Bob's Burgers - The Cartoon For Everyone

I remember first seeing the promo for Bob's Burgers and thinking "Wow, this show looks awful, i give it one season" and here we are several years later and the show has just started it's sixth season. Bob's Burgers follows the Belcher family, a working class family who own a small burger restaurant who struggle to get by. Back when The Simpsons and Family Guy had a crossover they made a joke about how Bob's Burgers is riding their success, which is ironic because Bob's Burgers is funnier than The Simpsons is now or Family Guy ever has been (And I used to love Family Guy). I think what makes it so much better than those two shows is one: it's optimism. The Belcher family is constantly struggling and the creator of the show Loren Bouchard has said the show is based around small victories, the Belchers are never going to win the lottery or become celebrities, but they'll have enough to pay rent at the last minute or having a good day at school or even just nothing going wrong is still a victory to them. The second thing that makes it successful, is that it's inoffensive, and i don't mean the sense that the show never takes risks and plays it safe, I mean it never takes any shots at races, cultures, religions, politicians. All of the jokes and suffering are contained within the show, but even then it's nothing too brutal. Out of everyone in the Belcher family the most normal one is Bob who constantly has to put up with the wackiness of his family when he himself just wants a simple life, but we see that he still loves his family, even if he has to put up with their shenanigans.

The show also splits the focus between the adults Bob & Linda and the kids Tina, Gene & Louise, often focusing on problems that different ages face, the kids have school problems, Tina has boy problems, the adults have to deal with debt, rival companies, etc. Because of this the show can have such a wide audience from kids to adults because there's nothing offensive and has situations that everyone can relate to in someway. It's honestly the perfectly written show for everyone to get some enjoyment out of, the only problem I can imagine people having is the animation, which i'm not gonna lie, the characters are very weirdly designed and the flatness of them bothers me a lot, but i can look past that for the genius writing.

Then there are the characters themselves, Louise who despite being only nine is practically a sociopath for how much joy she gets in other people's misery and is actually the smartest of the Belcher kids even though she's also the youngest, also being played by Kristen Schaal, the voice of Mabel Pines makes some of her dialogue even funnier pretending it's Mabel saying it. Now that I think about it Mabel and Louise have a lot in common, they are both goddesses of destruction after all. Tina is a character that has recieved a lot of praise by critics and feminists for being open about her sexuality but never demonised or portrayed as a slut. She's not sexually active, but she's a teenager who has an interest in exploring her sexuality, to basically put it, it's the most normal representation of a teenage girl's sexuality in a TV Show. But that's an assumption i'm making based on other people's praise of her, i being a dude have no idea how a 14 year old girl should be portrayed when it comes to sex (There has got to be a better way to word that sentence). Actually I think i prefer the stories with the kids, they each have wildly different personalities and each one is hilarious, Louise is aggressive, Tina is obvlious and Gene is passionate yet dumb. With Bob and Linda, Bob is mostly the straight man who plays off other people's silliness (Not always, but most of the time) and honestly I think Linda is more annoying than she is funny.

So really, this is a cartoon that I can recommend to everyone. While it's not my favourite cartoon, a lot of people still feel weird about watching shows meant for kids like Gravity Falls and Steven Universe, but at the same time there are other adults who are uncomfortable watching shows like Rick & Morty which is most definitely not meant for kids. Bob's Burgers can be watched and enjoyed by everyone I feel, and i highly recommend it.

-Danny

My Favourite Characters - Toph

Toph Beifong is a character from Avatar: The Last Airbender, one of my favourite TV Shows, she is twelve years old and has been blind since birth, however, she is also one of the greatest Earthbenders on the planet. How does this work? When she was little she learnt how to feel the vibrations in the ground, allowing her to sense anything nearby and of course, control the Earth around her, making her an incredibly skilled figher. It's funny, when it comes to making disabled characters in shows, the most common one seems to be blindness, and Toph is easily the best example of a disability turned ability done right. Take Daredevil for example, he may be blind but all of his senses are so incredibly strong that there's almost no point in making him blind. Toph however, is still legitimately blind, if something's not touching the ground or if she's not on a solid surface (i.e. Sand, Water, Ice) then she can't see at all. She's trading in her disability for a new ability, that's how it should be handled, that's what makes her a great character in this way for disabled children to look up to because she still has to face struggles like any disabled person would. Then there are her skills as an Earth bender, she's one of the best. Earth bending is all about patience and power, being the immovable object and waiting until just the right moment to strike, that is Toph's fighting style in a nutshell. She was powerful, smart and patient, no Earthbender could stop her. Hell, she became so powerful she invented an entirely new form of bending, metal bending. Focusing on the processed earth found in metal and manipulating it in a way similar to Earth bending, no Earthbender had ever done it before, that's how powerful and focused she is, it's not just about pure strength, it's about the focusing the strength you have.

Thankfully she stays awesome as an old woman in Legend of Korra, now choosing to be a Hermit and live in the woods, Toph is just a grouchy old lady who is more powerful than ever, which I loved because all the other original characters changed dramatically in Korra, but not Toph, Toph stayed the same, because she's just that stubborn she would never let anything change her. Toph can be blunt and very rude, but it's all part of her charm, she doesn't sugar coat anything and she rarely lies, she may hurt your feeling but you have to admire her honesty. Unlike a lot of shows where the addition of new characters can sometimes feel like it's just there to make the show feel fresh or to appeal to a new demographic, Toph was a natural and fitting edition to the show and honestly the show now feels incomplete in the episodes where she doesn't appear. She only made the show better and is one of my all time favourite characters.

-Danny

Ugh, Polygon.

You know, it's not impossible for Polygon to write good-nay, clever-articles, so why do they release so much of...well this? An article released by Polygon and written by Phil Owen titled "WTF is wrong with videogames". A misleading title but here's the gist: Phil Owen feels that while there is a lot promising about videogames, he feels that they as a medium still have a ways to go to feel like they could be considered a legitimate artform, oh and he uses The Last of Us as his main example...so this'll be fun.

His first topic is about the comparison of films to videogames, talking about certain conventions and cinematic tricks that allow the audience to understand certain elements of the film. The example he uses is a sneeze, in real life, someone sneezing is rarely a cause to alarm, but in a film, a sneeze could mean everything, in the context of the film he used as an example Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a character sneezing was foreshadowing of them being exposed to a terminal illness. Now this is true that films use techniques like this fairly often and videogames don't usually do these, or in some cases, can't do this. Gee, it's almost as if the two are completely different mediums--oh wait! I've said multiple times how i hate comparisons between movies and videogames, the two are different mediums, yes, they have similarities, but every medium has similarities, and videogames and films are very different in a lot of ways too. Videogames don't have to suffer from an expected runtime for audiences, they can present themselves in multiple different forms, 2D, 3D, first person, third person, story, no story, cutscenes, no cutscenes, etc, etc, and oh yeah! The entire thing was made in a computer! Films have cinematic techniques and conventions to tell their story, and videogames have their own set of techniques and conventions to tell their stories. It's not a legitimate argument to say that videogames are different from film thus they must be inferior.

He then states "Films are calculated works from start to finish, and as my friend said, everything that happens in them matters to the work, or at least that's the goal." Which is another difference between film and videogames, apart from maybe subtext and a message for a film to be interpreted, films are permanently linear, you don't choose where the film should go and there is no exploration. Most videogames will give you an element of choice, not necessarily control over the whole narrative but you can explore your setting, you can choose when to fight, how to fight, when to move, it's what made videogames stand out in the first place, when people played Super Marios Bros they loved it because they controlled it, they decided when to move, when to jump, what to collect. You know what that is? A technique that videogames use that cinema can't. Does that make cinema lesser than videogames? Not neccessarily, but it's one of the many ways how the two are different mediums and it is not fair to compare one medium to the capabilites of the other!

Then let's get to the big piece, The Last of Us, one of my all time favourite games and one that I consider to be a masterpiece in gaming and in storytelling in general. Firstly the debate on The Last of Us being the "Citizen Kane of gaming" is a statement I disagree with and go into more detail here, so moving on.You would imagine I would disagree with everything in this piece about it right? Actually no, he does have some fair complaints. There are certain gameplay elements that break the verisimilitude of the environment, like taking 4 scissors to craft a shiv and then it breaks after one hit. Or whenever you need to get across water there will be a convinient pallet to cross on, or if you need to climb somewhere there's a ladder nearby. These mechanics do clash with the realistic and grounded setting of The Last of Us and it's not the only game out there, almost every videogame will have in someway a contradiction between gameplay and story, most of the time it's in very small ways like this so you can probably ignore it, but it's there nontheless. The reason why I think it's unfair to critisize this is because, well, every medium has cheats, has ways that they have to sacrifice part of the story for the purpose of the craft. Like in films, whenever a scene is shot at night yet is bright enough to see everyone's faces, that's not realistic, or characters having a conversation in one scene and then continuing it in a completely different location. They're flaws that come with the craft. Do we comment on it? Sometimes for fun, but to hold it as a legitimate complaint against a specific product or even the medium as a whole is incredibly nitpicky. He even says so in the article that they never feel like chores, so why complain about it? Because it's a problem that exists in all games and not just The Last of Us, problem with that logic is every medium has flaws like this that will cover the majority of the platform. If the cliches of videogames bug you so much then maybe you shouldn't be talking about videogames for a living.

He then goes on to talk more about The Last of Us and ties it into Gears of War and the best way to sum it up is this argument of function versus meaning. When a game sacrifices a portion of the story (No matter how small it is) for the sake of a gameplay mechanic, the player loses a bit of the world and the experience because of it. He sees this as a problem, i see it as a perfect medium. Not everyone plays videogames for the story and prefer the gameplay and vice-verse. Now if you're someone who prefers story over gameplay then that's perfectly fine but don't act like it's an actual problem as much as it is a subjective one. Like he says the shiv problem is there as a challenge for the player and it's not trying to be anything else. I've always felt that if you were to take out the story in The Last of Us it would still be a great game, it has a realistic and fluid cover system, the shooting and melee combat work great and the survival horror aspects of limited supplies ups the tension. There are people who play The Last of Us who had no interest in the story and they still would have gotten an enjoyable experience out of it because the gameplay was fun, even with a some mundane or repetative elements that you yourself said aren't that big of a problem. The Last of Us is that perfect medium between great mechanics and story, yes both do have to make compromises for the other to be great but if they didn't then what you're asking for is a literally flawless game, and that's just not possible. If the game went for one over the other then maybe it could have had a perfect narrative but the gameplay wouldn't have been as great, and we'd have another Beyond: Two Souls on our hands, great story but fails completely as a videogame due to lack of care given to the gameplay mechanics.

More than that i'd like to point out the hipocrasy about this entire article that argues function over meaning. By that I mean this entire article is a portion of a book available on Amazon written by the same man, making this whole thing pretty much one giant advert for it. The meaning and intention of this article is partially lost when the entire reason it exists (It's function mind you) is to sell you shit and stir up controversy with a clickbait title and then go on to insult one of the most popular videogames of all time with an argument that honestly could have been debated about any videogame that even attempts a story.

-Danny

Doctor Who "The Witch's Familiar" Review

Hey whadda ya know, it is possible for a Doctor Who episode to go by without being confusing. This is The Witch's Familar, the second part of last week's episode where The Doctor, Clara & Missy were taken captive by the Daleks on Skaro. Now, Clara & Missy who were supposedly killed last episode are revealed to have just teleported away and are now trying to make their way back to The Doctor, speaking of, The Doctor spends the majority of the episode with his arch-nemesis Davros as he is slowly dying.

*Spoilers Ahead*

So let's talk about that, Davros is dying, and in his dying hours he seems to have changed, he now shows remorse and even empathy for The Doctor's situation. I feel like some classic fans will hate this because, well it's Davros, he's evil in a wheelchair. But that's what death can do to some people, knowing you're going to die can cause change, make you rethink of your life and the people around you, you could even turn to your greatest enemy and beg for help. And it's not like this is out of the blue, we see him as a child, when he's still innocent and changing, they set up a believable way for us to sympathise with him and make him more complex. Then some would complain about The Doctor helping him...except that is exactly what The Doctor would do. The Doctor is compassionate, forgiving, and well...A Doctor. He's tried to help his enemies multiple times in the past, including Davros and if Davros came to him, pleading for help and showing that he's changed, The Doctor would help, no question. Of course that doesn't mean he's stupid. When Davros betrayed him-because even if he's sympathetic he's still evil in a wheelchair-The Doctor had a plan of course, because even when your greatest enemy is dying and you're helping, you don't let your guard down. Then they end it in the most perfect of ways, Davros and The Daleks defeated but The Doctor still doing what's right. He goes back in time and saves young Davros, showed him compassion and mercy, a lesson so simple it could alter the course of history, because that's what The Doctor does, he saves people, he saves as many as possible.

Then there's Missy & Clara, this was also a lot of fun, Missy is as evil as she is helpful, both her and Clara have the same goal in mind but Missy is not only sinister but clever, she tricks Clara, threatens her and even at one point tries to kill her, but well, Clara has no choice, she's her only chance of getting out of there and saving The Doctor. She always keeps you on your toes and you have no idea what she's going to do next. Though i do have issue with the way they end her story, she tries to trick The Doctor into killing Clara and the only punishment he gives her is a warning, but to be fair he knows it's gonna be trouble for her to get off Skaro on her own, but then when she is surrounded by Daleks she says she has a "very clever idea" and then cuts away; that feels more like the writers saying "ehhh, we'll figure it out later".

Also best joke of the night "Proposition: Davros is an insane, paranoid genius who has survived among several billion trigger-happy mini-tanks for centuries. Conclusion: I'm definitely having his chair." I have to say, this season of Doctor who has been really funny so far and we're only two episodes in. I really feel like they've finally found a good blend for Capaldi's Doctor, still grumpy and impatient but also comedic and confident, and of course, always has a plan at the last minute to save the day.

This was a really good episode, in fact it might be one of the best episodes in that past few series, the conversations between Davros and The Doctor were great, the jokes were hilarious though leaving Missy's conclusion a little too open ended. I'm giving The Witch's Familiar a 9/10.

-Danny

Dragon Age: Inquisition - Cheap Thoughts

Dragon Age: Inquisition is the latest game from Bioware, one of my favourite developers, it was released in November 2014 and I have only just finished it. Yeah with Dragon Age games I have a weird playthrough, i'll play a bunch then put it down for months and then pick it up again and get even more addicted. In this case i put a lot more effort into Inquisition than Origins (Never played Dragon Age II) and my gameplay total clocks in at around 80 hours...so let's talk about this game. Dragon Age: Inquisition is a Fantasy RPG and is set in the medieval fantasy world of Thedas, were many of the worlds leaders of both politics & religion are all killed simultaneously in a strange explosion with only one survivor, you. You have also been given a strange power that allows you to close rifts, tears in the fabric of reality due to the unnatural explosion which allows demons to come through and terrorise your world. In the wake of this disaster, several remaining groups all come together to form the Inquisition with you as their leader, the Inquisitor. Your task is to recruit more members to join your Inquisition and close the giant rift in the sky that threatens to destroy our world, being controlled by a man claiming to be a god, Corypheus.

So let's start by talking about the technicals of this game, in comparison to Origins, this game is beautiful. The textures, lip syncing, detail and diversity amongst both characters and environments are a major step up in comparison to Origins which honestly, already feels dated even though it's only 6 years old. Also there are far less glitches and frame rate issues in comparison to Origins, very few times did I experience bugs, except in Skyhold (The HUB World) where I kept finding glitches galore, mind you I did keep jumping from several stories forcing the game to load those sections instantly, so i may have cheated the game a tad there. Some people have said the game doesn't look that good and character models are still stiff with limited movement, which is partially true but I still think it's the best Bioware game and being honest graphics have never been Bioware's strongest suit, they've always focused more on gameplay and story.

Talking of, the gameplay in this game is also great, not that much has changed since Origins from what I can remember though it does run smoother and is more fun to play. I will say the best class is clearly the Mage, you're less likely to get attacked seeing as you fight from a range and you have such a wide range of attacks, fire, lightning, ice, spirit, etc. Rouge is also a really good class to play as, having both range and close combat fighting styles but Warrior is easily the least interesting. All of the attacks feel the same and though Warrior's do have the best defence making them useful for swarms of enemies, they're the least interesting. Though the biggest problem is everyone moves too slowly, including the horses. Also i almost never needed the tactical view or the extra potions you could use apart from healing potions. It also seems like there's a bit of a disadvantage in the levelling system, i could be fighting someone the exact same level as me yet they'll have so much more health and more powerful weapons, that just doesn't seem fair or balanced. Then there's the upgrade system which i'm usually half/half on. I almost never take full advantage of the upgrades systems. In this case i spent a lot of time focusing on weapons and armour but only a little bit of time upgrading them individually, especially seeing as after spending ages perfecting a weapon you'll find an even better one through some loot. But overall the combat is a lot of fun and the upgrading system is good enough that you will understand the necessary portions.

Finally there's the story, which some people have complained is too simplistic in comparison to the original...um, was I the only one who felt the original story sucked? It was pretty much a Lord of the Rings rip off, just replace Orcs with Darkspawn and the Grey Wardens were a boring group to fight for. Here, there is a clear antagonist with goals and feels like a legitimate threat and instead of being a Lord of the Rings rip off, it's a Game of Thrones rip off, but it does it in the best way, not copying the story or environments, but the focus on the politics and morality of your choices, making the story much more fascinating and complex, not the simplified version that was Origins. But the complexities come in the details, the story itself can be pretty simplified, bad guy is bringing demons into the world, good guys need to stop him. The Inquisition I found to be much more interesting than the Grey Wardens, you have several advisers, Josephine who focuses on democracy and politics, Cullen who leads your armies and Leliana who is your spymaster. They often disagree on the best approach and they all have great points that make the Inquisiton feel much more diverse and interesting to be a part of.

Then there are the characters. You've heard me talk about another Bioware series a lot and that being Mass Effect and how they have the greatest ensemble of characters of all time yet surprisingly I found Origins to have a very forgettable cast of characters, in fact i can't even remember most of them. While this ensemble isn't Mass Effect level great, they are fantastic. Everyone has interesting personalities and view points and they actually interact with each other while you're out on missions and that can effect certain dialogue options. Though my favourite moment is in one cutscene where you're playing a card game with them and getting drunk, making them feel much more fleshed out and believable as friends. Even characters like Cassandra or Cullen who i felt i wasn't going to like turned out to be awesome. Blackwall who I thought was going to be my least favourite actually has a really good backstory. My least favourite is probably Vivienne simply because i didn't have that good of a friendship with her and i didn't feel like she even cared that much about the cause, also she was the least powerful Mage in my team. As for romance, because I played as a female I romanced Sera and i felt that was a great choice, my Inquisitor was very respectful of other people and was even a bit of a goody two shoes, so having someone like Sera to make my Inquisitor more playful and goof off and take some more risks felt like a great mixture, she made me loosen up a bit more while i made her take things more seriously, I thought they were a really cute couple. Speaking of The Inquisitor, there's also a great variety of character choices, you can choose your species, class and backstory and these will have actual effects on the story and how other characters view you. So me playing as a female elf lead to a lot of backlash from some people who thought of me as a lower class citizen and then i get to prove them wrong by saving their asses, making it feel much more like an underdog story and much more personal that way.

My only real problem story wise is that your decisions will effect whether characters approve or disapprove of your actions and this is ultimately a pointless system because you don't know how much characters approve or disapprove of you overall and you never feel like they will actually leave the party if they disapprove too much. Then in the ending there's no threat of anyone dying like in Mass Effect 2, which i loved and made it feel much more intense. But overall I loved the story and the characters are the best in all of the Dragon Age series, so if you want to know here is my order from best to worst: Sera, Varric, Cassandra, Dorian, Solas, Iron Bull, Cullen, Josephine, Cole, Lilienna, Blackwall, Vivienne.

Dragon Age: Inquisiton is an improvement over Origins in every way possible, graphically it's beautiful, the combat is engaging and great, the story and characters are excellent and is what makes this game so great and makes me love it. My only problems are minor with the gameplay a few glitches here or there. I'm giving Dragon Age: Inquisition a very high 9/10.

-Danny

Gravity Falls "Roadside Attraction" Review

I don't have a whole lot to say about this one, the gang goes on a roadtrip and vandalises other tourist traps, except that's not actually the plot at all as much as it is a distraction. The real plot revolves around Dipper trying to find a way to flirt with girls and accidently starts to lead on Candy...Oh god we're gonna get a bunch of Dipper and Candy shippers aren't we? Fuck fandoms. So yeah, a lot of the focus in this episode is Dipper learning to flirt with girls and then learning a lesson that it's wrong to lead them on...which is both a stupid lesson to teach kids and an impractical one for when they're older. Yes i know they have to tone down the material for kids because...well they're kids, but there's nothing wrong with flirting with multiple girls and then getting their numbers, that's not you commiting to a relationship, you're allowed to explore your options before then...more importantly, why is this a subject being talked about in a kids show!? Yes a lot of adults watch the show but the fact that it's softed up so much for kids makes the lesson void for them as well and the idea of this being a lesson kids need to know is just stupid.

So yeah, wasn't a fan of the plot, what about the comedy? It was fine. There weren't any gutbusters like last episode and it upsets me that Soos was barely in this one (Though he does still have the best jokes). Though I must admit i'm liking how much Candy & Grenda are getting involved in the show, not only because them & Mabel remind me a lot of girls i used to know when i was their age but also just because of how funny they are, particularly Grenda. But honestly, that's about all I have to say for this episode. The jokes were okay, the story was dumb (and not in a good way) and it's just another okay episode, seriously, what is with this trend of one great episode and one good one? I give this episode a 5/10 (I think that might be lowest score i've given any episode so far).

-Danny

Is It Ever Okay To Pirate?

A conversation that's old as home media itself. You often hear from the media industry that piracy is killing it, you know, like how Taylor Swift seems to believe it'll bankrupt her despite the fact she's worth fucking millions, seriously, if she stopped making music right now, she'd be financially secure the rest of her life as well as her great great grandkids. But really you can't blame them for being upset, they're a business, stealing is illegal and what they were originally supposed to make money off of, they now haven't. Now some people respond to this with "oh but it's an art form! They should just be glad people are talking about it!" well...yes and no. On one hand, it is good that people are viewing your work and very much like it. But on the other, it is completely up to the artists on whether or not they want to give the product away for free or make you pay for it. However the media does tend to over compensate for this and make a bigger deal out of it than it really is. Piracy isn't killing the industry, only a minority of people pirate, but honestly the more the industry punishes consumers as a whole makes more people pirate. Remember when Xbox One was going to have that stupid lock system to prevent a game from being played on two consoles, they said it was to fight piracy, but it would also kill the used game market as well as punish players who wanted to share games with their friends.

Then again, at the same time, consumers who do pirate often take advantage of it. I pirate all the time, i'm not gonna lie, but if i like a product then i want to support the artists. I pirated John Wick because the movie didn't come out in England until 6 months after America, I didn't want to wait that long so i pirated it, and i enjoyed it so much i went to go see it in theatres eventually and bought it on blu-ray. I also pirated Transformers: Age of Extinction because i knew it was going to be trash and i didn't want to support an awful movie, it sucked and i'm glad i didn't give it my money because i didn't have an enjoyable experience, some might say that's a poor excuse but it's how i feel, and besides, it didn't hurt the box office what with it making over a billion dollars. But then there are times were I have to pirate products. I was really looking forward to watching The Boondock Saints but to my surprise there is no England release, so i pirated the movie, loved it and bought the stupid German version because A: it's the only one that'll work on my dvd player and B: I wanted to support the movie. But even when i don't purchase a product, i do still want to support it. Bob's Burgers is a phenomenal show, but it has no dvd or blu-ray release here in England, hell i don't even know if it airs on a channel here. So i watch it online and tell as many people as i can to watch it, maybe then with a big enough audience to get a home media release.

Although you honestly know what the biggest deterrent to piracy is? Just make shit reasonably priced. I don't pirate games but with £40-50 per game is ridiculous and i honestly can't blame people if they don't want to buy that. And the same with television, charging up to £30 per season. I've only just watched all the Rocky movies this year and you know why? Because I found a new blu-ray for all 6 movies for only £20, there, i get some great movies (and some not great ones) and the studio gets my money. This is one of the reasons I pirate a lot of anime (or watch it on Netflix) £40 for the first season blu-ray of Attack on Titan? Go fuck yourself. £25 for two DVD's of Miyazaki movies? Go fuck yourself. And hell, some people in the industry love piracy. The Arctic Monkey's had their first album pirated a lot, but it didn't bother them because it lead to so many people finding out about them and made them massive, the same with the crew of How I Met Your Mother when they learnt their show was the most pirated comedy of all time, they were just glad people were still watching (Especially in those last few seasons).

The big reason why i've started talking about this is because of a recent video by KickThePJ (Or technically PJTheKick) a YouTuber who makes short films and sketches who has just made his first professional webseries Oscar's Hotel, with a proper cast, sets, make-up, even costumes developed by the Jim Henson company and is charging £6.99 or $9.99 for the whole series. Like I said, if he wants to charge for it, that's up to him, he's given plenty of free content in the past on YouTube and this is the biggest (and most expensive) project he's ever done, if he feels it's worth paying for then it's his right. Even then, you're basically paying just over £1 per episode so it's still a good deal if you think about it. Why I bring this up is because in his recent video he talked about how he disdains people pirating the show. Now this is a case where it's much more reasonable than Taylor Swift, like i said it's a great price but more than that it's because it's an independent project with a much smaller and niche audience. If 100 people pirate it then that (ratio wise) is a much more significant portion of the audience in that case. It's the same with Jon Schnepp's documentary "The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened?" it's an independent documentary that he spent over a year of his life working on and if 100 people were to pirate his film then that would be a much larger audience than if people pirated an actual Superman film.

SIDE NOTE: I would recommend both Oscar's Hotel and The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened, both are very good.

So is piracy ever justifed? Well like most things in the world it's not as black & white as you might think. There are benefits from piracy, if people like your product they'll tell other people about it so you get word of mouth and for those who don't abuse their power of piracy will support the show in some way by buying home media or merchandise. But at the same time, if you pirate something and you don't like it that doesn't count as justification because they still gave you a product, you could argue it isn't worth the asking price but even then you should still have to give them something. But on the other hand there are plenty of people out there who pirate out of neccessity and can't afford all of these things and life without art or culture is no life at all. But it is the artists right to charge if they want and if you pirate then you're breaking the law, but most of the time they have an audience so big it won't affect them financially. But on the other other hand there are artists who are a lot smaller and for them piracy is a legitimate problem. God, it's so much easier to see the world in black & white. Grey...I don't know what to do with grey...

-Danny

Voice Actors Are Going On Strike

Members of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of TV and Radio or (SAG-AFTRA for short) are debating whether or not voice actors should be going on strike. Why would they be going on strike you might ask? Well simply put, they're not paid enough. You'd be surprised how little voice actors get paid in comparison to live action actors, even those that play some incredibly iconic roles don't get paid that much. That's why for so many voice actors who portray famous characters will also play incredibly small roles such as "soldier #3" because they need to be constantly working. So why are they going on strike now? Because the money is there to pay them more and they're not getting it. It should be states this is mostly due to conflicts with video game publishers, this is where voice actors feel they're getting the most ripped off.

The videogame industry is the most profitable form of media that there is out there, the industry as a whole out grosses film and television, yet the actors don't get paid nearly the same. And for those of you who feel that because it's only voice acting means they're only doing half as much work, first of all, go fuck yourself, you clearly don't realise how much effort goes into voice acting. Second of all, performance capture is a thing, meaning most actors will also perform physically while doing their performance, so they are doing both vocal and physical performances. The next argument I hear against this is that voice actors aren't as famous as traditional actors and a lot of the time the reason why they get paid so much is because the name brings in a crowd. Now that is true, that's why the voice actors aren't asking for $22 Million a project, but they want and deserve a better pay cut. Grand Theft Auto V is literally the most profitable media product out there making over $3 Billion with the game alone, that's not even including tie-in merchandise like posters and t-shirts which would bring it closer to $4 billion.

This is why voice actors are now hoping for a new system, they get a smaller pay upfront for the project but then get a percentage cut of the sales, now granted it's not going be like 10% each, but even 0.5% would still be a massive influx of income for the actors. Because that's the thing, even though i've been calling them voice actors for this entire thing, they're more than that, they're actors, through and through and they deserve to be treated like it.

-Danny

Changes I Want For Flash Season 2

The Flash returns in just under 2 weeks and as you probably know, it was my favourite superhero show from the last tv year (Sorry Daredevil). But that doesn't mean it was perfect, i did have a few flaws that I hope they work out in the next season. But to be fair, i actually don't have that many flaws and even the ones i do, most of them are just nitpicks that i won't be tearing my hair out if they don't change, but nevertheless, they are still issues I have.

The first one is Cisco's constant referencing. Now look, I love Cisco and the one of his roles is to act as the geeky relatable character, and I love characters that constantly make references, Abed from Community is one of my favourite characters. The problem is how often they force in his references, take for example in the season finale, they talk about the possible end of the world and Cisco says "so long and thanks for all the fish" a reference to Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. But see it doesn't work because it's supposed to be a serious scene and he says it in such a serious manner it comes across as awkward, and even then, the best references are the ones that still make you laugh even if you don't get the humour, here, if you don't get the joke it is really confusing. This started a lot of more in the latter half of season one, after the show had gotten feedback from fans and they noticed they liked Cisco being geeky, so they decided to increase that ten fold by forcing in more nerdy references whether they fit or not. So in season two i want them to cut back on the forced references.

The next one is Barry's speed consistency, now i know he's still young and hasn't reached his full speed yet, but he's still fast enough to catch a bullet, he's fast enough to run on water, he's fast enough to travel through time! Barry is really fucking fast. So why a bunch of robot bees were able to keep up with him and why Captain Cold is able to aim fast enough to hit him with his ice gun, it's ridiculous and doesn't make sense. So in season two, don't put him in these type of situations where he can obviously outrun the problem.

And the final problem, and really this is the only serious problem I have with the show that I feel they have to change. Iris West. Pretty much everything about her is bad. In season one the only way how she tied into the story was as a love interest, as a potential love interest for Barry or an actual love interest for Eddie. Even then she was a horrible girlfriend for Eddie, she didn't trust him, she gave him an ultimatum because he kept secrets even though she keeps secrets herself, the hypocritical bitch. She never did anything nice for him and expected him to treat her like a queen. Then when she finds out Barry's secret she gets incredibly grumpy and self-entitled. Iris, here's a life lesson for you PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE SECRETS! Even her friendship with Barry, the two are supposed to be best friends and help each other out with their problems, but it's always him helping her, never the other way around. In one episode, Barry is sat in the coffee shop, very clearly upset, Iris walks in and says "oh no, we can't both be having the worst day ever, i was hoping to vent" and then proceeds to talk about her problems and doesn't even ask about Barry. Jesus lady! You're best friend is clearly upset and almost never complains about his problems and your first thought it "no! I get to complain!" at the very least ask him if he's okay you cunt! And now that Eddie is out of the picture, what is her role? Joe is a cop, Caitlin and Cisco are scientists, Professor Stein and Ronnie are scientists and superheroes. What does Iris add? What is her role? It took her 20 episodes before she even caught up with everyone else, her subplot of her becoming a reporter was boring as hell (Seriously, this is a show about superheroes, why do we care about her job?). Iris was an awfully written character in the first season in every sense so they have some massive improvements to be made. For starters, make her an emotional anchor for Barry, have her help with his problems, talk to him, be his shoulder to cry on and don't turn into a bitch everytime he does something you don't like. Next, don't feel like you have to force her into the story, don't make her part of the superhero gang, make her Barry's connection to a home and a normal life. But we don't want her to just be a tag along for Barry, give her an arc with Joe, maybe something about her mother comes up, maybe the two have conflict (that she is reasonably upset about for once) and give her an arc to go through and doesn't just feel like a tack on.

So those are changes I would want for season two of The Flash, will any of these things happen? Who knows, but we will find out very soon, seriously though, two weeks is too long to wait!

-Danny

Steven Universe "Nightmare Hospital" & "Sadie's Song" Review

Something I noticed was that these two episodes of Steven Universe had a lot in common, they were both written by the same people and were based around the female characters dealing with controlling mother issues. 'Nightmare Hospital' is based around Connie's mother finding Rose's sword and confiscating it, then at the hospital where she works, her, Connie and Steven are attacked by failed fusion gems and Connie reveals the truth about her training and she and Steven fight off the gems and save the day. While 'Sadie's Song' has Steven convince Sadie to enter a festival due to her great singing, until Sadie's mother finds out and decides to help, accidentally taking over the whole project, in the end Sadie doesn't perform in front of the crowd and instead Steven does it.

So let's start with Nightmare Hospital, something that I love is whenever I watch a cartoon and i think to myself "this is gonna be one of those episodes that scares the shit out of kids" and i always love that because i remember being a kid and getting scared at Goosebumps or Courage the Cowardly Dog and that nostalgic fear is always something fun to look back on and in a decade from now, kids will be doing the same thing with this. An empty hospital that is over run with these monsters who are trying to attack them, and above it all they have no faces meaning the audience can't get any form of emotion of empathy from the creatures and making them even more inhuman. I also really enjoyed how they handled Connie & her mother's relationship, yes the mother is incredibly controlling and doesn't even listen to her daughter. But after saving the day, the conversation that they have is what's really important. Usually whenever a big reveal like this happens, they go to one of two extremes, the parent either becomes even more controlling and would forbid Connie from ever seeing Steven again, or they become instantaneously liberal and give them complete freedom. In reality, a parent should probably go for something in the middle. She sees how strong this has made Connie, and it is a necessary life skill considering the attacks are becoming more frequent so she allows her to continue training, but also tells her to keep her informed about everything that goes on in her life, they make a compromise to please each other. The first step to protecting your child is to have their trust, and i think this is one of the best ways a show has handled the "parent finds out the truth about their kid" cartoon tropes.

Then there's Sadie's Song, which handled it...less well, but still handled it decently. Sadie is also sick of how controlling her mother is, but in this case she waits until the end and reaches her boiling point and freaks out at her mother. And while the two do still sit down and have a conversation, we don't hear what they say and we don't see the results of it. Unlike Connie's situation where she was constantly trying but her mother was being very stubborn, here Sadie doesn't try to even talk to her mother, who seems nice enough and clearly supports her daughter in new adventures, even if she does become far too involved, it's better than not caring at all and i'm sure if Sadie had talked to her before then she would have listened. Instead it's played out that Sadie is the misunderstood one and her mother is to blame when really, Sadie never even gave her a chance. And even then, Steven was just as involved and pushy as the mother, so why didn't he get shouted at? Though yet again this show subtly shows it's progressive and liberal attitude towards gender stereotypes by having Steven wear a dress and make-up, sing a pop song and everyone has almost no reaction to this, they mostly are focusing on Steven's performance and not his aesthetic. It's in my opinion the based way to challenge social conventions like this, don't even bring attention to it, don't even bring up the idea that it's weird for Steven to dress this way, it's much more effective to get your message across. But even though this is a nice bit of supporting your overall message, narrative speaking it's very formulaic and simple.

I'm giving Nightmare Hospital an 8/10 and Sadie's Song a 7/10.

So why did we get two Steven Universe episodes in a row about characters with mother issues? Well my guess is that it's building up to something involving Rose Quartz, Steven's Mother. Rose was the leader of the Crystal Gems and Steven has a lot to live up to, the same way how Connie and Sadie were pushed to live up to their parents expectations. Steven and his mother never had the chance to develop a relationship yet still feels pressured to live up to the expectations set by being the son of an incredibly powerful gem. Or maybe it's just the writers coping with their own personal issues, who knows. Guess we'll find out eventually.

-Danny

Doctor Who "The Magician's Apprentice" Review

You know, i've really been needing to go back and rewatch all of Doctor Who because one: i need to see if it still holds up and two: i don't remember a damn thing that happened in the last few series. Nevertheless, here we are with series 9, and what a way to kick off the show. In this episode we find out that The Doctor is potentially going to die soon, causing Missy and Clara to team up to find him, once they do, they discover that Davros, the creator of the Daleks is still alive and seeks an audience with The Doctor.

So before I get to talking about the actual episode, i want to talk about my opinion on the characters, mainly The Doctor. Peter Capaldi's portrayal i have found enjoyable but lacking a presence the same way that the other Doctors did, the most noticeable way being that he never got a badass entrance like the others...well this episode rectifies that by having The Doctor ride into a medieval battle arena while shredding the electric guitar while riding a tank. That. Is. A. Fucking. ENTRANCE!!! Then there is Clara, a character who i initially wasn't fond of because she had no grounded personality or family, was too perfect and was far too similar to Matt Smith to be interesting. However, ever since she's been working opposite Capaldi, i found her to be much more enjoyable, they solved by biggest problems by giving her a lifestyle outside of The Doctor, making the two polar opposites to make the relationship more interesting and giving her a purpose to be in the Tardis. Finally Missy, who is so damn enjoyable in how sadistic and cartoonish she is, she's like a mixture between Lex Luthor and Harley Quinn (Oh god that image is terrifying). She doesn't really consider herself The Doctor's enemy, in fact, she's his best friend, she knows more about him than anyone else, the two have known each other since childhood and are frankly obsessed with one another. Of course she puts even more dysfunctionality (I know that's not a word) into it by stating that they've been friends longer than humanity have even existed, so of course that would add a little...complexity to their friendship. So the idea of The Doctor and The Master travelling together, i dig it, it's a new twist, it makes sense with this new context and it's damn enjoyable to watch the two play off each other.

But enough of that, let's get to the actual plot of the episode...or atleast we would if i knew what the hell was going on. Yeah that's one of my biggest problems with modern day Doctor Who, the episodes are way too confusing, in this episodes' case, they jump about from planet to planet as if they've already been established before and are well known locations and constant changing times and even then the story isn't told in chronological order of events, then there's the idea that The Doctor might be dying, where did that come from and haven't we already done that a million times before? And the fact that it's all a two parter doesn't help in the slightest. But from what I could gather is that The Doctor ended up on Skaro years ago and helped save a little boys life, as it would turn out that little boy would grow up to be Davros, the Doctor's arch-Nemesis (Missy has a great line about this). Then in present day, Davros is dying and seeks an audience with The Doctor, but it's all a trap and Davros kills Missy and Clara, i think, The Doctor certainly seemed distressed by this and then it all ends with the Doctor going back to child Davros and getting ready to kill him--hang on a minute, how did he end up their? He was just Davros' prisoner in the last scene, or is this The Doctor at a different point? Timey-Wimey!

Half the time in this episode I had no idea what was going on, especially with Davros, don't get be wrong, it's an ingenious set-up, The Doctor accidentally saving the life of his greatest enemy as a child, especially when they played that clip of the 4th Doctor hypothesising this very scenario, that is insanely clever. But I have too many questions and i'm very confused about what's going on, what is Davros' big plan here, how did The Doctor get back to child Davros, why is The Doctor dying, what the hell is all this leading up to? This is the first episode of a new series and I have so many questions, not because the show is setting up clever mysteries but because I have no idea what the hell is going on.

Overall, I liked this episode, mostly for the character interactions which were interesting, memorable and above all else, hilarious, and again, that tank scene is instantly my new favourite 12th Doctor moment ever, but goddamn I am so confused by everything going on. 7/10. It's a high 7 but i just couldn't get it to an 8.

-Danny

An Update On Whiplash

In my initial review for Whiplash i said that my biggest problem with it is that i can't see myself rewatching the entire film, if i were to ever rewatch it then i would probably skip over a large chunk of it. I was wrong. A few weeks back i rewatched the movie and it only got better, the film felt like it ran at a better pace, i was able to pay more attention to the crisp editing and the lines are even funnier the second time round. Basically everything about the movie just got better on a second watch, so i'm updating my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10.

-Danny

My TV Schedule This Fall

The Fall TV Season is fast approaching and that means a lot of reviews. Earlier this year I started reviewing television shows starting with The Flash on Wednesdays and Arrow on Thursdays and I will be continuing that this year...except there will also be even more shows that i want to watch and review including Gravity Falls, Star Wars Rebels, Doctor Who, Steven Universe, Rick & Morty, The Muppets, Supergirl and Bob's Burgers...So clearly i can't review all of those shows. Two things that I am sure of is that i don't want this blog to just be about reviewing the latest episodes of television shows and also that i'm only going to post once a day. So with that being said, some of these shows are going to be cut. I've narrowed this list down to only 6 shows, Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, Gravity Falls, Doctor Who and Star Wars Rebels So here's the schedule that i'll be reviewing stuff.

Monday is a freebie day, this is when i'll be doing a random blog post on anything I want.

Tuesday is Gravity Falls for now, this show has a very irregular schedule so i'll be reviewing Supergirl (Oct 27th) on the alternate weeks seeing as i still don't know if i'll like that yet.

Wednesday still belongs to The Flash (Oct 7th).

Thursday is going to be Arrow still (Oct 8th).

Friday I will review Star Wars Rebels (Oct 16th).

Saturday is another freebie day.

Sunday is when I will review Doctor Who (Sep 20th)

Keep in mind this schedule can change depending on if the schedule for any of these shows changes or if one of the other shows has a major episode that I desperately want to talk about.

-Danny

Rick & Morty: Best & Worst Episodes

Okay, i'm all caught up on Rick & Morty, overall, I like it. It has funny writing, some clever concepts, the animation is...interesting. But it does like to reuse concepts and sometimes the unpredictable nature of the show ironically makes it predictable. And no, i don't think it's better than Futurama like some claim it to be, it's nowhere near that good. Nevertheless, let's go into some more detail by talking about the best episode and the worst episode (so far).

Best Episode: Total Rickall

This was the most like something from Dan Harmon, mostly because it has a very similar presentation to an episode of Community "Paradigms of Human Memory". I say presentation because in Community's case they were having fake flashbacks to events that didn't happen to satirise the clip show trope in sitcoms, for Rick & Morty they were fake flashbacks to events to allow a parasite to alter their memories and pretend they were real family members. Different plots, similar in execution. But hey, I love Community and the episode here was different enough that it didn't feel like a cheap clone of Paradigms. The episode has some of most creative character designs of the show and the clip show format allowed the show to better pace out it's jokes and just go from funny set up to funny set up. But of course still maintaining the show's trademark mean-spirited hilarity with it's climax. Overall i feel like this episode had more jokes to offer than the others with a creative set-up that allows the writers to get even more creative than usual.

Worst Episode: Get Schwifty

Yes i know it's strange how the best and worst episodes aired back to back, but that's just how things worked out. This episode sees the Earth forced to take part in a galactic reality show where the contestants have to sing their hearts out and the losers get their planet blown up. So what's my biggest problem with this episode? Jimmy Neutron did it first. Yeah, in one of the made for TV movies for Jimmy Neutron, Jimmy and his friends and to take part in a galactic reality show where the losers' planets would get blown up. Okay i doubt this is an intentional rip-off, in fact i doubt this crew has even seen Jimmy Neutron, and for JN it was a Survivor parody, in this case it's an American Idol parody, but that's all i could think of was Jimmy Neutron, and you know something else? Jimmy Neutron did it better. It was more creative and had better jokes, here, the jokes aren't that funny, Ice-T is the only surviving musician and he's an alien who's actually made of ice...what? Then there's a strange B-Plot where they satirise religious extremists, wait, what do these two things have in common? Why is Summer so easily swede by them? Even the music of the episode sucks, at the very least they could give us some generic and soulless yet equally catchy and upbeat pop music to listen to, it is an American Idol parody after all. Overall, this just wasn't a good episode, it was the least creative, it was the least funny and the songs suck.


-Danny

Naughty Dog's Definition of an "Accident"

"Did Naughty Dog Just Accidentally Announce The Last of Us 2?" - You know, you reach a point where you see this headline so often that it can't actually be considered an accident at this point. For the past few months there have been these "accidental" leaks of Naughty Dog doing a Last of Us 2, some of these leaks include someone posting on their LinkedIn profile that they did early character models for The Last of Us 2, Nolan North talking about future Naughty Dog projects and slipping in "I know they're planning a Last of Us 2" even though he doubts he'll be in that game, and now most recently a designer for Naughty Dog discussing the Uncharted Collection and made a comparison between this and "The first Last of Us". All of these are subtle hints towards the potential of a Last of Us to.

Now, there are a few things to talk about when it comes to this, are Naughty Dog planning on doing a Last of Us 2? Probably. After all, considering the last game was a HUGE success and is considered by many to be one of, if not, the greatest game of all time, it would make sense for them to do a Last of Us 2. But a lot of people have been saying "God, they're very clearly doing another one! Why don't they already announce it!" Because none of this means that they're very clearly doing another one. Let's say Naughty Dog isn't planning on doing a Last of Us 2, they would at the very least have talked about it, they would have had multiple meetings, they would have worked on some rough drafts of stories and character designs and all that stuff. Right now they're most likely in the very early stages of pre-production for the game seeing as most of their focus is on Uncharted 4, so what that means is, they could very easily can the whole project, they might not be able to come up with a good enough story, or be able to agree on what the next game should be or any other problem. The reason why they haven't announced the project even though they are clearly working on it is because there is still plenty of time for them to realise that making another game might not work and it might not be worth it. So what would be the point in announcing a Last of Us 2 and in 3 months from now they say "actually we couldn't get what we wanted so we're not gonna do it" they would get everyone's hopes up and have them crushed, all because they announced it too early.

But then let's say that they have worked out a story and art design and have the whole game figured out, why wouldn't they announce it? Because of Uncharted. Their next game is the Uncharted Collection coming out to PS4 and then after that it's Uncharted 4, that is what they're focusing on and that's what they want their audience to focus on. They don't want people to be asking "How are things coming along with Last of Us 2?" because that's currently on their back-burner, they don't want to have spent months and months putting their hardest efforts into a game and have people say "I wish The Last of Us 2 would be out already". Once Uncharted 4 has been released, i guarantee you we will get a Last of Us 2 announcement, even though everyone will be like "Well duh, we know that" they don't want that to be at the front of your mind when it comes to Naughty Dog games, because even now when we know it's coming, the fact that it's not officially been announced means we all have that little part in our brain that says "maybe it won't happen".

-Danny

Why I Have Faith In Channing Tatum As Gambit

It's funny, back when it was first announced that Channing Tatum was going to play Gambit my first reaction was "ehhhhhhhhhh, i don't know..." but then when it was rumoured that he was leaving i was legitimately upset by it, and was releaved when those rumours were dispelled. So why is that? Well thing is, when Tatum was first announced, not a whole lot of people were into it, people seem to be in this 2010 mindset of it all, you know, back when all of us saw him as nothing more than walking muscle and couldn't act to save his life. Since then, he's really gone on to prove himself. First he did the Jump Street movies and Magic Mike movies to prove he's a likeable actor; then he did Foxcatcher to prove he's a good actor and not to mention the enthusiasm and effort he's putting into just the pre-production of the movie goes to show how passionate he is in getting this film right. But the final seal for me on me having faith in him is how Fox handles the casting of their movies. Just look at the X-Men, Patrick Stewart as Professor X, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Ellen Page as Kitty, Nicholas Hoult as Beast, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique, Hugh-Freaking-Jackman as Wolverine. They don't just go for household names, they go for the people who were right for these roles. Yes most of these people are big stars now, but these are the movies that made them stars (Patrick and Ian aside). Not to mention James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender leading the charge now, two oscar worthy actors who are committed to their roles.

Now you might be saying that Marvel always gets a great cast for their movies, just look at what the core Marvel films are doing. Yes the Marvel Cinematic Universe does have a large roster of A-Listers for their films but rarely do they have to put that much effort into it. You think Robert Redford was giving his A-Game for Winter Soldier? You think Jeff Bridges spent months prepping for Iron Man? SIDE NOTE: who even remembers that Jeff Bridges was in Iron Man? Now that's not to say these actors are giving bad performances, but they rarely have to go the extra mile. Fox on the other hand is always challenging their actors, putting the characters into new situations, making them emote and try something new. Just think about any of the big emotional scenes from X-Men, can you think of a time when any of the MCU actors had to put that much effort into their performances? Again, not to call them bad, most of them do a great job, but nothing out of their wheelhouse. This is going to be a new type of role for Tatum, but that's what Fox does best, challenging their actors and almost always getting results.

But the biggest actor in Tatum's favour is Ryan Reynolds, who's in a very similar situation as Tatum. They've both done a ton of crap in the past and at one point people thought they didn't think they could act worth a damn. Yet they both have so much passion and are putting so much effort into these roles, what's the difference? We've seen Reynolds as Deadpool, we know he's going to be great in the part. That's all Tatum needs, to show the world what he's got, and everything so far for him is promising. We've seen him act well in roles before, he's passionate about the role and like all the actors at Fox it's still going to be something new for him. That is why I have faith in Channing Tatum as Gambit.

-Danny

Frankenstein (1931) - Cheap Thoughts

When it comes to reviewing adaptations, there are two ways you should look at it, how does it stand on its own, and how does it stand as an adaptation? Naturally the more important aspect is how does it stand on its own. Judging a movie simply because it differs from the source material isn't inherently a flaw, and any actual flaws in the film that can be explained by reading to book fails to stand on its own merits. With that being said, Frankenstein is one of the most iconic films of all time, not only did it revolutionise the genre of Horror (Horror wasn't even considered a genre at this point in history) but it's become part of pop-culture history, everyone knows the phrase "it's alive! it's alive! it's alive" and the mear imagery of Frankenstein's monster is identifiable in an instant. But with that being said, i don't think the film is all that good.

Again, looking at it on it's own first, the film has a fairly bare boned story, mad scientist creates a monster and it begins to cause havok. Even back then i can only assume it wasn't revolutionary in terms of plot. There are moments here and there that work, mostly in the scenes where we are meant to sympathise with the beast, but for the most part, i don't think it's a good story. I don't understand why Henry Frankenstein (we'll get to the name change in a bit) is supposed to be a sympathetic character, i don't understand why he has a fiancee, especially when he's more interested in his work than his future wife and i don't see why people keep trying to help him. Not to mention, for a scientist so brilliant that he literally reversed death, he makes a lot of dumb decisions and is quite ignorant to his own creation's reactions. And it's not just because he's mad, but even his mentor Dr Waldman helps him out in his poorly thought out decisions. For example, at one point they try to drug the monster, so their plan is to use Frankenstein as bate and have Waldman sneak up on him, this is an incredibly poorly thought out plan that could have a million things go wrong.

Then there's the ending of the movie where it just sort of...stops. They never give us a definitive answer on whether or not the monster lives, and it's not a scenario where it's up to interpretation of they wanted to leave an element of mystery, it's more of like they just forgot. He's trapped in a burning windmill and then it just fades to the next scene where Frankenstein's father says in just one sentence that Frankenstein and his wife lived and are going to have a child. But wait a minute, last we saw them Frankenstein was near death and his wife was in shock, don't we atleast get them to tell us that they're okay, this is just a sloppily written epilogue, and it's not like the movie was running over time, it's only 70 minutes long. Also the concept of a "criminal brain" being the reason the monster was rampant never comes into play and doesn't logically make sense. The monster doesn't act like a criminal, he acts more like Lenny from Mice & Men, giant and powerful yet dumb as a rock. If they want us to sympathise with the monster (which they clearly do) then why tell us he has the mind of a criminal? That doesn't make sense for the plot or the audience.

But then we look at it as an adaptation...it's not good. In fact, this is the bare bones of the book, as if someone just read the blurb of the book and thought that was enough. The book goes into far more detail and takes place over the course of years, showing the torture and growth of both Frankenstein and his monster. Yes, the monster can talk in the book, and think, and emote, and has more character than just Zombie Hodor. The same can be said for Victor Frankenstein, yes they for some reason changed his name in the movie and he has a friend called Victor...that's just confusing. In the book he was a mad man but also showed hope to live an ordinary life that would be stricken with tragedy by his own doing. You care about both Frankenstein and his creation and question who is the real monster and who is the man?

As a standalone movie, it's fine, it's short and simple to understand and has some nice make-up effects as well as the fact that the popularity of the movie lead to more people reading the book, i can't hate it. But as an adaptation, it simplifies the material of the original book to an irritating degree. You want my recommendation for a good Frankenstein story? Read the book. 4/10.

SIDE NOTE: Why is it so hard to get a good adaptation of Frankenstein? It's had a million opportunities, none of which good.

-Danny