#not meant as hate toward the original version of this post! we just have vastly different opinions lol

[greaterspawnislands]

credits to @manmadesunshine for remaking this meme. all of phil's characters serve cunt and im tired of pretending like they don't

[not-xpr-art]

Art Deep Dives #1 - The Value of Art ~

Hi everyone!

This is the start to another project I want to start on this account, a companion to my Art Advice tag, and each week or so I’ll be ‘deep diving’ into art history, arts & culture, society’s relationship to art, etc etc... (I basically want to make use of my history of art degree, and also because I genuinely love talking about this stuff... especially without the pressure of deadlines lol)

Side note: don’t worry about these being really ‘academic’ or ‘formal’, since neither of those things are in my vocabulary lol... this is a very casual, informal kind of ‘essay’ writing that I want to be accessible to everyone, regardless of how much you know about art! 

This first one is a kind of follow up of my Art Advice post talking about references, and I’ll be talking about the ideas of how we ‘value’ art.

(this is about 1600 words long by the way...)

The Value of Art

It’s no secret that art is highly subjective. Particularly when it comes to the question of ‘what is the most important type of art?’. It changes from person to person, country to country, and era to era. How we define ‘great art’ now is vastly different to how we defined it several hundred years ago. I mean, just look at the kinds of art in galleries in the modern era (Tracey Emin’s bed comes to mind) versus that of the 18th century (with the likes of Joshua Reynolds, JMW Turner and Thomas Gainsborough). Really, it’s clear to see that what we see as ‘the most important type of art’ is forever changing...

Or... is it?

In order to really answer whether the kinds of art we value now versus that of the past has changed, we need to first establish what ‘valued art’ even means. 

I think in today’s day and age, ‘value’ is often synonymous with ‘price’. So, a Banksy original chipped away from it’s original wall setting and having been sold at a Christies auction for £3.2million is, by this definition, what we as a society ‘value’ as art... Right? Or maybe ‘value’ is more to do with what kinds of works that are displayed in big galleries or public spaces? The Tate has an entire wing dedicated to the works of landscape/seascape painter JMW Turner, so surely that means that we today place a high ‘value’ on his work still? What about public sculpture? Architecture? Sculpture and architecture are often a lot more available for the general public, and even if most people wouldn’t be able to tell you who made the Statue of Liberty, they at least know about her and perhaps even enjoy to look at her? And surely the fame of buildings like the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal mean that they, too, are ‘valued’ as pieces of art? And what of artworks from other countries and cultures? A Chinese man may find no ‘value’ in a painting by a so-called ‘Great Master’ of the Italian Renaissance, but instead will ‘value’ a piece of Imperial Ming Dynasty porcelain instead, does that mean his opinion is the ‘right’ one? Colonialism has played heavily into what arts are now called ‘valuable’ and what are not, so how do we quantify whether a work has ‘value’ without placing our own individual cultural bias on it?

Basically what I’m getting at is, what we value as art in this day and age is very complicated, in a big way because our society is complicated. But for the sake of arguments, and for my next few points, I will be defining an art’s ‘value’ predominantly by whether it has been featured in a big gallery... Which also means I’ll be focusing on painting and sculpture... And also focusing on the Western world of art, specifically Europe, which I want to clarify doesn’t mean I personally ‘value’ that art more, it’s just where I’m from and predominantly what I studied in my course... 

Art historians often declare the Renaissance (around the 14th to 16th centuries) the ‘beginning’ of what we know as art today. But for this essay, I want to instead start a little before this, in the Early Medieval period. People often know of this era as ‘the dark ages’, in Europe at least, because it was after Rome had fallen and taken all their so-called ‘genius’ with them. A particular note for why for years we’ve seen this period as ‘regressive’ is through their art. A quick Google search of ‘Medieval baby’ will come up with a plethora of results for a wide range of paintings depicting babies (usually the baby Christ) as scaled down versions of adults, complete with receding hairlines and strangely buff arms and chests. 

Now, is this because medieval babies actually looked like this? I think this is... highly unlikely... I know most things happened earlier in that era than nowadays (girls getting married and pregnant at age 14, for example), but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to think their babies had six packs... No, instead it’s more likely that rather than being direct representations of babies, these were purely symbolic. And particularly given how they often were of Christ, art historians often say that the weird adult-baby hybrids are to represent Christ’s divinity. 

Now... What’s all this got to do with art and value? Well, the thing about early medieval art is that the value was almost entirely placed upon the symbology and meaning of a piece. Later in the medieval period, paintings began to become more ‘realistic’ to some extent, but it still for the most part stayed true to this idea of symbolism over representation. 

That is, until we get to the Renaissance and all of that gets thrown out of the window because artists want to be able to paint babies that actually look like babies, thank you very much! And with the likes of Leonardo da Vinci championing for art to become a science, surely this means that the kinds of art that was valued in this era were highly accurate portraits or landscapes... Right?

Short answer? No. 

Long answer? Well, portraits and landscapes had their place in the hierarchies of art. Portraits were often commissioned by wealthy patrons, and were basically ways of the artist showing off how good their portrait skills are. And landscapes were less important, more seen as ‘nice backgrounds’ than anything else. But the art that was highly valued by most wealthy patrons and art connoisseurs of the time was... (imagine a drum roll here please) 

History painting! These are basically big biblical or mythological scenes, often with a lot of figures doing a variety of things (think Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel), often with some pretty landscape as the backdrop, and often featuring a couple of portraits in the mix (including one of the patron who commissioned it, probably being blessed by the Virgin Mary, and a cheeky one of the artist peeking out from behind a bush or something...). From the Renaissance era up until basically the mid 19th century, History paintings were seen as the most important works of art to be featured in galleries. 

And really, things only really began to change when we reached the end of the 19th century, with the development of photography. 

Photography, and film, both lead to a massive shift in not only the kinds of art that are produced in the 20th century, but also the kinds of art that are valued. For so long art had been the main form of representation of society, and the advent of photographs meant that art had almost lost that ‘purpose’. Not to mention the leading towards a more secular society which no longer had a need for symbolic or spiritual artworks. 

So, the only place art could really go was to become a form of expression instead. The likes of artists like Picasso and Braque pioneering cubism, being about new ways of representing the world. The Surrealists delving into ideas of the subconscious. Pop-Artists like Warhol looking into media and consumerist society, and the list goes on... 

Which brings us onto my most hated period in the history of art: Conceptual art. 

I’m not going to go big into this period, which is still around today (unfortunately), but all you need to know is this twat Marcel Duchamp flipped a urinal (which he didn’t even make himself) upside down and called it a ‘fountain’ and shoved it into a gallery and thus art that has no value beyond it being ‘concept based’ was born. And yes, yes I hate it a lot (I’m not even trying to be objective about this, I hate conceptual art with a burning passion... some guy put some sh*t in a box and put it in a gallery & called it art and I am SO mad about it lol...). And as much as I hate this period, what it does signify is how art began to be valued not through the craftsmanship of the work itself, but instead the ideas. 

And this idea remains today. Damien Hirst has forged his entire art identity on creating works that are based entirely on some ‘meaning’ that could be forced onto it, rather than the aesthetic or material value. And as mentioned before, Tracey Emin’s infamous bed isn’t about the work and effort gone into the piece itself, but instead about what the artists intends for the piece to ‘mean’. So, the ‘value’ of the work is what it says, and not what it is, essentially. 

(This is not to say that there are no artists who work today that get featured in galleries and are highly skilled at their craft. The one that springs to mind is Grayson Perry, who’s well known for his pottery and tapestries with some kind of social commentary bled into them.)

This ideology around art also bleeds into online spaces of art (which I see as distinctly separate from the world of art galleries and the Turner prize). I still see artists, and non-artists, talking about how much they enjoy work that is ‘original’, and oftentimes ridiculing and demoting ‘fanart’ as purely ‘derivative’ or ‘unoriginal’. 

And all this brings us back to history paintings. Because their ‘value’ wasn’t just in the immense amount of skill that went into them. A large part of their ‘value’ was that artists and non-artists alike saw them as feats of the artist’s ‘genius’ or ‘imagination’ at play. And in the same way that Early Medieval art was valued for the symbology of the piece rather than the representation, history paintings had the benefit of including both elements. In essence, they were both meaningful AND beautiful. 

In conclusion (just to remind you that this is technically an essay lol), a lot about art HAS definitely changed in the last few hundred years, particularly in what kinds of art is getting made now (and why we make art in the first place). However, what we as a collective society ‘value’ as art has remained surprisingly the same, often with a heavy preference for a work’s meaning and symbology, which can sometimes overshadow the craftsmanship of the work itself. 

I still hate that godforsaken Duchamp toilet though...

(images used:

unknown medieval painting (I just liked that he had his hand down mary’s dress lool)

mona lisa by da vinky 

detail of the creation of adam on the sistine chapel by michelangelo

a photograph by louis daguerre, often known as the father of photography

*clenches fist* ‘fountain’ by marcel duchamp

‘my bed’ by tracey emin )

I hope you enjoyed this informal essay about art, I will definitely be doing more of these in the future! If you have any thoughts on this, feel free to reply to this or message me, etc! I love having open and frank conversations about art! 

[danwhobrowses]

Why ‘The Karate Kid Part II’ Deserves More Respect

So guess what film I finished watching today? Of course, the Karate Kid franchise is considered iconic mainly for its first entry; Wax on Wax off, Skeleton fights, Sweep the Leg and the Crane Kick all cemented its legacy that allowed Cobra Kai to also be such a success. But imagine my shock when the approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes for Part II is 45% - 21% lower than the Jaden Smith ‘The Karate Kung Fu Kid’ version (and Part III is scored 15%, which is also super harsh but hard to debate outside of the magnificence of Terry Silver). Originally this was just gonna be a general post of how much I enjoyed retreading Part II, but upon seeing that score I had to give it my ‘Deserves More Respect’ posts.

It is an off-chance, but if you haven’t watched this film there will be spoilers within, I encourage you to watch it before reading, and maybe watch it again if you have so it’s fresh in the mind

Let’s start with a controversial point shall we? There are several parts where Part II is actually better than the original. Now I know! There’s a lot about the original which is iconic, but nostalgia does blind you to other shortcomings and while it’s easy to sell the first part because of its mystique, a sequel has the added pressure of rising above and developing on old and new themes set by the predecessor. The Premise In case you decided against refreshing your memory. Karate Kid Part II starts with a recap of Part I, a bit of content that was meant to be Part I’s final scene (in the script, not for filming) and then a timeskip. Ali with an i is gone - brutally dumping Daniel for some Football Player before Senior Prom and after crashing his car, Daniel’s mother is in Fresno for work and Miyagi has received a letter from his home Okinawa in news of his father’s fading health. The stage is set for Daniel and the audience to learn more about the iconic Mr. Miyagi and the life he left behind. Okay, so there is bad in this film Part II deserves respect, but it’s not perfect. It definitely gets messy near the end with Daniel’s antagonist Chozen, he mainly took beats from Johnny Lawrence in physically confronting Daniel when he could with a bunch of no-named goons and he fought pretty similarly to Johnny in catch counters and leg strikes. The opening recap did take a lot of time too, while the ending remained somewhat abrupt having just beaten up Chozen to embrace Kumiko (who had a delayed recovery after being punched once). While not bad, a fair amount of retreaded content felt like downgrades of the original; Chozen and Sato lacked the charisma of Johnny and Kreese, the crane kick was far more impressive than the drum technique and the Tournament setting was grander than the O-Bon festival. But, there are Iconic Moments in this film too Part I may have the Crane Kick and the Skeletons and the Training and Sweep the Leg. But people may forget that Part II had awesome moments too.

Like Daniel chopping through 6 Sheets of Ice! If that isn’t one hell of a power play I don’t know what is. It is a moment genuinely impressive in and outside of the 80s cheese universe of Karate Kid, and it gets referenced in Season 2 of Cobra Kai.

Also referenced in Season 2 is Miyagi vs Kreese. While this is the intended ending for Part I, it certainly acted better at the start of Part II, especially given that is foreshadows the situation Daniel finds himself in at the end of the movie. This moment is equally iconic as it completely encapsulates the character of both senseis - Kreese the confident brute brought to a sniveling mouse when size and power failed him and Miyagi the cool-headed and vastly more intelligent fighter still with the cheeky prankster lightness to him as he honks the scared shitless Kreese on the nose. Perfect.

While I did want to cite the Tea Ceremony as well I think the more iconic moment for Part II had to be Miyagi chopping the log during the storm. The storm itself is a very well-done scene which unmasks several characters in the face of adversity. True tension, worry and stakes are sold as the village are in danger of the cruel whims of nature, an act which is all too real for Sato when the house he’s in collapses on him in the calm before his scheduled deathmatch with Miyagi. Not only is this again some great foreshadowing by the rule of three (Daniel asking if Miyagi can chop a log like Sato is doing with a banner and then Miyagi and Sato meeting and seeing Sato fail to chop a log) it proves a pivotal point where Sato turns from aggrieved antagonist to repenting ally. A great show of power and friendship as Miyagi metaphorically breaks the rift between their friendship that weighs Sato down. Okay, we hear you, but how is it better? I do have to preface that I do still love Part I, I have to because in pointing out where Part II is better I have to pick at Part I’s faults. While the ending is messy Part II definitely has much better pacing, until the skeletons scene Part I doesn’t really pick up because it has to set up, Part II while it does recap doesn’t need to worry about it. Giving Miyagi the main plot was definitely Part II’s strongest suit. Part I profited from Miyagi being the ‘mysterious old teacher’ but learning a lot more about his humanity and history was engrossing and it allowed positive development for Miyagi and Daniel, especially their bond as a surrogate father and son when Daniel personally goes out of his way to support Miyagi on a very personal matter. The main characters maintain their charm as well, still a lovely array of life lessons in Part II more than just finding balance, Miyagi teaches Daniel through words and action on taking time to breathe, to refocus when imbalanced, to forgive rather than to harbour hate, mercy, selflessness and humbleness

“never put passion before principle. Even if win, you lose.” - Mr. Miyagi

The scenes involving Miyagi and his father were some of the most deep and emotive of the series up until Cobra Kai, some still haven’t been topped such as Miyagi’s dad’s first words to his son or when Daniel talked about when his father died.  And say what you will about Chozen, he does have a lot of Johnny vibes but a lot of the character we believed was Johnny due to nostalgia goggles was more fitting of Chozen’s manner. The story did a great job in making sure Chozen was always an asshole, at times Johnny did at least display honour and grace but Chozen was always sore about stuff and quick to claim dishonour even when he was in the wrong. Contrary to Johnny it’s more about his family than it is about a girl, which allowed a lot more freedom in the plot. Whether you felt Elizabeth Shue’s Ali with an i was prettier than Tamlyn Tomita’s Kumiko is up to personal preference, but the messy-haired Kumiko definitely had a slightly improved presence in Part II than Ali did, with actual focus on her own feelings outside of attraction to Daniel, her ambition to become a dancer directly linking to the O-Bon Festival - which in turn related to the Drum technique - as well as the delicately beautiful Tea Ceremony scene and actually contributing to the final fight (granted Ali wouldn’t be allowed to). Also Daniel didn’t try to eat her face which is a general improvement to the romantic subplot, extra applause has to go to Tomita here too because this was legitimately her first role - Shue had her second so that’s impressive too - and both women had good careers going forward. The increased stakes definitely worked in the favour of Part II as well, as sequel culture is forced to do, but by moving to Okinawa (actually filmed in Hawaii) we opened the door to better suit Miyagi’s world while keeping Daniel the fish out of water. I can’t speak too much for appropriation because there is still kinda some ‘white saviour’ undertones but I didn’t feel like Japan was treated negatively in this light, its culture of the O-Bon Festival and the Tea Ceremony was treated with the utmost respect and explained without pandering, the flute music had definitely stepped up its game for the soundtrack as did the imagery. Can also appreciate that Daniel does go for the Crane kick when fighting Chozen but is parried. Added hat tip has to go to costuming too. A lot of costumes would have to have distinct Kamon such as Sato’s twin fish and Miyagi’s bonsai on a lot of their clothing

Between Sato and Miyagi the colours of their clothes often code their emotions towards each other, with Sato usually in grey and Miyagi in white or cream, when Sato and Miyagi prepare for death they are in black and when Sato wants forgiveness he moves to a lighter shade. While Part I also used black and white to differ Johnny and Daniel, Part II put Chozen and Daniel in the more Japanese-themed Red and Blue. While both men wear red, blue and whites at time, Chozen’s clothes almost devolve from the white he debuts in as his darker side comes out before flat out embracing yellow after his chance to prove his honour in the storm is refused (and he’s in white then), while Daniel often moves to Red or red tones even in his blue shirt. Kumiko also moves from white to blue, sometimes even purple, in set up to the final fight to have the primary colours stand out in the colourful crowd of the O-Bon festival, but even in the blue Kumiko had red to pair her connection with Daniel. Also her Yukata at the festival is just stunning, the Great Wave off Kanagawa print is a nice touch.

Anything else we should know? It might not be much else about the film itself I can tell you, but I do appreciate something I’m starting to call ‘The Rocky Connection’ when it comes to Karate Kid. Like Part I’s ‘You’re the Best (Around)’ was shortlisted for Rocky III, Part II’s song ‘Glory of Love’ was shortlisted for Rocky IV’s theme, losing to ‘Hearts on Fire’, Bill Conti also chose to score this film instead of Rocky IV. I like to pair this with Daniel’s Rocky-esque character, he has that same kind of swagger but a lot more naive and childlike. Martin Kove also gets a nod because those bleeding hands were legit, he had an accident on-set and the footage was kept for the final cut. Tamlyn Tomita wasn’t the only film debut for Part II, B.D. Wong of...well, several famous roles including but not limited to Shang in the animated Mulan, Dr. Wu in the Jurassic Park franchise, Hugo Strange in Gotham and many more, also had his debut here in a minor speaking role when he’s handing out flyers for the dance party to Kumiko and Daniel before the Ice Chopping Scene. So, why does it deserve respect A film that adds to a beloved character in a respectful fashion without having really any god awful moments does not deserve a 4.5/10 rating. It may not have as emphatic an ending or as great a villain but it has a captivating plot and a good pace, better stakes and much more emotionally driven and responsive scenes. A lot of effort and dedication went into this film to explore new dimensions of the main characters in a fashion which was enjoyable and at times heartwarming. And characters are given human moments, even Miyagi confesses himself not to be perfect and it keeps each character grounded. Even to this day parts of Part II are remembered fondly rather than the campness that Part III had outside of Terry Silver and his magnificent ponytail, the fondness also continues to reflect in Cobra Kai with homages and fan theories of Daniel going to Okinawa again and even re-encountering Chozen. Not to mention it grossed $113m on a $13m budget and got nominated for a Best Original Song Oscar (losing to Top Gun) Part II was a good and enjoyable film which deserves far more credit than to be rated this low, for that it deserves respect.

[sage-nebula]

So . . . about that Pokémon Direct.

To be honest, I don’t really feel any anger over it. It’s more like . . . resigned annoyance. And I realize that this is a bit dangerous, because I felt the same way when the news was first leaked that the 20th anniversary movie was going to be a weak excuse for an AU rather than the tribute we all deserve, only for fiery rage to come later (and to be honest, I still hate that movie). But I think I’ll personally be a bit better off this time just because I didn’t have real investment in the things we thought we were going to get. I want Sinnoh remakes to an extent, just because I’m curious if Game Freak can make me warm up to Sinnoh (doubtful, but we’ll see), but since Sinnoh is my least favorite core region I wasn’t super hyped for them. I can live without them for a while yet. My disappointment comes more in terms of what we are getting instead, and the fact that---even with my ambivalence at best toward Sinnoh---I feel like what we’re actually getting is vastly inferior to what Sinnoh remakes would be.

Before I get into that, though, I at first want to talk about the fact that I actually do think it makes sense that we’re not getting Sinnoh remakes right now, at least in terms of what the remakes are supposed to do (i.e. why Nintendo makes them), as opposed to how we, as a fandom, have been thinking about them). The remakes of the core games, beginning with FireRed and LeafGreen in Gen III, were created so that players could get older pokémon in the newer games where they weren’t previously available due to hardware limitations. As a quick run through, here is a history of the Nintendo handheld systems, as least as they are relevant to the Pokémon franchise:

Game Boy

Game Boy Color

Game Boy Advance

Nintendo DS

Nintendo 3DS

And here are those systems again, with the main generation Pokémon games on them:

Game Boy: Red, Green, Blue, Yellow

Game Boy Color: Gold, Silver, Crystal

Game Boy Advance: Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald

Nintendo DS: Diamond, Pearl, Platinum, Black, White, Black 2, White 2

Nintendo 3DS: X, Y, Sun, Moon

Now, the remakes began in Gen III, as stated above, in order to account for the hardware limitations that made it impossible to obtain Kanto or Johto monsters in the Hoenn games. This was a necessity, because while it was possible to trade between Gen I and Gen II using the Game Link Cable (and the Time Machine feature in the games) due to them being on compatible hardware, the Game Boy Advance was so different from the Game Boy / Game Boy Color that such a thing was impossible. Thus, the Gen I games were remade into FireRed and LeafGreen so that such a thing was no longer an issue.

Then came Gen IV, and with it, HeartGold and SoulSilver. Again, the same rule applies; Nintendo needed a way for us to be able to get Johto-exclusive monsters, something that wasn’t possible since the last time we had true access to them was way back on the Game Boy Color. Game Boy Color games are not compatible with the Nintendo DS, thus Johto was remade onto a Nintendo DS cart to give us access. But we, as a fandom, didn’t see it this way; although many of us knew that was the technical reason behind why Nintendo was making remakes (aside from wanting mega bucks in nostalgia money from older fans), we still looked at it as, “Well, of course we got Johto remakes in fourth gen, since we got Kanto remakes in third gen. It’s only fair.” Since we decided this was logical, we waited for Gen III remakes in Gen V . . .

. . . and didn’t get them.

Instead, we got Gen III remakes in Gen VI, and do you know why? I’ll tell you why: Hardware. The Gen III games were GBA games, which meant that they were still compatible with the Gen IV DS games via the Pal Park. Since you could transfer monsters from Ruby, Sapphire, or Emerald to Diamond, Pearl, Platinum, HeartGold, or SoulSilver, and then trade them from one of those games to Black, White, Black 2, or White 2 using the Poké Transfer, there was no technical need for Game Freak to remake the Gen III games in Gen V. Instead, they could focus all of their attentions on developing the Unova sequels, and then move on from there to Gen VI . . .

. . . which was on the 3DS, which no longer offered compatibility with the GBA games.

Now, it’s important to note that, technically speaking, it is possible to still get your pokémon from the Gen III games to Gen VI. (Or at least, it was---I think the servers were shut down or something.) Using the Poké Transporter and Pokémon Bank, if you had transferred monsters from Gen III to Gen V, you could then transfer them from Gen V to Gen VI using the Transporter and the Bank. It’s possible. However, it’s also entirely possible that kids today (or kids a few years ago when OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire released) wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do that, meaning that those Hoenn monsters would be lost to them. Thus, Game Freak remade the GBA games for 3DS to make obtaining them legitimately much, much more possible. And even setting that aside, the GBA games cannot be played on 3DS, which means that younger kids might not have the system needed to play them.

And that brings us to Sinnoh.

Right now, even if it’s no longer possible to transfer Gen IV monsters to Gen VI (or Gen VII, as the case may be), you can still play the Gen IV games if you wish. DS games are compatible on 3DS, after all, while the Gen III games are not due to the 3DS lacking a GBA slot. Thus, Nintendo may feel that there is not currently a pressing need to remake the Gen IV games. This is especially true if we look at the pattern of remake creation, which seems to be that the Pokémon games are remade two systems after their initial release.

Observe:

Game Boy: Red, Green, Blue, Yellow

Game Boy Color: Gold, Silver, Crystal

Game Boy Advance: Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, FireRed, LeafGreen

Nintendo DS: Diamond, Pearl, Platinum, Black, White, Black 2, White 2, HeartGold, SoulSilver

Nintendo 3DS: X, Y, Sun, Moon, OmegaRuby, AlphaSapphire

The Gen I games were made in Gen III, yes---but more importantly, they were remade for the Game Boy Advance, which had the Game Boy Color standing between it and the original system the Gen I games were released on (the Game Boy). The Gen II games were remade in Gen IV, but more importantly, they were remade for the Nintendo DS, which had the Game Boy Advance standing between it and the system the Gen II games were originally released on (the Game Boy Color). The Gen III games were released in Gen VI, but more importantly, they were released on the Nintendo 3DS, which had the Nintendo DS standing between it and the system the Gen III games were originally released on, the Game Boy Advance.

You see?

If this pattern holds, then we won’t get Gen IV games for the 3DS. The 3DS is the system immediately following the DS. Thus, Nintendo won’t remake the Gen IV (or Gen V) games for 3DS, feeling that there’s no need to do so since the Gen IV (and V) games can still be played on DS. Instead, they’re far more likely to remake the Gen IV (and then V) games for the Switch, since the Switch has the Nintendo 3DS standing between it and the games the Gen IV (and V) games were originally released on: the DS.

With that being said, we do already have the Switch, so you may feel that we should still have the Sinnoh remakes right now. However, it’s much too soon for that. In March, Game Freak made a posting on Japanese Indeed.com (a job search website) asking for a programmer for a console game. The only games Game Freak develops (for this series) are the core games. Therefore, whatever Game Freak is making for the Switch is pretty much guaranteed to be either Sinnoh remakes or Gen VIII. Since it feels too soon for Gen VIII, my bet is on Sinnoh remakes. (Of course, they’ll then develop Gen VIII for the Switch, but we don’t have to worry about that for another couple years yet.) I expect we’ll probably get an announcement about those next year.

Of course, I’m sure that doesn’t take the sting away from anyone, and I don’t expect it to. You have every right to be upset. And in truth, I’m a bit disappointed as well, mostly because of what we’re getting instead. Pokkén Tournament aside (which is nothing more than an updated port + is developed by Namco-Bandai, and as such is not at all related to whatever it is Game Freak is up to and is not ��the Pokémon game for the Switch”, or at least not the only one we’re getting), I . . . can’t feel excited for Ultra Sun or Ultra Moon. I just can’t. Maybe I will once more information is released, but right now?

No.

I’m going to level with you: Sun Version was a disappointment to me in many, many ways. On the most basic of levels, it’s the first generation in which I feel that there wasn’t a definite improvement in terms of gameplay over its predecessor. In previous generations, I always felt that there were enough beneficial changes so that, overall, I could absolutely say the gameplay was getting better with each gen. Gen II was better than Gen I, Gen III was better than Gen II, and so on and so forth. Sun Version, however, felt like a downgrade. Not only do I not enjoy Z-Moves nearly as much as I like Mega Evolution, but the Pokémon Ride system is borked, so many of the new pokémon are incredibly slow, there is no bicycle, there are no rollerblades, there is no SOARING, there’s no DexNav . . . and so on and so forth. In terms of sheer enjoyment from playing alone, AlphaSapphire was vastly more fun than Sun Version. That’s not even getting into how tiny and cramped the Alola region feels, despite being an archipelago. Hoenn feels huge compared to Alola, particularly since you can no longer actively surf to each island, but instead have to have a cutscene boat ride (or flight, whatever). It’s lame. I know that sounds childish to say, but to have a downgrade in gameplay between generations is messed up. It’s one thing for the story to not be as good, but these are video games. The gameplay should be improved, and I feel like Gen VII ties with Gen VI at best in terms of gameplay. It was a big disappointment.

And then there’s the story. I have so many issues that it’s hard to get into them. I will say that, at the very least, the story was not as much of a wholesale disappointment as X & Y, which I flat out dislike in terms of narrative and characters (aside from the post-game story with Looker and Emma, and even that has its problems). The anime improved on Kalos’ story in every single way (at least in terms of The Strongest Mega Evolution and the Flare arc), and that’s a first but it’s true. But here’s the thing: With X and Y’s story, I didn’t really enjoy it at any point, and so I was pretty much grumpy through the entire thing. To me, there was no real promise there, it didn’t pull me in and build me up only to ultimately let me down. Kalos took me by the hand and said, “Look: I’m starting on a mediocre note. I’m going to continue on a mediocre note. And then maybe my ending will suck and that will be like I pushed you onto the ground, but you’re already seated on a log and so it’s not going to hurt that much.” Kalos was honest in how much it was going to disappoint me, right from the time I met that excuse for a rival group and felt a strong sense of annoyance and distaste. (Though that said, I was intrigued by the Kalosean war from 3,000 years ago, and that held a tiny promise of something good, but it was so tiny and drowned out by the rest of the plot that it’s not enough to feel like a betrayal. I can sigh and let it go.)

But Sun Version? Sun Version outright deceived me. Sun Version introduced great characters, promised an intriguing plot with alchemy and mystery, dropped tantalizing poems dripping in lore, and then delivered on absolutely nothing. Worse still, it tried to excuse an abusive mother by having her children dedicated to caring for her despite how outright abusive she was to both of them, on-screen! And that struck a lot of personal chords that made me absolutely not okay with what the narrative did, but the point is that the more time I spend thinking about the Gen VII games, the angrier I feel. At least with Gen VI (Kalos, specifically---AlphaSapphire had the benefit of a base that I really liked, being a fan of the Gen III games and all) I wasn’t pulled into the story only to be slammed in the face with disappointment in the end. With Kalos I was disappointed from start to finish. With Alola, on the other hand, it’s like they built me up on this huge tower, only to reveal at the end that the tower was made of Jenga blocks and knock them out from under my feet. Couple that with the disappointing gameplay, and I feel like Alola was a failure overall.

So then you think, okay, well, maybe Ultra Sun will fix that! Maybe it will fix all the ways in which Sun Version went so very wrong! I can see that line of logic and kind of agree with it, except it would take a massive overhaul of the story to fix the issues I have with it, and I’m also beyond aggravated that Nintendo is remaking Sun & Moon right now, as if they didn’t have time to get it right the first time.

Because here’s the thing:

It’s expected that remakes are going to fix the issues that were present in the original, along with adding new features to further entice players to buy the same game again, only shinier this time. That has been done with every remake thus far. But as demonstrated above, the other remakes came years and years apart. That’s not the case here. Sun & Moon were just released this past November. I know, because as disappointed as I am with them, they were a massive coping tool used by myself and many other Americans after the horrific event that happened that month. So for Nintendo to say, “Surprise! Here’s an updated remake!” a year later feels . . . cheap. It feels cheap because they’re talking about how these games will have pokémon that aren’t in the originals, how there will be more clothes, how it’s an “alternate story.” I know that, in the past, we’ve obviously had enhanced third (or fourth, in Gen I) versions of the games. Blue, Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum are the precedents we have for that. But this feels different from that, because Nintendo is marketing them differently from that. They’re marketing them similarly to how Black 2 and White 2 were marketed, kind of, except the difference there is that Black 2 and White 2 were sequels that took place a year later (and no, they were not the first sequels; Gen II were the first story-sequel games we had in the series) with a significantly changed Unova, with the events from the first games impacting the events from the second. This time---at least going on the information we have right now, which is Masuda himself saying that these games present an alternate story to the one in Sun & Moon---we’re pretending like the events of Sun & Moon never happened. And because these are two games, rather than just the one updated re-release of before, it feels a lot less like, “Well, we added a few new bells and whistles, so here, if you want!” and more, “These are the games we meant to release the first time, the ones we wanted to release the first time, only we had to rush those ones out, so . . . here! Have some $40 DLC!” And that angers me, particularly since even though there is precedent for an updated third version, there’s also two generations worth of precedent showing that Nintendo had left that honestly bad practice behind. I was glad that we got Black 2 and White 2 instead of Grey. I was similarly glad that we didn’t get Z Version (particularly since, again, the anime team did a far better job than I think Game Freak could have ever done). Game Freak releasing core games, only to then release a slightly newer version of the same goddamn game a year or so later, is not good practice. Yeah, we buy them anyway, but we also rightfully complain about (or should rightfully complain about it), or else just not even buy the first games and instead wait for the inevitable update.

But again, it seemed like Game Freak had left that practice behind after Gen IV. Now they’re bringing it back, only worse, because they’re foisting two games on us instead of just the one, which really, really makes it feel like Game Freak views Sun & Moon as unfinished, so now they’re releasing the finished product. (And yes, Gen I had two updated re-releases there as well, but that’s because Yellow Version was created specifically to tie into the anime. It’s a special case and not a true indicator of the overall pattern. Blue Version was the true third version of Gen I, being an upgraded re-release of Red Version and Green Version in Japan.) Maybe that won’t be the case, maybe this will tie into the lore somehow, but I doubt it. It instead feels like Nintendo wants a quick buck, and also that they know that Pokémon is guaranteed to sell bucket loads, and so they took the base of the games they had already created (Sun & Moon), copied a few bells and whistles onto it, and are now pushing it out. It feels uninspired. It feels lazy. Whether that laziness came from not wanting to finish the Gen VII games on time (/wanting to rush them out rather than delay them) or instead came from wanting to make a quick buck I’m not entirely sure, but either way, this feels lazy and cheap and I’m aggravated by it, as well as not excited given how disappointing the Alola games ultimately were.

And again, maybe they’ll surprise me. Perhaps Ultra Sun Version will fix all of the rampant issues I have with Sun Version. Maybe Plumeria will actually have a decent role in the plot this time. Maybe Gladion will get justice and have a fleshed out character arc, and will actually get to participate in the final conflict with his family. Maybe Lusamine will be completely overhauled so that she’s a respectable villain. Maybe Wicke will get to be more than cardboard. Maybe alchemy will have a significant role in the plot this time (which I actually feel a bit hopeful for given the fusions, but I have a history of disappointment and know better than to get too excited). Maybe, maybe, maybe all of this is true---but it also doesn’t change the fact that I feel like Nintendo is being a cheap disappointment, particularly since they’re marketing these games as an “AU”, which brings up the still raw (and definitely salty) wounds I feel about the 20th anniversary, which is also a so-called “AU” even though it barely qualifies and is only an AU in the same way a twelve-year-old’s fanfic that writes out the canon characters and replaces them with OCs (while keeping the plot exactly the same in every other respect) is. Given that I’m still salty about that movie, Nintendo reminding me of the nonsense with Ultra Sun & Ultra Moon really doesn’t make me feel any warmer toward these games.

With all of that said, of course I’m still going to buy them. Pokémon is everything to me, so no matter how much I bitch, I’m still going to buy the games and play them so I can have an informed opinion. (I’m not watching the movie, though. Fuck that movie. I’ll just read spoilers for it, just like I did for The Movie That Shall Not Be Named™ that had the audacity to release in my birthday month last year. Worst birthday present ever, istg.) But I do feel rather annoyed and aggravated about this. We still have very little information and so it’s possible my opinion could change, but right now . . . right now, I’m miffed. I’m very miffed. In fact, you could go so far as to say I’m ultra miffed.

Oh yeah. I went there. No shame, no regrets.