Lindsay Ellis

The word choice really depends on whether or not you like the franchise. I don't, so it's the former for me.

I've never gotten into anything Transformers-related. The franchise is just... too shamelessly toyetic in its core concepts and character design even by cartoon standards.

Edited by DrDougsh on Jul 2nd 2018 at 4:53:05 AM

Huh, my comment that about how an episode on queerness between Transformers in the films is pointless because there isn't really any interaction between them is Hilarious in Hindsight.

x4

I've generally found A LOT of stories work better if you were to just merge the main character with a side character or just cut the protagonist entirely and we'd get a better story. For another example, The Lorax from Ilumination made the nameless boy into a BORING LAME PROTAGONIST while the chick they invented... probably would have the more interesting character arc if she were the protagonist instead.

Okay watching Lindsay's video reminded me of this little bit of trivia from Bad Boys' wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Boys_(1995_film)

Sometimes I just don't what to think about Bay.

Edited by windleopard on Jul 4th 2018 at 10:23:38 AM

Michael Bay needs to be allowed to make his passion projects, all the movies about how humans are selfish trash that deserve to suffer forever.

Hes awful when given anything else.

I know she hates the Nostalgia Chick but it still has some worthwile materials...LIKE PUPPIES (YAY!).

But I digress, the Pocahontas was really good at mixing genuine satire with some cute gags, Teen Witch was fucking hilarious...I cant defend Anastasia though. Its so unfunny and devoid of any meaningful commentary other than the obvious. ANASTASIA AINT HISTORICALLY ACURATE YOU GAIZ!

Edited by AegisP on Jul 5th 2018 at 7:57:48 AM

What do you mean? The talking bat and Rasputin turning out to be a not-Disney villain were totally what happened in real life.

I'm pretty sure there's some video footage of Rasputin turning into a burning skeleton somewhere.

Criticizing Anastasia for being pro-royalist, Disneyfication of the past if a pretty legit tack to take. It's a bad movie that glorifies some pretty awful people.

Yeah, I actually don't mind Anastasia but that sounds like a fair take to me. The film centers Anastasia and portrays the February Revolution as this great catastrophe that was the result of Rasputin making a Deal with the Devil, but by doing that it kind of leaves out the fact that Nicholas II wasn't an especially good leader and the Revolution actually happened because the population was so deeply unsatisfied that they couldn't take it anymore (or at least that's what I've gathered;my in-depth reading of the subject has been pretty limited). In that regard, Anastasia was just following a long trend of romanticizing the fate of the Romanov family after WW 1.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Jul 6th 2018 at 2:44:04 PM

I think that is a more general issue with fictionalizing history. Many events in history happen for reasons both more complex and more mundane than would make for compelling story-telling. And when you're writing the kind of stories that have big, melodramatic villains and clear-cut good vs evil plots, then the problem is just made worse. History doesn't generally have clear moral pairings of good and evil, or singular villain (groups) who make bad things happen.

Sorry if it sounds like a stupid question but… how do you pronounce "Lindsay"? I've always pronounced it [linsei] but I've heard some say it [linzi]… I'm confuse…

I pronounce it the latter way.

I suppose where I don't mind it as much is that Anastasia herself is the central figure; an innocent eight year old girl who was not deserving to die for the crimes of her father. Ultimately the rest of her family is avoided, so I can accept the fantasy of a young girl caring more about 'family' as a concept than who they were as people and leaders. Which is also easier to relate to.

I won't say its a great movie, but Anastasia's emotional relationship with her family at least makes sense.

Something making sense in a film doesn't mean it was a good idea to make the film. "Anastasia has fond memories of her parents" is the Watsonian reason for the film's soft portrayal of the Romanovs, but Watson isn't real. He exist to justify Doyle's choices, and Doyle in this case chose to romanticize one of the more brutal royal families in an effort to make Disney-type cash. It's not quite at the level of offensive that Pocahontas was, but it's getting there.

Also, on an only semi-related note, the Anastasia myth needs to die. She was killed with her family. We've always known she was killed with her family. She was buried with them. There was never any mystery about it. The original stories about a surviving Romanov actually focused on one of her other sisters, not on Anastasia herself, whose death was taken as a confirmed fact. Then somewhere along the way, the game of broken telephone decided the rumours were about Anastasia. It's not just a ridiculous conspiracy theory, it's a it's a ridiculous conspiracy that was originally about someone else entirely. In any case, I have little sympathy for any work that runs with it.

Edited by AmbarSonofDeshar on Jul 16th 2018 at 9:11:33 AM

On sidenote, most recent Anastasia related fantasy story I've seen involved raising her from the death, so that one is pretty historically accurate when compared to most of them being about her surviving

I just recently watched a really weird, low-budget Mock Buster of Anastasia that was on a streaming service and got picked out by my three-year old niece. Instead of Rasputin, the villain was Lenin — except he was only ever called "Comrade Ulyanov" and he had a full head of hair rather than Lenin's shiny bald one. It was kind of like how Captain Planet gave Hitler a Fu Manchu mustache. His main minions were a Fat and Skinny pair of Soviet thugs who looked like they were meant to resemble Stalin and Khrushchev.

I know there was one where Rasputin becomes the czar of Russia and there was another one where Anastasia's family became instruments after they died.

I actually own that latter one on VHS. I've seen it multiple times growing up.

New It's Lit video today! She's tackeling Science Fiction today. She claimed on her facebook she was happy PBS allowed her to throw some shade at Orson Scott Card.

That was an interesting video.

Also, she partially covered my subject for my masters thesis, which was about Victorian science fiction, including Well's The Time Machine.

Is a little weird that she referred to Ray Bradbury as “a genuinely cool dude” when in life he was very 'the blacks and the gays want to thought-control us', but I guess she didn’t know that.

I honestly had no idea about that,and I don't think she does either

Yeah, she might not have known. I only found out Roald Dahl was an anti-semite recently for example.

I also thought that too... : / Half tempted to send her a tweet over it but I don't want to be... patronizing or like I'm mansplaining. I get anxiety over stupid stuff like this.]]