The author seems to conflate "dark" with "adult", so let me take the chance to point out this common mistake. Horror films, Warhammer 40K and 2000 AD comics are all famously dark, but they're for kids or teens. A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Importance of Being Earnest are light but grown-up. It's a weird deformation of the past generation to think that being depressing makes you deep.
Nicely put. I like Lauren Oyler's formulation of a related thought, in her review of a work by Otessa Moshfegh, when she refers to Moshfegh's "bored manipulation of the fallacy that the more unpleasant something is, the truer it must be."
Edit: and for the life of me I could never understand what anybody saw in that vile show "Euphoria." It seemed so obviously just to want to do nothing but luxuriate in its own vulgarity and graphicness and expected audiences to be very impressed by how big everybody's feelings are. Same for "The Power of the Dog," which was as unsubtle and uninteresting a melodramatic turd as I've ever seen.
I was agreeing very much with both parent comment and yours, until your edit.
I loved Euphoria.
> graphicness - Was it graphic at all?
> how big everybody's feelings are - Were their feeling that big?
> It seemed so obviously.. - Maybe obvious to you? This might say more about you..
I found it brilliant and at times ironic and self aware and very explicit about what its target is (I think it's very much for teenagers)
So i don't know if it is a good example of this trend at all.
Just to say how nuanced these things can be, i guess...
> The author seems to conflate "dark" with "adult"
Oh, how I agree with your comment!
This is a bizarre trend I've also noticed. Also unfortunately helped with the "adult" monicker for anything showing sex, which is in reality generally more aimed at horny teenagers and so-called "young adults" rather than grownups.
Another similar conflation is Serious with Somber. Taking an issue seriously can be amusing as hell, it all depends on what mood allows you to best explore the problem space, if you are serious about knowing or solving an issue you won't necessarily lock into a particular mood in that exploration.
It has especially worked its way into popular literature. A books writing is at a 5th grade level, has almost zero depth, but then is full of sex and violence which makes it an "adult" novel. Authors like Sarah J Maas are almost comically bad writers but have achieved immense popular success using this setup.
Agreed. People just can't read. I think this is one of many upstream causes of the current political landscape. When faced with reading a corporate financial statement, any laws, scientific papers, municipal budgets, or even an article in WSJ or The Atlantic, people are unable to proceed. So a defense mechanism comes up: "it's all just lies, anyway." Then they go and find a tweet or watch TV.
I'mma go out on a bit of a limb here, and say that even the people who can read often 'can't read'. Many people who 'can read' only read things in one of two particular bubbles, colored either blue or red.
This has resulted in a population which is terrifyingly disconnected from reality, and yet utterly certain of their own beliefs; beliefs which have been worked into the core of their self-identity by the magic of political kayfabe. "The GOP believes Corona is from a lab, so it must be wrong" ... "Trump will genocide Gaza worse, so voting for someone arming an internationally condemned genocide is good and practical actually", etc.
Out of the small subset of people who really can read, and think for themselves, there is only a small number of them who can communicate their ideas effectively (and only to people who can at least sorta read at a 6th grade level). And the number of those people who have any power to amplify their voice is too depressing to think about for long.
... And yes, the Age of Resistance ties into this in many ways. The Skeksis are seen as strong, maybe even benevolent leaders by most, who are very far from any levers of power and aren't getting very well informed. Meanwhile, quietly (at first), the life of the small people is being drained...
This is why I said "one of many". There are many motivations and factors at play, but being overwhelmed when reading complex documents is a real great motivator to dismiss them out of hand.
This may also help to explain why politicians who express themselves with a limited vocabulary can be surprisingly successful. And the implication is that other politicians should probably do so as well.
America gradually reinventing the Japanese "light novel". Or even its own "pulp" tradition, which these days are only remembered for their cover art rather than any of the content.
Hard disagree with a lot said here. Watched both the film and this series (though haven't got around to finishing it yet) for the first time last year, and the series lacks a lot of what makes the film great.
The film has some interesting zen-like qualities like duality, and a more complex set of morals. The series just feels like most modern creations with a pretty bland right vs wrong.
The film is also almost entirely practical effects, which are incredible (the behind the scenes footage is amazing), while the series leans a bit too heavily on CGI in parts, which detracts from the action a bit (à la LoTR vs The Hobbit).
Given this piece I might go back to finish it now (and from another comment possibly upgrade my TV), but I still think I'll prefer the film.
If you have not seen "Princess Mononoke", I highly recommend it. I rewatched it recently and the people and creatures on both sides of the conflict are neither really good nor evil. Just two opposing forces with different goals.
It offers a level of subtlety I have not seen often in film, particularly since Star Wars.
I think Studio Ghibli's 'secret sauce' is the "Kishōtenketsu" or four act structure that makes Studio Ghibli special:
1. Ki (Introduction) - Sets up characters and situation.
2. Shō (Development) - Expands the characters and fleshes them out.
3. Ten (Twist) - Introduces a new element or change.
4. Ketsu (Conclusion) - Shows the outcome and connections between elements.
In contrast Western films usually follow a three act structure:
1. Setup - Introduces the hero, often stepping into the unknown, and establishes the initial conflict and sets the stage for the story.
2. Confrontation - The hero faces mounting challenges and conflicts, often involving threats to innocent people or community. Stakes are raised and the story progresses to a conclusion.
3. Resolution - The story culminates in a climatic confrontation between the hero and the villain. Some sacrifice is usually paid, the hero triumphs, justice is served and order returns to the community.
I grew up on Disney and the three act structure, so when I experienced Studio Ghibli for the first time with Princess Mononoke it felt very different, fresh and more mature. While I don't necessarily love all of Studio Ghibli's catalogue, I do treasure Princess Mononoke, Kiki's Delivery Service, and Porco Rosso.
In the case of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, I highly recommend reading the manga over watching the Studio Ghibli anime.
Miyazaki stated that he was trying to break everything he knows about story structure with Mononoke. Last time I saw it, it became clear to me that it’s almost impossible to fit into any story structure and it’s just one giant crescendo to the end. More like a minimalist music piece than anything.
Mononoke and Spirited Away specifically feel like they have several 'extra' acts that make them seem longer than they are. Though looking back at both I'm not sure what I'd cut.
Ngl the idea that the average commenter is thinking about how to make changes to Miyazaki's two best movies is so funny to me. It's like your average tourist walking up to Van Gogh's Starry Night and being like "I dunno I think I would do it differently."
I have yet to run into anyone that hasn't let out a bit of a sigh when sen gets on that train.
I love the movie, I actually think Naussica is his best movie, followed by Princess. However as someone who grew up on western movies there is a rhythmic miss to these movies, a pacing that is unlike other movies. I never said it made the movies bad, just that it was, I guess strange... unexpected.
.. and like I said, looking at the movie, there is nothing there I would cut nothing that would bring it back to the expected western rhythm.
I haven't watched the movie with anyone (and I don't mean anime fans -- which I'm not one, by the way) who was bored or frustrated by the train scene. A screenshot of that scene is often featured in articles about the movie, so at least reviewers seem to like it. I think it's one of the most hauntingly beautiful passages, too.
"The expected Western rythm" isn't something to be treasured at all costs, if at all. "A pacing that is different" is not the same as a "rythmic miss". It's just part of media literacy to be able to appreciate different rhythms. And come on, these aren't alien or bizarre movies, I've watched movies where the pacing really threw me off, and these barely register.
So seem to be overreacting to my point and pretty defensive.
I'm not saying that the train scene is a miss, i've very specifically saying that it as at that point that i've seen people check the timeline and see a remaining timeline that 'feels' longer than it 'should' be as an example.
I'm not saying the western rhythm is the only thing that matters or that all other structures are inferior. I'm saying that these movies have a different structure, and that's honestly it. I've seen it throw people off, it throws me off, I don't want them to end, I don't throw away my copy of it but it's a bump in the road nonetheless.
I love these movies they are some of my favorite gifts to give to my young nieces. I give them as a gift on a holiday and we do a watch of them while my siblings and parents and whatnot inevitably watch sports. I think this easter it might be finally time for mononoke (the oldest is 16 and her sister is 11.. i think it might still be a little intense for the 11 year old).
I'm not sure that I would call myself an anime 'fan' but I have consumed, and continue to consume anime as part of my media diet. I don't watch every series that gets hyped by the anime community but I catch one here and there, sometimes they stick and sometimes they don't. (recent things I've enjoyed are DanDaDan, Delicious in Dungeon and the Ranma 1/2 remake.)
I'm not overreacting, and why would I be defensive? I'm not Miyazaki, it's not my work to defend.
We agree the pacing and some of the structure is mildly different to some Western cinema (but not too much, there's nothing radically different either, which is why Disney/Pixar found Ghibli so inspiring).
I guess what's puzzling is your wording: you say the rythm is different (arguably true), that you wouldn't cut anything (agreed) but also call it a "rythmic miss".
What you claim about the train scene is both confusing and feels anecdotal -- I've never seen people do what you claim. The scene is there, it works, and it's beautiful and I've never seen anybody check the time at this point.
That's all I say: it's not a "rythmic miss" and it seems presumptuous to claim otherwise.
They look like the same steps to me, with steps 1 and 2 both being Setup. The dramatic arc is fairly universal, and Miyazaki is hardly an exotic unfamiliar with western culture.
GP's lists fall somewhat short of explaining the two most important differences:
1. Kishoutenketsu prefers to introduce the primary conflict as late as possible, whereas any writer in Hollywood will try to introduce it as early as possible.
2. Kishoutenketsu prefers to frame the primary conflict as a difference in perspective that must be bridged from both sides, rather than outright competition between irreconcilable goals.
These differences aren't fundamental (you can find all the counterexamples you like, especially if you cite movies with twist endings) but they are encouraged by style guides and deliberately (or even subconsciously) prioritized by writers, to varying effect.
> whereas any writer in Hollywood will try to introduce it as early as possible
I like the Lynch version of this in Lost Highway:
1. Conflict: someone sent us a video of the outside of our house.
2. Rising Conflict: oh no, now they sent us a video of the inside of our house!
3. Conglitch: now they sent us a video of me murdering my wife?!? Didn't I just see her go in the bedroom?
4. Sogflatch: wait wut now I'm getting sentenced for murdering my wife?!?
5. Segfault: Hey Warden, the guy who murdered his wife disappeared and now there's a different guy in his cell!!!
6. Reboot: New guy adjusting to life after materializing in and getting released from the murderer's cell...
There's a similar game with conflict in Blue Velvet where "teen coming-of-age plot arc" becomes entangled with a separate "drug-addled adult plot arc." The latter ends up dominating to the point where the "teen drama" bullies get scared and drive off from what would have been the climax of their plot arc (never to be seen again!).
Somehow a lot of TV seems far more subtle (or at least nuanced) to me than popular movies. The Wire or Scavengers Reign are a couple off the top of my head.
Yeah, the whole point of the original is that the Mystics and Skeksis were both flawed societies (even if the Skeksis were closer to the normal meaning of "evil") and the ending unites them rather than having the Skeksis destroyed.
Right, but it still takes place after the Mystics and Skeksis split off from each other. The Gelflings were really just irrelevant bystanders to the real story even if we the audience see the story from their perspective in both the movie and show.
Isn’t that the point, in some regards? The urSkeks were alien invaders who committed genocide and caused widespread environmental destruction - it’s their ambition that drives the plot forward, it’s their powet and their willingness to wield it - without that, nothing would have happened on this wholesome sleepy little planet, you know?
How do you, as a Gelfling, navigate your life, in the shadow of these incredible creatures? That’s what the story tells - you worship them as gods, you treat them cautiously as potential allies or enemies, you rise in rebellion to eject them from your world - and maybe in the end you find a new peace and balance.
I do think that mystic and skeksis perspectives are present, in little peeks and glimpses, but I would still welcome another excursion into Thra to find out more about what their lives are like.
i find the AoR to be subtle enough about what is right and wrong to be entertaining. good number of plot twists and hooks. a shame the garthim war wasn't covered... but maybe 20-30 years and they'll return to it
Given it was so obvious that the team had bottled lightening with this creation, it stands as a monument to the failure of bean counter driven programming. Surely any creative person looking at the quality of this work would have kept this team in the groove. It's not like they didnt have the money.
They could easily have made the cash back on some reality thing that cost nothing but made bank.
I mean they had to finance rebel moon, the idol and the electric state.
This is what I also hate about the gaming industry. If you have a team that works good - find something to do for them.
The guys behind Prince of Peria lost crown were brilliant in every aspect. And Ubisoft disbanded them instead of giving them time to get their footing. But we have a bloated AC:Shadows crap coming our way.
A great game, but one that had a very poor product market fit. It might be better than most games of its genre, but it also had a much higher budget, and with that, a much higher price. People buy metroidvanias for 20 or 30, on steam. They released elsewhere, for $50. They didn't have to just be very good, but make Hollow Knight and the like look like relics, and they didn't. The closest thing at selling at that price was Metroid Dread, and it did only fine, not great, despite carrying a higher value IP.
They were always doomed by the budgetary limits, kind of like how the latest Indy movie was doomed to lose money unless it was as big as Avatar.
The other handicap for The Lost Crown is Ubisoft always puts its games on sale at a steep discount in much shorter time window than other publishers so they have taught patient gamers to wait.
> The guys behind Prince of Peria lost crown were brilliant in every aspect.
You seem to assume that people want to keep working together forever. Gamesdev can be really intense and for a lot of devs the end of a game is the opportunity to part ways cleanly and try something else.
I thought the Rebel Moon duology was a little so-so ... until I watched the directors cut(s). F-ing fantastic. If you haven't seen them go watch it -- so so so much better than the original release(s), different movies really, they even have different names: Chapter One: Chalice of Blood and Chapter Two: Curse of Forgiveness.
Really good stuff IMHO, I suspect it was the movie(s) Snyder actually set out to make.
I'm gonna disagree with the comments here and vouch that Age of Resistance is a fantastic show. It's what got me into the world of Dark Crystal in general. I saw the show first and then the movie, and I feel like the show perfectly setup the events that lead up to the movie. Even if the show unfortunately was cancelled before it could explore Deet's storyline, the creation of the Garthim, and the discovery of the Wall of Destiny. Sure, the rejoining of the UrRu and Skeksis is interesting, but it's certainly not the "whole point" of the movie/show.
I'm struggling to get through the series. That ultra clunky opening narration is not a great sign and the world building and underlying plot feels shallow in the series.
I'd LOVE for more Dark Crystal content but I would like them to start over...
I do not agree w/ this in relation to the Dark Crystal series. But I see parallels in the Star Wars series Andor. Many will skip it because 'it's star wars', but it's a great series in star wars costume. The three people I've pressed into watching it came away with very favorable reviews.
There are some kinda deep cut star wars references that non-fans will miss. Mon Mothma the political head of the rebellion is seen only sparingly in the original trilogy and in rogue one (scenes were shot for her in the prequels setting her up as politically aligned with Padme and Bail, but they were cut) is a main character here. Other characters like Saw Gererra only appear in the clone wars series and Rogue One (a film for which this series is a prequel). However this didn't seem to effect my friends much only one of whom had even seen rogue one and the prequels, the other two only having seen the original series.
I'm so glad that it got a second season and am very excited to see it play out.
If you liked the original, you should absolutely watch Age of Resistance. It’s not a masterpiece but it was clearly made by people that care about the original, its legacy, and its lore.
I remember this was the first HDR program I watched on my new OLED TV back in 2019, and the experience felt like all my life I'd been watching TV with foggy sunglasses that had been suddenly removed.
How strange, the most positive review I heard from anyone I know was that "It ruined my childhood" and that it let's say "craped" on the source material. Mind you these are the nicest things people said.
I have not seen it nor the original film to be fair, but this is quite literally the first positive thing I have heard about it.
If you're a sci-fi and/or a fantasy fan I really recommend watching the original film and the prequel in that order and make your own mind up.
I was young when the original came out so I found it good but scary. I felt the prequel was excellent and it left me wanting more.
These days I feel a lot of my youthful nostalgia has been vandalised for a quick corporate buck. Probably the worst has been Willow on Disney+.
There are so few examples of good follow-ups to nostalgic media. The only other example I can think of is Blade Runner (1982) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017).
I found Blade Runner 2049 painful to watch. The story is ok, but the presentstion, with its reliance on memes from the earlier film, ruins it for me. Also, the principle malevolent force is vacant and tepid. The story would have been better without him. If they’d just set it in the same world, without trying to look and sound like thenold film-but-updated, I’d have liked it… but they brought back Harrison Ford just for nostalgia, and copied loads of the shots and music. Sorry, no, they didn’t copy those things, they ‘extended” them. Copied-but-bigger. The story might have stood by itself without pandering to the entitlements of fans of the ealier film and I wish they had been brave enough to make it more unique.
I need to rewatch in light of your criticisms. I focused on the film taking on the theme of what makes a human. In light of the AI developments since the film's release in 2017, and Her in 2013, I wonder a lot about the ethical issues around a slave class of intelligence.
> There are so few examples of good follow-ups to nostalgic media. The only other example I can think of is Blade Runner (1982) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017).
I know this is controversial, but I disliked Blade Runner 2049. It feels made by someone who just didn't get Blade Runner and was both copying it mechanically in parts, and improvising unfaithfully in others. (Coincidentally, I liked Arrival but the changes Villeneuve introduced to make it more "sentimental" ruined the reigned-in emotions in Ted Chiang's piece -- again it felt like he just didn't "get it").
I obsess about Blade Runner -- to me almost every scene is artwork, and the music is amazing. The plot? I mean, yes, there are plot holes aplenty, but I don't think this movie is truly about the plot, beyond the philosophical themes.
Blade Runner 2049 in contrast seems so cynical and shallow to me. It just didn't work.
PS: also, the insufferable Jared Leto. And the non-entity that is Luv. While Blade Runner has the best anti-hero ever in Roy Batty... and the best dying speech (vs Luv's "I'm the best!". Ugh).
I feel the same way about Villeneuve's last few movies, I don't think it's that controversial, I've had some people agree before. He seems to be very good at visual, audio effects, 2049/Dune both looked and sounded absolutely great at parts. But the writing, dialogue and respect for the source material is absolutely subpar, Dune part 2 was especially laughable and bad enough that the first time I tried to watch it I walked out halfway. It seems to be a trend in movies/shows that regardless of how alien the setting is everyone talks like how someone in Hollywood THINKS intellectual teenagers imagine themselves talking like when they've had several hours to think of a witty comeback to some situation. Too much snark, too many quips, too many jokes,it's like the idea of a movie taking a silly or absurd concept seriously for more than a minute without baiting a laugh from the audience is something to be embarrassed about.
I somewhat agree. For me Dune: Part One (2021) and Dune: Part Two (2024) had the visual, sound and acting talent, but felt like it was missing something. I'd almost say it was soulless. I think the problem was in the dialogue or how scenes we acted, I don't know. I didn't think Dune (1984) was any good, but I think that had a lot to do with the technology and film making techniques at that time.
I think the only good Dune media besides the books was the video game Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty by Westwood Studios (RIP). Without it, I think there would be no Command & Conquer and no heyday for the real-time strategy (RTS) genre.
Dune 1984 had a lot of faults, that's true. It's been ages since I've seen it so my memory is hazy on a lot of it. I do vividly recall the duel between Paul and Feyd at the end though, Sting absolutely knocked his performance out of the park. When I look back on that scene now it feels like a great example of cheesy lines delivered with absolute, unashamed sincerity.
Did you not see the TV show? It had a bit of production hell (Jon Chu from Wicked was going to direct, and had 2 different people come in after him) and was very uneven, cancelled after 1 season. They buried it so deep it's not even on Disney+ anymore and it only came out in late 2022.
I think it was objectively terrible, certainly I found it almost entirely unredeemable except for very few CGI scenes (the wizard magic wand training sequence if I remember correctly) and a very golden set piece at the end.
Disney then canned it and I'm pretty sure they removed it from Disney+ for a tax write off.
I don’t know if I’d go quite so far, but it is very good. The Chamberlain remains a piece of work, and Lena Headey sometimes feels like she’s still on the set of Game of Thrones.
I'm actually surprised to read the opinions of people who watched it and didn't like it. I thought the problem was always just that not enough people knew it existed, but if they watched it, they would have loved it. I guess I must just be in the camp of "who WOULDN'T want to watch high-budget puppetry for ten hours??"
This was a brilliant show, but it had the misfortune to come along at a time when Netflix was cancelling even moderate successes after one season and slashing the budget of hit shows for their second season before cancelling them too (e.g. Altered Carbon). Only very rarely does a show turn into the kind of pop culture sensation that seems to make the bean-counters want to go past two seasons (e.g. Stranger Things), unless it's some executive's idea of a tent-pole for their platform (e.g. Rings of Power).
Given how fragmentation and enshittification of streaming services is driving users back to piracy, one can't help but feel like the current model may not persist much longer. Heck, I wonder what the impact of the trade war is going to be! A lot of people in a lot of countries are cancelling Disney Plus, Netflix, Amazon Plus, Apple TV, etc. just because they're American.
I think it's likely that many people do make that connection.
There has been a surge of antipathy towards the U.S. in Canada and Europe; owing to Trump's threats with respect to trade wars, annexation of Canada and Greenland, and undermining NATO and the ability of Europe to defend itself.
I mean, I wouldn't say "a lot of people" but... "normal people" absolutely make that connection, and some moderately-sized portion of them are indeed cancelling some services.
The antics of the US have been a perfect excuse to clean up under-used subscriptions.
Yeah I was upset at Altered Carbon being cancelled. It was very good. I've been hoping a video game studio picks up the rights and makes a good AA or AAA game. I sadly didn't find Altered Carbon: Resleeved as good as the main series.
Personally, I found the second season to be a decent show in its own right, but comparison is 100% the thief of joy in this case. Season one was one of the most gorgeous pieces of sci-fi media I've ever seen and season two just looked OK by comparison and had a much slower pace and felt more emotionally vulnerable compared to season one's hardboiled tone.
If they were separate shows I would be tempted not to compare them at all.
IMO the first book was really good, the others are pretty bad. So they were always going to have the problem... and frankly they altered the original book in ways that were worse without actually resolving any problems with length.
> cancelling even moderate successes after one season and slashing the budget of hit shows for their second season before cancelling them too (e.g. Altered Carbon)
I seriously don't understand who's in charge of this idiocy. its not like they are relying on nielson boxes. they have good data on what is bringing people to the streaming platform. there's no reason for them to be cutting shows prematurely that people love.
I loved DC:AoR but I never expected it was anything more than a one-off. Keep following the struggle as much as you like, but you still know that in the end, the Gelflings lose. I mean yes they pull it off in the end and maybe the Ur-Skeks magic them all back, they discover a lost tribe, whatever, but in the meantime they pretty much get wiped out. Making a good story in the face of that dark inevitability is what the writing craft is about, and they pulled it off and left on a high note. Best thing they can do is leave it that way.
Can't get into it. But whatever about me, the wife straight up hated it. She's not a fan of LOTR and it felt way too LOTR, story wise. You're supposed to love the (beautiful or cutesy) entities, hate the (ugly, so obviously evil) entities, and care about wherever mysterious evil has gripped the land. You're supposed to want the protagonists to go on a quest that brings you on a rollercoaster of emotions etc. But I don't really care enough about anyone in this to finish the first episode.
My biggest gripe is that puppets have no facial expression, so this so-called "amazing voice acting" doesn't work for me. It feels like they're overacting to make up for lack of facial expression. Thing is, I've seen this work in shows like Yonderland where puppets make up less than 50% of the cast. If their human counterparts are good actors, the puppets interaction with humans work, especially if they have good lines and interesting characters (which, in the case of Yonderland, they do but with Dark Crystal they very much don't).
It's odd, but I also think that the CGI and lack of any physical actors is what kills this for me. I don't know anyone in the acting profession but one example I can relate is the amazing "Yes, Minister" political comedy series from the BBC on the early 80s. That was originally available as a radio show. Having watched and loved it, I decided to put the radio version on one day while cleaning. I had to turn it off. Even though it was the same cast of great actors, I think the fact that they were sitting around a bunch of microphones and not inter-acting completely stunted the dialog. I decided to put on the TV version and simply listen to it. Even though there were visual gags I couldn't see, it was far far better. Something about being the characters in costume, on a set, interacting with other actors, injected vitality and comic timing into the performance. You could listen between the lines and feel the gags you couldn't see.
I understand that a lot of time, effort, CGI went into this, but I just feel slapped in the face with beauty while not caring one jot about a single character. Or as the wife very uncharitably put it after 45 minutes "I hope all of these characters die in this".
Sometimes there are adult shows that also appeal to kids. Sometimes there are shows that appear to be aimed at kids but are really aimed at adults. But this wants to be the latter and fails as either.
> The problem with all this is the same thing great animation runs into. Because of the medium, many people choose to ignore the show or dismiss it as made for kids
This reminds me of Yonderland, an absolutely amazing TV show that has plot, characters and occasionally adult humour that will fly over the heads of children in the same way that a lot of great Simpsons gags did, in the good old days. Yonderland is made by the same people who did Ghosts (no, not the American rehash, the far superior original). Find it, watch it, it's brilliant.
It's a bad show, for obvious reasons. Poor writing (thinly veiled political themes), bad characterizations (stupid weak characters), convoluted cruel plot, trying to be whimsical, all in the name of Fan Service. As a youtuber quipped, it's like the Flintstones + 12 years a slave. It's not for anyone and the script is mostly to blame.
I think plans for a Dark Crystal sequel were stuck in development hell for decades and then Jim Henson died. It was actually announced in 2005 but never got made into a film. Think there was a comic series though.
Also, can't help pointing to this Robot Chicken gem: The Dark Cristal:
Are you sure, or most of the plot is padding to get to season length?
Every time I try to watch a tv series the padding starts to burst at the seams by at best the 3rd episode. Then I give up for a few years, let myself be tricked again and nothing has changed ...
The writing in the series is unfortunately terrible. It sinks the otherwise beautiful show with sterile and laborious narration/dialogue, telltale signs of over workshopped writing room slop, from which no real living plot ever emerges. Such a disappointment.
This was my problem too. I really wanted to like the series and the visuals were nice, but the Netflix writers room strikes again. The whole thing felt like the middle season episodes from a Netflix Marvel series.
FWIW, it's unlikely that any other studio would have greenlighted AoR at anywhere close to the budget it got. It might have had more seasons elsewhere, but not at this level of quality. I'm glad we at least got one incredible season out of it.
Scavenger's Reign on Max got similarly cancelled after one season. There isn't much audience for weird shows like that, apparently. :(
I think it’s a shame that shows like this need to be runaway hits out of the door, rather than slow-burners. Cult TV has historically had a long tail; you’d think that this was something that would benefit streaming services.
It sucks too because with streaming they can track so many finite details; with "old school" TV it was mostly self-reporting (i.e. Neilsen Ratings). And so much of the TV-streaming budgeting took "Hollywood budgeting" to the extremes: if total_individual_views < (total_episodes * 2) && total_episodes_binged < total_episodes && average_time_spent_on_episode < (average_episode_time * 0.98) && release_date <= 1week then CANCEL_SHOW=true ... just shortsighted and sad :(
The art of Scavenger’s Reign was really good. The ecosystem was really interesting (a bit overly-clever for stuff that is supposed to have evolved IMO, but it was still really interesting). Really great setting and art.
The plot and characters felt a bit shallow/stereotypical/predictable in a bad way.
It’s like they had too much of the ecosystem that they wanted to show, so they split it up among too many characters, and didn’t invest the appropriate character development in each. Plus, I really want to steep in the ecosystem, the rush to get to the ship is, IMO, not really necessary (it serves to force the characters to explore the environment, but IMO some alternative force that doesn’t put the characters on such a tight timer would be preferable). I often found myself thinking: wow, I wish the characters could take more time exploring this phenomenon, but also, the character should, given their in-character motivation, leave this interesting thing alone. They are wasting precious time.
I’d love to see a Mushishi like series set in that universe. Focus on one character’s journey through the ecosystem. Give the character motivation to unravel the mysteries instead of dodge them.
FWIW Scavenger's Reign's creators have been making the show Common Side Effects. It's a brilliant show in its own right IMO but the animation is nowhere near as high-effort.
Scavenger's Reign is probably the best show I've seen, in terms of world building and creativity. Just absolutely stunning.
I'm massively disappointed it got cancelled. It really scratched the sci-fi itch that usually only gets scratched via books. Most sci-fi movies and shows are really just lazily dressed up romance.
I'm gutted it's cancelled! Thanks for letting me know. What a pity, it was amazing. I haven't liked a sci-fi animated series that much since Final Space.
This is the first I am even hearing about it. Interesting that Netflix has never recommended it to me as someone who watches a lot of fantasy, sci-fi, animation, etc. Although TBH if it weren't highly recommended I would be pretty hesitant to watch a show with muppets, despite my other interests. Even with this glowing recommendation I'm still a bit skeptical.
