#the difference between the first two movies and this one is so polarising

[fernisworm]

WHAT WAS THAT SLOP

[anxiousdreamcore]

I saw that recent post you made writing out how you view all the Avatar characters, and in it, you mentioned that your opinion of the characters has changed a lot in the past year and a half (I can't believe it's been that long since ATWOW!)

So how did your opinion of the characters change and why? Who changed the most radically? I'd love to hear your thought process!

Warning: yapping ahead

My opinion changed as I began consuming content from different people in the fanbase, as I sadly started out my journey relegated to mostly the recom side of the fandom.

A very specific vision I’ve formed was one of him and Neytiri. Her and Spider are two individuals forced to be close by circumstance, and not necessarily liking each other but they’re known each other for so long that they know each other, you know? The way I see it, they can’t pretend to be strangers, and their argument in the high ground comics, which is the only time any of the children oppose Neytiri makes me think that this is the dynamic going on between them.

Being a Spider fan outside of the recom space was a horrible experience for many of my mutuals, and I heard from more than one person that just liking the character earned them death threats, so I kept to the only space where he was actually liked, which uh…may or may not have been a bit of an echo chamber.

First months after ATWOW came out the opinions were extremely polarising and there was little depth to go around. I realised later on though, I didn’t have to pick a side and didn’t have to force myself to forgive Quaritch, because I never wanted to. I didn’t have to see him as either a 🥺baby gworl🥺 or an emotionless monstrosity.

As I said before, the essays made by Quaritch fans sold me at first. They seemed to provide a lot of proof and I was on board with the identity crisis theory, but as time went on I believed it less and less. Looking at the movie with fresh eyes months later, I formed and opinion of my own and that is — That recom Quaritch is an amalgamation of his past self and the Na’vi instincts/perspective of his new body. He’s a fucked up soup that is, in a way, different than his human predecessor but not different enough to be considered a wholly separate creature. If human Quaritch was a dying garden then recom Quaritch is that same garden decayed to the core, with one single flower emerging amongst the rot, not yet consumed by it. (That flower being his fatherhood obv)

I went from seeing him as a man perhaps capable of redemption and seeing value in Pandora, to a man who, while not enjoying violence per ce, obviously doesn’t give much of a damn about the moon or its habitat or its many cultures. All that matters to Quaritch is that these things matter to his son, so he’ll entertain them and go easy on the destruction, just for him. He doesn’t yet accept Pandora, not fully, but he accepts that Spider does so. That is about his only good quality.

The way I began to see it, Socorro is somewhat his only functioning organ. A breathing lung in an otherwise dead body. Miles hasn’t felt anything but manic happiness and rage for as long as we knew him on screen, and that only changed when he stood in the boy’s presence, constantly challenged by him, and brought out of his comfort zone over and over again. He needs him to be remotely alive and likeable to the audience. He needs him to be something more than a chained army dog.

That brings me to my next point; my other big change in perspective was one of his dynamic with Spider. The more I analysed the franchise the more I came to conclusion that Miles is just an unbearable softie for him, and it was really the deleted scenes and the fact that Spider has a new bow in the ikran taming scene that sold me. He not just likes Spider, he loves him, to death. His sacrifices might not seem sufficient, but for his character, they‘re very much drastic, as Miles is traditionally not a loving person.

Quaritch is canonically a traitor to the RDA because he jeopardised his mission three times in a row, all for a single child. His inner father and colonel are constantly fighting each other, as he knows what he should be focusing on, but can’t resist being a father; having priorities of his own. He was an old fool who thought he could have his cake and eat it too; make Spider safe and happy and be a colonel at the same time, but in the end he made up his mind on what matters more, and it’s Spider. The way I see it now is; Quaritch is only truly loyal to Spider. He can hate it, but he can’t run from it.

[radramblog]

Star Wars Battlefront II (the good one)

My nonfunctional internet is preventing me not only from finishing off my essay, not only from watching the lecture that I would have shown up for were it not for mediary COVID restrictions, but it’s also stopping me from writing anything here that would require any sort of research or confirming details. That leaves me with less options that I would have thought.

Browsing through my Steam collection for ideas on what to talk about, and something jumped out at me pretty quickly.

Star Wars Battlefront II (the 2005 game, not Star Wars Battlefront 2, the sequel to the EA remake much maligned for malicious microtransactions) is a first/third person shooter that, while showing its age, remains one of the best games the franchise has ever put out. This is, of course, an opinion coming from someone who has yet to play Knights of the Old Republic, but it feels like Star Wars as a franchise has more misses than hits. So what makes this one land?

While I’m woefully unfamiliar with the early 00s shooters that Battlefront II was competing with (aside from Counter-Strike Source, but I’d argue that’s a different target market), I am extremely familiar with this one. I think part of why Battlefront II is so fondly remembered is on account of it being almost a gateway game for people getting into shooters in general- I for one played it extensively on my mate’s PS2 in primary school, and later on someone else’s PSP, and I doubt I would later have clicked so strongly with Halo if I hadn’t.

But what Battlefront II has more than anything else I feel is ambition. After the conclusion of the prequel trilogy, Star Wars’s universe was big, and the developers seemed interested in representing about as much of what we see of it’s style of warfare as they possibly could. As a result, the maps are a glorious smattering of worlds and terrains, loving and detailed recreations of places from the various films as well as a few that are probably new (I might just not remember them), each drizzled with vehicles and turrets and resources. Each of the game’s four factions share the basic units with very few differences (except for the Super Battle Droid), making them easy to understand and grasp for newer/younger players, with the complexity of each’s unique units paying off those willing to grapple with their weakness and play to their strengths. Some are definitely better than others, but that isn’t especially obvious at first. The basic classes reflect tropes seen in other games and while again some falter it’s not by enough that picking them in the wrong situation is a guaranteed blunder.

There are, of course, the heroes, major characters from the series granted to a player who’s doing pretty well, and I feel like this is another pretty well handled mechanic, even if a little awkward. There are enough of them, and they’re distributed enough between maps and factions, that they don’t tend to feel stale, and it’s pretty obvious that while they can absolutely ruin a team it’s also pretty easy to mishandle them. Unfortunately, heroes are related to one of my biggest complaints about the game, but we’ll get to that later.

One of the biggest selling points in my eyes are the dogfight levels. Now, I’ve never played X-Wing or the like, in fact my experiences with dogfighting games is extremely limited. But this part of the game fucks so hard. The design ideas begun with the class selection continue with the (admittedly small) range of starfighters you can pilot, with specialised interceptors, bombers, and landing craft to go alongside the effective all-rounders. The mode offers a variety of playstyles, between hunting down opponent’s fighters to bombing their flagships to boarding said flagships and destroying their systems from the inside. There is also the option of manually controlling the turrets, as well as acting as a gunner for someone else’s bomber/lander, but these positions are unfortunately underpowered and underexplored- they’re also, ultimately, less fun. But the dogfighting just feels right. I can’t really explain it, but moving in that 3-dimensional space feels not only satisfying but accurate to the source material in a way I don’t think any future Star Wars game has yet replicated.

I suppose the various game modes are worth discussing. Skirmishing on whatever map you want is the standard, at least in multiplayer, but there are a few unique offerings you won’t see in other modes- Hunt, where it’s a faction versus some of the series’s wildlife in a mode that always feels imbalanced towards one side or the other. There’s obviously Assault- the standard name for the space dogfights but on one ground map (Mos Eisley) it is of course the ever-popular heroes free-for-all, a chaotic mess but one where you can test out each one and figure out what their abilities actually do. But in the broader strokes, you’ve got the story, and the Galactic Conquest, as the two main other modes.

(oof, they really didnt build this with this resolution in mind huh)

That’s right, this game has a story, and it’s…okay? Ultimately it’s just a series of missions with the 501st, as they fight in the clone wars, turn on the Jedi, and ultimately become the Empire’s tool of oppression, separated by exposition. You get to run through some scenes from the movies, including the boarding at the start of the first movie and the Battle of Hoth, though some of the missions feel harder than intended- no matter how good the player is, the AI is not going to fare well in the tougher missions and you have a solid chance of ending up on your own.

Galactic Conquest is the game’s more unique selling point, being something like a basic version of Risk but with the dice-rolling battles replaced with Star Wars Battlefront II. You earn credits over time and through victory that you can spend unlocking types of units, getting new fleets to improve how many fronts you can wage war on, and unlock powerups for use in the actual battles. It’s largely fine, feeling like a bit more controlled and strategic version of just playing randoms in Instant Action, but it suffers the most from the biggest problem this game has.

The game’s truest flaw is its AI. They are dumb as a sack of potatoes, and the main thing holding the game back from perfection. And it was the early 00s so imperfect AI was to be expected, but it’s a bit more than imperfect here, I guess. Robits standing still while shooting you (or just at all, while you’re sniping them), extremely questionable vehicle and turret usage, and literally crashing starships into you, your flagship, or their own flagship. Bumping their difficulty up doesn’t really help, either. Even more egregious is the AI’s usage of heroes- or rather, that they don’t. If you’re playing single player, the game will always give earned heroes to you rather than your robot teammates, will not let one of them take if it if you decline to use the character, and you will never see one on the opposite side. This would imply that there wasn’t code for the Ais to use them, except there clearly is because Assault Mos Eisley exists- and they’re arguably much better there than in any other mode! It’s a real shame, because the low quality of the AI combined with the nature of the games means that victory is extremely polarised based on the player’s skill- if you bad all the way up to pretty decent at the game, your input basically doesn’t affect the outcome, whether you win or lose. If you’re good at the game, you will never lose at singleplayer, possible exception again being Assault Mos Eisley. It’s a little absurd, honestly. Also, I’m not even sure they go for the flag in CTF in space.

I am, however, willing to look past these flaws. The game is far from perfect, but it’s just incredibly fun. It’s a type of gameplay that they’ve tried to replicate, but never quite recaptured- and I think part of the reason for that is because the awkwardness is part of the charm. It’s nostalgic- both for those who played it when they were younger and just those in my generation who grew up on the Prequels. It’s also way more expensive on steam (bruh 14.5 AUD for real?) than I expected, but it goes on hard sales pretty often (I think I paid like a buck fifty for it), so it’ll be within budget at some point. I don’t know if I can recommend it for those who aren’t nostalgic, though, solely on account of those awkward features you likely wouldn’t be able to ignore like I do. And that’s a shame, because it’s not like they’ve made a better version of this game.

Fuck EA, basically.

[salmankhanholics]

★Kabir Khan decodes ‘Bajrangi Bhaijaan’s popularity ahead of its fifth anniversary!

Kabir Khan, who grew up admiring the composite culture of the country and still believes it to be an intrinsic part of India, said 'Bajrangi Bhaijaan' was his response to the growing religious discrimination.

.Mumbai, Jul 16 (PTI) “Bajrangi Bhaijaan” is Kabir Khan’s most loved film and it is also that one movie he has watched maximum number of times thanks to his daughter who loves to catch it during its multiple TV runs.

Children love the message of unity that the film tries to convey in the guise of an India-Pakistan drama, which is what Khan said he set out to do by casting Bollywood superstar Salman Khan as a simple-minded Hanuman devotee, Pawan, who crosses path with a mute girl, Munni, from Pakistan after she strays accidently into India.

Kabir said the strength of the film was that it was greatly enjoyed by children.

Rest of the story of the much-loved blockbuster, which completes five years on Friday, revolves around Pawan''s, also known as Bajrangi, (Salman) attempts to unite the child, played by Harshali Malhotra, with her parents across the border.

There is a fairytale element to the story, which is a cross-border drama about the neighbouring countries on the surface, but also a metaphor for the artificial boundaries that people put up around them, Khan said.

"When I was writing the film, it was not about cross-border. It was about the borders that we put within our country. The first half is about his (Salman) prejudices about a different religion; it is about how we as human beings put artificial boundaries and segregate people on artificial lines,” Kabir told PTI in an interview.

"It is all unnatural whether it is (on the basis of) religion or caste or nationality. These are man-made boundaries that we have put up,” he added.

The director, who grew up admiring the composite culture of the country and still believes it to be an intrinsic part of India, said “Bajrangi Bhaijaan” was his response to the growing religious discrimination.

The film was lauded for its sensitive portrayal of India-Pakistan relations, while retaining its sharp political commentary.

The filmmaker said he believes common people from both the countries—India and Pakistan— should not let politicians or politics hamper the love and peace between them.

"Unfortunately, we get swayed by the politics of two countries. Politicians will always be hostile and they will play this game for thousands and thousands of years.

"But politics should not come into the life of a common man. Why should we carry the hostility and burden of politicians and unnecessarily start hating people whether it is of different communities or nationalities. That is what basically the film was talking about," he added.

As a filmmaker, Kabir said "Bajrangi.." was a reflection of what he had observed in the society around him.

"There is sad polarisation that is happening in our society, the unnecessary division of people on the lines of religion. It is definitely not what India stands for. We have to celebrate what India stands for. One of the strengths of India is its composite culture. It is inherent, you cannot take it away," he said.

"''Bajrangi...'' is a reaction to the fact that polarisation has happened more and more and I felt I needed to address that in my film," he added.

As a politically-aware filmmaker, Kabir said he cannot make a film without a social or political context.

"All of us have some politics in us and we look at the world in a certain way and we react to it (accordingly). Politics is not about which party to vote for, that is a very narrow way of looking at it. Politics is about the way we look and react to the world," the Jamia Millia Islamia and Delhi University alumnus said.

Kabir further said all his films have a certain tone -- either fairytale, fantasy, real or logical. With "Bajrangi...", he wanted to create "fairytale-ish" quality about a man of good heart.

"Bajrangi Bhaijaan" opens with the shots of snow-clad mountains. For the film’s climax, Khan created India-Pakistan border in Sonmarg, Jammu and Kashmir with around 7,000 people. Kabir said as it was a Salman-starrer, the end needed a grand setting.

"This is the fairytale part of the film. It is where you want people from both the countries to come together. In reality, that’s not possible. But in the film, I was trying to show the goodness in people so the Pakistani guard steps back, seeing the huge number of the common people and allows them to break the fence for Pawan to enter India.

Talking about the casting of the film, Kabir said Salman as Pawan and Nawazuddin Siddiqui as Chand Nawab were his initial and only choices.

When writer K V Vijendra Prasad, who wrote the story, brought the idea to Kabir for developing the screenplay, he wanted Salman as “he has this magical connection with children and if I can capture that with Munni, it will fly and I also know that Salman feels strongly about the politics of the film”. PTI KKP BK BK

[themesdances]

Total Exit: on the Queer Cinema

(Basis for introductory remarks given at QFFxBQFF screening ‘Burning Ones’ at the IMA, March 8, 2018. )

Already, by the 1940s, the feeling was that the cinema had become “a medium of and for bankers,” that the time had passed in which a film could be both commercial and artistic, both public and personal. (Renan 18) Doubly constrained by market concerns and the 1930 Hays code (which forbade depictions of more than thirty unsavoury topics including interracial relationships, childbirth, sexual deviance and mockery of the church), the Hollywood studio system mastered the endless reproduction of tepid, escapist fantasies sure to appease audiences and censors alike. At its peak, the studio system churned out more than five hundred such features every year—and individual screenwriters, directors and actors working in that system understood well that they were replaceable, at a moment’s notice, if they threatened to disrupt either the consistency of the product or the relentless speed of the process.

Against this stultifying current emerged the underground cinema: a loose, international affiliation of artists working totally outside and in opposition to the studio’s production-distribution-exhibition machine. Where Hollywood had perfected filmmaking as the output of a bland and homogenous product, the underground sought to challenge every preconception of what a film could be, to be both radically personal and fearlessly experimental, and to explore any and every idea and subject deemed unfit for public consumption. Underground films could be twenty seconds or twenty hours long, narrative or abstract. Images could be traditionally shot, painted or scribbled right onto the stock. They could re-appropriate footage from other films, advertisements and newsreels; they could even mock the church. In a postwar society that had veered sharply conservative, the underground cinema acted as both a venue and method for exploring new ideas and questioning societal norms without fear of public persecution.

It is no surprise then, that while the movement began as a small group of artists making and screening films almost exclusively for one another, it quickly attracted those whose identities, sexualities, loves, ideas, class or politics excluded them from mainstream representation and mainstream society alike. By the 1950s, the underground had become a vital space, not only for artists to seek new forms of self-expression, but as a meeting place for queers and commies of all kinds—one of the few spaces which permitted open communication, the exchange of ideas and phone numbers, experimentation, exploration and transgression, both on-screen and off-. The commercial film epitomised the double-ideology of the “normal person” and the “normal story”, each reinforcing the other in a perpetual, closed loop. In their works, the underground sought to break entirely from this vicious circle, and it is this exigence of total flight to which all three films on tonight’s program respond.

In Jean Genet’s ‘Song of Love’, a prison guard cruises a dark, one might say mazelike hallway, spying on the prisoners’ various displays physical and sexual release. But there is one prisoner in particular whom the guard truly desires, and his voyeuristic pleasure sours into jealousy when he realises the prisoner yearns for someone else. Two fantasies—the prisoner’s and the guard’s—bleed into one another as the guard bursts into the cell and lashes the prisoner in an ecstatic outburst in which lust and hatred, acknowledgement and punishment become indistinguishable.

For Genet, as is well known, the criminal, poet and homosexual are but a single figure: the prisoners communicate their desires in their own language of smoke of flowers. Though they are physically confined, they exude an unrestrained sexuality in every frame of the film. In Genet’s world, it is the guard, which is to say the state, who wields all the power and yet remains impotent, who cannot join the prisoners. Unable to reconcile his contradictory desires, he (the guard) is the one finally expelled from the prisoners’ erotic liminal space.

Gregory Markopoulos was one of the earliest filmmakers to take up love between men as an explicit and enduring theme. While it is true that his films are intensely personal—so much so that he tried at one point to withdraw them from circulation entirely—their autobiographical details are fragmented, disturbed by, as Renan puts it, “[an] editing technique that obliterate[s] the plot if one [does] not know it.” (87) Even when, as in Swain, Markopoulos draws directly from a literary text, story remains subservient to an almost phenomenological method which conveys above all the experience of queer desire. At a time when homosexual experiences and encounters could exist only in marginal spaces, fleeting moments and coded signals, Markopolous’s films likewise remain hidden in plain sight, unfolding in a discontinuous style in which his characters’ pasts and presents, thoughts, fears and fantasies intermingle. We find in them a yearning for an impossible domesticity—a tranquility shattered, over and over, by intrusive memories and images that spill over the screen almost faster than the eye can catch.

Jack Smith’s ‘Flaming Creatures’ has a history of obscenity trials, clandestine screenings, police raids and arrests so extensive that it would overshadow perhaps any other film. When a Belgian film festival declared it an undeniable aesthetic achievement and banned it from screening in the same sentence, a friend of Smith’s smuggled the film into the country and held packed screenings in his hotel room. When the film had likewise been banned in New York, a vigilante projectionist at a commercial theatre, barricaded himself in his booth and screened the film for as long as he could before authorities cut off power to the entire building. (Benshoff 120)

‘Flaming Creatures’s polarising influence, its history both of outraged suppression and equally fervent support, is well-deserved. Structurally, visually, and thematically, it has almost no precedent. Made a year before Sontag’s famous essay, ‘Flaming Creatures’ was one of the first films to consciously develop what we now call ’camp’, and at the same time pushed that aesthetic further than perhaps any other film since. The result is a shocking farce; kitschy and obscene, consciously—almost studiously—opposed to every dictum of good taste. Visually, it is a pastiche of rococo, orientalist, drag and B-movie aesthetics: humans of utterly ambiguous gender identity frolic about in kimonos, flapper dresses and ball gowns, costume jewellery and tumescent prosthetic noses. Their activities reach a screaming, orgiastic climax until an apocalyptic earthquake kills them all. Then, the whole thing happens again.

In his own life and writings, Smith opposed not only the white, hetero-patriarchal establishment but the so-called ‘assimilationist’ LGBT intellectuals, who argued that the only path to mainstream acceptance was meek compliance with the mainstream status quo. Smith, by contrast, saw quote-unquote normalcy  as a restrictive and repressive ideology which should be resisted and lampooned in every possible respect. ‘Flaming Creatures’ is a free and irreverant fuck-you to every preconception, expectation and standard of good taste. It is structurally and visually disorienting, a confounding and ridiculous nightmare, which nonetheless harbours a kind of utopian vision: the film’s characters are truly “creatures” as the title implies—without gender, without boundaries, existing beyond even life and death. Smith himself said of the film that he wanted to explore every conception of beauty, and, once we have acclimated to its style, the film offers just that: a joyous affirmation of both the glamorous and the tacky, of every kind of body, of cheap wigs and jiggly dicks.

Queer popular culture still echoes the innovations of the underground, in its gleeful mockery of conventional gender signifiers, for instance, or in its embrace of camp as a rejection of academic distinctions between ‘high’ and ‘low culture’, or ’serious’ and ‘silly’ art. Yet, as exemplified by RuPaul earlier this week, the ultimate triumph of the assimilationist agenda over the underground’s rejectionist project has come at the cost of a reabsorption of mainstream hegemony into the queer world, and a recodification of social and sexual roles in a community that once strictly opposed performative roles of every kind: As Rees-Roberts argues, “‘Images’ of mainstream integration,“ have disproportionately favoured “conventional, straight-acting, young, white, middle-class gay boys, [reinforcing social hierarchies of] LGBT identities, racial difference, gender inequality, [and] economic privilege.” (1-2) Much of queer cinema, like much of queer culture, has likewise acquiesced to mainstream standards of normalcy and acceptability, but in exchange for an acceptance which is not offered equally to all.

What the underground filmmakers understood, what has often been obscured in subsequent, audience-friendly depictions of safe, queer love, was the urgent need of resistance to the prevailing status quo and all of its social, political, intellectual and economic mechanisms of control. The films come from a time when to be queer already meant to be an intellectual and political adversary of the state; to be experimental or personal as a filmmaker already meant to oppose the monolithic, monopolistic and moralising Hollywood system. The queer underground grasped clearly that, in every case, it is one voice which divides titillation from transgression, the aesthetic from the abhorrent, which in one decree states what is good, what is moral, what is legal and what will sell; one voice which sings the song of a tasteful society of progress and progeny. In the underground there emerged against this voice another one of total dissent, a break so radical that it still eclipses much of what has come since. Here, artists imagined utopian futures which have not yet come to pass, and, if we have truly abandoned the ceaseless critique of our own present, perhaps never will.

Cited:

Benshoff, Harry and Sean Griffin. Queer Images: A History of Gay And Lesbian Film In America. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield 2006.

Rees-Roberts, Nick. French Queer Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP 2008.

Renan, Sheldon. An Introduction To The American Underground Film. New York: Dutton 1967.

[paradox-media]

BTS - Map of the Soul:7 Album Review

The internet, and the entire world, have come to know the name BTS over the last year or so. The group keep growing exponentially with every single release and are slowly but surely taking over mainstream media too. After the release of their last studio album Map of the Soul: Persona on April 12th 2019, the lead track featuring American singer-songwriter Halsey, BTS exploded into the mainstream scene all over the world. That lead track, “Boy With Luv” went on to win 11 different awards including song of the year, best music video, best dance performance (male group) and best K-pop at the MTV Video Music Awards. So you could say that the hype for the next instalment in the series was admirable.

MOTS:7 includes 5 tracks from Persona that prelude the rest of the album: Intro:Persona, Boy With Luv, Make It Right, Jamais Vu and Dionysus. The rest of the new album then follows on after these tracks: Interlude:Shadow, Black Swan, Filter, My Time, Louder Than Bombs, ON, UGH!, 00:00 (Zero O’Clock), Inner Child, Friends, Moon, Respect, We Are Bulletproof: The Eternal, Outro:Ego and ON (Feat. SIA). There are 20 tracks overall on the album, making it a total listening time of 76 minutes, much longer than most usual albums would be by almost 30 minutes.

It isn’t unusual for K-pop albums to be longer than a normal Western album would usually run for as they’re seen as big events that take a lot of time and effort. Not only is the album produced, it’s then promoted on shows like MNET Countdown where idols will usually perform the title track alongside a select few others from the new material and will consist of full choreography and set design. These albums are also produced to a much higher standard – rather than just having what’s known as a jewel case, the small plastic album that most Western artists produce, they’re much bigger and include an artistic photobook of varying concepts, a lyric book, photocards and posters. These albums are meant for collecting, and MOTS:7 is no exception. The album itself is huge, A4 sized, in a hard case and comes with all of the extras which makes it very collectible.

Song-wise this album is very polarising to anything else that BTS have released in their careers, each and every song is different in its own way, be it genre, tempo or stylistically. ‘Interlude: Shadow’, performed by SUGA (Min Yoongi) still follows his rap style, but the beat begins very slowly and the lyrics are very personal – on this track SUGA speaks about running away from his fears, realising that his shadows are chasing him and is afraid to be at the top because he’s scared of falling.

The end of the track changes to a heavier trap beat and he talks about not being able to escape no matter what, whether you’re at the top or not. He allows his audience and his fans to see a darker side of the fame that he has, and it makes the song feel more personal.

‘Black Swan’ is one of the singles from the album and was released a month or so before the rest of the tracks. This song set the tone for the feel and flow of the album and it actually caused a split reaction between fans; some of them loved it, and others hated it. It sounds very different to anything else the group has released in the past and people were unsure how to feel about it, myself included. Despite that, the more I listened to it, the more I began to like it. Different doesn’t always mean bad anyways. The choreography that accompanies this track is also extremely beautiful and shows off the skills that the members have, what they have trained to have over the years. ‘Black Swan’ proves that BTS can change up their style and not have it be a bad thing – something that many artists struggle with during their careers.

The next track is another solo song, performed by Jimin (Park Jimin).

‘Filter’ musically sounds very much like something that would chart in the Western world from a Western artist and almost has a Camila Cabello/ Shaun Mendes vibe.

The beat is simple and is chased by a single guitar which gives the track a very one-dimensional feel but is then brought up by the use of multi-layered harmonies and semi-muted backing vocals. ‘Filter’ was very much liked by the fans when the album dropped, and continues to be a feel-good track to this day.

Another solo song follows, ‘My Time’ performed by maknae Jungkook (Jeon Jeongguk).  After the release of his other extremely successful solo song ‘Euphoria’ in 2018, fans were highly anticipating this track. Despite being the youngest member, Jungkook’s vocal ability and range is comparable of seasoned veterans, and his performance in this song is no exception. The track features high vocal notes, lovely harmonies and meaningful lyrics that took fans by surprise and brought them closer to the idols once more. ‘My Time’ is another track that fans hold in high regard from this album and it will definitely be one that people listen to for a long time.

‘Louder Than Bombs’ comes next, and the whole feel of the album shifts slightly. This track is a lot slower than the previous ones, the lyrics adding to the base set by ‘Interlude: Shadow’ about unfamiliar shadows amidst cheers. The members are speaking directly to their audience the duration of this song, “You and I, we feel it together, sadness and pain.” This once more gives the audience an insight into the members lives, and makes them feel more connected as humans; we all suffer but we all fight together. This track is in my top 3 for this album, the mixture of rap vocal and singing vocal balancing perfectly and the message conveyed through the lyrics is really important.

The title track then follows, ‘ON’, and elevates the tempo of the album once more. This song also utilises the mixture of rap and lyrical vocal, and these lyrics almost combat those from previous tracks: “Can’t hold me down ‘cause you know I’m a fighter.” The bridge of this song is what caught my attention on my first listen: maknae Jungkook takes over the bridge and belts some high notes over the heavy beat and proves once again why he deserves to be where he is. The whole song is very loud and has a lot of layers, you need to listen to it a few times to really notice all the small details but in my opinion that’s the best part about music, being able to listen to a song over and over and find something new each time.

Now it’s time for my personal favourite track from the entire album. ‘UGH!’ is performed by the groups rap-line, consisting of RM, SUGA and J-Hope (Kim Namjoon, Min Yoongi and Jung Hoseok). I’m a sucker for a good trap beat and some gunshot sound effects and ‘UGH!’ provides just that. The lyrics match the intensity of the beat and each of the members goes hard, criticising their opposition and those who stand in their way or put them down. ‘UGH!’ also reminds me a lot of older BTS tracks, tracks that introduced me to the group in the first place back in 2015, so maybe that’s why I’m biased. This is one of the tracks that’s been noticed outside of the K-pop community too, especially on Twitter, where people who have no idea who BTS are or have never heard their music before are in awe over how hard the beat goes and how good their rap is.

The album then slows down again, the next track ’00:00 (Zero O’Clock) once again slowing down some in tempo. This track is also much more melodical, performed by the vocal-line, consisting of the remaining members of BTS: Jin, V, Jimin and Jungkook (Kim Seokjin, Kim Taehyung, Park Jimin and Jeon Jeongguk). The lyrics to this song also talk about much heavier topics like being sad for no reason , trying your hardest and not succeeding and wanting to just breathe and be happy.

A lot of people turn to music to be their escape from reality, and this song almost acts like a comfort blanket to assure the listener that you’ll have bad days, but you’ll come through the other side and be happy once again.

‘Inner Child’, performed by V (Kim Taehyung), is similar in style to Jimin’s solo song ‘Filter’, with a single guitar beat accompanied with a base drum beat before building up into the chorus, a bright and airy track that you’d expect to hear in the middle of a Disney coming-of-age movie.

The next track is ‘Friends’, performed by Taehyung and Jimin, and it’s another feel-good song, the melody and lyrics more upbeat and in-line with other tracks like ‘Inner Child’. It offers a more summer vibe, a song that you’d blast in the car with your friends on a sunny day road-trip. The melody and beat are something you’d expect from a Western pop song, but with a different twist and it gives the song a very personal and new feel. The use of harmonies and even a gospel choir insert behind the main vocal also adds depth to this already joyous track.

‘Moon’ is a solo track, performed by oldest member Jin (Kim Seojkin) and much like some of the other tracks on MOTS:7 it has a more summer-pop vibe, with minimal instrumental during the verses that jumps up in the chorus. ‘Moon’ is another up-beat track, following on from others in the album, and helps to keep the tempo up and interesting.

The next track is another sub-unit, this time formed of RM and SUGA (Kim Namjoon and Min Yoongi) and is called ‘Respect’. Older fans of BTS will feel connected to this track as it almost throws back to some of the groups’ first songs way back when they debuted in 2013. This track is a sort of conversation between the two, “What is “respect”?” “What, hyung?” “I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking, you rascal.” It’s a fun track but still conveys a message through its lyrics, and this is something that BTS tend to do fairly often – hide a message in-between song melodies or tracks that are fun and upbeat.

After ‘Respect’, the tone of the album is brought way back down and once again becomes emotional and slow with ‘We Are Bulletproof: The Eternal’. BTS in Hangul is 방탄소년단 andtranslates to “Bulletproof Boyscouts”, and this track refers to one of their earliest songs ‘We Are Bulletproof, Pt 2” from their 2013 album ‘2 Cool 4 School’.

The lyrics of this track are deeply emotional for fans: “We were only seven, but we have you all now, after seven winters and springs, at the tips of our entwined fingers, yeah we got to Heaven.” These lyrics speak about their relationship with their fans, and how before them they were just seven (the amount of members that the group holds). It hasn’t always been easy for BTS, when they first debuted they were shunned by different companies, had performances cut last minute and weren’t given a chance. But now that they have been successful Worldwide, thanks to their fans, this song is a tribute to those who allowed them to get to where they are now.

The last song, bar the SIA feature, on the album is ‘Outro:Ego’ performed by J-Hope (Jung Hoseok), and is my second favourite song from this album. It brings the momentum of the album back up before its final crescendo and if the others were summer tracks, this one takes the top spot. This track samples an introduction from their old albums, once again throwing nostalgia at their long-time fans, before heading into a beat-heavy feel-good track. This song also feels reminiscent of Hoseok’s long-awaited solo album ‘Hope World’ that was released back in 2016. It’s one you could put on in the car with your friends and blast as loud as you can and has just an overall great vibe.

The real last song on the album is ‘ON’ featuring American singer-songwriter SIA, and in my personal opinion, it just doesn’t sound right. SIA by herself is an incredible vocalist, but this track does not suit her voice right because it’s out of her genre, and this track probably could have been cut from the final album. It’s a fantastic feat to work with such an esteemed Western artist, but this wasn’t it.

Overall, this album pushed the boundaries even higher for BTS as a group. They’ve performed it all over the globe (before the pandemic hit) and sold more copies and pre-sale copies than any other K-pop group has before. BTS are a force to be reckoned with, not just in Korea, but the rest of the World, and they should be watching out for whatever comes next.

[superpooped]

Dealing with Quarantine (from an actual expert)

Hello!

Today’s post is for people who are having their first taste of isolation or quarantine and are feeling a bit overwhelmed.

There’s a lot of these going around, and although they can be useful (I have no idea about specific Corona-based medical practise or finance) they seem to be written by people who are generally out and about in the world.

No offence, but what you really need is a Professional. You need… A HOUSEBOUND PERSON!

And that’s where I come in.

For those of you that are new here, I have a condition where, amongst other things, my body doesn’t create energy like it should. My mitochondria are all messed up, so, as you can imagine, that has an impact on… everything.

I am too exhausted to leave the house, or sometimes my bed. So I’ve been cared for by my lovely family for seven and a half years, and have been housebound for the last five and a half.

By now, I’m an old hand at this, so I’ll be able to help you out with some of the lesser known issues that people without that half a decade of experience just can’t tell you.

Some of this may seem strange or contradictory in places, but I don’t make the rules. This is how it is.

Choice makes a difference

You’re probably learning (or about to learn) that the one thing that makes a difference as to whether doing something or not is fun is Choice.

The number of times I’ve had someone say to me “it must be so nice to be at home all the time” is ridiculous.

The person saying it is thinking of the fun type of staying at home, where you decide to have a duvet day and watch movies and eat toast in your pants.

But now people are being faced with the less fun kind. The kind where you can’t leave.

Staying at home because you want to… fun. Staying at home because of Doom Plague Potential… not fun. (Also, bagsy “Doom Plague Potential” as a band name.)

It’s tough being uncertain when you’re going to see people, do things or get on with your life, but…

If you think about it, you are making a choice. You’re making the choice to put your health first. That’s sensible.

And if you’re careful with others who are more at risk then you’re making the choice to be kind. That’s even better.

You can do it

I’m not even meaning this in an inspirational quote sense, you can actually do this. It may be tricky, but if I can last half a decade in my house, you can last a couple of weeks, or even a couple of months.

If you’re actually sick then make sure you have people who can check up on you via the internet or phone if not in person. Seek medical attention where necessary.

Otherwise…

The Internet exists - embrace it

All that “put down your phone and live in the REAL WORLD” stuff is about to become a load of cobblers.

You will feel lonely, the Internet is a great tool to prevent that, so embrace it.

Group chats, social media, and video chats make a MASSIVE difference in the lives of people stuck at home, so utilise that.

Even when you’re watching tv, have a group chat of mates watching the same thing and talk about it as if you’re all there together. Because you are... kind of.

You can also contact plenty of mental healthcare professionals over the internet (or phone) if you feel that’s something you need. Don’t be afraid to reach out. There are people available.

The Internet isn’t real

At the same time as the internet being an amazing tool and opportunity for social interaction, it’s important to remember that it’s not a complete experience of the world.

It seems obvious when you’re able to leave the house, but it will quickly become clear that things start to feel a bit more skewed without the regular interaction of polite (or not so polite) strangers in everyday life.

Things will seem more polarised and polarising, and specific, potentially small things may seem extremely important. That’s normal, just... bear it in mind and take a deep breath before reacting to things.

TV, Radio, Things to do!

If you, unlike me, are at home as a precautionary measure instead of long term health condition you can probably do things. Hooray!

Right now that is less than you're used to, and BELIEVE ME I know that feel, bro, but you can still do things and that’s wonderful.

Imagining a lengthy period where you’re stuck at home sounds awful, but imagine it without TV, books or the internet. Or crafts. Or DIY. Or the ability to clean your clothes or yourself.

I’m trying really hard not to play the “be grateful” card here, because people have said it to me despite me struggling (or being completely unable) to do any of those things and it made me want to bite them. But also... you can likely do those things. So maybe this is the point where all those trite inspiration memes come in handy and you can embrace the things you can do.

Unless you are sick, in which case, for the love of all that is holy, do not do the things.

Stay in bed. Drink fluids. Have people check in on you as safely as possible. Resist the urge to get up and make your body fight harder than it is, because that will not help you.

Trust me, despite all those “you can do anything if you BELIEVE” quotes, it’s not strong or clever to push your body when it’s struggling. You will just use up energy your body could be using to heal you. Take it from the sick person.

Stay in bed till you feel better, and then a bit longer, just to make sure.

And resist the urge to go out in public and rub your germy self onto various surfaces.

You will come to love your Postie/Courier.

Oh, those kind humans who strive through wind and gale to bring us parcels and food, and most importantly, contact with the outside world.

A face! A new face! Possibly some small talk. You never knew that was a thing you could miss before this moment.

Will you potentially feel the need to disinfect everything you get in the post? Possibly. Will you be ever so glad to see someone who doesn’t live in your house or flat? Most definitely.

They must be protected for they are the keepers of the parcels.

Time will lose all meaning.

The only thing I can reliably liken it to is that weird week between Christmas and New Year where you don’t know what day, time or year it is. Or why you’re covered in biscuit crumbs.

If you don’t celebrate these events and have have no prior experience in this weird time warp... I’m sorry. Things are about to get real.

I genuinely forget my own age at this point.

Keep to a regular schedule.

You’re going to re-enter the world at some point but that’s going to be difficult if your schedule is all messed up.

Keeping to a normal(ish) schedule will also mean you’re more likely to sleep better, which will be handy if you do actually get sick.

If you’re going to be working from home then you’re probably going to have to use alarms to get you to do anything because otherwise you will look up and it’s three in the afternoon, you’ve done nothing and you’re still in your jim-jams.

(To be fair, if you want to work in your jim-jams that’s a totally valid choice.)

Try to stick to specific working hours if you can. It’s much easier to switch off your mind from work worries when you’ve got commute time in the middle, so having set hours or a signal to yourself (like changing clothes) that the work day is over will help you wind down a bit easier. I remember that much from my healthy freelance days.

Exercise?

I imagine that if you’re housebound without being sick you’re probably going to have a ton of pent up energy.

I’ll admit I’m completely guessing here, because energy is quite literally what my body is rubbish at producing so exercising makes me worse, which is why I’m stuck in my house unable to do anything in the first place.

Looking back at those heady years before I got sick, however, I would get pretty restless being stuck inside during that weird post-Christmas week, so it’s probably good to try and exercise some of that off.

Stretches, yoga, kick a football about in the garden. Whatever floats your boat.

You’ll probably sleep better and it’s good for releasing endorphins too.

Again, if you’re sick, don’t do this. Just don’t. Coronavirus targets your respiratory system so nobody wants you to be doing star jumps like a muppet. Go lie down.

Touch withdrawal

If you live on your own, or even if people inside your house are avoiding contact to prevent potential contamination you may experience mild touch withdrawal. I don’t know if that’s an official term, but that’s what I’m calling it.

You can counter this with:

Blankets, duvets, or weighted blankets

There’s a reason people are given shock blankets after trauma, and that’s to simulate a hug and release the associated endorphins. Having a blanket, duvet or weighted blanket around you will do that same thing.

Pets

Having access to a furry (or scaly or feathered) friend will help with loneliness and touch withdrawal. A lot of them will be loving the chance to spend more time with you.

ASMR

I’ve had people tell me that ASMR videos help them with loneliness and touch withdrawal.

ASMR stands for Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response and is basically a tingly feeling of calm and being cared for that a person can experience when watching or listening to certain triggers.

YouTube is full of people tapping on bottles and turning books pages, and it can be really useful.

I was a bit dubious to begin with, but honestly the ones where the person pretends to cut your hair make me into a giant pile of goop.

Not the same as long term isolation

This is going to pass. You will be able to leave the house again, and it will be relatively soon.

When it does, please be respectful of those who are still here.

Yes, a two week quarantine might give you a tiny glimpse into what it’s like to be housebound, but it won’t make you an expert in long term isolation due to illness or disability. That’s a whole other ball game.

Please do not equate the two, because it honestly feels a randomer in a bar who has spent two minutes thinking on a topic telling you about something you have a doctorate in.

Coronavirus is scary, and quarantine or self-isolation is not something you’re used to but it is temporary.

Finally

If disabled or sick people are getting salty on the internet it’s because they have reason to be.

A lot of us have been stuck like this for years or even decades, and many of the options that would make things much more accessible for us have only magically become possible now there’s a threat to the general, abled population.

It doesn’t help that lots of people are trotting out the old “it’s only the old and sick who are in danger”. Thanks for that, mate. So glad that it’s only us sickies (and oldies) who might die and not the important, useful people that are in danger.

Many of us do not have that light at the end of the tunnel when we can leave the house and just get on with our lives. I have no idea when or if I will be able to rejoin society fully, or even partly. And I just have to get on with it.

So take this opportunity to be a little more mindful of those people.

I do hope this helps people who are nervous about being isolated. Keep calm. It will be alright.

Originally posted on superpooped.blogspot.com

[thelaserdiscfiles]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969, Bond no. 6, Dir. Peter R. Hunt)

After a successful run of 5 Bond films, Sean Connery decided to hang up the holster and explore other ventures. This would not be a permanent departure from the series, in fact it would not be his only departure and return to the series, but we'll get into that. After Connery's temporary retirement from the role, series producers Broccoli and Saltzman began pre-production for filming an adaptation of The Man With The Golden Gun, featuring Roger Moore as Bond, intending to shoot it in Cambodia. However, between Roger Moore signing up for another series of the television show The Saint and political instability in southeast Asia at the time, this didn't come to fruition, thus TMWTGG and Moore were shelved for a later day. In fact, OHMSS was originally to be made post-Goldfinger, but the rights legal battle I mentioned a few posts ago was resolved, and EON was able to move forward with Thunderball.

Enter George Lazenby, a 29 year old Australian model who had more or less no acting experience aside from appearing in a chocolate bar commercial. Lazenby is kind of the movie star that was never to be. He kinda lucked into an astonishing amount of potential by starring in this movie, but unfortunately for him, he squandered it by declaring shortly into filming that he would only be starring as James Bond in one film, as he had been convinced by his manager the the Bond franchise would not remain solvent into the seventies. Yes, time has born this out to be an incredibly poor decision, and incredibly ironic, as the franchise has stood the test of time very well. But, going from the tumultuous 60s into the more civilized and freer 1970s, who's to say if it would have been at the time? Yes, hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to, in 2019, laugh at Lazenby's decision as very poor judgment and mismanagement, but at the time it was not known that the Bond franchise would be a titan that transcends decades.

The movie begins with James Bond driving along in his sweet new Aston Martin DBS Vantage, when he gets passed by a totally bitchin' red Mercury Cougar XR-7. Given that the Merc was driven by a pretty woman, Bond naturally takes an interest, and prevents her from drowning herself in the ocean.....and is attacked by two thugs who presumably want the woman. After beating them down, the women takes off as Bond quips "this never happened to the other fellow", and opening credits role.

The woman, revealed to be contessa Teresa di Vicenzo, or, just Tracy to her friends, is the troubled daughter of an Italian crime lord. Her father, seeing some kind of potential in Bond, attempts to bribe him into wedding his daughter with a princely dowry of one million pounds. Bond refuses, however, he continues to romance Tracy on the condition that her dad reveal the location of his nemesis, SPECTRE numero uno, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Finally having a shot at Blofeld, Bond returns to London only to be told by his superior M to drop it, and Bond resigns from MI6. Well, tries to, at least, as M's secretary Moneypenny changes the resignation notice to a request for vacation. Bond then makes tracks to Tracy's dad's birthday, where he finds himself in a genuine romantic relationship with her. Inevitably, her father's sources lead Bond to a geneologist for London's College of Arms, and learns that Blofeld is scheming to attain a title of nobility, claiming to be Count Balthazar de Bleuchamp, and that he is holed up in a mountain in neutral Switzerland, running an allergy clinic. Impersonating the geneologist and donning his silliest outfit, Bond heads for Piz Gloria, Blofeld's compound high in the Alps, and, after seducing several of the young patients and finding out that they're being brainwashed to taint the world's food supply, Bond is caught and outed at the spy he is, despite coming face to face with Blofeld, who apparently remembered him looking more like a certain Scotsman. Bond is imprisoned, but escapes by skiing down the mountain with the bad guys, including Blofeld's head henchwoman, Irma Bunt, behind him. Hiding from his pursuers in a mountain town, he comes across, of all people, Tracy, who is in town doing some skating. Together they take flight in her Cougar, and more skiing ensures. Blofeld triggers an avalanche, and manages to abduct Tracy. Along with her father and his men, Bond stages a daring raid on Piz Gloria, and rescues Tracy, but Blofeld manages to escape on a secret bobsled. Later, with M, a weepy Moneypenny and a proud Q present, Bond and Tracy wed, only for Blofeld and Bunt to gun her down in a drive-by shooting, leaving James Bond to weep over the body of his dead wife.

Fifteen or so years ago, when I was first REALLY getting into the series, Lazenby and OHMSS were stalwarts of worst Bond/Bond movie lists everywhere. Contemporary reviews seemed to focus on one thing: George Lazenby isn't Sean Connery. Connery had been the face of the series since the beginning, a series for which the public had a voracious appetite for. In my personal opinion, they just weren't ready for the face of that to change. However, in 2019, as I right this, the movie has undergone considerable reappraisal. Industry bigshots Steven Soderberg and Christopher Nolan have cited it as their favorite of the series. Lazenby himself is still rather polarising. You either like him or you don't. I do. I personally believe that had he stuck with the role, and gone on to make Diamonds are Forever and especially Live and Let Die, and we had not had poor Roger Moore languish in the role til 19-80-fucking-6, we would have had a vastly different franchise. A franchise that I lement the loss of the possibilities of, and had Lazenby been the face of that franchise, matured with it, I think he would be infinitely better remembered. He has a youthful flippancy about him, and a greater physicality than Connery ever had. I genuinely enjoy the dynamic between him and Tracy, who is played by Diana Rigg, who modern audiences will probably NOT (it has been 50 years since OHMSS) recognize and Olenna Tyrell from the HBO juggernaut Game of Thrones. A lot of people didn't like when Bond wept over her dead body. I do agree that Connery probably would not have done that. For me Lazenby balances the quintessential hard drinkin' Aston Martin drivin' PPK shootin' womanizin' tropes that the series had become known for with a healthy dose of humanity. The things he could have done...even though it was literally 20 years before my birth....still bothers me.

The action in this movie is both thrilling and beautifully shot. The skiing scenes put that of Moore-era flick The Spy Who Loved Me, which was made nearly a decade later, to shame. The car chase with the big, brawny Cougar XR-7 is just awesome, a chase made better for me by the fact that it's Tracy, not Bond, behind the wheel. The penultimate bobsled scene is, goofiness aside, pretty damn exciting. The music, including the driving opening theme (the first, and only theme in the series to be an instrumental piece) and the Louis Armstrong-sung tune We Have All The Time In The World are really good and have a great late 60's feel.

If I had to pick one thing that doesnt do it for me....it's easily Telly Savalas....Mo'fucking Kojak, as Blofeld. Savalas, despite being a bigger and more physical and intimidating figure than Donald Pleasence,..I just can't take him seriously. I seriously expect him to say "who loves ya, Bondy" and start sucking on a lollypop at any moment. That said....he is easily the most fun rendition of Blofeld, despite Savalas playing the character deadly serious.

Depsite middling reviews and reception, OHMSS brought in over ten times it's budget of 7 milion, which was 3 mil less than YOLT. But Lazenby was out. Who would fill the tux next? Well....to the great joy of the general public, EON would manage to tempt back Sean Connery for one last (official) Bond film....James Bond would be back in Diamonds are Forever.

[deadcactuswalking]

SPONGE DEFENSE: Episode 2

So, your perspective: You’re SpongeBob. You’re being mangled into all of these different narratives by a bunch of dudes at every point in time. You are characterless. A figureless mould to be kneaded like dough or to be stretched and bended. Why are you SpongeBob? Well, at some point in the 1990s, someone realised that Spongeboy was trademarked. Welcome back to Sponge Defense!

We’re into season 4 now! After they finished the movie, the original creator of the show, Stephen Hillenburg, wished for the series to end and stepped down from his hands-on role in the show accordingly. Nickelodeon, however, did not wish for the series to end – the same old guard that the show had come to criticise intensely is now prolonging its existence. Naturally, there’s some frustration.

#1. “Good Neighbors”

From now on, I’m going to refer to this as “Good Neighbours”. Fuck America. Now, I’ve always held up the fourth season as one of my favourites alongside the first season, yet also one that tends to be more polarising amongst fans, and I think that’s a direct result of it perfecting the formula. It’s probably the first season of the show to feel like a formulaic set of SpongeBob episodes, and whilst I see the fourth season as having perfected the formula, setting the stage for some later experimentation, it still gets a fair bit of reasonable criticism sometimes. A lot of that criticism comes from people seeing it as having the first few fully bad episodes of the series, and many fans point the accusing finger towards “Good Neighbours”. Now, before I rewatched this episode, I immediately remembered stills from it that had become memes, like that scene of Squidward poking his head out of the door to yell at SpongeBob and Patrick. That brings into question how the methods of the SpongeBob crew were changing – whilst before, despite the endless out-of-context quotables that the pre-movie episodes had, they were still trying to craft a cohesive episode, it’s hard not to argue that SpongeBob writers were just trying to make memes with these low-stakes, characters-annoy-other-characters episodes. As long as they got a funny line or comical image from it, that was the priority, and that’s why despite the episodes not being fondly remembered, we still get memes from post-movie episodes crop up. People like the image of SpongeBob being a chicken but people absolutely do NOT like “Little Yellow Book” (we’ll get to that one eventually). Honestly, I get why this writing style doesn’t always succeed and it can definitely seem almost hypocritical of the staff given their willingness to do massive, complex TV movies. I think ultimately the difference between “Good Neighbours” and other… Squidward Torture Porns as one Mr. Enter has coined, is that I can see where both sides are coming from. Both SpongeBob and Squidward want a relaxing break from, at risk of sound like the Joker, society, but as a result of their circumstances, want entirely different ways in which to spend that Sunday. I feel bad for Squidward, sure, but SpongeBob and Patrick are pretty cute in wanting to be “good neighbours”. Ultimately, all octopus abuse pornographies are about growing up, and the scene where Squidward just fucking BREAKS – to the point where he refuses to stroke his ego by letting them call him their President – is kind of intense and crushing for what it is: a SpongeBob episode. Good intentions aren’t always guaranteed to please people. I love the frustration of Squidward throughout this episode by the way – season 4 is probably the most apt comparison to the post-sequel seasons when it comes to how goofy and fluid both the plots and animation could get. Squidward’s house becoming a massive mech and fighting off the Bikini Bottom military is about as ludicrous as you could predict this story to go but I like how the show uses contrived story beats to escape the rut the story could have clearly been in by the time Squid succeeds in getting the two out of his house. Oh, and the ending would have been too harsh to Squidward if both SpongeBob and Patrick weren’t also sentenced to community service – honestly, they should all be in prison anyway. Take this with a grain of salt since it’s from EncyclopediaSpongeBobia, but apparently in the Indonesian dub, Squidward getting furious at SpongeBob and Patrick was cut because of “extreme verbal violence”. On that note, let’s move onto our next episode.

#2. “All That Glitters”

“All that glitters is not gold.” Who said it first? SpongeBob, Smash Mouth or William Shakespeare? Well, actually, the adage has existed since the 12th century but like GCSE literature curriculums covering feminism, we’re going to say that Shakespeare came up with it. This is the first episode that I’ll be covering that was written by Mr. Zeus Cervas, a man so despised by 13-year-olds with YouTube accounts that his ESB page, to this day, consists of many nonsensical hate comments. Many a critic do not like this episode because SpongeBob cries too much in it, and I will say the joke lasts too long, but his attachment to the spatula is funny, especially when he takes it to the emergency room, and the flashback sequence perfectly represents the type of childhood naivety that leads to reliance on something familiar to you. It can be hard to accept change, but you’ll have to adapt to it at some point, and I love how quickly SpongeBob ditches the spatula for a new, shiny spatula yet is still conflicted about buying it. Of course, any interesting emotional connection to the spatula is quickly disregarded for jokes about SpongeBob being naked. I actually think the idea of SpongeBob having thousands of dollars in pocket change is really funny, and I enjoyed him selling his house and… clothes for a fancy French spatula. I’m sure there’s a commentary about hyper-capitalism in there that I could find, but it’s too late for over analytical shenanigans… though this episode is calling for it a lot of the time. SpongeBob says explicitly to Mr. Krabs that he put all his shame into a spatula, which is a pretty cynical line if you put any thought into it. A man is naked, stripped of his home, his clothes and his dignity, and not even him putting his trust into capitalism – I mean, a spatula – leads him to success, since SpongeBob is not built for the upper class. Therefore, his spatula doesn’t obey him, and when he comes back to Spat in the infirmary, he turns away from him. A man of little value can’t transition into higher society without selling all he has. At least that’s what Zeus Cervas thinks. The episode is honestly pretty solid, but I wish there was an actual conclusion instead of the spatula just miraculously coming back, and I do think it would be better if SpongeBob spent more time reminiscing and less time crying naked on the floor.

#3. “The Thing”

SpongeBob and The Simpsons have many characteristics in common: they’re an absurd, over-the-top parody of American life, they’re episodic in order to sandwich both sides of a long-term issue into a short satire, the main character is yellow, etc. The two main comparisons people will bring up is that both shows have been going on for way too long and have massive seasonal rot, and fans of both can point you to a season or episode when that decline started. Now, my personal favourite season of The Simpsons is the ninth season, consisting mostly of wacky nihilism, with episodes almost setting themselves up as if it and the eighth season were the last seasons to be produced. Many of these episodes feel like deconstructions of the old guard. I don’t think SpongeBobwas able to age that gracefully in that it has never really had an old guard in the first place and was always willing to take basic plot functions and send them to outer space, whilst there was, at some point, a heart that lay beneath the undercurrent of The Simpsons. A constant trend within the humour of both shows is their distaste for the audience, but whilst The Simpsons tries to at least make you understand characters, SpongeBob just hates you as well as the people they’re supposed to make you root for. Therefore, we have another STP on our hands: Squidward tries to enjoy himself but SpongeBob and Patrick are none the wiser and continue to annoy him, ostensibly unintentionally. They’re here to ENHANCE his evening. I do like the little quirks in the writing of this episode, like how Squidward constantly refers to him watching “public television”. SpongeBob just feeling free to come into Squidward’s home casually is also hilarious. Then, the plot takes an abrupt turn because it hates the audience and it hates Squidward just as much. As soon as Squidward gets covered in cement, the audience is introduced to a new character of which SpongeBob and Patrick are completely oblivious to. Patrick’s really funny in this one, too: I love how he violently insults “Smelly” when he first meets him and later calls animal control… which ends up being the entire SWAT team, it turns out. I actually like how the episode becomes a confusing set of pointless, not really creative puzzle pieces by like half way in, and how it becomes a… kidnapping story? Honestly, this episode just goes nowhere and everywhere at the same time, and is not nearly funny enough to make up for it, but at least it’s not just another “Good Neighbours”. They’ve got to take these stupid plotless episodes somewhere, and if it’s putting Squidward with his… “native” group of Smellies to enjoy smooth jazz, then… well, at least it’s not “Squidward’s house becomes a robot” again.

Conclusion

All three of these episodes are really dumb but also pretty fun, yet as we’ve gone further into the season, these “hated” episodes give me less and less justification to defend them. I wouldn’t call them “ScumBob episodes” but that might just be because I’m about double the age of anyone who should be using that term, not because “The Thing” isn’t a bad episode. “Good Neighbours” is actually one of my favourite episodes in all honesty, so I’m glad I rewatched it for this to reinforce that. We’ll be continuing with seasons four and five next time. Thanks once again for reading my rambles on Funny Sponge and I’ll see you whenever I decide to spend an hour writing about how children’s cartoons involving sea creatures criticise the establishment through elitist spatulas. Sponge defended.

[cinomar]

My top 10 movies of 2017

As December draws to a close, and year-end lists dominate social-media feeds, I thought I’d share my own views on the crème de la crème of what has been an extraordinary 12 months for motion pictures.

Full disclosure: I have not yet seen a lot of the heavy-hitting Oscar contenders (The Post, Phantom Thread, All the Money in the World, I, Tonya...), so my favourites will be limited to the movies I’ve managed to watch so far.

Without further ado, let the countdown begin!

10. Mother!

Perhaps the most polarising movie this year, Mother! is a toe-curling exercise in endurance cinema that recasts parables from the Old Testament. Within a suffocatingly claustrophobic house, whose creaking groans and seeping blood only augment the sinister storyline, this nightmarish scenario plays out before reaching a harrowing symbol-crash of a crescendo. There were moments in Mother! when I looked down at my hands and they were convulsively shaking. Is it my favourite Darren Aronofsky? No. Will I be watching it again? Absolutely. 

9. Get Me Roger Stone

“I revel in your hatred, because if I weren’t effective you wouldn’t hate me.” So says Roger Stone, the polemical political strategist who has been getting rich off his moral bankruptcy since his involvement in the Watergate scandal. This Netflix documentary traces the life of the self-defined agent provocateur, from his encouraging Donald Trump to run for office in the 1980s to his intentional thwarting of the Florida-election recount in 2000. Guaranteed to make your blood boil, this film offers maddening insight into the extent of corruption in Washington.     

8. Baby Driver

Baby Driver is a triumph, resplendent in its tyre-screeching glory. By seamlessly embedding music into the film’s narrative, Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) delivers a startlingly original heist movie that marches to the beat of its own drum. Boasting an eye-watering rating of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, a hyper-stylised sensory richness and adrenalin-inducing car chases, Baby Driver is a cinephile’s film par excellence.

7. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

They say people cope with grief in different ways, and this certainly seems to be true of Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand) who takes her local police (led by Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell) to task after the rape and murder of her teenage daughter. The expletive-spewing Hayes plasters accusatory messages on billboards challenging the town’s law enforcers to reopen her daughter’s unresolved case. She is a reckless firecracker of an anti-heroine. Whether she’s kicking a schoolchild in the crotch or flinging a petrol bomb at a police station, Mildred has an infectious desire to put these killers behind bars that makes her a treat to watch.

6. Good Time

Robert Pattinson is unrecognisable in the Safdie brothers’ nerve-shredding thriller Good Time, turning in a career-best performance as a petty criminal hustling his way through a colour-leached Queens to save his mentally ill brother. Since he earned a six-minute standing ovation at Cannes, it’s unsurprising the actor is being compared to De Niro in Taxi Driver.    

5. BPM

Set in Nineties Paris, BPM (beats per minute) provides a brutally heart-wrenching take on the AIDS crisis without sinking into sentimentality. The movie, which scooped up the Grand Prix at Cannes, centres on the LGBTQIA activist group Act Up. Through heated, strategy-focused meetings – where the blood-hurling advocates clash with the big-pharma sympathisers – the campaigners raise awareness of the epidemic, forging relationships along the way. I’m thoroughly disappointed that the Oscars snubbed this defiant, sincere film in the foreign-language category. 

4. The Disaster Artist

The Disaster Artist is a hysterical behind-the-scenes exposé tracing the making of Tommy Wiseau’s self-financed vanity project, The Room (widely regarded as the worst film ever made). James Franco – who also directed The Disaster Artist – has earned plaudits for his sensitive, yet hilarious, impersonation of the filmmaker. I was so intrigued by the trailer that I fought my way into a (massively oversubscribed) advanced screening at the BFI, where I full-on cried with laughter, then collapsed on a Tube platform when my sister quoted a line to me on the way home. Funniest film of the year without a shadow of a doubt. 

3. Get Out

The flash of a camera. The clinking of a teaspoon. The humming of crickets in a suburban street. Get Out’s accumulation of seemingly banal details makes it so masterfully unsettling. The movie is something of a modern-day Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? that sees an African-American (Daniel Kaluuya) visit the parents of his white girlfriend (Allison Williams) and gradually discover an unsettling truth brewing beneath mind games and micro-aggressions. The film marks the sketch comedian Jordan Peele’s first foray into cinema as a writer-director, and has already established him as one to watch. Get Out is a sucker punch to the status quo that is impossible to forget.

2. Lady Bird

Lady Bird is an astounding addition to the coming-of-age canon, a feel-good film exuding a sincerity and warmth that quickly confirms its status as one of the cinematic highlights of 2017. Raw and relatable, the movie is a show-stopping masterpiece that ushers the actress-turned-director Greta Gerwig into the pantheon of blossoming auteurs. The film faithfully captures the essence of what it’s like to grow up female; the awkwardness of that disconcerting stage of adolescence in which you are unceremoniously prised from the familiar embrace of girlhood and thrust towards womanhood. In the tradition of great cinema, Lady Bird takes a profoundly personal story and transposes it with such dexterity that it feels universal. 

1. Call Me by Your Name 

“Call me by your name and I’ll call you by mine,” whispers Oliver (Armie Hammer) as he gently caresses the cheek of his lover Elio (Timothée Chalamet) in the soft darkness. The blossoming romance between these two men, that unfurls over six sun-dappled weeks in northern Italy, is utterly ravishing. The director Luca Guadagnino creates a sensory masterpiece by lingering over the finer details of their relationship: peach juice trickling down a chin, bicycle pedals whirring into action. Call Me by Your Name is a shining beacon of tolerance and acceptance, with a heartbreaking ending that will bring tears to your eyes.

[lyinginbedmon]

Let’s Fix Bright

Not the movie, because god knows that’s far beyond salvation, just the underlying setting.

Let’s start with the backstory of Jirak and the Dark Lord. What is clear in the movie is that two thousand years ago, an elf became went Sauron and, presumably, started trying to rule the world with the aid of an army of orcs who allied with him. An unblooded orc farmer named Jirak did something and united nine armies who ultimately (whether led by Jirak or not) overthrew and slew the Dark Lord. It’s pretty clear that Jirak went down in myth for the orcs but the other races (humans at minimum) took the orc alliance as reason enough to distrust them forever (completely overlooking the Dark Lord’s elven origins in the process).

Right, that’s our story, let’s get to work.

Two thousand years ago (I’m assuming some rounding here so we’re just gonna assume functional year zero) is the initial days of Christendom, and also a time shared by the Roman and Chinese empires. In China, the ruler at the time is Ping of the Han Dynasty, whilst in Rome the emperor is Augustus.

Let’s fill out our lineup of races. We know elves, humans, and orcs exist, and we spot a single centaur in the course of Bright as well. We can try and presume that trolls/ogres/etc also exist but we lack the meaningful foundation given that the only other non-mundane race we see is fairies who are treated exactly like most household pests. Let’s assume the list is pretty short at elves, humans, dwarves (whom we never see and have no information on from the film), orcs, and centaurs. From there, we can presume given their modern abundance in society that humans were more than one army amongst the nine. I’d even go so far as to wager that human forces accounted for at least half of the nine armies, but that brings up another topic we need to consider.

We have two examples of individuals defecting against the greater social expectations of their race. Both the Dark Lord against the elves, and Jirak against the orcs. This alone tells us that races do not have a rigid and universal structure, which means that quite probably there were several different factions at work within the different races. Assuming the Fogteeth clan takes its name from a group of significance in the period, that’s one clan that signed up to run with the Dark Lord.

So let’s say that only the Fogteeth clan turned against everyone else, that’s not really enough basis to say that all of them did. However, if the Dark Lord is such a danger that resurrecting him in modern times is still a problem big enough to warrant a government task force, it’s probable that it gave the Fogteeth some substantial military clout. Perhaps from the outside, this looked like orcs just getting really violent, but internally it’d be the Fogteeth crushing and overrunning other clans until people had sufficient reason to just assume (foolishly) that all orcs were Dark Lord allies. This gives Jirak a lot more foundation as well, because from his perspective a bunch of rowdy countrymen are causing a ton of trouble and he’s starting out on the periphery watching it happen.

We also know in the modern time that there’s at least one faction of elves that are pro-Dark Lord, the Inferni. So it seems pretty likely that, no matter how unified one region might seem, there are a lot of factions and viewpoints at work both under the surface and on a grander scale.

Jakoby’s surname is Greek in origin, so let’s propose that everything went down in the eastern European area in the first century. This would put the conflict in the crosshairs between the the Roman Empire, the Scythians (their kingdom being chiefly part of what we now consider to be the Crimean), potentially several parties in Europe, as well as parts of Egypt and Africa depending on how it developed and how much land it covered (which, seeing the above Fogteeth conquest, we’ll assume was a LOT).

The centaurs might have been Scythian allies at the time, as they were known for their mastery of mounted combat, but they also might have considered that an insulting practice. Since the Scythians ostensibly earned a lot from the Greek slave trade in their history, it might also have been that the centaurs weren’t given much choice in the matter. Either way, their proximity to the flashpoint pretty much guarantees some kind of involvement in the Dark Conflict (totally a reasonable academic name for it, shut up).

I’m going to suggest that the elves were several nations, possibly a few of them subsumed by the expansion of the Roman Empire, which puts them in the line of having Greek origins and trade opportunities through Europe.

Okay, so we’ve now established how the orcs weren’t a unified people but could have come to be seen as one, the region of the world the Dark Conflict took place in, and how a group of different armies could have rose up against it in roughly the same period of time.

Where does Jirak fit in? We don’t really need to know, because what we know of the present is that orcs are stigmatised (at least in modern North American society), which strongly suggests that Jirak wasn’t able to reform the view of his people after the conflict or at the very least that his reforms didn’t go very far. Maybe there’s even something to be said for sheer distance and cultural mutation that puts the American social climate in a less favourable position for the orcs, but the orcs are here anyway.

With as polarising a force as the Dark Lord, I’m gonna say that orcs after the conflict were heavily stigmatised. Maybe their clan specifically didn’t sign up with the losing side, but for the bulk of the world that doesn’t matter enough to be significant in their opinions. We’d probably see a bit of history about discrimination, enslavement, persecution, and quite possibly even some violent purges. Whilst horrible, that does give us a modern orc history that lands a little closer to what we already have: “orcs are monsters and it’s fine to slaughter them” becomes commonplace reasoning in fables and legends.

The myriad factors that go into the settlement of North America are incredibly numerous and tangled, so we absolutely would see changes as a consequence of incorporating both the Dark Conflict and the additional races. Los Angeles might have an elven name, the Cherokee nation might have shared space with centaur tribes of similar viewpoints, and orcs may have tried to settle space in different places just to escape European persecution. Maybe that’s why we have the Alamo line in Bright, maybe the orc presence made it a more bitter engagement, we don’t know.

What we can fathom though is that the elves probably had some involvement. After the conflict, the elves seem to have suffered little if any negative backlash as a result of the Dark Lord’s lineage. This suggests that whilst the orcs were the public face of his army, and unable to overturn the grudges that caused, the elves were able to come out on top and make amends as needed. Having united to overthrow the great evil of the Dark Lord, the elves would have a political bargaining chip to do a great deal more. They can use magic far more commonly than humans or other races, the abilities of the Inferni would suggest they’re far more capable than humans, and they now have a door into international and inter-racial negotiations.

The elves might have stood to gain a lot as industry chugged forward and the orcs were easier to oppress. Human slaves almost certainly still existed, but I’ll wager orcs were statistically greater in the casualty list because it’s a lot easier to subjugate someone when they are literally not human. Over time, elves find their way into all the higher echelons of any unified undertaking after the Dark Conflict, and orcs are shoved to the bottom below even the intra-racial prejudices we already deal with.

We’d expect a few distinct changes in the modern world compared to what’s going on in Bright. The first and most obvious is location names: More races and more languages and more religions would make naming places a lot different in modern US. Los Angeles might still exist as a city, but it wouldn’t have an elven district cordoned off and it probably wouldn’t even call it that.

Instead, we’d expect the elves to simply occupy the more affluent areas whilst orcs probably dominate the demographics closer to the cheaper and industrial areas. We’d expect to see elves in many CEO positions whilst orcs dominate in the blue collar positions. Centaurs probably have a lot of problems as a minority group with significant differences in accessibility, likely having to take labour jobs close to the orcs and such. These areas wouldn’t be specific racial districts but would instead be integrated into the larger city with economic and other pressures keeping the demographics skewed but not absolute. Ward might even have orc and elf neighbours in the same area, and have very different viewpoints about what their presence does to the property values.

Would the orcs have gangs? They’d certainly experience a lot of the same social pressures, so it could be expected that a few groups among them would form recognisable gang structures, possibly taking inspiration from the clans that inspired those prejudices in the first place. However, it’s more likely they’d want to form their own social structures rather than emulating those of the asshole humans around them.

Some would undoubtedly try to integrate better (like Jakoby) but others would want to dig back into their roots pre-Dark Lord and honour their proper heritage. Quite probably those putting the Dark Conflict era on a pedestal would be a gross outlier and would likely have the same dismay from other orcs as black gangs do from law-abiding black communities.

We hear that orcs fill out a lot of American football teams due to physical advantages of their race, and that might statistically be true in some cases, but would overlook the advantage of variety in sports teams. Everyone would be wearing the same uniforms and armour, but you’d see a proportion of orcs in forward positions, humans in midpoints, possibly dwarves and elves in other placements. Still others would exist in those positions, there just might be a statistical dominance by one race over another for a variety of reasons.

Jakoby probably wouldn’t be the first orc police officer, quite probably orcs would be involved far closer to the ground floor of police enforcement than this would require. If people think orcs make great line-backers, they should also expect them to be useful when holding riot shields. They might think that orcs are slow and dumb, but that would more likely be displayed by a minority of orcs in leadership roles. It might be fairly common to see elves as attorneys and judges, but they’d also turn up in other management positions even if most might consider law enforcement too close to the muck for an elf. Likewise, you’d probably have orc lieutenants and possibly even one or two captains, but you would be pretty surprised to see someone with an orc attorney and utterly bewildered to see an orc judge. Elves would be considered the “obvious superior” choice in politics, orcs would be considered a joke, but you’d expect to see politicians trying to curry favour with all sides anyway for votes.

To summarise this VERY long stream of consciousness, we’d probably see a lot of familiar things in an actual post-fantasy fantasy world, but all the differences we would actually notice would have been front-and-centre in Bright and a few would even have dismantled its plot completely.

[panicatthediscord]

well then...

Before I start this little list of reylo points, know that spoilers & speculation will be referenced, so if you’re planning on staying clean, then ignore this post altogether.

So I haven’t been this excited for reylo since tFA, and I can remember how polarised the reactions were two years ago.  I’ve been happy rewatching the series, reading up on screening spoilers (which are pretty favourable in our case) and then the “8 days left” trailer especially came along... speaking of, let’s look at that again:

That is the same scene where Rey is facing Snoke, with Ben standing somewhat behind her, the same scene where she gets tortured, you have REY fighting Snoke’s praetorians with KYLO’s lightsaber... hmmm doesn’t sound like Ben’s turning against the Supreme Leader at all, oh wAIT THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HE’S DOING.  You might even think he’s tossing the weapon to her, rather than using the force to get it.  Or he could be wounded, but I don’t know, I’ve read that they switch lightsabers in this part too.

In the Kylo visual dictionary there are mentions of how Snoke tortured Kylo, and how he cannot bring himself to even face Vader’s mask because “perhaps” he feels like he failed his grandfather and Snoke, etc.  He’s in a sense failed everyone already (Luke, his parents, etc.) so the way I see it is that it’s all the more reason for him to have a redemption arc.  I don't think he was a spoilt brat who needed attention, that's the sort of rushed explanation that fails to consider the more obvious; he's a character whose backstory we haven’t even had a glimpse of yet.

The words of his father still resonate with him, about Snoke only using Ben for his power...  He’s haunted by his father’s death; “The heinous act of killing Han Solo has driven Kylo deeper into the grip of the dark side, at great personal pain–he is now more conflicted and torn than ever, further destabilising an already dangerous man.  He obediently carries out the Supreme Leader’s orders to pursue and cripple the fleeing Resistance, but Snoke’s berating punishments weigh on him, opening hidden emotional wounds as his physical ones are healing.”

Even the official trailer shows parallels between Rey and Kylo, like Snoke and Luke’s respective comments on power; “...raw, untamed power” & “I’ve seen this raw strength only once before...”  Kylo’s strength came from his emotions, uncontrolled, undisciplined, but after tFA, I don't think he’s drawing the same strength anymore because the emotions are different.  Daisy calls Luke a “reluctant teacher” while Snoke is wary of Kylo deviating from the dark side, torturing him, etc.  They are both struggling with their sense of belonging, that’s pretty clear, you’d think it was simply a mere coincidence that they were being thrown together like that, sure anne.  Not to mention the articles that literally call this sequel a continuation of the story of Rey and Kylo Ren, no, nothing cannon about that at all.

People who have been to the screenings are talking about green milk from the thala sirens, a certain hut scene with a shirtless Adam Driver, Kylo going after Rey in the cliff scene (although that’s been circulating for a while), slowburn reylo (no kiss), confirmations of ReyRandom, and what not.  Then we have Daisy throwing a bone/hint for Rey Random in an interview; “I do think it is hilarious that there’s this great character [Rey] and everyone’s trying to attribute it to another character.”

What I don't get is how people are comparing the interrogation scene from tFA to rape, or any form of misogynistic violation, because oh I don’t know, any other Jedi has used the Force on other people to get whatever intel they want!!  If you think that it’s the same thing as rape, or abuse, you’re not going off on a tangent, you’re in another galaxy.

Next, the idea that only white people ship Reylo, because obviously Rey is the only person that Finn can be paired with *cough* Poe needs love too *cough*, that's a joke because 1. not white  2. been pining for FinnPoe since I first saw tFA but that's just me...  Ships shouldn’t be disrespected, if you root for FinnRey, that's great, doesn't make me a racist if I don’t.

And from the ‘sexism’ point of view... Rey’s a badass, we know, doesn't make her immune to compassion, just as Kylo thought he was.  Quote from her page in the visual dictionary reads “As Rey’s abilities increase, so does a strange and seemingly unprecedented connection in the Force that spans the galaxy to unite Kylo Ren and Rey.  The bond is powerful, and gives Rey insights to Ren that not even Skywalker can see.” (x) Hmmmm.  FORCEBOND.

Last but not least, need I remind anyone of Rian Johnson’s choice of word for the movie?  Cos it was “BALANCE”.

[roboticsappreciationsociety]

One response to the call by experts in robotics and artificial intelligence for an ban on “killer robots” (“lethal autonomous weapons systems” or Laws in the language of international treaties) is to say: shouldn’t you have thought about that sooner?

Figures such as Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, are among the 116 specialists calling for the ban. “We do not have long to act,” they say. “Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.” But such systems are arguably already here, such as the “unmanned combat air vehicle” Taranis developed by BAE and others, or the autonomous SGR-A1 sentry gun made by Samsung and deployed along the South Korean border. Autonomous tanks are in the works, while human control of lethal drones is becoming just a matter of degree.

Yet killer robots have been with us in spirit for as long as robots themselves. Karel Čapek’s 1920 play RUR (Rossum’s Universal Robots) gave us the word (meaning “labourer” in Czech). His humanoid robots, made by the eponymous company for industrial work, rebel and slaughter the human race. They’ve been doing it ever since, from Cybermen to the Terminator. Robot narratives rarely end well.

It’s hard even to think about the issues raised by Musk and his co-signatories without a robot apocalypse looming in the background. Even if the end of humanity isn’t at stake, we just know that one of these machines is going to malfunction with the messy consequences of Omni Consumer Product’s police droid in Robocop.

Such allusions could seem to make light of a deadly serious subject. OK, so a robot Armageddon might not be exactly frivolous, but these stories, for all that they draw on deep-seated human fears, are ultimately entertainment. It’s all too easy, though, for a debate like this to settle into the polarisation of good and bad technologies that science-fiction movies can encourage, with the attendant implication that, so long as we avoid the really bad ones, all will be well.

The issues – as specialists on Laws doubtless recognise – are more complex. On the one hand, they concern the wider, and increasingly pressing, matter of robot ethics; on the other hand they are about the very nature of modern war, and its commodification.

How do we make autonomous technological systems safe and ethical? Avoiding robot-inflicted harm to humans was the problem explored in Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, a collection of short stories so seminal that Asimov’s three laws of roboticsare sometimes discussed now almost as if they have the force of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion. The irony is that Asimov’s stories were largely about how such well-motivated laws could be undermined by circumstances.

In any event, the ethical issues can’t easily be formulated as one-size-fits-all principles. Historian Yuval Noah Harari has pointed out that driverless vehicles will need some principles for deciding how to act when faced with an unavoidable and possibly lethal collision: who does the robot try to save? Perhaps, Harari says, we will be offered two models: the Egoist (which prioritises the driver) and Altruist (which puts others first).

There are shades of science-fictional preconceptions in a 2012 report on killer robots by Human Rights Watch. “Distinguishing between a fearful civilian and a threatening enemy combatant requires a soldier to understand the intentions behind a human’s actions, something a robot could not do,” it says. Furthermore, “robots would not be restrained by human emotions and the capacity for compassion, which can provide an important check on the killing of civilians”. But the first claim is a statement of faith – mightn’t a robot make a better assessment using biometrics than a frightened soldier using instincts? As for the second, one feels: sure, sometimes. Other times, humans in war zones wantonly rape and massacre.

This is not to argue against the report’s horror at autonomous robot soldiers, which I for one share. Rather, it brings us back to the key question, which is not about technology but warfare.

Already our sensibilities about the ethics of war are arbitrary. “The use of fully autonomous weapons raises serious questions of accountability, which would erode another established tool for civilian protection,” says the Human Rights Watch, and it is a fair point but impossible to place in any consistent ethical framework while nuclear weapons are internationally legal. Besides, there’s a continuum between drone war, soldier enhancement technologies and Laws that can’t be broken down into “man versus machine”.

This question of automated military technologies is intimately linked to the changing nature of war itself, which, in an age of terrorism and insurgency, no longer has a start or end, battlefields or armies: as American strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman puts it: “One of the lessons of modern war is that war can no longer be called war.” However we deal with that, it’s not going to look like the D-day landings.

Warfare has always used the most advanced technologies available; “killer robots” are no different. Pandora’s box was opened with the invention of steel smelting if not earlier (and it was almost never a woman who did the opening). And you can be sure someone made a profit from it.

By all means let’s try to curb our worst impulses to beat ploughshares into swords, but telling an international arms trade that they can’t make killer robots is like telling soft-drinks manufacturers that they can’t make orangeade.

[asemblanceoflove]

Chris Evans Interview: The Marvel star on politics, break-ups, and saying goodbye to Captain America (Robbie Collin, The Telegraph, 10 June 2017)

Chris Evans must be the only man in Hollywood to win his own superhero franchise then pray for it to fail. Back in 2010, the then-28-year-old actor signed a contract with Marvel Studios to appear in half a dozen films – both solo outings and ensemble jobs – as Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America, the Avengers’ flaxen-quiffed moral compass.

“One of my biggest fears was that the movies were going to be good,” he says, stroking a beard so keenly edged it might have been trimmed with a laser alignment tool. “Because if things worked out, I’d have to do all six of them. And at the time, that was the most terrifying aspect of it. That it was going to be so dominating, all-encompassing.”

What set Evans apart from his Avengers cohorts – and almost every other actor on the planet, come to that – was that he’d already made one circuit of the comic-book track. He’d played Johnny Storm, the combustible Human Torch, in 20th Century Fox’s nice-but-dim Fantastic Four films in the mid-noughties, until the series stalled after part two.

Playing Cap was a rare opportunity for a second spin on the merry-go-round. But he turned it down three times – a meeting with the Marvel high command finally persuaded him to reconsider – out of fear the role would prove so time-consuming he’d be unable to find space for much else.

Seven years on, with that contract about to come to a close with a two-part Avengers adventure Evans will be shooting until August, that’s more or less exactly what happened. But the actor, now 35 and stretched back in an armchair in a black shirt unbuttoned to the clavicle and with a fox-like smile on his face, looks well on it.

Along with Pine, Pratt and Hemsworth, Evans is one of those Chris actors that seem to be everywhere nowadays: bright-eyed, blond-haired comic-book franchise leading men with a valiant screen presence children fall in love with, and a chiselled, mildly insinuating edge that means their mothers often do likewise.

I’ve caught him fresh from the CBeebies studios in London, where he’s just recorded a rather apposite bedtime story, Shelley Becker and Eda Kaban’s Even Superheroes Have Bad Days, which was presumably commissioned by the BBC children’s channel with both of those audiences in mind.

We’ve met to talk about the latest project the actor has managed to squeeze around his Captain America schedule. Called Gifted, it’s a film about a taciturn boat mechanic called Frank whose seven-year-old niece and ward Mary turns out to be a mathematics prodigy of potentially internationally significant talent.

It cost as much to make as four minutes of the last Captain America film, and is a blockbuster detox both for Evans and its director Marc Webb, who came to it bloody and bruised from The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Evans had originally hoped to direct the film himself: it would have been his second such job, after an earnest, meandering 2014 romantic drama called Before We Go, in which love springs from a missed train connection. But by the time he’d thought it over the gig had already gone to Webb.

All the same, he was happy to star in it. “Those Captain America movies are great, and I’m proud of every one of them, but on set they’re giant f______ factories, and we spend a lot of time sitting around,” he says. Having last spoken to him on the set of Captain America: Civil War in August 2015, I can corroborate the story: over the course of one day, I watched the actor shoot a single scene in which his character holsters his shield, and he didn’t even have a shield to work with. (It was added in digitally later.)

“But on a movie like Gifted you come home every day and you feel like you got to act!” he glows. “You feel exhausted. You get through eight, nine pages of dialogue. On Captain America, you might get through two pages per day, if you’re lucky. And that’s fine, it’s a different process,” he adds. ‘But there’s something refreshing about that intimate exchange with the other people involved in a smaller film. You feel like you get your hands dirty. “

One of those people was the actress and comedian Jenny Slate, who plays Mary’s teacher, and later Frank’s love interest. Slate and Evans’ romance is so glowingly persuasive that it’s no surprise that the actors became a real-world couple for nine months after filming concluded, shortly after Slate separated from her now ex-husband, Dean Fleischer-Camp. They met after Evans had already been cast, during a series of ‘chemistry reads’ – that is, shared screen auditions to gauge a couple’s on-screen spark.

“Jenny could have chemistry with my f______ shoe,” Evans guffaws. “She just came in and created a very specific dance. She has a natural effortlessness about her, and she just exudes truth.”

In a recent interview with New York magazine, Slate said she had been keen to win the role to show “that it doesn’t always have to be a bikini model opposite Captain America” – which she went on to prove more emphatically than she probably expected.

Evans stresses Slate wasn’t cast for that reason – “we weren’t looking for someone ‘unexpected’” –  and also says he didn’t consider a move in the opposite direction by ‘uglying up’: that indelicately named process by which an actor temporarily divests themselves of their movie-star looks to prove their commitment to a serious part (think Charlize Theron in Monster, or Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant).

“You don’t want to do that just for the sake of optics,” says Evans, whose last unabashedly hideous role was as a mob assassin in The Iceman (2012). “I’ve never been one to preoccupy myself with how I’m perceived.”

The couple split in February – partly, said Slate, because Evans’ super-heroic public profile made the actual mechanics of dating in Los Angeles next to impossible. In light of that, you can appreciate why shooting a small film in the quiet coastal townships around Savannah, Georgia, held so much appeal for him between blockbusters.

“It felt like summer camp, you know?” he beams. “We were all away from our friends and family, so we become each other’s.” In the evenings, cast and crew bonded over board games – Evans’ idea – including Running Charades, one of the actor’s favourites. (Imagine Give Us a Clue crossed with British Bulldogs.)

“I love a good game night,” he says. “My family is very competitive. Monopoly back home usually turns into a screaming match.”

Back home is small-town Massachusetts, where Evans was raised in what he describes as “a family of theatre lunatics”. When he was 16, his mother Lisa became the artistic director of the youth theatre company where he and his three siblings spent much of their teenage years. (He says his mother was “thrilled” at the recent news he had been cast opposite his Scott Pilgrim vs. the World co-star Michael Cera in a Broadway revival of the Kenneth Lonergan play Lobby Hero.)

Unlike Mckenna Grace, his ebullient 10-year-old Gifted co-star, he lacked the confidence to be a child actor. “I was a shy little kid,” he says. “I really liked art – drawing and painting – and that’s what I thought I was going to do.”

But on leaving high school in 1998 he was set on course. He moved to New York, took acting classes at the Lee Strasberg Institute on Saturdays, and worked at a casting agency during the week. After a few months he was cast in a teen TV drama, Opposite Sex, as one of three male pupils at an all-girls school that had recently gone co-ed.

During his first flight to Los Angeles, he felt an uneasy mix of excitement and anxiety which he says still often comes over him as he arrives in the city.

“Your reason for going there – your hobby you’ve fallen in love with and want to pursue – becomes your job, which means something shifts,” he says. “All of a sudden there’s a desperation in you. Depending on where you are in your career, arriving in LA can feel like the most wonderful homecoming, or incredibly stressful. There are chapters in my life where it’s been the latter.”

Not that he’s likely to be waiting tables on roller skates any time soon, but Evans is about to rediscover what being footloose and franchise-free feels like. After promotional duties on the latest two Avengers films wind up in 2019, so will his contract with Marvel, after nine increasingly lucrative years. He was paid $300,000 for the initial Captain America film in 2011, though by Avengers: Age of Ultron four years later, this had swollen to $7 million.

It’s not quite the $40 million-a-picture commanded by his fellow Avenger Robert Downey Jr., nor indeed the $20 million by Scarlett Johansson, whom Evans has counted as a friend since 2004, when both appeared in a teen crime caper called The Perfect Score. But it’s a sum he describes as having given him “breathing room” – “not just financial stability, but the profile that means smaller films can get on their feet as a result of your involvement. So you can take more risks.”

Some have been political. Evans has spoken out in support of gun control and immigration, and against the current (at time of writing) US President: subjects franchise stars tend not to make explicit pronouncements on, given the risk of alienating potential audience-members in politically polarised times.

Cap himself, however, has been a progressive liberal voice since his invention during the Second World War, save for a brief (and later disavowed) flirtation with McCarthyism in the 1950s, and you sense the character would approve. Does taking on Trump feel like part of the job description?

“Yeah, like an obligation or something?” he nods. “It’s tough. I have a lot of actor friends who take no part in the political landscape, and that’s their right. But I don’t feel obligated as an actor, I feel obligated as a human. Even if I weren’t an actor I’d support causes I think are beneficial for the world and, speak out against things I think hurt people. It just so happens that I have a platform people pay attention to.”

Even so, the hour approaches for his big dismount. “I had six films in my Marvel contract, so I could have said after the third Avengers I was done, but they wanted to make the third and fourth Avengers films as a two-parter,” he explains. “They said they had so many other characters to fit in – Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange, Ant Man – and couldn’t get them all into one movie.”

Cap’s ultimate fate is a secret on a par with the nuclear launch codes, though Evans will go as far as to say he agreed to the two-film arc “because it made sense. It’s going to wrap everything up.”

“I’ve been on sets where you get a vibe that everyone’s making a different movie,” he says. “The director one, the actors another, the producers another one still. Marvel has a way of ensuring that on the day filming begins, everyone is making the same meal.”

Right now, that might be Captain America’s last supper. But for Evans, that’s just for starters.

Gifted is released in UK cinemas on June 16

always-an-evans-addict

addictionmarvel

:o)

[whittlebaggett8]

Indian Elections: Kashmir Votes | The Diplomat

Last 7 days on April 11, India commenced its thirty day period-prolonged nationwide election approach, with distinct pieces of the nation voting in 7 phases for the decreased home of the Indian parliament, the Lok Sabha. In the Kashmir Valley, elections are being held in 5 phases, with north Kashmir’s Baramulla voting on April 11 and Srinagar on April 18. Voter turnout in each the constituencies different among common to moderate — 34.7 per cent in Baramulla and 14.8 per cent in Srinagar.

In point, this voter turnout was a lot much better than through the 2017 by-elections for Srinagar constituency, when an abysmal 7 p.c turnout was witnessed amid violent protests. That poor voter turnout and violence resulted in an indefinite suspending of by-elections for the Anantnag constituency in south Kashmir – in the end, the polls by no means took place. It will be a larger obstacle for the authorities to conduct elections peacefully for Anantang’s seat on April 23, April 29, and May 6. It will also be a litmus examination for mainstream get-togethers in Kashmir, this sort of as the Nationwide Convention (NC) and the People’s Democratic Celebration (PDP).

Considering the fact that 2016, Anantnag has been the hub of protests, with virtually each day occurrences of anti-India road protests and violence. Whilst it might show up business as standard in the town, underneath the area there is evident anger amongst the locals from the central authorities led by the Bharatiya Janata Bash (BJP) and the previous condition government, an alliance in between the BJP and PDP led by then-Main Minister Mehbooba Mufti.

Having fun with this report? Click on below to subscribe for complete entry. Just $5 a thirty day period.

In 2017, when by-elections experienced been scheduled for Anantnag, PDP experienced fielded Tasaduq Mufti, brother of Mehbooba Mufti. But this time the social gathering is taking no probabilities and has fielded Ms. Mufti herself as the applicant. Her principal obstacle is to restore the PDP’s reliability in her residence constituency.

In 2014, for the duration of the condition assembly election marketing campaign, the PDP had campaigned to block Kashmir’s doors for the BJP. On the other hand, put up-election, the get together supremo Mufti Mohammed Sayeed confirmed no hesitation in carrying out a U-turn and rapidly joined palms with the BJP. When Mehbooba Mufti took above the reins of the PDP soon after Sayeed’s dying, she also ongoing the alliance, earning her heaps of criticism. The coalition with BJP resulted in the PDP shedding reliability in the Kashmir Valley, and notably angered her assistance base in Anantnag.

“That was the major miscalculation the PDP built. By now, the party has virtually misplaced ground. It is not only the PDP but people in the Valley have dropped religion in the over-all democratic process,” Showkat Bashir, a nearby from South Kashmir, explained to The Diplomat.

Now as she tends to make a whirlwind tour of the villages in Anantang, Mufti’s election marketing campaign has built no bones about how the coalition was an arrangement of political comfort, instead than 1 based on principles. Yet the anger remains. On Monday, April 15, individuals in the Bijbehara area of Anantnag pelted stones on Mufti’s motorcade when she was returning immediately after going to a regional shrine.

Folks even now hold the PDP dependable for Kashmir’s recent precarious scenario. Numerous castigated Mufti for not doing more than enough when her alliance companion, the BJP, dredged up numerous contentious concerns – a beef ban the abrogation of Article content 35A and 370 from the Indian Constitution, which give particular status to Kashmir and the settlement of Hindu refugees in the point out. Numerous say that this divisive agenda of the BJP has polarized the point out of Jammu and Kashmir, bringing to the forefront the state’s regional fault lines – a Hindu greater part Jammu, a Buddhist the vast majority Ladakh, and Muslim bulk Kashmir Valley – every with competing regional aspirations.

It is an issue that resonates with everyday Kashmiris. Ghulam Nabi Malik, a chief of the Communist Social gathering of India (Marxist), in a statement claimed that “Like the rest of the region, the BJP polarised J&K also for its petty electoral gains. Violence has greater manifold, whilst the social material of the point out is in tatters.”

Pertinently, elections are having area in Kashmir when the protection problem in the location is at a significant instant, specifically just after the deadly suicide bombing in Lethpora, Pulwama on February 14. That attack specific a Central Reserve Paramilitary Pressure convoy and killed above 40 personnel. It was the deadliest terrorist assault on the Indian security forces in decades and sparked a close to-military confrontation amongst India and Pakistan, an intensified crackdown on militants and their supporters in Kashmir Valley, and provoked a wave of specific assaults versus Kashmiris in other components of India.

Nervous to keep away from a repetition of the Pulwama assault, which can likely induce intense electoral backlash, authorities have left practically nothing to chance in Kashmir. As portion of the improved safety steps, not long ago the state authorities barred civilian site visitors two times a week — Wednesdays and Sundays — until May perhaps 31, with motion staying authorized only for the stability forces. In the many years-lengthy conflict, it is the very first time that this kind of purchase banning civilian motion has been imposed. As anticipated, this buy has sparked uproar in the Valley, with lots of criticizing the go and attributing it as one particular a lot more cause for the alienation of the Kashmiris.

This has inconvenienced a lot of locals like personal and federal government workers, college students, individuals, and businessmen, who rely on the highway for vacation to numerous areas of the valley.

“We are dealing with challenges thanks to the highway closure as we utilized to go home on weekends. Also numerous much less college students attend courses on Wednesdays as they commute everyday to university,” Yasir Somewhat, a student from Anantnag, told The Diplomat.

Not too long ago a video surfaced on social media in which an ambulance was allegedly forced to hold out to permit the  passage of security vehicles. As for each studies, the client inside, who was on oxygen, was saved waiting around for 30 minutes.

“The closure of the highway is part of militarization in Kashmir. This is not normal in any working democracy. The nearby federal government does not have energy about safety but there will be impact to some extent on these kinds of orders,” Noor Ahmad Baba, a political scientist, advised The Diplomat.

Opposition politicians have also condemned the move. “Security of the forces is paramount but at the identical time site visitors in between Kashmir and Jammu is equally critical. I believe the governing administration need to have observed a resolution like half working day utilization of road for both in its place of totally shutting it down for two days in a week,” claimed Ghulam Nabi Azad, a senior Congress politician and previous chief minister.

Meanwhile, submit-Pulwama militants have kept up with their things to do, displaying no signs of retaining a low profile. They have warned locals from participating in the elections. In separate audio messages from two militant outfits running in Kashmir, Hizbul Mujahideen commander Riyaz Naikoo and Zakir Musa of Ansar Gazwat-ul-Hind have urged Kashmiris to boycott the elections. Even so, this reporter could not independently confirm the authenticity of the movies. Terming voters as “traitors,” Naikoo can be heard stating, “Anyone who casts a vote will improve India’s keep on Jammu and Kashmir.” He termed the politicians as “Indian brokers,” stating that “politicians converse the language of New Delhi when in energy but talk the language of Kashmiri folks when out of power.”

With New Delhi in the driver’s seat of Kashmir’s affairs, numerous are eagerly searching ahead to the state assembly elections, which are anticipated to be held in the subsequent two to 3 months. Whichever the end result of upcoming elections could be, it will be some time prior to normalcy returns to Kashmir.

Um Roommana is a freelance journalist dependent in Kashmir.

The post Indian Elections: Kashmir Votes | The Diplomat appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/04/22/indian-elections-kashmir-votes-the-diplomat/

[imaginedworldsmagazine-blog]

Soundtrack vs. music score: The creation of the Guardians of the Galaxy world and its influence on the audience

The soundtrack and music score within a film work together to create an imagined world which emotionally affects the audience.

The similarities between music score and soundtrack become overlapping in their purpose. Although Guardians of the Galaxy displays a clear separation between soundtrack and score, in general a movies soundtrack can include a music score - created for the movie and possible purely instrumental, this creates a confusion in understanding the difference between the two. Not only the difference in their definition, but a difference in what affect they have when creating an imagined world for an audience. An article from The Edge explains that “where a score sets the tone, a good soundtrack gives a movie personality.”

The distance that any kind of non-diegetic music creates between the film’s narrative and real life is obvious in the fact that we do not have a song start to play that perfectly matches the mood of the moment in real life, nor do we have a constant melody that matches how we feel. However, the presence of these sounds within a movie helps structure a particular reality in the way the producer perceives it.

Guardians of the Galaxy is known and loved for its iconic, classic soundtrack that allows the movie to become quiet original within its superhero genre. The Awesome mix vol. 1 accompanies Peter’s quirky references to 1970’s trends and pop culture which give the super hero movie that is set in space a cool 70’s vibe throughout.

This soundtrack gives the story line a depth that allows the imagined reality to look and feel more meaningful. This occurs in its consistency - introduced as a precious tape owned by a child containing songs which reflect his mother’s life as well as his own adventures throughout the movie. The consistency of the soundtrack throughout the film also creates a sense of realness right from the start mostly because every time a song from the soundtrack appears in the movie it begins diegetic and sometimes is purely diegetic, being played through head phones or on a tape player.

 The first song played in the movie begins diegetic, played in a young boy’s (Peter Quill) head phones. “I’m not in Love” by 10cc has a soft sombre sound that matches the setting of a boy in a waiting room hospital waiting to see his sick mother. The English rock band were most successful in the 1970s and went on to top UK charts.

The next song “Come and Get your Love” by Rebone plays in the ear phones of a now older “Star-Lord” (Peter Quill), who is exploring dismal looking planet. The funk-rock song has energising beats that match his playful nature as he dances around until the music abruptly stops, interrupted by the image of the infinity stone in a room filled with silence.

It is implied that both songs mean something to Peter’s mother, Meredith Quill, who made the mix tape for his son which he holds dear, and suggest experiences that she has gone through. However, The Boardwalk Times suggest that some songs such as “Escape” by Rupert Holmes reflect Peter’s experiences. They explore the way that the song becomes paralleled with Peter and Gamora’s relationship through its conclusion of two lovers realising they have more in common than they thought. “They don’t have to look any further than each other for what they seek in a relationship.”. This connection could be made within the back story of both Peter and Gamora in which they both have not known love and meaning from family relationships or otherwise.

The meaning of the sound track runs deep within the movie in the way that it is represented and the way that each song is played in the movie. However, the use of these famous, chart topping, 1970’s hits carry meaning and experience respectively. This may connect with the audience in a way separate from the movie, altering certain feelings that the producer is trying to invoke. A qualitative content analysis by Claudia Bullerjahn (Bullerjahn, C 1994, ‘Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cognition’, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp.99-118) explains that the role of individual differences and past experience of viewers is typically not considered. I wonder if this is the case here or if that is part of the reason that the producer has chosen these songs specifically, because they already have personal meaning attached to many people watching. (p.99).

On the one hand it is the perceptions of the producer that are being portrayed but on the other the audience brings their own interpretation and emotional reaction to the specific music being matched with each scene.

The music score on the other hand becomes something that is constant throughout the entire movie, repeating certain sounds for certain scenarios. Guardians of the Galaxy uses the same four sounds throughout the movie the most common is quite intense, deep and dark which gets louder and more fast pace during any action. Bullerjahn (Bullerjahn, C 1994, ‘Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cognition’, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp.99-118) looks at this as a dramatic function used to accentuate a cinematic climax by accelerating the tempo. This can provide specific messages which can anticipate action and contribute to the narration. Other than this there is music which sounds like the same instruments but played in a more positive way, suggesting something heroic is happening or something triumphant has happened. Other music is sad and sombre and plays in moments when someone important and likable has died or when a deep and meaningful moment is happening between two characters.

When “Come and Get your Love” plays while Peter dances around in the opening scene it suddenly stops, interrupted by the sight of the infinity stone which Peter plans on taking. This is followed by the accompanying non-diegetic sound of deep, slow, intense music which plays behind the image of Nova Corp agents stepping off of a ship.

The way that both types of music are used allows them to almost complement each other in the successful effect they have on the audience. The soundtrack in this moment allows the audience to connect with Peter, to understand his personality, giving the imagined world a depth that connects to the character’s backstory and life in that moment. When the soundtrack stops and there is silence there is a sense of uncertainty and when the score kicks in so does a sense of seriousness. This changes to a deep, high tempo, intense music when they begin to chase Peter, this creates a sense of worry that the audience physically feels, making their heart beat faster and feel a sense of anxiety for the character we now know a bit about. Further into the scene Peter jumps away from a group of agents in which moment all music stops and time is slowed, again creating a sense of uncertainty. The silence, soundtrack and music score are carefully placed throughout a scene to allow a manipulation of emotions.

Bullerjahn explains that the music score influenced the mood of the entire film more than non-verbal reactions of the protagonists. They concluded that more than anything the score influenced the emotional components of film perception. (Bullerjahn, C 1994, ‘Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cognition’, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp.99-118)

Long moments that had no music at all connected with each other through a common factor of the five guardians of the galaxy being together. It seemed to me that the moments where the five characters where alone with each other were moments of safety and certainty, no one attacking them, no outside interference. They are moments which allow the relationship between them to build and relationship dynamics to form. This becomes clear with funny banter, laughter and serious conversation. Although there are other moments with no music at all that only last a few seconds, these go for a minute or two and last a whole conversation, it allowed these moments to stand out throughout the movie.

The article concludes that the genre influences the expectations of feeling for the audience whilst the music score guides their emotions allowing the moment in the movie to be interpreted differently but not too far from the producer’s own interpretation. Polarising the emotional atmosphere, influencing the understanding of the plot. (Bullerjahn, C 1994, ‘Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cognition’, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp.99-118) (p.116). The soundtrack in Guardians of the Galaxy adds to the depth of the actual imagined world being created, giving more elements to the story that the audience is being given. Both have the effect of manipulating the emotions of the audience, however, I have come to the conclusion that the score manipulates emotions in the moment, whilst the soundtrack has a longer term effect, building upon the emotions the audience feels toward particular characters or scenes.

Written by Bree Zammit