#the kind of unhinged interactions i read about in some of the reviews just shows levels of indecency that i could not have experienced today

[ink-asunder]

Hugging, kissing, blessing all the disabled and Latine people in the one-star reviews of Sonora Caverns. The way you have been dehumanized and harrassed by the racist, ableist, power-tripping staff at a petty cavern attraction is demonstably cruel and always undeserved. I hope you're all treated with peace and dignity and that everybody always does everything in their power to best accommodate you and nurture your children's interest and respect for the natural world around them.

[mdhwrites]

Does Amity Have an Arc?

That... really should be a clickbait title and by the strictest definitions, and especially by what the show SAYS... Sure. She has one. She starts out acting one way with one set of morals and finishes acting a different way with a new set of morals. But... An arc implies growth and a curve. Steps to seeing her evolve as a character. After all, if drastic change to a character was all it took to have a good character arc, Resident Evil would have some of the best character arcs in media. “Look! He starts out as a coherent, sentient human with twisted morals into a body horror creature fucked up in seventeen different ways without even the ability for proper speech! What an arc.”

And I’ll be fair: Amity’s ‘arc’ is not actually that cartoonishly bad. I get why people praise it but the longer the show has gone on... Well... Let’s review, episode by episode, what we actually see of who Amity is and her priorities, her morals, etc. Teenage Abomination: A snarky bully entirely okay with murder of an innocent person just for the crime of making her look bad and very little else. Loses control at the slightest slip up and is effectively one step from being unhinged. Covention: Is still mean but whatever unhinged, vengeful nature used to be there is gone as humiliation doesn’t have her lash out against her mentor or the like but instead have her cry. Also her mean spirit is somewhat justified as she gives a decent reason for being against Luz as a person. She also shows she’s entirely capable of being reasonable and even kind as she only needs proof of Luz’s work ethic and kindness so as to be able to give the girl a bit of kindness and let go of what was done to her. Hooty’s Moving Hassle: Is mean on social media and in front of her friends but also lets go of things that even one episode ago she might have decided to make something of. Lost in Language: Puts up a front about why she’s reading to kids but at this point isn’t mean... at all. A little rough perhaps but she mostly is dishonest about her interests and that’s it. Trying to act cool but is shown as a decent, hard working student who has a shitty family. Adventures in the Elements: No longer has shitty siblings but just teasing ones, shows real care for those around her, doesn’t get mad at Luz for effectively being responsible for almost getting her siblings killed but instead traps her “for her own safety” before going off to be the hero. Still is secretive about her interests. And really... That’s what we have until Winging it Like Witches where she drops the idea that she needs to be the coolest for gay panic instead and a new social order. After that... Amity doesn’t change. Not really at least. Her morals were already set firmly on the side of good, her care for others established even before Adventures in the Elements in theory and she, without any real prompting for it besides just continuous interaction with Luz has steadily lost her edge until Grom is the last time we see her be randomly mean (or really mean at all) with “Watch it, nitwit.” And that happens within five episodes. It doesn’t even take the full first season to already see that Amity is just a good person. And that creates a problem, especially since we don’t ever really get relapses. At most, we get her not standing up for Luz briefly in Escaping Expulsion but that’s really it and that’s still NOWHERE near who she was in the first episode. And when looking at a data set for an experiment, to analyze the results, commonly you throw away any truly drastic outliers as likely being a failure of the equipment or the like. In this case... You remove her first episode from her arc because it just comes across as having been out of character. That for some reason, she was cranked to a thousand when she’s not normally at an eight at most. Worse yet becomes the elements supposedly pressuring her to be the way she is. Society, her parents, friends etc. These elements are deeply important to most well written characters and breaking away from them, even a single one, could make up the entirety of a character arc, let alone when you have THREE. She ditches Boscha because she’s being mean to Luz and does it at the first time she ever shows friction with Boscha. Her parents she leaves because they’re trying to kill Luz in the first episode we see them properly in and in the second time they’re mentioned in the series. Actually, even worse is that the first time they’re brought up... Also immediately is followed by Amity tell their old rules to go fuck themselves by becoming Willow’s friend despite the fact that they disapprove of Willow. Hell, you could even count leaving Boscha, as Boscha is clearly one of the friends she made that day long ago, a form of rebellion against her parents as well. And socially, she treats leaving the coven system like deciding not to go to college. In other words, not a big deal and not literally met with the death penalty because of how illegal it is. She’ll disappoint her parents and nothing more. Her father doesn’t even have a real comment on it because... reasons. Both existent and not. And does Amity ever fret or care about betraying these elements? No. She claims to care about her father’s approval but then isn’t even willing to take a hug from him at the end of the episode or actually care about what he may think about leaving the coven system. She never interacts with Boscha until S3 and not in any meaningful way to her character. It’s more to make Boscha look pathetic. And she never worries about the coven system, the fact that Luz might have to go home and stay there, etc. like that. So... If these elements are dismissed easily, seem to matter little to the character and don’t push her arc forward because they aren’t moments where she’s showing some new level of morality or freedom than she has before... What are they for? That’s sadly pretty easy: They are obstacles Luz can contrast with. Things Luz can say “This is bad,” and Amity can go “Yeah, You’re right!” and they both get a relationship +1 bonus on their character sheets. Even better, it’s one less obstacle from them having a happy ending. Why does Alador get redeemed? Because Odalia is so pure evil, SOMEONE needs to be able to tell her no when she tries to make them not be together and that’s not Luz. Literally because Luz didn’t even react to Odalia saying that Luz couldn’t be Amity’s girlfriend. (Side note: Luz actually never reacts or interacts with Amity’s relationship to her parents. She may be the reason for there being friction but she never talks to Amity about them, never encourages or discourages, never reacts, etc. like that and it’s kind of weird. And I’d argue bad eventually.) And all of this leads to just a situation the show always ends up running into, especially with its characters: Show don’t tell. Because we’re told that Amity has this pressure on her. That she’s a bully and that she needs to change. But by her actions and attitude? That never appears to be the case after two, at best three episodes. She doesn’t even make it to halfway through the first season before she’s effectively a good person who cares a little about self image. And if you remove the first episode... That arc is about as shallow as a bunted grounder sent right back to the pitcher. It went nowhere, did nothing and no one is actually happy about it except for that the ball was hit at all.

[rhetorical-ink]

Rhetorical Ink: Avengers - Endgame Review

**AVENGING SPOILERS BELOW**

I had to wait nearly a week to see the film, since we saw it for my brother’s birthday -- it was surprisingly a packed theater for a week after a movie’s come out...and with all the hype, here are

My Top FIFTEEN Thoughts of Avengers: Endgame:

In all honesty, with a movie this big, and with my somewhat torn opinion of the film, I have to do a list of likes and dislikes. Let’s start with:

THE GREAT

10. Rocket the Racoon DELIVERS in every scene he’s in -- making for a great balance of humor and drama; clearly, he’s lost a lot from Infinity War, and I honestly could not tell it was Bradley Cooper in this role -- that’s how good the character is (more on the not-quite-that below).

9. I’ve never been a huge fan of Ant Man in the Marvel Universe, but I really, really liked Paul Rudd in this movie -- his levity was much-needed, but at times, especially in the beginning, his acting is just SPOT ON. He’s a major player in this movie and his role carries weight and makes sense. Just a great character that I didn’t think I would want to focus on in this film!

8. Speaking of characters I didn’t think I would care about, War Machine is oddly relatable and has a bigger role in this film too, and I really liked Don Cheadle’s performance in the film!

And I couldn’t mention surprises without mentioning Nebula -- her entire arc in this movie is just fantastic -- Karen Gillian did a helluva job acting and working with this character and I just LOVED it throughout the film! Her character gets a meaty role and she knocks it out of the park.

7. Spoilers, Wanda Maximoff aka The Scarlet Witch returns by the end, and her battle against Thanos was just wonderful -- I was rooting for her and her powers the whole end battle! More on that end battle below!

6. The premise of time travel and how they explain it and work through it in the movie was clever, fun, and a great source of humor and creativity -- I loved the idea of going through various timelines and into the past and seeing bits and pieces of scenes from previous Marvel films -- it just was a great premise and execution, throughout the film!

5. Of course, there is a final battle with The Avengers vs. Thanos, and while some parts (mentioned below) are awkward, I really loved just how COMIC BOOK like the entire end battle was, incorporating elements from the past several films and new elements we’re sure to see in future installments -- it was definitely a moment in film history that was a culmination of a decade of build up and it paid off!

THE INTRIGUING

5. Similar to Rocket, Thor has a BIG part in this film and his appearance when he first reappears after the time skip in the movie was HILARIOUS -- seriously, I never thought Fortnite would make it into a Marvel film, but I loved it nonetheless.

However, Thor is highly unstable throughout and goes from being hilariously like “The Dude” from The Big Lebowski to being unhinged and nearly insane with his mood swings and emo nature. It was a hit and miss performance and parts seemed more like Chris Hemsworth being funny than Thor being funny; but I am intrigued to see where his character goes after this film!

4. I would be lying if I said I didn’t connect with Hawkeye and find his storyline powerful; hell, the opening scene with him had my jaw dropped. That being said, I was disappointed that when we get to him and Natasha going after the Soul Stone...and it’s Natasha that’s sacrificed. Especially the shot of her at the bottom of the stone basin; it really took away from Gamora’s sacrifice in a way. I really thought it should have been Hawkeye sacrificing himself, but I guess it makes sense since he got to be with his family again after they come back.

I guess I wanted more Hawkeye in the past films so that his character’s actions would have more payoff here...but...how does that Rolling Stones song go again?

3. The appearance of Tilda Swinton was SO welcomed and I loved her interactions with Bruce -- I really wish we’d had more of those moments with characters interacting with those they’re not normally paired with. Yes, we do get Thor and his mother reuniting and Tony Stark and his father -- but I wish they’d shown Rocket getting the reality stone from Jane, or see Paul Rudd run into a character from Avengers, etc.

2. So...Loki? We see him get an infinity stone and run off -- to where? Clearly it means we’re going to see him in the future and I need that in my life!

1. Speaking of hypothetical situations, there was so much that could have been done with Tony Stark and Pepper Pott’s daughter, Morgan. I really hope that she becomes Iron Man in the future! I just thought there would be more of a conflict with changing the past and altering the future -- it would have been a compelling part to mention...maybe it would have been too much more to add to the many storylines happening throughout the film -- I just wanted to see Tony’s decision to help change the past have more weight on his future, I suppose...but then, Tony ends up dying, so I guess it really did have weight! I don’t know what’s what anymore. In any case...we love you Tony Stark, we love you 3000.

THE ERRRRM.....because no film is perfect.

-5. When we are reunited with The Hulk, he’s become a perfect blend of Bruce and The Hulk -- I realize we’ve been slowly building towards this, especially with Thor Ragnarok and how The Hulk is portray...

...but I just couldn’t get behind it. I’m not sure if it’s the CGI or some other factor, but The Hulk just wasn’t...The Hulk in this. Granted, the scene where Bruce puts on the Hulk-buster Gauntlet and notes the Gamma Radiation being how he can handle it was cool and clever as all get out -- I still felt like I wanted to see The Hulk be more like himself throughout this movie.

-4. Captain Marvel. I will admit that I haven’t seen Captain Marvel, but I just can’t get behind Carol Danvers. She’s kind of a wet towel, and she just disappears for most of the film to only show up at the very end when it’s very convenient. I just couldn’t get behind her character and she seemed super overly arrogant and just hyped. I’m glad her character could stand up to Thanos, but didn’t just kick his butt instantly -- I don’t know...maybe seeing her own movie will make me get it more...

-3. The whole female characters get together and run into battle scene was a little...much. I get showing these characters fighting and winning, and I’m all for it! But I felt the scene where ONLY the ladies get together to fight was a little on the nose...I just couldn’t get behind it for the moment.

-2.  I really loved that Captain America could wield Thor’s hammer -- such a good call back and payoff in the movie! What wasn’t a good payoff was his “staying in the past,” aging, and passing his shield down to Falcon. I realize the connection to the comic -- but it just seemed shoe-horned in the end and a bit ham-fisted. Those fight scenes, though? KILLER! And that “American Ass?” MORE KILLER.

-1. I think going into the film over-hyped was a detriment -- it’s a good film, and I teared up with Tony died. But the over hype did leave me with a smidgen of disappointment.

I liked the film, but I feel I liked Infinity War better. At least we have wild antics to look forward to in Guardians of the Galaxy 3! If you’re a comic fan, you won’t want to miss this film, but if you’ve not read the comics, you might be a little lost!

[booksbookandmorebooks]

Eleanor Oliphant is completely Fine Book Review.

Hello my lovelies, I'm back today with a review on my most recent gem of a read, Eleanor oliphant is completely fine. This is a book that I am gutted I didn't jump on sooner. Book of the year is an understatement. This book was absolute incredible. I can't get over how much I fell in love with this book and it's characters. So today I'm here to share with you why I fell so hard for this book. I hope you enjoy and have a fab day.

Her mother:

One of my very first thoughts when reading this book initially was Carrie. The movie Carrie, I just couldn't get out of my mind. When I first encountered Eleanor's relationship with her mother and way she was so manipulated by her and seeing this crazy hold she had over her daughter made  me feel so uncomfortable and so sad, just like when I watched Carrie for the first time. The irrational and irratic mother, the negative and destructive influence she has over her daughter and her life. It was also extremely sadden that she had this power even now from behind bars. Where realistically she couldn't touch. It shows just how much power she has.

The fact that Eleanor has no idea what she's been missing out in until she finds it is another beautiful yet heart breaking scenario. For example, she gets her hair cut and is fawned over, she learns to apply make for the first time in 30 years and has genuine compliments from men and women, and is welcomed into the women's clique with adoration and her naive yet heart breaking response of waiting for a punch line after their compliments is just too wholesome. This woman has gone her whole life without a shred of positivity and support and once she has it it becomes the most important thing to her in the world. The way she looks at life is just like seeing it through the eyes of an intelligent child totally lacking any understanding of social norms and street smarts. It's so beautifully and honestly and authentically written it melted me.

Eleanor herself:

While on the subject of Eleanor herself, there are some things about her I just have to talk about. When you really get into the heart of the story it becomes very apparent that her mother’s criminal influence has had a very negative impact on Eleanor. Her mothers

unhinged and sporadic mood changes are something we see Eleanor constantly fighting against and unfortunately, in most cases she seems to be fighting a losing battle as she very clearly shows the same if not similar behaviours and traits as her mother and how this is a constant source of pain for her as she is so confused about what she wants from her life but also from herself.  Eleanor is one of the most complicated and layered characters I have ever encountered. She is someone I just love dissecting and peeling the layers from. I have found one very common thought when talking about this book is that Eleanor’s actions, while on the basic level are criminal and well, very illegal at times (when she breaks into the apartment building of her obsessive crush) she has such a strong sense of naivety along with a ridiculously basic understanding of the world around her and the laws contained in it, it makes the criminal and awkward situations she gets herself into just sad more than illegal. You could never see Eleanor as a criminal master mind, because she has no understanding of what that would entail and doesn’t have a manipulative or evil bone in her body. Anything she does never has any malicious intent behind it, its just a lack on understanding and that is a fact that continually breaks my heart even after putting the book down over a month ago.

Her mothers influences:

We see her in constant battle with her own brain, the things she has learnt an had ingrained into her since a child conflicting with the morals she has started to develop while growing up in a world without such a condescending guardian. For example, the same situation (the breaking and entering) when we see her pretend to be someone else to gain entry into the apartment building and we watch as she reasons to herself that breaking into his home would be very inappropriate and something she could never allow herself to do yet she has no issue standing outside his door and watching him/ listening to him for hours and doesn’t view that action on the same level. For anyone else, the two go hand in hand as unacceptable social and legal behaviour but for her ,her boundaries and understandings are so limited if not blurred throughout most of the book she will never view things the same way as majority of people would.  The fact that she is just desperate to be near this stranger and believes her happiness rests entirely on him and their interactions is just so sad. She has allowed herself to believe that she needs him to fulfil her and Its just heart breaking. A phrase I promise you will use over and over again while reading this book.

The lessons she learns:

When we step away from her criminal activities and look at the lack of kindness and love she has had in her life we see something beautiful through the book develop and begin to emerge. The tiniest acts of kindness can make the biggest impact on Eleanor. While confusing her majority of the time, its these small acts that teach her the true value of kindness and friendship and we see her subconsciously start to understand and even demonstrate these values herself while completely unaware! which is another amazing sub plot in this book.

Example: when Eleanor was feeling anxious about why people didn’t want to sit with her.

We see Eleanor judging other people, comparing herself to other people to make herself feel better. Why would someone rather sit next to a sloppy looking man or a chav instead of her? It seemed to her like a glaringly simple choice and leaves her offended when people seem to be avoiding her. But when a person she had prejudged and rather harshly my I add, inquires into whether she is okay after seeing her become gradually more and more distressed as her thoughts of self doubt and hatred intensify, she realises that this is one of her mothers teachings, something negative and poisonous. Something once realised she wants to rid herself of. It’s a brilliant lesson for Eleanor and was such a touching and fragile scene yet was also just so beautifully simple. The first real self-correction lesson Eleanor will learn and such a big turning point for her.

 Over view:

I could honestly go on and on about the other factors I fell in love with in this book, the relationships, the struggles, the adaption and so much more but if any of this has struck you I implore you to go ,read and watch these amazing events take place yourself! You will not be disappointed. This book has been the easiest 5 out of 5 stars I think ive given this year. the hype around this book is so well placed. Any apprehension to this book not living up to the popularity is completely and utterly misguided. If you read one book this year, make it this treasure!

[fullysowerewolf]

My Thoughts on Resident Evil 2 (2019); It Could Have Been Great

I've taken some time off to reflect on Remake 2 and take into account all of my thoughts on its gameplay and story. And I think it's time for me to give my full review on the game.

WARNING: This post will contain unpopular views on a well liked/received game. Turn back now if you want to return to the comfort of the status quo.  

Resident Evil 2 (2019) is not a bad game. It is entertaining as an experience and functions as it is supposed to. The atmosphere, outside of some issues I have with the tone and how they've been marketing it with the series presently, is good. The revamp they gave the environments and and enemies, while not something I personally give much value to, is impressive. The sewers look grimy and disgusting, the BOWs look like rotting corpses and react to getting their heads blown off like, well, someone getting their head blown off in real life. The best environment by far is the police station though. I am completely satisfied with how they've designed the station here.

On paper, the zombies function well and their AI is decent. Mr. X is the breakout feature of the game and he does end intensity to the game but I think he overstays welcome a bit too much and steals away attention from G-Birkin, as I feel there's not enough scenes or standout gameplay moments with G. Sherry's segment is actually tense and I like it.

Some of the story works, the new addition of the Orphanage is good and adds a neat new location to experience in the city as well as a chance to actually explore the city outside of the station. Something that fans had complained about in the original. Annette Birkin and Marvin Branagh both stand out as well portrayed characters, with Annette being given more things to do in the story and interact with the characters. And Marvin's interactions with Leon and Claire (Leon in particular) are great and make you feel for him and his steady decline in health. Annette's death scene in Claire's story and the scene with Kendo were the only moments in the game I felt an emotion for. It's not the worst story in the series. But it's not the best. It fulfills its requirement of being a story. As a whole, it is a good horror game to play and an ok RE game.

This game, however, may as well be called "Missed Opportunity the game". They had the ability to really make this game pop out and be a new experience while still giving a good showing of what made RE2 so great and they completely dropped the ball.

Files are omitted, something well known and beloved in the series that's used to add flavor and life to the story and environment are gone and replaced with bare bones explanations that just tell you how to solve puzzle Y.

The option to interact with the environment is removed as well, something that's been a part of the games since the beginning and only RE6 has ever done until now. Why?! This is the perfect game to add these kind of details in, to add more charm and flair to the setting and even some depth to the character you're playing as and to make the story feel more alive. They may not add anything to the mechanics of the game, but it gets you further invested into the story and environment around you. This is the ultimate irony of RE2 remake. The environment and graphics look and feel more realistic than ever before, but you are completely unable to simply look at or comment on them like a real person would in the world, be able to experience them. You can look, but you can't touch.

Characters this time around feel off and simplified from how they were in the original.

Irons is an example, in the original his villainy was more understated. You couldn't trust him as far as you could throw him, but he still came off as someone in command and faked being morose about what was happening. It was only later after you meet him in his torture chamber and after reading the various files throughout the game that lay out his depravity he really becomes unhinged. But in this new telling, he just automatically beats up Claire and kidnaps Sherry right on first meeting him, no subtlety, no buildup, just straight up asshole. And that's just not interesting.

Ada feels very cardboard in this game, there's not very many standout moments with her, even when she's given her own gameplay segment, she immediately makes herself suspicious with her noir ripoff coat and glasses and behavior. Gives away that she's here to steal the G-virus to Annette when originally she didn't break cover as John's girlfriend until the very end of the game. Her 'death" is unrealistic and contradicts what Capcom has been giving us as her death scene for years by now, as well as just not being as emotional or engaging. And her relationship with Leon come off as more like a partnership the likes of Helena in RE6 than of a growing romance that eventually spans decades. It felt more like manipulation mixed with appreciating Leon as a person overall and not as "wow, this guy really cares about me and is charming, there's something I really love about him".

Leon comes off as much flater than he did originally as well. Originally, he took charge of the situation and made it his mission to gather survivors and get out of dodge as fast as he can. Even though he was a rookie and in over his head, he actively tried to help people and get them to listen to him and what he had to say. Here, Leon just fumbles around obeying whatever anyone says to him. He never questions Ada and her odd behavior until the end, which comes off as weird considering he did everything she asked and never has seriously questioned or brought up concerns about her until that point. Just blindly says he's got to talk to Irons first when Ben begs him to let him out, rather than question seriously what Ben had to say about Irons or how he had locked Ben up in the first place. Leon's really passive this time around rather than being active in trying to help people. 

Claire (and also Leon) is way too casual about this whole thing. Neither really reacts appropriately to seeing this messed up shit. Some of this might also be the lackluster dialogue (which tried too hard to be gritty and edgy at times especially when it came to Claire, my god) and acting on Claire's VA's part but it's still negative. 

Claire should not be so gung ho about facing down a 15 foot tall abomination against nature like it's Revelations 2 rather than it being her seeing these things for the first time ever. Critical Nobody made a good point in how in the original the boss fights happened out of the blue and neither Leon or Claire actively tried to take on G- Birkin or Mr. X. They were ambushed and had to fight their way out of the conflict and neither made some dumb action quote line during it as well until the very final boss where it was warranted. It's like Ethan and RE7 all over again with the generic action movie responses to shit he should be freaking out about. And once again it takes me out of the experience.  

Claire's story revolving her brother just gets dropped like a sack of bricks during it for dumb reasoning, after being placated by some coded message with which her mild confusion at doesn’t sell me on her being so concerned she’d fly to Paris and bust into Umbrella’s HQ over later on.. What I think they should have  done if the devs really wanted to sell this one being more “real” than the original, was put that scene with Leon and Claire in the STARS office over some limp wristed attempt at Chris writing a coded message. That scene in the original was one of the best in the game. 

The scenarios and how they handled them is fucked. We all know it. They completely shat the bed when it came to making use out of the A/B gimmick. 

Both the 1st run and the 2nd amount to playing the same story, only you don't meet Marvin in the 2nd. Which is not enough of a difference to justify the existence of a A/B scenario thing. In the original, A and B discs gave you an obvious difference. Characters have different deaths, the boss fights were different, there were changes in the actual story if you play Leon or Claire first or second that affected the B scenario, whatever items you picked in the A scenario affected the B one. This greatly increased the replayablity of the game and added much more bang for your buck in enjoyment.

I understand if they seriously weren't able to really do an A/B gimmick like before due to different constraints on the budget that differed from the 90's. Which is why when I heard they weren't going to do the A/B thing that didn't bother me. But they either lied or changed their minds mid production and shoehorned it in, most likely for nostalgia points and to haphazardly add more replayability. What is the point doing alternate scenarios if they don't differ or add anything new to the game? That's just a waste of resources and everyone's time. They could have spent their time on simply making two solid stories/campaigns that worked coherently, but they didn't. 

Turns out IGN weren't completely lying or wrong when they said that the two stories played the same way. Even when you play the 2nd run there's no real difference.

The story changes are really bunk as well. Why omit the police knowing about the Mansion Incident and making Marvin and Co look like idiots who can't put 2 and 2 together? Why change things like Claire's story progression and removing the interactions between the two throughout the game (even though this game really wanted to push the idea of them being an item they only had two scenes of them interacting??)? Leon and Claire talked with each other via the radio the whole time and really let you believe these two were working together to get out alive, even with you weren't face to face most of the time in the original. Leon also played a roll in saving Sherry as well, which carries over into future games but that's completely scrapped here. 

Why is Ada's connection to the original game, (which is still in Remake 1 which now is the prequel to this game), absent? Where's new lore and enemies like Lisa Trevor? Where's the potential of connecting things to future events like the Simmons thing with Ada from 6?They had a golden opportunity to clear up some confusion about what events from which scenario were canon or not here and to really add some surprise into the story, but nothing was done with it. 

The enemies are all bullet sponges, even the bosses, that makes fighting them really cheap and frustrating. You have to shoot a zombie something like 4 times with a shotgun to put it down. I repeat. A Shotgun to the head takes more than two times to put down. And even than that's probably not good enough. That's not good enemy design, that's just an exercise of my patience that I am now very in short supply of.

There's also a severe lack of enemy variety. You only get zombies, lickers (for one part of the game), zombies with a plant skin, and G-embryos. That's it. No Licker B's, no giant moths, no giant spiders, no new enemies that could add some more challenge to the game. Nothing. And with most of those enemies being of the zombie mold, that means more repetition in gameplay. Add in the frustration of everything being a bullet sponge, and you're not in for a good time.

The Characters you're playing as feel the same with little to no different weapons or attributes to set them apart. Unlike in Remake 1, where both Chris and Jill had completely different defensive items and skills such as exclusive lockpicking, more inventory space, and a lighter preset. Remake 1 also had interesting mechanics that really added more challenge and intrigue to the game in the form of a new enemy (Crimson Heads) and a way to effect directly how much challenge you want in your playthrough (you could choose to leave the corpses unburnt and make life harder or make things easier by burning as much as you can). In Re2make, there are no such distinctions between between Leon and Claire that really make them stand out as unique characters in gameplay.

The soundtrack is bland and generic. You also can barely even hear it. You absolutely have to play the OG OST to really get any kind of musical accompaniment in the game. Too bad that's something you have to pay Capcom $3.00 for. I think the only music that really stands out are the G-3 and 4 boss themes and The 4th Survivor music.

In the end, I was let down heavily from Remake 2. I wanted to like this game. I wanted to see Capcom learn from their mistakes with the foreign, lackluster 7 and see them make an actual RE game again. They succeeded, somewhat with the latter. RE2 '19 IS better than 7 and does feel like an actual RE game and deserves the title of such. But it's not better than Remake 1. Or even as good. Every time I look at Remake 2, all I see is what could have been. And every time I think about the positives of this game, a niggling thought of "but it could have also done..." is there in back of my mind. While seeing and viewing this game, I was in an emotional dead zone, not excited, not angry, just a near continuous state of "meh".

The story's mediocre and feels simplified from the previous one. The environment, while looking nice, feels lifeless (and not in a good way). I don't feel like I'm in a real breathing world, fighting against zombies. And this trend towards photorealism and making things more "gritty" for the sake of gritty while sliding further and further on quality in writing is not something I wanted or expected of this series. And it feels like the heart and soul of this series is getting drained out and replaced with some mediocre expy of the latest horror trends rather than doing its own thing.Which to me seems like we're going to head for another slump like what happened with 6, where the series gameplay quality generally increases, but the meant of the characters, writing and series' uniqueness gets worse and worse.

Before Remake 2 came out, I was excited to see what the remakes of Nemesis and Code Veronica were going to be like. But now I'm very wary of what they might do to the story and gameplay of those games when they remake them. And I'm even less enthused than I already wasn't about RE8 or any new games going forward.

Remake 2 was Capcom's last shot of getting me on board with their new "vision" for the series started with RE7. And I'm just not interested. So this will be last game I give any attention to for Resident Evil.

[spotlightsaga]

Kevin Cage of @spotlightsaga reviews… I Love Dick (S01E02) The Conceptual Fuck Airdate: May 12, 2017 @amazonvideo Ratings: @amazon streaming only Score: 8.25/10

***********SPOILERS BELOW**********

Just like the first episode of ‘I Love Dick’, the second is over in a flash. It happens so quickly, so ferociously fast, with these seemingly large events that have a heavy significance on these characters, that they are almost too fast to catch. There’s irony in there somewhere because I can see someone easily professing that not much is happening, but in its characterization so much is transpiring I can almost feel my neck break from the whiplash. The episode opens with who I am assuming to be the two head honchos of the Venice Film Festival where Chris’ film had to be pulled because of music rights. They are attempting to watch the film and it looks straight up awful. It’s a lot like the French-Belgian film referenced in this very episode, Chantal Akerman’s 1974 black and white, supposedly charged with raw feminism ‘Je, Tu, Il, Elle’, just without any kind of hypnotic beat, sensuality, or weird lesbian sex scene where two women wrestle around in the bed, looking like an early WWF Women’s Wrestling Match during Post-Attitude Era when women with actual talent and showmanship were actually in the ring. Sorry, I have really weird, repressed, mixed feelings towards that film. Anyway, the two Italian Men toss it because they can’t take it anymore and then we cut back to Marfa, TX. Prepare for lots of cuts, I am very well aware of the presence of editors Julie Cohen & Christal Khatib.

Again there are some really strange, very human moments in this episode. I personally haven’t read the book, but my bestie in Brooklyn raves about it, even calling it her favorite. I keep going back to three big moments in the episode and I’m running them through my mind trying to figure out where these people are coming from. The first is when Chris shows up and interrupts Dick’s seminar, much to the chagrin of Sylvere, who believes that Chris attempting to attend Dick’s seminar is crossing a line in their fantasy that he’s just not comfortable with. Chris could give two shits, obviously this isn’t really a two way street, and shows up anyway… Later lying to Sylvere about being able to get in, claiming that it was full.

She brings a laptop with her terrible film on it and she’s literally a hot mess, once again a possible reference to 'Je, Tu, Il, Elle’… Her phone goes off, she’s bumbling all over the place, Dick dismisses his class and watches a few seconds of her horrible, horrible film and she legit, *and I can’t get over it*, but she legit strokes his head as he’s bent over watching the film. The gesture, the moment, his response to immediately shut the laptop and tells Chris, 'Its not my thing,’ It all sent me into a sort-of paralyzing shock. WTF just happened? Chris freaks out and points out that he hasn’t made art in 7 years and that brick he had set out as an art piece wasn’t art at all… To which he affirmed his love for straight lines. The rich metaphor isn’t lost on me, I died laughing and am chuckling as I’m writing this but I think it’s a combination of that comment and everything that happened so fast in that scene. My love for it increases with repeat views.

Meanwhile, Sylvere is having his own awkward encounters with the woman he met in the first episode, Toby (India Menuez)… This one I had to watch twice as well. Both Sylvere and Chris might have reinvigorated their sex life with this weird sexual fantasy about the mysterious, straight line loving 'Dick’, but they are tanking in the Marfa social scene. Sylvere questions Toby’s taste in art, finding out that her project is about 'looking at hardcore porn without judgement’, and verbatim, 'So I reduce it to its shapes.’ He takes the judgement further and calls her a child and asks her why she’s obsessed with porn, then reduces her to her beauty. The ironic and stunningly ignorant comment is met with the long pause from Toby, striking facial emotional-responding realization and then she simply tells Sylvere, 'You’re awful.’ And again the scene cuts fast, it’s almost dizzying, like I don’t have time to react. The cut is to a red screen with Chris’ words appearing large in and in charge on the screen, 'Dear Dick, I will not be muzzled.’ Only later when I’m sorting out my feelings on the episode, I find myself laughing at the quick edits, and just slightly tonally jarring direction led by the great Kimberly Pierce (a woman who literally burst on to the scene in '99 with the Oscar Winning 'Boys Don’t Cry’). I don’t even know what to think.

Chris returns home after her disastrous meeting with Dick, finding Devon (Roberta Colindrez) installing a water heater or some sort of handy-woman work (see what I did there?), and after the initial shock that someone is in her house, Chris goes right to ranting. Asking her if she knows who the director Maya Deren is, saying that Maya is supposed to be the most important female director of all time. Devon replies No, which I’m guessing most people wouldn’t know her either. Deren was big in the way Indy Bands are big now, but in the 40’s. I know film pretty well, but Meren is mainly a mystery, and while I’m familiar with a lot of films in the 50’s, they are more of Monster Movie in taste (I love classic, iconic trash 50’s cinema, like 'The Blob’, 'Alligator Man’, 'Them’). Trancey, experimental avant-garde types… No the 40’s would be far too early for me to consume that type of genre, despite its cultural importance.

It’s just hilarious to me to see Chris go on and on about how she likes mainstream directors and hates Sofia Coppola, who I’ve always loved btw… Chris cites Sofia’s 'perfect chestnuts highlights’ as another reason she hates her, 'Ooh, hey, how’d you get that brunette? A lotta money!’ I’m literally dead. 😂 Devon starts to follow her around, she’s literally mesmerized by Chris’ unhinged rant. Chris is now just asking rhetorical questions and ranting on as Devon almost salivates at Chris’ crazy as a pure inhibited spectator, 'It is a wonder that any woman could think of herself as an artist.’ Devon actually responds here… 'Uhm, I’m an artist too, so…’ Chris barely recognizes she spoke, muttering back, 'Oh, I didn’t realize’, like that has any bearing on the conversation that could’ve blossomed from there. I’m usually pretty empathetic but if I wasn’t laughing so hard from her rant and the Sofia Coppola comments, who once again I’ve always been fond of, I probably would have reached through the tv and pulled Chris’ hair a bit. I wonder what kind of rant Chris would produce about the cultural cancer of Oxygen’s 'Bad Girls Club’. In a perfect world, there would be an extra scene that Amazon would allow subscribers to see an outtake of this very scenario.

I guess Chris’ interaction with Dick is so jarring that she starts to rip down all the letters she wrote to Dick from the lines strung across her bedroom. And it appears Chris’ visit to Dick’s class was so jarring we see him sitting on his porch staring intently into the Great wide Texan open, clearly annunciating her name in full, 'Chris Kraus’. The editing is fantastic in these final moments (tho to be fair it’s great the whole way through). We see Devon shirtless, confidently writing as if a lightbulb is literally shining bright above her head. Sylvere somberly mopes back through town to his home. This is when we cut to 'Je, Tu, Il, Elle’ where the protagonist speaks about taking everything she had written and spreading it out, then just laying in bed. Cut to Chris laying in bed looking up at the empty wire dawned with clothespins that once held all the letters to Dick, the same letters that had Sylvere and Chris fucking like they had just met each other. Sylvere walks in professing that he hates the town and tries to sit next to Chris and touch her, but without the letters there is no longer warmth and a red pulsing glow in their bedroom. She jerks away from him and claims her 'skin is tight’. Yeesh.

Suki & Geoff arrive at Devon’s trailer and she reveals what she was fervently writing about… A play… About a couple from New York… A woman… She wants to 'become somebody’… 'But she hates herself’… Another quick cut, God I’m in love with these editors… Chris is packing up all her letters to Dick. Cut to Dick who sees a snake, slithering in the very opposite manner of the straight lines he claims to love so much. He arranges multiple rocks in the shape of the slithering, wavy snake and runs along side of them. Is this Dick beginning to let go of his rigid nature? Cut back to Chris who is walking into Dick Jarrett’s office and drops off a box containing all the letters she had written Dick, and so passionately made love to her husband under. The box is tied with a single ribbon, and there’s a dead moth at one corner of the box with a card… 'To: Dick Jarrett / From: Chris Kraus’… Cut to RED. That’s the perfect color alright.

[ikkleosu]

Debunk, Dissect and Destress

OKay rather than dealing with all the anons in my inbox - because although they all say different things the essence is the same - I’m going to make this post, and maybe some others, to hopefully answers your worries.

Generally speaking I’m not a fan of comparing couples, or potential couples, but sadly needs must from your asks so I’m going to warn right now there is “dissing” of the C@rzekiel pairing, there are parallels to R@chonne pairing, so run away now if that’s not your thing.

The main thing people seem to be worried about is Crzekiel happening is more likely than caryl, the alleged parallels in Bury Me Here, and the last scene of the ep, so I’m going to try and allay these fears in this post.

The rest is under a cut

ANd let’s start here:

1) Read ALL Melissa’s interviews post-episode:

http://comicbook.com/thewalkingdead/2017/03/12/does-carol-love-daryl-/

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/the-walking-dead-postmortem-melissa-mcbride-on-carols-nightmares-and-daryls-sacrifice-071533000.html

http://www.amc.com/shows/the-walking-dead/talk/2017/03/spoilers-the-walking-dead-qa-melissa-mcbride-carol

Now notice a few things: 1) How often she is asked and talks about Daryl 2) how little she talks about Ezekiel (especially romantically) 3) go back and do 1 again, it’s worth it. :D

Also take notice of this quote from the Yahoo interview, about the “One Way” sign:

“ That was cute. Yeah, it kind of is. As it turns out, I don’t know how much I can get into that, but it just turns… we can read all kinds of stuff into that. And the arrow, I do believe, was pointing backwards. “

Interesting huh that she can’t talk about that and it points AWAY from Kingdom? (I’m not saying I told you so, but I told you so LOl)

Notice also ALL the post-Bury Me Here there were no questions about Carol and Ezekiel romance to Scott Gimple - the man who is both the showrunner and wrote this episode - not a SINGLE ONE. Not even on Talking Dead. 

And in all the reviews I’ve read (over a dozen) only 1 mentions anything about Carol and Ezekiel romantically.

It wasn’t a thing, no matter how much part of the fandom wanted it to be a  thing.

2) Let’s talk about the “parallels”. Now I’m saying straight up I haven’t done extensive research on what the OTHER fans are saying, I’ve seen 3 posts about the parallels, and I’m going off them. If there’s other parallels being claimed, feel free to let me know what I’ve missed.

a) Clear parallels - “Focus on the unhinged guy meanwhile, there's something else brewing with new relationships" “Gimple wrote Clear, which he admitted it was the first time he wrote it with Richonne in mind and it was a Morgan featured episode. And he wrote tonight's episode which featured Morgan. In both episodes it never started off as anything glaring about a romantic setup, but they both ended with glaring possibilities.”

I mean, Lord, do I have to explain why this is NOT a parallel? Why there is nothing parallel in these episodes beyond Gimple writing them and the focus on Morgan’s mental health? I mean they are literally saying, the only connection is there two people interacting in that ep and they later became a couple. That’s it. 

On the same basis, we could claim No Sanctuary was a parallel to Clear - both written by Scott Gimple, both important Morgan episodes, and we have the Carol and Daryl interaction to “parallel” RIchonne.

b) Other R*chonne parallels - 

“Nabila’s words to Ezekiel were incredibly reminiscent of Hershel’s words to Rick right before Michonne showed up to the gates.” 

Yes, they are similar speeches and the parallel is that they are made to leaders who are afraid to act, who want to hide amongst their crops and concentrate on living peacefully behind a fence. And by the end of the episode they have both learned they can’t live like that anymore, that death and destruction will find it’s way inside (the flu, and the weevils) and destroy what you’ve worked hard to grow, but that it can be rebuilt. 

That’s the parallel, not that shortly after this scene Rick talks to Michonne who he later hooks up with.

“Carol tells Ezekiel they must fight, and Ezekiel says he already knows. Just like Michonne and Rick in the jail cell in “Hearts Still Beating” 

Again, yes, this is a parallel between the 2 leaders again - both of them having refused to stand up and go to war, but have this moment of clarity after the death of two of their people (Spencer/Olivia, RIchard/Benjamin). It’s not a romance parallel, it’s a parallel about Rick and Ezekiel AGAIN.

“Ezekiel tells Carol they’re going to fight, but “not today”, which is like when Michonne told Rick they could wait a few more days.”

Well it’s a stretch to be fair, because the meaning of the 2 exchanges is very different.  Ezekiel is acknowledging that rebuilding focusing on Henry and the garden is as important as preparing for war. Whereas Michonne is reassuring Rick they have time to get the weapons they need to get the Junkyard people on side.  Different words (”In a few more days”. ), different meaning but a similar phrase about time. Again if it’s any parallel, it’s the two leaders.

Note NONE of the alleged parallels have been about the relationship between RIck and Michonne.

MEANWHILE, we have DIRECT parallels to Sherry and Dwight and their MARRIED relationship with each other, and speaking of Rick and Michonne, we have “I can’t lose you” - a phrase which has NOT been uttered by anyone except those in a romantic relationship.... soooo 

3) The finale scene in the garden 

I’ve kind of answered this above with the first parallel, but this isn’t a scene about Carol planting roots. This is a scene about 2 characters (technically 3, as Morgan is the same and we see him immediately afterwards) who has come to a realisation - that sometimes sacrifices are needed in order to achieve peace.

This is all about Carol and Ezekiel arriving at the same place in terms of knowing what must be done, but knowing they can survive it. They are doing ti for Henry and others like him. Planting new crops to replace the ones they lost, preparing new growth for the time after the war when they will all needs to see HOPE.

That is what that scene is about HOPE for a future for Henry, that is free from the Saviours.

When you look at it that way, and look at it in context with all the info above, you can see it’s not a big romantic foreshadowing moment.

And here’s a bonus 4) relating to that:

Cast your mind upward to that comment by Melissa about the One Way Sign. In fact let’s have it twice, it’s so good:

“That was cute. Yeah, it kind of is. As it turns out, I don’t know how much I can get into that, but it just turns… we can read all kinds of stuff into that. And the arrow, I do believe, was pointing backwards.”

Now think about that. Think about the fact it’s pointing away from the Kingdom. And think about the fact Melissa is saying she can’t talk about, therefor it has significance. And know this,. when the crzekiel shippers believed the sign was pointing TO the Kingdom, they all said for sure it was showing where Carol’s home was going to be, where she’d settle, where her future lies.

When they found it it’s pointing AWAY from the Kingdom, suddenly it doesn’t mean any of that. now, to me, that says it all about these “signs” for crzekiel.

[redantsunderneath]

Critical Accommodation

The first forum thread I ever started, on some televisionwithoutpity-type forum, was on the topic of simultaneously overrated and underrated art/artists.  Now, I don’t know if I expressed my ideas clearly or not, but in the email exchange subsequent to a strangely angry moderator deleting the post, clarity didn’t seem to be the issue as much as a failure on his part to admit to the idea that the relationship between quality and popularity could somehow be multivalent.  At the time, I probably used Radiohead or something as an example – underrated by any sort of mass audience but overrated by what you might a few years later have call pitcthforkers – but maybe Serial is a good modern equivalent.  I doesn’t hold enough interest for anyone who has seen more than 3 Datelines and thinks the idea of NPRing the concept up is boring, but elicits a little too much ado from the Slate reading contingent who, maybe, believe True Crime as a genre just got invented.

 I kind of lost interest in this as a concept as, after a while, all you can see are the social signaling aspects of this multi-audience interaction, maybe thanks to hipsters turning countersignaling into a game of chicken where they threw their steering wheel out the window. But it seems that multiple axes of “is it good” that coexist have become more obvious lately, and not just because people are starting to notice that everyone lives in a bubble. Case in point: I was involved in an exchange recently about the movie Suicide Squad, with a poster claiming that the response to the movie showed how pronounced the divide was between critics and the casual audience.  I had to ask what this meant because the critics I pay attention to have been very positive about Suicide Squad and the DC movies in general (in relation to the Marvel movies especially) and dismissive of the sea of internet opinions that call the films garbage.  The person bringing it up was talking about the actual moviegoing audience which made the movie immensely profitable because they weren’t told they were supposed to hate it vs. the majority of internet based and payed critics who poo-pooed the movie as you would expect.  Both of these critical-mass divides were true at the same time, but each of us preferentially saw one.

 I’ve written a lot about textual story and subliminal story in an effort to pick at the meaning of entertainments of all kinds.  But all this is making me think about the fact that there are more levels than just above and below and various audiences are habituated to look for satisfaction at a certain level. One problem is that no matter how smart and attentive the audience member is, they tend to privilege this one layer and, as a result, this strata is optimized for by producers (via a complex Darwinian system) if they are viewed as the primary audience.  So the actual most complicated and interesting multilayered stuff is going to suffer for any specific audience in that it will not be “the best possible thing” at the level they are trained to value the most.  The funny thing is, this system more and more doesn’t favor people who focus on depth and complexity in producing a serious work, but artists who are profoundly unhinged at some level who are willing to operate at the most superficial levels primarily with the deep stuff inadvertently spilling out like piñata guts.  These movies often don’t make intellectual sense.

 I think in order to consider this, text and subliminal aren’t going to cut it.  There is a superficial or visceral level of engagement – incident, big emotion… the action movie thing, but also at a different pitch the romantic comedy thing.  Crowd pleasers that satisfy the lower levels of Maslow’s pyramid – oral (safety, threat, need, good/bad) and anal (dominance, desire, will).  Then you have the mid level engagement of the genital (intricacy, complex relational, intellectual satisfaction) and basic social consciousness (mid to upper Maslow) which is common internet aesthete and print critic land.  If there is talk of screenplay structure or complex characters or representation, it is in this middlebrow-that-thinks-it’s-highbrow area. The Oscar zone.  

 There is another level, though, which me might call the ineffable, the preconscious, the deep structural, the semiotic, the transcendent, or the sublime.  People who I usually pay attention to are focused on this later level to some degree. The thing that ties these people together is an emphasis on visual storytelling (or poetics if we are talking about print) and a philosophical bent.  The escape of conscious forms, of spoken language and structure, receiving symbolic content and using that to construct meaning.  There is a lot of theory in this zone… it is not not intellectual, but rather senses something hidden or unintentional and wrestles that into the zone of language and reason.  This includes primal unexamined societal impulses where the motivations for politics and hatred lie.  

 So group 1 are the conscious experiencers (popcorn moviegoer).  Group 2 are the social intellectualizers (the maven or critic).  Group 3 have found some way to touch an unmediated submerged experience and bring it up to examine, which oddly gives them more in common with group 1 (the dredgers and deep divers).  Everybody at a higher number level has some experience with the lower numbers but what I have noticed is that most people in this hierarchy tend to limit focus to their preferred layer and stick there, losing the ability to really engage at the other levels with something that doesn’t satisfy on theirs.  I do run into more people who are able to put a foot on 1 and a foot on 3, people who go deep on trash cinema for instance, but these people usually take a shit on level 2.  Many of these people hate prestige TV very viscerally.  Others stick to 3 and tend to close read based on one particular “deep topic” like capitalism or gender.

 This leads to extremely insightful people who have a fixed level of focus.  I almost said “myopia” but a better ophthalmologic analogy is loss of lens accommodation, a common problem of age (the need for reading glasses after you turn 47 is this).  With this condition you can be nearsighted or farsighted or have 20/20, but you can’t focus very well outside of a narrow range of your focal length.  My very favorite writers on narrative art are able to focus up and down the scale and, importantly, experience the piece as a blank slate, so the reading can be guided by the piece and not a bias as to level of engagement.  Zizek is great, but I’d prefer it if he seemed to be able to be exhilarated, have fun, recognize bad pacing, or appreciate an actor/actress performance without making these a function of some Marxist/Lacanian equation.

 The good reviews of Batman vs. Superman I have seen dwell on the visual composition and fuck off attitude, but also focus on the movie as a critique of a kind of moral simplicity implicit in nerd/internet culture who can’t see what these characters are really up to.  The film is deliberately provoking the group that generates all the reviews.  Superman is an alien who is hyper aware of the conflict between humanity’s potential and its reality. His choice to act for the good in Man of Steel is that of a god in absolute agony as he has to take the war into himself, killing because moral choices are horrific and don’t have the external consequences they should in a just universe. Superman knows he chooses his path to suffer and serve the good and the universe could care less (Nietzsche’s Ubermench, anyone?). His suffering imposes a moral order on the universe.  In BvS he confronts the prospect of progressive inaction, the Obama path, do no harm because everyone seems to want you to be blamed, shamed into will-less-ness… one of the failure modes of the current American (masculine) spirit. Batman represents the other failure mode, the wallowing in the anger at traditional American values violated by the rise of selfishness and me first mentality.  Of course they need to fight – they are primal opposites: deflated optimism vs. pessimism on steroids, past vs. future, sun vs. void, naturally gifted immigrant vs. driven legacy born on third base.  

 These are gods, and are presented like gods, in a series of mise-en-scene straight ripped from renaissance paintings. It is wrong to speak of subtlety, because subtlety is the opposite of the point.  Look at those (Turin?) horses, gaudy symbols like oranges in the Godfather! The structure of the story is a mess by normal metrics, but there is a shape there, and that is enough when you are dealing with art film rules.  The collision of two celestial objects, awaiting the feminine to mediate their Hegelian synthesis and convert their masculine valances to the positive.  Dwelling on act structure is stupid.  Recognizing that they failed to make this a conventional narrative is useless.  Citing plot inconsistencies, “X wouldn’t do that,” and calling it emptyheaded and over the top mean you are watching a movie you can’t handle.  This is a skilled, smart but “off,” bodily centered outsider artist grappling with shit that is really, really big and deep.  It isn’t perfect, but no one should want that out of this (there are countless clockwork left brain things to watch)… you should come to this wanting a mess, gods of ideas punching your midbrain, opening you to experience the catharsis of basic archetypal struggles in the world.  You know, like superheroes work.  It is wrong to privilege level 2 which, remember, is where mass of expressed “learned” opinion is.  This is where the DC Verse lives.  Marvel is centered in DC’s hole, and it is right to talk of story as structure.

 My point is that the best thing you can do is learn to focus where the thing is most ready to connect with you and be flexible enough to let the thing tell you how to read it.  There is a lot of crap, but there is a lot of good stuff that gets critically ignored because too few are focusing in the right areas.  If you like more stuff, if you find everything more interesting and complex, you win. Not everything is good, but you can almost always find a way to engage it at its best.  You can say many bad things about the book Twilight, but damn if there isn’t something there about the subject/object struggle of being desired as a young woman, the disconnect of inner and outer experience, and the consideration of the choice of traditional-relationship-as-road-to-marriage in a modern context.  If you smirk and say Mary Sue, you have failed.  

 This three cluster model isn’t perfect, but explains a lot why I see lumpy, weird high budget stuff with the high viewership (mass audience), pissed off forums and think pieces (critical consensus/perceived audience if you live online), and elated jaded curmudgeons (deep critics) troika so often.  I think this is more than just a status economy (though that is clearly involved) but the production system has adjusted so that the qualities of the output levels align to the audience expectations.  The most interesting stuff is that which crosses levels, which requires risking a product that will probably seem suboptimal to everyone.  So, let’s have a toast for the auteurs who don’t fit, making movies that are a scrum of potential meanings that require you to get dirty and renounce the tyranny of “the way it should be done.” And I mean Michael Bay as well as David Lynch.  If they seem insane, it’s a feature not a bug.