Little Bits
Everyone loves tiny food and Rick and Morty’s alternate dimension commercials are no exception.
X-Men Apocalypse gets the villain (Apocalypse) completely wrong
Another comic book movie that everyone is excited about and another botched character I’m reluctantly called to shine the light of truth on: the latest X-Men movie completely and totally botched its title villain, Apocalypse.
THIS IS WHAT APOCALYPSE IS [SUPPOSED TO BE]:
BACKGROUND: Born around 5,000 years ago in the middle east and named En Sabah Nur (“the first one”), he was the first being on earth to express the X-gene which is the mutation that makes “mutants” in the Marvel universe, giving people with it altered appearances, deformities, super powers, and often both. He possess the mutant ability of total control over the molecules in his body which allows him to turn limbs into weapons and grow in size and density, has augmented his powers with alien technology over the years, and has had thousands of years to acquire knowledge, skills, and said technology as he doesn’t age. Raised under a strict “survival of the fittest” ideology, En Sabah Nur had some experiences that made him bitter toward the world after societal and romantic rejection in where he renamed himself Apocalypse and became a chaotic-evil sort of force with various motives.
APPEARANCE: Apocalypse is a grayish purple armored version of what Mike Tyson would look like if he turned into The Hulk. He is physically massive with bulky muscles that rested on a huge boxy framed body covered in futuristic armor with a bald head poking out that has piercing robotic lit up eyes and a blue chinstrap around his lips that jut downward in a permanent Star-Wars-Stormtrooper-helmet style stern frown. In addition to his bulk are disproportionate Popeye style forearm clasps and a triangular upper body.
PRESENTATION: I dropped out of the X-Men animated series in the 90s before any Apocalypse episodes, but his presentation in print form is always very serious and stern looking combined with an imposing size that gives him a bouncer/bodyguard tone in that depictions of him merely standing at ease appear threatening.
THIS IS WHAT “X-MEN APOCALYPSE COULD HAVE DONE:
For his first film representation and appearing in the 9th X-Men movie, Apocalypse could cover a variety of themes and settings. This could be 21st Century Fox’s chance to one-up the Disney-owned&distributed Avengers: Age Of Ultron by doing an Age of Apocalypse storyline or theme the way Ultron should have been done (for those of you not caught up on the politics of the studios: Disney owns Marvel but 21st Century Fox owns the film rights to the Fantastic 4 and the X-Men, so these movies take place in conceivably different universes than The Avengers movies or Agents of SHIELD, since they are made by different production studios with different rights to the sections of the Marvel intellectual property archives). The story should be as epic and threatening as the villains name. This should be a depiction for the ages, spanning time and globe in threat of apocalyptic proportions.
APPEARANCE: The character needs to be a visually titanic force with an imposing boxy frame similar to his original art. This is because even when in his normal size, Apocalypse needs to be depicted as meta-human in size and visible strength. The character should appear nigh-invulnerable before any demonstration of his super powers to increase the villains threat level and overall cool-factor.
PRESENTATION: Like Disney did with Ultron, Apocalypse should be an entirely digital character, though unlike Ultron, show much more facial nuance and expression, similar to what Disney did with Davey Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
THIS IS WHAT “X-MEN APOCALYPSE” DID INSTEAD:
Removal of the imposing frame, size, disproportionate armor, and masculine robotically jagged edges. Replaced with smooth and flowing feminine features to face and armor. All makeup and costume with no special effects, resulting in a blue version of the “Engineer” from Prometheus wearing a metal suit.
APPEARANCE: A thin regular sized human in obvious makeup and costume accessory resulting in a silly looking combination of the gay Persian king Xerxes from 300 and Ivan Ooze from 1995’s Power Rangers movie.
PRESENTATION:
What an absolute waste…
Here’s the trailer you’re all so misguidedly excited about…
Recap: Everything about this character is wrong and your approval of it is helping perpetuate such terrible film depictions of great characters.
And you people are all wrong for liking it -___-
Oscar the Grinch
Did you ever stop to think about how Sesame Streets Oscar the Grouch is actually just a city-living version of Dr Seuss’ Mountain/Country-living Grinch?
They are both hairy green curmudgeons without malicious or even ill-intent of action outside of their negative disposition. Neither is particularly active, but rather only outwardly annoyed with others when their isolation is encroached by the nearby citizens.
It’s the same character profile in the same fictional species even. It’s just that Oscar lives in a city and is less taken care of, letting his body fur and eyebrows grow out in his tiny urban dwelling, while the Grinch is more well kept in his spacious cliff-top home.
Why does everyone keep saying I remind them of the 50 Shades of Grey guy?
In the past few weeks in the lead-up and release of the film version of 50 Shades of Grey, nearly every person who saw it has told me the Grey character “kindov reminds me of you” [me]. And given the nature of the movie, 100% of those people have been either female or homosexual males.
Should I be disturbed by this?…
At the time of this writing, I know pretty much nothing about the story other than it began as a smut novel that originated as Twilight fan-fiction and became wildly popular among that same pre-mentioned Twilight demographic. As far as I know, Graybles McGrey is a wealthy coffee software baron in Seattle (since I know he lives there and I think those are the only 2 industries billionaires inhabit in that region) and he sexually abuses the main character of the story and she likes it, cuz duh (see: women).
I don’t understand what’s going on here…
What the hell, people? That’s nothing like me. I hate Seattle. [audience laughter].
I mean, I don’t hate it like I hate San Fransisco, I just don’t see the point of its high praise as one of the best cities ever, and it has that San Franny posh-hippie vibe that makes me wanna punch something. but then again I’ve never been there and it’s geography looks cool and it seems a lot cleaner and less homeless-riddled than San Fran, so maybe I just changed my mind about the city.
Okay. Nevermind. I’m exactly like that Grey dude.
Nah. JK. But why are so many comparing me to a whip-and-chain-er dude with power issues? I was joking about the whole “I’m not like him cuz I don’t like Seattle” schtick, but I for-real have no interest in leather goofy slip slap nonsense so i’m not sure what this silly-seeming-similarity is spawning from. The whole “suspend me from the ceiling and whip me with a leather tassel” garbage sounds like a total waste of time to me. And the petty power games i’m told the character is all about sounds equally counter productive. I verbally demean people who are bad – not whom I like and wanna get off on treating them poorly. and I only physically abuse robots, dragons and other kaiju that threaten the safety of humanity – not defenseless naive stupid girls alone in the big city.
Is there something else I’m missing? Is this guy a villain or a badass or something in between? Cuz he seems kind of lame from what I know. I was more down with being compared to Rumpelstiltskin from Shrek 4 than Master Grey. Is this all a writers-prompt of you peoples own Richard-fan-fiction extrapolated from me referring to myself in the third person, as “Daddy”, and demanding basic standards of behavior and efficiency?
I’ll probably sample the movie at some point in the future just to make fun of it but in the mean time I’m enjoying approaching it from a reference point of total ignorance while being constantly compared to what appears to be a wealthy pompous sexual sociopath.
You people are weird.
Now lick my boots like the bitches you are….
Nah, JK. Daddy don’t wear boots.
Fox’s Gotham is yet another amobinable Batman blasphemy
This abomination must die.
Unanswered Pixar Questions
What do bugs use for currency in cartoons?
Like in Pixar’s A Bugs Life – there are several references to money and getting rich, but… wtf is money to these fkkers? they don’t have pockets… are there bug banks? do you make wire transfers via flying insects?
They’re making a Toy Story 4 but not gonna answer this shit?? WTF
Do I Want To Watch American Horror Story?…
okay, I’m trusting your collective votes here so don’t fkking lie to me…
Is American Horror Story really worth my time to start watching?
I took a chance on True Blood and after 2 episodes of Truly Bullshit stories about fairies and horribly acted Telemundo style softcore, I never went back to any of the currently trendy shows.
So AmHorrStor? (thats the abriev I just made up for it)… skip?… watch?…don’t fkk with me… My time is more valuable than some of your lives…
I have no idea whats up with this dude but the makeup is pretty cool
Did the Wizard of Oz Really Happen? Or was it really just a stupid dream?
In the series of books by L. Frank Baum a little girl named Dorothy has her house lifted up by a tornado whilst she’s still in it and transported to the magical land of Oz and attempts to get back home. After journeying from her landing point in the East to the central city in the midwest and then to West, then back to Mid-west and finally to Glinda’s kingdom in the south, she finally returns home but not for long as she later comes back to Oz and later after that moves her whole Kansas family to Oz in a rip off of how Tim Burtons remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ended (spoiler alert).
The story is a journey-to-another-world adventure series. Oz is a real place on earth surrounded by a desert that turns you into sand if you touch it (seen as one of the least bits of Nightmare Fuel in the 1980s Return To Oz movie), explaining why no other non-fairylanders have ever been there besides Dorothy and the Wizard, and later Glinda puts the whole thing under an invisibility bubble so no one can see it from overhead either, explaining why we still haven’t at least noticed it when flying over at some point.
Makes sense
In the 1939 iconic movie however, the dummies behind the production thought that the sophisticated audiences of the time wouldn’t buy the whole fairyland bullshit so they came up with the conceit that there is no land of Oz, but rather the whole things is a super elaborate dream Dorothy has after recent emotional and then physical trauma. Dorothy gets concussed by airborne debris when in her home trying to escape the twister and falls into a coma in where she dreams the houses is being lifted up and she visits a magical place with familiar faces, realizes she loves her family (and maybe has a crush on Hunk the farmhand – the Scarecrows Kansan-counterpart’s name in the movie) and wakes up safe in her bed surrounded by exactly those familiar faces in the home she never should have left.
So there’s no escaping it and no ambiguity in the movie: it was a dream. We saw her go to sleep, we experienced the dream with her, and we saw her wake up. The end.
So why did I never see it that way, growing up? Why did I never think it was a dream and filled in blanks that were not present in the actual film with theories and excuses as to the real actions behind what I was seeing? I hadn’t read the book until 7th grade, so that hadn’t biased me. I simply watched the movie and assumed it was how it should have been instead of how it actually is.
The film shows Dorothy getting knocked out and float into a dream sequence in which decidedly dreamlike things happen including her nasty neighbor Miss Gultch ride by on her bike and transform into a broomstick riding cackling witch. When its time for Dorothy to go home the transition fades in ways appropriate to symbolize waking up from a dream and she wakes up in her bed muttering what she was saying in the dream. There’s no way around what is on the screen: the bitch was dreaming and none of the events that take place in Oz actually happened except within her subconscious.
Originally the script called for the camera to pan-down and reveal the Ruby Slippers under Dorothy’s bed as an “or was it??” big ending but that was cut, again: because Dummies.
Yet as a child I decided, or rather, thought I “realized”, that both scenes were depicting physical displacements. I thought when Dorothy gets head whacked, she was merely knocked out for a few hours and was awaked by the thud of her house hitting the ground (padded by one wicked witch). What the film was depicting as dropping into a hallucinogenic state of mind, I thought was time passage. As a child I had made the flight from New York to California many times and I figured air travel from Kansas to Oz had to be at least that long, so it made sense to transition the traveling. When Dorothy clicks her heels home, I just figured the magic of the slippers was beaming her back home Star Trek style and she both got knocked out and lost the slippers in the process. Her family found her nearby the wreckage of the home after several days of her being missing and nursed her back to consciousness. The reason the scarecrow, lion, tin man, wizard and wicked witch resembled people Dorothy knew in Kansas was because Oz was partially in another dimension where many things run parallel to our world. A sort of multi-verse theory before I was mentally developed enough to know what that was.
This is in the same theme as the fact that the overbearing Mr Darling in real-life London and villainous Captain Hook in NeverNeverLand are traditionally played by the same actor in stage plays of Peter Pan, the tv Mary Martin version I watched on VHS as a kid and noticed and possibly subconsciously noticed in the Disney animation where it is slightly less obvious (to a child, anyway) that the 2 mens voices are 1.
It all made sense to me and to the best of my knowledge – everyone else who watched the movie.
In fact, I never even really considered the possibility that the movie wasn’t intended to be exactly as I just described until recently. And now, as this question torments me late at night, I wonder if it wasn’t all real indeed. After all, artist-intent only accounts for a minority fraction of any film analysis, so the fact that the film is not intended to depict an actual physical journey is nearly irrelevant to the question. The real question is what do YOU think? If enough of you watched it in a similar way that I did, then that is what happened.
So… is it? Did Oz really happen?
Everyone certainly wants it to have happened to a point where they’re willing to pretend that it did, it seems.
In the last 2 years, 2 terrible movies made by different studios than MGM (makers of the 1939 film) have made sequels or prequels that attempt to set themselves in as much of the continuity of the 1939 film as legally possible and they both depict Oz as being a physical destination that exists in real life.
Disney’s Oz the Great and Powerful shows Oscar the future Wizard’s arrival in Oz and an even more terrible animated movie called Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return depicts the character in the title doing the thing it says she does in the title. and both movies depict the physical reality of Oz as exactly the parallel dimension type alternate-timeline-of-earth thing going on by depicting counterparts in Oz and Kansas with similar personality and physical attributes.
So wtf is the deal here? When you watched the Wizard of Oz, did you accept that it was a dream? Or like me did you decide it was real? Or unlike me, did you accept it was a dream but decide to retcon it, knowing full well what you were doing? Or did you know it was a dream, accept it was a dream and have no problem with Oz not ever having been a real place to this day?
It is 2:30AM on a Saturday night as I write this from my master bedroom and I cannot rest until I have answers. WTF is up with OZ?….