Logic's Insight: Alien 3 (originally published on Sep 17, 2017)

Alien 3 is among the most unwanted sequels of all time.

When it released back in 1992, it under-performed at the box office and critics weren't all that receptive of it. It had a very troubled production and filming history due to executive meddling, constant script re-writes, and an inexperienced director. David Fincher himself largely disavowed the film due to his experience, believing that the executives at Fox screwed him and didn't have faith in him. Even James Cameron, director of the previous film Aliens, didn't like the movie due to how it unceremoniously killed off key characters of Aliens: Bishop, Newt and Hicks. Michael Biehn and the movie's novelist didn't like this move either and the later even went as far as to turn down writing a novelization of Alien: Resurrection.

Smart Move.

Since then, an "Assembly Cut" of the film had been released and that edition is largely better received. Some even come to slowly respect the film for it's themes, character exploration and bringing Ripley's story full circle. The creature effects and design were also warmly praised especially since the team behind the "Runner" Alien were novices recommended by the then-unavailable Stan Winston. And considering the less than stellar response of later sequels like Resurrection, the AVP films and Ridley Scott's Alien Prequel films, it appears as though people are becoming more appreciative of Alien 3.

As for me? I like it...to a point.

The good stuff just barely outweighs the bad. Furthermore, the film is fairly polished and well edited considering all of the background crap going on. So I'm going to take a few moments to go over what I thought were the major pros and cons of the movie. Why some people may hate it and why others may like it.

0) Background and previous movies

I don't need say much about the previous movies that isn't already said.

The first Alien movie is a hallmark of horror suspense thrillers. The xenomorph's design and methods evoke the metaphorical fear of rape, impregnation and the unknown all in one package. The original design for the alien was very phallic, it's head resembling a giant penis to convey a fear of sexual violation. However, most of the terror came from the build-up in between the alien's attacks and not knowing who was safe and who wasn't.

John Hurt's facehugger attack and later chestbuster scenes combine equal parts horror and brutal gore that still holds up today. The cast was fleshed out and likable to where you feared for what was going to happen to them. Ellen Ripley stands out as a competent commanding figure and actually tried to prevent the infected John Hurt from getting back on the ship to protect the crew. She also turns out to be a very resourceful and determined character who eventually outsmarts and defeats the alien before going into cryo-sleep with her cat.

The second movie and my personal favorite was more of an action movie. But it was an action movie in the same way that Predator was. Both movies were centered around a cast that you would find in a generic action movie who are dropped into a horror movie against a foe that terrifies and overwhelms them. Some complained that the movie made the aliens into generic target-practice aliens. Except that the alien hive actually wiped out the marines and some only survived the first major fight because of Ripley's actions. Later, the only marine who survives is Hicks and he's still badly injured with the rest dying to the Alien soldiers.

It also developed Ripley as both a leader and gave her a pseudo-maternal bond with the colony survivor Newt. Ripley had just learned that her daughter had died when she was in cryo-stasis and was very emotionally torn by that knowledge. Yet, she's not using Newt as a substitute for her lost daughter, she actually comes to care for Newt and Newt in turn bonds with her during their mutual struggle for survival. The final battle between Ripley and the Alien queen is more than just a heroine fighting a monster, it's about two mothers fighting for their children.

So Aliens ends on a fairly high note. The Alien hive (at least the one we know of) is destroyed, the Queen Bitch sent out into space and Ripley and company reenter cryo-stasis as they fly back to Earth. The story ends on a fairly closed note, there's nowhere left to take Ripley's story at this point.

Unless you got...really creative...

Which leads to the biggest problem with Alien 3... 

1) The base premise is a story-breaking plothole

I'll take this back if anyone can come up with a logical, in-universe explanation to this one question.

How did the egg get on the ship?

Aliens showed the Queen detach it's egg-sack when it pursued Ripley and Newt. Then it stowed away in the landing gear of the escape ship and that's how it got on the mother-ship, the Sulaco for the final showdown. But that movie didn't show it go anywhere else or that it had time to go anywhere else. So there doesn't appear to be any way for the queen to have laid an egg on the main ship or the landing gear. And why wouldn't anyone have seen it? Wouldn't it make sense for Ripley to check every inch of the ship to make sure that another alien didn't sneak on like the queen did?

There have been several fan theories going around, though none of them really stand up to scrutiny in relation to what is shown in the 2nd film. Some fan theories include the following: (1) The Queen either carried the eggs with her from the hive in Aliens and planted it on the Sulaco or simply laid the eggs there, despite having torn off her ovipositor (the ovipositor being simply the means to lay the eggs, and not the source of the eggs); Bishop retrieved an egg and later planted them on the Sulaco; or an Alien warrior/drone planted the egg on the dropship when Bishop was inside taking care of Hicks and waiting for Ripley.

Furthermore, Director David Fincher himself has stated in interviews that it is something the audience just has to accept in order for the story to move along. This more ore less confirms the queen egg, the super-facehugger and everything that came from it are artificial contrivances created for the sake of the movie. Every movie has plotholes, but this one is so major that the entire movie's existence hinges on it. The egg is what causes the heartache for Ripley, the thing that hangs the sword of Damocles over her head, the device by which the entire story is started.

And it makes no sense.

Furthermore, how did Ripley survive the crash? Neither cut of the movie has a plausible explanation for Ripley's survival. In the theatrical cut, the facehugger apparently fixed Ripley's pod and sealed it after breaking in. In the Assembly cut, Ripley washed ashore when the ship crashed into the very dirty sea and she's completely fine. That's another story-breaking plothole, but it's not surprising considering that the egg on the ship is a major plot contrivance in itself.

2) The death of Newt, Hicks and Bishop

On top of two story breaking contrivances, Ripley and the audience learn that all of the other survivors from the last movie are dead. They died in the crash with Hicks being impaled through a support beam and Newt drowned in fluids. The already damaged Bishop is salvageable, but soon after he's reactivated, he asks to be euthanized as he'd rather be nothing than continue on as a scrapped android.

To make things worst, Newt's body is displayed and dissected to ensure that she didn't have an alien in her. Then her body and Hicks' bodies are dumped into the furnace. Fun fact, the film crew actually filmed a rather gory and up close autopsy that test audiences found so grotesque that it didn't even see the light of day in the Assembly Cut. Hell, it's bad enough that that they dropped a bridge on Newt and then force Ripley to watch as her body's cut open to satisfy her paranoia.

This isn't beating a dead horse. 

This is beating a dead horse, dragging the corpse across the field, cutting off its genitals, bleeding it out, mounting its head on a wall, turning the rest of the body into glue and forcing every other horse to watch for shits and giggles.

There isn't a bigger crime that a sequel can do than to systematically render everything done in the previous movie pointless. Ripley fought off the Alien Queen and destroyed an Alien Hive to save Newt! And now it was all for nothing! Hicks and his crew were on that colony to save anyone that they could and wipe out the aliens. Ripley grew as a character as she led these toughened soldiers against a nightmare out of hell and now that was all for nothing as the last survivor is dead. Bishop earned Ripley's trust and was one of the stand-outs of the previous movie, and now he's gone too.

That's what the death of these three characters represents. It represents a slap in the face to Aliens and anyone who was invested in what happened there or the characters who we grew attached to. And it was all done to cash in on a new Alien movie. No one sat down and thought of whether they should do this. No one sat down to think of how to make a new Alien movie to make money off of WITHOUT INVALIDATING THE PREVIOUS MOVIE!

3) Most of the cast is unlikable

To make things worst, I don't give a fuck about the majority of the new cast.

Apart from Ripley herself, the only new cast members worth caring about are Dr. Clemens played by Charles Dance; and Dillon played by Charles S Dutton. Everyone else is a mix of murderers, rapists and assholes. A group of them even try to rape Ripley until Dillon helps fight them off. Worst yet, is that the warden seems to place the blame for the threat of rape and murder on Ripley FOR BEING THERE AND BEING A WOMAN! Hell, in the assembly cut, one of the prisoners actually FREES the alien because he's crazy and thinks the alien is a god. Another prisoner suggests it would be easier to murder Ripley to make things easier on the inmates.

And I'm supposed to care about these people just because the alien is killing them?

The story tries to portray these prisoners as seeking redemption. They've been isolated on this former prison colony for their crimes and thus turn to religion as a means of atoning for their sins. But apart from this informed trait and the fact that they do give their lives to try and kill the alien, I don't see or feel enough about these people to be invested in them. So when they die, it becomes akin to watching dumb college kids get murdered in a slasher film. I'm not terrified or instilled with any sadness or dread for their deaths.

Worst is that when they do actually start to act in a heroic manner, they die anyway. At the end of the movie, Dillon convinces the surviving prisoners to use themselves as bait to lure the Alien into a hot lead mold and drown it. I was actually starting to like these dredges of morality and humanity, but they get killed off before I could really become invested and attached to them enough to care.

Clemens and Dillon are the exceptions due to the acting ability put into their performances. Furthermore, they're shown in fairly sympathetic lights despite their past crimes and even get several moments to display how they've changed and become better people. There are even moments where the prisoners consider the alien divine retribution or don't give a damn if it wipes out humanity if it escapes. But they all die anyway, so what's the point?

4) On the edge of Full Grimdark

The best way to sum up the Movie's problems is that it went to the edge of Full Grimdark for no reason than to try and be dark.

Everyone knows that you never go full grimdark. And now for some homework, cause this is something I'm going to bring up in future reviews. 

Full Grimdark is when a story is so bleak and devoid of any conflict or character worth investing in, that the audience stops caring about it. Grimdark is largely my personal shorthand for Darkness Induced Apathy. Something I've accused past movies and games of falling into such as Rebuild of Evangelion 3 and Dragon Age 2 with very good reason. Here, I believe that while the movie isn't fully grimdark, it's grimdark enough to where I don't care as much as I did in previous movies.

Let's check off a few examples that are not Full Grimdark so that you know what I mean:

Halo: Reach - The darkest Halo game ever made. All of the main cast except for Jun dies including your character. Nothing you do will save Reach as it's fall is already written in stone. You are merely a spectator to history and despite being as badass as the Master Chief, your character isn't immune to the sword of damocles that swings down at them. However, it's not grimdark because your actions do have impact and meaning. The destruction of the Supercarrier deprives the Covenant of a powerful weapon even if Jorge's sacrifice didn't save Reach as he wanted. Your aid during the evacuation and escort missions allow many civilians and military personnel to have a chance to safely evacuate Reach including people like Buck and Johnson. Furthermore, your Spartan passes the Torch in the form of Cortana to the Pillar of Autumn and they in turn light that torch into the fire that saves humanity.

Dark, but not grimdark.

Batman: The Killing Joke - Barbara Gordon is crippled by the Joker and the ending is fairly bleak as neither Batman nor the Joker won their latest fight. Hell, both the hero and the villain are right regarding the speeches they give at the end. The Joker's right in that it only takes one bad day to turn someone insane as what happened to him and Batman. However, Batman is right that people have the will to resist that one bad day and stay good people as Gordon did and perhaps those who fell had already fallen before that Bad Day. Gordon doesn't break and insists on bringing in the Joker the legal way despite what the Joker did to him and his daughter. And if you think Batman killed the Joker at the end, this can be seen as a good thing considering that letting the Joker live is a constant recipe for people getting killed.

So very dark and bittersweet, but not grimdark.

The Silmarillion - Elven heroes rise and fall; Kingdoms are destroyed; tragedies feature fathers killing their sons; friends murdering their rescuers; brothers marrying their sisters and both kill themselves; and all of the deeds of heroism and courage are nothing compared to the declarations of fate. Even the final defeat of Morgoth is accomplished only after Beleriand is destroyed and the sacred jewels that everyone killed each other over are lost to the sea, the earth and the sky anyway.

However, through all of that sorrow there remains good in the world. The survivors of that horrid conflict are made the wiser by the conflict and go on to build a new home in Middle-Earth or Numenor. Furthermore, each tragedy was a stepping stone that built on each other so that good may endure until evil's day was over. The suffering of the characters was never in vain nor was there no purpose to it.

Very dark, but not grimdark.

Dragon Age Origins - Dark? Yes. Somber. Yes. Bloody and pessimistic at times? Definitely. But the Grey Warden's actions ultimately save the country and if he plays his cards right, he could become king of said country! That ain't grimdark!

Unlike Dragon Age 2...that game went full grimdark for reasons that don't need to be repeated here.

Alien 3 was an inch away from full grimdark. As said before, the conflict is devoid of meaning as its an artificial construction and it's debatable as to whether or not Ripley's death actually has a good purpose. Key characters from Aliens were killed off by said contrivance and the cast who replaces them are mostly unlikable and anyone who is likable or has a chance to become likable dies anyway.

The only thing that keeps it from being definitively full grimdark is whether or not all of the death was worth it in the end.

In truth, we don't know enough about the alien/xenomorph species to know whether or not Hadley's Hope or the LV-226 was the only hive. We know for certain that the aliens are not native to the planet and eggs crashed there many years ago aboard an Engineer/Space Jockey ship. For all we know, there could be another planet where the aliens are thriving or another ship with alien eggs on it. Even with Alien Covenant, it's unclear as to whether David was the one who created the Xenomorph species or if he just replicated what the Engineers had already accomplished considering the xenomorph carving in Prometheus. In short, there's a high probability that the xenomorph species is still alive in some shape and form.

If this is true, then Ripley and all of those inmates died for nothing. Then the movie is truly full grimdark. Nothing truly mattered at the end, even Weyland-Yutani is only momentarily halted and could just try another suicidal attempt to get a xenomorph elsewhere.

On the other hand, there is a probability that while the aliens are not native to LV-226, that ship contained the only clutch of xenomorph eggs. Therefore, the colony's destruction would wipe out those eggs and Ripley's sacrifice would ensure that the aliens were completely wiped out. Thus all of the dying and pain would have had some meaning and benefit to it.

Unless someone was stupid enough to magically retrieve Ripley's dna from the colony and it's still viable enough to not only clone Ripley, but the alien queen inside of her. But...that would be stupid and...impossible right?

Right?

Come one guys...don't leave me hanging...

It's not like there's a warrior species who keeps around alien queens to bred out more aliens to be hunted for sport and coming of age contests...right?

Right?

Why are you looking at me like that?

5) So what did I like?

Since I've spent so much time tearing this movie a new asshole, it would be fair to talk about the good things. The things that make me actually like this movie despite how it went full Grimdark. Furthermore, the Assembly Cut did a good polishing job of bringing the story as close as possible to the Director's original vision before Executive meddling screwed him.

A) Dragon Alien

This is a no-brainer. The Aliens, also known as Xenomorphs (which also means alien) are one of my favorite antagonists of all time. They are powerful, they're stealthy, they're creepily and artistically designed, and they are parasites who use their victims to increase their numbers. They're even so adaptive that they take on traits of their host such as the Deacon in Prometheus which was born from an Engineer and the Predalien born from a Predator.

The Dragon of Alien 3, also known as the Runner, is no exception. During production HR Giger actually referred to the base design as the Bambi Alien. Which one can see, as it was born from a four-legged animal (dog in the theatrical cut and a dead cow in the Assembly cut) and walks on all fours. This makes the creature especially agile and fast when the alien was already shown to be fast in previous films.

You'd think that this wouldn't be as scary after Aliens already showed Ripley facing off with tougher and stronger soldier-caste aliens and an entire hive of them too, right? Wrong. In Aliens, Ripley had weapons and a squadron of Colonial Marines to back her up and "even" the odds. Here, the Runner is facing foes who have no weapons to kill it with. They are practically helpless and must rely on teamwork, strategy and the mechanisms of the colony to trap and destroy the Runner.

Granted, I don't think it's a smart idea to try to guard a colony of prisoners without some kind of weapons. You know...in case they try to start a riot...kill other inmates...I know that the colony is isolated and the prisoners would basically have nowhere to go if they escaped...but I still question how that colony ran for as long as it did when the guards have no weapons or means to subdue the prisoner population. Then again, the movie would be very short if Ripley could go to a weapons locker, grab a gun and shoot the Runner and then shoot herself.

But they weren't going for another Aliens movie, they were clearly trying to make something closer to the first movie.

B) The Setting and Suspense

In terms of cinematography, setting and lighting, this movie is a masterpiece.

The prison is designed with two thirds of it dominated by either darkness or by fire. It truly reflects a place that metaphorically stands on the edge between life, purgatory and hell. A labyrinth inferno where isolation is king and corridors could contain the spawn of hell itself waiting to pounce on the souls of the damned. The molten lead vats look like lakes of fire and even normal areas like the medical office have the look of morgues as if those within are just waiting to die.

The shafts and tunnels give a false illusion of a path out of hell only to be taken to another part of the inferno. In scenes where the prisoners gather together, several prisoners are seen sitting in these pipes above the others as if holding onto a false path out of their nightmare. But in truth, it doesn't matter where these prisoners sit, they're just as damned as the ones on the floor.

It's also a great place for an antagonist like the Dragon to thrive. There's so many knocks and spots for the creature to stowaway in wait until it can strike. If you look at the Dragon as a symbol for a demon or even the devil himself, then it could look like this monster knows the metaphorical hell better than the inmates because it's from hell. And the setting merely empowers the beast to pick off the prisoners one by one. You just never know where the Dragon will strike from next. Even when the prisoners start to use the environment to their advantage to trap and destroy it, the alien still whittles down the prisoners because the setting favors it over the prisoners.

C) Ripley's Dilemna

Ripley is in hell.

Everyone she's come to care about is dead, she's stuck on an island of misfit rapists and murderers, an alien is on the loose, and she's been impregnated with a queen.

Yet, she doesn't break.

She's clearly at the end of her rope in terms of sanity, but pushes on to finish off the aliens once and for all. When she finds out she's carrying a queen, she is willing to let Dillon kill her to destroy it. However, Dillon convinces her to help destroy the Dragon Alien before she kills herself.

Then she takes a dive into the molten lead, the alien busts out of her and she uses the last of her strength to hold onto the alien to keep it from escaping. She fought to her last breath and died knowing that she won.

Furthermore, she's not intimidated by the prisoners. She's faced xenomorphs who embody everything that these men are guilty of and won, she's not intimidated when Dillon bluntly tells her what he's done to scare her. She just makes a short joke about it and Dillon actually finds it funny. Despite the antagonism and the attempted rape scene, Ripley still manages to rally the prisoners through force of will to fight the alien. Hell, her first plan to capture it actually works and it was only released because a prisoner went crazy.

When faced with the loss of everything she cared about, when faced with her own death and when faced with monster from hell, Ripley just stood up and looked all of these things in the eyes. I'm not going to bother talking about how Sigourney Weaver portrayed the character, everything that could be said has already been said. This movie had many problems, but Weaver was not one of them.

D) Dillon

This guy is the most memorable character in the whole damn movie.

He has a lot of memorable lines and speeches, all of which are excellently orated by Charles S Dutton. He's a strong leader for the prisoners and seems to be their moral center. He's apparently the one keeping them on their path to redemption and spiritually guiding them through their metaphorical purgatory. 

It's ironic that I found myself liking this guy so much when he's an admitted murderer and rapist. Perhaps I still like him because I can plainly see how he's repented of those past deeds. At one point, he actually saves Ripley from several inmates trying to rape her and beats them fairly bloody. I see enough of him to where I'm convinced that he's genuinely on a path of redemption unlike most of the other inmates.

When confronted with the alien, he's at first apathetic. But when he sees that Ripley is willing to die to kill off the aliens, he's convinced to make the ultimate sacrifice and convinces the other inmates to do so. His speech is one that has influenced my life:

"We're all gonna die. The only question is how you check out. Do you want it on your feet? Or on your fucking knees? Begging? I ain't much for begging! Nobody ever gave me nothing. So I say fuck that thing! Let's fight it!"

He's come to accept that he may very well die fighting the Alien. But he chooses to die fighting, to die standing up to it. Dutton does a really great job of conveying a rather morally complex character. One sullied by his past sins and yet stands on moral ground as a righteous man in the end. It may be helped by Dutton's real life experience as a past inmate for manslaughter and possession of a deadly weapon. He can really play Dillon because in a way, he was Dillon at one point in his life and Dutton draws on that experience to make Dillon more life-like.

Conclusion

As I've said before the story of Alien 3 really has no narrative legitimacy. We're free to ignore or substitute the events of the 3rd movie with one of our creation and our version will be just as valid as the film. Hell, there's really no reason for it to exist apart from that Fox wanted to make more money.

But it's not a bad movie. It'll be hard to be as attached to the new cast as you were with the previous two movies and the bleak overtones create a clear distance between the audience and truly investing in this story. However, when accepted as it is, it's at least an entertaining watch. It has several strong performances, an interesting setting, a menacing antagonist and Ripley just cements why we all love her and hated to see her go.

I'm very mixed...there's not enough for me to say don't watch it and yet there's value to be had from watching. I personally find it easier to watch by considering it an alternate reality or perhaps a really bad dream that Ripley's having while in cryo-stasis. Again, as the movie's existence is a contrivance, I consider that explanation as valid as the movie itself. And as an alternate reality movie, it's good. It's certainly way better than the later Alien movies in spite of it's production problems.

In all, I'll just say that the first two alien movies are the only must watches of the series. Feel free to skip this one, but if you do watch it then make up your own mind on whether it's worthwhile or not despite it's problems. Me? I don't hate it and there's plenty that I like about it, but I can't recommend it to Alien fans or general moviegoers as there's just...better movies to watch than this.

If you must watch Alien 3, then watch the Assembly Cut. It's the best version available and its the best presentation of this hit-and-miss tale.

Nuff Said.

THE END

Disclaimer: Alien, Aliens, and Alien 3 are all the property of 20th Century Fox

Logic's Thoughts: Last of Us Part 2 Controversy

What the hell is going on?

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?

Hurray! More controversy within a hobby meant to de-stress and unify people amid increasingly stressful times. That's just what we need these days. It's like people aren't allowed to have escapism anymore and must wallow in constant conflict, despair and stress until they die. But enough pessimism! Let's talk about a game that everyone's fighting over for some reason.

This time, there was and still is a lot of vitriol and hate surrounding the release of The Last of Us Part 2 for the PS4. A highly anticipated sequel to the acclaimed PS3 original The Last of Us, this game was meant to be a swan song for the PS4 before the PS5's release. And even before it's release, the game was increasingly becoming a minefield of controversy and inevitable conflict.

From what I've been told, researched and seen, the blame for this crisis falls equally on certain fans and the developers alike. I'm going to try to set up a logical sequence of events before I actually lay out my perspective on the matter.

WARNING: I will be discussing spoilers for both The Last of Us and the Last of Us Part 2. 

The Last of Us 

The Last of Us was a post-apocalyptic action survival game released in June of 2013 for the PS3 and released a year later on the PS4 in July 2014. Gamers loved it, critics loved it and a lot of people regard it as one of the best games of its generation. I personally didn't play it because it wasn't something I was interested in, but I can certainly see why people love it based on my research. My sister also had a PS3 and I recall that she enjoyed the game when she got it.

The game takes place in a dystopian near-future where humanity has been nearly wiped out by a fungal infection loosely based on a real life parasitic fungus that targets and wipes out ant colonies. If the fungus doesn't kill you, it will take over your body and mind and turn you into a fungus-infested zombie. In-game, the unfortunate infected are your primary enemies as you fight the zombies in various stages of infection that mutates and distorts their bodies more and more so that they look more and more monstrous and grotesque.

In this game, you take the role of Joel and Ellie. Joel is a jaded, cynical and somewhat ruthless old man doing whatever he can to survive. His outlook on life is bleak due to his grief over his daughter Sarah who died in his arms and this is not helped by the dark stuff that he's seen people do and that he himself is mentioned to have done. More specifically, Joel and his brother Tommy were part of a loose collection of aggressive survivors called Hunters. Hunters were known for murdering and brutalizing anyone that they came across or who entered their territory to take their possessions to increase the hunter's chances of survival. In fact, he doesn't have a higher purpose to surviving other than just not to die and had chilled his own heart so he would feel nothing after his daughter's death.

That changes when he's hired by an underground resistance group called the Fireflies. They hire Joel to escort a teenage girl named Ellie to their hidden research facility. It turns out that Ellie is a very special girl who has an immunity to the fungal virus and the Fireflies want to study this immunity to create a cure to end the outbreak.

Initially, Joel only took the job because of the promise of a big payment and to get away from the increasingly draconian military. However, Joel and Ellie gradually form a deep parent-child bond over the course of the game as they let down their defenses and open up to each other. Joel starts to care about Ellie and to actually find a reason to live for hope rather than just to survive. Ellie in turn admits how lonely it has been to lose everyone close to her and latches on to Joel as her new family and protector.

Cruelly, this dynamic is tested in the game's ending when Joel brings a nearly-drowned Ellie to the Firefly researchers. The researchers determine that Ellie's immunity is based in her brain and will need to perform surgery to see how exactly she's protected from the virus. Needless to say, such a procedure would kill Ellie and Joel was not going to let that happen.

In a stunning and shocking conclusion, Joel murders every single Firefly member in the compound and takes away Ellie. Later, Joel lies to Ellie and tells her that the Fireflies didn't need her and that they let her go. Ellie reveals that she would've been willing to die to make a cure if that's what it took. But Joel insists that Ellie find a reason to live rather than give up and throw it away. Ellie then asks Joel to affirm to her that he's telling the truth and he lies again. 

The game is ambiguous about rather Ellie believes Joel or not and that ambiguity goes further. The game leaves it open for players to decide if Joel was right or wrong. Did Joel selfishly condemn humanity by taking away their last chance to survive? Was he justified for saving Ellie and then lying to her? Is it morally or ethically right to kill an unconscious teenager even if it could save humanity? Would the Fireflies have actually created the cure considering their past record? Was it fair for Joel to make that call? Is Joel a murderer, a father or both? 

These and other questions were left for the player to think over for themselves. This uncertain and perhaps divisive ending is one more reason why the Last of Us was great. Great gameplay; great atmosphere and setting; great tension, horror and bleakness; an original interpretation for the zombie genre; and best of all, great nuanced characters in a character driven story all struggling on a moral and ethical level to survive in body and in heart.

Naturally, people wanted a sequel.

Previews for Last of Us 2 and Leaks 

For a long while, we didn't see anything about the Last of Us Part 2. Then in 2019 we started seeing trailer footage and gameplay previews. All of them focused on an older Ellie as she clearly struggles with anger and a vague desire for revenge. She has a new love interest named Dinah, but beyond that we don't know what the story is about.

We also got a very dark and brutal E3 trailer where a character who would later be identified as Abby has been captured by some assholes trying to kill her and her friends. A woman's arm gets hacked off and a fight breaks out with the bad guys all dying. So this trailer shows off that this game's going to be a bit more bleak than the previous game and may even have us fighting humans more than zombies. But beyond that, we didn't have any context to understand whats going on or who these people were.

Then the leaks happened.

Two days before the game's cancelled release date, an anonymous 4chan poster released a list of major plot details for the game. Then later that month, another poster put out youtube videos showing off major gameplay sections and cutscenes. Some of these scenes debunked the earlier leak, but some scenes confirmed them. Naturally, these leaks were all eventually deleted, but there are some who allege that the second leaker was a former employee who wanted some revenge over a pay snub.

Leaks happen all of the time and a company has a right to stop them. However, Sony and Naughty Dog took things a step too far. It appears that they not only took down videos showing the leaked content, but they also went after anyone simply talking about the leaked videos. It didn't matter if they said or showed any leaked content, discussing the leaks was enough to get your video canned.

I can certainly understand going after the leakers and those sharing the leaked content. But Sony and Naught Dog are going to far by throwing around copyright strikes against innocent targets. Discussing the fact that a leak happened or even if the leaked content is true is not grounds for being silenced. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent that could intrude on people's right of free speech if they can be silenced on the suspicion of wrong-doing.

So that's Red Flag number 1.

Game reception, Backlash, Review Policing and Broadstroking 

The game came out after much delay and it's sold very well despite all of the controversy up to this point. Most mainstream reviewers have given the game a positive score. But many gamers reportedly hate the game to point where metacritic was review-bombed on the User score section.

Most agree that the graphics have been improved, the voice-acting was amazing, the gameplay was solid, the atmosphere was well presented and that there were some good scenes in the story here and there. However, a lot of criticism has been heaped on the portrayal of characters both old and new and the direction of the story. Additionally, the game's handling of its' "revenge is bad" theme has been looked upon as inconsistent, poorly portrayed, contrived or hypocritical in light of the plot.

A lot of contention was especially drawn to the death of Joel and that prior to this, the bond between Ellie and Joel was shown in a very negative and broken light. Further stroking hate was the fact that the game placed into the perspective of new character Abby who had killed Joel to avenge her father. In a series of flashbacks, the player is shown that Abby's father had been the head surgeon for the Fireflies whom Joel killed to protect Ellie.

The hate was so bad that some idiots have decided to send death threats and uncalled-for insults towards voice actors and the director. Which is being indirectly used to guilt/quill criticism and hate for the game by placing critics on the defensive. It's the same tactic used during the Last Jedi backlash.

Don't get me wrong, threatening people's livelihoods and making insults about their ethnicity, gender or race is just wrong. Especially over a game. Drunkmann, Laura Bailey and other harrassed individuals have done nothing to deserve that level of hate. As gamers, we have to be better than that. Especially since they will use the vocal minority of assholes to broad-stroke the rest of us in the same color and silence our criticism rather right or wrong. In a sense, this already happened. Apparently, a few outlets gave the game mixed reviews and have been getting flack for it.

For example, Vice's Zacny had given a mixed review criticizing the game's story on the lines of "no one ever rethinks their decisions". In response to his review, Sony and Naughty Dog directly contacted Zacny to discuss his criticisms. While cordial, the companies disagreed with his criticisms and requested clarity. Zacny found this act to be highly unusual though he was not forced to change anything about his review. 

Angryjoe has been very open about his dislike of the story's direction. Yet, I found his review to be fairly blunt while also constructive and insightful. He actually proposed a way that the theme and story that the game was trying to convey would've worked better. His criticism of Abby was more about how she was presented and portrayed rather than her motive or even her physical appearance and evidently enjoyed her gameplay sections because of her strength. Yet, his review's are being hand-waved as being sexist and misogynistic without any real proof apart from his open dislike of the game's writing. 

Furthermore, it's been reported that reviewers were only allowed to play a certain portion of the game before making their reviews. Which potentially means that a lot of the reviewers who did play the game and gave it high scores may have done so with an incomplete picture of the game's content. Since Last of Us is a story driven game, you can't really make an accurate picture of the game without playing through the whole story.

I'm counting 4 red flags. Do I hear 5?

My thoughts 

Naughty Dog. 

What the fuck did you think was going to happen? You pulled a Patroklos! 

Did you really think people would like Abby after introducing her viciously and sadistically murdering a character that the audience already knew and loved? Did you really think that a sob story would be enough to quell people's shock and sorrow over Joel? Did you really think that Abby would be excused for killing Joel after learning about her father? Especially since said father wasn't exactly an innocent victim as he was going to murder a child to create a cure that may not have even worked or made a difference? Or that Joel saved Abby's life right before she violently murdered her?

I personally have no bone in the ring here. But I can see bad writing from a mile away and this is just the perfect recipe for bad writing. Yes, any story can be interesting if it is told properly. But Naughty Dog clearly bet on the wrong horse in this bold gamble. To that end, I sympathize with the haters of the game's story.

Also, a revenge is bad story is terrible when the pendulum is completely one-sided. Abby is allowed to have her revenge and is allowed to be a character we're supposed to sympathize with even as she's threatening to kill a pregnant woman. Meanwhile, Ellie is FORCED...FORCED to kill people to protect herself and her actions are painted in the worst light possible.

Basically, Abby is allowed to have revenge on Joel while Ellie isn't allowed to have revenge on Abby.

It's also a waste of a perfectly good story. Here we have three characters with a grudge against each other. Joel and Ellie have a strife over Joel's decision in the last game and that he lied to Ellie over it. Abby hates Joel for killing her father regardless of the reason. As much as she dislikes Joel right now, he's still a father to Ellie and she isn't about to let Abby kill her. As an outside observer, I believe that the reception would be better and the story stronger if Joel had died closer to the middle of the game instead in the beginning.

I also have the impression that creative director and writer Neil Drunkmann is something of an egoist up there with Uwe Boll.

To those who don't know, Uwe Boll is a controversial film-maker known for making horrible adaptations of beloved video games. Alone in the Dark; House of the Dead; Bloodreyne; Postal; In the Name of the King; and Far Cry. All of which were box-office failures and overall critically panned earning Boll an infamous reputation as a schlock maestro.

Worse is that Boll admitted in the dvd commentary for Alone in the Dark that a loophole in German tax laws allows him to get paid by the government 50% of whatever you invest in making a movie. Which means he has no incentive to try to make a good movie as he'll get rich regardless and some have accused him of making bad movies on purpose. A writer who formerly worked with Boll said that Uwe steals ideas from prior movies and often didn't care about accurately representing the game he was adapting.

To dig the ditch deeper, Uwe has challenged critics to boxing matches which he won because he's an amateur boxer for a hobby. But instead of silencing criticism, the stunt only made Uwe look like an insecure jackass whose punching people for not liking his movies. Needless to say, this latest bizzare episode is a clear example on how NOT to respond to criticism. 

As far as I know, Neil isn't challenging critics to a boxing match. But there have been allegations against him in regards to poor working conditions, plagurizing from former writer Amy Henning as alleged by director Joe Carnahan and that he had an inordinate amount of control over the game due to the departure of 70% of the veteran staff including Bruce Straley co-director for the first Last of Us.

I'm also of the belief that Mr. Drunkmann has something of a victim complex due to his petty immaturity when addressing criticism. It is a fact that Drunkmann said that Last of Us Part 2 would be Ellie's story, but it more or less focuses on Abby instead and blackwashes Ellie. Trailers inferred that Joel would be a companion in Ellie's quest and instead, he's killed for shock value. Drunkmann promised that we wouldn't have to kill dogs and not only is Ellie forced to kill a dog in self-defense, but its used as yet another way of making Ellie look bad compared to Abby.

It also doesn't help that Drunkmann is a fairly political game developer in the wrong way. He wears his beliefs on a sleeve and is blind to how his actions are hurting the causes that he claims to stand for. I understand being passionate about your beliefs, but its never okay to broad-stroke and strawman critics bringing up valid criticism as just “hate and bigotry”. Nor is it okay to manipulate professional critics to give your product a good score or you and your company will black list them. All of this gives off the impression that you're using feminism and etc as a shield rather than trying to get it right to uplift your causes.

So if this was just about a bad game, then that's one thing. But the more I research into Sony and Naughty Dog's questionable actions and responses, the less impressed that I am with them. Why should gamers support a company that's going to treat them like crap and gaslight them when they're not kissing Naughty Dog's ass? 

This is an important question for you to consider Naughty Dog. You do want people to watch the HBO adaptation of the Last of Us right? If you're going to keep treating your customers and critics in an unprofessional manner, why should they give you their money? Think very carefully or you'll dig a hole for yourself deeper than Uwe Bowl did and no one will help you climb out of it.

The End

Disclaimer: 

Last of Us and Last of Us Part 2 is the property of Neil Drunkmann; Naughty Dog and Sony

Logic's Insight: Twilight part 4

Part 4

Reason #4 for hating Twilight: Everything else!

So if you've been paying attention up to this point, then you'll see that Twilight lacks everything that a love story needs to work.  It doesn't have characters that we care about, it doesn't have a relationship dynamic that fits with the story or the choices of the characters, and it's story is dull and stretched out longer than it needs to without anything ever affecting the characters or testing their bonds.  The lore of the saga can't even stay consistent with itself and doesn't leave any room for real dramatic tension.

Despite this, the saga is selling extremely well.  The saga is a gold mine!  The books sell extremely well since the first book's debut and have garnered a moderate amount of critical praise because of it's influence; the movies have grossed a grand total of two and a half billion dollars on a total budget two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; and it has a large and powerfully devoted fanbase.  So some of you might be thinking, with all of this success, surely there must be some merit to Twilight's fame?  Maybe there's something good that you're just missing?

No.

I mean...in a way, there is something about Twilight that draws people...To quote Stephen King, "People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it's very clear that she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because it's not overtly sexual."  Now remember that King also said that Stephenie Meyer couldn't write for shit, and coming from someone like Stephen King, I think you can see why she has done so well in such a short amount of time.

See, the Twilight books really became popular shortly after the Harry Potter book series concluded in Deathly Hallows, a lot of people were left with a hole in what to do.  So, a lot of them, especially the teenage girls, picked up Twilight and it filled in the gap left by Harry Potter's conclusion.  I don't say that this crowd is mainly teenage girls because I'm sexist, I'm just putting out the facts.  Most fans of this series are women, and the highest age demographic of these fans will be in their teenage years.

So when you have a largely teenage crowd, it's pretty easy to keep them hooked in.  Most boys in that age group like to read about action, strength, adventure, badasses who keep going against all odds, men who always get the girl in the end, and people who are in control.  Why?  Because they're still building their identity at this age and these fictional stories give them a guideline.  When it comes to fictional women, they tend to gravitate towards strong-willed, well-endowed, and self-sufficient women who don't need someone to help them.  That's why Samus is so famous to Nintendo fans, because you don't have to slave through the game to save her!

For girl's it's kind of easier, they may not even be looking for a role model.  What they are generally looking for is eye candy, even if that's not all they're looking for, my sister admits that hotness and cuteness tend to hold a girl's attention for longer.  That's why Draco Malfoy is so popular, not because of his complex character or the dilemnas that he has to go through, but because he's handsome and dark.  Chicks tend to gravitate towards that, I guess it's a nurturing impulse or a need to fix something that's troubled...

When making eye candy for the average teenage girl, you first need to adopt a certain trait that this person's going for.  The best way to do that is to look at real life.  What do most teenage girls gun for?  I can tell you that it won't be the nice chivalrous guy or the selfless hard worker, they're more likely to be put in the friend box....sadly...Because they want excitement!  They want something different and new!  Something that won't shackle them down or tell them what to do!

So here's four types of guys that they're most likely to go for:  1) The rich kid; 2) the talented star; 3) the guy with toned muscle; and 4) the boastful and arrogant talker.

Now I'm just going to make this clear, the traits that I just described aren't bad in themselves.  They all have very positive implications behind them.  Someone whose rich, doesn't have to worry about money and can therefore, take care of himself and any girlfriend that they might have.  Not to mention when it comes time for marriage and a family.  The athletic star is an accomplishment champion, someone who has natural talent that they developed to a level of superiority.  It shows that they're committed to an achievement and are motivated to better themselves.  The guy with the toned muscle exercises and takes care of themselves and their health.  It can also mean that they're strong and can protect you when it comes to a fight.  Finally, a boastful and arrogant talker is a seemingly confident individual.  They don't care what other people think about what they do or say, they just want to get the job done.  They're also more assertive and can stand up for themselves.

That being said, what does become a problem is basing a fantasy solely on those four traits without regard for personality, motivations or actions.  Just because you have money, it doesn't mean that you can spend it well if you don't know how to moderate.  Talent is good, but hard work is just as important and being a star doesn't mean you're the best, it just means you're the most popular.  Having a great body is worthless if you don't do anything with it.  Being able to talk and boast may be a sign of confidence, but it can also be a sign of overcompensation.  Just because you don't boast, it doesn't mean you're not confident, maybe you can pick and choose your battles.

Twilight however has all four of these aspects in one package.  That's why Edward and Jacob are so appealing to it's fans.  They're hot; they're from rich families and have some mula themselves, Edward even has his own resort in Rio; they're talented and well respected and feared in their clans; they have hardened and sculpted bodies; and they can get anything that they want for Bella because they're so much stronger and more powerful than humans.  What girl wouldn't fall in love with either one?

One with a brain...

But when you read some stories, sometimes you shut off your brain to enjoy the story.  It's called a suspension of disbelief and it allows even over-thinking guys like me to enjoy sometimes simple stories.  Sometimes this becomes a problem, you're so engrossed in something that you may not realize that it's crap once you're involved on a certain level.  That's the problem with Twilight's main audience, they're looking for superficial qualities and getting them in the bucket loads.  It's a fantasy where an average teenage girl hooks up with a hot vampire who sparkles like diamonds and is the ultimate boyfriend/husband!  What girl wouldn't want to read that?

One with a brain...

In the end, you can't really even blame them.  The truth is, Stephanie Meyer is a master of her craft of marketing and manipulating the minds of teenage girls into buying her books, merchandise, movie tickets, movie bundles and so on.  She must have known perfectly well about the audience that she was writing to and made sure to tailor-make her books to keep them involved.  It's something that a lot of author's do once they discover they're niche.  JK Rowling's success came largely from making her books for children and then following that audience as they got older and maturing her story to better appeal to them.  Stephen King knows that his audience are from the mystery, suspense and adventure crowd and that's how he built his following.  Even JRR Tolkien was mainly directed at the lore-studiers, fantasy, adventure, drama, potential linguists, and medieval crowd.

So what's the problem Reggie?  Why is Twilight's success such a bother to you?

It's influence and themes.

The Twilight Saga encourages all of the wrong things in a love relationship and celebrates them with a happy ending with a bow on top.  As much as I don't want to say that teenage girls are idiots, this story is going to leave an impact on them, especially the ones that never catch on to the crap that they're reading.  Especially with a culture that also subconciously celebrates what Twilight encourages, I'm just kind of scared for future generations.  Books don't just go away, they take up space on a bookshelf and one day, those girls are going to be reading this crap to their poor kids.

It tells girls that being self-sufficient, hard working, goal oriented women isn't important; it tells them that all that is important is finding that one perfect man in your life.  It's just an unrealistic goal that's going to stick to their minds subconciously.  Tells them that its okay when boyfriends sneak into your room and watch you sleep without you knowing; that it's okay to disrespect parents and go out with the bad boy who leaves you months at a time; that it's okay to manipulate the emotions of men to get what you want; that it's okay to get married as soon as your eighteen and not have your own life...There's a reason why my mom's generation is worried about mine...

Influence can make or break a person, either set them up for success or failure.  It can be a breeze that tells you to keep going, or a breath of heat that staggers you and causes you to fall.  Especially with the metaphor of Bella as an average teenage girl who always gets saved and relies on the super strong boyfriend to save her...it has really bad implications that those poor teens are going to have.  See by having an average character who never contributes, your sending a message that the average audience will never excel on their own.  The only way to achieve happiness is to find a man that sparkles and likes you because you're pretty.

As though to say that you have to join a group to be successful.  I don't think Bella ever becomes self-dependent until after she becomes a vampire.  Because part of the popular niche and it's depressing to see how many girls actually follow this.  Just look up how well this series is still doing despite much smarter people than me saying that it's complete shit.  To be fair, I can see someone reading/watching this crap and laughing at how terrible it is.  But even then, there's a point where even they'd have to say that this series is sick.

Fortunately, there's only one more movie left that we'll have to suffer through....

Wait...there's...one more movie...one more movie?!

Why did they split the final book into two movies?  Why are they ripping off Harry Potter?

And it's at the end of the year...that means people are going to be talking about this shit...for another year...

How did we get to this point?  I mean...it's not hard too make a meaningful love story.  Give us two characters, make them fall in love, and let us follow them through a story where we grow to CARE ABOUT THEM!  Then if you want to make a sequel...read the last book and CONTINUE WITH SOMETHING JUST LIKE IT!  Keep the choices that your character has made in mind...AND HAVE THEM FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!

I was never a fan of Twilight and I'm glad that I never was!  I had good decent stuff when I was growing up that didn't keep me from being the man I am now!

Like Gundam!  Which is about smart, intelligent and persevering teenagers who piloted giant robots and...killed thousands of soldiers and...blew up space colonies...in the middle of a war...

Or how about Pokemon!  You get to head out into the world to make your own destiny at the age of...ten years old...and then had to become the very best out of all trainers!  By finding pokemon and....beating them up, taking them out of their natural environment....forcing them into tiny balls and training them to...fight...other pokemon...for some plastic badges...

Or Harry Potter!  Who always had to watch over his shoulder because....something bad always happened to him...every year that he was at school...and he had to go home to an abusive aunt and uncle...

Or Dragonball Z!  Where the heroes tore apart planets by fighting each other...and didn't care about death because they had a magic dragon that could revive them....

Or Star Wars.....and that's a whole other couple of essays right there...

....

....

....

....

Here's a question, how do you think I survived my childhood sane?

Peace.

Logic's Insight: Twilight part 3

Part 3

Reason #3 for hating Twilight, the story and lore

At this point, I'm pretty much beating a dead horse.  We don't protagonists that we actually care about, We have a mismatched relationship that we don't care about and it has a dynamic that is completely removed from common sense, so there's really no reason to keep going right?

But what about everyone else?

Ha!  My friend, it really doesn't matter what's going on with everyone else because none of it is ever going to inconvenience the nice little love affair that's going on.  Mainly because the main characters never care about what's happening around them, the surrounding events of a vampire-werewolf war never complicates matters for Bella's upcoming wedding...hell!  The two clans even put up a truce just to keep Bella alive!  Nobody even questions what makes this human woman so special.

Jacob loves her.  So what?  She doesn't really love him!  Why should the other werewolves care that this guy can't take a hint?  If anything, they should be encouraging him to fight the werewolves so they can claim Bella for themselves.  I can see why the Cullens would defend Bella because she's a potential future member and all, but why would they be so willing to form a truce with these werewolves after the other vampires are dealt with?  So that Bella and Edward can have a nice and peaceful wedding where nothing else matters but them.

That's really just touching the surface because you'd think a werewolf-vampire-newblood vampire war would be epic and would be a central point of conflict and tension in this tale.  But nope, everything revolves around the growing love between Bella and Edward.  I'm not just saying that because the love story is a central point in the story, I'm fine with that.  What I don't like is when a love story becomes so obstructive with the rest of the story that readers can have a hard time keeping up with the actual story that is supposed to affect the love story.

Remember the relationships that I had mentioned in part 1?  Most of those pairings weren't even in actual love stories.  They were character subplots that were a part of a larger plot and story.  They influenced character motivations and decisions, but they didn't take away from the overarching story.  Even with stories where the love story is the central plot, you can't have the characters not interact with or react to situations outside of their love relationship.  It makes them seem hallow, as though they don't have any other purpose than to fall in love and if that's all you're going to do then it cheapens the character.  What are you going to do with the character after the love story/subplot is resolved?  Well since you've never added any thought to the story, there's really nothing else.

I don't like pointless drama either, but something has to happen to show that the characters are invested in their relationship.  I'm going to bring up two examples that demonstrates this point.  One is from an anime called Gundam 8th MS Team and the other is the outline for a story that I made up in my head while I was writing this essay.  The latter of the two is probably garbage, but at least it has more meat than Twilight ever could.  I'm no JK Rowling, but I've written fanfics that made more sense and better character relationships than Twilight and again, they're fanfics!

Gundam 8th MS Team takes place during a war between the earth federation and people who live in space colonies who formed a group called Zeon.  They fly around fighting inside giant robots, engaging in ship to ship combat, and even drop asteroids, nukes, and colonies on top of each other.  During this conflict, a robot (mobile suit) commander encounters a Zeon pilot.  At first they were trying to kill each other, but get stranded in the middle of a wrecked colony.  So they have to work together and through that experience, they form a bond that grows into an infatuation and even love.  The next time they meet, they get stranded out in the middle of a desert and during that time, they're bond grows into love as they discuss the war and how it's a stupid war.  They reveal their motivations for fighting and struggle through their newly formed ideas.  When they go back to their respective groups, the experience influences their decisions and they decide to fight for peace.  But their colleagues outright laugh at them and even attempt to kill them for their beliefs.  By the end of the show, they drop out of knowledge and are declared dead.  This allows them to go off by themselves and have a happy ending, but they still bare the scars of the war that their story was set in.  The Zeon pilot was forced to kill her insane brother when he went rogue with their project.  The earth pilot was labeled a deserter and lost his leg saving the lives of the comrades who had labeled him a traitor...it's a bitter but sweet ending where nothing came without a price.

The second is the outline for an interacial love story set during the Depression Era and World War 2.  During the depression era, a white and a black family are forced to work together to survive due to the depression situation and two children from those families bond and become friends.  Years later when America's entering the war, the two of them are teenagers learning about love and...the truth behind the stork.  They grow infatuated with each other, but as you all know, white people really didn't like black people back then and black people were more than happy to return the distrust.  So their infatuation grows into love despite pressure from both their families and the society around them telling them that they should stay in their place.  Two years later, the black boy, we'll call him Terrell, enlists in the army when they start letting blacks fight and marries the white girl, we'll call her Jane, in secret by a priest from their childhood.  The rest of the story is them dealing with the consequences of their actions.  Jane becomes pregnant while Terrell is on the European or Pacific Theater and she has to deal with both her family and Terrell's family who may or may not pressure her into "getting rid of the child" or putting the child up for adoption and forgetting about Terrell.  She'll suffer mental and even physical torment for her decision, but she'll choose to wait and raise her child with Terrell.  When he comes back, if he comes back, Terrell will be scared and bitter with a country that still hates him.  He'll also have to deal with becoming a father while handling post traumatic stress from what he went through in the war.  The story will end on a cliffhanger where the couple ponder leaving for Europe or Asia to raise their child without facing the prejudice that they've had to deal with all of their life.

And I'll admit, the second paragraph story pitch needs work.  The Gundam love story even has a Disney love time line issue since those two only meet twice before their declaration of love.  But you know what, those two are a lot better than Twilight because their stories don't ignore the outside world.  Even if the love story is in it's own little box, the outside story should still knock it around and even intrude.  It introduces conflict and a chance for character development and an opportunity to deepen the bond in that love dynamic.

When everything works out perfectly well, then there's really not much to root for.  I'm not talking about a love story having a happy ending despite impossible odds.  I'm talking about never challenging the characters to really work for that happy ending.  That's the biggest problem with Twilight's story, from day one, no one ever has to work for squat because it's going to be guaranteed.  We all know that Bella's going to become a vampire, it just took longer than it should have, we all know that her and Edward are going to have a happily ever after, Jacob's just there to screw with the mindset of teenage girls who taught that Edward was shallow.

That's another problem with Twilight's story.  There's so little even in the love story, that everything feels draining and drawn out.  The main plot points of the saga could easily be condensed into a single book or maybe even two.  But four books and five movies?  That's pushing it!  Matilda had more substance than this entire saga and that's only one book.  Then again, Matilda is a million times better written and it's titular character is a much better role model than Bella, so I probably shouldn't be surprised.

Remember what I said about the story working out to Bella and Edward's convenience?  Breaking Dawn is the exemplary example of how this occurs.  The biggest reason that even a lot Twilight fans don't like it is because it breaks it's own rules without explanation or reason.  Edward is a vampire, vampires don't have blood in their system and therefore...can't sow their royal oats.  But despite that, Edward still impregnates human Bella and the child is growing at an incredibly fast rate.  How did Edward impregnate Bella despite it being impossible by the author's own words and writing?  Why is it growing so damn fast?  How was Edward able to turn Bella into a vampire even though she had already died in childbirth?

Hell, even the final conflict in the story is handled insultingly well, especially given all of the build up.  There has never been a human-vampire hybrid in a long time, so a secret vampire group could possibly threaten to kill the child who grows way too fast...but that conflict is easily resolved through diplomacy and showing that Renesmaia...whatever, is no threat to vampire society.  No one even bats an eyelash at how she's barely a year old and already imprinted onto a werewolf whose already in his twenties.  No, no, happily ever after...

What?

I could also go on about the physiology of vampires and how it's all wrong as well.  But that's more of an artistic complaint, it's not the first time that vampires have been written as being able to walk in sunlight.  Some vampires can walk in daylight under certain circumstances.  The main woman from Underworld was able to find a way to walk in daylight and Blade is half-vampire, so he can also go out in daylight.  I think there's even a story with Dracula doing that.  What ticks me off about the vampires and werewolves in Twilight is that they have no weaknesses.  They're the paragons and strength and beauty with no flaws or any apparent mortality.

With the vampires, sunlight doesn't work, it just makes them sparkle...driving a stake through them won't work, they're too strong and swift to get close enough or even to get the stake to penetrate...Holy water or holy ground doesn't work, some of these vampires are Christians!  With werewolves...they can transform whenever they want so there's not point in waiting for them to become vulnerable, they're really fast, strong and have a healing factor so I don't think silver bullets or silver weapons will do the trick...assuming that you can even hit them...

Plus, there's no real antagonist.  Sure, rogue vampires show up once in a while, but they're motivation is either weak or something that isn't necessarily evil or unexpected of vampires.  There's nothing that drives Bella or Edward...it's just...dull...

That's the best way to describe any semblance of story that this saga has...dull...

Then is this series doing so DAMN WELL?  I think I can clarify that in my next installment.

Logic's Insight: Twilight part 2

Part 2

Reason #2 for hating Twilight, the relationship and dynamic

So we all know that Twilight's entire infrastructure is no longer valid because the central characters of the love story fail to make us care about them.  Without that, we don't care about them getting together or about what might happen because of it.

But let's pretend that physical features can constitute a bond and that we care about them for a few minutes.  It wouldn't matter because everything about their relationship and the dynamic it holds is wrong.  Everything about their little tale is so horribly wrong.

You see, every love story has a certain dynamic that affects it's mood and tone, kind of like an overarching cloud that the story lies within.  These dynamics come out in how the love story plays out and can wildly vary since love stories are so diverse and numerous.

Here's a few examples:  Passsionate but forbidden romance; an animosity that still remains despite a growing attachment; childhood sweethearts; the knight and his princess; interracial relationships; intercultural relationships; interspecies relationships; Being friends with benefits; wartime loves; a pair in an on and off relationship rollercooster; strained lovers; arranged pairs; fraternization; Pretending to be in love and eventually actually falling in love; the seemingly odd couple that no one saw coming; the chatty one and the quiet one; the nice one and the jerk; one person is manipulating the feelings of the other for their own gain; and then there's people who just like to bang and that's it.

Each one of these types of relationships has a dynamic that is going to affect how the story plays out and how it will end.  The relationship has some traits that make it stand out even when it might not be at the forefront of the story.  Childhood sweethearts who remain a pair from kids up to adulthood is going to be a lot happier in tone than a forbidden romance.  Interspecies relationships like say between a human and a quarian has a lot more issues working against it than the friends with benefits situation.

It's also going to affect the mood of the story.  As much as people hate the star wars prequels, I'm probably in the minority who actually enjoyed the love story between Anakin and Padme.  It was a forbidden romance that was doomed to tragedy despite the goodness and nobility of the characters and it worked for the increasingly dark and depressing mood of the star wars prequels.

The paradigm of a knight and his princess is mainly one of a hero and the girl that he has to go save.  Maybe she was genuinely captured by something that she couldn't handle on her own, she's in tight spot and can't get out without help, or she's a dumbass in distress who really shouldn't be in that situation, but the hero's going to save her regardless.  This especially prevelent in anime and manga like Bleach or Inuyasha and it seems pretty simple at first glance.  However, the girl getting saved is eventually going to feel like a burden because the main character is getting hurt to save them.  She'll feel guilty, unworthy of his devotion and loyalty, weak, powerless, and she'll probably go through an arc where she decides to stop letting him do things for himself.  This will inspire her to get some kind of training to either support him or she'll take a level in badass and start fighting alongside him.  She'll still make mistakes and stumble a lot and she may still have to be saved a few times, but in time she'll pay back the favor by saving the hero when he's in his darkest hour or provide a constant emotional support that he may need.

A relationship where manipulation or falsehood are in play may have some bright spots, but's going to end badly.  Take the main characters in Gone in the Wind for example, Rhett clearly loved Scarlet from the start, but she was in love with a soldier who had married her best friend and already had a family.  So she toyed around with Rhett and even married him and had a daughter, but she still pined for the soldier.  By the time she finally got her head out of the gutter, Rhett came to conclude that despite his wealth, his charming good looks, his devotion, and his love for her that Scarlet would never truly love her.  So that movie ends pretty sadly with Rhett getting fed up with Scarlet's games and walking out on her and frankly not giving a damn about what she does from there.  This worked for the story and is one of the reasons that Gone with the Wind is one of the best regarded movies of all time.

Then there's the odd couple, the pair that nobody say coming, except for diehard fans who saw all of the foreshadowing and put the pieces together.  Often characters in the story and the audience will wonder what one character sees in the other.  Usually this will involve a genius, beautiful, and high teir individual falling in love with and maybe even marrying what others consider to be undesirable, clumsy, weird, or something about them that that just spells, "reject".  Even the lucky interest will sometimes ask themself how they got so lucky.  Sometimes we never find out the answer, other times the answer is so simple that it brings a smile to our faces.  Like Roger Rabbit ending up with the hot as hell Jessica Rabbit because he makes her laugh; Vegeta and Bulma getting together and starting a family with Bulma still retaining all of her bones and limbs and Vegeta actually caring for his family; Yuna falling for that whinny little scrappy Tidus in Final Fantasy X; or or Riza Hawkeye falling for a guy who wants to become Fuhrer and create a law requiring all female officers to wear tiny mini-skirts!

(Okay, that last one is actually a pretty well-written relationship, I just found that very funny)

Here's another paradigm called the strained lovers.  This is when two characters started out really being in love, but the circumstance of the story splits them apart and when they're together, so much has changed that that the bond could go either way.  They'll work to still stay together despite the change, or they'll conclude that it's too late and move on with their lives.  Take Ten Commandments for example, in the movie, Moses and the woman who was engaged to Rameses had a bond.  But after Moses discovered the truth about his heritage as a hebrew and was eventually exiled for murdering the egyptian torturer, the woman, Bethy might have been her name, married Rameses and despite not loving him, comes to enjoy the power of authority, has a son and is much more of a venomous and vengeful person when Moses returns as God's messenger of deliverance.  She even eggs on and pressures Rameses into continuing to defy Moses' demands despite the obvious stupidity in denying the guy whose apparently causing water to turn to blood by touching it with his staff.  By the end of the movie, Bethy is left miserable, her son is dead, her kingdom ruined and humiliated and all she has left is a pharoah husband who was so broken that he couldn't even kill her in anger.  Moses on the other hand, has moved on, he's married with two sons, the leader of the Hebrew people and he leads a long faithful and productive life as a servant of God.  It's kind of bittersweet even when the parting of ways is for the best, it leaves a question of "What if?"

Lastly is my personal favorite, the animosity that remains despite the growing bond.  At TV tropes, it's as "slap, slap, kiss, kiss" trope and is generally referred to as a love-hate relationship.  This involves two characters who are initially distrustful, prejudiced, hostile or outright violent to each other from the start of the story.  Maybe they come from two warring clans and they've been raised to hate each other;  Maybe they come from conflicting cultures that have a dark history between them; maybe one did something to the other in the past; or maybe they just don't like each other.  But circumstances will emerge to put these two into contact with each other.  Overtime, they'll get to know each other as they're animosity cools to better work together and may even come to realize that they're more alike than they were previously willing to admit.  After that, they start to grow attached to each other despite their misgivings, but then something will happen and they will form a bond.  Even though the animosity might still remain to some degree, the story usually plays it for laughs or as something akin to an arguing couple.

Again, none of these paradigms are strictly as they're defined, some can be subtle while others are quiet.  They don't even have to end the same way, but the dynamic of the relationship still remains.  The details of what they do when they're together, how they act, what they talk about, how they came to become a couple, the pressing concern that they'll have to deal with, the hurdles that is causing a rift in their trust, the mistakes that one or both of them make and the reaction to it, and how it all plays out before the audience.

So what's the dynamic of Twilight's relationship?

I don't really know to be perfectly honest...It presents itself as a fantasy-type relationship when it really plays out like a manipulative or shallow relationship but still gets a happy ending like it was a fantasy-type relationship.  It...it doesn't feel like how an actual relationship would go...I just can't picture any person who in their right mind would marry someone else based solely on their looks and their wealth after barely a year of knowing each other.

And remember all of those traits that I had listed out for Edward and Bella while looking for a personality?  Oh wait!  We're assuming that they have one for this section...anyway, I did not make any of that stuff up, all of that stuff actually happened and it didn't interfere with their happy ending at the end.  Not once do the books appropriately address the negative connotations that Edward constantly sneaks into Bella's room without her knowledge and possibly consent since it's always a "pleasant" surprise and with complete disregard for respect towards the household of Bella's father.  Never once does Edward get ticked that Bella is toying with Jacob or that she kisses him after she was engaged to Edward.  All he says is that, "She needs about herself more and that she things about herself too much."

Hold it....

....

WAIT A MINUTE!

.....

.....

.....Excuse me...I just realized how stupid that last sentence was....

Any realistic person, even the most stoic and seemingly unattached man would at least have a few words to say about their woman pining for another man and put their foot down.  See, when a love interest gets upset about something that the other one does, it's not out of venom, it's because they might feel like they're being led on or betrayed and they want to know that the other person's feelings are genuine.  Sometimes this leads to a fallout, or maybe a confession will ensue and forgiveness will tenderly come.  It all depends on the personality of the characters and the dynamic of their relationship.

For instance, I'm a really big fan of bioware mainly because of the strong writing that they're games have.  They could easily be translated into movies or anime with the right direction.  Another reason is that the situations of the relationships that you can form is actually pretty close to reality.  In the first game, you can hook up with an opposite gender human assuming that you didn't leave them to die in during the game.  This is going to contain spoilers, but long story short, you kind of died in the beginning of the second game and a blackwater pro-human cooperation brings you back to life and even rebuilds your ship to allow you to form your own team.  But once you meet up with the love interest from the last game, they're kind of ticked about you working with the blackwater corp. and basically dump you. The strength of the writing is that you could easily interrupt that scene as either a fall-out or a break up.  The love interest has every reason to be ticked at you, but you're as much in the right or even more so considering that you were dead to say she's not worth the time and hook up with a member of your team.

Reactions like this show that the characters have emotions and that they care about their relationship, and when we care about the character and they care about their relationship, the audience can also come to care as well.  But with the pair from Twilight, I don't feel anything about their bond.  There's nothing that constitutes a deeper relationship between these two other than that Edward's hot and Bella's blood is alluring, I...we are never shown anything deeper than physical traits.  Hell, Bella can somehow shield her mind from Edward's..."mind reading ability" and if you're so in love with someone that you'd marry them after a short amount of time, why do you need a shield?  Don't you trust Edward to respect your privacy?  You know...like he does when he sneaks into your room to watch you sleep?

Every trait that I can see point to this relationship ending horribly from book one and it's not just because of the vampire-human dynamic.  It's because the tone of this tale is completely mismatched with everything that's happening! Like it's celebrating women who can't take care of themselves and need a muscle-bound boy to look after them!  Like it's applauding the stalker for threatening his wife to have an abortion and calls his unborn child a monster!  Like it's celebrating Bella's leading on of and manipulation of Jacob!  The story never sees them suffer appropriately for very negative actions and traits and that makes the dynamic unrealistic and practically nonexistent.  When people do negative things to each other in real life, there's a penalty in some degree and everyone suffers for it.

Even Disney movies have a more believable love dynamic and most of those are formed with the span of a week!  And when the relationship in the Little Mermaid, formed over three days, is more believable than your's; when Up, whose entire love arc lasted five minutes and was still better written than your's...STOP WRITING LOVE STORIES!

These are the two big reasons why Twilight fails as a love story.  The characters are unbelievable and we don't care about them and the love dynamic is wrong and we don't care about it.  If you're in the group who actually think that this love story holds water....please take a little piece of paper, write the words: "Insert name's" Common Sense and then rip it in half!

It's not because you like love stories, I actually like several myself.

It's not because you like vampires, Blade is one of my favorite superheroes.

It's not because you like eyecandy, who doesn't?

But as I'll explain later, Twilight takes those three sentences and twists them into a messed up fantasy completely removed from reality or common sense.  Lord of the Rings is more grounded than Twilight and I won't lie, the books are hard to read through, especially the Silmarrilion.

Bare with me for a little longer and I'll show you how the chain is further broken by these two points....

Logic's Insight: Twilight Part 1

Part 1: Reason #1 for hating Twilight: The main characters

 I may annoy a few people if I bring up a future point again and again and again. But it's such a pivotal one that it can't be ignored.

A love story is a tale about two characters who meet, form a bond that grows into a dynamic of love, and the rest of the story is about how that relationship is tested.

That last sentence, is the best summary that I can think of for why a life story either succeeds or fails. The first thing you need to have a love story or any kind of story for that matter, is a protagonist. In the case of the love story, two protagonists or a protagonist and his love interest.

Here's some basic examples from popular media:

Miroku and Sango from Inuyasha, Ron and Hermoine from Harry Potter, Master Chief and Cortana from Halo (it's weird), Pazu and Sheeta from Castle in the Sky, Any Bioware hero and the love interest of their choice, Cloud and Tifa from Final Fantasy VII, Aragorn and Arwen from Lord of the Rings, Cyclops and Jean Grey from X-Men, Linus and Charlie Brown's sister from Peanuts, Han Solo and Leia, Mario and Peach, Link and Zelda, Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese, Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson, Scarlet and Rhett from Gone with the Wind, Simon and Nia from Gurren Lagann, Heero Yuy and Relena from Gundam Wing, Katniss and Peeta from the Hunger Games, Edward Elric and Winry Rockbell from Fullmetal Alchemist, Roger Smith and Dorothy from Big O, Hitomi and Van from Escaflowne, Sailor Moon and Tuxedo Mask from Sailor Moon, James Martin and Nonnie Parry from the Posiedon Adventure, and Romeo and Juliet from...the play named after them.

If anyone can think of another pair then feel free to mention them.

Generally these characters are people who may have never met before, but they can also have met at a previous occasion before the story began. They could've have been childhood friends who meeting for the first time in years as older people or they do have a connection, but it has stayed cool and inactive for some reason. Whatever the reason, the story will bring up a situation that will bring these two into close and/or consistent contact for a long period of time.

They share they're plights with each other, trust each other with things about their past that might still haunt them, and eventually come to rely on each other. This constitutes the building of a bond that overtime becomes attraction and then grows further into love, at least most of the time.

I'll get into that last sentence in my next part, but the point remains that for a love story to work, you need to have two characters, two fleshed out and fully written three-dimensional characters that we can follow and grow attached to. These characters need to meet, to butt heads and get dizzy, then lean on each other to get their dizzy selves out the door without falling. Generally, even if your love story isn't all that emmy-worthy, if you can at least get readers to care about your characters as characters, then you're doing something right.

So with everything that I just pointed out to you, I ask a simple question...

Why should we care about Bella or Edward?

I am not convinced that they are characters, at least the kind that we should be rooting for. These two are presented as the main lovers of Twilight, but is their bond something that we could call...love? What do we even know about these two aside from their physical traits, what they look like, or what they can do?

I don't to bring up the Redlettermedia challenge again to be able say that these two are so poorly written that cardboard cutout characters are more believable than them.

But wait...there is something that we can see about either of their personalities, and that is their actions. See, actions tend to speak louder than words and really show what a person has on the inside. So...I guess we can gauge some kind of personality from their actions and I may have to take back what I said earlier.

So let's start with Bella: Meets a vampire and wants him to turn her into one; Never gives any reason beyond his looks for why she loves Edward; Cuts herself and throws herself off cliffs just so she can see him when he leaves; leads on a decent werewolf boy and then dumps him when Edward comes back; kisses the werewolf boy after getting engaged to Edward; stops talking to her friends after getting with Edward and then gets pissed when they stop talking to her; Never gives a damn or is bothered about the vampire-werewolf war that starts because of her; Constantly manipulates the werewolf to get what she wants because he still likes her; gets married right out of highschool at the age of 18 when she hasn't known edward for more than a year; didn't use protection on the honeymoon and is stunned when she ends up pregnant (there's a reason, but it's a poorly explained one and she still should have done something if she didn't want a kid anyway); lies to her father and bitches him out when he's rightfully worried for her; Never does anything for herself and always has Edward or the werewolf boy (Jacob was his name I think) do everything for her and carry her everywhere; Is an admitted author avatar for Stephenie Meyer; Is unreasonably okay with having her newborn baby imprinted onto Jacob and...admittingly, I may have missed something, but I'm sure that I have enough to gauge her character.

Bella is a selfish, uncaring, pretentious, manipulative, self-centered, idiotic, clingy, shallow, desperate, and considering my Top 12 bitches who need a slap list, this woman is almost up there with the white bitch from Rosewood. If that was Stephanie Meyer's intention...to create a tragic, flawed woman who would serve as the catalyst for a depressing tale...well, she still screwed up.

Instead, Bella is supposed to represent the every day, average, American teenage girl. In some ways...in some very scary ways, Bella is spot on for the worst of them while leaving out the vast majority of probably flawed and imperfect, but still decent and intelligent girls to rot in the dust. Not only that, but this story celebrates this as a means to gaining a happily ever after! It's so removed from reality that it doesn't make sense. Even the biggest gold-diggers out there wouldn't act as...stupid as this woman did.

Now for Edward, maybe he'll come off as a better character? After all, he does save Bella most of the time and doesn't rip out her throat like most vampires would. Maybe there is something under that pretty boy face.

Let's find out: Is madly attracted to Bella's blood despite being a veggie vampire; considers killing her and twenty other students to remove witnesses; Sneaks into her bedroom on multiple occasions; Leaves her for no reason and says that he doesn't love her; Still sneaks into Bella's bedroom despite being banned by a perfectly reasonable father; Is perfectly cool with his fiance having feelings for Jacob and even kissing him; decides to marry her even though they've barely known each other for a year and she's just turning 18 while he's close to being a hundred; On their honeymoon, he breaks her body in multiple places during intercourse; is stunned when his fiancee is pregnant despite the fact that they did the nasty without protection; attempts to force Bella into having an abortion; threatens to disown her if she doesn't because she's being "selfish"; Is perfectly cool with Jacob being around even though he still clearly has feelings for Bella; Is perfectly cool with having his newborn baby imprinted onto Jacob; and I could go on, but I think we have enough.

Edward is...an overprotective, creepy, controlling, cold, harsh, bitter, selfish, border-line abusive, emo, whiny, tortured for no reason, manipulative stalker! Half of the stuff that I just read off could easily be attributed to evil characters who like to get a kick out of the pain of their victims! This guy sounds like he'd be the perfect sadistic second-in command to a reasonable overlord.

Here, he's presented as every woman's wet dream. He sparkles in daylight instead of burning like he should; he's a pretty boy; he has a nice body that he doesn't have to work for; he's strong and fast; he can read your mind whether you want him to or not; and he's rich enough to have his own resort on an island off of Rio de Janiaro. Even the author has admitted to being willing to walk out on her family if he were to show up at her doorstep.

So I'll break it down for you. These two characters are supposed to be the people that we care about. But in truth, they're so horribly presented and unbelievable that it takes you out of whatever story that they're trying to tell. Especially since, the tone for the story that these two characters are in is so wrong! You can't have a happy, love story where two people meet and eventually marry with two characters that have traits that would never fly in real life!

And that is the first link that breaks any believability in this love story. If we can't build a connection with these characters, then we don't care about them getting together or what they might do! Without your characters, there is no bond; without the bond, you have no love story; without your love story, there is no story since the overall story is centered around the love story! This is the most basic reason why Twilight fails as both a story and a love story!

I could stop here since the chain's already broken...but I'm only getting started my friends!