How To Write The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

You may be thinking to yourselves how stupid it is to try and analyse the Ninja Turtles. Superman and Spider-Man make sense, they're superheroes that have been around for decades with multiple adaptations analysing the characters and making them staples in pop-culture...well the Ninja Turtles have done all those things as well, they've been comics, tv shows, blockbuster movies, they've become the next instalment in a long line of silly comic book to money making and beloved franchise that has spanned several generations. Even more surprising, there is actually some depth to these characters that is worth discussing, and there's four of them this time. Yeah, go figure. So let's actually take a look at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and see what kind of analysis we can come up with.

Throughout their 31 year history, the ninja turtles have had a lot of different interpretations, they started out as a dark & gritty satire of comic book characters, then got turned into the iconic and silly cartoon of the late 1980s, then they received a few live action stints, they only good one being the 1990's film. Then they went back to been serious and badass, then silly again, top it all off with a live-action/cgi blockbuster hit that actually does still have something to offer to their legacy. Starting with the comic book series, like i said, it was intended as a satire of dark & gritty comic books of the time, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird came up with the silliest idea they could think of and wrote and drew it to be as serious as possible. Though this is the origin of the Ninja Turtles legacy and is a good story in it's own right, very little of it has carried over to our modern day ideas of the franchise. A lot of characters and stories have been carried over, but the details, tones, characterisations and even designs have all been changed and accepted since then. That's where the 1987 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon comes in, granted it was a complete 180 from the comics and became a goofy and child friendly cartoon, this is where the ninja turtles really soared in popularity and was the catapult for their success, it also have a lot of staples to the characters including the colour of their masks, their catchphrases and the best theme song for the series. Though in terms of characterisation, it set the ground work for future instalments, but others would find better success in defining our heroes in a half-shell.

The 90's was all about the live action films, the 1990's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie tried to act as a mixture between the comic book and the cartoon and for the most part succeeded, at the time it was the best at defining the personalities of the turtles and their relationships, including Raph's temper, his relationship with Leo and the theme of brotherhood. But the follow-up sequels were less than impressive both in terms of stand-alone films and adaptations. But the biggest flops was the live action television series Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation and the Coming Out of Our Shells Tour...both are beyond awful in so many ways, never watch them. Thankfully in 2003 the series was given a new life with a new cartoon series which mostly took after the original comic book, but also tried the hardest to give the characters more complexity and new dimensions to them, as well as expanding on their existing relationships. This was then carried over in the 2007 TMNT film, though not a direct sequel, carries over the tone and development the 2003 show had started. Then in 2012 a fully CGI cartoon decided to take the best elements from all of the other adaptations and throw them together, giving us arguably the best and most defined versions of the characters so far and giving us plenty of comedy and drama. By this point in the franchise, the turtles had clearly defined personality traits but also hidden layers that given to the right people were able to show these characters do have thematic dignity...then the 2014 movie came out. By no means a bad adaptation (well, maybe a few means) the turtles themselves were very bare boned, it tries to carry over some of the themes, but acted as if it didn't know why those themes were there to begin with. But i'll come back to that later, now that i've set up how so many different adaptations can bring their own ideas, it's time to see how this amalgamation of creators and writers were able to fully define the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and how each one does have a basic layer to them, but also a hidden layer.

Where better to start than with the leader himself, Leonardo. His basic layer is that he's the leader...and that's kind of it. I hear a lot of people who were fans of the original cartoon say that he was they're least favourite because all he was, the leader, there wasn't much of a personality to him except that he was in charge, everyone else had a schtick, he was the blank slate that a lot of kids could project themselves into. In future adaptations he would become more interesting but mostly because of his relationships with other characters, his loyalty to Splinter, him budding heads with Raph, his contrast with Shredder. He was given some more character traits, he's the most hard working, he's the most secretive and the best strategist in the team, but does still have the least defined personality, but that's not to say there isn't more too him. His hidden layer is that he's afraid, he's afraid he'll fail his team. Leo's nickname (and sometimes insult) is fearless leader, but in reality, he is incredibly insecure in his own abilities, he doesn't believe he's fit to be the leader, he's not ready or he could make a mistake that could cost the lives of his team. This is mostly explored in the 2003 cartoon and the 2007 movie, where he goes on a spiritual quest to learn more about himself and prepare for his duties. That is what makes Leo interesting, that's what makes him complex, his insecurity in himself.

Then there is the hot head of the group, Raphael, even though it took him the longest to define, he's also the one who has been the most consistent, his personality of being the tough guy with anger issues was first introduced in the 1990's movie, since then it's maintained relatively the same because they nailed it the first time round. One of the big conflicts with the character is the relationship between him and Leo, they are constantly at arms with each other, always disagreeing, never getting along and always fighting. This is handled best in the 2007 film where to two of them finally fight without holding back and we see them at their ugliest. But then this is all brought back in to his hidden layer, he's cares the most. Raph may get angry at his brothers, there are times where it may seem like he hates his brothers, but the truth is, he cares more than any other, he will fight for his brothers until his dying breath, he will always be there to protect them, but of course he's too macho to ever admit it. This is one of the things that I was referring too when i said the 2014 film didn't understand why the characters behave this way. In the film, Raph says the reason why he's so hard on his brothers is because he's scared he wasn't good enough to stand by them, when that's just not true. He's hard on them because he's scared what could happen to them if they aren't their best, he knows he can protect them, or at the very least will try the hardest, but he would feel better if they could protect themselves, otherwise if they were to die in battle, he would feel guilty, he would feel like there was more he could have done to improve himself and his brothers.

Next there is Michelangelo, the party dude, the cool one of the team, of course over the decades the definition of "cool" has changed a lot, he started as the surfer guy and these days he's more of the fanboy, pop-culture referencing type of cool. He's still the pizza loving, catchphrase shouting goofy turtle we've always known, just the details around his personality have changed with time, but the basics have remained relatively similar. And yes, surprisingly, Mikey also has a hidden layer to him, he has the most raw potential out of all the turtles. In both the 2003 and 2012 cartoon, we see that when he does focus and try, he's actually the most powerful ninja, and also a great strategist, in the 2003 cartoon, there's a fight between him and Raph where he wins just by taunting him, exploiting Raph's weakness, getting him angry and sloppy, giving Michelangelo the upper hand. The problem is, he has very little focus, maybe a case of ADD, but when he tries, he's a great fighter, after all, he uses the least practical weapon out of the team and is still able to hold his own.

Finally there is Donatello, and there's a reason why I saved him for last, because i disagree with elements of his characterisation. On the outside he's the smart one of the group, he does machines, even if it makes no logical sense how a mutant raised in the sewers was able to become the smartest man on the planet...it's a freakin' Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, i'm hardly going to argue with their logic. He's also the most compassionate and level headed of the group, more hopefully to solve issues democratically than physically, because of this it also makes him the physically weakest of the group, and that leads me to his hidden layer. Donatello being the weakest member and also having the most basic weapon has lead to him being unsure of himself as a fighter on multiple occasions, my problem with this is it's the exact same layer of Leonardo, his insecurity in himself and his role, the specifics might be different, but it's the same character arc. In my opinion, a much more unique and engaging arc for him would be not insecurity, but ignorance. You often hear the phrase "brain over brawn" and while this is relevant in a lot of scenarios in both life and the franchise, there are also plenty of occasions where brawn is better than brain, especially when you're getting into life or death fights every week. Donnie has suffered because of this before, in the current run of the comics *spoilers* Donatello had to fight against Bebop and Rocksteady all on his own and they killed him, if it were any of the Turtles, they probably would have lost, but would put up enough of a fight to either get away or beat Bebop and Rocksteady enough to scare them off. Donnie's ignorance to the importance of physical strength lead to his death and I would like this to be explored a lot more.

Finally, there is the major theme with the Turtles, the one that every good adaptation remembered to feature as a prominent part, they are brothers. They argue, they fight, there are even times when they don't like each other, but they will always love each other, they will always fight for each other, they never stand alone and never turn their back. It's because of their brotherhood that they've beaten so many foes and live to fight another day. Alone, they're tough, together, they're unbeatable. You may say that this is a story point that has been done so many times that it's redundant, that is a sentiment i disagree with entirely. The theme of brotherhood is the defining element of the Turtles, taking away that is like taking away the idea of them being turtles, it's part of their identity, it's what makes them, them. That is why it's the most important element in writing a story about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Recommended Stories: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Movie (1990) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Cartoons (2003-2009/2012+), TMNT (2007), Turtles Forever (2009), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Comic Book (2011+)

How To Write Superman

Similar to my Spider-Man post, it's time to talk about the original, the greatest, the man who stands for truth, justice & freedom, Superman. And that's not just a fancy description, but that's the honest truth, it's what Superman does, it's who he is, it's not about the powers or the looks, it's not about who he fights or how he fights, but why he fights. He fights because he knows humanity can be better, that he honestly believes that they were worth saving, all they need is a symbol, he can be that symbol. That is his true power, showing the best that humanity can be while also being the god that they need to admire. In the live action adaptations we've seen so far, each one of them maintains some form of the basic elements he needs. Christopher Reeve is easily the best portrayal we have so far, yes from a production value stand point he is the silliest, but he also maintains the charisma, honesty and good nature of Superman. Brandon Routh perfectly captures the values and emotional shortcomings of the character, but failed to deliver on the action and struggles he's known for. While Henry Cavill showed his struggles to balance the line between man and god and how he can overcome any obstacle, but also lost the good nature of the character.

So let's talk about him, starting way back at his origin, the destruction of Krypton and what that means for him as a character, the true value behind this disaster is that it doesn't hold any value to who he is. Don't get me wrong, it's a key moment in his history and it does hold weight to him, but it doesn't effect him as a person. Clark doesn't find out about Krypton until he's already an adult, when he's already decided who he wants to be in life, what role he's going to play thanks to his powers, meaning his reaction to Krypton doesn't effect who he is as a person, he's already decided to become Superman. If Uncle Ben never gets shot, Peter Parker never becomes Spider-Man, if the Wayne's aren't gunned down, Bruce Wayne doesn't become Batman. If Clark Kent never learnt the truth about Krypton, he would still become Superman. All the revelation for Krypton does is give Clark some personal clarity and give him more context to his situation, but it doesn't change the path that he was already on.

Now when it comes to discussing Clark Kent, there are two different versions, there's Clark the reporter and Clark the Kansas Boy. Kansas Boy Clark is a simple man, he cares about his family, wants to be happy and doesn't really ask for much in return. He doesn't demand glory or action, just the every day pleasures and dreams of your average joe. Even with his godlike powers, he was raised on a farm, there was no drama or end of the world scenarios, he found pleasure being just a regular guy and not having the pressure of the entire world. Then there is Clark Kent the reporter, or what it really is, fake Kent. People often make fun of how no one can see the difference between Superman and Clark Kent, they look exactly the same, just one of them wears glasses. The disguise isn't in the glasses, it's in his personality. Clark Kent the reporter is a doofus, he's clumsy, he's always late and he's a coward, people don't see past the glasses because they don't see how someone this pathetic could be Superman. It's like when people see those old pictures from hundreds of years ago and think they look like celebrities, yeah they may look like them and we might even joke about it, but no one actually believes that it could be them. This is what Christopher Reeve in Superman: The Movie did best, his portrayal as reporter Clark was so dorkishly lame that you would never believe he's Superman.

Then there is Superman, the man with the power of gods, can fight any fight and is the most powerful superhero ever. But Superman isn't the greatest superhero just because he's the most powerful, but also for what he stands for. What are Superman's ideals? What are the rules for Superman? Well on the most basic level, Superman is nice, he is kind hearted, he doesn't go out looking for a fight, he will always give the bad guys a chance to surrender, a chance to be redeemed. Like Spider-Man, no issue is too small, everyone is worth saving and he would sacrifice himself for a complete stranger. My all time favourite moment comes from the comic book All-Star Superman where Superman stops a teenage girl from committing suicide, it's just a single page and it's just him talking to her and giving her a hug. He doesn't force her to do anything, he just empathises and gives her the help she needs. He's compassionate, he's understanding, he's incorruptible and will always do what's right. That may seem a little basic in a hero, but considering we live in an age where anti-heroes are the big ticket and everyone needs to have that little bit of a dark edge, Superman being the one hero who will always do the right thing is surprisingly refreshing. And yes there have been some great stories where Superman goes dark (Injustice God's Among Us) for the most part he has remained the boyscout we all know and love.

Then there is the reasoning behind his no kill rule. It's easy to say a superhero won't kill because it's the wrong thing to do, but to have an actual personal reasoning behind it is what makes it interesting. In Superman's case, the fact that it's the wrong thing to do is pretty much the only reason, but it goes deeper than that. Like i said, Superman is a symbol of good, his main goal is to inspire people, to show them that they can be better, and the main way how he can do that is to show it is possible to defeat evil without having to lose your humanity, you don't have to stoop to their level and killing isn't going to solve the problem, it's just going to make you part of it. He's so far into the role that if Superman were to kill then he would lose all of his credibility, all the effort he's put into his image and suddenly his words and message holds no value. It's also his way of showing that he's not above the system, he doesn't have the right to take a life more than anyone else did, he still wants to be treated as an equal, as a human, that's why if he was to ever kill, he would willingly go to jail for it, because he deserved it. If you want to see the best portrayal of this rule, i recommend Superman Vs The Elite. So with that being said, why was I okay with Cavill's version of Superman killing in Man of Steel? One: he was in a life or death situation with no other way to beat Zod, and two: he was a new and young Superman, he only just decided to bear his responsibilities, he doesn't entirely know who he wants to be and hasn't figured out his views on killing.

Then we come to his shortcomings, and i don't mean Kryptonite or magic, but i mean the real problems he has. One of the biggest complaints i've heard against Superman is "He's so overpowered!" which is a statement i despise. Saying he's overpowered is basically saying you can overcome all of life's problems simply by punching them. Superman is a god amongst men, he's from a different planet and has more power than anyone, but he was raised in Kansas and on our cultures and morals. He's an outcast of two worlds, not really fitting in anywhere, wanting to be the hero we need, but also the man we can accept as one of our own. Truth be told, Superman is a man with two planets but no home, but it's more than that, some humans are scared of his power and think that it's too much and he feels the exact same, he's scared he'll one day do something he'll regret, whether intentional or accidental he'll cause havoc and destruction that'll show how wrong he is for this world. In Justice League Unlimited, Superman talks about how he always has to treat the world like it's made of paper, afraid he's going to hurt someone or destroy something, always having that constant fear 24/7. That is Superman's biggest downfall, he cares too much. In Superman Returns, there's a great scene where Superman is floating above the Earth and just listening to the world, listening to the cries for help all across the planet and he knows he can't save everyone, he's a god amongst men and yet he feels powerless. Say what you will about the film, it's pretty boring and the plot sucks, but man did they get this character right.

In the end, Superman is the greatest Superhero because he's the only one who thinks on a long-term global scale, the way he saves humanity isn't just by punching bad guys, but helping us want to improve ourselves so we're worth saving, that's what makes him a Superman.

Recommended Stories: Superman: The Movie (1978), Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000), Justice League [Unlimited] (2001-2006), All-Star Superman (Comic), Superman Vs The Elite (2012).

-Danny

Sony's Future Movies

Sony Pictures have announced some changes in release dates of some of their upcoming movies for the next few years, a lot of these we knew were coming out, some we didn't, but now we have a set list and set release dates. Except we don't, because i'm willing to bet more than half of these movies are either going to get cancelled or have their release date changed, because if there's one guaranteed fact about Hollywood, anything that's planned more than 2 years in advanced is not going to happen. So let's take a look at these films.

Money Monster – 8th April 2016
The Shallows – 24th June 2016
Ghostbusters – 15th July 2016
Patient Zero – 2nd September 2016
The Magnificent Seven – 23rd September 2016
Underworld 5 – 21st October 2016
Passengers – 21st December 2016
Jumanji – 25th December 2016
The Dark Tower – 13th January 2017
Resident Evil 6 – 27th January 2017
Bad Boys 3 – 17th February 2017
Baby Driver – 17th March 2017
Barbie – 2nd June 2017
Uncharted – 30th June 2017
The Lamb – 8th December 2017
Bad Boys 4 – 3rd June 2019

So for a lot of these films I have no problem with, i mean i have a problerm with another Underworld and Resident Evil movie, but that's life. Some of these i kind of laugh at, others I cringe at. A remake of Jumanji for example, now when it comes to remaking classic films, i have no problem with it as long as you can bring something new to it, but let's face it, what makes Jumanji good isn't the story or the effects, it was Robin Williams, without him, that film doesn't stand the test of time, so remaking the film, especially this soon after his death feels almost like they're spitting on his grave. Now it could be really good, it's always possible, but who are you going to get to replace Robin Williams? No one.

Then there are the Bad Boys movies, making sequels this long after the last one...who was asking for a Bad Boys 3!? More so, who was asking for a Bad Boys 4!? And I see Sony hasn't realised that you really shouldn't plan out more than one sequel at a time, because if Amazing Spider-Man and Terminator Genisys have taught us anything, you have to wait to see if the film released is successful enough to warrent a sequel. Then there are the plans for a Barbie movie...but not just any Barbie movie, a live action barbie movie...because in this day and age where feminism in the media is taking such a strong stance, especially with a studio like Sony...Barbie is their leading lady? Seriously, who wants to see a fucking Barbie movie!? Finally there is Uncharted, which i would love to see a live action Uncharted movie, the problem is, they've been trying to make this damn thing since 2009, they have no script, no cast and no director, and this is supposed to be released in theatres in less than 2 years from now? Hollywood, when will you learn? Stop setting release dates before you have a goddamn movie!

-Danny

Gravity Falls 'Dungeons, Dungeons, and More Dungeons" Review

After two mystery heavy episodes, we've gone back to the traditional Gravity Falls episode, mostly jokes and creative stories with a little bit of mystery put in for good measure. Here we have Dipper trying to find someone to play Dungeons, Dungeons & More Dungeons with but no one seems interested, that is except for Great Uncle Ford who Dipper desperately wants to bond with in hopes to learn more about the mysteries of Gravity Falls. However. once it starts interfering with everyone else, things get out of hand and due to a magic infinity dice, the characters in the story come to life and they have to play a real life version of DD&MD in order to send them back to their own dimension. What was interesting about this episode is how much meta-humour was in it, yes Gravity Falls has made meta-jokes and references in the past, but they took it to a whole new level here, not only making jokes of Dungeons & Dragons, but also themselves and their fans. When Grunkle Stan talked about why it's not weird for an adult to watch a kids show because "it has a very engaging mystery and plenty of jokes that would go over kids heads" me and my friend just sort of looked at each other acknowledging that was meant for us. Not to mention the twin brother twist in ducktective. I think that's what makes it work, they didn't necessarily insult their audience (because that would be stupid) they just pointed out the silliness of it, but at the same time they made fun of themselves in the process. Even the Dungeons & Dragons stuff wasn't mean spirited or insulting, they show it from both perspectives, Dungeons & Dragons can be a fun game, but it's also needlessly complicated and people can get way to involved into the escapism of it all. But there are those who judge it harshly even though they've never tried it and the game it relatively harmless and (shocker) fun from time to time.

They say you can't really satirise something unless you truly love it, and that's what comes across here, a fantasy piece of escapist fiction making fun of another fantasy piece of escapist fiction. It could be seen as really hypocritical if they didn't show the positives of it as well as make of themselves for good measure. So i'd say it's all in good nature. But, there's still plenty of jokes outside of the meta-humour that had be laughing, Grenda is apparently a murderer now, gotta love a bit of dark humour in a kids' tv show. Also Mabel's expressions in this episode were hilarious, her dialogue was good but seriously, her constant change and exaggeration of her feelings was funny as hell, a lot of the visual jokes in this episode were funnier than normal. That centaurtaur joke had me laughing my ass off for how strange a visual that was. Also making fun of 90's culture is always hilarious, a time when everything had to be extreme and hip, Dipper's line especially got me laughing "the 90's must have been a strange time", mostly because it's always strange for me to think that there are people alive now who were never alive in the 90's who are nearly adults...it's so strange.

Then in the end we got a little bit of plot development with Great Uncle Ford's interdimensional rift, who knows how that's going to come into play, it could do anything, be anything, i'm looking forward to seeing where they go with that. Also Weird Al Yankovic as Probabilitor was awesome, this show is really good at getting major guest stars, JK Simmons, Weird Al, Nick Offerman, Nathan Fillion, Mark Hamill, etc.

Overall, this was a really good episode, delivered plenty of laughs, had a great plot and included enough set-up for future episodes. I'm giving DD&MD an 8/10.

-Danny

Should Tyrese Gibson Be John Stewart?

Tyrese Gibson, best known for playing Roman Pearce in the Fast & Furious movies, had been auctioning himself to play John Stewart in the upcoming Green Lantern movie. Now actors auctioning themselves for these kind of roles is nothing new, hell, his F&F co-stars Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel both successfully lobbied for the roles of Black Adam and Groot, so it's understandable why Gibson would want this role. I also would be very happy if John Stewart is the main lantern in the new Green Lantern movie because he is my personal favourite Lantern, and I am very happy to hear an actor is this passionate about playing a role. With that being said, i don't think Tyrese is right for the part and his efforts to get the role went from nice to sad pretty quickly. Yes a lot of these talks have lead to conversations with Warner Bros so it's working to a degree, but good god this is just coming across as desperate at this point, the only thing sadder is when Sean Young was so desperate to play Catwoman that she broke into Tim Burton's office in costume. Now we've reached a point where if he does get cast it'll feel more like he bullied them into submission than actually earning the role.

But then there's the fact that he's just not right for the part, not to criticise his acting too much, because he is a fine actor and is by no means the worst pick for the role, Tyrese Gibson is not John Stewart. John Stewart is a mature veteran who acts as a dignified and respectable leader, he should dominate the screen and is the most responsible man in the room. He takes his job seriously and always gives his all, basically put, he's the adult of the Justice League. Superman is a boy scout, Batman doesn't trust anyone and Wonder Woman is temperamental, John Stewart is the one person who always has his head on straight and will always do the right thing. Judging by Tyrese's previous work, he doesn't suit this role, he's more of the cocky comic relief sidekick who screws up every so often but gets it right in the end. That's not John Stewart, if anything, that's Guy Gardner, so if you want to change the character's race and cast him as a different lantern then fine, but honestly, i'm yet to see anything in his career so far that would show that he has the capabilities to do the role of John Stewart justice, you know who would be a good fit for this role? Idris Elba. Not only does he have the aged and mature aspect down, but he's also played respectable leaders in the past, he's the right age, he's got the right look and he's a better actor than Tyrese, he's the much best choice for the best Lantern.

-Danny

My Favourite Characters - Phillip J Fry

Futurama is one of my all time favourite comedies and one of the best television shows that I have ever seen, but none of it would work without it's main character, Phillip J Fry. Fry was originally from the 20th century, stuck in a dead end job and going nowhere with his life, that was until he ended up frozen and woke up in the year 3000 where even though his life stayed relatively the same, he was happy and felt like he belonged. He had new friends, was happier with his job and the world was just as silly and strange as he was. On the most basic of levels that make me love Fry is how funny he is, always making me laugh with his idiotic antics, his crazy schemes with Bender and his misunderstandings of 31st century culture. He's a hilarious character played excellently by Billy West, who also plays other excellent characters in the show like Professor Farnsworth, Zapp Brannigan and fan favourite Zoidberg. But Fry is my favourite of his characters because of how relatable he is, even in the wacky world of the year 3000 he still maintains the heart & soul of a 20th century kid, making his problems relatable, his relationships identifiable and him as a whole the audiences anchor and surrogate. Not to mention, he's a total nerd and proud of it, unlike a lot of characters in today's pop culture that tries to glorify being a nerd and either misrepresents them or ends up making fun of them (*cough* Big Bang Theory *cough*) Fry is a blend between the two, still expressing why it's a good thing the way he is, but also acknowledging sometimes being a nerd can be lame, but respectable nonetheless.

But there is still more to him than his stupidity making him funny, it also makes him endearing. He is simple minded, but he's also loyal and focused, what he's good at, he excels at and has actually saved the world a number of times. When I say he's endearing, I mean his connection to his friends and how he cares for them, but the biggest one of all is Leela, a woman he loves so much that he constantly tries to better himself for her, to be the person she deserves, but he doesn't want to do it by cheating, he still wants her to love him for him. It's this commitment and dedication he has to the people he loves the most that makes me love him as a character. This also means that he takes joys in the simple things in life, respecting what he has while he has it and find joy in everything he can. Someone this dumb but this much optimism and potential is something quite admirable.

Fry is the optimist who never stops smiling, he makes his friends laugh and cares for his loved ones, he shows that even if you're not a genius, you can still have the makings of greatness and shows how nerds are cool, yet dorky. I relate to Fry in a lot of ways, if anything he might be one of my most relatable characters yet there is still plenty of him to admire and his dedication to his loved ones inspires me to also better myself for my loved ones. That is why he's one of my all time favourite characters.

-Danny

So...They're Making A Naruto Movie

Naruto is often one considered to be one of the anime that got a lot of people into anime, being called one of "The Big 3" that acts as a gateway anime for a lot of people (The other two being One Piece and Bleach) and that is exactly what it was for me. I watched plenty of anime beforehand, but this was the one that made me realise there was an entire art form behind this, it was the first anime i watched the subbed version of and made me appreciate the medium a lot more. Over the years my love of it died down as i became more attached to another anime and Shippuden just wasn't that good i felt. But nevertheless, Naruto is always going to hold a special place in my heart and is always going to be one of my favourite anime because of it. So with this news of a live action Naruto movie in the works, i have a fair bit to say about it. According to Variety The movie will be released by Lionsgate, directed by first time director Michael Gracey and will be produced by Avi Arad's company Arad Productions.

I am against this, i am absolutely against this, and not just because i'm a fan who hates the corporate Hollywood system, but because there isn't a single piece of information released so far to give me confidence. Now granted these are still very early days so a lot could change my views on this, the movie could be awesome, but as of right now I have no faith, and here is why. First of all, Hollywood's attempts at making live action anime movies in the past all SUCK films like Dragonball Evolution and The Last Airbender (Because yes i consider that an anime because fuck you) are some of the worst films I have ever seen, even if i had never seen the original source materials i would still hate them. And this is a combination of two things: The people involved not understanding/respecting the source material and the fact that anime is so ridiculous and over the top sometimes that it just doesn't work in live action. Naruto is a story about a world of ninjas who can summon giant talking frogs, control the elements and are basically able to use magic, it's not a story that can be adapted into live action for mainstream audiences can take seriously. Even though anime has jumped in popularity in the past few years and Naruto being one of the most popular itself, it's still a niche medium, they're not household names and not everyone watches anime, because it's still very silly and the Japanese culture can sometimes...conflict with western ideologies, let's put it that way.

Which is another point to bring up, even though the characters themselves aren't necessarily Japanese, the show has heavily Asian philosophies and cultures in them, the Hidden Leaf Village is very Japanese, the Hidden Sand Village more middle-eastern, etc, but Hollywood is probably going to butcher it and Americanise it to make a mass appeal, which is bullshit because changing the culture changes the entire tone and style of the series, and if you can't capture that then how can you be expected to make a faithful adaptation? Then there's the matter of taking a 700 chapter manga/640 episode anime and turning it into a 2 hour movie. Even the first story arc in the show took 19 episodes, not to mention the majority of characters are 12 years old and are supposed to get involved in serious action. And they better bring the score from the anime, because that score is badass.

Then there's the crew behind this, have a first time director and giving them this big a project, that's a big risk, but my bigger problem is with Lionsgate. Yes they've released a bunch of good indie flicks and other small films, but when it comes to the big releases, the mainstream films, their films range from absolute garbage to pretty good. But even when it comes to adapting a single book they cut out half the material and wash it down for mass appeal, this is taking a continuous franchise and adapting maybe 5% of that into a movie. Basically it's impossible, even if they were to make this into a franchise, they're taking the challenge of establishing this world, making it believable for new audiences, the origin of our main characters, give them fully developed story arcs while also making sure you have enough set up for a sequel, throw in a fair amount of creative and clever action sequences, respect the themes and style of the source material while also creating enough to make yours feel unique and do all that within 2 hours...yeah that doesn't sound very promising there does it?

-Danny