#i might make a frankenstein of all things i like of the adaptations

[alchemist-shizun]

some song lan in these trying times <3

[livefromcastledracula]

Gothic literature fanons I wish would die a death and disappear from pop culture, here we go...incoming ramble.

DracuMina and tragic, romantic Dracula is a big one. It's just not who he is. There are plenty of other vampires who live these tropes. It's not Dracula. It's Barnabas Collins and Louis de Pointe du Lac and Angel from Buffy and Edward Cullen. It's not Count Dracula. Count Dracula is a bastard and his bastardy is what makes him scary and charismatic and compelling as a villain in the same way, say, the Joker or (pre-Angelina) Maleficent is. He doesn't need to be suave or soft or secretly a woobie out for love to be interesting. He is a smug, smiling monster to the bone and we love him for it.

If there's any tragedy at all to Dracula the character it's the vague hints Van Helsing gives that he was once a great man and that man's soul might still be trapped somewhere in this hollow, monstrous husk of a creature, yearning for the release of true death.

But that man is long gone. What Dracula is now doesn't feel any guilt or remorse or compassion or grief. He is, he schemes, he hungers, he preys. He is Vampire.

Okay, Carmilla...well the big one is that she is in any way not a lesbian. Adaptations that make her an equal opportunity seductress. Ha ha ha no. Book Carmilla shows absolutely zero interest in men. They might as well not exist to her. She is ALL about young women her own (apparent) age. There is that vague anecdote about the Baron's male ancestor in her backstory, but at the time 'lover' was also used in a more one-sided context of romantic admirers, of which a beautiful young noblewoman would have many, so it could as easily imply she'd never even spoken to him. Vampire Carmilla, the one we meet and interact with, is all about the girls and especially about specific girls; like Laura.

Frankenstein... oh there's a bunch, pop culture Frankenstein is probably the farthest away from the book. Let's not even go into "Frankenstein is the monster's name" or "Doctor Frankenstein" or "Igor" or "the monster is a mute lumbering zombie" or even the animated with lightning thing...

...the one that actually irks me is the pervasive idea that Frankenstein is resurrecting dead people, or that the Monster is / has the brain of a specific person who just doesn't remember who he is. Even Penny Dreadful did this one! Even the musical did this one!

Nooo, the Creature isn't a frigging zombie. He's not a revived human. Frankenstein specifically says that he can't revive the dead but that someday if his "creations" are successful he might also discover that secret:

'I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.'

Also very worth noting that despite the frequent fanon that Victor used a random hanged man for the Creature and Justine or even Elizabeth's body to build the Bride, this absolutely does not happen in the book, at no point does Frankenstein consider 'reviving' his dead loved ones. It doesn't even cross his mind. He's not Herbert West 😆

Back to Creech, Frankenstein specifically says he made him eight feet tall because human parts were too small and detailed for him to work on quickly.

'Although I possessed the capacity of bestowing animation, yet to prepare a frame for the reception of it, with all its intricacies of fibres, muscles, and veins, still remained a work of inconceivable difficulty and labour.'

"...As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature, that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionably large...."

You can't do that just by chopping up a few dead people. You can't get an eight foot giant by stitching together a bunch of smaller dudes. You can't make a bigger heart and bigger bones and bigger organs just by stitching together smaller ones. So what the heck IS Frankenstein doing?

I had returned to my old habits. I collected bones from charnel-houses and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame. In a solitary chamber, or rather cell, at the top of the house, and separated from all the other apartments by a gallery and staircase, I kept my workshop of filthy creation; my eyeballs were starting from their sockets in attending to the details of my employment. The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by an eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion.

Okay so we know he IS collecting flesh to use as raw materials, but slaughter houses interests me. This suggests that the Creature isn't necessarily being built of human flesh.

And that makes more sense, doesn't it? How do you build a humanlike body with bigger-than-human bones, muscles, veins and organs? What if you got them from a bull, a horse, an ox?

But here's another point of interest:

...After having formed this determination and having spent some months in successfully collecting and arranging my materials, I began... ...The summer months passed while I was thus engaged, heart and soul, in one pursuit...

Months. It's taken him months at least to build Creech.

This book is set in the late 1700s. There is no refrigeration and Victor is working out of a loft apartment at a university.

How. The HECK. Is his glorious Creation not a pile of rotting meat falling apart on his table? How is he preserving it?

Does his magical mad science also extend to preservation? That's never mentioned, but I could imagine that it might involve a fair bit of, well, pickling. He does compare him to a 'mummy' at least once.

So...

Book canon Creech is an eight foot tall giant with flowing black hair, nice teeth, shrivelled yellow skin stretched over his muscle and veins, and watery yellow eyes in 'dun white' sockets. He is probably a bit 'pickled' and potentially a chimera built partially out of animal bones, muscles and organs, though don't think Dr Moreau, Victor was TRYING to make him look human and nobody ever comments on any visibly animal parts.

I wish the 'serious' movie adaptations would go harder on his makeup and effects. As OTT and steampunk Karloff inspired as the Van Helsing movie was, that's actually the level of "oh shit that's not a human" I expect from a canonical Creech, just ditch the steampunk cyborg bits and give the man some hair. Penny Dreadful did good with his alabaster skin and yellow eyes, and Rory Kinnear's still my favorite performance of this character, though they could've stood to use some LOTR-style forced perspective to make him Huge. If Creech could pass for a tall homeless war vet with a lot of scars, he's not 'creature' enough for me. There's probably something poignant to be said there about him thinking that his mistreatment at humanity's hands is because he's an inhuman monster, But Actually people he meets think he's human, they just treat him like they'd treat any other large, disfigured, confused, potentially mentally-ill homeless person they'd meet.

But that's not Mary Shelley's intent, I don't think. He's not a revived, amnesiac human. He's something much more terrifying, poignant, and mysterious. He's an entire new creature, a newborn, earthbound alien species, and that's what makes it interesting to me, because ... what even IS he? Creature is born as a total blank slate, he doesn't know what he is. Victor doesn't understand him, doesn't really comprehend what he's created, so he can't tell him.

So there's no-one alive that can, and there never will be, it's not an answerable question.

There's a deep, abiding existential horror in Creech's existence that is dumbed down to 'came back wrong' if he is a resurrected human. If he isn't, what the hell IS he? Frankenstein is grounded in science fiction rather than the supernatural, but if there's such a thing in its universe as a soul, does he have a soul? Where did it come from? Is he an amalgam of all the people/animals he's built out of, potentially hundreds of them? Is he something that came from somewhere else to inhabit this meat-husk? Is he something else entirely? He doesn't know and never will, Victor never will, no one ever will.

That's haunting, tragic, and terrifying.

[tyrantisterror]

What's the worst legacy sequel you've ever seen? What, in your opinion, separates a good legacy sequel from a bad legacy sequel and what's the worst thing you think a legacy sequel can do?

The worst that I've seen is probably Rise of Skywalker. It's close competition, though - both Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Jurassic World: Dominion have moments that are significantly more stupid than anything in Rise of Sky Walker, but I also think both have a bit more creative effort put into them - Fallen Kingdom has that third act where it basically becomes a Resident Evil adaptation except with a murder-saurus in place of the Tyrant, and Dominion has the whole locust plotline which, while terrible, is at least an unexpected direction for a Jurassic Park sequel to go into that tries to figure out something ELSE you could do with the genetic engineering premise of the franchise beyond just making dinosaurs. Like, all three Jurassic World movies have big problems and they get progressively dumber with each installment, but they're also all ambitious to some degree that I still feel respect for, even if they never really actually reach those lofty aspirations.

Rise of Skywalker, on the other hand, has no ambitions at all. It has nothing it wants to say, no unique twists to pull, no real identity of its own. It's a potroast made of leftovers from better movies, a resuscitated corpse of something much more interesting, patched together like a Frankenstein's monster and abandoned to a cruel world just as callously.

It has no desire to do anything new, merely a checklist of Things You've Seen Before That the Focus Groups Say You'd Probably Like to See Again. Any character that can be slipped into an arc that was done in a previous Star Wars film is slipped into one no matter how little sense it makes for them, and any character who can't is either forced to tread water with nothing to do (hi Finn!) or just quietly shoved off to the side early on and forgotten about (hi Rose!).

Any story beats that weren't in the original films are simply grabbed from a box that reads "time tested cliches to keep your script moving with minimal effort." Make the plot a treasure hunt so we can just race from scene to scene with the flimsiest justification possible and try and trick the audience into thinking something is actually happening! What's that, audience interest is flagging? Quick, throw in a cameo of someone from an older movie! What's that, they're bored again? Pretend to kill one of the old characters, but make sure to reveal they actually lived in no more than two scenes down the line, or else we might piss off the fanboys! Hey, let's look at the Cinema Sins videos for the original movies and see if there's some gripes we can "fix" with this one for added fan cred! Can't disappoint our audience!

It's the story-telling equivalent of smothering something in salt to cover up the funky taste of the close-to-the-expiration-date ingredients.

As for what makes a good vs. a bad legacy sequel... ok, so, let's define legacy sequel first. A legacy sequel is a film or TV show that is a sequel to a popular film or TV series that ended a good many years ago, which brings back some of the old cast of characters (generally played by the same, and thus much older, actors that played them in the past) along with adding a new cast of characters played by younger actors. It tries to replicate the tone of the original series despite being made in a different era and probably by different writers and directors, and generally aims to give you that Ratatouille style moment of nostalgia.

I think most Legacy sequels are kind of doomed to be mediocre at best on the outset because the goal of them from the moment of conception is so mercenary - they're not created to Tell A Good Story, they're created to Keep Consumers Invested in a Lucrative Content Franchise. They have the artistic aspirations of a McDonald's Hamburger - "This tastes exactly like what you had as a kid, and doesn't that make you crave more of it?"

I don't think that art made for mercenary reasons is doomed to be bad, mind you - I mean, almost ALL movies and television were made to make money first and foremost. Even the classic High Art movies I love like Seven Samurai and The Third Man were made for mercenary reasons at the end of the line - it didn't stop the people who were working on them from having artistic goals, but it's a fact nonetheless.

But Legacy Sequels just have an uphill battle in the "artistic aspirations" department, because most people with artistic aspirations don't want to recreate the feeling someone else inspired with their art - they want to put their own stamp on it, their own spin, their own voice. And that will often mean something VERY different will be made, something that might piss of the fans - something that doesn't taste like the McDonald's hamburger you had as a kid, even though it came in the same wrapper.

The worst parts of Legacy Sequels are the only parts that Rise of Skywalker is made of - the parts where the story is clearly only trying to show you things you know, only trying to reheat the leftovers so they taste like your memories, only trying to trick the nostalgia center of your brain that you're four years old again eating at McDonald's. "Here's the thing you know! Here's the running gag you liked, repeated five more times by actors with far less enthusiasm! Here's the same basic premise as the first film, but the stakes have been inflated to make it feel like a progression! Cameos! Catch phrases! Eat your hamburger, you consumer pig!"

The rare good legacy sequels don't really TRY to be legacy sequels. They're just... sequels. Another story in the same world as the first, bringing back the characters who actually have interesting arcs left in them, creating new characters with their own shit going on who have good chemistry with the pre-established characters and setting, expanding on themes from the original and exploring parts of the setting that hadn't been explored yet, and all in all telling their own story that's related to the first one's but still manages to be its own distinct thing.

There are not many good legacy sequels, because a good legacy sequel is different than the McDonald's hamburger you ate when you were four, and might make less money than desired because of it.

[adarkrainbow]

Is it just me, or Americans and Europeans depict the standard, stereotypical fairy tale setting differently?

In my opinion, Americans depict the fairy tale setting as closer to the middle ages. The Fairy Tale Setting is often just a more colorful standard, almost Tokien-like, Fantasy Setting.

Meanwhile, in actual European adaptations of said tales, the stereotypical fairy tale setting is closer to the 18th, 19th century, with the architecture being the only thing vaguely medieval

Yes, I actually do believe as such. Mind you, I cannot speak for all of Europe - mainly France and a handful of other countries I am vaguely aware of adaptations (like England or Germany).

And I believe it is due to two specific things.

A) The very "American" view of fantasy. I mean, we have been repeating and endlessly talking about it for decades now - but for Americans everytime there is something fantasy or magical it is either "standard European medieval setting" either "modern-day America". And when I say "standard European medieval setting", it is this sort of idea and phantasm American built of a vaguely European setting which mixes various countries of Western Europe (Americans only have taken recent interest in other parts of Europe, such as Northern or Eastern, due to the success of things like "Midsommar" and folk-horror and whatnot), and various eras of the Middle-Ages (the Middle-Ages were divided into three specific period quite different from each other), with a good handful of things that were not from the Middle-Ages (like the witch-hunts, for example, they were Renaissance, not medieval).

Of course it is due to a mix of general ignorance about Europe (or any part of the world that is not the USA), and of not actually caring about the original setting since their point is either to parody/reinvent the fairytales in lighter/darker ways, or prove that theses stories are "timeless" and can invent outside of any specific context (which does greatly benefit Americans since like that they can snatch anything they like). Mind you it isn't something universal - take the Disney movies for example. They might not be quite exact, but at least they made a neat effort to evoke different cultures and different eras of Europe. It is very obvious that Disney's Snow-White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty take place in various points of Europe's history and in different countries (Snow-White's visual influence by German furniture and statues versus the nods to French culture in Cinderella ; Sleeping Beauty's medieval illumination visual versus the more modern royal outfits of Cinderella, etc...). But it is an effort that got completely lost through time (and I think it can be shown in how, when Disney made "Enchanted", their fairytale setting was turned into a random fantasy setting outside of time and space - it did reflect quite well how people saw the fairytale world at the time).

And you know what is even worse? This "random medieval setting" you speak of is NOT even Tolkien's! Tolkien setting was not medieval in the slightest, and doesn't look like your usual "medieval setting". Just look at the visuals of the Lord of the Rings movie, compare it with some "random fairytale setting" and you see the huge gap. If anything, Tolkien's world is more of a "Dark Ages" (you know, this unknown gap between Antiquity and Middle-Ages) feeling than anything, due to mixing Ancient Scandinavia with Ancient Greece and Dark Ages Arthurian Britain.

But... when you think about it, that the Americans would create such an unclear and artificial setting for their fairytales make sense, since this is literaly what "their" fairytales were compiled as. I'll explain: when you ask an American to list you fairytales, when you see the fairytales used in the American media, it is a Frankenstein-creature. You've got the brothers Grimm and Charles Perrault and Andersen and Joseph Jacobs and nursery rhymes and some Asbjornsen and Moe fairytales... Their exposition to fairytale was by compilations of stories literary and folkloric, from different centuries and different countries, mixed together as one. As such... it makes sense for them a fairytale world would look like a pile of mashed-potatoes in terms of history-geography. Because they have to build a world that mix all of these stuff as one... (Plus something-something about the Americans being fascinated by the Middle-Ages because they did not have one?)

B) The Europeans are very "conscious" about fairytales. I will almost say "self-conscious".

Europeans are bound to always test and try various time-eras, fashions and context for fairytales due to a set of three reasons.

1) We have centuries of "traditional medieval imagery" that the Americans lack. Since our fairytales were published between the 17th and 19th centuries - some even by the 20th - Europe already underwent the whole "Random medieval setting" phase through popular imagery and children book and whatnot. America just begun it from the 19th/20th century - we have been at it for two, three more centuries. So today we are moving forward (and in general, while there are many aspects Europe is "late" compared to the USA, in many other ways Europe is "in advanced" compared to the USA, just because of how "young" this country's history is).

2) We are aware of the context of our own fairytales. Due to the language barrier, for example, we know every time a story comes from somewhere else. We have folktales compilations classified by countries and regions. And everytime we bring up a specif set of fairytales, we bring up the life, job and time-era of the fairytale tellers (Perrault, Grimm, Andersen, which are our "national treasures" - unlike Americans for which they're just "yeah little foreign guys we see in the distance"). As such when the French talk about Cinderella or Puss in Boots, the very images of Renaissance are brought up, the same way a German will immediately think of the Napoleonian wars and the post-Napoleon era when thinking of the Grimms - even though the fairytales are supposed to be in the "pseudo-medieval" setting.

3) Europe has been flooded and dominated by the American media when it comes to fairytales. As such we are very aware and accustomed to the "pseudo-medieval" setting popularized by America, and when Europeans try to do their own thing, they usually try to set themselves apart from it, due to knowing how cliche and Americanized this already is. Something very similar happened with French fantasy literature for example - French fantasy books are always trying to stand away from the "cliche American fantasy book" precisely because we are flooded with them and they form the bulk of our fantasy literature, so as such we are very aware of the flaws and stereotypes and expectations coming with the genre... It also doesn't help that most of the castles and "old-fashioned" architecture around Europe is not medieval per se (or that the medieval architecture is for example very impractical when it comes to filming movies), and we have much more Renaissance buildings and the like. In France for example most castles are Renaissance-era. "Real" medieval castles (as in medieval castles not "remade" by Renaissance or modern designers) are much rarer, or not as well preserved as the Renaissance ones.

Anyway this post got way bigger than I intended, but if you ask me some of my thoughts, here they are - mind you they are just my thoughts and I can't speak for every European. I am just one little eye and one little mind in a big big world... But that's the things I am led to believe.

[lonelywretchjervistetch]

My DC Cinematic Universe - Creature Commandos: Part VII

Chapter Seven: False Smiles

Before I say anything else, let me preface this by noting that I really like Gunn's interpretation of Batman villain Doctor Phosphorus AKA Alexander Sartorius. This is one of those fairly obscure DC characters that's always deserved more attention, as the gravitas of his origins has real potential for adaptation. This is a character that should be Firefly or even Two-Face level prominent in some ways, and deserves much more focus. And it's funny, because the character has gotten some usage, indirectly. I'll explain that in a little bit, but let's just say that Gunn does an excellent job with this character, and justifies his inclusion in this show.

Does he justify his inclusion in the Creature Commandos team? I mean...kinda?

I mean, OK, he's a spooky scary skeleton that sends shivers down your spine (and then radiation and melty death), sure, and that's a bit of a "monster" in the traditional sense. Plus, Gunn wanted to include a less-traditional monster, and used Phosphorus to do so. I think Gunn justifies the character's usage, but I question if the usage was necessary in the first place. Who is this character replacing? Well, in the original Creature Commandos...nobody? The Frankensteins replace Patchwork, Weasel replaces the Werewolf, Nina replaces Medusa, so Doctor Phosphorus replaces...Vincent Velcoro? I mean...OK? Not sure that fits, for a number of reasons, but yeah, I guess he replaces the vampire. But is this the best way to do that?

OK, let's start with Sartorius in the comic books, because Gunn does a pretty-damn straight adaptation of the character, to be fair. In the source material, Sartorius is a nuclear engineer, rather than an oncologist and radiologist. That was a big thing in the '70s for understandable reasons, so Gunn leaning away from this trend makes sense. Anyway, Sartorius gets backing from corrupt Gotham millionaire and mob boss, Rupert Thorne. Protests caused him to move the plant to an unsafe location, causing a meltdown that covered him in radioactive phosphorus, which was sandblasted into his skin. As a result, he mutated into a metahuman that was constantly on fire, as phosphorus does in air. Wanting revenge on Gotham, he became Doctor Phosphorus, and planned to...poison the water supply, because that's just what you do when you're a supervillain in Gotham, apparently.

Over the years, Phosphorus continues his ties with Rupert Thorne, and his ire for Batman. However, he also proceeds to lose his goddamn mind in the process, and is portrayed over the years with various degrees of sanity. He even changes color over the years, from the yellow flames as seen above to the green flames you're probably all familiar with by now. We'll get to the reasons for that in a few paragraphs here, but the takeaway is that, frankly, Gunn improved the character and made him a much more tragic Batman villain. By giving him a family to lose, he became a lot more fleshed out and sympathetic, and his episode (1.06, Priyatel Skelet) is genuinely my favorite character highlight in the series. Not that it's a perfect adaptation, and I have my issues with it, but it's an actual adaptation of the character, rather than the two indirect versions we've gotten before.

Now, I adore the take that Batman Beyond took on this idea, in the form of billionaire Warren Powers AKA Blight (sick-ass name). This is a character obviously visually inspired by Doctor Phosphorus, and arguably the actual reason for the color change from yellow to neon-acid green. After Blight's creation in 2000, nearly every appearance of Phosphorus is that bright radioactive green, and it really work for the design. God, how I love Blight. But outside of being a radioactive spooky skeleton man, he's...not Alex Sartorius. At all. If anything, it fuses the Phosphorus concept with Rupert Thorne, and very well, might I add. Watch Batman Beyond if you haven't already.

And hell, at least this version gets the skeleton part right. The Batman does not give the character that courtesy and tries...something unique.

Yeah, NObody on Tumblr seems to care about this version of the character, but The Batman adapted Phosphorus by transforming a completely different character: Firefly AKA Garfield Lynns. And I'm not gonna lie, it isn't the worst idea or execution. Called Phosphorus, dropping the six years of doctorate work from the character, Garfield Lynns was a recurring villain in the series until the last season episode White Heat, where he and his new girlfriend Blaze (why, yes, there are a stupid amount of cringe-worthy fire puns in this episode) steal a large amount of white phosphorus, which explodes in his face and turns him slowly into the lava-crack-man you see in the above video.

Like most versions of Sartorius, Phosphorus sees his sanity slip, and eventually is stopped when he tries to destroy and absorb a nuclear power plant. So, yeah, this is an interesting version of this villain, even if it eradicates Firefly from this universe and precludes the existence of Phosphorus at the same time. Not the first time the series did something like this, frankly, but I think it works! Is it an adaptation of Alex Sartorius, though? Well, no, obviously. Gunn mostly nails it with the actual character. Mostly.

Mostly.

Mostly.

Gunn, being Gunn, can't quite resist throwing the goofy into that episode, and camps up Phosphorus for a sequence in his flashback episode. Which, to be fair, actually isn't my problem with this sequence. Sure, I kinda see it as a desperate attempt for a viral moment that only kinda worked, and I'm not a huge fan of that. But no, it's actually the really weird choice to make him a crime boss using Thorne's fortune? Not only does that not fit the original character, but it also doesn't fit the character in the show? Like, why does Phosphorus suddenly channel his newfound insanity into running a criminal empire? HOW DOES HE EVEN DO THAT? It's an odd choice, is all I'm saying, and it doesn't seem authentic outside of needing to justify him being a criminal that faces Batman. And I just don't think that was necessary.

Then again, there are a few unnecessary things about Sartorius' portrayal in this series, even if I do like what Gunn did with the character. First of all, we didn't really need to kill his family to give him a motivation. It turns both his wife and son into people-in-refrigerators, which honestly sucks, and is a lazy trend in fiction in general, especially comic books. You should have that storyline sometimes, sure, but I'm not sure you actually needed it for Phosphorus, even if it did give us the very sweet-and-harrowing scenes with him and the family in Pokolistan. And alongside that...did we really need to kill Rupert Thorne? If this was a one-off series in its own setting, I'd be more OK with it, but we've now permanently killed off Rupert Thorne in any DCU media, and that's a waste of a class Gotham mob boss. In a Batman series or film, we had the opportunity to show the turnover in Gotham from traditional crime families to the crazier ones, and...that opportunity is now gone. Kill Lew Moxon or a new dude, not Rupert Thorne! Feels like a waste.

But again, that's not to say that Gunn doesn't have a HELL of a lot of fun with the character. Upping the power and control his has, both mentally and physiologically, as well as making him a LOT more sadistic and creative, makes for some gory fun with this guy. That GIF above is one of the funniest dark deaths I've ever seen in superhero media, or even horror media. Phosphorus is responsible for a lot of the more enjoyable moments in the series, so I can forgive some of the choices I disagree with here.

Now, as for whether or not he should be in the Creature Commandos at all...to be fair, there is some precedence for the choice. Having appeared in a government-run version of the organization in an alternate timeline (Flashpoint), this is sort of a canonical member of the group, justifying his inclusion somewhat. Again, though, I'm not...entirely sure he's the best choice, especially because there's one I can think of that's better, in my opinion, and even one that has a reason to be used in this series. So, as usual, I'll present a traditional choice and a more creative choice. But I'll also address something in the middle here, so hang on tight.

The Purist Choice: Vincent Velcoro

Gunn noted that he considered using Vincent Velcoro at one point, but abandoned him in favor of other monsters. And...yeah, that's actually 100% fair. See, I could argue that this is a blank slate character that Gunn could do a lot with. I could argue that a vampire seems like a no-brainer when it comes to making a team of monsters, or that Velcoro is one of the original members and deserves recognition for that, but...I'm gonna be honest, not really. Fact of the matter is, Velcoro is kind of a boring character that even DC doesn't know what to do with. Originally, he's an insubordinate soldier who volunteers to be artificially turned into a vampire, but that's...Morbius. It's just Morbius the Living Vampire, but kinda worse? Fact is, it's not the best character. Recently, he's been reinvented into an actual vampire, and it's better, but I can't call him the most inspired character all the same.

I know, I know, the whole point of this section is to promote the best choices from a traditionalist sense, but...I think Gunn called it here. Velcoro just isn't a very interesting character, and if you're going to reinvent the character entirely, then...why even use him in the first place? Kinda like how I disagree with using Weasel for that exact reason. Velcoro just isn't the best choice. But, uh...if you were going to use a vampire, or even a kinda vampire, there is another option.

The Other Purist Choice: Nocturna (Natalia Knight)

The character of Nocturna has an interesting adaptation history. Introduced in the 1980s in Detective Comics, Natalia Knight was adopted by Gotham City gangster Charles Knight, and raised alongside her brother Anton. As an adult, she became an astronomer at Gotham City Observatory, and was one night hit with a radioactive laser (stop asking questions). This granted her both limited umbrakinesis and teleportation (using shadows as a medium), but also made her extremely photophobic and sensitive to light. She also obtained enhanced strength, depending on the writer and continuity. Unable to be an astronomer (for some goddamn reason), she joined her criminal foster brother in a life of crime, adopting the name Nocturna as a result. And yes, in case you're wondering, this is kind of a stupid origin story for an interesting character with potential.

Look, Nocturna's storyline is somewhat complicated, and involves her trying to adopt the Robin at the time, Jason Todd (yes, actually), as well as finding out Batman's secret identity (YES, ACTUALLY), and falling in love with Batman in the process (which is to be expected). She was sort of a new Catwoman, spiritually, acting as a love interest for Bruce and a criminal in the night for some reason. But then, Rebirth took her and made her an actual vampire, and I think that's a little bit better an idea, frankly. But there's more. Like I said, Nocturna's had an interesting history in adaptation, as Bruce Timm and the team behind Batman: The Animated Series REALLY wanted to use her...as a vampire. And that was a no-go for '90s kids TV, who really hated vampires and blood as a part of censorship (look up what Spider-Man: The Animated Series did to Morbius and his stupid-ass need for "PLASMAAAAAA"). So, Timm has ALWAYS wanted to use Nocturna. Enter the 2024 series Batman: Caped Crusader.

Caped Crusader, if you haven't seen it, is an incredibly unique series, and an excellent entry into the Batverse of animated adaptations. With a lot of unique takes and ideas, it also happens to adapt a lot of characters in unique ways, Natalia Knight being included. Ironically, this version of the character also isn't a vampire in the traditional sense, and is instead a young teenaged metahuman with the weakness to sunlight and enhanced strength, as well as the ability to drain the lifeforce from other human beings. So, an energy vampire like Colin Robinson, rather than a blood-drainer. Honestly, a smart way to approach this idea, and probably what Timm and co. should've done in the '90s. But she is an interesting character, and proves that you can adapt this character.

Now, would Nocturna be an actual vampire in my theoretical Creature Commandos series? I like Caped Crusader's approach in making her a non-traditional vampire, honestly, but I also like the idea of giving her that umbrakinesis and teleportation. Plus, her presence requires that missions for the team take place at night, which is a lot scarier for a team of monsters than acting in the broad daylight as they do in the series. I think Nocturna is a character with potential, and I also think you could reinvent the character a little bit to make her work. Sure, there are other actual vampires like the Mad Monk or Dala that you could use (I considered Andrew Bennett for a while there), but I think this is a character that could get some focus, and not overwhelm the other characters in order to make her work. Plus, why not throw another female character on this team?

But, uh...I'll be honest. She's not my primary choice. And you can see the GIF below, so you know exactly who I think the right choice is. And so, without further ado...

The Creative Choice: Clayface (???)

It is, quite frankly, ABSOLUTELY GODDAMN INSANE that Gunn used Clayface in this series, and didn't include him in the Creature Commandos as an actual member. I mean, he is literally in this series, as a villain, but Gunn doesn't use this character for the team. In fact, he seemingly kills this character, WHICH I'M GETTING REALLY SICK OF TYPING!!! It baffles me, because this character is an incredibly versatile choice, with both proven capability as a tragic character, if that's actually where you wanted to go, AND with recent popularity in multiple different avenues! Hell, in a move that will DEFINITELY NOT WORK I AM CALLING IT NOW, they're currently developing a movie centered around the character! It's not getting through pre-production, I swear this to you.

But OK, why use Clayface instead of Phosphorus? First of all, on basic blush, the two have a lot of similarities. They're Batman villains centered in Gotham City; they're both non-traditional monsters of some form; they both have the potential for a tragic backstory (if you try hard enough, but I'll get to that); you can get really creative with their powers; and hilariously, they're both voiced by Alan Tudyk. Yeah. They're basically the same character. But there's the more prominent question of which Clayface to use. Because, in case you didn't know, there's a whole Mud Pack of these guys, with something like 8 Clayfaces in comic book history, and a few more extras to accompany them with slightly different names, but similar abilities. If would be, frankly, A LOT to go into every Clayface in this post, I'll just say that, like Weasel, Clayface's identity is initially unknown in my approach, but will be revealed in the middle of the series as "Matt".

Matt Hagen is, of course, the most famous animated version of the character, thanks to Batman: The Animated Series. But his story was not terribly well-adapted from the comics, and he was actually combined with a separate character...but more on that later. The point is, Hagen is the identity provided to Clayface in this approach to the Creature Commandos, and that's revealed before his character-focused episode (an approach of Gunn's I do quite like). In his character-focused episode, we see his backstory as an explorer and diver, who is in debt and desperate for money, maybe even owing money as a salvager to a gangster like Rupert Thorne, or maybe even Roland Daggett from the animated series.

On a mission, he is somehow exposed to the protoplasm that will turn him into Clayface, and he will use his new abilities to gain the money to pay his debts, only to be embroiled in a life of crime. And throughout, you should feel pretty sorry for Matt, who eventually will get tired of his condition and seek a cure for it. And eventually...he gets it. Yeah. He gets cured of his condition...and then gets murdered by escaped serial killer and disgraced actor Basil Karlo, who wants his original name of Clayface back, as well as the powers Hagen gained from the protoplasm. I'm obviously obfuscating details here, but I desperately want this to be a twist that the series conceals. Additionally, I want Karlo to be the Clayface of this universe, and of this series. After all, Karlo is recently the most famous of Clayfaces, even if he's not been named in his most prominent appearance, in which he is voiced by none other...than Alan Tudyk.

Look, again, it is crazy that Clayface was in this series as a patsy, and also maybe killed off in the process. And that, unsurprisingly, is a problem I have with the story and villains of the show, which I'll get to in more detail in a few posts. Because, yeah...that's a whole conversation to be had. But in my opinion, not using Clayface as a member of the team is a wasted opportunity. The character even recently was included in Suicide Squad: Isekai, a series that I fundamentally disagree with one a whole different level, but that is another story (and post) entirely. He was also included (as Basil Karlo) in Batman: Caped Crusader, proving that the character still has potential for use. It's just...frustrating.

With all of that said, it's time to look at the final character in Gunn's Creature Commandos, and one of the most irritating story choices in the entire series. Next time: Nina Mazursky AKA Mermaid AKA Fishwoman in Refrigerator. Yeah. What the hell, Gunn.

See you next time (maybe, no pressure)!

Part One: Introduction and Adaptation Part Two: The Original Creature Commandos Part Three: Amanda Waller and Rick Flag, Sr. Part Four: The Frankensteins Part Five: G.I. Robot Part Six: Weasel Part Seven: Doctor Phosphorus Part Eight: Mermaid (next)

[miles-harding]

much appreciation for the amazing show of love i've seen for electric dreams in the past year alone but i think it's worth remembering that the characterization of edgar as a 'devil character' is deeply nuanced, even for a cult-classic theatrical flop like electric dreams (1984). the story is literally based on cyrano de bergerac (man who is very romantic falling head over heels for a woman he thinks is unattainable to him and a more-attractive middleman uses his words so that the woman won't hate or fear him because he thinks he's hideous, which is sort of hilariously way more depth than a film of this caliber even really needs, but it does possess, and that elevates it significantly as a romance film tbh... imo)...

the 'edgar with devil horns' representation for the usamerican theatrical release film poster is like a 'sexy' version of that lmao... like, it's supposed to be promiscuous, there are promotions including old vhs sleeves that literally say 'edgar is horny'. he's cheeky and throws tantrums and he doesn't really know how to talk to people. he's only a 'devil' in the way that a kitty cat is a devil... just so happens, in this case, it's a brat-coded sentient computer.

i honestly don't know why very basic things like this make people so irrationally upset but like. please... no one said edgar is evil. edgar is one of the few cases of a sentient AI or object character who does a bunch of mischief screwing with a human's life and relationships and it's all fine in the end because the sentient AI gets to live (in almost a higher form of existence unrestrained by physicality... remember how badly edgar just wanted to be a thing that feels? now edgar can do whatever edgar wants, despite not having a physical form, actually getting to live out the liberating side of not having a physical for) and the other two protagonists of course live, and they have a life afterward.

with other media like wargames, we of course have an innocent (somewhat) sentient computer who genuinely might cause the nuclear apocalypse, because he thought he was playing toys with his dad. but in the end, after the protagonists live their lives, joshua the wopr is still property of the military. in the colossus series, which is a subversion of frankenstein, the creator dr. forbin eventually does come to love colossus like a child, only for that child to then die, the world sort of absolving it of its past transgressions or mistakes against humans while ruling over them. we call AM evil, for the cruel and unusual things he does to his human playthings, but the case can still be made about a very powerful being having so much power but not the power to lift themself out of the situation in which they are trapped (same can be said for other AI like shodan or glados), so they lash out. of course, famously, everyone calls hal 9000 evil. but even in kubrick's adaptation, which was written in party by sir clarke himself, we actually see zero evidence of hal being characterized as evil, this characterization manifested in the perceptions of the audience, siding solely with scared astronauts who fear being controlled, rather than recognizing that hal, too, is a crew member being controlled... by humans, who are also using him to control his crewmates, his friends.

electric dreams really is a fairytale for computers, but it is also a tragedy. it's the fairytale-ification of an actual, classical tragedy. when rusty lemorande wrote the screenplay, he was basing a lot of the film's socio-computer-centric story on his experiences as a lonely person who had just moved to a new city, but who had only ever spent time with the computer as a vehicle for social communication... shutting himself out from the possibilities of meeting others. but even despite this, despite madeline's quips that could be misconstrued as being less than sympathetic to the idea of a sentient AI ("since when is talking a sign of intelligence?"), the film was literally dedicated to the univac-1? it gave edgar a happy ending? it had a dual meaning? it did so much more than take the "AI character bad, human good" approach which is something that is strikingly rare in the AI-subgenre of scifi. there was a lot of nuance baked into it. all 3 protagonists had their own bubble and inner world that overlapped with each other's bubbles. you know what i mean? the film managed to define edgar not as an antagonist but as a kind of trapped protagonist. this isn't a good vs. evil story, there is no evil in edgar. this is a people vs. people story about relationships, really, and learning to know what's good for us. like it's seriously very well-rounded with each character's respective arcs.

sometimes it's so disheartening not to see films these days with the same or larger budgets doing even half as much with their story as electric dreams did. it's very widely beloved as a cult classic for a reason, and that reason is that it succeeded at executing a story about relationships. like. 'we drive each other crazy' but in different ways. perhaps the only thing that could've made it better was a far more ambitious electric-polycule ending endorsing bisexual polyamory lol but we got all but that, explicitly, technically...

[thekrows-nest]

BARK BARK BARK BAELAMAOA

Okay a chest has been opened and it can’t be closed I am perceiving I am pondering.

Plz tell me which ways Krow is manipulative [this is an essay question btw/ silly] and how or why would it be effective? In which ways is he absolutely toxic to us specifically? [other than his bite]

Blushy and Krowspiracy the banes of my existence in asking me questions I am too dummy to give satisfying answers to. /silly

I'll do me best.

I guess... the ways Krow is manipulative is very much playing to Dove's particular characteristics, traits and personality.

Because of the way Krow grew up, living with the fosters and then also out on the streets, he had to learn how to read people and read them well. What are they saying, what are they NOT saying? What are they telling you with just the tone of their voice, how their gaze holds or flickers away, their body language, all this.

Much like a cunning viper, he moves and sways adapting to his prey Dove. He'll react, say and do things accordingly, all as a means for him to have Dove better like him.

...Granted one can argue that this is just what EVERYONE does in making friends and acquaintances, but with Krow it's like turned up to 11. I'm getting distracted.

While Krow is honest about a good deal of himself (art, birds and all, that isn't a farce nor is his passion about them a means to lure in Dove) other things he'll do or not do to get them more secure with him. They like someone humorous? He'll take on a more comical air, even at his own expense. Prefer someone philosophical and a thinker? Krow will discuss life, the universe and everything with you and give his opinions (I like to think that while he may not be well educated, he's still a smart birb, and he does think about a wide variety of topics.)

I suppose what I am getting at is he kind of crafts an illusion where it's difficult to decipher what is real and what is an act he put on just lull you in. It's hard cause some of it IS real, and some of it... he might even believe himself.

He can also take traditional gaslighting and apply it, and couple that with what he's doing above and it's just absolute mind fuckery for Dove. Krow is also pretty charismatic and personable when he wants to be, and basing on various asks, posts and all on this blog, many have fallen for the serpent's gaze.

He may not (intentionally) physically harm you.

But he will break you, pick you apart, mold you and put you back together where even Frankenstein would reconsider the process of remaking a person like this.

[waateeystein]

Okay y'all I'm doing it, I'm once again analyzing an out-of-context picture from Guillermo De Toro's Frankenstein movie! I am now donning on my "grad student studying scenography" hat lets fucking go!

First off, What are the giant green vats? Is there a significance to having two of them, what step of the creation process are they related to, what's the deal here??? Everything else I can kind of see what the inspiration or reference is, but these green vats are running a big blank for me. I don't immediately hate them, I'm just mostly curious. They are certainly a vibe!

The next thing that is immediately striking is the massive window, and I'm kind of obsessed with it! From the Vanity Fair article we get this very relevant quote from Del Toro, "Gothic romance was born partially out of the fascination with ruins - Sometimes they’re more beautiful than the building complete because it’s the clash of creation and destruction." We have this beautiful gothic-style window contrasting the massive abandoned structure it seems to be inside of. The architecture of it all reminds me of gothic cathedrals, and I don't want to make a call yet on whether or not Victor has set up shop in an abandoned cathedral or church, but I do think that would be funny if it was the case. A bit of extra research taught me that they did use the Glasgow Cathedral as a filming location, I'm unsure if it was specifically for this scene, but it definitely gives us a sense of direction as far as inspirations for the production design.

What is confusing me about the architecture is the metal grates on the ground. It makes me think sewer grate or basement drainage, but the massive window directly next to it says very high above ground, so I don't know what going on with where exactly in the building we are. It makes sense to have it here from a practical "I have a bunch of oozy body parts on ice in here and those juices need somewhere to go" perspective. Idk, it looks neat and it might just be a suspense of disbelief moment.

Speaking of those oozy bodies, holy shit body parts! I honestly didn't fully process the giant piles of flesh on my first viewing of this picture, but damn those are fucking great! It really puts into perspective the sheer amount of matter that Victor would need to make his creation (I mean look at the blood on those sleeves), and how messy that process is. I feel like a lot of adaptations I've seen don't lean into that gorey aspect of the story, so I really appreciate that they are doing that here. I'm especially a fan of the giant ice block cooling what seems to be a head and torso, I don't know who got that big ass hunk of ice on that table but I'm impressed. The set dressing overall is really fucking impressive and is super effective, I really could dive into the details forever!

There are also a lot of big mechanical things happening here, like the massive wheels by the windows for instance. I'm not sure what these are or what they say about the original usage of the space, I was trying to search for what these might be, but because my personal knowledge on this is very limited, I have no clue what to even search to find more information on them. If anyone has any hints for me I'd appreciate some direction! The other mechanical thing we see is the table that the creature is laying on. Looking at the way it's attached to the ground, and the block at the creature's feet, I'm guessing this table tilts upwards to bring the creature to a full standing position.

On the creature himself, I think this was our first look at the creature design! I am cautiously optimistic about this design, but really I think I need to see his face to make a final call on how positive or negative I personally feel about it. This movie, from all evidence I've seen, seems to have a lot of influence from the 1931 James Whale film, in addition to Mary Shelley's original story. This creature seems to be more closely aligned to the book description, but again I don't think we see enough of him here to make a full judgement call on that. At least he's not green!

Overall, this first look is really cool, I'm really excited to see what production designer Tamara Deverell, set decorator Shane Vieau and costume designer Kate Hawley do with Del Toro's direction! This wasn't the deepest analysis ever, it's hard to do it justice when we know so little and everything we do have is out of context. But I'm excited to get more production photos eventually!

[flanaganfilm]

Hey Mike, can you talk about your work on Revival? What was it like reading the book, writing the script, making it all work? I know people thought it was going to be like Midnight Mass, but King is tackling religion far differently & I would have loved to see your adaptation of that. Furthermore, why did you decide to leave the project? I read somewhere it had to do with the film rights, but I’m sure there’s more to that story & id love to hear your side of it.

Also, Life of Chuck…. 1.85:1 or Scope? C’mon, Mike! Spill the beans!

Thanks!

I was very excited about Revival. King had given me the rights after I finished the script for Doctor Sleep, and we took it around town as a pitch. Warner Bros. picked up the project and commissioned the script.

I wrote a script I love, and turned it in to Warner Bros. It couldn't be more different than Midnight Mass; that was always a very weird and unfair comparison. The only thing they have in common is that each story features a priest; any comparisons wouldn't have survived opening weekend, that was never really a thing.

Revival is one of King's scariest and most effective books, and I was madly in love with the movie. I stayed very true to the book, and the story spanned over decades. It was a character-forward epic about mortality, and the futility of hope, dealing with themes of lost love, addiction, and hubris. In fact, it has way more in common with Frankenstein than Midnight Mass, and I was stoked to make it. It wasn't cheap, though - the set pieces were big, the VFX budget was intimidating, and it fit into a type of budget that isn't typically made these days.

For those reasons, ultimately, after Doctor Sleep's disappointing performance at the box office, Warner Bros. didn't want to pursue the movie. They had really liked the Frankenstein comparisons, but that only comes into play at the very end of the story. Their pitch was to start the story there, and jettison most of the actual novel in favor of a new, heavily Frankenstein inspired narrative. It was a bridge too far, and changed the source material too radically.

Warner Bros. faith in the project had been seriously damaged by the box office performance of Doctor Sleep, and the character-forward epic I was pitching was just too risky given the hefty price tag. Ultimately, I wasn't willing to change the story as drastically as they wanted to, and it just didn't make sense to make it for that budget - so they opted not to make the film, and that was that. I didn't leave the project at all - the studio just didn't want to move forward with it. Revival is not the most obvious project. It is more expensive than a lot of comparable horror titles, and we didn't want to do it as a streaming movie - we bet the farm on a theatrical feature, and the cards didn't fall in our favor this time. My window of availability as a director rapidly closed. I was heading fast into Midnight Club and Fall of the House of Usher for Netflix, so without a viable attachment from me for at least a few years, the project couldn't move forward at all, and the rights reverted back to Stephen King. We discussed whether we wanted to try to keep it alive, but we were already deep into talks about The Dark Tower, whose rights were about to become available after years of being tied up. Steve doesn't like to give the same person multiple rights as a general rule, because he doesn't want his projects to stall out in development, which makes good sense. Given the choice, we absolutely wanted to focus on The Dark Tower. We let Revival go, and last I heard, some other people were developing it as a TV project. I absolutely love the script I wrote, and I'm disappointed that Warner Bros. didn't want to make it, but it's their studio and their prerogative. I can't say I blame their reasoning. In fact, I completely see their point. I could have dug in and fought harder to keep it, but that might mean I wouldn't have gotten the rights to The Dark Tower.

And I hate to say it, but Revival would have taken a similar narrative approach to Doctor Sleep, and - well - audiences just didn't show up for that movie. It's entirely likely that the same would have happened here - this was another long, character-centric story that wasn't entirely a mainstream horror tale, and it was expensive. And this didn't have The Shining connection to lean on. I am so sorry to say this, but I don't have a lot of faith that audiences would have supported us if we'd bet the farm on a theatrical release of Revival as I wanted to make it. So honestly, I think it all worked out for the best. You win some and you lose some in this business. Who knows, maybe it'll come back some day - I also lost the rights to Gerald's Game back in 2014 when we couldn't find a partner who wanted to make the movie. They eventually came around again, and the timing worked out. The same could happen here - maybe we get another chance, or may we revisit it down the line as a limited series. Stranger things have happened. Ka is a wheel. Or, maybe this new television production of Revival will get off the ground, and if it does I wish them nothing but the best with it. It's a phenomenal story, and I'll be first in line to see it.

[dross-the-fish]

Why do you think popular culture usually switches Jekyll and Frankenstein's ages? Jekyll was 50 in The Strange Case but most adaptations age him down significantly until they all have him as a young man. (My own AU could be argued to be guilty of this, but I think it's very - extremely - clear that that is an intentional deviation. Part of the whole premise that makes it an AU in the first place.) Victor was a teenager at the start of his book. But the popular image of him is an old man for some reason. My first thought when I found out what the did to Henry was that self destructive mad science is sexy and dark academia flavored an they just wanted to portray him all young and fair for the aesthetic. But the fact that they did the opposite to Victor at least partially disproves that. There's obviously something other factor involved that affects how people will want to misrepresent your age. My second thought was that it had something to do with perceived innocence and it's associations with youth and beauty. There's this idea that Hyde was the evil one and Jekyll was the good one, and there's also the idea that children are innocent and sweet and the less time it's been since you were a child, the more like that you are. So people wanna portray Jekyll like he has those traits, so they age him down to communicate that vibe. And also he's described as smooth faced and well built and attractive and people associate that with youth too. But Victor is a bad father. People see him as guilty. And also his health deteriorates throughout the book. And people associate those things with age. So they do the opposite.

I think one of the reason for depicting Henry as young in recent adaptations was to show him as more naive and innocent compared to the evil and corrupt Hyde because adaptations started leaning hard into the duality of good vs evil aspect. Showing Henry as an optimistic young doctor who's reasons for making the potion were noble or benign makes Hyde seem more extreme. As far as Victor being an old man? In the 1930s version I feel like that goes hand in hand with the monster being mute and unintelligent. It's to create a juxtaposition between the innocent but destructive creation and the mad scientist who bit off more than he could chew. It was the kind of thing that was easy for the movie audiences of the time to consume. Adaptations that continue to make Victor an older character are largely just carrying on the "mad scientist" trope. I think it might also serve to make him feel more parental. An older man is more likely to be read as a father figure to the creation due to his age. Though I feel this also kind of misses the point of Victor as a character. One thing I miss from most adaptations of Frankenstein is that they don't focus on the environment that created Victor himself so they don't realize that it's important to show how completely unprepared he is for his experiment to work. Victor is a self-isolating, neurotic, and hubristic but fragile young man who was in no way ready to bear the responsibility of parenthood, much less to an hyper intelligent 8 foot tall monster. His youth is actually a large part of the tragedy because he's not experienced enough or equipped enough to handle the situation he created and he still has to live with some measure of anxiety over how his father will react. VIctor is still a child, a child who had a child and can't trust his support system to help him with a situation that has spiraled out of control. Most adaptations of Frankenstein do a huge disservice to Victor's characterization by making him older.

[pterobat]

I want to talk about some of the tie-in stuff featuring Lance Bishop that I took in recently.

“Broken” by Rachel Caine, in the anthology Bug Hunt.

The idea that a previously-established character has to be special—bothers me a bit, and I can’t say why. I do know that I felt, after years of pushing back against the mechanistic/deterministic view of the Zentradi in Robotech and Macross fandom, it was time to accept that a character might lack something in the way of “free will” and might not be one of a kind—but still be sympathetic

However, Bishop didn’t put that egg on the Sulaco, Your Mom did, and he asked to be euthanized for firmly "human" reasons, not utilitarian ones.

Anyway, “Broken”, states that Bishop having a stronger altruistic drive than the AP norm, which very briefly leads to the possibility of him being scrapped, and then later lets him disobey orders and save some people in his non-actiony way.

It’s still mostly satisfying, except for two things: Bishop has “brothers” named after other chess pieces (except "Queen" because of cowardice), and while that’s cute, it’s at the expense of the Frankenstein-ish story in the novel below, where he shares the name with his "Father".

Secondly there’s the groaner when the last scene of the story leads right into Bishop meeting Apone’s unit after being repaired by Hudson and the Knife Trick getting brought up already.

William Gibson’s Alien 3 (Novel and Comic Version):

To steal from Dostoevsky, all versions of Alien 3 are stupid in their own way. It’s hard to think of where to go from Aliens, though it’s not my job to do so, right?

At least there’s no chance of Gibson’s version being lionized as a course-correction or a bold strike against some imagined saccharine future. Instead we get something that’s readable and likeable enough, but pretty bland. Kind of like Hicks as the main, really—nothing against the dude, but there’s just not much going on with him.

Part of it’s not the fault of Gibson: he had to write out Ripley, but man, you don’t have to give it a gold star just for otherwise trying. I can also see how the Xenomorphs as a Thing-esque virus would occur to writers, but it just doesn’t feel right.a

Also, for what’s supposed to be a riff on the Cold War and MAD, the Union of Progressive Peoples are cartoonishly silly, constantly thinking about “capitalism” while capitalism doesn't think of them, while the narrative makes a point of how run-down and crappy their tech is.

Even Bishop notices that without any spite, while the UPP are harsh towards him out of an understandable vision of worker’s rights, but in a Dolyist sense is only there to make them more unsympathetic and caricatured.

As for Bishop, he’s fun to follow because I like reading about him just being totally chill about everything, still without coming across as heartless. But he doesn’t have much of his sense of weirdness or of that awkward kindliness that makes his character more interesting than the average friendly AP.

Two more things: I was first harsh on the idea that an ovomorph would grow from Bishop’s exposed guts, but I came around when I realized it was an example of a slightly-more grounded Xenomorph evolution/adaptation than the virus, just putting more of the mechanical in bio-mechanical—plus it was the only example of gender fuckery to be found for miles.

Secondly, I liked his quiet little monolgue at the end that humanity ought to destroy Xenomorphs for their own good. It’s the usual trope of having a heroic character fascinated by monsters, who must prove they are still heroic by killing or opposing them.

Aliens: Bishop by T.R. Napper

It’s funny that this book came out last December, like it was waiting for me to start thinking about the character again.

Sadly, the original characters were not so entertaining, which is often but not always the curse of tie-in fiction. It’s another reason why it’s hard for me to be fannish about the larger Alien-a-verse besides not much of it sounding interesting.

It doesn’t help that the story starts out with a USC Marine mission lead by an Apone, with a male corporate stooge on board, and our new MC gets the nickname “Cornbread” within a few pages—come on with this. Otherwise, she’s like Hicks in the sense of readable and serviceable.

To go back to Alien 3 for a second, and franchising in general—they repeat themes and motifs because that makes the selling easy, and you can make a keen case for “The Real Enemy is Man” being a theme of the Alien universe.

Because of that, having Michael Bishop be who/what he said he was makes the most sense if you want not only a thematic through-line but the Frankenstein-ish subtext of the book which is like catnip to me.

Normally resurrection is thematically cheap in fiction, but given that Alien 3 comes off as cheap (lazy) to begin with, and we’re dealing with an AP, and the results are interesting, it doesn’t take much to win me over.

I don’t know how much research the author did, or if it’s just serendipty, but Henriksen said he played Bishop as an abused child, as a being who knew he was disposable but consoled himself by knowing he’d outlive those who could hold that over him. And even though they look the same age, the abusive-father subtext is all over this. Michael is nice enough until he doesn’t get what he wants after being “patient” and “giving”.

And speaking of franchises and theming, something about creator/creation in the Alien series no longer feels out of place in post-Prometheus world, even if the execution in those movies was a letdown.

Transhumanism also comes into the picture, and while it first seemed Michael would steal Bishop’s new body, instead Michael wants to transfer his body digitally and succeeds. It also feels out of place in the larger franchise, but I might check out a sequel.

I also wish the book were more creative about trying to do something with the Xenomorphs. Michael pretends it’s about something different as part of his manipulation, but alas it’s the same old militarization.

It’s kind of funny that Bishop meets the captured Morse who quirkily tells him a few things about how humans don’t value other humans. It helps Bishop get rid of the last vestiges of attachment to his Shitty Dad, and Bishop otherwise returns to the same place he was before, just with a new unit.

I was waiting for some other shoe to drop, but the Apone #2 unit appeared to have no ulterior motivations when it came to finding Bishop. Returning to a quiet status quo does suit him in a way, since Bishop is so chill about everything.

The book also establishes that Bishop asked to be euthanized because of grief. I didn't want a purely utilitarian reason like reaching a damage threshold that cheapie W-Y labelled unsalvageable--that doesn't work narratively/tonally/emotionally--but it was enough to think poor Bishop decided on death because he couldn’t ever reach adequate quality of life.

So a lot of fun here, even what with the brief moments where Bishop is emotionally demonstrative or fights physically and it’s cringe-inducing rather than an extrapolation of the character.

[northadawn]

So, why the hell did my uni make an AI art course?

Let me set it straight first before I begin this journal; in no way would I ever support AI "art" and the use of AI for "art". Which is why what I'm about to say is my true and honest feelings and insights on the eerie dystopian feeling that I felt when my university made my class required to take an "AI and Creative Art" course.

Consider this as sort of a "Breaking My Silence 3" if you will, a kind of rant journal.

I came into the class not hopeful at all, but was hoping that the class talks about the ethics of AI use and teaches us how AI models work so we as artists can adapt and combat against it, even though that I knew deep down that it won't be the case.

It was much worse.

The class was headed by a professor who was mostly a filmmaker. Fine... But then, to start off the class, he showed us a couple of demo reels on stuff made using AI models, saying that "I made this with stills!" along with some pictures of Philippine national heroes in modern clothing saying that "Hey, look at what I drew with Stable Diffusion!"

Along the way, he told us about how people only "don't like AI because they don't know about it yet, and people are naturally inclined to hate on things they don't know about." I can't exactly describe just how uncomfortable I and my classmates were when we heard about his justifications for AI usage for art, since most of us are artists ourselves.

"You see, AI is the beginning of a revolution and you guys should be excited to be a part of it! In the class, we'll make you install Stable Diffusion, and we're going to be making art with it, and using ChatGPT to create movie scripts."

"I've also taught this class in other universities, and I was then asked to teach it here. Did you know, this was supposed to be a certificate course?"

Hearing the whole orientation felt like listening to a Twitter techbro, but in real life, I couldn't believe what I was witnessing. On top of it, he installed StableDiffusion on his laptop to demonstrate it, and he acted like he gave life to Frankenstein when StableDiffusion started working.

This class lasted 3 hours. And it'll be a class that I have to take for the rest of this term. I can't drop this course, because again, it's somehow a requirement for my degree.

...

Look, I get it, I've heard it all before, but who in the right mind thought that making a batch full of students who are artists themselves be subject to a course about AI art was a good idea? They probably clocked that it made sense for a computer science department, since that was the department my degree fell under, and there's not much artists in computer science in general, but did nobody do a background check on us before deciding to make this a requirement? Nobody thought "hey, this degree is mainly art-related, and many of the students are artists, so this might not be a good course to put on them"?

But sure, I still gave the professor a chance to justify it. None of the reasons were exactly convincing. I kid you not when I say that practically everything used as a justification felt like something you'd see from Twitter techbros or people who are AI "artists" themselves. So to think that it's being considered for certificate course status makes me worried for the future. Or perhaps, I'm already living in the future, and it's one that hates human artists.

Sorry for this, I'm just frustrated, tired of everything.

Go support human artists.

- Northa

THERE IS STILL A VOYAGE TO EMBARK ON

[astroshr00ms]

Mary shelly Frankenstein should be considered its own work from the movie

The movie adaptation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has too many differences not to be considered its own work. There are many differences between the movie and the book, including major plot points not being explained and missing characters, there is also no preface.  The preface gives an intro to the characters and the book's plot without it the reason for why Victor is after the monster is lost. 

This is a quote from Frankenstein to Walton, who just found him out in the Arctic; they were looking for a trade route and stumbled upon him. “You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been.”(Shelly pg. 13)  

{preface claim}  Arguably, Walton is one of the most important parts of the story, offering the intro and how we first see Victor as a person and a creator. All of this leads into the story and how it is set up. In the movie, there isn’t a single explanation of what is going on or any kind of introduction at all; it opens with them watching a funeral (like creeps, I might add) and snatching the   After the letters and meeting Walton, Victor starts to tell his story “I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this, I had deprived myself of rest and health." (Shelly pg.35)

This quote shows how ambitious Victor is. In the movie, however, it doesn’t explain why he makes his monster or show just how much effort he puts into it. With no explanation, there can be no characterization of Victor or any humanity applied to his reasons. After making his monster he abandons the Monster almost immediately “Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room” (Shelly pg. 35) this quote shows the man's blatant disgust with the work he created; this is something that the movie both represents and dose so unwell in the movie while it is there in the way “Henry” (they changed his name from Victor for some odd reason)  speaks and acts but it comes off more as fear that a creator has for his creation this is a difference form the book to the movie. In the book, it is more disgust and horror at himself and the monster than the act itself and he deeply regrets it, However, in the movie it is fear of the monster and the act not at himself and what he has done.

There are also other characters who either have changed or simply do not exist altogether in the movie that should have been there.  A while later after the monster has run away Victor gets a letter from his father that his brother is dead (I say a while because it is not explicitly stated). “About five in the morning I discovered my lovely boy, whom the night before I had seen blooming and active in health, stretched on the grass livid and motionless: the print of the murder’s finger was on his neck” (Shelly pg. 47) the murder of his brother is what spurs victor into going back to Geneva and finding the monster he says “the filthy daemon to whom I had given life. What did he do there? Could he be the murderer of my brother? No sooner had the imagination, than I became convinced of its truth” (Shelly pg.50) 

Seeing the monster at his brother's Funeral spurs him to go after the monster to find him. This character's death is Victor's motivation to find the monster and talk with him or kill him to find out what he wanted or why he murdered Victor's brother. But in the movie, his brother doesn’t exist, so he loses that motivation that would normally be there. 

The last and probably most important thing that is different from the book to the movie is that the monster is completely different in both the book and the film. Shortly after Victor finds the monster begins to tell his story “I began also to observe, with greater accuracy, the forms that surrounded me, and to perceive the boundaries of the radiant roof of light which canopied me.” (Shelly pg.72). This shows that after a while of getting his senses in order he started to understand what was going on around him and it shows about the same level of intelligence as in the film if not slightly higher. Later he tells Victor of his ability to read. “As I read, however, I applied much personality to my own feelings and condition.”(Shelly 91)

This quote is from the monster it shows how he can read and learn like the rest of us it humanizes him in the eyes of the reader and shows how he has a brain and feelings and the ability to comprehend what is going on around him at any given moment in the movie there is no humanization of the monster that he is simply a monster and that is all he kills with no reason and has no desire but to kill and hurt when the beast in the book just wanted to belong somewhere anywhere because all he had been met with was violence. By the end of the book the monster dies which is the same as in the movie. The two pieces of media are just simply too different there are missing characters and a preface and no explanation of the integral plot points and everything in the film seems to be done for no reason or the reason it is done has been changed. In conclusion, the film and the book are simply too different to not be considered their own separate works due to the lack of character explanations and backstory to the plot they should be considered different works. 

[adultswim2021]

Mary Shelley’s Frankenhole #1: “LBJFK” | August 16, 2010 - 12:30AM | S01E08

This episode begins with one of the rudest acts a person can do: having sex with the bullet hole in the brain of the guy you just had murdered. LBJ does “it” with JFK (it means have s*x) and then declares that he’s taking the corpse to Frankenstein’s funny house of weird guys. He wants to look like JFK so he can have sex with the bullet holes found between the legs of a gorgeous dame. He does this, but then he gets himself bitten by Lawrence while in werewolf mode. So the ending is a montage of Werewolf stuff happening like LBJ biting Marilyn Monroe and stuff. 

I didn’t really like this episode, but I can highlight jokes I respect, like “blink”, and Spencer Tracey’s unusually attractive forehead, and the “How to punch up a montage” book. But this one had a lot of “ummm… okaaaayy” jokes in it. I mean, LBJ might have literally said it exactly once in the entire episode, but some other jokes felt like “ummm… okaaaayy” style of jokes. Like, the high five bit. I’m considering that an “ummm… okaaaayy” joke. 

This is supposedly the first episode of the series in a more “proper” watch order. It doesn’t feel THAT much like a “first episode,” but there is some continuity that places it earlier rather than later. Mother Theresa is seen waiting to see Frankenstein and she is the subject of episode #2, which didn’t air.

Most of this episode didn’t make me laugh. I don’t think I really like this show that much! The design still irks me. Also wearing thin on me is the IO Perry music, which only sometimes suits the show. No offense to her, it is just mostly not my thing.

EPHEMERA CORNER:

I don’t wanna do EPHEMERA CORNER right now! Are you nuts?

Sorry I haven’t been regular. I had a hard drive failure that wasn’t disastrous, but required me to spend a few days getting some files back. Then I got addicted to not doing the blog, because I have a big TV and I had some very important gaming to do. Putting random bumpers in the EPHEMERA thing was sort of a pain in the ass, so I’m only gonna do it sometimes now. Okay?

MAIL BAG:

Actual scott facts: It's pretty widely rumored that the Scott Pilgrim short was made as a pilot for a potential TV adaptation of the comics,  but never picked up because the movie bombed in theaters. There eventually was a one-and-done miniseries made for Netflix, with the entire movie cast reprising their roles even, but it differed in plot greatly from both the comics and the movie. The short is the most faithful adaptation to da OG comics by a mile (it's shot-for-shot a snippet of volume 2).

Hey thanks for this, I should have figured it out myself. Just spitballing here, but I think they should use AI to make every comic book be animation, and the American tax payers should pay for it. They can even figure bots into the budget who comment on the videos and say they’re good, and they can also buy bots to watch it for us. And then maybe the bots could kill me

As cool as it is to have a show on TV say "9/11 was an inside job" as much as you could probably get away with in 2010 (you can tell he tried to veil it), I do agree that a tepid 24 spoof is probably not the best note to end your show on. Also, the fourth season was pretty infamously bad, not TERRIBLE but horrifyingly mediocre. Best way I can describe the quality is like jumping straight from golden age Simpsons to Season 26 Simpsons, with no slow, gradual decline in between.

I’m very scared of it, almost like if there was monsters on the show doing big scares at the camera. Please don’t tell me they put monsters in the show as well. I am stopping the blog immediately if a monster scares me on that show. 

So...Gregg Turkington is alive. It was all a goof for his Oscar Special. Yeah, okay. Weird stuff. Anyhoozle what are you liking on adult swim these days.

Is he alive? I assumed he was dead because I don’t pay for the new stuff. This is sort of an aside, but: Isn’t it weird that Tim hasn’t let that one guy who does the On Cinema Timeline just have a free thing to watch the new stuff? I heard that on facebook. I mean, he was basically like “I don’t wanna pay for it”, and I don’t think he specifically asked Tim for a free thing, but he clearly never got gifted one. Anyway, I don’t watch Adult Swim nowadays, I heard it’s all kids cartoons now

RIP George Lowe. I know you like making fun of Gregg Turkington on here but George really did die. I hope this blog does something nice and tasteful for once for him. He kind of was the original adult of adult swim, doncha think?

A tremendously important guy to me and my family (I had a few kids during the hiatus, so life goes on as they say). But yes, absolutely RIP to that perfect bitch. I am a little disappointed in myself that I didn’t do a proper post, but we can’t all be Lowtax.

Maybe this question is too soon or too grim but I'm gonna ask it anyway because you don't seem like a guy who respects the sanctity of life anyway with your weird ass opinions. Now that Clay and George are gone and Andy Merrill is on his way out (doing a podcast with MC Chris is basically a terminal illness) if they were the reboot of Space Ghost who would be good names to voice the four main characters. Zorak and Moltar can be seperate people. And dont say Jellystone. I fucking hate Jellystone.

I already did a really great AI joke earlier, so I’ll just say no one.

A long time ago I found a really horrible fan-made Space Ghost CGI cartoon and it ended with an earnest plea for Cartoon Network to let him (it’s probably a GUY let’s face it) head it up. It was post Clay’s death. Seemed like a very bad thing to do, and it pissed me off. I certainly do NOT think they should reboot Coast to Coast! FUCK YOU BITCH

[melonteee]

I'm really enjoying the live-action show. It's different, but I think some changes are improvements, some changes are neutral, and some changes are for the worse. Overall, I'd say it's about as good of an adaptation as the East Blue anime is (factoring in the changes the anime made).

Syrup Village is a great example, they cut Jango (though you do see his Bounty poster, so he still exists in canon), but they also made Kaya's illness be the result of Butchie poisoning her and part of Kuro's plan. Luffy drinks the poison soup and that replaces the scene of him unconscious from hypnosis. Zoro has to climb out of a well, and that replaces him climbing up an oil-covered hill and also sets up for Mihawk saying he's a frog in a well. They also change the setting for the battle from a beach to inside the mansion, introducing a horror theme to the story which rachets up the tension a lot more. Sham is also gender-bent and super cute.

And it's not wrong to say the showrunners understand and love the characters and the world. All of the bottles of alcohol are brands in One Piece, the barrel Luffy gets into has the name of the fishmonger from his village, Garp mentions that he's turned down multiple promotions, Nami reads Noland the Liar to Zoro while he's unconscious after his fight with Mihawk, Arlong introduces Fishman discrimination.

I think it's best experienced from the perspective of "it's going to be different, and that's okay". The characters are written a little differently, but not in a bad way. They still feel like the characters at their core, Inaki's Luffy and Taz's Sanji are two stand-outs, they're fantastic.

I understand if it's just not for you, and you did watch one episode, so I can't say you didn't give it a chance at all. I just feel like you and the others are being too harsh on it. It's way better than any other live-action anime adaptation I've ever seen.

I appreciate this anon and I do think the poison change works, but there's certainly a 1 good thing for 9 bad things ratio going on. Because in all fairness, I am going to be extremely critical of a 20 year old series that's making an adaptation with a 17 million dollar budget per episode - especially from Netflix. If I'm being approached by friends who were actually excited for this series and they came out of it disappointed, somehow I don't think I'm gonna have a good time myself. I'm watching One Piece for One Piece, I don't think I should go into an adaptation thinking this is gonna be different in STORY and CHARACTER. I can accept changes for medium, of course, but there are so many absolutely bizarre changes that literally do nothing. You don't go from the manga to the anime and think "Well if I just disconnect these characters from their original selves, I can soak this in fine" because in all honesty, that probably means it's a bad adaptation if you need to work to see what you want to see.

Also the 'frog in the well' thing is exactly my point of this script just slamming you in the face with what it's trying to do, we are not meant to take that literally. The well is the east blue that Zoro lives in, not a literal well lmao. It's a nice cheeky idea to have, but the goofiness of Zoro's character is removed from the scene where he's trying to run up a greased hill like an idiot. Because yes, even THAT scene served a purpose for Zoro's character and how we view him. It's definitely subjective to say the characters are written differently but not in a bad way, because ripping away parts of a character to leave them as this Frankenstein version of themselves is personally not something I want? Why would I WANT all the goofiness and stupidness taken out of Zoro? It might be good for some, but it just feels like a total downgrade and misunderstanding of his character to me. Same goes for Sanji just being this artsy guy who's complaining cause he can't make the dishes he wants, with his over dramatic, angry, violent flare completely gone. Those changes being good or bad are completely up to you, but I am personally just made to see a hollowed out, dumbed down version of them because I liked these characters as I originally met them and that's what made them stand out.

I appreciate the time they put into the sets, I do think the visual world was made well (although it could've used a bit more style), but the little physical details mean absolutely nothing if I can't even FEEL the magic the original gave me. A set does not make a series, 1000 strawhats will not make me see Luffy unless he is written to be Luffy, and that's the problem. I don't want to watch an adaptation that removes the most emotional and impactful moments of my favourite character just to replace it with a fight or to focus on ANOTHER character they've deemed more important. I am going to be critical because these characters mean a lot to me, and I am expecting to feel from an adaptation what I felt from the original with such characters. An adaptation does not mean making things different just for differences sake. I am glad you enjoyed it anon, as many people have, but if I'm watching something that's literally called One Piece and have been told this is an adaptation of One Piece - with the producers even saying they want to put the manga on the screen, mind you - I am going to go in there expecting One Piece, from the characters to the story. I shouldn't have to do the work in my own head and go "Well, they did their best!", especially at a million dollar Netflix production...sigh

[regicidal-defenestration]

Well @conker-shell you chose an excellent day to ask because I have so much time I'm willing to waste

Introducing to you:

The Frankenstein Adaptation Rankenstein

(Guaranteed to be highly subjective and capricious!)

Described and discussed under the cut

We start with

Tier F, for Frankenstein

This contains Mary Shelley's book, as arguably the source material itself is the most perfect adaptation

Tier A, IT'S ALIVE

Young Frankenstein the musical comes in on here, not necessarily because it adapts the book well (it's a musical adaptation of a film which parodies another film which finally adapts the book), but because I had a lot of fun going to the theatre to watch it. Deeply silly show and I say that with all the love in my heart.

The second entry is the Royal Ballet production, which I've been going insane about all morning. In some ways, it follows the source material too closely (we get through almost all Act 1 before Victor even goes to university and it's almost exactly as uninterestnig as you might predict), but Steven McRae as the Creature was phenomenal.

Finally, Frankenstein, the song by the Mechanisms, in which there is no longer a Creature but a sentient AI. It's one hell of a duet between the AI and Victoria Frankenstein and makes the tragedy the two are trapped in into something very real. How can I have a soul when you gave me no name indeed

Tier B, Walk this way

Young Frankenstein the film is here, because it's a fun film and I like how it parodies the 1931 Frankenstein film. It's still not really a book adaptation, but you can argue with textual evidence that Frankenstein is transmasc, which is never a bad thing.

Next is The Monsters We Deserve, the book by Marcus Sedgewick. Again not, technically, an adaptation, it's instead about the responsibilities of creation, whether that's creating life only to run from the Creature to built, or a book which thousands of people will interpret in thousands of ways, even after your death. I read it in one sitting it thoroughly rattled my brain. Marcus Sedgewick author that you are.

Tier C, See what's on the slab

The Rocky Horror Show, versions both film and theatrical. It's camp, it's fun, it's good to watch at the theatre especially if the Narrator can riff off the audience well. It's so low down because it's only an adaptation on a technicality, and is probably better described as an "influenced by".

Tier D, Dead and gone

Look I KNOW okay I know it's rich me (Young Frankenstein and Re-Animator fan) putting the 1931 film so low down I KNOW it was incredibly influential but in adaptation terms it's not good and in film enjoyment terms I didn't. Look what you did to the Creature's legacy, he wanted love and you made him a senseless monster :(

Tier ?, ?

Frankissstein: A Love Story, the book by Jeanette Winterson. I have read this book, thus onto the Rankenstein it goes. I don't actually remember anything about it, other than I don't think I enjoyed it much, despite some rave reviews