Lion King is a franchise that has always meant a lot to me, my favorite Disney movie of all time (and given the current climate, I doubt that's gonna change)
Now, if you didn't know, they're making a new move. Mufasa The Lion King, which promises to be the next introduction in a sprawling franchise of hyper realistic Lion King CGI movies, likened to Star Wars by Disney employees. It will be a prequel focusing on Mufasa's (and to a lesser extent, Scar's) origins.
Now, I could rant about how unfitting the animation style is, how souless and cash grab-y the whole things sounds, and how they go against pre-established Lion King lore (not even in cool ways) BUT, that's probably been discussed a thousand times since the movie was annnounced way back when, I wanna criticize (and poke fun at) a recent article.
"The first Lion King was criticized for being too close to the original." -CBR
Yeah, among other things. I think people would be a lot more forgiving if it was a good unoriginal remake.
"The latest prequel pushes the boundaries and tells a new story and Disney's live-action department can learn a lot from its performance."
Now this, THIS is the line that got me heated. Lemme just repeat the important part.
"The latest prequel pushes the boundaries and tells a new story."
THE LATEST PREQUEL PUSHES THE FUCKING BOUNDARIES AND TELLS A NEW STORT! (Paraphrased)
That is a demented sentence, holy shit. I don't think I need to spell it out, but it isn't boundary pushing to tell a new story, that's the default form of telling stories.
"Oh, but they're just saying it's an improvement on what the departments been doing."
Fair, but take this into account. Does Captain Assaultman deserve praise when he does the bare fucking minimum and stop assaulting people every time he does anything?
Anyhow, some other bits stuck out to me.
"Disney is in a fascinating position as it gears itself up for a potential Renaissance era anew."
Huh? Buddy, HUH?
Don't get me wrong, Disney's a century old, they've made movies bad and good, they COULD absolutely bounce back and make the greatest movies- nay the greatest stories ever told. But what have they done to imply a Renaissance? Make mediocre-at-best movies?
"renew them with original ideas and a live-action edge."
Did you have to say that? To my face?
"Disney strengthens its image and, more importantly, improves upon its storytelling again."
Yeehaw partner, that's right, yet another fat Disney win. Dear Mickey, this company doesn't know what failure means!
Seriously, this article is so shill-ish, it feels like a Disney bigwig wrote it themself.
1: I don't think Mufasa The Lion King being made strengthened Disney's image in anyone's eyes except, apperantly the goober who wrote this article. The movie has to fight an uphill battle to prove itself to audiences, and that is a GOOD thing.
2: What improvement on its story telling? Were you part of the test audiences? The movie could be an insult to the very idea of storys, like you watch it and just keel over from sheer bad writing. All you know they improved on is actually telling original stroies, which is hardly something to praise, as I've said.
Anyway, just wanted to rant about it. I'd like to close off by saying something nice though, the CGI used in the new Lion King remake and its upcoming prequel is genuinely gobsmacking, that stuff rocks. I just wish it was used in a good movie, and that instead of invading a franchise better suited to other mediums, it had a new IP (or an old one that didn't work so welll with the tech of the time) to really push the visuals to their fullest.
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on Mufasa The Lion King!
So this is not by a long shot the only piece of media to show the Twin Towers destroyed before 9/11; it's not even the only Marvel comic.
And you see a bunch of people acting like OMG HOW DID THEY PREDICT THIS or worse think it was some sort of message from "them" that "they" were going to destroy the Twin Towers
Here is the thing to keep in mind, before 9/11:
1975 - a disgruntled worker tried to set a fire in the towers
1981 - an Aerolíneas Argentinas airliner almost collided with the North Tower
1993 - Islamic fundamentalists set off a bomb in the World Trades Center, killing 6 and injuring over 1000
Plus, in 1945, a plane did fly into the Empire State Building due to inclement weather
And even besides that, many times have you seen the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, the White House, or the Golden Gate Bridge destroyed by something?
oh man I wad gonna make a super cool science / zoology post and I forgot I took an edible and now I can't remember anything
like I can I know what I wanna talk about but I can't think hard enough to explain to people who may not have the background knowledge
like do you know what a phylogenetic tree is? because if you do- THEY RESTRUCTURED AVIAN PHYLOGENY BECAUSE OF WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING
W H O L E. GENOME.
which for birds is over 8.1 BILLION base pairs and they did the ENTIRE GENOME that's coding and non coding that's all the viral history, mitochondrial dna, and all the ancestral history like that's so fucking coooooool but anyways they redid the phylogenetic tree!!!
and we were surprisingly close before this study (which like JUST came out- I'll try to find it when I'm sober) but now we have things like flamingos and pigeons or hawks/owls/eagles being all shifted around- I'll try to explain this later when I can THINK
also guys. I need to stress again how cool the WHOLE genome sequencing thing is especially in birds!!!
birds are ANCIENT much older than mammals I mean they're reptiles after all but with that comes like a fuck ton of genomic data
majority of these strands are "non coding" which means they just kinda exist and don't do any work but this is also composed of your genomic HISTORY which means it has your viral data
viruses inject their DNA sequences into your chromosomes and then they get replicated by asexual reproduction and those slow gradual injections of these viruses over time will change the phenotypic traits- that's what evolution is! (kinda- don't forget that babies also combine new DNA together so then you have mom/dad and their viral history allllllll mixing together- kinda?? man idk)
do you catch what I'm throwing here??? this shows the history of all viruses since the age of birds!!! (kinda... sorta? don't think about it too hard- I'm not! I can't think)
jeez I got off topic.... but the point is (I think) that they have 8.1 billion base pairs in a modern bird wanna know how many a human has? a human who can be like 100x the size of one of those little bitty bir-
To (try) and expand upon what a phylogenetic tree is:
I found this handy dandy picture thingy. It tracks the evolution and evolutionary divergence of lifeforms... and viruses, I think? Viruses almost certainly evolve, but aren't considered lifeforms, last time I checked... hmmm.
here's one of these puppies in action, a phylogenetic tree containing my favorite animal family, Mustelidae.
On an entirely different note, I went and checked what animal has the most base pairs, and its this goober.
The Australian lungfish, with a whopping 43 billion base pairs. This tragically endangered animal is thought to have been around for 100 million years without changing much.
If moist it can live for several days outside the water, which is off topic, but neat.
ANYWAY (capitalized to catch attention) I recommend finding a detailed article on phylogenetic trees, because they're pretty cool.
God I hecking love lions, as I've said many times. I also adore snow, and I'm loving this crossover.
If I was the blessed one who took this photo (fantastic job on their part, obviously) I'd probably sit around for an hour before returning to the real world.
genuinely one of the worst things that’s happened to television in the last few years (exacerbated by streaming services) is death of Filler. going from 20 episodes to 8 because “we didn’t really need that episode where the main characters went to the beach right? it had no long lasting effect” but we DID!!! we needed to see how they act without the Big Bad Plot and to establish the dynamics between the characters and lay in the sun (do they forget sunscreen? how do they react to a thieving seagull? do they get buried in the sand or do they do the burying?). the plot isn’t everything. the action doesn’t hit as hard without the quiet moments. give us character development and our little scenes back
Wow, THANK YOU. It drives me nuts every time I hear someone complain about filler, they have a right to not like it, but (as they often do) they can just skip those episodes.
If you want lighthearted or one-off-y episodes or anything filler-ish, you can't just manifest them where there aren't any.
Somewhat related: I absolutely love episodes where it seems all filler and irrelevent, but they slip something in — maybe a chekovs gun half way through, or a scene with the big bad at the end — it never fails to get goofball me hyped up.
It must have been wild when life first started evolving to fly. Like, you were just chasing your prey, getting ready to corner it, when something swoops out of the fucking sky and steals it away.
Then you just sit there, pondering existence and how the hay that just happened.
Sorry guys, I get where you're coming from. But likeable characters seems to have been confused with likeable people.
There are characters I love so, SO much... but I'd testify in court to lock them behind bars for the rest of eternity with a smile firmly on my face.
[An example I think a lot of people know is Bill Cipher. He is a very very well liked and loveable CHARACTER, but is a remarkably terrible PERSON]
A main character should be likeable, I will die on that hill. Maybe its in a twisted way where you're disgusted by them, but can't help but be intrigued (however, that is hard to pull off, SO much praise to story tellers who do) but you should enjoy reading and thinking about what they do/say/whatever. Otherwise it's bad writing, with POSSIBLY some exceptions, every rule has exceptions, but I struggle to think of any right now.
Now, there's more leeway with none-protags, because sometimes a character should make your fucking blood BOIL (mainly when the main character(s) despise that character, to get you in their headspace. I imagine this would be done most often with bullies.)
Okay, I'm really sorry I'm so pedantic. I agree "Main character is thief, therefore book is bad" is baseless criticism, but I feel like remembering the distinction between a likeable character and a likeable person is important.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk, if you disagree, or have a correction, I don't bite.
Animal based fiction creatures and design choices therein
Alright, rant time.
(Smaug, the best Hobbit character)
So, I see some kind a debate every now and again on what the creator(s) of a fictional creature (or a version of a prexistent fiction creature, i.e: dragons most commonly.) 'Should' have down when making that creature to be 'realistic', mostly in regards to the real animal counterparts.
I can appreciate pointing out differences between fiction and reality. However, that is rarely a good idea when it becomes. "The writer is wrong because they made [thing] do [thing], when in real life it would have done [thing]."
I shall go over some reasons why.
Firstly! Even when depicting a REAL LIFE ANIMAL such as a cat mean't to be a real life cat, writers are allowed a lot of leeway in the form of 'creative license', most commonly (particularly if the aforementioned cat is the main character) letting the cat speak and think and act in the same way a human would, with unique cultural cat traits added in of course, like maybe an affinity for mice (which would be a use of creative license in of itself, arguably)
Next! The neat thing about a fictional creature, it's fictional! A writer can do basically whatever they want — as long as they don't break their own rules, and the world/creatures/characters mesh and make some level of sense.
For example: Imagine a creature that looks like a fox, is the size of an elephant, spits acid, and has green fur.
If there were a member of that species with blue fur, which would be the problem? That a fictional fox creature has a fur color real foxes don't? Or that a fictional fox creature has a fur color its species is established to not have?
[To be clear: The writer could have a blue fox thingy if they point out that it is a sub species or a genetic anomaly or whatever. Every rule has an exception or two, but make it clear when you're exeptioning]
Finally, a point that applies mostly to the species that got me to rant about this, lizard people!!!
(An argonian gent from Skyrim)
I'm going to assume you all, same as me, know of the breasts vs no breasts lizard people debate. No breasts side arguing "real lizards don't have them", the breasts side arguing "It's a fictional creatures, I demand it have the boob!"
Well! I always thought that debate was silly, frankly, but it was revived in my mind when Baldurs Gate 3 caused some randoms on the internet to debate if a lizard should have a dick because "real lizards have cloacas"
Uh, someone did point out they kinda do have penises IRL, but they're these funky-ass things called hemipenises (male lizards and all other male reptiles of the very large order squamata have variations of that genital), so the debate still counts.
anyway, other than what I've discussed, the big issue here is that these are lizard PEOPLE (people being humans, in this case) they are anthropomorphized or in other words, given human traits.
lizards don't have breasts and have hemipenises, humans have breasts and have penises... so, it all depends on how human vs how lizard the creator(s) wants them to be.
See, aside from the subject matter (though I'm confident everyone knew how silly that was) the silly part of this debate is that it assumed one side had to be right, but it just depends on what any given creator(s) chooses to do.
No big post about anything (little bit under the weather) I just happened upon that picture of this goober and wanted to share. It looks like a hippopotamus!
"10 Disney Villains Who Were Kinda Right" Is silly
Article (Read to see their full arguements, I'll be taking highlights)
Because when I think morally correct villains, I think Disney.
In fairnes, this article isn't saying they're right... its saying they're kinda right, so I'll keep that in mind, I guess.
I had my pick of the litter, there's SO many articles like this. About Disney and other works of fiction. Welp, lets do this.
The intro gives a us a look into the mentality of this article... it's confusing
"We're not saying their methods are necessarily good, but we can't say we don't understand their reasons..." (Excerpt)
Back home we call that having a motive. Having a motive is part of being a character, anything as good and logical as. "I wanna save the world, to help people." Or evil and illogical as. "I had a bad life, so I spite the world back and destroy it!" Are motives, having a motive doesn't make you a paragon of moral righeousness! Being able to sympathize with a character doesn't make them "kinda right", and trust me, the author sympathizes a lot.
"...It makes us wonder how many of Disney's noble heroes were the ones in the wrong. Get ready to rethink your favorite fairy tales as we look at 10 Disney villains who were actually right." (Excerpt)
Alright, now I get it, the villain just has to be better than the protagonists, lets see about that...
Also, I guess they are RIGHT and not KINDA RIGHT, pick a lane Screenrant!
Mr. Waternoose
(It's almost too easy)
"Kidnapping children is never okay in our books" (excerpt)
what an absolute saint you are.
"but" (excerpt)
Of course...
"At risk of exposing an entire world of monsters to the world of humans, anyone might do anything. If we take the child-endangerment charges off the record, Waternoose intended to keep an entire dimension of monsters safe from human interference." (Excerpt)
You don't get to just ignore crimes, that's not how it works!
Either way, that wasn't his motive.
"It's a case of the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few." (Excerpt)
They never say Sully or Mike are bad people, and there's an argument to be made their version of Waternoose is a terrible guy, but, again that's not his motive. Lemme pull up the quote.
"I'll kidnap a thousand children before I let this company die, and I'll silence anyone who gets in my way!" ~Mr Waternoose
He wants his company to keeo going regardless of who it hurts, he's a fictional version of those god damn petrol barons.
Stinky Pete
(Forgive me, but I haven't seen Toy Story 2 in a while, I did quick research. But please correct any mistakes I may have made.)
"After living in the shadow of space-toys and "spending a lifetime on a dimestore shelf, watching every other toy be sold," we'd be pretty salty too." (Excerpt)
"I'd be angry too if I had a bad dad, the genocide's okay!"
He has a motive, doesn't make him good, right, or better than the protagonists.
"He only wants the love and adoration he's been so long without. Is that really a crime?" (Excerpt)
No, that's a motive, he trys to force and manipulate other people just to give himself a happy ending that is a crime.
Again, no meaningful statements about the protagonists to paint them as worse than the villain.
Shere Khan
(Live action version specifically)
Main character is a child who committed no crimes, main villain is an attempted child murderer.
"Idris Elba's version knew the ferocious power of man and knew that even a cute kid like Mowgli could potentially be a threat to the jungle. " (Excerpt)
"He seeks to destroy Mowgli before the man-cub destroys the ecosystem." (Excerpt)
So... he's playing judge jury and executioner to a child who's only misdeed is being born in a certain way and who's actually lived attuned to nature for years, WHAT A NICE GUY!
"Ravenous predator or a concerned conservationist? You decide." (Excerpt)
I decide? Oooh goody, I choose overzealous misanthrope.
Also, where'd they get "ravenous predator" from? It feels like they're trying to make the opposition look stupid by misrepresenting them... or maybe I'm digging too deep.
Captain Gantu
"After reviewing the evidence, we're not really sure Gantu qualifies as a villain" (Excerpt)
Wait? You reviewed something before writing this? I wasn't even sure you ever watched the movies!
Alright, being a rude little bitch aside. Admittably he's a less evil villain, he even gets redeemed! But, ehhhh
They also don't really make a point of Stitch being worse than Gantu, even though they're supposed to make the villains seem better than the heroes.
He's a bit of jerk, and goes to far, but, oh yeah!
"Sadly though, he loses favor with the council and must join forces with Dr. Hämsterviel in the sequel." (Excerpt)
He's quick to betray the council, but eh, unless I'm misremembering, his inclusion in this list might be fair.
Sid Philips
Nooooooooo! Don't make a good point twice in a row!
"For the sake of discussion, let's remove the blowing-up-toys portion of the equation and talk about Sid." (Excerpt)
Oh thank goodness, even if they're right, they can't present it in a logical way.
"For the sake of discussion, your honor, we shall ignore my client's three counts of 1st degree murder... he ain't such a bad person now, right!?"
"Think about it, he might blow toys to bits, but he uses their parts to create new ones. That's the sign of an artist if you think about it." (Excerpt)
I-... sure, I'd just argue he's a child with seemingly bad parents and HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING TOYS ARE ALIVE.
But no, Sid is a complete monster, as we all know everyone who gave their Barbies haircuts and attempted makeup is evil and should be convicted of torture.
Syndrome
"Syndrome, in the end, was a bad dude. No questions asked." (Excerpt)
THEN WHY IS HE ON THIS LIST YOU MUFFIN!
"But" (Excerpt)
Every time...
"he did sort of have the right idea by making everyone super." (Excerpt)
That wasn't his plan, he wanted to be the most special guy ever by saving the city from a problem he created. He says he'll make everyone super when he's old and bored and ready to sell his tech.
aaaaand then they talk about how he was turned down by Bob, that doesn't excuse him, and it doesn't make Bob worse than him (especially because Bob grew as a person since then)
Captain Hook
(It's almost like the author was arbitrarily given a list of villains and then needed to justify them)
"Let's look at Hook's backstory, shall we? He was just sailing about Marooner's Rock, doing what pirates are want to do," (Excerpt)
Excuse me, is that your newest method of handwaving a villain's crimes? I like it!
"He was just strolling through town, doing what all serial killers want to do."
"the tight-clad hero slices his hand off and feeds it to Tick-Tock the Croc. Who sounds like the villain in that story?" (Excerpt)
Are... are they now trying to insinuate the guy they JUST CALLED "HERO" is the villain? This is just next level sloppy.
"Captain Hook's gripe with Peter Pan isn't out of pure evil, but justice. Losing the hand was one thing, losing it to a flying boy is another, but watching it get chomped by a crocodile just takes the cake. " (Excerpt)
Justice? They're just using it as fancy word for what it is, revenge.
Either way, MAYBE Peter went to too far, but he was still the hero stopping the villain, and any justification the not-so-good Captain has is lost when he drags the random children into the cross-fire of his revenge scheme.
"Is he really the villain, or simply a very driven man?" (Excerpt)
Lines like that is why I love these articles.
To bring logic anyone could probably figure out for themselves: being driven doesn't effect your morality, a good guy can be driven, as can a bad guy.
Captain Hook is both, he's a very driven villain.
Yzma
(She was so evil that it was a literal joke)
For the first time they argue a very evil antagonist deserves to be on this list because they're better than a very evil protagonist.
"Just because she's got the ghoulish looks doesn't mean she would have been any worse than her predecessor. Yeah, there was the peasant scene at the beginning, but would Kuzco have done any better?" (Excerpt)
In fact, that's all they argue, that's their whole point. All while missing that Kuzco GROWS as a person, redeeming himself, Yzma never does. That was the fucking point of the movie!
Edgar
(No, not Edgar Allan Poe. The other, less cool, Edgar.)
"Edgar the butler from The Aristocats isn't a bad guy, he's just been totally screwed over." (Excerpt)
Edgar's not the worst villain, especially beside Yzma and Shere Khan, but he is by no means better than the protagonists.
"A faithful butler playing second fiddle to a family of housecats? Sounds like Madame is just as goofy as that crackpot lawyer of hers." (Excerpt)
He did his job, what does he want? A cookie? It's amazing he's on the will at all!
Yeah, it's silly cats inherit the fortune, but answer this. Who's better? A pet kidnapper, animal abuser, and attempted cat murderer or cats?
Yeah, just take a moment, it's a real thinker.
He's also motivated purely by greed.
"Why, there are a million reasons why I should! All of them dollars. Millions. Those cats have got to go!" ~Edgar
WHAT A LOVELY CHAP!
Anton Ego
I was hoping this list would be closed off with a bang, like Scar, Ursula, or Lady Tremaine (some lists did try to justify all three of those folks, though)... but no, sad.
"Blah blah, he was just doing his job, blah blah" (paraphrasing of the article)
I never viewed the guy as a villain since Chef Skinner is the main villain of the movie and Anton doesn't feel evil, I agree with the author there, his inclusion on this list feels boring, it's not really saying anything of note yet its the last entry. Granted, he IS on the villains wiki, so I concede that he's a villain.
BUT, calling him "kinda right" is foolish, his whole arc in the movie was learning he was wrong!
As usual, this isn't an attack on the author, I'm just lightheartedly mocking the article because I think its... well, silly.
