Hey Internet, this is MovieDragon009 back again with another blog post.
To start off, I just want to emphasize how freakin' awesome dinosaurs are to me. I was mad about dinosaurs when I was in kindergarten, and even as an adult I get excited whenever some news about dinosaurs comes up, especially if it redefines how we look at them. And how could you not get excited about dinosaurs? Even if you're one of those people for whom those colossal bones at the museum are just a bunch of bones, there's no denying the awe that comes from within when you come face to face with the reconstruction of such real world monsters, providing a glimpse into a world that, admittedly, none of us understand quite fully (and we may never will). With that said, it's easy to imagine how terrifying and awesome it would be to see dinosaurs alive again...and go head to head to see who would trump the other in a fight to the death.
Yeah, we as a species should really reconsider what we consider to be entertaining.
With that said, I now bring up one of the most heatedly debated topics in history. When this event first came out, it deeply divided the fanbase of the movie that portrayed it, resulting in flamewars that continue to this very day, tearing apart friendships and deeply disappointing hosts of people.
I am of course talking about the match between the generational fan favorite Tyrannosaurus Rex and the newcomer burdened with a jack-ton of marketing potential, Spinosaurus.
The logistics of the battle are already screwed up enough; anyone who's seen the movie knows about how that particular match ended, with Spino somehow managing to grab the Rex by the head and use its larger arms to break his neck. This is in spite of the fact that Rex got in the first hit and, as anyone with any knowledge of the tyrant king will know, also the killing blow; the jaws of the Tyrannosaurus were powerful enough to crush bone, a tactic that it would have used regularly against its prey. That first bite on the neck alone should have been powerful enough to put an end to the Spinosaurus' reign of psychotic terror (yes of course the Spinosaurus was insane; why else would it try to go after a bunch of random humans like a serial killer?). The fact that the Spinosaurus won in the end with such a ridiculous tactic is clearly a marketing ploy to sell more Spinosaurus oriented merchandise to kids at the cost of a dinosaur who for years reigned as the king in the hearts of people across the world. But fans across the world consider the snap of the Rex's neck a vicious blow to their childhoods; even the Nostalgia Critic in his review of the movie was clearly hurt by the event, labeling the Spinosaurus a 'squiggly-jawed %@*$'.
I bring this up in light of recently published evidence regarding Spinosaurus; just in the past few years, with more and more bones coming to light, we have come to know that Spinosaurus was a piscivore, or fish-eater. Up until this past week, the common belief was that the big guy waded in water like an enormous stork, plucking gigantic sawfish with the help of pressure sensors in the tip of its snout. Sereno's discoveries, however, push the extent of this lifestyle to new levels; apparently, Spinosaurus is the first dinosaur to have pursued, at the very least, a semi-aquatic lifestyle, swimming in lakes and rivers like an enormous duck. You may have seen the new reconstructions of the skeleton; while the hind limbs seem a tad too small, the overall impression is of a dinosaur trying to be a crocodile...or the closest thing to a dragon we have ever found (look at that skeleton and tell me that you don't see a resemblance. To me, that is just so freakin' cool!). It's been all over the news on the internet, but while they have highlighted the unusual appearance of a dinosaur we only thought we knew, for some reason the headlines emphasize the fact that Spinosaurus was far larger than the T-Rex, bringing to mind that heartbreaking scene from Jurassic Park 3.
For some reason, in the eyes of journalists and the people at large, bigger ultimately means badder in dinosaur terms; in the past two decades alone, the headlines have emphasized this more often than I can imagine with the reveals of dinosaurs like Charcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and even the sauropod Dreadnoughtus attempting to put T-Rex to shame. I'm not going to argue with the fact that Spinosaurus and the afore-mentioned dinosaurs were indeed bigger, but badder? That's a pretty bold statement, especially when you take other factors into account.
What do we currently know about Spinosaurus? That it was a highly specialized fish-eater, possibly an experiment that could've brought about fully aquatic dinosaurs had the lineage been allowed to continue, that it was a contemporary with Charcharodontosaurus, which it outsized and quite likely clashed with when food supplies were low. However, this also includes the fact that its teeth were suited for grabbing, not tearing apart, it's cartilaginous fish prey, and that it also depended on said pressure sensors to detect its prey. In that regard, we do have to acknowledge its superior strength, but can't assume that Spinosaurus was particularly smart; who needs to be smart when you can detect fish with the tip of your snout?
Tyrannosaurus, on the other hand, is a completely different animal; all the evidence points to it being a fighter. It came armed with stereoscopic vision, thanks to it's eyes being positioned towards the front, like us humans. Theories also suggest that it could see further than hawks, had the best sense of smell in the animal kingdom, and was also fairly intelligent for a reptile. Another theory that I personally like is the theory that the T-Rex was a pack hunter; the younger, longer limbed juveniles chased prey like lionesses into the jaws of the adults. This would also include the factor that, quite possibly, the Tyrannosaur was a strategic thinker. And have I talked about bone-crushing jaws enough?
So, ignoring the fact that they were millions of years and continents away in real life, if you pit a Tyrannosaur against a Spinosaur, who do you think would win? Me, personally, my money's on the one who's got the tools and knows how to use them in a fight. Granted it depends on the setting; had they met at a lake, it's very possible that, like a crocodile against a lion, the Spinosaurus would have the upper hand (or claw?), but even then, you have to acknowledge what kind of animals they were. In my POV, the T-Rex was a 24/7 hunter, while the Spinosaurus, while larger and more powerful, was still a fisher.
To put it bluntly, bigger does not always mean badder.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
The Cursed Amulet
Hey Internet, this is MovieDragon009 back again with a new comic, featuring some characters that I' created all the way back in high school!
I actually started drawing this back in the latter end of last year, but it wasn't until this spring that I was able to ink and finish it, so sorry about the delay.
I actually started drawing this back in the latter end of last year, but it wasn't until this spring that I was able to ink and finish it, so sorry about the delay.
As soon as I come up with some new ideas for a comic, I'll draw 'em and post 'em. Until then, this is MovieDragon009 signing out!
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Tangled or Frozen? A Question of Morality
Hey Internet, this is MovieDragon009 back again with another movie-related blog.
Obviously it's been a while since I've posted anything in regards to film reviews, both here and on YouTube, but right now, I need to get something off of my chest: lately I've heard talk about how Disney's Frozen is overrated and how it's predecessor Tangled is far superior. And while I'm fan enough to admit that there are several flaws within Frozen, I do have to contend with that particular claim.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Tangled is a fun film; I get quite a few laughs and I have a good time afterwards. But there is one issue that I have with this adaptation of Rapunzel, and unfortunately it's a major one: the film's overall morality. In other words, what is Tangled trying to teach kids?
I'm assuming here that the people who read this blog will have seen the movie by now, so I won't go over the plot too much, but there are major points that I do have to address. Basically we have the story of a young woman locked in a tower by her (fake) mother who forbids her to go out so she can take advantage of Rapunzel's magic hair (kind of a weird way to make mile-long hair relevant to the plot, isn't it?), a situation that continues until a thief stumbles across her hiding place. Rapunzel takes advantage of the situation and coerces the thief into taking her with her for a tour of the outside world--all behind her adoptive mother's back. A lot of people will describe the themes as being 'breaking free', 'rebellion', and 'honesty'. As for me, I have some issues with how they attempt to portray such topics.
The first point I have to bring up is the film's villain, Mother Gothel. As a Disney villain, she's a lot of fun to watch, kind of like an overly dramatic stage mother with a dark edge, able to get you to sing along with her but scare you at the same time, two traits that are great to have for any villain. However, unlike other Disney Villains, I just couldn't find any grounds to sympathize with her; all we get is a vain, self-glorifying, deceitful, and subtly abusive woman, a complete monster of a woman. The only reason that Rapunzel could possibly have any affection for her is the fact that this is the only person she's ever known her whole life, the very person who raised her as her own (anyone see any parallels to Hunchback of Notre Dame, or is it just me?).
Why do I bring this up? It's because Gothel, unlike so many other Disney Villains, is unique in that she is the parental figure in her relationship with Rapunzel in spite of the true nature of their coming together, and this has a major influence on the moral. Let's face it, her only major motivation is eternal youth, and that is hardly a justifiable motivation for a character in this role (especially how that's been done before in the form of the Evil Queen from Snow White). This basically turns the moral into "It's okay to rebel against your parents because they may not really be your parents if they tell you what not to do; heck if they're being really uncool, you should just go up and MURDER them", and what kind of lesson is that to teach to your kids?
It's probably safe to say that this is an exaggeration as much as Gothel herself is an exaggeration. In that light, it probably means that, just like The Little Mermaid, the lesson in Tangled is meant to be learned by the parents. Well, if that's the case, then at the very least give Gothel some understandable motivations that people can honestly relate to. At least that would make her a much more ambiguous, and quite possibly stronger, character in the process. An example of this that immediately comes to mind is the Witch from the musical "Into the Woods", one of my favorite plays; there, it's basically the same story in that the Witch raises Rapunzel as an adoptive parent, but they play up the parent aspect so much more than they do in Tangled; here, this version of the Witch isn't keeping Rapunzel in the tower just so she can partake of a fountain of eternal youth, it's because she legitimately doesn't know anything at all about being a parent, and this is her response to the issue of raising a child. Of course it backfires in her face, but not in the way that you'd think. In the end, we can still identify the witch as a 'bad' person, but we can actually empathize with her, understanding the reasons for her actions, and feel sorry for her when things start backfiring on her. There are instances in Tangled where they remind us that Gothel and Rapunzel have a mother/daughter relationship and show some glimpses of genuine love between them, but to me, they barely registered in the whole process of the story. Had Gothel been given similar reasons (and in fact, I believe that was the original angle they were going with during production), the character might've been improved, along with the moral.
This leads into my second issue with the film; how it treats authority figures (I'm leaving the King and Queen out of the discussion because, let's face it, they don't even get a line in the entire movie). Rapunzel may have a sympathetic, and arguably justifiable reason, to rebel against the authority figure in her life, but Flynn Rider, the male lead in the movie, goes off and steals a crown, double-crosses his partners in said crime, and proceeds to steal even more things in the move, all for the sake of his own gain. Unlike characters like Robin Hood or even Aladdin, he doesn't exactly have the most admirable of motivations; there's no oppressive regime or even the threat of starvation, he's just trying to make a quick buck! Even the thugs in the Snuggly Duckling pub are quick to point this out ("Your dream stinks"). And what does he get for his comeuppance? A hot chick with benefits and an entire kingdom in the end! Granted, we have to assume that he was pardoned in the end because he returned Rapunzel to her parents, but we don't get an actual acknowledgement of regret for his actions in stealing the crown; the only regret we see is when he's confronted by the Stabbington Brothers at the edge of the lake. And then we get his direct opposite in the form of Maximus, the law-abiding horse who spends the first two-thirds of the movie trying to recover said crown, but in a way that can be summarized as 'psychotic' and 'obsessive'. What happens to him in the end? I don't know about you, but it feels like he becomes okay with Flynn's crimes in the end. Granted, it seems like he has become more balanced and less rigid, but given how Maximus was essentially a caricature, it makes it seem like abiding the law is somehow 'uncool'. Flynn even goes as far as to make rebellion seem like a natural part of life, when in fact it gets more teenagers and young adults into trouble than it's worth.
So, what's the sum moral of the story? Apparently it's "It's cool to break the rules and rebel against the authority figure in your life because rules are lame, and only your real parents would let you do whatever you want in life and get away with it!"
It's possible that I'm way off the mark with this conclusion, and there's something that I'm not seeing here. However, I feel that Frozen, for all it's mistakes and flaws, was far clearer in what it was trying to say, that love, not fear, is what will bring happiness and stability in life, and is therefore the more worthwhile film to watch. So unless anyone has any points that I have yet to know, this is my stance on the argument. I just had to get it out.
This is MovieDragon009 signing out.
(P.S. I saw Godzilla last May, and while there was a long wait with 'meh' characters to get to the titular character, the film ROCKED!)
Obviously it's been a while since I've posted anything in regards to film reviews, both here and on YouTube, but right now, I need to get something off of my chest: lately I've heard talk about how Disney's Frozen is overrated and how it's predecessor Tangled is far superior. And while I'm fan enough to admit that there are several flaws within Frozen, I do have to contend with that particular claim.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Tangled is a fun film; I get quite a few laughs and I have a good time afterwards. But there is one issue that I have with this adaptation of Rapunzel, and unfortunately it's a major one: the film's overall morality. In other words, what is Tangled trying to teach kids?
I'm assuming here that the people who read this blog will have seen the movie by now, so I won't go over the plot too much, but there are major points that I do have to address. Basically we have the story of a young woman locked in a tower by her (fake) mother who forbids her to go out so she can take advantage of Rapunzel's magic hair (kind of a weird way to make mile-long hair relevant to the plot, isn't it?), a situation that continues until a thief stumbles across her hiding place. Rapunzel takes advantage of the situation and coerces the thief into taking her with her for a tour of the outside world--all behind her adoptive mother's back. A lot of people will describe the themes as being 'breaking free', 'rebellion', and 'honesty'. As for me, I have some issues with how they attempt to portray such topics.
The first point I have to bring up is the film's villain, Mother Gothel. As a Disney villain, she's a lot of fun to watch, kind of like an overly dramatic stage mother with a dark edge, able to get you to sing along with her but scare you at the same time, two traits that are great to have for any villain. However, unlike other Disney Villains, I just couldn't find any grounds to sympathize with her; all we get is a vain, self-glorifying, deceitful, and subtly abusive woman, a complete monster of a woman. The only reason that Rapunzel could possibly have any affection for her is the fact that this is the only person she's ever known her whole life, the very person who raised her as her own (anyone see any parallels to Hunchback of Notre Dame, or is it just me?).
Why do I bring this up? It's because Gothel, unlike so many other Disney Villains, is unique in that she is the parental figure in her relationship with Rapunzel in spite of the true nature of their coming together, and this has a major influence on the moral. Let's face it, her only major motivation is eternal youth, and that is hardly a justifiable motivation for a character in this role (especially how that's been done before in the form of the Evil Queen from Snow White). This basically turns the moral into "It's okay to rebel against your parents because they may not really be your parents if they tell you what not to do; heck if they're being really uncool, you should just go up and MURDER them", and what kind of lesson is that to teach to your kids?
It's probably safe to say that this is an exaggeration as much as Gothel herself is an exaggeration. In that light, it probably means that, just like The Little Mermaid, the lesson in Tangled is meant to be learned by the parents. Well, if that's the case, then at the very least give Gothel some understandable motivations that people can honestly relate to. At least that would make her a much more ambiguous, and quite possibly stronger, character in the process. An example of this that immediately comes to mind is the Witch from the musical "Into the Woods", one of my favorite plays; there, it's basically the same story in that the Witch raises Rapunzel as an adoptive parent, but they play up the parent aspect so much more than they do in Tangled; here, this version of the Witch isn't keeping Rapunzel in the tower just so she can partake of a fountain of eternal youth, it's because she legitimately doesn't know anything at all about being a parent, and this is her response to the issue of raising a child. Of course it backfires in her face, but not in the way that you'd think. In the end, we can still identify the witch as a 'bad' person, but we can actually empathize with her, understanding the reasons for her actions, and feel sorry for her when things start backfiring on her. There are instances in Tangled where they remind us that Gothel and Rapunzel have a mother/daughter relationship and show some glimpses of genuine love between them, but to me, they barely registered in the whole process of the story. Had Gothel been given similar reasons (and in fact, I believe that was the original angle they were going with during production), the character might've been improved, along with the moral.
This leads into my second issue with the film; how it treats authority figures (I'm leaving the King and Queen out of the discussion because, let's face it, they don't even get a line in the entire movie). Rapunzel may have a sympathetic, and arguably justifiable reason, to rebel against the authority figure in her life, but Flynn Rider, the male lead in the movie, goes off and steals a crown, double-crosses his partners in said crime, and proceeds to steal even more things in the move, all for the sake of his own gain. Unlike characters like Robin Hood or even Aladdin, he doesn't exactly have the most admirable of motivations; there's no oppressive regime or even the threat of starvation, he's just trying to make a quick buck! Even the thugs in the Snuggly Duckling pub are quick to point this out ("Your dream stinks"). And what does he get for his comeuppance? A hot chick with benefits and an entire kingdom in the end! Granted, we have to assume that he was pardoned in the end because he returned Rapunzel to her parents, but we don't get an actual acknowledgement of regret for his actions in stealing the crown; the only regret we see is when he's confronted by the Stabbington Brothers at the edge of the lake. And then we get his direct opposite in the form of Maximus, the law-abiding horse who spends the first two-thirds of the movie trying to recover said crown, but in a way that can be summarized as 'psychotic' and 'obsessive'. What happens to him in the end? I don't know about you, but it feels like he becomes okay with Flynn's crimes in the end. Granted, it seems like he has become more balanced and less rigid, but given how Maximus was essentially a caricature, it makes it seem like abiding the law is somehow 'uncool'. Flynn even goes as far as to make rebellion seem like a natural part of life, when in fact it gets more teenagers and young adults into trouble than it's worth.
So, what's the sum moral of the story? Apparently it's "It's cool to break the rules and rebel against the authority figure in your life because rules are lame, and only your real parents would let you do whatever you want in life and get away with it!"
It's possible that I'm way off the mark with this conclusion, and there's something that I'm not seeing here. However, I feel that Frozen, for all it's mistakes and flaws, was far clearer in what it was trying to say, that love, not fear, is what will bring happiness and stability in life, and is therefore the more worthwhile film to watch. So unless anyone has any points that I have yet to know, this is my stance on the argument. I just had to get it out.
This is MovieDragon009 signing out.
(P.S. I saw Godzilla last May, and while there was a long wait with 'meh' characters to get to the titular character, the film ROCKED!)
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Princesses and Political Correctness; An Editorial
Hey everybody, this is MovieDragon009 back again with a new blog post.
Knock-knock, who's there? Did you see Frozen? HECK YEAH! Who hasn't, especially given that it's become one of the most successful animated features of all time? Those of you who've seen my YouTube video review of the movie already know how much I enjoyed it, in spite of some noticeable flaws, but recently I've noticed some of the controversies surrounding this loveable film. I'm only going to talk about one issue here and express my thoughts on it, and you may find me playing Devil's advocate a couple of times, so brace yourselves.
One of the complaints that I've heard about Frozen is the design of the two main female characters, Elsa and Anna; as far as body shape is concerned, they haven't really done anything to revolutionize that aspect of female character design so much as reinforce the stereotype of rail-thin beauty. This isn't new though, and it does reflect on the Disney Princess franchise, along with dozens of other fictional portrayals of women, as a whole, for which it receives a jack-ton of flak. Admittedly, I can see where they're coming from on this issue; while Disney has progressed a lot by introducing characters of greater ethnic diversity that provide a 'stronger' role model for children, there hasn't been much change in body types; heck, with the new CGI films coming out, the main female characters are starting to become more and more Barbie-doll-like (personally, however, I think that this is merely a consequence of the tool; hence, I think Disney needs to start getting hand-drawn films back on the market, but that's a blog post for another day), whereas the men are generally free to inhabit a greater variety of body-types and yet remain acceptable to audiences. In a way, I kind of agree with them; there's plenty of room for a greater variety of female body types not just in Disney films but in other franchises as well, and if handled correctly, could result in a wider variety of interesting characters.
But this is only one side of the coin, a coin that I've come to label Political Correctness. Here's where I may have to start playing devil's advocate a little bit: imagine if a feature film did decide to use a radically different body shape for a female protagonist than what's been used before, one that perhaps may be more on the plus side than the norm. Who's to say that, instead of praising the newly portrayed body type, the critics start to call out the movie on basically saying, "It's okay to be overweight, you don't have to change that!", or at least, perceiving such a message? This would probably force the studio to bring what should've been a minor thing into the fore through a forced pro-exercise message--which, ironically, would turn right back into the negative body-image debate, as some viewers could perceive that the character is working towards an unrealistic goal that, again, is reinforced by popular media. The thing is that most studios try to work towards a character design that is appealing to a broad range of audiences, and, especially with a lot of the larger studios like Disney in recent times, audience expectations determine what is appealing.
Don't get me wrong, a healthy diet and continuous exercise is a good thing, I'm not arguing with that. I only bring up such a scenario to illustrate the fact that, by trying to be as politically correct as possible, you run the risk of offending just as many people as you try to please. What may be politically correct in one place is not in another, and there is no truly satisfying anyone. Why I risk my own scant popularity on the Internet through this blog is not to tear down whatever progress may have been done for the portrayal of women in media; I'm simply speaking out on behalf of the storymakers.
Films, books, television shows, and the like are all creative endeavors, the better ones more so, but as I said earlier, their success is determined by what is popular at the time rather than what may be needed. This forces the creator of the property to walk a very delicate line between being true to one's desires and the tastes of the masses. Sometimes they strike a balance, achieving something that, while popular, hasn't been toned or produced just to please a group of people and make money. What I'm saying is that a story shouldn't have to please protest groups in order to be successful; a story should simply be the best it can be in any respects, and I feel that sometimes that potential is limited by somewhat trivial expectations. I think that a lot of us miss the point of what a fictional story is supposed to be; a lie that tells the truth, and helps us become better people because of it. We really shouldn't care about what a character looks like so long as they, and us, are learning a worthwhile lesson. Of course there are going to be storytellers that voluntarily make blatant cash-grabs that, as far as values and morals are concerned, are about as dry as a bone, but for every ten awful popcorn flicks there's a work of art with a heart of gold waiting to be discovered, so long as people aren't distracted by and try to nitpick every imagined flaw. And this is where I turn it back to Frozen; what's important about this movie is it's message of overcoming internal doubts and fears, as well as that of familial love. If people paid more attention to stuff like that, then maybe we'd get better stories in the end.Obviously this is a really complicated issue that we face, but this is just my two cents on the matter. Take of it what you will.
This is MovieDragon009, signing out!
Knock-knock, who's there? Did you see Frozen? HECK YEAH! Who hasn't, especially given that it's become one of the most successful animated features of all time? Those of you who've seen my YouTube video review of the movie already know how much I enjoyed it, in spite of some noticeable flaws, but recently I've noticed some of the controversies surrounding this loveable film. I'm only going to talk about one issue here and express my thoughts on it, and you may find me playing Devil's advocate a couple of times, so brace yourselves.
One of the complaints that I've heard about Frozen is the design of the two main female characters, Elsa and Anna; as far as body shape is concerned, they haven't really done anything to revolutionize that aspect of female character design so much as reinforce the stereotype of rail-thin beauty. This isn't new though, and it does reflect on the Disney Princess franchise, along with dozens of other fictional portrayals of women, as a whole, for which it receives a jack-ton of flak. Admittedly, I can see where they're coming from on this issue; while Disney has progressed a lot by introducing characters of greater ethnic diversity that provide a 'stronger' role model for children, there hasn't been much change in body types; heck, with the new CGI films coming out, the main female characters are starting to become more and more Barbie-doll-like (personally, however, I think that this is merely a consequence of the tool; hence, I think Disney needs to start getting hand-drawn films back on the market, but that's a blog post for another day), whereas the men are generally free to inhabit a greater variety of body-types and yet remain acceptable to audiences. In a way, I kind of agree with them; there's plenty of room for a greater variety of female body types not just in Disney films but in other franchises as well, and if handled correctly, could result in a wider variety of interesting characters.
But this is only one side of the coin, a coin that I've come to label Political Correctness. Here's where I may have to start playing devil's advocate a little bit: imagine if a feature film did decide to use a radically different body shape for a female protagonist than what's been used before, one that perhaps may be more on the plus side than the norm. Who's to say that, instead of praising the newly portrayed body type, the critics start to call out the movie on basically saying, "It's okay to be overweight, you don't have to change that!", or at least, perceiving such a message? This would probably force the studio to bring what should've been a minor thing into the fore through a forced pro-exercise message--which, ironically, would turn right back into the negative body-image debate, as some viewers could perceive that the character is working towards an unrealistic goal that, again, is reinforced by popular media. The thing is that most studios try to work towards a character design that is appealing to a broad range of audiences, and, especially with a lot of the larger studios like Disney in recent times, audience expectations determine what is appealing.
Don't get me wrong, a healthy diet and continuous exercise is a good thing, I'm not arguing with that. I only bring up such a scenario to illustrate the fact that, by trying to be as politically correct as possible, you run the risk of offending just as many people as you try to please. What may be politically correct in one place is not in another, and there is no truly satisfying anyone. Why I risk my own scant popularity on the Internet through this blog is not to tear down whatever progress may have been done for the portrayal of women in media; I'm simply speaking out on behalf of the storymakers.
Films, books, television shows, and the like are all creative endeavors, the better ones more so, but as I said earlier, their success is determined by what is popular at the time rather than what may be needed. This forces the creator of the property to walk a very delicate line between being true to one's desires and the tastes of the masses. Sometimes they strike a balance, achieving something that, while popular, hasn't been toned or produced just to please a group of people and make money. What I'm saying is that a story shouldn't have to please protest groups in order to be successful; a story should simply be the best it can be in any respects, and I feel that sometimes that potential is limited by somewhat trivial expectations. I think that a lot of us miss the point of what a fictional story is supposed to be; a lie that tells the truth, and helps us become better people because of it. We really shouldn't care about what a character looks like so long as they, and us, are learning a worthwhile lesson. Of course there are going to be storytellers that voluntarily make blatant cash-grabs that, as far as values and morals are concerned, are about as dry as a bone, but for every ten awful popcorn flicks there's a work of art with a heart of gold waiting to be discovered, so long as people aren't distracted by and try to nitpick every imagined flaw. And this is where I turn it back to Frozen; what's important about this movie is it's message of overcoming internal doubts and fears, as well as that of familial love. If people paid more attention to stuff like that, then maybe we'd get better stories in the end.Obviously this is a really complicated issue that we face, but this is just my two cents on the matter. Take of it what you will.
This is MovieDragon009, signing out!
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Man of Steel...or Man of Extremely Destructive Capabilities?
Hey Internet, it is MovieDragon009 back again with a new blog post.
It's been a while since I last wrote or posted, hasn't it? First off, I want to apologize for the lack of activity here; not a lot has been going on in my world, other than readjusting to life at home after another semester at BYU-I. I also want to apologize for the lack of art on this blog; I'm currently lacking a suitable scanner at the moment, but I figure that I should be able to take some photos of what I've been working on and post them here later as a sneak peek.
But that's not the reason I'm writing this blog; tonight, I've finally gotten the chance to view the reboot to the Superman franchise, Man of Steel, and I present to you, oh so patient audience, my thoughts on it after waiting so long to see it. Normally I'd be doing this as a video, but if you've seen my Desolation of Smaug review, you'll know why I didn't.
First of all, this movie was not what I had expected, and I don't think anyone was expecting either when it came out; I mean, YEESH, the advertising made this seem like the greatest superhero film to hit theaters since The Dark Knight. Let me tell you, it sure as heck got me excited (you can see the videos I posted on YouTube for proof of that), and while a ton of situations got in the way, I looked forward to being wowed by it.
Now that it's come out now, people either seem to love or hate this movie; it's a very divided group. Some people shout out, "This is the greatest thing ever!", while others shout out, "This is TERRIBLE! How could Zack Snyder do this to my hero?"
Me? I'm kind of in the middle ground between the two extremes.
Let's talk about the plot first (SPOILERS AHEAD); obviously it's the story we've all heard for years and years, so the basic premise hasn't changed so much; Krypton is dying, and Jor-El and his wife manage to send their infant son to Earth before it explodes; on Earth, Cal-El, or Clark Kent as he becomes known, comes in touch with his super side and takes up the red cape to defend the planet as Superman. You know it, I know it, we all know it. But then there's the extra stuff that they add in there to make this story distinct; apparently there's a big military coup led by General Zod towards the last days of Krypton right as Jor-El is about to rocket his son away, PLUS he manages to insert this Codex thing into the very cells of Cal-El, preserving the genetic material of Krypton and ensuring its survival. This factors later in the movie when Zod escapes the Phantom Zone with his lackeys and heads to Earth with the intent to terraform the planet to become a new Krypton. On top of that, apparently Kryptonians have been genetically engineered to fit a certain role in society with no love-making between individuals involved (how in the heck did they enforce that??), but Cal-El is the first natural-born Kryptonian, making him extra-special and all that stuff.
So, with Zod ready to destroy Earth as we know it, Superman must rise up to stop him.
That's about as much of the plot as I can surmise, but you can probably look it up on the Wikipedia article. The best parts about the movie is when they are showing Clark Kent's childhood, and what it must be like to grow up with his super powers. Maybe they should have kept in that direction and, instead of throwing him straight to the lions, just have him start out small and work his way up...or at least they could have if Smallville didn't already exist.
I like the ideas that David S. Goyer, the writer, puts forward, but he seems to be just that: an idea man. Many of the things they bring up, unfortunately, seem to be brushed aside rather quickly in the name of big action (I'll get to the action later), which is rather disappointing; I feel that if they had simply decided to take their time and actually talk about these ideas, such as freedom of choice and responsibility, the movie probably would have benefited enormously. However, there's also a lot of plot points that made me scratch my head and say, "Why in the world would they do that??", the no-sex ruling being among them. For example, there's a scene where Zod is telling Superman his evil plan to wipe out mankind, and to illustrate it the scenery around them shows a huge wasteland filled with human skulls. Why did that seem like a good idea? Why would you show the guy who's lived on earth and considered himself one of us the end result of genocide? It's a good visual, but terrible thinking on Zod's part (or rather, Goyer's part). Earlier, when Superman is surrendering himself to Zod's minions, Faora demands that Lois Lane come with them; why? They explain later that they look into her mind and find out important information, but couldn't they have done that with Superman, as they VERY CLEARLY SHOWED THEM DOING?? Come on, at least make your villains intelligent.
There's also the execution of the ending; if you've seen it, you'll know that, in order to stop Zod once and for all, Superman has to break his neck and kill him. That, I don't have a problem with; again, it's a good idea for the plot, to show that there are difficult choices where the only option is the lesser of two evils, and that sometimes there are choices with no easy answer. You'd think with an outcome like that, the ending of the movie would show Superman dealing with the ethical and emotional ramifications of his actions, and they do...for a few seconds. The rest of the movie, it seems like he completely forgot all about that (along with the major destruction and loss of life, but we'll get to that later)! You just killed one of the only two members of your species left! I think that would deserve some closure! But nope! The movie's just like, "We'll that's over with, we'd better get to the other stuff, now."
And then there are issues with the plot just in and of itself as a whole; first of all, why do Kryptonians have to be the bad guys in this movie, and not a second one? I haven't seen the original Superman movies with Christopher Reeve in them, but from what I understand, they introduced Zod and his minions in the first movie, and then had them take center stage in the second movie. That I understand; the first movie pitted Superman against Earth's worst, to show that he could stand up to anything we could throw at him, and then the second movie raised the stakes to show he could take on anything his own homeworld could throw at him. Here, taking down Zod first just shows that he's pretty much invincible; who would try taking him down after he took down his own equal? Anything the sequels try to do will pale in comparison to this (unless they introduce Doomsday...). And of course, if you've seen How It Should Have Ended on YouTube, you'll know about the other plot holes, such as why didn't Superman just throw the black-hole thing into the enemy ship in the first place, and of course Zod should've just colonized Mars.
A lot of people criticize the good majority of Superman's actions in this film, but as far as I'm concerned, this is Superman starting out; he's going to make mistakes, but he'll probably learn from these in the future, so I'll forgive them.
Now let's talk about the acting; I think that each and every one of the actors in this movie took their job dang seriously, and that it shows in their performances. Henry Cavill does a great job in this movie, and I don't think a lot of people can pull of what he did and still make it feel like Superman, so I applaud him. The rest of the cast does a good job too, but the guy playing Zod, I feel, seems to go a little over the top with his performances at times. There were also times when it felt like some of the actors, namely Russel Crowe as Jor-El, didn't really seem like they were giving it their all or giving the right reaction that they should have been (Come on, guy, you got stabbed! Flinch a little!). Other than that, the performances didn't bother me at all.
I also like the look, design, and effects of the movie; I'm glad that Krypton doesn't look like a sterile world of crystals, and that it's clearly a world capable of supporting life (up until it explodes, of course). The tech that the Kryptonians are carrying also looks pretty darn unique and awesome; especially the particle-assembled holograms and stuff. They very clearly worked their butts off to make Kryptonian technology very distinct from what we've seen before. With the costumes, I get a very Neo-medieval vibe from them, with everyone running around in suits of armor, which is pretty cool. A lot of people complain that the movie looks too dark, especially given that this is Superman we're talking about (seriously, the Dark Knight trilogy had brighter colors than this), but while I was watching, that didn't really bother me; I get that the filmmakers were implying that this is a much more serious version than before, and I'm willing to go along with that.
Of course now we have to talk about the action, and good-golly wally, Zack Snyder has a violence issue; I think that even Michael Bay would be having an intervention with this guy, and he's pretty destructive! It starts out pretty cool, but as the movie builds and builds to the climax, it just gets more and more obnoxious and ridiculous at times, and really makes you question how one indestructible person could be capable of causing this much damage (seriously, he manages to topple an entire building just by being thrown through it! You'd think all that would do is result in a big hole, but no!), not to mention the obviously huge amounts of loss of life that must be going on during one of these battles. Seriously, don't make everyone duck and cover; have the entire city evacuated before you let loose one of these raging cannons! Again, this is Superman's first time as being Superman, so initially I can forgive him, but come on, Snyder! You don't need to have them trashing an entire town to have an action sequence! But all this damage, including the loss of life, seems to be swept aside and forgotten about by the movie along with Zod's death; not ONE mention, not ONE scene where it would imply that Superman dealt with the consequences of such actions, not even a scene showing him helping to clean up the mess he made. Again, I really doubt that if Superman existed he, or any other members of his species, would be capable of doing this kind of damage in real life. But, who knows? Maybe I'm wrong (but I hope not).
I haven't seen any of Snyder's other work, but after watching this movie, I get the very strong vibe that he's more of a visual kind of guy; a lot of the shots look awesome (just refer to the trailers), but the execution doesn't quite pan out. Maybe he should stick with art direction, cinematography or something, I dunno, because from what I understand, he's clearly not a writer guy, and probably shouldn't be behind the camera (he really likes to zoom in at really obnoxious moments). But it's very clear that he's very passionate about his work, I'll give him that; what's weird is that Chris Nolan, who was one of the producers on this film, didn't take him back and say, "Now now, let's just chill for a little bit and think this scene through..." You'd think that would have an influence, but nope! What's even weirder is how much Snyder and Goyer are trying to make it look like a Chris Nolan film with the non-linear storytelling; they are very liberal with how many flashbacks they sprinkle into the story, and it gets kind of out of hand.
Well, that's enough ranting for one night; let's have the final conclusion. Is it a fantastic movie? No, at least not the one that I was expecting. Is it a terrible movie? No, it has it's good points. I think that its a situation similar to what must have happened with the Star Wars prequels, with a lot of good ideas and passion being put into it, but without the right execution to pull it off. And hey, with the Superman/Batman movie coming out in 2016, maybe Snyder will have learned his lesson and toned down for that. But we'll just have to cross that bridge when it gets there.
This is MovieDragon009 signing out.
It's been a while since I last wrote or posted, hasn't it? First off, I want to apologize for the lack of activity here; not a lot has been going on in my world, other than readjusting to life at home after another semester at BYU-I. I also want to apologize for the lack of art on this blog; I'm currently lacking a suitable scanner at the moment, but I figure that I should be able to take some photos of what I've been working on and post them here later as a sneak peek.
But that's not the reason I'm writing this blog; tonight, I've finally gotten the chance to view the reboot to the Superman franchise, Man of Steel, and I present to you, oh so patient audience, my thoughts on it after waiting so long to see it. Normally I'd be doing this as a video, but if you've seen my Desolation of Smaug review, you'll know why I didn't.
First of all, this movie was not what I had expected, and I don't think anyone was expecting either when it came out; I mean, YEESH, the advertising made this seem like the greatest superhero film to hit theaters since The Dark Knight. Let me tell you, it sure as heck got me excited (you can see the videos I posted on YouTube for proof of that), and while a ton of situations got in the way, I looked forward to being wowed by it.
Now that it's come out now, people either seem to love or hate this movie; it's a very divided group. Some people shout out, "This is the greatest thing ever!", while others shout out, "This is TERRIBLE! How could Zack Snyder do this to my hero?"
Me? I'm kind of in the middle ground between the two extremes.
Let's talk about the plot first (SPOILERS AHEAD); obviously it's the story we've all heard for years and years, so the basic premise hasn't changed so much; Krypton is dying, and Jor-El and his wife manage to send their infant son to Earth before it explodes; on Earth, Cal-El, or Clark Kent as he becomes known, comes in touch with his super side and takes up the red cape to defend the planet as Superman. You know it, I know it, we all know it. But then there's the extra stuff that they add in there to make this story distinct; apparently there's a big military coup led by General Zod towards the last days of Krypton right as Jor-El is about to rocket his son away, PLUS he manages to insert this Codex thing into the very cells of Cal-El, preserving the genetic material of Krypton and ensuring its survival. This factors later in the movie when Zod escapes the Phantom Zone with his lackeys and heads to Earth with the intent to terraform the planet to become a new Krypton. On top of that, apparently Kryptonians have been genetically engineered to fit a certain role in society with no love-making between individuals involved (how in the heck did they enforce that??), but Cal-El is the first natural-born Kryptonian, making him extra-special and all that stuff.
So, with Zod ready to destroy Earth as we know it, Superman must rise up to stop him.
That's about as much of the plot as I can surmise, but you can probably look it up on the Wikipedia article. The best parts about the movie is when they are showing Clark Kent's childhood, and what it must be like to grow up with his super powers. Maybe they should have kept in that direction and, instead of throwing him straight to the lions, just have him start out small and work his way up...or at least they could have if Smallville didn't already exist.
I like the ideas that David S. Goyer, the writer, puts forward, but he seems to be just that: an idea man. Many of the things they bring up, unfortunately, seem to be brushed aside rather quickly in the name of big action (I'll get to the action later), which is rather disappointing; I feel that if they had simply decided to take their time and actually talk about these ideas, such as freedom of choice and responsibility, the movie probably would have benefited enormously. However, there's also a lot of plot points that made me scratch my head and say, "Why in the world would they do that??", the no-sex ruling being among them. For example, there's a scene where Zod is telling Superman his evil plan to wipe out mankind, and to illustrate it the scenery around them shows a huge wasteland filled with human skulls. Why did that seem like a good idea? Why would you show the guy who's lived on earth and considered himself one of us the end result of genocide? It's a good visual, but terrible thinking on Zod's part (or rather, Goyer's part). Earlier, when Superman is surrendering himself to Zod's minions, Faora demands that Lois Lane come with them; why? They explain later that they look into her mind and find out important information, but couldn't they have done that with Superman, as they VERY CLEARLY SHOWED THEM DOING?? Come on, at least make your villains intelligent.
There's also the execution of the ending; if you've seen it, you'll know that, in order to stop Zod once and for all, Superman has to break his neck and kill him. That, I don't have a problem with; again, it's a good idea for the plot, to show that there are difficult choices where the only option is the lesser of two evils, and that sometimes there are choices with no easy answer. You'd think with an outcome like that, the ending of the movie would show Superman dealing with the ethical and emotional ramifications of his actions, and they do...for a few seconds. The rest of the movie, it seems like he completely forgot all about that (along with the major destruction and loss of life, but we'll get to that later)! You just killed one of the only two members of your species left! I think that would deserve some closure! But nope! The movie's just like, "We'll that's over with, we'd better get to the other stuff, now."
And then there are issues with the plot just in and of itself as a whole; first of all, why do Kryptonians have to be the bad guys in this movie, and not a second one? I haven't seen the original Superman movies with Christopher Reeve in them, but from what I understand, they introduced Zod and his minions in the first movie, and then had them take center stage in the second movie. That I understand; the first movie pitted Superman against Earth's worst, to show that he could stand up to anything we could throw at him, and then the second movie raised the stakes to show he could take on anything his own homeworld could throw at him. Here, taking down Zod first just shows that he's pretty much invincible; who would try taking him down after he took down his own equal? Anything the sequels try to do will pale in comparison to this (unless they introduce Doomsday...). And of course, if you've seen How It Should Have Ended on YouTube, you'll know about the other plot holes, such as why didn't Superman just throw the black-hole thing into the enemy ship in the first place, and of course Zod should've just colonized Mars.
A lot of people criticize the good majority of Superman's actions in this film, but as far as I'm concerned, this is Superman starting out; he's going to make mistakes, but he'll probably learn from these in the future, so I'll forgive them.
Now let's talk about the acting; I think that each and every one of the actors in this movie took their job dang seriously, and that it shows in their performances. Henry Cavill does a great job in this movie, and I don't think a lot of people can pull of what he did and still make it feel like Superman, so I applaud him. The rest of the cast does a good job too, but the guy playing Zod, I feel, seems to go a little over the top with his performances at times. There were also times when it felt like some of the actors, namely Russel Crowe as Jor-El, didn't really seem like they were giving it their all or giving the right reaction that they should have been (Come on, guy, you got stabbed! Flinch a little!). Other than that, the performances didn't bother me at all.
I also like the look, design, and effects of the movie; I'm glad that Krypton doesn't look like a sterile world of crystals, and that it's clearly a world capable of supporting life (up until it explodes, of course). The tech that the Kryptonians are carrying also looks pretty darn unique and awesome; especially the particle-assembled holograms and stuff. They very clearly worked their butts off to make Kryptonian technology very distinct from what we've seen before. With the costumes, I get a very Neo-medieval vibe from them, with everyone running around in suits of armor, which is pretty cool. A lot of people complain that the movie looks too dark, especially given that this is Superman we're talking about (seriously, the Dark Knight trilogy had brighter colors than this), but while I was watching, that didn't really bother me; I get that the filmmakers were implying that this is a much more serious version than before, and I'm willing to go along with that.
Of course now we have to talk about the action, and good-golly wally, Zack Snyder has a violence issue; I think that even Michael Bay would be having an intervention with this guy, and he's pretty destructive! It starts out pretty cool, but as the movie builds and builds to the climax, it just gets more and more obnoxious and ridiculous at times, and really makes you question how one indestructible person could be capable of causing this much damage (seriously, he manages to topple an entire building just by being thrown through it! You'd think all that would do is result in a big hole, but no!), not to mention the obviously huge amounts of loss of life that must be going on during one of these battles. Seriously, don't make everyone duck and cover; have the entire city evacuated before you let loose one of these raging cannons! Again, this is Superman's first time as being Superman, so initially I can forgive him, but come on, Snyder! You don't need to have them trashing an entire town to have an action sequence! But all this damage, including the loss of life, seems to be swept aside and forgotten about by the movie along with Zod's death; not ONE mention, not ONE scene where it would imply that Superman dealt with the consequences of such actions, not even a scene showing him helping to clean up the mess he made. Again, I really doubt that if Superman existed he, or any other members of his species, would be capable of doing this kind of damage in real life. But, who knows? Maybe I'm wrong (but I hope not).
I haven't seen any of Snyder's other work, but after watching this movie, I get the very strong vibe that he's more of a visual kind of guy; a lot of the shots look awesome (just refer to the trailers), but the execution doesn't quite pan out. Maybe he should stick with art direction, cinematography or something, I dunno, because from what I understand, he's clearly not a writer guy, and probably shouldn't be behind the camera (he really likes to zoom in at really obnoxious moments). But it's very clear that he's very passionate about his work, I'll give him that; what's weird is that Chris Nolan, who was one of the producers on this film, didn't take him back and say, "Now now, let's just chill for a little bit and think this scene through..." You'd think that would have an influence, but nope! What's even weirder is how much Snyder and Goyer are trying to make it look like a Chris Nolan film with the non-linear storytelling; they are very liberal with how many flashbacks they sprinkle into the story, and it gets kind of out of hand.
Well, that's enough ranting for one night; let's have the final conclusion. Is it a fantastic movie? No, at least not the one that I was expecting. Is it a terrible movie? No, it has it's good points. I think that its a situation similar to what must have happened with the Star Wars prequels, with a lot of good ideas and passion being put into it, but without the right execution to pull it off. And hey, with the Superman/Batman movie coming out in 2016, maybe Snyder will have learned his lesson and toned down for that. But we'll just have to cross that bridge when it gets there.
This is MovieDragon009 signing out.
Monday, December 23, 2013
A Pre-Christmas Present
Merry Christmas, everybody!
I realize that I've been away from this blog for WAY too long, but in my defense I've been super busy, what with college finals and all that, but now that it's over, I'll be on a very long vacation until spring gets here, and so I'll have more time to devote to my creative endeavors. I'm also going to be seeing The Desolation of Smaug tomorrow as part of a dear family tradition of mine, so look forward to that as well.
In the meantime, let's look at something new I've cooked up, recently: A COMIC! This past semester I bought an 11x14 sketchbook, and I decided to devote it to drawing comic pages. Here's page one!
Let me know what you think, and once again, Merry Christmas!
I realize that I've been away from this blog for WAY too long, but in my defense I've been super busy, what with college finals and all that, but now that it's over, I'll be on a very long vacation until spring gets here, and so I'll have more time to devote to my creative endeavors. I'm also going to be seeing The Desolation of Smaug tomorrow as part of a dear family tradition of mine, so look forward to that as well.
In the meantime, let's look at something new I've cooked up, recently: A COMIC! This past semester I bought an 11x14 sketchbook, and I decided to devote it to drawing comic pages. Here's page one!
Saturday, November 16, 2013
"May I have some Originality, Please?"
Hey Everybody, it's MovieDragon009 back again, with another blog.
Before I get into showing off some new art, I do have to say that I love the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. His Middle-Earth is so fascinating, and the adventures he painted can be so endearing, it totally wraps up the imagination (Shoot, now I have to read LOTR again!). What fascinates me is the races and creatures he crafted for this legend of his; from Elves to Orcs, and from Ents to Hobbits, each group of beings is just a wonder to study. Which brings me to the point of this blog entry,
FANTASY TODAY IS ABSOFREAKODICULOUSLY UNIMAGINATIVE IN CREATURE CREATION!!
Don't believe me? Well then, let's list off some of the races that Tolkien used for his epic series: elves, dwarves, men, hobbits, orcs/goblins, wraiths, etc. I challenge you to go online, look up a major fantasy franchise that arose sometime in the '90's to today, and tell me that not one of them used at least three of these creatures for their universe. Heck, I can list a couple off the top of my head; World of Warcraft, The Elder Scrolls, Dungeons and Dragons, the list goes on.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it if people use one of the above races in building their fantasy world. What does get me is if they don't try to find some way to present them in a way that's new and innovative; when I find the words elf, dwarf, and orc in fantasy fiction today, what I usually find is the same thing that Tolkien came up with; elves are pointy-eared, graceful, die-hard killers that are usually the hottest people in the kingdom, dwarves are short, hairy guys who can make really cool stuff out of metal, while orcs are going to be the bastardized version of the elves, while keeping the pointy ears (Honestly, that never made sense to me; what purpose, other than distinguishing the species, do pointy ears serve?). Oh sure, they do some things to their wardrobe (I can't believe how much designers go out of their way to dress up the she-elves like prostitutes when it really wouldn't make sense in the context of their world), but other than that, it's still the same freaking stereotype!
I do have to acknowledge, however, that Tolkien did base his versions of these creatures off of Norse Mythology, and didn't do much to change their overall image. And I also recognize the existence of archetypes; some characters, and sometimes entire species, are going to fulfill certain roles in the story, I know that, and I understand that it can be unavoidable, sometimes. I'm not saying do away with the archetypes, I'm just saying do away with the stereotypes!
Personally, I am tired of hearing the words elf and dwarf and similar jargon popping up everywhere I go, though; for the most part, it shows that the author doesn't have a lot of imagination when he has to resort to using Tolkienian elements to spice up the story. Come on, people, this is FANTASY we're talking about; the very definition of the word implies that the author did whatever the heck he wanted! Writers and artists should have the guts to not just base their worlds and creatures off of a preexisting mythology, but to make their own. One of the best examples I can think of off the top of my head is The NeverEnding Story, by Michael Ende. I haven't read the book or seen the movie myself, but just listen to some of the creatures he's come up with; things like rockbiters, nighthobs, greenskins, and more! Why can't we have stuff like that??
And I know what you're saying, "Oh MovieDragon, if you're so annoyed by that, why don't you just come up with original creatures, yourself?" Well, as a matter of fact, I am. But that's for another day.
And now, here's the art I promised:
This first one is the most recent piece that I've completed, titled, "Stage Fright". You can probably figure out why.
This one is entitled, "The Real Prince of the Forest." Again, I'll leave it up to you to figure out why.
Until next time, this is MovieDragon009, signing out!
Before I get into showing off some new art, I do have to say that I love the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. His Middle-Earth is so fascinating, and the adventures he painted can be so endearing, it totally wraps up the imagination (Shoot, now I have to read LOTR again!). What fascinates me is the races and creatures he crafted for this legend of his; from Elves to Orcs, and from Ents to Hobbits, each group of beings is just a wonder to study. Which brings me to the point of this blog entry,
FANTASY TODAY IS ABSOFREAKODICULOUSLY UNIMAGINATIVE IN CREATURE CREATION!!
Don't believe me? Well then, let's list off some of the races that Tolkien used for his epic series: elves, dwarves, men, hobbits, orcs/goblins, wraiths, etc. I challenge you to go online, look up a major fantasy franchise that arose sometime in the '90's to today, and tell me that not one of them used at least three of these creatures for their universe. Heck, I can list a couple off the top of my head; World of Warcraft, The Elder Scrolls, Dungeons and Dragons, the list goes on.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it if people use one of the above races in building their fantasy world. What does get me is if they don't try to find some way to present them in a way that's new and innovative; when I find the words elf, dwarf, and orc in fantasy fiction today, what I usually find is the same thing that Tolkien came up with; elves are pointy-eared, graceful, die-hard killers that are usually the hottest people in the kingdom, dwarves are short, hairy guys who can make really cool stuff out of metal, while orcs are going to be the bastardized version of the elves, while keeping the pointy ears (Honestly, that never made sense to me; what purpose, other than distinguishing the species, do pointy ears serve?). Oh sure, they do some things to their wardrobe (I can't believe how much designers go out of their way to dress up the she-elves like prostitutes when it really wouldn't make sense in the context of their world), but other than that, it's still the same freaking stereotype!
I do have to acknowledge, however, that Tolkien did base his versions of these creatures off of Norse Mythology, and didn't do much to change their overall image. And I also recognize the existence of archetypes; some characters, and sometimes entire species, are going to fulfill certain roles in the story, I know that, and I understand that it can be unavoidable, sometimes. I'm not saying do away with the archetypes, I'm just saying do away with the stereotypes!
Personally, I am tired of hearing the words elf and dwarf and similar jargon popping up everywhere I go, though; for the most part, it shows that the author doesn't have a lot of imagination when he has to resort to using Tolkienian elements to spice up the story. Come on, people, this is FANTASY we're talking about; the very definition of the word implies that the author did whatever the heck he wanted! Writers and artists should have the guts to not just base their worlds and creatures off of a preexisting mythology, but to make their own. One of the best examples I can think of off the top of my head is The NeverEnding Story, by Michael Ende. I haven't read the book or seen the movie myself, but just listen to some of the creatures he's come up with; things like rockbiters, nighthobs, greenskins, and more! Why can't we have stuff like that??
And I know what you're saying, "Oh MovieDragon, if you're so annoyed by that, why don't you just come up with original creatures, yourself?" Well, as a matter of fact, I am. But that's for another day.
And now, here's the art I promised:
Until next time, this is MovieDragon009, signing out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)