What If...?: Scream 5

I know, I know, it's been a while and I'm a day late and a dollar short with this one but hey, it's my blog, I can be as late or as early with things as I wanna be, so in this installment of "What If...?" I'm gonna ask the question what if "Scream 5" was good? No, like really good? For those of you who don't know, I am a huge fan of the "Scream" series (the films...the MTV show is...decent enough) and despite all the hate it gets, I actually really enjoy "Scream 3" (don't get me wrong, I do still consider it the weaker of the films, but I digress). The point is, I really do love "Scream". To be completely honest, the "Scream" movies are the last vestiges of 80s slasher flicks, punched up with a modern take on a genre that is since dead. Think about it, not many slashers exist in this day and age. I'm not gonna recap the films here but if you haven't seen all 4 "Scream" movies, do yourself a favor and check them out and then check out "Scream 5".

While I liked "Scream 5" and had fun with it, it could have been MUCH better and while the reveal was obvious, the motive was completely nonsensical to me (I still don't understand their motives). Like any good sequel or part of a series, it should ALWAYS call back to previous installments and remind the viewers that certain events happened to help usher in new and old viewers. After all, if you're making a sequel for a new generation, they're gonna wanna understand the previous installments so that they can understand all the character relationships, otherwise why even bother making a sequel if you're not gonna reference previous installments? So let's ask What if "Scream 5" was really good? And warning there will be spoilers.

Manga Pilot: World's End Harem

So I'm doing a new thing here on the ol' blog and I call it "Manga Pilot". As of late, I've been reading a lot of manga here and there and I decided it'd make for decent content here to review a few of the ones I've been reading. Now I call this manga pilot because for the most part I've been mostly interested in volume ones of series and I'm piloting them to see if I like them enough to maybe either continue with the series or check out the anime. Either way, today I'm offering up an interesting one and on this first installment of "Manga Pilot" we're taking a look at "World's End Harem". While Hulu's "Y: The Last Man" (and I hear the graphic novels are quite good, I haven't read'em) struggled with the incoherence of including trans people in a virus that only kills men, "World's End Harem" gets right to the core of the main issue, avoiding extinction and needing men to procreate. Let's not mince words here, yes, "World's End Harem" is an ecchi title and yes, it does appeal to a common male fantasy, BUT and that's a HUGE but, the actual nature of the issue cannot be avoided and stands up logically with the plot. I'll explain after the break.

DEXTER-ity: Dexter: New Blood

Well, well, well, of all the things coming back I never thought I'd see the day our beloved red-headed human hacker Dexter Morgan would make his return. In many ways, I suppose the producers got what they wanted in the god-awful Season 8 which was supposed to be the series's final season, in which they wanted Dexter to live in hopes of a possible return. Well, welcome to possible and Dexter is back. Going into this limited series I feel trepidation because considering how badly the series was handled after 4 and 5 I can't I'm not worried that some old habits will arise, and we'll get to some of those in a bit. But now that this series has concluded and I've had a few days to digest what I just witnessed how did the series go? Well, welcome one and all to my finale Dexterity, a "Dexter" review, and analysis done by yours truly.

STRANGE LOG: Where's The Tacos!?

So I've been super busy lately, not really, I've just been lazy and working a lot and being a dad and such but a lot has happened in the world of entertainment that I needed to comment on. So here we go a scattershot article (not really) about my thoughts on various things going on in the world of entertainment, let's dive in.

The Strange Review: The Many Saints Of Newark

Prequels are a strange animal...for starters prequels are very rarely necessary and are often pointless and at worst story breaking. Prequels have to walk a fine of being their own story while not piggybacking on the story that came before. For these reasons, alone prequels are for me a go-to because something somewhere gets contradicted and essentially ruins it for me. The most infamous prequel is of course The Star Wars Prequels (which are now enjoying life as memes), but since then the term "prequel" has been a dirty word. For something as massive as "Star Wars" and to watch their prequels tank and tank hard, I could only imagine what would happen with one of the greatest TV shows ever written (yes it is, fight me). David Chase originally conceived "The Sopranos" as a movie as film was his main medium of choice, he had no interest in doing a TV show, and now we have a Soprano film: "The Many Saints Of Newark".

"The Many Saints Of Newark," tells the story of "Gentlemen Dickie" Richard Moltisanti, the father of Tony's cousin and dog-sitter-oner Christopher Moltisanti. However, before we talk about the movie proper (and this is not a spoiler since he's in the trailer) let's talk about the hairpiece in the room and what's basically keeping me from enjoying this movie entirely and that my paisans is Silvio Dante. By all accounts, Silvio Dante should not be in this movie, or rather he shouldn't in the mafia. If memory serves correctly (and it does) in the infamous Card Game story, Ralphie stated that THEY (Himself, Jackie, Silvio and Tony) were a small crew, selling pot and making small scores UNTIL Jackie decided that they'd rob Michelle "Feech" LaManna's card game. After the robbery, Richie Aprile stood up for the group and brokered a sit-down in which some of the right people got their money back. After that Tony and the others were rising stars and had to be respected and were on the fast track to being made with the exception of Ralphie who unfortunately caught the clap from some hippie.

Citation: Season 03 Episode 12: Amour Fou

Now, one could accuse Ralphie of lying BUT Feech confirms this story later on with Silvio stating that Feech isn't interested in telling that story. This story is VERY important and basically breaks "The Many Saints Of Newark" because Tony is a child and Silvio is somewhere in his early 20s (he wouldn't be a teenager) and he's already a member of the mafia. According to Ralphie's story, however, he and the others were "non-existent" according to the mafia, they were nobodies. How exactly is Silvio already in the mafia if it was the card game robbery he did with Tony that put him on the map? Did he do the robbery with Tony when he was a baby? I'm being silly, but seriously, Silvio being in this movie MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL! Furthermore, the actor playing Silvio was the worst thing in this movie, guy was trying way too hard. Billy Magnussen does a great job as Young Paulie, showing a more dapper side to Paulie before he's older and set in his ways. Young Pussy was great, had the swagger, and even sounded like him too. But Young Silvio, he sounded like Joe Pesci inhaled some helium.

Citation Season 05 Episode 04: All Happy Families

Anyway, getting back on point, if Silvio is already in the mafia when Tony is a child then that means that Silvio fell out of favor with the mafia and then got in league with Tony, Jackie, and Ralph, however, why would a grown man (Silvio's in at least his 20s at the start of the movie) fall in with a group of people who would barely be 20? I always operated under the assumption that Silvio and Tony grew up together and were roughly the same age (give or take a year or two) but if Tony is 8 years old (how old he was at the start of the film) and Silvio is at least in his 20s, that means at the start of the series Silvio would be 52, but he's not! According to Sopranos history, Silvio is 42 at the start of the series thus making him 2 years older than Tony. So as a writer and a "Sopranos" aficionado I cannot accept Silvio's presence in the film simply because this would make "The Sopranos" a time travel show and well...while there are minute mystical moments in "The Sopranos", it never goes that far. Far easier to simply reject something added years after the fact, EVER IF this is canon (written by the creator himself) it openly contradicts established canon, and therefore on these grounds I reject this movie. That being said, let's talk about the movie proper. Was the movie good? Well, aside from the MASSIVE continuity error that is Silvio Dante (The Human Paradox), the film did what I believe all good prequels should do, and that's basically add flavor text to established material, something that can be viewed but ignored that doesn't disrupt the established order. In those terms, it's fine, it captures "The Sopranos" flavor while still being its own thing, it doesn't lean on nostalgia (although there are some disappointments which we'll get into in the spoiler section). 

All in all the movie is fine but it will raise some eyebrows and in classic "Sopranos" fashion the ending "subverts expectations" and we all know that's code for some people will love it, some will hate it. I personally don't like the ending for reasons that I'll get into via the spoiler section. Without Silvio and the ending, the film is simply fine, it feels like an extended episode of "The Sopranos" but with so much ignoring of Sopranos continuity, I can't help but feel "Eh." about the film. I say it's fine because Dickie carries the film and you feel like he is a separated character from Christopher but you can see how and why he's so revered by Tony and if that's what the film set out to accomplish, then yes, it's fine. Final verdict, would I recommend "The Many Saints Of Newark"? Not really. If you're a "Sopranos" fan you wouldn't be able to ignore Silvio's presence and that'll torpedo the whole film for you. I will say the acting is great, everyone (except for Silvio) hits their marks as being who they're supposed to be while adding their own flavor to the character. Let's get into spoilers.

X-Whatever

So let's laugh and cry for a bit. Laugh because what we're about to discuss is hilarious and cry because it's true. Yahoo News posted a story on my newsfeed that stated that someone at Marvel was recently promoted (article here). The reason behind the promotion wasn't revealed but the person in question was quoted as making an interesting...scratch that stupid statement. The statement in question? This person is quoted as suggesting dropping "Men" from the title of "X-Men" because it's outdated...Yeah. I'll explain (as if I need to) why this is stupid. So in the words of Trick Daddy, LET'S GO!

Reboots, Revivals, Remakes and Adaptations

So let's have a chat. It's been a minute since we shared a chinwag and now theres lots to talk about.  First of all, where have I been? At work...being a dad...playing "Majora's Mask" on my N64, working on a super-secret project *coughs* who said that?! *coughs*, long story short I've been around, I've just been lazy and though I've been wanting to write an article the will do so continues to elude me. But thankfully today I decided to sit down and actually write an article (obviously) and BOY HOWDY do we have a topic considering so much has happened in this particular sphere and by that I mean entertainment. I've been saying for a LONG time now that the current producers within Hollywood have NO creativity and I've been proven right time and time again. Now I'm not here to write about how I'm always right about these topics (and I am and I'd love to but that'd be self-serving and I don't do that on this blog...shut up!) and I'm not exactly going bemoan the lack (or non-existent) creativity of the Hollywood system, I am however going to discuss the topic and posit a few questions that hopefully I can answer.

However, before we get into the article proper I think it's wise to define some terms because people use certain terms interchangeably and that's not how those terms work so allow me to define my terms before we dive in;

Reboot: This is usually reserved for TV shows. Reboots are NOT Revivals! For example "Rosanne" returned to the airways now under the title of "The Conners". This is NOT a Reboot, this is a Revival. They're continuing the same story with the same cast. A Reboot would be the current "Charmed" series on The CW, different cast, new storyline. Essentially starting the series over from square one. With little to no connection to the previous series except in name only.

Revival: A Revival is also reserved for TV shows. When a show finally reaches its series finale and bows gracefully off the small screen that's usually the last time we'll see any of those characters UNLESS of course, the show gets a revival. For a revival, the main cast (or lead actor) usually returns to squeeze one more adventure out of their character. Note also the same actor and same characters. This is NOT a spin-off the features the lead character, rather the lead character is BACK and the show is back. Perfect examples of this would be: "Dexter", "24", "Prison Break" and the previously mentioned "Rosanne/ The Conners" revivals. All of the shows have had their respective series finales years ago only to return years later.

Remake: Now this is a tricky one because while remakes and reboots are often the same things there is a subtle difference between the two, a remake CAN retain the same actors, a remake is often a re-tooling of what's come before it. Since movies can be redone to death, more often than not a remake will either breathe new life into the material or update it for a modern audience. For example "The Shining" came out in 1980, Stanley Kubrick's version anyway, Stephen King hated that version and decided to have his own version in 1997 via TV mini-series. There's also "Carrie" which came out in 1976 and "Carrie" which came out in 2013. Remakes are usually about updating old material, think of it as giving an old car a new engine and a fresh coat of paint. Some are better than their originals, others are not (looking directly at you "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory"...you know what you did.) but ultimately remakes are something that is here to stay and are not in and of themselves a bad thing.

Finally, we have;

Adaptation: Adaptations and remakes are very often the same things except for a one caveat, adaptations are often a transferring of medium or language. For example, all of the Marvel movies are adaptations, the source material is the character's respective comic books and while what's in the books don't entirely reflect what's on-screen, all of the primary trappings that make that character that character are present (or at least they should be...) The same goes for "Romeo and Juliet", it was a Play before it was a movie. Basically, all movies whose origins are not movies count as Adaptations. Likewise, foreign films remade for American audiences are adaptations as well, and while Yes, you can call them remakes and be perfectly accurate, the point is that considering the film in question began life in a different culture and different language, certain things might not come across as poignant to audiences unfamiliar with said culture. Case in point the original film "Oldboy" featured a hypnotist at the end of the film with Oh-Dae-su (the main character) asking to make him forget a certain event in the film (I'm not gonna spoil "Oldboy" if you haven't seen that movie you NEED to watch it...seriously, that movie rules), the American adaptation featured no hypnotist as American culture doesn't have much mysticism to it with regards to hypnotism and things of the like. Therefore this aspect was "adapted out" of the remake, therefore disqualifying it from being a proper remake, you understand?

We shall not speak of this ever...

And YES, before you start I do understand that "The Shining", "Charlie and The Chocolate Factory" and "Carrie" are all adaptations as well but as I've said they were made once and made again so while YES the original films are all adaptations the remakes are remakes, hope that makes sense. Anyway. Now that we've defined our terms, let's dive in!