I was thinking about seeing Into Darkness but I think I’d rather watch Star Trek instead.
Which episode should I watch?
I think Space Seed would be the most appropriated.
How much DS9 have you watched? Because you should watch that if you haven’t. After Space Seed, though.
Wow, Yahtzee just said there have been no fighters with original characters in this generation of gaming.
You know, I get that not everyone likes fighters but I’d prefer if they didn’t act as an authority on stuff they didn’t like, especially when they make absolutely false statements.
That’s pretty much his schtick. “Sweeping declaration about video games without evidence! I’m Australian!”
I decided to stop playing Disgaea, because as much as I enjoy the game’s characters and the comedy I just can’t get over the gameplay. That might sound weird, especially since those of you who know about Devil Survivor know I absolutely love that game despite also being an incredibly difficult…
It sounds like it’s a failure, at least in part, of communication. From what I understand, a lot of video game writing happens at the very end of the process, so they’re often trying to explain gameplay elements and plot points without any input in how those should come about. So it’s easy to imagine the developers handing an outline to the writers and going “They’re the wacky one. Make them funny for us.”
So I gots issues. Issues with this.
The thing is, on the surface, making Zelda the main character of the Zelda games seems so obvious. After all, she’s in the title, right? Why not feature her? And there’s some truth to this, it IS a little weird that she’s the namesake of the game. I’m all for Zelda taking more of a role.
The problem with Diaz’s work here is two fold. First, it just turns Zelda into Link. Second, it replicates the original issue with the gender disparity in subtler ways.
The first is pretty obvious, on the face of it. Zelda is wearing Link’s costume. She looks, in every way, just like Link. Aside from the chest and her face (and even that only a small amount), she’s indistinguishable from the existing protagonist. Which is a problem, because at that point, what makes Zelda different from playing Link? In fact (and this is a serious question, I assure you), why not play as a female Link? There’s nothing in the Zelda mythos, jacked up and insane as it is, that says the Hero of Time/Wind/Sailing has to be Hero, masculine form only. They could be the Heroine of Time, too. Having a female Link saving a female Zelda could be a neat way to flip the script without just doing a 180 on the surface level. Skyward Sword did a great job of building up the idea that Link and Zelda were actually friends and maybe-sorta romantically interested before being overtaken by great events. What about a game where two women are best friends, and then are separated by the intervening of destiny?
But even if you feel Link needs to be male and should be the one that’s rescued this time around, that doesn’t mean Zelda needs to inherit all of his design. She could wear her own original costume, or a version of her costume as Sheik. Diaz’s redesign talks about her being raised by the Sheikah, but there’s nothing in her clothing that actually speaks to this.
The second problem is a little deeper, but it’s disheartening that “Zelda as a strong female protagonist” has to be paired with “Link is now a weak male character.” As much as Zelda being more active in the series has gone forward in baby steps, she still is coming off more as someone trying to do the right thing, making plans, and being active rather than just a prize to be won. In the end that may be the climax, but she doesn’t sit back and act passive about it anymore. Making Link naive and unable to understand the world does him a disservice and regresses him back into the “passive story object” role that Zelda is starting to break out of in the actual games, and I don’t consider it fair play. Zelda can have her own game without breaking anything, but let Link still be a real character in his own right as well.
Also, does it seem kind of sexist that Link runs around with a big sword and shield, but Zelda has to be a “battle mage” to be effective? Why not give her the big honking shield and let her go to town like Link does?
In addition, of course, is the fact that I just don’t want to sideline Link. There’s nothing wrong with him as a character, and making a game where he and Zelda could be played cooperatively seems like a better approach than making either one sit on the bench and watch the other go forth and save the world.
In summary: No sir, I don’t like it. Your surface of “equality” is just that, all surface and no depths.
Man, I got thoughts on this whole Zelda redesign business. And thanks to Ben, I may inflict them on people tonight.
just a reminder: that before lloyd was anyone else’s hero, he was colette’s hero. long before he ever did anything epic.
I dunno, Raine seemed to have a ‘Don’t Stand So Close To Me’ thing going on with him too.
I hated Colette. SO MUCH.
So yeah I guess the point I want to bring across tonight is
if you ship Superman/Wonder Woman
fuck you.
What about Batman/Wonder Woman?
So after subjecting myself (and my poor girlfriend) to watching all 5 episodes of the History Channel’s Bible and livetweeting it, I took a few days away from thinking about it. And now that I’ve had time to reflect on it, what stands out is not the bad acting, poor sets, or even randomness of the stories they chose to give attention to. No, it was how it failed in all three goals it had as a program (though not in ratings, the only real goal the network had).
The first goal was doomed to failure: converting anyone who wasn’t Christian or on the fence. Because in all honesty, that came pre-failed. Almost everyone in America knows the story of Jesus, and anyone who comes to sell you on it has no new facts to offer if they’re a mainstream sect of Christianity. There was no hidden segment of the population that only the History Channel could reach who were somehow ignorant of “The Word.”
The second goal was, in theory, attainable: doing a new historical look at the Bible. I don’t think you could reasonably expect to see a deep historical analysis of the Bible on the History Channel, but you could still have seen some shallow context to the whole book, without explicitly challenging Christian beliefs. They could have touched on the culture Abraham came from, for example, or whether Egypt was a mighty empire or just another African nation when Moses came along. I’ll admit that would have made some of the drama a little harder to manage, but not impossible. Of course, we are talking about the History Channel, which desperately wants to stop being that, but needs to bank more random “people working in weird fields” reality shows first. They’d have changed the name already, but I think they’ve learned the lesson from Syfy.
Still, what sticks with me is how badly they failed in the final goal, being a dramatic series. Yes, they were dealing with material that is the very opposite of new, and their Christian backing meant there was only so far they could push with any part of the material. I knew there wouldn’t be any “Last Temptation of Christ” reinterpretation here. But the first episode was a good example of how badly they dropped the ball, with scenes where the actor playing Abraham basically made the material work despite the sets, costumes, and dialogue he had to fight with. Once he left the series, most of the other actors couldn’t match his skills, and it made all the problems stand out even more.
At times there were flashes of skill, such as the young Moses trying to grapple with the revelation that he was a Jew, not Egyptian, or Saul realizing his pride had killed his son and split his kingdom. But there was no thematic connection that kept things moving in a coherent way. The easiest theme in the world was sitting right there-the Chosen People as a community, finding and losing their way over and over again-and it wasn’t really touched. Instead we just got the parts that had to explain Jesus’ coming. King Solomon? Completely absent. The Golden Calf? Never mentioned. Both perfect examples of times when the Jewish people turned away from God in some fashion, and neither one came up at all. Because we had to give Jesus two and a half episodes out of five.
Look, I get that for Christians, Jesus is literally the biggest deal in the Bible. That’s not news, and guess what? I don’t blame them. But to me, if you’re advertising the Bible, then you should do the Bible. Not the parts you like the best, or the bare minimum for the New Testament. All of the important things that make up the whole book. Jesus gets his own episode? That’s fine, he’s not a small part. But what is the point in him creating a new covenant if you never explain the old one and how it was broken? I’m not even talking about the historical context, it failed to set up the religious context. Jesus having some new message meant nothing when the old message was never really conveyed in the series.
If you really want to convert people with a TV series like this, you need to make it interesting to watch. That doesn’t meant changing the story just to please the audience, since in that case you might as well give Pilate and Jesus lightsabers and have them duel in the Temple for the fate of the world. But you can’t present your story, even if you believe in it whole-heartedly, as self-evident truth. You were, in theory, reaching out to people who don’t know the Bible that well, and you managed to focus on the part almost all of them already knew. Even if there were portions of the Jesus story that were well done, it still ended up feeling like a waste of time, compared to going into why Noah built the ark, or what exactly Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (which, by the way, you could do without blaming it on any specific sex act, since you could say their community had completely broken down and THAT is why they were full of sin).
Were you worried that they’d find out about the parts in the Bible that feel silly to the modern day? You have to take that risk, because it’s still there in the book. Unless you’re willing to issue The Bible, Now In A Less Silly Form along with the series, they will find it. You have to own up to it and move on, especially since a lot of people already know about that anyway. Burying most of it, but keeping the parts where Lot’s wife turned to salt and Samson lost his strength when he got a haircut did you no favors.
I’m not angry about the Bible failing like this, or even disappointed. It’s just me looking back on it, shaking my head, and hoping others will draw lessons about how to do better from it, at least in terms of creating a dramatic series.
Why do modern Green Lanterns always just make guns?
I mean you’re Green Lanterns! You’re chosen for bravery and imagination!
You could make anything! Like a bear or a swarm of bees!
I wonder how much of that is from the author and how much is from the writer, like the artist saw some huge text box in the script and said “No, he’s just going to shoot a minigun, I’m not drawing an all-green arbalest filled with flaming Mongul heads.”
