This Colorful Void: Chapter 1 (Kingdom Hearts Series)

So, I recently visited my local GameStop and picked up a copy of Kingdom Hearts: The Story So Far. You see, I actually haven’t played a single Kingdom Hearts game until this point. The closest I got was watching a roommate play through…I think it was Dream Drop Distance.

Anyway, I figured I’d try something new, wherein I share my thoughts of the game as I am playing through it.

Why “This Colorful Void”? Well, everything I’ve heard about the series is that it has a long and overly-complicated plot, and its main selling point–getting to hop from Disney movie to Disney movie without worry or care–really holds no consequence in the overarching narrative. Plus, it sounds cool.

At least…I think it does.

 

I started as many do with the Kingdom Hearts series: with the first game. Specifically, Kingdom Hearts 1.5 ReMIX. Or Kingdom Hearts Final Mix. You know, the the box art and my PS4 can’t agree on which one I have, so I’m just going to say that I played the equivalent to Kingdom Hearts 1 first.

So far…it’s been a trip. It could just be the pessimistic rut I’ve been stuck in with my gaming, but I feel like the first game is sequentially hitting all of my least favorite Disney movies. Sure, they were probably the most recent Disney films at the time, but it’s got [clears throat] Hercules, Tarzan, Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, and Nightmare Before Christmas.

That said, whenever a character or world does show up that I enjoy, I’m practically bouncing up and down in my chair. Which doesn’t take that much for me. I’m glad I have the option of keeping Donald Duck in my party at all times.

Really, I’m not having a lot of issues with the first game so far. Then again, I haven’t gotten very far–I’m at the stage where the furthest I can get is “Monstro” and “Atlantica”.

And that’s about all to report so far. I will say that I am enjoying it so far. Running about with a bunch of cartoon characters is a pleasant change of pace from games where I’m running around and shooting everything in sight.

Not sure when I’ll report back. Probably as I play more, but I won’t try to do two weeks in a row of this. What did you think? Let me know in the comments below!

 

Let’s Connect!

@Isaac_Trenti

@CorrelationBlog

Jurassic World-building (Battle at Big Rock)

World-building is quite the double-edged sword, isn’t it? Add too little to a story and it seems shallow and poorly thought out. Add too much or put it in the wrong place, and you have audience members clamoring for you to get to the point.

And yet it comes to mind as I watched the latest entry to the Jurassic World series…a short film on YouTube called Battle at Big Rock. And, yes, it does count as an official entry to the series. It’s produced by Universal and Ambiln, and it’s directed by Colin Trevorrow, the guy who directed the last two feature films.

It follows the events of Fallen Kingdom, where dinosaurs escape and set up new life in the United States (at least), with a family that is on vacation at the fictional Big Rock National Park. Their campsite is overturned by a clash between a family of Nasutocertops and an Allosaurus. (In layman’s terms: discount Triceratops and a smaller T-Rex, respectively.)

The point of this short film is, I think, is purely world-building. It helps to answer the question of what a world with humans and dinosaurs co-existing would look like. That answer, of course, is scary and dark and full of hungry carnivores. The credits exemplify this quite well, showing kids getting chased around by Compsognathi, weddings getting interrupted by Pteranadons, and the like.

I guess, in the end, it’s a short film, so I have little to say about it. I look forward to seeing if they do more short films for world-building. I’ll be waiting for one that explains why the American gun owners haven’t killed any dinosaurs yet (out of self-preservation or otherwise), because that is a plot hole now.

7/10 ~ the best answer I can come to is that the dinosaurs are now an endangered species.

 

Let’s Connect!

@Isaac_Trenti

@CorrelationBlog

And in the comments below!

On Queerbaiting

“Queerbaiting” is a phenomenon in fandoms where two characters of the same gender have good chemistry together but don’t date each other, instead forming heteronormative relationships with other characters. Sometimes there are references or jokes about the idea that they could date, but it does not become a canon relationship. 

Some fans, particularly ones who identify as LGBTQWXYZ+ themselves, call queerbaiting offensive. They complain that there should be more diverse representations of sexuality and relationships in fandoms, and not doing it is just teasing. This idea is applied to Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, Q and Eliot from The Magicians, Dean and Cas in Supernatural, Xena the Warrior Princess, and many others.

Four things. 

One: from a Biblical perspective, this is like saying there are too many liars and murderers in fandoms, and there should be more diverse representation of sin. Throw in some pagan idol worship while you’re at it! 

I’ve mentioned before that non-straight characters and ships are more forgivable in fictional universes where the rules are different, but they should never be seen as something to emulate. Diversity is great in terms of role models and acceptance, but crying for diverse sexuality is pretty much asking for the celebration of sin, which I cannot get behind. 

Two: in Stranger Things Season 3, we meet Robin the Ice Cream Girl, who seems like a great love interest for Steve Harrington. But then it turns out Robin is into girls, and even if she’s also into guys, she’s not in a rush to date Steve, so they’re just good friends. Am I supposed to call “straight bait”?

“No,” the other side yells. “There’s an overwhelming number of straight relationships in fandom, so you don’t get to complain when you don’t get another one.” Why not? I would have gotten the same satisfaction as you, and I felt the same disappointment you would. 

This happens all the time. Harry Potter and Hermione Granger. The Doctor and most of his companions. Barry Allen and Felicity Smoak. The thing we expect to happen or wish would happen doesn’t happen… and it’s actually really clever. Subverting expectations is a very powerful storytelling tool. But apparently, when fans’ expectations include gay stuff, they can’t appreciate the narrative power of platonic chemistry.

Three: on that note, Platonic Chemistry! It’s a thing! Not all chemistry needs to be romantic! If you were automatically expected to date any person you got along with, I doubt you’d be too happy about it. And your life is no less interesting, exciting, or important with platonic friends of both genders. Why must you take that away from these characters? 

Four: I scanned through the search results for “queerbaiting,” and I saw multiple sources say – in the very first sentence – “queerbaiting is a marketing technique.” Yeah, these content creators know what they’re doing. If they can make the fans feel upset, at least they’re feeling something. If fans complain about a show, at least they’re talking about it. And the reason it’s called “baiting” is it keeps people watching, hoping for another hint that their favorite ship will become canon. 

There are better things to complain about than your favorite characters not getting together. Fandoms are supposed to make you feel happy things. Chill out.

Once again tiptoeing around landmines. Let’s connect!

Twitter: @noahspud and @CorrelationBlog

“The Boys” or How to Murder the Justice League

While I was waiting to get started on Good Omens, a little series came out that caught my–and apparently everyone else’s–attention: The Boys.

[pours a cup of tea] Yep. We’re doing this.

The Boys is one of those, “What if [X] was really adult and violent and sexualized” premises, but focusing on superheroes. It centers around Male Protagonist, a normal human who ends up on a path of revenge after This Universe’s Version Of (or TUVO, as I will be using it a lot) the Flash, and Female Protagonist, a new superheroine who enters TUVO the Justice League and bumps heads with the team’s superficiality, corporate mentality, and hypocrisy.

First, I should mention that I couldn’t finish the series. Between the pessimistic tone, gritty violence, and use of the Spice Girls, I couldn’t get past episode four. So most of this review is born out of reading plot synopses.

So…is it a deep dive into the psyche of man, showcasing how absolute power can corrupt absolutely?

No. That’s the thing. With the exception of the protagonists, every character with any kind of significance to the plot are scummy, violent, perverted, or some combination of the above. And even the protagonists are on their own path to darkness. The most morally sound member of TUVO the Justice League is TUVO Wonder Woman, who gives off the vibe of, “I stopped caring five years and three movies ago.” TUVO Aquaman is a rapist; TUVO Flash has a drug problem and a body count TUVO Superman is an apathetic, murderous entity who may/may not be in an illicit relationship with the team’s corporate manager; and TUVO Invisible Man has so many problems they spend the first three episodes showcasing them. Not to mention the whole team is run by a corporation more worried about maintaining a good public image than actually going out and helping people in need.

Male protagonist runs around with the titular Boys. Karl Urban plays every role he’s gotten since Eomer mashed up into one grouchy murderous alcoholic retired agent with a bad habit of breaking into peoples’ houses at night. There’s also Not-Karl-Urban and Also-Not-Karl-Urban, a drug dealer and combative muscle respectively, but they feel like they carry little plot significance.

Between the two arcs, we end up with two morals: “Don’t like these immediately likable characters because they’re bad underneath” and “Please like these immediately unlikable characters because they have sad backstories and wives and kids.” Which kind of muddle together into a Black Mirror-esque, “Everybody sucks” moral. Hence pessimistic tone.

So…what’s the point of this show then? Why does it exist? It must make some kind of positive point.

No. It doesn’t. What I watched of the series kind of maintains the tone of, “Yeah, they’re superheroes, but they’re eeeeeeevilllll…..ooooOOOoooOOOoohhh….”

I’ve heard a lot of words tossed around when talking about The Boys. “Satire” (even though it is hardly comedic to me), “Parody” (maybe, but again, not funny enough), “Deconstruction” (it’s more of a “dark reconstruction”; where it works but it’s lousy). I’d like to add one to the mix: “Blatant Murder Fantasy.”

Yes, it has elements of these, but it feels like the show was just building up to “We’re gonna kill TUVO the Justice League!” It is a revenge and “New Job” plot, but against a version of superheroes (who feel evil less because they should be and more because they have to be) that are run by a giant corporation, using them solely to make as much money as possible.

…

Which then raises the question, why is The Boys so mad at superheroes? Is it because they make a lot of money? Is it because they feel like they have saturated the market with a previously niche genre, robbing long-time fans of the sacredness of knowing an obscure character?

Then I check the credits, and, oh, wait, never mind. Seth Rogan produced it. And it all makes sense. It’s not really mad at superheroes. It’s just edgy. It wants to kill Superman because everyone recognizes him. And what’s more shocking than killing a familiar hero?

Setting the death to “Cherry Bomb,” of course.

3/10 ~ and I’m being generous. Any show that uses “Wannabe” as a plot point deserves lower. Much. Much lower.

 

Let’s Connect!

@Isaac_Trenti

@CorrelationBlog

And in the comments below!

Good Omens: The Bad and Inaccurate Prophecy of Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, Writers

Introduction

I identify as a writer by trade and storyteller by hobby. This is shorthand for I’m an unpublished fiction (specifically sci-fi/fantasy) writer who currently has a B.S. in English – Writing. One of the biggest struggles I’ve had with being a fiction writer, especially this year, is the question of whether or not the writing of fiction is the same as being a liar.

The answer to which I have come is a shaky no. Lies are meant to conceal the truth; fiction is meant to entertain. While both fall apart at the first glimpse of truth, their intentions could not be further from each other. I lean towards science-fiction and fantasy even stronger because of this question, for they are the least-believable (or most easily disproved) of the fictions.

That said, I’m here to discuss a story so far from the truth that it can only be classed as a work of fiction. That’s right: I’m finally doing a review on Good Omens.

SPOILERS AHEAD, by the way. (For both the book and the series. Yes, I read the book. What did you expect?)

The story centers primarily around Aziraphale, an angel played by Michael Sheen, and Crowley, a demon played by David Tennant, who are forced to work together to avert the apocalypse when the latter is tasked with delivering the Antichrist. Of course, things go awry when they misplace the Antichrist, and it’s up to them (and a couple dozen other characters along the way) to find this child before his powers manifest and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse arrive to his side and Armageddon begins.

 

The End Times

In order to properly discuss this, I have to open with how the show and book ends: the apocalypse gets cancelled. The Antichrist, an eleven-year-old boy named Adam, continues living as…well, an eleven-year-old boy. Aziraphale keeps running his book store and Crowley keeps driving his Bentley.

I bring this up right away because this is one of the points in favor of the show. Of course it’s an apocalypse that doesn’t line up with Revelations; it doesn’t end up being the one in Revelations.

(Though, I should mention that if it was, it looks like the writers ran with the Post-Tribulation/Pre-Millennium interpretation, which is a stark contrast to the more traditional Pre-Trib/Pre-Mill popularized by Left Behind and most textbooks.)

That said, I can’t say if it gets a pass because…say…there’s no appearance from the Two Witnesses (Revelation 11). Of course they wouldn’t show up because this isn’t the real deal. But they play it like it’s going to be the real deal and nobody notices their absence.

All this to say, I can’t really speak for the end-times stuff because eschatology isn’t my strong suit.

Then again, neither are angels, demons, Heaven, and Hell, but I’m gonna spend the rest of this post talking about how they were portrayed.

 

The Heavenly Forces and the Hordes of Hell

I think it’s a bit of a knee-jerk reaction of mine that started with Screwtape Letters and kept going, but I don’t entirely agree with the idea of Heaven and Hell being businesses run by angels and demons respectively. I always thought of them more as they are depicted in Scripture–as Kingdoms run by God in Heaven and Satan in…wherever the demons operate. We’ll call it “Downstairs”. (Because I don’t think it’s Hell; as that’s their final place of torment.)

So, right out the gate, we have Aziraphale and Crowley living in a kind of corporate ladder. Aziraphale takes orders from Gabriel and Michael (who is a woman for some reason), and Crowley gives presentations Downstairs, complete with slides. God never shows up in the book; the closest Aziraphale gets to is an angel named Metatron. In the series, God fills the role of narrator, played by a woman.

[through gritted teeth] Nice to see feminist theology is catching on. Which part of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” did we miss, again?

Speaking of, one of the key differences between the book and the series are two added segments. The first in Episode 3, where the first half of the episode is dedicated to showing Aziraphale and Crowley in a montage of “Times we’ve met up through history,” including three stops in the Bible (Eden, Noah’s Ark, and Golgotha). The first is addressed in the book, and it and the third are the most problematic.

In this version, Satan did no tempting. Good Omens claims it was Crowley in the garden as the snake and in the desert tempting Jesus. That…just…no.

Also, Aziraphale was the angel that guarded the gate of Eden with a flaming sword. Which–in this version–he gave to Adam and Eve to defend themselves from all the suddenly carnivorous animals. Again, no.

Also, at Golgotha, neither of them recognize Jesus as the Son of God, despite the entire hosts of Heaven and multiple demons doing so in the Gospels. For this, I need a word stronger than no that I can write on this Christian blog.

The second added segment comes in Episode 6 at the very end. The plot is resolved and everything’s tied up, but…wait…what’s this? Angels drag Aziraphale to Heaven and Crowley to Hell, and it’s revealed that the two businesses made a deal with each other to help each other execute the angel and demon for their betrayal.

Which…worries me. Both that Amazon will pick the show up for a second season that deals with that dynamic way too heavily.

Oh, and one other thing, where do we keep getting the idea that the Antichrist is the physical child of Satan? Because I’m pretty sure that doesn’t come up in any end times prophecies. I always interpreted him as a global leader of some sort who persecutes Christians in droves.

 

Conclusion

Honestly, I could do an episode-by-episode analysis of this show, but I don’t think it’s worth the time. The show adds a lot of stuff simply not in the book. And everything added just causes more theological issues. The lack of research–which is what I chalk this up to–disappoints me. Not to the point of drafting an enraged spoken word piece about it, but enough to write a lengthy blog post on it.

And sure, the book wasn’t a perfect spectacle of accurate theology, but…

…I…I don’t think I’ve really said this on the blog yet…but…

The book was better.

5.5/10 ~ Amazon had better not pick this up for a second season, I swear.

 

Let’s Connect!

@Isaac_Trenti

@CorrelationBlog

And in the comments below!