#like in the original movie Dorothy was based on a real life concept that was Hollywoodified

[aidaronan]

They're finally giving us another big budget tornado movie (presumably) full of meteorological inaccuracies AND we've got both Anthony Ramos and a sexy storm chaser cowboy type with notes of real life mad lad Reed Timmer? I am going to see it in IMAX.

[kaypeace21]

do you think it’s possible sarah (hoppers daughter) was an early-formed alter that went dormant before the events of season one? it’d make a lot of sense with how much of hoppers arc in season one was him mourning her and channeling that grief into protecting will (which would make sense since he seems like a protecter to both will and el). love your posts!☺️

Yep . :D

I already discussed all of this in the original did post - how sarah was a “little” (kid ) alter. And how hopper was a protector /introject alter. I also discussed her going dormant as a major possibility in my did theory. My assumption is she either (a) “became dormant” like some alters do- aka they are “gone” sometimes for many years but can return . And this can happen in a myriad of ways - sometimes alters go dormant after they had a simulated death in the inner world . theoretically sarah had such a Death. And so did El. Death isn’t really a permanent thing for alters ...they usually will come back or stay dormant - unless the body of the host dies (or they integrate) . They can’t really die . I think it’s very possible she comes back and Hopper while exploring the various innerworlds of Will’s minds (like the Russian one, the memory scapes , etc ) reunites/ finds her . look at the st s4 movie inspirations. In ‘what dreams may come”  a guy with the guidance of his dead kid explore a heaven like world influenced by a painter’s emotions.We also have the movie ‘inside out’ -which involves “memory islands” (distinct worlds based on a child’s memories) which are influenced negatively by the kid being depressed she moved to California. The characters traveling to these memory islands are constructs of  kid’s mind -and 1 of them also has a guide helping them explore the ‘memory islands’. in  Inception a guy says he’s a construct of a guy’s mind and needs to help him escape the many different Ievels of the dream worlds.The in inception who made the worlds- had dad issues. 'the cell’also had alternate dimensions of a man's mind that a cop explored ( the dimensions were created by a man who was ab*sed by his dad). Movies like inception, matrix, Truman show, total recall, the cell, enter the void, wizard of oz, Peter Pan, hellraiser 2, dream warriors, bill & ted’s bogus journey, and welcome to marwen  also allude to this: because they involve entering simulated abstract worlds usually created/based on happy& traumatic memories/fears.Cough s4 using the movie wizard of oz quote “we’re not in Hawkins (kansas) anymore.While truman show/matrix are more about realizing your reality isn’t real.in bladerunner 2044/total recall it has the theme of false implanted memories… probably relating to hopper realizing he’s an alter and not in “actual Russia.” Before seeing the other segments of the innerworlds with sarah. Like in total recall- the bad ass spy is told all his memories: his wife/ years of marriage,  , his name, are just implanted memories. And she says “you’re life is a dream.” 

In s2 Nancy asks Steve how his “grandpa’s time in the war is a metaphor for your life?” And steve compares the mf to the germans in the war. Dr owens mentions Will has ptsd like “ (vietnam) soldiers’, Hopper saying he had buddies like Will . “In the 70s there was a study that compared the post-traumatic stress symptoms in Vietnam veterans and adult survivors of childhood s**ual ab*se. The study revealed that childhood s**ual ab*se is traumatizing and can result in symptoms comparable to symptoms from war-related trauma.” Hopper isn’t actually in Russia -but in one of the innerworlds (after he jumped through the rift of the machine- into Will’s mind). We’ll see flashbacks but also present circumstances of his imprisonment echo Will’s past with Lonnie (if the movies indicate anything)- being starved, guards getting payed in order to let other prisoners  r*pe a gay prisoner (than claim incorrectly because of his sexuality he wanted it) , as well as a gang of sadist men who r**e others and a warden using that as a threat to be compliant , being thrown in a dark room of solitary confinement and starved when they didn’t obey the warden, the warden being religious, etc. And the Anerican soldiers (in Vietnam) in the movies aren’t much better and do similarly horrific acts to civilians like r**e and bragging/ happily k*lling women, children, and the elderly. The drill sergant in vietnam calling them homophobic slurs & women, and chocking one of the soldiers with one hand, slapping one for not believing in christianity. Tying up a soldier in a bed , gagging him, beating him and saying “remember it’s just a dream.” Only praising them when good in fire arms.(movies : fullmetal jacket, papillon, shawshank redemption, platoon, welcome to marwen, etc ) . My assumption is  flashbacks of his life- will hint he’s an alter of Will’s-the boxes in the basement are “vietnam” ,“dad”, and “ny” (and these are the memories of his we’ll see). And some of the bad characters in said stories will also parallel Lonnie . For instance in s2, Jonathan mentions Indiana writer Vonnegut- In his book ‘slaughterhouse 5′- Vonnegut begins the story of Billy Pilgrim, a man who has “come unstuck in time”. It accounts of Billy Pilgrim's capture and incarceration by the Germans during the last years of World War II, and scattered throughout the narrative are episodes from Billy's life with his dad, and his own wife and kids.Billy is forced to be part of the war and similar things against his free will. The moments start from his childhood when his father throws him in the water to teach him how to swim. He was unwillingly drafted into the war. Later, he is kidnapped by Tralfamadorians  (aliens that are implied to be caused by his mental health issues/trauma) against his will. Therefore, he realizes that this concept is just an illusion.

  And some of the bad characters in said stories will also parallel Lonnie . Like how in ‘peterpan’- the young girl Wendy imagines netherland and the villain -captain hook- is based off her father ( in the movie they have the same voice actors/while in all stage productions the 2 characters are always played by the same actor). Similar to the other s4 film- ‘wizard of oz’ where the wicked witch of th west from the mythical land of Oz (is played by Dorothy’s real life mean neighbor in the real world/kansas). Or ‘in the cell’- every villain from the alternate-mind- dimensions is played by same actor in diff makeup. Not sure if they’d use Ross Patridge (actor of Lonnie) in this way . But it would be very interesting if (In makeup) Ross played many negative people in Hopper’s life/past -as a way to show Will’s past tr*uma.

Like also-look at Sarah’s tiger plushie! In chinese mythology/culture: “The tiger is personified by the constellation Orion (interesting given Sara’s interest in space/blackholes). The tiger represents protection over human life (hmm?). Tiger charms were used to keep away evil and disease (that’s awful ironic if she died in the manner she did). In Buddhism, wearing tiger skins during meditations was believed to bring protection from spiritual interference and potential harm while exploring astral dimensions.” HMMMMMMMMM  XD

Kali in the stranger things novel ‘Suspicious Minds’ says…

“I was named after a goddess. She wore a tiger skin and was fierce in battle.”

Then Kali says to Alice (a women who can see future visions): “I love you, Alice. We can be tigers together.”This parallel (in relation to Alice) is fascinating because Kali actually uses her powers to fake Alice’s death- and to trick Dr. Brenner, and allow Alice to escape. The allusion was so realistic, that Terry could even touch the ‘dead’ Alice.

So the tiger symbolism could be a HUGE hint- that Sarah’s death was simulated and she’ll come back and travel the innerworlds/alternate dimensions of Will’s mind (as Hopper’s guide). Hopper about sarah “galaxies the universe-she always understood that stuff.”

Another possibility (theory b) is she integrated with another alter or with Will (which means she can’t return) .Hopper saying about Sarah “the black hole it got her.” Could imply she integrated with the mf/shadow monster? And ,or maybe she will later ?

But... I lean heavily to theory (a) the most , though.

Obviously sarah has a lot of the connections to Will. will and Sarah both being into science, Sarah winning a spelling bee, Will winning the science fair, both being connected to tigers. Both hallucinating something no one else can see and people trying to snap the 2 out of what they’re viewing. Joyce saying as a witch she’ll eat Will. Parallels Hopper saying as an ogre he’ll eat sarah. Hopper, in s1, when seeing Will (with a vine in his mouth) has a flashback of Sarah on a mouth respirator. And he also has a flashback of Sarah when seeing Will’s lion plushie which resembled Sarah’s tiger plushie. And el also had a lion plushie-like Will’s in s1. Hopper monitored both Will and Sarah at the hospital when they were “dying”. Will has a fear of clowns- and Sarah’s hospital gown had clowns on them. All 3 kids draw.

Plus, we all know the parallels of Will to El (Hopper’s new daughter).

I discussed in my did theory that Hopper (as an adult alter) is a form of protector to all the kid alters - el, Sarah, and Will (host/core). And Hopper as an introject-alter (who are alters based on a person the child knows ) are usually put in the system cause the kid assumes that person could protect them . And since original-Hopper was a police man (a little kid could easily assume that). Although, because he’s a “father figure” for the system he has some of Lonnie’s traits- which are reflected in other perpetrator alters/ bad npcs in the system- Brenner, Neil, Billy, the evil’s Russians,etc . So sometimes he acts similar to a Perpetrator alter too . And I listed those examples/bad parallels extensively in the original did post (linked in the beginning).

And I used these quotes from psych papers in my original did post to pretty much sum up Hopper’s use in Will’s system .

“Introjects can also be based off of  figures that the dissociative child found strong, courageous, heroic, or otherwise worthy of being emulated and internalized and could theoretically protect them.”

“Older adult alters are created to serve a nurturing or parenting role, thus serving as a protector. (*protecting Will/el) . However, sometimes their older age is related to taking on the identification of the ab*ser and can therefore take on any of the other more hostile roles too ... Introjects which are mimicking ab*sers are trying to "keep you inline" in order to protect you from external ab*sers. They are copying behaviors shown to them by bad people, not harboring the intent, s*dism or imm*rality of the actual perpetrators.”

I think it pretty much sums up the nuances and motivations of Hopper’s character.

Thanks for the ask, anon :)

[dweemeister]

New Orleans (1947)

The city of New Orleans is synonymous with a rich cultural tapestry shaped over centuries. Located on the banks of the Mississippi River, its economic and political influence waned with the spread of railroads and highways. Today, its influences are indigenous American, African, French, Spanish, Creole, Honduran, Vietnamese, and much more. But the city remains an inimitable cultural force. One of the city’s most significant contributions to the world is jazz – a musical genre that, even in the mid-twentieth century, attracted racially-coded disdain.

I must admit that I am instantly suspicious of any film that takes a city’s name as its title. Being not in a sniping mood as I write this sentence, I will not single any certain film out – for now. But to reduce a film title to a city’s name is to heighten expectations that the filmmaker will capture the so-called “soul” of a city (a nearly impossible task). Or perhaps they shall depict a man-made or natural disaster that takes place in that city (how often does a city’s name become shorthand for a mass shooting?). Enter Arthur Lubin’s New Orleans: a quasi-musical that does not have the courage to let the musical numbers guide it. The film stars Louis Armstrong (essentially playing himself) and Billie Holiday (not playing herself in her only credited role in a feature film), in addition to other jazz stalwarts at the time: Woody Herman, drummer Zutty Singleton, clarinetist Barney Bigard, trombonist Kid Ory, guitarist Bud Scott. New Orleans makes the mistake of not having Armstrong and Holiday be the main stars. Instead, the film has a half-baked, predictable romance. For a film title with such enormous implications, New Orleans’ concentration makes no sweeping statements about the eponymous city. Instead, it turns its gaze to jazz’s reputation among high-society white Americans.

It is 1917. The Storyville district of New Orleans is a den of prostitution, drinking, gambling, and – worst of all – jazz. Storyville’s residents are mostly black, but some of its welcome patrons are white. Nick Duquesne (Mexican actor Arturo de Córdova) runs a gambling joint frequented by Mrs. Rutledge Smith (Irene Rich) and classical music conductor/pianist Henry Ferber (Richard Hagerman). Irene avoids the jazz there (one of the regulars is Louis Armstrong and the aforementioned players), but her daughter, Miralee (Dorothy Patrick) – an operatic soprano who has arrived in New Orleans to make her professional classical music debut – is entranced by this radical music. Miralee is also entranced with Nick, against her mother’s wishes. Miralee is staying with her relative when she meets their maid, Endie (Billie Holiday), who surreptitiously plays the piano and sings jazz music when she gets the chance. As you might imagine, Endie’s employers disapprove. The film comes to a head as the U.S. military forcibly shuts down Storyville (evicting hundreds of black residents overnight), Nick leaves New Orleans, and Miralee must contend with her emotions just before she makes her classical music professional debut.

Billie Holiday’s fans might be troubled by the fact she is a maid here, given that she intentionally avoided physically demanding occupations in real life. Her reaction to this casting is unclear, as different reputable sources offer contradictory claims: that she abhorred being cast as a maid (Meg Greene’s Billie Holiday: A Biography), or that she relished the opportunity to be in a motion picture regardless of the role (an interview with music journalist Leonard Feather). So as tough as it may be to see her in a subservient role, Holiday appears to be enjoying herself – especially during the musical numbers she is a part of. She is clearly, other than Louis Armstrong, the most musically accomplished member of the cast. But when her character disappears from the film in the final third, New Orleans heaves due to the hackneyed romance between Nick and Miralee. To toss the one actor making this film worth watching for no sensible reason is a disastrous choice by screenwriters Elliot Paul (1941’s A Woman’s Face, 1945’s Rhapsody in Blue) and Dick Irving Hyland (1947’s Kilroy Was Here).

Even in a film independently released through United Artists (the one major Hollywood studio of Old Hollywood with the least executive interference), she and Armstrong cannot be the central stars. Considering Holiday’s musical talents, one wonders why she never starred in another film. Despite some digging, I could not find the answer. But if any black woman musician could have films centered around her, it would be Holiday. Her contemporaries, Lena Horne and Ethel Waters, could never overcome the terrible beliefs that audiences would not pay to see a film with a black actress in the lead role. But did Holiday – noting how Louis Armstrong also appeared in films – want to make more films? That may be an answer for someone else to uncover.

More than any film of its time that I can recall, New Orleans is overflowing with a disobedient musical energy. When considering musical genres innovated by African-Americans, there is an underground aspect to their initial spread that, at first, appears exclusive. Jazz, R&B, and hip hop have all gone through these motions: a tumultuous, secretive birth; a rebellious adolescence where critics decry the moral fabric of such music; and finally mainstreaming. Jazz in New Orleans lies somewhere within that adolescence. Its troubled reputation is the result of a mixture of musical and racial tensions. New Orleans’ affluent white community, on its surface, disdains jazz and prefers the import that is Western classical music – opinions they express vocally (as an amateur classically-trained musician who learned more about jazz later in life, I can’t stand the gatekeeping behavior exemplified in this film). So any time that jazz music is played in an unorthodox setting – the parlor of the Smith household, an orchestra hall – it feels defiant, dangerous.* These musical-racial dynamics persist in America to this day. To even see a film acknowledge that conflict, however ineloquently, is credit to the screenwriters and director Arthur Lubin understanding aspects about musical popular culture of this time.

But what is New Orleans and New Orleans without music? First sung by Holliday and reprised (one might even say appropriated in the negative sense) multiple times is, “(Do You Know What It Means to Miss) New Orleans”, with music by Louis Alter and lyrics by Edgar De Lange. Louis Armstrong is on his signature trumpet, a phalanx of great jazz instrumentalists play on the flanks, and Billie Holiday’s voice captures the timbre necessary in any song about longing.

Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans And miss it each night and day? I know I’m not wrong, the feeling’s getting stronger The longer I stay away.

It is a song representative of this film’s failed ambitions as an embodiment of New Orleans’ spirit. But it is also a brilliant showcase for some of the great jazz figures working at this time – including instrumental performances by Woody Herman and his orchestra and a virtuosic performance of “Honky Tonk Train Blues” by pianist Meade “Lux” Lewis. Nevertheless, New Orleans’ most soulful performances always revolve around Armstrong and Holiday singing Alter and De Lange’s original compositions. Other soundtrack highlights include “The Blues are Brewin’” and “Farewell to Storyville”. The former exemplifies Holiday’s timeless appeal, her singing voice’s unornamented pathos that elevates the simplest of lyrics. The latter is the most context-dependent song in the soundtrack and occurs as the U.S. military orders the closure of the speakeasies and gambling joints of Storyville – a swinging elegy without defeatism. New Orleans is at its most enjoyable during these musical numbers, and the film just feels lost whenever Armstrong and Holiday are not present or when any of the supposed leads open their mouths to speak.

That Lubin and the film’s producers do not trust the soundtrack to carry New Orleans indicates an ironic misgiving towards jazz music itself. United Artists’ refusal to reward Armstrong and Holiday star billing over de Córdova and Patrick is probably rooted to then-contemporary reality that movie theaters in the American South refused to show films with black leads. In addition, jazz music – like in this film – was not yet completely in the mainstream. If it appeared in a Hollywood film (and elements of jazz often appeared in mid-century American musicals), it almost always would be presented and popularized by a white performer. This development is not exclusive to jazz, let alone artistic medium. The filmmakers, in New Orleans’ final third, muddle their message through such appropriation. “Cultural appropriation” at its most basic definition is a neutral concept, but the developments in the film’s closing scenes – intentional or otherwise – extend this appropriation by presenting a white person’s presentation of jazz as more acceptable to a general audience than a black person’s.

For New Orleans, it remains obscure in terms of Hollywood musicals, African-American cinema, and within the esteemed United Artists filmography. In the present day, it serves best as an exhibition for some of the most acclaimed jazz musicians and performers working in the 1940s. To those fans of the numerous black jazz performers appearing in the film, New Orleans is a bittersweet reminder of what may have been.

My rating: 6.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog (as of July 1, 2020, tumblr is not permitting certain posts with links to appear on tag pages, so I cannot provide the URL).

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

* In one scene in an orchestral concert hall, jazz is played as an encore to a classical music concert. It says volumes that the audience is beside themselves and that all of the members of the orchestra (and Richard Hagerman, playing their conductor) are transfixed.

[takaraphoenix]

Can you do "Once upon a time " for the show rant?

First of all, I’m sorry for making you wait so long?

And then, before we get into this: If you think fucking Frozen is a good Disney movie, then maybe don’t read this (and maybe, let’s be real, unfollow me because I will never miss an opportunity to put that burning garbage fire into its place when it comes up in conversation. It is literally the only thing I hate to such a petty degree that I can not go without insulting it for sucking so hard and making me lose my faith in Disney for literal years). Since that fucking movie made its way into this show, I will have to adress it and I will not be holding back about what a giant dump on the show that was. So, fair warning there.

I’ll try to keep this chronological. I’ll try to go through rough plotlines first and then dive into the characters.

So, let’s start at the beginning.

A young Phoe, growing up on Disney movies and loving them. So when an older Phoe discovers a TV show about the Disney princesses living in the Enchanted Forest together, well, I was over the moon.

The first two seasons were… a bit of a slow start. I enjoyed the concept behind it, I enjoyed the characters, but it was still pretty much a set-up and I only got really invested when the plot moved on from the first curse. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it was a really great intro and all, but it felt less…impactful. With the others, I can very clearly recall the impact they had on the story and also the things that happened but with the first two it’s all a bit vague, like “Yeah, yeah, that curse and Regina first turning good. Uhu. Wait. How did this last two fucking seasons? I feel like I’m completely blanking on what season 2 is about. Am I?”.

Ironically, the third season was also the one I consider both weak and good at the same time. But the scale became broader. It wasn’t just Storybrook anymore. It just became so much… more. They enriched the world they built.

I hate that they turned Peter Pan into a villain. What the fuck. I mean, seriously, what the fuck? That they played with the dynamics of characters, sure. But that they completely flip the tale is something that agitates me. Not to mention that the Peter Pan plotline was stretched out for far too long. It was not justified to last half a season. They were just wandering around Neverland aimlessly half the time and it could have really been condensed into a quarter season.

I have very conflicted feelings for the Wicked Witch plotline. I feel like they completely half-assed the Wizard of Oz storyline, cramming it together like that and just jumping ahead. Out of all the storylines, this one felt the most like they were… unsure how to handle the tale itself and like none of them had actually read the damn book? Was watching Disney movies as homework for your job okay, but reading a book was too much?

Season 4.

I have never been as drunk in my entire 26 years of life as I was when watching season 4A. My best friend and I got a lot of alcohol and frozen pizza, we started drinking and watching at 10 AM and through the entire day to binge this shit so we’d be done with it because our hatred for fucking Frozen is too strong to endure one episode at a time sober.

Thanks to the alcohol, I have barely any recollections about details of this half-season. The first half of the first episode and then it starts getting fuzzy because by the 20 minute mark, I was drunk as shit.

(Our drinking game for Once Upon a Time - yes, we established this to become A Thing for us after that plotline - is to take one shot at every Disney referrence. Each referrence only counted once. So not every single time Snow White enters the screen, we drink, but only when a new character is introduced for the first time, or when an item is very clearly out of the movies and such. Also every time Rumpel fucks Belle over. Every time Belle breaks up with Rumpel. Every time Emma does something that annoys us. And, in this half-season’s case, every time it does something very Frozen.)

So yes, I was shit-faced drunk within 20 minutes because of what fucks me over the most about Once Upon a Time.

They completely screwed the tales of The Wizard of Oz and Peter Pan over just last season, but with Frozen, they stuck sooo much with the source material that even the fucking embroidery on their dresses and the way they wore their hair was identical to the movie. Even the parents looked down to their clothes exactly like they did in their fucking movie. They included every last stupid, unnecessary character - even the dumb trolls that were completely unnecessary and out of place for Once Upon a Time and would have done better by adapting Frozen to fit into Once by having them consult the Blue Fairy. Something to tie Frozen into Once instead of adapting the movie one to one.

You never adapted a single Disney movie one to one. The closest you got was later on Brave, but other than that, you changed a shit-ton of things about all the movies. How did this garbage pile of a movie deserve such special treatment that it got not only an entire half-season to focus on it but also that it got to keep every last single little detail about its movie?

As a die-hard Disney fan, that infuriates me because it’s not fair. It’s not fair that the true masterpieces did not get the same respectful treatment when being adapted. It’s not fair that Cinderella was a COMPLETE throw-away character in the show that had only one episode to that point (and only got two more episodes down the road), that Ariel and Aurora were cut short too. That Snow White not once in the six season run of this show wore her iconic dress - not even in the flashbacks as a kid, where such a simple dress would have fit - but Elsa and Anna get to wear dresses that are perfect replicas of their movie dresses? It’s not fair. And that they chose the worst animated movie Disney ever made to get this special treatment just makes me even more upset.

It’d have upset me if it were any other movie too - to get a half-season super-true-to-original treatment - but that they chose this shitty movie for it just makes it infinitely worse.

Now. I do have to praise one thing about the fucking Frozen plotline though. The show tried really hard to fix this fucking mess of a movie. They actually tried to tie the real Snow Queen into this, they tried to make sense of Elsa’s “ooopsie daisy she got powers but we will never-ever explain why and how and oh well who cares we’ll make a fuck-ton of money out of this shit even if we totally half-ass any kind of logic on it”-powers. They did really-really good at trying to fix this mess, as far as I remember (like I said, all very fuzzy. Remember pretty white-dressed Snow Queen who was… uhm… Emma’s foster mom at some point but also the… aunt/grandma/unsure of Elsa and Anna? Really very drunk, sorry).

The second half of season 4 - before I slip into a total hate-fest on fucking Frozen, let’s move on and leave it at that - was better, but still kind of…

Ursula doesn’t make fucking sense.

I just… I mean. This universe literally has three Ursulas now. The great magical and way too underweight Goddess that Ariel tried praying to. Regina pretending to be said Goddess. And… there’s actually… Ariel’s aunt the “real” Ursula from the Disney movie (who by that logic ought to be the Goddess because she’s the daughter of Poseidon and thus a Goddesss)? Only that she is actually kind of not the real Ursula since she got nothing to do with Ariel’s plotline - aside from very obviously being her aunt - and she kind of gets a rehashed version of Ariel’s story.

She’s also clearly not a villain. Like. She didn’t even do the thing that made her a villain in the movie? So? How exactly did she ever end up with Cruella and Maleficent to become this feared trio of evil bad villains? That part just… really didn’t add up to me and feels like they retconned her in hard after they already used Ariel. I would have wished for more consistency and for more explaining on how exactly she fits into her own movie’s world and what exactly made her such an evil villain.

Cruella was handled really cool though. I like the idea of her actually having magic. It was interesting. I don’t understand why she got such a cheap and obvious wig, because that thing looks awful. Like, sure you don’t want to dye half your hair white, but can’t they at least try to make it look natural?

But I’m still pissed that they never pulled through with the 101 Dalmatian story. Pongo is owned by Archie. I had expected him to meet a love interest through Pongo. How did that never happen?

I also have to mention the Lilith plot that just… it felt like it was supposed to be heavy and impactful and I waited the entire final season for a pay-off - especially after we meet her dad Mushu the Dragon - but somehow it felt as though she was just… forgotten? I mean, that character is named after a pretty strong and important character from an entirely different mythology/religion. I was expecting a giant-ass pay-off for her storyline, but she just disappeared and was never heard of again.

Now, season 5 was actually my favorite season.

I hate that they fucked King Arthur over hard. It’s like… “If it’s based off a non-fairy tale, we can really fuck it hard, right? Yes? Good.”. Because Peter Pan and Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland (I am so getting into that mess of a spin-off that they half-completely retconned out when I get to season 6) and even Mulan - I mean, uhm, what exactly did she DO in the Enchanted Forest? She saved freaking China in the movie. So she should be like… from our world? Just like Dorothy and Alice and Wendy. So… uhm, how was that never explained? At all? She was nearly as much a throw-away character as Cinderella because they just didn’t care about her story at all and just used her as a prop.

So yeah, totally hate how Arthur was a bad guy, but totally loved Merida and her plotline. Even though the scenes of Merida and Rumpel talking to Emma were so hard for me to understand because of accents.

Now, main reason why I loved that season. The return of Ruby. I love Ruby. I literally need and want Ruby, Merida, Mulan and Dorothy to have their own spin-off. Like. That is what they should have gone with to keep this show going instead of whatever garbage fire season 7 is going to be (I’ll get into that later. One thing at a time).

Ruby had been gone and it had annoyed me to no end because she is Snow’s best friend. But they retconned that real well. I also liked how the Dwarves came back with a piece of their minds on being props and forgotten because that was what they had indeed felt like.

But I still think that Ruby turning lesbian was so because they had gotten heat from Disney. Because I do not believe for half a second that Disney approved of them making Mulan a lesbian. So instead Once turned toward their “own” characters - Ruby and Dorothy, aka the two not based on Disney movies. Still. I actually ended up shipping it.

Anyways.

The most ridiculous part about that half-season however was how Hook literally flipped a switch as soon as he realized he was the Dark One. Like. Woah. He didn’t even try to contain the darkness, he instantly let it embrace him when he realized like he gave himself up.

Moving on.

Hades. I mean, holy Hades, Hades was awesome. I just… If you’ve been around my tumblr for a bit, you know how much I fangirl about Dominic Sherwood literally doing anything? Yeah, I had the same level of fangirling about Greg Germann doing Hades. He was just so perfect and on point. He was literally the best cast ever. And that they kept the blue flame-hair just made me happy so much. Just… he was so amazing.

The thing that did bother me about this half-season was that Snow and Charming were down there. I mean. They had literally nothing to do in the underworld and for that quest to retrieve one soul - Emma, Henry and Regina would have been more than enough, especially considering that Snow White, Charming and Robin all had babies upstairs. They should have stayed upstairs with the babies. It was ridiculous to cram all those characters into this normally rather simple quest. They just didn’t have anything to do for so much of this season.

It was also the half-season where the “villain has a good core and can be turned good” trope became way overused.

Regina. Yes. The original for this.

Rumpel. Also yes, of course.

Maleficent, who just wanted her baby… okay.

Now Zelena.

And Cora.

And just… why would you try redeeming Cora? Cora is your one strong, pure villain. You keep giving every single villain a redemption arc, but if you literally track two of those directly down to Cora - Regina and Zelena - then don’t attempt to give the source of all evil a redemption story. It was so unnecessary and too much.

That Hercules and Megara were such throw-away characters in this also pissed me off. They really should have gone with leaving Snow and David upstairs and instead bring Herc in sooner and have him bond with Emma and help her and be a hero. Instead of retconning him into Snow’s past to be convenient. Why not let Emma make… a friend? Crazy thought, I know.

And then came the Jekyll/Hyde plotline. I think they brought too much of that in this season already. If you tease a new season with the last scene of the season finale, that’s fine, but if you focus like an entire episode of such a thing… that’s just too much.

Aladdin was cool. I think the whole “savior” arc was… very retconned in here though, considering that both Hercules and Mulan had more than just the potential to having been Saviors in their own rights. But this show established that Emma is the Savior. Now, all of a sudden, Aladdin is another previous Savior. As I just said; retconned in.

I also still think that instead of turning Arthur into a fucking villain, he should have been a great Savior. Because he is the once and future king, for heaven’s sake.

Now let me get into why this arc pisses me off.

What was the fucking point of Once Upon a Time in Wonderland?

I love spin-offs. I love elaborate universes. But why would you make a spin-off if it doesn’t fucking matter to you at all?

But they kept Will Scarlet. If they had at least not included him, then ignoring the spin-off would be simple. But him being in Once - and don’t get me wrong, I fucking adore Michael Socha and he was literally the reason I watched Wonderland. It just messed shit up even worse.

I mean. Not just did they recast Jafar, but they also completely disregarded Jafar’s canon from Wonderland, where he ought to be Jasmine’s half-brother because he was the sultan’s son. But the sultan was completely different, Jafar’s relations weren’t mentioned. It was a completely different story that had not an ounce of regard for the spin-off.

Not to mention how the Red Queen was Anastasia, aka Cinderella’s step-sister. But instead they elaborate Cinderella’s backstory with step-sisters that have completely different names than they do in the movies - why would you do that? Why? You did such a great job at keeping Cinderella looking like in the movie. She was so gorgeous. Why would you retcon her story into something non-movie related? This had been such a great way of tying Wonderland in but instead, it was disregarded.

Just how it was disregarded with Aladdin and Jasmine.

And that just pisses me off. A lot.

Now. Let me move on to the final season.

I consider the final season to be really very weak. Like. Seriously. If you know my stories, you know I love angst, but that season was even too angsty for me. Holy shit. Emma was just so angsty. It was hard to bear.

Then the rift between Rumpel and Belle again. The really not very likable character of their son and how they just aged him up via magic (a trope that I hate nearly more than the “added baby for the sake of adding a baby because we ran out of plot” at this point because it’s just… getting tired).

So yeah. Gideon had literally no character. He just… existed. And was so bland.

And the Black Fairy?

I know I’ve been using the term a lot in this, but she was so retconned in. And a disappointment.

Maleficent is the Black Fairy. That is literally who Maleficent is.

How do you bundle Pinocchio’s Blue Fairy, Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother and Aurora’s Merryweather all up into one Fairy, but you create two separate Black Fairies? That just pisses me off a lot.

They could have come up with something better. I wish they would have brought Maleficent and Lilith back for this final act. Heck, if you have to retcon Rumpel’s mom the Black Fairy into being Maleficent’s sister to justify this. Or just… ysomething. Anything. But what they did was… not enough.

And just one more thing that pissed me off.

That waste-of-space musical episode.

If you know me, you know I love musicals. I love musical episodes nearly more than actual musicals because it excites me to see how they fit it into the world. And nothing screams musical episode as muchas a TV show based on Disney movies.

But they completely wasted it.

I loved that they wanted to make the Hook/Emma wedding that musical episode.

But instead, it was all in the stupid so fucking retconned in flashbacks. In the most omnious shit-stunt they had ever pulled before. Holy shit.

I thought maybe Henry accidentally would get Storybrook cursed into singing because he wants the wedding to be perfect for his mom with all the shit going on, and it would be a truly in the now focused episode focusing about the wedding. The wedding was a total side-note in this episode and such a let-down. You know, just a fun musical episode about the wedding.

Not one where all the songs are between Snow and David and Regina and completely retconned in.

It was just… a giant-ass disappointment.

But I did however really like the grand finale with the picture-esque Last Supper imagery and the fact that Rumpbelle got to dance together and got their happy ending were just perfect.

Season 7 does not exist.

I just… really can’t. I really-really can’t.

I just this show so very much, I can’t watch them ruin it, I can’t allow them to make me hate this show. I love it too much to be able to endure that.

And I know they’ll make me hate it.

That they’re doing a “soft reboot” is in itself already bullshit. You do not reboot a show literally the second it ends. If you’d have ended it there and brought it back in ten years - five years, if you have to rush it and be greedy - or so, when Henry is older. Okay. Yeah.

But to do this now?

I’m sure they’ll pull explanations out of their asses. About why Snow and David won’t return as regulars. Why Emma the fucking main character and mom of the ‘new’ lead won’t return to the show. Why no one but Henry actually aged. Why they’ll now include multiple incarnations of the same fucking story. But I am too tired of them retconning things in to listen to them completely breaking the lore of this show just to make more money.

Because that’s what it’s about at that point. “Half the cast won’t be in it anymore? But we still wanna keep going? Let’s call it a soft reboot”.

And no. Just no.

Not to mention, it literally does break the lore of this show. The very foundation this world operates on.

The Author documents the stories. The very same stories get documented by different authors. That is why fairy tales had fdifferent authors and variations, why Walt Disney wrote them down differently. That was what the whole fucking point of this universe was.

And now they suddenly say “Heeey, there’s a Cinderella now married to Henry. but it’s a different Cinderella than the Cinderella you met in the original story. Because out of fucking reasons we now suddenly have multiple incarnations of the very same character just because we fucking can!” is just so weak. So very, very pathetic.

For years, that was not a thing that existed. There is one Snow White. One Cinderella. One of every single one and they all interacted and knew each other. How did they not know of other versions of themselves? How does the Author plot still make sense with that? It doesn’t. That’s just it.

And that they plan on bringing the freaking Princess and the Frog into this is even more ridiculous. Yes, she is the only black princess and I can understand the need to include her, but her story doesn’t resonate with how the world of Once Upon a Time works, because her tale was never the Frog Princess or the Frog King, it never even tried to be either of those fairy tales. It cleary had the actual fairy tale displayed in the movie and was referrencing “Oh, so it works like that, yeah?”, meaning this was never trying to be an adaptation of the fairy tale, it was just an original Disney movie essentially. Does that mean Once doesn’t just include idconic books and fairy tales… but also random, unrelated movies now? By that logic, what’s next? Star Wars, because it’s Disney too?

So how does that even remotely fit in? How much retconning do you hve to do to make that movie work in this universe? Definitely more than with fucking Frozen. (Even though Princess and the Frog is a wonderful movie and definitely better than fucking Frozen. But that has nothing to do with how little this fits together with the show.)

I just…

They obviously stopped giving a fuck. So I will stop watching, for the sake of my own sanity. It’ll be better for me.

Now. To wrap this up, I want to focus on the characters.

The weird thing is that… I don’t really care for Emma.

Normally, I either love a protagonist or hate them. But that I’m completely indifferent about them… that’s a first. She’s just very bland and neutral. It’s the rest of the cast that get me.

Like. All of them.

Hook is amazing and I love Regina and Rumpel is such a great complex character and just… all of them.

And the ships.

This show totally does the Disney thing by making me ship a lot of straights. A lot of canon ships. I normally rarely get on board of canon ships. The highest of my feelins is “Hey, this one doesn’t make me constantly roll my eyes or want to claw said eyes out. Yay.”. But with Once?

Charming/Snow

Hook/Emma

Rumpel/Belle above all else

Robin/Regina

Hades/Zelena

And just… all those regular Disney pairings too. It’s so easy to ship them. To love them.

I mean, OTP is totally Regina/Emma, which confuses me because I do love their canon matches.

Ruby though, I have special love for Ruby, because Red Riding Hood is literally my favorite fairy tale. And that she’s a werewolf and that she’s best friend with Snow - I did not understand what they pulled there until like season 5. That the English treats Schneewittchen and and Schneeweißchen as one and the same character and translate the RED Riding Hood and Rose RED as one and the same too…. Really weird. But sure. It works. (I don’t get why they gave Ruby the civil identirty of ‘Ruby’ and not of ‘Rose’  though considering they use her as both Red Riding Hood and Rose Red.)

So, yeah.

Overall, I really fucking love this show, but it sure as fuck ain’t flawless and I will not allow new flaws to drag it down for me.

[cinephiled-com]

New Post has been published on Cinephiled

New Post has been published on http://www.cinephiled.com/losing-head-anne-thousand-days/

Losing My Head Over ‘Anne of a Thousand Days’

This post is part of the blogathon, ‘TILL DEATH DO US PART: To Love, Honor, and…Murder, hosted by Theresa Brown of CineMaven’s Essays from the Couch.  “I’m looking for a few…good…murders,” Theresa said when she announced the blogathon. “And I’m specifically looking at the bumpy road of MARRIAGE.” While the statistics regarding actual spouse-on-spouse crime in the real world are quite depressing, murderous domestic intrigue in the movies is an important plot point of some of my favorite classic films. But when I first thought of the concept of “till death do us part” in the movies, my mind went straight to the story of one real-life couple who walked down the aisle a mere 484 years ago after altering the course of European history and changing a country’s official religion in order to do so. It was billed as the love match of the 16th century. Who could have predicted it would all go so horribly wrong in such a short time?

Anne of a Thousand Days is a lavish 1969 costume drama, directed by Charles Jarrott, about the relationship between King Henry VIII of England and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. The film was based on Maxwell Anderson’s successful Broadway play of the same name that starred Rex Harrison (who won a Tony Award for his performance) as Henry and Joyce Redman as Anne. So why did it take more than 20 years to get to the screen? Because the themes of the play, including adultery, children born out of wedlock, and incest were major non-starters in the movies thanks to the Motion Picture Production Code. It was only when such restrictions became more relaxed during the cultural shifts of the 1960s that it seemed possible to deal with these topics in a movie.

The film, released by Universal on December 18, 1969, was shot entirely in England and used locations such as the 14th century Penshurst Place and Hever Castle, the actual childhood home of Anne Boleyn. Originally, Hal Wallis wanted Peter O’Toole to star as Henry VIII but the part ultimately went to Richard Burton. I think he captures the spirit of the English monarch perfectly and I’m surprised to read that Burton never liked his performance in this film, even after he was nominated for an Oscar. To play Anne Boleyn, actresses such as Faye Dunaway, Olivia Hussey, Julie Christie, and Geraldine Chaplin were considered but the part ultimately went to 26-year-old French Canadian Genevieve Bujold who had appeared in King of Hearts a few years earlier with Alan Bates and had starred in a few small films that her then-husband Paul Almond wrote and directed.

  Genevieve Bujold gives an extraordinary star-making performance in this film, finding just the right blend of defiance, aristocratic sophistication, and acceptance of her sorry lot. Anne Boleyn had already been portrayed on the screen at this point, by actresses including Doris Lloyd, Merle Oberon, and Vanessa Redgrave, but, based on my own personal obsession with Tudor history and the many books I’ve read about the doomed queen, Bujold rose above the pack by channeling the very qualities that so attracted Henry VIII in the first place but which ultimately turned him against her.

Now that Anne’s ultimate fate had that much to do with her personality that differed so much from the wife that came before her — the pious Catherine of Aragon (Irene Papas), the daughter of Spain’s King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, or the one that came directly after — the mild-mannered and sickly Jane Seymour (Lesley Paterson). No, what happened to poor Anne Boleyn had everything to do with her bad luck at not being able to give the king what he wanted more than anything in the world: a male heir.

As we see in the film, Henry VIII was never one to shy away from a pretty face. His many affairs during his 20-year marriage to Queen Catherine were well known, including to Anne’s older sister, Mary Boleyn. When the king notices 18-year-old Anne in the Boleyn household, newly returned from her educational pursuits in France, he immediately takes an interest in the girl, enough have his trusted Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey (Anthony Quayle), put the kibosh on her planned wedding to the handsome son of the Earl of Northumberland. But Anne, after witnessing the pros and cons of her sister’s involvement with the king, has no interest in becoming the latest royal plaything. Nope, if she was going in, she was going in for keeps.

Although Henry and Catherine’s early marriage had been a happy one, producing the Princess Mary (Nicola Pagett of Upstairs, Downstairs), poor Catherine’s five other pregnancies did not have a happy result, and all ended in miscarriage, stillbirth, or infant death, and included the loss of several sons. By the time Henry noticed Anne Boleyn, Queen Catherine could no longer have children and Henry saw in Anne the possibility of finally getting the male heir that he so desperately wanted. Of course, Henry’s idea of divorcing the much-beloved Catherine was met with total incredulity by everyone at Court, including Anne. But the king would not be deterred, and when the Pope refused to consider the possibility of annulling the marriage, Henry took matters into his own hand, especially after Anne became pregnant, and broke away from Rome, declaring himself the head of the new Church of England. Catherine was exiled and Anne got a big coronation, even though people in the street openly jeered her as “The Great Whore.”

Would world history have changed dramatically if Anne had given birth to a healthy boy on September 7, 1533, instead of a cherubic red-haired girl she named Elizabeth? Yes, without question — on several fronts. Henry’s disappointment at the birth of his new daughter, after everything he had done to secure a male heir, was enormous, but things could have still turned around for the new queen if only her next child had been a boy. Indeed, she eventually got pregnant again and had great hopes for getting back in her husband’s good graces, despite his new interest in one of her Ladies-in-Waiting, the meek daughter of Sir John Seymour.

But alas, on January 29, 1536, on the very day of the funeral of the former queen and Anne’s former rival, Catherine of Aragon, poor Anne miscarried. This time it was a boy. That sealed her fate. In Anne of a Thousand Days, we see Richard Burton’s Henry explode in a rage of hysteria at his cursed marriage and subsequently order Thomas Cromwell (John Colicos) to find a way to get rid of his fiery albatross of a wife. It wouldn’t be easy. Another divorce was out of the question, so a more severe method would have to be found. Cromwell then proceeds to torture one of Anne’s servants, a musician named Mark Smeaton (Gary Bond) into falsely admitting that he had committed adultery with the queen, a treasonous offense with a penalty of death. But one lover wasn’t enough. Cromwell accused a series of men at court with similar crimes, even Anne’s own loving brother, George Boleyn (Michael Johnson), to add the stink of incest to the queen’s growing charges. At first Anne can’t believe her husband is behind such absurd accusations, but she soon feels the bitter sting of karma as she sees he’ll resort to anything for the prospect of a healthy son.

In a riveting scene that surely never took place in real life, Henry visits Anne in her Tower of London cell to say that he will agree to exile her in peace with their daughter as long as she agrees to their marriage being annulled and Elizabeth being declared a bastard. Anne refuses to consider this, choosing her daughter’s future over her own life, and spews an Oscar-worthy speech to her husband and king that their daughter will one day rule the land with authority and respect. “Elizabeth shall be a greater queen than any king of yours,” Bujold shouts with regal magnificence. “She shall rule a greater England than you could ever have built. My Elizabeth shall be queen, and my blood will have been well spent.” At that, a furious Henry storms out to search out the refreshingly meek Jane Seymour, and Anne’s head meets the blade of the master French swordsman.

Young Genevieve Bujold did get an Oscar nomination for her spectacular performance in this film, as did Richard Burton, Anthony Quayle, the three screenwriters, Hal B. Wallis, and several other behind-the-scenes craftspeople. The only person to win an Academy Award for the film, however, was costume designer Margaret Furse. Bujold did win a Golden Globe that year for Best Actress in a Drama. As for fiery real-life marriages, Richard Burton’s wife, Elizabeth Taylor, badly wanted to appear opposite her husband in this film, but, at 37, was considered too old to convincingly play young Anne Boleyn. Worried about any possible dalliance between Burton and the pretty young actress playing his queen, Taylor showed up on set anyway, and for a fee of $46, appeared in a few scenes as an uncredited extra!

While historians take issue with the way some of the fact were presented in this film, it remains a brilliant, riveting look at a sad chapter of the Tudor period. Of course, Jane Seymour did manage to give the king a male heir before dying herself 10 days later — the sickly Prince Edward, who reigned briefly following Henry VIII’s death, followed by the brief reign of his older sister Mary, Henry’s daughter with Catherine of Aragon. But, as we all know, Anne Boleyn had the last laugh when her 25-year-old daughter Elizabeth took the throne in 1558 and enjoyed a spectacular reign that lasted until her death in 1603. The beloved queen never married…hmm, wonder why? A few years after the release of this film, the BBC came out with a magnificent six-part series called The Six Wives of Henry VIII that remains my favorite depiction of this period. Actress Dorothy Tutin was so brilliant as Anne Boleyn that even though I was just a kid, I wrote her a fan letter which she answered. I was beyond thrilled — at the time I truly felt like I was getting a letter from royalty!

But Genevieve Bujold will always have a special place in my heart…and I’m not the only one. When Princess Diana was asked in an interview what her favorite movie was, her answer would send historians and conspiracy theorists into a frenzy for decades to come: Diana’s favorite movie was Anne of a Thousand Days.

Click here to read the other entries in the ‘TILL DEATH DO US PART blogathon.

[rhiannapadget112-blog]

Character Design

Before I began sketching ideas for character design I already knew what type of theme I wanted to approach. Just like the type of atmosphere I wanted to create through my environment, I wanted to be able to express the same through my characters. In order to do this, I would need to modernise the characters – as my environment is set in a futuristic era; but also to design them to fit into the ‘haunted’ atmosphere as the environment and overall concept does.

Main Character Design - Scarecrow

Soon as I found out that part of the overall assessment was to redesign some of the characters I automatically knew I wanted to do the Scarecrow. To me, there is nothing more haunting about a straw stuffed human-like body tied to a cross; and I knew I wanted to create something that if seen in real life, would scare someone as much as the idea of it scares me. Funnily enough, the same week I found out about this assessment, I had just watched the 2005 Batman Begins movie, which stars a supervillain, the Scarecrow – and what inspired part of my redesign.

I had a pretty clear idea of the type of Scarecrow I wanted to design based off similarities from the Scarecrow in Batman Begins. I liked the idea of my character’s face being hidden under a type of hood, as if symbolising that he is not showing his ‘true’ self. Other ideas I explored in depth were making the Scarecrow quite futuristic with armour, guns and maybe even a robotic arm or leg. However, I came to the conclusion that I did not want to make a robotic Scarecrow; as I felt this steered too far away from what I believe is the most haunting aspect about a Scarecrow, is that it is not real, stuffed with straw. Instead, I came to the conclusion that I wanted the Scarecrow to have a metal hand, something with sharp claws/knives coming from the tips of his fingers (similar to that of the syringe device on the famous fictional supervillain).

From completing the thumbnails, I had a clear idea of the look I wanted to go for. The most challenging part for me when it came to constructing my character, was figuring out what outfit he could wear that would express a certain theme. One of the main aspects in my final design is the long jacket seen upon the Scarecrow. In the final construction stage, I decided that I wanted the long garment to appear ripped and torn, possibly symbolising what he has been through. I also used the aspect of rope to not only symbolise the idea of constriction and being ‘tied’ down, but also to hold together the ‘loose clothing’. I believe the idea of the Scarecrow’s clothes’ being too big, relates back to the idea of him not being real and being ‘made’ from old clothes and straw.

Having depicted a clear idea of what I wanted to create in the thumbnail and construction stages, I felt confident in what I wanted my final design to look like. Gestural techniques that I learnt during the life drawing activity in the week previous, inspired my idea for the Scarecrow’s jacket. In my final design I really wanted to over exaggerate the curve of the jacket and how it sat on the character. Additionally, I also added stitching to the Scarecrows face and hood which may symbolise that he has been in fights previously to this adventure, and may have had to have been ‘fixed.’ Going along with the same idea of having to be ‘fixed’ I included the robotic hand/claw, to emphasis that he may have had it replaced. Both of these aspects I believe heighten the idea that he is not human.

Reflecting back on my final design, I am pleased at how I was able to use aspects of clothing to symbolise the personality of the Scarecrow to make him seem untrustworthy and suspicious – as well as designing him to fit into the haunting and futuristic theme of my Wizard of OZ redesign.

Secondary Character Design - Tin Man

Unlike how fast and enthused I was about redesigning the Scarecrow, the same did not happen for any of the other characters. I think this lack of enthusiasm came from me not having a clear indication in my head about what I wanted the other characters to look like. I did research on all three remaining characters Lion, Dorothy and the Tin Man; which I ended up leaning towards because I felt there was more I could create to make him quite interesting and special.

Previously mentioned, my idea revolves around that of a futuristic era, which got me thinking about the advancement in technology which ultimately led to the idea of robots. I did a little bit of research to gather some information about what future robots might look like, and how they have been depicted in movies. Below are just a few of the more ‘well-known’ ideas of robots that have been shared in our society through the use of the entertainment industry.

Going along the same lines as the big, bulky, weaponed up machines, I started to sketch a few similar designs, trying to spark an idea in my head. None of these big and powerful machines were connecting with me in a way that I felt the Tin Man represents. At this point I started reconsidering if I should change characters, and I actually decided to re-watch the Wizard of Oz to try and find some inspiration. During the movie the Tin Man has to use oil to be able to move which got me thinking that he is quite vulnerable. In saying, this I still wanted to stick to the idea of making him like a robot to fit with the theme. I came to the conclusion that I wanted the Tin Man to still take form of a robot but not one that is covered in armour and weapons – so I decided upon a robot that took form of a skinny and vulnerable one.

During the construction stage I knew I wanted to stick to the idea of having a ‘can’ like body – as his name after all is the Tin Man. However, to make him appear weak I thought about making parts of him sustainably smaller, for example his legs and arms. In the initial construction phase I was also set on keeping his ‘cone’ like head to keep some originality. To make this design seem less ‘block’ like with squares and rectangles making up his body, I decided to add in a few more elements. The first one being a somewhat ‘spinal skeleton’ showing from beneath his torso; this further addresses the idea that he is vulnerable by showing something that to us as humans, is an essential function of the human body.

At this point I still wasn’t truly convinced and happy about the design. Although in the movie he moves very stiffly, due to the idea of him being a futuristic robot, I thought that the design needed to show he can move swiftly. This idea led to me creating hip and knee joints that are rounded to show the fluidity he would have walking and making other movements. The last major design decision I made about the Tin Man was to add curves to his torso, not making it appear so square; I believe this is also a more modern style.

From the construction sheet to the final designs there was not much that I changed. I stuck to the idea of having smaller limbs which I think worked out well in the final design. There is a clear indication when you look at these final drawings that he appears to be weak with a somewhat ‘frail’ body. I added a few small details such as the bolts on his torso and shoes to show that he is a product, something that was made.

Despite struggling to come up with an idea in the beginning stages of this design, I am happy with the overall look. I believe I was able to re-design the Tin Man into something futuristic, without taking away some of his personality and perception of being vulnerable.

[mredlich21]

You know the concept of “narrowcasting”?  Where you target your content to a tiny tiny audience?  Welcome to a very narrow cast version of Sunday posts!  Just for those of you who are both Indian film megafans, and Golden Girls fans! (also, unrelated, don’t forget to vote for the next tweetalong/watchalong movie on Friday’s post!)

For those of you who are still reading this, I will start by giving the main theoretical underpinnings for my concept of a Golden Girls feature film, and then 3 separate casting options because I just couldn’t decide!

Firstly, as I see The Golden Girls, each of the main four characters have different times in their life when they truly felt their best, when everything was perfect.  I think this is one of the best parts of how the show presents end of life, because most people do have those times at some point.  And when you are in your 50s/60s, those times are usually behind you.  And all you can do is refer back to them in stories and try to remind the people around you of what you once were.

For Rose, it was her childhood, they even give a little backstory to explain it with her early years in the orphanage, that just served to make the later years of her childhood after her family adopted her that much sweeter.  And she has never quite lost that adorable childish side of her.

  For Blanche, it was her young adulthood.  It’s established that her childhood was not that happy, she never felt as loved as her siblings or like she belonged anywhere.  But once she hit puberty and started attracting and being attracted to boys, everything fell into place.  And she had all the love and support she always wanted.  Which is why she has never quite lost that wild teenage girl feel to her.

  For Sophia, I think it is now.  Notice most of her stories of the past are made up.  She has no interest in her “real” past, she would rather live in the moment when she can be as rude and wild and irresponsible as she wants.

But for Dorothy, that time still hasn’t come.  She was an awkward child, she lost her young womanhood in marriage and kids, and now she is in late middle age, still unloved and lonely and trying to find her place.

  And therefore, my Hindi movie version will have Dorothy as the main character, as she tries to find her happy ending!  With Rose and Blanche and Sophia in supporting roles with their own little b-stories.  And all of this based firmly on real episodes of the show.

Blanche’s b-story first, because it is the simplest.  Blanche isn’t really about deep emotions and inner conflict, she’s there to give amazing one-liners and physical comedy.  And, in the Hindi version, obviously a sexy item song.  I want to do just a quick variation on the season 1 episode 9 story “Blanche and The Younger Man”.  As in the original, she will be asked out by a much younger man (let’s make him her dance instructor so we can have a steamy dance number).  She wears herself out getting ready for the date, and when it finally happens, she learns in the middle of dinner that he just wanted to spend time with her because she reminds him of his mother.

But, in my Hindi version, after her date leaves, the maitre’d/restaurant owner comes over and asks her out, because he is so struck by her beauty.  And while he isn’t quite as young as the original date, he is still a good 5-10 years younger than her.

  Rose’s b-story, I want to use a few of her interactions with Miles.  Their first meeting of course, at a community dance in episode 6, season 5 “Dancing in the Dark”.  They love to dance together, but she thinks he is too intelligent and sophisticated to be interested in her.  She embarrasses herself at a faculty party with his university colleagues and feels like he has more in common with Dorothy when they spend time as a group.  But, in the end, he convinces her that her beauty and sweetness and special Rose-ness is all he wants.

That can be the beginning of her story, but I want to add on a couple of bits in the middle, just so we see Rose again.  Maybe something with the episode where she gets sick of how cheap he is and goes out on a double date with Blanche just so she can go to a nice restaurant, and then Miles catches her and they end up talking it out?  I like all the cheapness jokes in that one.  Or else the one where Rose feels like Miles has become boring and they go skydiving at the end.

  And as usual, Sofia doesn’t get an actual story, she just hangs around and makes wise-cracks about everyone else’s stories.  And then gives words of wisdom at the very very end.

  Now, Dorothy’s story is the complicated one!  I am going to combine 4 separate episodes and 3 separate storylines to give her the ending she deserves.

First, there is season 1 episode 14 “That Was No Lady”.  Dorothy is passionately in love for the first time in her life.  She’s never felt like this before.  She and a fellow teacher are sneaking out for long lunches and meeting in hotel rooms in the middle of the day.  But then she finds out he is married and won’t leave his wife for the sake of the kids.  At first she continues the affair because she loves him too much.  But in the end, she realizes she doesn’t like what she has become.

Now, as I picture it, Dorothy in my Indian film version goes through this romance pretty quickly and early.  And Rose’s first meeting with Miles is scattered into the middle of it. And then Dorothy’s first story is over and she returns to form as a somewhat acerbic and entertainingly unhappy person.  At which point, she gets a call out of the blue from her ex-husband, the man who ruined her life, Stanley.

And now we go into the two part “There Goes the Bride” from season 6.  Stanley has returned, and he is different.  Considerate and mature and caring.  But still the man she was married to for 38 years as well, familiar and safe.  She agrees to marry him.  Only on the day of the wedding, he asks her to sign a prenup, showing that he still doesn’t appreciate her and everything she does for him.  INTERVAL

Post interval, we have Blanche’s little filler story with the younger man while people get popcorn and find their seats again.  And then we go straight into a Dorothy story by a back way.  It seems like a continuation of Blanche, she is all excited about her new lover and doesn’t want to entertain her uncle who is coming into town, her father’s youngest brother.  So she tricks him into going out with Dorothy and they have a terrible time together.  Until they decide to play a trick on Blanche and pretend to be in love just to mess with her!  And then in the end, they really do fall in love of course.  But when they tell the news to Blanche, she refuses to accept the relationship, Dorothy is just too different to fit into her family, and to marry her uncle and become her step-aunt.  Her uncle is willing to live with her objections, but Dorothy can’t go against her friend, even if it means breaking her own heart.

Which brings us to “Cheaters” (season 5 episode 22) in which the married lover returns!  This seems like her happy ending, the first man she ever really fell in love with is now free and wants to marry her.  It’s all perfect!  Except that wise Sofia keeps giving him a hard time, and Rose and Blanche aren’t really sure either.  And then my little twist on the plot, in the end Blanche tells her that she is too good for him, she deserves a man who isn’t just marrying the first woman who comes along because he doesn’t want to be single after a divorce.  And while talking, Blanche realizes that Dorothy is wonderful like that and she was blind not to see it!  And rushes out to call her uncle and have him fly down and propose again.

And finally, Dorothy gets her happily ever after!  Married to a wealthy important man who adores her, about to start a new wonderful life, leaving her friends behind her.  And, of course, Rose and Miles and Blanche and her new beau are at the wedding too, and Sofia even gets a vision of her dead Sal in the big wedding dance number (think “Bole Chudiyan”).

(In my version, Dorothy’s wedding dress is considerably less hideous)

Beyond the general plot tweaks, it would clearly be set in Goa instead of Miami.  Rose would be from rural Tamil Nadu instead of rural Wisconsin.  Sofia would be a Punjabi partition refugee instead of an Italian immigrant, and Dorothy would have grown up in Delhi instead of New York.  And Blanche would be..what?  A local Christian Goan, I guess!

So, obviously, this is the perfect movie.  But who to cast?!?!?!?!?  I have been over and over this, and I am still not happy with all my choices.  And I had to come up with multiple casting configurations to make it all work (oh, and remember Estelle Getty was the same age as the others just wearing make-up!  So all 4 actresses should be the same generation):

Really really old classic 60s-70s actresses cast:

Blanche: Saira Banu

(I feel strongly that Blanche has to be played by an actress that was truly stunningly beautiful in her youth, just like Rue McClanahan was)

Rose: Waheeda Rahman

(Southern, sweet face)

Dorothy: Sharmila Tagore

(Confident, powerful personality)

Sofia: Helen

(So cute!)

Blanche’s younger man: Shahrukh

Blanche’s slightly younger man: Jackie Shroff

Miles: Dharmendra

Dorothy’s Married Boyfriend: Prem Chopra

(Obviously, he’s always the bad guy)

Dorothy’s ex: Amitabh

Dorothy’s final husband: Dilip Kumar

(Look how good they looked together!  Also, I’m pretending he doesn’t have severe dementia and can still act for this casting)

Sofia’s Sal in a vision: Salim Khan, obviously

  Kind of old 80s era cast:

Blanche: Shabana Azmi

(Remember, has to be stunningly beautiful in her youth!)

Rose: Sridevi

(Obviously she also fulfills the “stunningly beautiful” Blanche requirement, but Rose is a much harder role.  You need to be able to play silly-but-lovable, which Sridevi is particularly good at)

Dorothy: Ratna Pathak (so excited for her to get a leading romantic role!)

Sofia: Kirron Kher

Blanche’s younger man: Hrithik

Blanche’s slightly younger man: Shahrukh

Miles: Amitabh!  He is the perfect impressive professor type!

Dorothy’s married boyfriend: Naseeruddin Shah. I know, you think he would be the husband, but I think he can pull off charming but weak better than anyone else.

Dorothy’s ex-husband: Boman Irani. Perfect as a the lovable yutz!

(I don’t know what’s happening in this photo but I love it)

Dorothy’s final husband: Jackie Shroff. The perfect man, always.

Sofia’s Sal in a vision: Anupum Kher, of course.

  Really too young for these roles 90s edition:

Blanche: Madhuri

(Just in case we needed proof that she was stunningly beautiful as a young woman)

Rose: Juhi Chawla

Dorothy: Dimple Kapadia

(I know she seems older than the others, but she isn’t really.  Was just launched a lot younger)

Sofia: Rani Mukherjee (picture like in Dil Bole Hadippa.  Heavy make-up just frees something insane inside of her!)

Blanche’s younger man: Tiger Shroff?  But really, who is too young for Madhuri?

(Most importantly, he can dance really well!  I want my Madhuri item numbers!)

Blanche’s slightly younger man: Ranbir Kapoor

(I fully believe that he would fund and produce this movie himself, if we gave him a chance to play opposite Madhuri)

Miles: Shahrukh!  I want to see him playing a glasses wearing professor

(Plus, he and Juhi always have a great time together)

Dorothy’s married boyfriend: Rishi Kapoor, clearly

Dorothy’s ex-husband: Boman Irani (still the perfect yutz)

(Maybe we give him a bad wig to help with the characterization?)

Dorothy’s final husband: Sunny Deol!  Or Jackie Shroff?  I can’t decide.

(Who seems better with her?)

  So, which cast is best?  Or would you mix and match between them?  And are there better options I missed for certain roles?

Silly Sunday Speculative Post: Golden Girls Edition! You know the concept of "narrowcasting"?  Where you target your content to a tiny tiny audience?  Welcome to a very narrow cast version of Sunday posts!  

[pointofgeeks]

New Post has been published on http://www.pointofgeeks.com/media-round-up-january-movies-2017-movies-to-see/

Media Round Up - January Movies 2017 - Movies to See

Happy New Year! The world has revolved around the sun one more time and we are back in the month of January, also known as a the graveyard for studio’s defective films. But every now and then a gem emerges from the ashes. So hold your nose and let’s see what we can dig up this month!

    January 6

    Underworld: Blood Wars

  Stars: Kate Beckinsale, Theo James, Charles Dance

Director: Anna Foerster

Official Synopsis:

Under the new leadership of Marius, the Lycans have increased in numbers and strength and have decimated many of the vampire covens throughout the world. With the Vampire race being on the brink of extinction, it is up to Selene to save the very coven which banished her and hunted her down as a criminal. Selene must become stronger than ever to defeat what’s in store for her next.

Even though the Underworld franchise has everything that I would want from a movie, (stylistic action, vampires, and werewolves) the production values have kept me at arm’s length since the first installment. There seems to be smarter choices for this weekend, but nostalgia will surely bring some back to the theaters to check out Selene one more time.

    Hidden Figures

  Stars: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Kevin Costner, Janelle Monáe, Mahershala Ali, Kirsten Dunst, Jim Parsons,

Director: Theodore Melfi

Official Synopsis:

“Hidden Figures” is the incredible untold story of Katherine G. Johnson (Taraji P. Henson), Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) and Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe)—brilliant African-American women working at NASA, who served as the brains behind one of the greatest operations in history: the launch of astronaut John Glenn into orbit, a stunning achievement that restored the nation’s confidence, turned around the Space Race, and galvanized the world. The visionary trio crossed all gender and race lines to inspire generations to dream big.

This may be one of the highlights of the month. Hidden Figures is the rarely told story of real-life geeks who made a huge impact on the world during the space race last century. History is full of women and people of color who’s achievements and contributions have been minimized or simply erased. Hopefully this movie has the right stuff. 

    January 13

    Sleepless

  Stars: Jamie Foxx, Michelle Monaghan, Dermot Mulroney, Gabrielle Union, Tip “T.I.” Harris, Scoot McNairy

Director: Baran bo Odar

Official Synopsis:

“Sleepless” stars Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained,” “White House Down”) as undercover Las Vegas police officer Vincent Downs, who is caught in a high stakes web of corrupt cops and the mob-controlled casino underground. When a heist goes wrong, a crew of homicidal gangsters kidnaps Downs’ teenage son. In one sleepless night he will have to rescue his son, evade an internal affairs investigation and bring the kidnappers to justice.

It seems that everyone wants to get their own John Wick-styled throwback action-flick nowadays. It only seems natural for Jamie Foxx to throw his hat into the ring. The buzz is nonexistent for Sleepless. Honestly the trailer makes the movie look barely acceptable for theatrical release, however there aren’t a lot of quality action-thrillers this month. 

  Monster Trucks

  Stars:  Lucas Till, Barry Pepper, Danny Glover, Rob Lowe, Frank Whaley

Director: Jim O’Hanlon

Official Synopsis:

Looking for any way to get away from the life and town he was born into, Tripp (Lucas Till), a high school senior, builds a Monster Truck from bits and pieces of scrapped cars. After an accident at a nearby oil-drilling site displaces a strange and subterranean creature with a taste and a talent for speed, Tripp may have just found the key to getting out of town and a most unlikely friend.

While we aren’t sure what will be the best movie of the month, we are certain what will be the worst… 

Monster Trucks looks like a concept for an early 90’s Saturday morning cartoon show. It’s incredible that this movie exists and was made reportedly on a very high budget. This movie is the very definition of insanity. 

    January 20

    xXx: The Return of Xander Cage

  Stars: Vin Diesel, Samuel L. Jackson, Tony Jaa, Donnie Yen, Deepika Padukone, Toni Collette, Conor McGregor

Director: D.J. Caruso

Official Synopsis: The third explosive chapter of the blockbuster franchise that redefined the spy thriller finds extreme athlete turned government operative Xander Cage (Vin Diesel) coming out of self-imposed exile and on a collision course with deadly alpha warrior Xiang and his team in a race to recover a sinister and seemingly unstoppable weapon known as Pandora’s Box. Recruiting an all-new group of thrill-seeking cohorts, Xander finds himself enmeshed in a deadly conspiracy that points to collusion at the highest levels of world governments. Packed with the series’ signature deadpan wit and bad-ass attitude, “xXx: Return of Xander Cage” will raise the bar on extreme action with some of the most mind-blowing stunts to ever be caught on film.

Aside from the fact that Vin Diesel simply is too old to pull off being an extreme athlete convincingly at this point, it’s even more troubling that his xXx character is indistinguishable from his role as Dom Toretto in the Fast and Furious franchise. What this sequel does have going for it is Donnie Yen, who is fresh off of one of his biggest breakthroughs with Rogue One. Yeah, this might be arguably the biggest movie of the month, but only by default.

    January 27

    Gold

  Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Edgar Ramirez, Bryce Dallas Howard, Corey Stoll, Toby Kebbell

Director: Stephen Gaghan

Official Synopsis:

“Gold” is the epic tale of one man’s pursuit of the American dream, to discover gold. Starring Oscar winner Matthew McConaughey (“Interstellar,” “Dallas Buyers Club,” “The Wolf of Wall Street”) as Kenny Wells, a modern day prospector desperate for a lucky break, he teams up with a similarly eager geologist and sets off on an amazing journey to find gold in the uncharted jungle of Indonesia. Getting the gold was hard, but keeping it would be even harder, sparking an adventure through the most powerful boardrooms of Wall Street. The film is inspired by a true story.

While his star isn’t shining as bright as it once was, we are still in the tail end of the MacConaugheissance. Matthew McConaughey is still one of the more engaging actors to go on a journey with. The movie is based on real events of a modern day gold digger and certainly looks different from other offerings this month. 

  Split

  Stars: James McAvoy

Director: M. Knight Shyamalan

Official Synopsis:

Writer/director/producer M. Night Shyamalan returns to the captivating grip of “The Sixth Sense,” “Unbreakable” and “Signs” with “Split,” an original thriller that delves into the mysterious recesses of one man’s fractured, gifted mind. Following last year’s breakout hit “The Visit,” Shyamalan reunites with producer Jason Blum (“The Purge” and “Insidious” series, “The Gift”) for the film.

While the mental divisions of those with dissociative identity disorder have long fascinated and eluded science, it is believed that some can also manifest unique physical attributes for each personality, a cognitive and physiological prism within a single being.

Though Kevin (James McAvoy) has evidenced 23 personalities to his trusted psychiatrist, Dr. Fletcher (Betty Buckley), there remains one still submerged who is set to materialize and dominate all the others. Compelled to abduct three teenage girls led by the willful, observant Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy, The Witch), Kevin reaches a war for survival among all of those contained within him—as well as everyone around him—as the walls between his compartments shatter apart.

The name Shyamalan used to be synonymous with thought-provoking horror. However, nowadays the name is more known for provoking horrible reviews. Split seems to be a pretty ambitious project and McAvoy is clearly giving it his all. Will this mark the beginning of a comeback for Shyamalan? We will find out in a few weeks.

    Resident Evil: The Final Chapter

  Stars: Milla Jovovich, Ali Larter

Director: Paul W.S. Anderson

Official Synopsis:

Picking up immediately after the events in “Resident Evil: Retribution,” Alice (Milla Jovovich) is the only survivor of what was meant to be humanity’s final stand against the undead. Now, she must return to where the nightmare began – The Hive in Raccoon City, where the Umbrella Corporation is gathering its forces for a final strike against the only remaining survivors of the apocalypse.

Yikes. At one time the original Resident Evil was thought to be a decent beginning for the video game movie genre. However, things never got better from that point after nearly two decades. Hopefully, this is a merciful end to the franchise that would benefit from a complete reboot and overhaul.

  Those are some of the offerings for this month. Admittedly, it seems like a terrible 30 days at the theater…but you never know until you check them out. When you see ’em…let us know what you thought of January’s films in the comment boards, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter! 

Source: ComingSoon