#once again bringing you tonally opposite movies | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

heyashthisisstargetontheserver · 5 years

Text

The Homestuck Epilogues vs. Steven Universe: The Movie

There's no such thing as happily ever after... I'll always have more work to do.

I've been thinking about the Epilogues basically nonstop for the last several months, so obviously they were on my mind when I watched the Steven Universe movie that just came out. And despite their vast and obvious tonal differences, these two epilogues have an extremely similar theme-- the impossibility of a happy ending.

But I'd go further than that. In his recent commentary about the Epilogues, Hussie says the following about what happens when you continue a story after its supposed end:

Because, as certain characters go to some length to elaborate on, you can't tell new stories without reestablishing significant dramatic stakes: new problems to overcome, new injustices to correct, new questions to answer. There can be no sense of emotional gratification later without first experiencing certain periods of emotional recession. And by peeking into the imagined realm of "happily ever after" to satisfy our curiosity, we discover that our attention isn't so harmless, because the complexities and sorrows of adult life can't be ignored. Nor can the challenges of creating a civilization from scratch, when several teenagers are handed god-status. It turns out the gaze we cast from the sky of Earth C to revisit everyone isn't exactly friendly, like warm sunlight. It's more like a ravaging beam, destructive and unsettling to all that could have been safely imagined. Our continued attention is the very property which incites new problems, and the troublemakers appear to be keenly aware of this. So they spring into action, and begin repositioning all the stage props for a new implied narrative.

Basically what this means is that when you see what happens after the curtain closes, you inherently incur more suffering upon your beloved characters. This theme is far more directly stated than it was in the Epilogues in the Steven Universe movie, which has a whole musical number at the beginning about "happily ever afters" that you just know cannot possibly end well, as well as the quote at the end that I put at the top of this post.

But the two works go in opposite directions in addressing this theme. The Homestuck Epilogues becomes a "cursed tome", a deep meditation on adulthood and the changes and struggles therein. And in doing this, its primary goal is to defy the readers' expectations and really put them through the wringer. Each additional chapter read is pushed by an overwhelming sense of "HOLY SHIT WHAT FUCKED UP THING IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THESE PEOPLE NEXT." But the reader can stop at any moment. You're bringing it upon these poor kids adults. You asshole.

Steven Universe doesn't do this. But instead of coming up with new ways for its characters to suffer, it has them retread everything they'd learned before-- using a literal plot device to reset the central Crystal Gems' character development, requiring them to repeat some of their most important moments of development for the audience once over again. Even Steven, who doesn't lose his memories, points out that he's going through the same process he always has: a Gem angry at something Pink Diamond did tries to kill Steven, and he has to fight her, talk her through her feelings, do some singing and crying, and find a peaceful way to resolve the situation. Spinel is nothing new to him-- he has to go through all of this over and over again for the audience's entertainment.

For the record, I liked the Steven Universe movie. It had great music, character interaction, animation, and probably the most compelling and likeable one-off villain the show has ever done in Spinel. Even the "the Crystal Gems have to repeat their old experiences" moments were pretty well done, in my opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that much of the movie's non-Spinel plot revolves around having the Gems repeat the past.

Homestuck's epilogues are a line (or two lines, I guess) moving forward into the future, and more suffering. Steven Universe's "epilogue" (it feels like one, even with a new season basically confirmed) is a circle, repeating the same suffering over again. It's up to the audience to determine which is better, both for themselves and for the characters.

#homestuck #homestuck epilogues #the homestuck epilogues #steven universe #steven universe the movie #steven universe movie #su #su spoilers

7 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years

Text

Here’s What Scream 5’s Title Could Mean for the Franchise

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Scream 5 has wrapped filming. The announcement came via Twitter from original Scream writer Kevin Williamson, the godfather of the ’90s teen slasher era (he also wrote I Know What You Did Last Summer) and exec producer on the new Scream movie. Along with the production wrap announcement, Williamson also officially revealed what the title of Scream 5 would be.

No, not 5cream, as the internet would have it, but just, simply, Scream.

His wrap message reads:

“That’s a wrap on Scream, which I’m excited to announce is the official title of the next film! Nearly 25 years ago, when I wrote Scream and Wes Craven brought it to life, I could not have imagined the lasting impact it would have on you, the fans. I’m excited for you to return to Woodsboro and get really scared again. I believe Wes would’ve been so proud of the film that Matt and Tyler are making. I’m thrilled to be reunited with Neve, Courteney, David and Marley, and to be working alongside a new filmmaking team and incredible cast of newcomers that have come together to continue Wes’s legacy with the upcoming relaunch of the franchise that I hold so dear to my heart. See you in theatres January 2022. #ScreamMovie @ScreamMovies”

That’s a wrap on Scream, which I’m excited to announce is the official title of the next film! Nearly 25 years ago, when I wrote Scream and Wes Craven brought it to life, I could not have imagined the lasting impact it would have on you, the fans. (1/3) pic.twitter.com/RCuhVUclG4

— Kevin Williamson (@kevwilliamson) November 18, 2020

At first glance – well it’s not exactly a big deal. It happens, the Fast and the Furious 4 was called Fast & Furious, The Thing prequel was just called The Thing, Final Destination 4 was called The Final Destination while Final Destination 5 turned out to actually be Final Destination 0 (in terms of continuity).

With Scream though there might be something a little bit more meta going on here – namely how the movie will relate to 2018’s Halloween reboot, which was actually a sequel to the original 1978 Halloween, ignoring the rest of the Halloween series. A movie, which was just called Halloween.

Since it’s arrival in 1996 Scream has always been in dialogue with classic slasher movies and Halloween has been a key reference point from the off, along with Friday the 13th and others helping to form the ‘rules’ Randy (Jamie Kennedy) explains to Sidney (Neve Campbell) and the gang. It was both a celebration of, and something of a critique of, classic slasher tropes with our hero Sid complaining:

“What’s the point they’re all the same, some stupid killer stalking some big-breasted girl who can’t act and is always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door, it’s insulting.”

That, of course, is not the definition of Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) a final girl who has far more in common with Sidney after all – and is the very opposite of a 2D character making bad choices in 2018’s Halloween.

Just like Halloween in 1978, Scream changed the landscape of the slasher movie forever. It spawned a whole era of glossy meta-horrors, it was part of the jolt that shifted the balance in terms of gender roles in genre, helping to convince execs that horror was not the domain of men and it cleared the way for a whole new subgenre to thrive (namely torture porn – which has now dissipated – but it’s all just different flavours…).

So it would make absolute sense for a Scream reboot to once more glance at its mentor franchise for a reference point.

Scream 5 isn’t just another Scream movie. One of the most significant things about this reboot is that it’s the first to be made since the passing of legendary director Wes Craven, himself of course as much a part of horror, and slasher, history as Carpenter and Williamson. Craven shepherded all four of the Scream movies up until now – for the fifth Ready Or Not team Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett take the reins.

This couldn’t have just been another sequel without Craven. It needed to be something new. Talking to GeeksOfColor both directors talked about how incredibly significant Craven’s work is to them.

“[his] entire body of work is so important to us as filmmakers, and as fans, and especially Scream, like Scream and Nightmare on Elm Street are two of the most like influential movies to us in our lives. And it’s almost impossible to separate that from any of our work, let alone Scream,” said Bettinelli-Olpen. “But then one of the things that’s so important to any Scream is how it speaks about the current state of horror and how it evolves horror, and hopefully, moves it along and and that is just baked into the script.”

The pair, who go by the collective name ‘Radio Silence’ also talked about how Jordan Peele’s work and the aesthetic of Us played a big part in their choices.

“What he’s doing is the closest thing to something that we hope to do, and that we love in terms of tonally where it’s fun, and it’s about something and it’s exciting,” said Bettinelli-Olpen.

Horror has moved on a lot since the first Scream. It’s even moved on a lot since Scream 4 landed in 2011. So it’s absolutely right that a new Scream should move with it.

So what could that mean? We are not suggesting that Scream (2022) will be a direct sequel to Scream (1996) – that’s extremely unlikely since Craven directed the first four (unlike Carpenter who only made the original Halloween and not all the sequels). But it is possible that the film will feel like a back to basics Scream, bringing together the key original cast, while adding modern sensibilities.

The Scream series has already touched on the effects on Sidney of her past trauma, as was the focus of Halloween for Laurie but it’ll be interesting to see where we find Sid, Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Scream 4 Deputy Judy Hicks (Marley Shelton) who also returns.

It’s also worth noting that since 2011 we have seen a surge of highbrow horror – sometimes called ‘elevated horror’ – get a lot of critical attention, Halloween (2018) included, with Peele winning an Oscar for the screenplay of Get Out. It wouldn’t be surprising if the tone of this Scream is slightly different – that, as the directors say, Scream becomes a film that is ‘about something’ at the same time as being a fun ride.

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

Scream is a franchise that in theory can absolutely move with the times. Let’s hope it takes a leaf out of Halloween 2018’s book and manages to be both faithful and fresh at the same time.

Scream opens in theaters in January 2022

The post Here’s What Scream 5’s Title Could Mean for the Franchise appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2Kdoo1S

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

0 notes

bookwormguri · 7 years

Text

A Kinda ‘Okja’ Analysis

I’m still peeved over Okja, but after gathering my thoughts and sleeping on it, I think I can more accurately discuss why I thought it was a bad movie.

Rest is under the cut if you don’t want to see the negative shit and because it got REALLY long.

I was finally able to pinpoint why Okja made me so angry. Going back and rewatching the trailers, to me it seemed like we were going to be in for a movie about the bond of friendship, a feel-good and possible heartbreaking story about Okja and Mija’s relationship. We did get that. And I find that part of the film to be it’s driving force and greatest pull. Unfortunately, the film gets bogged down by a ton of other messages, where nothing gets resolved.

The description of the movie on Netflix seems much more accurate that the trailers ever were (”A gentle giant and the girl who raised her are caught in the crossfire between animal activism, corporate greed and scientific ethics.”) which is also unfortunate seeing as the trailer is wat got me hyped for the film. To me, the film seemed to be going for The BFG or Pete’s Dragon feel through their trailer editing and language and I can’t help but feel lied to with the final product.

I understand why some people enjoy the movie. It does apply some commentary to the corporate greed aspect and is staunchly anti-capitalism which I LOVE. However, for its possible pro-vegetarianism message (as many fans seem to be taking it as) is not only misguided, but also confuses the tone of the film. The thing that makes me the angriest is how Okja and Mija’s bond and storyline seems to be sacrificed for these sensationalised themes.

I tried to break down the other issues I had with the film into the following categories.

Characterization As much as every seems to love the ALF, what do we even know about our loveable bunch of not-terrorists? Aside from Jay, they can easily be categorised as ‘Snarky + one notable personality/physical trait + ALF Member.’

Red = Snarky Female ALF Member Silver = Snarky Hungry ALF Member Blonde = Snarky Big Guy ALF Member K = Steven Yeun

Trust me, I use the same technique when I need to make NPCs in D&D to make them seem like an actual person instead of a cardboard cutout. This technique is fine and dandy for the side characters that they are, but the characterization falls flat for many of the bigger characters as well.

Jay introduces himself as a lover of all living creatures. I thought he came off as creepy, which is why I thought the film was going to the set-up of “corporations are bad, but their opposite isn't altogether innocent either.” I was almost entirely sure we were going this route when Jay beats K, but no, not only was this completely out of character, but the ALF turn out to be the good guys through and through.

I give some leeway to the Jay-K scene as it was during that absolute trash rape scene, so we can infer that Jay let his emotions get the better of him and he decided to throw away his non-violent creed in a fit of passion. Okay, sure. But what about why he goes to hit Okja with the mic stand and Mija stops him? Up until the point with K, Jay had been established as a person who did not act brashly like that, especially against and animal that he saw being raped and tortured. This is what I mean by poor characterization. When they can’t keep one of their titular characters IC, what’s even the point?

Speaking of titular character, let’s talk about Lucy. Aside from Mija, I think we got the best performance and characterization from Lucy. We got to know her motivations and insecurities throughout the film, which is why I can’t fucking fathom why they toss her aside to shoehorn in her sister as the titular villain. Oh wait, yes I can. Because without Nancy taking Lucy’s place as the villain at the very end we would have had no reason for the gratuitous slaughter house showdown.

Why the filmmakers thought it was a good idea to bring in Nancy is beyond me. We spend almost the entire film with Lucy telling us how horrible and barbaric Nancy is, and once she’s introduced, BAM, she’s exactly that. No intrigue if Lucy’s perception of her sister is a bit biased. No investment to ‘beating’ Nancy like there was with Lucy. No. She was just there.

Bong Joon-ho said in an interview that he scrapped the first ending of the film (where all the pigs in the slaughterhouse would be set free) because he’s too much of a realist and it would be too-Disney. Idk what is more Disney that the Nacy style of villain to be honest?

Lastly, let’s talk about Mija. Honestly, I found her performance to be the best out of everyone. Not surprising considering she is the lead, but there are still parts that are lacking. For one, while Mija’s single-minded determination to find Okja is fantastic to see, her poker face and steadfast gaze gets repetitive after a while. I would have loved to see more emotional scenes with her like when she was on the mountain (both in the beginning and end).

Speaking of emotions, why oh WHY, is this film allergic to even giving Mija’s close-up shots? You know what would have REALLY driven the emotional impact of Mija and Okja’s reuion? A fucking shot of Mija’s face as she realises how Okja has changed. OR when Jenifer not-so-subtly threatens Okja to get Mija to cooperate? Would have been nice.

What makes me the saddest is the missed opportunity during the slaughter-house showdown. Mija ‘celverly’ uses the golden pig to buy Okja (because who didn’t see that coming the minute she put it in her fanny pack?), but we’ve already seen how that pig means nothing to her from when she slams to the ground in the beginning. Her giving it up to Nancy carries no emotional weight and is honestly a poor climatic solution. Of course, it feeds into the message of corporate greed I spoke about before, but as I also said, it is at the expense of actual deep, emotional impact from Mija as she finally finally gets Okja back. I got more satisfaction from all the times Mija screams, “Okja-ya!!”

Mixed Messages I really don’t think this film knows where to go with its final message. We’ve got the Homeward Bound or Fox and the Hound theme of best friends doing anything for one another and to get back home. Then we’ve got Lucy and later Nancy with the corporate greed, anti-capitalism side. THEN we have the animal rights theme being pushed quite heavy-handedly in the most grotesque scenes. And of course it introduces the ethics of science before forgetting it altogether.

The problem is, this film was not great about balancing these issues in a way that didn’t make it seem like even the film didn’t know what it was going for.

Furthermore, from what I’ve read in the Okja tag it seems like many people have chomped into the animal rights theme and refuse to let go. While I think the handling of the various themes could have been handled a lot better, it is no better to dismiss the other messages. Many people seem to mistakenly label the film as pro-Vegan and say they will stop eating meat after seeing the film. This is a perversion of the intent if I’ve ever seen one. While the film tries to shed a light on the horrible conditions of mass produced meat, it does not try to preach that all meat is bad. (Mija and her grandfather are farmers for christ’s sakes) I think many people are forgetting the beginning of the film where Mija has Okja catch a fish for her to make into stew? Or when her grandfather makes her “favorite” chicken stew?

Instead of stopping at the simple solution of “don’t eat meat” we need to delve further into what makes something have enough ethic to pass the standard of consumption (even as Silver mumbles about when refusing to eat a tomato). Of course, that is not an easy conversation to have because it inevitably will lead to a conversation about economic disparity and whom has access to a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle. I don’t have the time to go into that here so I’ll just leave it at that.

Loose Ends Boy howdy are there a lot of them.

Why happened to Lucy after her sister says they won’t help her with legal fees? What happened to Wilcox? Why are Nancy and Frank even in cahoots? Why did none of the people watching a drunk Wilcox harvest from Okja stop him when we know Okja was not supposed to be harmed? Who the hell even were those people? How long was Okja in the lab? What caused her to go all rampage-y? Who the fuck where those three taste-testers and why did they take up valuable screen time? Who is K’s doctor friend? Hello Ms. Conveienient Plot Device? How are Jay and K able to break into Mirando’s slaughter-house with relative ease but not their lab? If they expected to get caught why even bring Mija? So she could say goodbye to Okja before she’s killed?

The question that is most important to me:

WHY DID WE NEVER REVISIT OKJA BEING AN ACTUALLY INTELLIGENT CREATURE?? LIKE, SHE SAVED MIJA FROM THE CLIFF AND SPENDS THE REST OF THE FILM ONLY REACTING TO WHEN MIJA CALLS HER NAME??? MY IDIOT CAT DOES THAT.

I’m sure there’s more that I could pick out if I watched the film again.

Tonal Issues My biggest gripe with the whole fucking movie was its tone issues. There was even one point I said to myself, “Oh, we’re not supposed to take this seriously, it's just a good-time film.” This, of course, was before the dark second half.

I’ve seen some people praise the film for being seamless in its transition from fart jokes to serious commentary, but I’d like to ask what about it was possibly seamless? I would have gotten whiplash it the tone was any more sporadic.

Furthermore, the ‘serious’ bits were mostly those with ‘graphic’ imagery like the rape scene or the whole slaughterhouse. I found the Wilcox and Okja scene was actually one of the better scenes, but it on top of the gratuitous rape scene ended up just feeling like bad torture porn. The Wilcox scene on its own would have stood up much better as it is a human doing the evil deeds, not another animal. That carries more emotional weight for Okja whom has never met another mutant pig.

The ALF and Mirando specifically suffer from tone issues and I have more to say about all of these problems, but I’ve already talked for long enough.

#nats gabs #okja #okja critical #this is how i put my college degree to use i guess

7 notes · View notes

spotlightsaga · 7 years

Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 notes · View notes

minhthangcoi9993-blog · 6 years

Text

Review Game Detroit: Become Human

It’s a testament to the breadth of Quantic Dream’s branching storylines that I felt terribly guilty as the credits rolled after my second playthrough of Detroit: Become Human, as I’d played against my personal moral compass to test how far I could push the story’s exploration of the morality of artificial intelligence. This was very much the opposite of my mostly peaceful first run, and Detroit obliged my wickedness to a surprising degree, leaving a trail of bodies of those who had previously survived in my wake. And while it never seems to know when enough heavy-handed expositional dialogue is enough, Detroit: Become Human manages to be a frequently moving melodrama that bends to your choices with meaningful results.

Each of those playthroughs took around 10 hours to complete, and during that time Detroit’s pace rarely lags thanks to the deft juggling act it performs, alternating between three android characters across multiple chapters: Kara, a housekeeper who must care for a little girl named Alice, Connor; a prototype police model whose assignment is to round up ‘deviant’ androids, and Markus; a carer model who believes androids should share equal rights with humans.

The trio of performances is excellent. Bryan Dechart is delightful as Connor thanks to his deadpan innocence, which makes for a great foil against the whirling dervish of his cynical partner, Clancy Brown’s Lieutenant Hank Anderson. Valorie Curry brings quiet strength to Kara, and excels at selling her love for her ward, Alice, who is quite possibly the least charismatic video game child to have ever existed. Jesse Williams employs all of his dreamy Grey’s Anatomy warmth as Markus and is never unlikeable, no matter how you choose to play him.

Based on your choices, you can change their personalities and the tone of their individual stories. In my first playthrough, for example, the relationship between a humble Connor and the android-hating Anderson played out like a knockabout buddy comedy. In my second, I let Connor’s ambitions take over, and his story was of a different genre.

Though Markus appears to fundamentally remain endearing no matter what you do (unlike Connor, who really can be played as a hero or villain), there’s a tug-of-war going on within him that throws up some of Detroit's most interesting moral quandaries. Kara’s story seems less tonally flexible but is the quietest and most intimate, which provides a welcome contrast to all the running and explosions you can opt into in the other two stories.

Play more Jelly Doods

Hot new 60 Second Burger Run

For the most part, supporting characters adapt to the way you choose to play, but there are occasional misfires. When I played as ‘nice’ Connor, for example, Anderson was far too aggressive toward him to be believable. When I played as ‘mean,’ or even ‘indifferent’ Connor, his fury made a lot more sense. At one point, Markus gained a lover very abruptly, and I felt I’d missed a slow burn somewhere. It’s noticeable when your choices feel they’re going against the grain of a more robust story.

I found all three of Detroit’s central characters to be dramatically interesting, which meant putting them in compromising situations – or worse, killing them – was a real fear throughout. It’s testament to the writing and performances that I found making decisions “just to see what would happen” teeth-clenchingly hard.

I'm a Real Boy

The backbone of Detroit’s story – meaning the one that’s relatively fixed in place despite the choices you make around it – is big, ambitious fun that takes Phillip K. Dick's question of whether androids dream of electric sheep to the nth degree. In doing so, however, it does suffer from a multitude of plot holes. Marcus appears to gain magical android powers when it suits him; Hank is impressed when Connor solves the most basic of mysteries; and one twist makes absolutely no sense if you look back on that particular storyline after having finished.

These were noticeable (and often pretty funny), but they weren’t deal-breakers for me. Detroit is audacious and silly as hell, but it’s got real heart to it. There were enough moments of quiet tenderness to keep me emotionally invested, and the stakes were suitably high - particularly in its final act - to keep me thrilled.

With this in mind, there is a lot of clumsy exposition and dialogue I was willing to forgive, as one would while watching a fun B-movie. But occasionally, Detroit ignores the standard writing rule of “show, don’t tell” to such an extent I was yanked out of the story. Bad guys spout monologues that spell out Detroit’s themes in capital letters. (There’s a compartment for androids on public transport, in case you didn’t get what Detroit was going for here.) Select side characters, like Hank’s harrowed police chief and the inexplicably wise and mystical Lucy - are loudly cliched, so we understand what their roles are without any real character development.

With the remarkable performance-capture technology – and performances – Quantic Dream has at its disposal, there’s no real reason for such heavy-handedness. Nor do I think Detroit is incapable of subtlety; some of the scenarios here are unusual and profound. But I wish its ideas had more room to breathe before being trampled by someone spelling out the meaning for us.

Characters are certainly capable of non-verbal expressiveness. The level of detail you can see in their faces is astounding; facial hair, blemishes, freckles, and moles are rendered in stunning detail, particularly in checkerboard 4K on the PS4 Pro. The animation is just as good; as Kara and Alice hurry through the rain on a freezing night, hunched over and miserable, I could have been watching two humans from the side-streets.

The world here feels very real, too, built with a sense of history. This is a miserable, dark version of a future Detroit where androids are so omnipresent that they’re old news, sold in chain stores for the price of a discount mobile phone. Little details from the sidelines tell the story of a burst tech bubble, like basements filled to the brim with discarded models or a street performer advertising the fact he is playing “human music.”

Though the path you are guided through in Detroit’s world is as linear as previous Quantic games, I felt like there was more time to enjoy these beautifully detailed environments. One of my favourite sequences involved chasing graffiti tags to find a particular location, which ended up being an eerie, silent excursion in a forgotten corner of the city. There’s also a marvelous scene in an abandoned amusement park which still creaked with enough life that I got a sense of what it might have been, once upon a time.

The way you interact with Detroit’s environments hasn’t evolved much from Quantic Dream’s usual formula, which is unobtrusive and mostly works. Action sequences are generally executed using timed button presses, swoops of the thumbstick, and occasional motion control, which evoke the action you are performing on a case-by-case basis. An android detective mode allows you to scan your environment to reconstruct crime scenes, and fast-forwarding and rewinding through these is a lot of fun, as is a new ability to ‘pre-construct’ scenarios before you execute them. I would have liked the opportunity to play around with the latter ability more than I was allowed to, in fact.

Like Beyond: Two Souls before it, though, Detroit: Become Human struggles to justify its multiple fight scenes with meaningful interactivity. Clicking on buttons at just the right time while struggling with an angry android encourages a welcome sense of participation in the fight, but you have to screw it up disastrously to fail. I understand that making combat a proper challenge runs the risk of introducing an immersion-breaking sense of trial and error, but I was left wishing the stakes were just a little higher after I ‘won’ each fight without really trying. Why make them interactive at all if the input feels so meaningless?

Of course, the way you play Detroit is primarily through the choices you make within it. While there’s that backbone of a story that can’t be shattered, which can occasionally result in frustration when it makes a decision for you to keep you from straying too far off the beaten path, I found its branching paths to be multiple and deep. Quantic Dream has been smart in making this multitude of paths transparent through flowcharts introduced at the end of each chapter, showing you just how differently it could have played out if you’d made another choice, enticing you to play through again.

Not every alternate choice leads to a drastically different story, but some will. Sometimes it might lead to the same result, but by a surprising new means. Sometimes it might change your relationship with another character and unlock a path that wasn’t there before. Sometimes it might result in death, whether that be of a supporting character or one of the central trio (they can all die at points throughout Detroit), or a dramatic action sequence with unexpected consequences. Comparing endings, not only between my first and second playthroughs but with other players, was astounding, particularly when I assumed everybody’s story had wrapped the same way as mine and found that nobody’s had.

For me, this is the biggest draw of Detroit. One playthrough really isn’t enough to see what it has to offer, and characters and world-building are interesting enough that it was a pleasure to go back to see what I’d missed in scenarios that are deceptively complex.

The Verdict

Detroit: Become Human is a poignantly pulpy interactive sci-fi drama where your choices can impact events to a greater and more satisfying degree than in most games of this type. Though I wish its story had been handled with a softer touch, especially considering the subtlety that can be conveyed through its tech and performances, its well-written and acted central trio were vital enough to me that I found myself feeling genuine distress when they were in danger and a sense of victory when they triumphed. Most importantly, Detroit offers a multitude of transparent branching paths that entice further playthroughs, and choices have a permanence that raise the stakes throughout.

0 notes

fashiontrendin-blog · 6 years

Text

10 Of The Best Menswear Duos

http://fashion-trendin.com/10-of-the-best-menswear-duos/

10 Of The Best Menswear Duos

There have been plenty of iconic duos throughout history – Batman and Robin, Lennon and McCartney, Han Solo and Chewbacca – but you wouldn’t necessarily got to those examples for style inspiration. You don’t need to. Some of the best tag-teams in history should already reside in your wardrobe.

More than the sum of their parts, these are the sartorial soulmates with staying power, the tried-and-trusted twosomes that should be a part of your rotation. These are the greatest menswear double acts of all time.

Camel Coat & Blue Jeans

The reason why camel is popular isn’t hard to pin down. As a lighter neutral colour, it looks great with the lion’s share of your wardrobe. But there’s arguably no better bedfellow for this variant of beige than classic blue jeans. Why? It’s a classic case of opposites attract.

The camel coat started out as something to layer over tailoring, and most modern versions nod to its smart sartorial origins. At the other end of the spectrum is denim, man’s hardest working wardrobe hero now synonymous with the concept of off-duty dressing.

Put the two together, be it with jeans or a jean jacket, and you’ve got one of the best high-low combinations since the burger went gourmet. Tasty.

Get The Look

Green Bomber Jacket & White T-Shirt

Like many other menswear staples, the bomber jacket has its roots in military wear. Since its days on the backs of pilots, the original MA-1 has been worn by movie stars, skinheads, presidents and punks, and has spawned a thousand imitators – from versions in leather to silk blousons.

Prized for its wearability and versatility, the iconic green shade teams effortlessly with just about any T-shirt or sweatshirt, but it undoubtedly flies best with a classic white crew neck in and out of the cockpit.

A Dorian Gray of menswear duos: it’s a pairing that’s been worn for decades, but hasn’t aged a day. File this one under ‘things to wear that won’t make you cringe in years to come’.

Get The Look

Double-Breasted Blazer & Roll Neck

Fresh from shaking off its affinity with Steve Jobs and the Milk Tray Man, and riding high on the 1970s revival, the roll neck has once again banished cold necks to the history books.

Though it’s difficult to say where and how the roll neck originated, we do know that is was likely developed as utility wear, making it a firm favourite on the high seas.

The best way to riff on this elegant knit’s naval origins is to combine it with the captain of smart jackets: the double-breasted blazer. Sophisticated, but not stuffy, worn together these pieces work to slim down your waist while also broadening your shoulders, not to mention saving on the hassle of having to wear a shirt and tie. Which pretty much makes this a match made in heaven.

Get The Look

Leather Jacket & Black Jeans

Some combinations simply shouldn’t work, but absolutely do – like Nutella and pizza (just us?). Others, however, are a more natural fit. Case in point: a leather biker jacket and black jeans.

Equal parts rugged and rebellious, together these mainstays of menswear land hard on the trend for tonal dressing, while simultaneously offering up varying textures that keep your look interesting.

Take your style cue from Mr Marlon Brando in The Wild One and saddle up this pairing alongside a crisp white T-shirt, or bring the look speeding up to date with a hoodie or roll neck.

Get The Look

Unstructured Blazer & T-Shirt

If you’d asked most men a few seasons ago whether they’d want their tailoring described as ‘slouchy’, the answer would probably have been a firm no. Today it’s a different story, and it’s the Italians we owe a grazie to for the contemporary, casual take on formalwear.

A staple of sprezzatura, the unstructured blazer takes the traditional straitjacket style and strips it back: the excess padding and lining is removed, creating a softer shoulder and relaxed silhouette.

As a result, whether bought in a classic shade of navy, more daring hues like khaki or textured materials like slub cotton, an unstructured blazer marries effortlessly with a crew neck T-shirt in a complementary or contrasting colour to create a wealth of modern smart-casual or business-casual looks.

Get The Look

Sweatshirt & Chinos

Anyone with more than a passing interest in style will be familiar with the influence elite American educational institutions have had on our wardrobes. From letterman jackets to loafers, we have the A-grade appeal of Ivy league to thank.

So it stands to reason that two of the principle pieces behind preppy’s meteoric rise would go straight to the top of the class when worn together.

A sweatshirt and chinos constitute an ideal no-fuss look on the go, but the outfit can also be made smarter by swapping traditionally casual colourways like grey marl and beige for rich navies and deep blacks, or by adding in pieces like an Oxford shirt or Chelsea boots.

Get The Look

Navy Blazer & Breton Top

‘Riviera chic’ is a phrase wheeled out with clockwork regularity by the fashion press. But there’s method in the ad nauseam repetition, not least because nailing a Gandy-level wardrobe taps into man’s primal pipedream of packing in the rat race for life on a Mediterranean island.

Until such plans become a reality, settle for looking the part by pairing a navy blazer with a Breton top. Worn for the best part of a century, this timeless duo has weathered countless sea changes in style thanks to its unabashed simplicity.

Play up the dressed-down vibes by opting for a blazer with minimal padding, footed with either matching trousers or a pair of light chinos. The result is a look that works just as well for a jaunt around a concrete jungle as on a sun-soaked stretch of the Med. No yacht necessary.

Get The Look

Flannel Shirt & Jeans

In an age when most of us spend our days chained to a desk, there’s something satisfying in dressing as if you make your money getting your hands dirty outdoors.

No wardrobe coupling undoes modern-day emasculation quite like a flannel shirt and hardwearing denim. Sure, it may be a shameless attempt at channelling a lumberjack’s ability to wield an axe, but who cares if you struggle even to keep hold of a kitchen knife?

To reaffirm your newfound alpha status, opt for a checked flannel shirt and a pair of jeans in raw selvedge denim. Modernise the whole look with a pair of sneakers or keep it rugged AF with some worker or moc toe boots.

Get The Look

Tailoring & Trainers

It’s not hard to remember a time when the way a man wore his tailoring was not to be tampered with. Fast forward a few years, however, and not only are we more eager than ever to air our ankles, but we’re also kicking back against the strict confines of full-on suiting in something more comfortable.

At least on our feet. Wearing suits with trainers is not quite standard issue, but it’s raising far fewer eyebrows than it was a few years ago. That’s because we’re not talking about the same pair you (claim to) hit the gym in, or the ones you allow to get as battered as you on the weekend, but sleek, minimalist styles that are, in some respects, closer in appearance to shoes than trainers.

To suit up with the right solemate, favour simple colours like white, black, grey and, at a push, brown. Keep your suit relaxed by swapping the shirt and tie for a T-shirt or knitwear and above all else, ensure your kicks are clean enough to eat off.

Get The Look

Tuxedo & Bow Tie

Not exactly the most novel of sartorial dream teams, we know, but when it comes to a black tie event, it’s worth pointing out that nothing short of a dinner suit and bow tie will do.

Though wearing a simple necktie (a move commonly referred to as ‘Hollywood black tie’) may seem desirable, given how difficult a dickie is to assemble, achieving a task of such Olympic proportions is one that instantly wins you gold.

Think of the dinner suit and bow tie pairing as the All Blacks of the formalwear world. Practically unbeatable. Same colour scheme, too.

Get The Look

0 notes