversity and representation have flaws, but I feel they are way ahead of the OT, EVEN when considering how they were for their time. The Mummy is another 1999 film I'm equally Nostalgic for. But it's handling of ethnic representation is far worse, and it's handling of female characters about equal to Episodes I and II. And it also had a character who was ambiguously Jewish and very Greedy.
A stereotyped character can still be more then that, and for people who grew up on the Prequels like me, these Prequels character are more then that just as much as the OT examples are for people who grew up on them.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
I watched Ben-Hur again yesterday
Since April 6th is the day I believe Jesus was Crucified on our Gregorian Calendar.
As an amateur historian and Bible Scholar, I could nitpick the heck out of this movie, and the book it's based on, starting with all the White Israelites, but I don't really wanna do that.
I have sometimes complained about how a lot of these old Biblical movies seem to kind of just make Jesus into Gahndi, and this has elements of that at times. But when Jesus was on The Cross, Balthazar talked about him dying for the sins of the world, so there is some at least vague knowledge of the actual Gospel there.
Today it's sometimes popular to mock the idea of never showing Jesus's Face or hearing Him talk directly. And I certainly understand the concern that that takes away His Humanity. But I've always been a fan of when films try to get as much as they can out of what you don't see.
One moment that really strikes me is after Jesus gives Judah the water and that Roman commander is about to stop him and Jesus just looks at him. The Roman doesn't seem to back down out of fear, he doesn't himself understand why he's stopping. That brief performance says a lot.
As someone who still supports Ron Paul on his foreign policy. Judah saying "Withdraw your legions" really speaks to me as a timelessly relevant line.
The film also depicts it's Arab characters very sympathetically, calling out Anti-Arab Racism. It's amazing how often old films pleasantly surprise me. Of course they don't seem to be played by actual middle eastern actors, but I'll take what I can get.
Though I can't say I'm too impressed with the handling of female characters.
On a shipping level, I think there is definitely more then meets the eye to the history between Judah and Messala.
Ben-Hur always makes me think of the Star Wars Prequels.
The most obvious and iconic example is the connection between the Chariot Race and the Pod Race.
But I also connect when Messala says "You're either with me, or your against me" to Anakin saying "you're either with me, or you're my enemy". I know that's a common expression, and the people politicizing the Prequels liked to draw the analogy mainly to George W Bush. But these two scenes also have in common two friends becoming enemies in this moment, so I don't think it's a coincidence.
Also Arius saying "Your eyes are filled with Hate, good, Hate keeps a man alive, it gives him strength" sounds like a good Sith motto.
Let's also talk about what was an influence on Ben-Hur.
Ben-Hur is also related to a genre largely codified by The Cont of Monte-Cristo, Revenge Fantasy. This was I think my first time watching the film since my obsession with French Pulp Fiction started. And the potential parallels between Judah and Edmund Dantes really jumped out at me.
There are two fictional stories that have iconic Galley Slave sequences associated with them, Ben-Hur and Les Miserables. I'd be curious to know which story it was associated with first, because Les Msierables came first but I'm pretty sure the specific Galley Slave part wasn't necessarily in the original Novel of either.
It's another old classic that still holds up. They don't make historical films like that anymore, that today we can do gritty and realistic historical films is great, but ya know with Comic Book movies (some) people have figured out that the grim and gritty appeal is limited. Why not bring back Historical films that are fun, theatrical, operatic, colorful and sometimes cheesy?
As an amateur historian and Bible Scholar, I could nitpick the heck out of this movie, and the book it's based on, starting with all the White Israelites, but I don't really wanna do that.
I have sometimes complained about how a lot of these old Biblical movies seem to kind of just make Jesus into Gahndi, and this has elements of that at times. But when Jesus was on The Cross, Balthazar talked about him dying for the sins of the world, so there is some at least vague knowledge of the actual Gospel there.
Today it's sometimes popular to mock the idea of never showing Jesus's Face or hearing Him talk directly. And I certainly understand the concern that that takes away His Humanity. But I've always been a fan of when films try to get as much as they can out of what you don't see.
One moment that really strikes me is after Jesus gives Judah the water and that Roman commander is about to stop him and Jesus just looks at him. The Roman doesn't seem to back down out of fear, he doesn't himself understand why he's stopping. That brief performance says a lot.
As someone who still supports Ron Paul on his foreign policy. Judah saying "Withdraw your legions" really speaks to me as a timelessly relevant line.
The film also depicts it's Arab characters very sympathetically, calling out Anti-Arab Racism. It's amazing how often old films pleasantly surprise me. Of course they don't seem to be played by actual middle eastern actors, but I'll take what I can get.
Though I can't say I'm too impressed with the handling of female characters.
On a shipping level, I think there is definitely more then meets the eye to the history between Judah and Messala.
Ben-Hur always makes me think of the Star Wars Prequels.
The most obvious and iconic example is the connection between the Chariot Race and the Pod Race.
But I also connect when Messala says "You're either with me, or your against me" to Anakin saying "you're either with me, or you're my enemy". I know that's a common expression, and the people politicizing the Prequels liked to draw the analogy mainly to George W Bush. But these two scenes also have in common two friends becoming enemies in this moment, so I don't think it's a coincidence.
Also Arius saying "Your eyes are filled with Hate, good, Hate keeps a man alive, it gives him strength" sounds like a good Sith motto.
Let's also talk about what was an influence on Ben-Hur.
Ben-Hur is also related to a genre largely codified by The Cont of Monte-Cristo, Revenge Fantasy. This was I think my first time watching the film since my obsession with French Pulp Fiction started. And the potential parallels between Judah and Edmund Dantes really jumped out at me.
There are two fictional stories that have iconic Galley Slave sequences associated with them, Ben-Hur and Les Miserables. I'd be curious to know which story it was associated with first, because Les Msierables came first but I'm pretty sure the specific Galley Slave part wasn't necessarily in the original Novel of either.
It's another old classic that still holds up. They don't make historical films like that anymore, that today we can do gritty and realistic historical films is great, but ya know with Comic Book movies (some) people have figured out that the grim and gritty appeal is limited. Why not bring back Historical films that are fun, theatrical, operatic, colorful and sometimes cheesy?
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Biblical influences on Arthurian Legend and Grail Romance
I have tried and failed to solve the mystery of the Historical Arthur. I feel much more qualified however to talk about the Arthur of fiction.
Whatever the real story of Arthur was, his legend has been influenced by many factors, including Celtic pagan mythology, and also by the contemporary concerns of various authors from the Crusades to the War of the Roses to the present. And as most Arthurian authors until the very modern age have been Christians of some type, it's safe to say Biblical themes have been an influence.
Given Gildas debatable relationship to Arthurian tradition. I could start by mentioning how he references the Beasts of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12-13 to insult 5 local kings. So the Bear reference is not at all evidence Cuneglass or Owain was normally called the Bear/Arth/Arto.
Of most interest however are the most notorious Kings of The Bible, like David and Solomon. In many cases even if mimicking David wasn't the origin of a certain plot point the similarity could have still been in some authors' minds. And it's fun to look at parallels that may or may not have been intentional at all.
Davidic parallels for the Mythical Arthur could begin right with his origin story. Uther's adultery with Igerne and murder of Goloris could be compared to Bathsheba and Urias, but how it plays out is very different. Recently that Starz series Camelot inverted the usual Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle by making Arthur the adulterer, that makes a David and Bathsheba parallel very possible to see, but the Lancelot replacement isn't murdered by Arthur, though he does die in battle as Urias technically does.
David had two sons who were would-be usurpers like Mordred. And with Absalom the story does begin with half-brother/half-sister incest, (but the real Sin there was the Rape).
And going back to the original version where Mordred was Arthur's sister's son, you could compare him to Joab son of Zeruiah who was the real mastermind of Adonijah's attempted coup. And like Mordred, Joab wasn't David's only maternal Nephew, he had two brothers, Abishai and Ashael. And David's other sister Abigail was the mother of Amasa who was Absalom's commander in chief. So both rebellions involved a son and a sister's son, which is interesting.
There is also debate among scholars on if David's sisters were by the same father, an issue I'm still investigating myself.
Also both these rebel sons had lain with or attempted to marry Concubines of David, which possibly parallels Mordred's marrying Guinivere, though she was the Queen-Wife not a Concubine.
But what I mainly want to talk about today is Perceval.
Chretien de Troyes' Perceval, le Conte du Graal, which was the first appearance of both Perceval and The Holy Grail. Had a number of influences on it no doubt, but one thing I've noticed is a possible allegory in which Perceval is David and Arthur is Saul.
Many later details we associate with Perceval weren't there yet, he is not given a detailed genealogy for one thing. Also none of the people or places directly linked to the Grail are named yet.
Perceval first makes a name for himself by killing a Knight who was troubling Arthur, that could be compared to slaying Goliath, and Sir Kay's role could be Abner. While this isn't part of Chretien's narrative, it's interesting that when Arthur is given a humble upbringing prior to becoming King, it's usually as something like a farmer (as in Disney's Sword in The Stone), which would fit Saul more then David who was a Shepherd.
And even though their relation to each other is different and to Arthur non existent. I think maybe Gornemant and Blanchefleur could be Johnathon and Michal.
The big thing though is, I think The Fisher King might be based on Ahimelech.
The figure of The Fisher King I have seen described before as being like a Priest-King, now at face value in Biblical history that makes us think of Melchizedek, the Hasmoneans and if you're a Christian Jesus. But what's interesting about Ahimelech is he was a Priest but his name has the Hebrew word for King in it. The question is if Chretien could have known that?
I've mentioned before how The Holy Grail was not originally identified as the Cup at the Last Supper, it was the third known Grail Romance author, Robert de Boron, that first made that identification. In Chertien it seems to be a plate or bowl of some kind that contained a single Mass Wafer. What that means is there was a thematic at least Last Supper connection, but it was to the Bread not the Wine. But it should be noted in the original French text Chertien call is "un Graal" or "A Grail" not "The Grail", so it probably never was his intent to say it's the original of anything.
To a Christian, all references to bread, especially unleavened bread throughout the Old Testament are seen as anticipating the Bread of the Last Supper and probably representing the same thing, starting with the Bread and Wine offered by Melchizedek. This would particularly be true of The Shewbread in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle. So it's interesting that Ahimelech offers David the Shewbread.
The Grail Procession in Chretien also includes a Candelabra which could stand in for the Menorah, though it had 10 candles rather then 7. The Menorah isn't specifically mentioned in the Ahimelech account but it's the Tabernacle and most assume the Tabernacle was at Nob.
The Fisher King also gives Perceval a Sword. Ahimelech gives David the Sword of Goliath which had been kept with the Ephod since David slew him.
That Gwain takes over the narrative I think is where this parallel ends.
Chertein's tale was unfinished, so we don't know if Perceval would have gone on to become a King as he often does in later Grail romances.
Chertein also invented the character of Lancelot in an earlier different work, but that Lancelot was never part of the Grail story, there was no Galahad or Elaine of Corbenic yet.
The second Grail Romance was Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival. Wolfram's work is very well known, yet strangely later Grail and Arthurian romances really didn't follow his lead. They have in common adding a genealogical link to the Grail family for Percival, but elsewhere it's usually through his father while for Wolfram it was through his mother. The Vulgate cycle and Malory give completely different names for Percival's ancestors and the Grail family. And the characters of Belacane and Feirefiz do not reappear either.
The one possible influence is that once Lancleot became part of the Grail story and Galahad is created, I think he takes on some aspects of Feirefiz. With Elaine of Corbenic replacing Repanse de Shoye. And Prester John becoming Galahad.
There are a lot of clearly intentional historical anachronisms in Wolfram. I as a student of Bible Prophecy disagree with seeing Babylon as code for Rome in 1 Peter or Revelation, but that idea was firmly established by Wolfram's time, and that one of his rulers of Babylon has a clearly Roman name, Pompeius, tells me that Wolfram meant Babylon to be code for Rome. But he probably had the Eastern Empire in mind, what we call the Byzantine Empire never called itself that, they always called themselves Romans. It's the same with references to Rome and Romans in old Isalmic writings.
I've talked before briefly about how the Grail is a Stone in Wolfram, and about Graham Hancock's theory that Wolfram's Grail was the Ark of the Covenant (which contained stone tablets), and that Wolfram was aware of Ethiopia's claim to have the Ark. I'm convinced of much of that argument, but I do take things from people like Hancock with a grain of salt.
There are many thematic reasons to still link the Ark with the Grail even after the Grail becomes the Cup of the Last Supper. Jesus quotes Exodus (but not the Passover account, rather Exodus 24:8) at the Last Supper, the Blood of Oxen was shed to confirm the Old Covenant, and the Blood of Jesus is shed to confirm the New and Everlasting Covenant. So the Grail could be seen as the Ark of the New Covenant.
Robert de Boron also introduced the Seige Perilous (The Perilous Seat) as a special Seat at the Round Table linked to the Grail, that only the worthy Grail King can sit on it. The lid of the Ark is called thanks to translation errors The Mercy Seat and is mistakenly believed by many today to be a Throne, specifically the Throne Jesus will sit on when He returns. And if someone unworthy sat in the Seige Perilous it killed them, like how the Ark killed unclean people who touched it.
Even the idea of the Grail catching the Blood of Jesus shed after he was pierced with the Spear is interesting. Ron Wyatt and Michael Rood believe the Ark was located under Golgotha and that Jesus Blood fell through the cracked open ground onto the Mercy Seat. In my Mercy Seat study I was very critical of that view. But the logic behind it stems from Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur.
The first King of the Grail line in Robert de Boron is named Bron. That name serves a dual purpose I think. One is to echo the Celtic Bran linked to the Cauldron that played the Grail's role in the Welsh Arthurian tales. But it is also stated in de Boron that the full name of Bron was Hebron. Hebron is a name who's most well known Biblical usage is as a city (Judah and David's capital before Jerusalem), but it's also the name of a leader of the Kohathites in Exodus 6:8 and Number 3:19&27 who were in charge of caring for The Ark and other Tabernacle vessels in Numbers 3:30-32.
Bron married a Sister of Joseph of Arimathea, named Enygeus. Robert de Boron's narrative is to me very interesting, considering I have argued that Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus' half brother Joses. And that one of Jesus half sister's was named Naomi and became ancestral to the Bagratid dynasty possibly via marrying someone of the royal family of Adiabene. And that The Virgin Mary might have had Hasmonean ancestry. I doubt de Boron believed similar things, but they are interesting reasons for me to consider doing my own re-imagining of de Boron's narrative.
I also wonder if the story of King Kalafes suffering from Leprosy and being healed by the Grail then converting to Christianity, was based on the legend about King Abgar of Edessa. I of course take issue with Eisenman's theories. Also interesting is the theory that a later Abgar of Edessa, was the real basis of Lucius of Britain with where he lived being a scribal error.
One more Biblical figure I think of as possibly linkable to the Wounded King is King Asa. Asa was one of the longer reigning kings of Judah, over 40 years, and one of the better reviewed ones. But because of one of his mistakes he spent the twilight of his reign with a crippling foot disease. The last few years of his reign his successor Jehoshaphat was already ruling as Co-Regent. Which fits how the Fisher King and Wounded King are sometimes separate with the Fisher King as the son. The era in which Jehoshaphat lived I discus on my Revised Chronology Blog.
Still we should not forget however that the figure of the Fisher King definitely has a Pagan origin too going back to the Welsh Bran the Blessed. One thing the 80s Excalibur film gets criticized for is making Arthur the Fisher King, and it's generally defended only by saying it's the best way to condense all of Arthurian legend down to one film. But when you go back to the Welsh Cauldron legends, Arthur and Bran are kind of interchangeable. Both are said to be mortally wounded and waiting to be healed.
The way Excalibur depicts Arthur as all dark and Emo during his latter years does remind me of some film depictions of Solomon. From Yul Brynner to the 90s Solomon movie that sometimes airs on the Hallmark channel.
Whatever the real story of Arthur was, his legend has been influenced by many factors, including Celtic pagan mythology, and also by the contemporary concerns of various authors from the Crusades to the War of the Roses to the present. And as most Arthurian authors until the very modern age have been Christians of some type, it's safe to say Biblical themes have been an influence.
Given Gildas debatable relationship to Arthurian tradition. I could start by mentioning how he references the Beasts of Daniel 7 and Revelation 12-13 to insult 5 local kings. So the Bear reference is not at all evidence Cuneglass or Owain was normally called the Bear/Arth/Arto.
Of most interest however are the most notorious Kings of The Bible, like David and Solomon. In many cases even if mimicking David wasn't the origin of a certain plot point the similarity could have still been in some authors' minds. And it's fun to look at parallels that may or may not have been intentional at all.
Davidic parallels for the Mythical Arthur could begin right with his origin story. Uther's adultery with Igerne and murder of Goloris could be compared to Bathsheba and Urias, but how it plays out is very different. Recently that Starz series Camelot inverted the usual Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot triangle by making Arthur the adulterer, that makes a David and Bathsheba parallel very possible to see, but the Lancelot replacement isn't murdered by Arthur, though he does die in battle as Urias technically does.
David had two sons who were would-be usurpers like Mordred. And with Absalom the story does begin with half-brother/half-sister incest, (but the real Sin there was the Rape).
And going back to the original version where Mordred was Arthur's sister's son, you could compare him to Joab son of Zeruiah who was the real mastermind of Adonijah's attempted coup. And like Mordred, Joab wasn't David's only maternal Nephew, he had two brothers, Abishai and Ashael. And David's other sister Abigail was the mother of Amasa who was Absalom's commander in chief. So both rebellions involved a son and a sister's son, which is interesting.
There is also debate among scholars on if David's sisters were by the same father, an issue I'm still investigating myself.
Also both these rebel sons had lain with or attempted to marry Concubines of David, which possibly parallels Mordred's marrying Guinivere, though she was the Queen-Wife not a Concubine.
But what I mainly want to talk about today is Perceval.
Chretien de Troyes' Perceval, le Conte du Graal, which was the first appearance of both Perceval and The Holy Grail. Had a number of influences on it no doubt, but one thing I've noticed is a possible allegory in which Perceval is David and Arthur is Saul.
Many later details we associate with Perceval weren't there yet, he is not given a detailed genealogy for one thing. Also none of the people or places directly linked to the Grail are named yet.
Perceval first makes a name for himself by killing a Knight who was troubling Arthur, that could be compared to slaying Goliath, and Sir Kay's role could be Abner. While this isn't part of Chretien's narrative, it's interesting that when Arthur is given a humble upbringing prior to becoming King, it's usually as something like a farmer (as in Disney's Sword in The Stone), which would fit Saul more then David who was a Shepherd.
And even though their relation to each other is different and to Arthur non existent. I think maybe Gornemant and Blanchefleur could be Johnathon and Michal.
The big thing though is, I think The Fisher King might be based on Ahimelech.
The figure of The Fisher King I have seen described before as being like a Priest-King, now at face value in Biblical history that makes us think of Melchizedek, the Hasmoneans and if you're a Christian Jesus. But what's interesting about Ahimelech is he was a Priest but his name has the Hebrew word for King in it. The question is if Chretien could have known that?
I've mentioned before how The Holy Grail was not originally identified as the Cup at the Last Supper, it was the third known Grail Romance author, Robert de Boron, that first made that identification. In Chertien it seems to be a plate or bowl of some kind that contained a single Mass Wafer. What that means is there was a thematic at least Last Supper connection, but it was to the Bread not the Wine. But it should be noted in the original French text Chertien call is "un Graal" or "A Grail" not "The Grail", so it probably never was his intent to say it's the original of anything.
To a Christian, all references to bread, especially unleavened bread throughout the Old Testament are seen as anticipating the Bread of the Last Supper and probably representing the same thing, starting with the Bread and Wine offered by Melchizedek. This would particularly be true of The Shewbread in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle. So it's interesting that Ahimelech offers David the Shewbread.
The Grail Procession in Chretien also includes a Candelabra which could stand in for the Menorah, though it had 10 candles rather then 7. The Menorah isn't specifically mentioned in the Ahimelech account but it's the Tabernacle and most assume the Tabernacle was at Nob.
The Fisher King also gives Perceval a Sword. Ahimelech gives David the Sword of Goliath which had been kept with the Ephod since David slew him.
That Gwain takes over the narrative I think is where this parallel ends.
Chertein's tale was unfinished, so we don't know if Perceval would have gone on to become a King as he often does in later Grail romances.
Chertein also invented the character of Lancelot in an earlier different work, but that Lancelot was never part of the Grail story, there was no Galahad or Elaine of Corbenic yet.
The second Grail Romance was Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival. Wolfram's work is very well known, yet strangely later Grail and Arthurian romances really didn't follow his lead. They have in common adding a genealogical link to the Grail family for Percival, but elsewhere it's usually through his father while for Wolfram it was through his mother. The Vulgate cycle and Malory give completely different names for Percival's ancestors and the Grail family. And the characters of Belacane and Feirefiz do not reappear either.
The one possible influence is that once Lancleot became part of the Grail story and Galahad is created, I think he takes on some aspects of Feirefiz. With Elaine of Corbenic replacing Repanse de Shoye. And Prester John becoming Galahad.
There are a lot of clearly intentional historical anachronisms in Wolfram. I as a student of Bible Prophecy disagree with seeing Babylon as code for Rome in 1 Peter or Revelation, but that idea was firmly established by Wolfram's time, and that one of his rulers of Babylon has a clearly Roman name, Pompeius, tells me that Wolfram meant Babylon to be code for Rome. But he probably had the Eastern Empire in mind, what we call the Byzantine Empire never called itself that, they always called themselves Romans. It's the same with references to Rome and Romans in old Isalmic writings.
I've talked before briefly about how the Grail is a Stone in Wolfram, and about Graham Hancock's theory that Wolfram's Grail was the Ark of the Covenant (which contained stone tablets), and that Wolfram was aware of Ethiopia's claim to have the Ark. I'm convinced of much of that argument, but I do take things from people like Hancock with a grain of salt.
There are many thematic reasons to still link the Ark with the Grail even after the Grail becomes the Cup of the Last Supper. Jesus quotes Exodus (but not the Passover account, rather Exodus 24:8) at the Last Supper, the Blood of Oxen was shed to confirm the Old Covenant, and the Blood of Jesus is shed to confirm the New and Everlasting Covenant. So the Grail could be seen as the Ark of the New Covenant.
Robert de Boron also introduced the Seige Perilous (The Perilous Seat) as a special Seat at the Round Table linked to the Grail, that only the worthy Grail King can sit on it. The lid of the Ark is called thanks to translation errors The Mercy Seat and is mistakenly believed by many today to be a Throne, specifically the Throne Jesus will sit on when He returns. And if someone unworthy sat in the Seige Perilous it killed them, like how the Ark killed unclean people who touched it.
Even the idea of the Grail catching the Blood of Jesus shed after he was pierced with the Spear is interesting. Ron Wyatt and Michael Rood believe the Ark was located under Golgotha and that Jesus Blood fell through the cracked open ground onto the Mercy Seat. In my Mercy Seat study I was very critical of that view. But the logic behind it stems from Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur.
The first King of the Grail line in Robert de Boron is named Bron. That name serves a dual purpose I think. One is to echo the Celtic Bran linked to the Cauldron that played the Grail's role in the Welsh Arthurian tales. But it is also stated in de Boron that the full name of Bron was Hebron. Hebron is a name who's most well known Biblical usage is as a city (Judah and David's capital before Jerusalem), but it's also the name of a leader of the Kohathites in Exodus 6:8 and Number 3:19&27 who were in charge of caring for The Ark and other Tabernacle vessels in Numbers 3:30-32.
Bron married a Sister of Joseph of Arimathea, named Enygeus. Robert de Boron's narrative is to me very interesting, considering I have argued that Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus' half brother Joses. And that one of Jesus half sister's was named Naomi and became ancestral to the Bagratid dynasty possibly via marrying someone of the royal family of Adiabene. And that The Virgin Mary might have had Hasmonean ancestry. I doubt de Boron believed similar things, but they are interesting reasons for me to consider doing my own re-imagining of de Boron's narrative.
I also wonder if the story of King Kalafes suffering from Leprosy and being healed by the Grail then converting to Christianity, was based on the legend about King Abgar of Edessa. I of course take issue with Eisenman's theories. Also interesting is the theory that a later Abgar of Edessa, was the real basis of Lucius of Britain with where he lived being a scribal error.
One more Biblical figure I think of as possibly linkable to the Wounded King is King Asa. Asa was one of the longer reigning kings of Judah, over 40 years, and one of the better reviewed ones. But because of one of his mistakes he spent the twilight of his reign with a crippling foot disease. The last few years of his reign his successor Jehoshaphat was already ruling as Co-Regent. Which fits how the Fisher King and Wounded King are sometimes separate with the Fisher King as the son. The era in which Jehoshaphat lived I discus on my Revised Chronology Blog.
Still we should not forget however that the figure of the Fisher King definitely has a Pagan origin too going back to the Welsh Bran the Blessed. One thing the 80s Excalibur film gets criticized for is making Arthur the Fisher King, and it's generally defended only by saying it's the best way to condense all of Arthurian legend down to one film. But when you go back to the Welsh Cauldron legends, Arthur and Bran are kind of interchangeable. Both are said to be mortally wounded and waiting to be healed.
The way Excalibur depicts Arthur as all dark and Emo during his latter years does remind me of some film depictions of Solomon. From Yul Brynner to the 90s Solomon movie that sometimes airs on the Hallmark channel.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)