chupacabra_food

chupacabra_food @ 2009-03-09T21:55:00

2009-03-10T01:55:27Z

It feels strange, but I am not so infatuated with Watchmen.

I mean, I saw it, I liked it. But I'm not fangirling over it and I don't feel particulary inspiried by it.

I'll start with what some of the great details that I liked. The directing was great, the shots, the special effects all of it was so excellently staged. I also really enjoyed the fact that the cast was not a boat full of the 'elite famous' actors that you see over and over again. Its like they like some other really good talent finally take their turn up at the plate.

Maybe because these themes that Watchmen portrays have been regurgitated back at me before. I know that I have seen this "Hero killing some people in order to preserve the whole and masking a lie on the world in order for it to cooperate and work together." Yes, I have oh so definitly have seen this. But I know that Watchmen isn't the one reusing them. Watchmen came before all those other books and TV shows. But I didn't love the theme the first time and I don't love it now. Maybe Im more like Rorschach in this sense.

Watchmen is a dark superhero story. The heroes are going to make mistakes, do terrible things, and have to choose between the lesser of two terrible wrongs. (Hell, just look at Code Geass and the Dark Knight, theres two examples!) I like this this theme, I've seen it pulled off before spetacularly. And this movie did a nice job with it too, but I can't find myself in admiration of many of the characters.

I found Dan to be the most stagnant character in the entire story. True, he did not have as much of a backstory as the other characters. He seemed to mostly exist as a 'rock solid' character for the rest of the group. But at no time did I find that he actually did anything noteworthy. It was almost as if he was a puppet, tugged around as another character. It was if there was a need to have Rorschach or Laurie interact, with SOMEBODY. And that guy happened to be Dan. Dan's main purpose was to be a guy the audience sympathzied with. The geeky guy that everybody could relate to, the indecesive guy that wasn't sure what the right choice was. But in regards to his own personality, I found him to be kind of bland with not many redeeming features. More development of the character perhaps would make me like him better. (And why the hell did he have that moment where he LET the comedian shoot all those protesters??!! Dan can be so... weak.)

Laurie, I give tips to being a good, solid character. She had an interesting story and good development. her main purpose seemed to be a test to Jon's humanity a role that she rose to well. Although during the final confrontation, she had barely much of a purpose other than to nod her head at good ol' Ozy's plan.

Ozy, he was a decent character. However, it was so painfully, painfully clear that he was the villian from the beginning. Decent villian, if not sort of 'one-shot' compared to the others. I guess since I have so little to say about him shows how much depth I really thought he had as a character.

Jon. Am I blue man racist? I think I'm blue man racist. I couldn't find myself liking this guy. I actually identified with his philisophy about Earth compared to the rest of the galaxy. But his revelation about 'Oh life is special because it comes from so much chaos' seemed rather choppy. But hey, he wasn't a BAD character persay. He had some good stuff. Its not everyday you can make a 'god' character. But I still get this horrible feeling of 'MISSING'.
...
Or Im just blue-man-racist.

Now the Comedian...
...
...
Why in the name of hell does anybody LIKE this guy? Alright I admit the 'world is a joke' theme I liked. But really? Lets narrow him down. Hes this guy who realised that the world is some kind of twisted dark sick place. And since he realised that, he figured "Hey, since I see the world as it is, I'm going to act like a sick, dark, twisted bastard too!" And he was very good at being a bastard. A bastard who shot pregnant woman. A bastard who raped many others. A bastard who killed protesters. A bastard. How the hell did this guy get called a superhero. Im sorry, but his realisation of his terrible deeds and his longing to see Laurie as his daughter gets no sympathy from me. He does all this shit and realises "Damnit, I've done a lot of terrible shit!" Oh congrats, you are a bloody genius. Oh yes, tears, tears, tears for the comedian. Blargh.

Alright save the best for last: Rorschach. Yes, I know everybody else loves him. Yes, everybody loves him for some very damn good reasons. First, his backstory was marvelous. Absolutly marvelous. Kudos, kudos, to the author. Second, his decisions if not over-extreme made sense. He felt like he had to do the right thing. Whether it was breaking a man's arm to find out information about the location of a missing girl, to killing the murderers, to feel that the world deserved to know the goddamn truth no matter what. Nobody gave a lick about Rorschach. But he was he the freakin' true hero. He was the one who kept trying to save people, even on his own terms. He was the one who tried to warn his friends. He was the HERO. Yes. Not John, not Laurie, not Dan, Rorschach. He spent his whole life, fighting the scum of the world with scum of his own. And nobody thanked him for it. And his custume and sense of humour is just fabulous. Gotta love that prison scene. Its not everyday when you cheer when a guy gets hot oil poured all over him with the remarks "I AM NOT IN HERE WITH YOU. YOU ALL ARE IN HERE WITH MEEE!" Damn straight, I applauded.

You can obviously tell that the guy who created the comics was very much anti-US-government. Which of course strikes a chord in people the popular anti-americanism ideals. Such as Vietnam. I clearly don't agree with all of Moore's ideas, but I do accept them as his own.

Why were they left with a choice (hack) of destroy this many to create peace? I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking that there were other options. But even if there were no other options, why, why was the point so underdeveloped about those millions of lives being blinked out of existence? The movie had a "Oh man, city was blown up. That sucks. But hey, look what we prevented!"
Excuse me?
People died. MANY people died.
Men, Woman, Kids. Teachers, Doctors, Students, Taxi-Divers. People with lives?
They died, and there was no weight to it. I think I would've grimly nodded along with the characters with the choice whether to reveal or conseal the truth, if the movie showed what a truly horrible thing it is to loose so many lives. The main characters, the heroes, they didn't even react to the desecision. Their reactions were not human at all. They didn't looked burdened, or at a loss that so many lives ended that day. They had a very blank kind of "Oh, well okay, now whats the best thing to do?" aura about them. If they showed exactly how horrible, brutal, but nessecary the choice was, I might of believed in it. But they didn't. So everybody walked out of that theater feeling no remorse towards the death of those people in new york. Instead they were all "Doesn't it suck Rorschach died?" Yeah, well a least Rorschach gave a lick about what happened.

Well, along with this I have a few other complaints. One is that I wish that they had no been so fuzzy about the fact that there were TWO groups of Watchmen. Not everything has to be a revelation. Its okay for a movie to just establish this firmly at the beginning instead of confusing their audience until they realise it for themeselves.

The other complaint is that, I wanted more character development. Thats right I wanted to see another flashback of the Watchmen working together in the past saving people. I wanted to see Rorschach being partners with Dan. I wanted to see the developing romance between Laurie and Jon. I wanted to SEE the things the heroes were so sad about. But I didn't. If I did, Im sure that the break up in relationships would've been a lot more sad and carreied on more weight for me. But when I saw them reuniting in Anatartica, not once did I have the feeling "OH WOW THE TEAM IS GETTING BACK TOGETHER AGAIN! or OMG, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT WAS OZY, THIS MUST BE SO SAD FOR EVERYONE ELSE or ITS SO HORRIBLE DAN JUST LOST HIS PARTNER." Or whatever. It would've taken more story, more time. But I think it would've been worth it to invest in it. Maybe Watchmen needs a prequel.

Maybe all that I am complaining about actually exists in the Graphic Novel and that the movie had to leave out due to time restraints. Im not sure, perhaps I should go check. I think also that this is the type of movie that is so fast-paced that you are going to miss stuff the first time round, and that you have to watch it again to find all the little details or to fully understand the plot. Perhaps so.

Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie. Hell, I LOVED it. And If everybody was talking about how much they hated it. I would've made a post talking about all of its highlighting points. But everybody is in love with it so much so that its "THE BEST MOVIE EVER, THE THEMES WERE SO CORRECT, EVERYTHING WAS SO PERFECT."
Well, I loved it. But I found it far from perfect. And since I am a crotchy woman, I must point all this out. I still prefer the Dark Knight as far as superhero flicks go. But Watchmen was a really, really good movie. And if you can stomach its well-deserved R rating, it really is worth the watch.

Rorschach is awesome. Awesome, awesome, awesome!!!!.

Hair

2009-02-22T23:53:40Z

Unnaturally straight hair is 9/10 times completely ugly to me. And one of the things that I CANNOT stand is walking into school and seeing girls with the same uniform hair.

I don't hate straight hair. Sometimes it can be a fun look to try out every once in a while. And there are some people who are born with it like Asians, for example, who look great with it.

But to have the same, pressed ironed look every single day.... Eugh.

I've always been the kind of person who think that people are their most beautiful in more of a 'natural' look. I don't like fake tans. Some make-up is nice but I prefer it when there not a whole pound of it caked on.

And really if you have curly or wavy hair, it can be really fun and beautiful hair full of life. Why, you'd want it paper flat is like stomping on a flower.

Lets see some pictures.
I picked brunette, cause its the most common.

There is no way that a look like this

is as pretty as

this.

I hate doing this because I am not mocking girl #1. In fact there are some pretty things about her, she seems fit, she has a nice shaped face, big smile and eyes, but I think she could make herself look at her peak.

Now both of these girls have make up and styled hair. But look how girl #2 instead of straightening her hair flat, is getting her curled brown hair played UP instead of down. And she has the amount of eye make-up on that compliments her eyes instead of swallowing them like in girl #1. Also, I do acknowledge that girl #2 is obviously a model and girl #1 is not. But girl #1 certainly has the capability of being a model. And well, I dunno I think that the photographers and make up and hair artists that went into girl #2 actually do know what they are doing.

Now there are a whole bunch of looks, and I think its nice to try a different one everyday but lets see some straight haired example again

I consider Cameron is be a very pretty lady and obviously this is not a very flattering picture of her. But I just personally think her hair looks far prettier in different ways.

Straight hair is most beautiful not when its flattened and skinny. But when it has lots of BODY to it

This girl pulled of the straight hair look nicely. But look how thick and full of body her hair is.

Now just a personal preference here, but heres an example in one of my favorite movies the Snow Queen

That is Gerda how you initatally see her. Her straight hair is indeed, looking very nice.

But UGH I can't find a picture but this is how her hair looks more naturally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_FBpKfKzHk

and in my personal taste, I like it a whole lot better. Personal preference

The 'Serene' Expression

2009-02-22T23:19:16Z

Out of all the facial expressions that one sees in art, by far, by far the most common facial expression you will ever see on a figure's face is the 'serene' expression.

There is something about the expression that is very enticing and mysterious. The serene expression is seen even in the earliest of art. Indeed you can give your figure this expression and slightly manipulate it in a piece of work whether to appear mysterious (as seen in the Mona Lisa) or joyful (nearly all Mary potraits) or a look of pain (Jesus cruxfiction) or a hint of sadness. Even though all of these are rather different situations and a whole different slew of emotions, the 'serenity' look is still there.

And keeping the time period in mind. It really does make a lot of sense that this would be the most common expression to create. In the old European style, beauty was considered to be a very contained thing. Beauty wasn't in wild movements and gestures or in extremely patterened objects. Even old music in the churches were only allowed a certain amount of decor in them. Beauty was a more subtle thing and looking at the color palette of old paintings. You didn't want to put a whole load of bright colors that clashed together in one portrait.

But as time as gone on. Art has developed more and more. Portraits, realism, and nature scenes are not the only things you see in art anymore. Now you can get abstractions, surrealism, macabre, patterns, Psycheldelic, cartooning, a whole broad range of what you can do to create a piece of art. Although, at its core, still some of the most popular pieces of art are still along the lines of a traditional Renaissance piece. Which is fine however,

There is so much to be done in extreme facial expressions.

Pain, happiness, lonliness, desire, these can be extreme emotions, and the face is a powerful tool in truly expressioning these feelings. Pieces of art that have these expressions can become very powerful even before they get the background, the coloring, even the rest of the body. So when I see amatuer with the same 'serene expressions' over and over again. I cannot help sighing.

I think when it comes down to the matter, it is much the same as when it comes to drawing poses. The human body can move, bend and react in many, many different ways. Often when a person is furious it shows in their entire body. But because drawing poses is a very difficult thing, the ones that one always see are

Sitting down. Standing up.

.... Not saying that we all have to draw bodies in pretzel shapes, but there is a lot more to it than that. So thats how I see faces, amateur artists often draw serenity because it is comfortable and easy. It just becomes another limiting comfort zone in art.

Not that Im playing down serene or contemplative expressions. These are important and can be very beautiful. But for the sake of challenging ones own ability and expressing more in a piece of work. I would love to see many of these artists practice drawing more extreme facial expressions. Take the time to stare at yourself in the mirror to get down a whole bunch of different ones. And the work will develop. ESPECIALLY if the person is drawing a graphic novel. When you are in an extreme situation, like your loved one in trouble or what not. You are not going to be all that serene.

People are not really 'serene creatures' persay. We have a whole colorful slew of emotions. Beautiful ones. And ones that are very very ugly. Lets try to capture them.

Bakuman and Death Note breakdown

2009-02-21T05:23:47Z

The fact that it was created by the creators of Deathnote seemed to be its popularity point. Two boys working on manga together seemed much like the Deathnote mangaka partnership and now that the boys have chosen to do 'Detective manga' it can really seem like self-insert. But its fascinating in another way. Because although I am postive that the story of the mangakas didn't happen exactly this way, everybody draws their stories from their own experiences.

And I have some criticism over Deathnote too.
Death Note was interesting, had a premise that unique to the normal batch of anime. And although it had some strange story pacing and loopholes, you could overlook them to enjoy the story. The idea of the Death Note was fascinating. Espically in modern context where at least where I live, the majority are opposed to the Death penalty. The character of Light was interesting too, because although he had ideas about making his flawless world, he was reckless and commiting many errors. But was the manga's core, its excitement of the rivalary between L and Light. The suspicions, the tension, kept the audience interested. And the way the writing was staged didn't make it too hard for the reader to follow. So Deathnote, although not my favorite, was indeed a very story but then,
L died.
I loved the character, but it was not my sadness at his death that harded my taste for Death note. No, his death was well staged and ploted, that part was EXCELLENT. And after he died, there were a millions options of which direction to take the plot.

But then it became Death Note part II. And although I didn't hate them, Near and Mello were severly underdeveloped characters that I had no particular opinion of. Light's development, although I understand he became sick with power, became at one point nonsensical, and he lost all the charm he seemed to have before. A change wouldn't have been bad, but the direction they took it in fell flat. The entire series just did not end as well as it began.

Overall good, but not as good as it could have been.

So when I heard 'Bakuman' was about manga creators, I felt somewhat that the manga creators were still living in their Death Note glory. The set up at first irritated me. There were a couple of things I had disliked about the character designs in Death Note that re-appeared in Bakuman.
1. The Portrayl of Women
Now I am not a hardcore feminist and I am very, very well aware that different societies percieve the genders quite differently. But Takada and Misa of Death Note really lacked traits of appealing female characters, and were no challenge to their male counterparts and had no problem of being used constantly and being needy and dependent. Sometimes it is nessecary for the story to have characters like this, because there are people who exist like this in real life. But the creators really seemed to lack the ability to make a truly interesting, non-shallow female character.

In Bakuman, something similar came up with Azuki and Miyoshi. Although on no level I dislike either character, when I first saw then I nearly groaned. Azuki seemed to be like one of the typical 'maidens' who are shy, mysterious, out of reach and very emotional. Which is not bad, but terribly uninteresting. When I first saw Miyoshi I kept getting 'Misa' vibes from Death Note. The clingy, less intelligent, rambunkous girlfriend. Both characters had some likable factors, but not enough to make me 'fall in love with their character' so to speak.

2. The 'Smartest Guys'
One of the hardest things I think for a person to do, is to write a character who is smarter than the author themselves. Not in the little scope, but in the long term scope. L and Light of Death Note were painted out to be the most intelligent people in the entire country of Japan, perhaps some of the most intelligent in the world. Now I have very high faith of the intelligence of Japanese people, but while reading Death Note, where I felt that both characters where very smart and very clever. I was not convinced that they were acting like the most 'intelligent people in the entire world' at all. When you make a story, people tend to want to make their protagonists special in some sort of way, whether 'Strongest' or 'Most Beautiful' whatever. Its not bad, works in many cases. But 'Most Intelligent in the World'? When I find that an author can pull that off *COUGH*ORSONSCOTTCARD*COUGH* I am very impressed. But I don't believe everybody can pull that off in a believable fashion.

So you see the same set up with Saiko and Takagi at first. Although "Smartest guys in the class" is different from "Smartest guys in the world" it is essentialy another set up where the characters suceed because they are "more intelligent than everybody around them". And although they are middle school kids. They can be the new diviners of manga creation who automatically land a hot-spot in the hottest manga serialization in Japan. Making them middle school kids was good, helps the audience get involved. And for god's sake, its a story, doesn't have to be super realistic. Being the irritable person that I am I still got cranky about it.

The other thing that irritated me about Bakuman, was how people regarded it. I have a friend who claims it as 'one of her favorite manga' because it 'teaches you how to be a mangaka." NO. No, as of yet, it hasn't done that. Bakuman is NOT a guide to how to frame a good piece of storytelling for comics and it is NOT a guide to how to draw top-notch sequential art which the different factors of panelling, backgrounds, etc. They give you the basics of course, but its not a 'Guide for Dummies' manga. Its a character-based story with character driven plots.

Actually THE MOST interesting facts that they give in the manga is about the world of manga publishing the Japan. I thoroughly enjoyed the tour of Jump's department. (Which I assume, are mostly accurate since the creators work for Jump.) and all the different factors to consider in manga publishing. Good Stuff right there.

Now, Bakuman has grown on me by A LOT. One of the main reasons is that Takagi and Saiko keep FAILING. Sounds harsh, but it really shows them as true 'hero' protagonists. A true 'hero' protagonists is not a character who is automatically amazing and they defeat everything in their way and everything works out perfectly when they come around. NO. A true 'hero' protagonist is one that fails, again, again, again, and again. But can still get up and be motivated to try even harder. Not only do they have to try again, but they can't keep using the same method, they have to try NEW and DIFFERENT things. It is also more realistic to the world, particularly the art and comic world. People rarely will ever suceed on their first or fifteenth attempt. Took some time before Dave Mckean got the projects and earned the regonition that he very much deserves.

The other reason, is the reason why I loved Death Note so much. The creators really plot out the storyplot very well. The characters have hardships, lose motivation, and have to get back up. And many different events happen contingently that the mangakas are very good at sequencing and playing out. (hell, in Bleach, who knows where the hell that guy is going with it) Another reason is because Death Note and Bakuman are not the typical 'excitement' manga. But the creators know how to pace the story so a story about people who draw and write or people who try to defeat each other in a battle of wits, is as exciting as the lastest chapter of fighting manga. Part of this is because the artist of Bakuman and Deathnote draws facial expressions and does panelling excellently.

The next step is the development of the characters. Eiji turned out not the be the 'typical weird rival guy' but a very fun, zany, and talented character with a series of layers. Not only did he present a challenge to the boys, but he LIKES them. It was a hilarity I very much appreciated. The girls, although I have 'not fallen in love with them' have also somewhat grown on me. Espically Miyoshi, who although has many "Misa-like" qualities, namely, comedy relief, is actually a fun, good supporting character for Takagi and a good source of contempy for Saiko. And I really like the editor character in the series. He is fun and there is no doubt that he is based off a real person. Perhaps the characters own editors. :D I have always liked the character Takagi. But the character who I never really had much of an opinion on was Saiko. His romance with Azuki was one of his defining features. And this is probably just personal taste on my part, but I've always prefered the romances where the characters bond together by the experiences that they share with one another. The 'love at first sight' thing doesn't so much appeal to me. And although the distance factor seems romantic, the fact that they force themselves to be apart from each other doesn't strike much of a chord in me.

But then these past few weeks have been interesting. Takagi and Saiko are learning some of the tough parts of working together. Its really hard to work so hard and much with other people and still keep up a stable friendship. That has to come through deep understanding. Even Gaiman and McKlean who collaborated on many projects had a work-style clash when they worked in the same room for the scripting of Mirrormask. Takagi and Saiko are feeling some of the pressures that come from those kind of partnerships, which I have all confidence that they will get through sucessfully :) when people can work together constantly and strongly, it is an amazing bond (i.e CLAMP, how did those ladies manage 20 years?)
So what really won me over, for Bakuman and Saiko was this page:
http://www.onemanga.com/Bakuman/26/19/

Great developement on Saiko. Not only is he acting like a kid, which by the way, HE STILL IS. But hes having a very realistic reaction to a situation like this. A nod to the artist because although Saiko is usually drawn cool and collected with an occasional bout of excitement or annoyance. Here is an expression that was so unusal for Saiko and was drawn so simply, but so effectively, that it just breaks hearts and makes you want to go "NO! GO BACK TO HAPPY! EXCITED MODE!"

There is not a love-letter to Bakuman, but it has captured my attention, and I am thoroughly enjoying the read. :D

Text Convo

2009-01-13T06:18:18Z

Text Messaging

Random Number: Dont know about u but I got a serious case of the munnndars!
Me: Sorry, who is this?
RN: luke im sorry is this not tim
Me: Nope. Number error! Oh well. Hope your monday gets better :)
RN: Thanks alot! You just made it better stranger

Hahaha in a weird small way, my monday got better too