I'm rewatching Adventure Time.
I wanted to do that for ages but couldn't find a source. I'm so happy I have one again! I love that show for some reason.

The show premise is hard to explain…
It's a fantasy. Fin is a human boy who lives with his dog Jake, who is also his brother by adoption. The land they live in is governed by only exists because of magic: a 1000 years ago there was an apocalypse were everything was destroyed, the world reformed through the rebirth of magic in a very whimsical way.

It is a very whimsical world where childish, silly fantasy is the norm, like the Bubblegum Princess and the Candy Kingdom, but there's also a lot of darkness and evil which Fin and Jake fight during their adventures.

I binged all the 7 seasons of The Dragon Prince: mistery of Aravos (trailer).

Well I can't say that I disliked it, since I binged all the 7 seasons, however it has a bit of “nondescript fantasy” aura, where the setting is't really cohesive but is just an excuse to bump into any fantasy trope the writers want to use for the plot (starting from dark elves ninja assassins).

On the plus side, the plot is quite continuouis and, in 7 seasons, there are very few “filler” episodes (meaning episodes that don't contribute to the main plot).

The tone is sentimental and quite sappy, so while I like my sappy love stories (the main reason I binged it) it is sometimes difficult to take seriously the moral stances of the characters.

There is that thing where the setting looks like european middle ages/renaissance but women are into positions of power/military, people in the main kingdome are of mixed race (but for some reasons the elven kingdoms are ethnically cohesive, moon elves don't live with forest elves etc.), there is a substantial amount of gay couples (though the main love story is straight), people have a generally progressive mindset but nobody questions hereditary monarchy. Also religion doesn't really exist.

I can understand the logic of using a setting where everyone in the public can imagine living in and being the protagonist, but this adds to the “non-descript” feeling about the setting as it seems just an assembly of tropes without an attempt of thinking why or how a society like that would exist.
And really, really the monarchy thing doesn't really work with the progressive mindset, how is this that nobody seems to realize the problem (while other forms of prejudice/injustice are clearly addressed)?

Overall though, the animation is good, characters are interesting, the plot is quite tight, so it is quite good if you don't want to intellectualize it too much.

marcorossi wrote:
There is that thing where the setting looks like european middle ages/renaissance but women are into positions of power/military, people in the main kingdome are of mixed race (but for some reasons the elven kingdoms are ethnically cohesive, moon elves don't live with forest elves etc.), there is a substantial amount of gay couples (though the main love story is straight), people have a generally progressive mindset but nobody questions hereditary monarchy. Also religion doesn't really exist.

I can understand the logic of using a setting where everyone in the public can imagine living in and being the protagonist, but this adds to the “non-descript” feeling about the setting as it seems just an assembly of tropes without an attempt of thinking why or how a society like that would exist.
And really, really the monarchy thing doesn't really work with the progressive mindset, how is this that nobody seems to realize the problem (while other forms of prejudice/injustice are clearly addressed)?

That REALLLLY bothers me. Even as a stupid kid that would bother me: things do not exist in a vacuum, if your world has a certain structure then their are reasons for it. If that's not in place3 it will always feel like a placeholder with no form. There's a reason the Lord of the Rings works so well at so many levels- (not including the Amazon crap).

What they're doing would work fine for Scifi because then the world has moved beyond the restrictive structures imposed by old thinking and tradition, easy unrestricted travel and free high speed communication allow that- old stuff like monarchies hold on because of tradition but don't have the same power.

In a fantasy world you don't have those advantages so you can't just carbon copy a version of today's world there, you need REASONS why things are as they are- i.e. this area is very mixed because it's the nexus of several empires, or along a major land trade route, or a coastal, trading area.
Why is the monarchy hanging on despite things being classless and there being no religious structure yo support it? That's harder… You can replace religion with a magic based institution easy enough but for a king you need an aristocracy or it doesn't work at all.

We're not going to deal with that because DRAGONZ and ELVES and Magickes and high fantasy adventure.
Let's see generic animated fantasy adventure in generic world, what does that remind me of? Netflix? Hey, doesn't Amazon have something just like that? Except they have a rock star gnome.

the forbidden city La città proibita (2025)
This is an italian movie that just came out in italian cinemas the 13th of march, so probably in a few months it will be distributed outside of Italy.
This is a very, very good movie if you like the genre (something between Bruce Lee and Quentin Tarantino), so people, go and watch it.
The plot is, chinese superstrong kung fu girl has to save her sister through kung-fu and end ups in Rome, Italy, fighting chinese and local bad guys around the chinese restaurant “Città proibita” (forbidden city, the title is a trick because in fact the film is set in Italy).
She also meets italian goofy guy who acts as the male lead, who is quite weak so there is some gender role reversion, however he is still an important part of the plot because of family drama.
There is also an undertone commentary about how immigrants are treated.
The female lead is played by this Chinese girl who previously acted mostly as a stunt and is super-good in the role.
Really a very good movie, unless you dislike gorey action.

Found on YouTube a 1971 production of Shakespeare's Richard II with Ian McKellen. It was his break out role and he is a wonder. I was looking for a version of Richard II because I just finished a great new book about him and Henry IV by Helen Castor The Eagle and the Hart : The tragedy of Richard II and Henry IV Also came across her recent talks about the book.

The production of Richard II was filmed for the BBC back in 1971 and recently remastered so it looks a bit better than you'd expect of old video. It's a simple staging that works well and the cast was very good. It's so much easier to watch Shakespeare if you know the plot and all the characters ahead of time. It's not like there's spoilers with a four hundred year old play. It's easy to get lost in the language so knowing everyone and the flow of what happens helps immensely so you can just get into the richness of the storytelling and the acting. For me when I watch Shakespeare, it's all about the acting. And Ian McKellen is a wonder even at this very early stage in his career.

Here is everyone going on about recent stuff and I'm excited about a fifty year old production of Shakespeare. It's endured four centuries for a reason.

Briliant Minds - I like Zach Quinto and I appreciate him playing against type. He plays great Vulcans Serial Killers. However, this show is so overbaked it comes off as a comedy rather than a drama.

Quinto is the anti-House, obsessively caring about his patients and constantly risking his job to help them. He diagnoses his patients despite having visual aphasia, he can only see portions of faces. Somehow he rides a motorcycle safely. He also has a tragic past where his father lost touch with reality and left Quinto in the woods alone while he shot himself. He is also gay, and most of the staff, co-workers, and patients are too. This is an alternate reality where 1 out of 5 people are heterosexual.

They wrote themselves into a corner. It is very hard to believe a guy with so many afflictions could be a doctor, let alone SO smart that he is invaluable to the medical community.

Around Robin - A former child star lives as a hermit in an inversion of Rear Window. Instead of observing the events trapped inside an apartment, Robin is visited throughout the day by various suspicious neighbors and friends. Everybody she encounters seems to more about her than they should. I often say, “If you turn too many times, the bear is white.”

Creepers (Phenomena) - A 1985 Dario Argento movie. I did not realize Argento was the Grandmaster of Slasher movies. This starred Jennifer Connely and Donald Pleasance and is Friday the 13th as made by a more talented director. Plus there is a Monkey that apparently hated Conelly.

Angel - Yes THAT movie, with Donna Wilkes, dressed as a schoolgirl, and hooker on the VHS cover. The story is more in line with Dirty Hairy with the colorful performers of Hollywood Boulevard trying to protect themselves from a Night Stalker-type serial killer. This movie shows us where we have come as an audience, it is loaded with likable and diverse characters who are people first. There are few more empowering scenes than watching Wilkes chase the killer down the walk of fame. Dick Shawn has a few hilarious moments, he first appears in a wedding gown and immediately shoves an orange-haired punk out of his way and calls him a freak.

sleeping_gorilla wrote:
Creepers (Phenomena) - A 1985 Dario Argento movie. I did not realize Argento was the Grandmaster of Slasher movies. This starred Jennifer Connely and Donald Pleasance and is Friday the 13th as made by a more talented director. Plus there is a Monkey that apparently hated Conelly.

I remember Phenomena from when I was a teen (I'm born '76), and that I liked it.
Some 10 years ago I rewatched it with some frients and, while I still liked the movie, most of my 10 years younger friends hated it because they tought the screenplay was too “choppy” (whatever they meant).
I also liked the dark fantasy/superhero side of the story of the girl having a sort of mind connection with insects, while my friends tought it was superfluous.

I watched Opus and I really liked it. Probably one of the best this year. People completely misunderstand it. They get frustrated that it turns out to be a shallow copy of films like Midsommar and The Menu. That's 100% intentional. It's the cheeseburger from the end of The Menu. People were just baited into thinking it's going to be fine dining and are disappointed. But that's what the movie is about really. How ever since Peele made his feature debut we elevate these “deep” thrillers to a cult status and if they don't deliver some pseudo-philosophical bs that verifies our preconceptions (like how rich people deserve to die ffs) and they even fail to be original in other regards, it's not the “once in a lifetime experience” that was promised. And even the ending shows a middle finger, so I think it really is the wittiest of these films. But terribly, terribly misunderstood.

Oh, and Snow White was bad. But not nearly the world's worst film with 1,6 out of 10. It's a solid 4/10 at least. If you're going to potentially put hundreds of creatives out of their jobs with your rating the least you can do is take the time and watch it first.

I hate those films: The Menu and Midsommer. So painfully pretentious and unnecessary.

——

I'm watching Reacher.
I thought it'd be an old style episodic series about a big muscleman who comes to town and redresses the balance for people, correcting wrongs, protecting the weak etc.

Instead it's a weird conspiracy crime thriller murder mystery long-form binge series.

That's not bad but the violence is excessive and outside of what the story needs. It really is.

-SPOILERS-
Why would a counterfeit operation have a group that goes around brutally torturing people to death who have almost no connection to them and they're also trying to keep their operation secret?
Makes no sense at all.
It is terrorism: Crime gangs in South America do that to intimidate people not to go against them. They AREN'T secret. It doesn't work if they're secret, there would be zero point. In fact it's MORONIC because it DRAWS attention.

I think the writer read about horrible crimes and wanted some shocking stuff in his story but didn't think about why people do that stuff.

I decided to watch ALL of Reacher of Amazon Prime.
I don't like shows design to be binge-watched with that strong focus on a story arc or high levels of graphic violence, especially when it is so amoral, but I made a huge exception for this. That must mean it's pretty well done.

The series is about a huge, powerful man who used to be an officer in the army MP. He finds himself in tricky situations helping people to stamp out murderous corruption, working outside the law, using intimidation, torture and murder for the “right” reasons.

The latest series was about murderous gunrunners and started a man even bigger than Alan Richardson- Alan Richters, who's over 7 feet tall.
It also had Anthony Michal Hall who is unrecognisable now from his days at Wally World XD

Scavenger’s reign on Netflix

An amazing exercise in world-building. It reminds me of “The Fantastic Planet” by Rene Laloux, but with a slightly Studio Ghibli styling.

fallopiancrusader wrote:
Scavenger’s reign on Netflix

An amazing exercise in world-building. It reminds me of “The Fantastic Planet” by Rene Laloux, but with a slightly Studio Ghibli styling.

I love this one– watched it twice by sharing it with a friend. Moebius is also a major influence on the art, too.

I'm watching the project just after that with the same friend: Common Side Effects. Folks from King of the Hill are involved in this one, and Mike Judge even voices one of the characters. I've seen people dismiss it because of the character design (unpleasable people– the art style is just a more stylized version of King of the Hill's human designs) but the animation is fluid and perfect for the setting. What do people expect? Anime? Realism to the point that it could've just been live action? Anyone who would pass up this show because the characters “look ugly” doesn't deserve good media, they can lick up all the glossy slop with 0 substance, streaming is full of that.
*edit* I forgot to say, the series is absolutely amazing. Extremely suspenseful, waiting for the next episode is always torment!

Another fantastic series I'm watching: Sand Land by the late great Akira Toriyama. Oh my gosh it's fabulous, I love it so much. It's everything I could want in an action/adventure series, a lot of humor and heart as expected from the author. Rao is a fantastic and layered character; it's so nice to see an older male not treated like “the dad/grandpa” of the group, and isn't a grumpy no-nonsense curmudgeon who sneers at the youth having fun. If it looks fun, he'll join in. I don't mind the 3D to 2d style art so much because they employ it very well (other series that use this method were lazy with it) but in the second arc some of the straight up 2D animation is a little jarring when juxtaposed with the 3d model characters, there's even a single scene with a major character that's full 2D and her expressions are just much bigger. I forgive this because I'm probably just autistic enough to notice there's a difference that most people won't XD

I just watched the Borderlands movie. I'd heard nothing good about it, and it's undeserved. I mean, it is NOT a good film, but I've seen far, far worse. And to be honest, as an adaptation of the games go they pretty much nailed it. It's loud and garish, the characters are annoying, the plot is a load of bobbins and the action is repetitive.

I have been watching John Lyde's films. I am a fan of two of his frequent stars, Melanie Stone (Dead Stream) and Danielle C. Ryan. Lyde started out filming fantasy action scenes (with Ryan) and then directed the last few Mythica films with Stone.

SAGA - short film

After watching several of his movies, I am impressed by how much better they have gotten in quality and variety. Lyde has done hallmark rom-coms, thrillers, and school dramas. The female characters are believable, likable, and really kick ass when they need to. 626 Evolution has a minute-long first-person POV parkour scene. Someone had to really do that and film it, and I would bet money it was Danielle C Ryan herself.

626 Evolution

In "1 More Round," Melanie Stone is an MMA fighter trying to win back custody of her niece. A good, simple story, with the best MMA action I've ever seen. They really look like they are fighting, and the uninterrupted camera shots show that Stone and the other actresses did the stuntwork themselves.

Genejoke wrote:
I just watched the Borderlands movie. I'd heard nothing good about it, and it's undeserved. I mean, it is NOT a good film, but I've seen far, far worse. And to be honest, as an adaptation of the games go they pretty much nailed it. It's loud and garish, the characters are annoying, the plot is a load of bobbins and the action is repetitive.

Yes, it's not great but it's fun. I have never played the games so I can't judge on that level but It wasn't a bad movie at all.

————–

I finally saw Valerian and the it of a thousand planets
This got bad reviews at the time. I waited ages and ages to see it and I finally did.
I loved it. Nothing bad about it at all. It's very 5th element, very Moebius, VERY Heavy Metal. It's like it was based on a comic drawn by Lothar but without all the sex.
It's pretty and there are so many nice flashing lights… It's like Guardians of the Galaxy but more original and less cringe (and I LIKE the Guardians of the Galaxy).


————–
I'm halfway through the latest Dungeons and Dragons film.
It got great reviews but it's actually pretty boring. I think people like it because it's a comedy fantasy?
I dunno. It looks so dull and drab, there's not much colour, everyone is in brown, the costumes are boring, hairstyles are all modern day stuff… it's like people cosplaying a larp or something, but they didn't put in any effort.

Plus the world is absolutely un-interesting.
The morons who made this don't realise how derivative D&D is- The POINT is that people LIKE fantasy stories, good old traditional fantasy. D&D is a way to give those people an experience of feeling like they're in that world. They people behind this movie don't understand that and they're just made a fantasy based on the game world, which is thin and uninteresting, not immersive or real feeling: it only exists for players to play through it feels like.

marcorossi wrote:
the forbidden city La città proibita (2025)

You had me at Chinese superstrong Kung Fu girl, I will look out for this.

Ozoneocean wrote:
I finally saw Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

I loved this movie, it had style and good acting and a quirky plot that felt fresh.

I'm halfway through the latest Dungeons and Dragons film.
It got great reviews but it's actually pretty boring. I think people like it because it's a comedy fantasy?

That's kinda exactly my feeling about it, I couldn't even get to the end, nothing was pulling me along. Acting was adequate (with a couple of miscastings) but I didn't care much about the characters. Maybe I would have enjoyed it better as a short series with cliffhanger endings each episode, rather than an overlong tedious movie. Oh well.

A reel by Robert Reich listing the top 10 worst things about Trump's “presidency.” I lost count after 75! XD

I finally saw Valerian and the it of a thousand planets
This got bad reviews at the time. I waited ages and ages to see it and I finally did.
I loved it. Nothing bad about it at all. It's very 5th element, very Moebius, VERY Heavy Metal. It's like it was based on a comic drawn by Lothar but without all the sex.
It's pretty and there are so many nice flashing lights… It's like Guardians of the Galaxy but more original and less cringe (and I LIKE the Guardians of the Galaxy

Luc Besson was trying to make Valerian but couldn't get the rights, so he made The 5th Element. I will not watch Valerian, as it is the sequel to the worst film I've ever seen. In fact I have never watched another movie made by Besson because of this. There was a french cartoon adaptation Valerian and Laureline that I enjoyed.

Luc Besson was trying to make Valerian but couldn't get the rights, so he made The 5th Element. I will not watch Valerian, as it is the sequel to the worst film I've ever seen. In fact I have never watched another movie made by Besson because of this. There was a french cartoon adaptation Valerian and Laureline that I enjoyed.

Not every Besson film is like The 5th Element. He really let loose with that one, but Léon: The Professional for example is a lot more… professional of a movie. And Oldman is definitely a lot more memorable, although not for his looks.

I feel like people didn't want Adam Driver playing Snape. People wanted him to play Alan Rickman playing Snape. There is a pretty big different when it comes to honoring a character vs the first actor who popularized it on the screen. So I don't mind the role being played by someone else, even if that someone else is Paapa Essiedu. The character simply deserves to be multi-dimensional. And I'd rather have the series suck but taking actual risks, than to be unoriginal and just go in for the nostalgia vibes with how the 99% imagines fan casting.

I'm watching the tv adaptation of the last of us video game season 2 and so far its been okay. the addition of new content helps but also messing with the continuity of how it was presented in the game kind of changes things.

knowing Abby's motivation from the beginning doesn't make the rest of the series better it spoils a big twist from the game. what was done I believe for sympathy wont work. they hate Abby now and by the end they will still hate Abby

dpat57 wrote:
That's kinda exactly my feeling about it, I couldn't even get to the end, nothing was pulling me along. Acting was adequate (with a couple of miscastings) but I didn't care much about the characters. Maybe I would have enjoyed it better as a short series with cliffhanger endings each episode, rather than an overlong tedious movie. Oh well.

AGREED! It was just soooo blah.
For stuff about Live action RPG fiction, the Viva La Dirt videos on Youtube as massively superior.

sleeping_gorilla wrote:
Luc Besson was trying to make Valerian but couldn't get the rights, so he made The 5th Element. I will not watch Valerian, as it is the sequel to the worst film I've ever seen. In fact I have never watched another movie made by Besson because of this. There was a french cartoon adaptation Valerian and Laureline that I enjoyed.

I'd give 5th Element another chance, it's such a pretty movie, it's one of my faves. And Valerian City of a thousand Planets is very cool.
Although I'm not sure why Valerian is in the title, it's really a group effort between him and Laureline, and Valerian looks like a young little version of Benicio Del Toro.
Ethan Hawk is amazing as the Pimp too <3
Love to see that animation BTW.

InkyMoondrop wrote:
I feel like people didn't want Adam Driver playing Snape.

I don't understand why there's a reboot of Harry Potter :/
Also why Adam is still being cast in anything… he's a big, gawky weird big nosed man, he doesn't fit most roles.

I don't understand why there's a reboot of Harry Potter :/

There's a reboot or remake or sequel to or prequel to everything that had any success and if not, it's damn sure coming. That's just a way it is. I mean Amazon bought the right to James Bond and there seems to be a feud between the previous owners and Bezos's team about creative differences, so we can expect lots of 007-themed shows getting streamed, with varying qualities I presume. But in this case, there's lots of rumors people spew online, some say that Rowling wanted a version where the three main kids are played by different actors+actress because they defied her in the media. I can imagine that's a part of it, but obviously, for Rowling it's about remarking her territory and making a statement about how relevant she stays and for HBO it's about profits. Which creates a whole new can of worms, since making the cast diverse is certainly not what Rowling had in mind.

I'm halfway through the latest Dungeons and Dragons film.
It got great reviews but it's actually pretty boring. I think people like it because it's a comedy fantasy?
I dunno. It looks so dull and drab, there's not much colour, everyone is in brown, the costumes are boring, hairstyles are all modern day stuff… it's like people cosplaying a larp or something, but they didn't put in any effort.

Plus the world is absolutely un-interesting.
The morons who made this don't realise how derivative D&D is- The POINT is that people LIKE fantasy stories, good old traditional fantasy. D&D is a way to give those people an experience of feeling like they're in that world. They people behind this movie don't understand that and they're just made a fantasy based on the game world, which is thin and uninteresting, not immersive or real feeling: it only exists for players to play through it feels like.

I liked it in a dumb fun kind of way, but I'd agree with most of your points. I don't mind that D&D is derivative, but the film didn't even try to sell the viewer on the world, just to take then for a ride. Which pretty much covers most fantasy films.

The world of the D&D movie was immaterial. It was the characters and grifters. Does it really matter that Hope and Crosby are in Rio or Zanzibar? Just enjoy the ride and the jokes. That's the kind of movie it was. D&D didn't matter any more than if you called it Road to Baldur's Gate. These journey and Road pictures are a lot more derivative than people think. Fantasy is just another kind of exotic location for the same antics and adventures of Jack Hawkins, Kermit the Frog or Bob Hope.

I tought that the D&D movie was very “meta”, not just derivative. The point was to stress the clichées in a funny way, so the more clichées, the better.

When I watched the D&D movies I was reading stuff on creative writing manuals, and specifically on the “Dramatica” one, and many of the D&D movie characters looked a lot like the 8 Dramatica “archetypes”, so I believe the story was written through the “Dramatica” schemes, which explains IMHO why it looks that there is a meaning but also seems very mechanic. I have this feeling everytime I see a movie where there is a charachter that is an obvious “contagonist” (a sort of vice-antagonist typical of Dramatica) and this irks me, I had that feeling also with Ant-Man Quantumania (MODOK is the contagonist) and just yesterday with the movie “The Electric State” (Bradbury is the contagonist).

Plus the world is absolutely un-interesting.
The morons who made this don't realise how derivative D&D is- The POINT is that people LIKE fantasy stories, good old traditional fantasy. D&D is a way to give those people an experience of feeling like they're in that world. They people behind this movie don't understand that and they're just made a fantasy based on the game world, which is thin and uninteresting, not immersive or real feeling: it only exists for players to play through it feels like.

To be fair, most anime paints fantasy in that classic, middle-ages / D&D-like setting, up to the point where they don't even bother making them original anymore, they flat-out copy maps from other shows and everything revolves around adventurers and it's the damn fast food of fantasy. I never played D&D and I assume it's amazingly rich, one could build entire worlds on. But it's clear to me this movie was not made for roleplayers, or at least not exclusively. It was meant to take some themes and dynamics and make it hella entertaining and somewhat funny even to those who otherwise don't find throwing dice in long-ass campaigns entertaining so they don't play such. It's looking for a bit of a middle ground and the thing is that people obsessed over fantasy epics, like Tolkien's works and the D&D experience are a lot more interested in details and accuracy and such, while the average person who watches an adaptation is not entertained by all the faithful technicalities. To be honest The Hobbit was much closer to me than The Lord of the Rings for this reason: I don't get what people love about fantasy so much and LOTR was so serious and trying so hard to please fans that it felt like gatekeeping and I just turned away from fantasy even more. The Hobbit is not a great trilogy, people can criticize it for many reasons and with some of that criticism I'd have to agree, that it's valid. However, it made me enjoy the journey, invest in it emotionally and care. Some people need fantasy that they can just enjoy, otherwise they won't bother diving deeper.

bravo1102 wrote:
The world of the D&D movie was immaterial. It was the characters and grifters. Does it really matter that Hope and Crosby are in Rio or Zanzibar?

Ah yup, unfortunately the comparison doesn't work because Rio and Zanzibar exist, with real places in the real world you don't have to do much work to make your characters fit and exist and interact at all believably unlike fantasy and Scifi where the burden is much greater.
The D&D film wasn't funny or interesting enough to get a pass (at least to me). Most of the humour was meh. -to me. Fair enough if you enjoyed it :)

marcorossi wrote:
I tought that the D&D movie was very “meta”, not just derivative. The point was to stress the clichées in a funny way, so the more clichées, the better.

When I watched the D&D movies I was reading stuff on creative writing manuals, and specifically on the “Dramatica” one, and many of the D&D movie characters looked a lot like the 8 Dramatica “archetypes”, so I believe the story was written through the “Dramatica” schemes, which explains IMHO why it looks that there is a meaning but also seems very mechanic. I have this feeling everytime I see a movie where there is a charachter that is an obvious “contagonist” (a sort of vice-antagonist typical of Dramatica) and this irks me, I had that feeling also with Ant-Man Quantumania (MODOK is the contagonist) and just yesterday with the movie “The Electric State” (Bradbury is the contagonist).

This is all too far above my head so I just have to agree with you haha! I sort of get what you're saying but it's mostly beyond me.

InkyMoondrop wrote
To be fair,

hmmm, not really, middle ages classic fantasy peaked in the early 90s, now the style is a sort of urban fantasy mixed with a smattering of steampunk and 18th to 19th century aesthetic. Middle ages fantasy is a subgenre now.
At least in my experience.

——–
——–

OK I just watched the Barbie movie finally.
It was fun and pink and silly, but on my the writing… It's feminist discourse aimed at 11 year olds and written by a 21 year old. That's how it comes off.
(i.e. a simplified prescriptive explanation of “the way things are” told by someone without the world experience to really know or to have anything actually text or expand on their convictions yet)


It's not dumb, it's clearly and cleverly written for a particular POV but it doesn't realise how narrow and slanted that POV is. Reminds me of people like Karl Rove and Brietbart
It reallllly could have done with some better script editing to make it a bit more worldly and less narrow.