- Movies

Finally, a fitting review...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:25:36 +0000

UPDATED:

A few more HP series links and debates. I'm not necessarily agreeing with all of the content of all of these links, but all of them have interesting things to say.

R.U.I.N.S. Can't Stand Deathly Hallows thread. An ongoing forum discussion of Deathly Hallows and the other books from several angles. Small but thorough. The link takes you to the 7th topic, you can move back and forth from there.

Daniel Hemmens at Ferretbrain comments on Chapters 1 - 12 of Deathly Hallows. I don't agree with everything Hemmens says, but it's humorous.

Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Red Hen Publications essays on the Potterverse. Mostly very long treatises on what was left OUT of the books. Conjecture and implication, not fanfic. Hard site to navigate, check out the sidebar.

---------

I have been searching, ever since the last book came out, for other Harry Potter fans who disliked Book 7, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I've read the book through a few times, and it gets worse every time. It's garbage. This is not the kind of thing you say on even the most neutral HP fan site. You will get death threats. But surely I could not be the only HP fan on the planet who didn't like the final book and didn't think it was even written very well?

Finally, I found via the Confused Matthew forum a link to a Youtube review of Book 7. These guys pretty much nail my thoughts on Deathly Hallows, except for the section on scenes Rowling left out that they would have liked to see. I don't care about that, whether I agree or not. There's also a section in the second video with one of the reviewers upset that his fanshipping didn't turn out the way he wanted. But the rest of it is right on.

Sequential failure...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:50:27 +0000

The sub-heading for MidniteTease is "Sequential Failure is a matter of perspective..." What I mean by that is that sequels and follow-ups of any nature are almost universally considered worse than the original or sub-par in some way. Some sequels are flat-out dismissed as being unworthy of their progenitors, cash-in attempts or failed experiments that should never be taken seriously.

I'm not saying that mentality is inherently wrong, mind you; I'm just saying that it's not always true. There are a lot of sequels that provide much more substance than they're usually given credit for, and I think some sequels deviate so far from the original material that they're rejected before anyone can take a serious look at them.

Anyway, this topic deserves much more attention than I've given it here; I mentioned all of that because of the following essay linked via Kaedrin praising the Halloween sequel Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Meyers. I heartily agree with argument put forth by Alexandra Heller-Nicholas; I've always enjoyed H4 just as much as 1 and 2. Unfortunately, I also like 5 and 6; which ruins my credibility a bit.

Spartan Prep...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:19:22 +0000

Forgot to link this earlier, via Kaedrin: God of War, the movie. Sort of. Not exactly what you had in mind.

The Rise and Fall of the History of Star Wars...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:00:06 +0000

Just finished reading The Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski. Fairly well-written and exhaustively researched, the book does a good job of addressing a few issues relating to the history of the writing of the Star Wars Saga; or as George Lucas now calls it, The Tragedy of Darth Vader.

The intent of the book is to address the claims by George Lucas that he had both trilogies written out before-hand in some form or another, and that what transpires in the films is pretty much what he intended from the very beginning. While most long-time fans can (and have) stood up to refute these mostly ridiculous claims, Kaminski's book collects, for the first time, all available info addressing the argument. Most specifically, Kaminski targets the specific claim that Darth Vader was always written as Anakin Skywalker, the father of Luke and Leia. Second to that issue, the book also directly addresses the claim that Leia was always written as Luke's twin sister. The final, compelling conclusion is that until Lucas took on the re-writes of the script for The Empire Strikes Back (following Leigh Brackett's death from cancer), Vader was always written and thought of as a separate character from "Father Skywalker." Likewise, the reveal of Leia as Luke's sister was used to close a thread tossed out in Empire that was added when Lucas was still planning a sequel trilogy as well as a prequel trilogy.

Beyond including references to actual rough drafts, scripts and notes, Kaminski quotes Lucas himself on dozens of occasions contradicting his current claims. Thankfully, the author also includes a ton of insight into George Lucas himself, and does an admirable job of answering, if indirectly, the third-most famous question regarding the origins of the Star Wars tales: What happened?

What most people mean by that question is, "What happened to George between Empire and Jedi? What happened in the interval between Jedi and Menace? Why is the new trilogy so bad?

First, a couple of house-cleaning issues. I present the following as, hopefully, objective statements that all fans can at least attempt to agree with:

1) Star Wars was intended as a light action-adventure in space.

2) It's phenomenal success was derived partly from how new and different the movie was from recent theater fare.

3) There was no way Empire and Jedi could have lived up to fan expectations.

4) Like many sequels, these two movies appeal more strongly to Star Wars fans than casual viewers.

5) The prequel trilogy probably could not have lived up to fan expectations under any circumstances.

6) The prequel trilogy was very successful financially. Critically it was reviewed similarly to the original trilogy at the time.

With that out of the way, the rest of my comments will primarily be addressed to those fans of the original trilogy who feel as if Lucas has given them a wedgie.

The first bit of fundamental knowledge that one needs to know is that George Lucas, by his own admission, is a poor writer. In addition, he doesn't really care about characters and dialogue; he feels they are largely unimportant to the stories he is telling. Or at least less important. Most readers are probably saying, "No duh!" right about now, but these things are important to remember.

Something that may make a lot of long-time fans feel a bit better is that George Lucas really is the foundation of the Star Wars story. No, he didn't write the whole thing back in 1973 and then just film it, but he did write all of it; the good and the bad. I think he does deserve a lot of credit for his story-creating ability, if not his story-telling ability.

One of the most important things to know about the writing of the Star Wars movies is how much of the final product of each Lucas wrote himself. For Star Wars, Lucas wrote each draft, but each copy was extensively reviewed and criticized by Lucas' circle of friends at the time, including Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, John Milius, and others. George's wife Marcia also provided significant input on characterization and dialogue, and before shooting George had his friends Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck specifically work over the dialogue in the shooting script. The final script was therefore the product of a collaborative effort involving some of the best filmmakers of the era.

The writing of Star Wars 2 is quite notorious and interesting. While Star Wars was still being made, after he had negotiated rights involving potential sequels with Twentieth Century Fox, Lucas met with noted author of fantasy and sci-fi Alan Dean Foster to write two sequels. Fox was willing to commit to two low-budget sequels for Star Wars, and Lucas wanted the novels ready to go. Lucas and Foster worked out the story for the first sequel, which was eventually published as Splinter of the Mind's Eye. The book was well-received, but discarded as the basis for a sequel when Star Wars broke box-office records.

As best as can be verified, Lucas began writing what would become The Empire Strikes Back with Leigh Brackett during a story conference. Lucas wasn't satisfied with her rough draft, but learned of her death when he tried to contact her to discuss revisions. Lucas decided to undertake the writing of the subsequent draft himself; it was at this point that he (as he himself said at the time) hit on the idea of combining Luke's father with Darth Vader. Following the completion of the first draft, Lucas, producer Gary Kurtz, screenwriter Lawrence Kasden and director Irvin Kershner collaborated on subsequent drafts all the way to the shooting script. The actual shoot of Empire is legendary among Star Wars fans: Kershner slowly and methodically created a slower, deeper, more character driven movie than Lucas had in mind. Gary Kurtz is seen by some as enabling this creation by running interference between Lucas and Kershner, almost always siding with director Kershner over executive producer Lucas. The result is one of the few motion picture sequels frequently cited as better than it's progenitor; a movie that, like Star Trek's The Wrath of Kahn, is even considered one of the best sci-fi movies ever created. Even today, Lucas claims Empire is his least favorite Star Wars film, and has commented to many over the years that the Star Wars sequel was "better than it needed to be"; it would have made just as much money with less effort and a smaller budget (budgeted for $15 million, Kurtz and Kershner eventually spent $33 million...all of which was borrowed personally by Lucas. You can understand his consternation, if not his story telling vision.) In fact, Lucas hated the final product so much that he frantically tried to re-edit the movie into a faster-paced, less-talky film. In the end, Kurtz talked him down and persuaded Lucas to let Kershner to another cut. The rest is history. Kurtz and Lucas parted ways, Empire eventually became the most beloved of the original trilogy (not initially, though) and George Lucas apparently still dislikes this movie. On a side note, contrary to popular belief, Irvin Kershner was actually invited back for Jedi...most likely before Lucas saw the finished movie. Kershner turned the offer down, though.

After the blowout success of Star Wars, Lucas had conceptualized doing either twelve episodes of serialized Star Wars as a New Wave project for directors; or more commonly a nine movie series consisting of the current trilogy (which did not yet have an ending), a prequel trilogy based on young Obi-wan Kenobi, and a sequel trilogy that would conclude the Rebellion versus Empire story. A line was even added to Empire to possibly point to the sequel trilogy. Following his ordeal with Empire, Lucas resolved to finish the current trilogy, then quit. He also resolved to work with a producer and director who would follow his wishes. Again, Lucas wrote the rough draft then collaborated with producer Howard Kazanjian, director Richard Marquand and Lawrence Kasdan for the Jedi scripts. An interesting observation is that while Empire's shooting script was changed during filming by director Irvin Kershner; the last notes and edits of Jedi's script were made by Lucas. Although the rough draft was written after Lucas had decided to end the series, during the writing process Lucas and the others found many storylines that needed to be closed, mostly because of the changes made in Empire. After reading the rough drafts, my advice to Star Wars fans is to be thankful for what you got in Return of the Jedi...the original plans were much, much worse. Kasdan seems to be most directly responsible for the final story, although as usual Lucas provided many of the more loved and loathed details.

When Lucas decided to make the prequel trilogy following the Star Wars renaissance of the early-nineties, he made two important decisions: he would direct the movies himself and he would write the movies himself. Of the original movies, Lucas directed the first only; and all of the screenplays were collaborative. Although Lucas would plan to have another screenwriter do a "polish" of his final drafts, he eventually only does this for the second movie. Ironically, Lucas' rough, revised rough and first drafts are, more or less, the story that many Star Wars fans had been expecting. However, the second draft would introduce the film as it was eventually filmed. The first draft is very similar to the filmed plot, actually...just replace Qui-gon Jin with Obi-wan; Obi-wan with nothing; characterize Obi-wan somewhere between the final Qui-gon and Obi-wan; elevate Anakin's age a few years; don't include midichlorians...see where I'm going here? Qui-gon does appear in this draft as Jedi Knight Kenobi's friend and mentor (not master) who accompanies the return trip to Naboo. He is killed by Darth Maul as usual, which is one of the two reasons Lucas went back and added him to the rest of the movie: to build some sympathy for the character. Unfortunately, Obi-wan is clumsily pushed aside by this addition, leaving no screentime for he and Anakin to bond. The midichlorians are added because Lucas felt that the Jedi Council would not agree to allow Anakin to be trained based on the recommendations of Qui-gon and Obi-wan; they needed a more compelling reason. However, I felt the rough-draft version of this scene played perfectly with the council washing their hands of the boy, Yoda specifically recommending against training, but leaving the final decision up to Obi-wan.

Lucas handed off his first draft for Episode 2 to Jonathan Hales, who would create the second, third and fourth drafts. Lucas would edit the fourth draft, and then change and add several scenes during and after filming. While the editing and SFX of the second movie does make it fun to watch (some of it, anyway); I think the dialogue and story speak for themselves.

Lucas completed the first draft of Sith after pre-production for the movie was complete. Lucas would complete several more drafts before filming, but would significantly alter the script several times during filming. After the film was completed, Lucas re-wrote the script, filmed additional scenes, re-looped several audio tracks, and re-edited the film into something almost completely different. I would love to see what it looked like before. The pivotal change was Lucas' decision to soften Anakin's fall in order to make him more likable and tragic.

What's pretty clear is that, especially with the prequels, what you see on screen is what Lucas wanted you to see. His dialogue is almost universally terrible, and without any form of peer review or collaboration he tends to override his own best ideas. His visual sense is quite keen, and he is a good editor, but Lucas just doesn't have the story-telling ability that he thinks he does. Or that a lot of fans thought he did. In making the prequels, Lucas became more and more focused on the visuals above all else. The flow from movie to movie was hampered by story decisions he made in the first movie not being compatible with the original trilogy. The post-production rewrite of the third movie made Attack of the Clones even more nonsensical than it already was.

*********

It should be noted that people frequently complain about George Lucas "juvenilizing" Jedi and the prequels, but I personally don't see any compelling evidence. Lucas has been consistent in stating that the movies were targeted at kids, and beyond the Ewoks and Jar-jar, there's a lot of violence and adult content in the new movies. I won't spend time defending either, I'm just saying that nothing I've read so far indicates that anything in particular was added to the movies that Lucas was most responsible for because that addition would appeal to kids or sell more toys.

As far as the "dumbing down" of the movies that some people complain about, I think it's perfectly clear that when left to his own devices, that's just how George Lucas writes.

I strongly recommend picking up The Secret History of Star Wars and Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays. Between those two books (and The Jedi Masters' Quiz Book), just about any question you might have about Star Wars can be answered.

Star Trek: The Original Movies...initial thoughts

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:27:00 +0000

Not counting a 15 hour break between 5 and 6, I just finished watching all of the original cast Star Trek movies. I'm going to put down my initial thoughts now, and hopefully do some more writing on this subject later.

Background:

Being born in the mid-seventies, I was a Star Wars fan long before I had even heard of Star Trek. As a matter of fact, the first Trek movie I saw, or even knew about was The Search for Spock. A friend had only recently introduced me to the original series, although I didn't get much out of it at the time. From my point of how, how could Trek (the series) compare to the visual extravaganza of Star Wars? As I got older, though, I found more and more to appreciate in Star Trek. I even saw 5 and 6 in the theater (this is significant because I hate going to movie theaters). The order I saw the original movies in (on VHS, TV and in the theater) is 3,2,4,1,5 and 6. Most watched in order are 4 (because I owned this one on VHS as a kid), 2,3,1,5 and 6. Before this rewatch I would have listed my favorites in order as 2,3,1,4,6 and 5. Immediately following the viewing I would list my favorites as 2,3,5,1, 6 and 4. The biggest surprise to me is the big move by 5. The biggest caveat is 6, which in many ways is a much more enjoyable movie than 1, but is so full of plot holes and contrivances that the experience is nearly ruined for me.

The editions I watched are those contained in THIS new box set. What's interesting about this set is that it does not contain any of the Special Editions or Director's Cuts. In fact, I don't think 1 and 2 are even remastered or cleaned up. With the exception of 2, the commentaries included are "fan" commentaries made by other Trek producers, designers and consultants. The commentary on Wrath of Kahn is by director Nicholas Meyer and one of the producers for The Next Generation, I think. I don't remember who. Two of the other commentaries included noted Trek experts Michael and Denise Okuda. The commentary for 4 was done by two people who worked on the newer Trek properties and the Abrams movie. The commentary for 6 was done by people who worked on DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. The commentary for 6 wasn't very good (and I'll leave it at that), the commentary for 4 was interesting because of what these two people from the new movie took away from Star Trek 4. Namely, that it was the best of the movies to both of them, and was apparently the final word on many of the "canon" issues that came up in the new movie. The commentary for the first movie made a few subtle digs at the new movie, and at the later TV series.

The original movies can be grouped into three sections: Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Treks 2 - 4, and Star Treks 5 and 6. Thematically, 5 and 6 should probably be separate, but they have more in common with each other than with the other movies.

On with the show!

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the bastard child that made good (sort of ) of the Star Trek universe. The movie was critically panned but financially successful. The movie bears little resemblance to either it's successors or the original series. You could say that TMP is literally a Star Trek story done in the style of 2001; a far cop considering the primary effects crew was the same as worked on 2001. Still, without this movie there wouldn't be subsequent movies or series...maybe.

TMP almost didn't get made...and yet in one way it was already in production when Star Wars opened the floodgates for silver screen sci fi. Paramount had finally cottoned on to the huge fanbase that had briefly saved the original series from cancellation and had given Gene Roddenberry the green light for a new Trek TV series. 13 scripts had already been paid for, casting was being completed (although Leonard Nimoy was almost definitely not returning as Spock, the production team thought they had Shatner, at least for 13 episodes. A new captain, Willard Decker, was being included in the stories.) New sets and models were being built. Following the Star Wars explosion, Paramount upgraded the project to a motion picture and the production team essentially had to scramble. Without going into more detail, the production was a mess. It's amazing director Robert Wise got what he did out of the door, let alone a more polished product. A Director's Cut was made about ten years ago that, according to Wise, is what he wanted put out in '79. The most useful bit of knowledge from the DC is that ST:TMP is still effectively the same movie...and it's still something almost completely unlike either the original series or sequel movies.

I included all of that info because ST:TMP is probably the most "different" and controversial Trek film. The most Trek-like of all of the productions, yet the least Trek-like big screen appearance. The Motion Picture has maintained a loyal following among Trek fans, though hardly ever ranked higher than The Wrath of Kahn. However, while I still appreciate watching this movie, much of it's appeal now boils down it's place in history with regards to the Trek franchise. The Motion Picture is a fitting backdrop to all of the behind-the-scenes action that finally resulted in the Star Trek we know today. When the story of the production makes for more interesting cinema than the movie itself...well, that pretty much speaks for itself. While hardly a bad movie, it's not really good, either...and it's ability to fulfill it's place in Trek's legacy has more to do with a redesigned Enterprise (one of the movie's great successes) and as a placeholder in the timeline.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn. Still one of the best sci fi adventure movies ever made, let alone the best Trek movie. Meyer's insights into directing Shatner and Montalban were enlightening. Not much point in discussing any more right now.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Falling into Kahn's shadow, TSfS is frequently overlooked. This film is a worth successor, although it doesn't quite reach the level of The Wrath of Kahn, Definitely more than just another sequel. Biggest disappointment: Losing Kirsty Alley as Lt. Saavik. Robin Curtis just doesn't cut it. Alhough she's better than some.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Generally considered the most successful Trek film, I think this one suffers the ravages of time the most. Time travel is always a tricky plot device, and unfortunately TVH ties the entire movie to an ecological statement that petered out in the popular consciousness. Custodianship of the planet is a wonderful Trek message, but grounding it too firmly in a specific message and '80's pop culture drags the movie down. Many people think of TVH as the "funny" Trek movie, but I'll take the more sporadic humor of the other movies any day...especially 6. Also loaded with plot holes.

Star Trek V: Where No Man Has Gone Before. The sole Shatner-directed movie was much-maligned when it came out. Five holds up better than four, I think; but it has it's problems. You really start seeing the age of the cast in 5. They look utterly ridiculous in the action scenes. The action scenes themselves seem like needless additions. Still, much more enjoyable than I remembered it being, and I would rather go back and watch it than TVH.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. OK. If you keep in mind that 6 was a complete fan wank, you have to deal with so many fewer issues, and the movie isn't too bad. However, if you rank fan wanking on the same level as pandering and preaching, then TUC is only conditionally better than TVH. The original series actors, excepting George Takei and Leonard Nimoy, look completely out of place in this movie. Kim Catrrall's Valeris is an embarrassment, which is an embarrassment itself because she supposedly took the role very seriously. The plot is so contrived it's dangerous to try to figure out the links between the holes. On the other hand, the movie is gorgeous and the jokes are funny. In fact, I think TUC is possibly the funniest of all of the Trek movies. Still, this final original Trek movie is just so much fan service. Less important and not quite as re-watchable as the first movie. At least, that's how I feel right now.

Gonna stop there for now. I'm going to try to come back and talk about certain aspects of the movies later.

Nightmare on Elm Street thoughts...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:01:49 +0000

Not a lot to say on this, just a few thoughts. Since we just passed Halloween, wanted to make sure anyone who had their own thoughts on these movies could comment.

My wife picked up the "Dollar Saver" pack of Nightmare on Elm Street 1-4. Finally started watching them a few days ago. Following are some random thoughts on 1 - 3.

Nightmare on Elm Street:

Not really scary, anymore...a bunch of jump scares is all that's left. Although I can see how this movie could have been really scary when it first came out. I think Freddy may have been the first "Supernatural Monster Demon" slasher. The modern audience is so steeped in the tropes and concepts of slasher movies now that the concept isn't frightening anymore.

Best "not really dead" ending of any of the slasher movies.

That was Johnny Depp?

Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge:

I don't remember the "Freddy's Revenge" part. In fact, by the end I know I've seen this movie, it's just not that memorable. Very similar to 1 in feel, although the concept is different. Better acting, better FX. Better cinematography. Less scary. Not even as many jump scares as one. The story actually sticks a bit better in the long run that the first one, IMO...imagine waking up to the dead body of your best friend/teacher/etc....and realizing that YOU are the killer.

Yay for natural redheads! They don't get nearly enough respect in Hollywood.

Paused movie for an hour to have discussion with wife. Concept that I never really got in these movies that never felt right to me: the dysfunctional families. I had a pretty good childhood. I KNEW that a lot of other kids didn't, and we heard all about the paraphernalia of families that didn't work. But, if you didn't experience it or at least SEE it first hand, you can't really empathize. My wife had a bit more experience in that department than I did, and she explained that the familial depictions in the NoES movies were pretty accurate, in her opinion.

Second movie starts playing with the "are they REALLY awake?" scares.

Boring, until the pool party. Then they tack on that last confrontation and make it too long.

Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors:

I remembered this one pretty well. Didn't remember how many big names were in it.

Honestly, this is probably my favorite NoES movie, although it could have been A LOT better than it was. There is NO tension to this movie.

What would I have done? Give Langenkamp fewer lines (her acting is worse in this one than the first) and develop the Dream Warrior concept a bit more.

Favorite moment: First time they all enter a dream together, one guy is a wizard in his dreams, one is incredibly strong, one (mistakenly) believes she is more beautiful and deadly as a stereotypical punk chick with switchblades, one (clever bit, this IMHO) can use all of the closed walls and doors in her nightmare to her advantage in RUNNING AWAY BETTER. And the other guy? What does he get in his dreams? Laid.

Yay, full frontal!

Really good effects for the most part...except for a bit coming up. Very disappointing, as I mentioned earlier...when they finally all enter a dream to battle Freddy, the two most capable kids (YMMV) get wiped out easily, while Freddy kind of keeps forgetting to kill the others, even though he beats them up a bit...easily. Boo, story-induced character disposal!

Even then, the movie holds up well enough...until Freddy, sensing a disturbance in his bones, stop-motion re-animates his own skeleton and kills the Chief of Police and whacks Craig Wasson with a shovel and buries him (sort of) to prevent them from burying him in sacred ground. This scene is BAD.

The worst part is, I can see how this movie could have been so much better. It even could have been a decent horror movie. As is, this is the movie that started the "Freddy Krueger, comic genius and action hero" stories. Which says something itself, really. Freddy was the only slasher that was "cool".

I think that's it for now. Hopefully watch four soon...I don't remember that one at all.

Nanoha Sidenote - Skip original and start with A's?

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:47:49 +0000

This discussion has happened before, and it's happening again. And rather than move the comments in the "Top 5" @ Chizumatic into a subject change without Steven's blessing, and since I've already been posting about Nanoha recently, I'll add my answer here.

The question, posed this time by Mark from Kaedrin:

"...I notice that Nanoha A is actually the second series... does that matter? Or is it easy to jump into the middle like that?"

Of course, the common sense answer is "Start from the beginning, duh..." but there are a couple of issues involved with the Nanoha franchise that makes this a valid question. The first is that, as I mentioned in the previous post, the first five or so episodes of the original series are very stereotypical of Magical Girl anime. If you don't have a tolerance for that kind of show, you will probably get bored. Second, the action kicks in about episode 6, and even then the pacing is irregular; generally you get an action oriented episode followed by a slower, exposition oriented episode. If you haven't taken an interest in the characters or the plot, there really isn't enough "action" to keep you floating.

I was somewhat fortunate in that I hadn't really kept up with Magical Girl anime at all, and my most recent experience prior to Nanoha was Cardcaptor Sakura. Most people agree that Sakura is a pretty good show all around, and it maintains interest while staying very close to the classic MG tropes. The early parts of Nanoha were different enough from Sakura that I didn't get bored the first time through...although I tend to skip through the early episodes now. I also have learned that there were several anime series released in the years prior to Nanoha that used some, or even several of the ideas present in Nanoha. If you have been one of those anime viewers that constantly keeps up with current series in Japan, you may not find Nanoha to be nearly as fresh as I did. Caveat: I'm basing that last bit solely on what I've read on several forums and blogs over the past few years. I have not verified any of those claims myself.

There are a couple of other problems that could discourage someone in the original series. There are, of course, the non-explicit nude loli transformations. Keeping in mind that the Japanese have a different cultural view, and the popularity of lolicon imagery, I gritted my teeth and dealt with it. It's not that much content overall, but some people may not be able to take it. There are also a couple of scenes of violence that some have found difficult to watch. They don't last long, they are not explicit, and in my opinion, the idea of what is going on is more horrible than what is depicted. The first of these two scenes has made at least one blogger I read hit the "stop" button and quit watching the series. On the other hand, my wife and I both accepted the scene for what it was, in our opinion: THE defining scene of characterization of the relationships between the Big Bad, the primary antagonist and the antagonist's lieutenant.

Finally, a couple of minor nitpicks. The animation is a little rough sometimes, especially early in the series. The producers apparently tried some kind of CG animation process in a few scenes and it's fairly obvious. However, most of the animation problems disappear by halfway through the series. And lastly, as hard as the American cast obviously tried, unless you just have to, I strongly recommend watching the series in the original Japanese instead of the English dub. It's not that bad, in my opinion, and I certainly recommend a rewatch with the dub so you can focus on the visuals. The Japanese dub is outstanding...the English dub, especially Nanoha's voice actress...not so much.

Now, for why I STILL recommend watching the first series first.

Actually, this is pretty straightforward. One, this IS the series that establishes a lot of the rules and concepts of the world...there isn't a lot of rehashing done in the second series. Secondly, the action in A's starts right out of the gate, and it's in the nature of of 1) showing how much Nanoha has improved since the first series (so you really need a frame of reference) and 2) The first episode features a "Here comes a New Challenger!" moment...and in my opinion you need to see the first series in order to grasp how significant this first battle is.

Finally, (and once again, IMHO) while A's improves on the original series in almost every way, many of the things that make A's great are what made the original Nanoha worth watching. If you can't at least tolerate Nanoha in the first series...well, she's still there in the second series and she hasn't changed much. If you don't form some kind of sympathy with Fate in the first series, her appearance in the second series will be no big deal to you. That is, in fact, one of the methods that several people use to supply a newcomer with a "gauge" they can use to measure how much they will like the Nanoha series'. If you don't want to finish the series in order to find out what happens to Fate, you probably won't get much out of A's. A's has a similar character "gauge", which I won't mention right now because it would end up being a bit of a spoiler.

So that's basically my argument. I'm probably forgetting a ton of stuff (I usually do), and I'm sure there's a lot of poor grammar and spelling. For what it's worth, based on purely anecdotal evidence, if you like the original series, then A's will probably make your top ten list. If you don't like the first series, but watch A's anyway, it seems that responses are about 50/50. And if you absolutely HATE the original series....well, you probably wont' watch A's anyway, and I don't blame you. A's doesn't really take out any of the stuff that some have found objectionable in the first series. The violence is a little more subtle, but not significantly. And of course, it's still a Magical Girl show at heart...it just loads up on the Shonen-style action sequences.

I'll try to incorporate a lot of this post into my longer article on Nanoha StrikerS sometime soon.

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:49:00 +0000

I'm reposting this due to SDB finally deciding to watch StrikerS; maybe I'll finally finish my comments!

.........

There are occasionally things that need to be written, just as there are things that need to be said. A passionate defense of Beethoven's utter brilliance is never remiss. A fond tribute to Nolan Ryan's greatness, despite a lifetime record of mediocre and poor stats surrounding those monumental achievements, always causes me to tear up. A well-reasoned argument about the importance, and dare I say it, quality production of Carl Macek's Robotech will get a cheer from me.

Are those things self-interested observations? Of course they are, and the language is obviously self-important. I begin this commentary in such a manner to make two points:

1) Never read a British adventure before writing a blog...it influences the language.

2) I am thrilled when I find someone I share an opinion with , especially if it's an unpopular or ignored opinion, and I don't see the argument I'm going to make in this article bandied about much.

To the meat of the matter.

FIRST, THE HISTORY

I am delighted that the Region One release of the first two series of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha has gained this series some recognition. Nanoha was already a popular series in the west thanks to fansubs available on the internet. My wife and I watched a fansub of the original Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha about a year after the series was released in Japan. Nanoha came highly recommended to anime fans who wanted to see something else like Cardcaptor Sakura, although after watching the series I don't really know why.

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha certainly contains a lot of the traditional Magical Girl tropes, at least at first...and like Sakura, the protagonist is a ten-year-old girl. However, Nanoha is definitely a shounen series; that is to say, an action series designed to appeal to boys. Most accurately, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha is an example of SHOUJONEN, a series that appeals to both boys and girls...or men and women, as the case may be. In point of fact, Nanoha features a fast-paced, tightly knit story based on deep feelings and friendship, starring two cute, ten-year-old girls with massive magical powers that can actually cause time and space to rip when they fight each other. No, that's not a convenient plot point or the result of a prophecy; the two mini-mages are just that friggin' powerful. Almost every episode, especially later in the series, features tangible drama. The presentation and voice acting are up to the challenge of telling the story. There are time/spaceships, too; and feeling, thinking "intelligent devices" of all things, that occasionally carry a scene off by themselves. The action is almost over-the-top, the drama is tense, and the story is interesting. My wife and I had a hard time getting ourselves to stop watching every night to go to bed.

Now, after winding you up like that, it's only fair to mention several caveats.

Most importantly, the paragraph above relates how I felt about the series while watching it for the first time. After letting the original series sit for a couple of years, the rewatch didn't impress quite as much. Nanoha is still a great series, but it's not nearly as good as what I wrote above may imply. The first third of the series in particular can stand to be skipped if you're familiar with the setup. In addition, MGLN is primarily a shounen fighting series...if you don't like shounen, you probably won't like it. Also the plot is not infallible, some elements don't bear close inspection, although Nanoha is better than most series I've watched. Last, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha is known for loli fanservice. If you don't know what that is, the short answer is that there are several visuals throughout the series that feature panty shots, non-explicit naked transformations, and sexually suggestive attire. Nothing new for anime, except in Nanoha, all but one of the primary characters is a pre-teen. Don't get me wrong, Nanoha isn't pornographic in the least (in the common vernacular), but if you don't want to see even a hint of this kind of thing, you may want to skip this series. The lolicon stuff makes up maybe a few minutes scattered throughout the series; if you can look the other way the series is worth the watch.

SECOND, THE LEGEND

Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha A's, the second series, was released about a year after the first series. A's somehow managed to perfect the already excellent first series. A's story is a little deeper and much better developed. The pacing is a non-stop rollercoaster from beginning to end. Nanoha A's is, according to many, an example of shounen anime, if not anime *period*, at it's best. I'll get into specifics later, as the quality of A's is part of the fundamental debate concerning the third series. Even with the same lolicon elements as the first series, I heartily recommend that any anime fan at least give it a try.

A's cemented Nanoha's internet reputation in the west, making both series incredibly popular downloads. When a third series was announced, the anticipation among the fans was incredible. Unfortunately, fan reception to the series when it began appearing on fansub websites was mixed in the end. There are a lot of reasons for this, most of them good. One of the most important reasons to consider is the MGLN A's REALLY IS THAT GOOD. Any follow-up would face a challenge. In addition, Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha StrikerS was an ambitious sequel to a highly-regarded series, and unfortunately many of it's failures were due to intentional choices in the production.

The argument of this commentary; however, is that at it's best, StrikerS is as good as, and sometimes even better than A's. In fact, the things that StrikerS does well makes it the best series of the three in my mind.

.........
WARNING, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WILL DEFINITELY DELVE INTO SPOILERS.
.........

Discussion of StrikerS will take place later, and will be below the fold.

PedAware

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:01:30 +0000

Personally, I think the term "pedophile" is massively overused these days. On a related note, I noticed this morning that the children's program Lazy Town is still on (we don't have TV, so I don't keep up.) I always liked Lazy Town myself, but THIS NSFW ENTRY from Encyclopedia Dramatica is not entirely wrong. Specifically, I would not be surprised to learn that the adult male audience of the show outnumbers the juvenile fan base.

Having said that, I give you...the PedoBed:

Dead Fantasy 5

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:25:09 +0000

Monty Oum has uploaded Dead Fantasy 5. Only available in HD on Gametrailers right now, but that's the site he chooses to upload to initially, anyway. The story is getting a bit deeper, with the introduction of three new characters (one of which I didn't recognize). I really hope Oum knows what he's doing, story-wise. The original two Dead Fantasy videos are starting to look completely incidental. Unfortunately, after some fantastic fanservice, it looks like all of the female characters are going to sit down while Cloud and Ryu take care of the real story. I really hope that isn't the case. The character design looked a bit better this time, although Tifa is just a bit TOO jiggly. Also, her fight this time didn't really make much sense, considering the beatdown she received at the hands and feet of Hitomi. I started to rationalize it, but gave up. I do belive Monty is creating these videos in his own image and is satisfied with what he's showing...but the internal consistancy seems to be stretching thin, IMHO.

Video Games | Monty Oum | Dead Fantasy V

XBox 360 | Playstation 3 | Nintendo Wii

Dead Fantasy...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:20:39 +0000

NOTICE: WATCH THE VIDEOS BELOW IN HD IF POSSIBLE. IT'S WORTH IT.

My three favorite categories to click together when starting a post are "Anime", "Movies", and "Video Games." With this one, I get to add "Final Fantasy" as well.

Odds are, if you stumbled across this blog, you've already heard about Dead Fantasy, the fan made movie crossover of the Dead or Alive fighting games with Final Fantasy characters. Most of the work is done by one guy, Monty Oum. He first gained popularity with the intense and slightly yuri Haloid, a mash-up of Halo and Metroid. Then he made this:

featuring Yuna and Rikku from FFX and X-2 and Tifa from FFVII fighting Kasumi, Ayane, and Hitomi from Dead or Alive 3.
He followed with this:

which really ramped up the quality and complexity. 2 also added Rachel from Ninja Gaiden to the DOA team; and Rinoa from FFVIII and Kairin from Kingdom Hearts to the Final Fantasy team.

A common complaint at the end of 2 was that the Konami team seemed to be completely outmatched. I would point out that it's the Square team that has to keep getting rescued and restored. Also, it appears that Oum has compensated for the Square team's magical abilities by giving the Konami team increased physical strength (especially Hitomi) and incredibly fast recovery. The Square team can only recover quickly via the use of potions and ethers.

Part 2 ends with Rinoa summoning 4 portals, with the intent of pairing the other 8 combatants off in other arenas. Unfortunately, Kairin is dodged by Rachel, who attempts to tackle Rinoa. Rinoa opens another portal on herself, thus teleporting all of the characters.

Recently, part 3 was released:

This shorter video features Tifa and Hitomi's solo battle. It also features new character designs, which I'm not so thrilled about. Well, Tifa's design anyway. She looks insane. Spoilers below the fold, and that's ALL there is below the fold, so if you don't want to know what happens, DON'T CLICK THE READ MORE LINK!

And now part four has been released. On one hand, this video did some awesome and unexpected things...on the other hand, the new character designs are on full display and I REALLY DO NOT LIKE THEM. I've always felt that Yuna and Kasumi were two of the more attractive female game characters without being ridiculous (like Rachel), but...well, just look how they're being animated now:

Don't look at me with that face! Ugh! But other than that (below the fold...I'm warning you, it's spoilers and only spoilers)

Apparently, Monty actually has a story going on, too. That will be interesting. And honestly, aside from the model redesigns, I'm still really loving this series.

There's been a lot of talk on Monty's deviantart page about which characters may appear in the future. Of course, that debate has opened up a bit because of what happened in four. Monty himself has said that he's primarily interested in adding characters from FF7 and FF10.

Part Five is supposed to be posted in a week or so, and should feature Rikku vs. Ayane.
Continue reading "Dead Fantasy..."

Two important aniversaries...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:25:36 +0000

Yeah, there's this one: Some guy on the moon...

But there's also this one: Do You Remember Love?

Superman III vs. Spiderman III

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:44:06 +0000

By WhySoSerious0331 on Youtube: Good commentary.

Last post about Dune for awhile...I promise

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:07:44 +0000

Probably. Anyway, I've always been a big fan of David Lynch's Dune. Although I owned the book, I never read it until a few years ago. Going back and watching the movie again...well, yeah, there were some problems...but the movie just FELT like Dune. I tried to watch the miniseries a year or so ago, and just couldn't get into it. I talked about it here. I really need to give it another try, but in the meantime, here's someone else who generally felt the way I do:

I enjoyed talking with my grandfather on many occasions prior to his death and, not surprisingly, our conversations often strayed into the realm of his greatest creation - Dune - and its marketing to the general public. There were many times when Grandpa laughed about this, because he saw Dune as something unique and far removed from the marketable world. Later he began to realize Dune wasn't just unique but was a parable of human life that would endure thanks to the very things the book preached against. The making of the 1984 movie (directed by David Lynch) seemed the epitome of one of Dune's no-no messages [that of creating a cult following of one man or his vision - Editor]. So if you chuckle a few times while reading this, rest assured that Frank Herbert would probably be laughing right along with you.

Full article here.

Trying Linux for the umpteenth time...

nospam@example.com (Ben) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:00:53 +0000

UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM:

Rebuilding the HTPC. Doing some searching for good htpc software (MediaCenter: DO NOT WANT), and find KnoppMyth. Well, this thing looks just peachy.

Now, I wouldn't call my past experience with Linux either great or bad. I WOULD give it a net positive, because my installation of Yellow Dog Linux to a first generation iBook worked great...until it stopped working altogether. Used it one day, shut it down at night. Went to start the laptop the next day...the OS was trashed. Repartitioned, reinstalled; worked great for a few months again, then crapped itself again. Not exactly the same, but similar.

I've tried running Linux instead of Windows a few times...I just couldn't get the same stuff done as easily as I could in Windows. When something doesn't work in Windows, I can get it running pretty quick. Hell, it usually only takes a reboot. To get something to work in Linux, sometimes even a new download that's SUPPOSED to work, sometimes you have to manually modify the OS. If you like that sort of thing, and you have the time and interest, great. You get a powerful, free operating system. If, like me, you want to INSTALL THE DAMN SOFTWARE AND GO...you might want to stick with Windows. Or even Mac. But I would stick with Windows (don't argue with me, I USED OS X for two years. And don't email me about how it's "all better now"...been listening to that crap from Apple for years.)

So anyway, KnoppMyth. Looks great. All-in-one HTPC solution. It's Linux-based, so what? It installs and runs, right?

Well, apparently is does for some people.

I had to do a work-around to get the install to work, but it worked. Took two days to find the right answer to my problem, but I found it, sure enough. Got the software installed (I'm skipping a bit here)...didn't find the network card, didn't identify the sound card properly...those could be problems, but it's working. Played a DVD, played some wrapped mp4's. Copied some movies to the hard drive. The shell crashed. Won't start again. Reboot the computer...the screen fills with gibberish and the box locks up. Wonderful.

FDISK. WINDOWS XP Pro SP 3.

.........

This is my experience with Linux, just about every damn time. Please quit telling me it's "almost ready to replace windows on the desktop". It's not. It's not even close enough to WISH it could. Is it powerful, and reliable, and usable? Yes, if you know how to work it, and don't mind the time and effort. I DO MIND THE TIME AND EFFORT. Computers are HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES now, and Linux is just a hobby.

Want to see the next part of the argument? Kaedrin ran into it while looking for some software recently.

UPDATE:

A clarification to be fair, especially since Kaedrin was nice enough to link me back (Thanks, Kaedrin!) and I don't want to get flamed. It is certainly unfair of me to make the blanket statement that Linux, as a whole, is nothing more than a hobby. I am aware that Linux is not only a viable, but possibly even the best solution for many backend applications. THIS website is hosted on Linux, and I have no complaints. I should have been specific: Linux as a *Windows Replacement" is almost entirely a hobby. There have been MANY attempts to provide a Linux desktop solution professionally and unprofessionally, but they all suffered from the same faults: fixing even minor issues sometimes requires major customer support. While Microsoft and other major software producers have to deal with general computer-user ignorance and even stupidity, Linux has to provide this support from within the user community AND have to deal with fixes that involve manually modifying the OS at the programming level.

And that is why I say that Linux not only missed it's desktop opportunity, but never really had a chance at it in the first place.