Opinion: Lazy Writing Doesn't Exist

Lazy is commonly used to describe bad writing in fiction. Be it in a movie, a tv show, a song or even a video game, if it's bad, the first kneejerk reaction is to call it lazy. I myself am guilty of this, but as I've grown older I realize that that particular word is not only false, it is hurtful. To call a writer's work (or the writer themselves) lazy is to imply that they did not do there job. Not that they didn't do their job well, but rather they didn't do the job at all. Let's talk about that clear as day difference.

A writer's job is to, well, write. Specifically, they have to turn the ideas in their heads into written words on paper. If that sounds easy, let me be the first to tell you having several years of experience in writing: 👏it's👏not. Even if you have basic spelling and grammar rules down, you still need to structure your work so that it's easy to read and follow. You also have to give your piece your own unique voice. How does your writing skills stand out from everyone else's? What makes your material worth reading? Another factor that comes into the writing process is learning to take constructive criticism and improving on previous works. And when I say criticism, I'm talking about feedback that's on the lines of "I didn't find this piece very interesting. Maybe add some comedy or character drama." That's the type of criticism you should listen too when you want to be a better writer. As for the ones you should ignore, that's where today's topic comes in.

The literal definition of the word "lazy" is being unwilling to work or use energy. Whenever I hear this word lumped into what's supposed to be constructive criticism, I roll my eyes and think "oh you don't know how wrong you are." Fart jokes are often called lazy because apparently anyone can do it. Tell me, can anyone you know make a fart joke funny every single time? Writers are also called lazy for ignoring plot holes. Can you name me a single work of fiction without plot holes so that writers can use that as an example? Then there's the times when writers incorporate pop culture references and are called lazy for that. So writers aren't supposed to make pop culture references anymore even though they've been doing in since Day 1?

See the problem with using lazy as a form of criticism is it implies the writers were just sitting on their couch all day and let the written work write itself. Maybe the writer included the fart joke because they thought it was funny. Maybe the writer ignored a "plot hole" because nobody needs to know everything that doesn't matter. Maybe the writer included a pop culture reference as a fun little nod to a previous work. You never know and you should watch what you say because being called lazy is not helpful: it's hurtful.

Why It Worked: Glory

 Introduction

Glory is a 1989 historical war drama based on the military career of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw and how he commanded the 54th Massachusetts Regiment in the Civil War. Directed by Edward Zwick, the film stars Matthew Broderick, Cary Elwes, Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this film at the 62nd Academy Awards), Morgan Freeman, Andre Braugher, and Jihmi Kennedy among a slew of other actors playing the soliders in the regiment. Distributed by Tristar Pictures, the film recieved critical acclaim (93% of 44 critics aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes gave an average score of 7.88/10) and made $27 million at the box office. I first saw this film when I was about 12 or 13 and rather than watch it in history class, I watched it on TV at home with my Dad. I've since rewatched this movie many times over the years and have come to appreciate it as a great film that perfectly captures the great impact Col. Shaw and his men had on the Civil War. So without further adieu, let's dive right into why this film is one of the best war films every made.

The Plot

As with all films based on real life, some liberties were taken to make the film more dramatic. I personally forgive any and all inaccuracies if the final product turns out to be a well made film; and in my opinion, this is a very well made film. As said before in the intro, this is based on Col. Robert Gould Shaw's career during the Civil War and how he commanded the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. The film opens with him recieving the offer to lead the regiment and after accepting, he trains the men to be battle ready while also dealing with the systeminc racism of the military at the time. This film takes the time to humanize not just Col. Shaw, but also the soliders in the Regiment and how they handle the systematic racism of the military. The film addresses the lack of proper foot wear for the black solider, how they were paid less than the white man and used for general labor as opposed to fighting in battles. The film manages to tackle all of these issues and more by keeping the focus on either Col. Shaw or the soliders. It also helps that the film has stupendous production quality. The sets and costumes look excellent and the Matthew Broderick looks like Col. Shaw leaped off his portrait from May 1863. The battle scenea are explosive and noisy, yet the focus is never taken away from either Col. Shaw or his men. And James Horner's score is awe-inspiring with that majestic choir and powerful orcastra. The best moment in the entire film is one that would not exist if this film were more "historically accurate." After Private Trip was caught trying to escape, he is flogged in front of the whole regiment. When he removed his shirt, it's shown that Trip has been whipped before with several scars on his back to prove it. As he's being flogged, he looks at Col. Shaw with a straight face as a single tear rolls down his face. If you're a history buff, you know that flogging was abolished in 1861, long before the regiment was formed. And yet this moment is necessary for the film because it shows something very important about Trip. He doesn't see Col. Shaw as any different than his former master. It's because of this that Col. Shaw spends the rest of the film trying to be better. This film, first and formost, is about how Col. Shaw and the regiment complimented each other and moments like this show that perfectly.

Cast & Characters

The cast for this film is excellent and each one of them brings such raw authenticity to their respective roles. Starting with Col. Shaw himself, this is one of Matthew Broderick's greatest performances in his career. He's so calm and generous, yet also a real commanding officer who knows what he's doing. I also love how Broderick portrays Col. Shaw during the heat of battle. He's scared, yes, but he's also very brave and willing to die fighting. Cary Elwes was really good as Major Cabot Forbes, a friend of Col. Shaw's. Him and Broderick have good chemistry and he's quick to object Col. Shaw's training methods. Yet by the end he finds that the men became great fighters because of Col. Shaw and respects him. Denzel Washington was fantastic as Trip and more than earned his Oscar. Trip is a relatable character that doesn't get along well with free black men but as the film progresses he comes to respect his fellow soliders as well as his commanding officers. Morgan Freeman is always a win and his performance as Sgt. Major John Rawlins is no exception. Playing a smart, no nonsense sergeant is something Freeman can do in his sleep and that speech his gives to Trip before their first battle was perfect. Lastly we have Andre Braugher as Private Thomas Searles, a free black man who grew up with Col. Shaw. Training was hard for Thomas, to the point where he broke down in tears. But as the film continues, he grows more confident and becomes a true soliders by his first battle. Andre Braugher gave a wonderful performance as Thomas and I really bought that him and Col. Shaw grew up together. Other cast members such as Jihmi Kennedy as Private Jupiter, John Finn as Sgt. Major Mulcahy, RonReaco Lee as the mute drummer boy, and more all do a good job of fleshing out the regiment and making them all feel like real people.

Where It Falters

I really have just a few nitpicks that aren't really deal breakers, but just things I would've liked to have seen in the film. Abraham Lincoln is mentioned alot in this film and yet were never see him in the film. Not saying he needed to be in the movie, but it would still be nice if we had a scene of him hearing about the Battle at Fort Wagner and being pleased with the regiment's efforts (despite them not winning). Also, I would've like to have seen one of the cast members (besides Col. Shaw, obviously) survive to tell the tale. Maybe Thomas or Jupiter, I don't know, I love the ending either way. 

Conclusion

Glory is a great film with a fantastic cast, amzing score, remarkable sets and costumes and excellent cinematography. This is a movie I find myself rewatching every now and again not just because it's a great film, but because its story is a great piece of history. Without the valiant efforts of Col. Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, the Civil War might not have ending in the Union's favor. So in closing, I'd like to thank these men for their service and for helping change history for the better. I salute you 🙋‍♂️

Opinion: Cuties is part of the problem with sexualization

 I do NOT support the sexualization of children in anyway shape or form. If there's one important thing you need to take away from this, it's that sentence. I never want to hear that this type of behavior is okay. Cuties, a film on Netflix that attempts to tackle this issues, falters heavily on its message. Yes, I saw the film. No, I don't recommend you watch it. I will encourage you to strap in because we got alot to talk about.

Director Maimouna Doucoure attempted to tell the story about the sexualization of children in today's culture. I say attempt because the actual execution DOES infact sexualize the characters in the movie (all of whom are 11). If the movie wanted to tell this story, it went about it the wrong way.  These kids should not have been filmed doing any of the provocative dances and the religious aspect of the feature isn't prominent enough in the feature. It's all kinds of uncomfortable and I was wrong to think the controversy was overblown. This movie is not worth watching for these scenes alone, but that's not the worst part.

No, the worst part is that Cuties' mere existence is a byproduct of a bigger problem. You wanna know why this film was made in the first place? To be blunt, it's because we as a society let this happen. Not just the movie, but the subject matter this movie tried to tackle. We let the sexualization of children go on for too long and we didn't notice until it was brought to our attention. Had we not normalize open sexuality in the first place, Cuties would've never existed in the first place.

Let's not beat around the bush: this world has become more perverted with each passing decade. Sure, humanity has always been pervertrd but things really took off in the 20th century. With the rising popularity of pornography and putting sex into mainstream movies, sex and nudity was slowly but surely being normalized until it became common place in the 21st century. Ever hear of the term "sex sells?" Unfortunately that's become the unofficial law of the land. Whether it's in commercials, music videos, movie posters, billboards, games shows or what have you, you will always find a suggestive looking woman or man posing with few clothes on. We're like flies being attracted to the bright bug electricutor. Even if we know it's bad for us, we can't help but go towards it. It's even gotten to the point where children are being attracted to it.

Kids have always imitated whatever they see, that's how they learn. In today's perverted world, if a kid sees Iggy Azalea or Miley Cyrus twerking, they're going to think that looks like fun and imitate it. 👏This👏is👏bad. Any form of provocative dance or gesture should not be imitated by children, and yet they do it anyway. Why? Because we don't monitor our children closely enough to make sure they don't imitate this stuff. I'm not just talking about having a filter on your browser. I'm talking about demanding the big media corporations discourage such vulgar and provocative behavior in their marketing. In order to proctect the children of the world from this kind of seduction, we need to actively say no to ALL forms of sexualization in media. Sex itself isn't bad, but it should strictly be between a husband and his wife: no exceptions.

I'm willing to be called a prude for the rest of my life if it means standing by my opinion that this world is perverted. Cuties was made to bring the issue of sexualizing kids to light, but in doing so it became part of the problem. I'd much rather this film be about something else than to try (and fail) to tackle a problem in our society. In closing, don't watch Cuties, don't let your kids watch Cuties and don't let the big media corporations get away with sexualizing them. 

It's Time To Retire The "Sex Scene"

Many movies and TV shows aimed at adults tend to incorporate sex scenes into the narrative. Many people have criticized the inclusion of these scenes and I can definitely see why. Even if they're integral to the plot, a sex scene is problematic for the actors involved and it tends to make casual audiences uncomfortable watching it. With the rise of more prominent women in shobiz, I think now is the right time to retire the practice of sex scenes in general.

The reason behind sex scenes being included varies from filmmaker to filmmaker. The most common though is because it stimulating to watch two actors have sex. To put it bluntly, it gives the filmmakers an excuse to make porn without directly calling it porn. The problem with that mentality is the same problem with pornography in general: it's degrading. It dehumanizes the people involved, particularly the women, to essentially make the porn stars for the sake of stimulating the filmmaker. Of course not every sex scene is like this, but even the exceptions aren't worth filming in the first place.

Take for example the attempted sex scene between Bruce Banner and Betty Ross in The Incredible Hulk. The scene itself isn't bad as it shows Bruce can't even have sex without Hulking out. However, that's a fact that could've been left unsaid because it was already established in the beginning of the film that he can't let his heart rate go up so high before he turns green. As such, the scene is superfluous.

Even movies about sex, such as Don Jon or American Pie, could've gotten their point across just fine without filming the actors having sex. Showgirls, the most notorious example of gratuitous sex and nudity, did not need any of those scenes to tell the story of a girl trying to get into showbiz. I know a remake is never going to happen, but if I were to remake the film I'd focus on the anxiety and stress Nomi goes through while being a glorified prostitute. Instead of showing her performing or having sex with guys, I'd show the aftermath with her drinking, smoking, crying, calling her parents and trying to get out. Maybe have it end with her being a born-again Christian as a little cherry on top.

Now I know what you're thinking, "but what about show, don't tell?" and to that I counter argue less = more. Contrary to popular belief, not everything in the story has to be spelled out for you. You don't need to see the characters going to the bathroom all the time, you don't need to see character stopping to take a cigarette break, and more importantly you don't need to see characters having sex. Even if sex if part of the story, you don't need to show it. 

Many actors have also come forward to say that they were uncomfortable filming sex scenes. While filming the sex scenes on Jessica Jones, they were filming all day and Mike Colter was getting back pains. While there was a mediator there to make sure everything ran smoothly, it's still a tedious process to shoot a scene that ultimately establishes what we already know: Jessica and Luke Cage are compatible with each other. There are many actor who refuse to film sex scenes because it goes against their beliefs and as such they aren't hired for the project in mind. This is unfortunate because it enforces the stigma that sex sells, which itself should no longer be tolerated especially today.

Instead of trying to making filming sex scenes more comfortable, why don't we instead try making the story more engaging without the need to have the actors take off their clothes? It's not artistic to film a lady giving a guy a blowjob; it's disgusting. It's not important to show characters having sex because they love each other; it's redundant. In closing, let's start a new era in filmmaking where the sex scene is not common in mature movies and TV shows. Instead replace it with good character interactions, a strong story, and some laughs along the way.

In Defense of Kangaroo Jack

Kangaroo Jack is mostly remembered as that edgy family film from the mid-2000s with a talking kangaroo. Critics hated it and yet it managed to make a decent profit at the box office and was even given a direct-to-video sequel. Having watched it recently, I found that I enjoy it as a funny buddy comedy with solid performances and great humor. Today, we'll be looking at what works about the film, what doesn't and why it ended up the way it is.

This film does tell a solid story about 2 guys who travel to the land down under to deliver a package to someone named Mr. Smith. While they were taking pictures with a kangaroo, it steals the package (which Louis put in his jacket, which he then put on the kangaroo) and now they have to chase him to get the package back. The story is very straightforward but culminates with a big twist at the end that puts the whole thing into perspective. It also helps that there are alot of funny jokes in this film, particularly the camel scene. Most people scoff at fart jokes, but I personally found it kinda funny.

Obviously the best part of this film is the chemistry between Jerry O'Connell and Anthony Anderson. They work so well with each other and their performances particularly shine when they're walking in the desert near the brink of dehydration. I especially love Anthony Anderson's wild and goofy performances and how much fun he's having on set. All the other actors give a solid performance with what they got, particularly Christopher Walken and Michael Shannon. Walken brings the right amount of menace and charsma to his character and Michael Shannon just hams it up every chance he gets.

The characters themselves offer quite a bit to like. Charlie is a good man who just wants to do the right thing and Louis is lots of fun and deeply cares about his best friend. Jessica is a smart, funny and resourceful wildlife expert and Frank is a short tempered gangster who relishes in putting Charlie down. The biggest standout of the cast though is Kangaroo Jack himself. He's such a funny little creature and the sequence in which his speaks and raps was just hilarious. Also, the CGI use to bring him to light looks pretty good. He moves like a real kangaroo and the jacket he wears throughout the film moves organically with him.

I really do think the cinematography deserves some credit in this film. Peter Menzies, jr (who also provided the cinematography for The Incredible Hulk) shot some amazing shots of the Outback, from the rugged canyons to the luscious oasis. I especially love the wide shots that showcase the vastness of this Australian desert. Overall, it's a well shot film.

There are a couple elements that don't work about this film. For one, I didn't care for the romance between Charlie and Jessica as I felt they didn't spend enough time together to form som chemistry. I also don't like who when Charlie thinks she's a mirage the first thing he does is grab her boobs. He totally deserved that canteen to the face. Another element I don't think worked as well was the climax. I felt it could've been more exciting, but as is it's just adequate.

Did you know that this film was originally going to be R rated? Shocking, I know but it's true. This film was originally going to have more cursing and violence and the kangaroo was only going to appear in one scene. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer saw a rough cut of the film and felt it wasn't working. So after recieving positive feedback from the kangaroo, the filmmakers decided to reshoot most of the film and tone it down significantly to appeal toward a family audience. Thus this film is one of those PG rated films that just teeters toward the line of PG-13.

Overall, Kangaroo Jack is at best a funny buddie comedy and at least a guilty pleasures of some sorts. I totally understand why some take issue with this movie being an edgy family film, but for what its worth I found it to be all good fun. Thanks so much for reading and I'll see you soon ;)

Why I'm Done With Pornography

This has been something I've been struggling to confidently say for years. When I tried to go cold turkey before I would eventually relapse and the cycle would repeat itself. This time however I feel more confident in saying that I have no desire to look at pornography of any kind any more. If I were you I'd get some snacks and strap in because this post isn't going to be a deep dive into how my addiction started, how it has affected me in the long run and what ultimately made me decide it just wasn't worth it anymore.

When I was a kid (maybe 9 or 10), I picked up a Men's Health magazine and on the second to last page was an ad for a sex pill with a bare chested woman laying on top of a man. This was the earliest memory I can think of when I found that women being partially or completely naked looked cool. It then lead me to look up basic phrases on the Internet such as "naked women" "nude girls" and "sexy girls" among others. I went down the rabbit hole that was pornography and was hooked for almost a decade and a half.

The most common side effects of viewing pornography on a daily basis differ from person to person. For me it was having a skewed perspective on all the women in my life during my high school years. I never had a girlfriend in high school and I thank God I didn't because I either would've treated her like an object or cheat on her with another girl I found prettier. While my sexual urges never caused me to rape anyone, it did make me come across as a creep more than a few times. I once asked a lady I didn't know what sex was at the public library. If I wasn't a minor, I'd would've gotten maced at best or arrested at worst just for asking a question like that. I also had this bad habit of giving one girl in particular various gifts in a stupid attempt to get her to like me back. It got to the point where she rightfully told the school counselor about it and asked me to please stop. I'm glad I did because I was probably one unwarranted advancement away from being put on a restraining order. The most embarrassing moment for me though was trying to share a shower with either my sister or my aunt. Yeah, there's being a dumb kid and then there's being a straight up pervert. I'm more than ashamed I did any of those things and I thank God I've been forgiven for all of them.

Another major side effects to viewing pornography daily was it made me defensive and secretive about it. When I was first caught, it was embarrassing and rightfully so. It's like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And yet even after I was caught, I still viewed it in secret because the root of the problem wasn't handled properly. I didn't just watch porn because I liked it; moreover, I watched it because I was a lonely depressed kid with little friends and a severe lack of understanding of my purpose in life. This continued well into my adulthood when I was now stuggling to get a rise from something that was bringing me less and less enjoyment as time went on.

If I could point to the number one worst side effect of pornography, is its negative influence it had when it came to sexual encounters with strangers. I can most definitely say that despite meeting up with many strangers both men and women, I NEVER had a good sexual encounter. They were all varying degrees of filthy, unengaging and overall unsatisfying. While I knew pornography was not representative of real sex, I didn't know how underwhelming casual encounters were until I actually had them.

So, what changed? How did I go from a struggling addict to completely apathetic towards porn in general? Well, it was a number of factors, but the biggest was becoming a born-again Christian. While getting baptized and recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost didn't immediately cure me, I did slowly but surely start to drift away from porn as the years went by. Another key factor in the decimation of my addiction was having good relationships with a bunch of female friends and co-workers. The women in my life today are all smart, funny, caring, patient and understanding and they make me feel more appreciative of all the great women I've had in my life (such as my Mom, Grandma, my older sisters and teachers). Most recently, I've come to the realization that pornography is everything I said I didn't like in my last post about eye candy. Men and especially women in pornography are essentially reduced to sponges when put in front of the camera. Similarly, erotic drawings serve no other purpose than to arouse viewers with characters from an existing IP partaking in lewd acts. I've also come to the realization that if I spend so much of my time watching, writing and drawing porn, why don't I use all that time to create something original and fun?

Sure enough it was these factors that made me decide it was time to finally kick the bucket for good and start living my life. I just turned 24 over a week ago and I know for a fact that I don't want to spend another decade and a half dabbling in pornography. This is going to be the start of a new chapter in my life and this will hopefully lead to much better things down the road.

Why Eye Candy Is Degrading

"I am NOT a prize to be won!" Princess Jasmine from Aladdin (1992)

This quote from Jasmine basically sums up how I feel every time a female character with a strong personality shows up. We are living in a revolutionary era of entertainment where woman are given prominent roles in movies, TV shows and video games and are made to be well rounded, likable, relatable and a true role model. Unfortunately, this wasn't always the case and every now and then we get the occasional female character (with some male exceptions) that are only relegated to just stand there and look pretty. In Layman's terms: they're simply eye candy.

Now this was an inherent problem that dates back long before the concept of filmmaking came into fruition. Women were often placed on display as prizes by prominent leaders and who's primary function was to give birth and nurse babies. A prominent female leader such as Cleopatra and Mary, Queen of Scotts were the exception, but not the rule. It wasn't until as recent as over 100 years ago when the feminist movement gained prominence and women start demanding equal treatment.

Back on the topic of women in entertainment, one of the most notorious tropes that perfectly exemplifies the eye candy mentality is the "damsel in distress." Typically the hero has to save the damsel from a dastardly villain and is rewarded with a kiss or in some cases a hand in marriage. Now, this trope itself isn't bad (obviously a story needs stakes to be engaging) but the fact that many damsels in distress are deviod of personality is itself a problem. Take for example Ann Darrow from the original 1933 film King Kong. Everybody remembers the mighty gorilla, but nobody talks about Ann Darrow, who was the epitome of eye candy. She mostly just stands their and looks pretty, occasional screams in terror while everyone else actually moves the plot along. Disney themselves are guilty of this as Princess Aurora from Sleeping Beauty is often regarded as the weakest Disney Princess interms of personality and character development. While she's is pretty, Mary Costa gives a good performance as her original voice (both speaking and singing), she isn't made to be any more interesting to the audience as she is to Prince Phillip. She is ultimately bedridden at the end of the second Act and almost immediately after Prince Phillip breaks her curse with true love's kiss, they're hitched and dancing in the throne room.

Eye candy is not exclusively linked to the damsel and distress trope, however, as sometime it's a trope in and of itself. Remember Nazz from Ed, Edd, n Eddy? She's a perfect example of this trope and is easily the most boring character in a show full of wacky characters. Episodes like Boys Will Be Eds best exemplify how one-dimensional Nazz is as a character as all the boys (sans Jimmy) fall for her yet her unique personality is just be pretty while standing up for Jimmy. The show never develops her as an interesting character beyond just the stereotypical pretty girl with some hints of a personality, but not enough for me to care.

The problem with making female characters nothing more than eye candy is it makes the girls and women who are watching the show or movie feel under appreciated. It also makes me as a man who supports equal treatment for women feel embarrassed. If all Timmy Turner sees in Trixie Tang is just a pretty face, than I have no reason to care about his attempts to woo her. If Drake Parker doesn't actually care for half the girls he dates, why should I? If you're goimg to make a female character for the male protagonist to fall for, you need to do more than just slap on a pretty face to what might as well be a piece of cardboard. I no longer think it's funny that Susan Storm is forced to strip naked in 2005's Fantastic Four; I think it's degrading and undermines her as a character. I don't just want to save Princess Peach in a Mario game, I want to spend time with her so that when she is kidnapped by Bowser (again) I have more incentive to rescue her.

Fortunately many creators have learned from these passed shortcomings and female characters today are better than ever. Occasionally there is that one show, movie or video game that falls into the eye candy trap but those are now the exception, not the rule. The Disney Princess lineup has gotten significantly more diverse in terms of personality and  character development, female characters in TV shows are far more interesting and engaging then they were in the past and being able to play as female characters in video games has become a stable thanks in part to Metroid. This truly is a grand time for female characters, who have come a long way from being just a prize to be won.

In Defense of Joel Schumacher's Batman Movies

The original Batman movies between 1989-1997 are some of the most popular and topical films starring the Caped Crusader. While the first 2 directed by Tim Burton are often regarded as the most well made Batman films, the ones by Joel Schumacher are...not. I'm of the camp that they're rather enjoyable films, if not otherwise guilty pleasures. Having rewatched them on HBOMAX, I find that they still offer some substance and entertainment value.

Storywise, Batman Forever delves into Bruce Wayne's long suppressed tramua regarding his parents' murder while Batman & Robin finds him learning to trust his newfound partner in crime fighting. Batman Forever is often regarded as the better of the 2 Schumacher Batman movies in terms of storytelling, and I agree. In addition to taking the time to explore this part of Bruce Wayne's character, this film also organically sets up Robin's origin and how he becomes Batman's young ward. Batman & Robin, meanwhile, has a more straightforward plot while also introducing Barbara Wilson, aka Batgirl into the mix. This makes the film a tad predictable, yet the element in which both films succeed it is the over-the-top acting (particularly from the villains), the cheesy lines and outlandish costumes.

Can we just take a moment to acknowledge how fun these films are? Joel Schumacher was tasked to make these film more lighthearted in contrast to Burton's take and he more than delivered. Gotham is more vibrant and lively, and the costumes look more extravagant. I especially love the portrayal of Two-Face in this film, from wearing double sided clothes, having 2 maids dressed as an angel and devil, as well as his goons wearing double sided masks. I'm aware people have a strong distaste for Mr. Freeze's puns, but honestly a couple of them got a genuine chuckle out of me. Many people claim that Batman & Robin was made to sell toys, but having watched both films back to back, I feel Joel Schumacher just doubled down on the campy nature of Forever and gave Batman more gadgets and gizmos as an homage to the 1960s Batman TV series with Adam West.

While I enjoy these movies and all their cheesiness, I do have a couple issue. I felt the character of Dr. Chase Meridian was pretty much portraying the same love interest Batman had in the Tim Burton movies, only this time she's more attracted to Batman in a sexual manner. As such she has little to offer in terms of personality. I also felt Commissoner Jim Gordon being relegated to just calling Batman for help was kinda underwhelming. I kinda hoped he would play a bigger part, but I guess not. I also found it odd that Billy Dee Willams was replaced with Tommy Lee Jones as Harvey Dent, leading me to assume Dent had vertigo (a la Michael Jackson). Lastly, I feel Bane falls into the unfortunate category of Adaptation In Name Only because he's basically just Frankenstein's Monster in a mask as opposed to an intelligent tactician with superhuman strength that broke Batman's back.

Still though, I very much enjoy these movies in the most unironic sense possible. Yes, they're cheesy, yes they're outlandish, yes they're over-the-top, but darn it they're still fun. While I respect that Joel Schumacher apologized for disappointing people who expected Batman & Robin to be great, I don't think he felt any shame for making a couple fun movies. Thanks for reading and I'll see you soon ;)

Why It Worked: Ed, Edd, n Eddy

Introduction

Ed, Edd, n Eddy was a Canadian-American animated series which ran on Cartoon Network from January 4, 1999-June 24, 2008 before officially concluding with the TV movie, Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show on November 8, 2009. Created by Danny Antonucci, the show features the voice talents of Tony Sampson, Samuel Vincent, Matt Hill, Janyse Jaud, David Paul Grove, Peter Kelamis, Keenan Christenson, Kathleen Barr and Erin Fitzgerald. The show ran for 6 seasons and recieved critical acclaim throughout it's run (boasting a 8.8/10 on TV.com and 7.4/10 on Imdb). Growing up with the show and binging the complete series last week, I definitely consider Ed, Edd, n Eddy to be a classic slapstick cartoon. Today I'd like to talk about why this show still holds up even to this very day.

Premise and Execution

The show revolves around 3 boys scamming kids in a cul-de-sac in order to buy jawbreakers, which in this show are about twice the size of a bowling ball. Episodes typically follow the formula of the Eds coming up with a scam, something going wrong and the Eds suffer the consequences. Each episode uses its premise as a baseline to incorporate excellent slapstick comedy. Some of the funniest episodes are thr ones where the Eds get pulverized, particularly Eddy in the most cartoonish way possible. In addition to slapstick, there's also alot of self-aware humor with characters frequently breaking the fourth wall and acknowledging that they're in a cartoon. The animation for this show is amazing. The character designs are stylized to fit their personalities, right down to their walk cycles. The backgrounds are vibrant and have a 50s cartoon feel to them, and the character animation is loose and perfectly fluid. But the best part of the show as a whole is the amazing voice acting. Everybody gives it 110% and make these characters come alive in their performances.

Characters

The characters themselves offer a lot to like about them and are all memorable in their own way. Starting with Ed, he is one of the best lovable oafs in all of animation. He's so in love with the world and everything in it and his lack of thinking before he acts makes him so funny. Edd, often called Double D in the show, is very much the brains of the main trio as well as the voice of reason. In addition to being exceptionally smart, he's also hilariously awkward and not particularly strong. Then there's Eddy, the conniving prankster and self-appointed leader of the Eds. He's stubborn, greedy and egotistical, yet deep down he does care about his friends, mainly because they're the only ones he's got. The other kids in the cul-de-sac have alot to offer in terms of comedy and personality. Kevin, the neighborhood bully, is often the one who trusts the Eds the least and he relishes in referring to them as "dorks" every chance he gets. Johnny 2x4 is such an oddball because his best is a piece of wood named Plank, yet he's also a pretty funny character and his friendship with Plank feels genuine. Jimmy is such a worry wort and is typically afraid of the Eds, but as the show goes on he becomes more confident and even beomes a con artist himself like Eddy. Then there's Rolf, who stands right next to Ed as the most quotable character in the whole show. His unfamiliarity with American customs makes him relatable to every foreign kid living in America and his commitment to upholding family traditions make him all the more entertaining.

Where It Falters

I deliberately didn't bring up the girls in the show because they're one of the 2 major problems with the show overall. Ed's younger sister, Sarah, is one of the textbook examples of a spoiled brat. She's loud, obnoxious, a kiss up to her parents and the most violent kid in the entire cul-de-sac. The Eds have no choice but to put up with her in every episode because Ed doesn't have the assertive nature of Eddy to tell her to back off. Nazz is the very stereotypical attractive girl and is most certainly the weakest in terms of personality. There are moments where she could've been fleshed out more, but for the most part she might as well be a jawbreaker with hair. Then there are the Kanker sisters, Lee, Marie and May. They problem with the Kankers is that they've very much become a product of a different time. They frequently try to kiss the Eds without their consent, they forced them into "marriage," they made out with them in the girls bathroom and frequently refer to them as their boyfriends despite the Eds frequently wanting nothing to do with them. As a kid, yeah this was funny, but now that we're living in the #MeToo era, this type of humor just doesn't sit well. The other major problem with the show is it's commitment to a limited cast prevented them from introducing new characters to flesh out the world. This is most evident in Season 5 when the kids go back to school and it feels so empty. There's no other students present and all the teachers (and every other adult save for Eddy's brother in the movie) is never shown.  There were a few other problems such as Eddy going too far in some episodes, the episode title not being that memorable (outside of the Ed puns) and Season 6 only containing 1 episode, but it's 2 most egregious crimes are a lack of good female characters and a lack of adults or other characters to flesh out the world.

Conclusion

All and all though, I still very much love this show. Despite lacking female characters and Peach Creek being virtually a ghost town, the show still has great main characters, amazing slapstick, incredible animation and outstanding voice acting. It's a show I frequently find myself quoting and still laugh at the jokes to this day. Thanks so much for reading and I'll see you soon ;)

In Defense of The Police (law enforcement, not the band)

Men and women in law enforcement have always had it rough. Even as far back as 100 years ago, long before N.W.A. released the notorious song, F*** The Police, not everyone respected a man in uniform. This post is going to be more appreciative of the men and women who dedicated their lives to upholding the law while also addressing the egregious abuse of power over the years.

It is important to note that a police officer's job is to enforce the law. This ranges from stopping a speeder on the highway, haulting trespassers from entering a restricted area, making sure people don't jay walk and so on. The police also apprehend criminals who rob a bank, invade someone's home, shoplifting, and break public property among other egregious crimes. If it weren't for the police maintaining order in our society, we'd be no better off than our Neanderthal ancestors.

Often a police officer is of male gender, but law enforcement has been enlisting women to be police since Marie Owens joined the ChicagoPolice Departmentin 1891. Women in law enforcement make up at least 12% of all police officers in America yet are just as vital as their male co-workers. Female police officers are smart, tough, intimidating, and take their jobs very seriously. Despite this though, they are often discriminated and harassed by people with higher authority than them.

A common (and valid) complaint about law enforcement is how they abuse their power to harass innocent bystanders. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a recent phenomenon; in fact it was even commen place by the time N.W.A. spoke up about it. The first use of the term "police brutality" dates all the way back to 1872 when it was reported that a civilian under arrest was beaten at the Harrison Street Police Station. People of minority are often harassed by racism police officers, even when their as innocent as an obedient child. Women, meanwhile are belittled, harassed, and even raped whether they're in uniform or not. The unfortunate reality is there are always going to be people who use their power of authority to oppress others. But it's not all doom and gloom though.

Because we live in a democracy, we have the right to speak up against these atrocities and demand justice for the oppressed. Instances of police brutality is caught on camera and posted on social media, making their abuse of power known to the entire world and thus costing them their job. We're also still living in the #MeToo era of history, thus giving women more confidence to speak up about harassment on the force. Most importantly though, police departments everywhere are more willing to double down on charging those who abuse their power thanks to prominent victims such as Rodney King, Trayvon Martin and most recently George Floyd.

Do not mistake my respect for law enforcement for ignorance or police brutality. At the end of the day, the average police officer is not a racist, sexist, bigoted monster who abuses their power for their own personal gain. The average police is a person who just wants to make sure people are say and obeying the law. In closing, I would like to say thank you to all the men and women in law enforcement for your services. Without you, this country would've fallen apart over a century ago. Keep up the great work; I salute you 🙋‍♂️

My Tastes in Animation Explained

Comedy

I love slapstick humor. Watching animated characters have their bodies get distorted and stretched out more often then not puts me in a good mood. I also really enjoy funny facial expressions  like when characters are in pain, disgust or anger. I like random humor as much as the next guy, but I also like clever movie references, sick burns and the occasional pun. For comedy I like a good balance between eccentric voice acting and straightman casual. I don't mind a basic story as long as the characters and humor make up for it.

Drama

The best way to get me hooked on an animated drama is relating or understanding the main character(s). Being likable is a big plus, but at their core I should at least be able to see where they're coming from. I'm also a fan of happy endings or at the very least bittersweet endings. Some clever or well timed jokes are always a nice touch. I like voice acting in dramas that feel earnest and relatable, even in an otherwise fantastical setting. I appreciate it when the story ends the character(s) off in a different mindset at the end than they did at the beginning.

Action

I love it whenever the story cuts to the chase and jumps right into the action with the most dazzling visual and some character interaction to boot. Speaking of which, I'm a big fan well developed and well rounded that have layers revealed as the story continues. May favorite type of voice acting in animated action content is the playful yet determined one as well as the stoic yet modest one. I especially love it when they contrast and compliment one another in the performance. I stories that compliment the action or have the action be a driving force for the story.

Musical

I love it when the visuals compliment or elevate the musical number. Be it though the character(s) dancing or the background changing from it's original form to a more psychedelic look. I'm all for a voice actor who can also sing beautifully, otherwise I'm cool with the character's singing voice being different than their speaking voice. I like musicals that end with a powerful and well delivered message. 

Horror

I don't jump from my seat from jumpscares, but I do get creeped out by unsettling visuals or sound design. I applaud animators that make monsters look so grotesque and unpleasant that the even the characters in the story are put off by it. I'm a fan of subtle yet effective voice acting when it comes to animated horrors, or intentionally unsettling voice acting for the monsters and demons present.

Abstract/Anthology

I love it when animators are able to just express themselves through animation. Big fan of color, but I don't mind seeing something drawn in black and white. When it comes to anthologies, I like both variety and a common theme among the shorts. Should voice acting be present, I like a good narrator as much as the next guy. I'm also a fan of limited/dialogue free animated shorts.

In Defense of Gene Deitch's Tom & Jerry Cartoons

"That's [David and Goliath] where we feel a connection to these cartoons: the little guy can win (or at least survive) to fight another day." Gene Deitch (1924-2020)

For 80 years now, Tom and Jerry have been going at it with one another and entertaining kids and adults of all ages. Everyone has their favorite era of Tom and Jerry and yet the Gene Deitch era is often regarded as most people's least favorite. In this post I'd like to explain the merits of these 13 cartoons and why they still stay true to the original formula thay made this series last for so long.

After the original run of Tom & Jerry was discontinued in 1958, MGM hired Czech illustrator and cartoonist Gene Deitch to make a batch of cartoons between 1961-1962. At first he wasn't a fan of the series, thinking they were "needlessly violent" but he soon came to realize that nobody took the cartoon violence very seriously. The end result was 13 unique Tom & Jerry cartoons with creative uses of slapstick and a memorable soundtrack.

The animation in these cartoons is more jerky than it is fluid, giving it a more surrealist style. This was not Deitch's intention though as time and budget restrictions prevented him and his team from going all out. Deitch's cartoons were made with a budget of $10,000 per cartoon ($86,326 in today's money) where as the Hanna-Barbera cartoons were made with at least 4x that budget. In addition to that, Deitch had to make about twice as many cartoons as Hanna-Barbera in a year; instead of 6 per year, Deitch and his team had to make 12 (source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091226202824/http://genedeitch.awn.com/index.php3?ltype=chapter&chapter=20). Given those obstacles, the fact that Deitch and his team were able to complete 13 cartoons at all should be commended.

The cartoons themselves still maintain that cat and mouse game dynamic and the gags are still pretty funny. One element that makes these cartoons stand out are the sound effects, as Deitch and his team utilized more comical sound effects such as springs and vocals from Deitch himself and Allen Swift. These cartoons also put Tom and Jerry in more exotic locations instead of the typical house in the suburbs. These include the jungle, in space, and even on Captain Ahab's ship from Moby Dick. There was also the replacement of Mammy Two Shoes for a bald, round shaped, short tempered, middle-aged white man that brutally punishes Tom for messing things up (similar to Spike the Bulldog). People tend to call this animal abuse but this round shaped man is tame compared to the times Spike pulverized Tom.

All of these cartoons tended to end with Tom losing as opposed to the Hanna-Barbera cartoons were sometimes Jerry loses. This probably would've changed had MGM renewed their contract with Deitch. As is, the 13 Gene Deitch cartoons developed a cult following in later years and for good reason. Despite the animation being a bit choppy in parts, Deitch's Tom & Jerry cartoons still maintain the core essence of these iconic characters. The humor is still on point, the sound effects and score are well handled and the exotic locations were a nice change in pace for the duo. Sure, they're not everyone's cup of tea, but they're still worthy additions to the Tom & Jerry legacy. If I could say one thing to Gene Deitch, it's thank you for your contribution to this ongoing series and making your mark in animation history. I salute you 🙋‍♂️

The Importance of Strong Supporting Characters

Supporting characters aren't always talked about when it comes to discussing film or television. Which is unfortunate because the film/tv show in question would feel empty with them. In this post, I'd like to discuss why the supporting players are just as important as the protagonists and why they shouldn't be treated as an afterthought.

The supporting cast in a film or tv show are often assigned to help the protagonist(s) on their journey or otherwise to help expand the world. Two of the most famous supporting characters in all of fiction are C-3PO and R2-D2 from Star Wars: A New Hope. In addition to being integral to the plot, they are also funny and well developed characters with C-3PO being the most relatable to the audience until Luke shows up.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D Season 1 is often regarded as decent at best compared to the MCU movies at the time. Having caught up with the series recently on Netflix, I think I understand why. Outside of Coulson and May, the other cast members weren't as interesting in Season 1 as they would be later on. I understand the reasoning behind this as Season 1 was basically the audience being introduced to these characters through the perspective of Skye and as time went on, they grew on us like they did her. That said, it's still a tedious process having to live with basic supporting characters for almost a whole season.

For stories that aren't necessarily plot driven, it's crucial that the supporting characters offer more substance than their initial one quirk. I recently binged the first season of 12 Forever and while I like it as a whole, the characters on Endless Island held it back from being great. Most of the inhabitants range from dull to annoying and they didn't grow on me by the season finale. While I don't expect to fall in love with supporting characters right off the bat, I should at least like something about them. Otherwise, I might end up not caring about them at best or downright despising them at worst.

I understand making a character intentionally unlikable, that is if said character has some charm or relatability to them. Suffice to say, this is not an easy thing to pull off. Take for example Paul from Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl. He is a terrible trainor who doesn't care about his Pokemon and verbally abuses them when they fail him. Nothing about him is either charming or the least bit relatable. If it was the writer's intention for me not to like this character, why? He never learns to treat his Pokemon with respect, we don't get any backstory or explanation regarding why he treats his Pokemon like dirt and Jullien Rebolledo (English dub voice actor who plays the character) plays him too straightforward to be any fun to hate. Sure, some people are going to be like that, but that doesn't make for good entertainment in my opinion.

Supporting characters aren't just their to fill up the screen with more than one character, they're there to, well, support the main character. While 1 supporting character not being as interesting or well developed is forgivable, everyone else should at least have one redeeming quality.

Opinion: The Beanhead Design Is NOT Lazy

In 2010, Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi coined the infamous term "CalArts Style" to point out how Disney animated films were recycling techniques done in the 60s and 70s. He apologized to students at CalArta but that didn't stop the Internet for misusing the term when referring to shows with a specific character design in the 2010s. This design involves a character with a bean shaped head and an ovalish mouth and is found in shows like Star vs. The Forces of Evil, Steven Universe and Gravity Falls among others. When detractors of said shows use this term, what they actually mean is that the design is "lazy" orthe character designers put no effort into designing the character. Let's dive into why this is an insulting sentiment and this beanhead trend is actually happening.

Firstly, let's talk about a character designer's job. In the animation industry, a character designer is in charge of, well, designing the characters. Specifically, designing them in a way that gives the animators something to work with and in some cases is easier to draw or render. Animated shows on television are inherently cheaper to produce than feature films because it's television. See, after a network picks up the show (in this case an animated series), that show has to finish production on an episode before the scheduled premiere date. This is especially a grueling task for animation because in the world of business time=money. If character design is taking too long to animate, it's costing the network more money and the profits aren't always going to cover it. This is why shows like Megas XLR and Invader Zim got the axe after 1 or 2 seasons. The sad reality is if the network is losing money on a show, there's no point in continuing to produce it, regardless if the show develops a devoted fanbase.

Many show creators learn this lesson the hard way: the show doesn't have to look extravagant to be good. Sometimes being simple is not just a must be it can make the show better as a result. Take for example Steven Universe, one of the prime examples of the beanhead trend. The design of the characters in the show (particularly the title character) was always meant to have a simple design based on the style of the show's creator, Rebecca Sugar. The design of Steven himself was based (and named after) Sugar's brother, who designed the backgrounds on the show. Steven's bean shaped head was designed to be expressive and bursting with personality. It also helps that his head gives the animators (specifically Summin Image Picture and Rough Draft Korea, both based in South Korea) an easier time animating the facial expressions and mouth movements.

The Amazing World of Gumball also has characters with bean shaped heads. But here's the kicker, this was more beneficial for the show because it allowed the characters to be more expressive and have more personality than they did in the pilot. Seriously, the difference between the pilot made for Cartoon Network and the actual first episode of the series from a visual standpoint is like night and day: https://youtu.be/bPX7hmNdpPk. If Gumball and Darwin maintained their original designs from the pilot, I don't think it would've last very long on CN. This is due to the most crucial aspect of character design: appeal.

Now appeal is tricky to nail because nobody knows what everybody wants. What's considered cute for some might look uncanny to others. Most people don't mind that the character has a head shaped like a jellybean, but other's feel differently. That said, one thing that a character designer should NEVER be labled is lazy. Many people online seem to put lazy in the same category as unappealing, when there's a significant difference between the two terms. An uncanny character design (i.e. 12 oz. Mouse and Mr. Pickles) signifies the character designer still did their job, while lazy implies they didn't do their job at all. Just because some characters have a bean shaped head, that doesn't mean the character designer was lazy.  Yeah, Steven's head is similar to Star Butterfly's. Big deal. Similarities in different cartoons are more often than not coincidences than blatant rip-offs.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions so here's mine: 👏every👏character👏designer👏deserves 👏respect. You can criticize a character for not looking appealing or uncanny all you want, but calling it lazy or uninspired is not the least bit constructive. If you're not a fan of characters with beanheads, there are a plethora of animated that don't follow this trend. You'd be better off watching those shows instead of throwing students at the California Institute of the Arts under the bus by saying "the CalArts Style sucks." And one more thing, the "CalArts Style" does not exist. A film school doesn't teach you how to make films or cartoons a certain way, it teaches you about the history of filmmaking, the tools used and how to use them wisely. Tim Burton is one of many alumni of CalArts and not a single one of his films looks like they were made in the style of anyone other than Tim Burton.

In Defense of the Zack Snyder DCEU movies

Introduction

Zack Snyder has always been a controversial filmmaker. Not because he's a bad person, but because most of his films have received polarizing reviews from critics and audiences. So it only makes sense that the most polarizing films in the DC Extended Universe are the ones he directed. In this post, I'd like to explain why I enjoy these films and why Zack Snyder deserved more credit than he got.


Man of Steel DID Work

Zack Snyder's first foray into the then new initiative for DC films was divisive to put it lightly. There were people who liked Man of Steel and others who were disappointed by it. I'm of the former as I feel it accomplished what it's initial goal was: bringing Superman into a post-9/11 world. I understand people's criticisms with the film such as Clark Kent's gloomy demeanor and the DBZ inspired action. This is due to Zack Snyder and screenwriter, David S. Goyer rewritting Superman's origin so that he grew up being reluctant to use his powers to help others because they'd reject him rather than thank him. This is a topic not explored before in Superman films: how would Superman be perceived in a world that fears what they don't understand. Zack Snyder's vision for the famous superhero involved not just exploring that idea, but also redefining how Superman behaves.  Many people criticize the amount of collateral damage in this film, especially from a character that's usually more gentle and considerate like Superman. To me, this was done to show Superman as, well, a man. A good man, but not a flawless man. A common misconception about Superman is "he's too perfect" which is fundamentally false. Just because he's got super powers that doesn't make him perfect. Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer not only brought his imperfections to the forefront, but they made that a central theme to his character. The Jesus imagery, to me at least, is somewhat fitting: while Jesus never sinned, He was initially rejected by people who did follow Him. Jesus Himself had His fears and doubts, but He still did His duty and saved us from sin. Likewise, Superman, for all his faults, is still portrayed as an optimistic, helpful, brave and likable character. It's also worth noting that the fight scenes are dope. This is the kind of action that should've been the main selling point for Dragonball: Evolution. In addition to the opening sequence, the fights with Superman and the other Kryptonians are exactly how I pictured it to go down in a modern blockbuster. Every punch feels powerful, every explosion feels devastating, and the final fight between Superman and Zod is as close as a live action recreation of Goku vs Vegeta I am going to get. Then there's the infamous neck snap. This controversial decision was not made lightly as the filmmakers new this was going to be a big deal. "You have to do what's best for the story," Goyer said about the scene, "This was a Superman who had only been Superman for like a week. He wasn't Superman as we think of from the DC Comics...he'd only flown for the first time a few days before that (https://www.google.com/amp/s/ew.com/article/2015/10/29/david-goyer-superman-kill-zod/%3famp=true)." At the end of the day though, Man Of Steel still did what Superman Returns didn't, and that's get people talking about Superman again. Now let's get into the even more divisive follow-up.

Batman v Superman is NOT Really That Bad

This is the film people have been waiting decades for. Batman, the world's greatest detective, and Superman, America's greatest boy scout, together on the big silver screen. And to say critics and audiences were divided on it would be very generous. People either love it, hate it or are overall mixed about it, even more so than Man Of Steel. Me though? I really like this film. I like how Batman is given a very valid reason not to trust Superman because he was there during the climax of Man of Steel. I also like how, unlike Zack Snyder's previous work, which were more action heavy, this film is more of a character drama before becoming an action movie in the climax (because it's a big budget superhero movie, duh). One of the biggest complaints regarding this film is the characterization of Batman and how in this film, Batman straight up kills people, thus breaking his unwritten rule. Yes, unwritten. While it's common for stories about Batman to have him be a pacifist, it's not a mandate that DC or Warner Bros. enforces. That said, it is understandable why Batman killing is a turn off for fans of the caped crusader. In this film, Batman is not who he used to be. He's cold, old and bitter, and has grown more harsh towards criminals. This is meant to be a direct contrast to Superman, who still has the decency to show mercy. Then there's Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Lex Luther, which has been criticized as being quirky and goofy. You know, a necessary comic relief in an otherwise pretty grim film? Joking aside, Jesse Eisenberg gave a very good performance as Lex and made the character his own without mimicking previous portrayals of the character. There was also the criticism that this film was setting up events that would lead to the Justice League. As if the subtitle "Dawn of Justice" wasn't clear enough, the set up for Justice League was meant to be the icing on the cake. The fight with Doomsday makes for an entertaining and engaging climax, especially when it brings DC's iconic trinity (Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman) together for the first time. Many people complained that Superman died too soon and while that's fair, it was going to pay off in Justice League, which was going tk be an epic 2 part event that ends with Superman being brought back and the team battling Darkseid (DC's Thanos). It was going to make The Avengers look like a tea party...but then plans changed. Let's talk about it.


How Justice League Changed It's Plans

So this all started when Batman v Superman Superman underperformed. While it made $860 million on a budget of $250-$300 million, it should've made $1 billion no problem. Except there was a problem: competition. See, the film was originally going to come out on July 17, 2015, but was pushed to May 6, 2016 before settling on its March 26, 2016. Obviously, Warner Bros. thought audiences would see Batman v Superman more than Captain America: Civil War and obviously, they thought wrong. So, in an effort to try and salvage the DC brand, they changed their approach with Justice League. Instead of it being a 2 parter as initially planned, it was just going to be a stand alone feature that hopefully audiences would accept first, than they do a sequel. But then, towards the end of production, Zack Snyder stepped down as director because his daughter committed suicide and post-production was handled by Joss Whedon. The end result? Same as last time, unfortunately.


Justice League Is (Almost) Great

Once again, critics and audiences were divided on this film. I personally really like this film, but I still wished they went with their initial plans to make this a 2 parter. As it is, it's an entertaining and well made film. One of the main points of criticism is with the character of Steppenwolf, and I kinda see where they're coming from. Due to this film being changed from a 2 parter to a standalone, Steppenwolf is unfortunately left as the "appetizer villain" with Darkseid only being mentioned by name once. As is, he's fine. Ciaran Hinds gives a solid performance and he's enough of a threat for our heroes to stop. Another problem people seem to have with the film is Superman's CGI mouth. This was done because during reshoots, Henry Cavill was forbidden to shave his mustache while filming Mission Impossible: Fallout. It doesn't bother me unlike Mars Needs Moms, it's only in a few shots and I barely even noticed the first time around. The CGI in general has received alot of criticism, which I just don't see the problem. Maybe I'm just not as knowledgeable with how CGI actually works, but to me if it looks really enough for you to touch, the CGI artists did a good job. I've also tried to give CGI artists some credit because they don't get enough online or in mainstream criticism. Ever try working overtime for little to no pay to get an effect or a shot rendered before the deadline? That's what it's like for some CGI artists. While it's still eligible for criticism, it is NEVER okay to call it lazy. Sorry, went on a bit of a tangent, but you get my point. Justice League on it's own is entertaining and should've been the film DC and Warner Bros. needed to compete with Marvel. Unfortunately, it wasn't.


Conclusion

Justice League made $657 million on a budget of at least $300 million. When you add additional marketing costs, this film was a box office bomb and Warner Bros. lost $60 million on this film (https://deadline.com/2018/04/ready-player-one-steven-spielberg-opening-weekend-box-office-1202318581/). That's honestly really disappointing, because Zack Snyder, love him or hate him, truly did care about these characters and wanted to do them justice (no pun intended) in the most epic way he could. Yet the divisive critics and audience reactions, the stiff competition with Marvel and even the lost of his daughter prevented him from making the movies he wanted and giving Warner Bros. and DC the results they needed. The upside? Aquaman did much better than anticipated (earning $1.148 billion on a budget of $160-$200 million) and DC has been on a role since. Plus, Zack Snyder is still getting work as his next film, Army of the Dead, is to be released on Netflix sometime this year (if not next). Sure, these films weren't everyone's cup of tea, but at least they were entertaining.

What Could've Been: Jack Frost and Fira #11-12 onward

Jack Frost and Fira was a series I started writing in September 2018. Every week I would write a new installment and on a special occasion I would've written an event that would challenge the characters in a major way. This ultimately didn't happen due to personal matters beyond my control and I put the series on indefinite hiatus in December 2018. In this post, I'd like to explain what my intentions were for the planned 2 parter as well as what I would've liked to have done had the series continued to this day.

The Trail of the Twins

The 2 part event planned for December was to be the trial of Jack Frost and Fira. During battle with the Abraham family, Sheryl is badly injured and later "dies" in the ambulance. Jack Frost and Fira are taken into F.A.C.E. custody and are put on trial for alleged manslaughter. During this trial, we would see how the citizens of Braidsville view our heroes, both positive and negative. It would then be revealed that the Abrahams faked Sheryl's death to ruin the reputation of Jack Frost and Fira. While the case is dismissed, the damage would've already been done. Following this event, citizens would be more critical and less trusting of the twins and new costumed crime fighters would show up on an attempt to replace them.

Alternate Reality

I've always been a fan of the different reality plot in movies and tv shows. So naturally I had planned to do something like that with Jack Frost and Fira. During their battle with a villain named Edge Lord, Jack Frost and Fira are transported into an alternate dimension of Braidsville, now under the rule of Supreme Genreal Margran. Jack Frost and Fira would have to team up with the alternate version of Orson Reed, jr. and find their way back home while also saving this reality. The alternate reality of Braidsville would've been portrayed not so much as a post-apocalyptic world, but more of a world ruled by a tyrannical dictator. Think Germany after Hitler and the Nazi's took over. Less fires, more faded blues.

Jack Frost and Fira vs. Orson Reed, jr.

This is a battle that had been set up the minute Orson first heard of Jack Frost and Fira. Taking place in an abandoned warehouse, Orson challenges the twins using his most powerful weapon: his mind. Through a series of mind games, emotional manipulation and psychological torture, this would've been a fight that forces Jack Frost and Fira to use their wits over their powers to win. Sure, I could have Orson pilot a giant robot, but it's more fitting to his character to use his intelligence over heavy machinery.

Jack Frost and Fira meet The 3 Musketeers

You read that correctly, Jack Frost and Fira would meet the 3 Musketeers while the Gagnon family is on a much needed vacation in France. Of course it's not the original Musketeers (Athos, Aramis, and Porthos), as they died centuries ago. Rather it's 3 costumed crime fighters named Samuel, Anjelica and Gregory who take up the Musketeer name to fight criminalsin Paris. This would've potentially served as a backdoor pilot for a modern interpretation of the classic story by Alexandre Dumas.

Prequels

I had planned to do a number of prequel stories focusing on characters outside of Jack Frost and Fira. These included how Jerome met Stacey in college, how Jerome and Dan's childhood was like, how Orson used his intelligence to bypass school, how crime in Braidsville became an all time high by the time Jerome became mayor and many more. One prequel in particular would've focused on a costumed crime fighter known as the Boppin Butcher and it would've been about an aging diabetic hero fighting a giant cobra before finishing it off in a warehouse. This warehouse is the birthplace of Jacoba and Hayden as well as 10 other kids with powers. As the warehouse is crumbling due to the damage of the battle, the Boppin Butcher holds the debris up with all his strength, saving the infants. A couple driving by sees the struggling hero and it's revealed to be Jerome and Stacey. They take two babies (Hayden and Jacoba) before F.A.C.E. arrives to take the rest. They try to save the Boppin Butcher, but he insists that they just save the babies as his strength is starting to fail. Once the last infant is safely secured, the Boppin Butcher's strength finally gives in and the debris crushes him. This would've been told by Jerome and Stacey to a young Jacoba and Hayden. This also would've confirmed the existence of other kids with extraordinary powers.

The Futurian Kingdom Event

This was going to be an unprecedented event for Jack Frost and Fira. The Futurian Kingdom was meant to be set up early on via Easter eggs and allusions. It would've culminated in an epic saga in which our heroes face their most powerful opponent yet: Queen Vanessa Wilmot. This event would've had drama, shocking revelations, deaths, some comedy, social commentary and a gigantic climax in which Jack Frost and Fira team up with the villains from their rogues gallery to combat the Futurian army.