#rachel on the other hand is a minor recurring character
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
mikurulucky · 1 year ago
Text
Would they say fuck?: Smurfs edition!
Well, I guess for smurfs, their equivalent would just be smurf. So I guess, which smurf would say smurf? XD
Well, except the humans, they can say fuck at least lol.
Regularly says fuck: Grouchy, Gutsy, Sarah the Sorceress, Old Rachel, Scruple, Peewit
Has sworn off saying fuck, but has said it at some point: Papa Smurf, Handy, the smurflings, Homnibus, Princess Savina
Has not said fuck before, but can if so desired: Smurfette, Brainy, Lazy, Gargamel, Johan, the king
Has not said fuck before, and refuses to say it: Greedy, Hefty, Harmony, King Gerard, Oliver (Homnibus' assistant), Dame Barbera
Legally cannot say fuck: Clumsy, Jokey
19 notes · View notes
rachelkaser · 4 years ago
Text
Stay Golden Sunday: Rose the Prude
Rose starts a new chapter of her life in her first starring episode, and Golden Girls has its first frank, serious discussion about our ladies’ sex lives.
Tumblr media
Picture It...
Dorothy and Sophia are playing a game of gin rummy on the lanai, when Blanche comes out with a problem -- her date has unexpectedly invited his brother and she needs to find a fourth person to make it a double. She asks Dorothy (and gently rebuffs a willing Sophia), but Dorothy is determined to win a game of gin against her mother after 30 years of losses.
Rose comes out to the lanai, and Blanche immediately asks her to go on the double-date. Rose initially resists, as she’s lost interest in dating since her husband Charlie died 15 years ago, but relents when Blanche pleads. Rose complains that dating isn’t fun, whereas Dorothy will have fun beating her mother at cards. Sophia of course lays down a winning hand at that remark.
Tumblr media
That night, Blanche returns from the date just as Dorothy takes another loss. At Blanche’s remark that playing gin obviously makes her upset, Dorothy refuses to play with Sophia anymore. Sophia knows that’s not going to last long.
SOPHIA: You’ll be back. You know why? You’re too competitive. It’s always been your worst feature. Actually, your ears are your worst feature. But competitive is right up there!
When a delighted Rose walks in, Dorothy asks how the date went, and Rose effuses that she had a great time with her beau Arnie. Blanche’s date, Jeffrey, turned out to be a bore. Rose is going on another date with Arnie, while Blanche has to be reminded that she knows many other more interesting men.
Later, the girls notice that Rose and Arnie (played by future recurring cast member Harold Gould) are becoming very close, but Rose is distressed. Arnie’s asked her to go away on a romantic cruise -- and Rose hasn’t been intimate with anyone since Charlie, her only lover, died. Dorothy and Blanche encourage her to go on the cruise, and give herself the chance.
Rose is a bundle of nerves in the stateroom, though Arnie tries to put her at ease by slow-dancing to Glenn Miller’s “Moonlight Serenade.” This brings back memories of Charlie, and Rose starts telling Arnie that he reminds her of Charlie. Arnie reminds her that he isn’t Charlie, and Rose says she likes him for who he is. But one kiss and Rose is running to the bathroom like a scared rabbit.
Back at home, the girls are speculating on how Rose is doing, and discuss how long it took them after their respective husbands died or left for them to get back on the wagon. Blanche made eyes at the minister performing her husband’s funeral service, though the consummation left something to be desired. Dorothy hooked up with her divorce lawyer, and comments that it was a terrible time for her. To demonstrate to Blanche how the ravages of age take their toll, she tells her to lean over a mirror and look at her own face. Blanche is suitably horrified.
Tumblr media
The next morning, Rose apologizes to Arnie for chickening out. Arnie understands and relates his own struggles with grief after his wife Molly died. He eventually got on with his life when his daughter pointed out that’s what Molly would have wanted. Rose concedes Charlie would probably want the same for her. Arnie tells her he’s alright with whatever makes her comfortable, and she tentatively asks him to hold her.
Meanwhile, Sophia admits to Dorothy she never played gin for the game, but because she likes the conversation they have while they play. Rose returns, Blanche and Sophia want to interrogate her on whether she fooled around, but it’s Dorothy who breaks first and asks her outright. Rose plays coy, but then reveals they did -- and she’s overjoyed that she can move on to the next part of her romantic life. The episode ends with Dorothy and Sophia playing cards, swapping stories.
“Oh back off, Blanche. Not all of us are classified by the Navy as a friendly port.”
After Blanche and Dorothy had their own spotlight episodes, it’s time for Rose to have her moment in the sun. GG does this neat little trick of assigning subject matter to the character who, at the surface, doesn’t necessarily seem best suited to it -- and then making it work anyway. So it’s fitting that the first episode that seriously addresses sex is a Rose-centric episode.
One of the things Golden Girls has always been (rightly) lauded for is the way it handles sexual and romantic topics, especially as they pertain to seniors. After all, your life doesn’t end just because you get old, or are widowed, and this show handles that with grace and honesty. Well, with Blanche the “grace” part is questionable, but you take my meaning.
Tumblr media
While later revelations show that Rose might be far more experienced than Blanche given how close she and Charlie were (and, according to Betty White, Rue McClanahan enjoyed pointing that out behind the scenes), the first impression she’s given on the show is rather chaste compared to Blanche. Add in that she’s also a widow, and it makes her the perfect candidate for an episode about putting yourself back out there and moving on with your life.
If there’s one thing about this episode that looks especially pleasant through a modern lens, it’s the gentle way both the girls and Arnie talk to Rose about her sex life (Blanche’s shock over her 15-year dry spell notwithstanding). Dorothy doesn’t tell her to sleep with Arnie, but to go on the cruise and at least give herself the option -- she can always back out if the situation isn’t right. And they outright cheer for her when she confirms she did play “find the cannoli.” The show offers many examples of how a healthy, supportive friendship should work, and this is one of the first and strongest.
Arnie, for his part, is a total gentleman: He doesn’t push Rose, does his best to make her comfortable, and sympathizes with her feelings for her late husband. In short, he behaves exactly the way Rose needs her paramour to behave if she’s going to get her groove back on her terms. It’s kind of wonderful to watch, even if one does cringe at Arnie saying he “patted a few bottoms” while married. 80s mentality, Rachel, 80s mentality.
This is the first time the show has had a B-plot to keep the non-spotlight characters busy. Blanche serves her part in the A-plot, the one about Rose and Arnie, by setting it in motion. This leaves Sophia and Dorothy without much to do, so they have their own story centering around their longstanding rummy rivalry.
Tumblr media
This is the episode where Sophia first gets to show her teeth – you can definitely see where Dorothy gets her’s from. Up to now she’s been a sort of caustic side character who existed to puncture dramatic moments with a comment she didn’t realize was too blunt. Here we get our first real glimpse of her as the witty, clever, somewhat devious woman we all know and love.
The timing is a little bit wonky, as they keep repeating throughout the episode that Rose has been a widow for 15 years, while the other girls’ marriages have only been over for a few years. Given Rose is roughly Dorothy’s age, she either married around the same age as Dorothy (not likely) or her marriage was much shorter than she’s led anyone to believe, but at the beginning she says she a “long and happy marriage.” But that’s a relatively minor quibble, even for me.
Episode rating: Three cheesecakes out of five... maybe I can make emoji work? 🍰🍰🍰
Favorite Part of the Episode
DOROTHY: Only on your back, Blanche. That way everything slides back and you look like you just had a facelift. BLANCHE: (leaning back and looking up at her mirror) Oh, you’re right. I’m gorgeous. I’m going to have to meet men lying down. SOPHIA: I thought you did.
7 notes · View notes
Text
Lack of Positive Representation of Diverse Body Types in the Media Leads to Feelings of Insecurity, Otherization and Inferiority in Young Women
As media consumers, we likely notice what is directly in front of us more than what is missing. What we see, we take as gospel, unintentionally or not. In today’s changing world, thankfully, there is much more discussion regarding the repercussions of the lack of diversity and representation in media for members of marginalized communities such as people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community, individuals with disabilities, and other factors. It is finally being addressed that having an all-white cast in a sitcom is an inaccurate representation of the actual ratio of white people to people of color in our country, or ten romantic comedies released in a year with only one featuring an LGBTQ+ character, and this lack of representation leads to alienation and otherization of those minority groups. However, in the year of 2019, there is still little discussion and little progress surrounding the topic of body image in film and television.
The average American woman wears a size 16. In most clothing stores, this is considered plus-sized. While it’s not possible to measure what every woman must look like simply by their dress size, it’s safe to assume that the average American woman at a size 16 does not have a completely flat stomach, completely toned arms and legs or a thigh gap. However, the vast majority of actresses in films look this way. They are manufactured images of what a woman ideally should look like, and although it can always be argued that film and television will always show the ideal, romanticized images of life, what is the harm of not showing a more realistic image, or a more realistic woman?
Marymount Manhattan student Tracey Brooks was not a stick figure growing up, but like most young women, she always felt the pressure to become one. “I genuinely thought I was obese, when in reality I was maybe only a little overweight for my height and age,” Brooks says in regards to the way she perceived her body and weight based on assumptions she drew through what she saw in the media. “Seeing skinny, beautiful girls everywhere I looked on TV and films made me feel like my body was wrong.”
For many young American girls, seeing only one body type represented in the media can lead to feelings of insecurity and inferiority. Never seeing someone that looks like yourself can send the subconscious message that you do not belong or that you are outside of what is considered acceptable or considered the norm. “As a young girl, I always wanted to be as pretty and skinny as Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, or Jamie Lynn Spears. I thought that the boys in my school would only like me if I looked the way that they did,” says Brooks. She claims that growing up, she never saw a girl or a woman on TV that looked like her, and that fact has not changed since her childhood. “I don't actually recall seeing someone that looked like me. I typically watched Disney or Nickelodeon shows (Hannah Montana, Suite Life of Zack and Cody, Zoey 101, etc) and all of the main characters on these shows were absolutely tiny. After transitioning to more ‘adult’ television shows such as Friends and How I Met Your Mother,  all of those main characters were super skinny as well.”
Tumblr media
Demi Lovato, Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez were the reigning teen queens of the late 2000′s. They all had the same body type. (PHOTO: K MAZUR/WIREIMAGE/GETTY IMAGES.)
It would be inaccurate to say that there are never larger-sized women in the media, but a lack of positive representation is just as detrimental as a lack of representation in general. Many of the curvier or plus-sized women in television and film have had their weight made the subject of negative discussion or even the butt of a joke. Brooks says that the “Fat Monica” joke on Friends has stuck with her throughout these years. “The main thing I can think of in this instance is the whole Fat Monica on the TV show Friends. The whole series of the show, Fat Monica is talked about but one scene in particular always stood out. In a video of Monica and Rachel's prom, Monica was ‘fat’ and everyone laughed at her appearance. Then Monica says, ‘Oh shut up, the camera adds ten pounds.’ and Chandler replies, ‘How many cameras are actually on you?’ Which makes her weight the butt of the joke, as it always was when Fat Monica was ever brought up in the series.”
Tumblr media
Monica from Friends (PHOTO: WARNER BROS)
There was never a positive resolution to Monica’s shame and past insecurity about how she used to look. No character ever refuted her self-deprecating comments about her past appearance or told her that she was still beautiful or valuable or important before, despite how she looked. Monica’s past regarding her weight and size was only ever used as a punchline. What may seem like an innocent recurring joke in the media to some can feel like an unspoken truth to others, a message coming through your television screen that says your body is a joke, you are a joke, and you will be one until you lose weight like Monica did.
There has been a handful of diverse body types in film and television in the past decade, but the vast majority of female actors are still very thin. Brooks points out that the films that do star average-sized women are usually comedies, rather than intense dramas or romances. “Most shows or films want to cast the skinny, beautiful star that everyone knows because they know people will want to watch that. They know that skinny sells. However, there are a few films that show the average woman as the star, such as films with Rebel Wilson or Amy Schumer, but they are almost always a comedy about how miserable the woman is and how she decides to change herself in the film. So in most cases, even if there is an average looking woman, they are never viewed as average. They're viewed as big or the ‘funny one.’”
Brooks is optimistic that things are changing slowly, at least. There are a handful of famous plus-sized actresses now, and films such as Netflix’s Dumplin’ feature a positive portrayal of a woman outside the “ideal body type” of being thin. “I think it is getting better. People are beginning to talk about it more, forcing more of a change in the industry. I don't think it’s anywhere close to what it should be, but they are taking steps in the right direction in most scenarios,” states Brooks.
Tumblr media
Netflix’s new film Dumplin’ features a young plus-sized protagonist that does not lose weight as a resolution to her insecurity. (PHOTO: NETFLIX)
When asked what kind of woman she would like to see in film/television and what kind of woman she could relate to, Brooks replied: “I would love to see someone who has thighs that rub together at the top. Someone without a perfectly flat stomach, or perfectly toned arms.” When put that way, it seems like a simple request. Most American women look this way. So, the question we have to keep asking the media is, why don’t the women in television/film?
1 note · View note
destiny-smasher · 7 years ago
Text
So! Episode 2 of Before the Storm! It was very good! If you haven't read my thoughts on Episode 1, here those are.
If you want an audio discussion about either episode, I've recorded podcasts with my girlfriend, @mollifiable, as well as musicians Riley Hawke and Koethe. Here’s what we discussed on Ep1, and here’s the podcast on Ep2. BEAR IN MIND I will be discussing a number of things from EPISODE 2, so you probably shouldn’t read this if you haven’t experienced it yet. There are some inherent problems I still have with this projects conception (which I got into in that first post back in September), but Epsiode 2 has gone a long way toward giving me faith in why this story is being made. Or, at the least, that it's being made with a lot of thought and care. I've played a LOT of story-focused, episode games, and honestly, I think this episode is one of the best I've ever experienced, overall. I still struggle with some elements of the story (ex. I just don't like Rachel as much as I think I'm 'meant to,' BUT I think that ties into what the overall story may be about), and I still feel frustrated that your team is being limited by the nature of the setup (why is this all happening over three days when it could’ve been over three years, for example), but Episode 2 just has so much good going for it and I felt like it really showed what can be done with a project like this. Like last time, I want to address this to Madeleine, Felice, and the entire team at Deck Nine directly – and point out how much it means to us that you guys actually reach back and communicate with us, even encouraging criticism. I'm proud of what your team has been able to accomplish with this episode and think it stands out in the genre in a lot of ways.
Let’s get to it.
Tumblr media
That being said, I do want to offer my criticisms, so let's just get those out of the way first. First off, Samuel – yeesh. Sorry, I just really didn't like the scene with Samuel. Part of it is his new voice actor just sounding more...creepy? I guess I'd say? But also, his manner of speech and the things he said felt out of place. Not just for his character but with the story in general. In LiS1, Samuel comes across as mentally different than those around him, almost like a sort of sage in a way, engaging with the world in a different way than those around him (there's a similar character in Supergiant's brilliant Pyre who comes to mind). But here, Samuel felt like a cross between a psychiatrist and a guy taking too many drugs? That's perhaps harsh, but especially given that his character model/rigging didn't seem to carry over properly, I was just rubbed the wrong way by his presence in this episode in a way that hasn't happened with any other recurring characters. I appreciate the intent I picked up from his scene – to remind us that there's more going on than just what we can see on the surface – but I felt like it missed the mark of who Samuel was as a character without really establishing why he would be different in this way three years in the past. On a related subject – the adult characters in this episode, or at least some of them, felt weird. MOST of them felt more like caricatures than actual characters. Wells felt fine, and I actually kind of PREFER this take on Wells because he feels LESS like a caricature and more like an actual principle. I can even kind of see a headcanon link between this interpretation of him and the version of him three years having just kind of shed away his decorum from the stress of managing a school undergoing so many changes and financial problems. I really felt for Joyce, and I felt that David's character was finally presented in a way that lacked the cliché “military” skew that LiS1 forced too hard while simultaneously giving the audience an understanding of precisely why his presence in the household would push Chloe so far away (though I still find much of the Joyce/David stuff odd here because we already know where this all leads and nothing here really seems to build anything new from that). Characters like Rachel's dad, the theater teacher, Samuel, Skip, Damon, and Sean Prescott all felt...a bit too cartoony in ways. Damon maybe least of all due to the intensity of that scene and the nice subtext we can pick up (after all, money is a realistic and pragmatic motive to drive one to aggression) In general, the adults felt flatter and more cartoony than I think works for this setting. Not to say they should NEVER be funny or anything, just that I was repeatedly taken out of the story by how jarringly one-dimensional a line was, or how flat a voice delivery was, etc. Fortunately, this problem doesn't really carry over to the teens, who are, of course, the focus of the narrative. I also noticed more moments in this episode where characters' eyes were uncanny, staring straight ahead in unnatural ways – or mouth movements being weird (Samuel being the biggest example, to the point that it jarred me out of the story and distracted from his dialogue). Minor complaint, all things considered, but worth pointing out as I didn't really notice this happen in episode 1, which makes me worry that maybe things got rushed a bit too much? (you guys did release this episode weeks earlier than expected) On the upside, though, this problem did NOT exist when it mattered the most, so at least that detail was put into the important moments. All right, last nitpick – I found the whole “drugging” thing re: the pre-play scene to be in bad taste. On the one hand, I LIKE the premise, and how it really does a fascinating thing with developing/contrasting/comparing Rachel and Victoria (in a way that requires knowledge of alternate events, something only a video game could do), but on the other hand...ya'll made drugging teen girls in an active, malicious way this...joke. While I do love that BtS has more comedy in its tone, I found turning Victoria's drug-induced passing out into a JOKE to be kind of offensive, especially given that she can get drugged and murdered in LiS1 (and Rachel AND Chloe both get drugged and/or murdered?), and just...yea. All in all, I think the concept of this scene works, it's the execution that makes it feel insensitive and kind of worrying. (ex. Victoria passes out and fucking NO ONE calls a doctor or tries to help her, the camera fucking PANS on her unconscious body like it's this joke and the way the whole thing is framed just invites laughter on something that kinda sorta shouldn't be funny given the full context of this story) Anyway, it's kind of like the wine scene in the first episode, but worse in terms of implications, I guess? I'm not THAT torn up over it since it's brief, and everyone's OK in the end, I presume, but it just feels a bit tone deaf when SO MUCH of this episode is SO GOOD. It really took me out of the experience – but the layered nature of it (how Rachel gets her way no matter what, how Rachel AND Victoria are both willing to drug each other, how Vic can be manipulated while Rachel can't) makes it really intriguing. I think the concept here was intriguing, but the execution on stuff like this could be handled more thoughtfully. I could get into pacing issues, I suppose, but honestly, I've already critiqued enough, and I think this episode was really good, so I don't want to get too down on the details when I'm sure others will get into this topic. (like the canon inconsistencies, they’re there, but aren’t really detracting from the good stuff)
OK! With all of that out of the way, let me get into what I loved about this episode, which was most of it. Episode 1 was unclear and uncertain in what it was trying to convey, which makes more sense now that we have Episode 2, which dives right into what this story seems to be about – passion, and the good and bad that comes from it. Passion, to be clear, being different from love. Love is steady, consistent, like a stream of water, while passion is fast and bright and sudden, like fire. I could get into the elemental symbolism you could correlate between wind, water, fire and Chloe, Max, and Rachel, but I'm sure folks have done this already. I do think it's still worth pointing out just how great a job you've done so far using fire as a metaphor for Rachel and Chloe's relationship, both within the story presented here and overarching into LiS as a whole. You managed to work it into the actual plot, as well, in a way that doesn't feel forced or thoughtless – an entire episode later and there are still consequences from it. Having just experienced the CA wildfires a half hour away from my home, I can appreciate a certain level of fear and awe at how much can be affected by fire, even the air itself, and just how quickly it can spread and how much damage it can do in a short time. The fact that the title screen itself it an analogy about passion makes me super excited at the potential for episode 3. Absolutely love that the title screen doubles as atmosphere AND symbolism. Specifically, I have to call out the dream sequence here as being quite awesome. From the moment I saw the burning car with a shadowed figure, I already knew what the visual reveal at the end of the scene was going to be, and was still thoroughly satisfied. I absolutely love LOVE the metaphor William presents about comparing/contrasting light and dark in terms of how both can cause us to lose ourselves, lose our ways, and be blinded. The way this correlates to Chloe's loss of William, Max, and Rachel (darkness) to how she can be blinded by light (passion for Rachel, even excitement about Max's power later on) is all encapsulated in a single bit of dialogue that communicates such an underexplored theme in the medium, and one that makes telling this story from a teenage perspective suddenly feel 100% sensible instead of just a coincidence. Telling a story diving into the theme of passion just wouldn't work the same from a character too young or too old, because it's this part of the human condition that we experience passion the deepest and the hottest. Which brings us to the fantastic play aspect, which is one of my favorite moments in all of LiS at this point. The layers of meaning at work here were genius. First off, it's all a play – an act. And Chloe is trying to keep up, while Rachel is clearly experienced with this. Secondly, the connections between relationships in The Tempest to the protagonists is great use of intertextual storytelling. Thirdly, highlighting a Shakespearean play, which highlights passion from teenage youths, yet another layer. Fourth, they go off script, which itself has really interesting connotations in terms of this game itself existing in the first place as an “off script” piece of the story, as well as how the content of their moment carries an unrealistic, impractical hopefulness to it that is inspiring, but still an act in a play, involving magic and fantasy. Fifth, concluding the scene with the way the play ends adds this really awesome extra layer of meta expression – Rachel as a character gets to be expressed and represented in a way she originally was not, with the help of fans of the LiS developing this prequel, but also fans of LiS breathing life into Rachel before this prequel existed; PLUS the prequel itself is a performance that you, the development team, are putting on for us, the audience. There's just so much going on here, and the musical choices helped seal the moment's emotional impact. Even as myself, coming from the perspective of not trusting Rachel's judgment/actions, I felt as if I finally had a 'moment' where I truly understood why Chloe was so swiftly enamored with Rachel. It reminded me of moments I've experienced in my own past, though nothing as 'magical' as this. It also just highlighted how Rachel's character has power and influence over those around her despite being so young. All in all, bravo. This scene came together fantastically, and I think it's one of the most thoughtfully put together scripted scenes I've ever seen in a video game. This was the moment I fell in love with this story – not because of AmberPrice but because it was so well put together by everyone involved. I think this will probably go down as the highlight of this game when all is said and done. To back things up a bit, I did enjoy the premise of the junkyard stuff. I really liked giving Chloe's character a bit of breathing room on her own – the kinds of things she thinks to herself while exploring the environment showed a bit of Max's influence on her still being present even as she's trying to forget Max. I liked that we could pick different objects to help decorate/fix the van, as well, but the flow of the scene would work better if we could do it all in one trip rather than taking two trips – I found myself disoriented after placing the battery into the car, and by that point had lost track of where specific objects were, whereas it would've been more fitting to maybe have Chloe make note of the items first, or even gather them all up into a pile and let the player choose from there. I predicted and felt satisfied by how the truck was utilized as an analogy for Chloe as a person – broken, banged up, abandoned, lost, but if given enough attention and care, could be back up and running. The therapy session Rachel and Chloe have was also nice at building their relationship further.
Something that wasn't as apparent in episode 1 because it simply needed time to grow was the whole way that Rachel is presented as someone who is flawed. Because the story is from Chloe's perspective, there's maybe too many limits on how this can be developed, though we'll see how the finale handles things, but I really liked that all of the flaws we already know about her character from stuff in LiS1 felt contextualized in this episode. She can be manipulative, short-sighted, impulsive, and even self-absorbed, but it's not malicious or even intentional all of the time. Rachel herself is in a similar position as Chloe – they're teenagers – she is still figuring herself out, what she really wants, who she really wants to be, and how she can achieve those things. All of my doubts, concerns, and fears about this relationship between them all feel validated by their dynamics, by the theming and foreshadowing, and yet it simultaneously makes sense why and how they'd end up together – out of teenage passion, and a shared sense of longing to feel both needed by someone else and taken care of by someone else. The scene after the play, in the street, had a great sense of aesthetic to it, which felt like it was from a teen romance film from the 80's or something. The imagery of the scene highlights the nature of this whole story – a splash of light along a dark road that is Chloe's teenage years. The multiple ways this scene can play out depending on previous choices was neat, too. I was especially intrigued by the possibility of making the “Friendship” choice in Ep1, then asking for a kiss here in this scene – there's this amazing bit of animation in Rachel's face that really shows her thought processes clicking together in an ambiguous way that really fits her character. I'm also super curious as to what will come of the bracelet bit, since Rachel surprisingly gives it to Chloe if you ask for it, despite the fact that we know she ultimately gives it to Frank. There's multiple possibilities of what that could entail, and I'm really interested in seeing how that plays out. This actually reminds me of how much I liked the way decisions from episode 1 have branched out here. Rather than decisions having a single static meaning later on, you have aspects from Episode 1 lead to different branching possibilities of how scenes play out. The outcomes are usually the same, but still, it makes the story feel more dynamic, and I like how these aren't always super obvious. There's a lot of examples of this, from telling Rachel that Chloe feels romantically or not, to stealing the money, to what you do WITH the money, and some other smaller things, too. Great work with this stuff, it helps us see different angles to the characters when we have these options, and highlights what LiS was originally about re: characters – perspective is everything. And yet, Rachel seems almost immune to things in a sense, which is appropriate given how her character works and how she influences those around her. I liked the scene with Frank in the RV and the way it contrasts and compares his future self to his past self. Which reminds me, this episode had a bit more interesting 'character development through environment,' which was a highlight of LiS1 that felt missing from Ep1 of Before the Storm. Whether it was Frank's RV, Elliot's dorm room, the Amber household, or, most poignantly, Drew's dorm room, you guys did a great job letting us learn more about the characters through the environments. While you could argue that it doesn't quite match Chloe's character the way it does Max (and I'd argue that the whole nature of trying to socialize and make friends itself already is kind of against Chloe's character in Ep1), I think it works well enough and just makes sense from a game design standpoint. I liked that we got more opportunities for graffiti in ways that weren't just straight up wall graffiti (ex. Crossword, drawing on the newspaper photo). I glossed over this last time, but part of what I've been frustrated by with Before the Storm is the way Chloe at 16 years old...already feels like Chloe at 19, but slightly more awkward. Episode 2 helped resolve some of this by putting her outside of her comfort zone more and highlighting her vulnerability, cynicism, and uncertainty (whereas Chloe at 19 kind of doesn't give a shit and dives head first into everything and doesn't care what anyone thinks). I also really love the multiple ways you've referenced that Chloe was originally a “nerd” like Max, and has gradually been straying away from that – and yet, it's still part of who she is (and ends up showing itself later on in LiS1, like how she seems to know more about time travel theory than Warren does). In particular, I loved how she pulls up different characters' web search histories – something that doesn't specifically take much effort, but that most people wouldn't think to do. This in and of itself was a really clever way of adding more to character development for those involved. (“why won't puppy eat steak” is hilarious to me and I can't get over it for some reason) The entire scene with Mikey, Drew, and Damon was wonderful. I loved the multiple outcomes and how none of them are specifically good, and any of them can feel in character for Chloe. I think Damon's character feels a little one dimensional here, BUT the context makes sense – he wants his fucking money. He's collecting debts after suffering a huge monetary loss. Of course he's going to be single-minded. As a side note, I loved the small but significant bit re: Damon's e-mail to Frank. Props to whoever came up with that. What a brilliantly subtle way of telling us so much about Damon's true character and his relationship with Frank. Going back to the conflict at the dorm, I loved that you took a bully character who appeared simple and effortlessly fleshed him out enough to feel legitimately believable with real motives. I loved how I was able to figure out the passcode to his lock organically given everything I had seen, and how I then used that knowledge to express what I felt would be in his best interests in the conflict – even though, as my girlfriend pointed out, it might not have been the best long-term outcome. I wish we'd seen more of Mikey and Steph, but what was there was still good. Steph's brief convo with Chloe I saw coming in a good way, and I really liked how you presented it. I liked the bits we got with Samantha and Skip, as well, thought I'm wondering where you're going with Samantha and Nathan. I was actually really frustrated with the Backtalk sequence with Skip, but then, I think that was the whole point. Speaking of, I really didn't like Backtalk in Ep1, but it was overall much better here. In Ep1, Backtalk was like some weird 'Be an Asshole' thing, and it felt weird how the game inherently encouraged you to do this. In Ep2, there were multiple times where I felt unsure if Backtalk was 'the best' way to go, and even then, most of its uses felt much more organic. It wasn't just about being a jerk to make someone feel bad, there was often some organic purpose to it – talking Victoria out of being in the play in a way that made her feel like it was her own decision; trying to get info out of Frank; trying to get into a dorm you weren't supposed to be in; trying to stick up for Rachel in the face of discipline, or trying to help her confront her father. In every case, there was an interpersonal motivation – Chloe wasn't doing it for something she specifically wanted, or just to make someone feel bad, but to try and do something for someone else. Also, they felt more like arguments, or ways of manipulating someone, rather than straight up insults. In some ways, it reminded me of things in TellTale's The Walking Dead Season 2, using more manipulative dialogue to resolve a situation rather than just brute-forcing things. This also contributes toward the theme of 'influence' regarding Chloe being influenced by Rachel so quickly and easily that she's even picking up some of Rachel's tactics (which, one could argue, she uses later on when she's older). This being said, I'm hoping that in Episode 3 we're given a more high-stakes situation that can be resolved using those more manipulative mannerisms, which gives the Backtalk mechanic a “climax” of sorts.
I like the way that you've been able to build this sense of supernatural occurrences without actually showing anything supernatural. The All-Seeing-Eye, the recurring Raven imagery, the weird shit going on with Chloe and others seeming to be having mysterious, prophetic dreams (even Elliot and Frank seem to be having them), the way the ash fall at the end of the episode foils the snowfall at the end of Ep1 of Life is Strange. This builds to a fascinating moment at the end of the episode where, for the first time, perspective SHIFTS from Chloe to Rachel, only for a few seconds, but in a really neat way that leads you to FEEL like something supernatural is about to happen, only for it not to. In a way, this feels like what your overall story could be about in a sense, though it'd be downright odd at this point to have NO answers or resolution regarding what I described above. One of the original game's biggest flaws was how it drummed up mystery only to leave things unexplained or unresolved in ways that damaged the actual plot. Dream sequences don't necessarily do this, but with how much emphasis you've put on them and the Raven/Eye imagery, I feel like there must be a purpose you have here – especially if members of your staff are getting ravens tattooed on their bodies. Naturally, Rachel's mom seems tied to all of this, if not the origin point of it. And I can't help but wonder if we'll even get a perspective shift near the end of the story from Rachel's point of view, if only to help imply or insinuate some things that tie into unanswered elements of Max's story. Speaking of Max, I was much more happy with the 'letters' in this episode, as they spend very little time needlessly bashing a character who wasn't even present, and more time on Chloe quickly becoming obsessed with Rachel – which all makes sense with the arc you seem to be going for. I liked the extra allusions to Chloe's future with Max, such as the maze and William's remark about a “beauty” to come in the future. It's such a complicated thing to tackle – and trust me, I've spent two years and hundreds of thousands of words trying to tackle it myself with these same characters – but I finally have come to a place where I can appreciate the balance you've managed to find between supporting the good elements Chloe and Rachel had going for them, while also implying the bad elements and the reasons why Chloe would develop feelings for Max later on. On a personal level, I relate with Chloe a lot in regards to her relationships (I relate with Max in a lot of ways, too, but that's a separate matter). I have lived through both long term and short term experiences of passion, romantically and platonically. And I have been romantically involved with people who remind me of Rachel. And I think that's part of why I just...don't like her, personally. BUT I am at a place now, after this episode, where I like her as a CHARACTER, even if I don't like her as a fictional person. I never can fully let my guard down around her, but can totally understand why Chloe would (and did), and have been there. And now that I have the context of this episode, I can finally start to see what 'the point' of this story seems to be, which makes me very curious to see how it is resolved. Lastly, again, great job using mocap and facial animation to heighten realism for a lot of scenes. While I noticed more “flat” moments than before, it never detracted from the important moments having that level of detail to make them bring out an extra layer of inevitability. From Chloe knocking at a dartboard to finger-gun gestures, to subtle but complex expressions, just a lot of great expressive details going on here. On that note, I noticed a real improvement in Rhianna’s performance. She felt like she wasn’t trying to mimic Ashly Burch or Ellen Page and was instead just finding her own interpretation of the role, and it works MUCH better. In a way, I still feel a constant sense of ‘this isn’t exactly Chloe’ but not in a bad way, just a...different way. Instead of feeling distracted by her actress being different, I felt instead like I was being more absorbed into this alternate interpretation of the character. Both Hannah and Ashly needed some time to fill into their roles before ‘the good stuff’ really came out in their performances, so I’m really looking forward to what Rhianna might pull off in Episode 3, and what she can do in the future after this role, when she isn’t burdened by the complexities of this kind of situation. I could go on, but I've ranted stream-of-conscious style long enough. I still have some more broad strokes issues with this game’s narrative, but then again, I have issues with the original game’s, as well -- and this story isn’t done yet, so I want to wait until I have the full context before I comment on those broad-scope design elements. I hope at least some of what I've written here is helpful to your team, and that my critical comments highlight just how good a job you guys did with this second entry. Regardless of how I end up feeling about Episode 3 of Before the Storm, I am really happy for your team and what they've pulled off here, and am very supportive of what you seem to be trying to do, as delicate a balancing act as it surely is.
49 notes · View notes
madpicks · 8 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
New Post has been published on https://www.madpicks.com/culture/tv/netflix-originals-release-dates-calendar-original-tv-shows-movies/
Netflix Originals Release Dates: A Calendar of All Original TV Shows and Movies
Netflix is producing a ton of original content these days and I’ve been finding it harder and harder to keep track of it all. Netflix will release 1,000 hours of original shows and movies in 2017, spending $6 billion to do so. That’s almost double the amount of original programming they released 2016, which included an estimated 126 TV shows. You would have to spend 41 days binge-watching Netflix to see all of their expected 2017 original programming.
The following is a completely updated list of Netflix Originals release dates for all of the Netflix Original TV Shows and Netflix Original Movies. We have also included a list of the upcoming productions that don’t have a scheduled release date yet..
  Netflix Originals Release Dates
Please Note: What follows is a listing of all the upcoming TV shows and movies that Netflix considers a Netflix original. The definition of a Netflix original can be rather vague. A television series like House of Cards is considered a Netflix Original, even though Media Rights Capital produced the series and sold the streaming rights to Netflix. Other shows like The OA and Stranger Things were produced in-house for the streaming service. Netflix acquires many features and documentaries at film festivals, like the recent 2017 Sundance Film Festival. While they were not produced directly by Netflix, the streaming company now owns the films outright.
There are so many original series and movies planned by Netflix that we have to break this up into multiple pages. Right now, we have collected nearly 150 announced productions listed here. If they have a proper release date, they are organized chronologically. Otherwise, undated movies and TV shows are listed alphabetically by year. Here is an index to get to what you’re looking for:
March 2017 Netflix Originals releases
April – December 2017 Netflix Originals releases
2017 To Be Dated: A-E, F-L, L-Z
2018-2019 Netflix Originals releases
Let’s begin with the March 2017 Netflix Originals releases.
February 28: Thank God For Jokes [Comedy Special]
Sleepwalk with Me and Don’t Think Twice writer and director Mike Birbiglia has an all-new stand-up special called Thank God for Jokes and the trailer for the special can be watched here. Here’s the official synopsis: “Mike Birbiglia declares that a joke should never end with ‘I’m joking.’ In his all-new stand-up comedy special, Birbiglia tiptoes hilariously through the minefield that is modern-day joke-telling. Join Mike as he learns that the same jokes that elicit laughter have the power to produce tears, rage, and a whole lot of getting yelled at. Ultimately it’s a show that asks, “How far should we go for the laugh?””
March 3: Greenleaf Season 1
“Although members of the Greenleaf family run a Memphis megachurch, their business and personal lives are tainted with greed, adultery and other sins.”
The 13-episode first season comes from creator Craig Wright.
March 7: Amy Schumer: The Leather Special [Comedy Special]
“Emmy® and Peabody Award-winning comedian Amy Schumer targets binge drinking, her relationship with her boyfriend and navigating the unknown terrain of being a newly famous woman who looks like someone you grew up with. Schumer also directed The Leather Special, which was filmed at Denver’s Bellco Theater.”
March 10: Love Season 2
“It’s awkward. It’s impossible. It’s infuriating. And it may just be the best thing that’s ever happened to them.”  Created by Judd Apatow, Lesley Arfin, and Paul Rust, and starring Gillian Jacobs, Rust, and Claudia O’Doherty, this 12-episode second season will continue the story of Mickey Dobbs (Jacobs) and Gus Cruikshank (Rust). Watch the Love season 2 trailer here. A third season has also been announced.
March 10: Buddy Thunderstruck Season 1
Buddy Thunderstruck, is a stop-motion action-comedy series about a dog who races semi trucks. “From American Greetings Entertainment with Stoopid Buddy Stoodios, Buddy Thunderstruck is an action–comedy, stop–motion extravaganza that follows the adventures of a semi–truck racing dog named Buddy and his albino ferret mechanic. It all goes down in race–obsessed Greasepit, a place chock full of larger–than–life characters and nitro–burning, gear–slamming, tire–squealing, fish–tailing good times.” Watch the Buddy Thunderstruck trailer here.
March 10: Burning Sands [Movie]
“Burning Sands takes you on a raw, voyeuristic journey of fraternity pledging through the eyes of one favored pledgee, who is torn between honoring a code of silence or standing up against the intensifying violence of underground hazing. Led by a breakthrough performance by Trevor Jackson, director Gerard McMurray’s feature directorial debut brings an emotional honesty to the classic tale of “rites of passage” and the complicated bonds of brotherhood.”
The film was selected for the 2017 Sundance Film Festival US Dramatic Competition. Burning Sands stars Trevor Jackson (ABC’s American Crime) in a breakout performance, along with Alfre Woodard, Steve Harris, Trevante Rhodes, Tosin Cole, DeRon Horton, Imani Hakim and Serayah. It is directed and co-written by Gerard McMurray (producer, Fruitvale Station). The film was produced by Stephanie Allain (Beyond the Lights), Jason Michael Berman (The Birth of a Nation), Reginald Hudlin (Django Unchained) and Mel Jones (Dear White People). Common also executive produced and contributed an original song, “The Cross.” Watch the Burning Sands trailer here.
March 10: One Day At A Time: Season 1 (Alternate Title: One More Time)
“A reimagining of the Norman Lear classic, centering on a Cuban-American family. Our heroine is a recently separated, former military mom (Justina Machado) navigating a new single life while raising her radical teenaged daughter and socially adept tween son, with the “help” of her old school Cuban-born mom (Rita Moreno) and a friends- without-benefits building manager named Schneider. The 13-episode first season of One Day at a Time is produced by Act III Productions, Inc., Snowpants Productions and Small Fish Studios in association with Sony Pictures Television. Norman Lear, Mike Royce, Gloria Calderón Kellett and Michael Garcia are executive producers.” 13 episodes of the multi-cam comedy will be released.
March 14: Jim Norton: Mouthful of Shame [Comedy Special]
“American stand up comedian, radio personality, bestselling author and actor, Jim Norton is the morning co-host of The Jim Norton & Sam Roberts Show on SiriusXM Satellite Radio. For 14 years, Norton was 3rd mic on the Opie and Anthony Show. Earlier this year, he was announced as co-host of UFC Unfiltered Podcast with Jim Norton & Matt Serra, which has routinely been on the top charts on iTunes. As an author, his two books, Happy Endings: The Tales of a Meaty-Breasted Zilch and I Hate Your Guts were New York Times bestsellers and since 2014 he has contributed eight articles to Time.com. He has 4 one-hour comedy specials that can be seen on Hulu and HBO GO and can currently be seen in a recurring role on the critically acclaimed Starz series, Power. He has had regularly guest-starred on The Tonight Show, The Late Show with David Letterman, Tough Crowd With Colin Quinn, @Midnight, Kennedy, The Jim Gaffigan Show, Inside Amy Schumer and Louie.”
March 16: Beau Sejour: Season 1
Beau Sejour is 9-episode Dutch drama series. “A girl wakes up in a hotel room and she finds her own dead body in the bathtub. She tries to solve her own murder but realizes that nobody except 5 people can see her.” Watch the Beau Sejour trailer here.
March 17: Marvel’s Iron Fist Season 1
“Billionaire Danny Rand (Finn Jones) returns to New York City after being missing for years, trying to reconnect with his past and his family legacy. He fights against the criminal element corrupting New York City with his kung-fu mastery and ability to summon the awesome power of the fiery Iron Fist.”
The fourth series in Netflix’s Marvel line of shows leading up to The Defenders crossover series. Finn Jones stars as Danny Rand/Iron Fist, a martial arts expert with the ability to call upon the power of the Iron Fist. Jessica Henwick, David Wenham, Jessica Stroup, Tom Pelphrey, and Rosario Dawson also star.  Developed by Scott Buck, who has written episodes of Six Feet Under, Rome, Dexter, Everybody Loves Raymond, Coach and The Oblongs. Watch the Iron Fist trailer here.
March 17: Samurai Gourmet Season 1
“The live action series ‘Samurai Gourmet,’ based on Masayuki Kusumi’s essay and the manga of the same title, featuring the life of Takeshi Kasumi. Takeshi Kasumi has spent his entire life devoted to his job. Now a retired man, he finds himself with plenty of extra time on his hands. While on an afternoon walk, Kasumi discovers the joys of day time drinking and the realization that he is now free to eat and drink what he wants, when he wants. This awakens his inner persona – a wandering samurai living life freely in Japan’s age of civil wars. Thus begins his search for blissfully delectable delights to satisfy his stomach and the samurai’s soul. A retired man’s tales of adventure in twelve episodes, including “Lunch Time Beer at a Diner,” “The Devilish Madame,” “A Croquette for the Heart” and “Wanderer’s Italian Lunch.” 12 Episodes will premiere.
March 17: Deidra & Laney Rob a Train
“Life is moving fast for whip-smart high school senior Deidra (Ashleigh Murray) and her younger sister Laney (Rachel Crow).  Graduation looms, their part-time dad is a full-time schemer, and adolescent embarrassments arrive daily — just like the train that rambles noisily through their backyard. But things take a turn for the worse when their mother Marigold (Danielle Nicolet) is thrown in jail for a minor offense after succumbing to the pressure of single parenting. To help her struggling family, Deidra hatches a plan to start robbing trains.  Things go off without a hitch, until a railroad detective (Tim Blake Nelson) starts sniffing around.”
The film premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival. Directed by Sydney Freeland and written by Shelby Farrell, the Netflix original film Deidra & Laney Rob a Train stars Ashleigh Murray, Rachel Crow, Tim Blake Nelson, Danielle Nicolet, Sasheer Zamata, David Sullivan, Missi Pyle, Arturo Castro, Brooke Markham and Sharon Lawrence.  Susan Cartsonis and Nick Moceri serve as producers.  Randy Kiyan, Ian Bricke, and Funa Maduka serve as executive producers. Watch the Deidra & Laney Rob a Train trailer here.
March 17: Julie’s Greenroom: Season 1 [Kid’s Show]
“Julie’s Green Room is an all-new arts educational show for the very young starring the legendary Julie Andrews and brought to life by the ingenious minds at Jim Henson Studios. Seven young friends learn all about the arts (dance, singing, performing, painting, and more) from Julie herself and unique guest stars (Idina Menzel, Alec Baldwin, David Hyde Pierce) in each episode.”
March 17: Pandora [Movie]
Pandora is “the highly-anticipated nuclear disaster blockbuster from CAC Entertainment by award-winning screenwriter turned director Park Jung-Woo known for the science fiction horror film, Deranged. Pandora will be available to stream exclusively on Netflix to its members in 190 countries, excluding South Korea.”
“In Pandora, disaster strikes a nuclear power plant in a small, quiet town when an earthquake unexpectedly hits. The Pirates star Kim Nam-gil plays Jae-hyuk, a man who risks his life to save his family and country from the impending atomic explosion. The film also stars Kim Young-ae (The Attorney), Jung Jin-young (Miracle of Cell No. 7) and Kim Dae-myeong (Misaeng).”
March 24: Ingobernable Season 1
“Emilia Urquiza (Kate del Castillo), is the first lady of Mexico with big plans to improve conditions for the country through her commitment in fighting for peace. She is a woman with a strong personality, conviction and clear ideas that make her capable of doing anything. As Emilia starts to lose faith in her husband, Diego Nava (Erik Hayser), she finds herself at a crossroad where she will need to find a way to deal with a great challenge and uncover the truth.” 15 episodes will arrive in season one.
March 24: Bottersnikes & Gumbles Season 2 [Kid’s Show]
“Bottersnikes & Gumbles is a fast-paced community comedy series that follows the adventures of three young Gumbles -Tink, Bounce and Willi – as they bounce about and play while avoiding getting tin-canned by their lazy and grumpy neighbors, the Bottersnikes. Developed and adapted from the much loved Bottersnikes & Gumbles books, this new CGI-animated series is created by Cheeky Little, Mighty Nice and CAKE and co-commissioned by Netflix, BBC and Channel 7 Australia.”
March 24: Grace and Frankie Season 3
Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin‘s Grace and Frankie returns for a third season. You’ll recall that season 2 ended with the friends deciding to start a vibrator business together.
March 24: The Most Hated Woman in America [Movie]
“This drama follows the controversial life of outspoken atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, from her landmark court battles to her infamous abduction.”
The 91-minute dramatic film is directed by Tommy O’Haver and starring Juno Temple, Adam Scott, Josh Lucas, and Melissa Leo, among others.
March 28: Jo Koy: Live From Seattle [Comedy Special]
A stand-up comedy special from comedian Jo Koy.
March 31: The Discovery [Movie]
The Discovery premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival. The film has a great hook: what if scientists discovered that the afterlife is real, leading millions of people to commit suicide to get there faster? What would the world look like? This new preview offers a few hints. The Discovery is the latest film from director Charlie McDowell, who scored big with another small scale, high-concept science fiction film, The One I Love, back in 2014. This one stars the great Robert Redford as the scientist who discovers a “new plane of existence” beyond our world, essentially throwing the entire population of Earth into an existential crisis. Jason Segel plays Redford’s son and Rooney Mara plays the woman he meets after returning to his hometown for some serious self-reflection. Watch The Discovery trailer here.
March 31: 13 Reasons Why Season 1
“Based on the best-selling books by Jay Asher, 13 Reasons Why follows teenager Clay Jensen as he returns home from school to find a mysterious box with his name on it lying on his porch. Inside he discovers cassette tapes recorded by Hannah Baker—his classmate and crush—who tragically committed suicide two weeks earlier. On tape, Hannah explains that there are thirteen reasons why she decided to end her life. Will Clay be one of them? If he listens, he’ll find out how he made the list. Through Hannah and Clay’s dual narratives, 13 Reasons Why weaves an intricate and heart-wrenching story of teenage life that will deeply affect viewers.”
13 Reasons Why stars Dylan Minnette as Clay Jensen, Katherine Langford as Hannah Baker, Kate Walsh as Mrs. Baker, Brian D’Arcy James as Mr. Baker, Derek Luke as Mr. Porter, Brandon Flynn as Justin Foley, Justin Prentice as Bryce Walker, Alisha Boe as Jessica Davis, Christian Navarro as Tony Padilla, Miles Heizer as Alex Standall, and Tommy Dorfman as Ryan Shaver.
March 31: Bordertown: Season 1
“Peculiar detective Kari Sorjonen escapes the hustle and bustle of big city to a small border town.” 11-episodes of this Finland-imported crime drama mystery series from creator Miikko Oikkonen will premiere.
March 31: Dinotrux Season 4 [Kid’s Show]
“Welcome to a world of giant creatures that are half dinosaur, half construction vehicle and all awesome in Dinotrux, the Netflix original series from DreamWorks! Meet Ty Rux, a massive Tyrannosaurus Trux, and his best friend Revvit, a razor-sharp Reptool. Together, the Dinotrux and Reptools join forces for the first time ever to build a bigger, better world and battle back against the biggest and baddest of them all: D-Structs, who threatens to wreck everything they’ve built.”
March 31: Trailer Park Boys: Season 11
“This wickedly funny mockumentary series follows the booze-fueled misadventures of Julian (John Paul Tremblay), Ricky (Robb Wells) and Bubbles (Mike Smith), longtime pals and petty serial criminals who run scams from their Nova Scotia trailer park — when they aren’t in jail, that is. But kudos to the lads for their persistence, even if their harebrained get-rich schemes involve growing pot right under the nose of ex-cop Jim (John Dunsworth).”
Continue Reading Netflix Release Dates >
0 notes