I've been slacking on the TV reactions lately. I've been enjoying the shows I watch just as much, but I haven't been feeling compelled to comment.
But also this week I was late in watching the latest Gotham. I saw it today on demand.
Now I'd observed back when I discussed the Knightfall Audio Drama how the Monastic Order Azrael was affiliated with was named after French Author Alexandre Dumas.
As soon as we saw the Monk talk to Galavan I started to suspect the show was going there rather then the Court of Owls as we suspected originally (that could still be where the Wayne Enterprises corruption is headed).
So naturally I Geeked out at the name drop in the latest episode.
Naming the order after Dumas was very fitting, it was a French order in the original comics, and Dumas dealt with similar themes in some of his fiction, as did other French Writers of the period like Paul Feval.
Speaking of French Pulp fiction, not long till the next Tales of The Shadowmen with my next story in it is published, so happens to be a story derivative of Dumas and Feval and others.
Friday, November 27, 2015
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Captain America: Civil War may kill the MCU
I have seen every MCU film so far but Ant-Man and I have liked each of them, I've gone against convention and considered the first Iron Man the weakest.
I've been less consistently impressed with Marvel on television but still liked much of it, the AOS tie in with Winter Soldier was fantastic, and I loved Agent Carter season 1. I haven't gotten a chance to check out the Netflix shows yet.
I have defended Winter Solider and Guardians of the Galaxy against their critics. And I personally love that Iron Man 3 wasn't another generic foreign terrorist but actually dealt with false Flag Terror. My Dad hated Iron Man 3 at first but upon re-watching it he really liked it.
But I have felt that doing Civil War was a bad idea from the start, I tried to be optimistic for it but the Trailer has not alleviated my fears.
The original story-line in the Comics was one of the most hated Marvel has ever done, probably only One More Day and the Clone Saga are more hated. And the people who do like it would probably all agree that an only 2 to 2 and a half movie could not do justice to the story-line.
Now it's being adapted into a universe where the initial premise doesn't apply because the MCU doesn't even do secret identities.
One thing that can be said about the original story-line, as stupid as it was, Steve taking the position he did made sense with his character there. But this trailer is telling us Steve is simply against the idea of Superheros having accountability what so ever. I like seeing Captain America go against the government when it over reaches it's power, but this does not fit that.
The people at Marvel were considering Civil War before Batman V Superman was announced. But the earliest reference to it was considering it for an Avenger movies, no latter then the 3rd one. Not a movie coming only a year after Age of Ultron.
Everyone was talking before Age of Ultron came out about how the disagreement between Steve and Tony in that was going to set up Civil War. And continued to think that even after it came out. But it didn't. Even leaving side that Steve and Tony's issues in that film were resolved by the end, this Civil War trailer if anything has switched them around from were they were in that film. It's completely random.
What's really grating is it seems like most of Steve's reasons for his actions is just about Bucky. It shouldn't be that damn hard to get understanding for the fact that Bucky was brainwashed. The whole set up is contrived to fit where the previous films left everyone.
I will of course disagree with anyone who said this trailer revealed too much. Any entire important character were absent. As I've said before I like a trailer to tell me what I can expect, and I appreciate that this one has told me to expect exactly what I feared.
The Force Awakens meanwhile is the first time ever this close to a film coming out that I honestly don't know if I'll like it or not. I'm someone who's expectations have always been right. With TFA it could go either way, it could be exactly what I'm hoping for or exactly what I fear base don what little we've been shown. I'm going to see the movie, the fact that it has John Williams assures me that it at least can't be as boring as Superman Returns.
I've been less consistently impressed with Marvel on television but still liked much of it, the AOS tie in with Winter Soldier was fantastic, and I loved Agent Carter season 1. I haven't gotten a chance to check out the Netflix shows yet.
I have defended Winter Solider and Guardians of the Galaxy against their critics. And I personally love that Iron Man 3 wasn't another generic foreign terrorist but actually dealt with false Flag Terror. My Dad hated Iron Man 3 at first but upon re-watching it he really liked it.
But I have felt that doing Civil War was a bad idea from the start, I tried to be optimistic for it but the Trailer has not alleviated my fears.
The original story-line in the Comics was one of the most hated Marvel has ever done, probably only One More Day and the Clone Saga are more hated. And the people who do like it would probably all agree that an only 2 to 2 and a half movie could not do justice to the story-line.
Now it's being adapted into a universe where the initial premise doesn't apply because the MCU doesn't even do secret identities.
One thing that can be said about the original story-line, as stupid as it was, Steve taking the position he did made sense with his character there. But this trailer is telling us Steve is simply against the idea of Superheros having accountability what so ever. I like seeing Captain America go against the government when it over reaches it's power, but this does not fit that.
The people at Marvel were considering Civil War before Batman V Superman was announced. But the earliest reference to it was considering it for an Avenger movies, no latter then the 3rd one. Not a movie coming only a year after Age of Ultron.
Everyone was talking before Age of Ultron came out about how the disagreement between Steve and Tony in that was going to set up Civil War. And continued to think that even after it came out. But it didn't. Even leaving side that Steve and Tony's issues in that film were resolved by the end, this Civil War trailer if anything has switched them around from were they were in that film. It's completely random.
What's really grating is it seems like most of Steve's reasons for his actions is just about Bucky. It shouldn't be that damn hard to get understanding for the fact that Bucky was brainwashed. The whole set up is contrived to fit where the previous films left everyone.
I will of course disagree with anyone who said this trailer revealed too much. Any entire important character were absent. As I've said before I like a trailer to tell me what I can expect, and I appreciate that this one has told me to expect exactly what I feared.
The Force Awakens meanwhile is the first time ever this close to a film coming out that I honestly don't know if I'll like it or not. I'm someone who's expectations have always been right. With TFA it could go either way, it could be exactly what I'm hoping for or exactly what I fear base don what little we've been shown. I'm going to see the movie, the fact that it has John Williams assures me that it at least can't be as boring as Superman Returns.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
My defense of the When a Stranger Calls remake
Much of this is copy and pasted from something I originally wrote on the remake's IMDB board. So when I refer to “This film” or something like that without clarifying I’m referring to When a Stranger Calls 2006. I like both versions, they're both good but very different. Also this will have spoilers.
The original is more like 2 or 3 movies in one. With this only really remaking the 1st 20 minutes in a more drawn out fashion, and I tend to like drawn out more. I prefer the 2006 film and I don’t think I can fully explain why, it simply thrilled and entertained me more. But I have no objections to people who prefer the original, I simply want to defend the Remake against unfair criticisms.
This remake (Which I saw before the original) is the most legitimately suspenseful film I’ve seen in recent years, that’s why I have little tolerance for the haters whining about it being PG-13. The only thing the original Halloween has that this doesn’t is 1 or a few very brief shots of Nudity. It is in no way any less Violent then this movie.
It would be cool if in 2013 they made a sequel to this remaking the stuff from 7 years latter. Wouldn’t be the first time an adaptation was split into 2 separate films.
The kids not being killed is a problem for many. In the original the kids are killed off screen, I have no problem with that, us simply being told what he did makes it more disturbing because we can use our imagination. We also don’t see the kids who are killed alive at any point, we never get to know them, the kids we see are Jill’s years later who do survive. In the original this is the first time Kurt has done this, at least in the States.
In the Remake we see that other Babysitters had been stalked and killed previously. The opening scene is basically how the 1st act of the original ends (or second act begins depending how you define it), with an after the fact crime scene, where we barely see glimpses of the aftermath of the killer having killed 2 kids and a Babysitter, and that he did so with his bare hands. So in both the Killer kills off screen 2 little kids we never see, in both it serves the purpose of telling us what he’s capable of for reference later in the film. So I apologies for not seeing the massive difference between the 2.
I also see Jill in the remake being called Stupid by it’s critics. The only basis for this being that it’s popular on the internet to call modern Teenagers stupid, especially modern Teenagers in modern Teen films. But in fact here is no great difference in how they react to the phone calls, the remake jumps forward less and is closer to telling the story in real time, which is part of why I find it much more suspenseful. But if you try to break it down the Remake’s Jill may well have actually decided to call the police sooner, but I wouldn’t bet on that, I’m going by memory.
A lot of it is generational I’m sure, people who were Teenagers in the 70s and early 80s can relate to a late 70s Teenager like Carol Kane more. I was a Teenager from October 31st 1998 to October 31st 2005, this is part of why I prefer Episodes I-III to IV-VI in regards to Star Wars, and part of why I relate more to Camilla Belle. But also a big reason I think so highly of Camilla Belle’s Jill is because we see her being brave enough to risk her own life to try and save the kids she doesn’t even know. I don’t think I would have had the courage to do that. And we get to see her fight back, which is one of the things I love most about Slasher films, Carol even in the last act doesn’t really fight back, the Detective saves the day.
On a very superficial note, the Title more accurately describes the 2006 film. In the original iy applies to the glorified prologue, but ultimately the film is more about Kurt then it is Carol who is completely gone for the middle 40 minutes. In the 2006 film the “Stranger” remains a mystery which is far more appealing to me.
I do have mixed feeling about the final scene being all about how scared Jill is. It is realistic for such an experience to be traumatizing, but it bugs me that male characters in films like this seem to much less likely to be as traumatized. Another reason I'd like a sequel based on the later part of the original made years later (it's now past 2013 of course) is to show that she was able to recover from it.
But other then that I really like the movie. I think it's a underrated suspense film.
Update: copied from another old post I made later on.
I just re-watched it, my opinion remains the same but I will amend 1 thing.
There is some difference in the reactions to the Phone Calls, but let’s see who’s smarter.
Both films the first time she talks to the cops they ask if she was threatened and Jill says no. In the Remake I see this as accurate as it’s still before he asks if she’s checked on the Children. But in the original he said that from the start, and I feel that’s definitely a veiled threat.
In the remake Jill does check on the children the first time he says that. In hindsight in the original we know that was bait, she’d have been dead if she’d checked, but still I feel the more believable instinct is to check once you're actually worried.
In the remake the second time she talks to the Cops she has a very logical reason for knowing she’s being watched. In the original we the audience don’t question cause as film viewers we suspect it’s probably true, but she had no real reason to suspect that.
During the ending Jill is very clever, remembering what certain things do in that house and takes advantage of them, it’s not easy to think that fast and clearly in a high tension situation.
It’s not fair to compare their intelligence, as in the original Jill’s decisions don’t even make much of a difference. In the original she’s a blank slate, her personally is vague to make it easier to imagine ourselves in her shoes. In the remake I outright admire Jill, she’s brave, intelligent and resourceful, my kind of woman.
The original is more like 2 or 3 movies in one. With this only really remaking the 1st 20 minutes in a more drawn out fashion, and I tend to like drawn out more. I prefer the 2006 film and I don’t think I can fully explain why, it simply thrilled and entertained me more. But I have no objections to people who prefer the original, I simply want to defend the Remake against unfair criticisms.
This remake (Which I saw before the original) is the most legitimately suspenseful film I’ve seen in recent years, that’s why I have little tolerance for the haters whining about it being PG-13. The only thing the original Halloween has that this doesn’t is 1 or a few very brief shots of Nudity. It is in no way any less Violent then this movie.
It would be cool if in 2013 they made a sequel to this remaking the stuff from 7 years latter. Wouldn’t be the first time an adaptation was split into 2 separate films.
The kids not being killed is a problem for many. In the original the kids are killed off screen, I have no problem with that, us simply being told what he did makes it more disturbing because we can use our imagination. We also don’t see the kids who are killed alive at any point, we never get to know them, the kids we see are Jill’s years later who do survive. In the original this is the first time Kurt has done this, at least in the States.
In the Remake we see that other Babysitters had been stalked and killed previously. The opening scene is basically how the 1st act of the original ends (or second act begins depending how you define it), with an after the fact crime scene, where we barely see glimpses of the aftermath of the killer having killed 2 kids and a Babysitter, and that he did so with his bare hands. So in both the Killer kills off screen 2 little kids we never see, in both it serves the purpose of telling us what he’s capable of for reference later in the film. So I apologies for not seeing the massive difference between the 2.
I also see Jill in the remake being called Stupid by it’s critics. The only basis for this being that it’s popular on the internet to call modern Teenagers stupid, especially modern Teenagers in modern Teen films. But in fact here is no great difference in how they react to the phone calls, the remake jumps forward less and is closer to telling the story in real time, which is part of why I find it much more suspenseful. But if you try to break it down the Remake’s Jill may well have actually decided to call the police sooner, but I wouldn’t bet on that, I’m going by memory.
A lot of it is generational I’m sure, people who were Teenagers in the 70s and early 80s can relate to a late 70s Teenager like Carol Kane more. I was a Teenager from October 31st 1998 to October 31st 2005, this is part of why I prefer Episodes I-III to IV-VI in regards to Star Wars, and part of why I relate more to Camilla Belle. But also a big reason I think so highly of Camilla Belle’s Jill is because we see her being brave enough to risk her own life to try and save the kids she doesn’t even know. I don’t think I would have had the courage to do that. And we get to see her fight back, which is one of the things I love most about Slasher films, Carol even in the last act doesn’t really fight back, the Detective saves the day.
On a very superficial note, the Title more accurately describes the 2006 film. In the original iy applies to the glorified prologue, but ultimately the film is more about Kurt then it is Carol who is completely gone for the middle 40 minutes. In the 2006 film the “Stranger” remains a mystery which is far more appealing to me.
I do have mixed feeling about the final scene being all about how scared Jill is. It is realistic for such an experience to be traumatizing, but it bugs me that male characters in films like this seem to much less likely to be as traumatized. Another reason I'd like a sequel based on the later part of the original made years later (it's now past 2013 of course) is to show that she was able to recover from it.
But other then that I really like the movie. I think it's a underrated suspense film.
Update: copied from another old post I made later on.
I just re-watched it, my opinion remains the same but I will amend 1 thing.
There is some difference in the reactions to the Phone Calls, but let’s see who’s smarter.
Both films the first time she talks to the cops they ask if she was threatened and Jill says no. In the Remake I see this as accurate as it’s still before he asks if she’s checked on the Children. But in the original he said that from the start, and I feel that’s definitely a veiled threat.
In the remake Jill does check on the children the first time he says that. In hindsight in the original we know that was bait, she’d have been dead if she’d checked, but still I feel the more believable instinct is to check once you're actually worried.
In the remake the second time she talks to the Cops she has a very logical reason for knowing she’s being watched. In the original we the audience don’t question cause as film viewers we suspect it’s probably true, but she had no real reason to suspect that.
During the ending Jill is very clever, remembering what certain things do in that house and takes advantage of them, it’s not easy to think that fast and clearly in a high tension situation.
It’s not fair to compare their intelligence, as in the original Jill’s decisions don’t even make much of a difference. In the original she’s a blank slate, her personally is vague to make it easier to imagine ourselves in her shoes. In the remake I outright admire Jill, she’s brave, intelligent and resourceful, my kind of woman.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
I could care less about Suicide Squad being PG13 and not R
The recent announcement has once again riled up those who worship the R rating.
I personally have as I've matured/grown up, grown less fond of cursing and graphic sex and violence in media. And I intentionally did not preface that with "gratuitous", even scenarios where it truly does fit the story I still feel it's better left off screen. I firmly oppose government censorship, but I'm all for self-restraint.
For one thing it is a scientific fact that fiction forcing the audience to use their imagination can help make them smarter. That's why reading is good for the brain.
I probably have more tolerance for cursing then the others, because sometimes some people are good at swearing in a way that is very funny. That's the thing, it's only good to me when it's done for Humor, my life experience has lead me to firmly reject that it ever helps makes things more dramatic or intense, and certainly that it's inherently unrealistic not to swear in certain scenarios. Because swearing is pretty rare in my real life experiences, so I find excessive swearing in fiction and music funny, but not believable. I tend to find it funny even if it's not meant to be, like Jackman's F Bomb in The Wolverine.
The Dark Knight and Casino Royal are often the default examples for how Dark and Gritty a PG13 film can be. But ya know what I consider just as unsettling if not more so then those, Revenge of The Sith. Officially that film just barely crossed the line into not qualifying for PG, but I don't care, that all the dismembering is bloodless does not make it any less grimm, in fact scientifically it would be unrealistic if they were bleeding since we know the Lightsabers singe everything.
And then we can talk about all the old classic Film Noirs of the 40s and 50s, none of which are graphic. And even the Pre-Code stuff people talk about would still not be R worthy to modern standards. Or even what The Longest Day did with a G rating.
The Dark Knight Returns animated movies actually went further then the Comics thanks to the Joker's gun toting spree killing. And still only got PG13.
The MPAA doesn't care how dark or disturbing the themes and tone are. It just looks at purely arbitrary check lists, more then 1 F word gets an R even if it's otherwise indistinguishable from Frozen. And they care more about Sex then Violence. Getting an R rating purely for the violence, which is what Suicide Squad would have to do to qualify, would require an amount of graphic blood and gore that would only be distracting from the plot.
The original Halloween would besides it's one nude scene be absolutely a PG13 film today. I know this because the When a Stranger Calls remake (which I love) actually does MORE then it in terms of swearing and violence and suspense and was PG13.
One person I've seen outright express he doesn't want children there with him as he's watching a movie about Psychopaths. Well legally the kids can be there regardless if the Parents are with them. I for one want parents to stop letting the MPAA make parenting decisions for them. A parent should be free to take their kid to a porno theater if they choose to.
Harley Quinn was created for a Saturday Morning children's Cartoon show. It was a well written show that cleverly included mature themes, but was still officially a kids show that was watched by kids, I know because I was one of them. So Children have as much right to see her Big Screen debut as anyone else. Pretentious older comic book fans do not own her.
I personally have as I've matured/grown up, grown less fond of cursing and graphic sex and violence in media. And I intentionally did not preface that with "gratuitous", even scenarios where it truly does fit the story I still feel it's better left off screen. I firmly oppose government censorship, but I'm all for self-restraint.
For one thing it is a scientific fact that fiction forcing the audience to use their imagination can help make them smarter. That's why reading is good for the brain.
I probably have more tolerance for cursing then the others, because sometimes some people are good at swearing in a way that is very funny. That's the thing, it's only good to me when it's done for Humor, my life experience has lead me to firmly reject that it ever helps makes things more dramatic or intense, and certainly that it's inherently unrealistic not to swear in certain scenarios. Because swearing is pretty rare in my real life experiences, so I find excessive swearing in fiction and music funny, but not believable. I tend to find it funny even if it's not meant to be, like Jackman's F Bomb in The Wolverine.
The Dark Knight and Casino Royal are often the default examples for how Dark and Gritty a PG13 film can be. But ya know what I consider just as unsettling if not more so then those, Revenge of The Sith. Officially that film just barely crossed the line into not qualifying for PG, but I don't care, that all the dismembering is bloodless does not make it any less grimm, in fact scientifically it would be unrealistic if they were bleeding since we know the Lightsabers singe everything.
And then we can talk about all the old classic Film Noirs of the 40s and 50s, none of which are graphic. And even the Pre-Code stuff people talk about would still not be R worthy to modern standards. Or even what The Longest Day did with a G rating.
The Dark Knight Returns animated movies actually went further then the Comics thanks to the Joker's gun toting spree killing. And still only got PG13.
The MPAA doesn't care how dark or disturbing the themes and tone are. It just looks at purely arbitrary check lists, more then 1 F word gets an R even if it's otherwise indistinguishable from Frozen. And they care more about Sex then Violence. Getting an R rating purely for the violence, which is what Suicide Squad would have to do to qualify, would require an amount of graphic blood and gore that would only be distracting from the plot.
The original Halloween would besides it's one nude scene be absolutely a PG13 film today. I know this because the When a Stranger Calls remake (which I love) actually does MORE then it in terms of swearing and violence and suspense and was PG13.
One person I've seen outright express he doesn't want children there with him as he's watching a movie about Psychopaths. Well legally the kids can be there regardless if the Parents are with them. I for one want parents to stop letting the MPAA make parenting decisions for them. A parent should be free to take their kid to a porno theater if they choose to.
Harley Quinn was created for a Saturday Morning children's Cartoon show. It was a well written show that cleverly included mature themes, but was still officially a kids show that was watched by kids, I know because I was one of them. So Children have as much right to see her Big Screen debut as anyone else. Pretentious older comic book fans do not own her.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Linkle has been anounced
I have a second Zelda post for Zelda month.
http://www.themarysue.com/female-link-confirmed-linkle/
I think it's awesome.
The name seems awkward. I actually grew more fond of it when I heard it pronounced, it's apparently pronounced similarly to Linkel. While I was at first thinking Link Lee or Lankl La.
I hope this is testing the waters for allowing a Female Playable character option in Zelda Wii-U.
Some people are complaining, as if Star Wars hasn't given me enough to be frustrated with people who all themselves "Purists".
The complaints about the fully 3D Zelda games have been that they don't have as much player choice in how to play the game (I don't care as much, but I understand why many do). And we like that Zelda Wii-U seems like it's gonna finally not be like that.
Well Zelda is the only remaining video game franchise with a blank slate player character premise that doesn't allow you to at least choose their gender. Pokemon it seems wanted to have it from the start but limitations prevented it till Crystal.
But people have forgotten that Link is supposed to be a Blank Slate character, he's become distinct in people's mind even while still never talking.
Link has certain defining traits, mainly Courage, none of them are traits that preclude him being a her. Besides maybe that the presumed love interests are always female, but then that gets into Heteronormative assumptions.
The ZeldaUniverse forum has had some negative and positive comments. I'll share some Positive ones, from a fellow usernamed Spagh.
http://www.themarysue.com/female-link-confirmed-linkle/
The name seems awkward. I actually grew more fond of it when I heard it pronounced, it's apparently pronounced similarly to Linkel. While I was at first thinking Link Lee or Lankl La.
I hope this is testing the waters for allowing a Female Playable character option in Zelda Wii-U.
Some people are complaining, as if Star Wars hasn't given me enough to be frustrated with people who all themselves "Purists".
The complaints about the fully 3D Zelda games have been that they don't have as much player choice in how to play the game (I don't care as much, but I understand why many do). And we like that Zelda Wii-U seems like it's gonna finally not be like that.
Well Zelda is the only remaining video game franchise with a blank slate player character premise that doesn't allow you to at least choose their gender. Pokemon it seems wanted to have it from the start but limitations prevented it till Crystal.
But people have forgotten that Link is supposed to be a Blank Slate character, he's become distinct in people's mind even while still never talking.
Link has certain defining traits, mainly Courage, none of them are traits that preclude him being a her. Besides maybe that the presumed love interests are always female, but then that gets into Heteronormative assumptions.
The ZeldaUniverse forum has had some negative and positive comments. I'll share some Positive ones, from a fellow usernamed Spagh.
Linkle has the badass look down without being over sexualised or at all masculinised, she's exactly what a female Link needs to be like. If she were anything else, I'd be pissed that Nintendo had done it wrong, but this is spot on. I'd like to see her in more games if the reception isn't too bad! An alternate gender option for Link in Zelda U, maybe an amiibo, maybe a Smash Bros DLC character, it'd be awesome!
Man, even just looking at certain aspects of her design is awesome. The patterns on her kneepads look similar to some of the technological designs in SS which was cool, the fact that she has a watch of sorts playing on the motif of time is a nice nod, the necklace gem being the same colour as Timeshift Stones and the Ocarina of Time, they've just done so well with it.I agree that her look is perfect.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Tatooine Slavery and Headcanon
I've talked before about how I became a Star Wars fan because of The Phantom Menace, and how I didn't mind that Episodes II and III played out differently then I expected. Today I want to talk about something specific.
In Episode I Anakin says he dreams of becoming a Jedi and then one day returning to Tatooine to free all the slaves. When Episode I was the only prequel we had I remember how I expected we would see Anakin do that during his Jedi career. Then in Episode II he returns to Tatooine but never does that, and for Episode III we knew before it came out it wouldn't feature much of Tatooine.
However that expectation never happening only added to the Tragedy of Anakin's fall, he never even did what he originally wanted to become a Jedi to do.
And in hindsight I should have known that wouldn't happen because we saw Slavery still going on on Tatooine in the OT. It's just not as exposition dumped as it was in Episode I.
But an added layer to that is how I've been rethinking the OT lately. Even though this is stated no where I've developed a headcanon that after Jabba and his syndicate was destroyed in Return of The Jedi that Slavery on Tatooine collapsed. And so Luke and Leia fulfilled their father's dream without even realizing it.
And it really shows how RotJ works as the last installment of a 6 episode saga even better then it does as a trilogy.
The OT alone was centrally focused on the Rebellion vs The Empire, so spending the entire first act of the finale installment resolving what was a peripheral subplot of the previous films seemed like just an exotic diversion. Yes Han being frozen had to be resolved, but I feel like a normal writer would have spent far less screen on that and made it a quick cold open. I suspect negative reviews of the film at the time probably said just that.
But then we got the chronological first installment and we see the issue of Slavery on Tatooine, which was directly linked to the Hutt clan, was vital to how and why Anakin became a Jedi in the first place. And we see that Jabba pretty much rules the entire Planet. Then dealing with the Hutt story-line truly becomes necessary to close the saga.
For that reason perhaps it's for the best if the new movies don't revisit Tatooine, they'd probably do something to contract this theory. All it'd take is one sexy dancing Twi'lek slave girl, which based on his approach to Trek Abrams wouldn't be able to resist.
In fact I'd bet the old EU probably contradicts this somewhere. But fortunately I never considered that crap canon. I can ignore the new movies if I want to also, but I'm hoping I won't have to.
In Episode I Anakin says he dreams of becoming a Jedi and then one day returning to Tatooine to free all the slaves. When Episode I was the only prequel we had I remember how I expected we would see Anakin do that during his Jedi career. Then in Episode II he returns to Tatooine but never does that, and for Episode III we knew before it came out it wouldn't feature much of Tatooine.
However that expectation never happening only added to the Tragedy of Anakin's fall, he never even did what he originally wanted to become a Jedi to do.
And in hindsight I should have known that wouldn't happen because we saw Slavery still going on on Tatooine in the OT. It's just not as exposition dumped as it was in Episode I.
But an added layer to that is how I've been rethinking the OT lately. Even though this is stated no where I've developed a headcanon that after Jabba and his syndicate was destroyed in Return of The Jedi that Slavery on Tatooine collapsed. And so Luke and Leia fulfilled their father's dream without even realizing it.
And it really shows how RotJ works as the last installment of a 6 episode saga even better then it does as a trilogy.
The OT alone was centrally focused on the Rebellion vs The Empire, so spending the entire first act of the finale installment resolving what was a peripheral subplot of the previous films seemed like just an exotic diversion. Yes Han being frozen had to be resolved, but I feel like a normal writer would have spent far less screen on that and made it a quick cold open. I suspect negative reviews of the film at the time probably said just that.
But then we got the chronological first installment and we see the issue of Slavery on Tatooine, which was directly linked to the Hutt clan, was vital to how and why Anakin became a Jedi in the first place. And we see that Jabba pretty much rules the entire Planet. Then dealing with the Hutt story-line truly becomes necessary to close the saga.
For that reason perhaps it's for the best if the new movies don't revisit Tatooine, they'd probably do something to contract this theory. All it'd take is one sexy dancing Twi'lek slave girl, which based on his approach to Trek Abrams wouldn't be able to resist.
In fact I'd bet the old EU probably contradicts this somewhere. But fortunately I never considered that crap canon. I can ignore the new movies if I want to also, but I'm hoping I won't have to.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Disney's Black Cauldron and Zelda
I figured I should do a Zelda post for Zelda Month. Perhaps I should have waited till now for the Majora's Mask post. But this is something I've been thinking about for awhile.
The Black Cauldron (1984/85) was not one of Disney's most successful animated films, but when I watched it for the first time, there were things that had me thinking it could have been an overlooked or indirect influence on the early Zelda games.
First of all it was Disney in general who started the trend of depicting Fairies as little winged Pixies (as opposed to beings more like Greek Nymphs) as we also see them in Zelda. And this was among the Disney films with those kind of Fairies.
But also the main protagonist of the film, besides having a different wardrobe, looks very similar to me to the official artwork of Link from the Zelda II and A Link to The Past days (though his hair is kinda short), before OoT standardized how we're used to him looking now. Likewise with the Princess of the film looking like some of the artwork of Zelda from that same period or perhaps more ALttP.
It's villain, the Horned King, looks nothing like Ganon, but I feel he has a similar vibe to pre OoT Ganon.
I suppose this is far from the only likely Disney influence on Zelda. The fairies I already mentioned could come from many Disney films. Link's iconic costume is definitely inspired by Peter Pan, probably specifically the 1950s Disney animated film. Which OoT drew attention to with the clearly Neverland inspired Kokiri.
And The Master Sword certainly has a Sword in The Stone vibe to it. And the Sleeping Zelda in Zelda II is kinda like the original tale of Sleeping Beauty where she was asleep for a Century, which wasn't the case in the Disney film, but the Disney films were likely the first vehicle any of those kinds of fair-tales reached a non Western audience. And when you realize the Piccori in The Minish Cap are basically Mice the origin story for Vaati clearly becomes a Sorcerer's Apprentice homage.
And then I could also mention Star Wars. Star Wars wasn't a Disney property back in the 80s when Zelda was born, but it is now and I got Star Wars on the brain lately so I figure I should mention it. But first....
It is clear to me that in the original NES Zelda games Ganon was related to the Moblins the same way Bowser is to the Koopas and King K Rool to the Kremlings, and a lot of video game bosses with their mooks. A Ruler of an evil species that is physically larger then all the other members. It was A Link to The Past that began giving him a more distinct backstory, which OoT codified and now Skyward Sword has made even more complicated. And now the fact that the Moblins are based on the same animal as Ganondorf's beast form seems like a coincidence in current Zelda lore.
The reason for that rant is to provide more context and relevance to my suggestion that possibly the Moblins were inspired by those Hog like guards at Jabba's Palace in Return of The Jedi. Who according to Wookipedia are called Gamorreans.
I also think Leia could have helped inspire the trend of ruling Princesses that exists in video games in general. It's not as common in pre Video Game fantasy works as you might think. It certainly didn't come from Tolkien, his few ruling women were all Queens. She was certainly a direct inspiration for Hilda in Final Fantasy II and Asheila in Final Fantasy XII, which are both very SW inspired games.
And Byrne in Spirit Tracks is definitely the Zelda franchise's Vader Clone.
The Black Cauldron (1984/85) was not one of Disney's most successful animated films, but when I watched it for the first time, there were things that had me thinking it could have been an overlooked or indirect influence on the early Zelda games.
First of all it was Disney in general who started the trend of depicting Fairies as little winged Pixies (as opposed to beings more like Greek Nymphs) as we also see them in Zelda. And this was among the Disney films with those kind of Fairies.
But also the main protagonist of the film, besides having a different wardrobe, looks very similar to me to the official artwork of Link from the Zelda II and A Link to The Past days (though his hair is kinda short), before OoT standardized how we're used to him looking now. Likewise with the Princess of the film looking like some of the artwork of Zelda from that same period or perhaps more ALttP.
It's villain, the Horned King, looks nothing like Ganon, but I feel he has a similar vibe to pre OoT Ganon.
I suppose this is far from the only likely Disney influence on Zelda. The fairies I already mentioned could come from many Disney films. Link's iconic costume is definitely inspired by Peter Pan, probably specifically the 1950s Disney animated film. Which OoT drew attention to with the clearly Neverland inspired Kokiri.
And The Master Sword certainly has a Sword in The Stone vibe to it. And the Sleeping Zelda in Zelda II is kinda like the original tale of Sleeping Beauty where she was asleep for a Century, which wasn't the case in the Disney film, but the Disney films were likely the first vehicle any of those kinds of fair-tales reached a non Western audience. And when you realize the Piccori in The Minish Cap are basically Mice the origin story for Vaati clearly becomes a Sorcerer's Apprentice homage.
And then I could also mention Star Wars. Star Wars wasn't a Disney property back in the 80s when Zelda was born, but it is now and I got Star Wars on the brain lately so I figure I should mention it. But first....
It is clear to me that in the original NES Zelda games Ganon was related to the Moblins the same way Bowser is to the Koopas and King K Rool to the Kremlings, and a lot of video game bosses with their mooks. A Ruler of an evil species that is physically larger then all the other members. It was A Link to The Past that began giving him a more distinct backstory, which OoT codified and now Skyward Sword has made even more complicated. And now the fact that the Moblins are based on the same animal as Ganondorf's beast form seems like a coincidence in current Zelda lore.
The reason for that rant is to provide more context and relevance to my suggestion that possibly the Moblins were inspired by those Hog like guards at Jabba's Palace in Return of The Jedi. Who according to Wookipedia are called Gamorreans.
I also think Leia could have helped inspire the trend of ruling Princesses that exists in video games in general. It's not as common in pre Video Game fantasy works as you might think. It certainly didn't come from Tolkien, his few ruling women were all Queens. She was certainly a direct inspiration for Hilda in Final Fantasy II and Asheila in Final Fantasy XII, which are both very SW inspired games.
And Byrne in Spirit Tracks is definitely the Zelda franchise's Vader Clone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)