#i’ve literally never seen a character get so much development in the span of five fucking seconds

[diabratz]

belphie is real fuckin cute for someone who choked the absolute fuck out of me for fun

#i wanna take one of those big ass cartoon wooden hammers n hit him HARD ASF over the head with it #so he drops items like a fucking video game character #he drops like two pillows n an oversized hoodie LMFAOOOOOOOO #honestly his design……. genius #but also i need to fuck him up for healing purposes #i’ve literally never seen a character get so much development in the span of five fucking seconds #he went from ‘fuck mc and all humans’ to ‘mc can we cuddle 😞👉🏼👈🏼’ in like three secs #the way i hated him for a bit after that #like baby we not gonna zoom past u killing me !!!!!! my body was right there on the floor ?!!!!??????? #talking abt some ‘bae i changed bae 😫😫’ #get the FUCK outta my face with that BULLSHIT #and yk what he’s still more tolerable than levi to me 🤭 #yeah he may have killed me but is he on some ‘im just some weirdo loser otaku’ bullshit ???? no #actually 🤭 belphie needa move over i’m bouta nap too on MEEEEEEEE #obey me shall we date #obey me x reader #obey me belphegor #obey me mammon #obey me lucifer #obey me barbatos #obey me #obey me leviathan #obey me x mc #i love blowing up the tags fr #idc 🤪

[nepenthendline]

Mental Health Headcannons - Tsukishima, Kageyama, Ushijima, Tendou & Bokuto

All these are from my knowledge and based off of each character’s actions haikyuu, this is all my opinion so feel free to discuss other thoughts! I’m happy to talk about each more in depth if anyone would like it :) this is just me projecting my own problems on fictional characters

You can also message me if you wanna talk about these too!!

This is going to be long

TW: Mental health, learning difficulties, eating disorders, self-harm

Tsukishima - Depression, Anxiety & OCD

Tbh someone else (I’ve been trying to find their username to tag them but I can’t find it, they’re called something like theguessmonta but idk) has amazing posts about Tsukishima and his mental health which I totally agree with all of it so some of this is going to be pretty similar

I think his mental health problems started when he was quite young, around the time when the Akiteru drama happened so he’s been dealing with these for a while

Having depression can often make a person seem very disinterested/sarcastic/negative as a way of pushing back emotions and self-protection which explains a lot of the way Tsukishima acts towards some people (I have a whole post on how he isn’t just some asshole)

His anxiety stems from a place of terrible self-esteem and self-image, it’s clear to see he has a bad sense of self-worth when he talks about how people are obviously a lot better than him, he’s just there to ‘stop trouble happening’

Tsukki suffers from panic attacks quite regularly (especially when he was a bit younger) but he tends to shut himself off then they happen, he doesn’t want anyone else to see him like that

His anxiety and overthinking is often why he keeps his headphones on him at all times, listening to music helps drown out the sounds around him and those in his head

His OCD got worse over time - first it was things like turning the light switch on and off repeatedly until it felt right, or tapping on his desk before he went to bed, but as his anxiety and self-esteem got worse it developed into him needing himself to be perfect

This included only eating a certain amount of calories a day (no where near the amount he should be eating) or getting a very specific grade on an exam, where even one number over or under set him into a panic

Things got to their worst for Tsukki around the age of 13 - this is where he was much too underweight and self-harming on his hips (so no one else could see)

Probably also thought about suicide a couple times around this point

He has tried a couple different types of anti-depressants in the past, however none have seemed to help

He likes a lot of time alone - he gets too overwhelmed dealing with other people

The only person besides his family and Yamaguchi that knows about his OCD is Kageyama - they both noticed each others odd, repetitive habits until Kageyama asked him about it one day, while they don’t get along too well, they feel some comfort in each other understanding their actions

Kageyama - Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

wow what a smooth segue 

this boy is like a walking definition of ASD - coming from a person with ASD

Kageyama was diagnosed with Type 1/High-functioning Autism when he was very young (probably around 3-5 years old)

He struggles with social interaction, knowing what to say to people and most importantly, how to say it, e.g. when he smiles people often think he looks angry

Kageyama has never had many, if any, friends before Karasuno, as he has often struggled with conversation and speaking in an inappropriate tone that may make some people uncomfortable or even scared

He isn’t very good when it comes to remembering academic studies but if it relates to his fixations (volleyball) he is extremely intelligent - this is seen clearly when Daichi shows their team hand gestures and Kageyama says he remembered them in a day

Kageyama uses masking a lot - it’s a technique people with ASD tend to do which involves copying other peoples actions in order to understand social situations, he does this many times in the anime/manga such as his awkward BBQ song dance, or high-fives

He visited a social worker once a week while he was little until he started middle school, resulting in his behaviours getting worse

Towards the end of his first year at Karasuno he went back to therapies regularly and has anger-management training in order to help him express himself in a manageable way - he probably won’t admit it but it helps a lot (key note is that having anger-management training often does not have anything to do with anger, simply just managing emotions in general but it often a great type of therapy for those with ASD although he is a bit of an angry boi sometimes)

ASD comes with repetitive, almost OCD-like tendencies - two examples include filing his nails every single day and having a very specific routine before going to bed that consists of drinking milk, putting on pjs, laying in bed and throwing + catching a ball, brushing his teeth and going to bed on his left side - if he doesn’t do these things at the right times/in the right order, he gets extremely anxious and agitated

It is important to remember people with ASD tend to also have another mental health issue, such as anxiety or depression

Ushijima - Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

autism buds with kageyama

I kid thats probably a bad idea

Ushijima was also diagnosed with Type 1/High-Functioning Autism when he was 5

Unfortunately due to the stigma around Autism, his family (besides his father) were not very accepting of this and he was put into therapy at a young age

While this was actually helpful for him, his family insisted his therapies should ‘cure’ him and were dismissive of the many times a doctor told them that ASD is not a curable disorder

Outside of therapy he does not receive much support from his family, except his father who got him a pair of noise-cancelling headphones he used to wear until he 8 whenever they went out together - he was only allowed to wear them if it was just him and his father, the rest of his family thought it made it too obvious there was ‘something wrong with the child’

Extending on this, Ushijima was very sensitive to sensory input as a child, and while he still is, it has become easier to manager as he has gotten older

His ASD is most prevalent in his lack of understand ways of communication, such as sarcasm or jokes, and tends to take things very literally 

@simp4satori and I came to the conclusion that if you were to call him daddy during sex, or ask him to ‘punish you’ the poor boy would have NO CLUE - would probably call your dad and tell him you needed to speak to him, or say you can’t watch anime for a week lol 

He is extremely direct when he talks, to the point where it comes across rude or hurtful but he doesn’t realise this until someone mentions it

Tendou probably helps him rephrase things from time-to-time in order for him to get his point across

He gets very anxious when faced with things he doesn’t know about or understand (this is mentioned by Tendou in the manga), this can include people, going to new places or trying new foods

It is important to remember people with ASD tend to also have another mental health issue, such as anxiety or depression

Tendou - Depression and Anxiety (also a highly sensitive person - that’s not a mental health disorder or illness but it does affect him)

Tendou’s mental health suffered from a young age due to bullying in school

This caused a lot of low self-esteem and low mood, and he was later on diagnosed with depression and anxiety

Only his family, Ushijima and his coach know about this, and even then, only his family know any details

No one would really expect Tendou to deal with such mental health issues as he always keeps a bubbly, happy persona around others - he doesn’t want people to think he is weak or cowardly

It is also hard for others to see and he is someone with high-highs and low-lows, so when he is happy or excited his emotions are quite extreme

Tendou’s anxiety relates a lot to his image, mainly his appearance and the way he acts, but he is also a general over thinker

He doesn’t have panic attacks as often as Tsukishima does, however they do happen occasionally when things just get too much

He often thinks that people are staring at him, or talking about him whenever he goes out, and he tends to hid this by seeming overly cocky or sardonic

When his depression hits, he tends to just feel sad or hopeless instead of numb, which tends to trigger his anxiety too

Tendou used to self-harm often around his hips/thighs however he hasn’t done so since the end of his first year of high-school 

Probably makes a lot of dark ‘jokes’, especially around suicide and people semi are like ‘...dude...you ok?’ and he’s just like ‘hahaha yeah im fine what’

He doesn’t like alone time too much as he tends to get trapped in his own thoughts

As expected of the guess monster, he is extremely good at reading and understanding people, which is how he finds it easier to help and communicate with Ushijima

Bokuto - ADHD

A lot of people at Fukurodani think Bokuto is just stupid, however he actually has ADHD

He was diagnosed a lot later than the rest at 12 years old

Bokuto tends to struggle with his studies as his attention-span is very low and can get distracted easily - either by things in the classroom or his own thoughts

He’s very forgetful, often forgetting his lunch at home or forgetting to do/bring in his homework, and this goes into volleyball too where he forgets how to do certain moves

Taking exams are the worst for Bokuto, he hates having to be still and quiet for such a long time and is very sensitive to little sounds or movements that distract his attention - you’ll often find his bouncing his leg or fiddling with his pen

He tends to butt into conversations or interrupt people when they are talking, he just gets a bit too enthusiastic to share his thoughts

He has extreme mood-swings too which we see often in the anime, especially when he is stressed or someone mentions his behaviours

Is very reckless - Akaashi has probably had to stop him from leaning too far out the window and almost falling to look something

The whole Fukurodani volleyball team are aware of his ADHD and do their best to help him and make him feel comfortable or accepted

They are the only people allowed to call him stupid - they will fight anyone else

I think there are more characters with mental health illnesses or disorders, such and Yamaguchi, Yachi, Kenma and Asahi having anxiety so I might write more at some point!

#jesus that was long #haikyuu #ushijima wakatoshi #kageyama tobio #tsukishima kei #bokuto koutaro #Tendou satori #Tendo Satori #headcannon #mental health #haikyuu imagine #haikyuu scenario #haikyuu!!

[discotreque]

LwD 1.10, “No Small Parts”

Well, that was the most fun I've had watching Star Trek in literally a quarter of a century.

I had high hopes for this series. I love TAS, largely because of its wacky outsized concepts that could only have worked in animation—not that they all did work, but the potential was so apparent to me, even as a kid reading the Alan Dean Foster novelizations—and as an adult, there's something about the imagination of Lower Decks's FX setpieces that transcends even the glorious CGI bonanzas of Discovery.

Pause for a confession. I've long pushed back against criticism of serialization in new Trek. That's just how TV is now, okay? Might as well complain about it being in widescreen. But I'm backing down a little, because I've realized there is something about Star Trek that's inextricable from at least a partially-episodic format. And while Picard was telling a different kind of story, I can't deny that my favourite episodes of Disco have been the ones with a mostly self-contained A-plot. After 10 delightfully episodic instalments of LwD, its focus on long-term development of characters instead of a season-spanning puzzle-plot (okay, mostly just Mariner, but we only have 10 × 22 minutes and she is the star) has been downright refreshing.

So here we are, at the end of the most consistent and well-executed Season 1 of a Star Trek series since, arguably, Those Old Scientists. And sure, if they'd had to produce another... yikes, 42 episodes? Then sure, they probably would have dropped a clunker or two—but they didn't, and winning on a technicality is still winning. I'm practically vibrating with excitement for Disco to come back next week, but damn, I'm going to miss this little show while it's on hiatus.

Spoilers below:

Something I've been keeping track of finally paid off this week! (Which never happens to me, lol.) The destruction of the USS Solvang marked the first present-day death(s) of any Starfleet officer on Lower Decks, the only other on-screen killing at all being a flashback in "Cupid's Errant Arrow". Which makes sense, being (a) a comedy, and (b) about typically "expendable" characters: it hasn't been afraid to flirt with a little darkness here and there, but killing people off at Star Trek's usual pace wouldn't just be wrong for the tone, it would be downright bizarre.

But... people die on Star Trek. That's one of the core themes of the show, really: space is full of knowledge and beauty, but also danger and terror, and believing that the former is worth the risk of the latter is (according to Trek) one of humanity's most noble traits. I'm the least bloodthirsty TV watcher I know, but the longer we went with a body count of nil—ships completely evacuated before they were destroyed, main characters hilariously maimed without permanent consequences, etc.—well, I didn't mind per se, but the absence of truly deadly stakes was definitely getting conspicuous.

Turns out they were saving it up for maximum impact. And holy fuck, I've never felt such a pit in my stomach watching a ship get destroyed that wasn't named Enterprise. It felt grim and brutal and somehow both much too quick and dreadfully inevitable—and yeah, it looked extremely fucking cool—and I'd like every other Star Trek property for the rest of time to take notes under a large bold heading labeled RESTRAINT.

Comedy doesn't need to do this, but my favourite comedy does, and in a way that few other art forms can even approach: lower my emotional defences by making me laugh, endear character(s) to me with goofy-but-relatable antics—then BAM, sucker-punch me in the motherfucking feels. M*A*S*H is probably the classic example on TV, Futurama was notorious for it, and even Archer has pulled it off a few times; it's also a staple of some of my favourite standup. I wasn't sure if Lower Decks was going to go there in Season 1—and wasn't sure if they'd earn it—but I knew if they did, that they'd nail it, and damn. Feels good to be right.

Last batch of notes for the season!!! I rambled enough already, so let's do it liveblog-style:

I fucking KNEW they were going to use "archive" visuals from TAS at some point, I KNEW IT :D

"THOSE OLD SCIENTISTS" ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I like chill and confident Boimler a lot? You can really see—

oh bRADWARD NOOOOO

That opening shot of the Solvang tracking down to the red giant was extremely Discovery-esque... minus the motion sickness, that is

A lady captain AND a lady first officer? That's—oh hey, it's Captain Dayton's brand-new ship. Hahaha, that means they're totally fucked, right?.

Yep! They sure a—umm, wh—shit, okay, but—oh no—no, you can't—wait DON'T

...fuck

FUCK.

Narrator: "And then Amy needed a five-hour break."

[live-action Star Trek showrunner voice] "Gee, Mike! Why does CBS let you have two cold opens?"

Okay, yes, the bit with Rutherford cycling through all the different attitudes in his implant was transparently an excuse for Eugene Cardero to vamp while waiting for something to do in the story, but as far as I'm concerned they can contrive a reason for him to do a bunch of different silly Rutherfords in a row any time they damn well want, because that was classic!!!

EXOCOMP EXOCOMP EXOCOMP EXOCOMP

AND THE EXOCOMP IS PAINTED LIKE THE EXOCOMP IS WEARING A LITTLE EXOCOMP-SIZED STARFLEET UNIFORM

EXOCOMP!!!!!

The slow burn and now the payoff of the Mariner-is-Freeman's-secret-daughter plot has been executed so well. I'm beyond impressed with this writer's room, y'all—they are threading a hell of a needle here

"Wolf 359 was an inside job" would have been a spit-take if I'd had anything in my mouth

...how many memos do you think Starfleet Command has had to issue asking people to stop calling the USS Sacramento "the Sac"?

CAN WE TALK ABOUT HOW THEY'VE DECORATED THE SHUTTLECRAFT SEQUOIA THOUGH

Is, uh, is it weird if I'm starting to ship Tendi and Peanut Hamper a little? It is weird, isn't it. I knew it was weird...

Coital barbs??? I take back everything I said about wanting to know more about Shaxs/T'Ana.

The "good officer" version of Mariner is... kind of hot, tbh! But Tawny Newsome has done such a great job of building this character all season that her voice getting uncharacteristically clipped and martial and "sir! yes, sir!" is also deeply, deeply weird

Ah, so this is literally exactly like when TNG (and DS9) would bring in, and then blow up, a never-before-seen Galaxy-class ship, just to underscore that we're facing a real threat this week, baby. And hey, it fucking worked—my heart was in my throat, omg, for the reveal of the—

PAKLEDS?????????

The fucking PAKLEDS have been gluing weapons to their ships for the last 15 years. GREAT.

(We interrupt the SHIP BEING SLICED INTO SCRAP for an interesting bit of world-building: on Earth, the traditional First Contact Day meal is salmon!)

"I need a dangerous, half-baked solution that breaks Starfleet codes and totally pisses me off! That's an order." I'm starting to think Captain Freeman might actually be overqualified for the Cerritos, y'all—she's REALLY awesome

OH SHIT IT'S BADGEY, this is a TERRIBLE IDEA

"How much contraband have you hidden on my ship?" "I don't know! A lot!"

Awwww, Boims!!!

AHAHAHAHAHAHA, FUCK THIS, PEANUT HAMPER OUT

BADGEY NOOOOO

AUGHHHHH WHAT THE CHRIST DID HE JUST—BUT—RUTHERFORD'S IMPLANT????

RUTHERFORD!!!!!!!!!!

SHAXS!!!!!!

F U C K ! ! ! ! !

ahaIOPugdfhagntpgjrq90e5mgu90qe5;oigoqgw4ouegrw5SP;IAEHURVa IT’S THE TITAN???????????

IT'S CAPTAIN WILLIAM T. RIKER ON THE MOTHERFUCKING TITAN??????????

i'm screaming I'M SCREAMINGGGGGG​TGGGTGQER;​LBHAOIBVNV;​OAPBIJNVagr;h;​oagruipuwtnaetbaetgq35ghqet

I'M SO GLAD THIS WASN'T SPOILED FOR ME WTF

I AM WEEPING LIKE A CHILD

...

(Just a brief 20-minute pause this time)

And oh wow, seeing Will and Deanna hits different after Picard too, in a few different ways, which I may even get into later now that my heartrate is back to normal, lmao

Oh, I am always here for some jokes at the expense of the Sovereign class. The Enterprise-E sucked. They should have built a new bigger model of the D and new Galaxy-class interiors for the TNG movies, and I will die on that hill

OKAY, FINE, YOU GOT ME, RUTHERFORD × TENDI WOULD BE ADORABLE AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY GOOD SETUP FOR IT

Awwww, Shaxs though :( Congrats on the single most badass death in Star Trek history, dude. The Prophets would—well, the actual Prophets would probably be slightly confused about most of it, but Kira Nerys would be proud of you and I feel like that probably counts for more. RIP, Papa Bear

I am here all damn DAY for the Mariner–Riker parallels, ahahahahaha

Pausing it to record my prediction that Boimler's commitment to not caring about rank anymore is going to last 3... 2...

Yep.

Bradward, how DARE YOU.

"Those guys had a long road, getting from there to here." OH FOR THE LOVE OF—

What a brilliant way to resolve and renew the various character arcs and relationships moving into Season 2! The writers could easily have brought everything back to status quo—chaotic Mariner fighting with her mom and being a bad influence on Boimler, etc.—and done another 10 just like these, but I suspect that wouldn't have been ambitious enough for these writers. What a blast. I cannot wait for more.

Thanks for following along, friends! Stay tuned for my (similarly patchy and amateur) coverage of Discovery, starting next week!

#star trek #star trek lower decks #lwd spoilers #lower decks spoilers #lower decks #amy's episode notes

[lulusoblue]

this isn’t me vagueing or anything, or I’m not intending to because people have previously expressed the same of what I’m about to rant on, and I don’t want to @ or refer to any blog specifically for reigniting my bafflement of this take because this isn’t a personal grudge match against anyone, just a general *what* of this concept, but

jesus h christ on a stick, why do people want BioShock Infinite’s Elizabeth to have been a racist?

I get an AU fic of another timeline where Comstock’s motives weren’t messy as fuck and he didn’t just plan to force his messiah with a spinal shock collar from the word go, like “what if” stuff, but like saying she should have been racist in the original game and actually wanting this change because it would “improve” her character?

like, disclaimer because I am a white woman who may not have a say in things like this anyway, but honestly the racism angle was a huge mistake in Infinite in the first place, and should never have been done in this game because the lead writer is a white man and I can bet my bottom dollar he most likely did not consult anyone on race or racism beyond what historically accurate heinous racist acts to not depict in the game so players could “sympathise” with the flying racists getting their dues post-Finkton.

You know how important the racism of Columbia is to him? How relevant is it to the ending of the game? Answer: it isn’t. BioShock 1’s ending has the failings of Rapture relevant to the ending regarding the player’s choices. The ending of Infinite, however, focuses on Elizabeth, Booker and the multiverse, where nobody mentions the Vox or how Columbia was a failure or anything. Nothing with the Vox Populi or Columbia’s hubris is linked to the game’s ending. Both are left feeling superfluous. It was just something to stick into the background rather than be a story element that properly tied in with the story’s real focus. If you wanted Levine to write a better racism story I would have to ask you why??? Do you trust him to?????

What reason was there that we switched from extreme nationalism and its consequences in the demos as late as 2012 to “racism bad but the victims of it are also bad if they fight back” in 2013? Who fucking knows. Probably shock value, because I don’t see how time and resources would cause such a change from what Irrational put out there in interviews leading up to release. Given how Levine tried to retcon Daisy’s story in Burial at Sea (and keep in mind Black Lives Matter didn’t start as a movement until a few months after Infinite’s release and before BaS Episode 2 was released) he certainly didn’t commit to “Daisy and Comstock are the same”. If he had conviction for his “both sides” story, he wouldn’t have tried to rewrite it to Daisy choosing to play monster as a necessary sacrifice for her cause (which itself is its own can of worms with how it now plays out).

Considering as well how we had that article revealing how long it took to get a playable build out of Irrational thanks to Levine’s lack of solid direction, as well as the recent revelation that he had never read Ayn Rand when making a game about a city BUILT ON HER IDEOLOGY, I’m pretty sure the poor writing around Columbia’s racism and the Vox Populi in the final game was just made up as he went along to push out a finished product, because it had been five years at that point and 2k was piiiiiiissed.

Then we have how Elizabeth is your companion character, your escort mission. Friends, do you know how escort mission characters were viewed back pre-2013? Bad. The AI could just look at a player funny and they’d draw a 5 page comic on how awful a character they were and post it to deviantart. One of the worst levels in BioShock was when we had to escort a very killable Little Sister with a fishbowl filter on our FOV, and one of the major complaints people had with BioShock 2 was how they had an OPTIONAL escort mission to get more mutation juice. We didn’t start getting games with escort characters like Elizabeth or Clementine or Ellie, characters people actually cared about and WANTED to protect, until around 2012-2013.

You think the people creating Elizabeth, the escort mission character built to be a likeable, enjoyable to be with and empathise with her character, who can never get hurt or kidnapped in combat and actively helps the player, should have had her been a racist??? In a post-Mass Effect world??????

Ashley Williams is a woman from a military family. She is a proud member of the Alliance military who has concerns on working with aliens after having had no prior experience working with aliens. However, you can ease those concerns and help her warm up to building alliances in the first Mass Effect game. Ashley grows to trust alien squadmates, and even without your character’s influence will regard two anti-alien groups with disgust for their outright racism and human centrism.

And here’s the kicker, even with that nuance to her character, in a game of plenty of other more overtly racist and prejudiced characters? ASHLEY IS STILL THE BUTT OF THE SPACE RACISM JOKES. She had flaws, she developed, she proves her loyalties to the point of refusing to work with you when you’re forced to join one of the human centric groups, AND SHE’S STILL MOCKED FOR SPACE RACISM. EVEN IN PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL SHE’S RETROACTIVELY REGARDED AS BEING DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH. THAT IS HOW MUCH THE FANDOM AROUND MASS EFFECT HAS AFFECTED HOW ASHLEY IS SEEN.

And you want Infinite to have Elizabeth be very obviously racist with real life racism? (which is the vibe i’ve been getting) Like, you think all the people behind Elizabeth’s design, her game functionality, her interactions and personality, would give players ammunition to hate a character you’re supposed to enjoy having around on purpose? You think they’re going to give the actual racists and bigots and nazis of the internet a mascot????? Because we already had the facebook header image debacle for a Columbian propaganda poster, you KNOW they would.

And personally I don’t think it would make great character development, because the game is not in the format for that kind of exploration of character’s story. BioShock Infinite is not an RPG with you making dialogue choices with squadmates where you feel like you really influenced them to see the error of their ways. Infinite is a linear shooter. There is no real sense of the passage of time in a linear shooter, the player will experience it like it really doesn’t happen in the span of 20 hours.

Unlearning racism and religious brainwashing is not a quick fixit, and a quick fixit is how it would feel in the 20-40 hours you take to play through the entire game. If Infinite had had Elizabeth going from “I’m racist” to “*sees a black person suffering* maybe racism is wrong???” to “i am no longer racist, I see the error of my ways, you can like me now” in the span of what feels like less than a day to players in a linear game, people would be super critical of the pretty white girl getting cured of her bigotry way too quickly and how the game makes it like we’re supposed to applaud her for being so brave and mature and open-minded, and how much Levine really doesn’t understand nuance or anything about how internalised racism works.

BioShock Infinite’s final release proved that the Vox Populi should not have been handled the way they were. Yes, more media should be discussing and making audiences aware of what is racist, and how irrational it really is when you get down to it, but BioShock Infinite should not have been that media. It was originally written for two opposing sides in a city built on extreme nationalism, much like how BioShock was for objectivism, and then changed relatively last minute. It was written by a white man who’d already written the franchise’s only gay named character as a horrific monster of a man (Cohen) and has expressed how autism is what made a person evil (Tenenbaum). It was written with Elizabeth in mind, a main character who was literally designed to be an escort mission players would actually enjoy, most likely from Day 1 given how much behind the scenes stuff we know of her.

I wouldn’t trust someone like Levine to write a story of a character unlearning racism over the course of a game’s story, i don’t think he should ever have touched a story where racism is a such a prominent element with a 100 foot pole.

#in which i rant #bioshock #bioshock infinite #elizabeth comstock

[midnight-aether]

Why Vox by Christina Dalcher is not a good novel: Review & Analysis

The premise of this novel is incredibly interesting, don’t get me wrong: Vox (2018) is about a dystopian future, in which US American women are only allowed to speak 100 words per day and must wear a bracelet that shocks them if they go over that limit. Women also aren’t allowed to write, read or use sign language. The main character is a genius linguist called Jean who hates every man in her life, including her husband Patrick and her own sons.

The first sentence already tells us three things about this novel: (1) it’s told from a first-person perspective, which means the reader will be aware of the protagonist’s every thought, (2) the oppressive regime in the novel goes by the name of Pure Movement, so it’s probably going to have something to do with religion, and (3) the action takes place in the span of a week, which I feel like it’s a huge spoiler for the fact that I won’t care for any of the characters at the end of the book, since there’s only so much character development that can happen in that time.

If anyone told me I could bring down the President, and the Pure Movement, and that incompetent little shit Morgan LeBron in a week’s time, I wouldn’t believe them.

There will be spoilers from this point on.

The Setting and the Protagonist

The main character in Vox, Dr. Jean McClellan, is a specialist researcher in the field of aphasia, that is, according to Wikipedia, “an inability to comprehend or formulate language because of damage to specific brain regions”. At some point in the novel we are made aware that a colleague of Jean’s, with her help, has discovered a cure for aphasia, even though they are both linguists and neither a chemist nor a medical researcher. However, she was unable to publish this discovery, due to the conveniently timed sexist apocalypse that stripped her of all her academic titles, as the reader is often reminded.

Jean is married to her husband Patrick and has four children with him:  three boys and a girl. Jean evidently resents every man in her family,  especially Patrick and their 17-year-old son, Steven. Apparently they’ve  all been very quickly indoctrinated to believe women shouldn’t be  allowed to speak, so they treat Jean and Sonia, the daughter,  accordingly.

There is a whole subplot about Steven, but it’s so plain and uninteresting that there isn’t much to say about it. Basically, he is all for the Pure Movement and their ideals of purity for women, but then still sleeps with his high school girlfriend and proceeds to tattle on her. When she is taken away to a camp, he realizes his mistake a leaves to save her. At some point he is captured by the Movement and ridiculed on TV. Jean doesn’t really care that he’s gone, but is pleasantly surprised when he reappears at the end safe and sound.

At this point, the Pure Movement has only been in power for less  than a year and a half. This movement is very overtly described as a Christian uprising that originated within the bible belt  and had spread to the entirety of the USA. The followers of the  Movement also adopt overly conservative views on gender roles, marriage  and sex, leaving very little doubt about the roots of the oppressive regime in Vox.

The Plot

The main intrigue in Vox begins when the brother of the US president starts suffering from aphasia after a “skiing accident” and the government comes to Jean for help, despite her being a woman in a society that literally won’t let women speak. Why do they come to her instead of going to any other male scientist? Because apparently Jean is the best linguist in the whole country... even though, as far as the government (and the reader) knows, she’s only been researching aphasia for a couple of years and hasn’t found a cure yet. Well, the author herself has a doctorate in linguistics (not in the field of aphasia), which brings me to my first problem with this novel: the blatant and, quite frankly conceited, self-insert.

You may have noticed that I wrote “skiing accident” in quotation marks on the last paragraph. That’s because it’s hinted a couple of times throughout the novel that the president’s brother was actually injured on purpose by the government, but this turns out to be false. Later it seems like he was never even injured in the first place, but this is never clearly resolved, as the character himself never appears “onscreen”; however, it’s not a cliffhanger that perpetually haunts the reader.

Back to the story: Jean agrees to help because, by taking the job, she and her daughter get to remove the shock bracelets for the duration of the research. The government then proceeds to give Jean one week (remember the novel’s first sentence) to produce a cure that, to the best of their knowledge, hasn’t even been found yet. If that sounds like a stretch, they even let her work with her old research team of three people, which is supposed to fully convince the reader that a week is a completely plausible time frame to discover, produce, test and approve a cure for an illness.

The Side Characters

This team is composed of Jean, her former colleagues Lin and Lorenzo, and their supervisor Morgan, who you might remember from the novel’s opening sentence. Morgan is apparently an idiot linguist who is very unfit for his position, which is supposed to show how twisted the society in Vox is, as they put the dumb people in charge just because they’re men, and silence the smart women. What it actually does is show that this version of the USA apparently only has a handful of linguists and no other skilled scientists.

This is the novel’s description of Lin:

Lin Kwan is a small woman. I often told Patrick she could fit in one of my pant legs – and I’m only five and a half feet and 120 soaking wet, thanks to the stress diet I’ve been on for the past several months. Everything about her is small: her voice, her almond eyes, the sleek bob that barely reaches below her ears. Lin’s breasts and ass make me look like a Peter Paul Rubens model. But her brain – her brain is a leviathan of gray matter. It would have to be; MIT doesn’t hand out dual PhDs for nothing.

Here we learn that Lin is small, not conventionally attractive (read: small boobs and ass), and finally that she is incredibly intelligent. For some reason, Jean finds it important to describe Lin’s curves, as well as her own, before mentioning Lin’s intelligence. No, this novel was not written by Michael Bay. Also, for representation’s sake, Lin is Asian and a lesbian, yet every other major character in this novel is a white straight person.

Well, there is another lesbian in this story, actually. Jean’s old college roommate, Jackie Juarez, who Jean hasn’t seen since before the machocalypse. We get to know Jackie through flashbacks: the novel tries to portray her as this loud, over-the-top feminist who often tries to make Jean join the rallies and protests against the growing Pure Movement. Alas, Jean chooses to focus on school instead of going to protests and forever regrets this, thinking that if only she had fought, she might have changed history.

I don’t know how to feel about this novel’s depiction of Jackie. She is made out to be a stereotypical feminist lesbian, who actively protests against the uprising of the Pure Movement, and yet whose efforts are in vain. Here is an excerpt that characterizes how Jean sees Jackie, and therefore how the reader is supposed to see her:

“You have to vote, Jean,” [Jackie] said, throwing down the stack of campaign leaflets she’d been running around campus with while I was prepping for what I knew would be a monster of an oral exam. “You have to.”

“The only things I have to do are pay taxes and die,” I said, not holding back the sneer in my voice. That semester was the beginning of the end for Jackie an me. I’d started dating Patrick and preferred our nightly discussions about cognitive processes to Jackie’s rants about whatever new thing she had found to protest.

Here you can see that Jean clearly dismisses Jackie and “whatever new thing she had found to protest”, and instead muses about what an intellectual she is. I understand that this is a flashback, and it’s supposed to show that Jean was wrong not to care about protesting the Pure Movement, but this is told from present Jean’s perspective, so it’s clear she still rolls her eyes at Jackie’s activism in general. It feels like Vox is trying to say that actively expressing your ideas and concerns is useless, since Jean eventually overthrows the government with science and not through activism – and it even takes her no longer than a week to do it, as we learn at the beginning of this novel. There is a lot to unpack here,  but I still wouldn’t recommend thinking too hard about the ideas in this book.  

Jackie only becomes relevant to the plot towards the end. At some point she is held hostage by the government, so that Jean is forced to finish her work. Why the government chose to kidnap Jean’s old college roommate who she hasn’t seen or spoken about in years instead of, say, her daughter, we will never know. In the end, Jackie is only there so that Jean can save her and “redeem” herself for not having been there for Jackie in the past.

Lorenzo, the last member of the team, is Jean’s love affair since way before the Pure Movement effectively took over. The novel likes to remind the reader that Jean is with the Italian hunk Lorenzo because she despises her husband Patrick, so that makes cheating okay. Eventually we learn that Jean is pregnant with Lorenzo’s child, so he offers to let her escape with him to Italy as his wife. Yet Jean can’t allow herself to leave without her daughter Sonia – she’s fine with never seeing any of her sons again, though. She considers this for a while as she works on the cure for aphasia.

The Ending

At some point during the week, Lin disappears (we later learn she was imprisoned due to big gay activity). Jean and Lorenzo announce that they’ve discovered the cure and even test the serum on a random neighbour of Jean’s who happens to have aphasia as well. Also, Jean’s mother had an aneurysm earlier that week and also started suffering from aphasia. The government is pleased with the results and take the serum away.

Later, Morgan, the supervisor, takes Jean and Lorenzo to a strange lab underground to have them further develop the cure. There they walk through a hallway full of chimpanzees in cages, and there is a bizarre scene in which Jean gets too close to a cage and is attacked by a chimpanzee. There is no purpose to this scene other than to shock the reader, honestly. Here, the novel briefly, yet disrespectfully brings up a very real woman who was mauled by a chimpanzee in 2009 and managed to survive (Wikipedia link, no pictures), by having Jean think something along the lines of “oh no, I don’t want to end up like her!” during the attack.

Jean is fine, obviously. We’re over 200 pages in and nearing the end of the novel when the first interesting development happens in the form of a plot twist: the government has been using their cure in order to create an anti-serum that gives people aphasia. Their plan is to create a more effective means to silence women, of course, since they  wouldn’t be able to comprehend or formulate language any more. When Jean discovers this, she wants to quit, but is forced to stay when they reveal they’ve been keeping Jackie, Lin and Lin’s girlfriend hostage in the same building for this very occasion. And maybe also Steven back at that camp, but we don’t even care about him at this point.

The climax of the story arrives, and everything happens so quickly the reader doesn’t have time to digest it. I had to reread what actually happened at the end, because I couldn’t remeber it anymore. I’ll try to recreate the pacing of the ending in the following paragraph, so you can understand what I mean:

Jean and Lorenzo save the lesbians (who are the only likeable characters, so that made me happy), Morgan dies, I think, and they escape with the anti-serum. Patrick appears and decides to help, so they send him to the White House with an anti-serum bomb that suceeds, giving the president and all evil politicians aphasia. Patrick is killed during this, freeing Jean from their marriage and allowing her to escape with Lorenzo and all of her children, whom she suddenly stopped resenting. The Pure Movement collapses and all is well, thanks to... well, thanks to Patrick and Lorenzo.

Conclusion

Vox is a mess of a novel. The characters are unlikeable, the plot is badly paced and the ending is too sudden. I really didn’t care about what happened to any character at any point, which is incredibly disappointing. Additionally, there are many things wrong with the political message in Vox, namely the idea that all religious people are inherently evil and that men generally wish to control and silence women. The premise was good, the writing was fine, but the performance was terrible, unfortunately. Vox feels like it was rushed to come out in time for the dystopian fiction craze of 2017-18 caused by the release of The Handmaid’s Tale TV series. Hopefully we’ll see better work from the author in the future.

Blog | Goodreads

#book review #booklr #bookblr #bookish #reading #bibliophile #booklover #litblr #reader #book #books #review #library #feminism #anti feminism #radfem #sexism #vox #dystopian #dystopia #christina dalcher #vox spoilers #tw: death #tw: animal attack

[lliaq]

okay, now that I’ve slept on it I’m actually gonna try to put down my thoughts on the season, so obvious TUA season 2 spoilers below and it’s probably going to get really long

Just to preface this, I haven’t read any of the comics, so I can’t speak to how the show compares to them.

Guess I’m gonna start with the positives, and I think what I enjoyed most about the season where just little moments between the siblings. Obvious standouts being Ben getting to talk to Vanya and Diego. I think those were the only two scenes that acutally made me tear up a bit. It was just really nice seeing him get that opportunity, and something that I’ve wanted to see since S1. It would have been even nicer if he got a moment with all his siblings, but hey, I’ll take what I can get. Another one was at the very end with Vanya and Diego just sitting on the stairs together. Just a nice little moment, even if it was short.

Luther apologizing to Vanya was a pleasant surprise and showed that he actually used his time alone to reflect and have a bit of character growth, so that was another plus.

I overall liked Allison and Ray’s relationship, and I was okay with the way it ended. It was kind of bittersweet, but it made sense and felt in character.

On that note, I also liked that Allison learned to achieve things without her powers, because never having to do that was kind of a big note of her character in S1. Not necessarily sure it had to be done by taking her voice away, I think if anything it would have been even better if she did it by choice, but I’ll get back to that.

I enjoyed the whole old Five vs “young” Five thing. Not much more to add to that, really.

And lastly, I enjoyed Reginal a lot more than I thought I would. It was interesting to see a bit of a different side of him when he was with Grace, felt like it gave his character a bit more depth, and I mean the actor is just fantastic. Like, I fucking despise Reginald, but it’s a joy to watch his performance. The way he went in on Diego at the dinner was fucking brutal, man. That was heartbreaking to watch, and the fact that none of the others stood up for him sucked, but honestly I think it just shows that despite them bonding a little, they still have a ways to go in terms of being a functional family. S1 didn’t span all that much time, and they were separated for most of their time in the 60s, so it makes sense that they’re still learning in that department. Them getting into the car with Vanya showed that they’re getting there though. Also, to get back to Reginald, I think they’ve made it pretty clear now that he’s an alien, so there’s that too. No more confusion about that.

Now on to the so-so stuff. Things that were neither all good nor all bad.

Vanya & Sissy - oh boy man. I mean first of all: give me that lesbian farm life, hell yes. I was rooting for them from the start, and I just really loved all their interactions. Also, idk if that was intentional on Ellen’s part or not, but her chemistry with Sissy was leagues above whatever the fuck was going on with Leonard. That being said- I’m personally not a fan of cheating storylines, just in general. I get why, in this case, but yeah. And unlike with Ray, I really wish they would have taken Sissy and Harlan with them to 2019. Because, for one: can we at least have one happy gay couple on this show? And second: They both deserved to have a life where they’re not constantly judged for who they are. From a character standpoint I get that going to the future would be really scary and shit, but just imagine man. Vanya and Sissy could have been together without having to hide, and Harlan could have vastly benefited from the better understanding of autism we have now. Not that either of those aspects are perfect in 2019, but they’re a long way from the 60s.

Diego and Lila’s relationship I honestly didn’t care much about. It felt like they just completely dismissed Patch and the impact her death had, by not even so much as giving her a mention. And I also just didn’t really feel it man. I mean they spent some time together in the asylum, but it seemed like they weren’t even friends really - and then by the end of the season they love each other, like girl, it’s been less than a week. Relax.

Lila on her own, I did kind of like, but I feel like she could have used a bit more development, and a little less ‘I had sex with this guy once like five days ago and now I love him more than anything’

Ben. Ben Ben Ben. I was kind of up and down on his arc. I actually liked that he was just so done with Klaus’ shit, even if calling Dave a fling might have crossed the line a bit for me. Some of the posession stuff was weird (though I’m glad they at least had the ground rules talk), but at the same time getting to see him experience the most basic sensations like air on his face and dirt under his feet was nice. He did also save the world through the power of communication and love, so you know- good job, Ben. And then they killed him (again). Ngl, I was pissed at that- but I figured they would probably find a way to bring him back somehow, so I held off judgement on that until the end, and I was right. Still not entirely happy, and whether or not that’s going to change will likely depend on what happens with S3.

Klaus’ cult story line was kind of eh. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t really like it either. His attempts to save Dave were more interesting, even if they ultimately didn’t work. Other than that, he didn’t really go through any growth this season. It did piss me off that Allison enabled his drinking after he relapsed. Fuck that.

I’m glad we got to see a little bit of how Allison losing her voice affected her, but I think they could have done more there. Idk, it just felt a bit lackluster for something so huge. Like I mentioned earlier, her living a life of never actually having to work for anything was something that shaped her character and personality in S1, and I‘m glad she’s had that realization. That being said, I think it would have been even more impactful if she worked for what she wanted w/o using her powers by choice, showing that she was was willing to put in the effort to grow and change, rather than being forced into it by circumstance. But you know, sometimes life works like that, and people don’t change unless they’re forced into a situation where they have no other option.

And, somewhat related, I think the last point for this section is Allison and Vanyas relationship. While I’m glad that they’re closer now, I wish they would have at least adressed Vanya slitting her throat. I understand that Allison doesn’t blame her, we already saw that at the end of S1, but c’mon. At least have a short conversation about it, because that was a big thing. It feels like they just used that to fuel the ‘Allison needs to learn how to do things without her powers’ storyline, and then it just got dropped, never to be mentioned again. The show tends to do that a lot, and it completely diminishes the impact of these big moments.

Okay, now to the purely negatives, here we go.

Luther moping over Allison. For the love of god. Listen, Luther did grow on me this season, compared to S1 - but I was so fed up with his moping around. Can we just not do the incest thing anymore, please. I already went through that shit with Shadowhunters (except there it at least wasn’t actually incest), I don’t wanna do it again.

Harlan. I honestly did not care for him at all. That being said, I usually don’t care about child characters, so that’s not a big surprise and not necessarily the show’s fault. But also, the fuck even was that storyline. I’m sorry, but it just made no sense. Which actually leads me right to the next point

Inconsistently written powers. Diego doing the thingy with the bullets like since when tf can he do that? I understand that the show already changed his powers from the comics, but up until that point it was strictly about knives. We never see him curve or manipulate (or whatever it is he actually does) any other objects, so this just felt so random and out of nowhere, and like they just wanted to give him a ‘badass powers moment’. If they wanted to indicate that his powers were more than what we’ve seen in S1, literally all they had to do was have him use them on something that’s not a knife at any point in the season. A 2 second shot, done. And then you don’t get to the finale and are suddenly like “the fuck”. But, boy, Vanya was even worse. Sounds. That’s what we learn her powers are in S1. Sounds, she manipulates sounds and sound waves. So how in the everliving fuck does she a) bring someone back to life, b) tranfser part of her powers to that person and create a magical connection, and c) take that part of her powers back? None of that makes any sense whatsover. The stuff in S1 where she’s sucking the life out of her siblings was already a stretch, but they’ve just made it worse this season. And this is just a minor gripe with the VFX, but her floating out of the barn looked so bad. I know it’s hard to make floating/flying people look good and natural, but other shows and movies have done it, so it’s not like it’s impossible.

And lastly: The villains. They were terrible, period.

I don’t like the Handler that much, she’s just so...plain and boring and really the only thing she has going for her are the outfits. Nice outfits don’t make a good story though. But the Swedes were even worse. Just every scene they were in felt like it dragged and I just wanted to skip past it. And then they have the fucking funeral scene with swedish Adele like are you kidding me? Am I supposed to feel bad for these pieces of white toast with zero personality or development? ??? Honestly, they could have cut them out completely and replaced them with more development for Lila and I would have been perfectly happy with that. Or replaced them with literally anything else. I don’t think I would have felt like I was missing anything important. Also, AJ? What was up with that? Again, haven’t read the comics so idk if he’s a big deal or not in them, but I really thought he would play a bigger role. That felt like such a waste of a character and like what even was the point?

I really feel like AoS (esp. S1-4) raised my bar for well written and developed villains. Admittedly, a 22 episode season allows for a lot more time to actually do that than a 10 episode season, but still. If you have less time to develop characters, then you need tighter writing and TUA completely dropped the ball on that one.

Okay. I think that’s it. I mean, I probably forgot a bunch of stuff, but these were the things most prominently on my mind after letting everything sink in for a bit. Overall I’m pretty meh about the season as a whole. I’ll probably watch S3 (if they renew it, that is), but I’m not super hyped about it or anything. The only thing keeping me interested are sibling interactions and the Ben reveal (even though his emo hair is an atrocity. I’m sorry Ben, I love you, but no.)

#tua #tua spoilers #boy this got longer than I thought it would

[elyvorg]

braveeno replied to your post “I personally like the idea of Shuichi getting hurt or killed, because...”

But Kaede’s arc is not as well developed as Kaito’s. Yes, She grew desperate to kill, but at the very end, she gets sanitized of any wrong doing, so her actions and her reasons are nearly invalidated because all Shuichi sees her as his dead girlfriend.

She died more so for Shuichi’s development than Kaito. When she dies, she becomes an object of Shuichi’s guilt until Ch6, in which she is proven innocent and turned into a martyr, her flaws seemingly erased.

Of course Kaede's arc wasn't as developed as Kaito's, because it didn't have nearly as much time to be. Both she and Kaito had somewhat similar arcs about selflessly wanting to do anything they could to protect everyone around them, feeling like they’d failed in their efforts so far, and eventually growing desperate enough to keep protecting everyone within some kind of time limit that they became willing to kill for it. Kaede's version of this arc had to happen quickly enough to fit in one chapter, because the protagonist-swap twist really wouldn't work any later than that. Meanwhile, Kaito's version of this arc could span five chapters and not just one because his self-destructive selflessness was much more complex than Kaede's - in fact, he was probably (out-universely) written to be more complex than her on purpose, because the writers knew they'd have all that time to explore him. If Kaito had been the one to die selflessly in chapter 1 and Kaede in chapter 5, that would have wasted most of Kaito's potential, and I'm not sure Kaede could have quite lived up to that with her own.

I also really think the memory of Kaede is used less for Shuichi's guilt and more to push Shuichi forward and convince him he needs to keep being strong to fulfil her wish. Which is also exactly what Kaito is to Shuichi once he's gone. (And that's what both of them died wanting to be to him, so it really doesn't do their own arcs a disservice at all!) The only reason that's perhaps not as apparent for Kaito is because he only spends one chapter being a fallen inspiration to Shuichi, whereas Kaede spends most of the game like that - unavoidably so, because she died earlier.

Regardless of exactly what the memory of her is used for, though, obviously Kaede’s not going to be able to continue to have her own arc after she’s dead. That doesn't mean she didn't have a great one while she was alive! Sure, it was short, but someone needed to be the chapter 1 culprit, and doing it the way they did with Kaede was probably the literal best possible way to make a chapter 1 culprit feel like an important, developed character and not just a throwaway like in the previous two games.

But most importantly... no, Kaede is not sanitised of all wrongdoing, or however else you want to word that, in chapter 6. I’ve talked about this at one point on my sideblog in which I did a lengthy commentary of the entire game, so I'll quote a bit of that here:

So, I’ve seen people complain that Shuichi acts like Kaede was perfect and innocent and without fault at this point in the trial… but that’s not really what he’s actually doing here. Admittedly, he doesn’t properly acknowledge to himself that Kaede was still guilty, since that’s something I imagine he’d want to avoid thinking about too much, so he is still being a little influenced by his own personal bias of how much she meant to him. But he is also not trying to incorrectly argue, to himself or out loud, that she was ever innocent, and I think that’s important to keep in mind. All he ever says is “she didn’t actually kill anyone”, which is true on a technical level relating to her being executed for it, and that’s the context in which he said that.

The gist of the rest of what I talk about at around that point in that post is that, regardless of the moral responsibility that she does still have for Rantaro's death, Kaede should not have been executed according to the rules of the game, and that's the part that Shuichi focuses on and gets the most upset and passionate about. And yeah, although he never tries to argue that Kaede was innocent, Shuichi does kind of avoid thinking about the part where she was still guilty - but that's fine. He's a character. He's allowed to be biased; that doesn't change just because he's the protagonist whose perspective we see the story through.

Shuichi is an unreliable narrator who overlooks or misinterprets or fails to properly think about a lot of things in this story. If we judged the quality of every character's arc based on how much of it Shuichi sees and openly acknowledges, then Kaito's arc would be way “worse” than Kaede's despite being more complex and spanning far longer, because Shuichi notices almost none of what he goes through. But that doesn't mean Kaito's arc isn't there or that it isn't good, or that he doesn't have weaknesses and flaws. Of course all of that is still there in the story!

However, it's up to the player to notice for themselves what's going on outside of Shuichi's perception and come to their own conclusions separately from him. And it's easier to do that for Kaede than it is for Kaito, because we spend most of a chapter in her head (even if the game is omitting a few thoughts for the sake of the twist) and she openly talks about the mistakes she made and the weaknesses she had at the end of her trial in a way that Kaito only very slightly does at the end of his.

So when it's revealed in chapter 6 that Kaede didn't directly kill Rantaro, that's also something that's up to us to interpret outside of Shuichi's perspective on it and evaluate Kaede's actions ourselves. That's kind of the point. And, heck, if anything, the revelations about Kaede's crime in chapter 6 add to her story rather than diminish it. They show that she was very deliberately manipulated by the mastermind - the person she was trying to kill! - into killing someone innocent for the sake of making an entertaining killing game. That’s really interesting! That adds a delightful extra layer when you're replaying chapter 1 that wouldn't be there if the whole truth really was that Rantaro's death was only Kaede's fault. That’s obviously why the writers included this lategame twist, not for any purpose that has anything to do with shallowly “erasing her flaws”.

Neither is Kaede even remotely presented as nothing but Shuichi's "dead girlfriend" once she's gone, for that matter. Yes, it appears that Shuichi had romantic feelings for her, but the canon story makes literally no explicit reference to this, not while she’s alive or after she’s dead. Shuichi's crush on her is entirely incidental and not the point; the point that the narrative and that Shuichi's thoughts on her throughout the game make is that she was his friend who supported him and inspired him to be stronger. Just like Kaito also goes on to be! Anyone reducing Kaede to some shallow fridged-female-romantic-interest trope is doing that reducing themselves, because that's really not the actual narrative that exists in the game.

I once saw some writing advice on the topic of killing off characters that suggested imagining the character you're planning to kill as the protagonist of the story and considering whether that story would feel unsatisfyingly unfinished if they died there and then. That's practically what V3 actually does with Kaede! They didn't have to - they could always have just made Shuichi the protagonist from the start. Imagine if that had been the case: Kaede's death would have been far more likely to come across as cheap and only-there-to-develop-Shuichi, even though the actual objective events that happened would be exactly the same. So I really believe that they made Kaede the protagonist in chapter 1 not only for the plot twist factor, but also so that they could emphasise that her actions and her story were about her and not just Shuichi.

#danganronpa v3 #danganronpa v3 spoilers #kaede akamatsu #shuichi saihara #kaito momota #ramble #braveeno #in which i explain why kaede is written and developed perfectly well actually

[twatd]

Getting TWATD at the Wake, i: WicDiv #45 Reactions

Every month, two writers have returned to this blog. They did an essay each. For five years. And now it’s all over.

The Wicked + The Divine #45 is out, showing us what the gods did after the cycle ended. We’re following their lead and breaking our own rules. We won’t be writing the normal essays about the issue. Less a remembrance of WicDiv’s death, and more a celebration of its life. 

Let’s start with our initial reactions. Once we’d both read the issue, we sat down and discussed our feelings on where everyone ended up, and how the story finished. Here are the highlights of that conversation.

Spoilers for... well, for the entirety of WicDiv, I guess, below the cut.

Tim: So here we are. After five years and 45 issues, we reach the end of The Wicked + The Divine. Overall, did it feel like a satisfying ending to you?

Alex: After #44, which I enjoyed but didn't really feel like an ending to me... this issue was pretty much exactly what I wanted from the end of this story. I liked where every character ended up, and I got a bit weepy at the sheer optimism of them still being alive and making a positive difference in the world.

What about you?

Tim: I was more or less the flip of that. For me, the emotional climax was last issue, and this is more of a coda that works beautifully in some ways and stumbles a little in others. That might just be my expectations shaping my reading though - we've both sunk a lot of time into thinking about this series, so we're always going to come in with baggage.

Alex: Oh, absolutely. But I suspect our own sets of baggage aren't necessarily the same. WicDiv is a broad church, and I think we've always got slightly different things from it. And I wonder if that informs our different reactions?

Tim: I would be interesting to dig into, but I worry this whole thing could turn into a mutual therapy session.

Alex: Hah. I mean, that's what this whole comic is for, right?

Tim: This issue keeps the focus relatively tightly on Laura. Do you think WicDiv overall was always her story?

Alex: I actually disagree with that statement a little. The big twist of this issue, for me, is how much it was Cassandra's story.

As I slowly realised who the funeral was for (a process extended out a little thanks to the slightly blurry review PDF obscuring the name on the programme), I was actually kind of furious. Cassandra's always been one of my favourite characters, and she's been a little absent from the last couple of issues.

But, at the halfway point of the issue, I think that starts to show itself as intentional. In the end, Cass gets to give her own eulogy, and she's probably got the most lines of anyone in the issue. Even when she's not around, people are talking about her. It's basically “Where’s Poochie?” meets a Cassandra-themed Bechdel Test. And I love it.

Tim: Yeah, it's essentially a Cass sandwich between two slices of Laura bread. It effectively makes their relationship the central figure of the final issue, which is fascinating given that this issue also introduces a whole new wrinkle to the dynamic that we've seen them develop over 44 issues.

I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who shipped them, but I've got to say, Laura and Cass ending up married sort of blindsided me. I loved their friendship throughout the series, and the way they slowly opened up to each other, but I can't say I picked up on any romantic vibes between the two. Am I being a clueless straight dude here?

Alex: I think that, for all WicDiv's love of foreshadowing, their relationship isn't something that has been signposted much during the series. There is Laura's line in #43 about jealousy and envy, but I think this is more about the vast period between these two issues. A relationship that was one thing, organically becoming another. Rather than – to pick another comic which was hugely formative on us both and has a weirdly similar ending – the Yorick/355 thing of 'oh, this is what that always was'.

Tim: Yeah, I suppose in a way it speaks volumes about just how much was jammed into the two years that we followed those characters through, and how much more you can fit in a time span 20 times longer. But I do worry that it slightly undermines the Laura/Eleanor moments in #44.

Alex: That might be it, actually – Laura and Eleanor were the bits of #44 I found least interesting, because it's a dynamic I'm just not that invested in. I do agree that it feels narratively messy to bring that relationship up only to immediately push it aside, but I feel like that's part of the point – and it's probably easier for me to accept, because I was never aboard that particular ship.

Tim: I can definitely accept that a the pairing of Laura & Eleanor feels too chaotic to last, while a Cass & Laura marriage would be built on rock.

How about where everyone else ended up? Were there any surprises that stood out to you?

Alex: I think the one that surprised me most is Aruna (ex-Tara) and Jon (ex-Mimir). Not where they ended up, exactly – Jon building her a body is something I've seen multiple people on Tumblr crossing their fingers for – but rather how much is done with how little.

They're the gods we got to know least, because of when and how they were each introduced, and they don't get much page space here, but I still Got It. The abstraction of Aruna's body, and Jon inevitably growing into his dad but learning from his mistakes... those are both really lovely endings for those characters.

What about you?

Tim: Aruna is obviously the most visually stunning, and I love the design that McKelvie has created. It reminds me of something I can't put my finger on, and for some reason it means that when she started playing guitar, I was like "oh, it's St Vincent". Make of that what you will.

Alex: That's a nice bit of pop-cultural synaesthesia. (…synthaesthesia?)

Tim: Otherwise, I found Umar's evolution really interesting. It felt like some of his selflessness had curdled into anger a little, and seeing him echo Cam was a real heartbreaker. That and his dynamic with Cass - he felt like someone with a whole bunch of tragedy and regret draped around him.

Alex: That's a really interesting take on him. And it's testament to how open these characters' fates are left – I didn't get that vibe off him at all, but it makes complete sense, and I can now see it in the severity of his design.

But the closure of that final plot loop, with the Morrigan prophecy, was definitely something that stuck out to me. It was painful, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. The idea that he's married, but it's to someone who – canonically, word of literal god – isn't the love of his life? Oof.

Tim: Here's a question - would you want to see more of either the 2055 cast or the times in between, or do you think this snapshot was enough? Like, if this had been a final arc, instead of a final issue.

Alex: In the run-up, I assumed this issue would be structured like: ‘five years, and ten years later, and...’. So I definitely thought we’d get more of that stuff than we did.

Honestly, I love these versions of the characters a lot, but I think spending longer with them could only diminish the impact. And I like that there's a certain level of 'nope, you don't get to see this'. It reminds me of what Laura tells us, about her abortion: “You don’t get details.”

Tim: And yeah, I agree. As much as I have questions I'd love answered, the answers I speculate on in my head are probably as satisfying as actually seeing them on the page in some ways. Knowing that the characters got to live on and make choices and mistakes is, in a lot of ways, enough.

We've spoken numerous times before about how WicDiv is a book obsessed with cycles and systems. Do you think the characters have well and truly broken free from what was trapping them?

Alex: Absolutely. I think that's what I found so moving about this issue – their lives moving forward, unencumbered by all the things they kept being dragged back into over those two years. It doesn't mean they're perfect people, in the final reckoning, but they do get to be whole people.

Tim: There's definitely a sense of somewhat messy real lives outside of this moment, something that's hard to convey in such a small space. Eleanor seems to be the one holding on to her iconic poses and perfect sarcasm the most, which absolutely makes sense, but even she feels like someone who has changed and evolved. They are all free to colour outside the lines now, which isn't always pretty, but it's true.

Alex: So we're agreed that the gods all managed to break free of their cycle. But as WicDiv has been coming out, the two of us have also found a neat little groove to live in. How do you feel about that going away?

Tim: This has been a wonderful community to be part of, and I've rarely if ever stumbled across negative parts of it, which is pretty extraordinary for a fandom in the modern age. I will definitely miss watching people react to and interpret new issues as they come out, and I hope the interesting voices that I've discovered through this keep writing about other things that inspire them. How about you?

Alex: It's a weird mix of sadness and relief, because our relationship with this comic is so tied up with thinking and reading and especially writing about it. Both of our lives have changed a lot over the five years WicDiv has been coming out, and in particular we've both been hella busy of late, so I've definitely felt that monthly cycle starting to bite into my neck.

But who am I kidding? I give myself about six weeks till I start missing it all, and send you one of my famous late-night texts, the ones that start "Tim, I've had a bad idea..."

#WicDiv #The Wicked + The Divine #The Wicked and The Divine #TWATD

[aceofstars16]

Okay so this is a very salty and long rant about Endgame, if you haven’t seen it, don’t read it, if you liked it, don’t read it, if you liked how Steve’s story ended, don’t read it!

This is literally me just yelling, please please PLEASE don’t take this as an assault at you. I know people liked it (I don’t understand why but I’m not trying to be a prick) and you can like it, I just have major issues with it and I wanted to get my feelings out.

This is not meant to start flame or anything, so please if you have different opinions, don’t add if onto this, you can make your own post but please leave this one be *flops*

Okay now that that’s out of the way...salt time...

I’m pissed...I’m beyond pissed. The more I think about it, the more I HATE the ending of Endgame because it was an unfair and unsatisfying ending to SO MANY characters.

This is going to be incoherent because I just need to vent so much I’m just so ughhhh

Okay so, first off, I think MAYBE I would’ve been okay with the ending if they hadn’t done what they did with Steve. But that RUINS what Tony did because why in the heck does Steve get is a selfish happily ever after and live a long life with Peggy who ALREADY HAD A HUSBAND AND A LONG HAPPY LIFE while Tony who has a WIFE and a 5 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER DIES AND THAT’S A GOOD ENDING????

Like, I love Steve, but his entire life he’s been selfless, it’s who he is, or was I suppose…but then he just up and leaves Bucky and Sam despite everything we’ve heard him say, “I’m home” when he’s at the compound, he’s accepted that he can’t go back, and even reiterated in Endgame with moving on. But then, NOPE he goes back and gets his happy ending despite it probably messing with the timeline like crazy??? Like, seriously, if the Russos stuck with their time travel logic where if you change the past, then that will branch off to a different timeline, then STEVE WOULDN’T EVEN BE IN THE SAME TIMELINE OF THE SAM AND BUCKY WE KNOW?!? (don’t get me started on the whole thing about how Past Thanos was killed so then if he was dead then no one would’ve been dusted in the first place and like what this heck this does not work at all what the actual heck? So much of the time travel stuff is so freaking confusing and makes no sense...) Back to Steve though, this is a terrible lesson to teach people too? Like, “oh if you can’t move on then stay stuck in the past, you can’t actually go back in time like this character though so haha too bad!” it’s just…a terrible lesson???

And then Tony, gosh don’t get me STARTED on Tony. Because he deserved SO MUCH BETTER! Much like Steve in AOU, accepting that the compound his is his home now, Tony had said he wanted to build a farm for Pepper, he wanted to retire, he wanted to be able to LIVE HIS LIFE. The only reason he felt like he couldn’t was because of the threat from Thanos and HE COULD’VE LIVED A LONG LIFE WITH HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER but NOOOO, he has to die because…why? He’s the key to everything? Well heck yeah, he’s the one that MADE the time machine, THAT’S why he needed to live, not because he needed to die to stop Thanos. Because he’s proven over and over again that he is willing to die for the world, so why does he have to actually go and do that??? I mean I loved the total BAMF moment because Thanos does NOT mess with Tony, but like, the heck? Tony deserved so much better. And you know who else deserved better? FREAKING PETER PARKER! I am SICK AND TIRED of the “mentor has to die so the student can grow” trope, I hate it, burn in the fire. It’s SO OVERDONE and it’s like “oh you can only grow if someone dies!” like no??? Like, give me Tony retiring and Peter trying to find his place again after missing 5 years and learning how to be a hero on his own? You don’t need to kill Tony to do that? Especially when you could just delve into Peter still missing Ben? Like, I liked them not doing ANOTHER origin story because we’ve seen it, but why give Peter a mentor just to kill him after two stinking movies? Oh, for shock factor. As if Peter hasn’t already been through enough. A HERO DOESN’T NEED TO LOSE EVERYONE TO GROW, YOU DON’T HAVE TO KILL A CHARACTER TO MAKE ANOTHER GROW?!?

Oh and then we have PEPPER AND MORGAN. Pepperony has been built up for YEARS, it’s the oldest MCU ship, it’s the heart of the MCU (and Tony is also the heart, so you just killed the heart of the MCU, congrats Russos, you done murdered the whole universe) it’s been building up for YEARS. Steggy is great, but they had one movie? I mean yes, there were other parts in the other movies, but it was more of a bittersweet, we can’t go back and that sucks but sometimes life sucks and you have to move on, YOU CAN’T GO BACK IN REAL LIFE, THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT REAL AND SOMETIMES SUCKY, BUT YOU CAN MOVE ON. And people might say you can say that for Tony, which I could see ONLY IF THEY HADN’T GIVEN IT TO STEVE ON A SILVER PLATTER. You can’t say “oh move on at least he got 5 years in a war torn and broken world” while also giving another character that has been shown to have already moved on a perfect long life with a wife and kids. That is just SPITTING IN THE FACE OF TONY AND THE WHOLE MCU! (and Steve too…cause it’s SO OOC for him to be so selfish and also leave Bucky like “yo hey I’m leaving you in this future world so I can live my life in the past, oh and I’m not going to stop any of the stuff I know if going to happen, yolo!” I’m sorry but that is not MY Steve Rogers)

Morgan loves her dad, she deserves to have a dad that is alive and well. Peter deserves a mentor that doesn’t die because he’s already lost HIS dad AND uncle. Pepper deserves her husband who she has loved for years and only got five short years with (because in the span of things 5 years is NOT that long at all, like Steve got a lifetime, if he had kids he got to see them grow up, go to school, go to college, get married, and have kids…and Tony didn’t even though he was the one that already had a kid????)

And then there is the whole “oh well it’s surprising and no one expected that!” Well screw that, I was already surprised by a lot of the movie, it was a wild ride the whole time, I liked most of it up till the end (there are a few qualms I have with other things but those are minuscule compared to the ending, and this is already so freaking long). You don’t have to have the most shocking ending to have a good movie. Give me a movie with twists and turns that make sense (still don’t know where the heck Loki went by the way…) and then an ending that is worthy of the characters, of their personalities, of their stories, their lives, their development.

Endgame did not do that. They went for the heartbreaking and the unfair and selfish route. It wasn’t satisfying, it was a slap in the face for the fans. I know some people liked it but I’ve seen SO MANY TONY AND CAP STANS that HATED IT! If you done mess up two of the six main characters story arcs just to be edgy or “real” or “unpredictable” then I say screw you. The only reason I’m seeing Far From Home is because of Peter. I honestly don’t know if I’ll watch other Marvel movies after this…I’ll have to see but if they treat my favorite character like this well then, I don’t trust them with anyone.

And you know another note that I’ve seen people make and I agree with wholeheartedly? Actually two notes, but both have a similar vein…Thor’s heartbreak, depression, and survivor’s guild it boiled down into a fat joke. That’s NOT something to joke about??? Also, I liked him talking with his mom but…you can’t just…talk to people that are gone, yes you can remember what they said but you can’t physically talk to them again. I would’ve loved for Rocket and Bruce to actually have been able to help him instead of bribing him with beer to get him to even come to the compound. It’s a spit in the face to Thor and anyone who has gone through immense loss…

THEN we have everyone who suffers from anxiety and/or depression. Who saw themselves in Tony, who gained encouragement from him, to press onward despite their mental health, to see that they can keep going, they can do this. It’s scary and hard but if Tony Stark can do it I can do. And then what does Endgame do? It up and says “oh you can only rest when you die haha sucks to be you!” NO, give me Tony who still has his bad days but can smile because he still has his family and his friends. Who can keep living despite the mental illness because he still has so much to live for, to give hope to people who are going through crap. Because Tony has been through crap but he never gave up and he can be happy, so maybe they can be okay, they just have to keep going, like Tony.

I’m just…the more I think about it the more pissed I get and I’m just so done right now…

THEY ALL DESERVED BETTER THAN THIS CRAP RUSSOS FIGHT ME YOU IDIOTS

#anti endgame #endgame spoilers #I'm legit only tagging those two things cause i don't want a bunch of notes on this plz #i just have feelings #i am officially disowning endgame as canon #i have my own canon now that gives the characters a good ending #an ending they deserve #endgame literally took away the joy of marvel for me so...yeah....byeeee #*lives in my happy world without this crap*

[terramythos]

Review: Vengeful by V. E. Schwab (Villains #2)

Length: 567 pages

Genre/Tags: Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Science Fiction, Found Family, Revenge Narrative, Superpowers, Dark, Time Jumps, Perspective Shifts, Third-Person, LGBT+ Protagonist, Female Protagonist, Duology

Warning(s): Pretty much every previous warning applies here (violence, gore, genocidal thinking, etc). In addition, there is a VERY graphic medical torture scene, physical abuse, references to rape, implied hard drug abuse, and somewhat graphic sexual content. To reiterate: NO ONE in this story is a good person.

My Rating: 7/10

My Summary:

Five years have passed since Victor and Eli’s fateful encounter, when Victor enacted his perfect revenge. He finds himself in an unusual position; with other people to care for. There’s just one problem— his pain-manipulation powers have started to backfire on him. Every few weeks, they kill him. He comes back, but the intervals between episodes are growing shorter, and his amount of time without oxygen to the brain are growing longer. Thus Victor, Sydney, and Mitch enter a desperate race against the clock to find a cure— by any means necessary. Meanwhile, a new force rises in the city of Merit. When Marcella Riggins, wife to one of the most powerful mob bosses in the city, catches her husband cheating, he burns her alive to solve the problem. What he doesn’t count on is for her to come back as an EO with a terrifying power in her grasp. Now she’s out to take revenge and all the power of Merit for herself. As Marcella’s  ascension to power progresses, she inevitably pulls Victor and Eli back into their deadly conflict.

“How many of us do you think there are?” “EOs?” June hesitated. “Who knows? More than you’d think. We don’t exactly go around advertising.” “But you can find them.” The glass was halfway to June’s mouth. Now it stopped. “What?” “Your power,” said Marcella. “You said when you touch someone, you can take their appearance, but only if they’re human. Doesn’t that man you can tell when they’re not?” June’s smile flickered, and returned twice as bright. “You’re awfully sharp.” “So I’ve been told.” June stretched on her stool. “Sure, I can tell. Why? You looking to find more of us?” “Maybe.” “Why?” June shot her a sideways glance. “Trying to eliminate the competition?” “Hardly.” She finished her drink and set the empty glass down, running a gold nail around the rim. “Men look at anyone with power and see only a threat, an obstacle in their path. They never have the sense to see the power for what it really is.” “And what’s that?” asked June. “Potential.” Marcella tightened her fingers around the stem of her glass. “This ability of mine,” she said as her hand glowed red, “is a weapon.” As she spoke, the glass dissolved to sand, slipping through her fingers. “But why settle for one weapon when you can have an arsenal?”

For my review of Vicious, the first book in this series, please click here. 

Full review under the cut. 

I really wanted to give Vengeful a higher score. After all, the first 90% of the book is a solid 9/10, addressing most of the criticisms I had with Vicious and containing much of what I had hoped to see in a sequel. It features deeper exploration of the characters, develops intriguing themes I had wanted to see more of, and expands upon the setting and premise in interesting ways. In essence, it’s a bigger and better version of Vicious… for the most part. However, it falls apart in the ending, to such an extent that it dragged down the whole experience for me. I’ll get into the whys later. But first I think it’s worth discussing the novel in general and which parts of it did click for me. After all, I’m not lying when I say most of it is very enjoyable.

Vengeful is written and takes place 5 years after Vicious. It’s roughly twice the length of the previous entry and features an expanded cast. Three main leads from the previous novel— Victor, Sydney, and Eli— all reprise leading roles. Joining them are Detective Stell (a minor antagonist from Vicious) and two newcomers— June and Marcella, the latter of whom shows up on the cover and in most of the promotional material. I was struck immediately by the writing improvements in Vengeful— including more detailed, imaginative, and interesting descriptions. Schwab obviously improved a lot on the 5-year span between this book and its predecessor.

Basically, Vengeful focuses on where the characters have come over the last 5 years— for better or worse— and how the world adjusts and changes in the presence of EOs— superpowered humans.

Like before, the story is told in an anachronistic fashion. There is an overarching plot, but it hops around the timeline showing different parts of each character’s lives. That could be confusing, but it’s well-executed here, as it was in Vicious. Unlike in Vicious, however, this entry dedicates entire chunks of the book to individual characters. For example, the story opens up with Victor and explores him for a while, then switches over to Sydney, then onwards through the six members of the main cast. Occasionally we get guest chapters starring minor characters or “check-in” chapters with others, but for the most part it follows this pattern. I really liked this approach, because it's a deep dive into each character and their complexities and motivations. There were times I had to backtrack and remind myself what happened in previous sections, but that’s probably more on me than the book itself.

The characters themselves are interesting, and probably the strongest point of the novel. I enjoyed each to some extent. It’s fun to read a story where nobody is a good person, yet what that actually means varies quite a bit. Sydney and Eli had the most compelling stories and arcs; both dealt with identity and one’s place in life and the universe, but explored different facets of the concept. Both characters have changed a lot from their introductions, and it’s been interesting to see. Victor’s struggles and desperation are a far cry from where he finished in Vicious, so that was interesting as well. I thought June was a creative take on a shapeshifter character (more on that later), and her level of obsession with Sydney and its development over time was alarmingly relatable. While I don’t find Stell particularly interesting, I do think he was an essential perspective for the story, and he does expand the world quite a bit with his ties to EON (again, more on that later).

The (somewhat twisted) found family between Victor, Sydney, and Mitch was a big high point of the story for me; there are some indications of it in the first book, but this one goes all-in. I really enjoyed seeing these messed up people genuinely bond with each other and form a ragtag family.

There’s also some good LGBT+ representation in the novel. The relationship between Sydney and June, while ultimately pretty screwed up, is flirty and romantic in nature (and again, uh, alarmingly relatable). Victor is canonically confirmed to be asexual as well. I’m of the opinion that LGBT+ characters should hold a variety of roles, heroic and otherwise, since we’re people. I’m glad to see Vengeful make it happen.

Marcella is probably where I struggled the most (outside of the ending in general). She was initially one of my favorite characters— imagine an ambitious femme fatale turned up to eleven and literally given the power to destroy anything she touches. Her chapters are certainly fun based on that premise. However, I spent most of the novel waiting for there to be something else to her. Possibly a secondary motivation, or some kind of personal moral struggle— anything. But there really isn’t. She is just straight up a character who wants to seize power at all costs because she thinks she deserves it. Marcella is a pretty flat character, which is disappointing when she’s (1) the face of the novel and (2) in a series that focuses on moral complexity and shades of gray.

Vengeful improves upon the worldbuilding in Vicious. Before, Merit was just a generic city setting. But this entry expands upon it— especially its criminal underbelly. It also develops some setting-specific concepts. New to the story is EON, a clandestine paramilitary organization that hunts down EOs and eliminates or imprisons them. Led by Stell and built with the best of intentions, there is nevertheless a sense of dehumanization and genocidal parallels as he struggles to control the expanding organization. It’s key to both Stell and Eli’s character arcs, and there is certainly enough material to expand upon in the future.

This may sound like an odd thing to praise, but Vengeful abandons the whole superhero motif present in Vicious. Yeah, it was an interesting moral dilemma in the first novel— who’s the hero and who’s the villain— but it’s played out by now. Having a setting which features superpowers but isn’t tied down by superhero tropes is a good call and allows for more creative plot and writing decisions.

One thing I really enjoyed about this novel is how it expands upon the superpowers in creative ways. Even established characters have new and interesting developments to their powers that are still in line with previous canon. For example, Victor— whose power is manipulating pain in others— discovers he can manipulate nerves in general, and develops the ability to control others’ movements. June is a shapeshifter, but it’s a unique take I haven’t seen before. Basically, she takes on key memories of anyone she touches, which gives her enough background to convincingly mimic them. In addition, she’s a living voodoo doll. If she sustains injury while disguised as someone else, they’re the one who gets injured, not her. This is used to interesting and creative effect several times in the story.

Overall, this has the makings of a really entertaining novel with some deep character arcs and interesting themes. I should be overjoyed this even got a sequel, and for most of the novel I was. So what’s up with the ending? How could it have so strongly impacted my experience with Vengeful?

My problem with the ending isn’t that I disagree with it, or didn’t like it on a personal level. I’ve dealt with plenty of endings that didn’t go where I wanted (hell, I’ve read some by this author). But I can justify and even appreciate just about any ending as long as it makes sense with what’s been established before. Does it make sense for the characters to end up here, based on their development throughout the story? Does the ending fully realize the premise? If so, it’s an acceptable ending. Even if it’s one I didn’t picture, I can understand and even learn to like it.

That’s not the case with Vengeful. I mentioned characterization as a strong point, but out of the six members of the main cast, I’d say maybe two of them end up in places that even make sense (not even in satisfying ways, just… make sense). That means that four members of the main cast have unsatisfying or nonsensical endings to their character arcs. Considering this, is it much of a surprise the ending impacts the score so much? I finished the novel scratching my head like wow, that’s really it?

And I’ve tried to figure it out, believe me. I finished this book weeks ago and am only now posting the review. I’ve gone back and forth, tried to justify certain endings, went back to see if I missed something, but… nope. And at the end of the day, I shouldn’t need to bend over backwards to justify an ending. It should justify itself. It should make sense in and of itself.

I’ll give an example of one character, because I think it exemplifies the root of the problem. (Obviously this will be vague to avoid Mega Spoilers, but it should be obvious who I’m talking about if you’ve read the book).

There’s one character whose main conflict is they NEED to find a solution to their problem. Throughout the story they seek out and find various people who might be able to help. But nothing is working. They grow increasingly desperate and resort to more and more extreme methods to find the solution. Eventually, they find what seems to be the answer, but their hopes are dashed once again. In a moment of personal growth, this character realizes that there is no miracle coming. Since they are the cause of the problem, the only one who can solve it is THEM. They resolve to find the solution themselves or die trying.

How does this arc end? I’m not even joking— they just straight up find a miracle solution. There is some setup for it… but that setup is tied to a completely different character. And regardless, it still feels like a deus ex machina; it destroys initiative. It’s even worse because this character’s arc peaks when they realize they must SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS, then the ending hands over the solution with no strings attached. Sure, they technically find it due to their own actions, but it’s because someone unrelated to them or their arc did something. Even then, there were ways to make it work— Schwab could have drawn parallels between characters, or played up the dramatic irony. It would still be weak, but at least it would show some self-awareness. But we don’t even get that.

That’s just the clearest example. There are multiple characters whose key moments are just ignored in the ending. It would be one thing if they realized certain things weren’t that important to them, or in a moment of dramatic irony fell short of where they were meant to go. Those things make sense. But that’s not what happens— the character arcs just end with zero solution to the problems and ideas the rest of the novel spends developing. It’s very unsatisfying, and I found myself wondering what the point of the novel even was. It honestly feels like the first 90% of the book is hand crafted and polished to a mirror shine, while the ending is a first draft with minimal edits and zero continuity with the rest of the story.  

It’s possible, and even likely, that there’s more to the Villains story. Nothing has been officially announced, but certain aspects of the novel just scream it to me. One of the few characters who ends in a decent place has a very “the end… or is it?” outro. There’s a 4-page short story after the epilogue that focuses on a seemingly minor character and her origins. And some aspects of the worldbuilding, such as EON, could be explored more. In short, Vengeful sets up for a book three, or even a spinoff of some sort. But even then, the character arcs still need to make sense in the context of this novel, and they simply don’t. When the main strength and focus of the novel is characterization, the ending HAS to realize that potential. Vengeful doesn’t, and we’re left with a confusing and disappointing conclusion.  

Feel free to take this review with a grain of salt— from what I can tell, Vengeful was critically well-received and a lot of people enjoyed it. Perhaps there really is just something I’m missing. But the ending was enough of a disappointment that it affected the whole experience. It was especially disappointing to me coming from an author I really enjoy. Perhaps there is more to the story, but it’s going to take a lot to win me back on this one.

#7/10 #taylor reads #taylor reviews #this was a tough one...

[samtheflamingomain]

hello wisconsin!

Okay, I'm garbage and have been putting this off for ages. I finished binging That 70's Show like a month ago and have been building this post for just as long.

I started this post at the beginning of season 6. Read it as such. I'll let you know when the part I wrote at season 6 ends and where I pick it back up in the present. If that makes sense.

I'm starting at season 6 mostly because I'm pretty sure the shark is going to be jumped at some point soon. Just like MASH, which lasted longer than the Korean war, 70's stretches 2 years of high school into 5 seasons. Plus another 3 for some reason.

And that's my first point. New rule: if your TV show appreciates in time and the events in the show don't line up with that, you've fucked up. I just watched 5 seasons of the kids in high school. You're telling me this shit goes on for another 75 fucking episodes?

Look, MASH I can give a pass to because they don't mark specific points in the war to give the watcher any time reference. MASH gives no dates - it's feasible that a 5-year war could span 10+ seasons, if we guess that each season is 6 months long. (That's not how it really works, but you get the point).

70's STARTS THE SHOW at the end of grade 11, and we know this. To a rational person, that means "One season of grade 11, 2 for grade 12, maybe another for summers." Then. They. Graduate. And. Leave.

But that's... not happening. For ANY of the main characters. They just decided to extend a show about high schoolers into their *supposed* college years. Which I wouldn't even have minded much - if ANY of them ACTUALLY WENT TO COLLEGE.

If they hadn't made things so cut-and-dry regarding timeframes, They could've kept being 12th graders for 10 seasons for all I care. But they CHOSE to follow defined timespans. And I think that's what's got me feeling that season 5 might've been the last "good season".

So everything you've read, I wrote before I finished the show. And, well, turns out I was right. This is also from before I finished the show (with a few things I’ve thrown in now):

There's a lot to disect from 70s, but there's one I want to focus on: Red Forman.

Why? Well, these characters are static and uninteresting: Donna, Fes* and Bob. They're pretty useless in terms of character development. These ones have simple character arcs: Hyde, Eric and Kitty. They change and grow, but in pretty predictible ways. In terms of change, Jackie obviously takes the cake, with Kelso at a close second.

*It is actually spelled Fes, because that's not his name. It's an acronym for Foreign Exchange Student.

But there's only one character that never seems to change or grow at all: Red. I said "seems" because he does change and grow, but it's instantaneous and doesn’t come for a looooong time.

It takes place immediately after returning from fishing, after Eric tells him he and Donna are engaged. He reaches a very sound, strong position: he made Eric run the gauntlet on everything he shit his way, but Eric never gave up. So he gives Eric the blessing to marry Donna. (There's another very pivotal change in his character, but that's later.)

I would've called that a nice wrap-up to the series.

But then they had to give him a damn heart attack to keep all the kids here. Why? Fuck if I know. (Jackie's still in high school and Hyde has a job he likes at home, but there is literally no reason for any of these other kids to still be here.)

The stupid heart-attack got Eric to push back college. I was fine with that. Then the whole Casablanca shit with Donna not getting on the bus, well, it kinda pissed me off (like, girl, don't let a fuckin weak ass ferret man determine your future) but it was a pretty sweet, moving moment. Another one that would've been great to end the show on.

But they didn't. So now we have Kelso, future cop; Fes, unemployed illegal immigrant with ZERO CHARACTER TRAITS THAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT; and Eric “Dog Food” Forman.

Anyway, back to Red. It was that one heartwarming moment when he came back from fishing that made me realize that, while this is obviously fiction, Red is the epitome of a psychologically abusive parent. And THAT'S when I realized that literally not one of the characters HASN'T gone through significant trauma. Red's a vet; Kitty's an alcoholic who lost her father; Eric has an abusive father and alcoholic mother; Donna has a mentally retarded ball of pubic hair as a father and her mother ran out; Hyde's parents split; Jackie's dad's in jail and mom fucked off. I refuse to talk about Fes anymore cuz he's just the stupidest, most irritating "character" on the show, Randy notwithstanding. "He's brown! And has a funny accent! Hahaha" - nobody, ever.

It's when I realized that we NEVER see ANY of Kelso's home life did I realize that he was likely the sanest of the group. And, like him outscoring both Hyde and Eric on the SATs, that's very, very sad.

Back to Red. We know he became traumatized and hardened by serving in two wars. We know he's treated Eric like garbage his entire life... yet Eric is pretty well-adjusted. And that is where, 5000 words in, we get to my point: abuse is played for laughs and it's fine because Eric has a snappy comeback to Red most of the time.

Eric Foreman's a sarcastic wit with great comedic timing. So that, according to the show, cancels out of all the times Red's told Eric he was stupid and degraded him in front of his friends.

Of course, conflict has to come from somewhere, and one's parents is that major source for most teens. But to an extent.

"Red's a hardass," as the kids say regularly. But no, being a hardass is refusing a kid candy till he finishes his broccoli. Not telling him he's worthless over and over and over for 17 years

And I don't care what anyone says: that amount of abuse over a child's life does not a snappy, well-adjusted Eric Forman make.

It makes me. A crumbling, shattered, fragmented person with no sense of self-worth or accomplishment.

And now, we’re caught up. Back in the present, having finished the show.

My point ended up being made.

If the show had ended at season 5 with Donna missing her bus, we would've missed a lot.

Look, I still firmly believe the show itself would've been better if it had ended earlier, but my complaints about the effect of Red's abuse of Eric would've gone unanswered.

I spent the next 3 seasons mildly annoyed that they existed - first, Eric doesn't go to college. Then neither does Donna. Why are they still around? Why do we still care? The whole point of the show was to show us high schoolers graduating and going off to college. To me, it felt like how it would feel if MASH continued after the war ended.

I was absolutely irrate when Eric announced the theme of season 7 would be "I'm taking a year off to eat and watch TV and sleep!" There was a great scene that's often seen on tumblr in gif form: at breakfast, Red asks Eric what he's going to do about: moving out, Donna, his job, and his future. He replies "I 'unno" to each question. Red tells him to have a plan by the end of the day if he wants to eat. And I said "Finally, some good fucking Red Forman." Then, at the end of the day, Eric announces: "Donna? Hanging out. Job? Quit. Future? None. When am I moving out? Make. Me."

To which I said, "THAT'S WHAT YOU DID LAST SEASON BITCH!" Only apparently I was wrong; Eric Forman could and did become even more useless than before.

But at least it gets us to my absolute favorite point in the entire series. Season 7, episode 9, 18 minutes in. (Thanks to Reddit for helping me locate this scene). Red is bitching at Eric for not knowing what to do with his life. Let's go straight to the transcript (with side jokes edited out):

E: Did it ever occur to you guys that I don't know what I'm doing? I'm scared, okay? Look. My whole life, I've been trying to please other people. So I feel like I don't know who I am. Or know what I want to do with my life. I just don't want to wake up in five years and hate my life.

R: That's unavoidable.

E: Okay, I just need more time to think.

R: You know what I got for my 18th birthday? A draft notice and a Malaria vaccine. I never had time to *think.*

E: Yeah, but Dad, don't you think it would've been helpful if you did?

Then the camera zooms in on Red, and no laugh track, no jokes, he thinks for a good 20 seconds. Then he says, "Okay. I'll give you six months."

It's my favourite scene. Even more than the one we get after fishing or the one before leaving for Africa. Because unlike those few heartfelt scenes, this one relies on Red. Being. Wrong. And admitting it.

There's a reason Eric's spent his whole life trying to please others: Red. There's a reason Eric doesn't know who he is: Red.

Throughout the entire series, Red's been a Conservative Republican veteran who, as Kitty puts it, "Thinks the only way to become a man is to DIE." Just 500 words ago, I called him abusive. And, let's be real, he is.

But I also had an abusive father. That's why I picked this direction for this post to go. I saw Scott in Red Forman. But they are NOT the same.

Red Forman will admit to being wrong. And that makes up for a whole goddamn lot. Going through abuse is not something I'd wish on my worst enemy. But if they did and their abuser ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG, that is NOT nothing to the abused. If my dad had admitted he was a dick, my life would be a LOT different.

And Eric is the epitome of that feeling. His eyes light up when Red says he'll give him six months. Because Red knows he's done Eric wrong. He knows he owes him at least this much. At various points throughout the series it's been pointed out that Eric is who he is because of Red. It was inevitable that Red, too, would eventually reach this conclusion.

Anyway. That's that.

I do want to talk about other things than Eric and Red Forman, so let's play all the hits: fuck Jackie and Fes, fuck Randy with a chainsaw, the moment the show jumped the shark was when Eric bailed on the wedding, fuck Randy with a hot curling iron, Fes is the most annoying and useless character on the show, LOVED the episode where they finally Green Out™ and Kelso calls the White House, and FUCK RANDY WITH A CEREMONIAL JAPANESE KATANA.

Look. I can't in good conscience indulge in a 70's review without talking Randy.

But I hate him so much I don't want to waste energy on him so let's get this over with: useless, Gary Stu, want to put his hair through a blender, fuck him for being in the cirle in the theme song.

Okay, but let's play one last one: Tommy Chong.

I was curious as to why he was absent for 3 seasons so I Googled it. Dude was in prison for selling bongs. He said, upon getting out and returning to the show, "I thought they would've made that a part of the show!" I think that says it all about Leo and why he's my favorite character, with Hyde as a close second. But FUCK Danny Masterson and FUCK Scientology. Look it up.

Well, to finish off, an interesting tidbit: at the end of the theme song, it is Hyde who shouts "Hello Wisconsin!". The entire time, for 200 episodes, I would've sworn on my life that it was Kelso.

Stay Greater.

#70's show #that 70's show #hello wisconsin #eric forman #sam

[angeltriestoblog]

I watched a couple of movies! (Part 1)

Back when I regularly had the luxury of long breaks, I spent my days binge-watching films, as you can see from my extensive knowledge of 80s chick flicks and all the cheesy tropes and disgustingly adorable, predominantly white leading men that come with them. Sadly, a side effect of growing older in the digital age seemed to be the diminishment of my attention span: the only things I could focus on were academic requirements, simply because I had to. But, thanks to several factors—the suspension of online classes, the sudden annoyance I developed towards Barney Stinson that prompted me to discontinue How I Met Your Mother, etc.—I decided it was high time to rekindle this lost love. So, here is an unsolicited review of the 17 films I managed to finish in a little over a week! Rest assured, I tried my best to venture out of familiar territory and brush up on some of the more cultured picks, according to Letterboxd, at least.

Bar Boys (2017, dir. Kip Oebanda) ★★★

The film that kickstarted everything, which I never would have seen if the director had not uploaded the full version on YouTube. This well-meaning tale of four best friends (Carlo Aquino, Rocco Nacino, Enzo Pineda, and Kean Cipriano) and the challenges they face in law school—terror professors, fraternities, and financial difficulties included—does have a lot of heart, and is sensitive enough to show how the effect of this experience differs depending on a student's background. But, what it lacked for me was a certain degree of specificity: I think the same premise would have been applicable in med school, or any other post-graduate degree for that matter. So, why did the characters choose law? I also would have appreciated some commentary on the shortcomings of the country’s justice system, and further fleshing out of the characters so the audience could have seen why we could count on them to fill in the gaps.

Legally Blonde (2001, dir. Robert Luketic) ★★★½

The rating might be surprising, considering that the courtroom scene was responsible for the short law school phase I had in Grade 5. As if I could ever make use of the rules of haircare in an actual cross-examination. Of course, I am compelled to admire Elle (Reese Witherspoon) and how her motivations for going to Harvard shift from winning back a boy to discovering what she never knew she had and using these gifts to help those around her (especially the manicurist, who I feel was given way more exposure than what was due to her). Ultimately, though it was inspirational at some points, it felt too good to be true and impossible to relate to. (But then again, shouldn’t there be a willing suspension of disbelief when consuming forms of media such as this?)

Lady Bird (2017, dir. Greta Gerwig) ★★★★★

I’ll probably end up making a separate post dedicated to this movie and how it singlehandedly called me out, as a sensitive, occasionally self-important product of an all-girls Catholic high school. For now, I am forced to condense my overflowing feelings into a couple of sentences. Lady Bird takes place over the course of the titular character's senior year, a pivotal moment in the lives of all teenagers. But, instead of focusing solely on the formulaic firsts like the normal coming-of-age film would, it shines a light on her dwindling relationship with her equally strong-willed mother. Saoirse Ronan’s colorful performance as the human embodiment of my pre-teen self's conscience, and Greta Gerwig’s tremendous ability to make even oddly specific scenes speak to any viewer shine through and speak to me the most, and easily make this gem something I will be recommending this to anyone who bothers to ask for as long as I live.

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018, dir. Bryan Singer) ★★★

There’s a lot of controversy surrounding Bo Rhap, particularly its failure to portray Freddie Mercury in a manner that does him justice. While I understand that it is a valid concern for fans of the band, I admit I don’t know enough about who he was as a person to criticize the film in this aspect. Regardless of its factuality, this still was just average for me, the typical rise-and-fall type of biopic that is indicative of a rockstar’s legacy, but with laughably faulty editing. The redeeming factors were Rami Malek’s brilliant portrayal of the legend himself—his Live Aid performance gave me chills that lasted the entire 20 minutes, how alarming—and, obviously, the soundtrack that I kept on loop for several days.

About Time (2013, dir. Richard Curtis) ★

Apparently, this movie focuses on Tim (Domhnall Gleeson), who discovers at age 21 that the men in his family have the power to time-travel and thus revise and repair certain parts of their lives. He uses this to address the fact that he’s never had a girlfriend, and effectively so as he ends up bagging Mary (Rachel McAdams), a charming American who is the settler in this relationship by default. But, of course, this gift is not without its dire consequences—or at least, that’s what it says on Wikipedia. It’s hard to trash on this and admit that I bailed halfway because so many of my friends swear by this. But, I just couldn’t stomach the lack of chemistry between the two leads; the surprisingly boring dialogue for a screenplay crafted by Richard Curtis of Notting Hill fame; and the story that, although bore enough of a resemblance to “The Time Traveler’s Wife” to be interesting, was still not powerful enough to sustain my attention.

Your Name (2016, dir. Makoto Shinkai) ★★★★★

I’m a huge fan of plots that are sure to make my eyes swell and heart hurt—I can’t explain the psychology behind this either. So when this was recommended to me and I had made it through an hour without shedding a single tear, I was prepared to be disappointed. But, the events leading up to the conclusion proceeded to rip me into shreds, as if to taunt me and say, “You asked for it.” Mitsuha (Mone Kamishiraishi) and Taki (Ryunosuke Kamiki), teenagers living on opposite sides of the country, suddenly start switching bodies following the appearance of a comet. This unexplainable phenomenon causes them to forge an unbreakable bond that transcends the very limits of time and space. I know the description is not much, but it’s best to experience this unique plot for yourself. Besides its storyline, its charm lies in its excruciating attention to detail in depicting life in urban and rural Japan, both in the realistic animation of one picturesque scene after another, and the use of cultural elements to arrive at a twist viewers will not see coming.

Booksmart (2019, dir. Olivia Wilde) ★★★★½

I can't summarize what I imagine Booksmart to be for teenagers in the future, so here's an entire scenario: It's the year 2070. Two young girls of around 16 are sprawled on their bedroom floor, watching this on whatever device they use for streaming. (Maybe it's from an LCD projector embedded in their foreheads, who knows.) The credits roll, and they instantly think to themselves, "Man, we were born in the wrong generation!" (They simultaneously think of doing a high-five, and without raising their hands themselves, it happens because that's technology.) Anyway, Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) and Molly (Beanie Feldstein) are best friends who played by the rules all throughout high school and realized too late that they could’ve afforded to have a little more fun. On the eve of their graduation, they decide to cram four years’ worth of adventure in a single unpredictable and outrageous night, getting to grips with everything that comes their way in an exceedingly comedic yet refreshing fashion. Also, the protagonists have such a genuine and wholesome relationship: the way they hyped up their most ridiculous looking outfits, or overshared borderline uncomfortable stories is honestly my personal definition of an ideal friendship.

When Harry Met Sally (1989, dir. Rob Reiner) ★★★★½

Despite this film’s constant presence in every “chick flicks you must watch” list I’ve bothered searching up, I spent a huge chunk of my teen years in constant protest against the decision to cast Billy Crystal as the male lead instead of, I don’t know, literally any other actor on the planet. But, once I finished it, I realized that he’s a much better fit than I thought. The laidback Harry to Meg Ryan’s finicky Sally, both of them spare no effort exploring and debunking truths and misconceptions about modern relationships: examples of which are the idea of being high maintenance, and the quintessential question of whether a guy and girl can ever be just friends. Although their dynamic is the definition of slow burn, audiences can’t help but earnestly root for the pair—the frustration brought by the several almosts pay off in the end, as they lead to one of, if not, the most romantic love confession scene.

Hintayan ng Langit (2018, dir. Dan Villegas) ★★★★½

This tale adapted from a play by no less than Juan Miguel Severo is set in purgatory—a grandiose art museum-four star hotel hybrid of sorts—where souls can stop and rest while their papers for entry to heaven are being processed. It is here we meet Manolo (Eddie Garcia) and Lisang (Gina Pareno), ex-lovers with unfinished business. Things admittedly start off a bit slow, but it's understandable since there needs to be ample provision of context regarding the standard operating procedures of this unique waiting area. Once that’s done, the focus stays on the main actors, who drive audiences to tears with their powerful performances, and thought-provoking questions on matters of betrayal, forgiveness, and the afterlife. The ending had me rocking back and forth like a baby, my shirt soaked with tears, so do take heed and stock up on tissues!

The Social Network (2010, dir. David Fincher) ★★★★★

Within its packed first 15 minutes alone, you can easily see what makes The Social Network an example of cinema at its finest: an intoxicated Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) hacks into the websites of all Harvard dorms to create Facebook’s oldest ancestor from scratch, in an attempt to get back at his ex-girlfriend. The atmosphere is tense, the dialogue is loaded with witty one-liners and powerful insight, and the actors are so in touch with their characters they practically fuse into a single person. This remains consistent for the next two hours or so, making for an enjoyable and fast-paced, yet still informative glimpse into the human side of what is arguable the most powerful company of this era. I also heard that it’s much more fun if seen with the cast commentary on, so I’m gonna have to find a copy of that for myself!

Pretty in Pink (1986, dir. Howard Deutch) ★★★★★

I’m cheating here, I know: this has been a long-time favorite, but I guess I can still give a review if I was still 15 when I last saw this. Andie (Molly Ringwald) and Blane (Andrew McCarthy)’s classic “poor girl + rich boy = happily ever after” story is masterfully tackled by John Hughes, who manages to inject equal amounts of swoon-worthy romance and biting criticism of the inherent class divide in society. Others would argue that Duckie (Jon Cryer), Andie’s devoted best friend, is the true star of the show, and while I do agree that he has his shining moments (if you listen closely, you can hear Try A Little Tenderness playing softly in the background), I sadly inherited my mother’s adoration for Andrew, which I will pass on to my child and so on—truly the defining characteristic of our lineage.

St. Elmo’s Fire (1985, dir. Joel Schumacher) ½

I understand that being an adult in the Real World is bound to come with some grave mistakes and lapses in judgment. But, not a single character in this friend group redeems themselves by the end. While Ally Sheedy’s Leslie and Mare Winningham’s Wendy were just borderline forgettable (why did the latter even end up here with the Brat Pack?), Judd Nelson’s Alec cheats on his girlfriend and believes that marriage is what will make him change his ways; Rob Lowe’s Billy neglects the family he didn’t plan on having by fooling around with other women and making a home out of his favorite bar; Demi Moore’s Jules relies on cocaine and extramarital affairs to hide trauma she refuses to process, and Andrew McCarthy’s pretentiously cynical Kevin suddenly claims he knows what love is when Leslie pays attention to him for 10 minutes. But, none of them compare to Emilio Estevez’ Kirby, the sociopath obsessed with a girl he barely knows. It honestly resembles some sick contest of how many problems this gang can cause before they end up behind bars, with the last scene being a lazy and rushed attempt to wrap everything up, in the name of this surface-level “friendship”.

Before Sunrise, Sunset, and Midnight (1995, 2004, 2013; dir. Richard Linklater) ★★★★★

Guess it’s better to admit it now, but I made this post as an excuse to rave about how beautiful this trilogy is, the most authentic depiction of love in its purest form. Sunrise has been recommended to me by both friends and the Netflix algorithm, but I put off watching it again and again and again. I mean, what could I possibly get out of looking at two strangers roam around Vienna? Well, to answer that question: quite a lot. Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy)’s relationship spans an entire trilogy, and throughout that period, they manage to define then destroy the idea of having a soulmate to call your own in approximately six hours. But certain constancies are present in each movie: the emotion intense even in the smallest of gestures (you don't understand the anguish I feel when the scene at the listening booth randomly pops in my head), the dialogue truly thought-provoking and natural, the settings so picturesque, and the chemistry of the actors so electric I have trouble believing that the director didn’t actually invade the personal space of a real couple and eventually get issued a restraining order.

High Fidelity (2000, dir. Stephen Frears) ★★

I’d like to think of this as an essay: I'm confident that the introduction is the protagonist Rob's soliloquy on his five biggest breakups to understand why he’s so flawed that everyone always leaves him, and the conclusion his attempt to win his ex Laura (Iben Hjejle) back. But as for the body, I’m not entirely sure. Interspersed between these moments are thoughtful top five lists of anything that can be enumerated, and occasional banter with the employees at his record store that may be charming, but do not enhance the film in any way, shape, or form for me. Also, I normally enjoy seeing John Cusack onscreen, but more often than not, he was nagging in front of the camera instead of talking to the people around him; no wonder his relationships failed!

Scott Pilgrim vs the World (2010, dir. Edgar Wright) ★★★

I wanted to enjoy this so bad, I swear! Sadly, the one thing I gained after seeing this is knowledge of where the “I’m So Sad, So Very Very Sad” meme came from. I get that it’s supposed to resemble a comic book or video game, and maybe the reason why I failed to appreciate this as much is because I was never a fan of either. I found the prolonged action scenes surprisingly boring, the storyline too fantastic, and the whole quest of having to defeat seven monstrous exes for the hand of a manic pixie dream girl not worth it in the end. Although I can’t give it less than three stars given its impressive visual effects, and appeal to the entire Tumblr community (gamers on one end, millennial film connoisseurs on the other), it’s definitely not something I would watch a second time.

There will surely be more where that came from! (I mean it. Since completing this post, I’ve finished another five films.) If you wanna keep tabs on what I’m watching without having to wait on another post, you can give my Letterboxd a follow. Wishing you love and light always, and don’t forget to wash your hands and pray for our frontliners!

#recs #angeltriestoblog #life dump #movies #movies to watch during quarantine #or at least movies I'VE watched over quarantine #so far #17 films are u CRAZY!!!! #i have carpal tunnel #quarantingz

[blazehedgehog]

Have you ever watched Lilo and Stitch, and did you like it?

You’re a rare special case in that this ask was actually the push for me to finally watch it, as I’d been sitting on the fence for a really long time – and since Disney’s stuff is going to be going off Netflix in the future, it all just converged.

That’s a pretty cool movie. I remember it coming firmly in the era where Disney’s output was pretty questionable and formulaic, so I sort of wrote off Lilo & Stitch as more junk. It wasn’t until years later that I caught a few episodes of the saturday morning cartoon (when it was syndicated on the Disney Channel) that I kind of thought that maybe I should one day watch the movie itself. 

What really makes me think is how well the movie is paced. I’ve started feeling like modern animated movies aren’t paced very well – for example, on the train ride over to Nevada I watched Moana. That movie moves really quickly – almost too quickly, actually. They try and cram as much character development as they can in to what literally feels like a few seconds, and then BOOM, we’re off an adventure. Nothing ever really feels like it has time to sink in; the main character meets people who in the context of the story are probably villains and before we can even establish who they are, they’re just friends, and they never really get any deeper than the thinnest surface layers. Nearly every modern Disney movie I’ve seen in the last five or ten years feels like it needed an extra 30 minutes to catch its breath a little bit. Everything feels so rushed.

(The exception to this rule is Frozen, which actually pokes fun at the “you just met this guy and now you’re in love and gonna get married??” trope a little)

I don’t get that feeling with Lilo & Stitch. I mean, I guess Stitch’s turn feels a little abrupt, given he kind of turns on a dime from snarling monster to cuddly defender, but there’s a strong enough hook there that it feels earned (Stitch reads the Ugly Duckling for the first time and identifies with it). That’s the movie’s big twist and the rest is spent dealing with Stitch’s reconciliation of that.

By comparison, a movie like Moana doesn’t have that. We have that one character, the sort of anti-hero I guess you could call him, and it feels like there’s not enough time to develop his relationship with Moana herself before it feels like they’re best friends. Montages are a good way to summarize a long stretch of time for the characters, but they still need to represent a length of time, you know? And it just never feels like enough.

But in Lilo & Stitch, it does.

I’ve been told that the assumption is that modern animated movies are paced this way because modern children have shorter attention spans than ever before. Lilo & Stitch was before the era of the iPhone in everybody’s pocket, after all. But, gosh, I dunno – maybe I just hang around the wrong people, but out of all the family members with kids, only one of them has a modern smart device, and she’s only allowed to use it for 90 minutes a night. Do kids movies really need this kind of break-neck pacing? I think a 10 year old even in 2017 would sit still for a movie paced like Lilo & Stitch.

#questions #disney #movies #lilo & stitch #animated #moana #Anonymous

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/technology/entertainment/avengers-endgame-the-screenwriters-answer-every-question-you-might-have/

‘Avengers: Endgame’: The Screenwriters Answer Every Question You Might Have

This article contains spoilers for “Avengers: Endgame.”

It’s over.

With “Avengers: Endgame,” the two-movie story line that started with “Avengers: Infinity War” is finished, along with the 22-film cycle that represents the Marvel Cinematic Universe to date. And some of the heroes we’ve followed on this decade-long adventure are gone, too.

In the three-hour span of “Endgame,” the Avengers confront and kill Thanos (Josh Brolin), who had used the Infinity Gauntlet to snap away half of all life in the universe. When the story resumes five years later, the Avengers are still left with their grief and remorse — until the unexpected return of Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) kicks off a race back through time to retrieve the Infinity Stones before Thanos could obtain them in the first place. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) sacrifices her life; a colossal battle ensues; Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) dies; and Captain America (Chris Evans) finds a way to live the life he’d always wanted, reappearing as an old man to entrust his shield to the Falcon (Anthony Mackie).

These and many other head-spinning developments in “Endgame” emerged from the imaginations of its screenwriters, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, who also wrote “Infinity War.” (Both films were directed by Joe and Anthony Russo.) Markus and McFeely have been friends and collaborators since the 1990s and also wrote all three “Captain America” movies as well as “Thor: The Dark World” (with Christopher L. Yost) and created the Marvel TV series “Agent Carter.”

In a recent interview in their offices in Los Angeles, Markus and McFeely discussed the many choices and possibilities of “Endgame,” the roads not taken and the decisions behind who lived and who died. These are edited excerpts from that conversation.

Deciding the Plot Points

How did you decide where the major events of “Infinity War” and “Endgame” would fall? CHRISTOPHER MARKUS The biggest point was probably the Snap. And we realized fairly early on that if we didn’t do it at the end of the first movie, the first movie wasn’t going to have an end. And if we did it too early in the first movie, it would be a bit of an anticlimax after you’ve killed half the universe to have them stumbling around for half an hour. STEPHEN McFEELY Another big plot point is when everyone comes back. So the question is, is it early in the second movie? Late in the second movie? You notice the players left on the board are the O.G. Avengers [Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye], and let’s give them their due. It meant that we were likely going to bring people back late. So that if you were a big fan of Doctor Strange or Black Panther or Bucky [the Winter Soldier] or Sam [the Falcon], you’re only going to get a little brief window on them. It can’t be all things to all people.

How did you choose which characters would survive for “Endgame”?

MARKUS We knew we wanted to see Cap and Tony dealing with the aftermath so that you could really see them suffer, quite frankly. And that’s why Cap and Natasha are relatively minimal in the first movie, because all they’d be doing is punching. We knew that they had a lot of story in the second movie, and there were other people who would have much more story in the first movie, like the Guardians. McFEELY Thor is strangely the one that gets two movies’ worth of story. MARKUS For a guy people once thought of as boring, he’s become very useful.

“Endgame” sort of tricks you by having the heroes kill Thanos almost immediately, only to discover it doesn’t solve anything. Why was that important? McFEELY We always had this problem. The guy has the ultimate weapon. He can see it coming. It’s ridiculous. We were just banging our heads for weeks, and at some point, [the executive producer] Trinh Tran went, “Can’t we just kill him?” And we all went, “What happens if you just kill him? Why would you kill him? Why would he let you kill him?” MARKUS It reinforced Thanos’s agenda. He was done. Not to make him too Christ-like, but it was like, “If I’ve got to die, I can die now.”

There’s a lot of bleakness and despair for roughly the first hour of the movie. Did that feel like a risk for a big-event picture? MARKUS It felt less risky once I saw the reaction to “Infinity War.” You never know how you’re going to hit people, emotionally. We’ve been sitting with these events for years. We no longer have an emotional reaction. And then you see people crying in the theater. We’ve got to honor that or it’s going to feel like we’re just jerking them around. McFEELY It was the part in test screenings where people were most uncomfortable. Because you are wallowing to a degree. There doesn’t seem to be any hope. In the end of Act II for most superhero movies, maybe they lose for five minutes. Here it’s for five years. That seemed important.

And that theme of loss is continued when Scott Lang visits a memorial to the dead in San Francisco. McFEELY We used to have beats in the script where there are those in every city. Millions of names. MARKUS It’s that sense of collective trauma and the fact that if you weren’t killed, you wake up the next day — the trauma happened and I’m still here. How do we deal with this? That was the Stan Lee trick. Where’s the anxiety coming from? Now that they have Power X.

Character Arcs

How did you start to determine the trajectories for the heroes in “Endgame”? McFEELY Chris and I wrote a master document while we were shooting “Civil War,” and one of the things we were interested in exploring is, remember the What If comics? Well, this is our what if. If you lost, Thor becomes fat. Natasha becomes a shut-in. Steve becomes depressed. Tony gets on with his life. Hulk is a superhero. MARKUS Clint becomes a murdering maniac. When we were spitballing for “Endgame,” we started with, Thor’s on a mission of vengeance. And then we were like, he was on a mission of vengeance in the last movie. This is all this guy ever does! And fails, all the time. Let’s drive him into a wall and see what happens. McFEELY He just got drunk and fat.

At least the Hulk is in a better place. MARKUS There was a time when Banner became Smart Hulk in the first movie. It was a lot of fun, but it came at the wrong moment. It was an up, right when everyone else was down. McFEELY It happened in Wakanda. His arc was designed like, I’m not getting along with the Hulk, the Hulk won’t come out. And then they compromise and become Smart Hulk. MARKUS We were like, but he’s Smart Hulk in the next movie. So that diner scene [in “Endgame”], was like, O.K., how do we smash right into that without scenes of him in a lab, gene-splicing? McFEELY Oh, I wrote scenes in a lab. Now it’s just him eating pancakes and I think it generally works. MARKUS The whole thing rides on Rudd going, “I’m so confused.”

Though Ant-Man didn’t participate in “Infinity War,” we saw how the Snap affected him in the tag for “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” How did you decide to pay this off in “Endgame”? McFEELY In late 2015 they say, you’re writing the 19th movie [“Infinity War”] and the 22nd movie. So we chose to make lemonade. And that was a big moment — we figured out we can withhold Ant-Man because he’s in his own movie. And their movie is not affected until the tag, and that just gives us a place to go [in “Endgame”]. You can do this when you’re planning ahead this much. The tone is all weird, right? Because that’s a light, fun movie and then we just kill everybody in the tag.

Hawkeye took arguably the darkest turn of any hero in this series.

McFEELY He’s a good example of people who had much stronger stories after the Snap. What was the story to tell with Hawkeye in the first movie that was different than anybody else’s? Leaving his family to go fight again? Yeah, he did that in “Civil War.” The hope is that he’s killing bad people. MARKUS There was a time where we contemplated having that archery scene in the first movie, after the Snap. You snap, and then you pop up in Clint’s farm — what are we watching? — and that’s the first indication it had a wider effect. But he literally had not been in the movie prior to that point. It’s cool, but it’s going to blunt the brutality of what [Thanos] did. McFEELY Joe [Russo] said we’ll put that up front in the second one.

Once you’d seen how successful “Black Panther” and “Captain Marvel” were, did you try to find more opportunities for the characters from those films? McFEELY There wasn’t a lot of time to adjust. It’s not like we could say, “Hurry, put Shuri in there.” We started [filming “Infinity War” and “Endgame”], and then “Black Panther” started, we’re still going. They finish. We’re still going. MARKUS “Panther” comes out. McFEELY When we’re doing the tests [before “Black Panther” opened], and Cap goes, “I know somewhere,” and then you cut to Wakanda, the audience goes, “Oh, that’s interesting.” But when you do those tests after the movie comes out, all you have to do is [makes drumming noises] and people freak out. Same issue with “Captain Marvel.” We shot [Brie Larson] before she shot her movie. She’s saying lines for a character 20 years after her origin story, which no one’s written yet. It’s just nuts.

MARKUS She’s been in space nearly half her life. She has obligations. McFEELY Certainly, Captain Marvel is in [“Endgame”] a little less than you would have thought. But that’s not the story we’re trying to tell — it’s the original Avengers dealing with loss and coming to a conclusion, and she’s the new, fresh blood.

Were there any Marvel characters you wanted for these movies that you couldn’t have? MARKUS We did try to put the Living Tribunal in the first movie. We wrote a scene in which he appeared during the Titan fight. And everyone was like, what? McFEELY Whoa. He’s got three heads. It would indicate a whole different level of architecture to the universe and I think that was too much to just throw in. MARKUS The idea’s still in [Marvel Studios President] Kevin [Feige]’s court. McFEELY Oh sure, we probably just spoiled it. MARKUS The Living Tribunal has his own streaming show. McFEELY It’s like “Judge Judy.”

Adventures in Time Travel

Early in “Endgame,” the movie jumps ahead five years. Was that inspired by some TV series that have also used this device? MARKUS That was what we bought ourselves by ending the last movie the way we did. We wanted it to be real and for a long time — both in movie time and in chronological time for the characters. You couldn’t end Natasha, Tony and Steve the way we do without knowing that they’ve done their time and this is taking them to the brink. McFEELY We talked about “Fargo” from the first season, where it just jumps a year. And you go, “Whaaaaat?” We hopefully get a similar reaction. MARKUS And when “Lost” had their flash forwards, you were like, how’d that happen?

Where did the idea for the time-travel story line come from? McFEELY Kevin [Feige] at one point said, I would like to use the Time Stone, or use time as an element. It let us spend a few weeks seeing what’s the kookiest thing we could do with time and not break the movie. MARKUS We all sat there going, really? We’re going to do time travel? It was only when we were looking at who we had available, character-wise; we hadn’t used Ant-Man yet. And there really is, in people’s theory of the Quantum Realm, a time thing in the M.C.U., right now, available to us, with a character we haven’t used yet. We have a loophole that’s not cheating.

It’s crucial to your film that in your formulation of time travel, changes to the past don’t alter our present. How did you decide this? MARKUS We looked at a lot of time-travel stories and went, it doesn’t work that way. McFEELY It was by necessity. If you have six MacGuffins and every time you go back it changes something, you’ve got Biff’s casino, exponentially. So we just couldn’t do that. We had physicists come in — more than one — who said, basically, “Back to the Future” is . MARKUS Basically said what the Hulk says in that scene, which is, if you go to the past, then the present becomes your past and the past becomes your future. So there’s absolutely no reason it would change.

Did you try any other approaches to the time-travel story? McFEELY In the first draft, we didn’t go back to the [original]“Avengers” movie. We went back to Asgard. But there’s a moment in the M.C.U., if you’re paying very close attention, where the Aether is there and the Tesseract is in the vault. In that iteration, we were interested in Tony going to Asgard. He had a stealth suit, so he was invisible, and he fought Heimdall, who could see him. MARKUS Thor had long scenes with Natalie Portman. And Morag [the planet where Peter Quill finds the Orb] was hugely complicated. McFEELY It was underwater! That was clever but it was just too big a set piece. What that didn’t do is allow for Thanos and his daughters to get on the trail at the right moment. So we went back to when Peter Quill was there. And we realized that when you can punch Quill in the face, it’s hilarious. I still think it’s hilarious. MARKUS There were entirely other trips taken. They went to the Triskelion at one point to get the [Tesseract], and then somebody was going to get into a car and drive to Doctor Strange’s house. McFEELY Just saying it out loud, it’s like, what are we doing? MARKUS It was when we were trying to avoid going to “Avengers” because it seemed pander-y. McFEELY We’re not always right. MARKUS The obvious ones seemed so obvious that it’s too obvious. McFEELY Eventually, Joe Russo went, why are we going to this movie when we can go to “Avengers?” Let’s make it work.

Thor recovers his hammer, Mjolnir, by taking it from an earlier timeline. So that raises the question — McFEELY Does that screw that other Thor? MARKUS Is he killed by Dark Elves? McFEELY I think we’re leaning on, when you just take a baseball mitt, you didn’t ruin that kid’s life. When you took Mjolnir, we accept that that movie happened. Because time is irrefutable. MARKUS You can make any number of what ifs. The Dark Elves would have arrived, intending to get the Aether. It’s what they came for and it was no longer there. McFEELY So they build a paradise together. MARKUS They all got married. [laughter]

There’s a surprise cameo, in the “Avengers” scene, from Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce. Did you prepare for other scenarios if Redford wasn’t available? McFEELY That was one where we thought, should it be Nick Fury? We also wrote a version for Maria Hill. That whole time, they’re announcing “Old Man With a Gun” as Redford’s last appearance on film. It’s the last time you’re going to see Robert Redford. And we’re going — [shoots conspiratorial look at Markus] [Laughter]

The Final Battle

How did Marvel feel when you told them you envisioned a massive battle royal with nearly every character from the franchise? MARKUS I think they knew it was coming. McFEELY It’s why it took so long. We shot for 200 days for two movies. MARKUS We wrote and shot an even much longer battle, with its own three-act structure.

Were there scenes you wrote for this sequence that didn’t make it into the film? McFEELY It didn’t play well, but we had a scene in a trench where, for reasons, the battle got paused for about three minutes and now there’s 18 people all going, “What are we going to do?” “I’m going to do this.” “I’m going to do this.” Just bouncing around this completely fake, fraudulent scene. When you have that many people, it invariably is, one line, one line, one line. And that’s not a natural conversation. MARKUS It also required them to find enough shelter to have a conversation in the middle of the biggest battle. It wasn’t a polite World War I battle where you have a moment.

How did you coordinate the moment where all the female Marvel heroes come together? McFEELY There was much conversation. Is that delightful or is it pandering? We went around and around on that. Ultimately we went, we like it too much. MARKUS Part of the fun of the “Avengers” movies has always been team-ups. Marvel has been amassing this huge roster of characters. You’ve got crazy aliens. You’ve got that many badass women. You’ve got three or four people in Iron Man suits.

Were there other characters you could’ve had but didn’t use? MARKUS There were moments, as they brought everybody back, where we’re like, technically, Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer have [Ant-Man] suits. Do we bring them back? It became impossible to track the people we did bring back, but also, it’s just going to be an orgy. McFEELY Do you put Luke Cage in there?

Did you consider using the heroes from the Netflix TV shows, like Daredevil or Jessica Jones? McFEELY We would have to introduce these five characters — or whatever many. We already are assuming people have seen a lot of the movies. Are we really going to assume they have bought a subscription to Netflix and watched those shows enough so that when they see them, they’re going to go “yay?” MARKUS It also screws up the timelines. You would have to assume that they all got snapped away, or otherwise they might have shown up earlier. I think the only character who has come from TV to the movies is Jarvis, James D’Arcy [from “Agent Carter”].

Could you have used any of the characters that Disney obtained from the Fox acquisition, like the X-Men or Fantastic Four? McFEELY Legally, not allowed to. MARKUS I guess it’s done now but it wasn’t done then. They still have an “X-Men” movie [“Dark Phoenix,” due in June]. You can’t reboot them before they’re done. “Sorry to completely screw you.”

“Endgame” shares some unexpected parallels with “Game of Thrones,” which also recently ran episodes about its heroes preparing for a significant battle and then the battle itself. Why do you think these narratives are similar? Did you ever look at “Game of Thrones” for inspiration? MARKUS We’re in a high-stakes time and a jarring time in history, where you have to contemplate what you’re willing to do to improve the situation. Whether or not everyone’s speaking to that, or just good old-fashioned storytelling, I don’t know. McFEELY Marvel has been accused of being the most expensive television show there is, and there’s some truth to that. The genres are different, the tones are different, but it’s serialized storytelling. MARKUS We occasionally wonder, did we just make the world’s most expensive inside-baseball fan service? But then we go, the fans are actually the majority of people who come to this. It’s inside baseball, but everyone is following the baseball. That’s also why the Marvel characters have lasted this long. They’re weird. They have strange quirks. McFEELY The bland ones don’t last. MARKUS I remember “Game of Thrones” being a reference for the first movie. How far apart can you keep these strands, and for how long, and still feel like you’re telling a single narrative? “Game of Thrones” has people who are just meeting now! As much as people think the culture’s going down the drain, there seems to be an elevating of people’s estimating of the kind of narrative that will succeed in popular culture. McFEELY Whatever you think of this movie, it’s complicated. It is not another sequel. MARKUS And a lot of popular TV is complicated. “This Is Us” is complicated. “Simon & Simon” was not that complicated. Great as it was. But it does seem like there is an acceptance of more complicated forms of storytelling.

Was the three-hour running time of “Endgame” ever in question? MARKUS There was an agreement within the whole group that we’re going to take our time; we’re not going to cut a half-hour of it so we can get one more screening in per day. McFEELY We couldn’t! Where are you going to cut a half-hour? There was not a sequence you could cut. MARKUS Look at some of the most popular movies of all time. They’re long as hell. When people want to see something, it doesn’t seem to get in their way. There’s some short, totally unsuccessful movies, too.

Journey’s End

Why does Natasha Romanoff have to die? McFEELY Her journey, in our minds, had come to an end if she could get the Avengers back. She comes from such an abusive, terrible, mind-control background, so when she gets to Vormir and she has a chance to get the family back, that’s a thing she would trade for. The toughest thing for us was we were always worried that people weren’t going to have time to be sad enough. The stakes are still out there and they haven’t solved the problem. But we lost a big character — a female character — how do we honor it? We have this male lens and it’s a lot of guys being sad that a woman died. MARKUS Tony gets a funeral. Natasha doesn’t. That’s partly because Tony’s this massive public figure and she’s been a cipher the whole time. It wasn’t necessarily honest to the character to give her a funeral. The biggest question about it is what Thor raises there on the dock. “We have the Infinity Stones. Why don’t we just bring her back?” McFEELY But that’s the everlasting exchange. You bring her back, you lose the stone.

Was there a possible outcome where Clint Barton sacrifices himself instead of her? McFEELY There was, for sure. Jen Underdahl, our visual effects producer, read an outline or draft where Hawkeye goes over. And she goes, “Don’t you take this away from her.” I actually get emotional thinking about it. MARKUS And it was true, it was him taking the hit for her. It was melodramatic to have him die and not get his family back. And it is only right and proper that she’s done.

And Tony Stark has to die as well? McFEELY Everyone knew this was going to be the end of Tony Stark. MARKUS I don’t think there were any mandates. If we had a good reason to not do it, certainly people would have entertained it. McFEELY The watchword was, end this chapter, and he started the chapter. MARKUS In a way, he has been the mirror of Steve Rogers the entire time. Steve is moving toward some sort of enlightened self-interest, and Tony’s moving to selflessness. They both get to their endpoints.

Were there any other outcomes you considered for Tony? MARKUS No. Because we had the opportunity to give him the perfect retirement life, within the movie. McFEELY He got that already. MARKUS That’s the life he’s been striving for. Are he and Pepper going to get together? Yes. They got married, they had a kid, it was great. It’s a good death. It doesn’t feel like a tragedy. It feels like a heroic, finished life.

And Cap was always going to be allowed his happy ending with Peggy Carter? McFEELY From the very first outline, we knew he was going to get his dance. On a separate subject, I started to lose my barometer on what was just fan service and what was good for the character. Because I think it’s good for the characters. But we also just gave you what you wanted. Is that good? I don’t know. But I’ll tell you, it’s satisfying. He’s postponed a life in order to fulfill his duty. That’s why I didn’t think we were ever going to kill him. Because that’s not the arc. The arc is, I finally get to put my shield down because I’ve earned that. MARKUS A hero without sacrifice, you’re not going to get the miles out of that person that you need to for these movies. That’s what makes them a hero, it’s not the powers.

“Endgame” sets up Sam Wilson as the new Captain America. Is that a future Marvel film? Would you write that? MARKUS We really do just know what you know. They’re doing “The Eternals,” which is a property I know next to nothing about. We’ve been here, trying to set this contraption running. Were we to take another one on, you can’t increase the scope or the stakes from where we are at the moment. We’d have to shrink it back down, do an origin story. There are deep-bench characters where I’m like, if you roll that guy out, I couldn’t resist. There is a great Moon Knight movie to be made, but I don’t know what is.

You’ve been writing these films and characters for more than a decade, and you never got bored of them — McFEELY Or fired. For sure. MARKUS We’ve come close to both. It’s a testament to the concept but also the people we’re working with. We’re not bumping up against this dictatorial level where it’s like, “I have some notes. I really want to see him fly a dragon — put the dragon in. I’m going to lunch.” McFEELY If we have an idea, people take it really seriously. They valued “Winter Soldier” and they saw how “Civil War” was coming together. They’d seen our process and us working with the [Russo] brothers, and they said, if Joss [Whedon] is not coming back — I don’t know that decision — it was clear that, unless they hated us, it was going to be this team. MARKUS But there also was a possibility, because “[Avengers: Age of Ultron”] made a little bit less than “Avengers” 1 — that we were taking on “Superman” 3 and 4. Maybe people were done with it. McFEELY The goal was not to advance it to the stratosphere. It was to just not screw it up.

Is this your Marvel finale as well? MARKUS I don’t know how to follow it up, that’s the problem. I’m not quite old enough to retire.

If “Endgame” has taught us anything, it’s that you should never retire. McFEELY Then they drag you out and kill you.

#at&t news entertainment email #entertainment news bbc #entertainment news games #entertainment news of the week #tiwa n tiwa entertainment news #zergnet entertainment news

[cripplinganxietyflix]

I saw Valerian.

If you’ve ever spoken to me at length about movies, there’s a good chance my thoughts on “headache cinema” have come up. It’s an umbrella term I’ve come up with that encompasses the deluge of loud, obnoxious, brainless, neutered, hundred-million-dollar-budgeted trashfests that are destroying theater culture as we know it. I’m talking about the Disney’s Marvel franchises, the post-Matrix Wachowski migraines, the Transformers films- head-exploding visual fuckfests that leave the average adult feeling like they’ve crawled out some hellscape version of a McDonald’s play palace birthday party. This brand of film is easily my least enjoyed and most disliked. The vast majority of the time these movies are castrated down to a PG-13- or worse, a PG!, they’ve got bloated budgets, dumb plotlines, stupid dialog, and best of all: punching, loud noises, explosions, TOTAL SENSORY OVERLOAD. 

For many years I have hated superhero movies and glazed over at Hollywood’s air-horn retreads of movies like Clash of the Titans and Independence Day: Resurgence and the recent Ghost in the Shell mishap. I hate movies like this and I find them at least majorly to blame for the death of the hard R-rated action flick. There are exceptions to the formula, like Mad Max: Fury Road, the 2014 Godzilla, and Dredd, but generally speaking, they’re unwatchable. I will be the first to admit that I’m not a big fan of whimsy, but I will be happy to defend my position on this. Giant blockbuster action movies are generally dumb and boring if you’ve got more than two brain cells to rub together. I do try to balance my feelings about people who like brain-dead, ham-fisted, infantile PG-13 sci-fi action movies with my penchant for unrepentantly trashy, low-brow 70s and 80s exploitation horror films. I know for a fact that there’s a certain segment of cinema elitists who would see my interest in that subgenre as an undeniable sign of being a philistine troglodyte, which slightly tempers my extreme prejudicial judgment of those who love headache cinema. 

I can pick up the hanging thread to unravel this tapestry. It’ll lead you through all of the recent loud crashing DC fiascos and the rainbow of annoying apocalypse and disaster films and CG shitshows. Once you hit the Star Wars prequels, you’re getting close. But the film that started all of this hatred is Luc Besson’s The Fifth Element, easily in my top five most despised films of all time (that’s a list for another day!). 

It feels a little bizarre for me to say that I hate Luc Besson. Léon: The Professional is one of my favorite films of all time, and easily my favorite film of 1994. But aside from that and 1990′s La Femme Nikita, I find Besson wholly intolerable. His movies tend toward obnxious, incomprehensible, overwhelming, anxiety-inducing horse shit. And while many people are happy to agree with me, it seems no one outside of myself is willing to slaughter the sacred cow that is The Fifth Element. Some see a sci-fi fantasy classic, I proffer that it’s a grotesque panacea of ADHD, loud noises and cringey acting. To Besson’s credit, most of the time his films don’t take themselves seriously, and that’s fine. But The Fifth Element is the first film in my memory where I felt literally assaulted and invaded by the unfettered gaudy head-spinning madness of big, loud, overwhelming movies. My level of general calmness could be compared to a that of a frightened rabbit with combat shock, so I try to be cognizant that this dislike has less to do with objective quality and more to do with my personal preferences and tolerance levels. Let’s be real- I’m a person with severe, crippling anxiety. Headache cinema is not made for me. 

That being said, I saw the trailers for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, and I immediately started getting Vietnam flashbacks of Chris Tucker in a wig and leopard print jumping out of my television and screaming into my face. My significant other has a much more relaxed attitude toward these things and a seemingly endless well of patience for Luc Besson, so I had a feeling I was going to end up seeing this film in theaters and I started mentally preparing for it. And I’m really glad that I did all that emotional gestation, because I found Valerian to be surprisingly tolerable, aside from being a chaotic discombobulation of ideas that all generally have the potential to be good but fail because Luc Besson must have the attention span of a squirrel. And squirrels plant trees because they literally can’t remember where they’ve left their nuts. I couldn’t dream of a better summation of why Luc Besson turns nearly everything he touches into abject shit.

Valerian is essentially a very straight-forward narrative about a couple of federal agents (?) in space (???) who uncover a conspiracy involving a group of displaced aliens. They spend the film unraveling a mystery surrounding an enigmatic void in the middle of a space ship (?) or man-made planet (???) that contains thousands of different species from throughout the universe that live in surprising harmony. The alien refugees and the void on the ship or planet are related, you will later find. 

That’s basically it. It’s a simple storyline with simple elements like “war is bad” and “the powerful oppress the powerless” and “love is universal and always wins.” If you dig down past all of the color and noise and distraction, that’s the basic bedrock. I think I was expecting this movie to be a convoluted mess, and to a great extent it absolutely was. But I wouldn’t say that the story was the weakest part of the film. 

What did some substantial damage was the acting and dialog. The two leads had no chemistry and the actor playing the title character (Dane DeHaan) had a stunning drought of charisma. I think that his opposite, Cara Delevingne, has the potential to be a fun leading lady, but she never had a chance in this movie. The love angle was hackneyed and totally unnecessary to the point that the film would have fared much better if Valerian and Laureline were friends instead of a ~~will they or won’t they???~~ couple. I thought it was insulting to my sensibilities, and that sucks since the romance thing was such an ingrained aspect of the movie. I couldn’t tell if they were even in a relationship with each other or if Valerian had puppy love and Laureline has simply spent their entire careers fighting off his advances only to reluctantly agree to marry him after the film’s climax. This film could have really used a competent screen writer. I think I even could have lived with some of the eye-rollingly dumb but baseline-acceptable dialog you hear in Disney’s© Marvel™ Avengers Part 2: Electric Boogaloo. The villain (played by Clive Owen) was such a stupid caricature of literally everything that is wrong with Bad Guys in major American cinema- instantly hate-able, predictable, no angle or point of sympathy, stupid rationale for his actions-type of shit. And what’s really frustrating is that the Owen’s villain had a completely rational and utilitarian motive for his actions. But that gets torpedoed by the giant flashing neon signs that say “HE’S THE BAD GUY” and “EVIL PIECE OF SHIT” hanging over his head in every scene he’s featured in. It absolutely felt like the characters were totally empty and needed to be reworked from the ground up. I even thought Rihanna’s character had more depth than either Valerian or Laureline. Valerian’s a by-the-books soldier with a heart of gold? Could have fooled me! Laureline’s a toughgirl with a penchant for violent overreaction but still maintains a balanced moral compass? Hard to see through the horse shit nonsense they wrote for her. Character development and the script were both a total, unmitigated disaster.  

Another thing that I think the film failed at was building tension. Everything felt a little too whimsical and inconsequential. In the beginning, a bus full of mercenaries (?) is attacked by a violent hexapedal alien and Valerian and Laureline watch all of them die savagely with nothing more than a smirking “glad we made it outta that scrape!” reaction. It never really feels like they’re in any danger or that there’s any emotional peak or valley for the characters, with maybe a single, small exception. You watch a lot of people get shot to death and even a head get blown clean off and another cut right in half, but it all seems so cartoonish and trivial that you can’t help but feel like nothing really matters and it’s all just a low-stakes video game. 

But I don’t want to give you the impression that this movie is a complete trainwreck (it tries, believe me). There were things that I liked and appreciated. The visuals and alien designs were inventive and there was never really a moment where you couldn’t get lost in the scene. It kind of felt like Rick and Morty without the nihilism and good writing. Everything was very colorful, the universe felt very inhabited. Around halfway through, Valerian and Laureline have an almost brilliant run in with a species of giant food-obsessed frogs (I actually went through the trouble of looking it up; they’re called Boulan-Bathors) and I found the whole scenario to be kind of charming and cute. I didn’t really mind Rihanna’s cameo. The refugee aliens, the Pearls, were cool and appealing in the same translucent way as the Engineers of Prometheus. While I definitely felt some Avatar vibes, the whole opalescent, iridescent aesthetic was visually pleasing and I really liked the semi-androgynous thing they had going on. 

I think the strongest part of this film is the first several minutes that lays out Earth’s journey into space. It was beautiful and touching and enough to make you feel really depressed about the state of our space exploration programs and the hopelessness and polarization of our world affairs. I would liked to have seen more of a thematic connection to the introduction because it felt extremely dissonant with the rest of the movie, which, by comparison, is hard to feel particularly emotional about. If you’re not planning on seeing Valerian, I would at least recommend watching the first few minutes. If the movie had come full circle to it, you can see how it could have been brilliant. 

Overall, Valerian is kind of a giant mess, and by all means I should have absolutely hated it, because it is textbook headache cinema. I think that there was a wide dearth of missed opportunities with the material, and with a more competent screenwriter, a better cast, and maybe someone else in the director’s seat, we’d be talking about a viable start to a franchise. But too often Valerian ties its own shoelaces together and eats shit and expects us to be engrossed and entertained. The relationship between Valerian and Laureline- both as a friendship, coworkership and romance- either needed to be reengineered from the ground up or scrapped entirely. I think Dane DeHaan was totally wrong for the part of Valerian and I could see this movie succeeding in more ways had someone with more charisma been the leading man. Valerian desperately needed some tension, and the total absence of crisis or consequence left an unbridgeable emotional void. It’s beautiful- but it’s a mess, and that seems to be Luc Besson’s calling card. I doubt we’ll ever see another Léon, but if Besson’s next film is as much of an improvement on Valerian as Valerian was on Lucy, then we might have the potential to see something really special. And maybe in five to eight years when everyone has forgotten about this spectacle, we’ll get a decent reboot for the Valerian material. 

★ ★ ½

#valerian #luc besson #the fifth element #cara delevingne #dane dehaan #clive owen #movies #movie reviews

[biofunmy]

‘Avengers: Endgame’: The Screenwriters Answer Every Question You Might Have

This article contains spoilers for “Avengers: Endgame.”

It’s over.

With “Avengers: Endgame,” the two-movie story line that started with “Avengers: Infinity War” is finished, along with the 22-film cycle that represents the Marvel Cinematic Universe to date. And some of the heroes we’ve followed on this decade-long adventure are gone, too.

In the three-hour span of “Endgame,” the Avengers confront and kill Thanos (Josh Brolin), who had used the Infinity Gauntlet to snap away half of all life in the universe. When the story resumes five years later, the Avengers are still left with their grief and remorse — until the unexpected return of Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) kicks off a race back through time to retrieve the Infinity Stones before Thanos could obtain them in the first place. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) sacrifices her life; a colossal battle ensues; Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) dies; and Captain America (Chris Evans) finds a way to live the life he’d always wanted, reappearing as an old man to entrust his shield to the Falcon (Anthony Mackie).

These and many other head-spinning developments in “Endgame” emerged from the imaginations of its screenwriters, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, who also wrote “Infinity War.” (Both films were directed by Joe and Anthony Russo.) Markus and McFeely have been friends and collaborators since the 1990s and also wrote all three “Captain America” movies as well as “Thor: The Dark World” (with Christopher L. Yost) and created the Marvel TV series “Agent Carter.”

In a recent interview in their offices in Los Angeles, Markus and McFeely discussed the many choices and possibilities of “Endgame,” the roads not taken and the decisions behind who lived and who died. These are edited excerpts from that conversation.

Deciding the Plot Points

How did you decide where the major events of “Infinity War” and “Endgame” would fall? CHRISTOPHER MARKUS The biggest point was probably the Snap. And we realized fairly early on that if we didn’t do it at the end of the first movie, the first movie wasn’t going to have an end. And if we did it too early in the first movie, it would be a bit of an anticlimax after you’ve killed half the universe to have them stumbling around for half an hour. STEPHEN McFEELY Another big plot point is when everyone comes back. So the question is, is it early in the second movie? Late in the second movie? You notice the players left on the board are the O.G. Avengers [Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye], and let’s give them their due. It meant that we were likely going to bring people back late. So that if you were a big fan of Doctor Strange or Black Panther or Bucky [the Winter Soldier] or Sam [the Falcon], you’re only going to get a little brief window on them. It can’t be all things to all people.

How did you choose which characters would survive for “Endgame”?

MARKUS We knew we wanted to see Cap and Tony dealing with the aftermath so that you could really see them suffer, quite frankly. And that’s why Cap and Natasha are relatively minimal in the first movie, because all they’d be doing is punching. We knew that they had a lot of story in the second movie, and there were other people who would have much more story in the first movie, like the Guardians. McFEELY Thor is strangely the one that gets two movies’ worth of story. MARKUS For a guy people once thought of as boring, he’s become very useful.

“Endgame” sort of tricks you by having the heroes kill Thanos almost immediately, only to discover it doesn’t solve anything. Why was that important? McFEELY We always had this problem. The guy has the ultimate weapon. He can see it coming. It’s ridiculous. We were just banging our heads for weeks, and at some point, [the executive producer] Trinh Tran went, “Can’t we just kill him?” And we all went, “What happens if you just kill him? Why would you kill him? Why would he let you kill him?” MARKUS It reinforced Thanos’s agenda. He was done. Not to make him too Christ-like, but it was like, “If I’ve got to die, I can die now.”

There’s a lot of bleakness and despair for roughly the first hour of the movie. Did that feel like a risk for a big-event picture? MARKUS It felt less risky once I saw the reaction to “Infinity War.” You never know how you’re going to hit people, emotionally. We’ve been sitting with these events for years. We no longer have an emotional reaction. And then you see people crying in the theater. We’ve got to honor that or it’s going to feel like we’re just jerking them around. McFEELY It was the part in test screenings where people were most uncomfortable. Because you are wallowing to a degree. There doesn’t seem to be any hope. In the end of Act II for most superhero movies, maybe they lose for five minutes. Here it’s for five years. That seemed important.

And that theme of loss is continued when Scott Lang visits a memorial to the dead in San Francisco. McFEELY We used to have beats in the script where there are those in every city. Millions of names. MARKUS It’s that sense of collective trauma and the fact that if you weren’t killed, you wake up the next day — the trauma happened and I’m still here. How do we deal with this? That was the Stan Lee trick. Where’s the anxiety coming from? Now that they have Power X.

Character Arcs

How did you start to determine the trajectories for the heroes in “Endgame”? McFEELY Chris and I wrote a master document while we were shooting “Civil War,” and one of the things we were interested in exploring is, remember the What If comics? Well, this is our what if. If you lost, Thor becomes fat. Natasha becomes a shut-in. Steve becomes depressed. Tony gets on with his life. Hulk is a superhero. MARKUS Clint becomes a murdering maniac. When we were spitballing for “Endgame,” we started with, Thor’s on a mission of vengeance. And then we were like, he was on a mission of vengeance in the last movie. This is all this guy ever does! And fails, all the time. Let’s drive him into a wall and see what happens. McFEELY He just got drunk and fat.

At least the Hulk is in a better place. MARKUS There was a time when Banner became Smart Hulk in the first movie. It was a lot of fun, but it came at the wrong moment. It was an up, right when everyone else was down. McFEELY It happened in Wakanda. His arc was designed like, I’m not getting along with the Hulk, the Hulk won’t come out. And then they compromise and become Smart Hulk. MARKUS We were like, but he’s Smart Hulk in the next movie. So that diner scene [in “Endgame”], was like, O.K., how do we smash right into that without scenes of him in a lab, gene-splicing? McFEELY Oh, I wrote scenes in a lab. Now it’s just him eating pancakes and I think it generally works. MARKUS The whole thing rides on Rudd going, “I’m so confused.”

Though Ant-Man didn’t participate in “Infinity War,” we saw how the Snap affected him in the tag for “Ant-Man and the Wasp.” How did you decide to pay this off in “Endgame”? McFEELY In late 2015 they say, you’re writing the 19th movie [“Infinity War”] and the 22nd movie. So we chose to make lemonade. And that was a big moment — we figured out we can withhold Ant-Man because he’s in his own movie. And their movie is not affected until the tag, and that just gives us a place to go [in “Endgame”]. You can do this when you’re planning ahead this much. The tone is all weird, right? Because that’s a light, fun movie and then we just kill everybody in the tag.

Hawkeye took arguably the darkest turn of any hero in this series.

McFEELY He’s a good example of people who had much stronger stories after the Snap. What was the story to tell with Hawkeye in the first movie that was different than anybody else’s? Leaving his family to go fight again? Yeah, he did that in “Civil War.” The hope is that he’s killing bad people. MARKUS There was a time where we contemplated having that archery scene in the first movie, after the Snap. You snap, and then you pop up in Clint’s farm — what are we watching? — and that’s the first indication it had a wider effect. But he literally had not been in the movie prior to that point. It’s cool, but it’s going to blunt the brutality of what [Thanos] did. McFEELY Joe [Russo] said we’ll put that up front in the second one.

Once you’d seen how successful “Black Panther” and “Captain Marvel” were, did you try to find more opportunities for the characters from those films? McFEELY There wasn’t a lot of time to adjust. It’s not like we could say, “Hurry, put Shuri in there.” We started [filming “Infinity War” and “Endgame”], and then “Black Panther” started, we’re still going. They finish. We’re still going. MARKUS “Panther” comes out. McFEELY When we’re doing the tests [before “Black Panther” opened], and Cap goes, “I know somewhere,” and then you cut to Wakanda, the audience goes, “Oh, that’s interesting.” But when you do those tests after the movie comes out, all you have to do is [makes drumming noises] and people freak out. Same issue with “Captain Marvel.” We shot [Brie Larson] before she shot her movie. She’s saying lines for a character 20 years after her origin story, which no one’s written yet. It’s just nuts.

MARKUS She’s been in space nearly half her life. She has obligations. McFEELY Certainly, Captain Marvel is in [“Endgame”] a little less than you would have thought. But that’s not the story we’re trying to tell — it’s the original Avengers dealing with loss and coming to a conclusion, and she’s the new, fresh blood.

Were there any Marvel characters you wanted for these movies that you couldn’t have? MARKUS We did try to put the Living Tribunal in the first movie. We wrote a scene in which he appeared during the Titan fight. And everyone was like, what? McFEELY Whoa. He’s got three heads. It would indicate a whole different level of architecture to the universe and I think that was too much to just throw in. MARKUS The idea’s still in [Marvel Studios President] Kevin [Feige]’s court. McFEELY Oh sure, we probably just spoiled it. MARKUS The Living Tribunal has his own streaming show. McFEELY It’s like “Judge Judy.”

Adventures in Time Travel

Early in “Endgame,” the movie jumps ahead five years. Was that inspired by some TV series that have also used this device? MARKUS That was what we bought ourselves by ending the last movie the way we did. We wanted it to be real and for a long time — both in movie time and in chronological time for the characters. You couldn’t end Natasha, Tony and Steve the way we do without knowing that they’ve done their time and this is taking them to the brink. McFEELY We talked about “Fargo” from the first season, where it just jumps a year. And you go, “Whaaaaat?” We hopefully get a similar reaction. MARKUS And when “Lost” had their flash forwards, you were like, how’d that happen?

Where did the idea for the time-travel story line come from? McFEELY Kevin [Feige] at one point said, I would like to use the Time Stone, or use time as an element. It let us spend a few weeks seeing what’s the kookiest thing we could do with time and not break the movie. MARKUS We all sat there going, really? We’re going to do time travel? It was only when we were looking at who we had available, character-wise; we hadn’t used Ant-Man yet. And there really is, in people’s theory of the Quantum Realm, a time thing in the M.C.U., right now, available to us, with a character we haven’t used yet. We have a loophole that’s not cheating.

It’s crucial to your film that in your formulation of time travel, changes to the past don’t alter our present. How did you decide this? MARKUS We looked at a lot of time-travel stories and went, it doesn’t work that way. McFEELY It was by necessity. If you have six MacGuffins and every time you go back it changes something, you’ve got Biff’s casino, exponentially. So we just couldn’t do that. We had physicists come in — more than one — who said, basically, “Back to the Future” is [wrong]. MARKUS Basically said what the Hulk says in that scene, which is, if you go to the past, then the present becomes your past and the past becomes your future. So there’s absolutely no reason it would change.

Did you try any other approaches to the time-travel story? McFEELY In the first draft, we didn’t go back to the [original]“Avengers” movie. We went back to Asgard. But there’s a moment in the M.C.U., if you’re paying very close attention, where the Aether is there and the Tesseract is in the vault. In that iteration, we were interested in Tony going to Asgard. He had a stealth suit, so he was invisible, and he fought Heimdall, who could see him. MARKUS Thor had long scenes with Natalie Portman. And Morag [the planet where Peter Quill finds the Orb] was hugely complicated. McFEELY It was underwater! That was clever but it was just too big a set piece. What that didn’t do is allow for Thanos and his daughters to get on the trail at the right moment. So we went back to when Peter Quill was there. And we realized that when you can punch Quill in the face, it’s hilarious. I still think it’s hilarious. MARKUS There were entirely other trips taken. They went to the Triskelion at one point to get the [Tesseract], and then somebody was going to get into a car and drive to Doctor Strange’s house. McFEELY Just saying it out loud, it’s like, what are we doing? MARKUS It was when we were trying to avoid going to “Avengers” because it seemed pander-y. McFEELY We’re not always right. MARKUS The obvious ones seemed so obvious that it’s too obvious. McFEELY Eventually, Joe Russo went, why are we going to this movie when we can go to “Avengers?” Let’s make it work.

Thor recovers his hammer, Mjolnir, by taking it from an earlier timeline. So that raises the question — McFEELY Does that screw that other Thor? MARKUS Is he killed by Dark Elves? McFEELY I think we’re leaning on, when you just take a baseball mitt, you didn’t ruin that kid’s life. When you took Mjolnir, we accept that that movie happened. Because time is irrefutable. MARKUS You can make any number of what ifs. The Dark Elves would have arrived, intending to get the Aether. It’s what they came for and it was no longer there. McFEELY So they build a paradise together. MARKUS They all got married. [laughter]

There’s a surprise cameo, in the “Avengers” scene, from Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce. Did you prepare for other scenarios if Redford wasn’t available? McFEELY That was one where we thought, should it be Nick Fury? We also wrote a version for Maria Hill. That whole time, they’re announcing “Old Man With a Gun” as Redford’s last appearance on film. It’s the last time you’re going to see Robert Redford. And we’re going — [shoots conspiratorial look at Markus] [Laughter]

The Final Battle

How did Marvel feel when you told them you envisioned a massive battle royal with nearly every character from the franchise? MARKUS I think they knew it was coming. McFEELY It’s why it took so long. We shot for 200 days for two movies. MARKUS We wrote and shot an even much longer battle, with its own three-act structure.

Were there scenes you wrote for this sequence that didn’t make it into the film? McFEELY It didn’t play well, but we had a scene in a trench where, for reasons, the battle got paused for about three minutes and now there’s 18 people all going, “What are we going to do?” “I’m going to do this.” “I’m going to do this.” Just bouncing around this completely fake, fraudulent scene. When you have that many people, it invariably is, one line, one line, one line. And that’s not a natural conversation. MARKUS It also required them to find enough shelter to have a conversation in the middle of the biggest battle. It wasn’t a polite World War I battle where you have a moment.

How did you coordinate the moment where all the female Marvel heroes come together? McFEELY There was much conversation. Is that delightful or is it pandering? We went around and around on that. Ultimately we went, we like it too much. MARKUS Part of the fun of the “Avengers” movies has always been team-ups. Marvel has been amassing this huge roster of characters. You’ve got crazy aliens. You’ve got that many badass women. You’ve got three or four people in Iron Man suits.

Were there other characters you could’ve had but didn’t use? MARKUS There were moments, as they brought everybody back, where we’re like, technically, Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer have [Ant-Man] suits. Do we bring them back? It became impossible to track the people we did bring back, but also, it’s just going to be an orgy. McFEELY Do you put Luke Cage in there?

Did you consider using the heroes from the Netflix TV shows, like Daredevil or Jessica Jones? McFEELY We would have to introduce these five characters — or whatever many. We already are assuming people have seen a lot of the movies. Are we really going to assume they have bought a subscription to Netflix and watched those shows enough so that when they see them, they’re going to go “yay?” MARKUS It also screws up the timelines. You would have to assume that they all got snapped away, or otherwise they might have shown up earlier. I think the only character who has come from TV to the movies is Jarvis, James D’Arcy [from “Agent Carter”].

Could you have used any of the characters that Disney obtained from the Fox acquisition, like the X-Men or Fantastic Four? McFEELY Legally, not allowed to. MARKUS I guess it’s done now but it wasn’t done then. They still have an “X-Men” movie [“Dark Phoenix,” due in June]. You can’t reboot them before they’re done. “Sorry to completely screw you.”

“Endgame” shares some unexpected parallels with “Game of Thrones,” which also recently ran episodes about its heroes preparing for a significant battle and then the battle itself. Why do you think these narratives are similar? Did you ever look at “Game of Thrones” for inspiration? MARKUS We’re in a high-stakes time and a jarring time in history, where you have to contemplate what you’re willing to do to improve the situation. Whether or not everyone’s speaking to that, or just good old-fashioned storytelling, I don’t know. McFEELY Marvel has been accused of being the most expensive television show there is, and there’s some truth to that. The genres are different, the tones are different, but it’s serialized storytelling. MARKUS We occasionally wonder, did we just make the world’s most expensive inside-baseball fan service? But then we go, the fans are actually the majority of people who come to this. It’s inside baseball, but everyone is following the baseball. That’s also why the Marvel characters have lasted this long. They’re weird. They have strange quirks. McFEELY The bland ones don’t last. MARKUS I remember “Game of Thrones” being a reference for the first movie. How far apart can you keep these strands, and for how long, and still feel like you’re telling a single narrative? “Game of Thrones” has people who are just meeting now! As much as people think the culture’s going down the drain, there seems to be an elevating of people’s estimating of the kind of narrative that will succeed in popular culture. McFEELY Whatever you think of this movie, it’s complicated. It is not another sequel. MARKUS And a lot of popular TV is complicated. “This Is Us” is complicated. “Simon & Simon” was not that complicated. Great as it was. But it does seem like there is an acceptance of more complicated forms of storytelling.

Was the three-hour running time of “Endgame” ever in question? MARKUS There was an agreement within the whole group that we’re going to take our time; we’re not going to cut a half-hour of it so we can get one more screening in per day. McFEELY We couldn’t! Where are you going to cut a half-hour? There was not a sequence you could cut. MARKUS Look at some of the most popular movies of all time. They’re long as hell. When people want to see something, it doesn’t seem to get in their way. There’s some short, totally unsuccessful movies, too.

Journey’s End

Why does Natasha Romanoff have to die? McFEELY Her journey, in our minds, had come to an end if she could get the Avengers back. She comes from such an abusive, terrible, mind-control background, so when she gets to Vormir and she has a chance to get the family back, that’s a thing she would trade for. The toughest thing for us was we were always worried that people weren’t going to have time to be sad enough. The stakes are still out there and they haven’t solved the problem. But we lost a big character — a female character — how do we honor it? We have this male lens and it’s a lot of guys being sad that a woman died. MARKUS Tony gets a funeral. Natasha doesn’t. That’s partly because Tony’s this massive public figure and she’s been a cipher the whole time. It wasn’t necessarily honest to the character to give her a funeral. The biggest question about it is what Thor raises there on the dock. “We have the Infinity Stones. Why don’t we just bring her back?” McFEELY But that’s the everlasting exchange. You bring her back, you lose the stone.

Was there a possible outcome where Clint Barton sacrifices himself instead of her? McFEELY There was, for sure. Jen Underdahl, our visual effects producer, read an outline or draft where Hawkeye goes over. And she goes, “Don’t you take this away from her.” I actually get emotional thinking about it. MARKUS And it was true, it was him taking the hit for her. It was melodramatic to have him die and not get his family back. And it is only right and proper that she’s done.

And Tony Stark has to die as well? McFEELY Everyone knew this was going to be the end of Tony Stark. MARKUS I don’t think there were any mandates. If we had a good reason to not do it, certainly people would have entertained it. McFEELY The watchword was, end this chapter, and he started the chapter. MARKUS In a way, he has been the mirror of Steve Rogers the entire time. Steve is moving toward some sort of enlightened self-interest, and Tony’s moving to selflessness. They both get to their endpoints.

Were there any other outcomes you considered for Tony? MARKUS No. Because we had the opportunity to give him the perfect retirement life, within the movie. McFEELY He got that already. MARKUS That’s the life he’s been striving for. Are he and Pepper going to get together? Yes. They got married, they had a kid, it was great. It’s a good death. It doesn’t feel like a tragedy. It feels like a heroic, finished life.

And Cap was always going to be allowed his happy ending with Peggy Carter? McFEELY From the very first outline, we knew he was going to get his dance. On a separate subject, I started to lose my barometer on what was just fan service and what was good for the character. Because I think it’s good for the characters. But we also just gave you what you wanted. Is that good? I don’t know. But I’ll tell you, it’s satisfying. He’s postponed a life in order to fulfill his duty. That’s why I didn’t think we were ever going to kill him. Because that’s not the arc. The arc is, I finally get to put my shield down because I’ve earned that. MARKUS A hero without sacrifice, you’re not going to get the miles out of that person that you need to for these movies. That’s what makes them a hero, it’s not the powers.

“Endgame” sets up Sam Wilson as the new Captain America. Is that a future Marvel film? Would you write that? MARKUS We really do just know what you know. They’re doing “The Eternals,” which is a property I know next to nothing about. We’ve been here, trying to set this contraption running. Were we to take another one on, you can’t increase the scope or the stakes from where we are at the moment. We’d have to shrink it back down, do an origin story. There are deep-bench characters where I’m like, if you roll that guy out, I couldn’t resist. There is a great Moon Knight movie to be made, but I don’t know what is.

You’ve been writing these films and characters for more than a decade, and you never got bored of them — McFEELY Or fired. For sure. MARKUS We’ve come close to both. It’s a testament to the concept but also the people we’re working with. We’re not bumping up against this dictatorial level where it’s like, “I have some notes. I really want to see him fly a dragon — put the dragon in. I’m going to lunch.” McFEELY If we have an idea, people take it really seriously. They valued “Winter Soldier” and they saw how “Civil War” was coming together. They’d seen our process and us working with the [Russo] brothers, and they said, if Joss [Whedon] is not coming back — I don’t know that decision — it was clear that, unless they hated us, it was going to be this team. MARKUS But there also was a possibility, because “[Avengers: Age of Ultron”] made a little bit less than “Avengers” 1 — that we were taking on “Superman” 3 and 4. Maybe people were done with it. McFEELY The goal was not to advance it to the stratosphere. It was to just not screw it up.

Is this your Marvel finale as well? MARKUS I don’t know how to follow it up, that’s the problem. I’m not quite old enough to retire.

If “Endgame” has taught us anything, it’s that you should never retire. McFEELY Then they drag you out and kill you.

Sahred From Source link Arts

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2V4zjzG via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress