- Joined: Apr 2, 2018
- Last Login: Oct 11, 2021, 4:04pm EDT
- Comments: 1,705
Share this profile
Comment 3 recs
the header image looks like one of those extremely self-serious car commercials, only the celeb driver just pulled over, got out, and sat down next to the car to sulk for awhile.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
(: if you’re new to anime and you find yourself in that predicament, at least give
neon genesis evangelion
revolutionary girl utena
his and her circumstances
mobile suit gundam (AKA gundam 0079)
a try, in case you’re more like me. (i think arguments can be made that cowboy bebop is the pinnacle of anime, honestly, but they don’t fully sway me:)).
and, if you are, proceed to
serial experiments lain
the vision of escaflowne
and maybe there’s a few more essentials, but meh. gunbuster, nadia the secret of blue water. probably my past self would suggest a few hundred more, but i think i’d stand by these still. i think the last anime i loved was the melancholy of haruhi suzumiya. i’m old now. i am fansubbed vhs and right stuf catalogues old. i long for hand painted backgrounds and weird, complicated motivations and plots. not so down with fascism porn and whatever else seems to be up nowadays. or, maybe i just got old. either way.
edit: it should be obvious, but i’ll say explicitly: i am not talking to the poster to whom i’m replying (who obviously already has opinions about anime), i’m talking to the same hypothetical reader(s) as them.
Comment 2 replies, 1 rec
on the one hand, i agree that that episode is pretty weak (and skippable). on the other hand, it resonates symbolically/thematically with more than one of the bebop crew in a very beautiful way (ie spike is a paradox child still living in his teenage past and just waiting for his adult body to die, and of course the far more obvious faye parallel; jet also lives in the past, and the series itself is endless remixes of past media), and also episode 11 is the worst episode of the series.
i especially like the discussion of gandalf as ring-lord; that he would remain good, but in his infinite, dominant, coercive power, he would make good bad. something to think about for all you utopian anarchists out there (:.
(p.s. i’m also an anarchist, but i’m no utopian anything:D. the real world is enough world for me)
Comment 1 rec
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
yeah, just watch the whole thing. you won’t regret it. and definitely don’t skip any of the first 5 episodes. if you’re not won over by episode 5, you’re probably not going to want the rest. if you like / only kind of like the first 4 episodes, you have to let the flower bloom at episode 5. if you hate it right away, welllllll
Comment 1 reply, 3 recs
i haven’t listened to the commentary, but surely jackson was being somewhat facetious / jokey. a spectral antagonist could be terrible, but the whole point is that his return needs to be prevented. the stakes stay high as long as sauron doesn’t actually get the ring, return, and then get defeated.
one could argue that his already having had it and having been subsequently defeated lowers those stakes. maybe so, but that’s a bigger deal than sauron being physically imposing or not. and again, story mechanic-wise, it would be worse if he were physically imposing (rather than symbolic and menacing). a big visceral sauron instantly 1) obligates him to actually fight the heroes (if he can’t find them or something, we’re on some stupid long form action series bullshit, where the evil villain will get you damn kids next time), 2) weakens the menace of his being somehow "all-present" (or "maybe-all-present" spooky, oooo), 3) demands an answer to the question "why doesn’t sauron just win, and if he doesn’t, why’s he even a big deal?"
sauron is a textbook example of an antagonist being too powerful, and further how to deal with such a thing. jk rowling lifts the technique outright (then subverts it by explaining that voldemort isn’t as invincible as he seems, showing both the tenuous nature of his resurrection/immortality as well as the crucial–(thematically exhaustive)–nature of his largescale power generally (people giving away power to evil out of fear). by doing that, she can fully resurrect voldemort AND not have the reader wondering what the big deal was if he subsequently goes out like a chump. rowling has her cake and eats it too, while tolkien keeps disbelief in check the whole time by making sauron’s very appearance/arrival the whole threat. comic books fuck this up all the time.
Comment 12 recs
pretty debatable whether that counts as "canonical film event" or "canonical character trait that happened to be dramatized in an early film." the distinction seems meaningless, until you realize that the whole debate is meaningless unless you agree to making such sub-distinctions meaningful(:.
love to come back and find the penultimate word typo.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
i agree, the lack of clarity is not great. hah, that said, i’m not really worried… like, i see reasons to be worried, reasons to be confident, but my attitude toward the new season is: "wow, i completely repressed how much i wanted more expanse, and now that i have a set date of when it comes back, i’m feeling that double. fuck, i might even rewatch it before it december."
Comment 2 replies
i thought it was pretty uneven for the first couple seasons… mostly i thought miller’s character and storyline were kind of flat/tedious, and i really disliked holden for several reasons. i’d dipped in and out of it over the years, but then watched the whole thing during the pandemic and i honestly loved it.
it has its flaws and idiosyncrasies sure, but it’s one of the few series i’ve watched in recent years where i finished the (up to now) last episode and wished there were more (and missed it, for weeks). the way the show treats political drama /war is A+ (gundam influence? surely…), there’s a very good diversity of characters and motivations, they spend enough time with everyone to (generally) get a feeling for what their life and world are like. the characters grow and change believably. the plots and feel from season to season change sufficiently to make the whole full and satisfying. the underlying sci fi (tech, fantastical bullshit) is solid. i’m not really doing it justice.
all of which is just to say, i’m pretty excited for this show, and i agree that they’re wrapping it up a bit fast. given how badly they shoehorned in anvar’s firing to the plot, i’m not 100% confident in their choices if they accelerate the end. though, if you look over the whole series, they’re remarkably good at taking a very spread out (in both time and space) plot with numerous points of interaction, compressing/altering it, then transposing it to serialized TV. that they can so successfully drop characters, reorder things, etc, gives me hope that whatever they choose to do for s6 could be great.
Comment 3 recs
it goes too far as a review without giving the context of "you should see it before you read this," IMO. beyond that, I like "reviews" that really take on the whole work and criticize it. like emily vanderwerff’s classic reviews of every sopranos episode which are honestly so good that I wouldn’t just suggest someone read each one after their first watch of each episode, I’d almost suggest NOT watching the sopranos at all if you DON’T read them… these reviews tread the spoiler line very well (they spoil and analyze episodes but also review them, and don’t spoil the upcoming episodes even though she’d already seen the whole series). haha, but um, I digress…
what I want to say is: I don’t really agree that it’s not a review, but I do agree that it’s a bit confusing what this piece is trying to say about the series as a whole (because it’s definitely saying something about that). I think it’s saying that his new twist on the character was refreshing, but then got stale and pressed into homogenized "safe masculinity in woke-center-liberal times." but then, wait, isn’t the twist that this bond lives in the real world and his past affects stuff? isn’t that the whole twist; he’s a traumatized thug living in a weird crossover world between the cartoon bond universe and one where scars last longer than a few days? and if THAT’S the idea, is "bond settles down" really that disappointing and ending?
I don’t know. I think it’s a knee jerk (very siskel and evert style) review "I liked where it was going, then I was like ugggh no." but I’m typing more to say yeah I see your point.
Comment 1 rec
(past article to which i refer above, if you’re curious. you can tell which comment is mine; it’s the obnoxiously large wall of text. also has a pic from la chinoise next to a made up nonsense word above it)
Comment 3 replies, 3 recs
the point seems pretty clear to me. "you’re subverting the ‘expectation of sexism’ [read: core idea of the character and his brutal masculinity], which could be not only refreshing but interesting… and the way you do it is the same exact, ‘Family Is What’s Important’ conservative feel good nonsense that every other huge budget safe action franchise has been doing for the last few years [decades]. what a missed opportunity!"
it’s actually way kinder and more "i came in wanting to like this," than my comments on bond a few articles ago (i think "redeeming" the character only emphasizes that bond’s appeal is ‘let me jerk off to this murder and be forgiven bc He’s An Icon’ or something–we don’t need to reboot every franchise forever, we can let them actually have a character and then criticize it as we will). i mean, i haven’t seen the film though, so i don’t know if it’s actually fair. i strongly suspect it is… half of me was actually excited to see this (even though i think bond is irredeemable, i like a lot of cary jo fukunaga’s other stuff and thought this film could be beautiful and exciting from other angles… come to think of it, i still think that), and the reason only half of me was excited was that i expected they would continue watering things down and playing more cliches. drama is hard. writing is hard.
anyway, i think the critique makes perfect sense. does it line up with the actual film? would have to see to know, but the overarching Family First–but in a cool, gender affirming way™ stuff makes me believe the reviewer.
Comment 2 recs
(: gonna go out on a limb and say "the person who SHOULD win a battle royale" is not a coherent concept… that’s kind of one of the basic, entry level absurdities to the whole genre. like, the very idea that one person is so "powerful" (in what way? how?) that they Just Would win a battle royale competition is shown to be ridiculous by even the most remotely believable level of complexity in a plot. game of thrones kind of makes this point, albeit with somewhat uneven success.
edit: while if 1 of the characters is john wick or something, it’s a different genre. even forerunners to the genre like The Running Man are a different genre for exactly this reason.
Comment 6 recs
like, i honestly don’t care about the spoiler, and i suspect that the argument everyone is calling self-defeating is actually on point (making bond every other safe hero isn’t fixing the brand, it’s killing it), but even so… this is a set of pretty fucking big spoilers with no warning at all. like, are you being paid by a rival studio to spoil properties in reviews or something?
an ex of mine would spoil something like this, and i get why she’d do it; she’d say "the shit is so terrible that, believe me, it doesn’t matter if i spoil it," and i trust her actually. fuck, i am probably the most sympathetic possible reader of this piece, and even i am like "polygon, why do you continue to fuck over your readers like this?"
Comment 3 recs
spoilers here are bad, as is getting to be usual. put spoiler warnings, jesus.
though, I don’t personally care (:. the movie sounds abysmal and I bet I agree with the review. watering down the character is not the way to redeem its horrible past (spoiler: there is no way to redeem bond’s horrific past; if you need to drive or ride in the big power fantasy spectacle, you’re either in or you’re out. it will never be something else, sorry) hope some people get some joy.