#“many viewers probably expected” YES BECAUSE THE VIEWERS UNDERSTAND HOW STORYTELLING WORKS!

[havocmadden]

so you're just... admitting you wrote a bad movie on PURPOSE?????? i am going to hunt everyone involved in this film's production for SPORT. i am going to buy chekov's gun and start shooting it AT THEIR HEADS.

[him-e]

what did you think of shadow and bone? have you read the books? i only read the duology

Thoughts on Shadow and Bone, now that you've probably seen it?

I think the show is alright? It lacks a real wow factor as far as I’m concerned, but it’s enjoyable. It’s especially enjoyable in those parts I didn’t anticipate to like / didn’t even know would be there. 

Whereas the main selling points leave a lot to be desired.

The good stuff: the visuals. The aesthetic. The overall concept. Production, casting and costumes are excellent, the setting is fascinating. The worldbuilding isn’t perfect and is sometimes confusing, which is probably due to the show jumping ahead of the books and introducing elements that happen much later in the book saga, but I’m loving the vague steampunk-y vibe of it mixed with more typical fantasy stuff and slavic-inspired lore, the fact that it’s set in dystopian Russia rather than your usual ye olde England.

I find it interesting that in this ‘verse the Grisha are simultaneously superstars, privileged elite, legendary creatures and despised outcasts, according to the context and the type of magic they wield. It’s A Lot, and so far it’s all a bit underdeveloped and messy, like a patchwork of different narratives and tropes sewn together without an organic worldbuilding structure. (there are hints to a past when they were hunted, but how did they go from that to being, essentially, an institutionalized asset to the government isn’t clear yet. There’s huge narrative potential in this, and I hope future seasons will delve into those aspects)

Many of the supporting characters are surprisingly solid. I appreciated that Genya and Zoya eventually sort of traded places, subverting the audience’s assumptions about them and their own character stereotypes, despite the little screentime they were given.

Breakout characters/ships for me were Nina/Matthias, and even more so the Crows, i.e. the stuff I didn’t see coming and knew nothing about (having only read the first book). (I thought the entire Crows subplot was handled in a somewhat convoluted way, at least in the first episodes; it was hard to keep track of who wanted Alina and why, but the Crows’ chemistry is so strong it carried the whole Plot B on its shoulders).

HELNIK. As an enemies to lovers dynamic, Helnik was SUPER on the nose, I’d say bordering on clichéd with the unapologetic, straight outta fanfiction use of classic tropes like “we need to team up to survive” and “there’s only one bed and we’ll freeze to death if we don’t take our conveniently damp clothes off and keep each other warm with the heat of our naked bodies” (not that I’m complaining, but i like to pine for my ships a bit before getting to the juicy tropetown part, tyvm). And then they’re suddenly on opposite sides again because of a tragic misunderstanding - does Bardugo hate high-conflict dynamics? It certainly seems so, because between Helnik and Darklina I’m starting to see a pattern where the slow burn and blossoming mutual trust is rushed and painted in broad, stereotypical strokes to get as fast as possible to the part where they *hate each other again* and that’s... huh. Something.

^That’s probably why I’m almost more interested in Kaz x Inej, because their relationship feels a bit more nuanced, a bit more mysterious, and a bit more unpredictable. (I didn’t bother spoiling myself about them, so I really don’t know where they’re going, but it’s refreshing to see a dynamic that the narrative isn’t scrambling to define in one direction or the other as quickly as possible)

-

Now, as for Darklina VS Malina... I found exactly what I expected. 

Both are ship dynamics I’m, on principle, very much into (light heroine/dark villain, pining friends to lovers) but both are also much less interesting than they claim to be, or could have been with different narrative choices. I’ll concede that the show characters are all more fleshed out and likable than their book counterparts, and the cringe parts I vaguely remembered from the books played out differently. And, well, Ben Barnes dominates the scene, he’s hot as HELL, literally every single second he’s on screen is a fuck you to Bardugo’s attempts to make his character lame and uninteresting and I’m LOVING it, lol.

But yeah, B Barnes aside, Darklina is intrinsically, deliberately made to be unshippable. 

It makes me mad, because it’s - archetypally speaking - made of shipping dynamite: yin/yang-sun and moon, opposites attract, COMPLEMENTARY POWERS AND SO ON. And what does Bardugo do with these ingredients? A FUCKING DELIBERATE DISASTER:

^ Placing the kiss so early on (season 1, episode five) effectively kills the romantic tension that was (correctly) building up until that point, and leaves the audience very little to still hope for, in terms of emotional evolution of the dynamic. 

Bardugo lays all the good stuff down as early and quickly as possible (the bonding, the conflicted attraction, the recognizing the other as one’s equal, etc) only to turn the tables and pull the rug so y’all sick creepyshippers won’t have anything to look forward to, because THEY’VE ALREADY HOOKED UP AND THAT BELONGS TO THE PAST, IT’S OVER, THEY’RE ENEMIES. This, combined to the fact that she falls for him *without* knowing who he really is, is the opposite of what I want from a heroine/villain ship (it’s basically lovers to enemies, and while that can be valid too, I wanted to see more pining and more prolonged, tormented symbolic attraction to the Shadow/Animus on Alina’s part). 

But here’s the trick: it’s not marketed as lovers to enemies - it has all the aesthetics and trappings of an enemies to lovers (the Darkling is, from the get go, villain-presenting, starting from his name), so it genuinely feels like a trollfic, or at the very least a cautionary tale *against* shipping the heroine with the tall dark brooding young villain, and I don’t think it’s cool at all. It makes the story WAY less interesting, because it humanizes the villain early on (when it’s not yet useful or poignant to the story, because it’s unearned) but it’s a red herring. The real plot twist is that the villain shouldn’t be sympathized with, just defeated: there’s a promise of nuanced storytelling, that is quickly denied and tossed aside. So is the idea of incorporating your Shadow (a notion that Bardugo must be familiar with, otherwise she wouldn’t have structured Alina and the Darkling as polar opposites who complement each other, but that she categorically refutes)

Then we have Malina. The good ship.

Look, I’m not that biased against it. I don’t want to be biased on principle against a friends to lovers dynamic that antagonizes a heroine/villain one, because every narrative is different, and for personal reasons I can deeply relate to the idea of being (unspeakably) in love with your best friend. So there are aspects of Malina that I can definitely be into, but it troubles me that in this specific context it’s framed as a regression. It’s Alina’s comfort zone, a fading dream of happiness from an idealized childhood, to sustain which the heroine systematically stunts her growth and literally repressed her own powers, something that in the books made her sickly and weak. But the narrative weirdly romanticizes this codependency, often making her tunnel vision re: going back to Mal her primary goal and centering on him her entire backstory/motivation, to the point that when she starts acting more serious re: her powers and alleged mission to destroy the Fold, it feels inorganic and unearned. 

Mal is intrinsically extraneous to Alina’s powers, he doesn’t share them, he doesn’t understand them, he has little to offer to help her with them, and so the feeling is that he’s also extraneous to her heroine’s journey, aside from being a sort of sidekick or safe harbor to eventually come back to. People have compared him to Raoul from Phantom of the Opera, and yeah, he has the same ~magic neutralizer~ vibe, tbh.

The narrative also polarizes Mal’s normalcy and relative “safety” against Aleksander’s sexy evil, framing Alina’s quasi-platonic fixation on the former as a better and purer form of love than her (much more visible and palpable) attraction to the latter. This is exacerbated by the show almost entirely relying on scenes of them as kids to convey their bond. I’m sure there are ways to depict innocent pining for your best friend that don’t involve obsessively focusing on flashbacks of two CHILDREN running in a meadow and looking exactly like brother and sister. LIKE. I get it, they’re like soulmates in every possible way, BUT DO THEY WANT TO KISS EACH OTHER?

Which brings me to a general complain: for a young adult saga centering on a young heroine and full of so many hot people, this story is weirdly unsexy? There are a lot of shippable dynamics, but they’re done in such a careless, ineffective way that makes ZERO EFFORT to work on stuff like slow burn, pining and romantic tension, and when it does it’s so heavy handed that the viewer doesn’t feel encouraged at all to fill the blanks with their imagination and start anticipating things (which is, imo, the ESSENCE of shipping). The one dynamic that got vaguely close to this is, again, Kaz and Inej, and coincidentally it’s also the one we didn’t get confirmed as romantic YET. Other than that, where’s the slow burn? What ship am I supposed to agonize over during the hiatus to season two? Has shipping become something to feel ashamed of, like an embarrassing relative you no longer want to invite in your home?

Anyway, back to Alina/Darkling/Mal, this is how the story reads to me:

girl suspects to be special, carefully pretends to be normal so she can stay with Good Boy

the girl’s powers eventually manifest; she’s forcibly separated from Good Boy

the girl’s powers attract Bad Boy who is her equal and opposite but is also a major asshole

girl initially falls for Bad Boy; has to learn a hard lesson that nobody that sexy will ever want her for who she is, he’s just trying to exploit her

also, no, there is no such thing as a Power Couple

girl is literally given a slave collar by Bad Boy through which he harnesses her power (a parody of the Twin Scars trope)

you know how the story initially suggested that the joint powers of Darkness and Light would defeat evil? LOL NO, Darkness is actually evil itself and the way you destroy evil is using Light to destroy Darkness, forget that whole Jungian bullshit of integrating your shadow, silly!

conclusion: girl realizes being special sucks. She was right all along! Hiding and suppressing her powers was the best choice! She goes back to the start, to the same Good Boy she was meekly pining for prior to the start of the story.

... there’s an uncomfortable overall subtext that reads a lot like a cautionary tale against - look, not just against darkships and villain/heroine pairings, but also *overpowered* heroines and, well... change? Growth?

Like, it’s certainly a Choice that Alina starts the story *already* in love with Mal. That she always knew it was him. The realization could have happened later (making the dynamic much more shippable, too), but no. 

[retvenkos]

No, I am not done talking about aging up the characters of the Grishaverse, thank you very much...

(Spoilers for pretty much all of the Grishaverse!)

I’m going to come right out and say it - I don’t think aging up all of the characters was the smartest move. I think the Grishaverse is compelling, and the characters can be very complex, and part of that leans on the ages of the characters. I’m going to be talking about why I think (at least some) of the characters should have retained their same age, or at the very least, shouldn’t have been quite so aged up.

But first, I understand some reasons as to why they aged up characters, so I’m going to state them outright, to advocate on their behalf (but also, I can try my hand at debunking some of these. For funsies):

1. Mass audiences will be less interested if the main story feels too Y.A. - most adult audiences won’t want to watch that genre.

(This is a very fair argument! However, when comparing Shadow and Bone to other popular (non Y.A.) fantasies, Shadow and Bone is very Y.A. Compare Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings to Shadow and Bone, and you can see how the Y.A. genre permeates the text. There are character moments and story beats that Shadow and Bone utilizes that are characteristic of the Y.A. genre. It was created with that audience and expectation in mind. No matter how hard the show tries to divorce the source material from it’s Y.A. roots, it is still very much a Y.A. story. The second most important plot line is a romance and not the implications of how society created the Darkling and how society Must Be Fixed if we ever want to move on and win the war. Those problems of the wider Grishaverse are better tackled in the Nikolai Duology (which still stumbles), and the Nikolai Duology feels like a different story/genre because it’s tackling something different. Shadow and Bone is an inherently Y.A. story, and really, it is the later books in the Grishaverse that deviate from the tropes and traps of the genre.  No matter how you dice it, the original trilogy is very much a Y.A. story. Lean into it, and you might be better able to mess around with the fluidity of the genre, all while your audience knows what the story is, and what will come of it. Alternatively, the writers could have gotten deep into the text and tried to bring up the deeper problems of the story (most of those grey areas) to make it less trope-like, but that would require an almost complete retelling, which we did not get. Too often, Y.A. stories are divorced from the genre when they are adapted, but it’s not done in an organic way that looks at the text itself, and it feels very off when viewing. Just let Shadow and Bone be what it is. If you want a longer rant on this, hmu.)

2. Some very serious things happen to these characters! To write about it is one thing, but to watch a 17 year old Alina be manipulated in this way or to watch a 19 year old Genya be used in this way is dark and very much Not Okay!

(Yes! Watching all of the terrible, terrible things happen is bad enough on it’s own, and when you de-age Alina from 25 to 17 and Genya from 30 to 19, there are some very big consequences! It’s not nearly as inviting or Okay to view! Anyone would be rightly horrified! Especially older audiences! Well, forgive me for being so blunt, but that is part of The Point. Part of what makes all of this so cruel and so unfair is that these characters are young - they are barely no longer children - and that is what heightens the injustice of it all. Alina is a teenager who is tasked with saving the world and freeing an oppressed people! And she doesn’t want to do it! That’s a lot to handle, right? Arguably, by keeping their young ages, you are better breaking out of the Y.A. adaptation trap because you are making a statement about how young these characters are and how unfair all of this is. Y.A. adaptations always age up the characters for palatability, but by keeping them young, you are making it more grungy and more frightening without even changing the source material!)

3. Okay, but adult audiences don’t want to ship teenagers. How will we get them to watch?

(This argument is probably the most sound, and it makes the most sense! Netflix wants to get the widest audience they can - they know teenagers who read the book are going to watch it anyway, so they need to get the older crowd invested. An easy way to get people invested is to get them hooked on a romance plotline. Then you have to watch the show to see how it progresses! It would be hard to do that if adults feel uncomfortable telling 16 year olds to kiss already. Another problem is that Shadow and Bone doesn’t have an adult cast - they have the young ones and that’s about it. Compare that to Game of Thrones (or, if you want me to stop with GOT references, shows like Cobra Kai) where there are 2+ generations - fans have the older group to ship, and the younger group to wish the best for. This is a trap of the Y.A. genre. They are Kids, but they are Not. In the book, this works fine, as their ages aren’t mentioned often. In fact, in the books, they read like competent 25 year olds, except for key moments when they show their age, which usually feels bittersweet (the Six of Crows Duology is much better at this than Shadow and Bone, but I digress). So what do we do? Well, D*rklina fans aren’t going to like this, but I would argue that we keep Alina and Mal aged down, and the story subliminally changes from “the love triangle” to “coming of age while dealing with abusive relationships”. In fact, this is another great way to divorce it from the Y.A. genre, which was already a goal we had in mind.)

✧ *:･ﾟ

Now, let’s move onto character analyses... everyone’s favorite.

In this section, I’m going to break down some main characters from the Shadow and Bone Netflix show (and some upcoming characters, just for the hell of it) and I’m going to advocate for changing their ages. At the end, I’ll give you a rough ballpark estimate for what I think they should have been.

(Also, I just want to address that I loved the actors chosen for the Netflix show, and this is in no way an attack on them. They did great, and they’re performances were amazing. This is me talking about an issue the showrunners made, not the actors.)

Alina Starkov

First, we get to talk about the lovely Alina Starkov. Jessie Mei Li is 25 years old. Her book counterpart is 17. That’s a whopping 8 year difference where a lot of growth happens. Alina Starkov in the books is doing her best for a girl who is told that she is going to save the world. She doesn’t have a lot of experience outside of the orphanage and the army, and so her knowledge of how Grisha are treated is ignorant at best, and malicious at worst. She doesn’t see nearly all of the suffering that is happening in the world, and for the most part, it stays that way. She knows the Fjerdans don’t like them, she knows the Shu are bad too, but she doesn’t really know the extent. She really gets a good look at it in the 3rd book, but for a large part of the series, Alina doesn’t really know what she’s up against, and her age is an easy explanation for her ignorance. A 17 year old growing up in a remote orphanage hasn’t had the greatest education. A 25 year old Alina has less excuses.

(There’s also a lot to be said about how Alina mostly... doesn’t care about the wider issues plaguing Grisha. This is decidedly Bad. I’m going to say this once, and I will say it many times again, but generally, audiences are more okay when a younger character does Bad Things because they reason they’ll learn in time. Thus, for a show, it’s strategically better to make these characters younger. Saying this doesn’t mean I support Alina’s disregard, it just means I recognize how it is utilized in storytelling.)

But why is her ignorance important, you ask? Because, Alina misses a key point of why the Darkling does what he does. To her, his actions of expanding the Fold are very black and white. Even when she’s with him, she refuses to see how it’s justified. Thus, a younger Alina is a little more understandable.

If Netflix was planning on focusing on how the Darklings desires are good but his methods are wrong, keeping Alina aged up is fine because she could be the voice of those concerns. However, I don’t really see that happening, so aging her up seems cheap.

Furthermore, part of the injustice of Alina’s character is that she is a child tasked with saving the world. She is a teenager who is being worshipped as a Saint, and who is going to have to martyr herself for the good of the world. It’s unfair. It’s cruel. Alina being 25 doesn’t somehow change this injustice, but to the average viewer, seeing a 17 year old child dying for the good of Ravka - dying because she’s the only one who can stop the villain - is more emotional and more disturbing.  There’s your grit, Netflix. It was already handed to you.

And I know, Ben Barnes (who plays the Darkling) is 39! It would be extremely uncomfortable to watch him fall in love and manipulate Alina! Again, I’m apologizing to the D*rklina shippers, because that is The Point. The Darkling is hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years old. That is why his talk of “eternity” is so compelling. He has felt it. He has lived it. When he tells Alina that he will break her, it should be greatly disturbing!  It would change the feeling of the story completely if Alina looks like a teenager. It would be a story about survival - not of romance. And while survival is definitely a Y.A. dystopian or fantasy trope, depending on how it’s handled, it could be markedly different from its predecessors.

However, book Alina is a minor, and that doesn’t sit right with me. Thus, I would make Alina 18, or 19 at the most. She should still very much be a teenager.

Malyen Oretsev

Mal is the next character we get to talk about, and I’m sure you have an idea about what I’m going to say. Archie Renaux is 23 and his book counterpart is 18. That’s only a five year difference, which isn’t that damning, but still leaves some problems.

One thing a lot of people disliked about Mal in the books was his temper and the way he expressed his frustrations. Now, while it’s true that viewers tend to be more forgiving with male characters having bad attitudes, this attitude problem could still be something that viewers will dislike in later seasons. This problem is only larger when you factor in an older age. Already, I expect people to complain about Mal’s temper and his inability to vent his frustrations in a healthy way (avoiding talking to Alina, blowing up, having a sour mood, having violent or explosive tendencies). This is only going to get worse when another argument added is “he is a grown man. He should have learned how to cope by now.” This argument isn’t completely nullified by a younger age, but it is made a little more understandable to the audience. (Again, in no way am I justifying these unhealthy behaviors, nor am I saying it’s okay when younger men do it, I’m just saying that viewers on a whole are more likely to excuse this behavior from a younger man - a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless.)

And as for his tracking ability, which is the best out of everyone in the world, he is gifted primarily because he’s an amplifier. At the end of Ruin and Rising, it’s noted that he can’t track nearly as well as he could because the world doesn’t hum with life in the way it used to. The in-world explanation probably also explains the ease with which he can pick up new skills. Thus, Mal doesn’t need to be aged up for skill reasons.

So, I would make Mal 19-21 in the series. He can be the slightly older than Alina, and everything works out how it should.

The Darkling

This one is going to be really quick - I think the age they made the Darkling was fine. Ben Barnes is 39 and we really don’t get an answer as to how old the Darkling is in the book (although he’s older than 400 years old, because the Fold was created 400 years ago). 

It’s worth noting that in the books, the Darkling isn’t described as being much older than (a 17 year old) Alina, but having him be markedly older than Alina was a smart move for subtext, but also for the presence that the Darkling has, and the reverence with which people regard him. The Darkling has power - I can’t imagine a 17 year old boy having the same effect as a grown man.

I have no beef with a 39 year old Darkling. I wouldn’t age him down much more, but I also wouldn’t make him much older, either.

Genya Safin

Genya Safin is another character I feel like should be addressed. Daisy Head is 30 years old. In the books, Genya is 19. Now, Genya’s character is an interesting one, because arguably either age suits her character. Throughout the series she’s shown to be more mature and capable than Alina, and while she places importance on the cliques of the Little Palace (which was poorly shown in the show, imo), she was raised in this environment from very young, and she’s at the bottom of the ranking. Her investment in it is justified. Sadly, I think more viewers would be moved by her story of sexual abuse if she were younger, but what happened is a tragedy and it was wrong no matter how you dice it.

Her age is one of the few I’m neutral on.

However, she and Alina are shown to be very close in the book, and while that doesn’t carry over as easily in the show, I think it would be nice to place her at least a little closer in age to Alina, but still keep her a little older so that she can offer her advice and it doesn’t feel preachy or unearned.

I would place her around 19-26. She has a lot of room for her age, because it’s not vital that she be any specific age. 

David Kostyk

I’m very briefly talking about David because Luke Pasqualino is 31 and David in the books is 19-20. I aged down Genya, and since they are love interests, I would like them to be in a little closer range of each other.

However, David is a very gifted Fabrikator - so much so that he changes the war considerably in later books - so I still want him to be older than the average cast.

I would place him around 24-29, and mostly, it would be based around the age of Genya. I wouldn’t want him to be 29 if Genya is 19. That’s just the ballpark range.

Zoya Nazyalensky

The final Shadow and Bone character I’m going to talk about is Zoya because she’s really important later in the Grishaverse. Online, I could not determine exactly what Sujaya Dasgupta’s age is, but the two ages most commonly given are 19 or 21. Zoya in the books is 19-20, so Sujaya is one of the most faithful castings in terms of age. 

I think it’s important that Zoya is around the age of Alina. Not only do they have a shared love interest in the form of Nikolai (and the Darkling in the show, which I absolutely hate), but they also have a rivalry for the Darkling’s favor (which isn’t romantic, but about sTATUS), and having her be markedly older than a teenage Alina would be weird, in my opinion.

Furthermore, Zoya’s character is pretty closed off and (dare I say) one-dimensional in the original Shadow and Bone trilogy, so keeping her younger isn’t going to make her any less believable. She’s not particularly wise, so keeping her young won’t be an issue.

Finally, she has a romantic plotline with Mal (even if it doesn’t go anywhere), so we want to keep her within range of Mal’s age, too.

I would place Zoya at 19-22. Thus, I am in agreement with the showrunners!

Nikolai Lantsov

A character that has yet to make an appearance in the show is Nikolai Lantsov, who is stated as being 20-21 in Siege and Storm, and the rest of the Shadow and Bone trilogy. Nikolai hasn’t been casted yet, but I decided to put him here because why not?

Nikolai, interestingly enough, is a character I would like to age up, however, only slightly. Nikolai is a very accomplished character, as anyone who has read the series knows, and while he does have the grooming to be that smart and accomplished, he is able to outsmart the Darkling and other older characters on multiple occasions, and him being so young just seems off. Of course, I understand why he is young - his love interests are, and he certainly has his moments where he’s boyish and unprepared - but these reasons pale in comparison to all of his talents and accomplishments.

Taking all of this into consideration, I would put Nikolai at 23 or 24. It’s a minor age change, and it would really just make him more apt to grow into his role. He’s still young enough to where people can underestimate him, but he’s old enough to justify having such smarts and charm. The only argument I can see going against this is his love story with Alina, seeing as she’s 18/19, but I think there was a lot that went into his pursuit of Alina. At first it was political, but after that, it became about how Alina was someone who challenged him and knew him for all that he was. It was less of a romance and more of a friendship that lended itself to a nice opportunity. It could have been more. It wasn’t. Plus, the age gap isn’t egregious.

Tamar Kir-Bataar and Tolya Yul-Bataar

I’m briefly talking about these twins, because they are originally 18-19 in the Shadow and Bone Trilogy, and I would like them to be older overall. Tamar and Tolya are some of the most competent characters in the Grishaverse, and having them be the same age as Mal and Alina is off, in my mind.

I would like them to be at least Nikolai’s age or older, so 23-27.

✧ *:･ﾟ

Finally, we’re on to the crows....

Kaz Brekker

Ah, yes. The Bastard of the Barrel. His is a character I was actually really glad to see aged up, before watching the show. Afterwards, I have some more complex thoughts. Freddy Carter is 28 years old and Kaz, in the books, is 17. 

Kaz in the books is very competent. So much so that he outsmarts everyone he comes up against - characters who are older than him and often have military strategy. Furthermore, he is ruthless. He is probably one of the darkest characters in all of the Grishaverse, and all of that is placed on the shoulders of a 17 year old. To make a comparison, he and Alina are the same age when their stories take place (Shadow and Bone for Alina, and Six of Crows for Kaz). I don’t know a lot of young celebrities to make the comparison, but he’s a teenager. He’s a child. Aging up Kaz in the show was something I was very much on board for. Kaz is a ruthless killer and an expert thief, and making him older was a smart move, imo. A Kaz in his 20′s made more sense.

However, when we meet Kaz in season one of Shadow and Bone, he’s very much in his fledgling state. Not a single plan of his goes as planned. He is foiled at every step, and the most gruesome thing he did in the show wasn’t bad, when you compare it to thing Kaz has canonically done. Rumors say that the Six of Crows arc is going to pick up in season two, and while I hope it doesn’t, I covered that particular argument far more in depth in another post and won’t address it here. Whether or not I think show Kaz is up to snuff, I think they aged him up too much and they depowered him too much.

Part of Kaz’ secret weapon was that he was wicked smart and crazy competent, but people underestimated him because of his age. They figured he didn’t have nearly enough experience to be as ruthless and cunning as he was. They were clearly wrong.

I think that Kaz in his 20′s makes sense, but Kaz in his late 20′s does not. Especially when you factor in the fact that he was so epically unsuccessful in the show, the extent to which they made him older wasn’t doing him any favors. It made him less “Dirtyhands” than he is.

So, final say, I would have made Kaz 20 or 21 in Shadow and Bone. We’re de-aging him so he still has time to grow, but he’s not crazy overpowered at 17. Furthermore, in a perfect world, he has time to age between Shadow and Bone and the events of Six of Crows.

Inej Ghafa

Inej is played by Amita Suman who is 23 years old. In the books, Inej is 16. In an interesting turn of events, I don’t find Inej in the books to be terribly overpowered so much as she is just really talented. 

Inej in Six of Crows is hesitant to kill. She’s smart and watchful, and she’s a really great spider. She’s given backstory to explain all of this, and it makes sense. At most, she is mature for her age, but that is also given a pretty damn good reason. She has to be. 

The few reasons I could see as to aging up her character is to make it less awkward for the romance between her and Kaz, as well as make the crows group more cohesive in age, with fewer outliers, both of which I am not against. 

I would make Inej around 18 or 19 and call it a day.

Jesper Fahey

Jesper is another character that I largely have no problems with. Jesper is played by Kit Young who is 26 years old, and in the books, Jesper is 17. 

In the books, Jesper is an extremely talented marksman, but part of that (even if he doesn’t know it or doesn’t want to acknowledge it in the books) is because he is a Grisha Fabrikator and he is using his gifts to bend the bullets he shoots and aims them where they need to go. His character wasn’t particularly overpowered in the books, and as for his personality, in the books he acted the most “teenage-like,” but in the show, he retained his same youthfulness without it seeming out of place, so that isn’t particularly damning.

For Jesper, I don’t mind aging him up or making him younger. Both work. 

However, he has a romantic plotline with Wylan (who I will get to eventually), so we wan’t to keep that in mind.

Final say, I would make Jesper 18. He’s the same age as (or slightly younger than) Inej, and that sits well with me.

Matthias Helvar

Oh, boy. If you’ve been on my blog long, you know this is the character that started this whole rant. Because here’s the thing: Matthias is an incredibly complex character. And part of that complexity comes from the fact that Matthias doesn’t know about anything beyond what Fjerda has taught him. He is heavily indoctrinated and heavily ignorant, and his struggle is what makes him such an interesting character.

Matthias is played by Calahan Skogman who is 28 (in my other meta, he was 27, but birthdays, y’know?). In the books, Matthias is 18 when Six of Crows takes place. That’s a whopping 10 year age gap. As you can imagine, so much happens in 10 years time. Now, with Matthias, we’re going to look at his life a little more in depth so that you can really understand how this 10 year gap affects his ignorance.

Matthias’ family were killed by Grisha when he was a child. We don’t know how young, but that doesn’t really matter, because either way it’s traumatic. Soon afterward, he starts training to become a soldier. Now, just when drüskelle are allowed to be fully initiated at Hringkälla is unknown, but I’m guessing the age would be at youngest, 14 (although, it’s probably closer to 16, but I’m not arguing about that right now). Grisha are supposed to be the most dangerous type of person. The Fjerdans are not going to put 12 year olds out there to fight them. So, a roughly 14 year old Matthias is going on expeditions to catch Grisha. When he is 17, Matthias meets Nina. At this point, he has only been a full drüskelle for 3-ish years. Regardless of how many Grisha Matthias has captured, 3 years is a vast difference from his show counterpart, who is 28 and therefore (as a drüskelle since he was 14) has been capturing Grisha for 14 years. In fact, in the show, they give Matthias props for having been the one with the clever ideas for capturing Nina, which shows he has done this often.  After that, Matthias spends one year in Hellgate, making in 18 in the books and (eventually) 29 in the show.

So, why was it so important that I detail that for you? Matthias’ change of heart is prompted by Nina, a pretty Grisha. I’m not saying their bond is shallow, but if you are a man who has a nasty past with Grisha and has been hunting them for 14 years, having a pretty Grisha change your mind is a little shallow and a little unbelievable. Even though Nina saved his life, I think it’s a little hard to sell the substantial change of heart he has. On the other hand, if Matthias is 18-19, he’s still a hormonal teenager, and his feelings for Nina prompting some critical thinking makes more sense. Furthermore, Matthias is younger and more impressionable. It would be much easier to change his worldview, if he were younger.

All in all, I would de age Matthias to be 19-20. Slightly older than in the books to allow for Nina to be a little older than her book counterpart (which I’m about to get to.) 

Nina Zenik

Almost finished with my rant, we’re talking about Nina. Nina is played by Danielle Galligan who is 28 years old, and in the books, Nina is 17. 

Now, Nina Zenik is a capable character. She is a spy. She speaks multiple languages, she’s a talented Grisha, and she’s quite self-assured. All of that advocates for an older Nina, so that she may have time to hone these impressive skills. Furthermore, Nina is the most sexualized of the Crows. I wouldn’t mind her being older, and I’m sure general audiences would be in favor of her not being a teenager.

Nina is also a soldier and she has a very complex storyline in Six of Crows, and later. By all accounts, aging her up is not a bad idea. In fact, I quite like the idea that Nina is older. I agree that she should be aged up, just not to the extent she was.

If this were my world, I would make Nina 20-22. That would make her the oldest out of all of the crows, and I quite like that.

Wylan Van Eck

Wylan has yet to be casted, but he is 16 in the books, and pretty damn smart. He’s not street smart, mind you, but he’s a chemistry nerd and demolitionist, so he’s very competent. He’s still under his father’s thumb, but I don’t take that to mean he has to be young - abuse can affect you well into your life. He’s definitely a character more naive to the realities of the Barrel, but that can easily be played off as “the rich boy is out of depth.”

There’s nothing that explicitly needs him to be younger than an adult, although the argument for making him young amongst the crows is strong and still stands.

He has a love story with Jesper, so we want to keep in mind the fact that Jesper is an adult.

Wylan also has the tricky little storyline of him being tailored into being Kuwei, so in determining his age, we want to keep him in the ballpark of Kuwei. Luckily, he was tailored from a Grisha on parem, so truly, anything is possible.

For his smarts, his competence, and his love story, I think we should age him up.

All in all, I would make Wylan 18. It’s not far from his book counterpart, and I think it makes sense.

Kuwei Yul-Bo

Kuwei is another character who was yet to be casted. He is 16 in Six of Crows, and I would say he is the character who most shows his age. Kuwei may be wicked smart, but he’s a chaos gremlin who doodles in his notebook, pretends to not understand Kerch, and also renames himself to be nhaban - “rising phoenix” in Shu. He doesn’t scheme the way the rest of the crows do, and while this can be explained away by the fact that he’s not a criminal, there still seems to be something hopeful and youthful about his character.

He’s still a boy in mourning over the death of his father, and he’s currently one of the world’s most wanted. In Crooked Kingdom, he’s vibing in a tomb for the majority of the book. Kuwei is honestly such a fun character that I hope gets more complexity in coming Grishaverse content.

Kuwei is very similar to Wylan in that he’s wicked smart (although his dad is a scientist and they have worked together, so there is some in-world explanation) and he has a crush on Jesper (don’t we all?).

Taking this into account, I would make Kuwei 17 or 18.

✧ *:･ﾟ

TL;DR, the characters of the Grishaverse were aged up and I’m a little miffed about it. The reasons for aging them up are to detract from the source material being a Y.A. story, but you cannot separate a story from it’s genre. The story is inherently Y.A. because it uses story beats that are typical of a Y.A. story. It’s not just viewer expectation - the story is Y.A. The ages of the characters in the books are very young in some cases, but in the show they were aged up too much, imo. It detracts from the tragedy of them being young and forced to survive, and it adds very little in most cases.

✧ *:･ﾟ tagging @missumaru

[welcome-to-the-cafe]

SHANG-CHI (2021) Review Pt. 3

This section will focus more on the potential cultural impact and reflections of the movie.

Good things first. This was a great movie for Asian-American representation. On face value, it was a huge rather well-promoted movie (in my opinion, but that could just be my algorithms) under arguably the most internationally renown franchise today, Marvel. It featured empowered and attractive Asian male leads, empowered and attractive Asian female leads, a glorious, dreamy romance between two of them, and multiple humanizing familial relationships that don't simply recycle the old "modern freedom vs oppressive tradition". Each Asian character is a fully fleshed person, as is due, and clear authentic effort is made to celebrate their backgrounds, from the action to settings to costumes to language to the jokes.

And the Asian-American jokes land very well, especially the ones that highlight how different each individual Asian-American 's experience, and familiarity with their heritage, can be. Central to this is Katy, of course, essentially the audience surrogate, the audience being both nonAsians and "standard" Asian-Americans. She is bad at Chinese, even as her own grandmother speaks it. She defies her mom's (gentle) expectations of her, she is amazed and somewhat intimidated by her heritage in full form. The other characters who are closer to their native culture are gentle with her unfamiliarity: Shang-Chi walks her through pronunciation, Ronny Chieng's character assures her "Don't worry I speak ABC", and even Wenwu treats her kindly as a guest, and doesn't put her down for her Americanness. Well other than the patronizing storytelling tone, but that's the villainous patronizing, not the "you are uncultured" patronizing. Even in the village, they look down on her mostly on account of her not having martial arts skills and being ambitionless, than of her Americanness.

Similarly, Shang-Chi's struggle with his father did not use his time in America, and his potential Americanizing, as much of a pain point. I appreciate this, and the gentleness to Katy, greatly, as it dances around the culture conflict narrative that so frequently plagues other Asian American media (looking at you Crazy Rich Asians). As such, Wenwu is not evil because he is more Chinese/traditional, he is so because of the very human pain of losing his wife. Also he was a ruthless immortal warlord. And his children are not good due to their separation from their heritage; they are good because of their ties to each other and their mother, and her heritage from the village, which also traditional. Like an equation, the culture on the good and bad sides cancel out, and you are left with a largely culture-neutral narrative, while Chinese culture itself is shown off more.

Most of the characters are Asian, the non-Asians are very tertiary. In this, the movie functions as normal Asian media does; in removing the racial differences, the characters level with each other as people, instead of as representatives of their heritage. Speaking of native Asian media, I will now explain how this movie, for all of its virtues, will still serve the same ultimate function as Crazy Rich Asians and Mulan in terms of cross-national relations.

This was an American movie. Featuring Asian culture, yes. But an American movie nonetheless. Its action scenes would probably stand up well against native Chinese media, but its overarching presentation would be seen as incredibly cheesy, and probably somewhat patronizing, to a Chinese viewer. What are those costumes? What are those Ta Lo "traditional clothes"? Straw Huts? Why the fuck does Death Dealer have face paint? What are those ridiculous hook swords and tassle helmets? Oh hey its the mythical beasts they see in every wuxia fantasy movie.

I liked a comparison I read on social media; it is like presenting orange chicken as a dish specially made for your Chinese guest. The dish may be good, but that is besides the point; it is insulting for you to expect them to appreciate your facsimile of their culture. In this metaphorical scenario, you may be a Chinese-American, but your weird attempt to reference your heritage only highlights the divide. They eat better Chinese food all the time anyways, this orange chicken may be a direct downgrade. Did you expect them to be happy just because you, the American, made it for them? Are you looking down on them?

It is better for you to make a pizza or a fettuccini alfredo for them. This equivalent would be the World of Warcraft movie, with no Asian references whatsoever.

I remember when Avatar: The Last Airbender came out, and my 3rd grade self was so excited to see the Chinese armor designs on the fire nation, the kung-fu inspired bending styles, and more. But now, I feel a bit strange seeing how much obsession is given to this series by the Asian-American community. For all its acclaim and AsAm representation, it is virtually unknown to native Asians, unlike the notorious Resident Evil live-action movie series. I wonder, if most Chinese-Americans had watched more Chinese wuxia and fantasy, they would be as excited about ATLA?

This is also related to how Westerners are discovering Tony Leung for the first time, and some Asians say "we been knew". But how many AsAm actually did know? For how many Asian-Americans did it take Shang-Chi to introduce them to this legend, and his previous body of work?

Why was I so excited to be represented in a cartoon, even if I did watch Journey to the West growing up? Could it be because finally it was something with Asians in it that the kids around me also watched? Maybe. I could go on and on about Sun Wukong, but nobody cared, while Prince Zuko was somebody everyone knew and rooted for.

So in this way, Shang-Chi, despite being mildly offensive to the motherland (for which the movie does not even have a release date), is still very important and positive to us stateside. I feel a little bad for Simu that his homeland may not appreciate his greatest work so far, but maybe it doesn't bother him that much; he is now a hero to almost the entire Asian-American community. I hope Tony Leung can be the movie's saving grace for native markets. I also hope that Chinese watchers would understand why this movie is important for the diaspora, even if they don't enjoy the movie itself.

Oh, and finally, I hope Chinese-Americans don't hold their motherland in contempt for disliking this movie. It's not for them! Cut them the slack! And go watch their movies and media! It may not have jokes about the immigrant experience, but it is effective representation. Watch Asian movies! With your family, with your friends! Western media is not the center of the universe, and it never deserved to be. Put more people who look like you on your own screen.

I saw a lot of Tiktoks of nonAsians (and Asians) doing kung-fu moves coming out of the theater. I...am not sure about this? I guess martial arts is once more the vehicle by which we get positive representation in Western media, as is tradition. The legacy of Bruce Lee, of Jackie Chan, of Jet Li. Should I celebrate? Martial arts are dope as fuck but...that's not all we are...well. The appropriate tropey thing to say is: "This is just the beginning."

Part 4 will be my rewrite ideas. I will write it on my blog and link it here later.

[zet-sway]

@the-wip-project day 24:

Have you ever read a thing in a book or seen in a show/movie where you thought: "Oh, this is good, I'm gonna steal that!" What was it?

Well recently the only media I've consumed outside of video games has been documentaries and podcasts. I did one audiobook in the science fiction genre but it was generally pretty boring (and a lot of UST, what a waste :c ). But when I'm reading other people's fics I really do want to steal shit all the time. I just don't do it.

I'm hyperfixated on wordplay.

Every time I read someone else's fic there's always some line that jumps out at me and I feel like - damn I'm jealous I didn't think of that.

It's not a mean kind of jealousy. I love and enjoy the differences between writers. I am just so damn hyperfocused on finding new and exciting ways to string words together. I take a long time to edit my fics because I'm lost on tiny details like "did I start too many sentences with pronouns" and "did I use the same sentence formula twice in a row" and "wow here I go again throwing unnecessary adjectives where they don't need to be" (please tell me I'm not the only one who does this omg).

One time I read someone's profile on FF.net (literally back in like 2011) that said one of their pet peeves was adverbs. They hated adverbs, called them lazy writer shortcuts. Now I'm anxious about using adverbs. I still use them because I think they're lovely (hahahahahahaha I did that) but I do try to cut back, re-arrange words, eliminate them when they become overused.

I think I focus too much on how the words flow together and when I see someone write a bunch of words I've never seen in the same sentence together, I get all excited and I wanna "borrow" them.

But I don't do it because here in the shrios community we're a pretty small group and it would be very obvious if I did that. I will admit to stealing some wordplay from authors I read a long long time ago, but at what point does it become just fuzzy memory? I truthfully can't remember where I read "feeling his jaw work as he ate her." I know for sure I read it somewhere, but fuck I really can't remember where or when. That's why I decided to borrow it (with my luck that person is probably reading this post lol I'M SORRY Jfjslfsdjf).

I enjoy reading other people's fic even outside my OTP because people are so clever and it's very exciting. When I write, I try to think of a new mechanism I want to try, instead of stealing other people's words. I still hyperfixate on wordplay but I try to curtail this urge by re-reading others' work, trying to understand the storytelling rather than saying like "pretty words look gud me likey."

And since we're here - I AM ABOUT TO GO OFF ON A TANGENT - I saw this great post about how every artist thinks "wow when I can draw like that I'll know I finally made it" and how that mentality prevents them from enjoying what their viewers love about their work - their own unique style. I am trying to tell myself I have my own unique style.

But even if I don't, the fact is, the fanfic writing community has actually - truthfully - literally (lol adverbs again) - never EVER treated me bad. YOU PEOPLE ARE SO KIND WHAT THE FUCK???? I just came out of a 2+ year WoW gaming binge in which I tore myself apart DAILY because I could not measure up to the community's expectations. People are fucking savages on multiplayer games. I'm not traumatized but I'm also not willing to accept that kind of environment for myself anymore. The kindness of writers has been earthshattering for me. Yes I am going to continue on my tangent yup yes I am

I'm starting to see why for years, I lost the drive to be kind. It's exhausting and lonely to put positivity out into the world only to have it returned with vitriol. That's what my WoW experience has been like over the last 12+ months. It's become so dog-eat-dog over there. I'm not saying I'll never play wow again, but holy shit I needed some distance to get my fucking priorities straight.

Being on tumblr has been a sobering reminder that there are spaces where people exchange kindness. I'm not trying to say that every wow player is a piece of shit, because they aren't. But the loudest and most hurtful ones really left a mark on me. I'd just like to give a big heartfelt mushy thank you to tumblr and my followers and anyone who's ever offered a helping hand instead of verbally eviscerating a stranger.

[seyaryminamoto]

(1/2) What if the reason Bryke left was because Netflix wanted to give Azula a redemption arc? Or maybe somebody wanted to change the first scene of the show so that Katara wasn't with Sokka when he went fishing and so Aang wasn't unfrozen until years later... *whistles innocently* And they realized this route would allow them to make a longer series, meaning more content, meaning more profit. Jokes aside, I realize both of these options are 99% not the reason Bryke left, but imagine if...

(2/2) they were? Like, how funny would that be? Well, the latter possibility would be sort of funny, while the former would be somewhat depressing actually. Anyway, I'm surprised how many people are complaining about Bryke's departure. From what I've seen, people primarily shit on them and any praise in regards to ATLA goes to other writers/artists. I already didn't have any high expectations out of the live-action version, but this latest development didn't really worsen them much.

x’D not wrong about the second option being hilarious, though I’d hope I’d have heard something about it, if just out of sheer decency by Netflix to contact the cruel mind behind not sending Sokka fishing with Katara... (?)

Anyways, Bryke’s involvement in ATLA’s writing is often up-played by casual viewers, and downplayed by hardcore fans. There’s no sure way to know how much work they did on ATLA’s writing, seeing as there’s a fair amount of reports that suggest Aaron Ehasz, imposed on Bryke by Nickelodeon, reeled the story into what it became. I’ve even seen people claiming Bryke’s original ending would have featured Aang leaving Katara and Sokka behind while flying off to find more airbenders after the show ended. Not half as feel-good an ending as the show’s, right? Then there’s also reports that male!Toph was going to be in a love triangle with Katara and Aang... adding Zuko to the mix, as he often was added by extra ATLA content, Katara was likely to have three possible love interests, if Bryke had gone forward with this? Considering how Korra outright had three different love interests in ALL the members of her gang, this doesn’t sound like that outlandish a claim, whether there’s real sources for it or not. If they were willing to do it with Korra, I’d believe they’d have done it with Katara.

Ehasz is indeed credited for female!Toph and Azula, in the art book (I think) Bryke are outright featured saying Ehasz is the main artificer behind Azula being who she was, rather than Zuko’s older brother (Bryke’s original concept for her character). With this in mind, when Ehasz comes out and claims that, in a hypothetical book 4, he would have redeemed Azula to also finish Zuko’s personal character arc, and then Bryke show up claiming there NEVER was a book 4 possibility, you get a clearer understanding of where Bryke are likely standing in regards of Azula’s redemption :’) if that’s what Netflix wanted (... though I question they’d have pitched it since the get-go), it’d be no surprise that Bryke wouldn’t hear of it.

There’s no denying Bryke had interesting ideas, and that they worked to build a pretty complex world, but we cannot know how much of that world was solely their doing, and how much of it was also created by the input of the larger team of writers involved in ATLA’s original show. LOK, on the other hand, features a clusterfuck of worldbuilding that doesn’t always make sense, including no shortage of retcons (not only of pre-existing lore, LOK even retcons itself up to three times regarding explaining why and who decided to keep Korra in a compound for most her formative years), terribly written romance (whenever it’s written), poor storytelling decisions that outright derrailed their show and even turned their protagonist into the B-plot for the bulk of the final season... and what a coincidence that this time Bryke had no one breathing down their necks telling them what to do: they had a lot more creative freedom in LOK than in ATLA. There was no Nickelodeon imposed Head Writer, and they didn’t bring Ehasz back of their own volition. Whether because Ehasz isn’t that great to work with or because Bryke simply didn’t want anyone else to poke their noses into THEIR story, Bryke didn’t want any supervision over LOK. And as many loud fans as LOK may have, LOK’s storytelling quality simply doesn’t measure up to ATLA’s, and I refuse to blame Nickelodeon for that when all evidence indicates Bryke had no idea what they wanted for Korra in the first place.

What I’m saying is... Bryke do seem to benefit from having someone else reeling in their ideas, probably providing genuine structure, making them seriously reason with WHERE they’re taking the story. This, going by ATLA’s much clearer structure, is something I’m willing to believe Ehasz offered, and something Bryke lacked, by their own volition, in LOK. It’s also something they lack in the comics, seeing as, up to date, they haven’t done anything in them that really lives up to their potential, as far as I know. “The comics don’t have any direction and aren’t advancing their world’s story” has become a far more frequent complaint with each newly announced and released comic volume, whether by supportive or antagonistic fans. Why might that be...?

It’s possible, of course, that Netflix’s team simply isn’t the kind of team Bryke can work with positively. Maybe they’re too stiff, maybe they’re not that creative, maybe they’re unable to compromise and it’s not all on Bryke?

But with the precedent Bryke has set (ATLA, with supervision, manages quality storytelling, despite its many flaws, whereas LOK, without it, is a storytelling failure), I wouldn’t be surprised that they were outright unwililng to compromise their own ideas after experiencing the full freedom of working on LOK without anyone telling them what to do, and that upon finding they wouldn’t have that same freedom this time, they quit. 

Does this mean the show will automatically be better or worse? Eh... beats me, frankly. There’s no denying Bryke did endeavor to develop a large, unique world with the Avatarverse, but as much as the fandom believes otherwise, what made the Avatar world unique wasn’t merely that it wasn’t “white”. This particular qualm by the fandom feels really narrowminded to me, and I’m not saying this because I believe there should be white people in Avatar, hell no: what I do mean is that ATLA had an Asian setting, but the narrative frequently imposed western values on it. They recreated many elements of Asian cultures, but morally? ATLA couldn’t be more western. Is that a good or a bad thing? Beats me. But there’s a lot of occidental influence in ATLA’s narrative, even more of it in LOK, and that somehow doesn’t bother people nearly as much as it bothers them that the liveaction cast isn’t western in the least. Yes, it’s true, the cast shouldn’t be western: but there are many regards in which the original ATLA could pioneer a better understanding of many Asian cultures, and it doesn’t. Even something as complex as the Fire Nation’s cultural practices (no, I don’t mean the genocide and supermacy, I mean everything else) is outright blasted by the show’s western moralism from the get-go rather than seen as what a different culture values (already offered a few thoughts about this on this other ask).

Therefore, in terms of casting, which seems the main concern of the bulk of the fandom, I highly doubt Netflix will be willing to repeat the same mistake M. Night’s fiasco committed. They can’t be that stupid. They’ve done a lot of big diversity efforts in the past, whether insincere or not, in many regards, so I seriously doubt they need Bryke sitting in the casting booth repeating “NO WHITE ACTORS! NO WHITE ACTORS!” to the top of their lungs to remind Netflix's executives that this just can’t happen. Seriously, if that’s what their input for the show was supposed to be about, Netflix was better off saving up the money of hiring those two as main consultants or executives and using that coin to pay the likely lousy salaries of the non-white actors they’ll surely hire :’) I doubt, seriously, that Bryke’s problem had anything to do with white casting. If Netflix entered this deal and didn’t do their homework first, then they’re basically dooming themselves since day one and the show would suck with or without Bryke’s involvement. This is not impossible, but really stupid, and an absolutely failed business venture to jump into.

In the end, I don’t know what that liveaction will shape up into. I don’t exactly care much either, which is why I didn’t really debate this subject before answering this ask... I’m pretty detached from canon these days, as things stand. I can’t even bring myself up to reading the plot of the Kyoshi novels, no matter if people keep telling me they’re ~actually good!~, let alone will I want to rewatch ATLA in liveaction when I’ve become increasingly infuriated by liveaction remakes with each new one Disney releases :’) from the moment it was announced, I knew this remake wouldn’t be for me. It’s not likely they’ll do anything with it that I’ll really want to see, or that they’ll change things in a way that resolves my frequent complaints about the show’s storytelling mishaps. Therefore, I’d always meant to leave it be and let everyone else enjoy it...

... And Bryke’s absence from the project doesn’t really change my mind on that front. At this point, crediting them for the entire success of ATLA is incredibly naïve, especially seeing how none of their later projects have even come close to ATLA’s level of storytelling quality. Likewise, it’d be naïve to assume Netflix is guaranteed to do better without Bryke’s “meddling”. If anything, without Bryke’s likely persistence that the show be kept close to its roots, Netflix is bound to fall into its frequent, known tendencies of pandering to certain crowds at the cost of quality storytelling because Hollywood overused and bad tropes are where success is at! They’ll likely flatten characters, turn them into edgy, non-humorous versions of themselves, not unlike in M. Night’s film, and then everyone will hate the show anyways for offering such dull and simplistic characterization compared to the original :’)

In short... there’s no winning scenario. There really isn’t. I assumed there wouldn’t be one anyhow, from the get-go, at least for myself? But now that Bryke are out, the fandom is divided in about four factions: 

The ones who will watch and support the liveaction no matter what.

The ones who think it will suck balls because Bryke aren’t in it.

The ones who think it will be an improvement because Bryke aren’t in it.

The ones who won’t watch it no matter what.

Me... I’ve been in camp #4 from the start. Bryke being part of this project didn’t reassure me, neither does their absence... and I’m still as convinced this show won’t be my thing today as I was when it was first announced. So... *shrug* we live and let die. I mean, first of all we have to wait and see if the show’s production will even survive the pandemic first, so we can worry about how bad or good it will be if Bryke’s departure + COVID-19 didn’t destroy it altogether already :’D

[odanurr87]

My thoughts on... The King: Eternal Monarch

Lee Min-ho as Lee Gon, and Kim Go-eun as Jeong Tae-eul.

Release date: April 17 - June 12, 2020

Episodes: 16

Available on: Netflix

Plot synopsis: On one fateful night of December 1994, the king of the Kingdom of Corea was brutally murdered by his illegitimate brother, Lee Lim. The king’s son, Lee Gon, was spared a similar fate thanks to the timely intervention of a mysterious saviour, who only left behind an identity card belonging to one Lieutenant Jeong Tae-eul. 15 years later, King Lee Gon finds himself transported to the parallel world of the Republic of Korea where he meets Lieutenant Jeong Tae-eul and together they work to uncover a conspiracy across their two worlds.

Rewatch meter: Medium to High

Introduction

The King: Eternal Monarch is the latest work by writer Kim Eun-sook and, since I enjoyed two of her previous works (Descendants of the Sun and Goblin), I was quite looking forward to it. I didn't know actor Lee Min-ho at the time but I recalled Kim Go-eun from Goblin so I was relatively excited to see her in another main role. The pilot episode of the show was great, deftly introducing us to a host of characters and setting up several plot threads in a total runtime of 70 minutes, already incorporating the concepts of time travel and parallel worlds, not an easy task and a much welcome departure from most kdramas on air. Since I am a fan of sci-fi and modern fantasy however, that meant I'd put this show under the microscope so how did it fare?

Related reviews: Goblin

Characters

From left to right: Lee Jung-jin as Lee Lim, Jung Eun-chae as Goo Seo-rung, Lee Min-ho as Lee Gon, Kim Go-eun as Jeong Tae-eul, Woo Do-hwan as Jo Yeong, and Kim Kyung-nam as Kang Shin-jae.

The show enjoys, and suffers from, a host of characters on both worlds, with many actors playing dual roles because of the concept of parallel worlds. This (over)abundance of characters results in most having to play second fiddle to the two leads. In hindsight, a tighter cast would've worked better. A fair few of the characters (e.g. the detective hiding something from his wife, the pregnant lady, the mother of Lee Gon's doppelganger, god kid, and many more) did not ultimately justify their presence other than to set up (underwhelmingly resolved) mysteries to keep the audience engaged. More important characters, like Prime Minister Koo and Lee Lim, sadly never reached their full potential to my mind, being relegated to play more stereotypical antagonist roles in the end. While I can understand this decision with Lee Lim to an extent, it was a shame Prime Minister Koo’s character wasn’t more nuanced. While Lee Min-ho's characterization of Lee Gon has taken some flak I found him to act more or less in line with how a (fictional) king would, one excited at the prospect of having found the woman he's been searching for for most of his life. Kim Go-eun as Jeong Tae-eul was the one who truly delivered on the emotional end of the spectrum, as we all knew she would. Sadly, the character of Luna was more undercooked, and the show could probably have done without her.

Pacing

The all-out battle at the end of Episode 11, with Lee Gon showing off his skill with the sword, is one of the highlights of the show.

While the pacing of the show ramped up considerably towards the end it actually started rather slowly. Lee Gon discovers the Republic of Korea at the end of the first episode, yes, but it is not until the end of Episode 4 that he returns to his kingdom, with a skeptical Jeong Tae-eul in tow. Then, it is at the end of Episode 9 that Lee Gon and Lee Lim have their first encounter, with an all-out battle with Lee Lim's henchmen at the end of Episode 11, and the reveal of the identity of the savior at the end of Episode 13. I was quite satisfied with the show's pacing up until that point but a little worried about how they would tie everything up with 3 episodes left, worries that proved to be justified, as many plot threads were left unresolved or rushed to conclusion without living up to the expectations built up after several episodes. Considering the last episode of the show solves the main conflict in the first 20 minutes, I don't think this faster pacing was justified.

Execution

It is difficult not to conclude the execution of the plot wasn't nearly as tight as it could've been. The show continuously introduced new questions, new mysteries, and new characters, to keep us guessing, to keep us engaged, sometimes to the detriment of the overall storytelling quality. Who is this new character? How does s/he factor in Lee Lim's plan? Who's sending this stuff to PM Koo? What is the significance of the scars? There is no doubt these questions succeeded in keeping us engaged and I have to give it props for that. However, the execution was dragged down from indulging in superfluous characters and plot threads. Park Moon-sik's nightly escapades from his wife are a perfect example, a plot whose resolution was needlessly postponed till the final episode. Removing such plots could've open up time better served to further develop characters, like PM Koo, or explore Lee Lim's plans more thoroughly, an aspect where I feel the show dropped the ball, as these turned out to be contradictory and contrived, helping out the writer more than Lee Lim himself.

Time Travel

Sadly, the execution of time travel is a direct casualty of continuously trying to surprise the audience with new twists or for the sake of pulling at our heart strings. Up until Episode 13, its depiction of time travel lined up perfectly with the concept of a causal loop (e.g. Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban), but then Episode 14 had characters remember new past events in real-time (think of the movie Frequency, with Jim Caviezel and Dennis Quaid), and Episode 15 resurrected a character who should've been dead, among potentially more problematic issues. Time travel is a fictional concept, but even fiction is guided by certain rules and, sadly, the depiction of time travel in The King: Eternal Monarch does not hold up under further scrutiny, what deflated my engagement somewhat. Here I was, trying to understand how the writer had put together the puzzle only to realize some of the pieces didn't line up or were from different puzzles altogether. This was not entirely unexpected, as few stories have used time travel consistently in the past, but I was mildly disappointed, particularly given the writer’s excellent work and attention to detail in Goblin.

Romance

Another highlight of the show, especially if you understand exactly what is going on in this scene.

While I can believe Lee Gon could’ve developed feelings for Jeong Tae-eul after searching for her for 20+years (fans of The Expanse will recall Miller also developed feelings for Julie while searching for her), the beginning of their romance in Episode 5 felt a bit forced. It also struck me as odd when Jeong Tae-eul was the one to declare her feelings of love for Lee Gon in Episode 7 instead of the other way around. In fact, it isn't until Episode 10 that Lee Gon admits his feelings for her in one of the most emotional scenes of the show. Perhaps if the two had switched around their declarations it would’ve made more sense.

In any case, their romantic relationship was cemented from Episode 10 onwards for me, although they had cute couple moments in earlier episodes, with Episode 6 featuring the most heartfelt conversations and interactions. For my part, watching their relationship continue to unfold was one of the highlights of the show, and it certainly delivered in the following episodes. Lee Gon's unyielding quest across time and space to find Jeong Tae-eul again and again was moving, though more powerful in Episode 14 than 16 to my mind, perhaps because of the music, editing, and added emotional impact of Jeong Tae-eul knowing Lee Gon is on his way. Perhaps if Episode 16 had dedicated more than 5 minutes (count them) of its runtime to show Lee Gon constantly leaving the palace to search for and meet different versions of Jeong Tae-eul throughout the years it would've been a lot more impactful, and potentially heartbreaking. Tying it to his appearance at the end of Episode 10 would've made it perfect.

Music

I hesitate slightly to say the soundtrack for The King: Eternal Monarch is on the same level as that of Goblin (time will tell), but if it's not, it certainly isn't far behind. Songs like "Gravity," "Orbit," and "Maze," or instrumental tracks like "One Day," "My Love and...," "Into the Fantasy," and "The Fantasia of Another Dimension," are a sample of this album's best. Sadly, not all tracks featured in the show are included in the album, such as the variant of “The King” that plays at the end of Episode 15 when Lee Gon bids farewell to Lady Noh. If you're a soundtrack aficionado like I am, I'd suggest you keep this album in your Spotify library or equivalent.

Conclusions

The King: Eternal Monarch is, by no means, a perfect show. It is technically not as good as writer Kim Eun-sook's previous Goblin, which overall covered the topics previously discussed better than The King did. However, that is not to say The King: Eternal Monarch isn't an overall good show as it is, one that boldly incorporates interesting concepts like time travel and parallel worlds to its narrative with ultimately mixed results. The music is great, production values are top notch, and all of the actors’ performances were on point, though a tighter cast would’ve benefited some of their performances. While the romance between Lee Min-ho’s and Kim Go-eun’s characters may be a hard sell for some, at least initially, it ultimately worked for me.

If you haven't watched the show yet and are reading this review now, then I'm sorry that you've missed out on the experience of watching the show week to week, discussing and dissecting it with other viewers, and rewatching episodes scouring for clues, a process it easily lends itself to as opposed to other kdramas. If you're into sci-fi and modern fantasy, then I'd encourage you to give it a watch, bearing in mind the previously discussed caveats. If you're into romance kdramas, set your expectations accordingly. If you're looking for more recommendations on modern fantasy+romance and have already watched Goblin, then allow me to recommend the excellent Hotel del Luna (which I’m currently in the process of reviewing after watching it, what, four times now?). For my part, I'm looking forward to Kim Eun-sook, Lee Min-ho, and Kim Go-eun's next projects.

[aion-rsa]

Inside the Mortal Kombat Movie’s Bloody Love Letter to Martial Arts

https://ift.tt/3sPd50L

About 10 hours into a November 2019 flight to Australia and the set of Warner Bros. Mortal Kombat reboot, I started to ask myself whether this was all worth it. I loved the original Mortal Kombat movie about as much as anyone unironically can, but the fact remains that the history of live-action video game film adaptations is paved with disappointment. Even the best movies in that field have earned their reputation largely by exceeding low expectations.

After nearly 30 years of failed attempts, it’s hard to even picture what a good live-action video game movie might look like. What is it about the transition from sprites to screen that makes this process so difficult? Is this a pursuit that is, in some ways, doomed to be dictated by those who see such films as another piece of merchandise? What will it take to finally break the curse? Those questions raced through my jetlagged brain as I finally made it to Adelaide and prepared to see what awaited me on the other side of the world. 

Shortly into my visit, I was taken off my feet by a line that hit me like an MK player mercilessly spamming a leg sweep. It came in the form of this line from producer Todd Garner that reshaped my expectations and set the tone for what proved to be something that was very much worth the trip and perhaps worthy of your own wait:

“I think it’s great that there are a lot of characters, a lot of lore, and let’s do it all well. But really, people want to fuck each other up.”

Gore and Lore

Garner was, of course, mostly joking. Yet, there is a truth in many jokes, and the truth in this one seemed to be that managing what the Mortal Kombat canon has become can be a daunting task. It’s certainly not made any easier by the fact that there haven’t been many undisputedly great video game movies for the team to work with and use as precedent. 

In lieu of notable live-action video game adaptations that made good on their ambition, the film’s production team turned to a source that most would agree has. 

“It’s like the Marvel Universe…it’s endless,” says Garner of the Mortal Kombat game franchise. “So we started from the premise ‘What would Marvel do?’”

It’s a useful question that the upcoming Mortal Kombat movie answers in fascinating ways. For instance, as Garner noted, the MCU didn’t start with The Avengers; it started with Iron Man. That film allowed Marvel Studios to ease viewers into a project that was, in its own ways, also somewhat unprecedented. Similarly, the Mortal Kombat movie uses the character of Cole Young as a kind of audience surrogate. He’s a new face in this universe who is also trying to figure all of this out. 

It’s all part of a delicate balancing act that requires the cast and crew to constantly ask themselves how this movie looks to a diehard fan and how it will look to someone who is just coming into this. 

“There are five million people that play this game religiously, but there are 100s of millions of people in the world,” Garner says. “We didn’t want the other 95 million people to go, ‘What the fuck is this. What is this tone, what the fuck is happening?’”

It’s easy to understand how fans could quickly become overwhelmed. If you haven’t played the more recent Mortal Kombat games, you may be surprised to learn that they’ve adopted a complex serial storytelling narrative that combines years of mythology as well as the events of the most recent games. If you tried jumping into Mortal Kombat 11’s interdimensional, time-jumping story, without at least an explainer of what came before, you’d probably think it was madness. Amusing madness, perhaps, but madness nonetheless. 

As it turns out, even Mortal Kombat director Simon McQuoid had a lot of catching up to do. 

“I feel like I went to Mortal Kombat university,” says McQuoid regarding the experience of learning the intricacies of the franchise. “I also surrounded myself with a lot of people who know a lot more about this than me.”

In the same way that 1995’s Mortal Kombat benefited from director Paul W.S. Anderson seeking and utilizing fan and crew feedback, McQuoid’s own desire to surround himself with lifelong MK fans is just one of the ways that the crew is determined to ensure they don’t make the mistake others have before them by straying too far from the desires of those who helped make the Mortal Kombat franchise worthy of adaptation in the first place. His efforts ultimately come down to honoring an important word. 

“The word I use a lot is ‘respect,’” says McQuoid. “Respect for the fans, respect for the characters, and respect for the canon. The execution ultimately takes that into consideration from the absolute bedrock of listening to and understanding the fans.”

Read more

Games

Mortal Kombat: The Definitive Video Game Movie of the ’90s

By Matthew Byrd

Games

Mortal Kombat Characters Ranked

By Gavin Jasper

Of course, as Garner previously eloquently noted, what many Mortal Kombat fans are looking for is over-the-top violence executed with flair. That is a big part of what made the original Mortal Kombat stand out in a crowded arcade scene, and it is certainly one of the qualities that have stayed with the series as it has evolved into this surprising vehicle for complex narratives and diverse characters. 

Fatality!

Of course, you can’t talk about Mortal Kombat violence without coming around to fatalities. What began as now strangely humble decapitations and spine extractions has evolved into a bloody ballet of highly choreographed violent ends that account for the lore and ability of every character. It’s something that was largely missing from the 1995 adaptation, and it’s something that Garner admits can be tricky to get right. 

“There’s crazy shit you can do in the game,” Garner says. “The problem with the fatalities, in general, is…I’m under the restrictions of the Motion Picture Association of America so I have to live inside those rules.”

In case you haven’t seen the recently released trailer, let me assure you now that the MPAA has not scared the team away from incorporating fatalities and MK’s other, bloodiest elements. In fact, McQuoid is practically at sea with the amount of blood on set. 

“I don’t know the gallon number, but I’ve seen drums of blood sitting around,” McQuoid informs his audience of gorehounds with a smile. 

So yes, there will be blood and lots of it in the Mortal Kombat reboot, but the team isn’t relying on the presence of blood alone to fulfill their equally important mission of telling a Mortal Kombat story as compelling as the ones featured in the games. Actually, they recognize that there are times when extreme amounts of violence can work against the dark tones that help make the franchise’s universe so compelling. 

“When I wanted a serious moment I didn’t want it to get comedic because we’re swashing blood,” McQuoid says. “It’s a tonal thing…you really need to feel it all instead of having people say ‘Oh, that’s funny.’” 

Besides, there are other ways to convey the series’ violent nature and brutal style that doesn’t necessarily require a drum of blood. From the first game in the franchise, Mortal Kombat has nodded to at least the cinematic history of martial arts. Whereas that series initially struggled to convey the fluidity and complexity of the best martial arts fights, though, the MK movie team has set a high bar for themselves. 

“The first thing I said to [stunt coordinator Kyle Gardiner] was “Okay, Kyle, you have to make the best fights that have ever been on film,” reveals McQuoid.

To anyone with a passing familiarity with the best fight scenes in film history, that idea has to come across as an absurd bit of hype. However, it starts to make a lot more sense when you look at the cast they’ve assembled. 

Choose Your Fighter

For a generation of fans raised on ‘80s action films and many major Hollywood genre productions that came after, it’s become somewhat easy to buy into the idea that untrained or largely untrained actors, bodybuilders, and models are the biggest badasses on the big screen. There’s a degree to which that’s what actors are supposed to do, but anyone who grew up on Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee or later found films such as The Raid and Ong-Bak can tell you that there’s nothing quite like watching uniquely talented martial artists push the boundaries of fight scenes by translating their real-world talents into cinematic splendor. In fact, the original Mortal Kombat arcade game was partially inspired by a desire to make a game that felt worthy of a John Claude Van Damme action film.

When it comes to getting Mortal Kombat right, then, there’s little doubt that the only way to go was to cast an all-star collection of martial artists and trained fighters rather than teach a cast of movie stars to look like they can do the things these guys can. However, I can’t emphasize enough just how crazy it was to watch even just snippets of what this essential superteam of martial artists push themselves to do when you put them in a room. Even those who have spent a considerable amount of time around the cast still express awe at what they’ve seen. 

“I’ve never made a movie like this before with this much fighting in it,” says Garner. “I don’t know what’s going on half the time, but they really are the best in the business…It’s so fast and even the camera is like, ‘Guys, can you slow down a little bit?’”

In some ways, the heart of this assembly feels like Sub-Zero actor Joe Taslim. As a renowned martial artist who many of us first saw in The Raid: Redemption, many action fans know that Taslim is the real deal. What you may not know is that Taslim is something of a Mortal Kombat superfan. His name was even tossed around a few times on the shortlist of best MK players on-set, as well as by some who suggested that Taslim helped set the pace (and raise the bar) for the speed of the action sequences. 

Then you have Tadanobu Asano as Raiden. As a legend of the Japanese film scene who has garnered more international acclaim in recent years by virtue of his work in 47 Ronin, Battleship, and the Thor films, Asano feels uniquely capable of playing the thunder god whose abilities sometimes set the standard in a universe of powerful fighters. He embodies the character so clearly that he’s already got his eye on the out of universe competition 

“Yeah, I can fight [Chris Hemsworth],” suggested Asano with a smile at the prospect of a Thor vs. Raiden film.

There also Max Huang who portrays Kung Lao: a beloved fan character who was sadly missing from the previous live-action adaptations. For him, the chance to finally bring that character to life echoes his own desire to further his transition from a celebrated stunt coordinator to a bonafide action hero.

“People like Bruce Lee were my heroes,” says Huang. “The ultimate goal was to become an actor, but there were few chances. A lot of times, it would just be a one-liner and that was it. These last few years I figured ‘you only have one life,’ so I just went for it.”

Few people are more qualified to speak on that subject than Liu Kang actor, Ludi Lin. As an advocate for representation in Hollywood, Lin has previously said how a lack of representation or even the wrong kind of representation can lead to feelings of shame and even isolation. For Lin, working with this many talented martial artists on a major Western production isn’t just a chance to showcase his own abilities; it’s a chance to help millions feel like they’re being seen. 

“Look, 60% of the world is Asian. A quarter of the world is Chinese,” says Lin. “I just don’t understand why there can only be one [in Hollywood films].”

Increased representation is always important, but at a time when violence against Asian Americans is on the rise, it stands to reason that the portrayal and prominence of Asian actors on film may be on more minds than ever before. So far as that goes, Mortal Kombat is uniquely positioned to not only showcase Asian heroes but pay respect to the clear Asian influences on the Mortal Kombat series in a way that the MK titles (especially the older installments) didn’t necessarily do before.

Read more

Movies

Mortal Kombat Trailer Breakdown and Analysis

By Gavin Jasper

Movies

Could the Mortal Kombat Reboot Finally Give Us the Sub-Zero vs. Scorpion Fight We Deserve?

By John Saavedra

“From my experience working with Simon [McQuoid], I’ve never worked with someone that’s so serious about being that authentic for another culture,” says Lin. “Just walking on set…on this film, there are so many different types of people of different ethnicities, different origins, and different backgrounds. It really represents the world.”

I could go on. Legendary Japanese action star Hiroyuki Sanada as Scorpion, the beloved Chin Han as Shang Tsung, rising star Mehcad Brooks as Jax…even non-action stars or martial artists like Kano actor Josh Lawson have found how they fit into this legendary assembly of cast and characters. 

“I was just saying to Asano-san, ‘Kano, he’s only funny because he’s balancing you guys,’” notes Lawson. “On his own, it’s nothing. But as a see-saw, the more seriously these guys take the mysticism and the power, the less seriously I can take it. That’s where the comedy exists. He can walk in and tell them, ‘Fucking hell.’”

Who is Lewis Tan?

With so much of the fun for fans coming from watching their favorite MK fighters come to life and battle on the big screen, it’s hardly a surprise that it’s one of the new characters, Lewis Tan as Cole Young, who has attracted so much early attention. How will he fit into a roster of such established characters? It’s a question that Tan is relieved to finally be able to answer.

“It’s just nice to even be able to talk about the character because there was so much speculation and hype up until this point about which character I’m playing,” Tan says with noted relief. “I wear Ray Bans a lot so people were like, ‘Oh, he’s Johnny Cage. [laughs]’”

He may not be Johnny Cage, even if Tan’s effortless charm and movie star looks make him a prime candidate for the role, but it’s incredible how easily the Cole character seems to fit into this universe of iconic characters. Along those same lines, Tan seems to have quickly established himself among a roster of top-tier martial arts and action actors. In some ways, his vocal enthusiasm for the project best captures the set’s general vibe.

“I don’t want to jinx it either but I can truthfully tell you, I felt magic when I got here and it’s been crazy ever since then,” says Tan of his experience until that point. “It’s crazy because I’m really hard on myself and I’m really hard on the work that I do. Sometimes I’m like, ‘Oh, this wasn’t it.’ And then I’ll see a little of a rough cut of what Simon was doing and then I’m like, ‘Oh. It’s amazing.’ There’s some stuff that I wasn’t on set for and then I saw that stuff and I’m like, ‘That’s the best thing I’ve ever seen.’”

Of course, it’s hard to talk about bringing Mortal Kombat to life without the people who quite literally help do just that. 

Exploding Heads and Blown Minds

At one point during my set visit, I found myself standing on a stunning recreation of the bridge that crosses the chasm on the iconic Mortal Kombat stage known as The Pit. It was a massive construction impressively built to serve as both a showcase piece and an actual set practically designed as the stage for one of the film’s fight scenes. 

The team informed us that the general philosophy was to ensure that (almost) anything that could be done practically was done practically. A green screen was used sparingly to solve otherwise impossible problems. It’s an approach that appeases the old-school movie fans among us while honoring the raw nature of the older Mortal Kombat games which typically emphasized visceral visuals over more refined sensibilities.

The Mortal Kombat movie actually finds a fascinating middle ground between those concepts. For instance, the film’s costumes showcase the kind of wear and tear that you’d expect to see in outfits worn by warriors locked in an eternal battle, but they’re also designed to not only honor cultural concepts but the idea that some of this armor was designed to be somewhat ornamental at one point in time. They’re refined but appropriately ugly.

The film’s weapons are really on another level. Weapons have become increasingly important to the Mortal Kombat fighting styles over the years, and this film honors that concept through an arsenal of carefully constructed instruments of death that somehow treat even the most seemingly impractical of weapons with a logic that has perhaps only previously been dwelled on by the series’ biggest fans.

No detail was overlooked in pursuit of making sure every character had a weapon that the actor could hold in their hand and feel the power of. From ornate katanas to swords made of ice, the props team clearly fell in love with the opportunity to make even the absurd a reality. We even saw a garden gnome suspiciously snuck into the small arsenal they had crafted. 

Again, though, what stood out most is the prop team’s insistence that many of these weapons didn’t just need to look good on-screen. Many of them needed to be balanced and practical enough to be used in battle simply because many of them were actually going to be used in the film’s fight scenes. I don’t know how the weapon designs will come across in the final film, but my gut feeling is that the fight scenes that they allow for will immediately be appreciated.

One other area where those efforts will almost certainly be immediately appreciated by everyone watching the movie is the makeup and practical effects. The makeup trailer I stepped in was loaded with masks, body parts, and the carnage of many early morning marathon makeup sessions. It looked closer to a horror movie than an action film or video game adaptation. That should be music to the ears of any fans that recognize that one of the things that helped the Mortal Kombat series stand out over the years are the horror tones that were used to help craft characters, stages, and most certainly the fatalities. 

While we weren’t treated to a fatality viewing while on-set, the team was good enough to describe an exploding head that they were working on for an upcoming shoot. Where that exploding head will rank among the best of all-time (a list that includes films like Scanners, Maniac, and The Prowler) remains to be seen, but their approach sounded fascinating. By utilizing a silicone glass head filled with blood and guts and triggered by an air cannon, the scene figures to pay homage to the techniques of the best such effects of old while utilizing modern advancements designed out of necessity and perhaps a desire to help raise the bar. 

It wasn’t long into my trip that the cast and crew emphasized the number of practical effects being utilized, and I certainly understand why. They not only look great, but the fact that so much effort went into ensuring these design elements offer something so much more than good looks seems to perfectly capture the spirit of the movie’s mission to make something that is so much more than it has to be.

Flawless Victory?

If the biggest “advantage” of low expectations is the idea that even lesser efforts can somehow exceed them, then the biggest disadvantage of the expectations set by many live-action video game movies to date is getting people to genuinely feel excited. There’s a big difference between crafting something that makes you think “That could have been worse,” and making a movie that inspires the genuine belief that this isn’t just going to be something different; this is going to be something special. 

The highest compliment I can pay to Mortal Kombat is that the genuine excitement expressed by everyone on-set went well beyond a cast and crew that were just happy to be there or felt that what they were doing was good enough. From those who couldn’t wait to play some of their favorite characters to those who were eager to finally showcase what they do best via a production that’s scale equaled the scope of their talents, there was a smile on everyone’s face as they told you what they were working on with the full knowledge that what they were about to say was something so far beyond what you expected. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

I don’t know if Mortal Kombat will “break the curse.” I don’t even know if it will satisfy a legion of MK fans who have had their expectations forever raised by the recent games’ own increasingly cinematic efforts. What I can tell you is that it’s ok to feel excited about Mortal Kombat. Actually, you probably should be excited about Mortal Kombat. I can assure you that everyone working on the film very much is. That, in and of itself, is a victory.

The post Inside the Mortal Kombat Movie’s Bloody Love Letter to Martial Arts appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3kGV41W

[pass-the-bechdel]

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

Yes, once.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Nine (25.71% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-six.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Film Quality:

For a movie which is pretty much wall-to-wall fight scenes...I love it. I always start out going ‘maybe I overrate this movie, maybe it’s not as good as I remember’, but by the end, I’m right back in there.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Wanda apologises to Natasha for lying. It’s a close call.

Female characters:

Pepper Potts.

F.R.I.D.A.Y

Gamora.

Mantis.

Wanda Maximoff.

Natasha Romanoff.

Okoye.

Nebula.

Shuri.

Male characters:

Ebony Maw.

Thanos.

Thor.

Loki.

Heimdall.

Bruce Banner.

Stephen Strange.

Wong.

Tony Stark.

Peter Parker.

Ned.

Peter Quill.

Rocket.

Drax.

Groot.

Vision.

Steve Rogers.

Sam Wilson.

The Collector.

Thaddeus Ross.

James Rhodes.

T’Challa.

Bucky Barnes.

Eitri.

Red Skull.

M’Baku.

OTHER NOTES:

Heimdall had proven himself too much of an MVP in previous films to be allowed to live in this one. Bastards.

Heimdall and Loki, both dead before the opening titles. That’s how you know this movie means business, it’s not faking at high stakes.

I also am from space and have come here to steal a necklace from a wizard.

“Mr Stark, it smells like a new car in here!”

“All words are made up.”

Not gonna lie, when I saw this at the cinema and I realised that Captain America had arrived? My heart LEAPT. It was intense.

Depressed Thor is a great touch - after all previous films with Thor had him so bland, and then Ragnarok made him funny but essentially glossed over any of the difficult emotions it was dredging up, I’m glad to finally get something real and meaty from the character. If characters go through all manner of Hell and don’t show any signs of labouring under that weight, you’re doing character development wrong.

Nice callback with Red Skull.

The sacrifice of Gamora on Vormir is a really well-balanced piece; it was asking a lot, to make the emotion of it land despite how little of Thanos we’ve seen before, and without genuine emotion at it’s core it’s just the killing off of a female character for shock value. I feel like they got the pitch just right (most thanks to the music).

As much as I enjoy Thor and Rocket’s bantering, the side-quest for Stormbreaker feels like an unnecessary and over-the-top distraction in an already stuffed-full film. Easily the weakest part of the plot.

The fact that Quill fucks everything up with defeating Thanos on Titan because he can’t keep himself under control for two seconds certainly does not endear him to me in the slightest. Like ok, you’re upset, but if you can’t stop yourself from getting violent that’s on you, that makes you a dangerous person with serious issues, that’s not normal and it’s not ok. Also, literally half of all life in the universe was at stake. So there’s that.

Listen, I’m very susceptible to heroism (and that’s why superhero movies work for me), so every time someone comes to someone else’s rescue, I have feelings. 

I had convinced myself that somehow, Thanos wouldn’t succeed with his whole plan in this movie, that he would get all the stones but that he would like, go to a special place or something before enacting his plan, so that the good guys would have a chance to regroup and race to stop him before it was too late, all that jazz. So (even though Thanos had already snapped at that point), when Bucky Barnes disintegrated before our very eyes, I was SHOCKED. That got me like a smack in the face.

Considering I’ve never really been a fan of Tom Holland’s Spider-man, it’s a credit to his work that Peter’s death scene is so effective. That’s acting.

So, what makes this movie work despite being so heavy with bombastic action? The short answer is: it’s because the good guys lose. I’ve made no secret of being a fan of the ‘hour darkest before the dawn’ in storytelling, so this is playing to the sweet spot for me there, but it’s not as simple as just making everything miserable and hopeless. In this case, specifically, the lead-up to that ultimate failure is key; it’s gotta still feel like a superhero extravaganza, even as it takes an increasingly dark turn. The action works because it’s part of what we signed up for (the best camouflage for subversions of the traditional model), and it works because it’s all carrying the story forward - the Infinity War is comprised of multiple battles, and because of the way the pieces of the narrative are separated, the characters don’t know how any of the other battles are turning out; everyone is just trying to fight what’s in front of them and defend the stone in their midst, they don’t have the option to sit around doom-and-glooming and restrategising as news of each defeat comes in. Rather than dragging us wholesale from Point A to B to C in ever-escalating stakes and complications, the writers have had the good sense to spread things out and let things fall apart for our heroes (and the universe) in multiple smaller pieces until they reach a cumulative critical mass. Consequently, instead of feeling as though we’re sitting there watching things go from bad to worse, the audience forms this false sense of security in the action; it’s a superhero movie, after all. We expect them to work it all out in the end, to build toward a moment of apparent hopelessness (a darkest hour before the dawn), and then to rally triumphantly for the big win. As such, we perceive small victories (i.e. the defeat of Thanos’ various ‘children’, the creation of Stormbreaker, the way things draw out in the battle on Titan) as if they are more significant, as if they are signs leading us to that big win; without those small, expected victories, the ultimate failure would not hit as hard, because after two and a half hours of watching the good guys get wrecked without a chance, what surprise would there be in the snap?

Of course, plenty of viewers knew about the snap already or expected an ultimate failure of some sort based on the fact that we pretty much all knew that this was the first half of our grand Avengers finale (my mother, who is not a superhero movie fan, did not know what she was getting into and was...very shocked), so it’s important that the film still works to engage us on a character level so that the good guys losing in the end can hit like a ton of bricks even if you knew it was coming (and even though you no doubt expected to get the big win eventually, once Endgame came out). After all the fighting and the bantering, all the usual stuff we expect to see our heroes go through in the course of an average adventure, having them then watch their beloved friends/allies/whatever literally disintegrate before their eyes in a quiet, drawn out scene of devastation is a magnificent piece of cinema, communicating the shock not only of the event itself, but of the complete disruption to the superhero status quo. It’s not just that good guys don’t lose like this, it’s that they don’t lose with a whimper instead of a a bang. It’s not only that the cost of failure has never been this high; it’s also that they have never been forced to watch it play out with such inevitability; they have never before been rendered so powerless. If the entire film had the tone of the last ten minutes, it wouldn’t work so well, it’d just be a drudge and the audience would be desensitised by the end. By the same token, if the rest of the film had not planted the seeds of the finale so thoroughly in all its smaller losses and smokescreen victories, the ending would not be so horrifically fitting.

Neither, of course, would the ending be so affecting, if we were not as attached to the characters as we are. We have many, many films worth of history with most of them, or at least one solid encounter in which to become attached, and even in a movie chock-full of more characters than any other before, everyone gets a chance to show their personality and remind us why we care if they live or die. I’m not going to argue for this being an incredible character piece (nor is it pretending to be one), but it plays its very large hand very well, putting emphasis where it needs to be without overloading or unbalancing the story. As I noted above, I was particularly impressed with the way Thanos was handled, considering our exposure to him previously was very minimal and it was left up the this film to build his ethos as well as his relationships with his ‘children’ almost from scratch, creating complexity and simplicity without falling into the trap of trying to make the villain sympathetic; Thanos isn’t necessarily relatable (nor does he need to be), but he is understandable in that we’ve all probably encountered at least one person who holds the same limited worldview and is somehow convinced that they could ‘fix’ everything, given the power. Thanos isn’t actually aiming for universal domination in the traditional sense, and it makes him more disturbing and more realistic as a villain, because his evil is not nebulous or purely self-serving; he is a true believer, and his delusions have an all-too-familiar ring about them, so as we watch him lumber and pontificate around the story, we get a clearly-drawn image of someone possessed of such basic and humble flaws that he is - again, without being treated as sympathetic - quite significantly humanised, despite all of the non-human elements that make up both his character, and his situation. Even as it planet-hops and draws upon cosmic magic, the narrative is grounded by a centrepiece of plain, ungodly fallibility. 

Now, I recognise that in all of this praise for the way this film was executed, there isn't really anything to be said for it regarding the purpose of this blog; on the female representation front, it's not really doing anything (the fact that it juuust manages to pass the Bechdel and juuust over a quarter of its cast is female does not win it brownie points; its better than not having either of those things, but that's not a genuine achievement). The two female characters who were more prominently positioned in this movie are Gamora and Wanda; Gamora largely in context of her relationship with Thanos, and Wanda as Vision’s significant other and the means of his destruction. Notably, both women’s arcs are accessories to the arcs of male characters, which is not what we’re aiming for in good representation, though it does not exclude the possibility of quality content; Gamora’s role may have a lot to do with Thanos (not least, after he kills her), but it is still distinctly her own story, rich with emotion and coming to a surprising and depressing end which I felt struck the right chords to be compelling rather than an enraging disposal of one of the few female characters around (more on this after Endgame). Wanda’s presence leaves less of an impression, in terms of screen time, plot complication, and audience engagement, but all things considered I don’t think that was a terrible choice; Wanda and Vision’s relationship had been a somewhat sparse subplot in previous films and the chemistry was not strong, so I don’t think it would have been to the film’s benefit to try and expand on that relationship further than they did. As it was, there was enough there to sell the emotion, and nothing extraneous, and as much as I enjoy this movie, I wish I could say better things for its female representation than that. It is stuffed-full, and definitely not perfect, and space could have been made to pump up some of the other female characters’ roles more (the Earthbound characters get the least attention in the movie, and since basically all my faves are there it is a testament to how well this movie works for me that I enjoy it so much anyway, but a little more attention there would not have gone astray, especially since that’s where most of the female cast is). That said...I still really enjoy it, man. As far as popcorn action goes, this is top shelf.

[jaimetheexplorer]

Oh, let’s go back to the start

WARNING: negative review ahead! 

Game of Thrones is over, and it’s never coming back.

I think many viewers all over the world thought that once this day came, they would wish they could do it all over again because boy, what a great journey it was. Or they would be eager to rewatch the whole show and look out for all the little clues they missed and revisit characters and storylines they might not have previously paid attention to.

Instead, most of us are left with a bitter taste in our mouth, and many of us are left wondering why we even bothered investing our time and emotional energy (not to mention money) in the first place. This is because the final season of Game of Thrones did not make fans wish they could go back to the start and do it all again, but, rather, took many of the plots and characters people knew and loved back to their start, at best, if not to an even worse place.

Game of Thrones changed television as we know it, but this has never been a flawless show. Plot holes and questionable adaptations had been criticized for many years. Book readers in particular have been very vocal about the quality (or lack thereof) of the show’s writing. Yet I feel people kept coming back to see how it all would end, because, surely, the endgame would still be worth the investment. 

Season 8 then came. Much criticism can be raised to the first half of season 8 for having wrapped up the Night King/fantasy storyline too quickly and with almost nothing in the way of explanation. While I understood and shared some of that grievance, I also thought that it was perhaps not that overwhelmingly disappointing, and that it could make some sense from a narrative and logistic perspective. Little did I know, however, as the credits rolled on the third episode of the season, that that instalment was symptomatic of a much more dangerous problem that was just around the corner, which would butcher most of what people loved about this story that had been built up so slowly across years (i.e. its characters), at lightning speed, in the remaining episodes.

From a character perspective, at least the deaths in the battle of Winterfell were mostly well earned and actually wrapped up their characters’ arcs in a meaningful way. Jorah died protecting his Khaleesi. Theon died protecting the home he helped destroy, fulfilling his redemption. Lyanna died taking down a giant. Melisandre died after having fulfilled her purpose. Edd died to protect one of his best friends. Beric died to protect Arya so she could save humanity. While Jon and Dany were not the saviours of mankind, like everyone expected them to be, they were still instrumental in helping humans to victory; Jon having done all the work to bring together almost the entire continent to fight the threat and Dany providing valuable help with her dragons and armies. Underwhelming, perhaps, but it didn’t damage any character. 

I never expected things to go smoothly afterwards. I enjoyed the political tensions between Jon, Dany and Sansa and was looking forward to seeing Dany become greyer as she struggled in a different continent and with competition. I knew Jaime was going to be in King’s Landing again at some point, to wrap up his storyline, and wouldn’t just shack up in bliss with Brienne for the entire rest of the season. I knew beloved characters would probably die (even though I had hopes for several, not just mine). But I did not expect that, from episode 4, the story would begin spiralling into a cruel, sadistic and nihilistic mess that would continue until the very end and spare almost no character that wasn’t named Stark. Nearly all the evolution, all the progress, all the journeys that people kept coming back for, year after year, were invalidated in the span of three episodes, bringing them back to square one, if not worse.

Jon, assassinating his aunt/lover, broken by the fight and taking a black for which we don’t even understand the need for anymore. Dany, her long journey to Westeros ending with being murdered by her nephew/lover for having gone from grey to Mad Queen in the space of two episodes. Jaime, apparently accepting that all these years have only taught him that his true self is a hateful man, obsessed only with his sister to the point of destroying anything that is good, pure and innocent and does not deserve to be caught up in their mess. Brienne, essentially ends up right back where she started, serving in a celibate order after learning that love is not not meant to last for women like her and failing to prevent the death of the man she loved (and having to write her rejection down, to add insult to injury). Cersei, trying to pass off Jaime’s child as someone else’s, her prophecy discarded completely and facing no comeuppance for her actions. Missandei, freed from chains to end up executed in chains. Sandor, dying in the fire that traumatized him his entire life. And even the ones who did not face bitter endings did not move much from where they either started or had been for a long time: Tyrion (who lost much of his charm and intelligence this season just to watch the world burn around him) and Davos ended up in the same sort of advisory position they were in all along. 

The ending was advertised as a bittersweet, Lord of the Rings type ending, but there was a lot more bitterness than there was sweetness in this. Especially when it comes to romance. Rarely is life so cruel to couples, and the only sweetness was reserved for Sam and Gilly, who everyone knew had been safe for years and who, let’s face it, never elicited particularly strong emotional investment from anybody to qualify as a payoff. 

Sansa came out perhaps the strongest in the end, which is well deserved. But this was not just the Sansa story. There were a dozen other plots and characters people cared about, and they almost all were served a fate that made you feel like there had been no point in their journeys all along. And for a show that wanted to subvert expectations (!!!1!1!), it ended ticking the most predictable boxes in terms of characters fates: all the bad guys are dead (and the one “good guy” that died broke bad in order to justify her assassination), all the redemptive characters are dead too, and only the good guys are left.

So here we are, at the end of the biggest show of all time, with an ending that retroactively ruined most of what made it so big in the first place and left little room for excitement, if any. 

The sad thing is that all of this was easily avoidable. When people say that delivering an ending that satisfies everyone is impossible, that is very true, especially for a show with such high expectations. But delivering an ending that disappoints nearly everyone, is actually equally as hard, if not harder, and yet... they managed to achieve it. 

Finishing a story is never easy, but I think the important thing to keep in mind is that what makes people stick with a series is the journey they are taken on (especially when they are asked to invest years of their lives into a story). If the journey starts to suck, that’s when you lose numbers. So if you have a good enough journey, with all the ups and downs and angst and drama you like, which makes people stick with it for years, you’ve accomplished 90% of the task. The ending is just the icing on the cake and it needs to provide a payoff that is consistent with that journey and does not make the audience feel like they never want to eat what’s underneath that icing ever again. 

This does not mean handing out fanservice left and right. But there’s a difference between succumbing to fanservice and destroying literally everything that made people come back for more and that the story had been building up towards. There’s a difference between fanservice and delivering an ending that is unpredictable not because it emerged from a subtle thread woven within the story that was always present if only people paid attention, but because it came out of nowhere and/or had little to no buildup within the story, and/or went in the completely opposite direction to where the buildup was pointing towards. 

I see some complaints about the criticism this season is receiving saying people are too emotional about it and therefore not being objective. And yes! Of course people get emotional about stories! What kind of writer doesn’t want people to become emotionally invested in their story, and just see it as a giant, sterile, plot-driven spectacle? This is why humans are attracted to stories in the first place! And this is particularly true of a story like ASOIAF which is entirely built upon the concept of character perspective. This is why, while slow, the first two episodes were still highly rated: they were character-driven. This is why, despite The Long Night being criticized for an underwhelming conclusion to the WWs storyline, it was not even remotely near the huge dealbreaker the last three episodes were for the audience. That is because The Long Night disappointed in wrapping up the plot, while the rest of the season crashed the characters. I feel like D&D’s never really understood how crucial character-driven perspective was (they didn’t even remember Sam was a major POV character!) and so wrote the show as a sterile, shocking, plot-driven spectacle that eventually made people sick due to the total lack of care with which the characters they know and love were handled. 

And let’s stop pretend that misery and nihilism at all costs is “adult storytelling” while hope and a sense of fulfilment is for children. Adults need hope too, perhaps more than children, because we know just how tough life can be, whereas children often don’t. Dramas can be great tools to show how people face and overcome tragedies and conflict, find the silver linings and some comfort in the chaos, even if things ultimately don’t end the way they expected they would at the start. All Game of Thrones has shown us, in the end, is how people fail and how little changes. No matter how hard the journey, no matter the effort, no matter the loss, most of these beloved characters might as well never have set off on their journeys at all, given the results. 

While this kind of storytelling can work and be compelling for a single season, or a single book, or a single movie, once you ask people to invest years of their lives, you will never land the ending with this last minute, bait-and-switch approach. 

So who wants go back to the start, now, and rewatch the story of these characters once again, knowing most of them end back to square one? Who thinks that it was worth the journey, if we end up exactly where we started? I certainly don’t. 

[thinking-through-some-things]

sure is interesting how many people will talk about propaganda and being a careful consumer and then just. turn around and act like disney is somehow above political and economical problems.

it's astounding how many people say "disney should just own everything! then we wouldn't have to worry about who owns the characters! think of the crossovers!" and honestly don't see a problem with that. even people who understand, to some degree, 1) corporations aren't your friend, and/or 2) monopolies are bad.

so many of us just look at Disney through the rose-colored glasses of childhood nostalgia, and because of that, we can't conceive of disney as being yet another corporation that values profit over art and people. except it is.

we're so blinded by the endless franchises disney pumps out, and the innocence we associate the company with because of the content that it produces/has produced, that time and time again we'll ignore shady business practices, poorly done films/shows, complaints and strikes of disney employees, etc., all because we cannot picture disney as yet another company that prioritizes profit above all else.

but it is.

i don't blame you if you like disney movies — so do i! but disney is not perfect, and it is not infallible.

disney's animation is not inherently better than other companies. on a technical level they may be able to achieve more, but 1) they have significantly more money than any other animation company so this should be expected, and 2) all this has resulted in a homogenous style that doesn't take artistic risks — because it's safer, profit-wise, to stick with a reliable art style that has proven to sell well.

disney movies are not intently better written than other films. sometimes it's just that disney has a solid corner of the market in popular but niche genres. sometimes it's that they can afford to hire better (or just. more) writers, or out-bid other studios for strong scripts.

disney movies are not better movies simply because they are disney. sometimes it's just that you've forgotten their bad films and only remember the ones you like. and sometimes you like bad films because they're disney and you expect them to be good.

it's time we started looking much more critically at disney. it's time we started expecting more from them.

"they can't include gay characters because they have to worry about conservatives/international markets." bullshit. disney can afford to include gay characters. they can afford to have a film that underperforms. they just care more about money than representation.

"the animation is so advanced! it just looks the same because that's what's in style." disney could be producing some really unique and unusual stuff. they can afford experimental styles and plot choices. they just won't try that because they won't risk losing money.

i can't tell you how many times i've seen people say "i don't like that disney does xyz, but i'm still going to see this film because it's disney." i get it. i've been there. but when are we going to stop letting disney dictate our entire media experience?

honestly, disney is killing so many creative industries and genres.

remember how disney decided to scrap their 2d department because it wasn't making as much as 3d animation? and nearly the entire animation industry followed their lead? and now we have an endless supply of subpar 3d animation, because few studios have the resources disney has? most us animation studios just poorly imitate disney's style, which is why the most interesting and innovative animated films today come from outside the us.

why does competition matter? look at animated tv shows vs films. since disney dominates the animated film industry, other studios have struggled to break free of their control. but in television, cartoon network and nickelodeon have maintained just enough of a share of the market to encourage a variety of animated styles — and netflix's growing list of animated shows, including many international options, have resulted in a boom of really good animated shows in the past few years.

i'm not saying these other companies are better than disney, only pointing out that, by forcing disney to share the stage with a serious competitor, these companies are forcing disney to take more chances and be more creative.

and. touching on marvel and star wars. part of the reason disney has been successful with these films is yes, they knew how to cater to the right audience at the start. but now they're just relying on brand/franchise/star power, flashy effects they can afford, predictably successful plot points, and pure nostalgia to get people's attention (and money).

marvel movies don't even have to be good anymore. regardless of what you think of the movies, you're going to go see the next one. because as long as you liked one character, as long as you're invested in one story, you have to see every. other. marvel. film. to have any idea what's happening in the next film with that one character. it's gotten to the point that there's really no point in watching new films if you haven't already watched previous ones because they don't explain basic information if it was mentioned in another marvel movie.

also. because disney's marvel films are the most popular and recognizable superhero films, most viewers expect all superhero films to look and feel like marvel films — especially since there are so many that it feels like that's just. how superhero movies look. so instead of seeing a wide variety of superhero films trying different storytelling tactics, visual effects, narrative justifications, etc., we see, again, poor imitations that lack disney's budget and really different films that get rejected because they don't match our expectations.

the live action remakes really are the epitome of this problem (and before anyone says anything, no, the live action films are not about copyright law. that's not how copyright works).

first of all, disney could be taking daring risks and really challenging these films. they could have, for example, given middle eastern or indian directors, costume/set designers, writers, etc. crew members the chance to take a film that, while loved by many, has been criticized by others for being orientalist, and turn the film into something that reflected and appreciated their culture(s) from a personal perspective; and disney, in turn, could have helped those people move up in a competitive and hard-to-break-into field.

but they didn't do that.

or beauty and the beast. disney could have gone in a completely different direction, telling a brand new story and challenging ideas of social convention and love. or really pushed the aesthetics of the film.

but they didn't.

except for a few minor changes and an overblown "first gay disney character!!!" campaign (that amounted to almost worse than nothing), the live action was practically a carbon copy of the animated one. they played it safe and used the same predictably popular elements, and the few "feminist" jabs they added in were so uncontroversial that no one in 2017 would complain about them except laughably misogynistic people who hated how preachy those moments felt. in other words, even the "politics" they added in were safe.

ironically enough, my favorite disney live action film has been cinderella. i though it was visually interesting and different, and the changes to the script/plot focused on personal freedom and survival and retaining your sense of empathy despite abuse. but it didn't do as well monetarily for disney, it is, categorically, a failure. so we're likely to see disney rely more on close retellings than changed stories.

i don't think all disney films are bad, nor do i think you're a bad person for liking disney/pixar/marvel/star wars films. but if you think disney is the only company that does x well, or that they really should just own y company, or who cares if they do z, then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate.

we need to stop excusing disney. we need to stop thinking the company is cute. as a corporation, their goal is not to coddle you or make the world safer and nicer. their goal is to make money. full stop.

if you want to see a disney movie, fine. go see it. but don't watch it just because it's disney. make them earn your business by. actually. making good movies.

(sorry this is really disorganized and definitely missing points. it should probably be like. five separate essays. oops.)

[elizabethrobertajones]

How after the mixtape are Dean and Cas' romantic feelings not considered canon? That shit was not subtext and even if you disregard the Mary and John Led Zepplin connection, mixtapes are almost exclusively romantic in fiction not to mention the whole returning one as a break up and framing of the scene. I just don't understand how even to the GA that was ambiguous. Honestly these moving goalposts are very confusing to me. Aside from PR not mentioning it I don't get what more the show needs (1/2)

to do, to establish that yes it’s written as romantic but that they are not in the being together stage. We don’t know what will happen in the future but to me 12x19 pretty clearly showed that at least at that point in their relationship, that’s where they were at. I wondered if you had any thoughts on it because it’s been nagging at me for a while? (2/2)

I mean, yeah, I have a LOT of thoughts about it because it was a sea change in the way Destiel presented, for me. There’s been MULTIPLE moments which took it up another notch, at pretty regularly spaced intervals through the show. I know my personal limit, when bingewatching 4-6 for the first time after an unintentional break from the show, was 6x20. Everyone who got into the ship without being prompted has a a moment along the way, whether it was considering all the ship teasing seriously, or thinking something about the narrative, or whatever, got to that moment where they actually hit the goalposts and started taking it seriously. 

I think several of the past moments that I find really important are also statements of intent - 9x18 for me was when I went from casual viewer and while I believed in Destiel I also saw it entirely as a subtextual creation that was not sort of… for serious consideration as a narrative tool/character endgame the show would ever even nod towards at the end of the day… to definitely thinking they were at the very least intentionally building their story with these blocks, and that it was worth investigating and exploring… That was Metatron asking us to consider the subtext and how it was a part of the story. That it wasn’t something that passes by like that but that there is an awareness and that it can and will give the story meaning. The episode being so full of strong Destiel subtext, it put me firmly where I am now in meta fandom with an overnight transformation >.> 

And 10x05 was the other one where there was a serious goalpost, where “Destiel” was said in text and a pseudo Destiel depiction happened on screen… To whatever degree it was jokey or wish fulfilment or could be interpreted this way and that as a statement to how Destiel stood in the text, it gave it a weight and presence it hadn’t had before. Even though fans had had a name for it all along, there’s something very important about naming the thing within the story and even having Sam sound out different versions of the name with pedantic detail. Between that and “I’ll just wait here then” it really established Destiel in the subtextual building blocks of the show in a fascinatingly meta way. 

Then for all the random canon events of maybe extreme shippiness, it was 12x19 that for me was a real SHIFT when it came to perceptions and presentation in the story, because of course even on the surface level it’s an extremely romantic trope to give a mixtape, and ignoring all the other analysis of the scene which only makes it worse, it betrays an enormous amount of emotion and care between Dean and Cas, in a way that’s coded strongly to our cultural perceptions as a romantic gesture having passed between them. Which means it’s another goal scored when it comes to… upping the ante of not-quite-canon-ness? 

I sort of feel like Cas’s death and return and all the connected stuff from the moment he’s stabbed through Dean saying “I do” and hugging him under the romeo+juliet glowing neon cross was either a further upping of the ante, or just showing us how to play in the rules which now exist post-mixtape, where this is the level of implied canon it’s at now… 

I mean I honestly keep saying and I mean it that pretty much since the mixtape or 12x23 I’ve been quite lost about how to handle Destiel in the sense that these were goalposts I didn’t even know I would expect the show to meet, or that if they did it would be the implied canon ending of the show where it gives us an equivalent gesture and leaves us to wonder what it was about. Instead it happens at this point and we’ve got over a season of Dean n Cas portrayed as exasperated husbands and all my interest and expertise in lawyering subtext to prove how gay it is has been left behind in its wake, so I’m just here to enjoy myself and see how it pans out now, because I set my own personal goalposts of what I assumed the show would do much lower than what Dabb set? Like, the reverse problem of people who keep moving them rather than examine the subtext and see what it says fairly without trying to lawyer their way out of what all these implications are instead. :P

But at least the mixtape made it very clear to me that you can now sort out the people who will NEVER accept something as good enough proof that the show even has romantic subtext for Dean n Cas and refuse to understand why people see it or ship it. To discount that entire conversation and the clearly expressed feelings of concern for each other, regardless of shipping, in order to claim that they don’t mean that much to each other and it’s ooc to suggest otherwise, means they’re doing the harder work when it comes to interpretation and THAT is a flipping of the stances from pre-mixtape where plausible deniability and doubt and stuff all mixed together to make it at least an awkward sell to people who hadn’t thought of it that way yet, and empowered people who wilfully didn’t want to see it. 

The Cas death arc just gave us more fodder for where shippers do less work than people who actively want to deny that Dean cares. 

But for general audiences, I think it’s quite easy to get stuck at the stage where I was pre-9x18 where Dean n Cas might even seem to be somewhat a ~confirmed couple~ except that people will lend it no credit to intent or their importance to each other in the emotional endgame, just for reasons of it not being done, or not thinking it’s possible, or in general not putting in the attention and time to piece together the relationship that a definitive canon statement would cause them to do a double take on. And that even if they then say they knew it all along, because many of these goalposts are unmissable in some senses, the credibility lent to the ship is fully missable without knowing to give it. Which is the whole problem, really. 

I’ve known the show long enough to feel its old school bones pretty deeply so I feel like that affects my personal perspective on… owedness of canon or where I started to take it seriously, and how much of the old gods of TV vs new gods possibility I would casually see in its genetic makeup. So 12x19 - being written by the new gods of TV - took the show a step further as Dabb seems to be the first showrunner of that generation of TV writers vs the ones who would play the subtext game forever - and that’s really unsettling to me. In the sense that there’s some sort of storytelling subversion thing going on here and my understanding is still kinda maybe rooted in an older postmodern take than what might end up being labelled something entirely new by future scholars… And a lot of that to me is in expectations and tropes no longer being what they were and I end up thinking of all the factors from the mass-saturation of media vs everything having to be new and individual to be considered worthy, to the effect of the internet, and the political climate in America, and the world the younger millennial writers grew up in (and we can see that literally warring with Buckleming’s old school writing in the show), and not just storytelling but representation of all walks of marginalised life coming into it, and it’s all a bunch of stuff that probably soon there’ll be a bunch of interesting scholarship on, but in the mean time we’re all riding the wave and in my personal experience I feel like we don’t even know what our surfboards are any more. 

I mean 12x23 seriously knocked me into orbit when it came to my understanding of the show, and I haven’t recovered yet. And since I spend a lot of time over-thinking as a matter of course, this is a tiny percentage of the ridiculous musings I have on it all and why I can’t just get mad at it for goalpost issues, and why I feel people lag behind and stuff. I feel like WE are lagging behind, even the people who claim to know everything about the show and analyse it all the time, and the best we can do is take it as it comes and see… But this is very much an utter fascination with watching Dabb era shed Carver era’s subtext cocoon and start testing its bizarre, mirrored, fractal wings.

[sf-in-hindsight-blog]

“Samurai Flamenco, In Hindsight” 5th Anniversary Recap Project - Introduction

October 10-11, 2018 will mark the fifth anniversary of Samurai Flamenco, an oddball original series produced by studio Manglobe for the back half of the Fall 2013 noitaminA block on Fuji TV.  The show’s 22 episodes aired alongside a lot of other series that I still look back on fondly, but nothing else from that period hit me as hard, or has stuck with me as long.  Samurai Flamenco pushed me to do things I hadn’t done in years, like leaving the fandom sidelines to discuss the show with total strangers instead of lurking on the edges of others’ conversations, and exploring the show’s characters, story, and themes through art and writing.  Eventually, I even started watching some of the tokusatsu shows the series is so interested in so that I’d have a little more context (and could get more of the in-jokes).  The show has gotten me through some hard times, as have the friends I’ve made through the small but devoted SamFlam fandom.  

I love Samurai Flamenco, and I love what engaging with Samurai Flamenco has brought to my life.  And so, to celebrate the show’s fifth anniversary, I’m planning to spend at least the next year doing extensive write-ups on all 22 episodes.  These won't be reviews, but more like essays, each focusing on whatever struck me most about the episode in question.  For instance, I'll be looking at the use of repetition in the premiere episode, "Samurai Flamenco, Debut!", while episode 2's write-up will talk about how "My Umbrella is Missing" develops (and complicates) Masayoshi as a character.  Episode 3, I'm thinking I might talk about how “Flamenco Versus Fake Flamenco” sets up the series' overall look at violence as it relates to heroism and hero media…but I haven’t re-watched the episode for this project yet, and I want to be open to whatever this particular viewing suggests would be most interesting to talk about.

More details below the cut!

That might sound like a haphazard approach, but attention to each episode as its own distinct thing is one of my guiding principles for this project.  An episode of a television show is always part of a larger whole, but it also remains singular, and looking at an episode on its own can be just as worthwhile as taking the opposite tack.  I think that's true even for super-formulaic whatever-of-the-week series — but that it's especially true for a show like Samurai Flamenco that plays with so many genres and sub-genres, isn't afraid of big tonal swings, and will very explicitly race through an entire season’s worth of monster-of-the-week fights in a single episode to make points about toku TV and hero media more generally.  I will never be able to talk about everything I find interesting about this show, but this approach should at least give me plenty of opportunities to discuss plenty of different topics.  (That said, of course I’ll be drawing connections between episodes and across the series as a whole, because why else do a retrospective project?  I picked that subtitle very deliberately!)

More on What to Expect

Every write-up will begin with a short episode summary, and wrap up with some stray observations.  You can probably also assume that each of these will include some amount of close formal analysis — that is, taking apart what we actually see onscreen, what we hear, and how it all unfolds in time — as a way of understanding how the show works.  Episode one’s write-up is largely that; episode two is significantly less so, but you can still expect a fair amount of “long shot” this, “low angle” that, “shot/reverse-shot” SIT DOWN, and so on.  I’m taking that approach in part because while I recognize the very real limitations of formal analysis, I think it can be a good starting point for understanding why something works on you as a viewer — or why it leaves you cold, uncertain, etc.  (I also just enjoy doing formal analysis; it’s fun for me, and this project is meant to be a little self-indulgent.)

But I’ll also lean toward formal analysis because I think Samurai Flamenco generally doesn’t get enough credit for how well put-together it is.  I know, I know — the art is often off model; the animation isn’t particularly impressive; have you ever noticed how unfinished the backgrounds were in the broadcast version of episode 14, holy hell.  And the MUSIC, don’t get me started on

...well, to be honest, I’ve got a soft spot for the soundtrack, and think it fits the show’s overall tone and aesthetic fairly well.  So no real complaints there from me there — but I do get it.

Still, having watched Samurai Flamenco start to finish more times than I can count, single-framed my way through both the broadcast and Blu-ray versions of the show, and futzed around on a defense of the much-maligned Flamengers arc longer than I care to admit, I’ve spent a fair chunk of time looking at this show up close.  There is a lot of rough stuff, yes, but also a lot of really solid visual storytelling, great attention to detail, and some very daring choices, particularly in terms of what’s left up to the viewer to figure out on their own.  The show has good bones, I think, sometimes hidden by wobbly execution.  Beyond that, I think Samurai Flamenco’s story structure is ridiculously good — that as much as we talk about the WILD RIDE and MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING*, in hindsight, the show is carefully set up to go all the places it does in a fairly well-paced way, enabling the character development to unfold realistically over time, and very little feels rushed that doesn’t feel like it was meant to feel rushed.

All this is a long way of saying that I think there’s a lot of good in Samurai Flamenco’s construction that I want to highlight, and sometimes that will require going shot-by-shot to explain what I mean.  I’ll try to keep the jargon to a minimum, though — and for long segments, I’ll provide time codes if you want to see if your read checks with mine.

A final content note: be forewarned that all of the write-ups will assume you’ve already completed Samurai Flamenco, meaning they will be FULL OF SPOILERS FOR THE ENTIRE SERIES.

Posting Schedule 

(or, You Never Know What Could Happen to You in the Final Episode, But I Do Know It’ll Take a While to Get There...)

My original plan was to post each episode’s write-up on the anniversary of its original airing, working out to one a week for approximately 22 weeks.  Then I started work on episode 1, and…well, maybe I’ll pick up speed as I go, but one a week was way too optimistic given the time I actually have to work on these, and how slowly I write.  So these write-ups will come out as I have them ready.  If that’s one a month or every six weeks, so be it — but I am committed to finishing this project.

A final programming note: I’m starting this project here on tumblr because, frankly, I need to start, and this is what’s easy and available at the moment.  At some point, I may migrate to a blog.  If I do, I’ll continue to announce new write-ups here and then link to the complete post, so if you’d like to keep tabs on this project, follow this tumblr for updates.

Closing

I hope that you’ll enjoy reading these write-ups at least as much as I enjoy writing them.  If you do, please share them with your friends, and support Samurai Flamenco in whatever way possible.  Stream from legal sources (ex. Crunchyroll), buy the home video releases if they are available where you are (I can personally vouch for All the Anime’s excellent Region B Blu-rays), and support people who engage with the show, whether through critical essays and appreciations, fan art and fan fiction, remixes, or whatever.

Until next time, FLAMWENCO!

Ko (ratherboogie)

* When a show that should be a “train wreck” avoids careening off the rails and instead becomes even more entertaining, not by fixing what’s “wrong” with it by conventional standards, but by continuing to do its own thing with confidence, commitment, and a sense of purpose.  It’s not an entirely positive label, carrying a whiff of “I know this is trash, but...”  Still, you don’t say a show is MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING if you don’t love it -- and if you continue to enjoy Samurai Flamenco after episode 7, you know immediately why it gets this label.

(For full context, look up the Initial D parody “Densha de D.”)

[mimiplaysgames]

So... Who is going to die in Kingdom Hearts III?

Speculation over the course of how Kingdom Hearts III will play out has been buzzing lately due to certain comments that director Tetsuya Nomura has made during a panel at the latest KH3 demo event (I will spell out those comments after the jump in case anyone just doesn’t want to look at anything spoilery). Now, fans are left to ruminate over the pieces and the reasons why x and x character may kick the bucket.

In this specific discussion, what I have to contribute is the writer’s perspective. Here, I will not attempt to convince anyone as to why x and x character will certainly die. I am instead going to gather supporting arguments for a major character’s death and its disputes, leaving the choice up to whichever lovely person ends up spending the time to read this. The writer’s perspective is one that is certainly overlooked. Instead of only relying on lore and literary analysis, the writer’s perspective is useful in understanding how the Death of a Major Character works, and how it relates to character and plot development, which, unbeknownst to probably many people, are MAJOR factors in deciding who is going to die.

This essay will first define what makes the Death of a Major Character tick and other core writing concepts, and then we will go through each major protagonist and the arguments for/against their deaths based on overall plot progression. What I hope to achieve is to stir discussion. I would love to read anyone’s suggestions or ideas about other arguments or lore that I have overlooked!

All information used in this is canonical, official, and known to the public. No leaked information was used.

So... who will die?

WARNING: Spoilers for the entire series. And one for Game of Thrones and Harry Potter.

ALSO WARNING: Very, very long.

First, a writing lesson! How do you kill off a major character?

1) Death is always foreshadowed. Yes, it is. It doesn’t only serve to create tension or danger as an element on its own. It is a writer’s job to plant seeds of awareness of such a possibility - for the basic reason of avoiding pissing off consumers/readers/viewers/players. Which is bad. All creators/writers/directors/designers strive to avoid doing this.

But wait, what about surprising deaths? Always foreshadowed, too. It can be simple and seemingly innocent, such as a character telling another character to “be careful.” Or it can be unrelated, such as a character reflecting on the loss of something that has nothing to do with death, or a character reflecting on their own dreams for the future. The latter two gives off a sense of heaviness without directly meaning to be. But it is always foreshadowed.

The reason for this is while consumers/readers/viewers/players enjoy being surprised and to be on the edge of their seat anticipating what is coming next, they DO NOT ENJOY being tricked, manipulated, deceived, or betrayed. Death is upsetting, for reasons that are human and natural to all of us. Death of a major character that consumers have gotten attached to is upsetting. Death, being the ultimate finale, robs a character of any promise that we expect them to achieve. Which leads me to the second reason...

2) Death should have meaning. What does this mean? How do you define what makes a death meaningful? Two ways: symbolically and logistically.

The symbolical reason could be anything. It could be a direct symbol of a theme, or a concept. It could be literal of a conversation that same character had moments earlier. It could be a representation of the psychological development of another character related to the dead one.

The logistical reason is related to plot development. The death of one character should make a tremendous impact of the course of another, major character’s development to the point that it affects the plot, or it should dramatically change the course of the plot progression overall. The most shallow plot-related reason to kill off a character is to exemplify the severity of a battle. Challenging a living character’s development and changing the plot structure should be long-term in order for it to have actual meaning.

Robbing the significance of the death of a major character would leave the consumer to accuse the death of existing purely for shock value. As you can probably guess, this is bad. This would upset the consumer purely for the reason of upsetting and emotionally manipulating them - and they are smart enough to realize this.

**If you are on the avant garde side and think that these kinds of rules are limiting of creative expression, I invite you to think about Ned Stark’s death from A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones. George R.R. Martin is called a genius for not only challenging our understanding of what it means to define a main character, but for challenging our understanding over how characters are protected by Plot Armor. What you will find is that he did not pull this off by ignoring the above two rules. He just toyed with them. This is an example of how a writer effectively breaks the rules.

**Considering how I said earlier that consumers do not enjoy being tricked, we should quickly cover Nomura’s comments. He said that the ending of KH3 will be difficult to swallow. He said that resolving the fight against Xehanort will have severe consequences, and that “Light will be defeated. [The game] will have a darkness to it.”  This was done during a panel discussion, a PR event. This is essentially a business promise to consumers of what to expect in the final product, much like how a writer plants seeds of awareness that death is coming. I have noticed that there are some people who are denying his statements by saying he is trying to trick us on purpose as some sort of stunt. This would put him in a precarious position which could threaten his career, actually. He will then be accused of lying. Overall, while this certainly may be a possibility, it’s a really unstable method that may bring him more consequences than he would expect. I honestly wouldn’t bet that he is lying to us. But what I will do is cover an alternative possibility as to what may happen in case there is no major character death.

Now that we have discussed the mechanics of death in modern storytelling, let’s cover two other concepts: Chekhov’s gun and consequentialism.

-Chekhov’s gun is a term that is credited to Anton Chekhov, a renowned Russian playwright who was at the height of his career in the 1880′s. It essentially states that elements of a story have to be necessary, and that you cannot deliver false promises to readers (remember what I said about consumers hating to be tricked?). The reason it is called Chekhov’s gun is because of a specific example he used: If you were to describe a gun in an earlier chapter, it must go off at a later chapter. Otherwise, forget mentioning it altogether (the only exception in modern storytelling is that a detail mentioned should have something to do with character development - but even so, this character development should have relevance to the plot).

What this means is that story elements that are alluded to need to be resolved, or not be mentioned at all. And if Nomura cares anything about essential elements of storytelling, he will stick by this, unless he wants to throw it out the window for who knows whatever reason.

-Consequentialism is the idea that a character will be important enough to affect the plot in substantial ways. I do not mean as a tool or a plot device either. I mean in such substantial ways that if they were erased, it would demand the majority of the plot to be rewritten. A consequential character is one whose actions actively change the plot or create new scenarios. Consequentialism is very important in determining who is going die because this is normally our first cue as to when a character is finished. In other words, when they stop being consequential, we subconsciously realize that they are no longer useful.

Now that we have covered some core writing concepts, let’s go over a couple of major themes of Kingdom Hearts, which should be considered when mulling over major character deaths.

-Sacrifice: This is present in every. Single. Game. Particularly the willing kind. Sora sacrificing himself to save Kairi, and Riku sacrificing himself to save Sora in the original game. Naminé sacrificing her desire for friendship and connection for Sora, and Riku sacrificing his most precious memories to keep the ones he made in Castle Oblivion in CoM. Roxas and Axel sacrificing their existence for Sora, and Riku willing to sacrifice his friendship in order to keep doing his thing in KHII. Xion sacrificing her existence for Sora in Days. Aqua sacrificing her life for Terra, Ventus choosing to sacrifice his, and Terra’s life being taken away from him in BBS. Riku willing to sacrifice his life for Sora again in DDD.

There is a clear give and take with all of these examples (Sora seems to be the winning character in many of these). Sacrifice is given in order to gain something. A willing sacrifice is indicative of the strength of the heart. This essentially means that if a major character is going to die, it is mostly likely going to be sacrificial, and it will be for a reason.

-Obsession leads to destruction: Obsession or a narrow-mindedness towards a goal or idea essentially leads to destruction of the character who is obsessing or destructiveness of those around them. Riku’s descent into darkness. Terra being possessed. Sora losing his Mark of Mastery exam. The Foretellers turning on each other. Xehanort, being the one to obsess the most, is the sole reason for the destruction of all the worlds (which essentially means that this will be also be a factor in his own destruction).

This could be a compelling reason for why a major character would die. Yes, this implies that a major character would struggle with darkness, but we already know that Kingdom Hearts defines character development through a struggle with dark elements of their own character (darkness in general). Meaningful and deep character development doesn’t exist in any other way in the series.

-Memories hold our bonds: This is certainly indicative of normal human behavior. We form relationships through the memories shared (ex. see Naminé and her lack of friends; see Xion and her lack of existence; see the fact that Xehanort lost his memory and it barely affected his ambitions because he has no friends). To lose memory means that the friendship is therefore broken, and it becomes non-existent, as if it never happened. This is not related to death directly, but it is something to bring up.

Now it’s time to get into the meat and bones of all of this, and the reason why you’re reading this essay in the first place. First, a disclaimer: As stated before, I am not attempting to predict what is definitely going to happen in Kingdom Hearts III. I am merely collecting reasons for/against character deaths. This is meant to be a reference, a resource for readers, to either contribute a different perspective or to ignite further discussion. Look at it as a starting point, if you want.

Let’s move on to the characters. First, our main contenders.

Sora

Support for: No, NOT OUR PRECIOUS. But seriously, considering how so many characters have sacrificed something for him, where is the return on investment? WE KNOW that Sora is willing to sacrifice himself for others. He always tries, that’s what makes his heart so strong. From a theoretical standpoint, Sora is the main hero - the one to go on the longest journey. According to Joseph Campbell, the professor of literature who wrote The Hero of a Thousand Faces, the hero’s journey is marred by a significant event that depicts the death of the hero as the end of that journey, which is found in the majority of mythologies and most fantasy stories. Just think about any fantasy hero who went through a literal death or a symbolical one after his achievements. Furthermore, Sora views the Keyblade as a tool to give everyone else a chance to be happy. Who is one of the people that he wants to make happy? Roxas. We already know that messing with hearts in general bring grave consequences - we haven’t seen something positive come out of that. It is also implied that he needs to wield darkness to do it based on the trailers. What if bringing Roxas back means that Sora can no longer exist? Or, try a different scenario. What if sealing Kingdom Hearts requires a blood sacrifice? What if using the Key to Return Hearts requires a sacrifice? If Sora had the choice to make another person happy, and bless them with a peaceful life, HE WILL DO IT, no matter the cost. He views himself as part of something bigger. He already has an understanding, then, of how big this truly is. He is the one character who will be the quickest to give himself up for others. Furthermore, Sora will eventually achieve Mastery, since he is on that path anyway. Beyond that, what is left for him?

Dispute(s): Despite what Campbell says, many contemporary stories usually reward heroes for their good deeds. It’s a particularly cruel disposition to kill Sora, considering how benevolent, kind, warm, and necessary he is. He accepts others as they are, with no judgment and no expectations. He is the healing source that others need. If anyone needs a connection or a bond to get them through things, it’s Sora that they can rely on. If there is a character that is the true representation of happiness and hope, it’s Sora. I understand that Nomura said that the ending will be difficult - but Kingdom Hearts is not a nihilistic series. In other words, the tone and mood of the series is not designed to bring us a completely destructive and hopeless ending - this is the same as tricking the consumer (hence, why tone is so important in writing). I am aware that this point does not protect Sora from death, which is indicative of how hard it was for me to find legitimate reasons against it - however, I will get back to him at the end of the essay.

Riku

Support for: No, NOT OUR OTHER PRECIOUS. Riku is Sora’s foil, Sora’s shadow, Sora’s other half. Symbolically, Sora and Riku are two halves of the same coin. Nomura makes tremendous strides in showcasing this throughout the series, and repeating the significance of their friendship. You do not have to be a shipper to notice this - Nomura makes it a major theme and to deny this is to ignore the primary source material. The two even appear together in any game they are a part of - even if separate, one is doing something for the other. In other words, they cannot be separated even when fighting or when physically distant. The reason why I mention Sora is because Riku considers himself as someone who has to look after him. If Sora were to do something reckless such a sacrificing himself, Riku is the ONE true appropriate character to stop him and take his place. This may be the series’ intended sadness - that death would finally separate the two, as a response to their friendship being such a main element to the story as a whole. It’s not only this factor: Riku’s character arc for the most part is already finished. He has become Master. He has built a resistance to darkness. Aside from his missions, what is there left for him to do? The trailers even show him forsaking his Way to Dawn in exchange for a new Keyblade as representative of his finished development. And still so, he keeps being reminded by Ansem that he will fall anyway. Furthermore, I understand the implication of the fact that they are never separated - it implies the possibility that BOTH of them may die together.

Dispute(s): It is a particularly bitter pill to swallow to kill off a character like Riku. Of all the characters, Riku is the one to offer a sacrifice the most often. While his sacrifices are nowhere near as tragic as the ones given up by the Wayfinder trio, it’s the consistency of his offerings that add a tragic and hopeless element to it. It’s the concept of how he has given up so much already - so why ask him to give up more? However, considering that I am starting this argument with an emotional appeal, it shows that I had trouble finding legitimate reasons against his death, too. But let’s think of a different scenario. Since Riku is Sora’s other half, it stands to reason that Riku is also a fitting replacement as a leader and main hero should Sora sacrifice himself (which is still a separation of the two). But I will get back to Riku at the end of the essay, as well.

Terra

Support for: Whether you think that Terra is a manipulated victim deserving of compassion and understanding or you think that he’s a genuine idiot in desperate need of redemption, Terra is indisputably a wildcard among the cast. The series has been blunt about Aqua and Ventus’ whereabouts, but purposely kept mum about Terra’s. This secrecy lends to several different and conflicting theories about his whereabouts and his return. He is the one character closest to Xehanort, and therefore may play a large role in the death of the primary antagonist. And while Terra sacrificed his body and ability to live, it wasn’t done so willingly - it was taken from him by force. So where is his contribution in accordance to one of the main themes of the series? Let’s consider a couple of scenarios, such as the theory that Xehanort is still using Terra’s body. Considering that the Master has failed in expunging Terra’s heart from the body, what if Terra was the one to bring Xehanort down with him, in some heroic suicide? Another theory suggests that Master Xehanort and Terra-Xehanort are two of the 13 Seekers of Darkness, as though they are separate entities. If that is the case, then we know that Terra’s whole body and heart have traveled in time to be one of the 13, so what does that mean for Terranort’s elimination? If Terra is Ansem’s Guardian, then that is a fractured heart given up to darkness. Since that has already been destroyed before, destroying it again would be inconsequential to the plot as a whole, so this particular one wouldn’t matter to the overall plot. Keep in mind that these are current theories based on current information. Considering the instability of the lore of the series as a whole (aka, all the retconning), it is quite possible that Nomura may come up with elements that we are completely blind to in order to make sense of Terra’s return and eventual sacrifice. But the main reason why he is associated with death is because Xehanort will eventually die - and Xehanort is an obsessive character, whose own obsession puts Terra at risk.

Dispute(s): Considering that death should have meaning to it, there seems to be a robbery of it by finishing Terra off. In other words, what is the point exactly of Sora and/or Riku going through all the trouble of saving Terra if he is going to die anyway? It’s labor with no reward, which cheats the consumer (especially a video game player, whose storytelling experiences are tied with achieving goals in a game). Furthermore, unlike the Destiny trio, the Wayfinder trio haven’t received the reunion that they so desperately want. We know they want this, and we have an expectation that it will happen, and while it may be tragic to take this away from them, it is taking it away from them purely for tragedy’s sake (shock value/emotional manipulation of the consumer). Continuing on this trend, there are certain suggestions that Terra has a definitive role to play that will rob him of meaning if he were to die. He promised to set things right to Aqua and Ventus as his lingering and fractured emotions and thoughts stayed with his armor. Aqua sacrificed herself for him to give him a fighting chance. Robbing him of both his promise and his chance ruins the promise made to the consumer that it will happen.  While this does not necessarily protect him from death (meaning, he could die after he fulfills his duties), the probability of him dying lessens to a significant degree if he is brought back to redeem himself because his character arc suddenly switches to being the fixer as a foil to Xehanort - unless of course KH3 makes subtle threats to his life again, in which case Xehanort has reason to kill him if he is an efficient foil.

We have gotten through the most likely characters, so let’s continue on to other contenders.

Ventus

Support for: Ventus is easily the largest question mark in the entire cast. What started out as a simple concept has become complicated as KHUX dropped a bomb on us and revealed that Ventus existed during an age eons ago. We don’t know what Ventus knows. We don’t even know if it’s the same Ventus as we recognize him. Undoubtedly, according to Chekhov’s gun, whatever Ventus knows, or whatever his contributions are to the events in KHUX, they will be tied to his role in KH3. What remains to be seen is how this is related to the possibility of Ventus dying. What we do know, however, is that he is willing to accept death if it means that it would benefit the worlds. What we also know is that Ventus’ plot progression cannot be discussed without the inclusion of Vanitas (quite a strange conundrum - what did Ventus do in the past to be able to give birth to such a spiteful, angry, hateful darkness? Yes, I am aware of the novels - more on that later). I will discuss Vanitas a bit more in detail next, but it depends on whether Vanitas can be purified - or will Ventus have to kill (at least a part of) himself? The union of Ventus and Vanitas also keeps being implied to being (somewhat) catastrophic. We don’t know it as anything else otherwise. So if their union is no longer necessary to form x-blade, then what does it mean now? If he is not necessary, then why is Xehanort trying so hard to find him? Not only this, but considering Ventus’ immaturity, and inability to gain personal experience because of sleep, this puts him as the one most vulnerable to be obsessive to fix a problem or to hyper-focus on saving Terra and Aqua (and obsession leads to destruction).

Dispute(s): As part of the Wayfinder trio, Ventus will be motivated to fight for a reunion, which keeps being referred to (and therefore it will happen). Not only this, but we know now that Ventus and Vanitas are not necessary anymore to form the x-blade, so therefore are no logistical means for Ventus to die either (under the ignorance of his involvement in KHUX). While the union of Ventus and Vanitas was implied to be harmful before, now that they are no longer the means of forging the x-blade, there is a possibility that the danger of their union is now just a red herring. It could be reduced to nothing more than Ventus needing to keep control of himself (much like how Terra needs to regain control of himself).

Let’s divert our attention to quickly cover...

The Case of Vanitas

Vanitas is in a precarious position, being that he has two distinct characterizations. The primary source material (the games) depict him as sadistic, unsympathetic, and incredibly spiteful. If he was acting selfishly - if he wasn’t following Xehanort around - Vanitas could be described as a sociopath. The secondary source material (the novels) depict him as a victim of horrible abuse with his own twisted perception of the world and of his relationship to Ventus. He has a need to merge with Ventus in order to feel whole (we have to keep in mind that we CANNOT call the novels an adaptation - that’s an abuse of the word and its definition). These kinds of characterizations are incredibly different and seemingly conflicting. They certainly can work together if KH3 plays its cards right and spends the screen time. However, for the majority of players who have never been exposed to the secondary material (and if KH3 never explores it), a redemption arc for Vanitas will not make sense. What does this mean? Death. In relation to Ventus, we can see this as Vanitas having to “die” as we know him in order to be whole again, or Ventus possibly dying in order to rid the world of Vanitas. Vanitas is also an obsessive character, who, similar to Xehanort is to Terra, puts Ventus at risk through his own obsession.

Let’s get back to our main focus.

Lea & Isa

Lea and Isa’s history is parallel to Sora and Riku’s, where Nomura explores how he defines a friendship that failed to stay together. I am not going to suggest that both of them have to die together, but being that they are linked, I am hoping to tackle our last likely contenders all at once.

For Lea -

Support for: Ah, to kill off our lovable, red-headed, fiesty know-it-all is an easy way to make players sad. It would certainly have a tragic element to it considering Lea’s history and how he was forced to work for Xemnas. But more importantly, it’s his role as that extra, new Keyblade wielder. There are 7 Guardians of Light, and while most people will include him on this list, his gray morality and overall consequential role to the plot dilutes the definition of a Guardian in comparison to a character like Terra. I am not suggesting that Lea is incapable - merely that he is an oddball in comparison to the rest. He is also just so willing to be sacrificial as well - he considered sacrificing his life for Roxas, and ended up doing so for Sora. The other characters will spend time questioning his morality, and what better way to prove the strength of his own heart? It may not even go down this way. He could be collateral damage in the final battle, á la Fred Weasley.

Dispute(s): Killing him off may subject Nomura to a certain anger from the fandom, partly because there isn’t a real convincing foreshadow to his death. While yes, he will always be there to get have his friends’ back (even if it means standing in the way of fire), many suggestions related to Lea are arguably related to hope. This promise of having his friends’ back was made to Roxas, indicating a role that Lea will play in getting Roxas back (or at the very least, a factor in Ventus’ development). We also know that he is slowly remembering Xion, and so his existence will play a factor in this, too. In other words, Lea is very much the support character that many of the others will need to rely on. The suggestion that he may be collateral, especially if there is no meaning to it, would easily put him in the shock value category. In other words, what purpose would killing him serve? What message does that send? Also, the term “lea” means “an open area of grassy and arable land (suitable for growing crops).” Lea is the earth that supports the Salt Ice Cream trio, who also have not been given their reunion (more on Roxas and Xion later).

For Isa -

Support For: The name Isa is the Arabic form of Jesus, and a name like this is quite on the nose. While we may use literary analysis to sympathize with Isa as to how he was manipulated into the Organization, and how he is being controlled by Xehanort, Isa is not designed to be sympathetic. He is bossy, mean, rude, cold, and jealous. He has done nothing so far, like Riku, to redeem himself, and this puts him the gray area of being irredeemable so close to the end. His bond with Lea is deeply fractured, as they are two former friends fighting on opposite sides of a war. If Evil Jesus, Our Lord and Savior, were to fix this fracture, considering that he does not show qualities that would paint him as deserving of Lea’s loyalty, a willing sacrifice for the purpose of saving or protecting Lea seems fitting in this case. His death would also support Lea’s survival.

Dispute(s): He is another character that I had trouble finding legitimate reasons to spare, but let’s consider the mark of the Recusant’s Sigil on his face. Any other time we see this sigil, it’s through a temporary means - clothing, magic attacks, or a rearrangement of a name. Isa is the only one to bear it on such a permanent level (by normal human’s standards). The series makes a point, however, that even the body is malleable. Since we do not know the full role the Recusant’s Sigil will play in KH3, and how Isa in particular will relate to this, sparing his life can enrich our understanding of it. However, I recognize that the Recusant’s Sigil theory supports the idea that he will save Lea (and thus betraying the Organization), which fits the idea that he will die more so than he will live. I also recognize that Isa is not necessary at all to understand the meaning of the Recusant’s Sigil - that falls directly on Luxu and the Master of Masters.

But wait, x and x character are not on this list! What gives?

Let’s trudge through the last few characters, who are either highly unlikely to die or fit into a weird definitive space.

TRIGGER WARNING: Keep in mind that I will cover two very controversial characters in this section, and I WILL address their controversy and lightly touch upon why they are controversial. You know who these are. If you are a fan, keep in mind that I am discussing the writing process - colloquially yes, but academically. I have to be critical where it is appropriate and required. I expect this to be understood.

Kairi

Support for: Let’s get two concepts out of the way: First, Kairi is the kind of character that writers will create to fulfill incredibly specific purposes That’s putting it nicely. If you want me to be frank and use my education* to define her, she is a plot device. This cannot be disputed considering the massive amounts of evidence - but that’s an entirely different, very long lecture on its own. All writers create plot devices - many will spare a character from fulfilling that role by creating an object instead, like the One Ring, the Elder Wand, dragons - but in Kingdom Hearts... well congrats, Kairi. Her whole existence in KH3 is going to be tied to the summoning of Kingdom Hearts, due to her being a Princess of Heart. This does not mean that she is consequential to the overall plot - it only means that, for Xehanort, she is one of the tools needed to forge the x-blade (consequentialism, agency, and character development in relation to the series are also entirely different lectures on their own - if anyone wants to learn more, I’d be happy to indulge). Furthermore, she is the only character to not have sacrificed anything. Secondly, let’s go back to Chekhov’s gun. The one element that every game alludes to is Kingdom Hearts. It is discussed among other characters what they think it means, or what they think it does. But the truth is, we have never seen it in action. Definitions of Kingdom Hearts come from an age of fairy tales, diluted from time and misunderstanding. So, we don’t actually know what it does or what’s inside aside from a vague description that it’s the light of all worlds. It has been unattainable to us this entire time. This heavily suggests that it will be summoned so that we can finally see it. It means we will get a chance to see the x-blade in ACTION, since we don’t know what that looks like, either. And for Kairi, she is going to be consumed. We don’t know if that means death, per se, or if she and the other Princesses will be part of a ritual. Nomura did say that light will be defeated - since Kairi is indicative of pure light, then his statement pretty much defines itself. However, considering that it seems so certain that she will be consumed, why is she in this category?

Dispute(s): I have mentioned before that the series is not designed to be nihilistic, hopeless, or full of despair. An ending like the summoning of Kingdom Hearts with no resolution is the same as betraying the consumer - it is unsatisfactory, given the amounts of efforts players have put into achieving happy, bittersweet, or hopeful endings. We may witness a catastrophe happening, and the 7 Guardians may fail to stop the summoning (thus, Nomura’s statement about light being defeated can be interpreted this way), but it cannot stay a catastrophe. This robs all of the main characters from their goals. If catastrophe was truly the ending that the series was pertaining to, it would have been foreshadowed through its tone already, beyond the Master of Master’s Book of Prophecies. Tone is everything. And it’s a Disney game. What this essentially means is that we will see a reversal of fortune in relation to this in some form. Maybe the worlds will all blend together, or maybe they will stay apart. Who knows. But it’s definitely not all death and despair. In relation to Kairi, it means that she may have to be saved by Sora and company (which may end up leading to Sora’s death) as a means of sealing Kingdom Hearts. In other words, she’s a retconned key to unlock Kingdom Hearts, and a retconned key to lock it back up again (going back to calling her an object and all - and if it wasn’t her, it really could have been anybody). Going back to her lack of sacrifice, it makes no sense that she would willingly sacrifice herself to choose to summon Kingdom Hearts. Not only this, but if pure light is needed to rebuild the world (and since we know of no other young children), the light of the Seven Princesses may be necessary here. I do recognize the possibility that Kairi may choose to sacrifice herself for Sora, but since she has no character development, this truthfully is going to hold little value to many fans since there has been no foreshadowing to this. There would also be a lack of meaning here in comparison to a character who is already closely tied to the theme of sacrifice (such as Sora, Riku, Ventus, etc).

What I mean to say is that MEANING can only be created through characters who are active in the plot and undergo well-developed character development. This is because this gives us, the consumers, a reference point so that we can determine what is meaningful in relation to the events in the overall personal journey that a character went through. And no, training to fight is not personal development. That is shallow development, because actual personal development would deepen and challenge our understanding of her. In other words, she will be the same person despite her training, because training is not a personal trial for her - she will continue to be someone who loves her friends, someone who wants to be involved, a broken record, etc. This is emphasized over the fact that Kingdom Hearts defines character development to be tied to struggling with darkness considering how all the other characters developed. She’s pure of light with no darkness. This means that sacrifice or death for her is just not fitting to give to her as a role and cannot create meaning, unless you want to make this a symbolic tie to how light in general has disappeared. It can very easily argued and challenged by skeptics though that this is still a shallow symbolic tie because her light doesn’t MEAN anything in terms of behavior, psychology or plot development. It’s just a broad, vague concept that was ignored for most of the series. This is inconsequentialism. This also suggests that if she were to die, it would be meaningless (therefore, shock value).

Meaning for her specifically doesn’t exist, but it does for Sora. What this means is that yes, she can die, but it holds no message for us as consumers. It would be a plot device to drive Sora, which is something that I don’t think Nomura will go for, mainly because Square is already aware of the backlash that can happen by fridging a female character for the sake of a boy. Especially a flat character. That suggests that she has no purpose to exist except for Sora, and Square already went through this song and dance with all the controversy surrounding Final Fantasy XV. Fridging her also cheapens her death from any real meaning because it’s all meant for Sora’s development without saying anything about her, since she has no development. Again, this is shock value - especially if it’s going to happen in the end of the game.

It terms of actual meaning and consequentialism, this brings me to... 

Aqua

Support for: I found little in support of her death. Considering that there is no foreshadowing to it, and that despite consistently wanting to give up in the Realm of Darkness, BUT SHE NEVER DOES - the only way for her death to have any meaning is if Terra and Ventus were to die as well. Then she could rejoin them in the afterlife, and that could be their reunion. In this vein, yes, this would essentially mean that Terra and Ventus are safe from death through their association with her.

Dispute(s): Aqua defines herself as a wayfinder to others, someone to be a guide. In relation to Sora and Riku, she is the ONLY other character to fit as a leader. She is incredibly consequential to the plot, being that she is the only one who knows what happened to Terra and she is the only one who knows where Ventus is. In other words, she is one of the most important characters to the plot progression of KH3. Plus, any references to her character progression have been positive, about how she will push forward, how she will be a light to others. Yes, she could die after the fulfillment of her duties, if Nomura really wants to be depressing, but this could draw possibly the most ire from fans. This would be mainly because of the lack of meaning. What is the point of saving her if she is going to die? Hasn’t she suffered enough? What about the Wayfinders? Isn’t their purpose to represent an unbreakable connection? What is the point of that connection if she dies? It is not that she is more deserving to live than other characters, such as Sora or Riku. It has more to do with the reality that we expect the Wayfinder trio to reap some sort of reprieve after all they went through. We expect this because the series has always given back to those who have sacrificed enough. Killing her would therefore be done for shock value for the purpose of saddening fans. Since this is still a Kingdom Hearts game we are talking about, just because it will be a darker game doesn’t mean that the game is going to be a total curveball. Unless of course, Nomura wants to change the tone of it and turn it into a curveball for the purpose of shocking fans - which will not fly by many. Fans are smart enough to notice.

Here is where I get apprehensive, though - Nomura has already shown to be emotionally manipulative, so it doesn’t mean that Aqua is totally safe. Which brings me to...

Roxas & Xion

Support for: So, I have just finished explaining how the series is forgiving to characters who are sacrificial enough, and of course these two will spring to mind. Of any character that underwent a death already and been revived in some form, Roxas and Xion are two who have yet to come back. There are many fans who think they shouldn’t. Fans like these are aware that their return may serve no purpose. This is the concept of consequentialism in action. Roxas was consequential until he wasn’t anymore. Xion was inconsequential to the plot as a whole, which means that her character had only one specific purpose: to be emotionally manipulative to the player (do not take this as criticism of her if you are a fan - if she serves no role to the plot, then this is the only reason left for her existence. I am speaking of the writing process here, not her personally). Inconsequentialism is the fancy academic term why some fans accuse their return as fanservice. They are asking: what purpose do these two characters serve? What meaning does their existence, their living, really have? The truth is that it will all be tied to Sora. Xion is tied directly to Roxas and her return would not be possible without him because no one remembers her. Sora wants Roxas back. How does this relate to their deaths? If we can assume that bringing Roxas back (and therefore Xion by extension) is risky, then that means that their return is in conflict with Sora’s safety. But this is conflict beyond just the surface-level understanding that Sora is in danger - here we have inconsequential characters threatening the existence of a consequential one. Overall, on paper, it sounds like a bad idea. So what does death look like for them? Either Nomura will make Sora fail to bring Roxas (and by extension, Xion) back, or he succeeds at a huge cost to himself, and Roxas and Xion will make the willing sacrifice to spare him.

Dispute(s): Roxas and Xion really fit into a strange space, because much like how meaning is stripped if the Wayfinder trio die, there will be a feeling of emptiness if Sora put all this effort into bringing Roxas back only to be fruitless in his efforts. It also contradicts the concept of Chekhov’s gun entirely - especially in Xion’s case. For a character that the plot says everyone forgot, BBS, Re: Coded, and DDD all make an effort to remind us that she still exists. She will return, and because this can only happen through Roxas, Roxas will return (unless Nomura really just wants to toss this concept out the window, of course). I have already mentioned earlier that Riku serves to be a fitting replacement as leader in place of Sora should Sora kick the bucket. Roxas is a character that can appropriately fit this role as well, a counterpart to Sora. Another scenario is that Sora finds a different way, a way through light, in order to bring them back so their return doesn’t have to threaten him. We do not know if the Key to Return Hearts will be used to bring Kingdom Hearts back to its former glory, or if it allows the wielder to split hearts into two with no consequences, or how data plays a role in building Roxas and Xion bodies. All of these are possibilities.

Naminé

Support for: She is another character that exists in a strange cloud of space. Unlike Roxas and Xion, her return is not guaranteed, given that Kairi has no expressed interest in finding her. Other characters seem to go on the assumption that she is gone for good. The last time we saw her, it was a data-copy. Instead of really dying, evidence points to her never coming back at all.

Dispute(s): It seems a bit out of character for someone like Sora to never consider bringing her back in some way, even though there has been no indication that her heart is with him. If he wants to make everyone happy, then surely isn’t Naminé included? He also wanted to thank her personally, as indicated when he chased her in DDD, only for it to be a dream. If she doesn’t come back, then he never gets that chance - although that could be a tragic reality as a consequence of messing with the heart. Being that there has been no indication of her coming back, this is a small tragedy that can certainly happen, since we are not expecting her to.

And here is where we finish with going through all the characters.

Well, what if no one dies?

Ever since these kinds of doomsday comments by Nomura, it has been a doomsday response by many fans. Which is ironic, considering that death really doesn’t mean much in Kingdom Hearts, even for someone like Ansem the Wise, who was right next to an explosive device and he survived anyway. So what is left? Here is one idea that I will argue may happen, which include arguments as to why I personally believe that one or both of them may die:

Sora and/or Riku will lose all their memories

I write this under my personal expectation that if any characters are going to be the ones to sacrifice the most, it will be Sora and/or Riku.

In Kingdom Hearts, losing memories is worse than losing a limb, and is equivalent to dying. The whole purpose of existing, and the whole point of having a heart is to feel feelings and to build relationships with one another. Sora and Riku are two characters whose friendship we have watched develop the longest. Sora has been together with Donald and Goofy almost the entire time. Similarly, Riku is tied to Mickey. This tie to the most iconic Disney characters of all time is indicative of just how their characters define the meaning of Kingdom Hearts as a whole. If you want to pick something to be representative of all of Kingdom Hearts’ themes, it’s them. Like a Greek choir telling us the story. Like Rosencratz and Guildenstern, but way more involved (sorry, obscure Hamlet reference). What I am saying here is that many fantasy stories will rely on characters that act as twins, or represent twin-like concepts, whose relationships are indicative of how the nature of the plot is going. Examples? Merry and Pippin. Cersei and Jaime Lannister. Fred and George Weasley. C-3PO and R2-D2. Cecil Harvey and Kain Highwind. With characters like these, you look for when they are separated, when they are together, how they are feeling, what they are facing, their commentary on the events around them, the decisions they make, etc. The genius of Kingdom Hearts is that it’s the main heroes who also fulfill this role. It’s a lot of pressure.

One of them losing their memories severs the friendship that we have spent the longest observing. We know that this will be considered a huge loss to either of them. If both of them lose their memories, it severs their many connections to EVERYONE else. It has meaning because it’s a testament to what the cost of protecting the light is supposed to mean, especially from characters who have done so much for everyone else already. This testament is especially true for Sora, whose entire purpose is to build connections and to heal others - to make them smile, and it acknowledges that his heart is connected to everyone else. His friends are everything to him, and losing his memories is therefore a huge loss.

This testament is true for Riku, who for Sora is a figure meant to look after him - someone that Sora has expected all his life to be there, and to lose this friendship would be a tremendous loss to Sora if he survived it. It holds meaning because far beyond anything we have ever seen Kingdom Hearts do, this is truly the meaning of death and loss, done in a way that is meant to make us able to recognize that, yes, this is very bad. It is a resolution that would acknowledge why Nomura puts such a strong emphasis on the two of them, including how he tried to tie “Dearly Beloved” to them. Death or loss of memory is truly tragic in this case. It can be argued that loss of memory is worse than death, because at least the dead are grieved over.

So, that’s all that I have. I would LOVE to hear other people’s ideas for other alternatives to death! Who do you think is going to die and why? What kind of lore would you tie into those theories?

If you read all the way here, THANK YOU for getting through this monstrosity!

*In case anyone wanted to know my credentials, I graduated with a degree in Creative Writing/Literature and Psychology from a prominent and respected university in this field in Florida. 

[thefosterspoilers]

The Fosters Springs Forward in Its Landmark 100th Episode

The Fosters concluded its fifth and final season with a touching graduation ceremony and a four-year time jump, which meant big changes for a few members of the Adams-Foster family.

On the Stef (Teri Polo) and Lena (Sherri Saum) front, their trip to a relationship retreat helped Stef break down the anxiety she's been experiencing over the course of the season. She was able to confront the damaging insecurities she developed as a teenager with her disapproving parents and begin the hard road to loving herself for exactly who she is. That breakthrough helped her and Lena bridge the gap in their relationship and once again return to wedded bliss.

Brandon (David Lambert) didn't have nearly as good of a time. It turned out that Grace (Meg DeLacy) didn't respond to the gene therapy and she made the decision to stop getting treatment for her leukemia. There wasn't a magical new cure or turnaround either. She died the night before Brandon and Callie's (Maia Mitchell) graduation, leaving Brandon in shambles the morning of his big day. Luckily, Callie was able to convince him to show up for their big day and they made it just in time to graduate with the rest of their class. They received their diplomas and we found out that Brandon made it into the Musician's Institute and Callie was able to score a last minute spot in the University of California San Diego's five-year law program.

Brandon and Callie's graduation wasn't the only one fans got to see at the end of the two-hour 100th episode event. The show skipped forward to Jesus (Noah Centineo) and Mariana's (Cierra Ramirez) graduation. Jesus was also able to graduate with the rest of his class and continued on to San Diego Community College. Mariana was accepted to MIT with Emma (Amanda Leighton). The show then skipped forward another three years to Jude's (Hayden Byerly) graduation. The youngest member of the Adams-Foster family will be spending his college days at UCLA.

The series could have ended there, with everyone in their chosen fields, but the season finale is actually a set up for The Fosters three-night series finale event airing this summer on Freeform. That special event will be the pathway for The Fosters spin-off centered on Callie and Mariana coming to the network later on. TV Guide talked to The Fosters executive producer and co-creator Bradley Bredeweg about the emotional two-hour episode, the time jump revelations and what we can expect as the series comes to an official close.

TVGuide: Did you know that you wanted to time jump or is that something that came about once you knew that this was going to be the semi-end of the series? Bradley Bredeweg: It's something that came about over the last couple of years, especially when we knew we were building towards the end of the show because we had such a tight timeline that kind of kept us a few years behind anyways within our Fosters world. We knew that as we grew up the kids and wanted to see them enter into adulthood that we were going to have to kind of speed things up. So it just came naturally out of the storytelling process within the room.

TVG: We do have these final three episodes that are going to air this summer which will serve as the big conclusion. This time jump is only four years. Callie and Mariana still have one more year of school, at least. Can you say how much time the summer finale will encompass? Bredeweg: The final three episodes are taking us into their young adult lives. There's a slight time jump but it's really the last three episodes focus on a very specific short amount of time for us.

TVG: I found it very interesting that Jude decided to go to UCLA, which is going to make it very convenient for him to maybe pop in on Callie and Mariana when these two are in their own spinoff. Bredeweg: Yes. There's a lot of possibilities for Jude to make his presence known and we're going to want to check in with that wonderful young man. As you probably know, Brandon also lives in Los Angeles pursuing his music career within the business. So they will be around.

TVG: Was there anyone that you wanted to get back for these final two episodes and maybe also for the three-episode finale coming up? Bredeweg: For me, it would be AJ. I would love to have been able to explore where he's at in his life right now. But unfortunately, the actor took a sabbatical in Europe and we're so proud and happy that he got to do it. I was a little bummed that we weren't able to explore that a little bit more. But he had a great foster family and foster father in Mike. We can only assume that his life is continuing to grow and flourish.

TVG: Stef and Lena have broken so many boundaries and gotten so far over the years. Why did that feel like an interesting story to break Stef down to her teenage anxieties at the end of the series? Bredeweg: Because even though we're all continuing to grow and better ourselves and our lives and our relationships, we all still have so much underneath that and so many layers and so many things that happen to us in our lives, especially our younger lives that we haven't always quite dealt with. Peter [Paige], Johanna [Johnson] and I just got to talking about anxiety and how it affects the three of us really. We're in a very high-pressure world and where does that come from? What is the seed of that anxiety? What is the birth of that anxiety? We know Stef to be this force to be reckoned with and this woman that takes on life with so much strength. But, you know, she's vulnerable too sometimes and we wanted to get underneath that and really discover and understand why she may say something like that. We found it to be an interesting time to dive into it.

TVG: She does get to shed her guilt over lying for Mike at the end of this episode. Does she get to stay a cop? Bredeweg: Stef will step into something a little bit different. She won't stay a cop. I will tell you that.

TVG: I was not expecting Grace to die in these final episodes. That was heartbreaking. Why did that feel like the best way to end that story line for Brandon? Bredeweg: There was one of two ways of going about this. Brandon's been through so much this season. He's grown into such a young gentleman and we really talked about how interesting it would be to explore that story on him because no person his age should have to face death like that. But, if anyone can take it on it's Brandon because he was raised by two incredibly strong women.

Now we get to see him apply all that he's learned from his moms to take on life after Grace. Let me tell you, he takes it on head on and then some. I think you'll be able to tell that Brandon is going to build this incredible life for himself. There may be hints of how he moves on and who he moves on with in our finale too. But I don't want to divulge too much on that.

TVG: On Callie's side, it feels like law was the most obviously choice for her. Why do you think it took her so long to figure it out for herself? Bredeweg: Sometimes what's so obviously and right in front of us, we tend to ignore or dodge it a little bit. I think we all have to explore the other possibilities before we really make that one big life decision. Because Callie is who she is and because her journey has been so incredibly present these last five years, particularly. She went from this girl lost within our system with no real hope for a future to this young, powerful woman with the entire world of possibilities in front of her. I think that's a big reason why we wanted to explore the different layers and possibilities on her.

TVG: It's so sad that the show itself is ending, but we do get to stay with these characters. What does aging them up allow you to do and how will exploring them in this new way be different from what we've been seeing on the series? Bredeweg: It's just good to be able to see all of these kids that we knew as kids and through their young adult lives as a family and really setup the platform for them to go out into the world and succeed. Then the spinoff is about these twenty-somethings out in the world fighting for their lives and fighting to build lives for themselves and fighting for what they believe in. We're seeing a lot of that right now. We're seeing the younger generation, especially for example in Florida, doing just that a few weeks ago. We want to explore what it's like to be at a young adult age when you find yourself in a world of chaos and you want so desperately to make it better.

TVG: These final two episodes felt like they could have been the series finale by themselves. What did you guys feel like still needed to be explored/wrapped up before you moved into the spin-off and the summer specials? Bredeweg: You're absolutely right. It does feel like a finale but we also wanted to ... we're not ready to say goodbye to the Foster family. The fans out in the world aren't ready to say goodbye. We really wanted to give everyone a final goodbye to this family and really spend time with them as a unit to see what happens in their lives after the foundation and the structure that we've all experienced these last five years on the show. So we take them outside the house and we enter a different world and we see what this family is like outside those walls of the Fosters' home.

TVG: This is going to be a tough one. What are you most proud of, of everything that you've done on The Fosters so far? Bredeweg: Oh my gosh. Look, we've been so incredibly lucky to be able to work on this show for five years, especially the last two years during the current political fire storm. To be able to tell these kinds of stories that seem to make a difference and seem to inspire our younger generation of viewers I think has been the job and the opportunity of a lifetime. I can't even put into words how grateful I am to have been a part of this.

We all tear up every time we think about how lucky we've been to be able to be a part of this family. I'll say our last night together just a few nights ago as a family on set was one of the most beautiful but probably one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. We wrapped at like 5:30 in the morning and we all just stood there in this big group hug not wanting to let go. We kind of literally didn't. We just stood there for what seemed like forever until the sun came up. I think just being a part of this family and being on this journey with this incredible cast and being able to tell these stories during this time has been quite a beautiful journey for all of us.

The Fosters will return for a three-night series finale event this summer.

x

[christinesumpmg]

Beyond Youtube: Video Hosting, Marketing, and Monetization Platforms, Compared

Posted by AnnSmarty

A few weeks ago I did a step-by-step article on building up your YouTube presence. When writing the article, I immediately had a follow-up idea on expanding my tips beyond YouTube. Since then, some of the comments have confirmed the need for this follow-up.

The increasing interest in video marketing and diversifying your efforts is not surprising: According to HubSpot’s research 45% of web users watch an hour or more of video per day. That’s a lot if time our customers spend watching videos! And it's projected that by 2020, 82% of all consumer web traffic will be video.

Obviously, if you are seriously entering the video marketing arena, limiting yourself to YouTube alone is not a smart idea, just like limiting yourself to any one marketing channel is probably never a good way to go.

With that in mind, what other options do we have?

More video hosting options

YouTube is not the only major video hosting platform out there. There are a few solid options that you want to consider. Here are three additional platforms and how they fit different needs:

YouTube

Vimeo Pro

Vimeo Business

Wistia

Cost

Free

$20 /m

$50 /m

$99 /m

What's included

Unlimited videos

20GB per week

5TB per week

10 videos a month

Lead generation

No

No

Yes

Yes

Customizable player

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Collaboration

No

No

Yes

No

Publish native to Facebook & Twitter

No

Yes

Yes

No

Clickable links

No(*)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Domain-level privacy

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Analytics

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes (**)

Video schema

No

No

No

Yes

Customer support

No(*)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Cons

Crowded, no good way to send viewers to your site...

Often has issues with bandwidth; videos load slower. If you are looking for organic visibility, it's quite niche-specific (artists, etc.)

Most expensive

Best for

Anyone

Filmmakers

Agencies

Businesses

(*) Unless you become a YouTube Partner (which is next to impossible for new and medium-scale channels)

(**) I (as well as many reviewers) consider Wistia analytics much better than that of YouTube and Vimeo

Bottom line:

Choosing a video hosting platform is overwhelming but here are a few easy-to-digest takeaways from the above comparison:

YouTube is beyond competition. If you are into video marketing, you need to be there, at least for the sake of being discovered through their search and suggested videos. However, a YouTube account is only good for promoting the YouTube account. There's little chance to drive leads to your site or build solid income there. You do need to be there for branding, though. Besides, none of the other options will offer an opportunity for such a powerful organic spread.

If you are into creative film-making (artists and storytellers), you'll want to give Vimeo Pro a try. There's a big community there and you want to be part of it to find partners/clients.

If you are a video marketing agency, Vimeo Business may be your platform of choice (thanks to their collaboration and multi-user support)

If you mostly need videos to embed on your landing pages, Wistia will save you tons of time. It's the easiest to use and understand. No extra training needed. You don't have to be an experienced filmmaker OR marketer to understand how it works and use its analytics.

Video courses and on-demand video

These days, anyone can create their own on-demand video channel. Isn't it awesome? It's also a very smart way to monetize your videos without forcing your viewers into clicking any ads or buying any affiliate stuff you didn't create.

When consolidating your video marketing efforts into your own on-demand video channel, there are important goals to keep in mind (targeting at least several at a time being the smartest approach):

Creating a knowledge base around your product

Positioning your brand as a knowledge hub in your niche

Building up an additional conversion funnel (for those people who are not ready to buy yet)

To me, creating a video subscription channel seems to be a perfect way to monetize your video creation efforts for two very appealing reasons:

You create a product of your own which you are able to sell. With that comes an ocean of opportunities, from enhanced branding to an ability to expand your reach to many more platforms where you can sell your product from.

You build and nurture your own micro-community, which (if you do things right) are able to spread your word, refer more people to join and support you in your other endeavors.

With that in mind, which options do we have to create our own video course?

Not surprisingly, there are quite a few platforms that fall into two major groups:

Revenue sharing platforms. The power of those is that they are interested in selling your courses and there's usually a community to market your course to. That benefit also creates one major drawback: Expect these platforms to dictate you how to format and market your course. Udemy is the best known example here: I started using it mostly for branding and quickly got discouraged due to their multiple restrictions and poor customer support. Still, it's a good place to start.

VOD (video-on-demand) platforms. These will charge you a monthly fee but they will come with awesome marketing features and integrations, as well as total freedom as to what you want to do with your content and your audience. Like with anything, you get what you pay for.Uscreen is a big player here: You can choose your payment model, use your own domain, brand your course the way you want to, send email marketing emails to your students, and even create a custom smart phone app to give your students an alternative on-the-go way to consume your brand-owned content:

Bottom line:

Like with video marketing platforms, there's nothing preventing you from using both of the above options (for example, you can sell a lighter version of your course on Udemy and keep a more advanced, regularly updated version for your own domain) but just to give you an idea:

Udemy is best if you are very new to course creation and have no budget to start. It also makes it easy to keep an eye on competitors and understand your audience better by watching what and how they rate and review

Uscreen is a logical step further: Once you get more comfortable and have accumulated some videos you may want to bring it to the next level, i.e. create your own branded spot to engage your community better and build an alternative source of income.

Live streaming

Live streaming refers recording and simultaneously broadcasting your video to your audience in real time.

Live streaming has been getting bigger for a few years now and there's nothing that would signal an upcoming slow-down.

The biggest players here are:

YouTube Live

Facebook Live

Periscope

All the above options are very interactive and engaging: You can see your viewers' comments and reactions as you are streaming the video and you are able to address them right away.

In this case, your choice depends on your own marketing background: Stick to whatever channel currently works best for you in terms of follower/subscriber base and engagement.

Personally, Facebook is my preferred way to stream videos, not because of the actual audience size but because Facebook audience is more engaged. Besides, Facebook sends a notification to my friends whenever I go live which always results in more views.

But it's possible that we don't have to choose...

There are a couple of services that claim to stream "simultaneously" to several of the major platforms which is something I haven't tried yet but I am definitely planning to. If you like the idea, here's what I have been able to find so far:

Vimeo Live

Crowdcast Multistreams

Supported platforms

"Vimeo and Facebook, YouTube, or your favorite RTMP destinations"

"Facebook Live, Periscope, YouTube Live, and more"

Cost

$75 per month

$89 per month

Extra Pros

Comes with all Vimeo Business features (analytics, collaboration, hosting, etc.)

Comes with nice webinar hosting features

More tools to amplify your video marketing

In my previous article I listed lots of video creation and marketing tools and I didn't want to leave you with no tools here as well.

If you have read up to this point, you must be very serious about your video marketing efforts. So to award you, here are a few awesome tools you may want to take note of:

Create: Lumen5

Here's a nice tool I failed to mention in my previous post: Lumen5. If you are looking for an easy start for your video marketing campaign, take a look at this tool. It turns blog posts into videos and the result is pretty awesome.

I don't mean to say this tool is enough for a well-rounded video marketing campaign but it's definitely a nice way to re-package your text content and broadcast your articles to video-only channels, like Youtube and Vimeo.

Monetize: Patreon

Apart from selling your videos as a separate project, there's another cool way to monetize your video activity.

Patreon is nice platform aiming to help independent video creators: Set up your page and invite your social media followers to support your video creation efforts by a small monthly subscription. If you don't want to sell anything, that's a nice way to earn your living by engaging your supporters:

You can learn more on how it works from its current user here.

Monitor: Awario

There's never one perfect method of doing marketing. There's always a need to try different tools, formats and platforms. Monitoring your competitors is one great way to discover more of those tactics to play with.

Awario is a great solution to use for competitive multi-channel monitoring. They support all major media including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, blogs and more. You can easily filter out any channel to clear out clutter. YouTube monitoring is a life saver when it comes to keeping an eye on what your competitor is doing video-wise:

When it comes to video marketing, I am not aware of any other solution for monitoring video content.

Conclusion

You don’t have to limit yourself to YouTube for video hosting, but you cannot really do without YouTube altogether.

When it comes to YouTube, it’s a powerful video discovery engine but there’s not much you can do to direct those viewers to your own site. You need to be there to be discovered, though.

When it comes to other video hosting platforms, every solution serves its own purpose, so choose one that will serve your needs best.

If you want to consolidate your video marketing efforts (which is a smart and logical step further), create your own on-demand video channel. These days it’s pretty easy and affordable.

Video live streaming is a great way to earn organic social media visibility. Choose your platform to stream based on your current level of engagement and reach. Or, try paid solutions that allow to stream to multiple platforms simultaneously

Are there more tools and platforms you are using? Let us know in the comments!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

https://ift.tt/2LsfKI3