An Animated Mind For Animated Times

Giving words to all those little things we wondered, glued in front of the screen when we were young. A few cartoon-ified thoughts from a prospective sscreenwriter A. I. Ricco, to befit the best the animation world has to offer!

[animatedminds]

Stuff I Found Interesting About the Maul Season Finale that No One is Really Mentioning

It's interesting that the episode reminds us Lawson and Vario have a history. Vario's been so Maul-centric this season that I almost forgot he and Vario were old respectful adversaries and Lawson initially tried to help him. I wonder if, in being one of the only two people who knew Lawson on the escape barge, he's going to be someone Rylee tries to reach out to next season. He and Two-Boots would make an interesting shoulder devil and angel dynamic.

---- When Spybot dies, Maul reacts with fury. But what hit me was when Maul reacts with Fury, we get a shot of Two-Boots being taken aback. I like to think it's because Two-Boots wasn't expecting someone like Maul to care about a droid.

---- Maul's relationship with the Jedi characters was interesting to the last. Since Maul's the kind of person who constantly lies to himself, I wonder in retrospect if he was almost genuinely starting to appreciate cooperation with them - rather than merely appearing that way - up until that last moment. Him being "yeah, we'll need to get rid of him eventually, but show the man some respect" about Daki, in particular, was compelling. He's got a complicated perception of the Jedi these days, but then it's Maul and he's got a complicated perception of everybody who isn't Sidious or Kenobi. When I say Maul constantly lies to himself, I mean that my read on him is that he's someone who says he cares about people, and even actually someone believes he cares about people, up until the moment its "me or them" and he chooses murder or betrayal rather than self-risk. It's interesting to see those moments like where Spybot dies, where he genuinely mourns someone, but then you have to think that if circumstances required him to kill Spybot himself to succeed he probably would've.

----

Speaking of Rylee, it's interesting that everything ends with he and Devon going through almost exactly the same loss. I'd guess compare and contrast between the two as they react in similar or contrasting ways is going to be a major thing in the second season. ---- May the Fourth!

[tobiasdrake]

In the centuries following the War of the Ring, it became common for adventurers embarking on journeys to bring along at least one hobbit for the trip.

Not because they had any practical use for a hobbit, mind. Past hobbit-related successes had simply put it in everybody's minds that having a hobbit along is a surefire key to success.

Adventurers would simply swing by the Shire, pick up the nearest gardening hobbit, tuck them under-arm, and walk off to adventure.

[tobiasdrake]

In an effort to keep the adventurers out of the Shire, discussing has begun about putting up a fence.

[animatedminds]

I'm starting to think it would be a marvelous twist if in the end Devon didn't turn to the dark side but Daki did, and she stayed firm to the Jedi spirit while he gets broken by the events and turns to Maul. Not likely, don't get me wrong, but the possibility is there - Daki is clearly more motivated by fear than he's willing to admit.

[animatedminds]

The best thing about Maul is that he's always, at all times, inches away from an epiphany. He comes so close to growing as a person, but always sabotages himself before he can get that far, and always makes himself miserable in the end. Unrelated, but did his moment in The Creeping Fear remind anyone else of that Eustace moment from Courage the Cowardly Dog? "Where's your hat?"

[animatedminds]

On Maul - Shadow Lord

I think my favorite parts of Maul - Shadow Lord are honestly those personal moments where Maul just... talks to people.

Mostly because it's been a consistent thing with the character for the last few years that he has a shocking capacity for wisdom that he's simply never internalizing, and thus he always comes so close to actualizing and breaking through to something stronger but misses the mark. Even when he himself is introducing real lessons, he often fails to understand those lessons himself.

Maul's conversation with Lawson, in particular, was one of my favorites that isn't being as noticed as the other great conversations he has in the last few episodes (those being the ones with Devon and Daki). The bit that hit me, really, was the bit where Lawson refuses his offer and Maul seems to truly understand why he made the choice, even if it's a disappointment and against his own wishes, and yet in the end it nevertheless comes down to "be controlled by me, or be dead" and nothing else - this also resonates with his conversation with Devon as well, and later it's an issue with him and Ezra Bridger. It's really compelling that Maul's respect for others and understanding towards their decisions even if they don't align with it - at least at this stage of his life - seems genuine, but yet he's still unable to truly engage with that respect whilst still in the shadow of his desire for domination.

So often he comes off as coming from a genuine place when he talks about how awful the Empire is and how similar and unfair his and the Jedi's fates have become and how working together rather than fighting each other is the only way they'll survive and succeed, it's just he can't bring himself not to use that truth as a means of manipulation rather than as grounding to build something real. He almost empathizes, but ultimately chooses manipulation. Which in his every appearance, is precisely what sabotages everything he tries to do.

Which is really leading to the big irony of this show: Maul is surrounded by people in this series that he could so easily be genuine allies with, if he just wasn't being the person he's so fixated on being. He's the thing keeping success out of his own grasp, but he never understands that. Just like with Savage. Just like - later - with Ezra.

This show really emphasizes how learning Maul's ideology and taking in his lessons, but without retaining his vindictiveness and self-destructive obsession with revenge, would result in a character like how Qi'ra grew to be (as seen in the Star Wars comics, particularly Crimson Reign): a character who retains that self-destructive inclination towards manipulation and domination (which, like, Maul, ultimately sabotages all her efforts), but who genuinely does believe and work towards a positive world that betters both herself and others whereas Maul says he wants that be always discards it in favor of his selfish desires.

[teflonly]

[nerdgerhl]

I feel like there are probably too many people just scrolling past this so let’s go through everything that’s going on here. 

1. With Roger’s voice actor standing off camera, Bob Hoskins acts into empty air and frantically sawing at his handcuff, continually looking up and down at different visual marks of various depths. Look at the slow pan up of his eyes in gif 4, and then the quick shift to his side. Think about how, on set, he was looking at nothing. 

2. Starting in gif 2, The box must be made to stop shaking, either by concealed crew member, mechanism, or Hoskins own dextrousness, as he is doing all of the things mentioned in point 1. 

3. In all gifs, Roger’s handcuff has to be made to move appropriately through a hidden mechanism. (If you watch the 4th gif closely you can see the split second where it is replaced by an animated facsimile of the actual handcuff, but just for barely a second.)

4. The crew voluntarily (we know this because it is now a common internal phrase at Disney for putting in extra work for small but significant reward) decided to make Roger bump the lamp and give the entire scene a constantly moving light source that had to be matched between the on set footage and Roger. This was for two reasons, A) Robert Zemeckis thought it would be funnier, and B) one of the key techniques the crew employed to make the audience instinctually accept that Toons coexisted with the live action environment was constant interaction with it. This is why, other than comedy, Roger is so dang clumsy. Instead of isolating Toons from real objects to make it easier for themselves, the production went out of its way to make Toons interact more with the live action set than even real actors necessarily would, in order to subtly, constantly remind the audience that they have real palpable presence. You can watch the whole scene here, just to see how few shots there are of Roger where he doesn’t interact with a real object. 

The crew and animators did all of this with hand drawn cell animation without computerized special effects. 1988, we were still five years out from Jurassic Park, the first movie to make the leap from fully physical creature effects to seamlessly integrating realistic computer generated images with live action footage. Roger’s shadows weren’t done with CGI. Hoskin’s sightlines were not digitally altered. Wires controlling the handcuff were not removed in post. 

Who fucking Framed Roger fucking Rabbit, folks. The greatest trick is when people don’t realize you’re tricking them at all. 

[thegrumpiestoldman-deactivated2]

This movie will be studied and analyzed and revered and worshipped for generations because, not only of the ground breaking techniques they used to make the magic happen but, for those of us that grew up with Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry, for 2 hours we were able to believe that they all really existed.

This is one if the LAST great movies that was ever made.

[benpaddon]

Let’s also not forget that writing. “Only when it was funny” isn’t just hilarious, it’s great comedy theory. It lampshades the joke, but also serves to remind the viewer that Toons have a separate set of physical laws they adhere to, mostly revolving around comedic value. Roger cannot remove his hand from the cuffs… until it’d get a laugh from an audience.

Everything about this movie, EVERYTHING about it, is so finely crafted. I could wax lyrical about it for days.

[magnetic-maverick]

@murdercide626

[cobaltstarling]

@aparticularbandit

[aparticularbandit]

One of the very few occasions where the movie more than exceeds the book.

[tobiasdrake]

Why is it everytime i watch a video on "shonen power systems" it becomes incredibly apparent no one knows what their talking about?! "Power systems in battle shonen are supposed to add fairness and show that anyone can be powerful if they train hard enough" *extremely loud incorrect buzzer* It wasn't that way in Dragon Ball and it wasn't that way in it's gajillion copycats, otherwise Goten and Trunks wouldn't be born Super Saiyans and would have to start from scratch like everyone else. These powers only exist for 2 things, enabling cool action scenes and displaying character cleverness and personality. That's it! I think that people hear "power system" and immediately think RPGs, and now i understand why isekai became so popular.

Shonen power systems are like magic systems. It can be fun to explore the nitty-gritty details but at the end of the day, what decides the outcome of a fight is story and character writing. The Stan Lee Corollary applies here: "The winner of the fight is whoever I, the writer, want to win the fight."

That said, I think part of the reason people struggle to really grasp shonen power systems is that we tend to come at it from an Americanized comprehension of power. This is a distinction I've brought up a few times before but the difference in our conceptions of superpowers is the same as the difference in our conceptions of weapons.

-> To Americans, a weapon is an external object that bestows power. To possess a weapon is to be gifted with the ability to do violence. Anyone can pick up a gun and shoot someone; It is the gun that holds all the power.

Spider-Man is bit by a spider and that spider gives him powers. He has the ability to do all of these things because he was so fortunate as to have power bestowed upon him. His powers are a privilege granted to him, and his philosophy is all about what you do when fortune and random chance makes you so powerful.

-> In Japan, a weapon is an extension of the self. It is the wielder who is powerful, and the weapon is the means by which they express their strength. The sword by itself is limited in its capacity to do harm; It requires the deft hand of a master to become truly formidable.

Son Goku is a martial artist whose powers are an expression of his journey of self-improvement. Goku hones his art, building his mastery of his body, his mind, and his understanding of his place in the universe both physically and spiritually. And as he does, his powers increase and his technical master of them develops.

But neither of these things is absolute. Spider-Man's powers were given to him by someone else, but he's also a tech-savvy super-genius. His battles are often decided by his strategic thinking and technological inventions, which are absolutely expressions of his self rather than privileges given to him.

Son Goku is a martial artist, but he's also a super-alien gifted by physical and mental advantages that give him a leg-up on the competition. His art develops at an incredibly fast pace compared to the humans around him because of the privileges he was born into.

It's complicated. So while it can be said that Spider-Man's powers were given to him and Goku worked for his, neither fully reflects the totality of these two characters. And yet, on some level, you can still see a clear distinction between how Spider-Man's relationship with his powers works and how Goku's does.

A really interesting example that straddles this line is the way bending works in Avatar: The Last Airbender, and how it quietly changed in Legend of Korra even though on the surface, the basic details are the same: Sometimes people are born able to shoot fire out of their lungs.

It would not be correct to say that bending is strictly a martial art that you can learn through study and practice. If you aren't born to the right ethnic heritage, you won't have it. A Water Tribe baby isn't going to be able to Earthbend no matter how hard they practice. Even if you are born to the right heritage, you still might not have it.

It also would not be correct to say that bending is strictly an inherited superpower that requires no effort whatsoever to learn. A Firebender isn't born able to shoot lightning from their hands. A Waterbender isn't going to uncontrollably bloodbend everyone around them until they learn how to control their bloodbending abilities.

ATLA sits right on the dividing line where Inherited Power and Martial Art meet. You must have the right genetic components in order to begin to study bending. An untrained bender is no different from a nonbender; If you don't understand the underlying philosophies, don't know the movements, lack the spiritual and emotional discipline, etc. then you aren't bending shit.

The ability to bend an element at all is a privilege, but every bender's powers are nonetheless an expression of their own personal journey, the development of their art, and their relationship to the element they bend. Or elements, in the case of the Avatar.

LOK shifts the dial all the way over to Inherited Power. Everyone's bending abilities are turned on full-blast from the moment they're born. Martial arts and discipline still exist, but in the way that the X-Men train to control their powers and not accidentally barbecue everyone around them with laser eyes.

Meelo farts huge gusts of airbending. Korra was able to bend three elements as a toddler but couldn't bend air until a switch was flipped in her brain and those powers got turned on, at which point she was an instant master of it. Anybody can lightningbend, it's not special. Bolin can't metalbend because he's actually a lavabender; He has different superpowers, and once he realizes that, he can lavabend at a master level instantly.

You can even see it in the conflicting stories of where bending came from. ATLA tells a story of how the original masters studied various creatures and the way they move with the elements, and from that study were able to form the building blocks of what would become bending.

LOK tells a story of how ancient god-entities used to gift bending to humans, like handing rifles to hunters as they go out in the field and then taking the rifles back when they come home. But then the god-entities left and they let the humans keep their rifles.

In the broad strokes, it's the same power system in both shows. There are four elements, people are born able to bend one, the Avatar can bend them all, sometimes people learn specialty subsets like bloodbending or metalbending or lightningbending. But LOK westernized its presentation, its mechanical details, and the relationship that the characters have with their disciplines.

And the end result is a show that feels very different from its predecessor in ways that aren't always easy to put a finger on.

[sunset-gal]

My problem is the general discourse surrounding "power/magic systems" in fandom and how they generalize them across media and ignore their purpose in each individual story. I don't even like the term "power system", you wouldn't call IRL martial arts a "violence system", and like you said most shows' powers can be divided into supetnatural/magical arts and superpowers. Ki from Dragon Ball is supernatural arts, Stands from Jojo's Bizare Adventure is superpowers. Yu-yu Hakusho- supernatural arts, My Hero Academia- superpowers. There are outliers sure (Naruto is both) but you know what i mean. The use of "system" kinda strips away it's individual value to a story and reduces to a trope or a ruleset while also somehow elevating it to a ridiculous level of prestige. It goes beyond people imagining themselves in the story or talking about which one is cooler and reaches the point of people criticizing it as an entity seperate from the story and talking about how the best "power systems" do this and that, trying to impose strict rules onto the narrative. It's infuriating as someone who spend the last year and a half breaking down the symbolism of Digimon evolution in two now three series.😠

[tobiasdrake]

In general, fandom tends to be eager to categorize because breaking things down into boxes makes the surface-level elements easier to engage with.

For example, when making your own fan works, it's easier to paint within the lines if you have a clear understanding of where the lines are.

It's also easier to criticize others for painting outside those lines. For instance, the myriad criticisms levied at Korra as a character for being too powerful as a little baby compared to Aang. It's a criticism with isn't wrong but misses the forest for the trees; It writes off Korra as simply a "bad character" and overlooks the broader criticism that the nature of bending itself has changed in the sequel show.

There is a desire to believe that art has rules, because rules are easy to grasp. That there are certain correct ways to tell a story, or certain correct ways to build a world, or certain correct ways to design a character, or certain correct ways to write powers. That creativity can be fit into boxes.

Because categorizing magic systems is easier to get your head around than trying to grasp what it means that the curtains are blue in this scene. Whether Thor is physically stronger than the Hulk is something you can try to quantify. Something you can measure out with facts and logic and reason.

That the Arc Reactor killing Obadiah Stane represents the new corporate direction of clean energy production annihilating the specter of defense contracting and liberating Stark Industries from the sins of its past is something you really have to sit and think about. There's no yardstick you can use to measure symbolic meaning or artistic intent.

You might even be wrong. There's no proof that can be offered. No equation you can plug into a calculator to determine what was meant by the Arc Reactor exploding.

And that's scary. And hard.

It's far easier to treat art as a science, something that can be observed and categorized and measured and studied and quantified. Something that has clear answers, where someone can be provably right or provably wrong.

The alternative, that art is an entirely subjective expression of thoughts and ideas, that the things that happen are not driven by in-universe causality but by thematic expression and artist intent, that the fates of entire characters are decided not by whether their choices were pragmatically smart but by what message is being served by their existence? That's a harder and more demanding prospect.

[animatedminds]

In a world of fandoms way too wrapped up in power scaling, notes and examinations like this are a breath of fresh air.

[millenniumfae-artblog]

From Snow White’s cherry-red lipstick to the balloon sleeves on Ariel’s wedding gown, every Disney princess reflects the trends of their debut era, even though many of them take place during some nebulous history period. 

[animatedminds]

Animated Minds’ Guide To Making a Christmas Carol Knockoff (Or remake, or whatever)

I’m back, after months, even years, of inaction. And I plan to post more and more in the future, but first a capper on the holiday season with one of my favorite stories.

One of my holiday traditions, maybe even my only personal tradition just on my own, is A Christmas Carol. I love the story, a classic story of redemption. I love watching different takes on it, all those different version be they weird and strange or rigid and traditional. Every year, when they come back on tv, I try to watch at least a few.

But like most stories that are remade over and over again by Hollywood, there’s going to be some clunkers and not-so-good versions. The Christmas Carol in particular seems to attract copycats, which isn’t on it’s own a bad thing, but if you’re copying a story yet don’t get what makes the story work… well… let’s just say there’s a few versions out there that screw it up. Sturgeon’s Law and all: 10% of most things is great, the rest is better left to Christmas past.

So, mostly for fun, I decided to put together my own little list of things that most poor versions of the story mess up on, and why they shouldn’t be messed up. Even great versions do some of these, but they’re some of my favorite things about the story when done right. This is obviously pretty nerdy, and it’s going to get a bit nitpicky I’m sure, but bear with me. It’s the details that make the story great.

* First and foremost: this is in no way about me slamming anyone making weird and niche versions of the story. It’s one of the most applicable stories out there - if you can fit it to the characters you want, more power to you. Just make sure it works. If you want it to be funny rather than meaningful, just make sure the jokes land. If you want it to be as silly as possible, own it. Just keep the heart there. If these things get changed, even stuff I’m about to say, that’s Rule #1:l it only ever needs is to be replaced with something that works just as well. * That said, let’s move on. The biggest note here that instantly proves a poor version: Scrooge is not on trial just for hating Christmas, nor for being irritable. He’s not even specifically on trial just for not being charitable. He’s being judged because his greed and indifference are actively harmful to both himself and the people around him. If you don’t do that, then the whole thing feels like it’s undeserved. * Context is important for that. As a greedy money lender and landlord in the Victorian era, his negative impact on the world around him is obvious if you know the context (remember that A Christmas Carol was in large part an indictment of the society of Dickens’ time), but that context isn’t as well known to people nowadays. That leads sometimes to viewers assuming Scrooge is being indicted simply for moralistic reasons. If you have to add a scene or two to make the fact that Scrooge actively makes life worse for the people he affects clearer to the audience, go ahead. The 1984 version, for example, adds a nice part where Scrooge trades in essential goods (specifically, the only cheap foodstuffs that the poor can afford), but gouges the price horribly until those who pay it are well out of pocket. That’s the kind of thing he’s being judged for. * As a note, don’t overdo it with “bah, humbug.” Yes, it’s an iconic line. No, Scrooge doesn’t actually say it all that much. Dial it back. Looking at you specifically, 2018. * Bob Cratchit is there to show the effects Scrooge’s ignorance: Scrooge is the richest man in the setting, yet his most essential employee can barely make it by or take care of his family despite all the toil he puts in. Do try not to portray Bob as a bumpkin or a lazy bum. * People don’t really screw up Marley that often, so I don’t really have to say anything about him. * Scrooge is not being scared into changing. Yes, Marley is scary. Yes, Yet to Come is unnerving. But he’s changing because he wants to. Each of the ghosts contributes to this want, and Scrooge’s temperament should generally shift in three ways, at least imo: ** In meeting the Ghost of Christmas Past, Scrooge should come realize/acknowledge that he has made mistakes. ** In meeting the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge should come to realize that he wants to change, even if he’s not sure how. ** In meeting the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, Scrooge then should realize that he needs to change. * On that note, the spirits are all kind - yes, even Yet To Come. They are there to help Scrooge. That doesn’t necessarily mean they like him. Don’t be afraid to not pull punches or try too hard to make them too saintly, unless of course that’s the kind of story you want. * Scrooge’s nephew Fred is there to show that Scrooge could have love and tenderness in his life if he so chose: he doesn’t have to be alone, and in fact being with others is easy for him, yet he rejects it. His later scenes are often cut, which loses something. HIs scene in the Present shows that yes, there’s happiness going on and Scrooge is missing out. It’s not just about Fred making fun of Scrooge because he rejected him (pretty much my single, sole complaint about the Muppet version). * On that note, don’t forget about Fen. I think a lot of filmmakers decide she’s superfluous with Scrooge’s fiancée also in the mix, and to an extent there’s a point there (films can only have so much space) but the hypocrisy of Scrooge fondly remembering her but being a jackass to her son is a good thing to keep. * Speaking of which, another thing often cut out is the scenes in Present and Future showing regular folk not of the main set of characters, either enjoying or suffering on Christmas. A prevailing theme throughout is that Scrooge’s actions, and his world, have effects on far more than just himself, and that mankind is his business: again, the time constraints of film are noted, but try to add at least one scene of a poor family eking by, or one of Scrooge’s downtrodden clients celebrating that he’s dead. Scrooge’s change hits more if the world reacts to it. * The Ghost of Christmas Present is jolly, yes. He’s not Santa Claus. Don’t portray him as Santa Claus unless you’re doing it on purpose and dedicating the entirety of the segment to the tenderness Scrooge is missing (this is what the Muppets did for instance, and it works well there because that version of the story is written around it). Otherwise, the Clive Donner version - jolly, compassionate and loving to those, yet stern, sarcastic and utterly pitiless to Scrooge himself - is the golden example. * On that note, don’t forget about Ignorance and Want. The worst image of humanity’s sins, and all that. It’s a shocking moment that’s meant to sum up what Scrooge leans in the Present segment. * It bears repeating that the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come isn’t evil, and isn’t actually trying to kill Scrooge. He’s only showing things that Scrooge has done to himself and others. If given the choice, having Scrooge fall onto his grave himself is always better than having the spirit throw him there. * Do not cut out the part where Scrooge’s home has been ransacked (by his housekeeper, but even the best versions cut that detail out) and his possessions cruelly sold off. Also, as I said before keep at least one scene where someone speaks of how happy or uncaring they is that he’s dead. The atmosphere around Scrooge’s ignominious fate, and his denial about how people think of him after death, is what the entire part is actually about. * This pretty great Books Vs Movies comparison on Youtube makes a good point about the order of events. As I said, the segment is about Scrooge and what happens to him after death: start with that, and interrupt that with the news that Tiny Tim is dead. That’s supposed to be the capper: Scrooge looks for an escape from the truth, and only finds more awful even when it’s not specifically about him. * The “Scrooge has changed” segment is pretty by numbers, so I don’t have much nitpicking about it. Just always follow up with stuff that happened in the beginning. * This is less something that bugs me about some versions and more something that I love about some versions: my favorite part of the “Scrooge has changed” scenes in any version is the bit in the Muppets version where the collectors for the poor (played by Beaker and Honeydew) give him a gift and almost move Scrooge to tears. Followed closely by a really small moment in the Clive Donner version where Fred and his wife make it clear that Scrooge being with them has made them happy. Scrooge realizing how good it feels not just to give love, but to share love and have it shared with you, can make a very wonderful moment - even the original story doesn’t really focus on that towards the end.

And that’s it. Probably a few things I missed, but meh. I wanted to get this out before the New Year, lol. Hope I brought up a few things that people might notice and love as well next year.

I was able to see a few versions this season. Mostly my two favorites: the Clive Donner / George Scott version, and the Muppet version. Didn’t get around to seeing Scrooged though - it’s my favorite modernization.

As for new versions, I caught the one that came out this year by Zoghogg Studios, and I’d more or less recommend it to those who like the story. It’s a modernization that puts it into present day Scotland (or at least within the last few years), and I found myself liking almost everything about it - a bit heavy handed at times, but the atmosphere, the scenes and how they chose to adapt them, the new things they added, most of it was pretty great - except the guy playing Scrooge. Be it the writing, the acting, or most likely some combination of both, he just didn’t work: instead of talking like a person, he basically just yelled BAH HUMBUG at everything and incessantly bragged about how rich he was. And while everyone else’s dialogue was modernized well and very casual, his speech was all over the place, he’s the only one with original Dickens lines and so sometimes sounds like he’s reciting while people are talking regularly, that is when he isn’t screaming at the top of his lungs. He felt like a parody, except the whole thing was totally serious.

But otherwise, I’d watch it again. It had a fun twist where Scrooge was actually a young(ish) man, and the “nephew) was actually his Uncle, giving him the potential to find love again and changing the kind of man he is in the backstory, which is a neat idea more versions should do.

But that’s just me rambling on. Hope you guys had a wonderful holiday season and are set to be hopeful this New Year, as always. It’d be cliche to end on Tiny Tim, so I won’t. I’ll just say, let’s all walk among our fellow men and women and everything in between this year, if we can help it.

See you folks soon!

[animatedminds]

It's the Christmas season again, so I guess it's time for another reminder of how to make a decent Christmas Carol knockoff. Just doing my part to make sure the Ghosts of Christmas get their due!

[animatedminds]

Gumball Season 7 Random Thoughts

Watched the latest season of Gumball, a show I've always thought was up there as one of Cartoon Network's (Hulu now, I guess) greatest alongside Dexter, Courage and the Powerpuffs. The season's awesome, and I had a bunch of random thoughts pop into my head that I thought I'd jot down.

"The Astrological" is instantly one of my favorite episodes in the show, up there with "The Scam." The show is at its best when the situation just devolves into condensed chaos and Gumball and co both go along with it while being just sane enough to realize things are getting too nuts.

They leaned back into "Gumball, Darwin and Richard are the cause of all the family's problems" a bit this season, after walking back on it a bit in the last couple seasons.

Likewise, they leaned back into "Nicole kind of low key hates her family" as a joke, which got downplayed a bit in later season as well. I don't know if I like either choice much.

"The Gourmet" isn't just a great semi-sequel to "The Fury," it has one of my favorite occasional jokes/moments: when we see that Gumball is way more like Nicole (and vice versa) than it seems.

Kind of interesting that they also leaned into a "Anais is a smart person, so she's an inventor who makes wacky creations like robots" when that was never really a thing with her before. It's the Penny Gadget pipeline: if you're a smart person in a long running kids series, eventually you're going to be building robots.

It never really hit me until The Amadain that there's been a slow trickle towards Penny having a bit of a mean-spirited sense of humor as the series went on. Don't have a problem with it. It makes her scenes with Gumball and Tobias more fun, and it beats her just being exasperated all the time.

Speaking of The Amadain, that's two shows for kids in the last few years that have had a Midsommar (very much not for kids) inspired episode (the other being Amphibia). Just funny to notice. Two nickels and all that.

I love how whenever Frankie shows up he's either surprisingly heartwarming or pure evil, and his latest appearance has him be both at once.

I hope Carrie gets an episode that's not specifically about the romance. Not that "The Letter" is bad at all - it's another one of my favorites - but the best thing about the character is that she can do both wacky hijinks and romance stuff (and again, "The Scam" is my favorite episode, and did have her do both). Penny too, tbh. I liked how she was included in the regular supporting cast in "The Climb."

Richard is apparently one-quarter chicken.

Principal Brown being a complete menace who should under no circumstances be in charge of a school is one of my favorite running gags in the series.

Them having a literal "eat the rich" message at the end of the first episode was just... *chef's kiss.*

That's most of the big thoughts that really stuck. This is the usual streaming animation thing of only being half of the overall intended season, and I really hope what comes next comes next fast, cause this show is great and deserves all the content.

This was the most gorgeous season yet, and you can tell all the heart that went in the show the first time around is still there.

[animatedminds]

Saw The Live Action How To Train Your Dragon

A pretty great rendition of a pretty perfect story. They didn't change the story much (like, 90% of the dialogue is identical) which isn't necessarily either a perk nor a fault in my opinion. However, it is worth noting it leans into a strength due to the original script being - in my opinion - one of the strongest scripts from an animated film that I can recall (hyperbolic, I know, but I do genuinely feel that's the case). It's an extremely solid narrative, and thus easy to translate into a new telling while retaining the strength of that narrative - that is, the ball is in the adapters court to fail, and they didn't. Besides the things this movie has to say not just about not letting tradition and prejudice rule your morality, but also about how terrible conditional love is no matter the ways those doing it try to justify it (man, it's crazy remembering the rest of the franchise and how far the characters came, and going back to the first movie's story and remembering how terrible a dad Stoick once was), are just as if not more important and meaningful now as they were when the first game out. Something I always look for in a live action remake is whether the film uses the live action medium in a worthwhile way when remaking the story and its visuals, and... yeah. Nobody told me before going in that the action sequences would be this good, folks. People ought to be talking more about how well choreographed this movie is. And plus the film is gorgeous.

It's colorful and vibrant, the costumes and the sets are a delight to look at, and when they chose to change the appearance of somethings they made sure to do so in a way that were likewise a delight. As a fan of good visuals, nearly all of the dragon designs made me lean forward in my seat.

In short, loved it. Recommended.

[kurhanchyk]

the most annoying people are people who don't understand storytelling. they be like "oooo how convenient that this thing happened to the main character in the very beginning". yeah no shit. that's why the story begins here

[tobiasdrake]

It's always important to frame your thinking around the fact that the protagonist isn't just some person. They're someone who was deemed worthy of telling a story about.

"This is the story of Bob, a farmer. Bob was out tending his crops one day when SUDDENLY he got swept up in events that would bring about the end of the galactic empire!? What are the odds!?"

No. Try again.

"This is the story of the person who brought about the end of the galactic empire. This is who the story is about, and it would only have been about this person. He started out his life as a meager farmer named Bob."

There we go.

Just because the story begins on a farm, that doesn't mean this is supposed to be a farming documentary.

[animatedminds]

Extend this to when people try to insist power scaling is more important than narrative, as well.

"How ridiculous is it that this guy from the middle of nowhere was about to outwit Jacked Mcbufferson using his established flaws and defeat him without being stronger than a freight train. I hate it when the plot gives characters wins!"

Duh. That's because it is a plot, stories tend to be about overcoming insurmountable odds, and the whole point of making characters strong is for the intrigue of finding fun ways to circumvent that strength. It's a feature, not a bug.

[animatedminds]

A Quick Annoyed Reaction To The Lilo & Stitch Backlash

I just drafted a whole lengthy post ranting about this and explaining why a lot of this backlash is getting offensive, and maybe I'll post it if someone wants to see it. But mostly I decided to dial it back and just vent off steam. The short of it is, as someone who's been in the support system of single or troubled parents almost this exact situation, the things people are trying to claim about the ending are not as positive as they seem to think they are. I don't really care that the film is different. I myself don't have much interest in seeing it. But the things I'm seeing the fanbase say, on the other hand... It's actually increasingly skewing towards outright demonization of single parenthood and the kinds of decisions and sacrifices single parents make - I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and presuming without realizing it - and I've spent the last few hours increasingly exasperated as the nostalgia brigade tries to speak for experiences that aren't theirs. People are out there taking a very real, very difficult and honestly often very positive, decision single parents make every day in regards to their children and their hopefully strong and positive support systems, and trying to claim it's something amoral and horrible and the opposite of what it actually is, just for the sake of weaponizing it against a remake of a film they enjoyed when they were kids - and it's frankly that's not a good look.

[animatedminds]

In Which Thunderbolts* Hits A Bit Of Animated Nostalgia

Without going too much into spoilers, was anyone else distinctly reminded of a certain Samurai Jack episode during the climax to Thunderbolts*?

I was, and it had me grinning ear to ear.

[animatedminds]

The Day The Earth Blew Up

Oh, people call me Daffy They think that I am goony But just because I'm happy Is no sign I'm looney tooney! Went to go see The Day The Earth Blew Up - spoiler alert, it's great and you should go watch it - a few days ago, and really wanted to give myself a minute to put thoughts together enough to make a post about it. This is really the little movie that could, left to pull itself up by its own bootstraps when its home company wasn't interested in it - and helped across the finish line by the little studio that could. Praise for bringing us this movie rightly goes to Ketchup Entertainment, and always should: getting this made and released, let alone marketed on top of that even the little bit it is has been, must have been an enormous hassle and a huge gamble, and one I sincerely hope pays off for the studio. They deserve it, and animators could always use more safe havens out there.

Onto the movie itself. Now, I'm a huge classic Looney Tunes fan, with pre-Jones (Clampett, McKimson, and others in between) Daffy Duck in particular being my favorite. So even if I weren't locked in to support the animators and studio, this would've been an instant watch just for that. This film draws largely from Porky and Daffy cartoons, naturally, but in particular their run of "two roommates" cartoons like Porky & Daffy, Porky's Last Stand and Porky Pig's Feat. To be the most precise of all, this movie is an evolution from Looney Tunes Cartoons - the most recent major Looney Tunes television series which aired in the last decade - with much of the same production team, and which also drew mostly from that era for its depiction of Daffy and Porky.

This was a very good pick for a number of reasons, but the reason that really wowed me the most was in the narrative. This movie wasn't just fighting to get itself released, it was also a risky experiment in a kind of storytelling Looney Tunes has never done before. This is as far as I can recall the first ever Looney Tunes feature in theaters that solely starred Looney Tunes characters and their worlds, without filling the space with guest stars or live action characters like Space Jam or Back In Action, filling the space with cartoon reruns like The Looney Looney Looney Bugs Bunny Movie, or using the Looney Tunes characters to fill for other existing characters like Bah Humduck.

This movie had to answer the tough question: "can these characters that were created to work within seven minute shorts carry over an hour of story?" Looney Tunes has always been a franchise about trying new things and reinventing themselves in new ways. They needed to eventually ask this question. And the answer is... they can, and pretty well, actually. Porky and Daffy's classic dynamic are a good pick for that because they are a very archetypical duo. One is sensible, but naive and easily overwhelmed. One is off kilter and destructive to the other's plans, but also driven and a doer who makes action happen. This is a classic character duo concept that is pretty tried and true: maybe of all the Looney Tunes characters and their dynamics, it might be the best starting point for a film like this (though this wasn't actually the first attempt, but more the attempt that actually made it to the light of day), because it's one that traditionally works.

And work it does. It's the building block on which the plot is able to deliver structure, while still maintaining a world where everyone is as Looney and off-kilter as you can expect from a Looney Tunes production. Their number one ally is a brilliant scientist who is obsessed with tasting things like sponges and rock shavings. Their nemesis is an alien whose master plan involves world domination through bubble gum (played by Peter MacNicol and man do I miss him as Doctor Octopus). Things get weird. And they get weird while actually building endearing character arcs in a way you wouldn't expect for characters like Porky and Daffy that still neverthess work perfectly for Porky and Daffy. In the classic Porky and Daffy set up, Daffy is a screwup, one who drags Porky into insane situations and usually blows things up instead of fixing them. And the movie leans into this, exploring how and why they still work as a pair and as friends despite this, having an actual emotional core without getting so serious that it loses the core that these guys are here to make you laugh.

Visually, this movie is great as well. It's an offschoot of a television series, so there's a bit of more simplified character designs than you might be expecting, but it utilizes those rather than acts in spite of them, making the simple but exaggerated designs a part of the humor and adding a gorgeously vibrant color palate and sense of background and setting to make the whole thing really a treat to look at. And this is just a random note, but you'd expect a Looney Tunes movie to be very cameo heavy, as well. Both Back in Action and Space Jam, though pretty great imo, both leaned heavily into the "hey look guys, it's Tweety / Granny / etc" or "haha! Bugs is doing the Rabbit Season bit again! remember that?" vibes. But this film surprisingly has very little of that. There's cameos and references, don't get me wrong, but it's mostly to older, more historical Looney Tunes characters like Gabby Goat and Buddy (the one that hit me the most is outright obscure, as one the main characters from my favorite Daffy Duck cartoon - A Pest In The House - is a recurring background character). I know some people were disappointed that the alien villain in this wasn't Marvin the Martian. But looking at what they made in the end, I get it. That isn't the kind of thing they wanted to do with this film, it stuck to its guns on that, and I love the film for it.

Now, like with any comedy - any movie, for that matter - there's a couple things that didn't hit me as well. A few jokes here and there that didn't land as well as the others, but that's to be expected. This is a nitpick, but I wish the very last punchline of the film had a bit more set up earlier on to call back to, just to really push the humr of it. And plotwise, without getting into any actual spoilers there's a pretty major shift in the climax of the film that I found myself wishing hit the movie a bit earlier than it did. But that's about it. It's a pretty darn good movie, and I'll almost certainly be seeing it again in theatres if it doesn't get pulled early. I said it before, but go watch this film! Not just because it deserves support, but because it's fun. Watch it if you're a Looney Tunes fan. Watch it if you're an animation fan. Watch it if you're a comedy fan. Watch it if you just love to laugh and aren't self-conscious about laughing at something silly. Because silly it is, and that's why we love it. I'm hoping more Looney Tunes projects see the light of day, but it's not looking likely. I'm hoping more Porky & Daffy content gets made, but that doesn't look likely either. So I'm going to enjoy the hell out of this while I can, and I recommend you do as well. Now you know why I'm dizzy And do the things I do I am askew and you'd be too If the Merry Go Round Broke Down

[animatedminds]

Moana 2: Immediate Reaction

Saw the Moana sequel, a lot of what I felt about the movie has already been said, so rather than a review as much I'll start with something fun I liked that nobody brings up. I know this sort of thing is hit or miss with some fans (no pun intended), but the way the adventure got a tad more slapstick even in comparison for the first one (which already liked its slapstick), while not overshadowing how effective the characters were, was very fun. Especially around Moana herself, who might have taken Rapunzel's place as the most slapstick Disney Princess heroine. Moana's practically got Jackie Chan protag vibes in the sequel: extremely capable and badass, but also extremely unlucky and accident prone in a way that's constantly messing with them yet doesn't hold them back. I've always liked the joke of highly unlucky yet still badass characters, so that made me smile a lot.

[gffa]

Here's why I enjoyed this scene so much: there is so much mutual respect going on here. There's teasing that is good-natured and makes people laugh, there's consideration and compliments being made, but most of all, everyone is listening to each other. They might rebut a point here or there, they discuss it a bit, but they're honestly and genuinely listening. This scene also comes with the context that, even though it's Qui-Gon who issues a "challenge" (and ultimately the scene where Qui-Gon explicitly admits that he did it to prod the Jedi Council members into taking a vacation), it's the Council themselves who come up with the idea to go to Kwen and have an outreach celebration on a personal level. This scene comes with the context of how an earlier scene had a callback to mentioning that Qui-Gon was asked to join the Council, a plot point from Master and Apprentice where they directly said they wanted him for his different point of view on things. But mostly it's a scene where both the members of the Council and Qui-Gon very clearly respect and like each other. The Qui-Gon of this book, the Council of this book, point out that they are thinking about others, just on a bigger scale, and that that's important. That that is helping the galaxy be better, lighter, more balanced. That this isn't about the Council not caring, it's about the Council being so busy saving entire planets that they don't have time to do something smaller scale for themselves. And that it's not about a lack of care or that Qui-Gon cares more, just the direction of that care. I can vibe with a Jedi who had gotten caught up in helping people on a galactic scale (that it's better to help a thousand people than just one person, if you can) because that's what this is. Not a lack of care, just a gentle reminder to get back to one-on-one helping, not because it's somehow "better" for the galaxy, but because both are good. Honestly, I've always been on the hill of, "one of the Jedi's biggest problems is that they believed their actions would speak for themselves and thus had absolutely terrible PR because they thought people would look into the truth of the situation" and I think that's one facet of what's going on here, it's about PR and getting the stories of their good work out, more than it is saying that the Jedi weren't doing good work. Of course they were, but this was a nudge towards spreading the word of that. This scene felt honestly good faith addressing that to me. It took care with understanding why each side's motivations were valid and important, along with making it clear that this was coming from a place of community and love, that Qui-Gon respects his Jedi family and they respect him. So I was totally down with this. (Star Wars: The Living Force | John Jackson Miller)

[animatedminds]

I don't get to post about Star Wars too often, but I do enjoy this so much - something I've greatly enjoyed about the current canon over Legends is that they've been trying hard to get away from Legends' habit of going "the Jedi were cold manipulative dogmatists with no compassion or ability to empathize with others" and emphasizing as much as they can that the Jedi - for whatever their flaws - genuinely cared about helping as many people as they could, genuinely tried to connect with and uplift others whenever they could, but just became increasingly out of touch with what forms that drive to help others ought to take and how to actually adapt themselves to the world around them.