#the opposite of Disney Remakes. in short.

[captjameshookthoughts]

Since I have now taken some time to have some reasonable thoughts, here’s another post about the newest movie. Don’t expect this to be too cohesive, after all, I do remain a neurodivergent nightmare.

Anyway.

The more I think on it (and that has been A LOT today) the more I get the feeling that this might have originally been pitched as a Captain Hook focused feature rather than a Peter Pan remake.

seriously.

Jude law is good, but is he really ‘makes every other character feel like a side character’ good? Because that’s kind of how I felt watching it all. captain Hook and his arc DOMINATED the narrative, his presence was felt even in scenes he wasn’t in, and I don’t think that’s just my devotion to the sad pirate man speaking. He was also the only character that got any sort of real exploration into who he is as a person, every other character we see is just presented as a certain way and we’re expected to take it as is.

His character arc is front and centre whilst everyone else, including the titular characters are just kind of there to further push his narrative onwards. And that just really pings off the part of me that was involved in the film and TV industry. Like it just feels like something that was pitched as a Hook story, was probably developed at least somewhat to go in that direction and then was told to adapt that work into a Peter Pan retelling to fit what Disney was doing with the brand.

Of course I can’t say for certain cos I wasn’t in the board rooms, but it certainly piques my pattern recognition.

I’ve not been shy about how much I hate the costume, I still do. That hat and those epaulettes? Horrible, fortunately easy to ignore. Unfortunately will never compare to the 2003 movie costume.

which leads me into that comparison.

I will always love Jason Isaacs’ Hook, always.I always adored the character, but it was his portrayal that inspired me to start developing and writing my own Captain Hook. However... IDK Jude Law’s performance feels closer to what *my* Hook has become. I think that’s partly owing to him being that bit visually older, but there is more. Both 2003 and 2023 versions have a Hook that is an absolute wreck with melancholy and loneliness. But 2003′s melancholy is guided by anger and a deep need for revenge, where 2023′s is guided by like insecurity, uncertainty, and loss. All those traits are present in both, but they are separated by what’s at the centre of their sadness.

I can’t really compare backstory, because 2003 doesn’t really have one. Persoanlly, I’ve always liked the idea that James was just a well educated guy who fell into piracy and then into Neverland. I’m just a fan of having normal people being put into extraordinary circumstances and the ways they adapt to that. I have no string feeling either way to Hook having been the first lost boy, I know a lot of people love it and will be delighted to see that explored. I’ve read a few short stories about it, and honestly this movie handles it better than the published stories (IMO)

When it comes to my own Hook, I write him with a great attachment to his name. He, too, feels there’s a separation between ‘James’ and ‘Captain Hook’ but there’s some level of yearning to return to being James, the man he was. Seeing in the movie that visceral and opposite reaction was like WOW, I hadn’t ever considered that angle, but probably because I’ve never felt strongly about the first lost boy angle. But the pain there in that shot! Man’s own name is a wound that never healed and hearing it again, a knife cutting through it once more.

Final comparison Hook’s ‘death’ I really liked the way this movie handled it. It wasn’t played off as a joke, he was treated with the reverance and respect that he ought to have...unlike just about every other version. Now I hate to see him die as much as anyone. HOWEVER, IDK it felt a bit cheap for him to survive and then that smile at the end. It’s just like, the moments after his ‘death’ were so poignant and for that feeling to be for no reason actually. It emotional whiplashed me and not in a good way. I actually think the movie would have benefitted from the finality of death hanging over it, since one of the repeated messages throughout the narrative was the inherent nature of change and endings of phases in life...but perhaps that would be a tad too dark for Disney and their current branding.

anyways. those have been some thoughts. I’m sure I’ll have more at some point.

[dsumpsbluey]

Unofficial Bluey Timeline: Part II

Welcome to another post of my Unofficial Bluey Timeline. This part will be focusing on "The Weekend" through "Hotels". I will also be highlighting the recently found 2017 pilot of the show, since it pretty much is plot-for-plot a remake of one of these episodes (P.S. if you haven't done so, always read the alt text).

**But first, an update regarding my last post. While making the videos for this week, I stumbled upon a program called HandBrake, an open-source video transcoder. This was because the episode backups I mentioned were MKV files and couldn't properly work on my editing app. There, I found that it could do way more than simply convert file types, but also change resolution, apply video filters, and much more; so I found myself experimenting with how to enhance my copies, especially for the season 1 episodes. To keep it short, the program made the episodes better presentable (no distracting interlacing!), and I'll likely use them for any future video uses.**

So, without further ado, lets get in.

The Weekend - Episode 6 (and the pilot)

Bluey scams Bandit into buying magical statues.

Debuts and Details:

The walking leaf (which as of last week's recent ep "Slide", is apparently named "Leaficus") makes its grand debut.

Being as this was built off the pilot of the same name, the animation moves similar despite changes in the characters' models. This is why the episode feels janky and off-model compared to the rest of the season, b/c it is.

In the pilot, Bingo sleeps on a separate room opposite to Bluey's. While this would switch to both sharing the room in the final show, that exact room wouldn't show up in another episode until "Bedrooms" 3 years later. It's there where we learn that both girls used to occupy the room as babies before moving into their current room, which somehow lines up with the pilot (Bingo, the youngest one, occupying the leftmost room).

It would take ages dissecting every single change here, so I made a quick comparison vid of some key moments.

(Pilot video came from original Streamable upload [Just learned it was taken down :(]; Final video came from Internet Archive, as I hadn't set up HandBrake to clean my copy atm)

Differences in Character pilot design: Bluey: minimal differences aside from different orientation of back spots (They're not Disney-shaped, as I call it) Bingo: Snout shape and size bigger; Dark orange top is now two round spots on each side; back has many spots instead of just one. Bandit: Only left side of head is dark (reminiscent of a spot); no tan belly. Has the more drastic design differences of all. Chilli: Her dark brown spot is often not present, or swapping around sides. In the final episode, her brown spot overlaps her snout, other than the other way around.

What a weird way to make an episode about the weekend. This episode doesn't really rely on plot, and just shows us a glimpse of the Heeler family, which is still neat. As for the placement of this episode on the timeline, by rule the final version of the episode is considered canon as opposed to the pilot. Despite both version's plots being very similar, and the separate room pointed out earlier, it doesn't seem fair that an older version of an episode would be in the timeline, as it doesn't fit with the rest of the series.

Favorite part: The walking leaf scene, I quote it everyday w/ an exaggerated accent.

BBQ - Episode 7

Bingo prepares a pepper capsicum salad.

Debuts and Details:

This serves as the introduction of Uncle Stripe (Bandit's brother), and his side of the family, featuring Aunt Trixie, and cousins Muffin and Socks.

There is a mention of a "Auntie Mary" and her salad dressing recipe, but she is never mentioned in another episode again.

This is the first of many episodes that have been altered in international releases. For this, every mention of 'capsicum' is replaced with 'pepper'; no significant cut of scenes occurs, as mouth flaps were the only aspect changed between versions.

Streamable link, cuz I just learned there's a one video limit

The intro scene with Bluey and Bandit prepping the grill serves as the first of a recurring element of the two copying each other, either through movement or verbal.

5 cans and a water bottle were destroyed during the episode.

Bingo learns how to turn on the hose

Chill episode, you get to feel the struggles of Bingo wanting to relax, while also tasked with creating the best pepper capsicum salad imaginable.

Favorite part: When Bingo is getting the salad dressing. The scream, in particular, gets me everytime.

Fruitbat - Episode 8

Bluey learns to dream in order to become a fruit bat.

Debuts and Details:

This marks the debut of Mackenzie, his dad, as well as Rocko

This is the first episode to span multiple days, going from night to next morning (2 days)

The stairway wall has no changes from its last appearance, however the fridge is reoriented to how it was in "Keepy Uppy"

Bluey is revealed to like fruit salad.

Fun episode. However, the main plot doesn't exactly start until 4 minutes in. Wish there was more to the dream than just flying and eating fruit, though; perhaps something more imaginative.

Favorite part: Bingo's iconic shot of her sleeping.

Horsey Ride - Episode 9

Bluey and the gang ride their dad's as horses.

Debuts and Details:

Polly Puppy, Bluey's special toy makes its debut

Bandit and Stripe play as Gallahop, and Sparkles, and they are technically married at the end.

There's what seems to be a porch in the backyard, that I swear never shows up ever again (unless it does, in which I've haven't seen it)

Universal Rule #1 of imaginary play - Animals can't talk; there is a clear violation by both horses during the wedding scene

Fun episode, nothing to say other than flirty Bandit is my favorite screencap.

Hotel - Episode 10

Bandit books a room at the Heeler Hotel.

Debuts and Details:

Bingo is Slobber-Dobber, I guess? Aside from that, there's really nothing else to bring up

The episode, while being fun, doesn't really have much to talk about, timeline wise and in general. It's not bad per se, but it's very minimalistic.

Favorite part: Bluey smacking Bingo's head on the bed.

With that, part II is complete. While there were some interesting details with this batch of eps, they haven't caused too much of a dent in terms of the timeline. Surely, next week, we get some nifty details for our timeline. As always, leave any comments about details I may have missed, and I'll see you next week.

[artist-issues]

Thanks for clarifying. But even if you want to assume that:

People are just going to see movies to get out of the house.

People are just going to see movies to…see…movies.

People are going to see movies because they like complaining about them.

Even if you assume those things are somehow universally true, they only reinforce what I’m saying; people are not thinking seriously about what is good and what is bad, and they’re not rewarding what is good specifically for being good. Sure, the other side of that coin is, “they’re not punishing what is bad specifically for being bad.”

But I don’t even get that part of the argument; why say “abstaining from society is not a solution to the problem” and then say, “critical thinking will only solve the problem if it leads to abstaining from society?”

Plus, it’s an oxymoron. Thinking critically is engaging. Stopping participation is the opposite of that. They can’t go together. So why would you throw the one out with the other?

Maybe all that’s neither here nor there. But you know what? I already said and proved through reasoning that “better consuming = better productions within the system of capitalism.” And that’s a prime example of you not refuting it, and opting to repeat yourself instead.

And all that is assuming that your diagnosis of the problem—which is capitalism as a system that inherently produces bad products—is even the correct diagnosis. Which you haven’t proven it is.

More to that point; everything I said still addresses that! Current mainstream storytellers were once. and still are, audience members of stories, themselves. They—and everyone—have the same problem that I am highlighting, whether they’re part of “evil lazy capitalism” or not! And that problem is: not thinking critically and tracing the effect (feeling something compelling) back to it’s accurate and deserved cause (the objective, intentional choices that make up a good story.)

Example: Guy Ritchie directed Aladdin (2019,) which was garbage, and by pretty much every standard is considered poor-quality. Guy Ritchie was 30 years old and only had one short-film under his writing-belt when the original Aladdin came out in 1998. If, when he was an audience member watching the original Aladdin, he had taken the responsibility of critical thinking I am arguing for seriously, then we can reasonably assume his remake, 22 years later, would have been better. Because it would have understood what made the original objectively good, and it would have used that to it’s advantage in the making of a good movie.

Furthermore, when studios remake Sonic the Hedgehog based on fan input—when they retcon Star Wars decisions based on fan input—it’s really ignorant to say “nuh-uh, Studio heads don’t care what fans think.” Well, of course they do. Because what you think does have bearing on their profits. Not just with internal decisions—with decisions about what they make next.

If people didn’t respond well to the original Aladdin, Disney wouldn’t have spent money to make a new one. Right there, just the one decision to—what’s that, ladies and gentlemen?—capitalize on what they know fans liked—is an example of the “capitalist studio” considering fan input. Because their desire for capital is connected to our response to the product, and if that weren’t true, remakes wouldn’t be a thing.

It isn’t all the filmmaker’s fault that all we’re getting is second-rate remakes and sequels to franchises that should’ve been left alone a long time ago.

We don’t have a clear idea of why we like the things we like. So we don’t clearly communicate why we like the things we like. So it’s no wonder Hollywood keeps getting your favorite movies and their characters wrong. The fans don’t even know why they like what they like.

When Genie is set free in the original Aladdin, that moment was impactful, and you remembered it all through childhood. When Luke tosses the lightsaber away and says “I am a Jedi, like my father before me,” it was impactful, and you remembered it.

But did you stop and analyze why? What made those moments, and those stories, impactful?

Did you say, “Genie wished to be free for the whole movie, and he was always trying to tell Aladdin about how freedom only comes from trusting, and he was learning to trust Al himself, and Aladdin finally DID trust Jasmine to still want him even if he wasn’t rich, so he set Genie free in the most satisfying way!”

Did you say, “Luke spent all previous movies rushing into fights, and trying to control everything to save the ones he loves, but when he finally has his enemy at his mercy and is at the height of his power, he realizes that being a Jedi isn’t rushing and fighting and controlling; it’s having faith in the good and throwing your opportunity for control away.”

Did you think through and appreciate that stuff? The values? The point of the whole story, and how the characters act as pillars holding that point up? The good and the bad things that they embody?

No. Not out loud. Because we don’t think critically anymore. We just go “what’s this? Entertain me. Oooh, I felt something! Good! Next!”

The why behind what you like is the only value in liking anything.

But we don’t look objectively at the “why.” We don’t dwell on the “why.” If we dwell on anything, it’s to superimpose ourselves or whatever we like onto the characters.

You think Barbie was hyping feminism because you like feminism, and because you felt things during Barbie. You write fanfiction about Eddie Munson that has nothing to do with what Eddie Munson actually is as a character—because you like love stories, and you felt some compelling emotions when you saw Eddie Munson onscreen, so you’ve decided that those things should go together. You take something that made you feel emotions while you watched the canon material, then you don’t bother to process those emotions or what made the canon material compelling. You just slap whatever you already think you like onto something that made you feel, whether it had anything to do with what you like or not.

You eat the apple and benefit from it without knowing, at all, what nutrients are inside. Then when someone offers you crap and tells you it’s apple-flavored, you wonder why you’re not feeling the same way afterward.

Then you misdiagnose. You say “no, I don’t wonder why I’m not feeling the same—it’s because the CGI in live-action remakes suck!” Okay, great, so they’ll get better CGI. And it’ll still suck. Because that was never the problem, just like the reasons you liked the movie were never the reasons it actually impacted you in the first place.

Figure out. WHY. You like what you like. Figure out if it’s because the stories said what their creators objectively intended for them to say—or if you like the story in spite of that, not because of that.

Then open your mouth about it. It is worth it.

[ace-and-ranty]

{{ I'm so "?????" about the Barbie movie gifset! My Internet here is so bad I can't load a trailer and see for myself, but what's going on there? Why is she Tol? Why does the mere sight of her cause Smol people to destroy their baby dolls???? I am sometimes bad with metaphors and may be Missing Something, but feel free to enlighten me. I'm also curious why you're hyped, specifically? 80

Okay, okay, let me break it down for you, bestie

So, the teaser trailer is a spoof on A Space Odissey. It has a voiceover that explains how little girls only played with baby dolls, until....................... Barbie arrived.

Then they all start breaking their baby dolls because obviously Barbie is so much better and a doll revolution is about to happen.

And I'm hype because it's DIFFERENT. It is a Barbie movie spoofing A Space Odissey to comment on the actual history of Barbie, and then it cuts to the super stylized, interesting, fun visuals of the movie itself, and it looks fun!! A bit silly!! Like we are gonna get a bit weird with this!!

Big Lego Movies vibes from this one. It just looks fun and like it has some personality.

[princesssarisa]

“Beauty and the Beast”: Belle’s beautiful discontentment (warning: long)

In my Feminist Defense of the Animated Belle, I addressed most of the issues I’ve heard people complain about regarding Belle’s character. But there was one I didn’t touch on, because it has very little to do with gender roles: the common complaint that Belle is a “snob.” I’d like to discuss that topic now. I’d also like to use it as a springboard to discuss a valuable aspect of Belle’s character that sets her apart both from certain Disney princesses who came before her and from depictions of Beauty in other Beauty and the Beast retellings: her willingness to own her discontentment.

I do understand the “snob” accusations. After all, Belle’s neighbors are poor peasants working hard to eke out a living. It’s only natural that they have little time for books or dreams of adventure and think Belle’s passion for those things is impractical. It’s reasonable to sympathize with their perspective more than the movie seems to want us to. It’s fair to argue that the movie has a (probably unintentional) classist undertone by portraying the villagers as small-minded and bigoted and by having Belle only find a kindred spirit in a prince, albeit an enchanted outcast prince, and find her ultimate happiness by leaving the town in favor of a royal castle. I’m grateful that other BatB retellings exist (e.g. Megan Kearney’s webcomic, or Robin McKinley’s Rose Daughter) that portray Beauty’s peasant world in a more positive light, depict the historic cruelty of royal court life in the Beast/Prince’s backstory, and have him leave the castle in the end to become a peasant rather than Beauty becoming a princess.

But none of the above is any reason to criticize Belle.

I don’t think she looks down on her neighbors. She most certainly doesn’t shun them, as some critics claim she does. Just look at her meeting with the baker during the opening song: she tries to have a friendly conversation with him and tell him about the wonderful story she’s read, only for him to rudely brush her aside with “That’s nice... Marie! The baguettes!” I don’t interpret her subsequent shrug and eye-roll as showing disdain for his “low-class” disinterest in books – just as “Oh well, as usual, no one shares my interest.”

Nor do I buy the claim that she shows disdain for the “I need six eggs!” woman (and by extension for all struggling mothers) when she rides past her. It’s true that she does seem to be smiling, which might imply amused contempt, but she might also just be enjoying her ride on the wagon while at the same time wistfully yearning for a new life, with her expression having nothing to do with the woman. I don’t know what the animators meant to convey. And even if that overwhelmed mother does represent the life Belle doesn’t want for herself, and if Belle sings “There must be more than this provincial life!” in response to seeing her, what’s wrong with that? I don’t think it’s an insult to women who choose to have big families. Even a woman who chooses to have five kids shouldn’t be expected to wrangle them all by herself while also doing her grocery shopping, with no help from her husband or from anyone else. That’s the kind of unpaid labor women have too often been forced into and it’s not “insulting other women” for Belle to yearn for something different.

Belle has the right to be bored by her small town life and want something more. She’s not some rich girl looking down on the poor peasants; she’s a poor peasant too. A person trapped in a dull, stifling lower-class existence has every right to long for a different life. Would we accuse Cinderella of being a “snob” and “ignoring the value of domestic work” because she dreams of escaping from her enslavement by her stepfamily? Of course Belle’s life in the village is more comfortable than that, but it’s still reasonable that she should want to break free from its limits.

“But Belle is clearly richer and more privileged than her neighbors!” some critics argue again and again. “Most peasants in those days were illiterate, so the fact that Belle can read shows she’s had a higher-class education, and in the stage musical, Maurice tells her she’s ‘class’ while their neighbors are ‘the common herd’!” I don’t buy that argument. I’ve never bought it. Not one bit. The movie’s setting isn’t the real late 18th/early 19th century France – it’s the Disney version of it. The village has a bookshop in the animated version and a church library and schoolhouse in the live-action remake. There’s no indication whatsoever that Belle's neighbors can’t read. (Gaston holding her book askance as he looks for pictures in it and Le Fou’s inability to spell Gaston’s name don’t count; the first is a “parental bonus” gag implying that Gaston is looking for a centerfold, while the second is a “Le Fou is stupid” gag. Gaston quotes Shakespeare in “The Mob Song,” so he’s clearly had some education.) Belle just stands out because she has a passion for books, instead of only reading now and then during breaks from “more important” things, and because she would rather read than engage in smalltalk about practical everyday matters. Belle is shown borrowing her books, not buying them, which I presume implies she can’t afford to buy them, and Maurice builds his invention out of ordinary household items (e.g. a wood stove, an axe, a teapot), so he presumably hasn’t spent much money on it either. Nor are they any better dressed than their neighbors, nor does their house look any fancier. They certainly don’t seem richer than Gaston, who apparently owns the village tavern and can afford to arrange a wedding party on short notice and bribe Monsieur d’Arque with a bag of gold to help him blackmail Belle. As for Maurice’s remarks in the stage version, they’re clearly about her personality, not about social class.

Belle also has the right to be an individualist and a misfit. That’s part of the whole point of her storyline. It seems to me that critics who complain that she “looks down on normalcy” are doing the same thing the villagers do, which is supposed to be wrong: saying “It’s a pity and a sin she doesn’t quite fit in.”

It’s no surprise that people should complain about Belle’s complaining, though. Traditional fairy-tale heroines aren’t supposed to complain. As much as we can joke about the cliché that the “I want more” heroine became during the Disney Renaissance, we shouldn’t forget how innovative that kind of heroine was in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. Just think back to Snow White: at the beginning she’s dressed in rags and forced to work as a scullery maid by her stepmother, but we find her smiling and cheerfully humming as she scrubs the castle steps. Then there’s Cinderella: a bit more complex and openly discontented than Snow White, but in general she still goes cheerfully about her chores. The heroine who lives in unhappy circumstances but “bears it cheerfully and without complaint” is a mainstay of classic, old-fashioned fairy-tales (and other stories too). The early versions of Beauty and the Beast are no exception. After Beauty’s family falls into poverty, we’re told that her sisters constantly wail and cry over their lost wealth and status, but Beauty swallows her grief, resolves to be cheerful, patiently shoulders all the household chores, and devotes her days to consoling her father and siblings. For this she’s held up as a role model, in contrast to her complaining sisters, who despise her and insult her for it, but whom she always loves and forgives.

Of course there’s value in that kind of character. Resilience in the face of adversity and finding happiness where others find none is a strength in its own right. But it can be overdone. The more that women, poor people and outcasts are encouraged to be cheerful, patient and uncomplaining, the more they’re expected to “stay in their place.” Any righteous desire or demand for a better life or better treatment is labeled “rude,” whiny,” “petulant” and “selfish.” It doesn’t always cross that line, but it can.

Linda Woolverton, the head screenwriter of Disney’s BatB, knew that she wanted Belle to be different both from the traditional Beauty and from the likes of Snow White and Cinderella. So did lyricist Howard Ashman, whose experience as a gay man did much to influence the outcast heroes and heroines of the three Disney movies he wrote for. As noted in this Time Magazine article, they resolved to create a heroine for “the next century,” who wasn’t “based on being kind and taking the hits but smiling all the way through it.”

They definitely succeeded.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s wonderful that Belle owns her discontentment. It’s beautiful that she doesn’t try to fit in or put on a patient, cheerful mask, but unabashedly yearns to escape from her dull, small-minded village and find adventure in the great wide somewhere. It’s wonderful that she has no patience for Gaston’s rudeness and arrogance and that she loathes the thought of having to give up her reading and intellect in favor of a mundane marriage and raising a gaggle of children. It all leads beautifully into her friendship and romance arc with the Beast, where she refuses to tolerate his bullying, refuses to let him control her even though he’s the master of the castle, only forgives him when he earns her forgiveness, and inspires him to change for the better. The happy ending comes about precisely because Belle was willing to be discontented and shamelessly wanted more than she was given at first. This makes her almost the opposite of the original tale’s Beauty, whose story was written as an allegory for arranged marriage and whose purpose was in part to convince girls to submit to unwanted circumstances for their families’ sake. I love that instead, Belle refuses to submit to what she doesn’t want, and her refusal becomes the catalyst for all the positive growth and transformation in the story.

Let’s hear it for heroines who want more!

[aion-rsa]

The Haunting of Bly Manor Cast: Where You’ve Seen the Actors Before

https://ift.tt/3loTz7C

There’s a simple answer to where you’ve seen most of 2020’s The Haunting of Bly Manor‘s cast before: in 2018’s The Haunting of Hill House. Writer-director Mike Flanagan has a resident company of actors with roles across several of his horror projects, as shown by the significant crossover between these two Netflix series alone. Victoria Pedretti, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Henry Thomas and Katie Parker are just some of the familiar faces appearing in Flanagan’s new Henry James-inspired spooky series Bly Manor. And here’s what else this bunch is known for on screen.

Henry Thomas – Henry Wingrave

Thomas’ most famous role came at the age of 10 when he played young lead Elliott in Steven Spielberg’s 1982 blockbuster E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (see his terrific audition tape here). In recent years, Thomas has been a frequent collaborator with writer-director Mike Flanagan, playing the young Hugh Crain, father to the five Crain children and husband of Olivia Crain in Flanagan’s The Haunting of Hill House. He also appeared in three of Flanagan’s feature films, Ouija: Origin of Evil, Gerald’s Game and Doctor Sleep, as well has having recurring roles in FX comedy Better Things and Stargirl.

Amelie Bea Smith – Flora Wingrave

Nine-year-old Amelie Bea Smith already has three significant roles under her belt. As well as her terrific performance as Flora Wingrave in Bly Manor, she’s also the current actor to voice cartoon character Peppa Pig (a huge deal in the UK), having taken over the role from her predecessor earlier this year. Before Smith took on that mantle, she had a recurring role in long-running BBC One soap EastEnders, playing Arshad and Mariam’s foster child Daisy.  

Benjamin Evan Ainsworth – Miles Wingrave

Ainsworth, the little genius behind Miles Wingrave will soon be seen alongside Alyson Hannigan, Ben Schwarz, Danny Pudi and more in Disney+ feature film Flora and Ulysses, the story of a girl and a squirrel with magic powers. Previous to Bly Manor, he also appeared in short film The Recycling Man and a 2018 episode of British soap Emmerdale.

Victoria Pedretti – Dani Clayton

Pedretti made a real impression as the adult Nell Crain in Mike Flanagan’s The Haunting of Hill House. Nellie was a sufferer of sleep paralysis and haunted throughout by ‘The Bent-Neck Lady’, if you remember. She and her twin brother Luke were the youngest of the five Crain siblings. Pedretti also played hippy Lulu, a member of the Charles Manson Family in Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood, and played major character Love Quinn in the second season of Netflix’s stalker-thriller You. She can soon be seen as Katherine in the Elisabeth Moss-starring Shirley Jackson biopic Shirley.

T’Nia Miller – Hannah Grose

Miller’s had roles in several Russell T. Davies projects, starting with Cucumber and Banana, and last year leading to the major part of Celeste in Davies’ BBC One future-set family drama Years and Years. She’s recently appeared in Netflix’s Sex Education as head of the school board Maxine Tarrington, and has popped up in a great many British TV shows including Marcella, Born to Kill, Hatton Garden and 2015 episode of Doctor Who ‘Hell Bent’.

Rahul Kohli – Owen

Kohli is best recognised around these parts as Medical Examiner Dr. Ravi Chakrabarti in The CW’s iZombie. A major character in the comic book-inspired horror-fantasy, Kohli appeared across the series’ five seasons, which kept him busy from 2015-2019. He’s also appeared in a couple of episodes of Supergirl as Lena Luthor’s ex, Jack Spheer. Along with Kate Siegel, Henry Thomas and Alex Essoe, he’ll next appear in Mike Flanagan’s forthcoming haunted island series Midnight Mass.

Read more

TV

The Haunting of Bly Manor Review (Spoiler-Free)

By Nick Harley

TV

New on Netflix: October 2020 Releases

By Alec Bojalad

Oliver Jackson-Cohen – Peter Quint

Unforgettable as Luke Crain in The Haunting of Hill House, British actor Oliver Jackson-Cohen’s biggest recent film role was as the titular lead aka Adrian Griffin in Leigh Whannell’s 2020 remake The Invisible Man, opposite Elisabeth Moss. He’s already had a full career on British TV, with early roles in cosy period dramas Lark Rise to Candleford and Mr Selfridge, as well as playing Prince William in 2011 TV series William and Kate: Happily Ever After. In the US, Jackson-Cohen played Jonathan Harker to Jonathan Rhys-Meyers’ Dracula in the NBC series of the same name. He also popped up as Lucas in Emerald City and will soon be seen in the Maggie Gyllenhaal-directed The Lost Daughter.

Tahirah Sharif – Rebecca Jessell

If you’ve seen Netflix’s A Christmas Prince and its unstoppable raft of sequels, you’ll recognise Sharif as Melissa, a friend to and former co-worker of lead Amber. Before that, she played the regular role of Carrie Norton in BBC One school drama Waterloo Road and Ella, Ash’s daughter on long-running British medical drama Casualty.

Matthew Holness – Dominic Wingrave

Comedian-writer-actor Matthew Holness has  appeared in Friday Night Dinner, Toast of London, Year of the Rabbit, Back, Life’s Too Short and Free Agents, but he’ll only ever be associated with one role for this site’s readers: dreamweaver Garth Marenghi of Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace fame.

Alex Essoe – Charlotte Wingrave

Before she took on the role of Wendy Torrance in Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep (the same character memorably played by Shelley Duvall in Kubrick’s The Shining) Alex Essoe had a string of low-budget horror flicks to her name. She’s now part of the Flanagan rep company, and will be following up her Bly Manor role with a recurring part on the writer-director’s forthcoming TV series Midnight Mass.

Amelia Eve – Jamie

The role of Bly Manor gardener Jamie is, it’s fair to say, Amelia Eve’s biggest screen part to date, but surely that won’t be the case for long. She’s also completed filming roles in soon-to-be-released feature films Big Boys Don’t Cry, Shadowland, Dorcha and Thea.

Kate Siegel – Viola

Horror star Siegel is a key part of the Mike Flanagan company on screen and in real life (they got married in 2016 after working together on a host of horror properties from Ouija: Origin of Evil to Oculus and Hush). She played glove-wearing child psychologist Theo, one of the adult Crain siblings in Netflix’s The Haunting of Hill House, and will also soon appear in Flanagan series Midnight Mass. In Bly Manor, Siegel plays 17th-century noblewoman Viola, whose story forms the basis of a full-episode flashback.  

Katie Parker – Perdita

Remember the 1920s flapper ghost in The Haunting of Hill House? That was Katie Parker, who’s back in Bly Manor playing 17th century noblewoman Perdita, sister to Viola (see above).

Carla Gugino – Narrator

Gugino played Olivia Crain, mother to the five Crain children in The Haunting of Hill House, and for obvious reasons she is (at the time of writing) uncredited for her role as the narrator of Bly Manor. Gugino’s screen career is as long as your arm (if your arm were very, very long) and goes all the way from recurring roles in 80s soap Falcon Crest to 90s comedy Spin City and medical drama Chicago Hope, 2000s comedies Entourage and Californication, all the way through the Spy Kids franchise, to more recent projects The Brink, Jett and Manhunt.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The Haunting of Bly Manor is streaming now on Netflix.

The post The Haunting of Bly Manor Cast: Where You’ve Seen the Actors Before appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2IdylLT

[disneyat34]

One Hundred and One Dalmatians at 34

A review by Adam D. Jaspering

Dalmatians are one of the most easily recognized breed of dogs. Most dog breeds are classified by their size, and the length of their snout, ears, and legs. Dalmatians are instantly identifiable by their spotted coats. Even from a distance, the dynamic contrast between white fur and black spots make Dalmatians a stand-out. The style is not only eye-catching, but wholly unique in the canine family.

In short, the Dalmatian breed is typified by its contrast. It’s absolutely appropriate a film about Dalmatians would feature contrasts in its ambition and its indulgence in shortcuts.

Disney productions up to this point used traditional ink and paint techniques. An animator would first draw a preliminary sketch. Another artist would ink a final version of that sketch onto a piece of celluloid. The celluloid would be painted, and then photographed against a backdrop. Each cel would be a single frame of the final film.

By the 1960s, Disney was no longer a mere animation studio. The company had expanded into live-action productions, nature films, television, theme parks, and other innovations. Walt Disney himself stepped down as company chairman, focusing instead on creative expansions.

Sleeping Beauty had financially burdened the company. As such, Disney Animation Studios received a massive shake-up. Costs needed to be cut, and processes streamlined. The most prominent method of doing so involved adoption of the xerography technique.

Xerography is a form of photocopying. The relatively new technology was a timesaver in the world of animation. Using xerography, the initial animator’s sketch could be transferred directly from paper to celluloid. The inking process was bypassed altogether.

Inking results in a clean and bold character outline. Colors could influence saturation and tone. Without inked lines, characters and objects looked much sketchier and rough. Everything is outlined in the same black stroke. It gives the animation a relaxed, rugged look as opposed to the carefully curated and polished appearance Disney had been known for.

The process was also used for backgrounds, but in a much different execution. Rather than painting the backgrounds directly, the background line art was placed over a formless color painting. The intention was to create an impressionist tableau. A general feeling of an area could be described with color, and it need not be precise. In nearly every scene, there are instances of colors running outside their lines.

This was a stylistic choice, not one of low-effort. Irrelevant items are often the same colors as the walls they’re set against. Windows, hanging photographs, wainscotting, and anything in the shadows are all painted “wrong.” Attention is supposed to be on the characters and their actions, not the backgrounds. The emphasis on light and mood turns the background into a serving tray. It enhances the characters in the foreground. And considering the black-and-white dogs are the heroes of the film, the disparity between colorful chaos and grayscale form works all the better.

Xerography also allowed animators to reuse their drawings, recycling assets in different areas. Animation of puppies descending a staircase is reused later in the film as puppies descending a snowbank. It’s a tremendous timesaver. The animation staff, recovering from downsizing and budget cuts, were eager to exploit such a shortcut.

Sometimes, assets are reused in a single scene. During crowd shots overflowing with Dalmatian puppies, you can spot one dog in different places. This is the serendipitous fortune of featuring Dalmatians over other dog breeds. Whereas other dogs all look the same, Dalmatians have unique spot patterns. Drawings of the same dog could be cloned four or five times onto the same cel. As long as the spot pattern was different, they automatically became different dogs.

Grand sights have been seen in Disney animation already. It takes one set of skills to draw Monstro the Whale breaching ocean waves. It takes one set of skills to morph Cinderella’s tattered rags into an elegant ballgown. It takes another set of skills to draw a puppy dozens and dozens of times in succession. There’s a level of irony how the animators of a movie called One Hundred and One Dalmatians didn’t want to animate one hundred and one Dalmatians.

One hundred and one was a number selected in that its a ludicrous high number of dogs, but still plausible. With so many dogs featured onscreen, the overwhelming majority of puppies are little more than extras. They round out the environment, but are indistinct and interchangeable. This is further enforced, as the aforementioned shortcuts make these puppies literal clones of each other.

The two adults, Pongo and Perdita, are the only Dalmatians to be actual characters. In the first act, they parent fifteen biological children. Only six of these puppies have names (Lucky, Rolly, Patch, Penny, Pepper, and Freckles.) We’re already overtaxed with characters, of course they won’t have individual traits. They’re not characters, they’re the first installment of an oncoming hoard.

Among the six named children, only two have any specific personalities, and then only for comedic effect. The first is Rolly, whose entire character is being fat and liking food. The second is Lucky, who likes to watch television and complains when he’s cold. There’s not a lot of character work concerning the dogs. They make characters such as “Sneezy” and “Bashful” seem outright Dickensian by comparison.

Instead, it’s the villains who drive and develop the story. The two henchmen, Jasper and Horace, epitomize a traditional comedy duo. They differ wildly in personality, demeanor, and physical stature. Being polar opposites, the two repeatedly bounce off each other in substantial ways. Almost out of necessity. They must abuse each other because they certainly can’t abuse a dog onscreen. Even though they’re villains, this is still a G-Rated movie.

Jasper is tall, gaunt, angry, irritable, and violent. He’s undone by underestimating the surprising resourcefulness of the Dalmatians. Horace is short, overweight, lazy, meek, and slow-witted. He’s frequently the object of scorn, passively accepting his inferiority. In a twist, he accurately recognizes every time the dogs display an act of cunning or guile. These dogs are indeed smarter than an average house pet. In any instance besides a talking animal movie, he would be rightly lambasted as being an idiot. Instead, he’s genre savvy.

Of course, these two are only henchmen. The true villain of the picture is Cruella De Vil. Cruella, aside from having one of the most on-the-nose names in all of fiction, orchestrates the dogs’ kidnapping. She wants the dogs for herself. She wants them not as pets, but killed, flayed, and processed into a fur coat.

Cruella is an old friend and classmate of Anita. Their relationship and history is never explained beyond that. With their vastly different lifestyles, how well could Cruella and Anita know each other? Why were they ever friends with such differing personalities? Why would Anita mention the newborn puppies to someone she barely tolerates? Cruella invites herself over to examine the puppies, already planning to skin them. Anita, unknowing of her friend’s malice, is too awkward and polite to refuse. She’s forced to entertain her toxic friend by societal expectations.

In the 1996 live-action remake, Cruella is more than a gadabout of vague origins. She’s a successful and acclaimed fashion designer. Cruella is Anita’s boss, supplanting the ill-defined friendship with a power dynamic. It also better justifies Cruella’s relentless pursuit of one single coat. It’s one of the few areas where the remake surpasses the original.

Assuming she’s done her math correctly, Cruella’s coat requires 99 Dalmatian pelts. Somehow, she obtains 84 purebred Dalmatian puppies through completely legal channels. The remaining 15, Pongo and Perdita’s litter, she can’t buy. She resorts to kidnapping them instead. These fifteen evidently are the last Dalmatians in the greater London area.

Why else would she buy 84, then risk everything by kidnapping the final batch? One would think Cruella would amend the design to accommodate 84 puppies instead. That, or breed the puppies herself, giving her all the pelts she would ever need. She could have a matching scarf and hat. She hired minions to kidnap the dogs, she could hire minions to operate her puppy mill.

Why would Cruella De Vil resort to kidnapping for such a small quarry? Consider Cruella’s true nature beyond being a merciless fashionista who likes yelling. We don’t learn much about her lifestyle or community standing, but there are clues.

She is able to purchase the 84 purebred puppies, so she has certain monetary power, or at least good credit. Likewise, she was initially willing to buy the puppies from Roger and Anita. She not only likes spending money, she likes being seen spending money. In the same visit to Anita’s, she degrades Roger and his financial struggles. She has no respect for the working class. Cruella is not only wealthy, she’s been wealthy her whole life. This is confirmed when it’s revealed she has a large stately manor in Suffolk.

Unfortunately, the old De Vil place is in a state of disrepair. It’s been long abandoned, growing more derelict with each passing month. Cruella doesn’t need this house, but also doesn’t sell it. It’s either too ravaged to find a buyer, or it’s owned by the bank. This is our biggest clue towards Cruella’s true character.

Cruella may be an heiress, but her lavish lifestyle has ravaged her once proud fortune. She can’t afford to repair her family’s manor, so it sits abandoned, most likely mortgaged. She can’t afford a new car, so she drives an antiquated 1930s roadster (either a Bugatti or Dusenberg). She can’t buy her way into the social circles she wants, so she lords her artificial status over a working-class friend from childhood.

Without money, Cruella must actively maintain the illusion of her social class. She can only stand among the elite class by surpassing them in the fashion scene. She needs to establish her own trends, wearing the most exotic coat anybody had even seen. And without money, she has to make it herself. She can cough up money for the raw materials, a necessary investment, but must cut corners everywhere else. She can’t even hire decent henchmen to kidnap the dogs.

Cruella wants one coat for herself. True haute couture, as nobody else in London will have a spotted coat, and especially not one made of such soft fur. The flagrant act of conspicuous consumption and vanity is what drives Cruella to such incredible lengths. Greed, pride, and envy culminating in wrath.

What does this say about society in 101 Dalmatians? This world makes Cruella a villain because she has no money. Roger and Anita also have no money, but are content with their meager lifestyle. Their meager lifestyle, where they own a townhouse in London, have a live-in maid, and can readily care for seventeen dogs. The animators weren’t the only ones taking shortcuts; the writers did it too.

Roger is a struggling songwriter, and Anita’s profession is never mentioned. She is presumably employed before her marriage, and maintains the position afterwards. The pair and their dogs live on the meager income, but dream of bigger success. 

This world is ensconced in media and commercialism. Even newborn puppies are transfixed by a dog food commercial. 

The only way to escape poverty is to feed the machine. Cruella needs to kill puppies to remain an aristocrat. In an extended gag, criminals are trotted out on a parody version of What’s My Line. They’re promised fantastic vacations in exchange for being belittled on television. At the film’s end, Roger writes a novelty song, making himself rich. A novelty song, mocking Cruella De Vil. Money and status can only be earned at the expense of others.

It’s the dogs, instead, who find happiness outside London. On their journey to rescue the puppies, Pongo and Perdita encounter a string of helpful animals. A tabby cat who risks his own skin to rescue the puppies from Jasper and Horace. A barnful of cows willing to share milk with the starving puppies. Most impressive, an entire network of dogs team together to search for the missing puppies.

The Twilight Bark is a sort of phone tree alert system, known by dogs throughout England. Pongo and Perdita send out an alert, unsure it will help. To their surprise, every dog in London and its surrounding area relays the message. Sure enough, the missing puppies are found in a few hours.

There’s no promise of reward or obligation. The dogs volunteer their assistance because it’s the right thing to do. London brings out the worst in humans. But when financial desperation is removed, the animals show a functioning, healthy society. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, they do what they can, where they are, with what they have.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians was based on the 1956 novel The Hundred and One Dalmatians by Dodie Smith. Smith chose Dalmatians specifically based on her own childhood pet. Dalmatians are notorious for being highly energetic working dogs. They require lots of exercise, and thus would be a poor choice for Roger and Anita.

(On a side note, Dalmatians are one of the more popular purebred dogs, and 101 Dalmatians is partly to blame. The high demand leads to overbreeding and puppy mills, producing unhealthy, inbred, abused pets. Families adopt Dalmatians purely on appearance, without concern of temperament or exercise requirements. When the dogs become too large a responsibility, shelters and pounds become overburdened with the unwanted dogs. Please do not buy a pet from a breeder without proper research and commitment. Also, consider adoptions and rescues of mixed-breed pets as an ethical alternative.)

Unlike other Disney films, One Hundred and One Dalmatians is surprisingly lax in terms of music. The movie features only three original songs, one of them being a jingle for dog food. It’s easy to see the lack of music as another cost-cutting measure. However, consider one of the main characters is a songwriter. It seems like a missed opportunity to embrace the musical stylings of the era.

While not the first Disney film to use a modern setting, 101 Dalmatians was the first to use the modern setting as an element of the story. Dumbo and Bambi had a timeless quality and could be set in any era. 101 Dalmatians has style and attitude that could only happen in the late 50s and early 60s. The jazz music, the sprawling cityscape, the cars, the omnipresence of television, and the consumer culture all reflect a very specific point on the timeline.

The biggest question of 101 Dalmatians is what kind of movie is it? It’s not a fairy tale, it’s not a morality tale, it’s not a saga. There are moments of peril, but it’s not an adventure. There are moments of humor, but it’s not a comedy. It’s a little bit of everything. 101 Dalmatians, and a 101 story elements.

The movie flips back and forth between what helps it at any given point. There is a scene where the Dalmatians are hiding for their lives inside a coal storage shed. Jasper and Horace search around outside, blunt weapons in hand, ready to smash the skulls of any dog they find. This is immediately followed by a happy rollick through a pile of soot as the dogs disguise themselves as chocolate Labradors.

One particularly jarring moment happens early on, during the puppies’ birth. Everybody in the house is ecstatic at the prospect of 15 puppies. Roger and Pongo literally dance in joy. The revelry is short-lived, as they’re informed one of the fifteen puppies didn’t survive. Roger sits there, holding the stillbirth in his hand. Disney Magic miraculously brings the puppy back to life, but it’s still a shock. In the first act of what has so far been a delightful cartoon romp, Fading Puppy Syndrome is depicted onscreen.

Everything about 101 Dalmatians is a clashing contrast. The animation combines advanced coloring style and shameless shortcuts. The tone is equal parts cheer and gloom. The villains are overdeveloped while the heroes are blank slates. Mistakes cancel each other out. The movie has so many things working against it, it’s a good movie almost by accident. All the cut corners are a foreboding omen to Disney Studios’ impending future.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians was the first film produced after the golden age of the 1950s. The grand, epic animation was replaced with frugal techniques and a smaller story. To compensate, the movie does a little bit of everything well, while not exceling in any specific area. 101 Dalmatians are depicted onscreen, and it’s a distinct case of quantity over quality.

Fantasia Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Cinderella Alice in Wonderland Sleeping Beauty Pinocchio Bambi 101 Dalmatians The Three Caballeros Lady and the Tramp Peter Pan Dumbo Melody Time Saludos Amigos The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad Fun and Fancy Free Make Mine Music

[wingedweasel]

My thoughts on Disney Remakes

Get ready for a loooooooooong post. Sorry. 

So let me start by saying I don’t have Disney+ and haven’t seen Mulan yet, so I’m only going off of what I’ve seen in trailers and the reviews of other people - both who liked it and those who didn’t. Warning, spoilers if you haven’t seen the animated or remakes of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or Mulan.

My opinion is that it seems like Disney really doesn't understand what to do with these remakes. 

With Beauty and the Beast, they tried something different and added/changed some things hoping that it would make the story more enjoyable but kept it generally the same, and people didn't react as positively as Disney wanted. In The Lion King, they went the exact opposite and made it a shot for shot remake, and people still didn't react as positively as Disney was hoping. Now with Mulan, it's a completely different story and people are still not happy with the end product. 

I don't think it's an issue with the audience being unsatisfied with everything no matter what. There is a little bit of that, make no mistake. There are people who will be unhappy no matter Disney did. However, I think it's more of an issue of Disney not realizing what people liked about the originals and enhancing that and failing to commit. 

Beauty and the Beast tried to be more ‘real’ in bringing in PTDS and references to war, death, illness, and grief over losing a loved one, ramping up the sexism, and making Gaston more of a douche, but I think it would have been a better story if they made it more real/dark. One of the easiest things would be to make Gaston more of a threat and his followers either more blind in worshiping him - more cult like if you will - or having him have to work harder to get them on his side. The animates version had the almost cult like mentality of how the people of the village treated Gaston. If he said jump, they would have started jumping before asking how high. It was easy for him to get blind followers into charging the castle to kill the beast. 

In the remake, there were times where, while Gaston was able to talk his way out of a problem, his anger or manipulative actions were kind of just waved away or people were only accepting of him and his desires due to peer pressure - which makes a good foil to the Beast before he was cursed. It could have been something the Beast could have recognized and wanted to changed because he sees that acting this way is really bad, wont get the girl, and doesn’t want to be like Gaston (or making it a teaching moment for Gaston if you want to give the villain a possibility of redemption, either works). Another thing would have been to capitalize on the fact Belle is just as much as an inventor as her father and/or she is secretly the one who makes gadgets the village uses and likes or what her father is going to sell. That way it shows she is smart, resourceful, and would be respected if only she just wasn't a gosh darn woman. At the end, when it’s revealed that Gaston is a bad guy and that Belle is the one who created everything, she would be able to get the respect and acceptance of the village she should have had all along. Instead she gets belittled for being able to read and is a senseless romantic because she like Romeo and Juliet? What? Honestly, I don’t think if she ever returned to the village and tried to encourage and teach the little girl to read again, she would have been just as dismissed as she was at the beginning. Her life wouldn’t have changed in any way if she did go back to her ‘provincial life.’ 

People know this story, as I said, so changing it up a bit with the background things but still making it about the message of it's the personality that makes a good person and how you overcome people not believing in you the focus would have made it better than just Gaston having PTSD, Belle wants to teach girls to read, and a potentially hidden gay character. In short, they could have made this a completely different movie and I think people would have been happy with that. Instead, they started to make changes, doubled back, and we got some lackluster kinda pro-feminism...thing. Also, get a singer for musicals. The singing wasn’t terrible, but still actual singers should be used in musicals more often. 

The Lion King suffered for opposite reasons. It seems as if Disney saw that people didn’t like the changes they made to Beauty and the Beast, and went “Okay, not changes at all!” A shot for shot remake should only be done if you can make it interesting. You get bonus points for getting original actors, settings, and crew. Update the technology and it usually becomes better. This should have been an easy A+ since The Lion King did all this. However, it didn’t because it was too real - in a bad way. I haven’t seen the remake of the Jungle Book, but I have heard good things about it because of the way the characters were designed. They were interesting to look at even if they looked more realistic and not as cartoony as they could have done. The Lion King should have gone this root. The characters here were a bit bland looking. They’re just lions, which cool. They hyper realism of the CG was an interesting thing to do - in theory. The hyperrealism in something like Beowolf made it eye catching and was almost a character itself. In The Lion King, there wasn’t a whole lot of variance between everyone. All the animals all looked the same as one another. Sure in nature animals tend to have little variance within their species, but in movies 0 especially a kid’s movie - characters need to stand out from one another to be easily identifiable. Some of the quirks of the animated version could have been used to do this. Make Simba’s mane more reddish-orange, Scar’s mane should have been black. Some of my favorite characters were the lead hyenas. They all had a unique look - it didn’t hurt that Whoppi Goldberg was Shenzi. Now everyone is the same. Also, the mouth and facial emotes didn’t really work with the hyper realism. If they had made the facial features ‘looser’ and a bit more animated, it would have helped convey the expressions so much more and when they started singing, it would have looked more ‘natural’ for them to be doing so. 

Nothing was really changes story-wise; they did add some dialogue and minor things like that, but not a whole lot else. It probably could have gotten away with making more alterations to the story - either by adding scenes or changing backstories or things like that - and people wouldn’t have been as mad as with other movies (as long as the changes made sense and added to the plot and weren’t changes just to be changes).

Now Mulan, on the other hand, seems to be split 50/50 sor far. It’s only been out for a short time, so not a whole bunch of people have seen it - myself included - but looking at reviews, it looks like Disney say the hate The Lion King got for being a shot for shot remake and went, “Fine, we’ll change everything!” And they did. I mean, they kept the general idea of a young woman taking her father’s place in the army to fend off an invading force and she somehow defeats the big bad (I think? I heard something about the Emperor fighting the big bad? I mean, it is Jet Li, so he has to have at least one fight scene, so...). I will say that from the previews that I have seen and all the reviewers agree that the movie is very pretty. It has gorgeous cinematography and the set design looks amazing. There were some other positives that a lot of people toted like even though Mulan has a love interest, it really isn’t that big a thing, and the fight scenes were very well choreographed, and some character interactions that were quite funny - things like that. Important things to be sure, but some of the biggest complaints were that Mulan in the animated version was shown to be resourceful, cunning, and proved that a woman could save the day just a s successfully - if not better - than a man (although why she had a fan when she went back to being a woman, I don’t know, but whatever). In the remake, it seems like strength and fighting prowess is all that is needed to be a hero. 

Apparently, Qi is a thing in the movie and if you have more of it, it allows people - men - to be good fighters and do more athletic things better than those without it (I guess?) Women who have it are apparently shunned, which is part of one of the Witch’s backstory. She has Qi and uses it for dark magic...okay? Do some men not use it for evil? Is every woman who has it eventually turn evil? Speaking of the Witch, she is super more powerful than the main baddie. She is physically more powerful, has Qi, uses magic - some of which she uses to shapeshift? Like, why do we need another baddie? She should be the main villain. One reviewer said it would have been a great twist if she was just pretending to be the main guy using her shapeshifting powers and we only find out right at the end. Now that would have been cool. We get a strong female villain who plays off of the gender restrictions of the society and turns everything on its head by going, “I was a woman the whole time! All those things you said a woman couldn’t do, well, I was doing them and you didn’t have any complaints then!” Instead, we get another movie where the villainous woman is second to the villainous man simply because of gender stereotypes. Hell, even if the man was just pretending to be the main baddie and acting as her puppet would have been better. 

I guess because she really isn’t the main villain, she gets to have a redemption scene and save the hero, but was that really necessary? Couldn’t she be bad and stay bad until the very end? Why not? Anyway, she sacrifices herself to save Mulan, and it’s supposed to be an emotional scene which causes Mulan to find her inner strength and gives her a power boost to defeat the baddie. 

Mulan also doesn’t have a lot of cunning in this remake, apparently. She’s more physical than the animated version, but...wasn’t the point of Mulan to show that you needed more than physicality to save the day? The thing that I’ve seen most people complain about is this. In the animated version, Mulan and the other soldiers are given the task to climb a pole wearing heavy weights (I’ll Make a Man Out of You is one of the best songs ever, fight me). After a montage of her failing physical tasks, she is only able to succeed climbing the pole through her smarts. Not because she suddenly got supper buff and could lift herself up the pole. Yes, she gets physically stronger and becomes the best at everything during the finale of the song, but that just a result of training. You start off really bad and then become good. I believe what made this scene so powerful was that she was held back by the belief that she wasn’t ‘cut out’ for the army. She had to overcome her own mentality before she could start to be a better soldier. She does that by using her brain to find a different way to climb the pole. 

In the remake, the task is to climb steps up a mountain carrying buckets of water. It’s not an easy task, as everyone fails, but apparently, she just keeps at it until she is physically strong enough to do it? No more effective way of carrying the buckets than just T-pose while holding them out to the side. Like I said, training makes you stringer. Practice makes you better. This is obvious. You get stronger the longer you work your muscles. There’s nothing special about that. Yes, the men were probably comparatively physically stronger than her, but they all struggled too. What’s the lesson here? Just keep at it and one day you will be big and strong? Okay, cool I guess. That’s something that is helpful, don’t get me wrong. Dedication and hard work are important. Being physically strong is one aspect of being a soldier - especially during the time period the movie is set in, but it’s not the be all end all. That’s what made Mulan stand out: she was at such a disadvantage she had to find a different way of doing things to succeed. Then the training kicked in and she became physically stronger. 

It’s also good to note that in the animated version, she never relies on her physical strength to do something. Sure she is super awesome at the end of the training montage, but that’s all we see of her being physical. She uses smarts to defeat the army, the previous method of climbing the pole to get inside the palace, and deception to knock out the guards. No epic parkour, no breaking down walls, just her brain. In the remake, it seems as if strength is the be all end all. Mulan is supposed to be a role model for young girls and an example of why you shouldn’t listen to stereotypes. At least, she is supposed to be. And she is - in the animated version. Here, it seems as if the message is forget about being intelligent. All that really matters is that you be physically strong. I mean, even that hot mess of a movie Hercules taught us that this is wrong. You need more than just muscles to be a hero. Being able to fight isn’t what makes you a hero (it’s certainly part of it, obviously). You need a good heart and a good head, not a six pack. 

With all that said, it looks like the Mulan remake suffered from trying to not be Mulan. It went too far in changing things. It added things that it didn’t need to add, and took out things that helped make the animated version well liked. The love story that wasn’t? They took out Shang, but added another love interest? Just keep Shang. Looking back, and even at the time I first saw it, it’s amazing to see the hero is a woman and she doesn’t need to rely on a relationship to reach her goals. The added bonus of having Shang was that he os believed to be the first LGBT Disney character. He respected Ping and thought him a friend before the big reveal and no one can convince me otherwise the looks Shang gave Ping during the training montage and after Ping gives Shang some encouragement right before they march out to the meet the main army are anything other than Shang thinking “Damn, I want some of that.” Add in the fact that he starts to act all flustered when he returned the helmet just shows that he had feelings for Ping, but now that Ping is actually a girl he can act on those feelings (this is both Ancient China we are talking about, not 2020...where being LGBT is still not always accepted...). 

Okay, so what does all that mean for the Mulan remake? Beauty and the Beast wasn’t the best because it didn’t go far enough with its changes, The Lion King didn’t have enough changes, and Mulan had too many changes? Not exactly. Mulan, as a story, can work with being completely different from the original animated version. It probably mostly does. It’s more than like going to be a success on Disney+. But if any movie could have been a shot for shot remake, it should have been Mulan. Hell, making it not be a musical and adapting the story to account for that could work. It was the lessons that made the animated version so well liked. Also the humor, Eddie Murphy makes a great side kick. You have the yearning for ‘more’ and the feeling of not fitting in that Beauty and the Beast has combined with the self-doubt and acceptance despite origins of The Lion King. You have a kickass female hero who breaks all the gender rules of her society and saves the day by using her brain and not a sword. No magic to save the day - the ancestor spirts being the only mystical thing about the movie. Mushu isn’t overtly magical and he doesn’t really help do anything except be a convenient Zippo light two times in the movie - it could be argued that he, and magic in general, is a source of conflict since the other spirits all want to bring Mulan home. Also no stupidly forced romance subplot - or worse a love triangle. The remake just doesn’t have any of that, really. It’s basically just another action movie with the added flavor of a woman pretending to be a man in the army. It’s almost a ‘chosen one’ narrative since the aspect of Qi looks to be a major plot point - and source of conflict. There’s magic - and oh by the way, there’s a phoenix attached to Mulan for some reason...? - and what looks like a romance subplot (one where the guy isn’t Bi boooooooo). Mulan could have been shot for shot and would be successful. It can also be successful by making changes, but not many. We like Mulan the way it was. If you need to make changes or updates to it, fine, but don’t make the story so unrecognizable that it becomes a different movie. Mulan doing a whole bunch of fancy martial arts before literally beating the big bad and an evil Witch who turns into a bird are things we don’t want and the story doesn’t need. 

Disney needs to stop messing with the original stories. We liked the old animated versions for a reason. Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King were two of the biggest box office hits and two of the most popular Disney movies today. The were huge successes and are still talked about 20+ years later. These remakes are just meh. 

If Disney does change the story, change it in a way that emphasizes what was liked about the original. Otherwise, make it into a different movie and - more importantly - call it something else. 

[madokasoratsugu]

cinderella au meta notes

or: the plotline that never happened because i was so caught up in the euphoria of writing Fritz/Lucette Cinderella AU, i forgot that i had to have a plot

also: a bunch of bonus facts i guess !

this basically spoils the whole fic (that you can read here) which contains Fritz and Rumpel route spoilers, so read with caution ! under the cut bc it got Long :”))

this meta was initially written on a tumblr post bc it was meant to be a short ~2k thing (HAHAHA). then it got so long my computer started crashing and i had to move to google docs. 

i wrote this with disney live action remake osts AND six the musical in the background. it was a wildin’ experience listening to ‘dont lost ur head’ while writing Fritz be a chaotic mess in the beginning, then listening to ‘how does a moment last forever’ when writing the Fritz/Lucette garden scenes.

Karma and Fritz are childhood friends ! both boys who were more interested in being a knight than inheriting a kingdom, but learnt their responsibilities along the way.

on that note: none of the characters were exactly...planned to appear. the initial tweet thread idea only had Fritz, Lucette and Alcaster casted - the other characters just kinda wrote themselves in this meta. 

im pretty sure it started with Karma barging his way into the fic in act one, then i had to have someone balance him (Waltz), then i needed someone to play the music for their waltz (obvs that had to be Rod), and then i got sad thinking Rumpel would be left out, but Lucette’s broken glass slipper scene conveniently needed someone. the Widdensovs just kinda came into the picture by virtue of Lucette just needing someone to interact with when she wasnt at the ball LMAO 

everyone else just didnt make it in the natural progression of the fic, and i didnt want to shoehorn them in just for the sake of having them appear.

however: Parfait was initially going to make an appearance as a duchess who snuck Lucette out to her father when she came to the castle for help when her manor burnt down. here’s a lil snippet of her scene:

(no one had, the last time she came; the smell of smoke still clinging on her, her head slamming a cacophony - surviving only thanks to the bravery of a certain court lady now disappeared, who heralded her to a servant’s exit, gave her gold and directions to her father, told her, run, told her im sorry, and cried, tears dripping endlessly from her pale pink lashes.)

Parfait is well and alive in this AU btw ! she’s just ‘disappeared’ bc she’s living somewhere secret with her goth wife Delora.

(side note: i realise Rumpel seems a lot like Lucette’s fairy godmother in the act thirteen. not intended, but i liked the imagery enough to let it stand :”)) bippity boppoty chevalier ! )

Varg and Lilja are both Swedish words. ancient Angiellian is partially Swedish. there’s probably ikea in this AU. let that sink in.

the swan mask Lucette was wearing was meant to allude to Odette and Odile from Swan Lake (because Fritz and Varg, white and black, swans are pretty yadda yadda), and i was going to write some really neat symbolism about that but i forgot lol ! 

(also the idea just never worked for me bc Odette and Odile aren’t the same people like Fritz/Varg but i wanted to reference Barbie Swan Lake (2003) ok let me live)

pour one out for our man Fritz who got rejected on his birthday. f. 

Emelaigne is the MVP. older sisters, no matter how truly Head Empty they are, always pull through when you need them. 

“isn’t the moon beautiful tonight” is a direct reference to an anecdote (which may or may not be true) about Natsume Souseki, a famous japanese writer, who translated ‘i love you’ to that phrase in order to account for the indirect characteristics of japanese speech.

Rumpel is the royal doctor, and has been apprenticing in the castle since Fritz was a child, before taking over the position as an adult ! so yes, Rumpel definitely rubbed off on Fritz in terms of values and morals.

with regards to Fritz and Lucette’s curses: i never really gave it much thought, but the vague idea i had was Lucette being cursed by Hildyr for disobedience (manipulative parenting say eye), then Hildyr dies lol and Lucette breaks her curse eventually.

with Fritz, he was likely cursed out of political reasons/jealousy and Varg was the result. works bc either way the curse meant for Fritz to be 1) inconvenienced or 2) dead/taken out of consideration for succession so like...a pain in the ass replacement who behaves the exact opposite of a prince works too.

this was hinted at vaguely in the fic, but Fritz became very secluded and hid himself in the castle for the years it took him to come to terms with his curse and break it. even then, because there was no one around him to really affirm his identity or accept him, he remained very withdrawn and a shell of his former self. 

i reckon it took him about 5-6 years to break the curse. so that’s a lot of time alone. Fritz was basically a NEET.

all jokes aside: Lucette and Fritz each broke their curses with their own willpower and effort, but remain the mostly the same because there was no one around them to truly understand or accept them for who they were, or who they became.

(until they met each other, of course)

also, idk if it was hinted well enough but Lucette and Fritz actually were in an engagement once, when they were children/early teens ! i intended to allude to this more with Hildyr giving Fritz Lucette’s portrait, which results in him recognising her, but it just never fit in anywhere. so yeah ! that’s another reason how/why Fritz knew who Lucette was at first glance. 

i figured the previous engagement would also help ease the court into their eventual marriage despite the whole ~*disgraced noble*~ thing. idk. i know nothing about western history and how it worked except for ALEXANDER HAMILTON (america sings for yooouuu) and divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.

however, Alcaster broke the engagement, as stated in act thirteen. the reason was basically: Angielle in this AU works not by a hereditary monarchy, but rather the previous monarch getting to choose whomever the fuck the want to succeed them. Hildyr and Alcaster were both in line for the throne, and Hildyr wanted to ensure that even if she couldn’t get the throne now, she still had a chance in the future if her daughter married Alcaster’s (who would then be king) son. Alcaster was like lol fuck off because he wanted power all to his family and took things into his own hands to ensure that would never happen (which involved: inciting public hatred against witches/Hildyr, breaking Lucette and Fritz’s engagement, and generally being a dick.

that’s about as plot heavy as it gets yall. the rest is just dumb idiots falling in love !

...............except for the political usurp that happens later, with Fritz’s faction forcefully taking the throne away from Alcaster’s tyrannical rule, which leads to a dramatic sway of public favour to Fritz and Lucette.

and then they live happily ever, ever after. 

(carrie underwood. yes i am planning an Enchanted AU dont look at me.)

the end !

[blackkudos]

Kimberly Elise

Kimberly Elise Trammel (born April 17, 1967) is an American film and television actress. She made her feature film debut in Set It Off (1996), and later received critical acclaim for her performance in Beloved (1998).

During her career, Elise has appeared in films such as John Q. (2002), The Manchurian Candidate (2004), Diary of a Mad Black Woman (2005), The Great Debaters (2007), For Colored Girls (2010), Dope (2015), Almost Christmas (2016), Death Wish (2018) and Ad Astra (2019). She received a nomination for Independent Spirit Award for Best Female Lead for her performance in the 2004 drama film, Woman Thou Art Loosed, and played the leading roles in a number of made for television movies. Elise also starred in the CBS crime drama series, Close to Home (2005–07), and in 2013 began starring in the VH1 comedy-drama series, Hit the Floor. She is a four-time NAACP Image Awards winner.

Early life

Elise was born as Kimberly Elise Trammel in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the daughter of Erma Jean (née Johnson), an elementary school teacher, and Marvin Trammel, who owns an executive search firm. She has three siblings. She attended The American Film Institute as a Directing Fellow and at the University of Minnesota earned a BA in Mass Communications.

Career

1990s

Elise made her big screen debut in the 1996 crime action film Set It Off (1996) directed by F. Gary Gray, in which she played one of four women who resort to robbing a bank for money. Jada Pinkett Smith, Queen Latifah and Vivica A. Fox co-stars in film which became a critical and box office success, grossing over $41 million. In 1997 she was cast in the Family Channel original television movie The Ditchdigger's Daughters, based on the Pulitzer-prize nominated and critically acclaimed 1995 memoir The Ditchdigger's Daughters: A Black Family's Astonishing Success Story, written by Yvonne S. Thornton and Jo Coudert. She received critical acclaim for her role in this film, and in 1997, she was recognized as Best Supporting Actress in a Movie or Miniseries at the 19th annual CableACE Awards. Her performance helped her land a role the next year in Beloved alongside Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover, a horror-drama film based on Toni Morrison's 1987 novel of the same name, directed by Jonathan Demme. Despite being a box office bomb, Elise received praise for her performance, and well as Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Most Promising Actress and Satellite Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture. She also received her first NAACP Image Award nomination.

2000s

In 2000, Elise went to star in The Loretta Claiborne Story playing Loretta Claiborne. The movie was aired as a part of The Wonderful World of Disney at ABC in early 2000. She received good reviews for performance as Claiborne. Later that year, she was female lead in Jamie Foxx's movie Bait, the film was a huge financial failure, and received mostly negative reviews from critics. The following year, she starred opposite Gregory Hines in the biographical drama Bojangles. In 2002-2003, she made guest appearanced on the UPN comedy series Girlfriends in which she played an HIV-positive woman, and in the Showtime drama Soul Food.

In 2002, Elise starred alongside Denzel Washington in the crime film John Q. It became a box office success, grossing over $100 million. She next had a leading role in the independent drama Woman Thou Art Loosed portraying Michelle, an abused young woman who finally got the help she needed behind bars. This role won her a Black Reel award for Best Actress and well as received Independent Spirit Award for Best Female Lead nomination. She later starred in the political thriller The Manchurian Candidate, co-starring with Denzel Washington second time.

In 2005, Elise went to star in the comedy drama film Diary of a Mad Black Woman written by Tyler Perry and directed by Darren Grant. she received positive reviews for her performance, while film received mostly negative reviews. The film still was huge box office success, grossing over $50 million against a budget of $5 million. She won her first NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture for this movie. From 2005 to 2007, Elise starred in the CBS crime drama series Close to Home, playing the Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis) prosecutor Maureen Scofield. Her character was killed off in the last episode of the series. The series was cancelled on May 2007. She received NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series in 2006 for this series. She later guest starred in two Shonda Rhimes' dramas; Private Practice in 2007, and Grey's Anatomy in 2009.

In 2007, Elise has appeared in two biographical drama films. First was Pride opposite Terrence Howard based upon the true story of Philadelphia swim coach Jim Ellis. Later, she appeared again opposite Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters, based on an article written about the Wiley College debate team by Tony Scherman for the spring 1997 issue of American Legacy. in 2009, she starred opposite Cuba Gooding Jr. in the television film Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story, winning NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Television Movie, Mini-Series or Dramatic Special.

2010s

In 2010, Elise starred in the drama film For Colored Girls as the battered wife Crystal. The film is based on Ntozake Shange's 1975 original choreopoem for colored girls who have considered suicide / when the rainbow is enuf, and was written, directed and produced by Tyler Perry. While the film itself received mixed to negative reviews, her performance was praised by many critics. One journalist described her as "the great lost Best Supporting Actress contender of the 2010 season". Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly comments: "The female cast is great, with especially fierce performances from Loretta Devine, Kimberly Elise, Phylicia Rashad, and Anika Noni Rose. But stuck in a flailing production that might just as well invite Perry's signature drag creation Madea to the block party, the actors' earnest work isn't enuf." She won NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture for her performance.

Elise has had starring roles in a number of independent films in 2000s, include a leading role in Ties That Bind (2011). She co-starred alongside Whoopi Goldberg in the Lifetime television film A Day Late and a Dollar Short in 2014. In 2013, she began starring in the VH1 comedy-drama series Hit The Floor. In 2015, she has appeared in the well-received comedy-drama film Dope, and the following year co-starred opposite Kerry Washington in the HBO film Confirmation. Later in 2016, Elise starred in the Christmas comedy-drama film Almost Christmas opposite Danny Glover, Gabrielle Union and Mo'Nique. She next starred in Death Wish opposite Bruce Willis, a remake of the 1974 film of the same name. In 2019, she appeared in the science fiction film Ad Astra.

2020s

In 2020, Elise was cast opposite Justin Theroux in the Apple TV+ drama series The Mosquito Coast based on the 1981 novel by Paul Theroux.

Personal life

Elise was married to Maurice Oldham from 1989 to 2005. The couple had two daughters, born in 1990 and 1998. Not long after their divorce, in 2007, Oldham died from a "massive blood clot".

Elise's maternal descent is of the Songhai people. Elise is vegan and has worked with PETA to promote the lifestyle.

Filmography

FilmTelevision

Awards and nominations

Acapulco Black Film Festival

1999: Nominated – Best Actress for Beloved (1998)

African-American Film Critics Association

2010: Won – Best Supporting Actress for For Colored Girls

Black Reel Awards

2002: Won – Best Supporting Actress for Bojangles (2001)

2003: Nominated – Best Actress for John Q (2002)

2005: Nominated – Best Supporting Actress for The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

2005: Won – Best Actress, Independent Film for Woman Thou Art Loosed (2004)

2006: Won – Best Actress for Diary of a Mad Black Woman

2011: Nominated – Best Actress for For Colored Girls

2011: Won – Outstanding Ensemble for For Colored Girls

CableACE Award

1997: Won – Supporting Actress in a Movie or Miniseries for The Ditchdigger's Daughters (1997)

Chicago Film Critics Association Awards

1999: Won – Most Promising Actress for Beloved (1998)

1999: Nominated – Best Supporting Actress for Beloved (1998)

Golden Satellite Awards

1999: Won – Best Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture – Drama for Beloved (1998)

NAACP Image Awards

1999: Nominated – Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture for Beloved (1998)

2002: Nominated – Outstanding Actress in a Television Movie, Mini-Series or Dramatic Special for Bojangles (2001)

2003: Nominated – Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture for John Q (2002)

2003: Nominated – Image Award Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series for "Soul Food" (2000)

2005: Nominated – Image Award Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture for Woman Thou Art Loosed (2004)

2006: Winner – Image Award Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture for Diary of a Mad Black Woman

2006: Nominated – Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series for "Close to Home"

2007: Winner – Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series for "Close to Home"

2010: Winner – NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Television Movie, Mini-Series or Dramatic Special for "Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story"

2011: Winner – Image Award Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture for "For Colored Girls"

Independent Spirit Awards

2005: Nominated – Best Female Lead for Woman Thou Art Loosed (2004)

[mrjoelgarcia9]

Let’s Talk #Terminator

The Terminator franchise badly needs a reboot.

For my overall thoughts on the Terminator franchise, feel free to keep reading. There will be (light) spoilers.

In the year 2029, a computer program called Skynet has taken over the world. A group known as the Resistance fight off Skynet and its many robots to take back the planet. As Skynet is on the verge of defeat, it sends cyborgs called Terminators back in time to kill one of two people: Sarah Connor or her son John, the future leader of the Resistance.

The franchise’s first film, The Terminator, brought both director and writer James Cameron and star Arnold Schwarzenegger to fame and acclaim. The sequel, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, made Sarah Connor into an action icon and featured one of the earliest uses of CGI.

Despite the success of those films, subsequent sequels (and a TV show) have been considered to be inferior in some form or another.

In a way, this franchise has a lot in common with the Alien franchise. James Cameron co-wrote and directed the first two Terminator films as well as Aliens. Their sequels are considered to be some of the best ever made. Subsequent films and spin-offs have not been able to live up to the success of the franchises’ respective first two films.

There is not much to say about the first two films which has not already been written by others. Despite their differing qualities, with the first film clearly being filmed on a shoestring budget and the latter the complete opposite, both films are equally great.

As for the other sequels...

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003): Released more than a decade after the second film, it is the most forgettable of the franchise. The only memorable parts are the female Terminator (T-X), the twist of Skynet being all over the internet, and great stunt work. It was also Schwarzenegger's last film before being elected Governor of California. 

Salvation (2009): The late Anton Yelchin and Sam Worthington give good performances in an original story fully taking place in the apocalyptic future. However, the premise was badly executed, leaves newcomers lost, and tried too hard to set up a new series of films. Since Arnold was still Governor at the time, he only appears as a CG head on a body double.

Genesys (2015): This film tried to reboot the franchise with younger actors in the roles of Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor while retaining Arnold as a now older T-800. The explanation provided for why he aged made sense, but the twist of John Connor being the bad guy was terrible and ruins the film. Paramount’s decision to reveal it in the marketing ruined any chance of the film being successful.

Dark Fate (2019): While it does bring back Linda Hamilton for the first time since Judgment Day (not counting a voice-only cameo in Salvation) and retains the aforementioned aging explanation to justify Arnold’s return, it comes too little too late. Also, the opening twist involving John Connor might have lost the franchise any goodwill it had left to give. 

I should also note the short-lived TV spin-off, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, which aired on FOX from 2008 to 2009. It starred Lena Headey (in a pre-Game of Thrones role) as Sarah Connor, Thomas Dekker (Heroes) as John Connor, and Summer Glau (Firefly) as the cyborg Cameron. 

It ignores the third film and takes place in the present day after the characters time travel from the 90s to late 2000s. The show had an interesting premise, with both Skynet and the Resistance sending people back in time to either destroy the future or find Sarah and John.

While the first season was enjoyable, the second season was lackluster. Not helping was FOX moving the show from Monday to Friday, the network’s lowest-rated night where most shows tend to get canceled. It ended on a cliffhanger and was canceled after two seasons with 31 episodes. Coincidentally, it ended a little more than a month before Salvation came out.

There is no one reason in particular as to why the Terminator franchise has been unable to regain the success of Judgment Day. Several factors have made it somewhat cursed to fail on a regular basis.

Inconsistent Studios: Nearly every single studio in Hollywood has been involved in some form or another with the franchise, such as Warner Bros. and Paramount. Some don’t even exist anymore like Hemdale (The Terminator) and Carolco (Judgment Day).

Gaps: Because the franchise keeps moving around, long gaps of time between films have caused it to lose any potential momentum. More than a decade passed between the second and third films, and subsequent films have come out every four to six years.

John Connor: Despite being the future savior of mankind, he is the franchise’s weakest character. Because all of the attention is aimed at the titular cyborg, John comes off as a bland character only described by others to be a great hero.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: The franchise’s Achilles heel is unfortunately its main star. The past two films have done their best to keep the 72-year-old as the T-800 by explaining his appearance as the cyborg’s skin having naturally aged. Arnold is sadly just too old to play a killer cyborg from the future. While he can still do the voice, aside from 3, he comes off more tired than intimidating.

Can this franchise ever be successful again? Yes.

Genesys tried rebooting the franchise but relied too much on nostalgia from the first two films and still had Schwarzenegger as the T-800.

Dark Fate tried doing something similar to Disney’s Star Wars trilogy by featuring a mixture of returning and new characters. However, like those films and Independence Day: Resurgence, it risked alienating longtime fans who might feel betrayed by the changes made to justify a continuation.

The only way Terminator could ever be successful again is in a proper reboot without either Schwarzenegger or any direct connections to the first two films. 

It can be set in the present and have the titular cyborg hunt down Sarah Connor not by phone book but social media. The reboot can even make it more than just a T-800 by combining elements from past Terminators. With a bigger budget, great cast, and good director, the reboot can be a successful modern remake of the first film and revitalize the franchise.

For now, the box office results of Terminator: Dark Fate appear to declare the franchise itself to once again be terminated.

The Terminator films and The Sarah Connor Chronicles are available to stream on multiple providers and own on Blu-ray and Digital.

Until next time, thank you for reading!

[jack-patrick-skerry]

Ethics of Social Media

The current state of social media ethics: what trends are happening in the industry? What are two current cases related to social media ethics? Outline the current code of ethics for social media by a professional organization you would be interesting in joining as part of their social media staff

A very popular trend in Social Media going on in this day and age is Tik Tok.  A platform that’s made for people to make short little dance videos.  Videos can be short and to the point or can be creative and lengthy that expand over various clips.

But there’s been some legal issues with the platform in the recent months. Tik Tok is getting sued for billions of dollars over use of child data.  They might play ads that could harm and/or manipulate children

The Current Code of Ethics for social media users is 

Do not alter the facts to match your opinion.

Be conscious when quoting a source that may be subjective, to prevent any misinterpretations of the true story.

It is more than okay to voice your opinion, but do so in a respectful manner.

Respect the opinions of others; some may agree, but some may also disagree

Brands/professionals with strong social media ethical codes: what brands are utilizing proper social media ethical practices? Are there any professionals that you feel practice strong ethical behavior on social media? Support your choice with evidence. What are some takeaways you can bring forth in your own practices?

I believe that Disney is trying to do a better with social media after the whole LGBTQ controversy that’s been happening in the past couple days. As most people know, the entertainment juggernaut flipped and flopped in an attempt to reassure its employees and its massive fanbase about its position on Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. At first, Disney said absolutely nothing about the bill and that gained a lot of criticism. They were also criticized for recently donating money to politicians who supported the bill.  .In response to the backlash over Disney’s inaction, CEO Bob Chapek said that the company unequivocally stood with its LGBTQ employees, expressing that support through “the inspiring content” that the company produces. An open letter from LGBTQ Pixar staff and their allies alleged that Disney had actively scrubbed “overtly gay affection” and queer representation from their movies. 

As a result of all of this, Disney has slowly trying been trying to support the LGBTQ group with their content in the recent years. In the live action remake of Beauty and The Beast, the character of Lefou is gay. Although the movie doesn’t openly say that he is, they give all these clear indications. In Avengers Endgame, there’s the scene where Captain America is holding a support group for the people who survived the snap. One of those men talks about recently going on a date with another man. Giving another indication of a gay person. In the movie Onward, a female cop refers to having a girlfriend at home. Indicating that she’s a lesbian. Although these examples are subtle, it at least shows that Disney is slowly trying to represent LGTBQ people in their movies 

Key concepts and issues: what main concepts do you are necessary to adhere to for your own personal conduct online

For me, I’d try to keep bullying to a bare minimum if not none at all. I also don’t agree with arguing with someone who has an opposite opinion as you about something. I’ve come to the realization that nothing you say will make them change their view.  Instead, I’d prefer to respect the other’s opinion instead of criticizing it. I’d also make sure to not make any statements that typically wouldn’t be talked about in the brand because that would definitely lead to potential controversy 

What to do and what not to do: what main concepts do you feel strongly against and want to make sure you avoid on social media?

One of the concepts when looking at a brand is the numerous ads that pop up. I feel like constantly having ads is clear sign on how greedy a brand is. In order for you to get customers, you have to have them come to you instead of forcibly coming to them with these constant ad blocks. It’ll annoy them so much that they probably won’t even want to be a customer

Bullet point 5-10 core concepts that you will follow as a practicing social media professional. Include citations that you used for sources/supports for this.

Provide sources for my work

Show respect for the people on the platform

Be honest and don’t be so manipulative

Own up your mistakes if you make them and not just ignore them

Don’t try to change the narrative of something just so it’ll go along with your opinion 

[translationandbetrayals]

How Disney Influenced My Childhood: Women and Princesses (Part 1)

The Walt Disney Company (or simply Disney) is the largest American media and entertainment conglomerate in the world. From its inception (1923) to the 2000s, this industry has released films of great renown and have been called the foundation of children's entertainment for most children; personally, my childhood was never short of princess movies such as "Snow White," "Cinderella," "Sleeping Beauty," "The Little Mermaid," "Beauty and the Beast," etc. This particular princess genre, I believe, was the source of happiness in my entertainment evenings, and the possible source of all my ills in terms of societal outlook and self-understanding as a woman.

The Disney princess movie franchise has been in a notorious evolution if we appreciate the new installments and the current adaptations (live actions). This new generation of films with female Disney protagonists is the opposite of what was proposed in the origins of the industry, currently we are presented with self-sufficient women, facing challenges that allow them to know their own goal or objective in life, self-worth, the transformation to Heroines, leaders, fighters and with an essence of independence, something very different from what was presented in my childhood (2000s), because their transmissions of "what a woman is like" were based on being kind, polite (in the sense of obeying without protesting), being slim, pretty, having beautiful dresses, having an acceptable skin tone (preferably pale because "paler = prettier"), having children (and taking care of them obviously) and always (something inevitable) being waiting for "true love", being engaged (preferably to a prince) or ending the story by finding the love of my life by going to a huge castle.

You could say "I have the proof and not the doubt" that I idealized my adulthood in my childhood thanks to this too-perfect perspective of what I would be as an adult. Now, at 18 (I am legally an adult), I find it quite disturbing what I thought as a child, because I had a very limited view of what I would be in the future and there was no one to tell me “This isn't real" or "marriage isn't the happy ending", in fact, I was encouraged to think that those standards were the right ones for my gender.

In my opinion, these gendered perspectives on Disney princesses were pretty normalized for a long time, and it wasn't until the waves of feminism and the demand for minority rights prompted a social change, and with it, a change in the entertainment industry, for new generations to embrace this new social vision for a breakthrough and not perpetuate these stereotypical views of princesses. Now there is another question, this new vision more "progressive" is because there really is a change of mentality? or is it just marketing? I guess we will never know, we only know that these adaptations and remakes of princess movies are adapted to the current realities.

With this analysis, this post will have a second part to continue talking about the "villains" or "the bad ones of the story" in princess movies and Disney movies in general.

-Francisca Huanel

[dweemeister]

A Star Is Born (1937)

Hollywood fame and fortune and everything that goes with it has been a favorite topic of American movies since popular fan-driven culture around the art form has existed. Show People (1928), Sunset Boulevard (1950), and most recently La La Land (2016) have been crafted by Hollywood about Hollywood. One film about Hollywood that has been remade twice and, soon, thrice, is A Star Is Born – originally starring Janet Gaynor and Fredric March, directed by William A. Wellman, and produced by David O. Selznick. The 1954 version starred Judy Garland and James Mason; the 1976 version starred Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson; the 2018 version will star Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga’s given name) and Bradley Cooper. I have not seen the 1976 A Star Is Born, and the 1954 remake is the subject of the first write-up I ever published on this blog (it’s short and embarrassing; I knew much less about writing on cinema than I do now... and I still don’t think I’m good at this).

Before A Star Is Born, Hollywood movies about Hollywood painted a rosy picture of the movie industry, where the greatest cinematic talents come to work and where success is no stranger to those to dedicate everything they have. Of course, that image is a sanitized one, and did not apply to countless ethnic and racial minorities, as well as advantaging men over women. Some things just have not changed, obviously (although the industry continues to make improvements), but A Star Is Born has never approached these inequalities from that angle. Nevertheless, it is still within this context that A Star Is Born frames a desire for stardom – the fantasy of what it looks like, the disappointment and personal tragedies that can occur.

Esther Victoria Blodgett (Gaynor) lives in an agricultural North Dakota town with her family. The local movie theater is one of her few means of escape, and she aspires to be the next Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, or Mae West. Everyone in the family disparages those dreams, except Grandmother Lettie (May Robson). Grandmother Lettie lends Esther money for the train ride to and lodgings in Southern California. Esther begins living in a boarding house with other Hollywood hopefuls, like out-of-work assistant director Danny McGuire (Andy Devine), but is stonewalled when the casting agency refuses to accept any more applications for extra parts. Danny pulls some strings and gets Esther a job serving at a high-end Hollywood party. Actor Norman Maine (March) – whose career has been slowly declining – finds himself attracted to Esther, and convinces producer Oliver Niles (Adolphe Menjou) to allow her a screen test. She does well. In the tradition of the old Hollywood Studio System providing their newest contractees stage names, Esther is renamed “Vicki Lester”, and has a sensational debut film starring opposite Norman, her love. But as Norman’s career and mental health continue to tumble, Vicki Lester becomes the world’s darling.

As A Star Is Born was released to theaters, the career trajectories of Janet Gaynor and Fredric March were the reverse of the characters they played. Gaynor (1927′s 7th Heaven and Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans) became a premier box office draw for Fox Film Corporation (renamed “20th Century Fox” in 1935) in the later silent years, but her draw had waned by the mid-1930s, and she retired from the movies in 1939, at age thirty-three – her reason: to seek out other adventures and raise a family. For Fredric March, after years wallowing as an extra with Paramount, breakout leading roles came in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932) and this film. March sustained an excellent standard of work into a decades-spanning career with highlights such as The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) and Inherit the Wind (1960).

Though March sometimes outperforms his co-star, do not underestimate Gaynor’s ability to sell the small-town-girl to the audience. There is an awkwardness and innocence in her performance as this North Dakotan transplant to Southern California. As the initial wonderment fades into a grind of job searching, Esther finds herself within touching distance of Hollywood royalty, but with the financial comforts of cinematic success galaxies away. When she receives her big break, Esther is a natural at acting (her brief imitations of the most popular American actresses of the 1930s during the party she is waitressing at are a treasure). But when she is no longer in the soundstage shooting a scene, Gaynor believably makes the transition from artifice to reality. As meta as that sounds (movies about Tinseltown tend to be riddled with self-references, whether self-important or satirical), we notice that Esther Blodgett – Vicki Lester – has changed with experience and the long hours her work demands. Compared to Judy Garland’s interpretation of the same role, there is more sunny optimism in Gaynor’s performance compared to Garland’s anxiety and natural melancholy. The latter is the better actress and produces the better performance. Even then, Gaynor’s turn as Esther Blodgett is worthy of acclaim.

March, whose character of Norman Maine is on the descendancy, is heartbreaking. Here, he plays of a man weakened by personal exhaustion, professional disappointment, feelings of worthlessness. His attitude swings are remarkable – at times, displaying a lovely intimacy with Gaynor; other times, going through the motions of a fearsome, drunken rage that frightens onlookers and enthralls the sensationalized press.

Since five years ago after viewing the 1954 Judy Garland-James Mason remake for the first time and dealing with my own mental health problems, your reviewer has become more sensitive to the portrayal of mental illness in movies – I am no expert, nor are my problems perfectly transferable to a piece of fiction or to the lives of others. Both the original and the 1954 remake share an almost identical error: an inability to portray Norman Maine in a way that fully contextualizes his alcoholism and mental problems, as well as providing a more acceptable cause and justification for his fate. Without spoiling for those who have never seen any iteration of A Star Is Born, it is obvious that Norman cares for Esther/Vicki, that jealousy – if Norman has any directed towards his love – is not actively defining their relationship. It makes Norman’s decisions in the film’s final minutes feel so arbitrary, swift.

We know more about mental illness better today than screenwriters Wellman, Robert Carson, Dorothy Parker, and Alan Campbell could possibly have done so in 1937. Yet the screenwriters actively portray a variety of characters – central and peripheral – attempting to shield Norman from the stigma hurled by those who do not care to understand. Norman’s destructiveness is handled sensitively, and Esther/Vicki’s decision to help her beloved is one of the most positive portrayals of being an ally to combat an enemy unknowable to many, unseen to all. Of course, A Star Is Born is Esther’s story of creativity and tenacity in what was and still remains an unforgiving, cutthroat industry. But as her world intermingles with his and as she begins to accept that arrangement, the screenplay is looking for a flourish for its Hollywood ending. That ending, however, disrespects Norman’s self-loathing and Esther’s sadness that she alone can only be of so much help.

One character, press agent Matt Libby (Lionel Stander), is depicted as a publicity-ravenous individual who distastes privacy, and delights himself in manufactured, all-American narratives for the stars of Oliver Niles’ studio. A Star Is Born’s cynicism is contained within Libby, with shame and taste becoming irrelevant when there are movie stars to profit from and fans – suckers, really – ready to swoon at their favorite actors’ work. If anything, Hollywood is a talent and personality machine, ready to assemble the newest products and to declare an earlier, outdated figure obsolete. There is no regard to hurt feelings, loyalty, or friendship here. Such is the Hollywood Esther Blodgett and Norman Maine find themselves in.

Accusations of plagiarism also hounded Selznick International Pictures, as a similarly-written movie, What Price Hollywood? (1932), released by RKO, has an almost identical premise and similar plot twists, but with lesser-known stars (Constance Bennett and Lowell Sherman). David O. Selznick produced both What Price Hollywood? and A Star Is Born, and though RKO prepared their lawyers to sue Selznick International, they ultimately declined to pursue the lawsuit.

After its release, Selznick International sold the rights to A Star Is Born to Warner Bros., which allowed them to remake the film in 1954. But when Warner Bros. failed to renew the copyright to the 1937 original, it entered the United States’ public domain. The curse of some public domain movies is that, without that commercial value of the copyright protection, studios are loath to grant such a film a restoration. W. Howard Greene’s cinematography suffers, as 1937′s A Star Is Born was one of the first live-action feature films to use three-strip Technicolor (invented in 1932, Walt Disney negotiated an exclusive use of three-strip Technicolor until September 1935), instead of using the limited shades of greens and reds seen in two-strip Technicolor. In this collaboration and in the imperfect print that I watched on Turner Classic Movies (TCM), Greene and Wellman never allow the Technicolor to feature the range of its palette as much as they could.

Following the film’s release, speculation abounded whether or not A Star Is Born was based on a real-life example of a closely-knit Hollywood rise and decline. Some cite Barbara Stanwyck’s (1937′s Stella Dallas, 1944′s Double Indemnity) seven-year marriage to Frank Fay (primarily a stage actor, originated Elwood P. Dowd in Harvey) to be the primary influence, even if John Bowers  (1921′s The Ace of Hearts and The Sky Pilot) has been noted as the actual inspiration for Norman Maine. For those better-versed in the private lives of Hollywood actors than yours truly, speculate away.

So what is so compelling about A Star Is Born that this story has been repeated three other times? That’s not even mentioning derivative – a word which is not here being used in a derisive fashion – films that followed decades later. For as much as many movie fans and those not as accustomed to American cinema as a whole might be repulsed by what fame in the entertainment industry brings, we continue to consume these stories. Something in there, among the affluent actors, is an aspect we recognize about ourselves, us ordinary moviegoers that can no longer imagine ourselves as headline movie stars.

It seems appropriate, then, to have Grandmother Lettie help bring this write-up to its end:

Esther, everyone in this world who has ever dreamed about better things has been laughed at, don't you know that? But there's a difference between dreaming and doing. The dreamers just sit around and moon about how wonderful it would be if only things were different. And the years roll on and, by and by, they grow and they forget everything, even about their dreams.

Esther Blodgett has sacrificed her time, energy, sanity, and well-being to be where she is. By personalizing Esther the way this film has, we cannot help but root for her success, that those who love her the most are able to see her triumphs for themselves. If they are unable to do so, we hope that their support for her continues to leave legacies after the thrill of parties and premieres has gone.

My rating: 8/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

[titmasjack]

Research Narrative Brief Recap

‘Animation is a uniquely visual medium’ Scott (2002)

Our last lecture session of this unit, this week we’ll be discussing and exploring the use of visual language in animation as well as recapping our original goals for the brief and what we need to achieve for our outcome. With no more taught lectures with Lynsey until next year, next week we begin the tutorial stage of this project where we reflect with both peers and tutors amongst our progress amongst the course as well as having the opportunity to have a one on one session with Lynsey down the line regarding the progress of our 1500 word essay for our hand in for the 26th of February. 

I have to make sure that I consider my time frame and how long I have left in the hopes to stay ahead and keep on track with the deadline ensuring I receive as much peer feedback as possible in response for my essay writing and animation outcomes. 

Last session we covered the ‘Hero’s Journey’, the ‘7 Basic Plots’ and talked about experimental animation and unconventional narrative, taking away a reminder that a narrative can be portrayed as much looser than typically portrayed. With any series of events being a story, but it is when a story is told that it becomes a narrative. 

Developing on this, this week we look at our final two topics of the brief, the language of animation and visual storytelling, two subjects that go hand in hand. Learning about these in today's lecture, this pretty much covers everything we need to know in response to the 5 set questions we have an opportunity to explore, giving us a vast array of contextual research that I can implement into my own ideas as I begin to put together my 1500 word essay. 

Animation as a Medium

‘People keep saying, “The Animation Genre” It's not a genre! A Western is a genre, an animation is an art form, and it can do any genre’. (Brad Bird, 2002)

What is a medium? The means or method in which information is conveyed to an audience. Not only is it the type of artwork, painting, sculpture, film or photography, but it is the materials in which it is created. Animation very much has a visual tandem with literary artwork, a piece of fiction has the ability to show or do anything much like animation. 

Previously it was thought to believe that this ability to create the whimsical and imagination was limited to animation but in today's development of technology, there's a blur in the line of what live-action is capable of. With its ever-developing expansion of CGI, live action is no longer bound to the rigidity once believed.

‘Implicit in the study of the animated form is how “meaning” is generated by the unique vocabulary available to the animator which is not the province of the live-action film-maker’ (Wells, 1998, p11).

Substance vs. Content

Animation has the ability to encompass an extraordinary range of styles and stories, whilst some of these stories could be told through live action, some cannot. For some, the animated medium is essential to the narrative, unlike Disney’s classically animated films, these stories don’t rely on the medium of animation, as we are seeing by today's contemporary remakes using CGI, their animated films used the whimsical discourse of animation to bring a new take on traditional fairytales. 

Story = What is told

Discourse = How it is told

Understanding this core principle I can begin to separate the substance of an artwork (what it’s physically made from) from its content (what the story is about). But I have to consider how the discourse can shape, change and alter the narrative itself, this is all too prominent in examples such as Cinderella, whilst the narrative can be told in a number of different ways, the story keeps changing and shifting because the discourse offers a new audience and limitation to what's available to create in each medium. 

‘The piece of marble, the canvas. with pigment dried on it, the airwaves vibrating at certain frequencies, the pile of printed pages sewn together...’ (Roman Ingarden, as quoted in Chatman, 1980, p.27)

The flexibility of animated films allows the substance of the narrative to be told through anything. A unique way to tell a story a large part of the narrative comes from the substance alone be it drawings, puppets, silhouette animation even 3D.

Metamorphosis - Last week we saw metamorphosis in the free-flowing stream of consciousness of Fastasmagorie (1908) generally considered the first animated cartoon. ‘Metamorphosis is the ability for an image to literally change into another completely different image’ (Wells, 1998, p.68)

Fabrication - Paul Wells (1998) uses the word ‘fabrication’ to describe the process of taking existing materials - whether man-made or naturally occurring - from the ‘everyday world’ and reinterpreting or re-purposing them within an animated film. We can use this term in this context to refer to the use of existing materials.

Bottle by Kirsten Lepore

Animated on location at a beach, in the snow, and underwater, this stop-motion short details a transoceanic conversation between two characters via objects in a bottle. Written, directed and edited by Kirsten Lepore our task was to answer a series of questions explored the concepts surrounding story and discourse and how the medium fo animation played a part in portrayal the message of the characters in the short film.

‘Lepore Painstakingly animated snow and sand frame-by-frame on location, recording the results of a canon 7d visual camera. The relatively rapid movement of the sun and shadows, often a problem in outdoor stop-frame animation, here adds a believable dimension as the elemental characters seem to move at a slower pace to human time’ (Cavalier, 2011, p.391).

‘This film could only be told in animation, Do I agree?’

I don't agree with this statement, I believe that the narrative could be told in a variety of medium, but the discourse of animation brings a unique and communicative message on the characters differences and similarities. 

‘What might be the particular relevance of using sand and snow?’

Using materials every audience viewer would know brings a true realness to the animation. With the physicality and texture of the scenes coming to life as they are physically manipulated for stop motion. The polar opposites work well on a visual level as they provide an elemental feeling to the narrative.

‘How do the materials enter (and shape) the narrative?’

If this was told a live action film, the message could lose its charm. Not every animated film is going to rely on its materials and substance, Disney wants to tell stories that were drawn and not photographed.

‘How and why are the characters anthropomorphised’

Through costume, through the performance of humanity. Performing gender through costume. The curiosity, learning to become human, a re-arrangement of shape, playing with gender, by the end their communicating, making art. Basic attempts at a visual language, a journey towards humanity. STarting to recognise them as human and emphasise with them.

The materials are intrinsic to the narrative, creating moments of humour and a sense of pathos, as the elemental characters learn how to be human. Both sand and snow have a transient quality (shifting, melting) which helps make the film more poignant: the materials themselves suggest a theme.

Cartoon and Caricature

‘The very language of animation seems to carry with it an inherent innocence which has served to disguise and dilute the potency of some of its more daring imagery’ (Wells, 1998, p.19)

As Wells suggests, this allows the animation to be one of the few mediums to express feelings and thoughts about taboo subjects without the risk of retaliation. Much like comedy, the audience expects a degree of violence in classical animation such as ‘Tom and Jerry’, codefining it as safe and innocent, the unrealistic levels of violence redefines how the language of threats is told in differing mediums. 

With cartoons typically associated with childlike imagery and the nostalgia of our childhood, should we justify this for the justification of violence? With a lack of danger, peril or threat, objects take on a surrealist form, this would be nightmarish if this would in any other discourse, but the language of cartoons renders the content redeemable due to its animated substance. This is exaggerated to an extreme in Tex Avery’s 1984 classic ‘The Cat that Hated People’.

This reminds us of Bakhtin’s concept of the ‘carnivaluesque’ a temporary destabilisation or reversal of power structures, in which the usual rules do not apply. Recognising humour, satire and grotesquery as the norm. The cartoon is codified that we feel safe, not threatened or disturbed from the actions shown in cartoons.

This begs the question as to the limits in which cartoons can push their boundaries? Are we as an audience desensitised to violence and nudity that is presented in a comical or cartoon format due to its lack of realism and is this a way to tackle more sensitive topics and political discussions? The fantasy of animation is that as a medium it has the license to poke fun at varying themes in a way that other mediums don't have the ability too. This is something I should consider in my own work, does my narrative use any of this thematic tension in its own narrative and is it acceptable because of its medium?

To summarise;

This week I identified a brief recap of everything we learnt in preparation for our group tutorials next week.

Explored the use of animation as a medium, how its discourse effects narrative.

How animation is used to the reversal of power structures, recognising humour, satire and grotesquery as the norm.

Through existing examples we discussed how discourse is used to heighten a narrative’s connotations.

Sources;

‘Bottle’ Vimeo Video https://vimeo.com/12155835

‘Making of “Bottle” (in 1 minute)’ Vimeo Video https://vimeo.com/15269858

‘Cat That Hated People’ Vimeo Video https://vimeo.com/246547197

‘Brad Bird's 5 Rules for Animators’ Youtube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8urbiM0cTs

[tardisheart134]

Beast to your Beauty

Word Count: 2,790 (approximately)

Link to AO3: (x)        

Summary: In celebration of the live action remake of Beauty and the Beast ~

Castiel has been eyeing Dean and all his ruggedly handsome good looks for some time, but he buries his feelings.  If Dean knew what he was thinking he would laugh at him surely.  Cas can’t help but hope there is a softer side to Dean beneath the surface.  Meanwhile, self-loathing and sometimes abrasive Dean, watches as Castiel - real life angel - selflessly helps others and spreads love and acceptance wherever he goes.  There is beauty that radiates from deep within him and calms Dean’s restless heart.  Would fate help them lose themselves long enough to find each other? 

They were working on a skeleton crew as it was because of the weather advisories but someone had to be there.  Castiel lived within walking distance of the office so he didn’t mind to stay a bit longer.  He went around checking on others and helping them meet their deadlines so they could get home safe.   

It had started snowing around 3 PM and then it got dark shortly after that as the snow clouds moved in to cover the sun.  Cas watched the last of them bundle up and slide through the parking lot to their cars. It was almost 7 PM when Castiel finished up the rest of the pressing assignments.  A dull headache plagued him from staring at the computer screen for so long.  He hit the lights, getting ready to head home himself, when Dean Winchester stepped off the elevator.

“Dean, what are you still doing here?  You live the furthest away, you should have been the first to leave.”  Dean could tell that Cas was genuinely worried because his eyes flared blue and his brow scrunched with worry.  

“No, it’s okay.” Dean said.  “I knew it was too late, I’m just gonna crash on the couch in the break room.  Dean couldn’t help but be flattered by Castiel’s concern.  “I just came down - I think I left a cup of noodles in my desk.”  

Cas wrinkled his nose and cocked his head to the side.  Dean wondered what had him so deep in thought.  He was beautiful when he was concentrating.  

“What about you? - I didn’t know you were still down here working - last to leave?”  Dean gestured at Cas.

“Well, I don’t live too far - just at the bottom of the hill there’s a path that leads through to my apartment.  I was just about to walk home.”

“Oh.”  Dean nodded.  They were both quiet for a moment but neither were in a hurry to leave each other’s presence.  

“Look…” Cas looked down, scratching the back of his neck.  “Why don’t you come home with me?”  Castiel looked up at Dean and then away again.  He’d had a crush on Dean for a while - but this had nothing to do with that.  It wouldn’t be right to leave Dean helpless here without a decent meal or a shower, not when his home was so close.  “My home is not much to see - it’s fairly small but I’ve got a shower and a fireplace and homemade chicken curry soup in the fridge…”  Castiel was trying to convince him but Dean hadn’t objected.  

“Okay.”  Dean said.

“Yeah?”  Castiel’s eyes went wide with disbelief, a small smile tugging at the corner of his lips.

“Yeah...just let me grab my coat.”  Dean disappeared into the office.

Castiel felt giddy like he’d asked Dean on a date and Dean accepted.  He tried to remind himself that was in fact - not - what happened.  Dean was stranded and simply taking the help that Cas offered, nothing else. (The thought didn’t help to quiet the butterflies in Cas’ stomach though.)

Dean appeared with his jacket.  They were quiet as they made their way down the hill.  Snow flurried around them and was packed solidly beneath their feet. The moon was full and it reflected off the ground making the whole landscape glow.  

Castiel hit a patch of ice.  He landed on his back and slid about three feet down the hill.  He hit the ground hard, punching the air out of his lungs, but he laughed through it.  

“Cas!”  Dean crouched over him - his face all concern until he saw Castiel’s broad grin.  “You okay?”  Dean helped him to his feet and dusted the snow off his back, the white powder forming a cloud around them.  Cas hadn’t even tried to take a step yet, when he slid again.  Luckily Dean caught him, holding him steady. “Here - hold onto me -”  Dean offered his arm to Cas and they walked the short distance arm in arm.  Cas’ heart beat loudly in his ears, he told himself it was from the fall and not because his fingers were tangled with Dean’s.  

The apartment was warmer than outside, but only by a little.  Castiel clicked on a few lights and then turned up the heat.  

“The heat’s not so great - I usually build a fire.”  Cas shrugged apologetically.

“I’ll do it.  Where is the fireplace?”  Dean looked around the small room with brick walls painted a cream color.

“In the bedroom.”  Castiel pointed towards the hallway.  Dean moved to the small pile of wood by the back door.  “You don’t have to - I can build it…” Castiel moved to take the wood out of Dean’s hands.  

“No really - it’s good - least I can do…”  Dean grinned lopsided at Cas which made him feel both like he was flying and falling simultaneously.

The apartment was cozy, small.  No dining room.  The living room was wall to wall book shelves and a small flat screen tv mounted on the wall opposite the kitchen.   Only one recliner across from the tv with a table next to it a stack of books on the other side.  

No couch.  

Castiel started heating the soup on the stove.  Dean went to the bedroom. More books.  He found the bin of kindling and went to working on the fire.  No couch only one bed.  Dean’s heart fluttered.  He was muttering to himself trying to gain control of his runaway thoughts.  Castiel only invited him here because of the weather, not for any other reasons that Dean fancied. It was out of the kindness of his heart.  Still he thought - it was kind of hot - trapped in the snow with a cute guy making him soup.  When he walked back into the kitchen, Cas handed him a beer.  “Soup will be ready in a few minutes.  I just cleaned the sheets earlier this week.  You can take the bed...I can sleep in the recliner.”  

“Dude! There is no way I’m taking your bed - after all you’ve done.”

“What have I done?”

“You let me come home with you - you’re feeding me dinner - I’m drinking your beer - You rescued me...I’ll sleep in the recliner.”

“I’m not gonna sleep in the bed - while you - my guest sleeps sitting up in a chair.”  

Castiel stirred the soup before taking a swig of his beer.  

Dean rubbed his face - exasperated.  He decided to change the subject.  “So - do you like to read?” Dean asked sarcastically - clearly knowing the answer by the sheer amount of books in the room.  

“I do...I just finished this series…”  Castiel lit up and Dean couldn’t help but smile back at him, he was so cute when he was talking about something that he liked.  

“...How did you know I liked to read?”  Castiel looked up at Dean for the first time putting the lid back on the pot of soup.

“It’s a little obvious…”  Dean gestured around the room.  

“You’re making fun of me, aren’t you?”  Cas’ face turned somber and he looked down.

“No - no - really I’m not - I just think you’re cute when you talk about books.”  Dean smiled at him.  Castiel cleared his throat.  He wasn’t expecting that.  “Tell me more…” Dean said grinning up at him.  

Castiel ladled out his soup and buttered two slices of bread.  Dean was sitting cross legged in front of Castiel’s recliner.  

“You don’t have to sit on the floor - I can.”  

“I’m good here.”  Dean said taking the plate from Castiel.  “This smells delicious.”  Dean warmed his hands against the warmth of the bowl.  Castiel sat down next to Dean on the ground, both of their backs  leaned against the recliner.  Castiel flipped through the stations on the tv.  He was going so quickly Dean wondered how he could even tell what was on.  Dean stopped him when he passed up Beauty and the Beast on the Disney channel.  “What?” Castiel questioned.  “You want to watch Beauty and the Beast?”  Castiel’s words dripped with skepticism.

“Yeah. Don’t you?”  Dean asked indignantly, like it was the coolest thing in the world for grown men to like fairy tales.  

“I like the movie...I just didn’t think that someone like you would…”

“Someone like me….?  What’s that supposed to mean?”

“I don’t know...you’re like one of the cool kids, like a jock...I didn’t expect you to geek out over a fairy tale.  That and you’re a guy.”  

“What do you mean by that Cas? You’re a guy too and you like the movie?”

“Yeah but you’re like a guy’s guy, you like football and manly stuff, that’s just not me…”

“Well you can like more than one thing...you don’t have put so many labels on people Cas.”  

“No Dean - I didn’t mean it like that - jeez…”

“Yeah...sure whatever…”  They were quiet.  For all the books Castiel read, he was completely inarticulate when it came to his own story.  He wanted to open his mouth to explain how cool it was that Dean was into fairy tales and football. He wanted to explain that he didn’t mean to assume that Dean was a certain way just because of stereotypes.  He wouldn’t want someone to judge him that way.  He worked out the phrasing in his head several different ways but it all ended with him confessing his undying love to Dean and he’d already put Dean off.  No need to embarrass himself further.  Instead, Castiel slid closer to Dean, letting their shoulders rest against each other.  He could feel Dean relax against him and the tension gave way as they lost themselves in the story

Castiel opened the drawer to retrieve a long sleeved t-shirt and sweatpants that he handed to Dean.  “Seriously, I’ll be fine in the recliner.  I can sleep comfortably anywhere.”

“Dean - I’m not letting you sleep in a chair.  You’ll sleep in my bed and that’s final!”  Cas raised his voice- surprising himself with his own ferocity.  

“Fine.”  Dean said - eyes radiating mischief.  “On one condition…”

“What’s that?”  Castiel eyed him cautiously.

“You sleep in your bed with me.” Dean watched Cas as he tried to mask the mild panic welling up in him.  It was a loaded question and Castiel could tell that Dean meant it any way that Cas might take it.  

“Come on...we’re both adults.”  Dean tugged on Castiel’s elbow - making him lose all train of thought.  “We can be mature about this - share the bed - like two grown men.”  

Castiel looked away fearful his eyes would betray him.  “Well, it is a big bed.” Cas said not trusting himself to look back at Dean.  

“It is.”  Dean nodded his head in agreement.

“And I have memory foam..”  Castiel took a step back.  “I guess it would be really silly not to.”  

“Ah - memory foam - it’s settled then…”  Dean said smiling.  He was flirting with Cas and Cas was taking it well - he needed to calm down.  

Dean pulled the t-shirt over his head and reveled for a moment at how the shirt smelled like Cas - like firewood and spice and the crisp winter air.  Everything seemed to smell deliciously of Cas.    Dean folded his clothes neatly and placed them in the chair. (If he’d been been at home they would have been strewn everywhere an article of clothing in every room.)  He walked into the kitchen to find Cas standing in similar clothes over the stove.  Cas handed Dean a mug of hot chocolate with a peppermint stick poking out the top.  He followed him back to the bedroom and they both sat on the floor in front of the fire.  They talked and laughed until the mugs were drained and the fire started to die down. Dean stoked it adding another log.  “Read something to me, Cas.”

“Like what?” Cas scoffed.

“I don’t know - pick something - read me your favorite -.”   

Castiel retrieved a well worn copy of King Arthur from his bedside table.  Dean settled in beside him shoulder to shoulder.  Cas was momentarily distracted as Dean licked the length of the peppermint stick.  He read until a contagious yawn escaped Dean’s lips followed by one from Cas.  “Come on, we should get some sleep.” Castiel helped Dean to his feet.  Dean stumbled against him.  

“Which side of the bed do you sleep on?”  Dean asked.

“Doesn’t matter to me - you pick.”  Dean crawled into bed landing pretty much in the middle without picking a side.  He figured Cas would chase him out of whatever side he actually wanted to sleep on. The bed dipped with the weight of Cas as he laid beside Dean.  He was careful to keep space between them even though they’d been leaning against each other most of the night.  It took Dean forever to fall asleep as they both tried not to disturb each other.  

“Dean - are you awake?”  Cas nudged him under the blankets.  Dean blinked an eye open.  “The power’s gone out - I put another log on the fire - but I’m freezing.”  

“Me too -”  Dean reached for Castiel’s arms opening them and crawling inside.  “You don’t mind do you?”

“No.”  Castiel could barely make his mouth work.  Dean nuzzled into his chest under the ruse of keeping warm.  Castiel stroked Dean’s back.

“Thank you for inviting me over. I would have frozen to death in the office with the power out.”

“Oh sure. I’m glad you came - I’ve had my eye on you for a while.”  In Castiel’s sleepy state his  guard was down and he was saying out loud the things he’d spent months repressing.  “You had your eye on me?” Dean questioned.  He pulled out of Castiel’s arms just enough to look at him.  Tufts of his hair were sticking up and his face glowed in orange and red hues from the fireplace. Dean couldn’t help but think how beautiful he was like this.  “Yeah - you caught my eye.”  Cas tried to hide his grin but failed.  “I thought you were interesting...and ruggedly good looking…”

“Really… is that so?”  Castiel could hear the laughter in Dean’s voice.  He nudged a knee at him playfully.  He left his knee resting between Dean’ thighs like it always belonged there.  A few moments passed - and then Cas could feel Dean’s length growing hard against his knee.  Dean’s face went flush as he tried to twist out of Castiel’s arms.

“Cas - I’m sorry - I - uh…”

Castiel tightened his grip around Dean’s waist drawing him closer and cupping his face.  Dean thought - hoped - that Cas was going to kiss him.  “Dean - can I ask you a question?”

“Yeah, sure…”  Dean rasped.

“Is this - is this happening because you like me too - or is this just because of our proximity?”  Castiel smoothed his hand down Dean’s side.  Dean relaxed at Castiel’s touch, letting himself melt against him.  “I like you - Cas - a lot.”  

“Really?”  Cas seemed to genuinely question it.

“Yeah...I’ve had my eye on you for a while too...surely you’ve noticed.”  

“Well, I hoped - but I’m realistic.”  Cas went back to stroking Dean’s back lazily.  “I can be the beast to your beauty…”  Cas said grinning against Dean’s throat.  Dean smiled back pulling Castiel closer still.  

“Wait - I think - you’ve got that backwards…I’m the beast to your beauty.” Castiel gave a confused look.  “No you’re the good looking one - I’m definitely the gnarly looking, awkward, bookish loner…” Castiel said it all like that was final.  Dean couldn’t wait for Cas to kiss him any longer. He pressed a gentle, almost unsure, kiss to the corner of Cas’ mouth.  “You’re the beautiful one.  You worked selflessly today getting everyone out the door safe - while I sat upstairs feeling sorry for myself.  You’re thoughtful and kind and your blue eyes are so beautiful they leave me breathless…I’m abrasive and headstrong and bulldoze over anyone who stands in my way…”  

“No - “ Cas said.  “That’s not true...you’re beautiful…and strong and you fight for what you believe in...I’m just a doormat...you’re the beautiful one”  

“No you are…” Dean said rocking into him as it became clear that no one was going to win this fight.  They were snowed in for two days without power but luckily they had plenty of firewood and each other to keep warm with.

Tags are below.  If you would like to be added or removed from my tag list, please let me know.  I hope you enjoy and thanks for reading!  

@casdean91 @wanderingcas @fandom-life-alwayz @lindsayrose2016 @ships-a-lot @tardisdementor @glassofcity @fool-of-a-tardis @superport17

@deanxcasficrecs @destielfanfictions @deanreaderreblog @destieloneshots @destiel-oneshots @deancasheadcanons

@fabulousfangirllovesfood @thebandsback @perpetualabsurdity @nerdygirlwithacrush @princessariell2 @pinkbunnies2001 @castielbabyangelface @desti4l @mein1928 @xxchloegrayxx @catcackles16 @katoudoe @destiel-shippers @destiel-smut-motherfuckers @tardisdementor  @ships-a-lot @deanneedsahug  @destielisrealyouslut @heydestybaby @winchester-reload @chaoticandproud @an-angel-in-love-with-a-hunter @tassianac @ilovemesomeassbutt @deancas @tiesandpies   @destielfluff @devoted2destiel @mynameisinigomontoyawinchester @shit-happens-bitchachos @andyfloat-666 @tree-of-blue-squirrel @linkinparkfan09 @lmejia13 @trenchcoatsandjellybabies @mizukiyumeko @winchester11 @cas-you-assbutt-dean-needs-you @mylostsoul28 @nightmysteriousmoon @no-more-myself-only-you @starcastlesinthesky @charlie-minion @rockergirl57 @shy-destiel @theboywithabs @mymansam @juneandthestars @superwhophanlocked @cats-tiel @mynotsoapplepielife @just-some-destiel @lalalaandlalala @winchester-reload @judecas @lucislittlegirl @justsomeonerandom17 @gottalovethefandomlife @inlovewith-humanity  

@maybe-i-shouldbemorelikeher @frogcancer @braveheart1418 @dreamer-beaver @yaoicrushedmysoul @abraca-datass @playfulpanthress @alexander-sage @ackles-euerle @samhain-eve @trumanshow @theamazingphangirlisnotonfire2 @not-important-lolita @itsgenerouscupcakecollector @paintdriesfaster @mybeautyissupernatural @samilynn45 @silverwolf7850 @just-basic-piece-of-trash @thefallencreations @original-fallen-angel @cynthia-bernal91 @blackrose6666666 @emotionalrangeofsevenbooks @onlypretending @myhouseisonfireplshelp @yourspecialeyes @sarcastic-ass-bookworm @totumd97 @fantasticharmonydetective @awesomepotatocake @allee-sha @itsdestielbitches @staircasetothesea @thefuturemrshiddleston @apple-bottom-dean @noodleverse @angeloftheblorp @carolinasacco @usserless @12boxesofsocks @lemon-check @ds-trash @claire-n-universe @bandlovr @totolerateaworldofdemons @mrscaptaincastiel @liana248 @dirtchic219 @cxlucci @antarcticsloth @reading-away-my-troubles @whowasibeforeiwasdestieltrash @stider334 @dat-boi-beebo @virghoez