#fucking classic 'we didn't think about the plot or character development while coming up with this finale

[screenduck]

A Review of Alien 3 (1992)

Spoilers, obviously.

I would consider Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986) tied for my favorite movie of all time, both spectacular genre-defining films that leave you on the edge of your seat the whole time. I think any film fan would agree that these movies are some of the best ever made. And when you make a sequel to an already incredible movie that's as good, if not better, you're putting pretty high expectations for whatever comes after it. So when I first heard what happens 10 minutes in to Alien 3, it's safe to say I was already really pissed.

So, possibly unfairly, I came into this movie already mad about it before I'd even seen it. I even started the movie with a counter prepared of how many times I wanted to stop watching. At the end the counter reached 11, although I might have missed a few.

Let's start with appearance. I think that the set design, cinematography, and costume design continues the Alien franchise's track record of impressive visuals. Some specific examples were that the outfits of the Weyland-Yutani people at the end gave the exact impression of what we know the company to be, and the prison cafeteria had a futuristic style while still feeling human and realistic, which most sci-fi movies don't have. There were two versions of the xenomorph in this movie, one was the classic life size suit with incredible detail that we all know and love, and the other was a small puppet that was filmed in front of a blue screen and layered onto the scenes to look like its 7 foot counterpart. The former looked amazing, as always, but the bluescreened puppet looked horrifically out of place and weirdly green. The lighting didn't match up at all and it was so obviously bluescreened. But, in the movie's defense, this was the 90s.

When it comes to the characters, let's get one thing out of the way: Hicks and Newt are dead. I think this was a horrible choice and the biggest flaw of this movie, but more on that later. I think Ripley's character in this movie is consistent with her past iterations and still shows fantastic character development, with the help from the incredible Sigourney Weaver, of course. During the cafeteria scene where she's told she's at a table of people who...aren't too fond of women, to put it lightly...and she just sits down, I absolutely loved that choice for her character. But when it came to her relationship with Clemens, it felt very forced and passionless. Their "romance" didn't feel like it had any tension or lead up, and I didn't see a powerful connection between the two. Clemens himself was a decent character, but has nothing of interest to really point out. As for the rest of the prisoners of Fury 161, they're all terrible people. And they prove to be time and time again. They have no redeeming qualities and frankly made me really uncomfortable the whole time. This is fine in some contexts, but to me it destroyed the element of suspense and thrill in them being chased by the xenomorph, because I didn't care about them. When they were killed by the xenomorph I usually felt no strong emotions, and when I did, it was happiness. When Murphy was chopped up by the fan, I thought nothing other than that it looked cool. I consider this a major fault because this movie is basically based on the thrill and suspense surrounding the xenomorph, and I think that was ruined by my apathy towards the victims.

Finally, the plot. As stated previously, in the first 10 minutes (confirmed at around 7:25) it's established that Hicks and Newt died when their EEV crashed onto Fiorina 161. Along with these characters, this marks the death of all of the character development from Aliens and the importance of much of the plot. The most important thing to Ripley in Aliens was Newt's life, and now that that's lost, everything feels pointless. To me, it ruins the movie, because it so thoroughly fucks up the importance of the movie before it, which was incredible in almost every way, and it puts a somber and hopeless tone on the whole movie that never gets resolved. I find it hard to care about anything that happens in this movie because it feels like nothing matters in the franchise anymore. Aside from that, I think the plot is generally fine, it's a pretty basic xenomorph chase plot similar to Alien. It's obviously not executed as well, but it's decent and continues a lot of the same tropes established in the previous movies that are significant in the franchise. What I also disliked about the plot is the sexual themes with the prisoners. It made me really uncomfortable and felt generally unnecessary, although it did give Ripley some character development. It also, as stated previously, caused me to feel no empathy for any of the characters as they died. The ending was interesting in a lot of ways, and I liked how we saw the creator of Bishop's line of androids and his character.

Outside of the context of this franchise I would probably give this movie a 4/10 or a 5/10, because by itself it's surprisingly mediocre. But when you factor in what's been established in previous movies, it feels like a huge decline in the franchise and a betrayal to the glory of Alien and Aliens. With this in mind, I give this movie a 3/10. I didn't cover everything in this review because the movie is a whole 2 hours and 24 minutes long, but if you haven't watched it I recommend getting a mug of hot chocolate and preparing for disappointment.

[somelokivariant]

Writing skill or an interesting fucking plot? Ft the queen Margaret Atwood

I read the Handmaids tale for my gr 12 final (which was on my tbr for a while) and it low key sucked 🧍

Don't cancel me, the book wasn't b a d, I think it wasn't as good as it could've been.

The book felt dead. After I read it my mom was like "so what was it about" and im like gurl idek. There is no plot to summarize. It was a 300 page "day in the life" of a Handmaid (ig that's literally the title of the book-).

But you know how in grade three you learn the story arch with the conflict-climax-resolution? Atwood didn't follow that, (and I'm all for ditching rules for artistique purposes) but in this case it didn't do anything for the story.

Offred was right at the climax point, right in the smack of that dab, but because the entire book was at the same level of stakes, there was no stimulation and it fell flat.

Now ik we do get Offreds flashbacks, but I don't think they fully made the reader feel what we were supposed to. That contrast (between Gilead and the "before") that's supposed to intrigue us wasn't shown in an effective way. The mix of present (that was actually past because it was a tale, a retelling?) and the flashbacks just made things confusing. There were a couple times i was like, wait where are we actually? Where is offred physically rn??

That story arch is still in mind within the story, but it wasn't illustrated that clearly. It was like a faint idea behind the writing that didn't quite make it into the actual writing. (However this does show how good of an author Atwood is). The story telling was unorganized. It came off as a lot of yapping (listen I love yapping) but Atwood was writing to the point where the words lost their meaning. (Remember that this is all opinion guys. See side note from me is, poetic wordy classic writing is great, but when it's used properly. Writing like that is supposed to be a punch, it's supposed stand out. When you pull that move too much, it becomes dull and no longer strikes the reader. [Just like how the plot is so much climax that its dull too])

And this us where you could say the lack of order was supposed to represent Offred's state of mind and life and how out of control things became (and i'll say thats a totally valid point)

She coulve written about offered running away, her child getting stolen, and making it through the red centre whatever, and you would seen that increase, change and danger in her life.

The problem is Atwood has an INSANELY good plot. The world building was so good, and her characters were so complex and fleshed out. As a professional author 🤓☝️ I can tell so much thinking went in to building Gilead. But then she just didn't indulge as much as she could've.

She literally didn't do her own story justice.

See falling short on a movie coming from a book I understand, because they lose things all the time, but falling short on the book itself in the first place? The story had so much potential 😭.

When i was reading I think there were multiple parts where I thought she was making a point, but then she never reinforced it. Like she forgot talking abt that, she started an idea and never finished. (Again I'm sure some of y'all love that kind of writing, and love coming to your own conclusions on what the piece means). An example was early on in the book Offred talks about the white caps the handmaids wear, and how it blinds them and "it’s hard to look up, hard to get the full view, of the sky, of anything.” (34). And I was like Atwood better use this line, this better mean something later on for their character development. But then shE DIDNT, and it became more word fluff. If the book went on to have the handmaids look up, look at the sky, with optimism and hope, to get the full view and see how Gilead was corrupted, that shit would've been SO GOOD.

That's the level of shaping a tale i was expecting and I didn't get it.

Atwoods writing is very good. My teacher said shes very showy, hes right, she exploits how well she works with words, (which doeesnt always turn out to be a good thing, because she gets carried away). She's a yapper. I understand you have skill, can you direct it to the plot please? (/lightheartedly)

Someone asked bad writing + good story or good writing + bad story. I am would rather take bad writing + good story and I think this is an example of good writing + bad story

So as an author I think yes it's a very strong novel and writing. But as a reader I was so bored 😭. Atwood is a GREAT author and the Handmaids tale was a GREAT plot, I just didn't like the way she wrote it.

[katerinaaqu]

For real! I remember seeing some old cartoon movie too, which I am desperate to find again, it almost feels like a dream of my childhood at this point! Oftentimes I wonder if it happened! Hahaha! But yeah out of all the adaptations I have seen I think this RAI series does it the most justice out of anything! Oh that is up to you really! ^_^ You can always enjoy the series and then read the original and compare or the other way around for sure! Oh You are so sweet for saying that! Well if it is light reading you seek I would definitely recommend the smaller tragedies by Sophocles that you can literally read and enjoy in one sitting but it is up to you really! ^_^ But you really honoring me for saying that!

I couldn't agree more! I still fail to see how you help someone understand the source when you do not follow that said source but yeah as you said we covered it perfectly so far! ^_^ Yeah unfortunately and history is already a blur as it is! We do not need to add even more to it! (you are being very sweet again!)

Your answers are just fine!

(Hahaha fair! And to be honest I think it is getting worse and worse...which is a fucking achievement! XD)

For real! I feel like people connect kind with bubbly and innocent and that is just not the case for me! One can be powerful, hotheaded even and still be kind and honest and compassionate! Patroclus in Homer is a classical example of that! And I couldn't have said it better! I absolutely agree!

Indeed! I am actually surprised how Odysseus is literally one of the most talked about hero after Achilles and still I do not see as much cover on his religious beliefs! He basically is part of most sacrifices, many he performs himself, he is also often seen praying, Zeus calls him one of the most faithful and the best when offering sacrificies and respect to the gods...the dude didn't even go to help Diomedes in rhapsody 8 of Iliad because Diomedes was defying the gods and Odysseus didn't want to offend them! Yes the whole heart vs brain thing again (which ironically STILL doesn't fit Odysseus) but also because the gods were not as prominient in the musical so I supposed they wanted to introduce a familiar trope to the audience

I see. That is an interesting plot! Because to be fair even if Pyrrhus is in love with Andromache in the end he still can keep her as his concubine while being married to Hermione (which he does according to some myths and depctions) but it is an interesting trope to use ancient mythology for

Hahahahaha are you going full Menelaus mode on Odysseus me now my firend! Hahaha! Using so many compliments on me! ^_^ But honestly it's fine. I mean I can understand why it was such a turn off for many to come to my profile after I kept on repeatedly expressing my dislike for the musical. I understand that people on the Internet wanna talk more with people that share interests with them. Does it hurt sometimes to lose people you felt honored from because of the comments and amazing reblogs? Absolutely. Do they have the right to stop doing it? Again ABSOLUTELY. It's fine really. My art and stories are here. Whoever wishes to comment or reblog and share opinions thoughts etc is more than welcome. Gosh I couldn't have said it better! You are absolutely right. Unfortunately also as romans said "scripta manet" writing stays. So yeah many things also remain online so people do judge that and all especially since we have the pseudonyms so people feel safer to do so. That is both the blessing and the curse of internet. Oh well! ^_^

My friend I said before you do not need to have knowledge or whatever. We can even speak on what you experience through Epic the Musical and I can pitch in from the Odyssey. Like I said ironically I found Eurylochus much more solid character development than Odysseus as the musical continued lol! I will be glad to elaborate with parts of the Odyssey on him if you have an ask or something about him or just wish to talk about him more! ^_^ Your conversations are not just decent so far. They are amazingly insightful!

Hello!!

Since I've seen that you've listened to both Epic and Paris the musical, I was curious to know what are your toughts on them! Did you like how the myths and characters where handled? What do you like best and worst? (If you'd like to share, what's your favourite song/moment in each?)

Thanks :]

My my you really wanna get me have an even bigger target on my back than the one I put already! Hahaha! Ok so be it! Hahaha If this gets waaaaaay too long or too runty forgive me! ^_^

You have noticed from many of my comments and my notifications, memes or jokes. I am not a fan of EPIC. Not at all. I believe I am one of the most disliked people on Tumblr on mythology matters because I so openly speak my dislike against EPIC and being annoying about it! Hahaha! XD The thing I absolutely love about it is of course the guy's passion with the project, the way the music works and all (undoubtedly the guy is a very talented composer and can combine the scene with music and emotions and the tricks he uses with music are great) but the way the plot of Odyssey was twisted beyond recognition and to the point that to me you can literally change the names of the characters to anything else and still have the story he presents with the Musical. Maybe that was his goal but in my head that is not what a retelling or an adaptation is about. A retelling to me is not something that seeks to change literally as much as possible from the plot to fit the modern standards or the fanbase. A retelling is something as the word says that "retells the story" aka adapts the story as loyally as possible and adapts it to the audinece by taking creative liberties that are still generic to the story as it was originally told so that it will fit more to the modern standards or ear.

I believe we have so much twisted the word "retelling" that nowadays "retelling" seems to be equivalent to "let's change the hell out of the story because the original plot is not even THAT important to be salvaged and no modern person would watch it anyways" which in my opinion is not the case at all. Unless of course one writes satire. Then it doesn't matter, as I mentioned to another ask of mine.

I lost interest and was massively disappointed from the end of second saga and the song "Storm". The first two sagas were a masterpiece. The creative liberties were amazing to make sense with the plot and give the characters motivation (for example "I'm just a man" was FANTASTIC! The way the myth from Iliou Persis that gave us only one phrase "Odysseus kills Astyanax by throwing him off the wall" is now transformed into a marvelous emotional dilemma and a painful decision). In this case the creative liberty work WITH the plot and not against it. I didn't mind it as much that they made Polites a fluffy guy for no reason to fit that stereotypical "innocence of the team" plot because Polites is a clean slate character in Odyssey. However after Storm I started seeing your typical "Hollywood film 'adaptation' logic with changing stuff at the plot". I was intrigued at how they decided to give Polyphemus an excuse to kill like the guys enter a cave that is obviously habitable and kill an animal that is obviously domesticated and they do not know someone lives there? In the original it was clear someone lived there which made Odysseus curious to interract with them. I was willing to ignore that because ok creative liberties but then Athena was there!? And she gave Odysseus every opportunity to kill him while Odysseus was just "TOO NICE?!" like since when? Odysseus was all about killing him but he had no guarantee he would plus he needed him to open the cave. And the way he revealed his name in the musical was so rush and almost "out of spite" for Athena not a result of a secclusion in a cave for days and days and then his pride speaking up when Polyphemus called him a coward (which I tried to capture to my fic, not sure if I succeeded but still). So anyways at that point I was sure we wouldn't see the last of it with the changes. Poseidon destroys the ships instead of the Laestrygonians (no surprise there, rarely ever see anyone even mention the Laestrygonians yet alone show their contribution to the Odyssey) but then Circe happened and I just knew that we would have to derail from the original more and more

Circe's role was incredibly diminished for the sakes of making her actions more mellow and pass the message of loyalty and kindness. Circe in the original gives Odysseus valid information for his trip provisions and much more. In Epic not only we do not see the importance of Odysseus selling himself to Circe and we have Circe for some reason seducing him to kill him (removing her humanity from when she got scared that her magic won't work on him, potentially thinking he is some kind of god, begging for her safety to then suggesting her bed as Hermes predicts) I mean she had lions and wolves to her disposal she doesn't need to seduce him to kill him. Then of course Jorge realized that a big chunk of plot is missing and so he made Odysseus find out about Skylla by the sirens?! Like...okay... Even Tiresias gives him almost nothing (in the original he also tells him how to break the curse) Which seems interesting how Odysseus breaks down with "Monster" in Tiresias when he has received an act of kindess before. Wouldn't it be more amazing if he had that breakdown AFTER he paid the price with Circe with his own body? That even kindess has a terrible price? Of course the most iconic scene of the Odyssey after the murder of the suitors and Cyclops, the Sirens were twisted to whatever we had there; Odysseus listening to their song was of massive importance to his natural curiocity and we didn't get that (not to mention how would the sirens spell work on him and have Penelope there if he didn't hear their song in the first place?) and of course the fact that he kills them?! Like...how that even works I have no idea and like in the original people were running for their lives. Didn't even look back. Apparently they had all the time in the world to capture them, they knew apparently exactly how many they were and then they kill them?! Like I won't even say that they used the medieval mermaid instead of the sirens and then they "leave them drown" (how you drown fish people is beyond me! Maybe they are sharks that need to keep moving lol) and of course again that scene seemed to me that it was there only to show that "Odysseus is a monster" which makes no sense Odyssey-wise for many reasons. and then of course again Skylla; Odysseus doesn't gear up to protect his men, he is the one who chooses the sacrifice out of spite etc etc

Many others got sped up like the Helios cattle but ok I guess that is expected up to one point even if it could be handled differently but of course then we have also Zeus being a jerk and again making Odysseus choose? The storm that took the lives of his men was a natural consequence, not some twisted thing to prove how "monstrous" Odysseus is. In fact Odysseus tried till the last moment to sail away and save the lives he could (see my other analysis here) and of course again as many people said on God Games and all how Zeus was twisted yet another time although in Odyssey he had zero reasons to object apart from the natural hubris nemesis sequence. He never called Odysseus "shameful" either. In fact he says he agrees with Athena that calls him the most pious.

I think the massive change that I believe is abused by modern retellings is the whole "monster to man" trope. Odysseus losing his moral compass and "becoming the monster" and the plot around revolving to it. That was never the pont of Odyssey in my opinion. Odysseus never really lost his moral compass it is just his morality was not all pure and lovey in the first place. Was he changed by his experiences to be more ruthless in general? Absolutely but he was never changed to a monster according to Homeric version (because post-homeric versions already treat him as a villain from the get-go)

As for the things I liked about it, I had made a post you can see here:

I do love the harmonies and the music in it and I love the passion and the talents of the people in it. It is just that the whole plot for me is just not it. Also maybe I am also mostly annoyed with how the "fandom logic" has taken over it. Like internet getting swarmed by it. Epic quotes or facts getting literally mixed up or associated with the original or the fact we can no longer speak on the original unless someone brings up Epic the Musical... This annoys me to no ends. Of course I recognize the passion of the fans of the musical. Is just a personal thing to me. I felt the same when people were using Percy Jackson or Miller's books to talk on mythology before. Is the same here.

Of course I need to say this all the above is my PERSONAL OPINION. I have literally NOTHING against people who love the musical and the original equally. I am just NOT one of them. Also i have nothing against the artist either. I just do not agree with his outtake. Still appreciate his hard work. However when I saw the firsttwo sagas I knew this guy KNEW his mythology which is why I feel so disappointed that his later sagas felt like "Hmm...let me use that knowledge I definitely have on Odyssey just to change the hell out of it!" And that had me very sad and lowkey annoyed because I think this guy had some real stuff to create an actual Odyssey adaptation and yet again we had your average hollywood film plot where you barely see any of the plot he ellegedly adapts

Now on Paris the Musical I had answered another ask you can see here

I will not take more space on this already huge and runty post that probably made me more annoying and irritating around Tumblr! XD Generally again has little to nothing to do with Iliad but I loved the music (it was arguably one of the most original choices for music for a musical) and the songs I mention to the ask. Apart from that I am ot ecstatic by it either (arguably stage musicals do not seem to work for me when it comes to the ancient classics to a large degree because of how much the plots need to be overly simplified to fit the time frame) but I am more happy that it din't get blasted out of proportions like Epic was so the plot of it doesn't even need to be pointed out that it is not accurate and all. It is self-evident. The fact that the creator of Epic needed to "warn the fans" on how inaccurate his work is, speaks volumes to me.

I will close this runt now because is already too long. I think both Epic and Paris musicals have little to nothing to do with the things they adapt but Ironically Paris the Musical changed less stuff than Epic in comparison to magnitude. Both are passionate projects with great potential and very good music but plot wise I am not anymore surprised that they do not follow the actual plots or character developments. I am surprised that Epic was more accurate to the character development of Eurylochus than the main protagonist Odysseus! Made me focus more on Eurylochus than Odysseus! Hahaha!

I am glad that the musicals make more people willing to read the originals though. For that I am grateful.

And if I have to pick one song from each musical I would say "Just a Man" and "Business" respectably but of course I like others as well especially from Epic such as "Horse and the Infant", "Will of the gods" and "Storm".

I hope this answers your questions! I will elaborate further on some of the points I make here if you want! ^_^

[fuckspn]

i really can’t get over the plan for the band kansas to appear in the supernatural finale. like obviously it’s hilarious because it means this show killed an entire band canonically but also it’s just. such a clear signal that the writers/producers were viewing the finale as “saying goodbye to the tv show supernatural” and not “wrapping up the story we’ve been telling,” because the only connection between kansas and the main characters of supernatural is a meta one (the use of “carry on wayward son” in the recaps before each season finale, and the girls in 10x05 singing it in their musical). in-universe, the band that’s most meaningful to the characters and that they bond over is led zeppelin, not kansas; dean and sam getting to heaven and finding the band kansas waiting to play a show for them would seem completely out of left field to them, because to them kansas is just a random band that wrote a song sam doesn’t even like. “everyone’s in heaven for a kansas concert at the roadhouse!” is the supernatural finale you come up with if you’re not thinking about the characters or the plot, but rather making a Grand Finale that requires minimal storytelling effort. like i would bet actual money the conversation/thought process behind the finale went something like this:

“supernatural is finally coming to an end, what should we do for the finale?”

“how about a huge reunion with all the beloved characters we’ve seen over the years? we could set it in heaven so we could bring back all the dead characters, maybe even set it in the roadhouse since we know fans loved it. maybe we could even book kansas to play carry on wayward son one last time.”

“perfect! but wait, how do sam and dean get to heaven?”

“idk, dean used to say he couldn’t live a normal life and sam used to want to quit hunting, so... dean gets killed on a hunt and sam dies of old age?”

“yeah, sure, fuck it. it’s all just groundwork to get to the big payoff of the heaven kansas concert anyway.”

whereas if they’d been thinking about where the characters were at story-wise by the end of season 15, it should have been more like:

“okay, so they’ve defeated chuck and finally gotten the free will they’ve spent years fighting for. what do they do with that?”

“well, sam was really messed up about losing eileen again, so his first order of business should be reuniting with her.”

“definitely. what about dean, though? he just watched cas die, and that always hits him hard.”

“you’re right, and he found out that cas loved him immediately beforehand. that’s gotta be fucking with his head.”

“okay, so we’ve gotta address the cas situation in some way. probably easiest just to bring him back to life, right?”

“yeah, we can figure out exactly how we want to play it later, but we can’t really wrap up dean’s storyline in 40 minutes if cas stays dead. hey, do you think they keep hunting now that chuck’s not forcing them to?”

and so on.