#at least with the third movie i liked the original version better than the director's cut

[disdaidal]

I decided to watch Alien (1979) after a long time and I honestly don't remember there being two versions of it? I know the 3rd movie has two versions, but hmm. 🤔

[tilbageidanmark]

Movies I watched this Week # 148 (Year 3/Week 44):

“… Would you go without her?… “

No bears, my 5th and favourite meta-film by persecuted Iranian director Jafar Panahi. Made in secret and illegally while being prohibited by the Ayatollahs. It's a slick and sharp fictionalized metaphor about a director, played again by himself, who rents a room in a tiny, primitive village near the Turkish border, while directing a movie long-distance about a couple who wants to escape Iran.

It's impossible to separate the fiction from reality. This is like a serious 'La Nuit américaine' with real-life consequences. Panahi was sentenced to 6 years in jail a month after the premier of the film. What kind of movies could he make, had he born in a "normal" country?

There's always the noise of traffic, when you're in the city. But it ends with the barks of country dogs at night. 9/10.

🍿

“ … So you’re a rocket scientist?…”

How many times have I seen J.C. Chandor's masterly thriller Margin Call in the last couple of years? At least half a dozen, and I simply can't get enough. After 'The Wolf of Wall Street' re-watch last week, I had to do it one more time. It's interesting that the movie doesn't show what they actually do, except of the end, after the long night is over. The muted score... The bridge story... the top-notch performances.

Noted this time: Stanley Tucci got $1,411,768 in extra bonus to stay at the office one last day - why such a sum? Also, the credits listed 12 people on the ‘Jeremy Irons miracle visa team’...

A perfect 10/10 - "Best Wall Street move ever made".

🍿

Third re-watching of György Pálfi’s immersive mashup Final Cut, Ladies and Gentlemen a ‘supercut’ of 451 clips from the most famous films in history. It’s a meta-love story, told through a montage of scenes edited together from all those other films.

It proves the power of the good editor. Also, how visual tropes and cinematic cliches repeat themselves again and again throughout history; Running through wheat fields, a whistling kettle, lovers kissing in the rain, a mirror is being smashed, clutching a child to one’s bosom, the clicking of keyboard...

And now you just want to watch and re-watch every single one of these 451 movies where the clips are from... Absolutely fantastic.

🍿

Another French classic, Peppermint Soda, my first by Diane Kurys. A sweet coming of age story of two charming sisters, 13 and 15 years old in Paris of 1963. Very similar in spirit, 'feel' and maturity as Truffaut's '400 Blows', but with girl-centric focus, which is so refreshing. She managed to write and direct this little masterpiece without having any prior experience in movie-making!

The 13-year-old who played the main character, Éléonore Klarwein, looks so familiar, but doesn't even have a Wikipedia page!

I'm going to seek the rest of Kurys work. Most delightful discovery of the week!

🍿

3 more by prolific French director Patrice Leconte:

🍿 I’ve only seen his ‘The man on the train’ before. Monsieur Hire was based on a mystery novel by Georges Simenon. It tells of a bald, lonely, middle age tailor who falls in love with young Sandrine Bonnaire, who lives in the apartment across from his. This was one of the last films that Roger Ebert added to his 'Great movies' list. 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

🍿 Gérard Depardieu starred in ~ 250 movies. One of his latest was playing Maigret, one of the original old-time detectives. A large and tired, but very humane figure, he's quietly trying to discover the circumstances behind a murder of a lonely young woman. (Photo Above).

🍿 The Boléro drummer is a 1992 wordless short. It comically focuses on the frustrated facial expressions of a drummer, while participating in a performance of Ravel's piece.

🍿

I’m your man, my second film by German director Maria Schrader (after ‘She said’). An updated version to Spike Jonze's 'Her', where it's not only the voice but a complete human android they fall in love with. A better-than-usual Black Mirror romcom, with growing emotional resonance. It, unsurprisingly, ends in a sleepy seaside Danish village! 7/10.

🍿

Tarkovsky's lyrical debut feature Ivan’s childhood about a Soviet boy hero in WW2 fighting the Nazis. Not what I expected, minimalist poetry.

🍿

3 more by Martin Ritt:

🍿 “… You’re an unprincipled man, Hud…”

Hud, a Neo-Western about a self-centered, indecent bastard, an amoral anti-hero Paul Newman, and his proud, old-fashioned father. Played in a dying small west-Texas town, of the 'Last Picture Show' bleakness and despair kind. Based on a Larry McMurtry novel, and featuring Patricia Neal as a housekeeper who was hurt before, and won't be again, if she can help it. There's a scene where a large herd of cows, possibly infected with Foot-and-mouth disease, is being shot in a culling pit that is very hard to watch. 8/10.

🍿 Stanley & Iris, Martin Ritt's final film, and the only one where Robert de Nero is getting around on a bicycle. A romantic working class tearjerker that didn't work; A large commercial bakery where most of the work was done by hand, an illiterate laborer who becomes fabulously successful once he learns to read (and the tired cliche of a person walking in the middle of the street instead of the sidewalk..) 2/10.

🍿 Re-watch: The political drama about the 1950's Hollywood blacklisters, The front. A superficial study of the workings and effects of McCarthyism, made 2 decades later by a group of writers who were boycotted themselves. But Woody Allen was an obnoxious actor always playing obnoxious characters, even here, when he didn't mean to be funny. Dated and two-dimensional. 3/10.

🍿

Another Red Scare re-watch, Don Siegel's alien invasion allegory Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The originator of the 'Pod people' conspiracy concept. The fear of losing one's 'originality' and 'personality' when confronted with conformity and mass acceptance. In retrospect, the conclusions and explanations had a low 'Twilight Zone' quality.

🍿

The body, a convoluted Spanish crime mystery that predictably plays it by the numbers. There were two scene that elevated it from a complete bore-fest: An outrageously disgusting one, when the accused husband tears an incriminating letter in a dirty toilet, and when it doesn’t flush, he has to fish it out and swallow it. And the final, unexpected twist, that came out of left field. 2/10.

🍿

4 comedies I haven’t seen before:

🍿 ... "We want the finest wines available to humanity, we want them here and we want them now..."

Withnail & I, an odd, Ralph Steadman-like, off-beat British classic satire, about 2 drunk slackers, unemployed actors, who escape to an unheated, falling-down cottage in the country. Punkish Richard E. Grant debut film.

🍿 “who wants a mustache ride?”

Super troopers, a sophomoric, noisy, crude and low-brow comedy, that wasn't as stupid as it sounds. With Brian Cox and Lynda Carter.

🍿 I Love You Phillip Morris, a misguided gay romance with Jim Carrey that can't decide if it's a tender drama about a conman, or a low-brow comedy full of gay stereotypes. Fake cliches all the way. With Hair's Annie Golden. 2/10.

🍿 Jennifer’s body, a female-focused horror written by Diablo Cody. I watched it only because of one insightful review on 'Letterbox', but the tenets of the horror genre simply don't work for me. Gave it 25 minutes, then gave it up, sorry.

🍿

I've seen 7 of Paolo Sorrentino's 10 features so far, so I wanted to indulge with his HBO-series, The young pope, with Jude Law playing a rebellious American pope. The first episode was typically stylish, and beautifully irreverent. But the premise of the Vatican letting an un-vetted young mutt to take over the institution is so ridiculous, that after 2 hours I had to bail out.

🍿

3+ female-directed shorts:

🍿 'A Seaman’s Life Flashes Before His Eyes', in the Oscar nominated Canadian short The flying sailor. It is based on the real life Halifax explosion that happened in 1917, where a sailor was blown through the air and survived.

🍿 Muta, by Argentinian Lucrecia Martel; A group of 8 well-dressed models on a barge sailing the Amazon river. Creepy, unexplained, experimental. My 2nd from the Miu Miu collection of Women's tales.

🍿 Zoe Cassavetes’s (John’s daughter) The Powder Room. Basically, a clothing ad. 1/10.

🍿 Also, Capitol of Conformity, a Dystopian Short Film created by AI and by Aze Adora.

🍿  

(My complete movie list is here)

[temporarilyunstable]

I posted 12,141 times in 2022

27 posts created (0%)

12,114 posts reblogged (100%)

I tagged 983 of my posts in 2022

#pp - 529 posts

#kogami - 69 posts

#shizuaka - 63 posts

#queen - 45 posts

#pp10th - 35 posts

#otp of otps - 34 posts

#lol - 33 posts

#look at that kouaka - 33 posts

#akane - 31 posts

#psycho pass - 31 posts

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

ppfi final chapter greatest hits

"Release Tsunemori Akane."

since his win this guy literally doesn't stop smiling

See the full post

39 notes - Posted July 29, 2022

#4

Director Naoyoshi Shiotani was prepared to face criticism for changing the main characters in PSYCHO-PASS 3

(link to the original article)

This was one of my most favorite interviews of Director Shiotani - and although this is completely translated by means of software, I like to think more or less the context has been captured well so I'm sharing the translation here (online translators, we've come a long, long way).

What I do always is double-check both (google and deepL) piece by piece, one because both software do not do well with big amounts of text at the same time, and I do this at least twice because I notice that the translation gets better and the sentences are more coherent, especially when you use deepL. In fact, I ended up using mostly the deepL translations because I feel it's more a contextual translation rather than a word-per-word. You'll notice that both of the translations only slightly vary, though.

Since again, this is software translated, please leave a bit of room for errors. I did of course change some of the names (all hail mister shinya cunningham c/ o deepL lol).

Sharing this because I have such a huge respect for Director Shiotani's passion for this show, and now that we're drawing close to potentially an annoucement of what's next for the series, I think it's good to look back on the steps it took to get us this far, and to appreciate all the work HE's done to push this series forward. Enjoy!

Director Naoyoshi Shiotani was prepared to face criticism for changing the main characters in "PSYCHO-PASS 3” 

Published on March 26, 2020

There is a popular anime series that began airing in 2012 and has continued for eight years. It is "PSYCHO-PASS:"

In October 2019, "PSYCHO-PASS 3," the third season of the series, will begin. Director Naoyoshi Shiotani, who has worked on the series since the first season, looks back on the third season and reveals that he was prepared for criticism.

In March 2020, "PSYCHO-PASS 3: FIRST INSPECTOR," the final installment of the third season, will be released in theaters. Amidst the high expectations for this completely new film, which is expected to reveal various mysteries that were not discussed in the TV series, we present a must-read interview with Director Shiotani to find out his thoughts on the matter.

Psycho-Pass Synopsis

The story takes place in the near future, where people's security is maintained by the "Sibyl System," a gigantic surveillance network that quantifies the soul. The film depicts detectives with the "Dominator," a gun that measures the "crime coefficient," a numerical value related to crime, as they pursue "potential criminals" before they commit their crimes.

I wanted to make sure to portray the drama of Shinya Kogami in "SS" before the third season.

The TV series "PSYCHO-PASS 3" (hereafter referred to as the third TV season) aired from October to December 2019. Looking back , what are your thoughts on it?

Anyway, I think it's been a long time ....... About 4 years ago, I started planning the third TV season at the same time as the movie "PSYCHO-PASS: Sinners of the System" ("SS", to be released in 2019).

Around the time after "PSYCHO-PASS the Movie" (released in 2015), Fuji Television asked me what to do next. At that time, I had a vague idea that even if I were to make a third TV season, it would be centered on the story that continued from the movie version, and the characters would continue with Akane Tsunemori (CV: Kana Hanazawa) and Shinya Kogami (CV: Tomokazu Seki) as its central characters.

I was shocked when I saw the release of information about the third TV season. I didn't expect the main characters to change. ......! And.

In my mind, "PSYCHO-PASS" was created with the image of focusing on a turning point in a major current. (GT: in a big stream). I dare to use the word "justice," but the story is centered on the protagonist's continuous search for the answer to the question, "What is my own justice?” The central axis of the story is to depict the continuous search for this answer.

So I think it is quite natural that the central character, the protagonist, changes with the times.

However, I thought that changing the main character and creating a new work would be the next best thing, if I were to do it.

I was told that it was okay to take a "leap forward”. It would be interesting to continue what we have been doing, but it doesn't have to be the Public Safety Bureau. For example, the young detectives/detective boys* could be the main character. I was like, "What are you talking about?” (Laughs.) But I thought it would be okay to change the way I thought about it and make it that way. I felt like I had a boost in my back**.

*young detectives = I chose this because it was translating to “detective boys” and when i looked at the romanization it was “shonen

** could be re-contextualized as “I had support behind my back” = TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT! 

That was the reason behind the birth of the new Criminal Division 1.

However, I think the challenge is to create a sustained flow of the series, rather than to abruptly introduce a new Division 1. If you skip the process to the third TV season, viewers will be confused. They watch the third TV season and ask, "Why is Kogami back in Japan?" I told the producer and the production committee that he has his own drama and I wanted to portray that so that I could create "SS," which would also be a new series line.

Therefore, we discussed the composition of "SS" and the third TV season almost simultaneously.

How did you go about the composition? (series composition)

Makoto Fukami, who has been working on the script since the first TV season, and Tow Ubukata, who has been working on the script since the second TV season, participated in the composition of the new series from the beginning, and then we asked Ubukata to put together the composition (GT:summary) for the third TV season. Ryo Yoshigami, author of the novel "PSYCHO-PASS ASYLUM," also participated in the writing of SS and the third TV season. The third season is a story that we created together with the three of them.

SS, which is the link between the two, was based on the synopsis I wanted to create, and I worked with Fukami-san and Yoshigami-san individually to shape it. SS has a flow as a series leading to the third season, but I thought it would be wonderful if I could create a story that would show each artist's individuality, and this is how we came to this arrangement.

See the full post

48 notes - Posted July 17, 2022

#3

10TH ANNIVERSARY ANNOUNCEMENT!!

PSYCHO-PASS Psycho Pass 10th Anniversary Project is now underway👏

The outline of the project will be unveiled in a special live broadcast program. Please be sure to watch.

Date: Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 18:00

Distribution: Noitamina YouTube channel

MC: Tomokazu Seki (Kogami) & Nojima Kenji (Ginoza)

From the official website:

Since its launch in 2012, the original animated TV series "PSYCHO-PASS" has been expanding its world view.

In October 2022, we will launch the "10th Anniversary Project" to commemorate 10 years of broadcasting!

The outline of the project will be unveiled in a special live broadcast program. The two MCs will be Tomokazu Seki, who plays Shinya Kogami, and Kenji Nojima, who plays Nobuchika Ginoza.

Please come and watch!

(dL translated)

50 notes - Posted July 19, 2022

#2

Psycho-Pass 10th Anniversary Project

There's a LOT of stuff going on in the next few months!! Here's a GT version of the events! Please support the staff & production! Full details & link here!

Radio Show PSYCHO-PASS Radio Public Security Bureau Criminal Division 24:00 Revival

Distribution: Internet Radio & Spotify every 2nd Friday of the month starting September 2022

Psycho-Pass Fanclub Psycho Box - 10th Anniversary Special Goods

Fanclub member exclusive illustration/merchandise

See the full post

120 notes - Posted August 14, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

10th Anniversary Project Visual + Teaser Visual for the new movie Psycho-Pass Providence

578 notes - Posted August 14, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[opbackgrounds]

so I was doing some research after watching movie 6...

...and apparently it was originally written as a comedy

Yeah, I was surprised, too

Baron Omatsuri is not my favorite One Piece movie—Film Z has too many of my favorite tropes to be usurped from that position—but I do think it is the most daring. Of all the supplemental material I’ve seen and read, it feels the least...One Piece-ish. 

Yes, that includes the noodle commercials. 

If you haven’t seen the movie and can stomach a little spookiness, do yourself a favor and give it a watch. Unlike movies like Strong World or Z that have the look and feel of a manga arc, Movie 6 transplants the Straw Hat Pirates into a world that doesn’t feel like a One Piece story, taking risks and exploring themes that would never fit in the manga proper. 

In addition to the obvious changes in art and animation style, there are supernatural elements that don’t make sense within the One Piece world. None of the Straw Hats win a fight—Luffy included, although he is heavily implied to have killed the big bad at the end. The moral of the movie, if it can be said to have a moral, is if you lose the people closest to you, the answer is to forget about them and make new friends. The story ends with many questions left unanswered and the main drama between the crew unresolved.

And, if you allow me to get philosophical for a moment, I wish there were more movies like it. As I wrote in my review of Novel A, I don’t go to supplemental material or side stories looking for a repeat of what’s in the manga. Oda has written 1000 chapters of One Piece—why not spice things up a little and try something different for a change?

I know the answer isn’t that simple, and by their very nature not all risks will pan out. There will be people who don’t like this movie because it’s different, both in look and tone. But there’s something to be said about a creator putting their heart and soul into a work and having it show in the final product. 

Which brings us back to the original premise. How does a movie go from a light-hearted comedy based on a variety show theme to...this

Baron Omatsuri was directed by Mamoru Hosoda and came out in 2005. To put that into perspective, the movie was in production when the Luffy vs Usopp fight was first seen in the manga. Manga!Luffy had not yet faced the challenge of an inter-crew disputes when the story was being written and boarded, nor did the creative team have the events of Sabaody and Marineford to see how Luffy would react to the loss of his loved ones. They were working without a full understanding of Luffy’s character, and to a lessor extent the character of the Straw Hat Pirates, and it seems like Oda was much less involved In production than has been in movies since Strong World and beyond. 

Likewise, Hosoda had just left a tumultuous situation at Studio Ghibli while working on Howl’s Moving Castle, and if this interview is anything to go by (https://instrangeaeonsblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/mamoru-hosoda-on-omatsuri-danshaku-animestyle-interview-part-1/) was going through a lot of personal shit when he was brought on as director. The script he was given was originally written like a variety show—something that was carried over into the various trials seen in the final movie—and meant to be a lighthearted affair after the relatively serious Movie 5 (which I have not seen am thus unable to compare tone). 

With that backstory in mind, it’s easy to see how the bickering and backbiting between the Straw Hats early in the movie is a metaphor for Hosoda’s time at Ghibli, which is something he admits to in the interview. Movie 6 feels different than any other One Piece movie because it’s the project of a man who has had to endure the loss of those who he was close with, at least in a professional capacity. 

There are moments in Movie 6 where Luffy doesn’t feel like Luffy. More than once a member of the Straw Hats ask him to intervene during arguments, moments Luffy either ignores or doesn’t notice. It’s a version of Water 7 where instead of fighting Usopp, Luffy ignores the underlying differences within his crew, and as a result loses everybody. 

The structure of the three trials follows a clear path of deterioration within the crew, the initial goldfish scooping game showing the Straw Hats at their best and inciting the jealousy of the Baron, the ring toss sowing discord among the crew even as they snatch a narrow victory, only for them to be utterly crushed in the third and final challenge as they’re unable help one another survive. 

It is somewhat implied that the Breaking of the Fellowship(TM) is magical in nature—that like the One Ring, the Lily Carnation was able to influence the Straw Hat’s thoughts and actions, but this is never stated outright and I prefer the more mundane interpretation: That without strong leadership the Straw Hats fell victim to the manipulative machinations of the Baron, and simply self-destructed as a result.  In the end, it’s up to the interpretation of the viewer. 

And speaking of things up to interpretation, I love how the Lily Carnation isn’t explained in the slightest. The plant that initially absorbs the Straw Hats looks more like the stem of a devil fruit than a flower, it for some reason rings like a gong when hit, and somehow is able to turn pieces of itself into facsimile of the Baron’s old crew who can somehow move around despite being plans. It’s weird, it’s wonderful, and the element of the unknown works so well in the horror-lite setting. 

My personal theory is the island somehow managed to eat a devil fruit which manifests itself as the Lily Carnation (which due to the L/R conflation in Japanese, is pronounced ‘reincarnation’, which I think is a nice touch of foreshadowing that may or may not have been intentional).

(Also, I can’t decide if little chewing animation it makes when it’s eating people or the weird bullseyes it makes when shit gets real are the most terrifying thing in the movie.)

Hmmm, tasty.

Anyway, this is getting long, so here are some final thoughts:

1) This movie has some low key fantastic outfits. The Straw Hats all look very cool without being over designed like a lot of recent movies. Big hat Robin is of course a fave, and makes me really want to see her in a Carmen Sandiego getup.

2) Screenshots do not do the animation of the movie justice. It’s very fluid and has a lot of excellent expressions/poses, although I admit the 3D is jarring at times. Do not let the art put you off if you haven’t seen it 

3) Also, I don’t think there’s any shading? Like at all? The movie does a lot of cool stuff with color instead. For example, the scene where Luffy initially loses to the Baron his skin goes all grey, and I thought it was because he was fighting at night, but it stays grey even in the better lighting of the underground tunnels and stays that way until he finds out the Straw Hats are still alive, where it returns to his normal color

4) There’s an extended Benny Hill-type gag when Luffy first chases after the little mustache pirate that’s perfectly timed to the music, and ends when Luffy just uses his power to grab him. The comedic timing is amazing and it’s probably my favorite funny moment in the movie, of which there are several despite the overall darker tone

5) The extended jungle shot from Nami’s POV? Very cool

6) I love how from the earliest scenes nothing is as it seems. The opening text is Robin reading the map, but the storm that’s seen on screen is the one that sank the Baron’s crew. Likewise the whole fancy city is shown to be fake panels early on, the goldfish catching game is a trap, etc., etc. It does a good job clueing the viewer in early that’s something’s very wrong on the island, even if they don’t realize it at first

7) I don’t think this type of movie would work in modern One Piece without somehow nerfing Luffy. Horror works best when the protagonist is weak and vulnerable, and that fits best with a pre-Gear 2/3 Luffy (same with the rest of the crew, tbh. I was waiting for Nami to use her lightning stick during the games, forgetting it hadn’t been boosted yet). 

8) I like how there are four captains on the island representing different levels of loss—the Baron has lost his crew and wants to destroy all others because of it, mustache pirate lost his crew and is willing to put it behind him to make new friends, Luffy has freshly lost his crew and hasn’t decided what path he will go, and coward dad hasn’t lost his crew yet but is at risk if he doesn’t change his cowardly ways

9) I think the reason why Chopper was the first Straw Hat to disappear is he’s the most likely to play the part of peacemaker. He’s also the only crew member needing rescuing at the end of the goldfish scoop game, when Luffy foolishly puts his life at risk trying to save him from drowning, just like he recklessly charges the Baron at the end of the movie. Except that time there was no Sanji to save him, leaving Luffy to get his ass thoroughly kicked

10) This is a very good Halloween movie, and I’m glad I watched it in October

[luci-in-trenchcoats]

Won’t You Stay (Part 10)

Summary: The reader meets a few of Jensen’s friends but ends up having a bad morning when she wakes up late for work...

Masterlist

Pairing: Jensen x Director!reader

Word Count: 2,900ish

Warnings: language, angst, implied past domestic abuse

A/N: Please enjoy!

_____

“Ackles,” said a tall guy when you got to the restaurant that night. He gave you a smile as you took a seat at the table, a woman sitting next to him. “You must be Y/N. I’m Jared.”

“I’m Gen,” said the woman, giving you a friendly smile.

“Hi,” you said, looking at them both. “You two seem familiar.”

“We did Supernatural with Jensen,” said Jared. “I was on all three seasons with him. Gen joined the last before I locked that down.”

“These losers are married,” teased Jensen. “At least I did not have to third wheel again.”

“So what’s it like having your girlfriend boss you around all day?” said Jared with a smile.

“Oh you wish you were in my position, buddy,” said Jensen. 

“You will learn very quickly these two turn into toddlers around each other,” said Gen. “They’d be joined at the hip if they could be.”

“I’m going to take a wild guess and say Jared’s the friend Jensen does his check in thing with?” you asked.

“You wouldn’t be wrong,” chuckled Jared. He glanced at Jensen and you looked down, feeling a foot tap your own. You lifted your head and saw Jared giving you a smile. “It’s not a secret or anything. I could do worse for a brother.”

“Aw,” said Jensen, Jared rolling his eyes.

“He’s very much a loser if you haven’t realized that yet,” said Jared.

“Losers are cooler than people think,” you said.

“Told you I liked this girl,” said Jared as the waiter came back over. 

Fifteen minutes later you had your food and Gen was already inviting you to a girls night dinner. You watched Jensen interact with his friends, smiling when you saw how he was with Jared. There was something sweet about it. If you didn’t know better, you would have thought they were real brothers. You liked that he had a friend like that, especially in the acting industry when people were known for throwing each under the bus.

“Y/N, wanna go to the bathroom with me?” asked Gen. 

“Sure,” you said, leaving your napkin on your seat as you went back with her. She used the restroom for a moment while you waited by the sink, smiling when she came out. 

“So it’s been awhile since Jensen’s had a girlfriend I’ve heard. I’ve never seen him even go on a date,” she said.

“He said he’s been on a break from them for a while,” you said. She dried off her hands and hummed. 

“You must be special then,” she said. You swallowed and she smiled. “Listen. He deserves to be happy and so do you. You two seem to like each other so I’m all for it. Those two boys are going to be besties for life so we’ll probably see a lot of each other.”

“I’ve barely been dating him. I don’t know…” you shrugged. She smiled and nodded. “I’m just enjoying it right now.”

“Probably the smart move,” she said, fixing her hair in the mirror. You pursed your lips and looked at your own reflection. Jensen’s hat was backwards on your head, hiding the flyaways you had from the rollercoasters that afternoon. You touched the end of your side braid. You weren’t even wearing any makeup. “You do realize he’s been drooling over you since the second you walked in the door, right?”

“Yeah but I mean I’m not an idiot. Guys like it when we look pretty and dress up,” you said.

“They also like it when we wear their stuff,” she said. “Relax. This was totally last minute anyways. I was literally in my underwear when I met Jared for the first time. I was mortified.”

“Seriously?”

“Yeah. It was our first scene together. He was late that day so he showed up on set and I was like awesome, let’s meet the cute guy when I’m half naked,” she said.

“I was kinda mad that our original lead actor dropped out and they had an emergency casting call. But Jensen was late to it. I didn’t know what he looked like. I went to take a walk around the block to relax and this guy kind of grabbed me and started bothering me. Jensen came out of nowhere and got me out of there while he dealt with the guy. Ten minutes later I find out he’s the guy that’s supposed to be auditioning in my movie.”

“Oh wow. I assumed you just met on set,” she said.

“No. He found out who I was the next day,” you said. “He asked me out the night before.”

“He’s the kind of guy that does that sort of thing, helps people I mean,” she said.

“I’m starting to get that,” you said.

“Maybe you help him,” she said. You raised an eyebrow and she shrugged. “Like I said. I’ve never seen him on a date. I don’t think Jared has either.”

“I just like him,” you said.

“Good,” she said, grabbing your hand. “Come on and split some dessert with me. I want to see that boy blush over you more.”

“I like her,” you said to Jared as you walked out of a bar later that night, Gen walking ahead with Jensen, the two of them chatting about you if you had to guess. “She’s cute.”

“Yes, she is. Jensen mentioned you were pretty cute too,” said Jared. “He’s been talking about you for weeks now. I was wondering when we’d get to meet.”

“Work keeps me pretty busy,” you said.

“I love the book by the way,” he said. “Jensen was bouncing off the freaking wall when he got the part. You have no idea how happy that made him.”

“He was very good. He got the part all on his own,” you said. “He’s a good actor.”

“He is. Any guy our age would kill to get to play opposite Ethan Y/L/N,” said Jared. “He says that’s nothing compared to you though.”

“What do you mean?”

“He likes the atmosphere you create on set,” said Jared. “He’s making me jealous almost. I’d love a director that cares more about the people making something than profits and marketing.”

“If I don’t screw this up and end up directing more, come look me up. Jensen’s friends are more than welcome on my sets,” you said. 

“I’ll take you up on that. I think you’re too hard on yourself. You’ll do fine with it,” said Jared.

“How would you know that? We just met after all.”

“Do you know why Jensen checks in on me everyday?” he asked, slowing his walk. “He worries about me. Sometimes I listen to the crap in my head too much. I had a rough go of it once. He was there for me. He’s still there for me. It doesn’t matter where or when. I can always go knock on his door and he’s there.”

“It’s like I keep telling him. People aren’t sweet like him,” you said as you looked ahead.

“They are. He’s just our version of it,” he said. “I’m willing to share if you are.”

“You can always come knock on his door, Jared. Even if I’m there,” you said. “I’m not stealing him away or anything.”

“Yet you don’t think people are as sweet as him,” he laughed. “You’re funny, Y/L/N.”

He slowed as you saw Jensen and Gen hanging out by the door of an apartment building, Jared leaning over to you.

“He doesn’t always say it but you’ll figure it out soon enough,” said Jared. “He thinks you’re sweet too.”

“Goodnight Jared,” you said as he started to walk again, a smirk crossing his lips. 

“Goodnight Y/N. We’ll have to have you guys over for dinner sometime when you’re not so insanely busy,” said Jared.

“We will take you up on that,” said Jensen, throwing an arm over your shoulders. “Night guys.”

He spun the two of you around before you kept going down the block, Jared laughing in the distance.

“Your friends are nice,” you said.

“They like you,” he said. He dropped his arm and took your hand in his instead, swinging it gently as you headed back towards his car. “I’m glad they like you.”

“They care about you.”

“Yes, they do,” he said. “Still. It’s hard being the tag along sometimes.”

“Jensen. I don’t think either one of them has ever considered you a tag along,” you said. “They want you to be happy.”

“I am,” he said. He kissed you slowly, smiling when he moved back. “Promise.”

“Me too,” you said.

“Anywhere else you’d like to go tonight, pretty girl?” he asked. 

“I am already up way past my bedtime,” you said, leaning your head on his shoulder. “Do you want to sleepover tonight?”

“Yeah,” he said quietly. “You’re very cuddly when you sleep.”

“Sorry,” you said, glad it was dark out and your blush was hidden. He leaned over and brushed his lips against your ear.

“I kinda really like it,” he whispered. You smiled, Jensen spinning you around in a circle until you giggled. “Oh, there’s another thing I like.”

“What else do you like?” you asked.

“Everything,” he said. 

“Ah. That narrows it down,” you said.

“Not a word of a lie,” he said as you let out a small yawn. “Come on. Let’s get you in bed. We have work bright and early.”

“Fuck,” you said, bottling up out of bed the next morning. You slammed your alarm clock, four snoozes in and dashed out of bed, running into the bathroom as Jensen yawned and sat up.

“Morning,” he said with a stretch, watching you run around your bedroom. You slammed the door shut to the bathroom and exited not twenty seconds later in new clothes. “I love a girl that don’t mess around in the morning.”

“I am so late,” you said, grabbing a hair tie from your dresser. You threw it back in a messy pony, Jensen tossing his hat from the floor at you. “Thanks.”

You tugged it on and he rolled out of bed, moving a little slow before he wandered into your bathroom and exited.

“Y/N, it’s like five am,” he yawned.

“I have to review my shots for the day and I have a budget meeting and a stunt review all before eight,” you said, pausing as you grabbed your backpack. “Uh you can totally sleep in. Just lock up after yourself.”

“Nah, it’s cool. I’ll come in early, crash in my trailer for a few,” he said. “Maybe have breakfast with my smokin’ hot director.”

“Does this look smokin’ hot?” you said, pointing down at yourself.

“Well, you’re wearing my hat and my texas t shirt. Yeah, pretty damn hot right now, girl,” he said. You hadn’t even realized you’d grabbed his shirt, just thought it was a big baggy one you used for washing your car or stuff around the house. 

“Oh,” you said, glancing at him, bare chested as he pulled on his jeans. “I didn’t mean to take your shirt.”

“Please do,” he smirked. “I got a sweatshirt in my car. It’s fine.”

“I didn’t remember you taking off your shirt last night,” you said. He nodded and crossed his arms over his chest.

“I got hot under the covers,” he said, glancing away. 

“Sorry,” you said when you kept staring at him.

“Not like you haven’t seen me without a shirt on before,” he said. 

“You’re just...really good looking,” you said, tugging on the bottom of your shirt.

“You can change in front of me if you want. I mean, I can keep it in my pants,” he said.

“It’s not…” you said, Jensen looking you up and down. “People like you aren’t with people like me.”

“I don’t know if it was this ex or what but this twisted sense of self-image or worth or whatever you have going on, you should tell it to shove it cause you are damn gorgeous. You care about people. The world ain’t seeing what you think it is,” he said.

You swallowed and stared at him, Jensen dropping his arms to his sides. You fixed the backpack onto your shoulders before you picked up your phone from your nightstand.

“Y/N,” said Jensen, walking around to your side of the bed, resting a hand on your shoulder.

“I have to relearn those things, Jensen. It’s gonna take time for me to do that,” you said.

“Let me help you do that,” he said.

“Why?” you asked, spinning around.

“Because I care about you,” he said quietly. 

“Yeah but why do you care about me,” you asked. 

“I don’t know. I just do. It kinda scares me to be honest,” he said. 

“Why, cause you’re attracted to a freak?” you asked. He scowled and turned you around, planting a harsh kiss on your lips. His hands cupped your cheeks when he pulled back and you felt like his green eyes were staring right through you.

“Because I don’t know what this is. It feels familiar but it’s not and that’s scary. I hate that you think that way about yourself and everyday I want to go and kick this ex-boyfriend’s ass more and more. He sounds worse than just a bad ex, Y/N. You’re not a freak. You’re someone I care about,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like you care about you all that much which really sucks cause she’s a pretty special girl that deserves it.”

You didn’t know what to say, not with the way he was looking at you. 

Crying when you were already late for the day seemed like the worst possible thing to do but that’s what your body decided for you. Jensen wrapped his arms around your shoulders, kissing your temple and shushing you.

“I’m late,” you sniffled. “I gotta go.”

“Not happening.”

“I’m gonna get in trouble again and I already used up a favor pushing the stunt back before,” you mumbled. “They’re gonna fire me off my own movie.”

“First off, no, they won’t. Second, you need to take a hot minute for yourself and lay back down in bed for another few hours. Filming doesn’t start until eight so we have time. Third, you’re gonna blame this on me,” he said. You tilted your head up, Jensen already shaking his. “I called you freaking out about the pressure and you came over to calm me down. That’s what we say when someone asks.”

“Jensen, no. You can’t do that,” you said. “You’ll get labeled as something you’re not and big gigs could take years to come your way again.”

“Well who gives a fuck about big gigs. I want my girlfriend to be okay right now. That’s what I want,” he said.

“Jensen,” you said.

“No. It’s like I said, you don’t have to tell me a damn thing you don’t want to. But I’m not gonna watch you bully yourself. I won’t. So I’ll help you kick that thing’s ass inside your head that’s making you feel that way. Please. Lay back down, I’ll text your dad, ask him to tell the story that you were reaming me out a new one to get me to keep working and at seven, we’ll wake up and head to work, alright?” 

“You’re not gonna give me a choice,” you said, shutting your eyes.

“You always have a choice. Just make this one right now. Please,” he said.

“Fine but-”

“No buts except you get yours back in that bed for more sleep,” he said. You peeled open your eyes, Jensen with a worried stare looking back. “Tonight after work, we’ll talk and figure out a good way to get through this, alright?”

“I’m not something to fix,” you mumbled, sliding your backpack off.

“I never said you were broken,” he said softly. You looked over at him, giving him a small smile before you slipped under the covers. He left the room for a minute and you kicked off your jeans, Jensen dropping his own when he came back in. He crawled underneath and pulled you into his side, moving the blankets around you. “Relax, honey. It’ll be okay. I promise.”

_____

A/N: Read Part 11 here!

[fly-pow-bye]

DuckTales 2017 - The Absolute Best!

After doing the least best this series has done, it's time for a much, much harder list to put together: the absolute best episodes of DuckTales 2017. I am not going to lie: this was hard to put together. Anyone could guess that based on how I once planned to have this list alongside the worst list and that did not happen. I can also see myself forgetting about other really good episodes of this show. However, after days of pondering, I believe I have a good list here.

Same rules as the last list.

It has to be an episode of DuckTales 2017. No shorts, even if the shorts combined can make up a full episode.

With this list, I have to say something bad about each of these episodes. Not necessarily the worst part of the episode, but a bad part nonetheless. These are going to be more nitpicky, but it is only fair to prove the constant that there is no such thing as a perfect piece of media and it is a decent challenge for me.

This is my opinion and my opinion alone. There are episodes I didn't like as much that a lot of people did. The last list should be a huge hint at that.

Alright, let's begin.

10. Jaw$!

I mentioned this episode in my Least Best as the better example of the show establishing the relationship between Lena and Magica De Spell. It establishes Magica De Spell better than either of the episodes that featured her before this one. One was a tease put in the very last minute of the episode to show how Lena is going to be far more important than the "cool new goth girl", and the other was the Terra-Firmians episode that used her as a way to improve what would otherwise be a not-so-good filler episode. This one is a far better example, and it's not just because a money-shark is a lot more interesting and threatening than a bunch of cutesy rock creatures.

It also has a B-plot about Scrooge's Board of Directors scheduling an interview to improve his PR, and hilarity ensues when Scrooge has to defend his zillionaire antics when a shark made of his own fortune is causing havoc throughout the town. Glomgold also makes an appearance during this, which only makes it better. Along with some neat Jaws references along the way, this is not an episode to miss.

Bad thing: They really did not want to mention the obvious plot hole of the kids being able to go into the money bin. This was long before F.O.W.L. began their plans against Scrooge or even the 87 cent problem, but still, one would think this would be one of the most highly secure places at Killmotor Hill considering all of his enemies. Considering I didn't particularly love the Impossibin episode, as much as I love the idea of it, it might be for the best.

9. The First Adventure!

Going from an arc from season 1 to an arc from season 3, though some may argue the F.O.W.L. arc has been happening since season 1. Anyway, this is an episode that brings back the younger Donald and younger Della that was first seen in "Last Christmas!" in their first adventure with their Uncle Scrooge. It's very interesting to see the similarities between their first adventure with Scrooge and the first adventure with Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

Even though this does give good development to the arc, arguably even bigger characters in this episode are Bradford Buzzard and Black Heron, as this episode details the origins of the Fiendish Organization of World Larceny. Their antics throughout this episode are very entertaining, with the plot toying with the dynamic of the more chaotic evil Heron and the more lawful evil Buzzard. With all it all ties together, I had to put the First Adventure on this list.

Bad thing: The sense of time in this episode is odd. We get a title card showing that it's the 60's in the opening scene, and yet there is very little suggestion of any passing of time between the opening scene and the scenes that I assumed took place in the 80's.

8. Quack Pack!

It would be too easy to just put in episodes that are important to any of the various story arcs that went throughout this series, so here's an episode that could be taken out of the series without harming anything. However, it is still a very memorable episode of the show, where the cast of characters have to be in this weird sitcom. There's also a mystery element, as there is a culprit to why these characters are in this sitcom world.

I really like the whole meta element, with the characters picking apart all not only the clichés in sitcoms, but sitcom production as well. I also really appreciated the "special guest", another sitcom staple, being a character from a different Disney Afternoon show with some great references to it. Quack Pack turns out to be the antithesis of the show it was named after; it's not dated, it's really funny, and it realistically portrays how freaked out these characters would be if they saw those weird hairless apes.

Bad thing: I wish they did more with the concept of this world being made up by someone who was locked away from the world since 1990. Maybe not references to the era of Disney that gave us "Gotta Be Gettin' Goofy", but more jokes about how the 90's were different from now. They kind of ignore this, as if they only mentioned 1990 because of the DuckTales movie they were referencing.

7. Last Christmas!

Wait, a Christmas episode in a Top 10? I have my reasons for including this one. It's not just because the idea is pretty great, as it uses the very tale that inspired Scrooge's entire character in the first place. Obviously, we already had one of the best cartoon renditions of A Christmas Carol, and this episode does not try to recreate that. Instead, we get a different tale, mostly featuring Scrooge and Jiminy Cricket, er, the ghost of Christmas Past, going back to the past to experience a good Christmas party. If only we can do the same, like Dewey accidentally does in the episode.

This was also the first time we also got to see a young version of Donald, who, in this episode, is voiced by none other than the late, great Russi Taylor. It was almost like having one of the siblings from the old show interact with one of the new ones. This is also the first time we got to see and hear her outside of a painting, and it's heartbreaking and yet understandable when we get to the scene where Dewey has to say goodbye. It's a good scene, and they weren't afraid to even throw in a joke that does not ruin the moment.

Bad thing: No, episode, this is the Scrooge they were looking for. Were they trying to make it seem like Scrooge was always a hero and not a miser who would deserve getting three ghosts to visit him with that line? I don’t buy it.

6. The Ballad of Duke Baloney!

Got to pay some respect to Scrooge's arch-rival with an episode that really shows off his character, which is a bit ironic as this is an episode about him getting amnesia and getting a brand new, at least to us, persona named Duke Baloney. Amnesia episodes tend to be a dime-a-dozen, and anyone could predict this new persona is not going to last, but the way this episode develops is actually much more interesting. This is the episode for Glomgold character development, with dream sequences, flashbacks, and a great scene in the ending that takes place in a storm that he may or may not have made up in his head. I may not have given a lot of his episodes high-rated reviews, but this is easily not only one of his best appearances, but one of the best episodes of DuckTales 2017.

Bad thing: The dream sequence really subtly implies that Duke Baloney is about to become Glomgold again. How? By having him outright say "this gold, it's GLOOMING onto me!" ...okay, I'll admit, that was a stretch for a bad thing, but with a dream sequence with subtleties, that took me out of it.

5. The Last Crash of the Sunchaser!

I called this episode "the best episode of the series so far" when I reviewed it, a pretty late episode in a season with lots of good episodes, I would say that's a good sign that this one was going to be a shoo-in for at least the Top 10. What I love most about this episode is that it gives a little more humanity to the legendary Scrooge McDuck. Sure, this was shown a bit in "Woo-oo!" and "Mount Never-Rest!", but I felt this episodes was one of the best examples of that. Throughout this episode, he sees himself as this legendary figure, as everyone sees him, and he ends up failing to live up to those impossible standards by crashing in a plane in a way where they may not survive.

Much like Quack Pack, there's no traditional villain like Glomgold or Magica. Eventually, this leads to Scrooge finally bringing up his biggest failure: his loss of the Spear of Selene and a certain relative that was piloting it, and it is one of the biggest emotional moments of the series, both in and out of universe. It's one of the most important episodes in the series, and it is also one of the best.

Bad thing: The Last Crash of the Sunchaser is a neat title, but it doesn't really fit the episode. The Sunchaser will certainly crash again. At most, maybe it could be referring to Scrooge crashing down to the lowest point he gets to in the series, but that's not the Sunchaser's fault.

4. Moonvasion!

My big hot take: the season 2 finale, the best of the season finales in my opinion, is not the best episode of the series. However, it is very close. It's actually kind of funny; I had plenty of criticism against the build-up to his finale, especially the Louie Inc. plot that led to an episode that was just kind of lackluster to me, and of all the, some alien commander from the Moon who thinks the Earth revolved around his "planet" wasn't exactly as threatening as an all powerful witch or the scheming businessman who knew Scrooge's every move. Okay, when I put it like that, the alien does sound more threatening, but trust me, even Bradford had his moments.

The biggest thing about this episode is the sheer scale of it. It really did feel like every major player in the series had a part in this, from Scrooge and the nephews, to Dijon and Amunet, to the new Darkwing Duck, to Donald and Della, to even the Greek pantheon! Oh, and Glomgold, too, in what may be his finest moment in the series! It really does feel like a finale for the series, and I say this even if I felt The Last Adventure was a great one as well.

Bad thing: In hindsight, this would have been a good time for the Terries and Fermies to come back. They're in the earth! That episode wasn't bad because of them.

3. Let's Get Dangerous!

I'll tell you a secret: I did not watch Darkwing Duck as a kid. It was just DuckTales '87, and even then, I did not remember a lot of episodes of that. This show was made for people who did not grow up with DuckTales '87, because they were not even alive. Though there are parts of this episode that can be appreciated by those who were familiar with the heroes of the Disney Afternoon, I will still say this episode works very well as its own superhero movie. That is what it is, really!

This special is the true continuation of another episode, though we saw this defictionalized-within-the-fiction Darkwing Duck in the Moonvasion, and it may as well be a pilot for a Darkwing Duck reboot that spins off from this show, with its villains, its origin stories, its sidekicks, and its memorable catchphrases. It all works very well. Who knows where the new Darkwing Duck reboot will go, though I would at least imagine that they would eventually get to certain Darkwing-related plot threads that never got resolved.

Bad thing: Outside of using a few cliche moments to extend the episode that end rather predictably, in the attempt to make Darkwing Duck as cool as he wants to be, the regular cast essentially become jobbers in their own show.

2. What Ever Happened To Della Duck?!

It's the question everyone wanted to know ever since Dewey said the last line in the first episode: what ever happened to Della Duck? This is one of the more artsy episodes of the show, focusing on one duck on what she assumes is a barren moon until she finds a monster that seems to do nothing but impede on her quest to get someone to save her. It does heavily expand from there, to the point where we get to see some more new characters, one who I thought was going to be way more important than the other. I decided to call that guy "General Not Penumbra", and that name could still be fitting as an insult.

This episode would be made or broken by how good Della is, and this is a very good episode for her first voiced debut as an adult. We did get to see her in the IDW comics, but this episode is where her character is developed. Throughout the episode, she has elements of her kids and especially her brother Donald. While there are future episodes that develop her further as a mother who wants to make up for all of those years she missed, one of the biggest defining moments is right in this episode, where she sings a version of the Capcom game's famous moon theme. An amazing episode all around.

Bad thing: Do I have to? Uh, flares do not work on the Moon? No, seriously, I can't think of anything worse than that.

Honorable mentions from each season:

The Shadow War! - An excellent way to end Season 1 that would only be topped by the Moonvasion.

Nightmare on Killmotor Hill! - A dream episode that really works with the concept, especially how Lena is the one involved with it.

Double-O-Duck in You Only Crash Twice! - This is an action packed episode where Launchpad really shines.

And now, #1:

1. The Duck Knight Returns!

Yes, I decided to put the prequel episode to Let's Get Dangerous as higher than the big Darkwing Duck episode, and part of this may be a little bias on my part. While it was not the very original intention of it, Fly Pow Bye started as a project to review a reboot, so of course an episode about Darkwing Duck, a fictional show within the fiction, getting a dark and gritty reboot would be right up my alley. We have Launchpad, a Darkwing Duck superfan, reacting to how they're going to ruin Darkwing Duck. We got the conflict between what the big studio execs wanted Darkwing Duck to be and Dewey's version of it. Finally, we have the conflict between Jim Starling, an obvious reference to original Darkwing Duck voice actor Jim Cummings who is even voiced by him, and his replacement, who appears to be some guy named Drake Mallard.

A lot of these plots converge in very interesting ways, with plenty of twists. Drake Mallard, the guy Launchpad was trying to replace with the original, turns out to be very worthy of the role by also being a superfan! Dewey's version has dancers, just like that Batdance music video! Okay, maybe that last one isn't that great, but it does not overstay its welcome. And, of course, Jim Starling ends up causing a huge cliffhanger that, despite the show being over, we will still be hanging from. We can only wonder what was going to come next, but I do not have to wonder what the best episode of DuckTales 2017 is.

Bad thing: I can't really think of a bad thing for this episode, but I can say that it is odd that there's no real transition from "TV character" to "real hero". It does help that it's not the TV actor that ends up becoming Darkwing, but "fanboy of TV character turning into a real hero" is just as much of a leap, even with an incompetent hero like Darkwing. I would also consider the show never following up on this episode's cliffhanger a bad thing, but that's not this episode's fault.

How does the whole show stack up?

It is an excellent modern take on the Disney Ducks. Opinions may vary on how this will compare with the original, since it is very much a modern take, with a different style of humor than the one from the original or the one in the original comics. Anyone who loves shows like Gravity Falls will be right at home here. Any fan of the original comics or the original cartoon may balk at some of the creative decisions made with the characters, but I would say it pays some good respect to them.

Oh, and before anyone asks, no, I am not going to give a rating for the whole series. I've already imposed a 10 image limit on myself, and since I grade on a relative scale, the average is always, in theory, going to be in the middle. It's a good show, that's what you're going to get from me.

And that's it for DuckTales 2017. Hurrah for Disney and Clan McDuck. Bye.

← The Least Best! 🦆 n/a →

[theliterateape]

I Like to Watch | Zack Snyder’s Justice League

by Don Hall

Mythology is fun.

As a kid I loved reading Edith Hamilton’s book on the Greek gods and the myths. Hercules, Perseus, Apollo, and Hera—this fell completely in line with my love for superhero comics. The strangely petty human traits of envy, greed, and lust combined with the power to level cities make for some great storytelling.

Zeus was basically Harvey Weinstein in the retroactive revision we’re mired in today. If Harvey could’ve changed into a golden animal and boned unsuspecting ladies looking for careers in Hollywood I’m pretty certain he would. The gods and demi-gods of the Greeks dealt with daddy issues, mommy issues, bad relationships, and fighting. Lots of fighting. Sometimes for the good of humanity but more often for the glory of winning.

Zach Snyder is in the business of tackling myths and reframing them with a style all his own. His career has become its own myth.

From Dawn of the Dead (not so much a reboot of Romero's zombie mythology but a philosophical reimagining of the genre that arguably jumpstarted The Hollywood fascination with it), 300 (a borderline homoerotic take on the myth of the Greek underdog), and Watchmen (a ridiculously ambitious attempt to put one of the most iconic takedowns on the potential fascism of the superhero legend machine ever written) to his nearly single-handed hack at answering the Marvel juggernaut with Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, Snyder is in the artistic business of subverting and re-envisioning the mythologies we embrace without even seeing them as such.

Snyder's style is operatic. It is on a grand scale even in the most mundane moments. The guy loves slow motion like Scorcese loves mobsters and Italian food. When you're tackling big themes with larger than life stories, the epic nature of his vision makes sense and has alienated a good number of audience members. With such excess, there are bound to be missteps but I'd argue that his massive take on these characters he molds from common understanding and popular nomenclature elevates them to god-like stature.

Fans of Moore's Watchmen have much to complain about Snyder's adaptation. The titular graphic novel is almost impossible to put in any other form than the one Moore intended and yet, Snyder jumped in feet-first and created a living, breathing representation of most, if not all, of the source material's intent. Whether you dig on it or not, it's hard to avoid acknowledging that the first five minutes of Watchmen is a mini-masterpiece of style, storytelling, and epic tragedy wrapped up in a music video.

Despite a host of critical backlash for his one fully original take, Sucker Punch is an amazing thing to see. More a commentary on video game enthusiasm with its lust for hot animated chicks and over-the-top violence that a celebration of cleavage and guns, the film is crazily entertaining. For those who hated the ending, he told you in the title what his plan was all along.

The first movie I saw in the theaters that tried to take a superhero mythology and treat it seriously (for the most part) was Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie. Never as big a fan of the DC characters as I have been of Marvel, it was still extraordinary to see a character I had only really known in pages to be so fully realized. Then came Burton's Batman movies. The superhero film was still an anomaly but steam was gaining. Things changed with Bryan Singer's X-Men in 2000, then Raimi's Spiderman, and those of us who grew up with our pulpy versions of Athena, Hermes, and Hades were rewarded with Nolan's Batman Begins. A far cry from the tongue-in-cheek camp of the 1966 TV Batman, Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne was a serious character and his tale over three films is a tragic commentary filled with the kind of death and betrayal and triumph befitting the grand narrative he deserved.

I loved Singer's Superman Returns in 2006 because it was such a love letter to the 1978 film (down to the opening credits) but by then, the MCU was taking over the world.

Snyder's first of what turns out to be an epic storyline involving perhaps seven or eight movies was Man of Steel. It was fun and, while I had my issues with the broodiness of Kal El, the odd take on Jonathan Kent, and a redheaded Lois Lane, I had no issue with Superman snapping Zod's neck. Darker and more tragic than any other version of the Kryptonian, it was still super entertaining.

Then came Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. By 2016, Marvel had codified their formula of serious characters wrestling with serious issues of power and responsibility peppered with lots of good humor and bright colors. Snyder's desaturated pallete and angst-filled demi-gods was not the obvious road to financial competition.

I'll confess, I hated it. BvS felt half-rendered. Lex Luthor was kind of superficial and played as a kind of Joker. The whole Bruce Wayne wants to kill Superman thing felt undeveloped and the "Martha" moment was just stupid.

When Joss Whedon's version of Snyder's Justice League came out in 2017, I was primed for it to be a turd and I wasn't surprised. So much of it didn't work on any level. I dismissed it as DC trying and failing miserably and was comforted by the coming of Thanos.

Following Thanos and the time heist was COVID. Suddenly, we were internationally sidelined and the movie theater industry caved in. Streaming services started popping up like knock-off smartphones and Hollywood was reeling, doing anything and everything to find a way back. Since Whedon's disastrous helming of Snyder's third act, fans online had been demanding to #ReleasetheSnyderCut but no one was ever really taking them seriously until all movie production was shut down for a year.

The stage was set to remedy a mistake (or at least make some bucks on a do-over of a huge box office failure). Snyder had left the production in part because of the suicide of his daughter and in part due to the constant artistic fights over executives looking for the quippy fun of the MCU but he still had all the original footage. Add to that the broiling accusations that Joss Whedon was "abusive" during the reshoots, the path seemed destined. For an additional $70 million and complete control, Snyder delivered a four hour mega-movie streamed on HBOMax.

Of course, I was going to watch the thing as soon as I could.

The Whedon version opens with an homage to the now dead Superman (including the much maligned digitally erased mustache on Henry Cavill). The SynderCut opens with the death of Superman and the agony of his death scream as it travels across the planet. It's a simple change but exemplifies the very different visions of how this thing is gonna play out.

Snyder doesn't want us to be OK with the power of these beings unleashed. He wants us to feel the damage and pain of death. He wants the results of violence to be as real as he can. When Marvel's Steve Rogers kicks a thug across the room and the thug hits a wall, he crumples and it is effectively over. When Batman does the same thing, we see the broken bones (often in slow motion) and the blood smear on the wall as the thug slides to the ground.

The longer SnyderCut is bloated in some places (like the extended Celtic choir singing Aquaman off to sea or the extended narrations by Wonder Woman which sound slightly like someone trying to explain the plot to Siri). On the other hand, the scene with Barry Allen saving Iris West is both endearing and extraordinary, giving insight to the power of the Flash as well as some essential character-building in contrast to Whedon's comic foil version.

One thing I noticed in this variant is that Zach wants the audience to experience the sequence of every moment as the characters do. An example comes when Diana Prince goes to the crypt to see the very plot she belabors over later. The sequence is simple. She gets a torch and goes down. Most directors which jump cut to the torch. Snyder gives us five beats as she grabs the timber, wraps cloth around the end, soaks it with kerosene, pulls out a box of matches, and lights the torch. Then she goes down the dark passageway.

The gigantic, lush diversity of Snyder’s vision of the DC superhero universe—from the long shots of the sea life in the world of Atlantis to the ancient structures and equipment of Themyscira— is almost painterly. Snyder isn't taking our time; he's taking his time. We are rewarded our patience with a far better backstory for the villain, a beautifully rendered historic battle thwarting Darkseid's initial invasion (including a fucking Green Lantern), and answers to a score of questions set up in both previous films.

Whedon's Bruce Wayne was more Ben Affleck; Snyder's is full-on Frank Miller Batman, the smartest, most brutal fucker in the room. Cyborg, instead of Whedon's sidelined non-character, is now a Frankenstein's monster, grappling with the trade-off between acceptance and enormous power. Wonder Woman is now more in line with the Patty Jenkins version and instead of being told about the loss of Superman, we are forced to live with the anguish of both his mother and Lois Lane in quiet moments of incredible grief.

To be fair to Whedon (something few are willing to do as he is now being castigated not for racism or sexism but for being mean to people) having him come in to throw in some levity and Marvel-esque color to Snyder's Wagnerian pomposity is like hiring Huey Lewis to lighten up Pink Floyd's The Wall or getting Douglas Adams to rewrite Cormac McCarthy's The Road.

I loved Snyder's self-indulgent, mythologic DC universe.

So much so that I then re-watched Man of Steel and then watched the director's version of BvS (which Snyder added approximately 32 minutes). The second film is far better at three hours and Eisenberg's Lex Luthor now makes sense. Then I watched Zach Snyder's Justice League a second time.

After nineteen hours of Snyder's re-imagining of these DC heroes and villains, I saw details that, upon first viewing, are ignored or dismissed, but after seeing them in order and complete, are suddenly consistent and relevant. Like Nolan or Fincher, Snyder defies anyone to eliminate even one piece of his narrative no matter how long. With all the pieces, this is an epic story and the pieces left at the extended epilogue play into a grander narrative we will never see.

Or maybe we will. Who knows these days?

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | The Way of the Dragon (Lee, 1972)

This review contains mild spoilers.

I don’t necessarily think that The Way of the Dragon is a great kung fu movie, but I do think knowledge of its surrounding context helped me appreciate it a bit more. This was Bruce Lee’s third film for Golden Harvest, after two hits with The Big Boss and Fist of Fury. (Confusingly, The Big Boss has also been released as Fists of Fury in North America.) It was also Lee’s first film as director, which only happened after Lee tried to work out a deal with the rival Shaw Brothers studio, which had previously passed on him (or he’d passed on them) as a star. (It is interesting to contemplate if Lee’s cinematic output might be as fondly remembered had he gone with them instead of Golden Harvest. The more rigid house style and quality control of Shaw Brothers productions might make for better movies, but not necessarily ones that let their stars shine as strongly. But I also struggle to think of a Shaw Brothers star, of which there have been some greats, who are larger than life or at least bigger than the movies in the same way Lee was.) Lee at the same time was struggling to get American studios to take him seriously, and with this film was hoping to make something with international appeal that would get him noticed accordingly. While he was supposedly insecure about the film’s quality based on a lukewarm reaction from his brother, the film, on top of outgrossing his previous two films, succeeded in getting him noticed accordingly, as Warner Brothers soon gave him an offer to make Enter the Dragon.

The plot features Lee coming to Rome to help his restaurateuse cousin (the cute as a button Nora Miao, reuniting with him after Fist of Fury), who is antagonized by a white gangster looking to squeeze her for protection money, and it’s not hard to read that as a parallel for Lee’s struggles with the American film industry. The movie foregrounds Lee’s Chinese ethnicity, painting him as rather provincial and showing the characters celebrating Chinese New Year. But at the same time, the tone the movie strikes is quite a bit less nationalistic than Fist of Fury, where Lee declares that the Chinese are “not the sick men of East Asia” and kicks a sign that says “No dogs and Chinese allowed”. Here Lee is obviously proud of his heritage and shows off Chinese boxing to the audience, but he’s not above showing off other styles as well, regardless of origin. (It’s worth noting that his weapon of choice, the nunchaku, are Japanese in origin.) He casts a number of foreign martial artists, with at least one version of the opening credits listing out their qualifications. There’s Hwang In-Shik, the hapkido expert. There’s Robert Wall, who plays a heel here and would return to play heels in Enter the Dragon and Game of Death. And of course there’s Chuck Norris, who at this time was a decorated karate champion but not an established actor. (One wonders if he might have been cast in the John Saxon role in Enter the Dragon had he racked up more onscreen credits at the time. I love John Saxon and he certainly tries in the action scenes, but watching him in that movie is like seeing a kid on a tricycle compete in the Tour De France. Norris certainly would have been a better fit based on his abilities, despite being a weaker actor.)

Even when Lee defeats his foes (at least one of whom gets punched in the balls so hard that he dies), there’s a respect for their art, and Lee pleads for his allies to stop attacking a foe who had already surrendered. The climactic fight has Lee facing Norris in the ruins of the Coliseum (a soundstage during the fight itself, the real location in the surrounding scenes). Norris has a presence that can be flat in bad movies but is appropriately stonefaced here, as if his martial prowess transcends his personhood. The scene plays with a sense of timing that brings to mind spaghetti westerns, with Lee having to figure out how to adapt his style to defeat Norris. In that respect I don’t think it’s quite as accomplished as the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar fight in Game of Death in translating his martial arts philosophy, nor is the mise en scene as compellingly incorporated as the climax in Enter the Dragon, but it’s a highly entertaining fight nonetheless. When it reaches its end, the film strikes a melancholy tone, and Lee offers a gesture of respect to the fallen fighter, an indirect acknowledgement of the idea that the martial arts featured are greater than the specifics of the plot in this genre.

I don’t think The Way of the Dragon is a great kung fu film, as there’s enough dead air and lack of polish to keep it from greatness, but I’ve grown accustomed to the idea that some films are more fun to spend time in than get through and that applied to my viewing experience here. Lee is clearly working out a directing style here, and it’s enjoyable to see him play with tone, particularly in early scenes that pull from silent comedy where he has to figure out how to get a meal without speaking a word of English. There’s also a scene where his cousin lectures him on acclimating to local customs and informs him that people here are really friendly, resulting in him getting obliviously picked up by Italian Beauty Malisa Longo (as the credits refer to her, right after listing the martial artists in the cast). Lee’s magnetism as a performer can’t be overestimated, but I do like how he plays with his presence, making him not just heroic and highly skilled but also funny and kind of a rube. Regarding the action scenes, the crew apparently was not prepared for Lee’s insistence on multiple takes, so while they lack the slickness of the average Shaw Brothers production, they do a great job of showing off Lee’s martial arts prowess and physicality. The camera pores over Lee’s physique as he flexes in a manner akin to the hardbody action films of the ‘80s. (This happens most memorably prior to his fight with Norris, where his movements are likened to that of a nearby kitten.) This might seem arrogant in other situations but is easily justified here. Were I built like Lee (I am not) and directing myself in a kung fu movie (I am not), I would show off my body as well. In the words of Max Bialystock, when you’ve got it, flaunt it.

[subspace]

ARMY OF THE DEAD

After becoming largely burned out on the sub-genre, Zack Snyder’s “Army of the Dead” helped revitalize my enjoyment of zombie-related entertainment. 

I suppose it shouldn’t be too surprising that Zack Snyder delivered a cracking zombie movie. After all, his first (and some might argue still best) feature film was the superb remake of George Romero’s genre-defining classic, “Dawn of the Dead.” “Army of the Dead” (which is not related at all to Romero’s original or its sequels) takes what had become a shambling corpse of an idea and infuses it with a sense of fun that, to me at least, had long since been missing from the zombie movie sub-genre. 

Snyder, who birthed the story idea and co-wrote the script alongside Shay Hatten and Joby Harold, accomplishes this by playing every inch of this incredibly goofy concept with a level of conviction that most straight dramas aim for. The result is a film that is often flagrantly absurd on its surface, but is so assured in its stone-faced seriousness you can’t help but go along for the ride. 

It also helps that the core concept feels fresh, or at least significantly underused within zombie movies. A zombie infection has nearly consumed a walled-off Las Vegas. In a few days, the President of the United States is set to launch a tactical nuke to (hopefully) eradicate the sea of undead trapped inside the makeshift quarantine zone. A looming nuclear strike, of course, makes for a perfect opportunity for a team of mercenaries to sneak inside, crack open a casino vault and bring back hundreds of millions of dollars for a mysterious businessman who promises them a cut of the payload. 

Oh and they have to do it while maneuvering through a literal kingdom of super-powered, smart (they communicate!), feral zombies who are ruled by a government-experiment-gone-awry “alpha male” who can at-will turn any living thing into one of his super-powered subjects. 

As one would expect, very little goes exactly according to plan and our intrepid team of mercs soon find themselves getting more than even they knowingly bargained for. 

It’s a fun premise, though I must admit that for a heist movie it focuses very little on the actual heisting, which is often the best part of these types of films. And for a movie that runs well north of two hours (it could stand to be at least 15 minutes shorter) there’s a surprising overall lack of action in the first two-thirds. Which isn’t to say it’s bereft of action, just less than one might expect for a zombie flick, much less a Zack Snyder zombie flick. 

No, what really makes this work is the characters, which might be the first time I’ve ever said that about this director’s work. He’s a superb visual stylist and skilled purveyor of often thrilling bombast, but “character artist” isn’t even among his top five skills. Still, I found myself genuinely rooting for this motley crew, even the ones I expected to get on my nerves with how broadly cartoonish they seemed at first. Everyone gets at least one big moment to shine, whether it’s Tig Notaro’s Peters piloting a chopper like an absolute champ, Raul Castillo’s Guzman going on an absolute rampage on the casino floor or Matthias Schweighöfer’s Dieter getting his Götterdämmerung moment, every character is memorable in their own way. 

And it’s in these character moments that I became thankful, for once, that Snyder plays everything so seriously. Even as a staunch defender of his “Man of Steel,” it’s not hard to see why some feel that the resolutely po-faced approach to Superman borders on feeling downright dour. Ditto for his version of “Justice League.” The circumstances and multitude of characters presented in “Army of the Dead” are no less ridiculous than any of his comic book movies, but here Snyder seems to have finally found the perfect note to strike when taking inherently silly elements and playing them completely straight. 

Holding it all together is Dave Bautista in the lead as Scott Ward, a former special ops soldier who was forced to kill his zombified wife and is now merely trying to survive flipping burgers at a rundown greasy spoon diner. Performers like John Cena or Dwayne Johnson may be more immediately charming actors, but Bautista has shown that he’s got the better acting chops of any recent wrestler-turned-actor. His work in “Army of the Dead” is no exception. His particular brand of quiet charisma lends a gravitas to Ward that provides a nice window into a character that might otherwise feel a bit rote on the page. It’s a nice contrast to the outrageousness that otherwise fills so much of the screen. 

If there’s significant criticism to be leveled here it’s that this in no way needed to be a two-and-a-half hour movie. While the movie never particularly drags, this could be an absolute firecracker of a two hour romp if it were tightened in more than a few places. And while Snyder remains a superb visual stylist, his choice to perpetually frame every extreme close-up with the background completely out of focus. This would be fine if it were used for emphasis on occasion or for significant character moments. But he uses it near-constantly to the detriment of the film’s aesthetic. 

Those complaints aside, “Army of the Dead” may well be Snyder’s best movie. I realize that may not be high praise depending on how you feel about his body of work (I’ll personally defend about 50 percent of it), but this certainly feels like Peak Snyder for better or worse. 

*”Army of the Dead” is now playing in theaters and debuts on Netflix on Friday, May 21. 

[buzzdixonwriter]

Compare & Contrast: ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD Movie vs Novel

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is my favorite Quentin Tarantino film, a love letter to late 1960s Los Angeles / Hollywood, an alternate history where the wicked (or at least three of them) are punished and the virtuous are spared and rewarded.

Tarantino has since expanded his basic story into a new novel, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and it’s interesting to compare & contrast the two approaches to the material.

Movie tie-in novelizations are not unusual, of course, but it’s the rare example when the original creator (writer or director) takes a whack at it.  Ian Fleming famously turned an unsold screenplay, James Bond Of The Secret Service, (written with Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham, Ivar Bryce, and Ernest Cuneo) into the novel Thunderball and a busted TV pilot, Commander Jamaica, into Dr. No, while Ed McBain (a.k.a. Evan Hunter ne Salvatore Albert Lombino) adapted a couple of original 87th Precinct movie scripts into novels.  

Here Tarantino takes his stab at it, and the results are…well, let’s cut to the chase…

Which is better, movie or book?

Good movie, okay novel.

For those who want a more detailed analysis…

[SPOILERS GALORE]

Story Structure

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the novel is just barely a standalone story; it’s really enhanced by seeing the movie first.

The story flow is roughly the same, and it’s clear a lot of the material in the book are from early drafts of the screenplay (with a few callbacks to earlier Tarantino films).  There’s also a lot of material missing that was in the movie (the immediate aftermath of Cliff visiting George Spahn, f’r instance).

However, the main plot and many major scenes from the movie are described as almost asides, hints at things seen on screen that aren’t elaborated on in the movie.

In one sense, this works to the novel’s advantage; there’s little point in reiterating already familiar scenes.  On the other hand, scenes in the book that expand on scenes from the movie can benefit only by seeing the movie first.

While Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the movie features a pretty clear if typically erratic Tarantino timeline, the book’s timeline is less easy to track (but more on that later).

This isn’t a deal breaker in terms of enjoyment, but it occasionally does get in the way of the story telling.

Characters

What I liked most about Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the movie was that the Rick Dalton character is presented as a self-involved / over anxious / ot-nay oo-tay ight-bray actor who, despite his very apparent shortcomings, also demonstrates a truly professional dedication to his craft and an ability to listen and learn and grow.

Taking part in the big fight at the end cements his hero status in the framework of the movie.

He’s not nearly as likeable or as admirable in the book.

A big hunk of this is leaving out those crucial action beats mentioned above.  Another hunk is letting us peek too deeply into Rick’s head, and learning what happens to him after the climax of the film.

Instead of moving into the quality artsy A-list movie world as the film version intimates at the end, Rick becomes a John Wayne-like figure with similar intolerant attitudes, popular with middle American audiences.

He does come across as clear headed when it comes to his career and his place in the Hollywood pecking order, as demonstrated in his own analysis of why he would never have gotten Steve McQueen’s role in The Great Escape.

Sharon Tate is still the delightfully airy character shown in the movie, though Tarantino gives her a broader emotional palette to play with.  She comes across as more fully rounded than the movie version but is still the wonderful, life-loving character of the film.

Cliff Booth, on the other hand, suffers badly.

First off, Cliff’s character in the film is already extremely problematic.  The movie deliberately makes the circumstances around his wife’s death vague enough to be read in a variety of ways:  He could have deliberately murdered her and got away with it, it could have been justifiable homicide in self-defense, it could have been an accident, it could have been something else.

We never know and that works to give Cliff a Schrodinger’s cat-like characterization:  We can’t know until we open the box and look in.

Well, Tarantino flings open the box and boy, what’s inside is stupid.

I can absolutely believe Cliff killed his wife in a momentary fit of rage, I do not believe the speargun cut her in half and he held the two halves together so they could have a long lovey-dovey talk until the Coast Guard shows up and she literally falls apart.

If Tarantino’s intent was to hint Cliff had a psychotic fugue after he killed his wife and thought he was holding her together and talking to her, he didn’t make that clear.

Considering how often Tarantino employs the omniscient third person point of view in this story, I don’t think it’s a failure style but of plotting.

That would be bad enough, but there’s a lot of other problems with Cliff in the book.

He flat out murders four people by the time of the novel:  Two petty gangsters back east, his wife, and the guy who offered him a share of Brandy’s prize money from dog fights.

Yeah, Cliff is plugged into the dog fighting world and really enjoys it.  He shows enough affection and appreciation for Brandy the pit bull to recognize when her career is over, and he’s ruthless enough to kill Brandy’s co-owner when the guy insists on sending her to her almost certain death in one last dog fight.

[Sidebar: Elsewhere Tarantino has told aspiring writers to leave morality out of their character’s motives and despite this sounding counterintuitive, it’s actually solid advice.  Morality forces good guys to act like good guys, it never gives the characters room to think and breathe and act as real people.  Tarantino isn’t saying characters can’t make moral choices, but those moral choices must come from who they are, not from some arbitrary code or editorial fiat.  To this degree the novel Once Upon A Time In Hollywood depicts Cliff in a wholly believable light, a natural born survivor who will do whatever’s necessary to stay alive.]

Book Cliff is depicted as a far more unpleasant person than Rick, lightyears more unpleasant than movie Cliff.  Part of this is a deliberate choice on Tarantino’s part as his omniscient third person point of view frequently mediates on the meaning of likeability vs believability in movie terms; he certainly strives to makes Rick and Cliff as unlikeable as possible (Sharon, too, but she’s basically too sweet a character for any negativity to rub off on her).

Cliff also demonstrates a considerable amount of bigotry and prejudice, in particular his opinions on Bruce Lee.  The substance of those opinions re Lee’s martial arts abilities is not the problem, it’s the way in which they are expressed.

Does this sound believable coming from a near 50 year old WWII vet?  Yeah, it does.  That doesn’t mean the book benefits from it.

Which leads to the single biggest problem with Cliff, however, is his age and background.

Tarantino envisions him as a WWII vet, a survivor of the Sicily campaign reassigned to the Philippines (as with Inglorious Basterds, Tarantino really doesn’t care about what actually happened in WWII), taken prisoner by the Japanese, escaping to the jungles to lead a guerilla force against the Imperial Army, recipient of two “Medals of Valor” (who knows what Tarantino means by this as no such award exists in the US military.  Medal of Honor?  Distinguished Service Cross?  Silver Star?  Bronze Star?), and record holder for the most confirmed Japanese killed by a single individual who wasn’t a crew member of the Enola Gay.

Okay, so that makes him what, mid-20s at the youngest in 1945?  

He’d be 49 at the time of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, not an unheard of age for Hollywood stunt men but certainly pushing the edge of the envelope.

Playing Rick’s double?  That sounds quite a bit more farfetched.  Rick’s exact age is never mentioned but from the way others treat him, he’s somewhere between Cliff’s age and that of James Stacy, the real life actor who starred in the Lancer pilot Rick is filming in 1968 when Stacy would be 32 years old.

That would make Rick roughly 40 at the time, and there’s an aside in the book that reveals one of Rick’s early roles was in 1959’s  Away All Boats, the latter with Tom Laughlin (who in real life later directed and starred in Billy Jack), and since Rick and Laughlin are presented as contemporaries and Laughlin was born in 1931, this would make Rick 28 when Bounty Law started airing that same year and he and Cliff, then age 40, first started working together.

Cliff saves Rick’s life from a stunt gone wrong early in the filming of Bounty Law, so one understands how their bond formed and why Rick continues to keep Cliff around even after Cliff kills his wife.

Missing from the novel is the voice of Randy Miller, the stunt director (played by Kurt Russell in the film) who narrates much of the movie.  I can’t recall if Randy is even mentioned by name in the book, but he certainly isn’t featured prominently in it.  Sometimes the narrative voice of the novel seems to be his, sometimes it seems to be Tarantino’s (and we’ll discuss that below, too).

Not all the characters in the movie make it to the pages of the book, and likewise quite a few characters appear who never showed up in the film version of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood or any other Tarantino film.

Sharon Tate first appears in the book hitchhiking and accepting a ride from rodeo cowboy Ace Woody, originally slated to be one of the assorted baddies in Django Unchained but later melded into another character.

On the other hand, many minor and obscure real life Hollywood players and personalities and hangers on do appear in the novel.  Tarantino is careful to put dialog in the mouths of only certifiably dead personalities, however, and as we’ll go into down below, that’s a wise move.

(BTW, Tarantino works himself into his own story a couple of times, mentioning himself as the director of a remake of John Sayles’ The Lady In Red featuring a grown up Trudi Fraser a.k.a. Mirabella Lancer in the Lancer pilot Rick is starring in, and as the son of piano player Curt Zastoupil, Tarantino’s real life step-father, who asks Rick for an autographed photo for his son Quentin.)

The Hollywood Stuff

Which leads us to the real hook of the book, a glimpse behind the scenes of Hollywood circa 1969.

If, like me, you’re fascinated by this sort of stuff, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a fun read.

Tarantino is a devourer of pop culture and dedicates his book in part to Bruce Dern, David Carradine, Burt Reynolds, Robert Blake, Michael parks, Robert Forester, and Kurt Russell, thanking them for the stories they told him about “old time” Hollywood (i.e., the 1950s and 60s from Tarantino’s reckoning).

A lot of the book rings true in attitudes and opinions expressed back in that era, and some of the stories included are jaw-dropping (the Aldo Ray one especially).

The examinations of various maneuverings and strategies in the entertainment industry are also illuminating.

However, this raises a fair question about what the intent of any given work is, and how well documented a work of fiction needs to be.

There’s a trio of actors (all dead so none can sue Tarantino for libel) labeled in derogatory terms as homosexuals in two or three places in the book.

There’s some observations on race that sound absolutely authentic coming from the mouths of those particular characters at that particular time, but one questions the need for using those exact terms today; it’s not that difficult to show the character speaking is bigoted without letting them sling all the slurs they want.

Speaking of terms, I’ve never heard “ringer” used before in the film industry in the context of this book, so if it’s fake, Tarantino did an absolutely convincing job presenting it as real.

But here’s where we start heading into some problematic areas, not problematic in undermining the enjoyment of the book, but problematic in the sense of understanding what Tarantino is trying to convey.

Cliff’s story is awfully close to Robert Blake’s story, and you’d be hard pressed to find many people in town today who don’t think he got away with murder.

And of all the TV show’s to pick for Rick to be playing the villain in the pilot episode, why Lancer?

Few people today remember the series, and Tarantino taking liberties with the actual pilot episode plot isn’t noteworthy…

…or is it?

The actual series starred Andrew Duggan as Murdoch Lancer, patriarch of the Lancer family, with Wayne Maunder played Scott Lancer, the upscale older son, and James Stacy as his half-brother, gunslinger Johnny Madrid Lancer. Elizabeth Baur played Teresa O'Brien, Murdoch Lancer's teenage ward. 

For Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Tarantino replaced the real life Elizabeth Baur / Teresa O’Brien with “8 year old” Trudi Frazer (in the book; Fraser in the movie) / Mirabella Lancer (played in the film by 10 year old Julia Butters).

Why Lancer?  Why this particular change?

Lancer’s Johnny Madrid Lancer was played by James Stacy, a brief appearance in the film, but far more substantial scenes in the book (as well as the reader getting to see what he’s thinking and feeling).  Tarantino uses these scenes in the book to explain a bit about on set etiquette.

James Stacy was an actual person, and he actually played Johnny Madrid Lancer in the series.

In September of 1973, he was maimed in a motorcycle accident, losing his left arm and leg.

He refused to let his disability sideline him, and in 1975 appeared in Posse as a newspaper man, then went on to play numerous supporting roles in films and TV shows until 1995.

That was the year he was arrested, tried, and convicted of molesting an 11 year old girl.

He didn’t show up for his sentencing hearing, choosing instead to fly to Hawaii and attempt suicide.  Arrested and returned to California, instead of probation he received a 6 year prison sentence when it was learned he’d been arrested twice after the first crime on prowling charges in which he approached two other young girls.

Quentin Tarantino, the all time grand master maven of pop culture didn’t know this?

And in the book, Trudi calls Rick for a later night conversation about their day on the set.

This is an 8 year old child calling an adult after midnight.

To their credit, Tarantino and Rick both tell Trudi up front this is not an appropriate thing to do…

…but the call continues.

It doesn’t veer off into creepy territory, and when it ends it actually puts Rick’s character back on an upward trajectory, one in which he no longer feels he’s screwed up his life.

But still…

This is a really weird context.

(The scene was filmed for the movie but didn’t make the final cut.  Look closely on the movie poster under Brad Pitt’s chin and you’ll see an image of Julia Butters holding a teddy bear and talking on the phone.)

Style

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the movie is consistent and spot on.  It uses cinematic language to maximum effect.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the book is all over the map.

It manages to stay entertaining even at its most erratic, but the inconsistency works against it.

As noted before, the point of view is constantly shifting, sometimes seen through a character’s eyes, sometimes through an omniscient third person point of view, sometimes in what appears to be uncredited narration from Randy, and in several chapters exploring the Lancer story-within-a-story as mediocre pulp fiction typical of movie and TV tie-ins of the era.

Tarantino does not stay consistent with his characters, either.  This indicates adapting scenes from earlier drafts without really smoothing out the fit.

Another point of view issue is Tarantino’s own.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the novel reads like the work of an older, very culturally conservative writer.

Many writers will argue that the evils their characters do in their books are not reflections on the author but simply the character acting consistently with who they are.

Kinda true…but that character comes from the writer’s imagination, and the writer needs to think up all those terrible things the character thinks and does and say, so somewhere deep down inside the dungeons of that writer’s mind…those things live and breed.

Rick is depicted as out of step with the new Hollywood and the hippie era in both film and book, but the book reinforces and rewards him for being out of step, unlike the movie whree he finds an entrance to the future.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the novel now makes me reexamine all of Tarantino’s earlier efforts, in particular Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained and The Hateful 8 and see if his world view has changed, or if its been there all the time only he concealed it better in the past.

Presentation

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood the book is packaged to look like a mass market paperback from the late 1960s to 1980s (in fact, very specifically 1980s style mass market paperbacks).

It even closes with ads for Oliver’s Story, Serpico, and The Switch, all bona fide movie tie-ins books, as well as Ride A Wild Bronc, a fictitious title, written by Marvin H. Albert.

Albert was a bona fide popular fiction writer under his own name and several pseudonyms, as well as screenplays based on his books for Duel At Diablo, Rough Night In Jericho, Lady In Cement, and The Don Is Dead.  Tony Rome, played by Frank Sinatra in two movies, is probably his best known character.  Several of the books he wrote were movie and TV tie-ins including The Pink Panther and The Untouchables.

The last ad is for the deluxe hardcover edition of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, promising new material and previously unreleased photos.

The editing and copyediting of the book are subpar.  As noted above, tone and consistency fluctuate throughout the book.  A sharper editor would have removed redundancies, smoothed out clunky scenes.

Typographical errors abound throughout.  Early on they mention the Mannix TV show in italics (the book’s standard style for movie and TV show titles) then sloppily put the character’s name, Mannix, in italics as well and, to add further insult to injury, Mannix’ secretary Peggy also gets her name italicized.  Song titles are listed either in italics or unitalicized in quotes; pick a style and stick with it, guys…

Finally, Quentin baby, I gotta say ya missed a bet by not having a cardboard center insert ad for Red Apple cigarettes; that would have completely nailed the retro look.

  © Buzz Dixon

[claudia1829things]

“LITTLE WOMEN” (2019) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (2019) Review Ever since its release in movie theaters back December 2019, many moviegoers have been in rapture over "LITTLE WOMEN", filmmaker Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel. The movie did acquire several acclaims, including Oscar nominations for two of the film’s actresses, Best Adapted Screenplay and an actual Oscar for costume design. I never got the chance to see it in theaters. I finally managed to see it on the HULU streaming service.

Anyone familiar with Alcott’s novel knows that it conveyed the tale of four sisters from a Massachusetts family and their development from adolescence and childhood to adulthood during the 1860s. The first half of Alcott’s tale covered the March sisters’ experiences during the U.S. Civil War. In fact, Alcott had based the March family on herself and her three sisters. Unlike previous adaptations, Gerwig incorporated a nonlinear timeline for this version of "LITTLE WOMEN". There were aspects of "LITTLE WOMEN" I truly admired. I did enjoy most of the performances. Or some of them. I thought Saoirse Ronan gave an excellent performance as the movie’s leading character Josephine "Jo" March. I thought she did a pretty good job of recapturing Jo’s extroverted personality and artistic ambitions. I do wish that Gerwig had allowed Jo to convey some of the less pleasant sides to her personality. Do I believe she deserved her Oscar nomination? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Although I thought she gave an excellent performance, I do not know if I would have considered her for an acting nomination. But I was more than impressed by Eliza Scanlen, who portrayed third sister Elizabeth "Beth" March. Although her story more or less played out in a series of vignettes that switched back and forth between the period in which she first caught the scarlet fever and her death a few years later; Scanlen did a superb job in recapturing the pathos and barely submerged emotions of Beth’s fate. It seemed a pity that she had failed to acquire any acting nominations. One last performance that really impressed me came from Meryl Streep. I have always regarded the temperamental Aunt March as a difficult role for any actress. And although I do not regard Streep’s interpretation of the aging matriarch as the best I have seen, I must admit that for me, she gave one of the best performances in the film. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Emma Watson, Laura Dern, Chris Cooper, Tracy Letts, James Norton, Louis Garrel, Bob Odenkirk and Florence Pugh, who also received an Oscar nomination for her performance as the youngest March sister, Amy. About the latter . . . I really admired her portrayal of the older Amy March. But I found her performance as the younger Amy rather exaggerated. And a part of me cannot help but wonder why she had received an Oscar nomination in the first place. Jacqueline Durran won the film's only Academy Award – namely for Best Costume Design. Did she deserve it? I honestly do not believe she did. I did enjoy some of her designs, especially for the older Amy March, as shown below:

I found the costumes worn by Pugh, Streep and many extras in the Paris sequences very attractive and an elegant expression of fashion from the late 1860s. Otherwise, I found Durran’s costumes for this film rather questionable. I realize both she and Gerwig were attempting to portray the March family as some kind of 19th century version of "hippies". But even non-traditional types like the Marches would not wear their clothing in such a slap-dash manner with petticoat hems hanging below the skirts, along with bloomers showing, cuts and styles in clothing that almost seemed anachronistic, and wearing no corsets. The latter would be the equivalent of not wearing bras underneath one’s clothing in the 20th and 21st centuries. Someone had pointed out that many of today’s costume designers try to put a "modern twist" to their work in period dramas in order to appeal to modern moviegoers and television viewers. I really wish they would not. The attempt tends to come off as lazy costuming in my eyes. And this tactic usually draws a good deal of criticism from fans of period dramas. So . . . how on earth did Durran win an Oscar for her work in the first place? I understand that "LITTLE WOMEN" was filmed in various locations around Massachusetts, including Boston and Cambridge. A part of me felt a sense of satisfaction by this news, considering the story’s setting of Concord, Massachusetts. I was surprised to learn that even the Paris sequences were filmed in Ipswich, Massachusetts. However, I must admit that I was not particularly blown away by Yorick Le Saux's cinematography. Then again, I can say that for just about every adaptation of Alcott’s novel I have ever seen. There were scenes from "LITTLE WOMEN" that I found memorable. Those include Jo March’s initial meeting with her publisher Mr. Dashwood; Amy March’s conflict with Theodore "Laurie" Laurence over his behavior in Paris; Jo’s rejection of Laurie’s marriage proposal, and especially the montage featuring Beth March’s bout with scarlet fever and its consequences. However . . . I had some problems with Gerwig’s screenplay. As I have stated earlier, "LITTLE WOMEN" is not the first movie I have seen that utilized the non-linear plot technique. I have seen at least two adaptations of Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, "Jane Eyre". Two more famous examples of this plot device were the 1995 film, "12 MONKEYS" and two of Christopher Nolan’s movies – 2000’s "MEMENTO" and 2017’s "DUNKIRK". How can I put this? I feel that Greta Gerwig’s use of non-linear writing had failed the film’s narrative. It simply did not work for me. Except for the brilliant montage featuring Beth’s fate, it seemed as if Gerwig’s writing had scattered all over the place without any real semblance of following Alcott’s plot. If I had not been already familiar with Alcott’s story, I would have found “LITTLE WOMEN” totally confusing. I also feel that because of Gerwig’s use of the non-linear technique, she managed to inflict a little damage on Alcott’s plot. Despite the excellent scene featuring Laurie’s marriage proposal, I felt that Gerwig had robbed the development of his relationship with Jo. I also believe that Gerwig had diminished Jo’s relationship with Professor Bhaer. In the film, Bhaer had expressed harsh criticism of Jo’s earlier writing . . . without explaining his opinion. But he never added that Jo had the potential to write better stories than her usual melodrama crap. Why did Gerwig deleted this aspect of Professor Bhaer’s criticism? In order to make him look bad? To set up the idea of Jo ending the story as a single woman, because that was Alcott’s original intent? Did Gerwig consider the original version of this scene a detriment to feminist empowerment? I am also confused as to why Gerwig allowed the March family to push her into considering Professor Bhaer as a potential mate for Jo? This never happened in the novel. Jo had come to her decision to marry the professor on her own prerogative. She did not have to be pushed into this decision. Come to think of it, how exactly did Jo’s fate end in the movie? I am confused. Did she marry Bhaer after rushing to the train station in order to stop him from leaving for California? Or did she remain single? Whatever. And why on earth did she position Amy and Laurie’s first meeting after the former’s hand had been caned by her school teacher? Gerwig had transformed an incident that had taught Amy a lesson about self-respect and generated the Marches’ righteous anger against a schoolteacher’s abuse to one of comic relief and a cute rom.com meet for Amy and Laurie. What the hell? Someone had once complained that Gerwig may have assumed that everyone was familiar with Alcott’s story when she wrote this screenplay. And I agree with that person. Earlier I had questioned the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ decision to award the Best Costume Design statuette to Jacqueline Durran and nominate Florence Pugh for Best Supporting Actress. But I also have to question the organization’s decision to nominate Gerwig’s writing for Best Adapted Screenplay. I honestly believe she did not deserve it. There were aspects of "LITTLE WOMEN" that I found admirable. I was certainly impressed by some of the film’s dramatic moments. And there were a handful of performances from the likes of Saoirse Ronan, Eliza Scanlen and Meryl Streep that truly impressed me. But I cannot deny that the other members of the cast gave either first-rate or solid performances. In the end, I did not like the movie. I believe "LITTLE WOMEN" should have never been nominated for Best Picture. Greta Gerwig’s use of the nonlinear technique did not serve Louisa May Alcott’s plot very well. If I had not been familiar with the novel’s plot, I would have found this movie confusing. Aside from Ronan’s Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, I feel that the other nominations and Best Costume Design win were undeserved. And a part of me feels a sense of relief that Gerwig had never received a nomination for Best Director.

[thesharondefenseleague]

mlm imo werent sexualized to the degree that wlw were in most canon media mostly because of the male gaze. Gay and Lesbian relationships or moments got very limited representation. One was probably more sympathetic but also heart breaking like say brokeback mountain. One was explicit but depicted as grotesque or twisted or perverted or immoral in some way. And the last version was the titillating version. In western media because of the assumed straight male gaze lesbians making out to titlate guys was a common thing like say in Jennifer's body. The equivalent of that with guys wasnt really that common not in western media. Not that wlw couldn't like that content but it was made to be fanservice for men .

So thats what I kind of mean by wlw were sexualized at least in western media. This equivalent with mlm in fandom never really existed they never made out for girls to find hot in the same way. It was never marketed like oh look hot guys making out. Fandom did that but not canon.

As for comic book men being sexualized kind of. There is definitely the unrealistic beauty standards but theres that debate of was it for the purpose of titillating women? Or a result of toxic masculinity putting this unattainable unsustainable goal for men. Maybe both? But both in comics and the movies they are based on the posing and clothing and moments with women get made to clearly sexualize them . It especially ovbious with comics with them twisting their bodies so their boobs and butts are jutting out. Or like movie moments like Bruce landing in Natasha's clevage. Or angles where you are staring down a female character's shirt or she has a boob window for some contrived reason. Or just reasons to give full page spreads of them in skimpy clothing.

Its rare men get depicted like this or posed like this. And when they do it often stands out because its not the norm. It's something unique. Not true with men. Even in form fitting spandex they are often posed and framed to make to make them look powerful or intelligent or to reveal things about their character.

Again not that men never get sexualized or that fanservice is always bad. Or that its not a concern that men are having these terrible body image issues. But just that for women for the sexualization its so pervasive and constant was my point.

Its just as bad in wlw in canon as it is for women in relationships with men in canon when it comes to that sexualization but i hear so much more about the problems about the wlw ship than the mlw ship. Like to use DC as a example i hear so much about how people sexualized or mishandle harleyivy but compared to that i hear very little about batcat in comparison even though Catwoman is often just as sexualized in that ship.

As for misogyny in shipping wars yes it definetly exists and is a problem as is racism and homophobia. But my issue is mostly that the problem isnt because the main popular ships are mlm. But so often I see the argument framed that way.

Like shipping wars existed between m/w ships and still do today. And they are still often pretty misogynistic towards the woman in the other ship. I don't even have to look at other fandoms I remember Steggy vs Starton getting real ugly.

Mysogny in fandom doesn't uniquely pop up when mlm are the more popular ship. Its often just as bad in fandoms where m/w is the popular ship. But people just bring it up alot more they make it bout valuing the men over the women .

Well i mean that goes both ways you could say its homophobic for valuing the straight ship as better than the gay one or liking it more. But either way its stupid they dont care bout sexism or homophobia only that their ship is more popular.

Thats the sentiment of all ship wars the gender dynamics and racial make up change nothing. Nothing except the bullshit you use for the ship war.

The problem is that people are being homophobic and mysogynistic and racist not just in regards to fictional characters but towards real people just to win a ship war. It comes out so easily. Thats the problem imo.

Mysogny for example i think isnt discussed as much when its a m/w vs m/w ship war or drama because as both ships have women it can't be used to slander the other ship. But when its drama between fans of a m/m and m/w it comes out alot again not because anyone really cares but because now because one ship lacks a woman it can be used as fodder for what people actually care about. Tearing down the other ship.

Again not that mlm fandom doesnt have mysogny. They definetly do. But they aren't mysogynistic because they ship two guys together. Thats not proof they hate women. Having a ship with women isnt proof that you aren't sexist towards women. There might be homophobia in fandoms of mlm ships and mysogny in fandoms of m/w ships.

But in the drama between a m/w and m/m ships that doesn't get brought up because no one cares if that problem can't be used to show that someone only doesn't ship your ship if they are bigoted against it. Who cares about misogyny if your ship is two guys? Who cares about homophobia if your ship is straight?

No one because they cared about the popularity of their ship not the actual issues.

Gonna under under the cut for length again.

This is a lot to read so I'm gonna respond paragraph by paragraph and hope for the best in terms of comprehension.

When it comes to media made about the LGBTQ+ community, you have to keep in mind when it was made, who made it, and who was it made for. And that it's been shown that straight women have had the same reactions to mlm content as straight men to wlw content. QaF was dumbfounded to find that the majority of their audience was straight women when the show's sex scenes were 95% between two or more men and yet that's what they ran with because hey, it got the views. The views of mlm and wlw content in the mainstream media before then was minimized, despite how fucked a lot of the other content could be. If by "most canon media" being directed at the male gaze being summer blockbusters, and more specifically comic book movies, then sure. If we step out of that box, then not really. The film examples you chose are interesting because BB is portrayed exactly how the author of the original short story wrote it which was meant to be heartbreaking since it was a tragic dramatic piece while JB has a woman who wrote and another woman who directed it while purposefully trying to allow to actress to have a level of sexuality without exploiting her as past directors have (also neither of the main characters are lesbians - one is bi, the other I think is straight but maybe questioning?).

The sexualization of wlw in modern western media is definitely a thing. I mean, the first Iron Man film has stewardesses on the private jet pole dancing if I remember correctly. It took until 2016 to stop sexualizing Scarlett in every movie: the changing scene in IM2, the lowered zipper in A1, the ass shot in Cap 2, the boob faceplant in AoU (in your third paragraph, but mentioning it here anyway). It's a joke that you know when a man directs a wlw indie film during the sex scenes. But the mlm equivalent did exist alongside it, and it's what kicked off the century.

Comics and their movies were always for men. The male bodies are male wish fulfilment for their physical appearance. The women are male wish fulfilment for their dream girls. Funnily enough, one of the least sexualized women in comics I've ever read is Sharon. She's rarely, if ever, drawn to be sexualized for the audience. I'm not even sure she's even been in those swimsuit issues Marvel did years ago. And it shows heavily that Marvel struggles to know how to appeal to women without being aggressively in your face about it. The best example of them appealing without pandering is WV, and the worst is the group shots the Russos did in IW and Endgame, especially the latter.

But the men get those poses in the movies too. Thor bathed shirtless for no reason in TDW. There's a scene in Endgame dedicated to talking about Steve's ass. Pratt in GotG. Rudd in Ant-Man. Most actors are expected to look good shirtless and put themselves through intense shit to look that way. So do the women, but they aren't doing it to have the glamor shots of their muscles. And the MCU is not the only film franchise like this. Most, if not all, franchises with majority or entirely male leads expects them all to look like bodybuilders. And I'm gonna take back that it's just for the male audience, because these bodies are meant to appeal to women who are intended to thirst for these actors too. They think these bodies is what will bring women to the theaters.

None of this will change, as you say, that women's sexualization is "constant and pervasive". The film industry is just a part of the larger whole of media. Television and advertising have a treatment of women that's beyond whatever you or I say because there are decades worth of shit to go through that would take dozens of essays worth of writing to fully divulge beyond "please stop it's gross".

Now DC is a whole other ballgame. They're pretty infamous for their artists' sexualization of heroines and villainesses. Harley, Ivy, and Selina are definitely pretty bad, but when I remember what I've seen drawn of Kara, Kori, or sometimes Barbara... But outside of one artist, I think Harley and Ivy as a couple have been drawn tamely. Can't say the same for Selina, because they just can't not draw every part of her body even when she's fully clothed.

I think it's hard not to talk about fandom misogyny outside of m/m ships because of how often popular m/m shippers have rooted their shipping into misogyny. And even with m/f ship wars, a lot of the time the "faulted" character is always the woman when majority of the time it's the man who sucks. I don't get why everyone is fighting for who should kiss Steve because Steve sucks and they'd be better off without him. But because Steve is the object of affection for our fave, we have to fight off everyone else.

Don't look at other fandoms for m/f ship wars. We don't appreciate how tame we were, even at our worst. I'm serious, I've seen so much worse.

I think why the topic of misogyny comes up more with m/m ships is because they follow a similar principle of the male characters being more developed in canon and fanon so it's who people gravitate towards.

There is definitely layers of homophobia in fandom, but there's many versions of how we see it. Homophobes who won't ship anything that's not m/f. Homophobes who ship m/m but won't support IRL rights. People who love m/m but abhor f/f, and vice-versa. The shippers who use them for personal fodder. But the sexism is more prevalent than the homophobia. And the racism way more than both combined.

And it does cause a lot of ammo, and much of it severely unjustified, in ship wars. Literally the bullshit I've seen pulled out of thin air to accuse Sharon of not being worthy because someone said she's a racist for [they literally had no reason just called her one because we said Sam and Sharon are friends because they are] and other nonsense.

The real world repercussions of the homophobia, the sexism, and the racism in fandom... there's just so much. Like we are all still people, and yet we decide because we hide behind screens to be antagonistic, and use homophobic, sexist, and racist shit to attack each other over ships just because we want to paint the other person as crazy, I guess? If you can't see that there are no enemies in ship wars and that the other side is still people, maybe you need to sit out and log off. It's baffling how often it still happens to people. Then it's no longer about ships, it's about who is an asshole.

I will say that Steve and Peggy vs Steve and Sharon is probably the only m/f ship war I've seen where misogyny is talked about. Is, not was, because it still is. Both sides call the others misogynistic. I don't think either side is, but you can see in individuals. Those who tweeted at a certain actress that she was a slut for kissing her costar certainly are though.

You are right that shipping m/m isn't inherently sexist. But tearing down women in those ships to prop up m/m has made me stop shipping certain characters altogether. People, seriously, we don't have to justify why we like them! We can just like them! And other characters can still exist! It's never been that deep.

And you're right, the popularity of the ship helps people ignore any deeper issues within them and this is a power used to silence valid criticism if it pops up.

(I hope I answered everything well for you.)

~Mod R

[temporarilyunstable]

Director Naoyoshi Shiotani was prepared to face criticism for changing the main characters in PSYCHO-PASS 3

(link to the original article)

This was one of my most favorite interviews of Director Shiotani - and although this is completely translated by means of software, I like to think more or less the context has been captured well so I'm sharing the translation here (online translators, we've come a long, long way).

What I do always is double-check both (google and deepL) piece by piece, one because both software do not do well with big amounts of text at the same time, and I do this at least twice because I notice that the translation gets better and the sentences are more coherent, especially when you use deepL. In fact, I ended up using mostly the deepL translations because I feel it's more a contextual translation rather than a word-per-word. You'll notice that both of the translations only slightly vary, though.

Since again, this is software translated, please leave a bit of room for errors. I did of course change some of the names (all hail mister shinya cunningham c/ o deepL lol).

Sharing this because I have such a huge respect for Director Shiotani's passion for this show, and now that we're drawing close to potentially an annoucement of what's next for the series, I think it's good to look back on the steps it took to get us this far, and to appreciate all the work HE's done to push this series forward. Enjoy!

Director Naoyoshi Shiotani was prepared to face criticism for changing the main characters in "PSYCHO-PASS 3” 

Published on March 26, 2020

There is a popular anime series that began airing in 2012 and has continued for eight years. It is "PSYCHO-PASS:"

In October 2019, "PSYCHO-PASS 3," the third season of the series, will begin. Director Naoyoshi Shiotani, who has worked on the series since the first season, looks back on the third season and reveals that he was prepared for criticism.

In March 2020, "PSYCHO-PASS 3: FIRST INSPECTOR," the final installment of the third season, will be released in theaters. Amidst the high expectations for this completely new film, which is expected to reveal various mysteries that were not discussed in the TV series, we present a must-read interview with Director Shiotani to find out his thoughts on the matter.

Psycho-Pass Synopsis

The story takes place in the near future, where people's security is maintained by the "Sibyl System," a gigantic surveillance network that quantifies the soul. The film depicts detectives with the "Dominator," a gun that measures the "crime coefficient," a numerical value related to crime, as they pursue "potential criminals" before they commit their crimes.

I wanted to make sure to portray the drama of Shinya Kogami in "SS" before the third season.

The TV series "PSYCHO-PASS 3" (hereafter referred to as the third TV season) aired from October to December 2019. Looking back , what are your thoughts on it?

Anyway, I think it's been a long time ....... About 4 years ago, I started planning the third TV season at the same time as the movie "PSYCHO-PASS: Sinners of the System" ("SS", to be released in 2019).

Around the time after "PSYCHO-PASS the Movie" (released in 2015), Fuji Television asked me what to do next. At that time, I had a vague idea that even if I were to make a third TV season, it would be centered on the story that continued from the movie version, and the characters would continue with Akane Tsunemori (CV: Kana Hanazawa) and Shinya Kogami (CV: Tomokazu Seki) as its central characters.

I was shocked when I saw the release of information about the third TV season. I didn't expect the main characters to change. ......! And.

In my mind, "PSYCHO-PASS" was created with the image of focusing on a turning point in a major current. (GT: in a big stream). I dare to use the word "justice," but the story is centered on the protagonist's continuous search for the answer to the question, "What is my own justice?” The central axis of the story is to depict the continuous search for this answer.

So I think it is quite natural that the central character, the protagonist, changes with the times.

However, I thought that changing the main character and creating a new work would be the next best thing, if I were to do it.

I was told that it was okay to take a "leap forward”. It would be interesting to continue what we have been doing, but it doesn't have to be the Public Safety Bureau. For example, the young detectives/detective boys* could be the main character. I was like, "What are you talking about?” (Laughs.) But I thought it would be okay to change the way I thought about it and make it that way. I felt like I had a boost in my back**.

*young detectives = I chose this because it was translating to “detective boys” and when i looked at the romanization it was “shonen

** could be re-contextualized as “I had support behind my back” = TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT! 

That was the reason behind the birth of the new Criminal Division 1.

However, I think the challenge is to create a sustained flow of the series, rather than to abruptly introduce a new Division 1. If you skip the process to the third TV season, viewers will be confused. They watch the third TV season and ask, "Why is Kogami back in Japan?" I told the producer and the production committee that he has his own drama and I wanted to portray that so that I could create "SS," which would also be a new series line.

Therefore, we discussed the composition of "SS" and the third TV season almost simultaneously.

How did you go about the composition? (series composition)

Makoto Fukami, who has been working on the script since the first TV season, and Tow Ubukata, who has been working on the script since the second TV season, participated in the composition of the new series from the beginning, and then we asked Ubukata to put together the composition (GT:summary) for the third TV season. Ryo Yoshigami, author of the novel "PSYCHO-PASS ASYLUM," also participated in the writing of SS and the third TV season. The third season is a story that we created together with the three of them.

SS, which is the link between the two, was based on the synopsis I wanted to create, and I worked with Fukami-san and Yoshigami-san individually to shape it. SS has a flow as a series leading to the third season, but I thought it would be wonderful if I could create a story that would show each artist's individuality, and this is how we came to this arrangement.

This time, in order to incorporate the changes and positions of the main characters into the drama, the process of creating timelines one by one and dropping them into the scenario drama was just a long process.

I also told the scriptwriters that the third TV season would probably be heavily criticized*

*I chose this as the direct translation was “hammered, hit, punched” etc.

— and yet you proceeded with the production?

Akane, who was the main character until now, has been arrested and does not appear. Kogami is also back in Japan. In my mind, I had no intention to depict the third season with Kogami as the main character, so I was afraid that people who would watch "SS" and then watch the third season would be disappointed. However, this was a very natural and necessary flow of the story in order to depict the world of PSYCHO-PASS.

That is why we spent a lot of time on the structure and script so that the axis would not be blurred. We already had a story about the events that took place between "SS" and the third TV season. The story of the third TV season and "PSYCHO-PASS 3 FIRST INSPECTOR", which will be released in March, are based on that story. It just took longer than I thought it would (sweat).

The third TV season features two main characters, Shindo Arata (CV: Kaji Yuuki) and Kei Mikhail Ignatov (CV: Yuichi Nakamura), the first male buddy in the series, right? Was this also your intention?

To begin with, "PSYCHO-PASS" is intended to be a human drama regardless of gender. Although Akane is a female, she also has a masculine side inside her. In that sense, I am not conscious of gender in the third TV season. Well, I had never made a male buddy drama before, so I was interested in it (laughs).

Also, when I thought about their backgrounds and relationships in creating the drama, they had to be male-buddies, so they became male buddies.

How did you create the characters of Arata and Kei?

I wanted to contrast the uneven combination both externally and internally.

First of all, I wanted Arata to be short and I wanted him to look like a non-powerful figure with no obvious fighting ability. But if I made him too small, he'd be off the screen when I took a closer shot. ...... I set the average height of male characters in "PSYCHO-PASS" at 180cm (laughs). The shortest of the main characters was Shusei Kagari (CV: Akira Ishida) at 165 cm.

Shinya Kogami, Sugo (Teppei, CV: Hiroki Tochi) is 180 cm, and Ginoza (Nobuchika, CV: Kenji Nojima) is 183 cm, and the men are all tall.

So I decided to make Arata 168cm which is not too short. So, I guess Kei is 182 cm. I also wanted to portray Arata with a ridiculous personality, so he has a haircut that I can't tell if it's a do or not, and he has all the same personal clothes that he keeps in the back of his garage. I wanted to portray him as someone who has this side to him, but also as someone who, when he focuses on something, can't see anything else.

On the other hand, Kei is a person who has a part of his personality that Arata does not have. He is a serious person and spent his childhood in Japan, away from the country of his birth (Russia), living under racial discrimination. A former military man, he is usually calm and collected, but only because he’s restraining himself. By nature, he is a fighter, and his hands come out before his mouth. He continues to endure the situation he is in, making him a frustrated man at heart.

I see. However, although Arata and Kei are opposites, they are bound by a common case, aren't they? 

I wanted to depict two opposites supporting each other on the path they take together, with the key word being the growth of the parts that each does not possess.

Also, the reason why the two are tied to the "past" is because the third TV season is a "leap forward" story. For viewers who have watched the series up to now, the third TV season is a "future" story. Therefore, we wanted to place the theme in the "past" to fill in the holes leading up to the future.

This time, the enemy, Koichi Azusawa, and Bifrost, is an organization that has existed long before the third TV season. Arata and Kei  will confront the persistent darkness that exists from the "past". The drama was drawn so that the various "pasts" would be spotlighted.

I am impressed that the drama is quite calculated. ...... What do you think about the names Arata and Kei? I thought both of them have "fire" in their Kanji names.*

The names of Arata and Kei and (Homura) Shizuka (CV: Mamoru Miyano) were suggested by Mr. Ubukata. It has a meaning of their position in the drama and what they should do. It has the meaning of their position on the drama and what they should do. Besides, their intonations are easy to understand when they say it out loud, which is honestly cool! I thought it was cool and immediately agreed.

However, Arata and Kei's names were sometimes mistaken in the recording scripts (laugh), and I realized that it is difficult to have too many similar kanji, but I like their names very much.

The members of the new Public Security Bureau Criminal Investigation Section 1 have great personalities, but I thought the main characters from the first TV season were tremendously popular. Did you feel any pressure to renew the characters, even though you expected them to be criticized?

As I mentioned in the previous section, I also believe that one of the attractive aspects of "PSYCHO-PASS" is that the characters can change their principles depending on the situation at the time.

I myself think that the main characters in "PSYCHO-PASS'' are Kogami and Akane, but I think it's okay to have a different point of view. This story can only be portrayed if Arata and Kei are central to the story. We believe that if there is an entity that should be the central figure of the theme to be portrayed in each series, it is best to focus on that person. The former members of Division 1 should shine in their respective situations as long as they do not die.

For example, I personally don't think there is any absolute need for Akane to be a Division 1 inspector. Even Kogami doesn't have to be in the drama if he doesn't have to be. I would just say something like, "Meanwhile, Kogami is ......" (laughs). However, if they are necessary for the drama, I will depict the moment when they shine the brightest.

The scene in the second episode of the third TV season where the SAD, including Kogami and Ginoza, made an appearance was quite glorious, and was even trending on Twitter.

I had decided to show all the key characters in two episodes. In the first episode of the third TV season, we had to show the "current" Criminal Investigation Division, including Arata and Kei. Therefore, it was inevitable that we would show the enemy organization and another organization, the SAD, in two episodes.

After thinking this far, I decided on the scene that would feature Kogami and Ginoza.

Was it also decided to have Arata & Kei and Kogami & Ginoza fight?

I said I wanted them to fight. The staff asked me, "Why do you need to fight?" (Laughs). I wanted to introduce the new organization and show the composition of the relationships in the second episode.

Like Kei, Kogami is the type of person who uses his fists(hand) before his mouth...the type who tends to get caught up in conflicts. However, when Kogami and Kei fight, Kei is also very strong, so Kogami cannot take it easy on him. But Kogami has been through the line of death and is too strong, so he will absolutely overwhelm and win. In fact, he might even break an arm or two. It's not funny (laughs).

It is because Ginoza understands this that he himself went forward and fought against Kei. Ginoza protected Kei.

—I had no idea that such an intention was put into that scene...!

Also, I was cool enough to say earlier that "Kogami doesn't have to be in the drama if it's not necessary" (laughs), but from the viewer's point of view, it would be better if there were more situations in which Kogami was on camera.

So I included a scene in which Kogami fights with the enforcers Tenma and Irie. From episode 1, Tenma and Irie have been rebelling against their inspectors, saying "We're strong, aren't we?" but if we portray them as the ones who will break their tengu noses (?), the spotlight will naturally fall on Kogami.

In addition, behind their struggles, we included a scene where Sugo, a mid-level staff member, works with Hanashiro (Frederica, CV: Takako Honda), the head of the SAD of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and created a flow where Hanashiro and Shimotsuki (Mika, CV: Ayane Sakura) make a pact.

By creating a structure of conflict in this way, we can simply and clearly convey the relationship between each standpoint and character. With this in mind, we distributed the scenes in which the characters appear.

I was also surprised that you took on the challenge of a 60-minute format, which is rare for an animated television series.

I have nothing but regrets ...... half joking, half serious (laughs). I thought it would be too naive to make a film with the idea that "you just need to double the 30-minute format”. The specific weight of the production flow was about four times harder than the 30-minute format.

—I didn't realize it was that hard. ......

This may be especially true in the case of PSYCHO-PASS. From the first TV season, I had been creating the beginning, middle, and end with foreign dramas in mind. The 30-minute format limits the number of crime and incident spots to show and the human drama to delve into. We had to focus on a single mountainous point to compose a story for one episode.

But with the 60-minute format, the way you make that mountain is different. Simply making the mountain longer, or making it twice, is different. I discussed this with the script team as we proceeded, taking care not to make the drama too long.

Since we want to express on the screen as much as possible the necessary information that should be available on site, we created the character information for each case through a series of meetings. For example, the profiles of the guest characters in each episode were created after the backbone drama was firmly established during the literary meeting process. Especially in the religious section, I thought I could create as many dramas as I wanted just from the backgrounds of the guest characters (laughs).

As you mentioned, there have been few examples of this format in the past, so we created "SS" as a test case. It was also necessary to create the structure for the third TV season, and to understand whether the production site could tolerate a 60-minute TV animation format, we took on the challenge of completing a single 60-minute episode.

So "SS" was 60 minutes for Case 1, 2 & 3. Were there any parts that were utilized in the third TV season?

We started with the production of Case 2, and it took two years to create Case 2 alone. The production period was longer than that of the first theatrical version, due in part to the fact that we worked with a small group of elite artists. Because we spent so much time on it, we had less time to produce other episodes, and Case.3 had less production time than the first episode of the third TV season. Case.3 was produced in about six months.

The first episode of the third TV season also took about 10 months, but we were not able to bring in enough staff until the production of "SS" was finished, which was not good. I think the eight episodes of the third TV season took less than a month. There was even less time for FIRST INSPECTOR. I didn't even have time to sneeze. That's just a joke (laughs).

It takes too much effort for the production staff, and (the 60-minute format) is not something that is easy to deal with. I try to keep the staff as focused as possible on the work, but I feel sorry for the burden I always put on them at .......

If there is a next time, would you like to do it in this format: ......?

It would be realistically difficult given the burden on the staff. But if we can come to terms with a little more money and scheduling, I would like to do it (laughs).

Of course, because it is 60 minutes long, the story becomes more intense and challenging as a drama. In the third TV season, we had three thematic sections, "Economy," "Politics," and "Religion," and we did the sound work accordingly. Because of the 60-minute format, I believe we were able to focus on the sound composition.

But, as I said, there are many more downsides than I had anticipated. That makes it all the more rewarding when each story is completed, but I hope that once you try it, you will understand... (laughs).

It seems like 60 minutes would be a lot of work to record, how was it?

The cast members also seemed to be having a hard time. The recording script is over 100 pages long for one episode, so the recording time is naturally long. Everyone is a professional, so I think the recording process was quick, especially Yuki Kaji, who plays Arata, and he has a lot of lines.

Everyone was busy, but due to various circumstances, the recording period was extended, and we really didn't have a lot of time, but we were able to keep the schedule.

What is your impression of their portrayal?

I am sure of it. I auditioned about 70 to 80 people for Akira and Kei, and in the end, I chose Kaji and Nakamura. After finishing the recording of "FIRST INSPECTOR," I feel that the characters could not have been created without these two.

Both of you were very well matched. Was there anything that impressed you during the dubbing?

There was a time when there was a bit of a gap in the recording period, and because of that, there were a number of things I noticed when I received the lines with the cast's voices in them. For example, "Maybe Arata is not as good a character as I thought" (laughs).

Which specific line made you think of that?

What came out plainly was the scene in episode 2 when he said to (Komiya) Karina, "Cute girls are always followed by stalkers, aren't they?” That's the scene I was talking about. Isn't it really bad to say that kind of thing intentionally to hear the other person's true intentions (laughs)? In response to these, I put into my production plan that Aratais a person who, because of his bad character*, restrains himself and pretends to be a good boy.

The bad character* is only when it is seen by others, and Arata himself is pure in his actions and words. However, depending on how you look at it, it may seem harsh to others. I realized after the recording of the first half that I wanted to include other people's perspectives.

*sorta took this to mean “misunderstood” character 

In the last episode, episode 8, Kunizuka interviews the characters and the story is told in a special way. There is a scene in which Kunizuka says to Shaku, "Why do you always hide your true feelings?” This line was not in the script at first, but I wanted to give Kunizuka a line that would get to the heart of the matter, so I added it later.

You gained a deeper understanding of the characters through the dubbing.

Listening to Mr. Nakamura's voice, I thought that it might be better to be more penetrating and quarrelsome (laughs). I think I was inspired by the post recording and was able to deepen my understanding of the characters.

When I hear about the character settings and post recording, I get the impression that Director Shiotani is quite flexible in creating his works.

I think it is important to enrich the personalities of the characters. I am conscious of creating works that do not fit into a mold. I believe that the ideal way to create a work of art is not to do too much based on rules of thumb, but to question each and every thing in my mind.

For example, in "FIRST INSPECTOR", there is a scene in which (Karanomori) Shion (CV: Miyuki Sawashiro) calls Shinya Kogami "Kogami!".

Hey, I think Shion called Kogami "Shinya-kun". ......

That's right. They were close to the same age, and saw each other more often when off the job than when they were working, so she called him "Shinya-kun”. So during the dubbing of "FIRST INSPECTOR," Sawashiro-san asked me, "I've never called him Kogami before, is that OK?”

“It is true that there were times when I was torn between calling him "Kogami" or "Shinya-kun" in my mind. But lines are based on the feelings that are developing at that moment. I called him "Shinya-kun" before, so I won't call him that way again this time. After thinking about what I would call him in this situation, I decided that calling him "Kogami" would be correct.”

You are making your work by convincing yourself bit by bit, aren't you?

Simply because you cannot proceed if you are halfway through, and by working to unravel each question that comes up, you will also gain depth. It is better to ask questions such as, I wonder why this is happening here," or "Is this really the right word for this scene?"

Someone once asked me, "What is 'interesting'? I thought about what "interesting" means to me. Then I thought, "It's something I don't have”. Something that is already known to me is not interesting.

That may be true.

That's why there are moments when my work becomes uninteresting. If you complete the script and proceed with the production as it is, it becomes an uninteresting task. 

But if we keep looking for questions in the work, we can deepen the work while keeping it interesting. It was a very interesting moment for me when I realized that Shion could say "Kogami”. That was a very interesting moment for me.

PSYCHO-PASS contains a variety of messages, but I think one of the most consistent messages from the first TV season is that "the system cannot completely understand and control people. Once again, what is the message that Director Shiotani wants to convey in "PSYCHO-PASS"?

PSYCHO-PASS is a story that "shines a light on people who resist the system”. For me, science fiction is a story of despair and human misery. It is also a story about people standing up to change a bad ending.

In my mind, fantasy is the exact opposite of science fiction. Fantasy is a story about people living in harmony with the world and society. On the other hand, SF is about people who live in defiance of the world and society. In "PSYCHO-PASS," I wanted to depict the latter.

—I wonder why that is?

This is because we are trying to envision the future of ourselves 100 years from now. The environment surrounding us is being managed little by little, isn't it? I wanted to depict the groundwork of such a current situation.

In the world of "PSYCHO-PASS", the choice is left to the self, but the Sibyl system guides the choice. Does that really mean living?

The idea of Makishima (Shogo, CV: Takahiro Sakurai), the antagonist in the first TV season, comes from that*, and "PSYCHO-PASS" is a story in which each character thinks about what is right and wrong and keeps fighting. In fantasy, you can live with the world and society through dreams and magic, but I didn't want to do that.

*line above

It's not as simple as just settling with the Sibyl system and that's the end of the story.

Sometimes the staff tells me, "You should settle up with Sibyl as soon as possible," but I say no, no, no (laughs). "Let's drop the sibylla system! Let people make their own choices!" When the rough guy with a sense of justice turns off the power of Sibyl, think about what will happen after that—. If you break the rules you have just made for the sake of instant catharsis, you will certainly create chaos*.

*or confusion

I also personally think that is why I am able to continue the story so far.

The first TV season aired in 2012; was there something inevitable about the story that kept it going for eight years?

The reason we have been able to continue this long is because there are people who want to watch it. I think that the drama depicting our awareness of the problems we have with society is a theme that people who watch the show also care about. I think it was not simple and clear, but in such a way that people would be curious to see what happens next and would want to watch it. It took a lot of time for me as a creator, but I was able to bring a story to the world that was worthwhile.

I understand that "FIRST INSPECTOR," which will be released on March 27, is the story that concludes the third TV season. The last episode (episode 8) of the third TV season ended on a disturbing note, so I am very excited to see what will happen. What will happen to Arata and Kei? ......

From the end of episode 7, the relationship between Arata and Kei has become a misunderstanding. When Kei punched Arata, the staff said, "Why did you hit him! You should consider Arata's feelings too," but from my point of view, it was only natural. I left my wife in the hands of the person I trust the most and jumped into a dangerous place myself, and after what happened, I felt like punching him.

utterly lost for words ......

Well, how such a misunderstanding will turn out will be depicted in "FIRST INSPECTOR". The foreshadowing that was left behind in the third TV season will be recovered. It is a composition in which all the dots are connected in a line: the encounter between Arata and Kei, the encounter with Maiko, the keywords seen during mental tracing, which is a special ability of Arata, and so on. It is made in a way that is like an answer to the question.

I am looking forward to the drama scenes, but I think the action scenes are one of the highlights. Will we see them in "FIRST INSPECTOR"?

Although the emphasis is on the drama part, of course there is also action. It is not my taste, but in the end, there is a part of "PSYCHO-PASS" that is told with the fist (laughs). I think I was able to express the action I wanted to show, so much so that even Mr. Kaji said to me, "It's a detective drama.

Hearing that made me look forward to it even more.

As I mentioned earlier, "PSYCHO-PASS" is about "shining a light on people who resist the system"-this meaning is also expressed clearly in "FIRST INSPECTOR".

It would be interesting to see the key characters, Arata, Kei, Asuzawa, and Shizuka, paying attention to their past, their connection to society, and their way of life.

[lizzibennet]

Honestly, I *DO* like episodes 7, 8, and 9. BUT I would have LOVED if they did everything they did AS PLANNED, and then added the alternatives film (the versions we got) as a bonus. Honestly I hate ROS because Rey is related to HIM. Lbh, NOBODY would have sex with p*alpatine

the problem with episodes 7-9 is that each is a standalone film. that is not a problem in itself since every other star wars trilogy movies could technically be watched as a standalone and with a little context you’d be fine, since they tell an overarching story with three more or less independent characters. episodes 7-9 do not tell an overarching story, they are each chapters to a different telling of rey’s story. ep 7 tells the story of rey nobody, who is both the narrative foil and the in-world counterpart of one of the strongest force users alive, and that’s honestly already a really good premise, buuuuut if we’re going to have a trilogy then that main conflict should be resolved either in the second movie or at the very least in the first half or so of the third because things! need! to! happen! for! a reason! except that they don’t because at the climax of the second film kylo tells rey she’s a nobody, and apparently that changes nothing within her resolve which..... fine, let’s push it and say she’s going to deal with that in the third movie, whatever, but we get to it and actually she’s palpatine’s granddaughter so actually she’s all the jedi which. UGH. the point I’m trying to make is that she is a completely linear character being thrown in three different takes of her story, and I hate to say this because I LOVE her, but after the second movie I totally got it when people said she was a mary sue because her faith in the force and the jedi and her kindness and blahblah NEVER really waivers (except when she gets angry at luke which. saves everyone! how fuckin convenient!) and you could come out and say “lori, if we think like that luke skywalker is also a mary sue”, which, again, don’t get me wrong because he is literally my son but he IS. and in the 80’s that is FINE cause it’s the story we needed - a story about this starry (heh) eyed guy whose unwaivering faith in people and The Magic Around Him™️ may seem a little misguided at first but ends up saving everyone, but that was 40 years ago. and maybe it was silly of me to expect a nuanced take on The Human Specificity Of Empathy from a star wars movie but you know what, I don’t think it was since gareth edwards paved the way with rogue one that is the epitome of analysis of what it really means to be good or bad and I’m not going to rant about how rogue one is the best star wars movie today BUT it set the tone for a less us-vs-them view of the world which was VERY exciting and in line with what I think the 2010-20’s really wants from its heroes in general. so if we want to follow the narrative beats of the first trilogy or at least the first movie (no way of knowing where jj abrams would’ve gone in ep 8) I think that’s fine so as long as you make it your own, and imo jj abrams was, and then rian johnson was like nope lol, and jj abrams tried to fix the narrative 180 rian johnson tried to do, and like. episode 8 is a very fun movie to watch as a star wars fan but narratively it does not make any fuckin sense. I thought so then and now with ep 9 out I think so even more. rian johnson is a very creative guy, he had some REALLY interesting ideas, but WHY give him the creative liberty to do so in the MIDDLEEEEE of the trilogy??? WHY!?!?!? give him a star wars story film! he would KILL it! or you know wait a couple years so the director of the first movie who actually knows what the fuck he’s doing can direct the second, but noooooo the damned fucking mouse wants to wipe his ass with $100 bills so we cannot possibly wait. cohesive storytelling? we don’t give a shit about that in the house of le mouse.

that all to say, there is nothing Fundamentally wrong narratively with either of the three movies. they’re fun to watch. even ep 8, possibly my least fav of the bunch, was a fun experience in cinemas. it’s star wars and disney - they know how to make a blockbuster. the thing is that as a trilogy they simply do not make any sense. if you analyze each movie individually all three seem to have different core themes: ep 7’s is “nobodies are people too actually”, 8 is “maybe space fascists aren’t so bad, actually (also luke is here hey luke)”, and 9 is “I take that back, nobodies aren’t a people actually”. it’s satisfying to watch as a casual spectator who goes to the movies, seems some space gays with one braincell between the three of them and is like coolio and then goes home, but it’s not satisfying to watch as someone even the littlest bit invested in the story because there is no cohesive roundup of everything. the original trilogy was like is luke an idiot for being nice? is vader actually redeemable? is han deserving of trust despite being a space nerf herder? and sometimes u were like what’s happenin!!!! but in the end all your questions are answered quite satisfactorily. luke was right, han is sexy, vader was redeemable. in the prequels: how does anakin skywalker become darth vader? how do he and obi juan become the enemies we see in the death star? what happens to padme? and while the sequels are a beautiful mess that I love they do answer the questions they put out when episode 1 begins, so you know, imagine liking the sequels and hating the prequels when the PREQUELS make more sense, the PREQUELSSSS. anywhomst, point is: the sequels are like here is finn. finn is the first stormtrooper we see the face of! he defects! also the first stormtrooper we se defect. the other defector we know is bodhi from r1, who is very sympathetic despite being imperial, and clearly we’re supposed to feel empathy for finn. finn survives! finn finds rey! go finn I love u! and then. WHAT happens to finn? what furthers his character development into a full fledged person when he starts out with not even a name? where’s his anger? where’s his OBVIOUS narrative direction that should be “ex stormtrooper who shows imperials that fascism is bad actually”? nope, goes almost unmentioned from then on. and again, I love finn, he is literally baby, but he also froze after ep 7 because rian johnson decided to fuck shit up and also because disney is racist. poe? the do-good soldier who is supposed to be the Believer™️? actually he is the only one who was any semblance of a coherent role in ep 8... which is promptly retconned when jj abrams makes him a fucking spice runner in ep 9 lol. who is rey? and they’re like she’s a nobody and that’s why she’s spesh, wait no she is a nobody but she’s spesh because space fascist has the hots for her, oh, no, wait, she’s spesh because PALPATINE. what was the theme of this trilogy? what was the thesis? what questions did they set out to answer and did they answer them at all, never mind well? and it’s unclear, obviously, because three movies with three clearly different views behind them won’t magically make narrative sense just because you are trying to piece them together. they’re not pieces at all, they are three independent takes on the stars and the wars. enjoyable as little snacky treats, not as a three meal course. (also I’m not even going to TOUCH on how what was already a narrative mess was made worse by disney’s NONSTOP fanservice. sw sequels and game of thrones last season are the cautionary tales of why fanservice sucks and while a good, intelligent if cliche or predictable story is always better than a Shocking™️ one that doesn’t make any sense. but if I start on that I will LITERALLY not shut up SO AHEM CONTINUE @LIZZIBENNET)

ALL that to say: I agree w/ u and I LOVE your idea of each movie being an alternative version of the story. honestly, that would make more sense than what we have right now off the bat lol. can you imagine ep 7 being the rose colored version of the story via the heroes’ lenses, and then ep 8 being the “actually space fascism is good if ur kylo ren” version of the story, and then, ep 9 is what actually happened... told by rey nobody, who dances the line between the good and bad until there’s not a line anymore. CHEF’S FUCKIN KISS obviously much more risqué than disney would ever go for, but genius! much better than trying to make us care about these conflicts that they make up in the first 15 mins of each movie. ur mad because episode 7 follows the beats of 4? here’s three movies on why you were wrong when you judged it all true and therefore Bad. HUHU I love that

also the galaxy is a vast place... I am sure there are emperor fuckers out there

[stewblog]

ARMY OF THE DEAD

After becoming largely burned out on the sub-genre, Zack Snyder’s “Army of the Dead” helped revitalize my enjoyment of zombie-related entertainment.

I suppose it shouldn’t be too surprising that Zack Snyder delivered a cracking zombie movie. After all, his first (and some might argue still best) feature film was the superb remake of George Romero’s genre-defining classic, “Dawn of the Dead.” “Army of the Dead” (which is not related at all to Romero’s original or its sequels) takes what had become a shambling corpse of an idea and infuses it with a sense of fun that, to me at least, had long since been missing from the zombie movie sub-genre.

Snyder, who birthed the story idea and co-wrote the script alongside Shay Hatten and Joby Harold, accomplishes this by playing every inch of this incredibly goofy concept with a level of conviction that most straight dramas aim for. The result is a film that is often flagrantly absurd on its surface, but is so assured in its stone-faced seriousness you can’t help but go along for the ride.

It also helps that the core concept feels fresh, or at least significantly underused within zombie movies. A zombie infection has nearly consumed a walled-off Las Vegas. In a few days, the President of the United States is set to launch a tactical nuke to (hopefully) eradicate the sea of undead trapped inside the makeshift quarantine zone. A looming nuclear strike, of course, makes for a perfect opportunity for a team of mercenaries to sneak inside, crack open a casino vault and bring back hundreds of millions of dollars for a mysterious businessman who promises them a cut of the payload.

Oh and they have to do it while maneuvering through a literal kingdom of super-powered, smart (they communicate!), feral zombies who are ruled by a government-experiment-gone-awry “alpha male” who can at-will turn any living thing into one of his super-powered subjects.

As one would expect, very little goes exactly according to plan and our intrepid team of mercs soon find themselves getting more than even they knowingly bargained for.

It’s a fun premise, though I must admit that for a heist movie it focuses very little on the actual heisting, which is often the best part of these types of films. And for a movie that runs well north of two hours (it could stand to be at least 15 minutes shorter) there’s a surprising overall lack of action in the first two-thirds. Which isn’t to say it’s bereft of action, just less than one might expect for a zombie flick, much less a Zack Snyder zombie flick.

No, what really makes this work is the characters, which might be the first time I’ve ever said that about this director’s work. He’s a superb visual stylist and skilled purveyor of often thrilling bombast, but “character artist” isn’t even among his top five skills. Still, I found myself genuinely rooting for this motley crew, even the ones I expected to get on my nerves with how broadly cartoonish they seemed at first. Everyone gets at least one big moment to shine, whether it’s Tig Notaro’s Peters piloting a chopper like an absolute champ, Raul Castillo’s Guzman going on an absolute rampage on the casino floor or Matthias Schweighöfer’s Dieter getting his Götterdämmerung moment, every character is memorable in their own way.

And it’s in these character moments that I became thankful, for once, that Snyder plays everything so seriously. Even as a staunch defender of his “Man of Steel,” it’s not hard to see why some feel that the resolutely po-faced approach to Superman borders on feeling downright dour. Ditto for his version of “Justice League.” The circumstances and multitude of characters presented in “Army of the Dead” are no less ridiculous than any of his comic book movies, but here Snyder seems to have finally found the perfect note to strike when taking inherently silly elements and playing them completely straight.

Holding it all together is Dave Bautista in the lead as Scott Ward, a former special ops soldier who was forced to kill his zombified wife and is now merely trying to survive flipping burgers at a rundown greasy spoon diner. Performers like John Cena or Dwayne Johnson may be more immediately charming actors, but Bautista has shown that he’s got the better acting chops of any recent wrestler-turned-actor. His work in “Army of the Dead” is no exception. His particular brand of quiet charisma lends a gravitas to Ward that provides a nice window into a character that might otherwise feel a bit rote on the page. It’s a nice contrast to the outrageousness that otherwise fills so much of the screen.

If there’s significant criticism to be leveled here it’s that this in no way needed to be a two-and-a-half hour movie. While the movie never particularly drags, this could be an absolute firecracker of a two hour romp if it were tightened in more than a few places. And while Snyder remains a superb visual stylist, his choice to perpetually frame every extreme close-up with the background completely out of focus. This would be fine if it were used for emphasis on occasion or for significant character moments. But he uses it near-constantly to the detriment of the film’s aesthetic.

Those complaints aside, “Army of the Dead” may well be Snyder’s best movie. I realize that may not be high praise depending on how you feel about his body of work (I’ll personally defend about 50 percent of it), but this certainly feels like Peak Snyder for better or worse.

*”Army of the Dead” is now playing in theaters and debuts on Netflix on Friday, May 21.

[charliejrogers]

TENET (2020) - Review & Analysis

It’s hard to write about this movie without spoilers… so… fair warning… spoilers ahead. Though they don’t start til like halfway through the review.

One of my friends recently asked, “So how was TENET.” My answer: “When I read about the plot after I watched it, my mind was blown.” Therein lies the problem. This is a classic, “It’s better the second time” kind of movie, something Christopher Nolan isn’t a stranger to (I lovingly saw Inception twice in theaters and The Dark Knight a whopping three times in theaters… and both countless times since). The difference is, both of those movies were great the first time around too. They just got even better with subsequent viewings.

My personal problem too is that with rare exception (and especially as I’ve gotten older), I don’t like watching movies more than once. While there’s too much out there that I know I’ll never see, I still want to do my best and see as much as I can. Therefore, I don’t put too much credence into “It’s better the second time.” If it’s not good the first time around, I don’t care if might be better the second time.

TENET continues Christopher Nolan’s fascination with toying with time. It’s a theme and gimmick that’s been a staple since his ground-breaking major debut with 2001’s Memento, but featured heavily in both 2014’s black-hole-time-warping space opera Interstellar and 2017’s timeline jumping war epic Dunkirk. In some ways, this is Nolan’s most straightforward manipulation of time, it’s just time travel. Here, the central conceit of TENET is that scientists at some point in the distant future have figured out a way to get objects (and people) to travel backwards in time, and to do so in real time. In other words, whereas in Back to the Future, Marty and Doc flash back from 1985 to 1955 in a millisecond, in the world of TENET that time-travelling would occur only after Marty and Doc wandered about Earth for the equivalent of 30 years’ time. And, importantly, during those thirty years, Marty and Doc would exist in the same plane and realm as all other “forward-time” people. They can even interact with the world like anyone else… just the interaction would be… interesting to say the least. The backwards-time person would appear to be moving in reverse from the perspective of the forwards-time person, and vice versa.

This idea leads to the most interesting part of the movie: the visuals and effects. Characters in the movie hold guns that don’t shoot out bullets so much as just absorb bullets from environments which travel with the same momentum as if they had been shot out of a gun. Bombs that blow up a building in the world of the forwards-in-time people, are experienced as fallen buildings that spontaneously reassemble from the perspective of the backwards-in-time people. The result is a movie in which the director clearly relished the opportunity to create little clever puzzle boxes of scenes. I’m sure there are countless of YouTube videos that will happily show you why this movie is a masterpiece, and I agree from a design and plotting perspective, it was satisfying to watch many of the same sequences (a car chase, a vault heist) from two perspectives (one forward-in-time and one backward-in-time) and to notice all the little details about how actions in one timeline ultimately affected the other.

That said, my head legitimately hurt as I watched this movie. As Clémence Poésy puts it in perhaps the movie’s most famous line, “Don’t try to understand it; just feel it.” I wish I could. The temptation to try to wrap your mind around what is happening on screen is too large.

Perhaps what most threw me off (and both impressed and annoyed me) is how it deals with the central paradox of time travel. Namely, what happens when you change the past… and can you even do that? To put it briefly, it tackles this subject head-on without trying to cut corners or introduce alternate universes.  Other films, like Avengers: Endgame address this issue by just explaining that each time characters go back in time and mess with the past, they are creating an alternate and parallel universe. This makes sense to me… as much as time travel can make sense that is. But the parallel universe solution means that truly whatever happened happened. The Avengers can go back in time and stop Thanos, but there will always exist a timeline where he wins.

This movie doesn’t subscribe to the parallel universe theory. It outright rejects my linear understanding of time and seems to subscribe to the same circular notion of time that was (not introduced but) made popular by the 2016 film Arrival. In this view of time travel, someone can go back in time and influence the exact same reality the live in. AND furthermore, the fact that one has traveled back in time makes it so that it has always been like this. In other words, traveling back in time erases any previous universe where one hadn’t traveled back in time. I think of it this way. Imagine someone poisons my Mom’s box of Cheerios. She dies. I manage to go back in time and throw away her poisoned Cheerios before she could eat them. In the Avengers view of things, my mom would still be dead in the original timeline, but I created a new parallel universe where she’s now alive, having never been able to encounter the poisoned Cheerios. In the TENET view of the world, by travelling back in time to throw away the Cheerios, I effectively undo the fact that my Mom was ever in danger. Though I as a time-traveller may remember my harrowing Cheerios journey, she has no memory of the experience since I went back and prevented that reality from ever happening. What this does mean though is that as soon as I time-travel far back enough to get rid of the Cheerios, there are now two of me in the world. There is one who time-travelled and one who is unaware that his Mom was ever in danger. Time-traveller-me now cannot simply return to his home and normal life… as the other-me is living his life unaware that time travel was ever necessary (creating a Prestige-like scenario where maybe the time-traveller is better off just offing themselves, and honestly I wouldn’t have minded Nolan retreading themes from that superb movie).

It’s that last part about the time traveller being unable to return to his old life that marks the biggest difference from time travel in the vein of Back to the Future. In the Back to the Future model, after throwing away my Mom’s poisoned Cheerios, I can zap back to the moment in time I initially decided to time travel, and insert myself back in the correct time (technically there could still be two of me... but we’ll ignore that for now). However, in the TENET model, you cannot “zap” back to the future. The only to go back to the point when you first went backwards is just to live that amount of time. That’s why two of the same person will have to essentially co-exist. And since the movie stipulates that two of the same person cannot come into contact, the time-traveller is likely to live a life of exile.

It’s the sort of head-scratcher that makes sense on paper (and hopefully I clarified something for someone), but when watching this stuff play out on screen it made for a very unsatisfying movie. WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! We as the viewer are used to seeing things as they unfold in real time. What this movie doesn’t allow us to see are the countless times various characters fail to do something and going back to undo their mistakes. Instead, we are experiencing the new reality created by past timetravellers, unaware (til the end of the movie) that they were previously realities that were erased (or prevented from coming into existence). We learn at the end of the movie that our Protagonist (John David Washington who’s cleverly named just The Protagonist… ugh) is actually the founder of the elite, global para-military force called TENET which is designed to thwart efforts by the future to erase the past. Setting aside how illogical the future’s plan is (something which the movie acknowledges… which doesn’t necessarily help matters), the reveal that The Protagonist is the original founder of TENET means that there’s a whole lot more to the plot we don’t see in the movie. The original Protagonist clearly had a long life with life events that were very different from what we see in this movie. Namely and most importantly, he at one time lived in a world without TENET. Presumably, the initial Protagonist discovers the future’s scheme and fails to stop it. In order to undo his failure he goes back in time to form TENET. In doing so, he completely erases the TENET-less reality he had actually experienced. And interestingly, the Protagonist involves his younger self in his plan for the eventual of TENET. So as I said, the Protagonist we follow in this movie is NOT the original Protagonist, but instead one who lives a reality that was manufactured by an older version himself.

What I think is crucial, (and maybe I’m dead wrong here, who knows?) but at the end of the movie when it is revealed that the Protagonistis the founder of TENET, it is implied that our Protagonist (the one we follow in the movie) will go on to do the same acts as his prior self (namely, as an old man, he will travel back in time and found TENET again). But I don’t think this is true, and it’s here I think the movie approaches time travel in a unique way. A figure has already founded TENET, so there’s no need to do that again. What’s happened, happened. In essence, the Protagonist we see at the end of the movie is free to do whatever he wants. What’s happened has already happened and the TENET-founding Protagonist has already done his thing.

What I like about that is that it avoids the weird, paradox circular shit that infects time travel fiction. Take the third Harry Potter, for example. Harry is about to get destroyed by Dementors until a Patronus spell is fired. As we discover later in the movie, it was actually Harry who cast that spell. But how is that possible? If a future Harry is the only way to save Harry… then how does he get saved the first time? Maybe there’s an alternate reality we don’t see where Ron saves Harry last second and Ron dies so Harry goes back in time to prevent that reality from happening and we just never see that. Regardless, it’s a large plot hole that is unexplainable. What I give credit to Nolan and co. for is crafting an incredibly complex time travel tale that avoids any obvious plot holes and time paradoxes. We are left with a fairly intelligent piece of science fiction. Also it doesn’t chalk it all up to, “aliens think and speak in circles so time is circular”… you know that bullshit that Arrival pulled.

That’s more than I intended to write about the plot. The point is, as I said at the beginning, reading about and discussing the plot is superbly interesting and hats off to Nolan and crew for putting it together.

Watching the plot is a different story. Nolan is needlessly confusing in this picture. The fact that reading about the story offers a great deal of clarity should be a red flag. Not that every movie needs to or should be clearly understandable immediately… but it shouldn’t be so confusing that your head hurts.

I think the most disappointing thing is that I would be willing to set aside the confusing story for the pleasure of some well-choreographed, mind-bending action sequences. While the previously mentioned car chase is one such sequence, the grand finale invasion/battle was (for me) incredibly hard to follow. Shot to show two simultaneous operations, one team moving forward, one moving backward, I had no fucking clue what was happening.

And then once we start to actually think about the characters and humans who make up this story… it’s clear more work went into designing the action/set pieces than in developing the characters. I hated… HATED John David Washington’s performance as the Protagonist. He was written to sound like a quick-quipped, witty, charming Bond-like hero, and this just isn’t the movie for that. Though a former CIA agent, he’s not in a spy-thriller. And when the dialogue isn’t a showcase to show off how witty our hero is, it is just an excuse to explain boatloads and boatloads of exposition. I’ve become a real stickler as of late for how films do this. Classically, films use a newbie character as a stand-in for the audience as an excuse for other characters to explain the particulars of the world to them. It’s a little trite, but it’s perfectly functional. What isn’t functional is what this movie does. Half of the dialogue is the The Protagonist meeting someone and them asking him a question like, “What do you know about this Russian base?” and the Protagonist responding, “That Russian base? Well it’s… blah blah blah” and proceeds to talk for a minute answering the person’s question exactly. They reply, “Correct.” And the movie proceeds. It just doesn’t do much to make me care about any characters.

And then, yes, we have to talk about it, the way Nolan’s film deals with its lone female character, Kat Barton (Elizabeth Debicki). She’s the wife of the film’s villain, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Brannagh, doing his best impression of a Eastern European maniac since the last time he did this for 2014’s Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit… which admittedly he does a good job of). The men in this film just don’t give a shit about this woman. But that would be OK if the movie was honest about this, or in particular made the Protagonist feel guilty about how he uses Kat, discards her, and gets her unnecessarily involved in her husband’s affairs. If you can’t tell, I hated the Protagonist, which is never a good sign when watching a movie. I didn’t much like Washington in BlacKkKlansmen either, so maybe he’s just not my guy. In both movies, he seems to have a confident swagger about him that doesn’t match the characters he plays.

Robert Pattinson is in this movie too. He’s good. I don’t know. Nothing special here from him. He doesn’t detract from anything, but he’s not a great addition. Same goes for the performance from Debicki. Branagh as the villain is good. He’s a good actor even if his beard/facial hair just looked off the whole time. Maybe a larger make-up budget would have helped? At least he was an interesting character, even if deeply flawed and the movie goes a bit too far to make him sympathetic.

So it’s not the complete mess that some people say it is online, and while I understand and appreciate and really like the complexity of the plot and time travel mechanics on paper… they are certainly not a joy to watch. If you do watching, then be prepared to do boatloads of mental gymnastics or just resign one’s self to not understanding what’s happening. While I’m happy to hand-waive some shady plot points or time paradoxes from a movie, when the whole movie is a time paradox, that becomes hard to do. Alas, this is still the best Nolan film for me since Inception, but still a far cry from the highs of his 2000s run of The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Inception. If some of the character moments were better developed, this would have been a better film. Instead, really, don’t try to understand and just be awash in this time-loopy, messy, but clever film.

**/ (Two and a half out of four stars)