Booksnhorses @6: Thanks! Good to be back!
simka and Paul Weimer: Thanks!
DemetriosX: Well, but that's also what I noted in the Ruin of Kings opening: Kihrin's slave auction scene could be viewed as either in medias res or Ordinary World. A case can be made for both, just as with the Bond film openings.
Anthony Pero: It's a beginning. ;)
Ha ha, awesome. I particularly enjoyed the tongue-in-cheek framing of Helen and Madeline's attendance to Ernst's funeral as his failure and their triumph, when the film so clearly meant it to be the other way around.
....Holy crap. Uh, you are completely correct, and the post has been edited accordingly. Thanks!
Victoria Hannah @8: Thanks for the information!
And yes, the sisters do get hanged in the movie, so at least the filmmakers got it right. It's probably not surprising, in retrospect, that the Daily Mail got it wrong; if I had realized what publication I was linking to I would have picked another one.
RobMRobM @1: Holy shirtballs, I totally forgot them! Bad Leigh.
I'll stick 'em here for the record:
I always preferred to believe that Indy and Marion being there to be worthy of taking the Ark away (or at least less unworthy than a bunch of Nazis) was what kept it from unleashing a hell of a lot more destruction on everything than just localized face melting.
Granted, this is a rationalization I have totally invented in my own head, so take it for what it's worth, but it does tie in with Indy later being judged worthy to take the Grail in Last Crusade. I'm just saying!
Arthur @ 19 and 20:
Huh. I thought that looked unfamiliar. Welp.
KalvinKingsley @ 19:
It's interesting that you keep using Prince as a refutation of my assertion that Ruby is genderqueer, when in fact Prince is a genderqueer icon.
Again, "genderqueer" has nothing to do with who a person likes to sleep with.
"Genderqueer" does not mean the same thing as "gay", "bisexual", or any other identifiers of a person's sexual orientation. The definition of it is "a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders." Ruby presents himself as having gender traits that are both stereotypically male and ones which are stereotypically female, and varies between them at will. This is an entirely separate question from what genders he does or does not find attractive.
Yes, you are right that Ruby was not a new thing in this regard (and fun fact, the role of Ruby was originally designed for Prince), but Bowie and Prince were musicians much more than they were ever actors, and the music industry has historically been much more forgiving of gender nonconformity than Hollywood. All I can tell you is that in 1997, Ruby Rhod was a revelation to me even if he shouldn't have been.
MDNY @ 1:
Hey, if I'd quoted every single great line from the movie I'd never have finished the post! Also, we deducted a point from the "Nostalgia" rating because we still watch this movie, ALL THE TIME. So I wasn't even sure if "nostalgia" applied.
ChocolateRob @ 2:
Featuring a super-young Stephen Tobolowsky!
So, never let it be said I cannot take a hint - or really accurate and voluminous error-correcting. The post has been edited accordingly.
Rusty @ 2:
That scene was very well done indeed. I remember being so impressed with how well they handled it. Not a wind tunnel in sight!
Robert @ 9:
Agreed. You think they'd let me direct it? :)
Eli Bishop @ 10:
You make a good point, and I had considered the thought that Vicki's death might not count as fridging because, as you point out, it wasn't the main motivator for Andy's actions after - obviously his biggest motivation was to protect his daughter. But I left it in because even so, her character is a cipher whose only role in the story was to be a victim and die horribly, and that's close enough to fridging for government work, ha ha.
As Anita Sarkeesian once pointed out, "One of the most radical things you can do is to actually believe women when they talk about their experiences." And she is right.
This was well said, thank you.
That is an excellent point, and one I wish I had included in the article now. I loved that pilot too.
Well said, my friend. Thank you.
Also, sorry for the messed-up video clips, guys. Should all be fixed now!
@2 and @4:
Duly noted, and acknowledged in the post!
I love that so many of y'all immediately came up with more example of the Passed Over For Hero Promotion trope, that makes me happy.
Exactly. It's not the actual "clueless protagonist" trope I'm objecting to; it's that it nearly always ends up being a guy.
The description of this movie, unfortunately, does not ring a bell with me. Anyone else know what this is?
Trinity Syndrome! I knew I couldn't have been the only one needing a name for it. Oh well. (I still like my name for it better, nyah!)
Sybylla @1: That's probably because I never saw The Last Dragon. I was too busy having a crush on The Karate Kid, heh.
wizard clip @7: Thank you for the correction!
Eric F @8: Yay! Glad I could be the first!
I meant to let you know sooner, but: owing to Reasons (mostly involving avoiding having to post on Thanksgiving), the MRGN post will go up next Thursday instead of, er, yesterday. Sorry if there was any confusion. See you then!
I did not know that, and if I had been Jo Beth Williams I would never in a billion years have agreed to do the scene. EEEEEEK
Oh, Spaceballs is almost definitely happening at some point.
I'm fairly sure Poltergeist invented that trope, in fact.
I have not! I shall have to track it down.
Just a quick note to let you know the post has been updated to reflect that instead of doing Red Sonja next time, we decided it would be more appropriate to the Halloween season to indulge in our need for more Fairuza Balk - and Tim Curry! - in our lives, and review 1986's The Worst Witch instead! Huzzah!
ShaggyBella @ 1: I actually thought about the Ender's Game connection but forgot to mention it. Kudos for pointing it out.
StrongDreams @4: I forgot how the "plot" for the conflict went almost as soon as I saw it, because clearly the actual plot of the movie was of the least concern to anyone involved, so I'll take your word for it.
hoopmanjh @6: On further research, apparently there were plans for a game but it never actually happened? http://www.arcade-museum.com/game_detail.php?game_id=8394
And no, you are not the only one.
Anthony Pero @14 & 15: I've never seen a movie at a drive-in. It's something I really would like to fix someday.
Gremlins is on the list, but we likely won't get to it terribly soon.
SunDriedRainbow @ 20: I look forward to hearing his thoughts!
The Fifth Element! That's what I was thinking of, thank you.
And yeah, as a concept it was dumb in both movies.
I still don't know whether the next post will be up next week or pushed back - I'll let y'all know as soon as I do - but I DO know what the next post's movie is going to be: Flight of the Navigator! AWESOME.
Watch this space for scheduling news!
It does seem to be an American thing in particular.
Also, OMG GLOW IN THE DARK JESUS. Haha, awesome. I really wish I could claim that I've never seen religious paraphernalia that cheesetastic, but it seems that extreme kitsch is another thing Americans do very well. There are whole websites devoted to collecting stuff like that.
You're probably right that it is St. Sebastien, but I always just assumed it was Jesus with extra martyrdom, like being nailed to a cross wasn't bad enough and Carrie's mom wanted a Jesus who really really suffered for our sins. It was weird, true, but then I've never seen a depiction of the Last Supper where everyone looks like serial killers either, so clearly some poetic license was being taken all around.
After much discussion, we've decided our next MRGN post will cover 1985's Legend, because how could we not? Post edited accordingly. Yay!
Congratulations to Patrick and to everyone on the editorial staff!
I am very sorry, but owing to a rather serious and on-going medical situation (a family member's, not mine), I was not able to finish today's Reread post. I will keep you guys posted in the comments here on what's happening next. In the meantime, please keep my family in your thoughts if you would, we've been having a rough couple of weeks. Thanks.
One of my favorites!
Hells to the yes they are!
Thus far, TV shows aren't being included in the MRGN. If that changes, of course, I will consider it!
Our criteria for picking movies is pretty unscientific at this point. It basically boils down to "whatever we think will be fun". In this case, I thought it would be interesting to watch a movie my sisters remembered but I didn't; I also thought there was a chance that once I actually started watching the film I *would* remember it. That turned out not to be the case, but it was fun anyway. It's also perfectly possible that I will choose some movies that I know for a fact I haven't seen but *should* have seen, just for contrast. It's not just my own nostalgia we're celebrating here, after all.
I am woefully behind on video games in general, but if I ever get around to buying a new game system I would definitely give the Ghostbusters game a try!
In case you didn't see, the new post went up today instead of yesterday, owing to the holiday. Sorry about the confusion!
Sorry to flake on y'all, but for Reasons, there will be no new post today. I'll see you next week, though, promise!
aFan @ 8:
Ah-HAH! I knew I wasn't crazy!
Sorry, guys, I meant to post a comment letting you know there would be no post this week and totally spaced on it. But no fear, we'll be back on track next week!
Unfortunately there will be no new Redux post today. Check back next Tuesday for the next post, though!
Um... huh. You are quite correct. Oops! Will have to fix that. Thanks for pointing it out!
Ryamano @ 6:
I wasn't referring to Moiraine's death in TFOH; I was referring to Aviendha and Mat's (temporary) deaths in Caemlyn, which are what caused Rand to lose his shit and go all KHAAAAAAAN on Rahvin.
Thanks for correcting me on the Ned/Catelyn/Ashara thing; the post has been updated to reflect.
Also thanks to Kate for giving me the LOTR and Bujold references; I've got new cut text now! Not that anyone sees that, usually, but it makes me happy.
Elayne @ 1: Got it in one. No pun intended.
All of your suggestions are both hilarious and interesting. I'll keep them in mind. Maybe not the Pink Floyd one. Heh.
I wondered if anyone would catch that reference. Internet cookie for you!
charming.quark @ 15:
I do know. I've been there, in fact.
birgit @ 26:
Ah, yes, that's the ones I was thinking of. Thanks!
Leigh, why does Jon count as royal blood, in your opinion?Well, I thought the Starks are all of royal blood, depending on how you define it. They were Kings of the North for forever, and even though they were downgraded to lords once the Targaryens showed up and conquered everybody, it's pretty clear from Robb's spiel that they subconsciously considered that a mere technicality. So I figure, if Melisandre considers that Mance and his baby are "royal" even though Mance was king of a people who completely *rejected* authority, then the Starks more than qualify under such loose standards.
I believe that you left out your assement of the book's cover art by the legendary artest 'Michael Whelan'. Thoughts?Goodness, so I did! Terrible oversight. I shall fix it next week. Thanks!