Let's roll some dice, watch some movies, or generally just geek out. New posts at 6:30 pm ET but only if I have something to say. Menu at the top. gsllc@chirp.enworld.org on Mastodon and @gsllc on Twitter.
If you enjoy this post, please retweet it (Twitter/X), boost it (Mastodon), repost it (MeWe), or repost it (BlueSky).
I don’t read comics, so my knowledge of them is spotty. Also, I’m far more concerned that Marvel hire actors based on their talent rather than whether they remain faithful to the comics. Ergo, having no sentimentality towards the print medium, changing up the characters doesn’t affect me. But I get that it may affect others who love that medium and the particular characters as written. All that said, I still need to ask this question: What’s the big deal with the Silver Surfer casting for the Fantastic Four movie?
According to Wikipedia (sorry, that’s my source), Shalla-Bal is a canon Silver Surfer in an alternate universe (i.e., not the 616-universe of the MCU), and all the reporting claims that the Fantastic Four movie will be based in an alternative universe. Therefore, it makes sense that Shalla would be the Silver Surfer. Now, maybe your objection is that you prefer Norrin Radd, and that makes sense, but how do you know Norrin won’t be in this movie too?
According to Wikipedia, Shalla and Norrin were co-Silver Surfers in that alternative “Earth X” and “Universe X” universe (whatever that is). Just because Norrin hasn’t been cast yet doesn’t mean he won’t be. We currently have no reason to assume that you won’t get your Norrin Radd too, and maybe having two of them creates a better dynamic, if not in the comic, in the MCU, which is all I’m talking about and the source of your complaints.
As always, these complaints are coming far too early in the filmmaking process, and I suspect they’re based on assumptions rather than logic. Consider the complaint, “Krypton isn’t going to be destroyed in Man of Steel! I know! I saw a quick clip of an undestroyed Krypton!”
Spoiler alert!
That turned out to be hysterical nonsense, didn’t it?
Dirtbaggery aside, Jonathan Majors was awesome as Kang, so other than his unforeseen legal troubles, his race-swap casting worked out very well. But this isn’t even a swap. Shalla-Bal is a canon Silver Surfer as is, and Julia Garner is killing it (e.g., Ozark on Netflix). I’m not just disagreeing; I don’t even see the issue here.
One respondent on Facebook pointed out that many people don’t want the Silver Surfer in this movie at all, whether male or female, because we’ve already seen it. They want Dr. Doom. This response makes at least some of the following assumptions:
Dr. Doom won’t be the main villain in Secret Wars (or elsewhere);
Dr. Doom won’t be the main villain in Fantastic Four;
The Silver Surfer wasn’t cast merely as a cameo to set up Galactus as the next big bad evil guy for the next couple phases of the MCU.
All we have right now is confirmation of a casting. Everything else being thrown around is mere speculation. Everyone should just relax. If the movie (like its predecessors) sucks, you’ll have plenty of time not to watch it then. If it doesn’t, but you insist on hating it anyway, it’s your loss.
If you enjoy this post, please boost it via BlueSky, Mastodon, and/or Twitter/X.
Social media led me to an article entitled, Popular Movies That Aren’t Available to Stream Anywhere. Yes, I took the time to capitalize all the major words in that title because the Associated Press standard is stupid. Anyway, it’s an interesting list, and I’m sure you’ll sympathize with a lot of their choices. However, there’s one movie that isn’t on this list, probably because it isn’t that popular, but it’s one I wish I could find on a streaming service.
I Love You to Death
Movie poster with Kevin Kline in his white pajamas with a whole in his chest.
I Love You to Death was released in 1990. The “black comedy”, which was based on a true story, instantly became one of my favorite movies. The movie centers on an unfaithful husband, Joey, and his wife, Rosalie. When Rosalie discovers Joey has been cheating on her, she tries to kill him. For the record, the real “Rosalie” (Francis Toto of Allentown, Pennsylvania) spent four years in jail for attempted murder, but the couple is still married to this day.
The cast was incredible, led by Tracey Ullman, Kevin Kline (one of my favorite actors), Keanu Reeves (“Deliver us from freedom.”), the late William Hurt, and the late River Phoenix. Heather Graham and Phoebe Cates are also in it. As far as I know, it was Tracey Ullman’s only leading role in a motion picture. I could be wrong, but she did a great job in this one.
The trailer is here. You can buy or rent it here. I decided to buy it.
Timing is apparently not my strong suit. A few days ago, someone mentioned how much they loved the graveyard scene in the Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Watch the scene here before it disappears.
I wasn’t as big a fan of the scene. Sure, it was funny, but it exemplifies the difference between legacy and modern gamers. Okay, I mean old people and young people. Whatever. As D&D players, we all want this movie to emulate the game, so our different approaches to the game affect our reactions to the movie or individual scenes. In the old days, failure was a thing in RPGs. If a magic user (that’s a wizard for the young’uns) wanted to learn a new spell, the player rolled percentile dice with a target number dependent on the character’s intelligence. If the roll failed, the wizard not only didn’t learn the spell, but could never learn it. Ever. That’s failure. The dice giveth, and the dice taketh away.
Nowadays, failure has fallen out of favor, granted to different degrees depending on the individual. Today, if a player were told that they could never learn the fireball spell, they’d be furious. If they couldn’t deduce a password from a riddle, it’s possible they’d quit your game. As I’ve discussed before (see the section, Another Example: The Puzzle Encounter), I once had players get angry at me because they couldn’t solve a puzzle trap, and as a result, the trap went off doing zero (0) points of damage to them.
Yeah, you read that right, but read it again if you don’t think you did.
Play whatever game you want — that’s the name of this blog — but I find this approach boring. I don’t try to solve easy sudoku puzzles; I go for the hard ones. I want the chance of failure because that’s how I improve. But even from a purely entertainment perspective, what’s the point of rolling the dice or even showing up to the game if you know the outcome? The players should instead tell the DM how they want the session to go, and the DM respond, “Sure, that’s what happened. Congratulations. You won D&D. Now get out of here and play some miniature golf or something.” Where’s the excitement in that? I really don’t get it, and it’s why I’m not involved in organized play anymore. Most tables just hand the players the victories.
This is not to say that I enjoy the notion of a character dying during character creation as in Traveler. There should be a chance of success, and the chances should tilt in favor of the players, but when the players don’t start enjoying my game until I remove all the challenge from it, I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.
Nowadays, players don’t accept near enough failure in their games for them to be of interest to me, and the graveyard scene demonstrates this point. The point of the scene was to do something funny, and it succeeded, at least at first. I have no problem with that. However, after they failed, they simply tried again. And again. And again. The resource allowing them to speak with the dead was apparently unlimited, which means they couldn’t fail. Not only did that remove all consequences, and thus appear non-heroic, but it also detracted from the joke itself. Repeating a joke too many times is one way to ruin it. Why is the screw up funny if this is an unlimited trial-and-error.
The resource.
I would have written the scene in one of two alternative ways, and this is how my game would play out. First, they fail, so they have to be clever and come up with a different way to learn the information they need. Because this is a movie, that may not work. The movie could get really long, and no one really wants to watch a movie about people studying at a library. Second, they fail, but they get only one more bite at the apple. This time, they plan it out, come up with the five questions, assign one person to ask them, and everyone else shuts their annoying mouths (that’s another issue altogether).
That’s funny and heroic because the characters still had to rise to the occasion. But I really don’t think people want true heroes anymore, which is also demonstrated by this scene. They want to see idiots . . . .
. . . like him . . .
. . . win the day despite having none of the tools, including the personality and strength of character, to succeed. The only reason he succeeds is because the script says so. There’s nothing about him, even in a world of magic and monsters, that justifies his success logically. Even within that world, he’s a screw up, but he suddenly succeeds, because the screenwriters know that’s what the modern gamer wants to see, and they’re the foundation of the audience for this movie. After his success, he returns to being the same idiot that shouldn’t have succeeded in the first place. He didn’t improve; he was just handed success by the writers. This reminds me of another example.
None of us are perfect; some of us just can’t handle being reminded of that.
I mentioned in my last post that I’d be writing this one. It took a little longer than I expected, but here it is. “Failing” may be a strong word here, but bear with me. It’s all relative.
During or soon after the quarantine, Russ Burlingame and I had a conversation about the MCU. Getting to the point, he felt that the Infinity War Saga was “lightning in a bottle” and suspected that they wouldn’t enjoy the same success later down the road. In hindsight, his prediction came true. The current phase is not as popular as the others, but I think Russ’s prediction should be seen not as an indication of accidental or unsustainable success, but rather as an indication of complacency and failure to evolve. The difference between the two explanations is that, if the latter is the proper one, then it didn’t have to be like this.
Sure, Ms. Marvel was geared towards a specific (and thus limited) demographic, and Secret Invasion had some weak writing, but let’s look beyond that. After all, sooner or later, they had to do a show geared more towards kids, and Secret Invasion could still have been well-received because it serves the larger storyline, so neither were necessarily disasters, but it’s Secret Invasion that holds the key as to why the current phase is failing.
To start, we had Iron Man. In it, there was no real connection to the larger storyline, the Infinity War Saga, but there didn’t need to be. We were just starting out. We didn’t even know that there was and Infinity War Saga at that point. I don’t think Marvel Studios had any idea whether Iron Man would be a success and allow them to continue. Put another way, as viewers, we didn’t know what we were missing, and the post-credit scene hinted only at the Avengers as a team. As far as we knew, we would be getting a couple of sequels, and that’s it. Eventually, that changed. One of the more maligned Infinity War Saga shows, Thor: The Dark World, introduced the reality stone, so even if you didn’t like that movie – shame on you; Thor is awesome – you could more easily brush it aside as setting up what was to come in the remainder of the saga.
Eventually, the Infinity War Saga fostered within us an expectation that each show, good or bad, is part of an important and grandiose larger whole. That is, each movie is analogous to an episode of an entire season of a television show. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and abandon a show simply because one episode is weak. In fact, if you’re being fair, you understand that, sooner or later, there has to be a bad episode because its function is to advance the larger story, and sometimes that means dealing with the boring set up.
Now that we’re spoiled by that, we now need to see that in the early movies, not just the newer ones, but have we? Do you have any idea how Shang Chi, the Eternals, Moon Knight, or Ms. Marvel connect to Secret Wars/Kang Dynasty (if at all)? We didn’t need a direct connection from Iron Man to Avengers: Endgame, but now that we know it’s coming, we need to see that now, and I don’t mean just post-credit scenes. I expect Loki, season 2 to be the first time we start to see a coherent grand plan for the Secret Wars/Kang Dynasty, but that’s too late, and will possibly be too little as well. After all, the TV series are supposed to be optional viewing. Many people aren’t going to watch Loki at all, so even if it’s a masterpiece, how are those viewers going to view the current MCU phases? I’ll tell you how. They’ll see them as inadequate.
It may already be too late, but if the next movie doesn’t give us a clear sense of where the larger storyline is going, it certainly will be.
Jonathan Major’s legal troubles appear to be requiring a massive change in course, and that won’t help.
It’s been a while since I wrote about the MCU, in no small part because the current phase hasn’t lived up to the last ones. I have my own idea as to how to fix that, but I’ll save that for another post.
I recently read this article, which prompted me to write this post.
Umm, Spoiler Alert?
It’s a TV show, and the episode in question is over a week old. Your grace period has ended.
Sexy.
Secret Invasion revealed that Rhodey has been a skrull for quite some time, though exactly how long is unknown. The only thing we’ve gotten out of the MCU powers-that-be is that he was replaced at some point prior to Avengers: Endgame. The suggestion in the article is that it occurred in or after Captain America: Civil War. Sure, maybe. As a hobbled guy, he was easier to subdue. But I don’t care. Here’s my point.
Rhodey being a Skrull after Captain America: Civil War changes how fans see every interaction he’s had since. His reunion with Team Captain America and tense conversation with Thunderbolt Ross suddenly don’t have the same emotional impact anymore. The same goes for his fun banters with his fellow heroes while they gear up for the time heist in Avengers: Endgame.
Umm, no. At least to that last sentence. Rhodey’s “fun banters” in Avengers: Endgame were actually Rhodey being an asshole. I explain how that’s the case in a prior post, so I won’t repeat that argument here (other than to link to this video). However, the fact that he was a skrull at that point is is a great explanation as to why he was being such an asshole to everyone. He wasn’t their friend and didn’t care about them. Sure, he kept up appearances with Tony Stark, but only because he knew that would be the relationship that couldn’t suffer. Any distance between those two would have been a red flag.
On the flip side, he seemed to get along with Sam Wilson, a.k.a. Falcon, in Infinity War, even showing concern that he couldn’t find him while he was being dusted. Why no animosity? Because Sam Wilson didn’t paralyze him. I mean her. It was a female skrull, Raava (mislabled Varra in the article), that stole Rhodey’s identity. We all just assumed they buried the hatchet in the downtime, but the truth is that Raava didn’t have a grudge against Sam.
But I digress. I think we can all see things that can be rationalized to justify that the switch occurred. All of this is to say that, especially in hindsight, we can easily make sense of the fact that Rhodey has been a skrull, but the “fun banters” don’t take away from that. They’re very much a part of that. They weren’t fun. He was being an asshole.
Side Note #1: I want to say one good thing about Rhodey/Raava. It makes sense that the two personae are played by different actors. They did that only because of the sex-swap, but they should have done that with everyone. What are the odds that Nick’s love interest, Priscilla, had a similar face to her alter-ego, Varra? Every skrull should have been played by a different actor than the one they appeared as in human form because their forms would have been completely different. Instead, Varra just looks like Priscilla in makeup.
Fourth wall break!
Side Note #2: On the other hand, what are the odds that two of the major characters had the names Raava and Varra. Why wasn’t there a Cink Rufy as a counter to Nick Fury? Stupid.
I know what you’re thinking. “But it’s not Christmas!” Die Hard was released on July 15, 1988. I was in an overheated movie theater when I saw it. It was most certainly not Christmas.
BTW, as an action movie, Die Hard is loaded with unrealistic nonsense. You have to buy into that for action movies. But one thing that bugged me was when, in German, Hans tells Karl to shoot the glass. Karl acts surprised, and we all assume it’s because he doesn’t realize McClain is barefoot, so he doesn’t see the point. However, to run the point into the ground, Hans repeats, “Shoot the glass,” slowly and in English. Only then does Karl, who’s been speaking German the entire movie, understand him.
Happy 35th anniversary, Die Hard!
Follow me on Twitter @gsllc Follow me on Mastodon @gsllc
I saw the D&D movie yesterday. I didn’t like it as much as my average social media contact did, but it was fun and worth watching, and I’ll watch it again when it hits Paramount+. This post is loaded with spoilers, but I’m keeping them relatively mild. Still, proceed at your own risk. TL;DR: I give it a solid B grade.
Well, it is Caturday, isn’t it?
Up front, I want to say that this represents a major step forward for the franchise. In fact, can we just pretend that the other movies don’t exist? I own the second one on DVD and have seen it only once. I can watch it any time I want, and I do exactly that. I watch it every time I want, which is never. But moving on, there are a couple of things I wanted to mention, but I saw the movie by myself, so I didn’t get a chance to talk to anyone about it.
My Favorite Character: The Paladin
For someone like me, this is less a movie and more a homage to the game of D&D, so my favorite character was the paladin. Why? Because the movie made the archetypical paladin, which is a class best summed up by Louis C.K.’s “of course, but maybe” bit. If you don’t already know the bit and don’t click through, this may not make sense.
Of course, paladins are great. Of course, they are. They’re so concerned for everyone else’s well-being and will sacrifice their own. But maaaaaybe they’re all really annoying to be around. But no. Of course, we all love paladins. These people are champions of good, justice, honesty, and virtually everything good in this world. But maaaaaybe if they have such high charismas, they should be expected to learn social skills.
Zenk was the archetypical paladin. You should and will love him, but god dammit he’s annoying.
Legacy v. Modern Gamers
I’m on a real 1st Edition (“1e”) kick, and one of the things that bugs me about modern gaming is the aversion to PC death. This movie had a brilliant opportunity to show modern gamers the value to PC deaths, and when I thought they were going that way, my heart skipped. (Perhaps I should have a cardiogram just in case.) Unfortunately, in typical 5th Edition fashion, they pissed that opportunity away on a cheat. In the process, the cheat mirrored elements of our real-world society that have attention spans too short to remember what’s most important, even if it’s their primary goal in life. This was a major point of failure as far as I was concerned. It wasn’t merely a bad decision, but one that by itself keeps this movie out of the A grade range. It reminded me of my greatest pet peeve with respect to modern gaming.
A Funny Joke with the Same Problem
There’s a joke used in the movie that made it on one of the social media/television spots. It’s where they use a spell to speak with the dead. It was a remarkable failure, and hilariously so. However, they cheated their way out of it. Why? Because modern gamers can’t take a loss. It’s not just death, but some gamers get angry when their character takes a single point of damage (or even no damage!) or miss a puzzle. Modern dungeon masters are expected to avoid character failure of any sort, even when it’s the players’ own damn fault. Sure, the game/movie must continue, but the characters should have to admit they screwed up and find another way forward.
Speaking of Pet Peeves
My largest pet peeve about the prior movies was their overt discussion of game mechanics. That was the one thing I didn’t want in this movie. It’s a fourth wall break, and one that’s completely unnecessary. As a long-time gamer, I don’t need to be told that the character just used Misty Step, and for non-gamers watching the movie, naming the spell won’t add anything to the movie. So in the third movie, Book of Vile Darkness, when the main character asked to purchase a sword, and the shopkeeper asked him whether he wanted one at heroic tier or paragon tier, that was really stupid. That is, even in a world of monsters and magic, no one would talk that way.
This movie avoided such stupidity. In the rare instance where they discussed mechanics (for example, the aforementioned Speak with Dead scene), it served a purpose both to the audience and to the other characters. In fact, the only time language was used that was superfluous to the characters was the discussion of the history of Thay. However, that’s something every movie does because the audience needs the exposition. The characters say, “Yeah, yeah; we knew all that” so that they don’t look stupid, and the audience goes along with the fiction because, in the end, it’s a movie, and audiences know that they need the education. This was definitely something important that this movie got right.
Adventuring Party
Again, they pissed away something that could have improved the movie. You can certainly play the game with four PCs, but you really should have five: a healer, a soldier, an arcane caster, a rogue, and a fifth that doesn’t exactly fit neatly into one of those categories. This is especially true of a movie meant as a love letter to the game. Well, they had a barbarian and a druid that focused on melee, a sorcerer, and a bard that almost never touched a weapon. In fact, all the bard was to the group was a guy who made plans. Don’t get me wrong; he was a fine character, but as someone who likes bards more than any other class in most editions, he didn’t display most of the characteristics of a D&D bard. Moreover, there was no healer in the bunch, not even the druid or underused paladin. For fuck’s sake, they asked the sorcerer to heal someone, and his explanation for why he couldn’t was because of the nature of the injury, not because, you know, he’s not a cleric. But if the producers want to house rule sorcerers as healers, fine. It cuts against everything we’ve seen in every edition, but that kind of flexibility is what RPGs are all about. So why didn’t the sorcerer heal anyone? Because he wasn’t house ruled. He was just a standard sorcerer. There were no healers.
But my main concern here, as small as it is, is that I would have preferred to see a party of five with one of them using healing magic at some point. Instead, they went on one of their minor quests with the paladin. To give him his moment to shine, he did most of the heavy lifting on that quest but then left the group. He wouldn’t have made the story too complex by sticking around.
Easter Eggs
This movie is loaded with references to the game and tons of Easter eggs. Like I said, it’s more that than it is an actual movie. You can make a game out of spotting them.
EDIT: A Note on Faithfulness to the Game
Some have nitpicked the movie for not living up to game mechanics, and others have responded by saying “it’s a movie, not a game.” But it’s a movie that’s not only based on a game, but it has the name of the game in its title. If this is billed as a Dungeons & Dragons movie, then it should be based on the game. Otherwise, this might as well be a Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings movie. Maybe it’s just overstatement typical among the way Americans (everyone?) argues, but the counterarguments don’t seem to appreciate that fact. In fact, someone well known in the industry was taken to task (by someone else I’ll say is well-known) for criticizing the movie. “Are you a cinematographer?” she asked. What difference does that make? Are we not permitted to criticize a movie because we aren’t professional filmmakers ourselves? And if so, wouldn’t that mean that you have no right to complement it unless you’re a professional filmmaker? Are we not allowed to voice our opinions without filmmaking experience? That seems ridiculous.
Still, even acknowledging all that, the first question you should ask is, “What edition of D&D?” The various editions of D&D are very different from one another. Which edition should the film emulate? The classic OD&D or 1e for reasons of appreciation of where we all come from? The current 5e for reasons of marketability? A combination of them all? How should that combination be weighted? Also of note, dungeon masters have always house-ruled their games, meaning my 1e may be very different from your 1e. And besides, there always has to be some license given to filmmakers adapting source material to another medium. So, lighten up, Francis. This isn’t going to be exactly the game you play, but it’s faithful enough to the source material that everyone recognizes it. If you don’t like it, fine. I’m clearly no Wizards of the Coast apologist. But if you don’t like it because you have an axe to grind, then you’re robbing yourself of fun. Don’t ruin ours.
Grade: B
It was fun. It was worth my time and money, but it could have been better. I’m sure we’ll get a sequel or two, so maybe those will be.
Yeah, you read that right. Captain Kirk and William Shatner were both born on March 22. Shatner was born in 1931, and Kirk will be born in 2233. This may be out of place considering that I’m writing this post on May 7, 2022, and who knows what will happen to my captain (or me) between now and then, but I wish them both well . . .
Sundays are lazy days for me. Sometimes I post other people’s work. Sometimes, something silly. Usually both. Well, there’s nothing sillier than this. I post today only because this will become my 200th consecutive daily post. I’ve pulled this shit before, posting just to say that I’m continuing what would become a 374 day streak, but I post this to say my streak is ending. Very meta.
Okay, fine. Because you’re here, I should probably give you a stupid meme. Here’s one.
Nice mashup of two things I love. It’s not as if I had something important to say for most of the 199 before it (short of some of these).
This meme popped up in my Facebook feed last Wednesday.
I’ve already (re)shared it to all of my social media accounts, but I find it funny that just one year later, Wanda’s line in Doctor Strange 2: The Multiverse of Madness.
Like all things, it’s probably the fault of the Darkhold, but it’s still hypocritical of her.
The MCU is so meticulously planned out that I wouldn’t be surprised if this was intentional.
Play What You Want 